Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 7339 v LAND TYPE Torrens (T) DOC NUM 6001044 Certified, filed and/or recorded on Feb 27, 2023 4:02 PM Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Amber Bougie, Registrar of Titles Daniel Rogan, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 92 Pkg ID 2541023E Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total $46.00 Existing Certs 1511098 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. f -cON CITY OF ORONO v RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL t�xESHO�� G� NO. 7339 A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279, 78-1288, & 78-1680 FILE NO.LA22-000051 WHEREAS, on September 14, 2022, Paul Taunton (hereinafter the"Applicant"), applied for variances from the City Code for the property addressed 3600 Ivy Place and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Ivy Place, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, following the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new home on the Property, the following hardcover improvements were constructed within the 75-foot shore setback from the ordinary high water level (hereinafter the "OHWL") without proper permits from the City: an approximate 1,175 square foot parking pad 31 feet from the OHWL, a 500 square foot patio 43 feet from the OHWL, and another 470 square foot patio 50 feet from the OHWL (hereinafter the "Improvements); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City of Orono for after-the-fact variances from City Code Section 78-1279 in order to allow the as-constructed Improvements to be permitted to remain within the 75-foot lake setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City of Orono for after-the-fact variances from City Code Sections 78-1288 and 78-1680 in order to allow the approximate 2,145 square feet of hardcover resulting from the Improvements to remain within the 75-foot setback where no hardcover is permitted; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2022, 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 November 17, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 in favor of a motion to recommend denial of the variances; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the City Council voted 5 to 0 to direct preparation of findings for denial of the variance. 1 -v,..0Ai CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �e �= NO. 7'339 4kE5 H ovs` NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following Findings of Fact and Analysis concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: Al. 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. A2. The Property is located in the LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. A3. The Property contains a single-family residence. A4. The Property contains 1.14 acres in area or 62,013 square feet and is situated on the point of a peninsula. A5. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. No hardcover is permitted within the 75-foot setback other than those specific improvements listed within City Code Sections 78-1282 and 78- 1680. A6. Applicant has applied for the following variances: a. Hardcover Variance b. 75-foot Lake Setback Variance A7. 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: B1."Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The variances for hardcover expansions within the 75- foot lake yard are not consistent with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. 75- foot lake yard hardcover and construction prohibitions are intended to maintain the natural lakeshore, increase infiltration opportunities, and encourage development away from the lake. The requested after-the-fact variances to expand the driveway hardcover and new patio areas within the 75-foot setback are not in harmony with the Ordinance. 2 SON CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL *1\111LG� NO. 7339xEsH0v``` The current construction involved a new home on a vacant lot. The Applicant had the opportunity to design this project in a manner that complied with the City Code. This criterion is not met. B2."Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The variance to permit additional hardcover within the 75-foot setback is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant has not identified anything unique about this project or lot that would justify allowing unique setbacks for this Property. The Applicant has not identified anything unique about this project which indicates this Property is inconsistent with the type of lots contemplated by the comprehensive plan. The increase in hardcover within the protected 75-foot setback from the OHWL is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not met. B3."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 property in question is zoned residential and the Applicant was allowed to build a home on the Property consistent with the City Code and surrounding properties. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that they will not have a reasonable use of the Property without the necessary hardcover variance that allows them to construct two patios and an enlarged parking area within the 75-foot setback. Reasonable use of the Property is established with the existing principal structure including the minimal width access driveway. The request to permit an expansion of the driveway hardcover and to create two additional hardcover patio areas within the 75-foot lake setback is not reasonable. The hardcover that was installed was not shown on the original, approved plans which were consistent with the City Code. It is possible to access the existing home with significantly less hardcover. The proposal results in a square foot increase of hardcover within the 75-foot setback and is not reasonable. The variance to install new hardcover areas proposed within the 75-foot setback is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not met. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The new home on the Property was completed in 2022 by the Applicant. The driveway expansion and new patio areas were not included on the approved plans for the new home; no permits were obtained for the construction of the driveway or patios. The Applicant chose the size and design of the home and landscaping rather than allowing for more parking or 3 8WAT CITY NO. 7 OF ORONO1P339 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IIIL c)-4kES H 04`f" maneuverability space. The unpermitted constructed expansions are created by the Applicant, are not a right, are not necessary to preserve the existing home, and are not supported by practical difficulty. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The proposed expansion of the impervious surface areas within the 75-foot setback result in additional hardcover setback encroachments toward the lake which are out of character with the neighborhood. The new hardcover areas within the setback are not supported by practical difficulty and are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not met. B4."Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." The variance is not sought principally to increase financial gain to the owners of the Property. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. B5."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. B6."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."A driveway exceeding 8-feet in width and additional patio hardcover are not allowed within the Shoreland Overlay District. B7."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. B8."The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property."There are no obvious special conditions applying to the land which are unique, or support the requested hardcover setback variances. Beyond the existing home and location of the approved improvements on the Property which was created by the Applicant, special conditions to the land justifying the variance, have not been identified. B9."The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located."The Applicant has not identified conditions. This criterion is not met. B10."The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The Applicant will not be deprived of a substantial property right by denying the hardcover setback variance. As stated in 4 CITY NO. 7 OF339 ORONO v RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <?,t G� 4i ESH00' paragraph B3(a), the Applicant is able to use the existing home located on the Property without an expanded parking area or additional lakeside patios. Substantial property right is provided by the newly constructed, existing principal structure. The Code provides for the minimal driveway hardcover necessary to access the Property which was installed with the home construction. Expansion of an existing improvement or structure is not a right. B11."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." Granting the requested variances would be contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. B12."The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty."The variances to increase driveway square footage, improve aesthetics, and increase outdoor living space near the OHWL are conveniences and are not supported by a demonstrable difficulty. This criterion is not met. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the requested after-the-fact variances as described above. The Council's denial is based on the entire record, above Findings. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of February, 2023. CITY OF ORONO: Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk 5