07/19/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, JULY 19, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #04-3030 MARTHA A.L. SPENCER, 1005 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING-Continued) Mr. Lagorio advised that the applicant had given him the authority to agree to whatever conditions are required with the variances. He indicated that Dr. Spencer would prefer 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 condition 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 applicant's representative to not reinstall any landscape fabric or plastic liners in the future, following their removal with this project. Berg moved, Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3030, Craig Lagorio for Dr. Martha Spencer, 1005 Willow Drive South, granting a lake setback variance to allow grade level decks within 150' of the OHWL on a natural environment lake and a hardcover variance within the 0-75' setback zone in order to construct lakeside decks over existing patios, with the following provision: • Removal of all fabric and plastic landscape liners. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 8. #04-3031 ANDREW AND SARA TURNER, 645 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING(6:50-7:10 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 proposed addition would encroach into the side lot line shared with the neighboring tennis court, rather than adding bulk and 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 triangular-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 time. She pointed out that the Page 8 of 13