HomeMy WebLinkAboutCA EXHIBITS_2 #15-3781Council
Exhibit A
A RESOLUTION
DENYING A VARIANCE FROM
ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 78-1279
FILE NO. 15-3781
WHEREAS, Harry Yaffe and Belle Yaffe, a married couple, (hereinafter
"Applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3185 Casco Circle within the City of
Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Lots 35 and the westerly 1/2 of Lot 34; and
All of the land lying between above described property and tie shore of Lake Minnetonka on
the South, and between the Westerly line of said Lot 35 and the Easterly line of said Westerly
'/2 of said lot 34 produced Southerly to said lake shore; all in Spring Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (hereinafter "the Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made appls:,ation to the City for a variance
from Orono City Code Section 78-1279 to permit construction of a 7.5 foot portion of a new
home lakeward of the average laksstixe setback line; and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and railed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, C' y Code, the Orono Planning Commission
held a public hearing on September 21, 2015, at which times al. persons desiring to be heard
concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, during the September 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the
Applicants requested approval of a modified plan in response to concerns voiced by the
affected neighbor to move the home 1.5 feet farther from the lake and allow a 6 foot
encroachment lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line and a 1.5 foot encroacment into
the 30 foot rear setback; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2015, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the mnodified request for an average lakeshore setback to permit a 6
foot portion of the lake side cl the home to encroach lakeward of the average lakeshore
setback line and a 1.5 foot encroachment into the required 30 foot rear setback. This motion
failed with a 3 to 3 vcte. No additional motions were made.
WHEREAS, the Applicants presented a further modified application to the City
Council at a meeting held on October 12, 2015 for consideration of an average lakeshore
setback variance to allow a 6 foot encroachment lakeward of the average lakeshore setback
line, no additional encroachments were requested; and
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the City Council considered this application at two meetings on
October 12 and October 26, 2015 including the findings and recommendations of the Planning
Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the Applicants and the public, and the effect
of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community as well as the
impact on properties in the vicinity; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby denies a
variance from Orono City Code Section 78-1279 to permit construction of a home lakeward of
the average lakeshore setback line based on the following findings of fact:
1) This application was reviewed as Zoning File #15-3781.
2) The Property is located in the LR-1 C zoning district, where 0.5 acres (21,780 square feet)
is the minimum lot area and 100 feet is the minimum lot width. The Property has
approximately 21,530 square feet (0.49 acres) ',n area and has 91 feet in width at the 75
foot setback and 98 feet in width at the ordinary high water level (OHWL).
3) The average lakeshore setback provision in the Ordinance protects the lake views of
adjacent properties. The average lakeshore setback variance requested is not consistent
with the general inter:' of the Ordinance
4) The average lakeshore setback variance for construction of a portion of a new single family
residence to encroach lakeward of the average lakeshore setback is inconsistent with the
goals and policies contained within the 2000-2030 Orono Community Management Plan.
5) The Applicants have not established that there are practical difficulties.
6) The proposed home arid the proposed encroachment lakeward of the average lakeshore
setback are the result of design choices by the Applicants.
7) The requested variance to permit the 6 foot portion of the screen porch may adversely
impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners.
8) The average lakeshore setback is defined by the principal structures on each adjacent lot,
the Applicants have deeigned the lakeside of the home such to have a view of the lake
past the outdoor fireplace chimney on the adjacent property. The Applicants will have a
view of the lake over their Property. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
9) The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
Page 2 of 3
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
10) The Applicants have opted for a new home design which encroaches lakeward of the
average lakeshore setback. The Applicants have the option of designing a home to fit the
required setbacks. The granting of the requested average lakeshore setback variance will
merely serve as a convenience to the Applicants, and is not necessary to alleviate a
practical difficulty.
11)The Property is subject to City Code Section 78-72 Lots of Record; lot area and lot width
variances are not required so long as all other zoning provisions are met. Lots of Record
in the Shoreland are limited to 25% hardcover.
12) The City Council finds that granting the average lakeshore setback variance would merely
serve as a convenience to the Applicants, and that no practical difficulty exists to support
the variance; approval of the variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property
right of the Applicants; and approval of these variances would not be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan of the City.
13) The City Council considered this application including the f`ndings and recommendations
of the Planning Corr.'nhws on, reports by City staff, comments by the Applicants and the
public, and the effect of me proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the
community as well as the impact on properties in the vic;n.;y.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of October, 2015.
���IIIIIIUIIIIIi��IIIIII , ,,,i�il IN
ATTEST
,,II Ulq IIII
IIII��I Ihl IIIII
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk ���, Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
0
Page 3 of 3
Council
MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 12, 2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
12. #15-3779, TRINITY CHURCH, 2060 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO.6552
Jenson stated it could be simply good morning or what time the church is having mass or what time the
Boy Scouts are meeting. Jenson stated the idea was to have it be a resource for the community.
Levang stated she likes the design of the sign. Levang indicated she is in agreement that the signs should
be consistent and that the City should have a standard that is applicable across the board.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO.6552, a Resolution Granting
Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1467(1)(c) and a Conditional Use Permit Pursuant
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-418(4), for the property loeated at 2060 Sixth Avenue North,
with 60 seconds being allowed between messages rather than 8 seconds. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
13. #15-3781 STONEWOOD ON BEHALF OF BELLE AND HARRY YAFFE, 3185 CASCO
CIRCLE, VARIANCES
Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, LLC, and Kathy Alexander, Architect, were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family home on the property which is
substandard in area and width. The appliarrts am requesting an average lake shore setback in order for a
portion of a four -season porch to encroach take -ward. Lot area and lot width variances are also requested.
There was a considerable amount of discussion at the Planning Commission regarding this application as
well as discussion with the neighbor located at 3595 Casco Circle. At the Planning Commission
meeting, the applicant made a revision to their plan verbaisy based on discussions with the neighbor.
Since the Planning Commission review, the applicant has provided a revised plan which reflects a 6-foot
encroachment into the average lakeshore setback rathor than the 7.5 foot setback that was initially
proposed. No rear setback variance is requested currently as was discussed at the Planning Commission.
The applicants had originally proposed to :stove the house back but have instead decided to shrink the size
of the house.
Curtis noted there is a proposed patio area on the lakeside of the four -season porch. The patio detail has
been clarified since the Planning Commission's review and is shown on the survey. At the September
meeting following public hearing ad public comment, the Planning Commission voted on a motion in
favor of approval of the variance as modified, which included lot area, lot width, a 28.5 foot rear setback
variance and a 6-foot encroachment lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. This motion failed
3 to 3. No other motion was made.
Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances. If the Council determines there are
practical difficulties supporting the requested average lakeshore setback variance, a motion for approval
may be appropriate. Staff further recommends that the two parcels be combined prior to issuance of a
building permit. The Council should consider the revised request by the applicant as well as the revised
comments from the neighbor and direct Staff accordingly.
McMillan asked if the patio has been removed in front of the encroachment.
Page 23 of 37
lu1Iasi Nome) AN IN
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 12, 2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
13. #15-3781 STONEWOOD ON BEHALF OF BELLE AND HARRY YAFFE, 3185 CASCO
CIRCLE, VARIANCES (continued)
Curtis stated she is not sure whether the patio was included in the initial plan, but because Staff was not
sure what was included, it is now shown in detail on the plans and on the survey. Curtis noted it is shown
on the left side or lake side of the property.
Cornick noted it is alleged that the fireplace in question was constructed without city knowledge or
approval. Cornick asked if the fireplace is illegal.
Curtis indicated it was constructed without proper city permits and the property owner was notified at that
time that it was illegal. The City did not pursue removal of it at tl.at time.
McMillan asked if the neighbor's patio has a railing. 1111111a
Curtis stated it has a small wall around it that appears to be approximately 36 inches high.
McMillan asked if that would be considered structure. i
Curtis stated technically they could meet the railing provision at the 36 inches.
McMillan asked if the City does not allow patios hiper than that within the average lakeshore setback.
Curtis stated if it is elevated above grade 42 inches or greater, it would not be allowed without a variance.
Curtis displayed photographs of the patio and the fueplace. Ijljll!
Levang asked if the neighbor's letter dated October 8 is different than what was presented at the Planning
Commission. +I)
,ri�llllli�►����i+IIII�1►�:. ` MIIIII
Curtis indicated it is. Cuit`�s stated the neighbor is not here tonight but her attorney is present and perhaps
could clarify it.
McMillan asked if there is a secorr41 story about the four -season porch.
Curtis stated it has a roof above it but to her knowledge it does not have any living space above it.
Gustafson stated nothing W clanged in their design other than making the house smaller.
Levang stated the question is whether there is a practical difficulty for the four -season porch.
Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, LLC, stated he would like to explain how they arrived at the design of the
house. Gustafson stated as you approach the property, you come around Casco Circle, which drove the
decision to put the garage on the left side of the home. In doing that, that resulted in turning the garage
doors 90 degrees to the road. The home to the left has three garage doors that face the street. If they
went with a similar design, there would be six garage doors in a row.
Page 24 of 37
IMIIW1Ia1.Y1]DoYO1�
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 12, 2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
13. #15-3781 STONEWOOD ON BEHALF OF BELLE AND HARRY YAFFE, 3185 CASCO
CIRCLE, VARIANCES (continued)
Gustafson noted a lot of neighborhoods have rules that say you cannot have more than one garage door
facing the street because it is not a very architecturally appealing design.
Gustafson stated given that, they started designing the house. The main issue that was encountered was
the location of the fireplace in relation to the house, which really does create a bit of an obstruction to the
view. The columns of the patio walls are four or five feet tall with footings. Gustafson noted the Code
does not define that as structure in determining the average lakeshore setback even though it clearly
blocks the view.
Gustafson indicated they did work with the neighbors quite a bit priex to the Planning Commission
meeting and that everyone was in favor of the proposal, Since the Planting Commission meeting, the
size of the house has been reduced by 18 inches. Gustafson stated origina3y they were going to slide the
house back and keep the original design but that created two variances instead of one.
Gustafson stated they have tried to compromise and come up with a solution that makes the neighbors
happy but that something changed over the past week. Gustafson stated it does not sound like they are
against the proposal but that they are not available. Gustafson stated nothing has changed in the proposal
outside of the house being 18 inches smaller. Gustafson noted t►_e patio is just an option and that they
included it in helping to calculate the hardcover. Gustafson indica:ed the applicants have had very little
discussion about the shape or location of the patio.
.11W1111t.
Curtis stated she discussed with Ms. Callahan the location of the patio and that Staff felt it would be a
good idea to know where the general location of the patia will be.
Gustafson stated they have not developed that any further not knowing if the variance request would be
approved but `_' at it would be an on -grade patio constructed out of flagstone or other similar material.
Gustafson stated pulling the house bank by six fleet from the existing home and that their request is to
preserve the views.
McMillan asked if there is a reason to have the patio on that side rather than have it centered more on the
house.
Gustafson stated there really has been very little discussion about that and that the architect merely placed
it on there without talking to the owners.
McMillan stated if the patio stands as is, it would be a further encroachment in the average lakeshore
setback.
Belle Yaffe, Applicant, stated the patio is a place holder on the survey and that she envisions that most of
the activity would be on the other side of the porch. If there is anything in front of the porch, it would just
be a pathway.
Gustafson noted there are doors off the end of the porch. McMillan stated she is assuming one of the
reasons for the patio is for some privacy.
Page 25 of 37
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 12, 2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
13. #15-3781 STONEWOOD ON BEHALF OF BELLE AND HARRY YAFFE, 3185 CASCO
CIRCLE, VARIANCES (continued)
Belle Yaffe stated she was very excited to join the Orono community and that she and her husband have
spent the last year looking for a house on the lake. Yaffe stated they immediately fell in love with this lot
and the neighborhood. The view of the lake is spectacular, which is the whole reason for living on Lake
Minnetonka. Yaffe stated they designed a house that would fit their needs as well as fit in with the Casco
Point area.
Yaffe stated she was very surprised when they learned that they would have to move their house 15 feet
further back from the lake and that their immediate response was to simply remodel the current house.
Yaffe stated when she was listening to the Planning Commission task about how views are important for
everyone involved, it seemed to her that the fireplace should be considered structure and that it is unfair to
their view.
Harry Yaffe, Applicant, stated he was dumbfounded and surprised at getting the letter from the neighbor's
attorney a couple of days before the Council meeting. Yaffe indicated they walked all around the house
and asked themselves what they can live with. Yaffe noted they were. from a 7.5 foot encroachment to a
6-foot encroachment and that they have made the house smaller and have incurred extra costs with the
redesign. w l l l l 0 l l l t,
Yaffe indicated last Wednesday he spoke with Debra, who asked if they could stake the corners of the
house. The location of the house has been stt'wd so everyone can see exactly where the house is going to
go. Yaffe stated the new hone, even with the variance, will be approximately 10.5 feet back from the old
house and further from the take. Yhc four -season porch represents about 26 percent of the lineal feet of
the house. The house is approximately 62 feet and three inches and they four -season porch is 16 feet.
Yaffe noted they are not asking for a variance for the whole house and that approximately 75 percent of
their plan complies with the average lakeshore setback.
Yaffe reiurr#ed he was confused and dumbfounded by the letter and that he thought they were getting
along. Yaffe stated he thought they all agreed on the sib feet and that they have taken the guesswork out
of it as to where the four seams porch will be located.
Christopher Hur6ey, Attorney -at -Law, stated the reason why the letter was sent out is that his client is
currently out of the country and that she needed someone to stand in her place to argue her case. Huntley
stated the reason why Debra wanted the letter sent is that she wanted this issue postponed so she would
have the opportunity to find out if the proposed plans were what she thought they were going to be or if
she has a reason to object.
Huntley stated the applicants did not want to postpone their application, and once the letter was sent out,
she approached the applicants and asked again if they would postpone it, which they did not agree to.
Huntley stated she does not lose her opportunity to argue it.
Huntley stated Debra first met the applicants in August, who subsequently informed her that they would
be requesting a variance.
Page 26 of 37
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 12, 2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
13.#15-3781 STONEWOOD ON BEHALF OF BELLE AND HARRY YAFFE, 3155 CASCO
CIRCLE, VARIANCES (continued)
At that time Debra asked for additional information, which was provided. Shortly before the September
21 Planning Commission meeting, she found out that the variance was a
little bit more than what she thought it would be. A meeting was held with Debra and her husband and
the applicants.
At that time Mr. Gustafson stuck a stake in the ground and they agreed to a specific spot on the property,
which is the reason she was in agreement at the Planning Commission meeting. Subsequently to that
time, Debra found out that that was not the location of the proposed improvements and they were, in fact,
three to four closer to the lake and two to four feet higher. Huntley stated that was the reason for her
alarm and the reason why she wanted to address the City Council, which is when she contacted him.
Huntley stated Debra might not necessarily object to the current plans but that she wants more
information. Since Debra has been out of town, she has not been able to view the stakes, and that she is
basically in a position where she feels she has to argue against the variance. Huntley stated Debra does
not feel the need for the variance has anything to do with the firep?ace.
Huntley distributed two pictures to the Council of the area in question. Huntley stated the view appears to
be better from the actual setback line and that the fireplace is off to the left. If you look behind the
fireplace, there is really not a view of the lake since there are trees and shrubs in that area. Huntley stated
in their view the fireplace is a moot point.
Huntley stated the averege lakeshore setback variance goes against the harmony and purpose of the
ordinance. Huntley stated as is evident 5rom the picture, there is really no interference of the view of the
lake and the fireplace does not pose a p;a.ctical difficuity. In addition, the applicants purchased the home
knowing that the fireplace was there. Huntley noted there is also nothing preventing his client from
planting Uves and other shrubs that would interfere with the view even more.
Huntley etftd to summarize, there is no practical difficulty that is being caused by the fireplace, and that
if it is deter;,iined to be a practical. difficulty, anything could conceivably be considered a practical
difficulty. Huntley stated if the proposed structure is going to be higher than the current structure, the
only person feeling !t!,ie impact will be Ms. Callahan. Huntley stated even though Ms. Callahan is arguing
against the variance tight, that dc•s not necessarily mean that she is opposed to any variance and that
she is willing to live with the plan as originally presented to her
McMillan asked where the stake was originally.
Huntley indicated it was approximately three to four feet further back.
McMillan asked if she is comfortable with a 3-foot variance but not a 6-foot.
Huntley stated he believes so.
Page 27 of 37
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 12, 2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
13. #15-3781 STONEWOOD ON BEHALF OF BELLE AND HARRY YAFFE, 3185 CASCO
CIRCLE, VARIANCES (continued)
Gustafson stated the original stake was placed there as a result of them measuring off the existing home
on the survey and that it was fairly accurate. Gustafson stated the survey has not changed at all and the
only change is bringing the home back a foot and a half further back from what was originally discussed.
Gustafson stated he would argue the stake was within a few inches of where Mr. Gronberg put the stake.
Gustafson stated the proposed home is four -tenths of a foot higher than the current home and that the
bottom line of what they are trying to do is preserve views of the lake and avoid a view of the side or back
of the fireplace that was illegally built.
Walsh stated what is ironic in this situation is that in his view there &-e neighbors that are figuring out
what variances the Council should approve. Walsh noted the existing residence will be torn down and
that this will be a blank sheet. Walsh stated when theft is a blank sheet, the applicants should not need
any variances.
Walsh stated the parties are saying a bunch of different things that are moot and it comes down to whether
it is a practical difficulty. Walsh stated he visited the property today, walked in the area of the stakes, and
in his view the fireplace is not a big deal. Walsh stated the fireplace does not impact the lake view and
that there should not be a variance for that at 4.
Gustafson stated they were trying to get the neighbors on board with what they are requesting. Gustafson
stated they were trying to come in unified with the neighbors and that trey were not trying to make
decisions for the City Council. I��If ;0IIIIIit,
Walsh stated in his view there should not be a variance at all regardless of what the neighbors agree to
since there is not a practical difficulty. Walsh stated if the house next to this house gets torn down 15
years from now, they will be arguir..g to be ;loser to the lake if the variance is granted.
111INI1111111111IIII�Ij.IIii.
Gustafson stated the firepime should not have been conBtructed there.
Walsh stated in his view that is a. root point and that it does not appear to be in the way of any view of
the lake.
McMillan stated the neighbors can negotiate amongst themselves all they want but that the Council is the
one who determines whether there is a practical difficulty. McMillan stated determining whether there is
a practical difficulty is a major part of deciding whether a variance should be granted.
Mattick stated if the Council finds there is a practical difficulty with the fireplace, they should grant the
variance. Mattick stated in his view the Council has discussed the relevant points.
Levang stated in her view there is not a practical difficulty and that the Council stands very firm on the
average lakeshore setback. Levang indicated she is not willing to approve that variance but that she is
fine with the lot area and lot width variances.
Printup indicated he is in agreement.
Page 28 of 37
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 12, 2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
13. #15-3781 STONEWOOD ON BEHALF OF BELLE AND HARRY YAFFE, 3185 CASCO
CIRCLE, VARIANCES (continued)
Cornick stated he visited the property and that in his view the argument for the practical difficulty is very
weak and that he would not be in favor of it.
Levang stated it seems reasonable to combine the PIDs.
Levang moved, Walsh seconded, Application No. 15-3781, 3185 Casco Circle, to direct Staff to draft
a resolution approving lot area and lot width variances, with the two PID numbers being combined.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*14. #15-3782 ROBERT AND MONIQUE KANTORAND STEPHEN OTTO, 2165 AND 2185
WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT — RESOLUTION NO.6553
Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO.6553, a Resolution Approving a
Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement at 2165 and 2185 Watertown Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0. 11I1I
15. 015-3783 JOHN T. BESSESSEN/DAVID DELANEY, 2465 SHADYWOOD ROAD AND
2500 KELLY AVENUE, SKETCH PLAN
Tom Wasmoen and John Bessessen, Applicant, were present. I IIII!
''lllll�►�, ��III�►
Barnhart stated the applicants are rvguesting Council infru. on a proposed sketch plan for a 24 unit, single-
family neighborhood development at 2465 Shadywood Road and 2500 Kelly Avenue. This is the same
property the Council reviewed this spring where it denied the Kelly Avenue portion of this project.
The lots adjacent to Shadywood are app4ximately 45 feet in width. The 50-foot lots are located on the
north side of a new pr6N&ed drive. South of that are 75-foot lots. The entire development will require a
rezoning or a Comprehensive Plan amendment or both. There is also a portion that is guided for mixed
used that is currently zoned cor-nmerciai. The Kelly Avenue portion is zoned for 1-acre minimum lot size
and guided for two to three units per acre.
Barnhart noted the plan before the Council is somewhat different than what the Planning Commission
reviewed. The plan reviewed by the Planning Commission included a driveway onto Kelley Avenue or
an extension of Delaney Avenue up to Kelly Avenue. In response to some of the comments received by
the Planning Commission, the applicants have removed that driveway. The Fire Chief has indicated he
does not have a concern with no access onto Kelly. The County would prefer that the access be as far
south on Shadywood as possible.
During the public hearing, the Planning Commission heard a number of comments in opposition to the
project. The Council has also received a number of comments electronically, which have been included
in the packet. Barnhart stated it appears no one is in support of the project adjacent to this property.
Barnhart stated the applicant is here and would be able to go into more detail on the proposal.
Page 29 of 37