Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 21,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gilbert stated the other issue he has with Staff's report is that there is a finding that the variance alters the <br /> character of the neighborhood,which in his view is an erroneous conclusion. The Minnesota Supreme <br /> Court held in 2008 as well as in the mid-1970s that unlike use variances, area variances do not alter the <br /> character of the zoning district. Gilbert stated what they are doing here is not altering the use but rather <br /> asking for a variance to the size of the lot. Gilbert stated as a matter of law the neighborhood will not be <br /> altered. <br /> In addition,the City Council just approved another variance. In the Bjerkland variance,the City Council <br /> found that single-family use is consistent with Orono's Comprehensive Plan. Single-family use for both <br /> of these properties is consistent and in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. Gilbert noted state law <br /> controls the ultimate issue here as it relates to practical difficulties. The statute contains three elements,. <br /> The first provision states the use of the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by zoning <br /> ordinance. Gilbert stated in his view the proposed use of the property is reasonable and that it will <br /> improve the neighborhood. It will also create a sense of community. <br /> The second element of the statute says if granted,the variance will not alter the essential character of the <br /> locality. Gilbert stated their proposal will not alter the character of the locality since it is not a change in <br /> the use. <br /> The third element states there are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. <br /> Gilbert indicated they purchased the property to preserve and improve the neighborhood and that they <br /> would not have purchased the home if they had known there would be a trailer home on the lot right <br /> around the corner. Gilbert stated this is a long, narrow lot which has created problems with the City over <br /> the years in terms of maintenance of the property. Gilbert noted he has hired a grass cutter to mow the <br /> grass. <br /> Gilbert stated in his view their request is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and that they are in <br /> full compliance with all of the other regulations. Gilbert requested the Planning Commission approve the <br /> request and grant the variance. <br /> Leskinen asked if there is a reason why they would not just build a house on the existing lot. Leskinen <br /> stated she is struggling with the practical difficulty since they can make use of the full lot without <br /> subdividing it. <br /> Gilbert stated it would require a house over a$1 million and that in his view the neighborhood would not <br /> support that since it does not have lakeshore. Gilbert noted the property is approximately 200 yards from <br /> the lake. In the Bjerkland proposal,that was a lot line change and the City Council approved that because <br /> it would create another lot on the lake and create a view for the second lot. Gilbert noted they are not <br /> asking for that and that state law requires that Lake Minnetonka be a public domain for all the public and <br /> not just for Orono. Gilbert stated in his opinion their findings are almost identical with Bjerkland's <br /> findings. <br /> Curtis stated Mr. Bjerkland had two lots, one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore. In that situation,the City <br /> Council approved a lot line adjustment to create two lakeshore lots out of those two building sites. <br /> Thiesse stated to his recollection the City required the lots be conforming. <br /> Lemke noted they were also two existing lots. <br /> Page 6 of 25 <br />