Laserfiche WebLink
fcnimi <br />MfNUTESOF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, JULY 19,2004 <br />6:00 o ’clock p.m. <br />(8. M4.383I ANDREW AND SARA TURNEIU 645 FERNDALE ROAD NOglU <br />VARIA.NCi; PUBLIC HEARING- CoaltoHcd) <br />After a brief review of procedmal optkNU, staff sv^'*. > * .<1 dot staff recommended denial of the <br />variance, approval of a not-to-be^ceedcd setba<^«*. t , ^nce dimension correlated to the existing <br />21.6’sctback, or tabling of the matter. <br />Mr. Turner and Mr. Hoiseth suggested the design could be changed to move the mudroom to the front <br />and also move the garage. <br />Cliair Ralm moved, Frllxkr iccondcd, to table AppIkatSoo #84-5831, Andrew W. and Snra S. <br />Tomer, 645 Femdale Rood North, for aide yard setback variance to allow the applicant the <br />o ppo rtwnity to redesign the prop osed home addlHon. <br />VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 8. <br />9. #84-3833 THOMAS R. ADAMS AND JANETTE L. WEAVER, 580 ORCHARD PARK <br />ROAD, RENEWAL VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING <br />Thomas Adams, applicant was present. <br />Mr. Adams staled that he would withdraw Application #04-3033 at this time. Gundlach asked the <br />applicant to provide a written statement indicating his w iihdrawal of the application. Mr. Adams <br />ajpeed to provide a written statement. <br />18. #84-3836 DURABILT ASSOCIATES, INC. ON BEHALF OF JAMES BROOKS, 3785 <br />WATERTOWN ROAD, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIA.NCE, PUBLIC HEARING <br />(7:12-7:27 p.m.) <br />James Brooks, 3785 Watertown Road, applicant, was present. David Park and Tom Kasprzah, <br />Durabilt Associates, Inc. 6318 Cambridge St., St. Louis Park, represenutives for the applicant were <br />present <br />Gundlach presented the application requesting a side yard setback to allow an eastern side yard <br />setback of 10' when 14.4* currently exists and 50* is normally required in order to construct an <br />attached two-stall garage in front of the existing one stall garage. She explained the applicant has <br />proposed to construct an attached, 24*x 24’, two-stall garage by encroaching an additional 4* into the <br />side yard setback in an effort to not block an existing window, which would be located less than 1' <br />from the proposed location of the garage addition. <br />Gundlach indicated that staff found there is a hardship to warrant variance approval due to the <br />extremely narrow but substantially deep lot If the 50* setbacks were strictly obeyed, only 10’ of <br />width w ould be allow ed for a buldmg, which is txx reasonable for residential construction. <br />However, she stated sUff did not And a valid hardship to warrant approval of the tc<|uested variance <br />to encroach an additional 4* on the already non-conforming 14.4* side yard setback. Gundlach <br />indicated staff would support approval of a side yard setback variance where the existing setbacks <br />would be maintained. <br />Page 10 of 13