Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 18,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Mr. Bill Worms, 18281 Minnetonka Blvd Ste E, Wayzata MN, said if the Planning Commission has read <br /> all of the material, he does not want to go into all of the nuances other than the basic idea with the views <br /> and property to the north.The property to the north is being moved back so they could do a pool, which <br /> ultimately is the hardship,because now it has brought the existing home into nonconformity. A bold line <br /> was pointed out on the displayed site plan,and he stated that was from the existing property to the south <br /> and the line that would have occurred if the property to the north built up to their setback line,which they <br /> chose not to do because of the pool and the pool's encroachment to the sewer. <br /> Mr. David Jacobsen-Gretsch,2440 Old Beach Road,said the reason they are asking for the variance is <br /> they found this was in somewhat disrepair. Also,their family consists of seven people and they want to <br /> add a screen porch which doesn't seem to be an unreasonable use. The biggest issue he has is the fact that <br /> if somebody moves their property backwards, it doesn't seem to be aligned with the regulation or law in <br /> place. Rather, it was designed for lots where, if you move forward,you will be in somebody's view. He <br /> indicated they have a letter of support from each of their neighbors to do this,and if the neighbor moved <br /> their lot back 100 feet,his entire house would be nonconforming.He feels this is reasonable,there is no <br /> harm,he is improving the value and property in the neighborhood, and they have support. He has heard <br /> the Commission say before that it can be built elsewhere,but he really can't. There's an egress issue with <br /> where the rest of the house is with bedrooms. He said it is the family living area, and from a health <br /> perspective a screen porch is something he wanted to do in that location. <br /> Ressler thanked them and asked them to be available for any questions,which was agreed to. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments relating to this application. <br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. <br /> Barnhart asked the applicants to lower their hands and, if new information was to be presented,they could <br /> re-raise their hands so the Planning Commission knows they have not called on them yet, which they <br /> complied with. <br /> Bollis asked Staff why the City is measuring the average lakeshore setback with regard to how it pertains <br /> to the house to the north at the porch and not at the edge of the pool. <br /> Curtis stated the pool is not a massing improvement, it is not part of the principal building. The principal <br /> building is what determines the average lakeshore setback. She noted that even if it is on a patio,the patio <br /> is not part of the principal building, it is not part of the building footprint, so it does not count towards the <br /> measurement of the average setback. <br /> Ressler,referencing the next property over,asked if the City knew where the structure is located for that <br /> property on an aerial view. <br /> Curtis said the City does. Referencing the survey, she indicated the house to the south. <br /> Ressler noted it was the house that the applicant was saying there was a structure previously where the <br /> pool currently is and they are trying to make the position that if that was not done,they would not be <br /> Page 9 of 29 <br />