Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />November 21, 2022 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 8 of 13 <br /> <br />property with a 500 square foot firepit/patio on the north portion 43 feet from the Ordinary High Water <br />Level (OHWL) and a 470 square foot firepit/patio area 50 feet from the OHWL on the east side of the <br />home. The Applicant has identified lot size, shape, and safety as practical difficulties supporting the <br />driveway variance and has not addressed the firepit/patio areas. The parking area is situated 31 feet from <br />the OHWL where a 75 foot setback is required. Additionally, it exceeds the 8-foot permitted width of an <br />allowed driveway encroachment within the 75 foot setback. Two new patio areas are in the 75 foot <br />setback where hardcover is not permitted. Based on the updated as-built survey and hardcover <br />calculations there is approximately 3,600 square feet of hardcover within the 75 foot setback where 657 <br />square feet was approved. Curtis stated that 3,029 square feet of new, unapproved hardcover exists on the <br />property within the 75 foot setback. A comment from a neighbor was received that was generally in <br />support of the driveway improvements. This is a newly created lot; the property was platted in <br />2018 under the City’s current regulations. The plans submitted for the 2020 building permit for the home <br />and the current owner provided the allowed driveway access permitted by the Code within the 75 <br />foot setback. The home and driveway were designed to comply as much as feasible with the zoning <br />Codes. Staff does not find practical difficulty supporting any of the after-the-fact hardcover setback <br />variances. Planning Staff recommends denial and further recommends that the hardcover improvements <br />be removed immediately. <br /> <br />Jaime Wallis of Chanhassen, on behalf of Applicant Paul Taunton, said the initial violation was in <br />relation to the driveway. The patios did not come up in the violations which is why they had not been <br />addressed prior. Regarding the 8 feet allowed for the driveway, the problem is with the radius of the turn. <br />Mr. Taunton had a driveway study done and one cannot make the turn in or out of the property without <br />encroaching on the neighbor’s property and one cannot back out of the driveway. If they had an 8 foot or <br />11 foot driveway one would generally back out into a two-lane road but in this situation one would have <br />to back out, go approximately 150 yards past three homes to another road to back out of the property. She <br />gave photos to the Commissioners and noted the driveway turn is a significant problem. An easement was <br />granted to access the property and Ms. Wallis stated a delivery driver or Amazon truck cannot get in there <br />because they have to back out the entire length of the road which is a safety hazard. That was the <br />reasoning behind it. <br /> <br />Ressler noted Staff clarified how strict the City is, especially with lakeshore setbacks and hardcover, and <br />if there is not a reason to rebuild in like-kind. It looks like it was made abundantly clear in the application. <br />Ressler asked for a comment on the awareness. <br /> <br />From Ms. Wallis’ understanding, the awareness of the 75 foot setback was there, and in the previous <br />permit or survey that was approved, there is a hump in the purple area that allows for a turn. It was <br />designed not to encroach any further to the lagoon side. Ms. Wallis thinks Mr. Taunton bought a property <br />and was not aware that he could not access the property, build the home he wanted, and is now struggling <br />to get a vehicle out of the property. Putting the patios aside, Mr. Taunton is just looking for some <br />practicality regarding the driveway. Ms. Wallis took a video of trying to get on the property with a <br />standard-sized truck which cannot be done without encroaching on the neighbor’s property. Trucks <br />cannot deliver on the property so they park trucks in front of neighbors’ houses and block their driveway. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon asked if the Applicant is concerned about hardcover so close to the lake. <br /> <br />Ms. Wallis replied because they are permeable pavers, Mr. Taunton did not believe it was deemed as <br />something that could not be in the space because water can flow through it. She noted he is still within the <br />hardcover for the size of the property but the setback is causing the difficulty as Ms. Wallis understands.