HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA19-000095 2927 Casco Pt Rd VAR Ex E PC Staff ReportDate Application Received: 10.21.2019
Date Application Considered as Complete: 11.7.2019
60-Day Review Period Expires: 1.6.2020
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Laura Oakden, Planner
Date: November 18, 2019
Subject: LA19-000095, Gordon James, 2927 Casco Point Road, Variances and IUP, Public
Hearing
Background
The applicant is proposing to construct a new home forward of the average lakeshore setback
on a substandard narrow lot. The average lakeshore setback is unique for this property due to
the neighboring lot to the north, the home on that lot is setback from the lake over 200 feet.
This distance creates an average lakeshore setback line that cuts through the subject parcel at a
sharp angle. The applicant is proposing the new home that will extend over the ALS 41 feet (13
on the narrow end) The existing home encroaches 43/35, respectively). The new home will be
roughly set 10 feet farther away from the lake then the current home. The applicant is also
requesting an Interim Use Permit to haul roughly 600 cubic yards of material to and from the
site to better serve the proposed home.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 - Setbacks:
Street 30’ 75’ 161’
Side (north) 7.5’ 9.7’ 7.5’
Side (south 7.5’ 17.5’ 7.5’
Lakeshore 75’ 138.4’ 151’
Average Lakeshore
Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width:
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’
Actual 25,152 s.f. (0.57 acre) 53’ @ 75’ / 51’ @ OHWL
Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage:
25,152 s.f. (0.57 acre Allowed: 5,030.4 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 3,281 s.f. (13%)
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot width and average lakeshore setback
variance and an IUP for hauling over 500 cubic yards of material.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
LA19-000095
November 18, 2019
Page 2 of 6
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations:
Overlay District Total Area
in Zone
Allowed
Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed
Hardcover
Tier 1 25,152 s.f. 6,288 s.f.
(25 %)
7178 s.f.
(28.5%) w/in s.f. w/in
*328 sq.ft of riprap was removed from the submitted hardcover calculations.
Applicable Regulations:
Variance (78-1279) Average Lakeshore Setback
The applicant is proposed new home forward of the setback line. The current home encroaches
into the setback due to the location of the home on the abutting northern property which
creates an extreme setback line. The property to the north is set back from the lake 210 feet
from the OHWL. Neighboring properties in the area are set roughly 150 feet back from the
OHWL. The applicant is proposing to build the home roughly 151 feet from the OHWL. The
proposed home will be roughly 10 feet back from the OHWL (138.4’), improving the average
lakeshore setback and getting closer to conforming to the unique setback.
Variance (78-350 and 78-72) Lot Width
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 average lakeshore setback variance results in the property’s
inability to conform to all of the standards above. Therefore, lot width variances are 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.
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
LA19-000095
November 18, 2019
Page 3 of 6
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
proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The lot includes
difficulties in its substandard width and location of the adjacent homes.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to
develop of 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 a new
home on a substandard lot forward of the ALS appears to be reasonable based
on the neighboring home’s orientation with respect to the lakeshore.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The nonconforming lot width and neighboring home location were not created
by the homeowner; 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 designed to fit the
character of 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 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 property’s substandard size and
orientation and the setback from the lake of the adjacent homes creates difficulties for
the Owners in redeveloping the property consistent with the homes in their
neighborhood.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The property’s nonconforming size and the relationship between the
existing home and the setback of the adjacent properties create difficulties for the
owners.
LA19-000095
November 18, 2019
Page 4 of 6
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Granting lot width and average lakeshore
variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant.
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 lot width and average lakeshore setback variances 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 requested variances for lot width
and average lakeshore set setback are necessary, and do 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.
Applicable Regulation: Interim Use Permit (Section 78-1726)
The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant an Interim Use Permit
(IUP). On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city council
determines that the use will comply with the following:
1) The use will meet the general performance standards in section 78-916 of this
chapter; the proposed grading will conform to the standards within Section 78-916
of the Zoning Code.
2) The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district; this statement is
true.
3) The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site; the
proposed grading activity will be conducted in conjunction with the development of
the new single family home on the property. This statement is true.
4) The use will not be in conflict with any provisions of the city code on an ongoing
basis; the proposed grading activity will not be in conflict with the Code.
5) The use will not adversely affect the adjacent property, the surrounding
neighborhood, or other uses on the property where the use will be located; this
standard requires that the proposed grading and improvements must not
substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the properties in the area when
compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses. The result of
the proposed grading will not change the intended residential use of the Property
so there should be no change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties
resulting from the export of fill materials. However, activity of exporting
approximately 600 cubic yards of fill and active grading of the Property during
construction can have a temporary adverse impact on neighbors. The grading work
on the Property as well as the forthcoming construction of the proposed home
could result in additional noise, dust, vibration and traffic on the haul routes and
immediate neighbors. To the degree possible, negative impacts should be limited
and mitigated. Trucks hauling material shall observe the speed and traffic laws and
provide on site traffic control to improve safety.
6) The use will not impose additional unreasonable costs on the public; the property
owner, builder, and contractors will be responsible for keeping debris off of the
LA19-000095
November 18, 2019
Page 5 of 6
public roadways. The noise resulting from the trucks hauling and equipment
moving the material in and around the site should be minimized to the extent
possible.
7) The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty; the
conclusion of the grading activity will coincide with the finalization of the
construction of the proposed home on the property. An as-built survey will be
submitted to confirm conformance with the approved grading plan at the closing of
the permits.
8) And the applicant agrees in writing to any conditions that the city council deems
appropriate for the use, including a requirement for a financial security to ensure
removal of all evidence of the use upon termination, and restoration of the site to
prior or better conditions. The conditions shall be set forth in a development
agreement between the property owner and the city, which agreement shall be
recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Deeds. The conditions
of approval will be documented as required.
Practical Difficulties Statement
Applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable Practical Difficulties
attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Staff finds due to the nature of the lot and the applied setbacks there are practical difficulties
supporting granting the lot width variance, average lakeshore setback variance and IUP for
construction of a new home.
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
Planning Staff recommends approval.
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. Photos
Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map
LA19-000095
November 18, 2019
Page 6 of 6