Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Board of Adjustments Minutes <br />May 27, 2025 <br />--------- <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />for impervious surfaces, and noted the current plans are at 23% impervious surface. <br /> <br />Dan Ganfield, 18658 Queen Circle NW, stated he was against the "easy" answer of declining this, <br />comparing this request to another home on Lake Orono whose owner desired expansion, receiving <br />variances, moving the current home off the property, and created a beautiful rebuild after moving a <br />home. He stated he was in support of this request and excited to see what this home expansion can <br />provide for the Brey family. <br /> <br />Katie Ganfield, 18658 Queen Circle NW, reiterated Mr. Ganfield's comments and felt the home <br />being on a cul-de-sac makes it less likely to change the esthetics of a neighborhood. <br /> <br />There being no one else to speak, Chair Beise closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rydberg agreed that the home being located in a cul-de-sac would not change the <br />esthetics of the neighborhood and to him, the house was built facing the wrong way. With the <br />improvement to the impervious surface percentage, he was in support of granting the variance request. <br /> <br />Chair Beise commented that every home located in a cul-de-sac where someone is requesting a setback <br />variance would be subject to approval if this was approved. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rydberg noted the applicant didn't have any control over how the house was positioned <br />when it was built. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson asked if staff had received any feedback from the direct neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated he has not received any feedback from any of the neighbors. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated he feels the home's positioning is awkward. He stated he was trying to <br />think of how they could meet the 5 applicable regulations to approve a variance. He felt the applicant's <br />request to make the expansion was reasonable given the home was built prior to him purchasing it. <br /> <br />Commissioner Booth asked if the applicant could expand on the garage side of the home. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson asked questions about the grade. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated about 4 - 6 feet. <br /> <br />The Board discussed the request and reviewed the 5 applicable regulations and asked to view photos of <br />the property. There was consensus that the plight of the petition was an awkward-shaped lot (unique), <br />at the end of a cul-de-sac, with no other direction to expand the home due to the river in the rear <br />yard. <br /> <br />Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Rydberg to approve the <br />front yard setback variance due to the uniqueness of the property: the river in the rear <br />yard, and the shape of the lot has a slope prohibiting them from expanding the house to <br />the east. <br /> <br />Motion Carried 6-0. <br /> DRAFTPage 3 of 46