03-08-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Jon Ressler, Commissioners Chris Bollis (arrived at 6:27 p.m.), Bob Erickson, Matt Gettman, Scott Kirchner, Dennis Libby, and Mark McCutcheon. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Laura Oakden, and City Planner Melanie Curtis. City Council representative Matt Johnson was also present. 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 district is 35 feet and the existing home is sitting 69.5 feet back from the front yard; the existing home does sit pretty far back meeting that front yard standard. A representative from Chamberlain Fine Custom Homes approached the podium with the home owners. He looked at the lot as being substandard because it is in a 1-acre zone and has a 30-foot setback in the rear yard, based on an acre. This is now a ½ acre lot so it is a little bit incumbent on this property to have to have 30 feet. As opposed to being shoved up towards the street like the previous Applicant’s house was, this house is pushed back. It was 35 feet from the front setback, so it is way back in the back and is turned slightly to make it difficult to utilize that yard given that the topography in the back includes a hill