Item 9 Item #09 - PC Agenda - 03/20/2017 Date Application Received: 2/22/17 Date Application Considered as Complete: 2/22/17 60-Day Review Period Expires: 4/23/17 To: From: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner Date: March 20, 2017 Subject: #17-3915, Lecy Bros. o/b/o Charlie & Nora Daum, 1920 Fagerness Point Road - Variances (Lot area, hardcover, setbacks) - Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicants request approval of variances to the required lot area, 0-75 hardcover, street setback, and lakeshore setback, in order to construct a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. Staff Recommendation: If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met and the variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval would be in order. Staff recommends approval of the variances as proposed. Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 0.5 acres/100 min. width Lot Area/ Width: 0.42 acres/362 + width at shoreline, 110 + width at 75 setback Total Lot Area: 21,044 s.f. Wetland Area: 2,527 s.f. + Contiguous Dry Area: 18,307 s.f. + (0.42 ac.) List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Exhibit G. Exhibit H. Exhibit I. Exhibit J. Application Existing Conditions Survey Proposed Survey / Site Plan Proposed Building Plans Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Submitted Hardcover Calculations (Existing & Proposed) Photos Plat Map Property Owners List Neighbor Acknowledgement Forms Background The applicants submitted an application in 2016 for variances needed to construct an addition to the existing residence which was built in 1971, but soon determined that due to water issues a total rebuild would be necessary. The current application completely replaces the existing house with a new residence, in approximately the same footprint and setbacks as the existing. This lot is just under the 1/2-acre lot size requirement and most of the lot, including the house, is within the 0-75 setback where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed. Although the lot is very wide with more than 300 feet of shoreline, it still requires a lot area variance due to the northerly portion of the lot being wetland above the 929.4 contour. Proposed street setback for a majority of the house is 20-22 with an entry porch being 18.1 from the street lot line. The lake setback is proposed at 34.8 which is slightly greater than the 32 lake setback of the existing home. The property is served by municipal sewer and water.
FILE #17-3909 March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Item #09 - PC Agenda - 03/20/2017 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET (Variances noted in bold type) LR-1C Zoning District Required/Allowed Proposed Lot Area (Contiguous non-wetland) 0.50 ac. minimum 0.42 ac existing Lot Width 100 minimum 110 + - 362 + existing Street Setback 30 18.1 Proposed (Entry Porch) Left Side Setback 10 218 + Right Side Setback 10 17 Lake setback 75 34.8 Average Lakeshore Setback No encroachment No encroachment* *Defined by 26.3 lake setback of 2 nd story deck of adjacent home to the south Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area (incl. wetland) Total Structural Coverage 21,044 s.f.+ (0.48 acre) Allowed: 15%* 20% = 4,209 s.f. Proposed: 2,475 s.f. (11.8%) *On March 13, 2017 the City Council increasing the lot coverage limit from 15% to 20% Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Tier Allowed Hardcover in Tier Area Outside 0-75 Zone Net Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 21,044 s.f. 5261 s.f. (25.0 %) 1436 s.f. 1436 s.f. 3723 s.f. (17.69%) 3715 s.f. (17.65%) APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 78-350: LR-1C Lot Standards & Setback Regulations. 78-1680: 0-75 Setback Hardcover Prohibition 78-1700(3): Tier Hardcover Limits Governing Regulations: Variance (Sec. 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.
FILE #17-3909 March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Item #09 - PC Agenda - 03/20/2017 According to MN 462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when (staff commentary in bold type): 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Single family residences and the associated amenities are a permitted use within the LR-1C zoning district. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed residential principal structure is a residential use which is consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. 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 residence of similar footprint, but the size of the lot is below the minimum lot size standards of the Zoning Code. 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. The lot is almost entirely within 75 feet of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed. The existing home was constructed in 1971 and the existing attached garage added in 1982 pursuant to variances granted by the city. Replacement of the home other than exactly in-kind requires that new variances be granted. All of these are circumstances that were not created by the property owner; 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 in essentially the same location as the existing home. The two adjacent homes to the immediate south are on similarly situated lots very near the lake and are each two stories in height. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. The design of the proposed home is related to the desire for additional living spaces, and the need to solve an existing water problem due to the adjacent grades. 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 residence 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.
FILE #17-3909 March 20, 2017 Page 4 of 5 Item #09 - PC Agenda - 03/20/2017 City Code Sec. 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The condition of having a lot that is mostly within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone is unique to this and the two adjacent properties to the south which have homes located on a narrow sliver of land between the street and the lake. The vast majority of developed properties within the LR-1C district do not have this condition. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The code standards applicable to this property apply to all other property in the LR-1C District. However, most other properties in the the LR-1C district do not have the limitations imposed by close proximity to Lake Minnetonka to which the applicants' property is subject. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property owner wishes to replace the existing home in substantially the same location and footprint as the existing home, while increasing the size of the home by adding second-story living space in the area of the existing one-story garage. Whether these expansions are necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right is for the Planning Commission and Council to consider. 11. The granting of the proposed variances will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. In the opinion of staff, 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 variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. In the opinion of staff, granting of the variances will alleviate a practical difficulty created by the shape and location of the lot which cannot be resolved except by the granting of variances. The Commission may recommend and the 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. Variance Analysis The size, shape and orientation of the lot in relation to the lake makes it impossible to build on the property without variances. Variances were granted in 1970 for the original construction of a home on the lot, and an additional variance in 1981 allowed construction of the existing attached garage. In 1991 a variance was granted for the existing second-story deck located on the lake side of the house; a deck is not part of the new home application, although a grade-level patio similar to the existing patio is proposed. A variance application was submitted in 2016 for addition of a second story above the existing garage. Prior to Planning Commission review, that application was put on hold (later withdrawn) when the owners and their builder concluded that drainage issues for the existing house could not be resolved through remodeling. The current application, for replacement of the existing house and garage in the same location as the existing, resolves the drainage issues, and accomplishes the desired added living space, within virtually the same footprint as the existing home.
FILE #17-3909 March 20, 2017 Page 5 of 5 Item #09 - PC Agenda - 03/20/2017 The new home with a full story above the garage will increase the livability of the property while not adding to hardcover nor to the structural coverage percentage. The new home is not increasing hardcover, and structural coverage is well below the limit for this site. The close proximity to the lakeshore as well as the substandard setback to the street are clearly a function of the lack of lot depth from the street to the lake, and this factor is shared by the two adjacent homes to the immediate south. Planning Commission should consider whether there is a need to provide screening from the lake for the new residence, due to the limited lake setback; will the existing trees be saved? Staff would note that the house across the street sits significantly higher than applicants' house, so that lake views enjoyed by that off-lake owner (views which are not protected by code) will be minimally affected. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has submitted a Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit E, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Neighbor Comments The City has received no comments as of this writing. 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 variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. If the Planning Commission concludes that the variances as requested are justified, does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate any impacts created by the granting of the variances? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met, then a recommendation for approval would be in order.