Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 780 , � Y � � . � �` RESOLUTION #780 , A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST BY � MRS. ROBERT H. GASCH, 1030 TONKAWA ROAD, LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA, FOR PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF ORONO OF CERTAIN COSTS ' WHEREAS, Mrs. Robert H. Gasch, owner of property on which a house has been constructed at 1030 Tonkawa Road, located in the City of Orono, has submitted a statement of costs to the City of Orono, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, in the total amount of $1,261. 80, and WHEREAS, Mrs. Gasch has attempted to justify the request for payment of costs on the basis that allegedly the City of Orono was at fault for the construction of a house at 1020 Tonkawa Road at a location not greater than 75 feet from the lakeshore, which house replaced an existing house on a similar location, and WHEREAS, Mrs. Gasch has stated that the City of Orono issued a permit for that house in disregard of Ordinance No. 34.201 regulating lakeshore setback of at least 75 feet from the � shoreline, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Council have reviewed this matter on several occasions including the request of Mrs. Gasch, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies and refuses to pay the statement of costs submitted by Mrs. Gasch for reasons set forth hereinafter: - l. Mrs. Gasch has failed to submit a survey to support - her argument that the sight line is such that Mrs. Parton's house; the house next door of which she is complaining, blocks in any way her view of Lake Minnetonka. 2. Mrs. Gasch has argued that there has been a devalua- tion of her house because of the location of the Parton house but she has failed to submit any facts to �support the alleged devaluation. 3. Mrs. Gasch admitted that she would need to plant the shrubs, for which she is asking payment, along the shared property line with Mrs. Parton anyway because of her prior intent to remove the trees on the boundary. � , ��, ,,, . , • 4 . The City Council has granted a variance to Mrs. Gasch so she could build a fence that she thought was neces- sary and the City Council has eliminated the previously pro- posed requirement that she plant any shrubs to camouflage that fence. 5. Mrs. Parton' s house has been rebuilt on a location that is the same location generally as the prior location of the house and therefore Mrs. Parton had a vested right to construct the house at that location. 6 . Mrs. Gasch' s house was built subsequent to the original construction of birs. Parton' s house and Mrs. Parton is just rebuilding the house on a similar location. 7. The topography of the Parton property and the geography of the properties in the area is such that Mrs. Parton' s house does not interfere with Mrs. Gasch' s view of the lake in front of her house. 8 . Mrs. Parton' s house is at least 75 feet back from Lake Minnetonka, meeting the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the ordinances of the City of Orono. • 9. The present development of Mrs. Parton' s property, including the location of the house, does not arbitrarily or unreasonably restrict the use or enjoyment of Mrs. Gasch' s property nor does it interfere with the enjoyment of use of other houses in the neighborhood. 10. The location of Mrs. Parton' s house is not adverse to the general heal.th, safety and welfare of the citizens of Orono. 11. Mrs. Gasch admitted that she knew when Mrs. Parton commenced the construction of the foundations on her house and yet Mrs. Gasch failed to indicate timely to the city or to Mrs. Parton that she f elt that Mrs. Parton' s house was being con- structed in violation of the ordinances of the City of Orono. 12. Mrs. Parton's house was not built in violation of the building code or the zoning ordinances of the City of Orono but has in fact met all the requirements of same. 13. The City 5taff of the City of Orono has determined that Mrs. Parton has constructed the house on a location which meets the provisions of the Orono Zoning Code that provides that a house along the lake should be built in such a way so that it does not interfere with the sight line of adjoining � , , ,� - , � . • � houses. Moreover, in the past, the City Staff has never applied that portion of the zoning ordinance to any develop- ment which development takes place on property which is of such a topographical nature that if one applied the sight line restriction literally, that it would result in an absurd location for the house. In this case, if the city were to require that Mrs. Parton construct the house in such a way so that it is no closer than the average distance from the shoreline of the existing residents' buildings on adjacent and nearby lots, it would result in a location of the house many feet further back than 75 feet back from the shoreline which is a requirement of the zoning code and would require a location which would necessitate the removal of several healthy trees on the property and would necessitate a major amount of excavation in an existing hillside behind the house where it is presently constructed. 14. After having reviewed the application by Mrs. Parton for a variance for the construction of the house, the Planning Commission and City Council approved of same at the July 19, 1976 meeting and the City Council approved of the variance for lot width on June 28, 1976. 15. It is illegal for the City of Orono to expend public funds for the private benefit of Mrs. Gasch, especially when the claim is based only upon the fact that Mrs. Gasch • does not like the location of Mrs. Parton' s house. 16. Mrs. Gasch has yet to spend those amounts for which she has f iled a claim. 17. Mrs. Gasch has admitted to the City Council that her only complaint was not that her view of the lake was impaired but that Mrs. Parton is now able to view a portion of Mrs. Gasch' s property from Mrs. Parton' s house. Mrs. Parton' s ability to view Mrs. Gasch' s property from her property is similar to the ability of any other neighbor anywhere in the City of Orono to view the adjoining property. 18. It appears to the City Council that the only prob- lem that exists is the problem between neighbors, which problem unfortunately they have not been able to resolve and which problem does not involve the City of Orono. The above resolution sets forth those f indings of fact made by the City Council at a regular council meeting of April 28, 1977. • '• . � • This resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of Orono on May 9, 1977, by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. / '�.� �- i�` � f �� ti�Ly�"1 L�'�'id /,� William B. VanNest, Mayor ATTEST: / walter enson Clerk/A linistrator i �