Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA22-000036 (2815 CPR) Ex D Draft PC MinMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19, 2022 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. LA22-000036 SCOTT GATES, 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD, REQUESTS HARDCOVER, AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO PERMIT A LAKESIDE DECK AND ROOF CHANGES. (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Scott Gates, on behalf of the Applicant, was present. Staff gave a summary presentation of the item. Curtis stated the owners purchased the property in April 2022 and have planned improvements to the home. They have recently applied for a permit to construct a garage addition to the rear of the home, meeting the setbacks. The garage addition project reflects changes to the site which bring the existing hardcover level down from 31.1% to a conforming 25%. Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds there are difficulties in the location of the existing home which may support the variances for the change in the rooflines. Staff may be able to support he average lakeshore setback variance for the change in the lakeside roof mass as long as the change does not adversely impact views of the lake from the neighboring homes. The average lakeshore setback request pertaining to the new deck cannot be supported. As proposed, the elevated deck and railing appear to impact the lake views for the adjacent neighbor(s). A grade-level deck or on-grade patio (≤ 42 inches from existing grade) can be constructed in the same location. Regarding the requested hardcover variance, the application for building permit demonstrates that a level of 25% hardcover is achievable and therefore staff does not find practical difficulty supporting a hardcover variance. The existing home is located between 4.8 – 7.5 feet from the west side lot line. The changes proposed to the roof structure from a hip roof on the street and lake sides to gable ends will also increase the mass of the home encroaching within the average lakeshore setback. Curtis spoke about public comments noting most of the comments do not overly support the project. Based on the plans Staff was unable to fully evaluate the existing and proposed massing increases/changes to the roof. Staff recommends the Applicant redesign the plans to limit or eliminate variances. Regarding the variances requested to permit the new lakeside deck Staff finds that the project should be adjusted to accommodate the additional hardcover to stay within 25%. Planning Staff recommends denial of the average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance relating to the deck. Curtis stated the Applicant has the option of reducing the hardcover and installing a grade level patio without variances. The side yard setback variance involving the roof expansion may be reasonable if the encroachments do not further limit the light, air, and open space of the neighbors to the west. If the Commission identifies practical difficulties which support the roof changes in the side yard area, the new encroachments should be limited to the roof and any additional new impacts, such as roof overhangs and the possible new shed roof over kitchen window, should be denied. The average lakeshore setback variance to change the hip configuration to a gable thereby increasing the mass of the roof within the setback significantly is not supported by practical difficulty. Staff recommends denial. Scott Gates, 545 Second St. #295, Excelsior, noted it is not terribly complicated and the owners wanted to get the remodel underway prior to the variance being heard. He noted they scaled down the hardcover significantly and if these changes are not acceptable, they will go ahead and build what has been submitted for the building permit. He walked the Commissioners through the project and spoke about the overhang, encroachments, setbacks, a bay window, and neighbor comments. Mr. Gates showed proposed plans on screen and shared about the various views, roof pitch, and massing. Ressler asked about practical difficulty on the project. Mr. Gates replied the practical difficulty is the location of the home. The setback is similar to the neighboring house, with 2813 set back considerably more, with 2821, 2825, and 2827 at about 79-80 feet MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19, 2022 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ and this property is at around 120 feet. The house next door is what creates the issues regarding average lakeshore setback (ALS). The practical difficulty of the deck is that there is nowhere else to put it. Ressler clarified they could put in a patio. Curtis noted they could do it on grade or a patio. Mr. Gates spoke about what is intended to be an at-grade deck, and they could do the 10x16 provided they meet hardcover or get a variance and the other is to have a lakeside deck with access to the family living space. Kirchner clarified Mr. Gates is saying the practical difficulty is that it is a convenience to have a deck or the desire for the owners to have a deck. Mr. Gates replied in the negative noting he is saying there is not another place to put it that has access to the lake view. Because this is considerably farther back than the 75 foot minimum lakeshore setback that, coupled with the ALS being further back due to the offset of the house next door are both practical difficulties that make this the only choice. Kirchner asked what structural purpose the new roof serves that then provides additional massing. Mr. Gates replied the existing roof needs replacement and once they start replacing it makes sense to go to something cleaner and simpler without all the angles to the roof. He thinks it is also a design consideration in trying to fit into the neighborhood, make something that looks good by mixing the gable with the hip. Ressler spoke about practical difficulty. He stated the location of the house is something the owner knew when they purchased it and every zone has different requirements and guidelines. The existing house is affording some opportunities in like-kind, but exceeding is historically where the Planning Commission has very rarely (especially in these districts) allowed encroaching on lakeshore setbacks because those modest encroachments become a hindrance for the enjoyment of the neighboring homes. This creates a problem because it creates precedent for Applicants in the future which is why the Commission has had to take a very hard line. He noted one can have a home without a deck, that is not a practical difficulty. The Commissioners want to help get this through but without practical difficulty they are not in a position to support. Mr. Gates noted they could build a much bigger house if they knock the existing down but they did not want to do that. It may not be a direct practical difficulty but does factor into the equation. He spoke about options for the back of the home where there is not the ability to put a deck somewhere else. He does not think it is unfair to ask for a small variance to build the deck. He finished walking the Commissioners through the plans on screen. Kirchner clarified the Commissioners are required by State Statute to fall back to the practical difficulties. He is struggling to find practical difficulties in this case. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19, 2022 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Patty Saiki, 2874 Casco Point Road, does not see gutters or drainage shown and that is one of the critical points. She noted living with a narrow sideyard regarding the fire department they would need hook-and- ladder. All insurance companies watch the fire departments and rates will go up if the City does not manage widths between houses. She is just giving the Commissioners a heads-up. Charles Price, 2813 Casco Point Road, shared that he lives to the west of the subject property. Mr. Price strongly objects to one of the pictures Mr. Gates showed that it will not affect his view of the lake but would now be filled with elevated deck, sofas, couches, umbrellas, grills, and the Mr. Price would be very uncomfortable if the City allowed a deck in that space. He noted the property owners who will suffer the water runoff from these proposed variances are at great risk of accelerated erosion on their bluffs as well as an increased risk of their bluff sliding down into the lake as so many nearby bluffs have already done, including his at 2813. The shoreline of the subject property and nearby properties have a risk profile that is much worse than most on Lake Minnetonka, primarily due to the high elevation above the lake (his property is 42 feet above the water) and the soil makeup is a loose mix of clay and sandy loam that can be easily eroded by running water. Many properties nearby have experienced severe erosion and severe slippage into the lake with huge expense and loss of yard size. If there ever was a case to minimize hardcover, this is the case. Mr. Price noted this property already has a patio of about 120 square feet which has been adequate for multiple families over decades. The Applicant wants to add another 360 square feet of deck very near Mr. Price’s home and yard in a prohibited way. It is safe to assume the Applicants will not go through all of this to have a 480 square foot deck to quietly sit and read a book; it is expected that it will be fully furnished with all of the previously mentioned things, and a sound system. Mr. Price’s yard could feel like they are living next to a loud bar or a night club. All of this illegal development will be between the Price’s home and their view of the lake, and every person on the deck will be able to look directly into his living room day and night from only 22 feet away. He stated there are rules and laws in place which, if followed, will make all of this unnecessary. Simply put the Applicant bought a lot which cannot be made to fulfill their wishes. This lot is only 12, 217 square feet and the average width is less than 55 feet. The Applicant should either purchase a lot more appropriate for what they desire or they should meet current rules and laws that protect the property owners, Lake Minnetonka, and the environment. Several years ago Mr. Price attempted to move a detached garage and attach it against his house and was told by the Planning Commission that he should come back when his plan included getting hardcover down to 25%. Wes Byrne, 2817 Casco Point Road, is on the east side of the property. He noted the extra hardcover is a concern as has already been brought up with respect to extra stormwater and the danger to the bluff in having another landslide there. With the contours of the land, the water moves towards Mr. Byrne’s property and will end up going down into the stairs that go down to his lakeshore. He has retaining walls helping but he is not really pleased at that potential. The plan is to remove the landscape border between properties which is acting as a retaining wall and preventing water from that corner from going directly down to his property and the hillside. This is his primary concern. Carol Price, 2813 Casco Point Road, is on the east side, and spoke about the topology of the area noting there is a high west side and all of the land slopes eastward and downward. Every subsequent property has a decrease in elevation, so neighbors affect every other neighbor. They are also on a bluff and they must protect the bluff. The hardcover limit is extremely important as they are fighting all the time to limit the water that is going down the bluff and going sideways across neighbors. The wooden timbers are part of controlling that water. She noted her lot is generally five feet higher than the existing home at 2815 Casco Point Road. Ms. Price stated the proposed deck is very large and would definitely obscure the view of the lake from her property; this would also affect property value. She thinks the patio/deck needs to be MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19, 2022 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ appropriate for the lot. The change from a hip roof to a gable roof will significantly affect the drainage on each side of the property. Ms. Price’s property is very close, the gable roof will overhang, there are no gutters listed, or accounting for any drainage. They want to take away the wood timbers to the side and she noted her property is bumping up against those wood timbers. Any drainage would exacerbate that problem of her property falling into the Applicant’s. She spoke about the garage noting it would now be a massive structure that would impede sunlight, airflow, and drainage. She commends the new homeowner for trying to build on the existing footprint, but would request that they meet the existing footprint and not add any more hardcover, add more to the overhangs, or the massive structure. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. Kirchner believes they failed to identify practical difficulties. Regarding the sideyard setback, he does not see practical difficulty for the roof, for the ALS and not having another place to put a deck is also not a practical difficulty, and regarding hardcover he does not see a practical difficulty established to go over on hardcover allowance. He would vote denial on all variance requests. Ressler echoed Mr. Kirchner’s remarks. He added the Commissioners want to make things work for homeowners but find themselves in a situation where they must meet the guidelines, rules, and regulations in place for the City. They have made amendments to those rules and regulations to be more favorable for applications such as these than in the last 40 years. If they do not change the rules, one must provide proper practical difficulty for going outside those rules or they open up a can of worms with precedence. Ressler does not think practical difficulties have been met but that does not mean they are not reasonable, they just do not meet the City’s guidelines. The Commissioners must abide by the rules that are in place right now. Ms. Saiki made a good point regarding water and drainage, and he is sure anyone involved in these plans will have to sign off on any drainage plans to make sure it meets the requirements. Ressler would also not recommend as applied. Peterson noted one person spoke positively and everyone else, including Staff spoke negatively. He agrees with denial. McCutcheon noted the reduction of hardcover is always a plus and if one wants to move a structure (the garage) the end result needs to reduce hardcover. He asked if the garage has been demolished yet. Mr. Gates replied in the negative. Curtis clarified that is a part of the building permit and they have already demonstrated they can do that without variances. Ressler noted it does play into the hardcover and exceeding hardcover becomes a variance. He does not see that the Applicant is meeting requirements to exceed hardcover. McCutcheon asked about the rock bed at the front and asked about hardcover regarding a deck or patio. Curtis clarified they could turn that landscaped area into an on-grade patio or grade level deck. Mr. Gates spoke about hardcover and noted they are reducing hardcover significantly from 31% to 26%. The wooden borders are in pretty bad shape and while they are removing those, they will replace with boulders that serve the same purpose. Regarding the 26% hardcover, the belief is reducing and improving MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19, 2022 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ the situation is part of the purpose of a variance; they are improving the situation not making it worse. They are not increasing runoff of the house, not increasing the physical footprint, and reducing hardcover. the guidance that would be helpful is regarding the portion at-grade behind the existing patio, would the Commissioners be amenable to doing it at-grade with a slight hardcover variance slightly above the 25%? McCutcheon noted it is hard to say without seeing something. Ressler thinks if they are currently at 31% hardcover and are proposing less at-grade, an improvement of the situation is always what the City Council is looking for. He cannot guarantee the City Council would be in support but Ressler would certainly look at it more favorably. Bollis thinks the issue is that the Applicant has already demonstrate they can go down to the 25% so it is hard to wrap their heads around a practical difficulty that now they need another 1%. This is just his view of it. Mr. Gates spoke about drainage noting he spoke with the owner at 2817 and indicated they would work with the owner to try and improve the grading. As Mr. Gates understands it, the owner was selling the property and was not interested at that time. Regarding 2813, there is a patio on the corner of their house that encroaches past the ASL, and he is sure that is grandfathered in, but noted it is a little frustrating when someone comes and speaks against something when they have the same issue. Mr. Gates believes they may even have some setbacks on the other side of their property. Bollis asked if Mr. Gates sees drainage getting better with the gabled roof and if they can control the runoff. Mr. Gates noted they control the runoff because they only have sides. In theory, they are increasing the runoff to the sides slightly but with gutters on the gable ends and landscaping, they can better help that. It is easier on their side to get it to the street. He spoke about elevations of the surrounding properties noting all of the neighboring water comes down on to this site and flows into the backyard. He noted they could, especially with 2817, work with all of these properties and help that situation. Bollis stated the City has approved some in the ALS with the neighboring house being extremely setback and he remembers those being hundreds of feet setback. He asked if that is accurate. Curtis replied they have granted ALS variances and she thinks the way the City Council looks at these is from a straight Code standpoint in looking at what the setback line is, what encroachments are being proposed, and whether they are supported by the affected neighbors. She noted they have had all kinds of different orientations of homes affecting the ALS. Ressler thinks the feedback for the Applicant is to know where this goes with the City Council. Showing the hardcover, even though it is in excess of what is applied for, is still an improvement of what they now have. In talking about odds, he thinks they have better odds of having that entertained. He noted the ALS is historically very restrictive, but rather than tabling he thinks they should rule on what the Commissioners have so it continues forward to the City Council rather than coming back to the Commission. Ressler moved, Kirchner seconded, to deny LA22-000036, 2815 Casco Point Road, Variances as applied, for the reasons provided in comments. VOTE: Ayes: 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19, 2022 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Libby asked to speak about the Orono citizens who came to speak up for what they thought was right. He is not taking sides on this but he was involved in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and can say that Orono has a nicely articulated bluff ordinance that the public may want to look up. Many of the issues and questions discussed today are articulated in that rule of law which the Commissioners are guided by.