Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 7568 Variance DENIED expand boathouse 1480 Bohns Point Rd gO:tTO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �� �. NO. 7568 I"kESHO��C A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. LA25-000005 WHEREAS, on January 21, 2025, Schwarz Builders Inc. ("Applicant"), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 1480 Bohns Point Road and legally described as: That part of the South 800.00 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 9, Township 117 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said South 800.00 feet; thence East along said North line of said South 800.00 feet, 430,26 feet; thence deflecting right 12 degrees 06 minutes, 70 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence southwesterly along said shore line 140 feet, more or less, to the North line of the South 650.00 feet of said Government Lot 1; thence West along said North line to the West line thereof; thence North along said West line to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS,the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to rebuild an existing accessory shed within the average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025, 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 February 18, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 in favor of a motion to recommend denial of the variance as recommended by staff; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025, 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 denies the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: 1 - 7LO.tVO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ti�11 ,C• NO. 7568 kESHol FINDINGS OF FACT: Al. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA25-000005. 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 in the LR-1 B (One-Family Lakeshore Residential) Zoning District. A3. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. A4. Applicant has applied for an average lakeshore setback variance. A5. In considering this application for variance, 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. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: B1. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance; the Average Lakeshore Setback(ALS) is intended to protect lake views of adjacent landowners. The proposed increase in height does not harmonize with the intent and purpose of the ALS. The proposed intensification of the nonconforming building resulting from the proposed vertical encroachment in the average lakeshore setback is contrary to the intent of the ordinance; and B2. Variances shall only be permitted when consistent with the comprehensive plan; the proposed variance to expand a non-conforming accessory structure is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. The existing nonconforming building can be reconstructed in- kind preserving the us. The expansion of the nonconformity is not necessary for a reasonable use of the property.; and 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: 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 request to reconstruct a failing accessory building is reasonable. However, the further 2 -siLO.t�O CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1. �� NO. 7568 j-ktSH0�� encroachment of the roof volume creates a new vertical encroachment into the ALS and is not reasonable and is inconsistent with the official controls that are in place to protect view sheds; and b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner; the location of the homes on the adjacent properties establishes an ALS where a lakeward accessory structure can only be improved in-kind. The property owner has not established that there is anything unique about this application and it appears that the request is based more on a desire to design the building in a certain manner, and c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; the proposed vertical expansion intensifies the encroachment within the ALS. This is not in character with the neighborhood. B4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties; economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination; and 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; and 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 construction and improvement of a residential accessory building is permitted; ; and 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; and B8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property; the ALS limits improvements to the existing nonconforming shed to be in-kind, only. The ALS prevents the existing building from expanding outside of its existing dimensions; and B9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located; the conditions of the Property do apply to other land or structures in the district. This condition is not met; and 3 *1\0E- 0.r� ti CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��•� NO. 7568 kESHO0 B10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; the owner has a right to rebuild the shed in-kind, preserving a substantial property right. The expansion of a nonconforming building is not a right of the property owner. This criterion is not met; and B11. 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 a variance in this situation would be contrary to the intent of the of the ALS as a function of Shoreland Management. Although the structure is failing and the foundation is cracking, the applicant proposes a significant increase beyond the current dimensions of the existing shed. The increased mass of the proposed structure would impact the lake views the ALS is intended to protect, and B12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty; staff finds the granting of the requested variance would not alleviate a demonstratable difficulty. The owner retains the ability to rebuild the building in-kind to address the noted issues and not further impact views within the ALS. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to expand existing accessory building within the average lakeshore setback. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 10th day of March, 2025. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: 2 `_ t Christi Asian, IiiirClerk Bob Tunheim, Mayor 4