HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA18-98 ExC PCSRDate Application Received: December 12, 2018
Date Application Considered as Complete: January 4, 2019
60-Day Review Period Expires: March 5, 2019
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Laura Oakden, Planner
Date: January 22, 2019
Subject: LA18-000098, Jen and Tony Ishaug, 4245 Chippewa Ln, Variance, Public Hearing
Background
The new accessory building requirements allow a detached garage 1000 sq.ft. or smaller to be
forward of the principal building, subject to conditions which include the structure should be
consistent in material and color with the principal structure. The applicants have sized and
designed the garage to fit these requirements.
The new accessory buildings ordinance requires any accessory building forward of the principal
building to meet the front yard setback. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow a 20
foot setback instead of the 100 foot required setback due to the topography of the property.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-395 - Setbacks:
Front 100’ 192’
Rear 100’ 320’ +/- 600’
Side (West) 50’ 50’ +/-230’
Side (East) 50 198’ 50’
Section 78-395 - Lot Area/Width:
Required 217,800 s.f. (5 acres) 300’
Actual 211,701 s.f. ( 330’
Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage:
The property is over 2 acres and does not have any structure coverage requirements.
Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
The property is not located in the hardcover zone.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting front yard setback variance for a detached
garage.
Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should discuss the findings, if there is
support a motion can be made to recommend approval.
LA18-000098
January 22, 2019
Page 2 of 4
Applicable Regulations:
Variance (78-1440 b.)
(b) Within the RR-1A and RR-1B districts, an accessory building less than 1,000 square feet
may be located streetward of the principal building provided the following condition are met:
a. Principal building setbacks shall be met; and
b. The accessory building shall be consistent in design, color and exterior material with
the principal building.
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. A
detached garage as an accessory use to a single family home is in harmony in the RR-1A
district.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. A detached garage as an
accessory building in a single family zone 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 use of the property for the single family
home with a detached garage is reasonable for the RR-1A district.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The applicant has stated this to be true due to the existing structures on the lot
and the unique topography located in the front yard of the property. and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant
has stated the proposed location would be placed behind existing mature trees
and outside of existing challenging topography limiting the need to excessive
grading. The property is located at the end of a dead-end road limiting its
visibility in 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.
LA18-000098
January 22, 2019
Page 3 of 4
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 with a
detached garage is an allowed use in the RR-1A 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 has some unique topography
with the grading sloping down along the East side of the parcel limiting some of the
buildable footprint forward of the principal structure.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The topography is unique to this lot within the neighborhood.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has stated this to be true by
allowing the property owners to maintain the appearance of the property.
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. The property
owners believe that granting the proposed variance will not in any way impair the
health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to 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 property owners believe the
granting of the variance is necessary to alleviate the demonstrable difficulties of
topography along the East side of the property and in the rear of the property.
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.
Septic System Status
Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system,
and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites.
The site plan for the building permit should call out the alternate septic site.
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
Due to the unique topography and configuration of improvements on the property the request
for a front yard setback variance seems reasonable.
Engineer Comments
LA18-000098
January 22, 2019
Page 4 of 4
There are no issues with the proposed grading, When the building permit is submitted the
associated site plan should depict the location of the erosion control measures and call out the
top and bottom elevation of the proposed retaining wall.
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 Commission shall consider the submitted finding. If the commission agrees with the
findings a MOTION to recommend approval would be required.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Site Plan
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E. Hennepin County Topography Map
Exhibit F. Pictures
Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map
Exhibit H. Adjacent Property Owner Signatures