AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 12 Date: October 9, 2017 Item Description: #17-3968, Sharratt Design & Co. o/b/o Frederick & Patricia Johnson, 1565 Orchard Beach Place (PID 07-117-23-43-0026) Variance Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department Report 1. Purpose. This application is regarding variances to develop a vacant nonconforming property. 2. MN 15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on August 23, 2017; it was considered as complete on September 6 th. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on November 5, 2017. 3. Background. The applicant is requesting variances in order to develop the property. The request includes rear yard setback, average lakeshore setback, lot area and lot width variances in order to develop the property. After receiving feedback from the Planning Commission, the applicant revised their proposed plan to eliminate the structural and hardcover encroachments into the 75-foot lake setback. Their current revised plan reflects the following variances: Rear yard setback variance to allow the new home between 5.6 feet and 11.4 feet from the rear lot line where a 30 foot setback is required; Lot area and lot width variances permitting development of a property with substandard size and width; and An average lakeshore setback variance. 4. Municode.com Error. Please note, the staff memo to the Planning Commission refers to incorrect information listed in Municode regarding LR-1B rear yard setback requirements. The applicant continues to request a rear yard setback variance to permit a revised, reduced setback (between 5.5 11.3 feet). The Code requires a 30 foot setback on the rear although Municode, the city s online publisher of the code, incorrectly lists a 20 foot rear setback requirement. This typographic error in Municode is being addressed. 5. Planning Commission Comment. On September 18 th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application. Following the public hearing and much discussion, the Commission voted 5 to 0 on a motion to recommend denial of the application. Please refer to the attached draft Planning Commission meeting minutes for more detail on the public comments and discussion. 6. Public Comment. Additional comments from the public were received regarding this application and are attached as Exhibit G. 7. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council consider approval of the lot width, lot area, and average lakeshore setback variances. Lot width and lot area variances are frequently given, and average lakeshore setbacks are often given when the lot is unbuildable, typically when the lot is on a point or peninsula. The Council should also consider the applicant s requested rear setback variance to allow a 5.6 foot setback, however staff recommends a 10-foot rear setback be maintained. Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting approval or denial of the variances for adoption at the October 23 rd meeting. Exhibits Exhibit A. Revised Survey and Site Plan Exhibit B. Revised House Plans Exhibit C. Revised Narrative by Applicant Exhibit D. Revised Hardcover Worksheet Exhibit E. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit F. PC Staff Report Exhibit G. Additional public comment References PC Exhibits 09/18/17 Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Exhibit G. Exhibit H. Exhibit I. Application Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Proposed Survey & Site Plan Proposed Plans and Elevations Submitted Hardcover Calculations Public Comments Aerial Photos Property Owners List Plat Map Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
Council Exhibit A #17-3968
sharra des c om pa ny 464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.767.5859 info@sharrattdesign.com ORCHAR D BEAC H PLAC E ISSUE DATE F O R CHECK SET CLIENT REVIEW MEETING SET VARIANCE APP. ESTIMATE SET REVISION PERMIT SET BID SET ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET CHANGE ORDER + ORCHAR D BEAC H PLAC E I S S U E D L A K E M I N N E T O N K A C O N S T R U C T I O N DETAILS JOHNSON SPEC HOME 1565 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE ORONO, MN 55364 SHEET + + + + + + + ++ ++ ++ + + A1 NUMBER LEGAL NOTICE: THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN AND COMPANY, LLC. C C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 17 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
d c o s h a r r a m es p a n y 464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.767.5859 info@sharrattdesign.com O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E I S S U E D F O R CHECK SET CLIENT REVIEW MEETING SET ISSUE DATE VARIANCE APP. ESTIMATE SET REVISION PERMIT SET BID SET ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET CHANGE ORDER L A K E M I N N E T O N K A L A K E M I N N E T O N K A JOHNSON C O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L S SPEC HOME 1 5 6 5 O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E ORONO, MN 55364 S H E E T A1 NUMBER LEGAL NOTICE: THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN AND COMPANY, LLC. C C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 17 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
d c o s h a r r a m es p a n y 464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.767.5859 info@sharrattdesign.com O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E I S S U E D F O R CHECK SET CLIENT REVIEW MEETING SET ISSUE DATE VARIANCE APP. ESTIMATE SET REVISION PERMIT SET BID SET ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET CHANGE ORDER L A K E M I N N E T O N K A L A K E M I N N E T O N K A JOHNSON C O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L S SPEC HOME 1 5 6 5 O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E ORONO, MN 55364 S H E E T A1 NUMBER LEGAL NOTICE: THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN AND COMPANY, LLC. C C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 17 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
1 6 d c o s h a r r a m es p a n y 464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.767.5859 info@sharrattdesign.com I S S U E D F O R CHECK SET CLIENT REVIEW MEETING SET ISSUE DATE VARIANCE APP. ESTIMATE SET REVISION PERMIT SET BID SET ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET CHANGE ORDER 1 7 JOHNSON C O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L S SPEC HOME 1 5 6 5 O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E O R O N O, M N 5 5 3 6 4 S H E E T A2 NUMBER LEGAL NOTICE: THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN AND COMPANY, LLC. C C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 17 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
1 6 d c o s h a r r a m es p a n y 464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.767.5859 info@sharrattdesign.com I S S U E D F O R CHECK SET CLIENT REVIEW MEETING SET ISSUE DATE VARIANCE APP. ESTIMATE SET REVISION PERMIT SET BID SET ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET CHANGE ORDER 1 7 JOHNSON C O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L S SPEC HOME 1 5 6 5 O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E O R O N O, M N 5 5 3 6 4 S H E E T A3 NUMBER LEGAL NOTICE: THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN AND COMPANY, LLC. C C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 17 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
1 6 2 6 4 6 d c o es a n y m p 464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.767.5859 info@sharrattdesign.com s h a r r a 3 A6 I S S U E D F O R 3 A7 ISSUE DATE CHECK SET CLIENT REVIEW MEETING SET VARIANCE APP. ESTIMATE SET REVISION PERMIT SET BID SET ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET CHANGE ORDER 1 7 JOHNSON C O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L S SPEC HOME 1 5 6 5 O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E O R O N O, M N 5 5 3 6 4 S H E E T A4 NUMBER LEGAL NOTICE: THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN AND COMPANY, LLC. C C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 17 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
d c o s h a r r a m es p a n y 464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.767.5859 info@sharrattdesign.com I S S U E D F O R ISSUE DATE CHECK SET CLIENT REVIEW MEETING SET VARIANCE APP. ESTIMATE SET REVISION PERMIT SET BID SET ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET CHANGE ORDER JOHNSON C O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L S SPEC HOME 1 5 6 5 O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E O R O N O, M N 5 5 3 6 4 S H E E T A5 NUMBER LEGAL NOTICE: THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN AND COMPANY, LLC. C C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 17 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
d c o s h a r r a m es p a n y 464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.767.5859 info@sharrattdesign.com I S S U E D F O R ISSUE DATE CHECK SET CLIENT REVIEW MEETING SET VARIANCE APP. ESTIMATE SET REVISION PERMIT SET BID SET ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET CHANGE ORDER JOHNSON C O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L S SPEC HOME 1 5 6 5 O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E O R O N O, M N 5 5 3 6 4 S H E E T A6 NUMBER LEGAL NOTICE: THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN AND COMPANY, LLC. C C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 17 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
d c o s h a r r a m es p a n y 464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.767.5859 info@sharrattdesign.com I S S U E D F O R ISSUE DATE CHECK SET CLIENT REVIEW MEETING SET VARIANCE APP. ESTIMATE SET REVISION PERMIT SET BID SET ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET CHANGE ORDER JOHNSON C O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L S SPEC HOME 1 5 6 5 O R C H A R D B E A C H P L A C E O R O N O, M N 5 5 3 6 4 S H E E T A7 NUMBER LEGAL NOTICE: THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN AND COMPANY, LLC. C C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 17 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. 4. #17-3968 SHARRATT DESIGN COMPANY ON BEHALF OF FRED AND PATRICIA JOHNSON, 1565 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE (PID 07-117-23-43-0026), VARIANCES, 7:00 P.M. 8:07 P.M. Mike Sharratt, Sharratt Design Company, was present. Curtis noted this property has been the subject of similar variance requests in the past in order to develop the property and all of those have been denied. Over the years the City has adopted several ordinances which provide relief to small lots with respect to setbacks and structure footprint limits. Some of the new rules, when applied to the subject property, provide the intended relief, such as the side street setback and overall hardcover. However, the applicant is requesting the following variances in order to develop the property: 1. A rear setback of 10 feet where 20 feet is required; 2. A 75-foot setback; 3. A 75-foot hardcover variances for portions of the proposed home and hardcover improvements; 4. An average lakeshore setback; and 5. Lot area and lot width variances are necessary at a minimum in order to deveop the property. The average lakeshore setback line is determined by the location of the home at 1555 Orchard Beach Place. That home is situated approximately 125 feet from the lake. To conform, the proposed home on the subject property would need to be set back at least 125 feet. The subject project is only 110 to 120 feet deep and portions of the proposed home and accessory hardcover are within 75 feet of the OHWL. The proposed access stair near the lake is permitted under city code. However, the patio attached to the home, portions of the home, and portions of the front entry stoop are not specifically permitted. The hardcover associated with those structures totals approximately 246 square feet or 2.5 percent of the proposed hardcover.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. A practical difficulties analysis has been included within Staff report. Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the size, shape, and location of the property exist which justify the lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback variances allowing development. The applicant has requested a rear yard setback variance, a 75-foot setback variance, and hardcover variances within 75 feet for the new home. The lake setback reflects as much as a 3-foot encroachment of the corner of the home or the entry stoop which could possibly be redesigned. These encroachments are not supported by practical difficulties. Hardcover within the 75-foot setback will offset with two existing to be removed concrete features. It is not supported by substantiated practical difficulties. Comments have been received and were included in the Planning Commission packet. There may be additional comments presented this evening. Staff recommends approval of the lot width, lot area, and average lakeshore setbacks as requested. Staff further recommends the Planning Commission review the practical difficulties provided by the applicant and determine if they support the additional variances for lake setback and 75-foot hardcover. If the Planning Commission finds the additional variances are supported by practical difficulties, approval may be appropriate. Leskinen asked if this lot was considered unbuildable at one time. Curtis indicated variances in the past have been denied. Leskinen asked if the lot has always been taxed as a buildable lot. Curtis stated she is not sure whether the tax situation has changed with the lot. Mike Sharratt, Sharratt Design, stated he realizes the applicant has been before the City a number of times in an attempt to make use of the property but that it is a lot of record and there is a sewer stub that was installed in 1972. The property was assessed for that sewer stub in 1970. There was a house on the property at one time, which burnt down and the garage was torn down after that, although some of the foundation does still exist.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. Sharratt noted almost nothing about the lot is conforming other than it is a lot of record. Sharratt indicated they are attempting to design a minimal sized house with a small two-car garage. The house on the bottom floor has an entry, living space, dining space, and a small kitchen. The second floor has a master suite on one side and two bedrooms on the other side. Sharratt indicated they also designed the house with a flat roof in an attempt to be sensitive to the neighbors. The neighboring house is 10 to 15 feet higher than the proposed house, so their visibility will be maintained. Sharratt stated it is likely that neighboring house will be a teardown at some point in the future. Sharratt stated they are attempting to present something that is reasonable and is compact. Leskinen asked what the square footage will be of the house. Curtis stated the footprint hardcover is 1,408 square feet and the stoop is 77 square feet. Thiesse asked if there is a way to make it work the way Staff has recommended. Sharratt stated there is always a way that things can be redesigned but that they are proposing an entryway so there will be a closet since there will not be a mud room. Because the home will be slab on grade, all the mechanical has to be located on the first or second floors. The living space is also compact. Sharratt indicated they could perhaps take a look at the front entry and reduce the size of the stoop. Currently it is approximately three feet over at the corner of the house and four feet at the stoop. Thiesse asked if rotating the house would cause problems with the rear setback. Sharratt indicated it would. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Les Delton, 1535 Orchard Beach Place, stated his family has lived in this area since 1963 and that he only received the notice on Friday so he has not had a lot of time to review the proposal. Delton stated as it relates to the taxes, his understanding is that it has always been taxed as a non-buildable lot. In regards to
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. the sewer stub, there is typically a sewer stub put in whether it is a buildable lot or not and that does not mean it is a buildable lot. Delton stated they have quite a few objections to the proposal. Delton noted this has been before the Council a number of times and it has been denied every time. The lot is very small and consists of only.22 acres. All the surrounding lots are over an acre. Delton commented the lot does not fit the area. Delton stated another problem is Orchard Beach Place used to be considered a fire lane and that he is not sure if it is still considered a fire lane. As a result, there really is no place to park. If they have a house on this lot and they have overnight guests, they will need to park out in the street if there are more than two cars. There is also a sewer lift station as well in the area. Delton stated he is concerned about on-street parking and that years ago people could not park on Orchard Beach Place. Delton noted City ordinance requires an acre to build and that this lot is less than a quarter acre. In addition, the lot tends to be very wet since a lot of runoff goes into that lot currently, and there is standing water on the lot after it rains. Delton noted the City should have received letters from two of the neighbors that the Planning Commission can review. In addition, setback will be a problem for two of the adjoining properties. Delton stated currently all of the houses are set back and then there will be this house sitting right next to the lake. Delton stated he can remember when the original people purchased it and they were told it was an unbuildable lot. The new property owner bought it a couple of years ago knowing it was an unbuildable lot. Delton stated he understands the City can change ordinances to make lots more buildable, but if you look at the neighborhood, the house does not fit. Nancy Delton, 1535 Orchard Beach Place, stated in her view the lot is simply too small to build on and that she is concerned about the runoff into the lake if a house is built on this lot. Delton stated the proposal goes against all the City s criteria and requires variances to allow building on such a small lot. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. Lemke stated in his view the lot is not buildable and that the imposition on the neighbors is too great. Lemke noted the City has looked at this property time and time again and has always come to the conclusion that it is not a buildable lot. Thiesse asked how the City can stop someone from approaching the City of Orono time after time requesting variances that keep getting denied or whether they just keep deflecting it. Barnhart stated the City can keep deflecting it unless there is a change in designation or ownership since a property owner is allowed to apply for a variance from the standards in the ordinance. Leskinen stated she does not feel it is a buildable lot since too many variances are required and there is no justification for it. Leskinen stated the lot is small and wet and that she would not be in favor of granting the 75-foot setback and the average lakeshore setback variances. Schoenzeit asked if anything has changed in the City s code or the state s interpretation of the law between the last time variances were denied on this property and now. Barnhart stated the City has adjusted a number of ordinances that have opened up more of a building envelope for this lot. The one thing that has not changed is the average lakeshore setback, which is unavoidable given its location. Schoenzeit noted it can meet the 75-foot line but not the average lakeshore setback. Thiesse noted they would never be able to meet the average lakeshore setback. Schwingler commented he struggles on this application since it would change the character of the neighborhood. Schwingler stated it is a very challenging piece of property and that it would be nice to have it cleared off and a livable home there but that he is having a hard time envisioning the parking and the lift station. Schoenzeit stated given its location, a house on this lot would be out of character with the neighborhood, which is one of the standards of the variance.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. Curtis noted they are not asking to create a lot that is out of character but asking to develop the lot with a reasonable use. Thiesse stated a house that best fits the lot does not fit the neighborhood. Leskinen stated another part of the governing regulation is the effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Leskinen stated with the lift station at the bottom, it is a very challenging road, and a house could create issues with parking, which is something that should be considered. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission is making a recommendation and not the decision but that he does not see anything compelling enough to recommend approval. Lemke stated in his view the architect did a great job designing the house but the property is not suitable for any structure. Lemke moved to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3968, Sharratt Design Company on behalf of Fred and Patricia Johnson, 1565 Orchard Beach Place and not grant any variances. Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission needs to specify reasons for denial. Curtis stated it would be helpful if the Planning Commission would provide findings for denial at least on the variances that Staff recommended approval on. Schoenzeit stated granting the variances would make a house out of character with the neighborhood. Thiesse stated he does not see a practical difficulty for encroaching into the 75-foot setback. Curtis stated she is looking for reasons for denial on the variances recommended by Staff. Leskinen stated they are denying the application based on the fact that a house on this lot would be out of the character with the neighborhood and that they do not see a practical difficulty for the lake setback.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. Leskinen stated building on this lot would affect the health, safety and welfare of the community because the lot is so small, access and parking are difficult since there is a lift station at the end of the road, and the house would be out of character with the neighborhood. Thiesse noted the City typically grants lot area and lot width variances but not a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated she recommended approval of the average lakeshore setback and that she is looking for findings for not granting the average lakeshore setback. Schoenzeit asked if the applicant could construct the house if he put it behind the 75-foot line. Curtis noted it requires an average lakeshore setback variance. Schoenzeit stated the applicant could say the practical difficulty is that he cannot meet the average lakeshore setback. Schoenzeit stated the applicant could push the house back a little to stay behind the 75-foot line. Curtis noted the applicants are asking for a 10-foot rear setback variance rather than a 20-foot setback and that Staff is looking for direction on whether that would be acceptable. Curtis noted the average lakeshore setback line makes the lot unbuildable without a variance. If the Planning Commission is not supportive of granting the average lakeshore setback variance, Staff is asking for findings supporting the denial. Schoenzeit noted the City now allows 2,000 square feet rather than 1,500 square feet. Schoenzeit stated if the owner puts the house behind the 75-foot line and does not own the 125-foot line, it would be a more compelling discussion. Schoenzeit stated he is against going in front of the 75-foot setback. Curtis asked if the Planning Commission is in favor of variances to the rear setback and the average lakeshore setback.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated in his view the up to 2,000 square feet provides an argument for the rear setback since the applicant is only proposing 1,400 square feet. Thiesse stated simply because the code allows something does not mean someone can do it. Lemke asked if the size of the lot is acceptable. Schoenzeit noted the size of the lot is not adequate but that it is a practical difficulty. Lemke noted it is in a one-acre zone. Schoenzeit noted there are lots in the one-acre zone that are one-third of an acre all over the City. Schoenzeit stated the applicant may rather bring something a little more compliant back, but that given the proposed 1,400 square foot footprint, there has to be some allowance because the building does not fit given the size of the lot. Schoenzeit stated it sounds like, given some of the City s code changes and a slightly altered design, with the right set of arguments, the house could be made to fit. Schoenzeit commented enough things have changed in the code since the last time to make the best argument for development of this lot. Schoenzeit stated the fact that it has not been paying taxes on a buildable lot does not matter. Schoenzeit noted if the applicants were tearing a house down, it would be allowed. Schoenzeit stated in his view the applicant needs to work on his variance logic but that there is an argument to be made. Lemke commented he does not see any compelling argument for the average lakeshore setback. Thiesse noted it cannot be met, which is the argument. Schoenzeit stated in his view the average lakeshore setback is a hardship. Schoenzeit stated the Applicant could probably table his application and fix the 75-foot setback and bring it back.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. Curtis stated if the only variance the Planning Commission is not in favor of is the 75-foor setback, they could direct the applicant to make those changes before appearing before the City Council. If the Planning Commission is not in favor of the rear setback variance, Staff requests more direction for the applicant. Schoenzeit stated if he caps the structure at 1,400 square feet and is not asking for the 75-foot setback variance, that gives the applicant some leeway. Schoenzeit stated in his view the front stoop should be retracted accordingly. Schoenzeit stated an argument could be made that the sewer stub does not count, even though it usually does, and the argument against it are that the taxes are wrong. Lemke noted taxes are not the Planning Commission s decision. Thiesse commented they should assume it is a buildable lot. Thiesse asked if the back yard is away from the lake. Curtis indicated it is the north lot line. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission could deny it with the recommendation that the applicant make some changes to their plan. Curtis stated she would like findings for the position taken contrary to Staff s recommendation. Schoenzeit suggested the Planning Commission consider granting the rear yard setback but not the 75-foot setback variance. Schoenzeit stated he would deny the application because of the 75-foot setback variance request and that the other variances have an implied recommendation of being granted. Schoenzeit stated the hardship for the average lakeshore setback is because he is not able to meet it. Lemke stated he sees the hardship on the neighbors being harder than the average lakeshore setback since it will detract from the neighbors homes, which is why there is an average lakeshore setback. Leskinen noted there is a motion on the table with no second.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. Lemke stated the motion to deny is based on the 75-foot setback and the average lakeshore setback. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission can deny a variance if there is no way they can meet it. Curtis stated the Planning Commission can deny it unless the practical difficulties and hardships support the granting of it. Thiesse stated if the recommendation is based on practical difficulty, it is very hard to recommend against it. Barnhart noted there was a comment made earlier that a house that fits this lot does not fit the neighborhood, which supports denial of the average lakeshore setback variance and the 75-foot setback variance. Barnhart stated lot area and lot width variances could also be reasons for denial and that it is up to the City Council to make the final decision. Other comments included too many variances and not enough justification for those. Leskinen stated the house does not fit into this area. Schoenzeit stated the 2,000 square footprint allowance does not have a must fit in the neighborhood clause to be invoked. Thiesse noted Item No. 3 states the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Schoenzeit stated this house alters the neighborhood but the question is whether the 1,500/2,000 square foot structural coverage trumps other variances. Curtis stated the 2,000 square feet is the City s allowance for structural coverage and oftentimes a lot under 10,000 square feet will need more than a lot area and width variance. The City used to make an assumption that a reasonable house was 1,500 square feet and that has been increased to 2,000 square feet, which is conceivably within setbacks and hardcover. If the lot is further challenging, the Planning Commission should take a look at those other factors.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. Schoenzeit commented often a little house is still within the character of the neighborhood. Schoenzeit stated if a 10,000 square foot lot also needs to be in character, this house would not meet that. Schoenzeit stated the question is whether a lot of record this small guarantees them the right to build. Thiesse stated they are allowed up to 2,000 square feet for a lot less than 10,000 square feet. Schoenzeit noted they do not meet the 75-foot setback, which is a reason for denial. Sharratt asked if there is value in tabling the application and moving the house, which would eliminate the 75-foot setback variance. Thiesse stated in his mind, if the Planning Commission recommends denial and they bring it before the City Council, they would make that decision. Thiesse stated it appears the 75-foot setback variance will be denied, and since they cannot meet the average lakeshore setback, in his view that could be considered a hardship. Schoenzeit asked which is higher, out of character or cannot happen. Thiesse stated the house that fits on this lot does not fit the neighborhood. Thiesse noted he voted not to have a house on this property previously and that he does not feel enough has changed since the last time. Leskinen concurred with Commissioner Thiesse. Thiesse stated in regards to the criteria, the applicants are proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner but the granting of the variances will alter the locality. Thiesse stated the conditions do not apply to other land in the immediate neighborhood and that it should be a denial because it will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission needs to list the specific reasons for denial of the three variances Staff recommends approval. Leskinen asked whether the fact the house would alter the essential character of the neighborhood is sufficient.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. Curtis stated it is a finding and she can take that and bring it to the Council. Curtis stated she does not know how subjective that is. Thiesse stated it is fairly obvious from the aerial. Leskinen asked if there used to be a beach in the area. Les Delton stated his family has lived there since 1963 and that one of the neighbors has been there since 1948. Delton stated according to his understanding, there used to be an Orono city beach there and this lot was Orono property at one time. Delton stated he does not know when it passed into private hands but that it was a city beach a number of years ago. Leskinen stated that is a nonissue since it has been purchased by a private party. Schoenzeit stated when you draw the line of where all the other homes are, this house is clearly on the other side of the line and that would go to the character of the neighborhood. Schoenzeit stated the other homes are not on top of the lake in this neighborhood. Thiesse asked if the City has ever seen a lot this small in an area that has larger lots. Schoenzeit stated there are other places where there are third-acre lots in the same area as one-acre lots. Thiesse noted this lot is less than a third of an acre. Schoenzeit stated that is also out of character. Thiesse stated it appears the lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback would be denied due to character and that the 75-foot setback can be met so there is no reason to grant the variance. Lemke stated the house and the lot are out of character. Schoenzeit commented the lot is what it is.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 18, 2017 6:30 o clock p.m. Curtis requested direction on the rear setback. Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the area and noted the lake is located on the front side of this lot. Curtis noted the setback is a function of the width and that 140 feet is the width requirement. Thiesse stated he would recommend a 10-foot rear setback and that the applicant is requesting 10 feet. Thiesse asked whether it would be less than 10 feet if the house is rotated. Curtis indicated that is correct. Lemke moved, Leskinen seconded, Application No. 17-3968, Sharratt Design Company on behalf of Fred and Patricia Johnson, 1565 Orchard Beach Place. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 08/23/17 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/06/17 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11/05/17 To: From: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 18 September 2017 Subject: #17-3968, Sharratt Design & CO, o/b/o Frederick & Patricia Johnson, PID 07-117-23-43-0026 / 1565 Orchard Beach Place Public Hearing: Lot Width, Lot Area, Rear Setback, Lake Setback, and Average Lakeshore Setback Variances Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a number of variances in order to develop the vacant property. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends partial approval. For full recommendation see page 6. Background This property has been the subject of similar variance requests to develop the property in the past, all of which were denied. Over the years the City has adopted several ordinances which provide relief to small lots with respect to setbacks and structure footprint limits. Some of the new rules when applied to the subject property provide the intended relief such as the side street setback and overall hardcover. However the applicant is requesting rear setback, 75-foot setback and 75-foot setback hardcover variances. Additionally, average lakeshore setback, lot area and lot width variances are still necessary, at a minimum, in order to develop the property. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 & 78-1279 - Setbacks: The subject lot is 83 feet wide. The code was recently amended to provide for reduced setbacks in some situations. Within the LR-1B zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are nonconforming as to their width shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. For the subject lot the applied side yard setback shall be 8.3 feet. Additionally, the rear yard setback was reduced from 30-feet, and the side street setback was reduced from 35-feet. The revised setback is 20-feet for both.
FILE #17-3968 18 Sept 2017 Page 2 of 6 LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Rear 20 NA 10 Side Street 20 NA 20 West Side 8.3 NA 8.3 Lakeshore 75 NA 71 The average lakeshore setback requirement for the subject property is defined by the measurement of the lake setback of the principal Average Lakeshore residence structure on the only adjacent residential lot (1555 Orchard Beach Place) which is approximately 125 from the OHWL. The entire property is lakeward of the defined average lakeshore setback line. Section78-330 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140 Actual 9,645 s.f. (0.22 acre) 83 @ 75 / 83 @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 9,645 s.f. (0.22 acre) Allowed: 2,000 s.f.* Proposed: 1,408 s.f. (14.5%) *78-1403(a)(2) On lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: The Site Plan submitted contains hardcover calculations. Planning Commission should reference Exhibit E for the detailed hardcover calculations. Staff would note that the hardcover proposed within the 75-foot setback is not eligible for pervious paver credit, and should be verified prior to placement on the City Council s agenda for review as the home has moved slightly during the review of the application. Stormwater Overlay District Tier Tier 1 Total Area in Zone 9,645 s.f. Allowed Hardcover 2,411 s.f. (25 %) Existing Hardcover 397s.f. (4.1%) 0 w/in 75 Proposed Hardcover 2,062 s.f. (21.4%) 274 s.f. w/in 75 Applicable Regulations: Lot Area & Lot Width Variances (Section 78-330) Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped without variances if specific standards are met; such as: 1. All setback requirements can be met. 2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and
FILE #17-3968 18 Sept 2017 Page 3 of 6 3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. The applicant s proposed need for setback and 75-hardcover variances results in the property s inability to conform to #1 and #4 above. Therefore, lot area and width variances are also required in order to redevelop the property. Rear Setback Variance (Section 78-330) Earlier this year, the City Council adopted ordinances reducing the rear and side yard setbacks for the LR-1B district and the side yard setbacks for narrow lots. The new code requires a 20 foot rear setback, where previously a 35-foot setback was required. Additionally, the side yard setback for narrow lots was permitted to be reduced to 10% of the lot s width, however not less than 7.5 feet. The applicant s lot is 83 feet wide resulting in an allowed side setback of 8.3 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit a 10 foot rear setback. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) Because the property has only one abutting lakeshore neighbor, 1555 Orchard Beach Place, the average lakeshore setback line is approximately 125 feet from the lake. To conform, the proposed home on 1565 would need to be set back at least 125 feet from the OHWL. The average lakeshore cannot be met because the subject property is only 110 120 feet deep. Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) & 75-foot Setback Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1680) Portions of the proposed home and accessory hardcover are within 75-feet of the OHWL. The proposed access stair near the lake is permitted under City Code Section 78-1680; however the patio attached to the home, portions of the home, and portions of the entry stoop are not permitted. The hardcover associated with the non-permitted features within the 75-foot setback totals approximately 246 square feet, or 2.5% of the site s 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. 2, 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 462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance.
FILE #17-3968 18 Sept 2017 Page 4 of 6 a. The lot width and lot area variances are consistent with the general intent of the Ordinance. The proposed home is designed to be lower than the maximum defined height of 30 feet. b. The requested average lakeshore setback variance is in harmony with the Ordinance as the only adjacent neighbor sits at a higher elevation and the proposed height of the home is designed to minimize the impact on the lake views over the property currently enjoyed by the neighbor at 1555. c. The lake setback variance requested for the home is in part due to the shape and size of the property. The 75-foot setback area is a highly protected zone and there are modifications in the house design which could accommodate the 75-foot setback requirement. A variance to encroach into the 75-foot setback would not be in harmony with the ordinance, nor would the associated hardcover variance within the 75-foot setback. d. The rear setback variance is also influenced on the shape and buildable area of the property. The effort to move the house away from the lake results in the rear encroachment variance, which may be reasonable considering the limited buildable area and the desire to protect the lake. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for construction of a single family residence in a residential zone are 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 request to permit construction of the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the rear yard setback and lakeward of the average lakeshore setback, appears to be somewhat reasonable as the property s reduced size and angle of the lot lines with respect to the lakeshore and adjacent properties creates difficulties. The encroachments proposed within the lake yard in addition to the hardcover may not be reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the uniquely small size, location with respect to adjacent lots, and required setbacks prevent a reasonably shaped residential footprint and in the case of the Average Lake Setback, development of any residential structure; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a home designed to fit the character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information. 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. 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 Lakeshore Residential District.
FILE #17-3968 18 Sept 2017 Page 5 of 6 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 property s substandard size is unique to the majority of lots in this immediate neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The subject property is 0.22 acre in area and is surrounded by properties with more than double the subject property s acreage. The conditions do not apply to other land in the immediate neighborhood and district. Granting the variance proposed to encroach into the lake yard would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting lot area, lot width, rear yard and average lakeshore setback variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant. The lake setback, and 75-foot hardcover variances are not critical to the preservation of this same property right. 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 lot area, lot width, rear yard and average lakeshore setback variances in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. However, the lake setback, and 75-foot hardcover variances may impair safety and comfort as protected by the 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 variances for lot width, lot area, and average lakeshore setback are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. 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. Septic System Status The property would be served by City sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds inherent to the size, shape, and location of the property practical difficulties exist which justify the lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback allowing development. The City adopted ordinances over the past year to address inadequacies in the small, and/or narrow existing properties, and disproportionate distribution of lot area within the 75-foot setback for hardcover on Tier 1 lots. The applicant has requested a lake setback variance for the new home. The lake setback reflects as much as a 3 foot encroachment of the corner of the home/entry stoop which could be redesigned.. These encroachments are not supported by practical difficulties. The hardcover within the 75-foot setback, while offset with two existing to-be-removed concrete features is not supported by substantiated practical difficulties.
FILE #17-3968 18 Sept 2017 Page 6 of 6 Engineer Comments The City s engineer has conducted a preliminary review of the proposed plans. A comprehensive review will be conducted at the time of the building permit review. Public Comments Comments have been received and are attached as Exhibit F. 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 Planning staff recommends approval of the lot width, lot area, and average lakeshore setbacks as requested. Staff further recommends the planning commission review the practical difficulties provided by the applicant and determine if they support the additional variances for lake setback, and 75-foot hardcover. If the planning commission finds the additional variances are supported by practical difficulties approval may be appropriate. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Exhibit G. Exhibit H. Exhibit I. Application Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Proposed Survey & Site Plan Proposed Plans and Elevations Submitted Hardcover Calculations Public Comments Aerial Photos Property Owners List Plat Map
September 29, 2017 Orono City Council Members, This is at least the fifth letter I have sent to the Orono City Council and Orono Planning Commission in the past three years. Each letter has opposed any and every variance request for 1565 Orchard Beach Place. I have also been at every meeting with regard to this property. During the past three years my conviction has only grown that building on 1565 is the wrong approach for Orono, and it is wrong for the character and integrity of our neighborhood. You can read my previous letters to see the depth of my convictions, but here are a few points I d like to mention again: 1. The wisdom of at least four previous Orono councils, dating back to the 1960s, deemed this lot unbuildable due to its extremely small size, poor drainage, the fact that it cannot come close to meeting either the average lakeshore setback or the required width of shoreline, as well as many other factors. Plus, the lot has been taxed at an unbuildable rate for decades. 2. The majority of the lot puddles often. The proposed changes in adding fill will only make matters worse for our local environment. The lot currently serves as a natural drainage filter for many acres of salt, sand, brine, chemicals and fertilizer. Without that natural drainage in place, all of that will drain right into West Arm Bay, damaging fish and wildlife and the water. I am also very concerned about the proposed removal of so many large and small trees so close to the lake, as these trees do a good job of soaking up water and pollutants. 3. That the lot is unbuildable was not news to the current owner. Any buyer, as well as his or her Realtor, should have known the history of this property, especially a buyer who plans to build on spec. In making a property purchase, or any other large purchase, it is basic due diligence to learn about what you are buying. There is a reason for the old adage: Buyer Beware. 4. I am also concerned that by allowing a building on this very small lakeshore lot, it will set precedent. In the future, other builders will use this example to try to build homes close to the lake, and close together. I love that there is a one acre minimum to build in this area and it is one of the reasons I live where I do. But, if I ever sell my home, which is on one acre, will someone buy it and put up four, or even five, homes? The wrong decision here could open the door to harsh realities that we do not want. 5. Another concern is safety. Orchard Beach Place is a small, narrow road with three homes and a lift station at the end near the shoreline. Orono needs regular access to the lift station and I am concerned about where guests of the proposed home will park. Not on Orchard Beach Place, I hope.
6. Any home at 1565 would block some of the view of the lake from our lot, and it is impossible for any building on 1565 to meet the average lakeshore setback, which is there to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. I grew up in the house I now live in at 1535 Orchard Beach Place, and I love Orono for the consistent, traditional approach to preserving our lakeshore environment, low density, and good quality of life. The Orono Planning Commission and Council did not grant similar variances on this same lot in 2013, or in 2015 (or twice in the sixties and twice in the seventies). I am glad the council is taking a close look, as we have visited this matter too many times in recent years. I ask the council to deny every aspect of this request and put the matter to bed for once and for all. Sincerely, Les Delton 1535 Orchard Beach Place Orono, MN 55364 ldelton@citlink.net
LISA WYSOCKY 1555 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE ORONO, MINNESOTA 55364 615.305.0945 LISAWYSOCKY@COMCAST.NET September 13, 2017 To Members of the Orono Planning Commission, I am very sorry I cannot be there this evening, as this is an important issue. However, the short notice did not give me enough time to rearrange my schedule. The city s file on this property contains several other letters from me that state my concerns regarding a building on the tiny, flood-prone lot located at 1565 Orchard Beach Place, but I would like to re-state some of my thoughts. Thank you for reading them. 1. The lot cannot meet the average lakeshore setback, as it is only 100 feet deep. Most homes on both sides, including mine on the adjoining lot at 1555 Orchard Beach Place, are set back about 125 feet. Orono Zoning Code 78-1279(6) states in part: No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. a. In instances where the average lakeshore setback cannot be met, administrative approval may be granted at the discretion of the planning director, provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed AND adjacent neighbors provide written approval. The front of any proposed home would be 60 or more feet in front of all other houses for close to a ¼ mile stretch, and any house will obstruct some of our views. As the adjacent property owner, I cannot and will not provide the needed written approval. 2. In Orono s 1974 Comprehensive Community Management Plan (CMP), Section B, Lakeshore Residential, wording is clear regarding no building on the lake on lots of less than ½ acre (this lot is less than.22 acres), and in our area of Orono, the minimum lot size is one acre. 3. The CMP also states that a 75-foot setback from the lake is required (the lot is only 100 feet deep). This setback requirement protects the lake. 4. It also states that any building must not allow major tree and shrub removal within 75 feet of the lake. Any building would necessitate some clearing. Mature trees within 75 of the lake would be destroyed, trees that keep this very low lot from flooding more than it already does. Plus, many smaller trees and lots of shrubs would also be removed, and they also soak up water. 5. Major changes of natural land contours by grading or filling is not allowed. This lot serves as a drain field for a many acres. Without the trees and shrubs to filter runoff water, unfiltered water full of chemicals and other pollutants will pour into the lake, muddying the water for neighbors, and harming fish and other wildlife. For me, this is one of the most important issues at stake here. 6. Points 3, 4, and 5 are Orono standards, but they are also consistent with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, and the State of Minnesota.
7. Orono s CMP land use policies also state that future development must enhance the community (#13) and the environment (#14). It also states (#10) that sufficient open space will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air, and recreation for all residents. (#18) 8. On March 16, 1978, the council adopted Resolution 885, which gives many good reasons for not building on the lot. 9. Traffic congestion, and the fact that Orono has a lift station that city workers work on regularly, is another concern. At the end of the road is a public beach access, and there is no turn around. With a very short driveway, the home s guests will have to park on the narrow, one-lane road. Orono trucks have limited access to the lift station when cars are parked on the road. Too much congestion is a safety hazard. 10. There has been a question of the sewer stub on the property. Orono put sewer stubs in place as part of the 1970-LS-1 sewer project regardless of whether or not a property was buildable. The city has stated that the existence of a stub does not guarantee buildability. 11. The lot has been taxed for decades at a rate consistent with other unbuildable lots. And, when the area was initially platted in the 1800s, the lot was deemed unbuildable and was designated as a community park. Somehow, over the years, the property was sold into private hands. 12. Orono staff at planning commission and council meetings have said that city is in no way obligated to grant variances to allow building on this lot, especially as Orono has traditionally denied variances for lots of less than 10,000 square feet, as this one is. 13. Regarding the rights of the property owner (CMP #12): No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking, or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and requirements of the Community Management Plan. In this case, with this lot, no building can comply. 14. Mention has been made of a previous homestead on the property. This is not true. There was a summer, covered structure on the property that was used for picnics, and that burned in the 1930s. A subsequent garage was torn down in the late 1970s or very early 1980s. My family has owned 1555 Orchard Beach Place since 1948, and also owned 1535 Orchard Beach Place from 1948 until the early 1960s, and has firsthand knowledge of much of the history of the area. Because of these concerns, and many others, the Orono council denied building requests on this tiny, low, wet lot in 1964, 1967, 1978, 2013, and 2015. I hope this planning commission will uphold their decisions and recommend to the council that no building will be allowed. Thank you once more for reading. I do appreciate your service on the commission and to Orono. If anyone has questions, I am available at lisawysocky@comcast.net or at 615-305-0945. Respectfully, Lisa Wysocky
September 29, 2017 Dear Members of the Orono City Council, I am writing in opposition of all of the variance requests for 1565 Orchard Beach Place. I cannot be at the October 9 meeting due to a long-planned medical procedure earlier in the day, but if I could be there, here is what I would say: Any house on that lot would drastically change the character of our neighborhood, block some of our lakeshore views, and be in violation of the average lakeshore setback rule. You can easily see this on this aerial photo: https://www.google.com/maps/place/1535+orchard+beach+pl,+mound,+mn+55 364/@44.9516482,- 93.6322866,271m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x52b353255b9b9555:0x945edb 94bf93076c?hl=en (please copy and paste the link into a browser) Also, Orono has taxed this property as a substandard lot for decades. That is a strong indication that many previous and knowledgeable council men and women felt building at this address was unwise. The minutes of the May 31, 1962 Orono council meeting state the lot is unbuildable. On August 21, 1967, the planning commission denied building permits due to the size of the lot. On February 23, 1978, neighbor Bill Hooper at 1530 Orchard Beach Place said at a council meeting that, the lot was small and had a drainage problem. On February 27, 1978, Orono staff said, the lot is low, taking drainage from the street and all the surrounding property. Also, on April 23, 2015, the council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 6490, a Resolution Denying Variances from Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-330(b) and 78-1279(6), and Denying a Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Sections 78-966 and 78-1286 for the Property at 1565 Orchard Beach Place. This was after the council also denied variance requests in 2013 and 2014. These are just a few of many examples that show Orono has considered this a poor-quality lot for over fifty-five years. Most recently, on September 18, 2017, the Orono Planning Commission denied the entire application, including all of the variances. Orono developed rules for specific areas of the city for good reason. We have a great comprehensive plan that balances low and high density areas, and this low,
wet lot, a lot that is just 1/5 the size needed to build in this area, is not a good candidate for a home. The smaller home that the builder submitted with his application does not change any of the facts I have listed in this letter. I know, as elected council men and women, you will look at all sides of this issue, including visiting the lot, for those of you who have not already done so. I hope each of you will take the path of the many previous councils who have deemed for many sound, tangible reasons this lot is unsuitable for building. Thank you, Nancy Delton 1535 Orchard Beach Place Orono, MN 55364 ndelton@citlink.net
PATRICIA WYSOCKY 1555 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE, ORONO, MN 55364, 952.472.2510 September 13, 2017 To Whom it May Concern; This letter is in strong opposition to any proposed building at 1565 Orchard Beach Place. No building could come close to meeting Orono s required average lakeshore setback, and any building on the lot would partially block our view of the lake, especially from our lower level. I am sure you are familiar with Section 78-1279(6) of the Orono zoning code, but I am including it here, with the most relevant portions underlined. It states: (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall only apply to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be in a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a. In instances where the average lakeshore setback can not be met, administrative approval maybe granted at the discretion of the planning director, provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed, and adjacent lakeshore owners provide written approval. As the average lakeshore setback here is about 125 and the lot is only approximately 100 deep, the setback cannot be met. My daughter owns our adjacent property at 1555 Orchard Beach Place and I have a life interest. I will not give written approval. I have lived here for more than fifty-eight years (and my parents lived here for nine years before that) and I know most of the drainage from the road and surrounding acreage goes
through that lot, needed drainage that is sopped up by trees and shrubs on the lot to filter pollutants from entering the lake. With regard to all of the variances that are proposed, I am opposed to them all. Every home in this area respects the 140-foot lakeshore width requirement for building and a one-acre lot size to build, and this lot does not come close to either of those requirements. In fact, the lot is only roughly.22 acres, nowhere close to the one-acre minimum. Any building on this small, wet, poor-quality lot will negatively affect the character of our neighborhood. I have also, before each planning commission or council meeting regarding this issue, written other letters that address additional concerns. They should be in Orono s record for this property. I have attended every meeting where this property has been on the agenda, however, cannot be at the hearing on September 18, as I was never notified about the hearing, and only learned of it on September 12 through a neighbor. Sincerely, Patricia Wysocky Patricia Wysocky
From: To: Subject: Date: Sean McDermott Melanie Curtis City Council meeting packet letter Thursday, October 05, 2017 8:27:20 AM City of Orono City Council 2750 Kelley Parkway, PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Regarding land use application #17-3968 at 1565 Orchard Beach Place development application. We have examined the plans and we know the site well. We wish to object strongly to the development. The proposed development impacts 14 residences of the Saga Hill and Orchard Beach Lakeshore community. We are appealing that you will consider the communities original development very carefully and responsibly to represent us through your honorable positions on the City Council. The community lots were originally developed to create a harmonious and relationship of homes with lakeshore setbacks intended to have a visual relationship to the development. The city planners were thoughtful in preserving the unique and natural features of the sites to minimize impacts to shoreland areas. Platting and lot development have followed high standards of prudence by city planning commissions and council members over the years to maintain property values and the rights of existing property owners. The recent ordinance changes for development must be interpreted considering compatibility of surrounding land uses along with the individuals most effected. We believe zoning a home in the communities average lakeshore setback is detrimental to the lake view property rights along with real estate values of the majority of households represented in this community. We also believe it is in conflict with Orono s CMP
land use goals and policies We hope you will formulate support for the neighborhood constituents represented. We hope you will walk in our shoes and visually inspect the map and site to understand our concerns. The following are some of the original zoning ordinances and code restrictions in which the community was developed along with supporting criteria: 1. The property is located in the Zoning district LR-18 residential, 1 acre/140 which has minimum requirements. The property is deficient in regard to each of the following of items: A. There is only 9,641 ft.² in area 43,560 s.f. is required; B. There is only 83 feet of lake shore 140 ft required; C. There is only 100 feet and lot depth - Rear setback of 12.9 ft where 30 ft is required. Side street setback of 25 ft where 35 ft is required D. There is not an adequate area to build a house and beat a 75 foot setback requirement, front, rear and side yard setbacks and hardcover regulations. The property is also within the shoreland, and is additionally regulated by section 78-72(c)(1) and 78-72(c)(3) which pertain to nonconforming single lots of record. The regulation states that: A nonconforming single lot of record may be allowed as a building site without variances from lot size with requirements, provided that: a. All setback requirements can be met; b. Type I sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to public sewer; and c. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage or hardcover does not exceed 25% of the entire lot. d. All other zoning district standards can be met. The allowance of buildability without the lot size or width variance is not applicable unless all four criteria of 78 72(c)(1) are met (i.e. items a,b,c, and d). Based on the information submitted, the property cannot be developed to meet all other zoning district standards, because they require setbacks cannot be met with the proposed house. Side street, rear setback and average setback variances are
necessary to accomplish the proposed site plan. 3. The property is substandard in size in relationship to the other lots in the area on which development has already been completed. 4. The lot has historically been subject to flooding and is in the natural drainage to the lake for the surrounding watershed. Orono 2000 2030 Community Management Plan (CMP) land use goals and policies has been to limit development density for the protection of Lake Minnetonka, to limit changes to the lakeshore, to protect lakeshore vegetation and to avoid overloading the natural surface water drainage and filtration systems. The CMP does not support the development of substandard property leading to excessively high densities near the lakeshore. 5. This property appears to have been originally plated as a "Commons" lot which traditionally has not been considered a buildable lot at the time of platting. The original designation as Commons strongly suggests that this was originally planted as a neighborhood amenity rather than as an individual building site. 6. The property has been evaluated for tax purposes in the past at the reduced amount to reflect the fact that this is a substandard lot upon which no house may be constructed. The development of the property would create a hardship for neighborhood property values due to the property being developed in front of the lakeshore setback. 7. The property owner and developer have stated that when the property was purchased (see city planning commission video along with history of conversations), it was known to be an non-developable lot. 8. Sec. 78-145. Evaluation criteria. Before granting approval of the site plan review, the city council or the planning and zoning coordinator shall determine that the proposal: 1. (1) Is compatible with surrounding land uses; Not compatible. 2. (2) Preserves existing unique and natural features of the site and minimizes impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and shoreland areas; Disrupts drainage of area. 3. (3) Creates harmonious relationship of buildings and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship of the
development; Property does not fit the neighborhood and development standards intended. 4. (4) Achieves a safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation system; Orchard Beach Place roadway is narrow and has a City Pump station next to the lot. 5. (5) Places no excessive demands on services and infrastructure, including local streets; Street is a right away community access to the lake. 6. (6) Conforms to the City s plans for parks, streets, and walkways; Land was platted as Commons" 7. (7) Conforms to the Orono Community Management Plan; Does not comply with the long term vision of the community. Sincerely, Sean and Gina McDermott 1530 Orchard Beach Place Orono, MN 55364