08-16-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r~'MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. JULY 19,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (7. «04-3«M MAR raAA.L.SrCNCCII, IMS WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, variance , PUBLIC HEARlNGCoaCiBMcd) Mr. Lafurio advised that the applicant had given him the authority to agree to whatever cofulitions are required with the variances. He indicated that Dr. Spencer would ptefier not to have the expense of removal of fabric and plastic landscape liners, but would comply if this were a condition of approval. Chair Rahn indicated that co^ition is consistent with prior Planning Commission recommendations. Chair Rahn asked for public comments. There were none. Chair Rahn pointed out the application would result in a proposed reduction from 9.2% hardcover to 8% hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone. Fritzler cautioned the iqtplicant’s representative to not reinstall any landscape fabric or plastic liners in the future, following their removal with this project. Berg nwvcd, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of AppMcalion Craig LagoHo for Dr. Martha Spencer, IHS Willow Drive South, granting a lake setback variance to allow grade level decks wlthla 1S6* of the OHWL on a natural environment lake and a hardcover variance within the h-TS* setback tone In order to construct lakeside decks over existing patlot, with the fsMowiag provMon: • Removal of aB fabric and plastic landscape Nners. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 8. 8. PM-MSl ANDREW AND SARA TURNER, MS FERNDALE ROAD NORTH. VARIANCE. PUBLIC HEARING (6:SB-7:I8 p.m.) Andrew Turner, applicant, was present, as well as Mark Hoiseth, Stonehouse Designs, 420 East Rice Street, Wayzata, representative for the applicant. Curtis reported that in conjunction with an interior remodel and garage addition, the applicants requested a side setback variance for a living space addition 10.9* from the side lot line where a 30'setback is required and a 21.6* setback currently exists. A unique jog in the northern property line creates a nonconforming setback for their existing home. The propos^ addition would encroach into the side lot line shared with the neighboring tennis court, rather thw adding bulk atui mass to the property on the south side. Curtis informed the Planning Commission that though the Staff Report, dated July 6,2004, recommended approval of the variance as submitted, after further consideration, Curtis recommended the Planning Commission should consider whether or not the addition is necessary in a substandard setback. She referred to an overhead projection to illustrate that adding an equal square footage to the opposite side of the house would meet side setback requirements on that side of the property. Chair Rahn asked for clarification of the ownership and relationship of the adjacent iriangular>shaped property parcel to the north of the subject parcel. Gundlach explained that the applicant owns the triangle-shaped parcel but the two lots are not combined at this tune. She pointed out that the Page8ofl3