HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA22-000035 (2659 Casco Point Rd) Ex E PCSRDate Application Received: 06/22/2022
Date Application Considered as Complete: 06/22/2022
60-Day Review Period Extension Expires: 08/21/2022
To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 18 July 2022
Subject: #LA22-000035, Alexander Design Group o/b/o Atrion & Lisa Faiola,
2659 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 are a side yard setback variance for deck stairs, a hardcover
variance to permit 30.8% hardcover where 25% is permitted and 32.1% currently exists; and a structural
coverage variance to permit 21.6%
hardcover where 20% is the
maximum allowed. The
boathouse/shed on the property
will be rebuilt in kind.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information:
The applicant has stated that the
size and width of the property
provide challenges for development.
The nonconforming lot size limits
the amount of building footprint
and hardcover from that of a
conforming sized lot. 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:
In this neighborhood, Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the size and shape of the lot affecting the
property which justify the variances allowing redevelopment. However, the proposed structural coverage
level, hardcover level, and deck stair encroachment into the side setback are not supported by practical
difficulties. The plans could be modified to further reduce building coverage and hardcover.
Application Summary:
Staff Recommendation:
FILE # LA22-000035
18 July 2022
Page 2 of 5
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 - Setbacks:
Rear/Street 30’ 32.9’
North Side 7.5’ 7.8’
South Side 7.5’
Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width:
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’
Actual 12,851 s.f. (0.29 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 12,851 s.f.
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 the percentage
permitted in the appropriate Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier.
4. All other zoning district standards can be met.
The applicant’s request for structural coverage, hardcover, and side setback variances results in the
property’s inability to conform to all of the standards above. Therefore, lot area and lot width variances
FILE # LA22-000035
18 July 2022
Page 3 of 5
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.
Structural Coverage Variance (Section 78-1403)
The Code states that residential properties between 10,000 square feet and 2.0 acres are limited to 20% of
the property’s area for building coverage. The applicant is proposing a 2,518 square foot home, and a 260
square foot boat house/shed exists on the property. Together, the buildings total 2,778 square feet
(21.6%) structural coverage, which is 207 square feet over the limit.
Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1700)
The proposed plans provide a hardcover reduction of 170 square feet (1.3%) from existing conditions,
resulting in 30.8% hardcover where 32.1% currently exists. Tier 1 limits hardcover to 25% of the lot area.
Eliminating the overage in structural coverage (207 square feet) would result in a proposed hardcover
level of 29.2%.
Side Setback Variance (Section 78-350 & 78-1405)
The plans reflect a 4-foot wide deck stair encroaching within the south side lot setback area, 3.3-feet from
the side lot line. In design, the applicant applied the City’s nonencroachment provision in 78-1405(3)
which states that “steps, sidewalks, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures which do not extend
above the height of the ground floor of the principal building” can be situated as close as 2 feet to any lot
line. Although the Code does not specify, Staff interprets and applies this section to those listed features
which provide required egress to the home. The steps off of the rear deck do not meet this standard; a
variance is 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 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
lot area and width variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The
substandard lot has difficulties in its small size and depth, and proximity to the lake to permit
redevelopment. The variances for structural coverage, hardcover, and side setback are not in
harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. This criterion is not met.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The structural coverage and hardcover
variances proposed to develop this nonconforming lot of record are not consistent with the
FILE # LA22-000035
18 July 2022
Page 4 of 5
comprehensive plan. The setback variance could be eliminated if the building coverage is
reduced. This criterion is not met.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. This criterion is not met.
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. However, the type and level of variances requested for
development are out of scale for the property and are not 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 size resulting in the requested
setback, structural coverage, and hardcover variances are created by the property
owner; 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. However the
size and scale of the proposed development on this property would be out of character
with the neighborhood.
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 structural and
hardcover levels should be scaled for the size of the property and as proposed are 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 structural coverage, hardcover, and
setback variances which result in a construction of a home which exceeds the building coverage
limitations is not a property right of the owners.
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 lot
width and lot area in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter.
However, the requested structural coverage, hardcover, and setback variances as proposed are
contrary to the zoning chapter.
FILE # LA22-000035
18 July 2022
Page 5 of 5
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. However, the proposed hardcover
and structural coverage variances would be a convenience to the owners. This criterion is not
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.
Public Comments
The applicant has submitted a neighborhood letter with signatures from the neighbors. No additional
public comments have been submitted.
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
Staff does not find practical difficulties which support the level of variances requested. The lot area and
width variances to address the substandard lot size are supported by practical difficulty; staff supports
granting those variances. However, the structural coverage level, 208 square feet more than permitted, is
compounded by the requested hardcover and setback variances for the home. Staff recommends the
applicant redesign to reduce the structural and hardcover levels for the project. Staff recommends denial
of the application as proposed.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application & Neighbor letter
Exhibit B. Narrative and Practical Difficulties Form
Exhibit C. Existing Conditions Survey
Exhibit D. Proposed Survey
Exhibit E. Proposed Plans – House and Boathouse
Exhibit F. Proposed Renderings & Landscape Plan
Exhibit G. Hardcover Calculations (Staff Edit)
Exhibit H. Aerial Photos
Exhibit I. Property Owners List
Exhibit J. Plat Map