Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 7076 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 7076 G SHO A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1370 AND 82-256 FILE NO. LA19-000028 WHEREAS, on April 22, 2019, Steve Eggert, on behalf of LakeWest Development the owner of the property (hereinafter the "Applicant"), applied for variances from the City Code for the property identified as PID 2011723420039(not addressed) and legally described as: Outlot A, Ivy Place Plat Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the"Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1370 and Section 82-256 to allow future replatting of the property with the purpose to remove the outlot, providing the adjacent Lot 1, Block 1, Ivy Place lake frontage on the lagoon (west side); and WHEREAS, the replatting would result in the loss of an access easement for Lot 2, Block 1, Ivy Place; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission 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 variances; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff directing staff to draft a resolution approving the variance; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 &'10 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL G` NO. 7076 SH0 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000028. 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 LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.18 acres in area and has a defined lot width of approximately 198 feet at the ordinary high water level. 4. The Property is platted as an outlot, and therefore is not buildable. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Back lot standards b. Double frontage lots, access to lots, and front/back lot divisions. 6. 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 intent of the ordinance is the provision of a separate lot protecting access to a back lot while not introducing additional density. The access can be provided via an easement,and the nature of these lots do not lend themselves to further subdivision,i.e.density. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The use of the property remains residential,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 use of the property remains the same. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The condition of the property prior to development,configured as three separate lots,was not created by the developer. Further,the property is a peninsula and at the end of a dead end street. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance,allowing access to the back lot via an easement versus an outlot will not be discernable to the character of the locality. 2 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL G` NO. 776 S H0 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. Economic considerations alone have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 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. 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. 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.The applicant does not demonstrate any special conditions. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applicant does not demonstrate any special conditions. The lot is within a peninsula,and the potential to extend the drive beyond the subdivision is not likely,requiring a bridge. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.This is not the case here. The right of a dock within a lagoon or cove is not a protected right. The adjacent property has lake frontage on the bay side,allowing a dock for this lake property. 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 variance would allow the replatting of the lots without the provision of an outlot. The applicant states that this will not impact the health, welfare etc. not requiring the outlot in front lot/ back lot could have far reaching consequences related to lake densities and access questions in the future. 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 reviewed several alternatives but could not pursue those without ignoring regulations and common sense. CONCLUSIONS. ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1370 and Section 82-256 to allow future replatting of lot 1 and outlot A, removing the outlot A, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 3 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7076 � G S H0 2. An access and drainage and utility easement to the benefit of the public shall be provided through the former Outlot to Lot 2, Ivy Place 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining final plat approval for a new conjoined Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot A, Ivy Place within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (June 24, 2020). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of June, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 4