HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA22-000036 (2815 CPR) Combined reducedDate 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
Land Use Application Summary
Application Date:06/22/2022
Address:2815 Casco Point Road
Orono, MN 55391
Parcel Number:2011723320011
Land Use Number:LA22-000036
Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner
Owner:Name: KURT & KELLE BOWE
Address: Lisa Thostenson / Mark Thostenson 2640 Lakewood Ln, Mound,
MN, 55364
Applicant:Name: Scott Gates
Company:
Address: 545 2nd Street #298, EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
scottagates@msn.com
Contact Information:Associated Contact: Scott Gates
scottagates@msn.com
Associated Contact:
Associated Contact:
Associated Contact:
Project Description:Variance Request
Land Use Application Type:Amendmend Application
Appeal of Admin Decision
Concept Application
Conditional Use Permit
Site Plan Application
Subdivision Application
Subdivision Exception
Vacation Application
Variance Application
Applicant Signature:
2815 CASCO POINT ROAD - ORONO, MN 55394 – UPDATED AUG. 16-2022
VARIANCE APPLICATION NARRATIVE:
Applicants Mark and Lisa Thostenson have purchased the property located at 2815 Casco Point Road – Orono,
MN. They intend to fully remodel and significantly upgrade the existing home.
The demolition of existing garage, remodeling of the existing home and construction of the now conforming
garage addition is included in , and will be completed under a separate Building Permit. As part of that
building/remodeling permit application process, existing hardcover was reduced to meet the 25%
requirement.
The hardcover variance requested here represents the additional net hardcover for construction of the deck.
Since original submission of this variance request Applicant has also worked with staff to revise the request
to address staff and neighbor concerns. The plans and survey have been updated to reflect these changes
and reduce the variance requested.
The changes from the original variance application include;
Moving the new garage construction to meet current setbacks. The setback was originally proposed
to match existing setback (appx 6.2 feet), the revised setback is approximately 8 feet.
All new construction meets height requirements, with a Defined Building Height of appx 25’
Eliminated a 2nd floor addition that encroached in the average lakeshore setback
The hardcover has been adjusted to reduce from the approximately 32% existing to approx. 27.3%.
Adjusted new driveway to meet required sideyard setback.
Proposed new construction is denoted on plans by a key in lower right corner of pages.
The updated variance request is now for the deck within the average lakeshore setback, for a new gable roof
over existing house, and for hardcover exceeding 25%.
Upon approval of this variance request the building permit would be amended to reflect approved variance
changes. In the event this variance is not granted
The owners plan to remove the existing old detached garage located adjacent to the Casco Point Road Right of
Way, and build a new 3 car garage addition with living space above, attached to the street side of the existing
home, and build an outdoor living space on the lake side of the existing home.
The recent survey shows the lot is approximately 14,926 square feet, or approximately 0.34 acres. Existing net
hardcover is approx. 4,770 sqft., or approx. 31.96%. The applicant proposes new net hardcover of approx.
3,990 sqft, or approx. 26.73% - a net decrease of approx. 780 sqft. (See survey for exact final numbers).
The existing home generally meets required setbacks, with the exception of the West lot line, adjacent to the
property at 2813 Casco Point Road. Required side yard setback is 7.5 feet – current side yard setback is approx.
6.9 feet. Owners have revised plans so that new garage construction setback is approx.. 8.1 feet, exceeding
the minimum required setback.
Applicants intend to remove and rebuild the existing dilapidated 3 car garage, constructing a new addition to
the street side of existing structure. This new addition fully meets required setbacks. Owners have revised
plans on West exposure to address neighbor concerns, by adding architectural detail, boxed windows,
differing siding, and similar.
Applicants propose replacing the existing dated hip roof with a new gable roof matching the garage
addition. The existing hip roof structure is in generally poor condition, and will likely need to be replaced as
part of the remodeling and new construction. Owners would like to replace the existing hip roof with a gable
roof matching the addition.
The defined building height for the proposed new gable roof over existing house is approx. 14” taller than
the existing hip roof. The visual impact from ground to neighboring properties is unchanged as the soffits
and fascia are the same for both roof – the new gable roof runs front to back, the same as existing hip roof.
The gable roof proposed is simpler to build and install, and substantially improves the visual and
architectural appeal of the property. This is especially true of the lake facing rear elevation.
The proposed new gable roof building height is substantially lower than the maximum allowed, and is
similar in mass and scale to most newer construction on similar lake sites.
Additionally, applicants would like to construct an outdoor living space/deck attached to the lake side of the
existing home. A significant portion, closest to neighbor, is proposed to be largely at grade. Owners propose
glass railings (or rope wire) to largely eliminate changes to view.
The subject home is set back considerably further than the 75’ minimum lakeshore setback. The home to the
West shares a similar lakeshore setback, while the home to the East is setback considerably further than the
subject property.
Additionally the subject property has a ‘walk up’ exit from the lower level, which presents several unique
challenges, both in grade changes and in a need to provide “cover” for this door location.
The nearby average lakeshore setbacks, as is typical of many areas of the lake, show a wide disparity here. The
3 homes adjacent to the neighbor to the East all have similar approx. 79’ lakeshore setbacks compared to the
120+ foot setbacks here..
With its larger lakeshore setback, a deck at the subject property, would have minimal, if any, impact to the
viewscape of property to the East – the existing home on the subject property would largely shield view of any
deck.
The property to the West may have some view of the lakeside deck, however it largely shares the same grade
as the subject property, and the deck on the subject property would be primarily at or near grade on the West
portion of the lot – presenting a minimal impact, if any. The outdoor living space on the property to the West
is on the opposite side of their lot to the subject property. Applicant intention to use glass panel or rope
wire railing further helps preserve views.
The neighbor to the East has expressed no concerns regarding Applicant’s plans for this property.
Applicant intendeds to remove much of the accessory hardcover, as an example removing foundation planting
areas and replacing with fabric. A net reduction, from approx. 32% to less than 27% is proposed.
As part of the garage relocation the existing large and wide concrete driveway at the street would be removed,
replaced with landscaping and yard, and a narrower more residential scale driveway (that meets sideyard
setbacks) to the new garage. These changes would significantly improve the street view and serve to reduce
congestion and parking issues along the narrow roadway.
Applicants have worked hard to create an aesthetically attractive project that compliments the neighborhood,
reduces existing non-conformity, helps address congestion adjacent to the road right of way, and addresses
the unique challenges of the subject property, and ask these variances be granted.
Practical Difficulties ANALYSIS:
UPDATED – August 16, 2022
1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of
the ordinance …”
The proposed project is the remodeling of an existing home. An existing detached garage will be
demolished and rebuilt as an attached garage. The property is residential in nature. The existing
principal residence structure is updated but the existing footprint, roofs etc. are unchanged. The new
addition is conforming – the setback is over 8’ roof heights are conforming etc. Existing hardcover is
appreciably reduced. The approx. lakeshore setback of the subject property and the adjacent 7
additional homes on either side ranges from ~78’ to ~124’. The subject property lakeshore setback is
approx. 121’.
Being setback further than subject property, the neighbor to East will see no appreciable impact in view.
Neighbor to West will see at worst transparent glass deck railings largely at same grade as their
property. The variances are in harmony with the Ordinance.
2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.”
The new garage addition appurtenant to the existing single-family residence in a residential zone is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as the character of the neighborhood. The variance to
permit approx. 27% hardcover which is a reduction from the existing approx. 32% hardcover is
consistent with the comprehensive plan’s lake protection philosophy.
3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the
granting of a variance, means that:
a.” The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.”
The request to permit construction of a new attached garage addition and remodeling of an
existing home with a lake side deck is reasonable, as the adjacent properties are not adversely
impacted. The new addition exceeds required side yard setback. Mature vegetation and
topography provide separation of the Property from adjacent neighbors. The height of the new
garage addition to the existing home conforms with building height requirements. The new
gable roof on the existing portion of the home matches the roof design and conforming height
of the new garage addition and replaces old hip roof with new energy efficient roofing. The
building height of the new gable roofs over the existing home will be well below normal
conforming standards, will be similar in height to existing hip roofs and will run in same
orientation as existing hip roofs. The fascia and soffits will be at same height as existing hip
roofs.
b. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the
landowner. “
The height of the existing home, location, and the slope, the shape and size of the Property
were not the result of actions by the Applicants. The nearest structures on the neighboring
properties are offset and set back sufficiently to allow for light, air, and open space between
each of the homes.
c. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The variance requested will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The new garage
addition is conforming, in setback, height etc.. The deck location within the average lakeshore
setback is consistent with the small setback nature of the neighborhood. A significant portion of
the deck (primarily on the West side) is at or near grade, and lakeshore setback of the deck
when built will be well outside of the minimum lakeshore setback significantly larger than
several nearby properties. The deck will have no appreciable impact on neighboring property
views.
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. 2, 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 the use for a residence is an allowed use in the LR-1B District.
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.”
The topography, lot area, lot width, irregular average lakeshore setbacks, and the garage’s current
detached location are special conditions unique to the Property. Removing the garage abutting the
street will relieve congestion and parking pressure, and improve viewscapes, along the street
9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is
located.”
The topography, which drops off as you move toward the lake, the detached garage and congestion
along the Right of Way, the ‘walk up’ basement and related topography, the narrow lot width and
location of existing home being remodeled, the widely varying lakeshore setbacks of the homes nearby,
as well as the location of the garage on the lot make the Property unique.
10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.”
Hardcover and other considerations prevent creating a conforming connection to the existing garage on
the Property. The defined hardcover, deck and setback variances for the garage demolition and
rebuilding attached to remodeled house are necessary to preserve the rights of the applicants.
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.”
Granting the requested variances for the home will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or
morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code.
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.”
The lot width, location of the existing garage, varied lakeshore setbacks of homes nearby, as well as site
topography, and congestion along the narrow right of way, create practical difficulties affecting the
Property. The setback and other variances for the home are necessary and will not merely serve as a
convenience to the Applicants.
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: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: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: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
38 20-117-23 23 0007
MICHAEL G BASKFIELD
SHARON J BASKFIELD
2755 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0009
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 23 0010
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 23 0011
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 23 0012
ANDREW WATSON
GABRIELLE WATSON
2776 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0016
JOY A GRUNDEEN
2797 CASCO PT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0017
MICHAEL MCANALLY
STEFANIE MCANALLY
2795 CASCO PT RD
ORONO MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0018
REED L LARSON
2773 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0019
RICHARD A PUTNAM
2765 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0017
KENNETH R SADDLER
SHERALYN K SADDLER
2755 ETHEL AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0018
DONNA L LILE
2765 ETHEL AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0019
JUSTIN J HOLMERS
MICHELLE N HOFFMAN
3800 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0009
ALISA A MILLER
3753 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0010
PAUL J FUHRMAN
COLLEEN FUHRMAN
3759 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0011
DEAN V GREIMANN
3779 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0014
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 31 0015
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 31 0016
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 31 0056
R E WOLFE
2871 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0057
ROSEMARY IVERSEN
2835 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0058
D R WELTY & M M JIN
3721 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0066
DEAN V GREIMANN
3779 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0067
DAVID B ADAMS
2868 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0071
MARTI LYNN
STEVEN ROBERT GOUDY
3750 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0006
RYAN LONGHENRY
KRISTIN LONGHENRY
2824 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0007
SPRAY ISLAND LLC
2829 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0008
DAVID J YORKS
2825 CASCO POINT ROAD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0009
MARGARET L MARTIN
2821 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0010
WESLEY C & BRENDA BYRNE
2817 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0011
LISA THOSTENSON
MARK THOSTENSON
2815 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0012
CHARLES PRICE
4703 FAIRHILLS RD E
MINNETONKA MN 55345
38 20-117-23 32 0013
THERESA A NORSTED
2811 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0014
JOHN M BAILEY
PATRICIA L BAILEY
2807 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0015
CAROLE L FROMMELT
ROGER H FROMMELT
2805 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0016
SHANE M WELTZIN
ELIZABETH H HABERMAN
2800 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0017
TAMMY L WOODIS
MARC BRICKMAN
2818 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0018
COLBY G HAWLEY
JENNA M HAWLEY
2794 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0019
GREGORY D/BETH S CZERWINSKI
2801 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0020
TODD J THEILMANN
2799 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 32 0021
BRIAN SWANSON
SAMANTHA ERIN SIMON
3799 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map
2815 Casco Point Rd.
0 100 20050 Feet
Date: 6/22/2022
Buffer Size:500Map Comments:
This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to
completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any
kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying
purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury
or loss resulting from this data.
For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office
300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us