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. _____________________________________________________________________________________ also some strong arguments in favor of the application. One of them, as McCutcheon mentioned, was about a year ago they had a discussion on rezoning for the Wayzata Golf Club and had built up close to their neighbors with a berm and a change in elevation, etcetera. Along with that they also had a number of neighborhood meetings and neighbors were all pretty much in favor. The other thing Erickson sees looking at the site plan is the uniqueness of the shape of the lot; if it were not fronted with this curved Chevy Chase, it is considerably wider in the back and narrower in the front. It is close to being a triangular lot, which is a textbook case for justification for a variance because it limits what can be done. The Applicant mentioned part of the issue is that the house is set back as far as it is. The reason the house was put there is because the front yard is narrow and about all one can do is put in a horseshoe drive, which they have done. Again, this leaves a constricted backyard and when people have children, those backyards are important. Erickson is tempted to go in favor of this one. Gettman’s one concern is the fact that as they look at the paver patio area – and to the left is a lot more space – but the paver patio itself looks like it would accommodate an even larger proposed screen porch but not enter into that restricted area with the setbacks. He said absolutely with all the issues and concerns they have heard; he is just not hearing the practical difficulty as to why it should be there; especially with the majority of it over that line. Ressler’s personal perspective on this is very difficult. He recognizes that it is a tough building envelope and where the property sits right now, if this were a brand-new construction it would be an easy fix and they would just move it up. Of course, the property was marketed for sale as it was built, and that makes it difficult to approve because it could arguably be unjust enrichment to build on something that is not a buildable addition. With that being said, something to note he thinks it is helpful to see the elevation of hill in the backyard as it provides a bit of screening and buffer to some of the reasons for these rules being put in place – such as not encroaching on neighbors or adjoining property and their enjoyment and use. For right or for wrong he finds that to be a mitigating circumstance. He appreciates the explanation as far as the placement. Initially his first response was to put it in a place that it fits into, and he thinks Erickson makes some really good points about the triangular shape being a textbook standard for situations like these. There is also a garage that makes it difficult; being able to use what is in place seems reasonable to Ressler. It looks like there is a bit of a discrepancy from the plans and illustrations from what is shown on screen because it looks like there is a one-foot encroachment further about 4.5 feet in – he asked Staff if he is reading that correctly. The drawings in the illustration show it just being a square. He does not know if the Applicant would like to comment on which one the application is for because of that discrepancy. Mr. Nelson said it will not be the square one, it will be the other one and there is a proposed fireplace that will go back there and that is where the fireplace box. Ressler clarified that the one-foot jog in that is 6x1 feet is what they are applying for. Mr. Nelson replied that is correct. Ressler said it is difficult and it is nice to see the support from the neighborhood, although they cannot always carry a lot of weight behind those. He thinks there have been some strong points both ways.