Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 6993 BOAT CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6993 I�&ESH0ti A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1435 FILE NO.LA19-000027 WHEREAS, on April 25, 2019, Mike Johnsrud ("Applicant"), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 135 Luce Line Ridge and legally described as: Lot 5, Block 1, Painters Creek(hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1435 to allow a 1,432 square foot accessory building, 232 square feet over the allowed maximum size; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2019, the City Council directed preparation of findings for denial of the variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000027. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the RR-1A/ PRD Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 2.68 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 278 feet. 1 BOAT CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <?‘? NO. 6993 4kEsxo. 4. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Exceed the maximum size for an oversized accessory structure. 5. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and 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. ANALYSIS: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The applicant has stated their intent is to add to an already existing oversized accessory building (OAB) instead of building a new separate building. The request does not meet the intent of the ordinance to limit the sizing of OAB based on lot size, creating too much mass in a single residential structure. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Oversize Accessory buildings are permitted and are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 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 request to permit construction of the larger than permitted OAB does not appear to be reasonable as there is adequate space within the property to construct additional accessory buildings. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; While there is some topography to the lot, these does not create circumstances sufficient to support uniqueness and practical difficulty. The desire to build an addition versus a second accessory building is a condition established by the applicant. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance would allow a larger accessory building, which can have the effect of additional massing in the residential area. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant has stated that economic considerations have been a factor as well as environmental and neighborly goals. 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. 2 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 699 3 '&ESHO 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 an Oversize Accessory Structure is an allowed use in the PRD/ RR-1A 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. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. No special conditions apply to allow for a larger oversize accessory building then what is permitted. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The subject lot is conforming, and consistent with neighboring properties. The applicant has not shown unique conditions applicable to the request. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The rights of the property owner are maintain through the use of the principal residential structure and the accessory building. The desire to make a larger than permissible accessory building is not a protected right. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The applicant states allowing the variance will increase safety and health for the applicant because they won't have to worry about their possessions. The applicant's statement can be met by also following the City Code preventing the need for a variance. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant has stated they need the addition to allow for trailer storage due to theft and vandalism. The applicant has concerns regarding safety and security of their possessions,which can be satisfied with conforming accessory buildings. The request for a variance does not establish any demonstrable difficulty unique to the property. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1434 to allow a 1,432 sq ft accessory structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council denial is based on the entire record, above Findings. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of June, 2019. 3 ,WATo CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �� NO. 6 9 9 3 t�KESHO � ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: , e tifirli , / . Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 4