HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA18-000019 (2697 Casco Pt Rd) Var Exhibit D PCSRDate Application Received: 2.28.18
Date Application Considered as Complete: 3.2.18
60-Day Review Period Expires: 5.1.18
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: March 19, 2018
Subject: LA18-000019, Mark Williams o/b/o March and Mark Enger, 2697 Casco Point
Rd, Variances, Public Hearing
Background
The application is proposed to demolish the exiting home and construct a new single family
house. The existing lot matching the neighboring homes. This lakeshore lot is lower in the
street third of the lot, forming a bowl, which limits the building envelope of the lot. The new
proposed home sits partially within the footprint of the exiting home. The applicant is asking for
variances to center the home on the lot with creates a new encroachment into the 75-foot
lakeyard with the porch and corresponding hardcover. The application is also proposing to
move the home back from 61 feet from the OHWL to 64.5 feet from the OHWL. To meet the
average lakeshore setback they would need to be 66 feet from the OHWL which is the same
distance as their neighbors to the south. (The property to the north is vacant). The applicants
are also are requesting lot area and lot width variances. The applicant has submitted a narrative
attached as Exhibit D.
In summary, of the new structure, approximately 140 sq ft of the single story porch is within the
75 lake yard and roughly 30 sq feet is in the average lake setback, where no structure exists.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 - Setbacks:
Rear (street) 30 178’
Side 7.5 9.1’
Side 7.5 7.5’
Lakeshore 75’ 64.5’- does not meet
Average Lakeshore 66’ 64.5’- does not meet
Section 78-350 - Lot Area/Width:
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an Average Lakeshore Setback and 75-foot
Lakeyard setback, Hardcover in the Lakeyard, Lot area and Lot Width
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission
to discuss the multiple variances.
LA18-000019
3.19.18
Page 2 of 5
Actual 20,509s.f. (0.47acre) 60’ @ 75’ 60.5’@ OHWL
Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
20,509s.f. (0.47acre) Allowed: 4,101 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 2,783 s.f. (13.5%)
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
Overlay Total Area
in Zone
Allowed
Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
Tier 1 20,509 s.f. 5,127.25 s.f.
(25 %)
6,254 s.f.
(30.5 %) 420 s.f. 5,125 s.f.
(25%)
Roughly
280 s.f.
Applicable Regulations:
Placement of Structures on Lots (78-1279)
Lake Minnetonka requires a 75-foot lakeyard setback for all structures. The Average Lakeshore
Setback also applies. Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be
located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing
residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to patios and other
accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, stairways, lifts, landings,
lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only
to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall
be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the
immediately adjacent lakeshore lots.
(a) In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or
right-of-way, the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of
the most lakeward protrusion of the residence building on the immediately
adjacent improved lakeshore lot.
The applicant is proposed to center the new home on the lot and the proposed porch creates a
new encroachment outside of the existing home’s footprint. The new home is 64.5 feet from the
OWHL where 75-feet is required.
Hardcover restriction Zones (78-1680)
Within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of any lake or tributary, and within any
bluff or shore impact zone, no hardcover shall be placed, located or constructed, except for
driveways, stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated by the shoreland overlay
district.
The applicant is proposed to center the new home on the lot and the proposed porch creates a
new encroachment outside of the existing home’s footprint. The new home is creating roughly
140 sq.ft. of new hardcover.
Lot Width and Lot Area (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
LA18-000019
3.19.18
Page 3 of 5
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 applicants’ need for setback and hardcover variances results in the property’s inability to
conform to #1 and #3 above. Therefore, lot area and width variances are also required in order
to redevelop the property.
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
applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home in a residential lot which
is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The lot width and lot area variances are
consistent with the general intent of the ordinance. Due to the unique grading on the
street side of the lot and the dip in the shoreline on the lakeside. The building footprint
of the lot is constrained. The 75 foot lakeyard setback and hardcover seem reasonable
and in harmony. The Planning Commission should discuss the general intent of the
average lakeshore setback variance request.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a
permit for a new single family residence in a residential zone that is moving farther
away from the lake then the existing home is 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 property owner is proposing to use the
property in a reasonable manner by replacing the existing residence with a new
home which has less hardcover then existing and the new home will be moved
3 feet farther from the lake compared to the existing home; but the size and
width of the lot is below the minimum lot size standards of the Zoning Code.
LA18-000019
3.19.18
Page 4 of 5
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The plight of the property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size and
shape, and its proximity to the lake. and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality The character of
the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered from replacement of
the residence which is consistent in character and size with the surrounding
homes.
d. 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 a single family 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 size and grading of the lot as well as its
orientation along the curve of the lake and Casco Point Road creates a unique
circumstance which is peculiar to the Property.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The size and grading of the lot as well as its orientation along the
curve of the lake and Casco Point Road creates a unique circumstance which is peculiar
to the Property.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this condition to be true.
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 of
the requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would
be in keeping with the intent of the zoning 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 size and grading of the property; its
position along Casco Point Road and the lakeshore, limits the building envelope for the
homeowners; the variances would alleviate difficulties which pertain to this lot.
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.
LA18-000019
3.19.18
Page 5 of 5
Practical Difficulties Analysis
The planning commission should discuss whether the minimal encroachments are appropriate,
given the location of the existing structure, and the neighboring properties distance from the lake.
Engineer Comments
1. The applicant should be required to have a service connection that is separate from the
neighbor to the south.
2. The applicant should consider granting easement to the neighbor to the south as that
properties sanitary service seems to encroach.
3. The drainage on the north east portion of the lot appears to flow to a drainage structure
on the lot to the north. An agreement should be worked out with the owner to address
future access and maintenance.
Public Comments
Both neighbors have submitted the acknowledgement forms Exhibit E. One has submitted
written comment for the Planning Commission to review, Exhibit F.
Issues for Consideration
1. Will these variances effect the neighboring vacant lot?
2. 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?
3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance (s), if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
4. Does the Commission find standards for granting the average lakeshore setback
variance are met?
5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
The Planning Commission should discuss the requested variances and if the commission finds
reasonable findings then they should consider recommending approval.
If the Planning Commission proceeds with a recommendation to approve. The approval should
follow the engineer’s recommendation to require the applicant to connect their own sewer
service for the property separate from the neighbors.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey and Elevations
Exhibit D. Project Narrative
Exhibit E. Property Owners Acknowledgement Form
Exhibit F. Comments from the Public
Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map
Exhibit H. Photos