Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, August 12, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />    Page 24 of 37   <br />(10. #13-3614 FRED JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF PATRICIA L. PFEFFER, 1565 ORCHARD <br />BEACH PLACE – VARIANCES, Continued) <br /> <br />Gaffron stated according to the City Attorney, there is no question that the applicant cannot meet the <br />average lakeshore setback and the City is not obligated to allow this property to be buildable. The <br />summer home that was on the property burned down approximately 60 or 70 years ago. There was a <br />garage or accessory building removed in 1980. The parcel has historically been assessed at a value <br />significantly below that of a buildable site. Gaffron noted the assessor has informed him that the lot has <br />been valued significantly lower than other buildable properties of the same size. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted the property was formally denied a variance in approximately 1978. There have been <br />previous requests for building permits that have been informally denied. The original plat designation as <br />“Commons” suggests that this site was originally platted as a neighborhood amenity rather than as an <br />individual building site. Gaffron indicated he is not sure what the commons designation really meant <br />back then but that typically today commons property is owned by an association for the benefit of the <br />association and not just an individual. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated given the character of the surrounding neighborhood, this property at .22 acres is one-fifth <br />the size of other residential lots within the immediate neighborhood. The majority of the houses in the <br />neighborhood are also set back 150 feet. This house would be an anomaly and the proposal would place <br />the structure closer to the street than any other home on Orchard Beach Place. <br /> <br />In addition, nearly all vegetation will likely be removed as part of the building process, which potentially <br />will alter the visual character of the neighborhood. In order to perform the necessary grading, the <br />applicant will need to remove approximately 75 percent of the vegetation on the site and that it is doubtful <br />whether the applicant can save the trees. The grading on the site will result in a significant impact to <br />existing protected trees and any development on this lot will be in conflict with any number of goals <br />contained in Orono’s Community Management Plan. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission held a public hearing and the neighboring property owners have expressed <br />concern with the proposal. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the application. <br /> <br />Staff is recommending denial and is looking for direction to draft a resolution reflecting the Council’s <br />action. <br /> <br />Paul Larson, Applicant, stated he is a real estate developer and that he has worked in Orono in the past. <br /> <br />Larson commented this is a tough property to develop, but under Minnesota Statutes, the practical <br />difficulty statute, which is 462.357, clearly states that the board of appeals and adjustments have the <br />power with respect to the zoning ordinances to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is <br />any error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the <br />enforcement of zoning ordinances. The statute also clearly states that variances may be granted when the <br />application establishes that there are several practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />Larson noted the ordinance regarding line of sight is impossible to meet on this lot. Larson stated to his <br />knowledge Tonkawood and Shorewood do not have that ordinance. The whole lot is outside of the line of <br />sight, so it is impossible to meet, which creates a practical difficulty. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/26/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 08/12/2013 [Page 24 of 37]