Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, JULY 19, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (8. #04-3031 ANDREW AND SARA TURNER, 645 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, <br /> VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING-Continued) <br /> existing house does not meet the side yard setback and the proposed addition would 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) would 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 from <br /> the garage to the kitchen. He stated that a logical location for the 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 25.5' not 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 courtyard. <br /> Chair Rahn asked if there is a different location that would not require a setback variance. <br /> Jurgens questioned what is the hardship, based on the information provided. <br /> Mr. Turner remarked that the hardship is the irregular shape of the lot. Jurgens pointed out the <br /> applicant purchased the property, as is, i.e., an irregular shaped lot. <br /> Bremer stated she assumed the two parcels, including the triangular-shaper parcel, would be <br /> combined by the owner. Curtis indicated the lot combination request had been sent for processing to <br /> Hennepin County. <br /> Fritzler commented that 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 the setback. <br /> Page 9 of 13 <br />