HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA18-000076 (1725 Bohns Pt Rd) Ex E PCSRDate Application Received: 08/22/18
Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/04/18
60-Day Review Period Expires: 11/03/18
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 17 September 2018
Subject: #LA18-000076, Revision LLC o/b/o Christian Harker, 1725 Bohns Point Rd
Variances
Public Hearing
Background
The owner purchased the property in the Fall of 2017 and has begun to make improvements.
One area they wish to upgrade is the existing boathouse on the western portion of the
lakeshore. They have provided plans which contemplate an in-kind rebuild of the existing failing
structure but wish to expand upward to allow for a covered, porch-like, roof. They also
proposed to reorient the stairs but are keeping the two existing patio areas at the lake and up
on the hill. Due to the proximity of the boathouse to the lake variances are requested.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-330; 78-1279; 78-1405; 78-1434 & 78-1435 – Setbacks:
LR-1B
Required
(Principal
Structure)
Required
(Accessory Structure
< 750 sf)
Existing
(Boathouse)
Proposed
(Boathouse)
Rear/Street 30’ *30’ ±330’ No Change
West Side 10’ 10’ ±75’ No Change
East Side 10’ 10’ ±280’ No Change
Lakeshore 75’ 75’ 16.6’ 16.6’
Average
Lakeshore
The existing structure is entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore
setback. The upward expansion is a new encroachment.
*depends on type of structure.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lake setback, average lakeshore setback,
and hardcover variances in order to rebuild & expand an existing 150 square foot boathouse
and reorient the lake access stairs.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission determine if the
requested variances are supported but practical difficulties and consider a motion to approve
or deny the requested variances as appropriate.
FILE # LA18-000076
17 Sept 2018
Page 2 of 5
Section78- 330 - Lot Area/Width:
LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width
Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre) 140’
Actual 111,475 s.f. (2.6acre) ±358’ @ 75’ / ±390’ @ OHWL
Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage:
The property exceeds 1.99 acres and is not subject to structural coverage limitations.
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay
District Tier
Total Area
in Zone
Allowed
Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
(Includes other projects)
Tier 1 111,475
s.f.
27,868 s.f.
(25 %)
20,054 s.f.
(18%)
1,084 s.f.
w/in 75’
22,813 s.f.
(20.5%)
1,044 w/in
75’
Applicable Regulations:
Lake Setback Variance & Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279)
The applicant plans to rebuild the foundation of the 150 square foot boathouse building which is
permitted as a legal nonconforming structure with respect to setback. It is currently set back 16
feet from the OHWL where a 75-foot setback is required, and entirely lakeward of the average
lakeshore setback line. They also plan to increase the height of the structure by adding a porch
roof over the top which expands the structure within the substandard setbacks – average
lakeshore and lake setback. The upper level expansion consists of posts and a roof; they plan to
install retractable screens in the place of walls.
Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1680)
The hardcover variance is requested due to the reorientation of the existing stairway to the lake.
A lake access stair is permitted hardcover however, with the addition of the other existing
improvements in the 75-foot setback, the hardcover exceeds the minimum permitted (which
should be equal to the stair footprint). The applicant’s proposal results in a hardcover reduction
in the 75-foot setback area of 40 square feet, due to the reorientation of the stair; a variance is
still required.
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 literal 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 it 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
FILE # LA18-000076
17 Sept 2018
Page 3 of 5
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
variance supports expansion of a non-conforming structure in the lake yard. Lake yard
construction prohibitions are intended to maintain the natural lakeshore and
encourage development away from the lake. Alternatively, the goals of average
lakeshore setback include protecting views from land into the lake, the requested
variances to increase the height of the existing structure is in harmony with the
Ordinance as the most adjacent neighbors are separated from the structure and
situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the changes to the existing
boathouse. The additional mass of the roof areas within the setbacks will not be closer
to the lake than existing and will not negatively impact the views into the property
from the lake. The reorientation of the lake access stair results in a decrease in 0-75’
zone hardcover rand is in harmony with the Ordinance. This criterion is met.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in
modifications to the existing boathouse without footprint expansions within the
setbacks in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
reorientation of the lake access stair results in a decrease in 0-75’ zone hardcover rand
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The reasonable use of the property is
established with the principal structure. The applicant suggests that
reasonable use extends to protection from insects and inclement weather.
The request to permit expansion of the boathouse lakeward of the average
lakeshore setback and within the 75-foot lake setback appear to be
reasonable as the owners of the adjacent properties previously stated no
objection to the plans; the mature vegetation, topography, and property
orientation separate the subject property from the adjacent neighbors. The
stair reorientation resulting in a reduction of hardcover is reasonable. This
criterion is met.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The applicant proposes to make improvements to an existing building to
improve functionality for the owners. The boathouse was not constructed by
the current owners. and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested
variances will not result in the property being out of character with the
neighborhood; will not expand the footprint of the boathouse; or result in
additional encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake. The stair
reorientation resulting in a reduction of hardcover will not alter the character
of the locality. This criterion is met.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
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
FILE # LA18-000076
17 Sept 2018
Page 4 of 5
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 the use for a residential accessory
structure is an allowed 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.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The Property exists at the end of a
peninsula. The proximity of the existing boathouse to the lake is an existing condition
which is unique to the property. 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 location and existence of the boathouse accessory structure is
an existing condition unique to a small number of properties in the City, but could be
applied to all other boat house properties.
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 provided by the
principal structure. The boathouse is allowed to be maintained and replaced in kind.
Expansion of an existing non-conforming structure is not a right.
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; The
Commission should determine whether the modest expansion negates to goals of the
code in relation to views into, and out of the property.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant asserts that the
variances are necessary for safety and will not merely serve as a convenience to the
owners. Access to the water is possible through steps and/or stairs over steep slopes.
The variance provides a more comfortable viewing opportunity, which could be
considered a convenience.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Practical Difficulties Statement
Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B,
and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
The boathouse was constructed prior to the contemporary lake and sightline protection rules.
The owners intend to keep the existing footprint yet wish to make improvements to better suit
their family’s needs and to modernize the structure.
Planning Commission should review the practical difficulties analysis provided within this report
and determine if they support granting the requested variances to improve the boathouse and
lake access stair.
FILE # LA18-000076
17 Sept 2018
Page 5 of 5
Public Comments
Comments from the neighbor are attached.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the proposed expansion is necessary for
the property owner to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not
permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
The Planning Commission should carefully consider whether the applicant has satisfied the
practical difficulties standard for this proposed accessory structure expansion, and consider a
motion to approve or deny the requested variances as appropriate.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application Summary & Narrative
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing Survey
Exhibit D. Proposed Survey
Exhibit E. Proposed Boathouse Plans and Elevations
Exhibit F. Existing Boathouse Plan
Exhibit G. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit H. Site Photos – Applicant
Exhibit I. Aerial Photos
Exhibit J. City Code Sections
Exhibit K. Neighbor Email
Exhibit L. Property Owner List
Exhibit M. Plat Map