10-09-2023 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 25, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 13 City Planner Nye explained this is a variance for a bluff setback that the Council reviewed at its last meeting and approved with the stipulation that the build does not encroach any further into bluff. The applicant came back with a redesign of the project to meet that direction, she said. Benson said she asked to have it removed from the consent agenda because she voted against it last time because she was in agreement with staff to deny the application. Veach moved, Johnson seconded, to adopt LA22-000042, 4731 North Shore Drive, Variance – Resolution No. 7404. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 1 (Benson). 14. LA23-000026, ESKUCHE DESIGN O/B/O DAN MARTINSON & HEIDI MARTINSON, 2605 NORTH SHORE DR, VARIANCES City Planner Curtis said the application is for a house addition within the 75-foot lake setback, a new in- ground swimming pool, new retaining walls, a stone fence/wall, stairs, walkways, as well as a number of hardcover changes to the site within the 75-foot setback. Since the planning commission’s review, the applicant has made changes and submitted amended plans. Specifically, the addition to the home has been removed, the pool has been relocated to be behind the 75-foot setback from the lake but is still approximately 30-feet from the inlet, and some of the proposed hardcover improvements have been adjusted. The applicant is no longer proposing to enclose the area under the deck which would have been an enlargement of the building footprint. The planning commission requested clarification regarding the hardcover levels specifically within the 75-foot setback. The pool is set back 30 feet from the inlet and approximately 29 feet from the wetland where 75-foot (lake & inlet) and 25-foot (wetland) setbacks are required. The pool location has been adjusted within the existing driveway hardcover; however, the pool is a new accessory structure and is considered an expansion within the 75-foot setback. The pool patio is set back 19 feet from the inlet and 15 feet from the wetland where a 75-foot setback and/or 25-foot wetland setback are required. The “existing” boulder retaining walls on the lakeside of the home appear to have been recently installed in the place of the one-foot-tall timber border. The wall replacement approval may have been included in one of the previously approved variances for the property, however, there is no record of a permit for the new boulder walls. The approximately two-foot-tall boulder walls were replaced in a different location slightly further from the lake than the timber border. The boulder walls are an expansion of the existing condition in footprint, location, and height. The existing lake access stair is being replaced by a new stair 38 feet from the lake (this is a permitted improvement). The proposed driveway configuration has reverted back to the existing condition with a looped design. The walkway to the pool area has also been modified; and new hardcover expansions are proposed within the 75-foot setback including walkways, pool, and pool patio where no hardcover is permitted. On August 21, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5 – 0 on a motion for denial as applied. The Commission provided specific feedback regarding the location of the pool. The Commission felt that it was important that the pool meet the 75-foot setback from the main open water of Lake Minnetonka, which resulted in the amended plans. No comments from the public were received on this application. Planning Staff recommends denial because it would be an accessory structure within the 75-foot setback. Peter Eskuche of Eskuche Design said the design takes the driveway area and converts it to a pool and adds an accessory garage to move the cars from the lake. The entire house is in the 75-foot setback so it is a difficult area to add any recreation, he said. The pool is proposed in an area that is already hard-cover. Planning Commission seemed to approve the pool if pushing it back to 75 feet from the lake. He said the retaining walls are needed but the applicant is willing to remove the six-foot tall stone wall.