HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA18-000013 (601 Mtka Highlands Ln) VAR PCSRDate Application Received: 2.19.18
Date Application Considered as Complete: 2.19.18
60-Day Review Period Expires: 4.20.18
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Laura Oakden, Planner
Date: March 19, 2018
Subject: LA18-000013, Nathan VanCamp, 601 Minnetonka Highland Lane,
Variance, Public Hearing
Background
The applicant is proposed to build an addition to an existing home. The home is surrounded by
three streets. The applicant is proposing to build the addition towards the one shared lot line
away from all the streets. This shared lot line is considered the rear yard and has a 30 foot
setback in the LR-1B district. The applicant is looking to place the addition 18.8 feet from the
rear property line.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350- Setbacks:
Front 35’ 62’ No Change
Rear 30’ 38.9’ 18.8’
Street (North) 20’ 82.9’ 50.1’
Street (South) 20’ 40.1’ No Change
Wetland 35’ +/- 20’ No Change
Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage:
18,861 s.f. (0.43 acre) Allowed: 3,772.2 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 2018 s.f. (10.6 %)
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
Overlay District Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Tier 3 18,861 s.f.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a rear yard setback variance
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval
LA18-000013
March 19, 2018
Page 2 of 4
Applicable Regulations:
Rear Setback (78-350)
There is a 30 foot setback requirements for principle structures to the rear property line. The
applicant is asking for an 18.8 foot setback due to the constraints on the lot. This lot is
surrounded on 3 sides by right of way and has a wetland located within the front yard on the
east side of the lot.
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
applicants propose to construct an addition to the existing residence on a residential
property which is in line with the intent of the ordinance.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance resulting in a
permit for an addition to a single family residence in a residential zone 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 an additions to the
existing home within the 30 foot rear street area appears to be reasonable as
the adjacent properties do not appear to be adversely impacted; the home is
confined by streets in 3 sides and a wetland to the east of the home limited the
build envelope on the property.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The existing home, and neighboring homes are separated sufficiently to allow
for light, air, and open space between the homes and the proposed addition,
and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The scale or
setbacks of the proposed addition to the home will not alter the character of
the neighborhood. The setback in question is the rear yard because the frontage
along Tonkawa is the shortest street frontage, although the front of the house
faces Minnetonka Highlands Lane. From a character of the neighborhood, the
LA18-000013
March 19, 2018
Page 3 of 4
rear yard looks and feels like a side yard which would require a 10 foot side
yard.
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-1B 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 lot is unique because it is surround my
right of way on three side and a wetland is located on the east side of the parcel which
covers a large portion of the front yard. The proposed addition seems to be reasonable
for this existing home and lot.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The proposed home with the addition will be generally in line with
the neighboring homes.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant have indicated that 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 existing wetland and being
surrounds on 3 sides by right of way creates a limited building area for an addition to
the home; the variance is necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant.
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.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Staff finds there is inherent practical difficulties exist with the location of the wetland and the
LA18-000013
March 19, 2018
Page 4 of 4
proximity of the right of way on 3 sides of the parcel. The addition would create an 18.8 feet rear
yard setback toward the only internal shared property line. Due to the orientation of the home
the rear yard acts as a side yard for the property owner and neighboring residents. The
encroachment does not appear to adversely impact the adjacent properties.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
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 staff recommend approval for a rear setback of 18.8 feet.
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. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map