Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY. JULY *9.2004 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(t. ANDREW AND SARA TURNER, 645 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, <br />VARIANCE, rUBLIC HEARING-CoaHaacd) <br />existing house does not meet the side yaid setback and the proposed addiiioa vrould extend further <br />into the side yard setback. <br />Mr. Hoiseth explained the reason for placing of the addition in its proposed location, referring to <br />design and cost considerations, as well as the fact that other location(s) w ould require removal of a <br />lot of mature trees, and would put the kitchen on the opposite side of the home from the garage, <br />creating an situation where the homeowners would have to go through the formal spaces to get fhmi <br />the garage to the kitchen. He stttcd foal a logical location for foe addition was to come through the <br />family room side, noting they tried to keep it as close as possible from the side yard. <br />Chair Rahn asked for public comments. There were none. <br />Chair Rahn expressed his opinion that this matter is more of a design issue than a hardship issue as <br />there appears to be areas to consider other options, which would not become setback encroachments. <br />Leslie asked for clarification if the application includes the garage. Curtis responded that the <br />application is for the house addition. <br />Chair Rahn stated that he did not favor any further encroachment beyond the existing 21.6* setback, <br />looking at the project as a whole, including the house addition and the garage. Gundlach confirmed <br />the proposed garage setback would be 2S.S’ non 30' but it would be no further encroachment than the <br />existing house setback. <br />Mr. Hoiseth explained that because of the classical/colonial architectural of the house their design <br />wanted to retain the circular driveway and not to create an appearance of all garage with a house <br />attached to it. He believed that if the garage is moved more forward, the openness and the circular <br />driveway would be lost. He mentioned that the neighbors are in favor of the addition/garage design <br />as proposed, noting that it provides more screening and creates a court>’ard. <br />Chair Rahn asked if there is a different location that would not require a setback variance. <br />Jurgens questioned what is foe hardship, based on the information provided. <br />Mr. Tumer remarked that the hardship is the irregular shape of the lot. Jurgens pointed out the <br />m>plicant purchased the property, as is, i.e., an irregular shaped lot. <br />Bremer suted she assumed the two parcels, including the triangular-shaper parcel, would be <br />combined by the owner. Curtis indicated the lot combination request had b^ sent for processing to <br />Hennepin Coumy. <br />Fritzler commented foat until the parcels are combined, he found no hardship when there is an option <br />of moving the garage. Leslie concurred, noting an addition on the north side of the house is <br />additional encroachment into foe setback. <br />Page9ofl3