Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> November 21,2022 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> Chair McCutcheon asked if the Applicant is concerned about hardcover so close to the lake. <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. <br /> Page 8 of 13 <br />