HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 6969 CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 696 9
ESHO¢�
A RESOLUTION
DENYING
VARIANCES FROM
SECTIONS 78-350; 78-1700
FILE NO. LA19-000011
WHEREAS,on February 20,2019,Julie Lensing,a single person,the property owner
(hereinafter the "Applicant"), applied for variances from the City Code for the property addressed
3349 Crystal Bay Road and legally described as:
Tract A, RLS No. 1855, Hennepin County, Minnesota(hereinafter the"Property");
WHEREAS,the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance
to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 to allow construction an 18' x 8' addition to the
existing home 1.2 inches (0.1-foot)from the rear property line where a 30-foot setback is required
and where an 8.2 foot setback currently exists; and
WHEREAS,the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance
to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 to allow for a change from non-building
hardcover to building hardcover at 42.9% where 25% hardcover is permitted; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity
to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2019,the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the requested variances with a split vote of 4 in favor and 2 against; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff;
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the City Council directed preparation of findings for
denial of the hardcover variance; and denial of the rear setback variance pertaining to the addition
to the home.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby denies the variances pertaining to the home addition as described above based on one
or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property:
Page 1 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 6969
G
t'�k�sx0
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000011. 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.
2. The Property is located in the LR-1 C, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District.
4. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]:
a. Hardcover variance exceeding 25%.
b. Rear setback variance.
5. 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.
ANALYSIS:
1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The requested variances are to permit an
addition/expansion of a non-conforming building in the rear yard 1.2 inches from the rear
property line. The rear yard setback is established to provide for an open yard space and
to allow for maintenance of the building to occur without trespassing onto adjacent
properties. The requested variances to expand the footprint of the existing building are not
in harmony with the Ordinance. The additional mass of the proposed home within the
setback will increase the mass of the nonconforming home within 1.2 inches of the
property line and may negatively impact adjacent properties. Regarding the setback
variance, this criterion is not met.
The proposed change in nature of the nonconforming hardcover from a patio to building
footprint results in no increase in hardcover however increases the intensity of the
nonconformity and is not in harmony with the Ordinance. Regarding the hardcover
variance, this criterion is not met.
Page 2 of 5
�ONp CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y� Gti NO. 66
9 9
tR'YES H o��
2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan."The variances resulting in expansions of the existing nonconforming
house footprint within the rear yard setback from an 8.2 foot setback to a 0.1 foot setback
where a 30 foot setback is required is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding the setback variance, this criterion is not met.
The proposed change in the nonconforming hardcover from a patio to building footprint is
an intensification of the nonconformity and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding the hardcover variance, this criterion is not met.
3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical difficulties,' as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The reasonable use of the Property is established with the principal building. The
Applicant suggests that reasonable use includes an expansion of the building
footprint. The request to permit expansion of the house footprint within 0.1 feet of
the rear property line is not reasonable in that they cannot manage their site
drainage or maintain the exterior of the building without trespassing onto adjacent
properties. This criterion is not met.
b. The plight of the landowneris due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The Applicant proposes to make improvements to an existing building to improve
the comfort and functionality. The home was not constructed by the current owner.
There is nothing unique about the Property which requires the expansion of a
nonconforming building to less than a foot from the rear property line. Regarding
the setback variance, this criterion is not met.
The proposed change in the nonconforming hardcover from a patio to building
footprint is an intensification of the nonconformity and is not reasonable in this
circumstance. Regarding the hardcover variance, this criterion is not met.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
The requested variance for a 0.1 foot setback from the rear lot line will result in the
Property being out of character with the neighborhood; and result in additional
encroachments into the rear setback.The change from grade-level patio hardcover
Page 3 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
G� NO. 6969
t�'FESH0
to the mass of building hardcover will alter the character of the locality. This
criterion is not met.
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."The use for a residence building is an allowed use in the LR-1 C District.
7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling."This condition is not applicable.
8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property."There are no special conditions peculiar to the
property that justify expansion of a nonconforming building to within one foot of the rear
property line.
9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located." The location of the existing home on the Property 8.2 feet from the rear
lot line is an existing condition unique to a small number of properties in the City.
10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant." Substantial property right is realized by the
principal structure. Expansion of an existing non-conforming structure is not a right.
Regarding the variance to expand the building footprint, this criterion is not met.
11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." Granting the
requested variance will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; however,
the expansion of the nonconforming building is contrary to the goals of the code in relation
to massing and property maintenance and drainage standards. With regard to the setback
variances for the building footprint expansion, this criterion has not been met.
Page 4 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 696 9
SHAl
12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty."The Owner asserts that the variances are
necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty in the home's functionality and will not merely
serve as a convenience. Reasonable use is realized by the principal structure.With regard
to the setback variance for the footprint expansion, this criterion has not been met.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the
variances to Sections 78-350 and 78-1700 pertaining to the expansion of the nonconforming
principal building footprint within the rear yard setback, subject to the following conditions:
1. Council action is based on the entire record, above Findings.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of April, 2019.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
1
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 5 of 5