Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, February 16, 2021 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Kirchner agrees with that. He pulled up an aerial photo while listening, and it is a very wooded area to <br />the rear and appears that there is quite a bit of privacy there, as well as the pictures submitted from the <br />Applicant. It shows that people on the cart path would not even see the structure. <br />Erickson said most of the time when the point is made that there are other alternatives within the zoning <br />ordinance that is certainly one of the strongest arguments. However, looking at this situation there are <br />also some strong arguments in favor of the application. One of them, as McCutcheon mentioned, was <br />about a year ago they had a discussion on rezoning for the Wayzata Golf Club and had built up close to <br />their neighbors with a berm and a change in elevation, etcetera. Along with that they also had a number <br />of neighborhood meetings and neighbors were all pretty much in favor. The other thing Erickson sees <br />looking at the site plan is the uniqueness of the shape of the lot; if it were not fronted with this curved <br />Chevy Chase, it is considerably wider in the back and narrower in the front. It is close to being a <br />triangular lot, which is a textbook case for justification for a variance because it limits what can be done. <br />The Applicant mentioned part of the issue is that the house is set back as far as it is. The reason the house <br />was put there is because the front yard is narrow and about all one can do is put in a horseshoe drive, <br />which they have done. Again, this leaves a constricted backyard and when people have children, those <br />backyards are important. Erickson is tempted to go in favor of this one. <br />Gettman's one concern is the fact that as they look at the paver patio area — and to the left is a lot more <br />space — but the paver patio itself looks like it would accommodate an even larger proposed screen porch <br />but not enter into that restricted area with the setbacks. He said absolutely with all the issues and <br />concerns they have heard; he is just not hearing the practical difficulty as to why it should be there; <br />especially with the majority of it over that line. <br />Ressler's personal perspective on this is very difficult. He recognizes that it is a tough building envelope <br />and where the property sits right now, if this were a brand-new construction it would be an easy fix and <br />they would just move it up. Of course, the property was marketed for sale as it was built, and that makes <br />it difficult to approve because it could arguably be unjust enrichment to build on something that is not a <br />buildable addition. With that being said, something to note he thinks it is helpful to see the elevation of <br />hill in the backyard as it provides a bit of screening and buffer to some of the reasons for these rules being <br />put in place— such as not encroaching on neighbors or adjoining property and their enjoyment and use. <br />For right or for wrong he finds that to be a mitigating circumstance. He appreciates the explanation as far <br />as the placement. Initially his first response was to put it in a place that it fits into, and he thinks Erickson <br />makes some really good points about the triangular shape being a textbook standard for situations like <br />these. There is also a garage that makes it difficult; being able to use what is in place seems reasonable to <br />Ressler. It looks like there is a bit of a discrepancy from the plans and illustrations from what is shown <br />on screen because it looks like there is a one -foot encroachment further about 4.5 feet in — he asked Staff <br />if he is reading that correctly. The drawings in the illustration show it just being a square. He does not <br />know if the Applicant would like to comment on which one the application is for because of that <br />discrepancy. <br />Mr. Nelson said it will not be the square one, it will be the other one and there is a proposed fireplace that <br />will go back there and that is where the fireplace box. <br />Ressler clarified that the one -foot jog in that is 6 xI feet is what they are applying for. <br />Mr. Nelson replied that is correct. <br />Page 15 of 38 <br />