10-25-2010 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 20 (5. #10-3467 STEVEN SCHUSSLER AND SUNHI RYAN, 1935 CONCORDIA STREET, Continued) White commented the recent Supreme Court ruling does play an important role in the granting of variances and that the City Council is not allowed to pass a variance that is contrary to state law. The City Council does have a little more leeway than the Planning Commission. White noted the variance is granted to the land and not the individual. City Attorney Poehler indicated the variance is granted to a specific property and not an individual. Bremer stated the question becomes whether every resident in Orono should be allowed to have a garage and that unfortunately the City Counc il does not know the configuration of every lot. Bremer indicated she previously owned a home that had a detached, single garage. Bremer indicated that while it was not a safety concern for her to have an attached garage, she had a small child and it was difficult going back and forth to the garage with him. Bremer indicated she realized the chances of getting a larger attached garage were slim and that she learned to live with the house she purchased. Bremer stated it appears this conversation is headed in the direction that major modifications will need to be made to the house if the applicant desires a garage. Bremer noted the Planning Commission looked at this very thoroughly and that the question becomes what other options the applicant has, which was also examined by the Planning Commission. Bremer asked what the City had previously approved for a replacement garage. Curtis indicated Staff did a quick analysis of what could be done on the site. Curtis stated she did speak with the applicant’s contractor and a new home could be constructed on the lot that would be smaller than what currently exists but they would then be able to rebuild and include a garage. The applicants could also remodel and do a tuck-under garage. A detached garage would be limited in size due to the setbacks. Schussler stated after reviewing the Supreme Court decision, in his view hardship is an incredible thing. The dictionary definition does not justify some of the terms that are being used today. The Planning Commission’s vote was 2-3, which implies that some on the Planning Commission feel there is a hardship even with the Supreme Court ruling. Schussler indicated they are not looking to construct an office or a workout studio and that they are willing to work within the rules and regulations. The rules call for an extension of what is presently allowed and that the hardship rules apply here. The Supreme Court allows for hardships and that he would encourage the City Council to think why the Planning Commission vote was 2-3. Murphy stated one of the things that the Supreme Court ruling did was to bring to a halt the granting of variances for structures that probably should not be built, particularly around lakeshores. Murphy commented he cannot imagine a house in Orono without a garage and that perhaps the City Council should review what the penalty would be to the City if a variance is granted in this case. Poehler indicated the Minnesota Legislature is going to have to look at the Supreme Court ruling and determine whether they want to make any changes to the language. The risk to approving a variance is that somebody will challenge the City Council’s granting of that variance and the City’s decision could be overruled by the courts. Schussler stated in the case before the Supreme Court the property owners did not need the structure and they did not prove a hardship. Schussler indicated they will need to move if they cannot build a garage, Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 7 of 20]