HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-3997 RehkampLarson (1300 Bracketts Pt Rd) Ex D PCSRDate Application Received: 12/13/17
Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/13/17
60-Day Review Extension Period Expires: 04/12/18
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 16 January 2018
Subject: #18-3997, Jean Rehkamp Larson o/b/o George Halvorson, 1300 Bracketts Point,
Variances
Public Hearing
Background
The existing home on the subject property is situated partially within the 75-foot lake setback,
and entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line on the east side of Bracketts Point.
The applicant, representing the owners of the property, is requesting a lake setback variance in
order to change a flat roof to a gable roof within the 75-foot setback and average lakeshore
setback variances in order to add a second story over the garage, convert a flat roof to a roof
deck, add gable roofs where flat roofs exist, and improve the aesthetic appearance of the
existing home. There will be no expansion of the footprint. The applicant’s plan sheets (Exhibit
D) illustrate the areas of change/expansion.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-305 &78-1279 - Setbacks:
LR-1A Required Existing Proposed
Rear/Street 50’ +250’ No Change
North Side 30’ 145’ No Change
South Side 30’ 73’ No Change
Lakeshore 75’ 54’ No Change
Average Lakeshore The entire home is lakeward of the average lakeshore
setback line.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a lake setback variance in order to change
a flat roof to a gable roof within the 75-foot setback and an average lakeshore setback variance
in order to make cosmetic improvements and structural changes to the home situated entirely
lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
FILE #18-3997
16 Jan 2018
Page 2 of 5
Section78- 305 - Lot Area/Width:
LR-1A Lot Area Lot Width
Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200’
Actual 131,820 s.f. (3.0 acre) ± 320’ @ 75’ / ± 320 ‘ @ OHWL
Section 78-1403 - Structural Coverage:
The property exceeds 1.99 acres and therefore 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
Tier 1 131,820 s.f. 32,955 s.f.
(25 %)
23,196 s.f. *
(17.5%)
23,196 s.f.
(17.5%)
*Staff adjusted the submitted hardcover calculations to exclude all of the retaining walls per
current policy. The portions of house and other hardcover within 75-feet of the lake have not
been itemized out. However, the applicant is not proposing any changes to existing hardcover or
building footprints.
Applicable Regulations:
Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279)
The existing home is situated 54.4 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Lake
Minnetonka where, normally, structures are not permitted. The applicant’s proposal involves
replacing the existing flat roof of the one-story conservatory with a pitched roof, thus increasing
the volume of the encroachment within the lake setback. Additionally the roof of the main
portion of the home will be modified to add gables on the north and south ends to replace the
existing hipped roof. The roof will not increase in overall height or peak height, however the
mass of the new gable within the 75-foot lake setback will be greater than existing.
Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279)
The home is located entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line based on the homes
immediately to the north and to the south. Those homes do not appear to have existing views of
the lake over the subject property rather, each of the homes are situated primarily with views of
the lake away from the subject property.
The applicant is proposing improvements to the existing home which will increase the mass of
the encroachment within the average lakeshore setback. However, the addition of a covered
entry; a second story over the existing flat roofed, single story garage; a new pitched roof over
the flat roofed conservatory; and change in the roof over the main portion of the home are not
likely to adversely impact existing views of the lake from the adjacent homes. The roof over the
main portion of the home will also be modified to add gables on the north and south ends
replacing the existing hipped roof. The roof will not increase in overall height or peak height,
however the mass of the new gables within the average lakeshore setback will be greater than
existing.
FILE #18-3997
16 Jan 2018
Page 3 of 5
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
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
requested average lakeshore setback variance is in harmony with the Ordinance as the
most adjacent neighbors are situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by
the changes to the existing home. The additional mass of the roof areas within the 75-
foot setback will not be closer to the lake than existing and will not negatively impact
the views into the property from the lake. This criterion is met.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a
permit for construction of modifications to the residence without footprint expansions
within the setbacks in a residential zone are 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 request to permit construction of the
proposed roof changes 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 home orientation separate the subject property
from the adjacent neighbors. This criterion is met.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
Based on the curvature of the shoreline, the subject property, and therefore the
subject home, extends further into the lake than the neighboring properties.
Also because of the shoreline curvature, the home to the north is set back
further from the lake than the subject home resulting in the severe average
lakeshore setback applied to the Property. This criterion is met; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested
variances will not result in the subject home being out of character with the
neighborhood; will not expand the footprint of the home; or result in additional
encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake. This criterion is met.
FILE #18-3997
16 Jan 2018
Page 4 of 5
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 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 improvements to a residential
structure is an allowed use in the LR-1A Zoning 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 extreme curve of the shoreline resulting
in the average lakeshore setback which encumbers the subject property. The proximity
of the existing home to the lake is an existing condition setback of the subject home
and is generally not in character with the immediate neighborhood. 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 shoreline’s curve results in the extreme average lakeshore
setback which encumbers the subject property. The proximity of the existing home to
the lake is an existing condition setback of the subject home and is not in character with
all of the homes the immediate neighborhood. 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. Due to the location of the house and the
applied setbacks, no improvement which expand beyond the existing footprint and
walls of the existing home can be done without variances. 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; nor
will it be contrary to the intent of the Code.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The shoreline, topography, and
location of the subject home as well as the adjacent homes create practical difficulties
affecting the Property; the variances are necessary and not merely serve as a
convenience to the owners. This criterion is met.
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.
FILE #18-3997
16 Jan 2018
Page 5 of 5
Practical Difficulties Analysis
The subject home was constructed in the 1950’s and predates the contemporary lake and
sightline protection rules. The owners intend to keep the existing home yet wish to make
improvements to better suit their family’s needs and to modernize the structure. Staff finds
practical difficulties exist which support granting the requested variances to improve the home.
Public Comments
Comments have been received and are attached as Exhibit G.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes 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
Planning staff recommends approval.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application & Narrative
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E. Site Photos
Exhibit F. Aerial Photos
Exhibit G. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit H. Neighbor Comments
Exhibit I. 60-Day Extension
Exhibit J. Property Owners List
Exhibit K. Plat Map