Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, March 17, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 17 of 26  <br />  <br />would be used in that analysis. Anything over 50 percent of that would need to meet the City’s definition <br />of a story. Curtis noted the applicant is not looking for a variance from that at this time. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if the removal of the roof on the porch would alter the fact that it still extends into the <br />setback. <br /> <br />Curtis stated it would not. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if there are neighboring properties that would be impacted. <br /> <br />Curtis stated there is a cabin on each of the adjoining properties which determines the average lakeshore <br />setback line. Curtis stated it is her belief this cabin will not be very visible, and that the inclusion of the <br />porch, deck, carousel or other structure will not be blocking the lake view from the neighboring properties <br />but it is a setback requirement that needs to be addressed. <br /> <br />Curtis displayed an aerial property of the subject property and two adjoining properties. Curtis noted <br />there is a significant amount of vegetation between the properties. Curtis stated the elevation of the grade <br />also drops down and that the south side of the applicant’s home is located on the high point of the <br />property and then it drops down on either side. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if the house could be moved back ten feet. <br /> <br />Curtis stated Staff is suggesting that but that the builder would need to speak to the topography of the land <br />and whether that would impact their plans. <br /> <br />John Reimann, 21957 Minnetonka Boulevard, Greenwood, stated they are attempting to minimize the <br />impact on the land and any excavation that would be required. <br />Leskinen asked if there is a clearing where the new home could be pushed back into. <br /> <br />Reimann stated the lot is very wooded and that they are placing the home in the clearing that currently <br />exists. Reimann indicated there is a number of beautiful maple trees located on the property. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if he would be amenable to excavating a little bit more to locate the house further back <br />which would eliminate the need for a variance. <br /> <br />Reimann stated they would be, but that he does not really understand what is meant by an average <br />setback. Reimann noted the current house has existed in that location since approximately 1957 and that <br />they would like to be able to appreciate the lake without the cabin being in the way. Reimann indicated <br />given the elevation of the lot, a person cannot see the water until they are right up to the shore. Reimann <br />stated they would like to minimize any disruption to the land as much as possible but that they would be <br />willing to do whatever needs to be done. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she appreciates the applicant not wanting to further disrupt the land and the trees. <br />Leskinen stated with the roof of the deck being removed, it would be less impactful, but that she is not <br />sure if the desire for minimal disruption of the land is enough of a practical difficulty for an average <br />lakeshore variance. Leskinen indicated she is more inclined to be okay with it under these circumstances <br />but that she is open to other thoughts on the matter. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 04/21/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 03/17/2014 <br />[Page 17 of 26]