05-29-2001 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2678 Kristi Roesler, Continued) • Weinberger stated the second part of the request is for variances to permit this property to be used for dock use and held in common ownership with 1169 North Arm Drive. Both properties were purchased together, with the principal residence being located at 1169 North Arm Drive. Weinberger stated at the time it was sold it was advertised as deeded lake access; however, there is no legal access for a dock in this area. The two properties both have separate parcel numbers and could be sold separate from one another. Weinberger stated the second part of the application would allow the two properties, which are not adjoining, to be combined and therefore always allowing lake access for the property located at 1169 North Arm Drive. Technically this would require a variance to allow dock use on the lakeshore lot. The lot combination agreement would function as a recorded document on the chain of title to insure that the two lots are in common ownership. The Planning Commission reviewed the second part of the application and had recommended approval of the variance for dock access. Weinberger stated it is the desire of the Applicant to have part one of the application be approved and have the lakeshore lot become a buildable lot. Waldron stated their records indicate this lot has been a lot of record since 1933. Waldron stated the information indicates the owner of the lake lot originally applied for the same lot area/lot width variance back in 1971 as is being applied for tonight. Waldron stated the adjoining property owner six months later applied for the same variance. That property also consists of 50 feet of frontage and is actually a slightly smaller lot. Waldron indicated that variance was approved by the City Council. Waldron stated in comparing those two applications, they are attempting to see if there were any differences that existed in order for one to be approved and the other to be denied. Waldron stated one of the hardships that exists is that there is no adjacent property that can be utilized for building purposes. Waldron stated that same situation was in existence when the neighboring property variance was approved. Waldron stated they are looking at the legal definition of a hardship and how the courts have interpreted it and whether there is a basis for the City to have granted a variance on the one property and denying it on the other. Waldron stated the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that the Zoning Ordinances must operate uniformly, and thus the unequal treatment of similarly situated parties is prohibited. Waldron stated in his view these two lots are identical and there is no legal basis for the City to deny the first part of the application. Waldron stated it is his understanding the same rules and ordinances apply today as they did back in 1971. Waldron commented the courts have interpreted the requirement for hardship very liberally in favor of the property owner seeking a variance. Waldron cited the case of Roul versus the Board of Adjustment for the City of Moorhead in which case a church wanted a variance to add onto the existing structure, with the Court finding that there was a hardship because the church would have to build a weird looking addition to the existing structure without the variance. • f PAGE 8