My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-21-2023 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2023
>
03-21-2023 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2023 9:59:29 AM
Creation date
4/17/2023 9:58:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />March 13, 2023 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 5 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />Johnson moved, Benson seconded, to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving LA23-000001, <br />2617 Casco Point Road, variance. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br /> <br />16. LA22-000070, STACY KROMENHOEK, 4085 WATERTOWN ROAD, AFTER-THE- <br />FACT VARIANCE <br /> <br />Staff presented a summary packet of information. Nye said this an after-the-fact variance for 4085 <br />Watertown Road. The applicant is requesting this after-the-fact variance for a side yard setback for a deck <br />and more specifically, deck stairs. This is a very, very narrow lot and small for the RR1A zoning district <br />and actually has overlapping side yard setbacks, so there was no building envelope and due to these <br />practical difficulties, variances were granted back in 2021. Staff reviewed a final as-built survey and <br />found that the deck stairs didn't comply with the setback. They built 17.3 feet from the northern property <br />line where a 19-foot setback was approved. Staff reached out to the applicant with this information asking <br />them to modify or remove the deck stairs to comply with the setback. Instead, the applicant is requesting <br />an after-the-fact variance so that the deck and deck stairs can remain in place as they are now with the <br />approval of a 17.3-foot setback. Staff is recommending denial of this application. The construction error <br />that resulted in the deck stairs being constructed beyond the setback does not technically constitute a <br />practical difficulty. The Planning Commission heard this application at a public hearing on February 21. <br />They found that there were practical difficulties and also believe the smaller setback would not negatively <br />impact the character of the neighborhood. They voted in favor of approving the after-the-fact variance <br />with a vote of 5 to 0. The applicant is here tonight to answer any additional questions. <br /> <br />Stacy Kromenhoek, 1025 West Cove Lane, Minnetrista, Minnesota, explained when they did the original <br />survey, the surveyor misread the building plans and put in four-foot stairs instead of three-foot stairs so <br />that accounts for about 12 inches of the 20-inch offset. Then the general contractor dug the footings eight <br />inches off, resulting in 20 inches total of a deviation. The GC is not around to make the correction. He has <br />since lost his license. I am not the homeowner. I'm just trying to help out the homeowner because I was <br />originally going to live there. We do have the support of the neighbors. It is a very narrow lot, but we did <br />build a really beautiful home for the homeowner. We talked about it with the Planning Commission, <br />about the harm versus the pros of leaving it as is. It's 20 inches. I think if I would have come to the <br />commission and asked for a 17.3-foot setback originally, instead of an 18 foot, I believe it probably would <br />have been approved because this is such an incredibly narrow lot. And I think we did a really good job <br />making a home that fit as best as it could in that footprint. But mostly, I think it's really about undue harm <br />for this homeowner who had no fault in this and neighbors to have footings dug up and construction again <br />for another summer. Overall, we feel like everybody benefits with an approval. <br /> <br />Johnson said he watched the original Planning Commission hearing and said he believes he would have <br />approved it at the time. The question to me is, how do we handle these after-the-fact requests? We’ve got <br />another one up next after-the-fact and so I worry a little bit about precedent-setting. But in this particular <br />case, I think we would have approved it as a City. And I think it was an improvement. This property got <br />pushed back farther from the road than it was before which made it more conforming. For that reason, I'm <br />in support of just approving this. The staff did a good job catching it, and so that that part of the process <br />worked.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.