Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 6570RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 657`) A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279(1); 78-1279(6); 78-350; AND 78-1680 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3590 NORTH SHORE DRIVE -- FILE NO. 15-3789. WHEREAS, The Broadway Group represented by Willi Abbot (hereinafter the "Applicant") is owner of the property located at 3590 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: All that part of Lots 8 and 9, Block 2, BALDUR PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northwesterly of the northwesterly right of way line of County Road No. 51. Subject to any and all easements of record. (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2015 the Applicant made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(1) to allow reconstruction and minor expansion of a residence and construction of a deck, such improvements located 49 feet from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where a 75 foot setback is normally required; and a variance to Section 78-1279(6) to allow said improvements to encroach lakeward of the defined Average Lakeshore Setback Line where no encroachment is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 78-350 to allow said improvements to be located 6.1 feet from the east side lot line where a 10' side setback is normally required, and 21 feet from the street lot line where a 30' street setback is normally required; and a variance to Section 78-1680 to allow hardcover within 75' of the OHWL of lake Minnetonka where no hardcover is normally allowed; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2015, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances required for the proposed improvements; and Page 1 of 8 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. U i WHEREAS, on November 23, 2015, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff, and suggested revisions to the plans, directing that a resolution be prepared for approval based on those suggested revisions; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made said plan revisions resulting in the need for the variances described above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS OF FACT: Al. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. A2. The Property is located within the LR -1C Single Family Lakeshore Residential District which requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acre and a minimum lot width of 100'. Single family residences are a permitted use in the LR -1 C District. A3. The Property is 13,025 s.f. (0.30 acre) in area and 102 feet in defined width. A4. The Property has been revised a number of times over the years. Originally the house was contained on a single lot (the east 50 feet) and had an attached single garage. In 1985 that garage was converted to living space, leaving the property with no garage. The prior owner then purchased the adjacent 50' lot, combined them, and in 1999 added the existing two -stall attached garage. A5. The Applicant is requesting approval to reconstruct this residence at its existing location, plus adding a 5'x37' expansion area and deck on the lake side of the house. The new home will be two levels as is the existing home, but with a higher roofline. Portions of the existing house encroach the east side and front street setbacks, and the new home is proposed to continue these encroachments. Relocating the new home to meet street and side setbacks would result in greater encroachments of the 75' lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback. Page 2 of 8 F ` T RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ESHa� N O . f _ x A6. The required side setback is 10'. The east side setback of the existing house is 6.1 feet at the NE corner, 6.3 feet at the SE corner. The east wall of the new home will be 30 feet in length, or 4 feet longer (and lakeward) than the existing wall. The adjacent home is 10' from that side lot line. If the replacement home was required to be moved further west to meet the 10' setback requirement, possible impacts would include: 1) further encroachment of the 75' setback and average lakeshore setback at the NW corner of the garage; and 2) further encroachment of the proposed upper level deck into the 75' setback and average lakeshore setback. The angle of the lakeshore and the orientation to interior spaces in the home have been taken into account in the proposed deck design. AT The required front street setback is 30'. The existing home is located 24' from the street lot line at the SE corner, and the garage is 21' from the street, due to the angled street lot line. The proposed home will retain these setbacks but the gabled front entry and garage overhang will extend approximately 2-112 feet closer to the street. The peak height will increase from approximately 16' as viewed from the road to nearly 25' per the submitted plans, although the new peak is expected to still be lower than that of the adjacent home, which is at approximately the same street setback. A8. The existing house footprint is 49 feet from the lakeshore where the shoreline angles southwesterly on the west side of the house. The proposed main house structure will maintain this 49 -foot setback. The proposed house addition will encroach the 75' setback line just at its northwest corner, being 73' from the shore at that point. The proposed deck will be 59 feet from the 929.4 contour. It has been located centrally along the rear of the house to maximize its separation from the lakeshore while minimizing its visual impact from the adjacent property. With the proposed house addition, a functional deck that does not encroach the 75' setback would have to be located at the east end of the addition where it would have the greatest impact on the neighbor. A9. Because there is no residence directly west of the property, the average setback line is defined as the distance from the shoreline of the house to the immediate east. That house is 68.7 feet from the 929.4' contour, so any part of applicants' proposed house and deck that is less than 68.7 feet from the shoreline is technically an average setback encroachment. Due to the shoreline contour west of applicants' house, the average setback line cuts through the garage wing of the existing/ proposed house. This area does not impact the neighbor's view and is visually inconsequential. A portion of the proposed deck also will encroach past the defined average setback line, but again it would appear to not impact the neighbor's views of the lake. Page 3 of 8 CITY OF (L RIO G RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. i 0 A10. Given the constraints of the buildable area between the 75' setback line and the 30' front setback line, replacing the existing house in virtually the same location would appear to be most appropriate. A11. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances 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. ANALYSIS: B1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance ...." The proposed variances to allow the reconstruction of and additions to the existing house on property zoned for single family use is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. B2. "Variances shall only be permitted... when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Granting of the proposed variances to reconstruct and make additions to the existing single family residence is consistent with the residential guiding of this property in the Comprehensive Plan. B3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: i. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls." ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The Applicant is proposing to use the Property in a reasonable manner very similar to how it is currently and has historically been used. The plight of the Applicant is due to having a small lot in a developed neighborhood of similarly small lots, and which is physically constrained as to expansion due to required setbacks, conditions not created by the Applicant. The Applicant has demonstrated that the lot size and shape; the location of the existing house in relation to the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, the street lot line and the side Page 4 of 8 1F k 110N RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL N O . i � I;7 0 lot line; and the orientation in relationship to the neighboring home to the immediate east; are all practical difficulties that make it impossible to reconstruct the existing home and construct the proposed additions meeting all code requirements. All of these circumstances pre -dated the Applicant's interest in the property and were not created by the Applicant. Further, the proposed reconstruction and additions only marginally expand the house outside its existing footprint height, and granting the variances will not result in a home that is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. B4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. B5. "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. B6. "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 residence with accessory buildings is an allowed use in the LR -1 C District. B7. "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. B8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The condition of a small, constrained lakeshore lot is common in Orono, but compared to many others, this lot due to its size and orientation to the lakeshore when reviewed in conjunction with the existing side and street setbacks indicate that the existing footprint location is optimum for the site and represents the most appropriate location for reconstruction of the existing residence. B9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The condition of a small, constrained lakeshore lot is common in Orono, but compared to many others, while this lot is conforming in width, it has only a minimal buildable area as compared to other lots which are deeper and have more flexibility. The property has an existing home similar in size and shape to the proposed replacement home; the property is uniquely situated as compared to others in the area. Page 5 of 8 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. U g D B10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The ability to replace the existing home is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property right. B11. "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 Proposed variances is not expected to cause any impairment to health, safety, comfort or morals, and will be in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Code. B12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Granting the variances in order to replace the existing deteriorating home is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated practical difficulty. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(1) to allow reconstruction and minor expansion of a residence and construction of a deck, such improvements located 49 feet from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where a 75 foot setback is normally required; and a variance to Section 78-1279(6) to allow said improvements to encroach lakeward of the defined Average Lakeshore Setback Line where no encroachment is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 78-350 to allow said improvements to be located 6.1 feet from the east side lot line where a 10' side setback is normally required, and 21 feet from the street lot line where a 30' street setback is normally required; and a variance to Section 78-1680 to allow hardcover within 75' of the OHWL of lake Minnetonka where no hardcover is normally allowed; subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey, site plan and construction plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the approved plans which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Applicant shall remove all hardcover items as proposed in order to remain within the 25% hardcover limit for the property. An as -built survey reflecting conformance to the approved plan and hardcover limitation shall be submitted at the time of final inspection, Page 6 of 8 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL (T� NO. -- V E O and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and refund/release of the permit escrow. 3. Applicant shall comply with the permitting requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the project and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (December 14, 2016). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned Owner has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Owners and the Owners' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 14th day of December, 2015. ATTEST: Zane Tiegs, City Cler Property Owner iL - �9 KAX�2=_ Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 7 of 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN f1 "•'r --ti .rte F 0-R.'0111-40 !"ROtt ,. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. a C) 7 0 This instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2015 on behalf of The Broadway Group, LLC by Notary Public Page 8 of 8 its