02-16-2021 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. the history and draw the line across the properties based on the current situations of the neighbors next door. His house is actually 360 feet away from the lakeshore on his property, it is how they apply the code, the Lakeshore meanders around the corner, and the line is drawn from 343 feet that goes to the neighboring property. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Ressler's initial observations are the Planning Commission has been flexible in situations where the ALS is bringing the difficulty partly because of the other properties and vacant lot next door. He thinks the Applicant is doing what he can with what he has, which is hard to say when one is sitting 300 feet away from the lakeshore as it is. From what Ressler is seeing, and historically the Planning Commission has been generally flexible in situations like this one, he agrees with Staff's recommendation. Gettman agrees with that. Gettman moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA21-000008, 1825 Lakeside Trail as proposed. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 7. LA21-000010 CHAMBERLAIN FINE CUSTOM HOMES, 133 CHEVY CHASE, VARIANCE (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Michael and Catelyn Nelson, Applicants, were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Oakden noted the application is for a rear yard setback and she emailed and printed out some additional public comment that was received over the weekend. The planning Staff has determined that practical difficulty standards have not been met and the Planning Commission should review those standards when reviewing this application. She noted the Applicants are looking to add a covered screen porch to the rear of the home. The home sits on a curved road with neighbors on either side, and the Wayzata Country Club to the northern property line, which is the rear of the home. For a practical difficulty analysis, the Applicant identified the location of the existing home being placed from back from the front yard required yard, as well as a substandard lot for the area. Staff finds that the submitted practical difficulties are not met and the proposed addition would have a minimal impact to the neighbors, and would not alter the character of the neighborhood. However, the property owner has adequate use of the lot for a single-family home and there are other locations for conforming additions on the property, such as side or other locations within the rear of the home. The proposed additions act as a convenience to the property and the lot analysis was done; again, Oakden reiterated the property has a 30 -foot rear setback and currently sits 32.4 feet and the Applicant is requesting a 17.8 -foot setback. Neighbors have submitted letters of support as Exhibit E, additional letters were sent to the Planning Commission today. McCutcheon noted in the application, they stated the property is .53 acres and that it is non -conforming; he asked if that is correct or if this development is conforming to the zoning. Oakden replied the property is substandard, it is .53 acres and the zoning is a 1 -acre zoning district. It is a substandard lot and the width is 125 feet measured at the front yard setback where a standard would be 140 feet in width. It is substandard to width as well as area. The front yard setback required in this Page 12 of 38