The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About#6595-variances-2016 � � � � `/��\/v �/ �o�D Doc No A10307153 Certified, filed and/or recorded on Apr 25, 2016 2:00 PM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, County Recorder Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 116 Pkg ID 1382832M Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total $46.00 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. , � � , , � Doc No T05339487 Certified, filed and/or recorded on Apr 7, 2016 10:00 AM Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 92 Pkg ID 1375806M Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Tota/ $46.00 Existing Certs 1204445 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6595) A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-71(c), 78-305, 78-1431, 78-1435 AND 78-1436 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2060 SPATES AVENUE — FILE NO. 16-3799 WHEREAS, Matthew N. Hanson and Jamie L. Hanson, husband and wife, (hereinafter the "Owners") are owners of the property located at 2060 Spates Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 12,13 and 20, ORA PARK ON LAKE MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2015 Ray Topalof of Integrity Remodeling and Design Group (hereinafter the "Applicant") made application to the City of Orono on behalf of the Owners for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-71(c), 78-305, 78-1431, 78 1435 and 78-1436 to allow an addition to an existing nonconforming accessory structure located on a through lot and nearer the front street lot line than the principal residence structure; such additions consisting of an open covered porch located 4.3 feet from the west side lot line with 1.5 -foot overhang where a 30 -foot side setback would normally be required and less than the required 15 -foot setback for an accessory structure between 750 and 1000 square feet in area; located 23.1 feet from the east side lot line where a 30 -foot setback would normally be required; located nearer the front street lot line than the principal building which is not normally allowed; located so as to not meet the principal structure setbacks as required for accessory structures on through lots; and comprising an expansion of a nonconforming accessory structure in a manner that is nonconforming; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2016 after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and Pagel of 8 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF TH.E CITY COUNCIL 110. 6595 WHEREAS, on January 19, 2016, the Planning Commission on a vote of 6-0 tabled the application, suggesting a number of revisions to the proposal; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2016 the Planning Commission held a second public hearing and reviewed a revised proposal by the Applicant, and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the revised proposal, subject to installation of gutters to direct roof runoff away from the adjoining property and maintaining architectural compatibility with the principal residence structure; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2016, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby makes the following findings of fact and variance analysis concerning this property: FINDINGS OF FACT: Al. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. A2. The Property is located within the LR -1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential District which requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200' Detached accessory structures are a permitted use in the LR -1A District. A3. The Property is 56,846 s.f. (1.31 acres) in area and 49.8 feet in defined width. A4. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances 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. A5. The Owners have owned the existing residence since 2007 and propose to construct a covered deck addition to the rear of the existing 718 s.f. accessory garage/storage building located near Spates Avenue. The addition consists of a covered (roofed) deck, 10'x22.1' at the rear of the structure. The existing structure is nonconforming in location, being 1) nearer the front lot line than the existing residence; 2) located 22' from the street lot line where a minimum 50' setback would be required for any structure; and 3) located as near as 4.1 feet from the west lot line, where a 10' setback would be required for an accessory structure of this size. Page 2 of 8 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6595 A6. The addition to the building under the revised proposal expands its footprint to approximately 22.1' x 42.5' or 939 s.f, making it subject to a minimum side setback of 15'. Because there is an additional existing 819 s.f detached garage on the property, the added covered deck will bring the total accessory structure square footage for the property to 1,758 s.f, within the 2,000 s.f combined accessory structure limit for this size property. AT The property is technically a `through lot' because it has frontage on Spates Avenue and backs up to undeveloped Grand Avenue, requiring accessory structures to meet principal structure setbacks. Also, the addition constitutes expansion of a non -conforming structure and does not meet the zoning code criteria for such an expansion. A8. The location of the existing accessory building is nearer the street than most other principal buildings in the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, its distance from and somewhat lack of a visual connection to the principal residence it serves, makes it unique. The addition to the building will maintain its decades -old character as a fixture in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The structure is not the primary garage serving the residence, and expanding it to the rear with a covered porch should have no perceived impact on traffic or safety in the neighborhood. A9. Extending the covered deck northward at the same 4 -foot side setback as the existing structure is not strictly in keeping with the Zoning Code requirements for expansion of an existing non -conforming structure. The 4 -foot setback coupled with the proposed 1.5 - foot overhangs results in an additional 10 feet of eave dripline less than 3 feet from the neighboring property to the west. From a practical standpoint, it would be appropriate to require gutters so that runoff can be directed away from the adjoining property. The visual impact of the minimal side setback will primarily be to the immediately adjacent property owner to the west. That adjacent owner has not objected to the addition. A10. The existing building is considered as a lawful non -conforming residential accessory building, and per Zoning Code Section 78-71(c)(3)b may be expanded only if the expansions comply with all height, setback, and hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the zoning district. The setback requirements cannot be met, resulting in this variance request. Because the existing structure encroaches upon the lot line setback, the Code intends that as part of the expansion the existing structure be modified so that it becomes completely conforming with respect to setbacks. Again, this is not feasible unless the entire structure is relocated to some other location on the property. A11. The exis`dng accessory building was administratively approved for installation of a toilet and sink in 2010 and the owners executed the required covenants limiting the uses of the building. An aspect of that approval was installation of a sewage ejector system directly Page 3 of 8 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6595 behind the building which pumps to the house sewer system (connected to municipal sewer in the 1980s). The ejector tank was required to be located 10 feet from the back of the building. The Orono Building Official has reviewed the revised plan which results in a setback between the tank and the building of approximately 4 feet, abd has determined this will be acceptable for access to the tank, since it is functionally an ejector system and not a septic tank. Al2. The smaller covered deck addition to the rear of the building combined with elimination of the originally proposed side covered walkway will result in a structure that will be less imposing than the original proposal. The number and magnitude of variances required for expansion of this structure as revised is reduced from the initial proposal. While there is minimal if any opportunity for screening the building from adjacent properties, the Council finds there is no need for screening. ANALYSIS: BI. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance ...." Detached garages and other accessory buildings are a common amenity associated with residences and are allowed accessory structures within the LR-lA zoning district. The proposed variances to allow the construction of an addition to an existing accessory building on property zoned for single family use is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. However, the intent of the location and size restrictions of the Ordinance is in part to regulate the development density and eliminate a crowded visual feeling within rural neighborhoods. The Council finds that granting of the variances will not be in conflict with this intent. B2. "Variances shall only be permitted... when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The proposed structure is associated with residential use which is consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. B3. "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: i. 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." ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Page 4 of 8 CITY OF ORON RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. X595 The Owners propose to use the Property in a reasonable manner very similar to how it has historically been used, but the specific location and size aspects of the request are not permitted by the Zoning Code. The plight of the Owners is in part due to the existing non- conforming location of the accessory building, which has been in this location and size for many years prior to their ownership. These circumstances pre -dated the Applicants' ownership of the properly and were not created by the landowner. Further, granting the variances will not result in an accessory structure that is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. B4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. B5. "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. B6. "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 single family residence with accessory buildings is an allowed use in the LR -1A District. B7. "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. B8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such Property or immediately adjoining property." The condition of having an accessory structure on properties in the Crystal Bay neighborhood is common; the location of the existing accessory building and the shape of this lot is very uncommon, but alternate locations for accessory buildings on the property exist where greater compliance with code requirements is possible. B9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The standards applicable to this property apply to all other property in the neighborhood; the existing location of the building makes it impossible to expand while meeting the conditions imposed by the City ordinance. 1310. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The property rights of the owner will not be diminished if the variances are denied. B 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 of the Page 5 of 8 +CITY OF ORON RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. X595 variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code. B12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Granting of the variances may be a convenience to the applicant but the practical difficulty created by the nonconforming location of the existing building has been demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-71(c),'78-305, 78-1431, 78-1435 and 78-1436 to allow an addition to an existing nonconforming accessory structure located on a through lot and nearer the front street lot line than the principal residence structure; such additions consisting of an open covered porch located 4.3 feet from the west side lot line with 1.5 -foot overhang where a 30 -foot side setback would normally be required and less than the required 15 -foot setback for an accessory structure between 750 and 1000 square feet in area; located 23.1 feet from the east side lot line where a 30 -foot setback would normally be required; located nearer the front street lot line than the principal building which is not normally allowed; located so as to not meet the principal structure setbacks as required for accessory structures on through lots; and comprising an expansion of a nonconforming accessory structure in a manner that is nonconforming; subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the revised survey and addition plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A and B, and the approved hardcover calculation worksheet attached as Exhibit C. Any amendments to the approved survey and plans which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. An as -built survey reflecting conformance to the approved plan shall be submitted at the time of final inspection of the addition, and prior to refund/release of the permit escrow. 3. Owners shall comply with the permitting requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Page 6 of 8 .��V � C ITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �.� G�� G 5 9 � tA'�ESH��C N O. 4. Gutters shall be provided along the west roofline to direct roof runoff away from the adjacent property to the west. 5. Construction shall preserve the architectural compatibility of the accessory building with that of the principal residence structure. 6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the project and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (March 14, 2017). 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned Owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Owners and the Owners' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 14th day of March, 2016. AT'TEST: ��'�� ' ��.�,, •��Q ian�Tie�s, City Cl�rk� Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor . Property Owner(s) Page 7 of 8 ' �o�o C ITY 4F ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��'� �.�'~� No. � 5 � 5 kESHO� STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this�day of�i�IA�Y�l.l'l ,2016,by Matthew N. Hanson,husband of Jamie L. Hanson. .�. �,;Y. .�»�� MONICAA.FADNESS �., .__ �r; NOtARY WUBLIC-MINNESOTA Notary Public 'y' ��;'Nh�Cbmmission Expires Jan.31,2017 ��_;;', �'s?;':��„-,�;�JC�'u STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this 3v day of (� 2016 by Jamie L. Hanson, wife of Matthew N. Hanson. ' ~'�E'��f:.: MON�CAA.FADNESS Notary Public r�g.�, E,. °� NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA ��' f�"f Cor�mission Ettpires Jan.31,20?7 ��'�:-:...�,�r�::c,?. Page 8 of 8 81 6 595 =re:•� - / ' '+ `, Resolution Exhibit A t DF I I ;0 o�ution F-xhlb!t A r ;0 o�ution F-xhlb!t A H 6595 Resolution Exhibit B 10 i :,A&--IMTEURLTY wbdS Jar 'u'p,rr iiSiJ :1r KIes +6+f, 6595 6 5 9 5 ' Mels a Jomw Hanson 6595 ............. A Out ft 2DW Spates Ave: I OTano, HN 55426 � � � , '� Resolution ' Exhibit C '� EXISTINfi HARDCOVEX PROP08ED FIAROCOVER ;�� IWUSE 1,185 S0. F'f. HOUSE 1,185 SG. fT. � 611RAliE (FIOU8E) 81B S�. FT. BARAtiE (HOlIBEj 816 SC. FT. �/ \= 8ARA3E (BTREETj 71B 8G. FT. BARAOE (STIIEET) 718 S�. FT. t 6RAVEL DRIVEWAY 5,908 SG. FT. 6RAVEL DRIVEWAY 5,908 SC. FT. � �� STONE PATIO 984 S0. FT. STONE PATIO 984 Sp, FT, � �'� FRONT BTEPS 88 BG. FT. FRONT 8TEP8 8B SG. FT. .� CONC. SLMBS 153 8C. FT. CONC. SLABS 169 SG. FT. � / � y :�� ' PROPOSED OECK 221 80. FT. / �r, ' � �� TOTAL EXISTINB►YIRDCAVER 8,815 SG. FT. / �� k� TOTAL EXISTINO 11ARDCOVER 8,886 8�. FT. �%� % / �� :�/ MEA Of LOT 58,848 80. FT. ' �t � AREA OF LOT 58,848 SG. FT. �.' Jr � � t� LOT COVERA9E 76.24 �r LOT COVERAGE 16.54 �'� � �j � P ,\�\ , ,'/ / '�'� , ' / \\ �'j ;� ,�� ----'-- --e�-____ x\\ , �;�� ,�� / � l��''i;j-____t\ ': i � �� \ '� '•' /� :��, '� S ��(� ��. \+',// '%/, / / `�p?� � I +� ,/ ', j / *7. F � V�� - ,�" /' � �• # + ��, �� ' ��`�� . � ,�'�;; ----�---� <' :\�� `i�"' ;% �i �� / � �<<,11C�'` �� rS�FI : � / � C`�,,.�� /�� _�S;'�,s, a ``�` 4� ��\ _y�` /�/_S �y4/ / � � # �\ �;( ��','��, :�,� ,.�' � � �� __--\----\-\ � � ' `4M`` `�'---�� / � + \ `�. hy�� i ' '/ �+ �,' '`' �� / ,�, �a-'�/�� :��,;' ---- "`� �,•' , '�'�,- _ ,� / ,' ;%�� `"'.�'�� . `�' } f � �` `'��d,, ", / .//. � _� ��. .-/ � �/ --/- � �;- , (� .� a '�,� .� � �.' %�1�` t' � _.�'" � � ,��/ � ��'�� \ / '��`/ / / .�''"' •' �.. / + / i� �" /�'��/ , ,�-' / ��^��` ��' �/ '�/ , , �,/ •/ /� //S ss��g: � //Z%��`js �� // , :�y�� f� } ��' ' ��// �,. '��`tib,b / i � �f ,t�' ,/�/ J, -/' �2 �yap�� / l /�� 'r� ��x�t;��/ '�i�/ /// , /� �/i0Y' ,x /,�//,/ ��'\� ',/ �� } / � � , '�' � �/ � �� , � I)IYG. NO. 15120,2 2016 0,2 03 �P ` � . ` . t .� • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) T'he undersigned,being duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Orono, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at the_�eeting of the Orono City Council on March 14, 2016,with the original thereof on file in•my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. _ , -� + 'it�.::p�� , . .� , 'R• WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the ca�orat�:�ea��,o'�rt,�ie City this 1 S'day of April, 2016. :" ��a•°' ; •. -; '�, ��, • � ,, , ..;,��., �,''. '� � �" � r��"• T. J�' � �� i;� %" ; iane Tie�s,;.�i�Cl�.. :'; ' � ' „ � .`� , . : Y,�' \ . . .�• .. c-". ,�1 J . I '_ �'\'. . .`- ,' ',.%• , J•L�A '' . :e .a'. -`�.��.- ;Y� ' ' �1;_ ��,t,��,:�,.`�'a'��`.