HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA22-000036 reducedAGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By:
1. Purpose. This application is regarding average lakeshore setback, side setback, and hardcover
variances as part of additions to the existing home including structural changes to the roof and building,
and a new lakeside deck.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on June 22, 2022 and considered
to be complete on August 21st. The 60-Day review period has been extended and expires on December
19, 2022.
3. Background/ Summary. The applicant has requested variances to conduct changes to the roof
orientation from a hip roof to gable within the side yard setback, as well as within the average lakeshore
setback. They are proposing a first floor lakeside deck within the average lakeshore setback which
exceeds the 42-inch height allowance within the setback. To support this plan, a hardcover variance is
requested to permit 26.48% hardcover.
They have recently applied for an administrative building permit (RPS22-000126; PC Exhibit J) to
construct a garage addition to the rear of the home, meeting the setbacks. The existing detached garage
will be removed. The garage addition project reflects changes to the property which bring the existing
hardcover level to a conforming level; from 31.1% to 25%.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On September 19, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and received public comment. During the discussion the Commission offered a great deal
of feedback to the applicant. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 7-0 to deny the
application as applied. The Planning Commission’s draft minutes are attached as Exhibit D.
5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit F.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the application as submitted.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting Council’s decision for adoption at the October 24th meeting.
Exhibits
A. Proposed Survey
B. Proposed Plans
C. Supplemental Plan Information provided at the PC Meeting
D. Draft PC Minutes 09/19/2022
E. PC Staff Report 09/19/2022
F. Public Comment
References
PC Exhibits 09/19/2022
A. Application & Narrative
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Item No.: 15 Date:
Item Description:
Presenter:
Agenda
Section:
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By:
C. Existing Survey/Hardcover
D. Proposed Survey/Site Plan
E. Staff Annotated Survey
F. Proposed Plans and Elevations
G. Staff Annotated Plans
H. Proposed Hardcover Calculations
I. Aerial Photos
J. Building Permit Packet RPS22-000126
K. Public Comment
L. Property Owners List
M. Plat Map
MINUTES 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.
Date Application Received: 06/22/2022
Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/21/2022
60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/20/2022
To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 19 September 2022
Subject: #LA22-000036, Scott Gates o/b/o Lisa Thostenson, 2815 Casco Point Road,
Variances
Public Hearing
Background
The owners purchased the property in April 2022 and have planned improvements to the home. They have
recently applied for an administrative building permit (RPS22-000126; Exhibit J) to construct a garage
addition to the rear of the home, meeting the setbacks; the existing detached garage will be removed. The
garage addition project reflects changes to the site which bring the existing hardcover level down from
31.1% to 25%.
The current variance application reflects changes to the roof orientation from a hip roof to gable within the
side yard setback, as well as within the average lakeshore setback. They are proposing a first floor lakeside
deck within the average lakeshore setback which exceeds the 42-inch height allowance within the setback.
To support this plan, a hardcover variance is requested to permit 26.48% hardcover.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the existing conditions as practical difficulties
supporting the requested variance(s). Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding
Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the
application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: 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.
Application Summary:
Staff Recommendation:
FILE # LA22-000036
19 September 2022
Page 2 of 6
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.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 & 78-1279 – Setbacks:
Rear 30’ 78’
4.8’
Lakeshore 75’
Average Lakeshore lakeshore setback. The proposed deck will extend 18 feet lakeward of
the average lakeshore setback line on the west side and approximately
Section 78-350 – Lot Area/Width:
LR-1C DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width
Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
Existing: 2,324 s.f. (15.5%)*
*According to Permit RAS22-000126
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations:
The existing condition prior to the to-be-issued building permit RPS22-000126 is 4,4,650 square feet or
31.1% hardcover. The applicant is providing over 1,000 square feet of hardcover removals to reach a
conforming level of 25% for permit issuance.
Stormwater
Overlay District Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover Existing Hardcover* Proposed Hardcover
Tier 1 14,926 s.f.
*According to Permit RAS22-000126
FILE # LA22-000036
19 September 2022
Page 3 of 6
Applicable Regulations:
Side Setback Variance (Section 78-350)
The existing home is located between 4.8 – 7.5 feet from the west side lot line. The required side setback for
this property is 7.5 feet. Due to the nature of the design, the proposed changes to the roof structure from a
hip roof on the street and lake sides to gable ends will increase the mass on each end within the
substandard side yard setback. A 2 foot overhang is permitted as long as the building meets the required
setback. It appears there may be additional massing impacts proposed in the side yard area on the west side
of the home (increased roof overhang, new shed roof over the kitchen window) however, the plans do not
clearly identify the existing conditions for comparison.
Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279)
The aforementioned 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.
Improvements within the average lakeshore setback are permitted with a maximum height of 42-inches
above existing grade. The proposed deck extends from the first floor and will be situated approximately ±6
feet above grade (the walking surface is 3.9 feet above grade on the west side plus a minimum of a 36”
railing). Approximately 19 feet of the deck’s total width is elevated above the lower level walkout on the
east side and is shown to be approximately 8.2 feet above grade (plus 36-inch railing).
The deck is shown to encroach into the average lakeshore setback between 18 feet on the west side and
15.5 feet on the east side.
Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1700)
As noted above, the applicant is showing over 1,000 square feet of hardcover removals to reach a
conforming level of 25% for their building permit issuance. Their variance request reflects an additional 223
square feet of hardcover to be added resulting in 26.48% hardcover.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed
variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding
area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal
provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties
because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend
approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical
difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14,
when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is
not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The
board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family
dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The applicant is
proposing to make improvements to the home on a residentially zoned property which is
FILE # LA22-000036
19 September 2022
Page 4 of 6
consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The hardcover level proposed is not consistent with
the hardcover regulations.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in improvements
to a home in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the
proposed encroachments lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line and the hardcover level
proposed are not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
the official controls; The applicant is proposing to use the property in a manner consistent
with the LR-1C district. Reasonable use of the property is afforded with the residential
building on the property and the permitted improvement of the addition. The structural
changes proposed within the average lakeshore setback resulting from the new gable roof
may not be reasonable as it will increase the mass of the home/roof which may impact
neighbors’ views of the lake. The deck and the required railings proposed within the
average lakeshore setback also limit the views of the lake from adjacent properties, and is
not reasonable.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The location
of the existing home on the property is the limiting factor and was not constructed by the
current owner; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance to permit an
increase in hardcover over 25% as well as the overall massing volume of the home within
the side yard and average lakeshore setbacks has the potential to alter the character of
the neighborhood.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as
follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations
have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar
energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat.
§ 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not
applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono
City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This
condition is not applicable, as residential improvements are an allowed use in the LR-1C District.
However the hardcover level and encroachments into the average lakeshore setback are not
permitted within the ordinance.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-
family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property. There are a number of properties on Casco Point which are
situated nearly in line with neighboring homes similarly to the subject property. The conditions
applying to this property are not unique to the property.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is
located. The existing condition of the nonconforming home location on this property is not specific
to the property. The setback variance requested would be out of character and would limit the
light, air, and open space for the adjacent neighbors.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant. The applicant states the project is necessary for the preservation of
FILE # LA22-000036
19 September 2022
Page 5 of 6
the owners’ property right. Staff finds there are alternative opportunities to expand the living
space of the home which would be more reasonable and would not require a setback variance.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals,
or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The proposed hardcover level and
setback encroachments requested are not supported by practical difficulty and may be contrary to
the intent of the zoning chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed massing encroachment of the roof
reorientation within the substandard side yard setback and within the average lakeshore setback
over the existing footprint serves as a convenience to the applicant as they have reasonable use of
the property with the single family home. There are alternate methods of constructing the
additions without such a severe encroachment. Further, a grade-level patio is permitted within
the average lakeshore setback, the applicant’s choice to propose a deck resulting in more mass
within the setback is a convenience. With the applicant’s building permit plan they have achieved
a conforming hardcover level. Adjustments can be made to the scale/size of the addition to
accommodate new outdoor living space/hardcover.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions
imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the
variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district
where such land is located.
Public Comments
Comments from the public have been received and are attached as Exhibit K. Most of the comments
received do not support the project.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts
created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
The applicant’s plans do not show the existing home structure to compare the massing increases/changes.
Staff requested an overlay plan for comparison, which was not submitted. Therefore staff is unable to fully
evaluate the potential impacts.
Staff recommends the applicant redesign the plans to limit or eliminate variances. Regarding the variances
requested to permit the new lakeside deck resulting in 26.48% hardcover where 25% is allowed, the
proposed garage addition (for RAS22-000126) should be adjusted to accommodate the additional hardcover
requested. Planning Staff recommends denial of the average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover
variance relating to the deck. 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
FILE # LA22-000036
19 September 2022
Page 6 of 6
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.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application & Narrative
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing Survey/Hardcover
Exhibit D. Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit E. Staff Annotated Survey
Exhibit F. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit G. Staff Annotated Plans
Exhibit H. Proposed Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit I. Aerial Photos
Exhibit J. Building Permit Packet RPS22-000126
Exhibit K. Public Comment
Exhibit L. Property Owners List
Exhibit M. Plat Map
Melanie Curtis September 15, 2022
Planner - City Of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Charles and Carol Price
2813 Casco Point Rd
Wayzata, MN 55391
Regarding:
Proposed House Drawings for Thostensen Residence at 2015 Casco Point Rd.,
VARIANCE SET, Dated 8/17/2022, Sheets 1-15.
Certificate of Survey for Lisa Thostenson, dated 5/18/2022
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, dated 8/15/2022
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet -Alternate, dated 8/15/2022
Practical Difficulties Analysis, Updated-August 16, 2022
Variance Application Narrative, Updated August 16, 2022
Dear Ms. Curtis,
We have reviewed the documents listed above and we hereby provide this assessment.
House Modifications
We hereby request that no new encroachments are permitted on the west side of the subject
property in which the existing house is currently into the 7.5 feet side set back requirement. It
appears that the kitchen bay window has been enlarged with a corresponding larger roof
overhang than currently exists. Additionally, it appears that the roof overhang has been
enlarged over the side bump out that is structurally part of the existing house footprint. We
are opposed to the proposed new gable roof over the existing house that encroaches further
into the 7.5 feet side setback. We request that any proposed new roof line will not encroach
any further into the 7.5 foot side setback. The side setback rules allow for light, air, and open
space between adjacent homes that is necessary for the enjoyment and safety of our property.
New Lakeside Deck
The proposed deck on the lake side of the house will create a severe hardship for us and our
property. Instead of our current unimpeded lake view, our view will be blocked by this
elevated deck, and everything placed on it which the applicants describe as an "outdoor living
space/deck". There are many reasons why this deck should not be approved: it is illegal per
the city building codes, setback requirements, and lakeshore hardcover requirements, and it
does not fit into the well-established ambiance of the neighborhood. The deck and the things
on it would block our view of the lake for a large portion of our view, it would destroy the
quiet enjoyment of our home and yard, and the lights and glare would be irritating inside our
home. It can be assumed that such an "outdoor living space/deck" would be equipped with
sofas, chairs, tables, grills, lights, sound, umbrellas, etc. This large outdoor living space may
lead to loud noise from the large number of people this deck can accommodate. Even worse,
any people on the deck will be able to look directly into our living room which has a wall of
glass facing the lake and a large window facing across the applicants' yard to the lake view.
This deck and everything on it will be constantly in our view and will obscure our lake view.
It can also be foreseen that there will be lighting added to this deck which will create light and
glare directly into our living room through our wall of glass on our lakeside windows and our
side windows that face this property. We and our neighbors have always enjoyed and valued
the quiet enjoyment of our lakeside properties and yards without irritating sound or glaring
light, but this proposed "outdoor living space/deck" will destroy said quiet enjoyment by day
and quiet dark skies by night.
It is clear that this proposed deck solves no "hardship" for the applicants, but it creates a huge
hardship for us and our neighbors. We love our house and the environment here at our Orono
lakeside property. We don't want to leave our home, but the thought of living with this illegal
"outdoor living space/deck" is unfathomable compared to our current backyard ambiance.
We generally keep our windows open most all summer long and we don't want to hear our
neighbor's sound system, or a deck full of loud partiers. This property already has a
substantial patio that has served previous owners well…..there is no hardship that requires any
expansion of the existing outdoor living space. Approving this "outdoor living space/deck"
will adversely affect our comfort, safety and health. There is no demonstrable difficulty that
makes this deck variance necessary nor should this deck be allowed to violate the hardcover
and lake shore setback rules. The applicants' wish for this deck is clearly just a convenience
for the applicants. The conditions on this lot are not at all unusual in a hilly topography that
was laid out and developed long ago. The plight of the landowner is directly caused by their
wish for a deck in a prohibited area, having nothing to do with the circumstances of the
property or any practical difficulties. Any variance for a deck would make a major change to
the locality, and such decks have consistently not been allowed in the past. Several years ago,
we attempted to have our detached garage attached to our house but after the design phase and
surveys, we were told by the City of Orono to "come back and talk to us when your plans
include getting your hard cover down to 25%." Our next door neighbor had the same
experience. Properties nearby have had such decks refused and no homes nearby have such
decks. Approving this variance would be groundbreaking in this locality.
We have noticed that the proposed deck drawings do not show any stairway from the deck to
the ground level for access to the back yard and lake. If a deck stairway is added, the most
likely place would be close to our property since the deck is above the grade the least, and the
stairs would further impede our lake view. This stairway is not included in the hardcover
calculations.
We hereby ask the City of Orono to deny the average lakeshore setback and hardcover
variances for this proposed deck.
New Garage Addition
While we understand a 3-car garage is desirable over a 2-car garage, we do not believe the 3-
car garage on such a small width lot conforms to the character of the neighborhood. The
house view from the street is essentially a three-car garage. We request that a variance shall
only be granted if the overall proposed garage, house plans, and deck plans strictly meet and
adhere to all city codes, structural coverage and massing standards, the hardcover
requirements, and the side setback requirements.
Regarding the narrative dated August 16, 2022
The minimum existing side setback to our property is 4.8', not 6.9' as stated.
Several comments that a wire rope or glass panels will "further help preserve views" is not
applicable considering the large scale of this deck, all the supporting structures, side supports,
and deck elevation from ground level. The deck will spoil our view along with all of the
furniture, grills, fire pit tables, umbrellas and people on the deck that will be only 22 feet from
our lakeside windows and directly between us and our view of Lake Minnetonka.
The hardcover calculations spreadsheet dated 8-15-2022 indicates that the "wood landscape
border" will be removed; however this is a retaining border wall that is necessary due to the 5'
elevation difference between our two lots. These wooden timbers straddle the property line
and the survey spikes are placed in the center of these timbers. The wood border is only half
on the 2815 property, so there would only be a minimal hardcover reduction if these timbers
were removed. We would find it acceptable for the subject property owners to replace the
wood landscape border/timber retaining wall with something more aesthetically pleasing to
them, so long as it continues to perform the needed retaining wall function and we approve
the plan in writing before work on this border starts. However, taking credit for a hardcover
reduction is not applicable in this case.
The building codes and hardcover requirements have been put in place for the safety and well
being of all citizens in Orono, as well as for the health and preservation of the surrounding
land and Lake Minnetonka. We request that the Orono Planners and City Council maintain
the ethics and adherence to existing laws and codes and reject the variances requested by the
applicant. We would appreciate if the Planners and City Council stand firm and require that
the new homeowner provide plans for house modifications that adhere to all city codes,
structural coverage and massing standards, the hardcover requirements, and the side setback
requirements.
Sincerely,
Charles Price
Carol Price
To the City of Orono,
As the owner of the property located at 2817 Casco Point Road, I am writing you in regards to
the application for variances proposed for the adjacent property at 2815 Casco Point Road. I
have spoken with the new owner of the subject property, Lisa Thostenson, who sent me some
dimensionless drawings of the building plans. At that time, I expressed support for removing the
old two-car garage located next to the street.
Upon further investigation into the specifics of the application for variances, I have a concern
with the requested Hardcover variance relative to the average setback from the lake. Stormwater
management is particularly important for us and for our area neighbors located on a 25-foot-high
bluff overlooking Lake Minnetonka. I have found that the deeper soil structure here in this area
contains layers of clay. The clay reduces the speed at which stormwater can diffuse down
through the soil and away from the surface. This leads to flooding of our basements and more
importantly, has likely contributed to several catastrophic landslides of our bluff over the last 35
years. These slides destroy structures, docks and boats located near the shoreline as they
permanently reshape the bluff.
The requested hardcover variance is of particular concern because the proposed property
modifications increase the hardcover located toward the bluff. The planned outdoor living space
located along the lakeside edge of the house is only 60 feet back from the bluff. It would tend to
focus more stormwater toward the bluff and toward my property, which is at a lower elevation.
The extent of this focusing effect would be specific to the particular design of this outdoor living
space, which is not completely clear in the drawings I have viewed.
The elevation contours in the land survey indicate no attempt to prevent stormwater from
flowing into my property. In fact, the survey indicates the intention to remove the “Wood
Landscape Border” at the southeast edge between our properties. These railroad ties currently
form a retaining wall that channels stormwater to a drain located at that corner where the water is
piped down to the shoreline.
I would request that the outdoor living space design, as well as the yard elevation contours be
modified in such a way as to minimize the potential for any added stormwater to flow toward the
bluff or onto my property.
I would appreciate your consideration of this concern.
Wesley C. Byrne
Owner of 2817 Casco Point Road
From:Margaret Martin
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Requested setback and hardcover variance 2815 Casco pt rd
Date:Tuesday, July 12, 2022 7:28:34 AM
Good morning,
I am a nearby neighbor at 2821 Casco. I do hope to attend the meeting this coming Monday… but am voicing
concern particularly on the request for variance for hard cover on the proposed remodel project. History has shown
potential issues with water run off and significant damage to property that can occur. In The last few years…
several lake properties have had lakeside landscaping structures fail….costly to the health of the lake and the
owners.
As well, my property and others are “downhill” from the proposed project at 2815… and likely recipients of
excessive run off if hardcover variances continue to be granted.
It appears the neighborhood will have many “projects” coming down the pike with turnover of properties…I hope
the planning commission and home owners can be mindful of the land use rules that are in place in the lake
communities.
Margaret martin… 2821 Casco
Sent from my iPad
From:Margaret Martin
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Re: Requested setback and hardcover variance 2815 Casco pt rd
Date:Friday, September 16, 2022 8:15:55 AM
Good morning Melanie,
Happy Friday..
Know you wanted comments earlier, but I just spoke with a friend who is a civil engineer.. geo-tech.. and offered
additional questions/ concerns re 2815 proposal.. thought it important to share “ more professional verbiage” for my
same concern. He questioned: how are the home owners addressing stormwater concerns associated with the
increased footprint and reduced setback….as this directly affects all properties downslope.
We also hear comments from Casco neighbors…living throughout the neighborhood questioning the change in the
look of the neighborhood…. Feeling high density… over building that is being allowed. Help us all understand
why variances are now continually allowed? Hardcover and set back rules.. guidelines….were put into place to
protect the look and feel of the neighborhood as well as the health of the lake and neighbors properties. Seems
current mantra is to approve these overbuilding requests.
Appreciate you work in keeping everything organized!!
Will attend on Monday
M
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 12, 2022, at 7:28 AM, Margaret Martin <marg2821@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Good morning,
> I am a nearby neighbor at 2821 Casco. I do hope to attend the meeting this coming Monday… but am voicing
concern particularly on the request for variance for hard cover on the proposed remodel project. History has shown
potential issues with water run off and significant damage to property that can occur. In The last few years…
several lake properties have had lakeside landscaping structures fail….costly to the health of the lake and the
owners.
> As well, my property and others are “downhill” from the proposed project at 2815… and likely recipients of
excessive run off if hardcover variances continue to be granted.
>
> It appears the neighborhood will have many “projects” coming down the pike with turnover of properties…I hope
the planning commission and home owners can be mindful of the land use rules that are in place in the lake
communities.
>
> Margaret martin… 2821 Casco
> Sent from my iPad
From:T
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:2815 Casco point road, Orono, MN. 55391Date:Thursday, September 1, 2022 3:07:08 PM
Hello Melanie,
Based on the condition of the house and garage at this location, it would seem that both buildings need to be demolished and replaced with new construction.
It appears the focus of the proposed building project is on a larger, new garage with living space above.
Adding a sun deck to this existing house in addition to some cosmetics updates doesn’t seem appropriate or in line with other projects in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
Theresa Norsted2811 Casco Point Road952/210-2310
Sent from my iPad
From:Penny Saiki
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:2815 Casco Point Road
Date:Sunday, September 4, 2022 1:42:24 AM
Hi, Melanie,
I was able to see the plans for the redesign. These comments are submitted as a heads up to
save drainage problems at this house as well as to the other houses,
I noticed that the water management of the roof drainage needs detailing because of the
existing boulder retaining wall indicating a drop to the land around 2817, the lower level
entrance at this house, the drainage of 2813 towards 2815 and the slope of the land across the
property as well as towards the lake.
CONSIDERATIONS
The side setbacks are narrow.
The boulder retaining wall of 2815 is retaining the land of 2815 against a drop to the land
along the entire side of 2817.
The existing drainage of 2813 is straight away towards 2815, and the timbers are proposed to
be removed.
Now that the roof is a gable, the roof drainage is towards both sides of the house towards the
neighboring properties.
The roof overhangs are not dimensioned, but they look to be about 2 ft.
There are no gutters indicated, but they would add another 4", so the setback overhead will
extend over the foundation setbacks and be about 3.9-5.9 ft towards the property line at 2813,
and 8.2 ft towards the property line at 2817.
The downspouts will probably be 6”, so considerable water will be entering the land
someplace along the foundation and then exiting extensions whether between the houses and
to the street side on the 2813 side and to the back on the 2817 side to avoid loading the
retaining wall protecting 2817.
There is very little space on 2815 to manage downspout water with grading towards 2813, but
grade needs to slope away from 2815 and yet meet the existing grade between the houses,
Suggest locating the downspouts now in design, and do the contour and grading design to
manage the water from the downspouts with consideration to the 2815 walkout level and the
areas between the houses. Ordinance typically requires matching the existing contour lines at
the property lines.
Penny Saiki
psaiki@icloud.com
From:Yorks, Patricia E
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Comments RE:2815 Casco Point Road
Date:Sunday, September 18, 2022 6:17:12 PM
Hi Melanie:
I am submitting some input on the many requests the new owner of 2815 Casco Point Road have submitted. We
have been residents on Casco Point Road for over 53 years. We have seen many iterations of remodeling and
building new. My career of real estate has also allowed me many experiences through my clients, who have
wanted to remodel, build or whatever. My experience is that most Orono residents have worked very diligently to
abide by city codes. I think it is human nature that many people think their circumstances are unique and special
and therefore they need to be given special permission to go outside the city codes and regulations.
It appears that the new owner of 2815 Casco Point Road wants special consideration and be an exception in
almost every direction. With all these requests, it appears that perhaps, they should have purchased a different
home to begin with. Most Buyers go to the city prior to purchasing, to talk with the planning staff to see what is
possible and then make their plans accordingly. They design their home to meet setbacks, and codes. In addition,
the neighbors in this neighborhood for the most part have discussed their plans personally with each other and
perhaps not always concluding in agreement, but certainly have thought about the other neighbors considerations
and the impact on them prior to going to city planning and asking for approval at the city. It appears most of the
neighbors in this targeted area have been quite upset by the new owners of 2815 thinking that for the most they
are an exception to the city codes and rules we have all abided by for years. Their plans look lovely, I express
concern that in viewing the plans very little consideration has been given to codes and to neighbors’ concerns.
Our personal example:
1. We wanted to rebuild our home. We wanted to add on various rooms to the house but those plans did not
fit with the 75’ lake setback, or the side setbacks so we had Stubbs moving lift the home up and move it
backwards and to the side so that we could do our desired plan with the square footage needed and abide
by city codes.
2. We have never been able to have an attached garage, because of the city’s hardcover restriction.
3. We have never been able to have a deck in the middle of our incline to enjoy the lake because of the 0
hardcover allowed in the 75’ zone from the 929’ lake elelvation.
4. We have no place to sit at our lakeshore due to our steep incline like 2815 has, because we are not allowed
a deck or any sitting area at the edge of the lake because of hardcover.
5. We struggle each year as the dock guys try to find enough room to store our dock and lift each winter.
6. The house to the West was built in the mid 1940’s and is built 30” from our property line and in addition,
we have huge trees in our setback area, this does not afford us to have any machinery come to our lakeside
yard to trim trees, to install or repair a retaining wall on our steep incline to the lake. We have to ask
permission from our neighbor to the east to have machinery come across his yard to access ours.
These are just a few of the compromises we have had to live with and I know our immediate neighbors live with
similar compromises as we all try to abide by
the city, LMCD, DNR , Minnehaha Watershed codes to keep the greatest resource we all enjoy, Lake Minnetonka
healthy and vibrant. We have put our selfish desires aside to enjoy the wonderful quality of life the lake brings us.
If the city has decided that the powers that make the rules for our codes have changed, we are totally in, we
would love to have better access to the lake, an attached garage, a deck in the middle of our 45 degree incline
next to the lake and a sitting area at the lake.
Patty Yorks