06-22-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 8, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 21 Printup stated it is important to remember that last year things were high and that this year they are lower, but Orono is in good shape. 9. LA20-000021 – JEFF BRADY, 350 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION No. 7105 Johnson noted he was okay with the item being on the Consent Agenda except during the Planning Commission review, the property had two structures outside of its property line, and he wanted to confirm the City’s conditions have him putting those within the property line. Oakden stated she believed the resolution did not list that as a condition and noted it as a discussion from the Planning Commission, that they discussed it with the Applicant, who seemed open to moving them. She said they can be included as part of the discussion. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve Resolution No. 7105, LA20-000021 – Jeff Brady, 350 North Shore Drive, Variance – Resolution, with the amendment of a requirement to have the accessory structures inside of the property line. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Printup absent during the vote.) PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 14. LA20-000028 – BAYCLIFF HOMES O/B/O DAVID AND WENDY JACOBSEN-GRETSCH, 2440 OLD BEACH ROAD – VARIANCE Staff presented a summary of packet information. David and Wendy Jacobsen-Gretsch, 2440 Old Beach Road. Mr. Jacobsen-Gretsch thanked the City Council for their time and commitment during this crazy time and also thanked them for coming out to the site. He stated their project is an intentional remodel of the property; what was unintentional is all the problems they discovered. They ended up removing two raised patios with storage units due to water damage. They are asking for a variance to extend the adjacent setback due to a hardship in their property. As stated in the Planning Committee notes, the purpose of the house setback/adjacent property setback is to prevent encroachment lake views and is designed to prevent homes from moving towards the lakeshore. They are asking for a variance that is in complete alignment with that, especially considering the hardship they are proposing that exists on their property which is completely out of their control. From their perspective, the hardship is clear. The house to the north moved back when they tore down their house to build a pool. That has adjusted their setback to make the existing structure nonconforming. That change was obviously out of their control and has caused a hardship not only to them but also to their property. The distance is 15 feet between the movement of that house back to theirs. He said that 15 feet across their lot is about 3,000 feet of unusable space due to that movement. That is the hardship that they claim which is out of their control. They will still be 107 feet back from the shoreline. He noted it is a little frustrating through the process in that they chose to preserve the existing house and it probably would have been resolved had they torn down the existing house and started over. He hopes the City Council can see that they were trying to invest in what was already there. He also believes the hardship addresses an area of the setback rule that was never really intended. He asked what someone does when a house moves back. He asked what would happen if the neighbor moved back another 50 feet, because then his entire backyard would be nonconforming. That is where he thinks it goes bigger than the individual hardship; it goes to the lack of productivity of the entire lot. He noted the Council has done a