Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />August 21, 2023 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Curtis said the inlet is public water. While the hardcover is being reduced staff would like to see a <br />breakdown of how much of the reduction is in the setback, she said. <br />Peter Eskuche of Eskuche Design, Deephaven, pointed out the small buildable triangle created by the two <br />75 -foot setbacks and said they are basically proposing to replace part of the driveway with the pool. The <br />new garage would be conforming. The reduction would be a reduction of 212 square feet of hardcover in <br />the 75 -foot setback, he said, with a total reduction in hardcover of nearly 2,000 square feet. <br />Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:14 p.m. <br />There were no public comments <br />Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:14 p.m. <br />Bollis said he thought the applicant had done a good job of keeping the changes in the existing hard cover <br />given the limitations of the site. He noted that the pool is not just a trade-off of hardcovers since it is <br />considered a structure. <br />McCuthen said it is definitely a unique lot. He lives near there and is concerned that in a wet year part of <br />this property could be underwater. He said is not in support of adding a pool and without a pool there <br />would be no need for some of the additional walls but he saw some wiggle room on the home addition <br />considering the whole home is non -conforming. He appreciates the reduction of hardover in the 75 -foot <br />setback. <br />Erickson said he had concerns regarding the practical difficulties. He cited Minnesota Statute 462537 <br />Sub. 62 saying variances should only be permitted when they are in harmony with the intent and purpose <br />of the ordinance. He did not feel that was applicable here when the applicants were not choosing other <br />locations that would be more conforming. There is another side to the property that is farther away from <br />the lakeshore. <br />Ressler clarified the pool is considered an accessory structure with a 15 -foot setback if it was a side -yard. <br />He said he was not in favor of putting a pool in the 75 -foot setback and would support positioning that <br />pool outside of the 75 -foot lakeshore setback he would be more comfortable with that. Staff has said it <br />wants a more specific survey of the difference between existing and proposed hardcover before it goes to <br />Council. The inlet needs to be noted but even more noted should be the lakeshore setback. If the structure <br />of the pool moves outside of the 75 -foot setback he sees the pool patio and driveway as a one-for-one <br />tradeoff. He is also concerned about the six-foot walls because fencing is not allowed in the setback. <br />Commissioners were in agreement that they would support the application with relocation of the pool <br />away from lakeshore setback, reconsideration of the six-foot walls and a better survey of the difference <br />between existing and proposed hardcover. Commissioners explained they could vote on the application or <br />table. If there was a vote to deny the applicant still could go directly to the City Council and choose <br />whether or not to make the recommended changes before it was presented to Council. If the application <br />was tabled it would have to come back to Planning Commission before going to Council <br />Ressler moved, McCutcheon seconded, to deny LA23-000026, 2605 North Shore Dr. Variances. <br />VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. <br />Page 2 of 8 <br />