08-17-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

r #15-3771 13 August 2015 Page 3 of 5 Applicable Regulations: Avera�e Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The applicant's home is situated lakeward of the average setback line by as much as 10 feet. There is a proposed expansion of the third floor (upward of the lakeside second floor bump-out) to accommodate a master bedroom. This expansion will not project further lakeward than the existing 2 foot bump-out. Above the roofed stoop area the applicant is proposing to construct an addition which would extend 4 feet from the existing south side of the home to accommodate the master bath. The bath addition would meet the 10' side setback as well as the 75-foot setback. Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) Set back approximately 69 feet, the entire lakeside of home is within the 75 foot setback. The applicant's master bedroom addition on the 3'd level will not extend closer to the lake than the existing family room bump-out below. The portion of the addition relating to the bathroom meets the 75 foot setback. Expansion of the Non-Conforming 3�d Story (Sections 78-1 &78-350) The existing home was constructed in 2000. Variances were granted to a previous owner for hardcover, 75-foot lake setback, and rear yard setback; it does not appear that an average lakeshore setback variance was contemplated or discussed. Refer to Resolution No. 4512 attached as Exhibit K for more detail. The survey submitted for the home ultimately constructed was slightly different than the variance approved plan.The permit survey calls out the proposed home as a 1 %story home with a tuck under garage. The definition and interpretation of "basement"; "story"; and "half-story" have changed since 2000. However based on today's analysis staff determined the lowest level of the home (labeled as "basement" on the applicant's plans) is defined as a story. This interpretation results in the uppermost floor being defined as a full story as the half-story standard cannot be met;the 3rd story is a legal non- conformity and cannot be expanded without variances. 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 litera/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 ir 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. The applicant is not proposing to construct additions outside the existing footprint. The