Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 7399 II II II II 1111 II II 11 I II LAND TYPE Torrens (T) DOC NUM 6037048 Certified, filed and/or recorded on Sep 21, 2023 12:06 PM Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Amber Bougie, Registrar of Titles Daniel Rogan, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 178 Pkg ID 2604784E Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total $46.00 Existing Certs 1494749 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7399 4kESH0°' A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. LA23-000037 WHEREAS,on July 16,2023,Gavin Tempero(hereinafter the"Applicant"),applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 3260 Bohns Point Lane and legally described as: Lot 3,Block 1,Bohn's Point Addition,Hennepin County,Minnesota(hereinafter the"Property"); WHEREAS,the Applicant has applied to the City of Orono for an average lakeshore setback variance setback from City Code Section 78-1279 in order to construct a screened in porch addition on top of an existing deck;and WHEREAS,on August 21,2023,after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code,the 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 WHEREAS,on August 21,2023,the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of a motion to recommend approval of the variance as applied;and WHEREAS,on September 11,2023 the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff;and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#LA23-000037. 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-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 1 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �� G� NO. 73 99 -QkESHo-.ti 3. The Property contains 52,209 square feet in area and has a defined lot width of 195 feet at the 75- foot lakeshore setback and a lot width of 190 feet at the OHWL. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25%according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variances: a. Average Lakeshore Setback 6. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and 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. ANALYSIS: 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . ."An average lakeshore setback variance is required for the construction of a screened in porch addition on top of the existing deck's footprint. Approximately 5 feet of the current deck is within the average lakeshore setback and therefore expansion would not be permitted. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve and protect lake views enjoyed from neighboring properties. The neighboring property to the south is not impacted by the existing deck or the proposed expansion. The requested screened in porch addition creates a new vertical encroachment in the average lakeshore setback, however does not create any further footprint expansion and all other setbacks including the 75-foot lake setback are met. The hardcover on the subject property will remain the same and is in compliance with the ordinance. This criterion is met. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan."The variance resulting in a screened in porch addition for a residential use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There have been instances when the City has granted variances from average lakeshore setback when the proposal does not disrupt neighboring views of the lake and is not within the 75-foot setback. The proposed addition is within the footprint of an existing deck and expansion is not likely to impact any lake views. This criterion is 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. 2 saAtp CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �� G~ NO. / 399 4AESHog' The existing deck was constructed prior to the City's current regulations.The current deck is nonconforming with approximately 5 feet of the deck within the average lakeshore setback. The construction of a screened in porch addition on the existing deck footprint increases the use and enjoyment of the lake property and is a reasonable request. The proposal preserves the intent of the ordinance by not disrupting any neighboring lake views. This criterion is met. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing house and deck were not constructed by the current property owners. The applicant is requesting the average lakeshore setback variance to construct a new screened in porch addition on the existing deck footprint for better use and fit for the current family's needs;and c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The proposed variance resulting in a new addition on the lakeside of the home will not alter the character of the locality.The project will not enlarge the footprint or protrude closer to any setback. The screened in porch addition will be on top of the existing deck footprint. All other setbacks including the 75-foot lakeshore setback and hardcover are met. This criterion is 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." This condition is not applicable,as a residential home is a permitted use in the LR-1B District. 7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two- family dwelling." This condition is not applicable. 3 v`OAT CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL e G>. NO. 73 99 xcEsHO0w 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property."The existing nonconforming deck and the position of the property in relation to the neighboring homes is unique.The subject property has only one neighbor determining and impacted by the average lakeshore setback. The neighbor to the south is oriented away from the subject home and there is a dense vegetative screen between properties.The neighboring property will not have their lake view impacted by the proposed addition.This criterion is met. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The request is specific to this property as it relates to an existing nonconforming deck.This criterion is met. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.". The proposed addition within an existing footprint preserves the property owner's right to enjoy the lakeyard. The minor expansion does not negatively impact the neighboring properties or their views of the lake.This criterion is 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 variances will not adversely impact health,safety,comfort,or morals of the community.This criterion is met. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." The variance allows for the construction of a screened in porch addition on the footprint of an existing deck that protrudes 5 feet into the average lakeshore setback.A variance is needed for the vertical expansion.The proposed addition will allow the current property owners to fully use and enjoy the current footprint.This criterion is met. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279 to allow the construction of an addition 75 feet from the OHWL within the average lakeshore setback subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the attached site plan and building plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff(hereinafter the "Plans"), attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A& B. 4 BOAT CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7399 4kEsHO 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date(September 11,2024). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of September,2023. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: fltopApo Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 5