HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 7111 sWAT CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 7111
`�&ESHO
A RESOLUTION
DENYING VARIANCES FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-330 LR-1B—AREA, HEIGHT, LOT WIDTH, SETBACK, AND YARD
REQUIREMENTS AND 78-1700 SPECIFIC TIER REGULATIONS
FILE NO. LA20-000024
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, Jay Nygard ("Applicant"), applied for a variance from
the City Code for the property addressed 1380 Rest Point Road and legally described as:
Lot 6 and the southwesterly 40 feet of Lot 7, Rest Point Park Lake Minnetonka,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property");
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-330 and 78-1700 to allow the common
boundary line between 1386 and 1380 Rest Point Road to shift to the north, increasing the
nonconforming status of 1380 Rest Point Road be virtue of decreasing the lot area, lot width, and
increasing the percentage of hardcover and reducing the non-conforming setback of the existing
boathouse. The shift of the property line would also decrease the non-conforming setback of the
existing boat house from 5.92 feet to 2 feet; and
WHEREAS, the application included a survey dated November 12, 2.019,
hardcover calculations based on this survey, a practical difficulty statement; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2020, 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 18, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended denial of
the variance; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2020 the applicant provided a revised proposal, showing a
new configuration of the common property line, and an exhibit showing removals of hardcover
completed before the application; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2020, the City Council reviewed the application, additional
information provided by the applicant, and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and
City staff; and
1
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ti� r1\IAZ' NO. 7111
`-,kESHO
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2020, 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 #LA20-000024. 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-1 B Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 16,603 square feet in area and has a defined lot width of 98.9 feet
(measured @75 feet back from the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL)) and 97.8 feet
(measured @OHWL).
4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District as outlined in Section 78-1700 in the Orono City Code.
5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]:
a. Lot Area, reducing lot area from 16,609 sq ft to 16,003 sq ft where 43,560 sq ft is
required
b. Lot Width, reducing lot width from 98.9@ 75' / 97.8 @ OHWL to 94.4@ 75' /
92.7 @ OHWL where 140 feet is required
c. Hardcover, increasing the hardcover as a percentage of lot area from 27.39 to
28.43 where 25% is the maximum
d. Side yard setback for the boat house, decreasing the setback from the south
property line from 5.92 feet to 2 feet where 10' is required.
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:
2
-Wino CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 7111
kESHO‘'-1"
1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The intent of the LR-1B zoning district,which prescribes lot
area and width requirements,is to protect the quality of stormwater runoff in Lake Minnetonka
from the effects of dense development. If the variances are approved,the resulting boundary
line shift increases the non-conformity on the Property. Regarding the side yard setback, the
reduction of the non-conforming setback to 2 feet does not support the intent of the ordinance,
to separate buildings from property lines toward meeting open space, water distribution, and
maintenance goals. The applicant has not provided support to justify the variance.
2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan." The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for single family
residential,at a density of 0.5-2 units per acre. The variances will not add additional units. This
criteria is met.
3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The applicant stated N/A. The applicant has not provided support to justify the
variance. The intent of the hardcover, lot area, and lot width standards is to maintain
minimum densities and hard cover standards on each lot. Further,the side yard setback
minimum (for the boat house) is to promote separation between structures. The
request increases the nonconforming nature of the Property and the boathouse. This
criteria is not met.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The applicant states"Yes,the simple line readjustment to reflect the natural contour of
the properties", though what is triggering the variance is the relocation of the lot line,
initiated by the applicant. A variance, if granted, should be justified by the unique
circumstances on the property. The applicant has not demonstrated that the natural
contours of the Property are unique. The applicant has cited concerns of managing
drainage and the ability to mow the property. There is no demonstrated problem with
the current drainage and there are alternatives to landscaping or plantings that could be
utilized to avoid mowing.This criteria) is not met.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
3
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
' 1 NO. 7111
c,
t�'cEsHO
The applicant states that "there will be no noticeable difference from the street, lake,
or air." While the relocation of the property line will not be noticed visually, allowing
structures to be 2 feet from the property line,whereas the rest of the neighborhood is
required to be 10 feet from the property line, does alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. This criteria is not met.
4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." The applicant
responds "N/A". There is no evidence to suggest that economic considerations were the only
justification for the variance. This criteria is met.
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."The applicant responds "N/A".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." The applicant notes that the use of either property is not changing. Single family
residential uses are a permitted use in the LR-1B zoning district. This criteria is met.
7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling."The applicant responds"N/A".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 responds"yes",though no evidence
has been provided to support that claim. Often,characteristics of a lot are the clearest support
for a variance. Staff has analyzed the survey provided by the applicant. There are a number of
contours identified near the boat house*, where the existing and proposed lot lines diverge at
the greatest distance. For this exercise,staff noted the location of the 938 and the 930 contour,
as both contours can be observed crossing the existing and proposed property line. The OHWL
was not chosen because of some ambiguity for its location as shown on the survey. The survey
provided by the applicant suggests that the slope at the property line(6'/30.19'=19.8%)would
actually get steeper(6/27.17'=22%) if the boundary line shifts to the east. Finally, shifting the
property line reduces the area for the owner of 1380 to maintain their property, including the
boathouse,a concern of the applicant previously. This criteria is not met.
*The applicant states in his Practical Difficulties response that the contours of the land make it
extremely difficult for owners of 1380 Rest Point Road to maintain the property. It is not stated
where the slope is too steep to maintain, it is assumed to be near the boat house. Further,
4
O�p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 7111
`'licESHO
shifting the property line merely shifts the burden on maintaining the slope to another
property.
9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located."The applicant responds"Unknown if other property pairs may have similar lot
line issue or not. The applicant argues that the conditions are the natural contours that
prevented the previous owner from maintaining the area. It should be noted that the applicant
owns both lots and currently has access to both lots for purposes of maintenance.
10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant."The applicant responds: "Yes,would remove years
of strife driven by owners of 1380 Rest Point road previously refused to maintain the land and
allowed invasive species to flourish and invade 1386 Rest Point Road continuously.
Furthermore,the natural contours of the land make it extremely difficult for owners of 1380 to
maintain the property due to the steep hill." The property owner now owns both parcels, so
the"strife"referenced is moot. The adjustment of the property line now increases the slope at
the property line. Further, it reduces the amount of area available for a property owner to
maintain the boat house,as the setback reduces from 6 feet to 2 feet. The Planning Commission
and City Council are concerned that this reduced setback could create issues between future
property owners. The applicant has not provided information necessary to support the
variance.This criteria) is not met.
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
responds"yes". The Council finds that the reduction in area,width,and hardcover is not likely
to impact the health, safety or morals. However, the reduction in setback will make it nearly
impossible for the owner of 1380 Rest Point Road to maintain their building without
encroachment. The applicant has not provided information to justify the 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 again responds: "Yes, would
remove years of strife driven by owners of 1380 Rest Point Road who previously refused to
maintain the land and allowed invasive species to flourish and invade 1386 Rest Point Road
continuously. Furthermore, the natural contours of the land make it extremely difficult for
owners of 1380 Rest Point Road to maintain the property due to the steep hill." This standard
is not met. It is not clear how moving the property line alleviates a difficulty. Lastly, reducing
the setback to 2 foot introduces issues down the line,as this setback virtually assures a property
line dispute in the future.
5
*1).4(102_ CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 71 1 1
kESHG4'
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the
variances requested.
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of July, 2020.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
6