HomeMy WebLinkAboutCombined PacketAGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. This application is regarding variances to develop the property.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on May 20, 2020, and was
considered to be complete on May 26th. The 60-Day review period expires on July 25th.
3. Background/ Summary. The applicants are requesting variances to construct a new home on a
property with substandard area and width. Additionally requested is a hardcover variance to
permit 27% hardcover where 25% is permitted. Structural coverage is proposed at 19.7%. They
have submitted a revised narrative attached as Exhibit B.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On June 15th, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed that the square footage of the requested
hardcover overage was equivalent to a 3rd garage stall, as well as the parking challenges and
safety concerns relating to the approximately 20 foot-wide roadway. Following the public
hearing the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variances.
5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit D.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
Item No.: 14 Date:
Item Description:
Presenter:
Agenda
Section:
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Direct staff to draft a motion to draft a resolution reflecting Council’s action.
Exhibits
A. Proposed Plans
B. Applicant Letter
C. Draft PC Minutes
D. Public Comment
E. PC Staff Report
References
PC Exhibits 06/15/2020
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
E. Hardcover Calculations (Staff Edit)
F. Aerial & Street View Photos
G. Property Owners List
H. Plat Map
T Power
Pole
M mailbox
Serv
950.7
Catch Basin
rim=950.70
951.7
GF
952.0
951.7
951.1
951.0
950.4
949.2
948.2
948.3
948.3
945.0
942.1
942.1
941.1
941.1
942.0
935.4
934.7
935.3
935.3
935.4
935.0
947.9
948.0
946.9
947.0
949.8 950.1
24"
950.0 950.9
950.3
950.7
950.3
949.0
Drain
948.3
948.5
948.1
GF
953.1
952.9
952.7 951.3
950.4
949.4
949.2
948.1
946.7
WO
942.2
930.8
930.8
931.5
930.3
930.6
930.2
18"
933.4
933.5
935.4
942.6
944.5
944.1
944.4
WO
944.6
933.3
933.3
932.1
931.6
14"
933.2
S 2
8
°
1
6
'
4
3
"
W
6
0
.
2
7
12
.
0
D e
c
k
P o
r
c
h
93
0
94
0
95
0
932
93
4
93
6
93
8
94
2
944
94
6
948
Cas
c
o
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
44.3
44.7
90±
39±
30±
S u
r
v
e
y
-
l
i
n
e
30
9.9
S 67°
0
4
'
1
0
"
E
1
5
3
.
9
7
S 67°
0
4
'
1
0
"
E
1
6
0
.
3
0
N 2
2
°
1
5
'
4
9
"
E
6
0
.
0
0
9.8
60
.
0
P o
r
c
h
22'0"
6'1
0
"
6'2"
10
'
2
"
33'6"
20
'
6
"
10'2"
16
'
8
"
24'2"
3'0
"
8'2"
3'8
"
22'6"
28
'
0
"
Stoop
10'2"
0'6
"
5'6"
0'8
"
D r i v
e
w
a
y
7.5
wit
h
d
e
c
k
7.5
9'6"
ab
o
v
e
30.5
91'+-
Steps
94
3
.
0
95
2
.
0
No. 2635
No. 2649
D o c
k
Lake Minnetonka
Pergola
Overhead
Wires
929.4 Ordinary
High Water Line
Timber
Border
R i
p
-
R
a
p
Benchmark
I.P. Found 0.30'
North of corner
Propo
s
e
d
Res
i
d
e
n
c
e
24" c
a
n
t
.
steps
(dime
n
s
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
first f
l
o
o
r
p
l
a
n
)
TW 947
BW 943.0
proposed
wall
950
948
946
944
944
948
950
946
Pervio
u
s
P
a
v
e
r
Walkw
a
y
Portion of
Road to be
removed
Ed
g
e
o
f
B
i
t
u
m
i
n
o
u
s
F:\survey\spring park - hennepin\139\01 Surveying - 88975\01 CAD\01 Source\01 Survey Base.dwg
Basis for
bearings is
assumed
Surveyors Certificate
000.0
x000.0
Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only
Denotes Existing Elevation
Denotes Proposed Elevation
Denotes Surface Drainage
Denotes Iron Monument
Denotes Found Iron Monument
Denotes Proposed Contours
Denotes Existing Contours
Benchmark:Nail in Northerly face of power pole
near the most easterly lot corner
Elevation = 951.82 feet (NGVD 1929)
Drawn By
Signed
Gregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992
Scale: 1" = 20'
F.B.No.
Project No.
I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
rev
Address:
Legal Description
7601 73rd Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428
(763) 560-3093
DemarcInc.com
88975
1112-33
2645 Casco Point Road
Orono, MN
Surveyed this 21st day of May 2020. TIM HANSON
Lot 139, SPRING PARK
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Property located in Section
20, Township 117, Range 23,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Lot Area to OHW = 11,485 sq ft
NOTE: The only easements shown are from plats of
record or information provided by client.
Property Zoned LR-1C
(One Family Lakeshore Residential - 1/2 Acre)
Setbacks
Front - 30
Side - 7.5
OHWL - Average of adjacent lots
Proposed Site Plan Survey For:
Proposed Top of Foundation
Proposed Garage Floor
Proposed Basement Floor
Type of Building
952.3
952.0
943.6
Fullbasement Walkout
Proposed Hardcover
Lot Area 11,488 sq ft
Rear Porch /
Deck
172 sq ft
Building 2,048 sq ft
Front Porch 49 sq ft
Retaining Walls 18 sq ft
Driveway 809 sq ft
Total 3,096 sq ft
Percentage 26.95%
Structural Hardcover = 2,269 / 11,488 = 19.75%
Proposed First Floor954.41
5-22-20 lake setback
5-26-20 pervious paver walk and setback line
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:27 PM
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:30 PM
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:30 PM
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:30 PM
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:30 PM
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:30 PM
Dear City of Orono Council:
Tim Hanson and myself, Carrie Noble, along with my two daughters Ella, 15 and Anna, 12 are
going to be joining as one family and building a home at 2645 Casco Point Road, Orono, MN. Tim
Hanson has been a resident of Orono, MN for 11 years and I have lived in Chanhassen for 11 years. We
are building our dream home on Lake Minnetonka in what we consider one of the best locations on the
lake. Tim, Ella, Anna, and myself love spending time in the outdoors and on the lake paddle boarding,
playing water games, watersports, spending time together in the sun with friends and family. The
sunsets are our favorite, and we feel extremely lucky to have found a west facing lot in Orono. We also
have had a chance to meet quite a few neighbors in the past few months since purchasing the
lot. Everyone discusses how wonderful each other is and how close the neighborhood is. We have been
utilizing the Dakota trail as well running, rollerblading, biking and walking.
We are asking the city to consider our hard cover variance of an additional 2 percent, which will
allow us to park our vehicles in the driveway. (Currently our proposal is hardcover structural is at 19.7%
with a 20% max and hardcover 7% with a 5% max). We will soon have another driver in the family with
another vehicle and this will allow us to park in our driveway and not on the street all the time, which
could be very dangerous. Casco Point road is a very narrow road and it is the only way for residents to
come and go to their homes. We are uncertain if there was an issue in the past, but currently there is a
sign in the road about 1/4 mile after you turn down Casco Point road that states "Share the road with
Pedestrians" and another little sign that says "slow children at play" (see picture included). Parking in
the road will create blind spots blocking views of other drivers and pedestrians walking, biking, running,
etc... There are two young children 10 and 8 directly on the south side of our property and several times
now I have seen them riding their bikes around in the street and driveway. Having cars in the road,
blocks views and will be dangerous for pedestrians. In addition, the Dakota Trail is close to Casco Point,
which many of the residents enjoy. They will need to travel down Casco Point road past our property to
get to the path. When driving down Casco Point road and another vehicle is coming from the other way,
if there is a car parked in the street, one will need to go to the side and stop while the other passes
because there is not room for both to be going at the same time.
We have made a good faith effort by:
1. Proposing our house back behind the 75' line, from the lake. We are proposing the house to be 6'
back from the 75' setback line. This also creates better views for our neighbors.
2. Proposing to install pervious pavers in the entire walkway to entry, (which is 140 and we only get
the credit for 100). This will help with runoff and drainage within the property.
3. Staying under the maximum structural percentage of 20%. We are proposing our house to be 19.7%
structural hardcover.
4. Proposing being conscious when designing our landscaping we put in hearty trees, shrubs, and plants
that have root systems that will absorb more water creating less runoff into the lake and street. Our
builder has also proposed an option of a watershed reduction filtration system through a landscaping
method he has used in the past. We are open to considering this as well if it is appropriate for our
property.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
Tim Hanson and Carrie Noble
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. LA20-000037 TIM HANSON, 2645 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCE,
6:08 P.M. - 6:34 P.M.
Tim Hanson, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Mr. Tim Hanson and Ms. Carrie Noble, 2645 Casco Point Road, thanked the Planning Commission for
consideration of the variance request. Mr. Hanson said it has been a long-time dream and goal to live on
the lake. He has been a member of the Orono community for 11 years; he lives by the Crystal Bay Post
Office. He stated Ms. Nobles has two young daughters and they are joining families. He said a few things
they have done to hopefully alleviate things is, they are six feet back from the setback to the lake. They
did that so they can give the neighbors the views they are looking for and to be considerate of the
neighbors. They are going to work with a drainage company to make drainage similar to their neighbor’s.
They have also adjusted the house so it does not fill the whole structural surface that they could put in. He
noted the street is pretty busy with a lot of pedestrians walking, and with the possibility of jockeying cars
around in the driveway and having a car in the street, that may create blind views for other cars coming
down the street. He distributed a picture to the Commissioners of Ms. Nobles mowing the lawn of the lot
and noted that is a fairly recent Sheriff sign or City of Orono sign which was placed as you take a left into
Casco Point Road and drive about 1 ½ blocks; it is on the right side where the park starts and one block
before their house. He does not know if there have been safety issues in the past or why the sign had to be
put up, but that they’ve thought about whether the proposed driveway is a need. They could narrow it
down, but with girls that are about to have a license, that would be jockeying cars around in the driveway.
They already had the architect make a skinny three-car garage so they can drive directly out of the
driveway. They have also moved the house back from the lot line six feet. He called attention to the
walkway up to the front entrance and said they are installing 140 square feet of pervious pavers and will
get 100 square feet of credit. He stated there is no curb at the previous driveway apron/street at the lot
line. Even with the three-car straight driveway down, there will still be no curb for about 3-4 feet to the
right. They are proposing to fix that curb all the way up to the driveway. As far as landscaping design,
they are going to look for the types of plants and bushes that are going to be more deep-rooted bushes and
have a wider root system to help with the drainage.
Erickson asked what the width of the proposed driveway is.
Mr. Hanson said it is the width of the garage, which is 28 feet.
Ressler asked if the garage would be 28 feet wide and 30.5 deep.
Mr. Hanson stated he was correct. He noted that the apron at the bottom of the driveway extends out
farther because that is the way it is currently. They are proposing to fix the area so that the curb goes right
up to the driveway.
Ms. Noble said if you park on the street on Casco Point Road, it is pretty much a one-lane, and people
have to stop to let other cars go by. The kids next door are 8 and 10 and constantly riding their bikes
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
around, and it gets pretty dangerous with the blind spots. With the bike path being close, walkers and
runners are also in the community. The variance would allow them to keep cars in the driveway.
Ressler stated, when looking at the application, it appears that it fits in with the spirit of the neighborhood
and it does not seem like they are overbuilding. The Staff seems to be in support of everything. The
hardcover is where the deliberation begins.
Bollis asked if there is a limit for the credit they can get with the pervious hardcover.
Curtis said the hardcover code allows Staff to take 100 square feet of pervious pavement off of their
calculation if they build it that way. The Applicant is proposing additional pervious pavers to offset their
overages.
Ressler asked if the calculations from the survey take into consideration the 100 square feet of credit.
Curtis stated the Staff report provided hardcover calculations; she corrected them. They are proposing
3,136 square feet of hardcover, including the credit.
Ressler noted it would be 3,096 if the full 140 would be credited.
Curtis said initially they were taking off the entire walkway; the surveyor misinterpreted the credit.
Ressler asked if the City’s guidelines call for a maximum of 2,872 of hardcover.
Curtis stated that number was accurate.
Libby noted it was nice that Staff expressed the overage in a percentage, but he was trying to figure it out
in square feet. He said it would appear that 264 square feet is roughly the equivalent of the difference of
the allowable hard surface and what the homeowner would like to go with. He felt that was the equivalent
of a one-car garage. The handicap is the idea of building a three-car garage, and the Applicant is creating
their own circumstances by adding another single-car garage. He said he loves large garages as he collects
old cars; the more garage stalls, the better. The difficulty that is arising is from building a third garage
stall; the practical difficulty is invented by the desire to have the three-car garage. The 264 is roughly the
square footage difference between the allowable and what the Applicant would like to be able to build on.
Curtis confirmed Libby’s comments.
Ressler said the Applicant stated one of the practical difficulties for use is the two teenage drivers. The
Commission’s deliberation also is that if there are two vehicles parked, they would probably not get two
cars parked in front of each other in 30 feet without hanging over the road. You would not be able to get
around them side-by-side, either.
Libby commented that he did not mean to be insensitive about that issue. He is a grandfather with three
daughters, eight granddaughters, and many of them have transitioned through the life cycle of learning
how to drive and getting a driver’s license and a car. He said it can be touchy as they learn to drive,
whether it is a boy or girl. He is talking about factual metrics of the practical difficulty which is created
by adding another garage stall.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Erickson, referencing the Applicant’s photograph, said it shows the width of the street appears to be quite
narrow. He asked if Staff knew the pavement width at that location.
Curtis said she did not know the width at the particular location. She stated there are varying widths of
pavement on Casco Point Road; she could provide the answer, but not today.
Erickson stated that from the photo it appears narrow, and he is willing to believe the Applicant’s
statement that it is very narrow and limited for thru-traffic. With that in mind, it affects his opinion as far
as the variance for the driveway, because what they are doing by having an adequate driveway provides
an opportunity for off-street parking. On-street parking does not appear to be a very good option in the
location. He is leaning towards supporting all of the variances, including the hardcover. The 2% over the
recommended limit is a relatively small price to pay for the public benefit of off-street parking.
Bollis said he tends to echo Erickson’s opinion in this case and is in favor of approval given the safety
aspect of it. The Applicants have gone above and beyond to mitigate the hardcover as much as they can
with the pavers and the consideration of moving the house back from the lake and the lot lines, etc. He
thinks it is a pretty reasonable request.
Kirchner stated he agrees with Bollis as far as the appreciation the Applicants have made in regards to
reducing some of the hardcover with the paver pathway and pulling the house back six feet from the line.
He struggles because of the Applicant’s own admission that it is a matter of convenience; he does not
know that it falls into the City’s practical difficulties then. He noted at the last meeting a family was
denied the convenience of a third stall based on hardcover; the Commission recommended denial. The
Commission seems to be stuck on the hardcover being for the driveway or for the third stall; he thinks it
is important to consider that the hardcover is all-inclusive. The variance is not for the driveway; the
variance is not for the third stall; the variance is for the project in general and all aspects of the project. He
does not know if hardcover can be reduced elsewhere throughout the project. Based on his thoughts, he
does not believe he would support the hardcover variance but would support the lot width and lot area
variance.
Gettman commented that the hardcover is the real question, and whether or not having the third stall is
overcoming the practical difficulty of having a narrow road in front of their house. He is still struggling
with it and will listen more to everybody to decide how to vote.
Ressler stated structure is really difficult to overlook versus hardcover, which is a little easier to
understand. He recalled there were Applicants on North Shore Drive where the Commission was looking
at denying the garage stall but they were able to give hardcover for parking, allowing the ability to park
versus adding a stall. He thinks part of the practical difficulty is on the onus of the public; it becomes a
public practical difficulty if the parking spills over into the street, with the element of Casco Point Road
probably not being in a position to expand anytime soon. He is in support of the application for that
reason, inclusive of the hardcover. Regardless of the outcome, the Commission has made some good
notes for the City Council to consider.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Heath Burris, 15535 52nd Place North, Plymouth, said he is the builder and has built a few homes on
this lake and other lakes in the metro area. In other cities around Lake Minnetonka, they have come up
with a joint engineered plan with the watershed, like Minnehaha Watershed District, to help offset the
additional hardcover. He said he would like the Commission to take into consideration, in trying to offset
the additional 2%, they have come up with joint engineering plans to make a french drain/french garden,
where they are taking a certain percentage of rainwater off of the roof and putting it into a french
drain/garden, which offsets some of the additional stormwater because they are going over the 25% total
hardcover.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:32 p.m.
Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA20-000037 Tim Hanson, 2645 Casco Point Road,
Variance, and noted he would approve all of the variances. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 6 (Libby, Erickson,
Bollis, Kirchner, Gettman, Ressler), Nays 0.
From:Dustin Kindl
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Tim Hanson/Carrie OKeefe - 2645 Casco Pt Rd
Date:Thursday, June 25, 2020 10:44:48 AM
Melanie,
My name is Dustin Kindl and we talked a couple of weeks ago regarding Tim and Carrie's
project. Our home address is 2649 Casco Point Road.
We are writing to express our support of Tim and Carrie's variance request because we realize
the additional hardcover their requesting is a positive effort to help with road safety within the
neighborhood, which is important to us given that we have two active young children.
We are aware this variance is 2% greater than the max of 5% and we support this. They will
soon have an additional driver with their daughter turning 16. This results in another vehicle
and with this variance it will allow them to park in their driveway and not on the street all the
time which could be very dangerous and cause blind spots to the kids and pedestrians using
the road.
We believe Tim and Carrie have made a good faith effort for the city and neighbors by
keeping their house behind the 75’ line by 6’, installing permeable pavers for their walkway,
and staying under the proposed structural hardcover of 20%.
Please feel free to reach out with questions.
Dustin Kindl
612-414-2889
Date Application Received: 05/20/2020
Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/26/2020
60-Day Review Period Extension Expires: 07/25/2020
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 15 June 2020
Subject: #LA120-000037, Tim Hanson, 2645 Casco Point Road
Variances / Public Hearing
Background
The applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a new home on a property with
substandard area and width. Additionally requested is a hardcover variance to permit 27%
hardcover where 25% is permitted.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has stated that the variance is necessary to allow
the driveway configuration ‘straight out from the garage’. Additionally, they have provided
supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be
asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis:
The City has adopted ordinances over the past few years to address inadequacies in the small,
Application Summary:
Staff Recommendation:
is supported by practical difficulty and make a recommendation. Staff recommends approval
FILE # LA20-000037
15 June 2020
Page 2 of 5
and/or narrow existing properties, and disproportionate distribution of lot area within the 75-
foot setback for hardcover on Tier 1 lots. The applicant has designed a house that fits within the
required (adjusted) setbacks, and has moved the home back 6-feet further from the lake than
the average lakeshore setback requires to limit the driveway but still exceeds the hardcover.
In this neighborhood, Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the size and shape of the lot
affecting the property which justify the variances allowing development and redevelopment.
While the applicant has not fully demonstrated standards necessary to support the hardcover
variance they have made site plan decisions to limit or offset their impact. The plans could be
modified to conform in hardcover. For example, the driveway could be tapered to 8 feet in
width as it nears the road to limit the hardcover. The ability to pull straight into the garage off
of the road is a convenience, rather than a hardship.
The proposed home development on this property is at a scale which is consistent with the
neighborhood.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 - Setbacks:
Rear/Street 30’ 30.5’
East Side* 7.5’ 7.5’
West Side* 7.5’ 7.5’
Lakeshore 75’ 97’
Average Lakeshore The average lakeshore setback will be met.
* 78-350(b)(1) Side yard setback. For lots that are non-conforming as to their width, the interior
side yard setback for the principal building… shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent
of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet.
Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width:
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’
Actual 11,488 s.f. (0.26 acre) 60’ @ 75’ / 60’ @ OHWL
Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
Section 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations:
Overlay District Total Area in
Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
Tier 1 11,488 s.f. 0 w/in 75’
FILE # LA20-000037
15 June 2020
Page 3 of 5
Applicable Regulations:
Lot Area and Lot Width Variances (Section 78-350)
Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet
the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard
properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped
without variances if specific standards are met; such as:
1. All setback requirements can be met;
2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can
be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and
3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage
restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed
25 percent of the entire lot area.
4. All other zoning district standards can be met.
The applicant’s request for a hardcover variance results in the property’s inability to conform to
all of the standards above. Therefore, lot area and lot width variances are also required in order
to redevelop the property. The ability to develop the property consistent with other existing
developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are
not granted.
Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1700)
The applicant is proposing 27% total site hardcover (3,136 square feet) where 25% is permitted;
264 square feet greater than the limit. The driveway width at the road is a pre-existing
condition. The proposed hardcover level is the result of the 26-foot wide (3 stall) garage door,
and the applicant’s use of the existing driveway width. The applicant
has proposed reduction in the curb cut to reduce the hardcover
although within the road ROW.
The house has been moved away from the lake in an attempt to limit
the additional hardcover. Keeping the same garage door width, and
meeting the City’s driveway dimensional minimums, the driveway
could be reduced by ±50 square feet by tapering as it joins with the
property line/roadway (see Staff sketch). This would still result in a
hardcover variance for ±26.8% and appears to be functional.
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 # LA20-000037
15 June 2020
Page 4 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 §462.357 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
proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The substandard
lot have difficulties in its small size and depth, and proximity to the lake to permit
redevelopment. The house is set back approximately 6 feet further from the lake than
is required by the average lakeshore setback, protecting views of the lake for adjacent
properties and limiting driveway hardcover.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The number and type of
variances proposed to develop this nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
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
home on the substandard lot is reasonable.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The substandard size is an existing condition and there is no available land with
which to make the property conforming. There should be consideration for
variance approvals from the lot width and area requirements. The house has
been moved away from the lake in an attempt to limit the additional hardcover;
and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances
are requested in order to permit construction of a home, which is reasonable.
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 a residential home is an allowed use in the
LR-1C 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’s substandard size creates
difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. The
proposed hardcover level is not out of character.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The property’s substandard size creates difficulties which also apply
to many of the properties in the same neighborhood.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Granting lot area and lot width variances
are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant. The
FILE # LA20-000037
15 June 2020
Page 5 of 5
hardcover variance is requested to support the proposed home on the property which
is in a conforming location.
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
variances for hardcover, lot width and lot area in this unique situation is not contrary
to the intent of the zoning chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variances for lot area, lot
width are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The
proposed hardcover is 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.
Public Comments
No public comments have been submitted to date.
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
The Planning Commission should determine if the hardcover variance is supported by practical
difficulty and make a recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width
variances.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E. Hardcover Calculations (Staff Edit)
Exhibit F. Aerial & Street View Photos
Exhibit G. Property Owners List
Exhibit H. Plat Map