Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Resolution 18-3992 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. 18-3992 WHEREAS, on December 1, 2017, on behalf of the property owner, Revolution Design and Build (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 3155 Casco Circle and legally described as: Lot 38 and 39, SPRING PARK, and all that part of adjacent Vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said Vacated Lake Shore Avenue and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 39, and of the east line of said Lot 38, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow for the construction of a deck within the average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council continued the 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 12, 2018, 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 variances 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 #18-3992. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 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-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.69 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 123’ feet at the 75 foot lake yard setback. 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 Variance 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 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 proposed deck will be slightly taller than the previous deck but is proposed to have a smaller encroachment of 11’6” into the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has worked to mitigate the encroachment by proposing a deck that does not encroach as much compared to the previous deck. The deck will not interfere with the sightlines of the neighbors meeting the intent and purpose for the average lakeshore setback with is a sightline setback for the lake. This criteria is met. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The variances resulting in a permit for construction of a deck in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. The CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 owner proposes to install Improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. This criterion is met. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The neighboring home to the east is set back further from the lake than most of the surrounding homes resulting in the unique average lakeshore setback applied to the Property. This criterion is met c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” It does not appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit the deck will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners.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 the use for improvements to a residential structure is an allowed use in the LR-1C 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 property abuts Lake Minnetonka with both abutting neighbors setback over 130 feet from the lake. The proposed deck is angled away from the neighboring homes as to not interfere with the sightline of the lake. 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 subject house if located closest to the lake in the area of Casco Circle, which gently curves. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The applicant states that the variance is necessary. A deck lakeward of the home is a customary improvement in this area. 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 topography and location of the adjacent home to the east create practical difficulties affecting the Property; The applicant was working within the footprint of the existing encroaching deck but is slightly taller creating a new encroachment; the variances are necessary and not merely serve as a convenience to the owners. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow the construction of the deck 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 survey dated 11/08/2017 submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 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 construction and commencing construction of said project. An inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 12, 2019). 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of February, 2018. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor