HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 3690 �� .
- :• ►,
� O ' Y .
• O O
�. � CITY of ORONO
� �
��' �'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� ��kESH.Og'� NO. e� 6 � � _
A RESOLL�TiON DENYING VARI�NCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SE�TION 10.28, SUBDIVISIt�l�1 � (�3)
AI�TD SECTION 1�.30, SUBDIVISIO�T 5 (�)
AND DENYING AN AFPLICATION FOR SLJ�BIVISION
OF P1�OPERTY LOCATED AT 372 WESTLA� STREE'f
FILE #2099 �
VVF�REAS, the City �f Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
�,�VI�REAS, pursuant to State Stab.�tes 412 er, seq. and 4G2 et. sPq., the City
Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulatians for tYie proteclion af the guClic
• health, safety and general welfare; and
W�REAS, Loren Brueggemann (hereuiafter "the applicant") has an interest in,
and Dean ivlaeser (hereinafter "the owner") is owner of th.e properiy located at 372 �'Vestlak�
Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follo�.vs:
Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 1, Hillside Park, Hennep�n County,
Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and"
WHEREAS, the applicant 'and owner have applied to the City of Orono for
variances to the lot area, lot width and si�ie street setback requirements of Municipal Zoning Code
Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B), and variances to the lot area and setback requirements of
Municipal Zoning Code Section 11.30, Subdivision 5 (C), to allow the replat subdivision of the
three lots which constitute the property, to result in two buildable lots; and
WHE:REAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the recommendations
of the City staff and the Plaruiing Commission, 3nd the comcrients and written statements
submitted by the applicant, owner, and their consultants.
Nt)W, THEREFORE, BE IT RE�OLVED that the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota her�by denies the requested variances as des�ribed above and further denies the
. requested subdivision based on one or m�ore of the fo;lowing findings of fact concerning this
property:
Pa�e 1 of 9
� . , '
� O ' V
• O O
�b. - CITY of ORONO
� �
'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L
��`qk',E pg'�'� N O. � � � � ��
� sx .-
FINDINGS
1. The property is located in the LR-lA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning
District and consists of three individual adjacent tax parcels totaling 1.99 acre in
area. Existing Lot 10 is 0.62 acre in area; existing Lot 11 is 0.85 acre in area; and
existing Lot 12 is 0.52 acre in area.
2. The property contains four buildings, consisting of the owners residence, an old
"house" used only for storage, and two rental cabins. Lot 10 contains the majority
of the driveway serving the property and two-thirds of the owner's residence
structure. Lot 11 contains one-third of the owner's residence structure, the house
used for storage, and small corners of the two rental cabins. Lot 12 contains the
majority of the two rental cabin structures.
• 3. The three properties have been commonly owned by Mr. Maeser or his
predecessor for more than twenty years, and have been used as a single homestead
with two� rental cabins for many years. As part of the 1992 Stubbs Bay Sewer
Project, the property was assessed one sewer unit to serve the owner's residence
structure. Due to the non-conforming structur.e and non-conforming use status of
the rental cabins, those cabins were not provided with sewer nor assessed sewer
units, nor was the storage building.
4. On March 13, 1995, the owner appeared before the City Council regardin� the
status of the rental cabins. The City Council on a vote of 5-0 required that the
sewer connection to the owner's residence be connected within ninety days; that
the cabins could continue to be rented for such time as the Code allows the septic
system to remain until it is required to be upgraded; that upgradin� of the septic
system will not be allowed; that the cabins must be removed at the time septic
system upgrading is required; that the owner must combine the three parcels into
one tax parcel; and that an a�reement between the owner and the City will be
drafted by the owner's attorney in conjunction with the City's attorney in order to
ensure the owner will abide by these conditions.
5. The owner and applicant propose to replat this property from three tax parcels into
two tax parcels, each of which would constitute a separate building site. The
• Page 2 of 9
. , : , ;
� .
. ,
� ��
� � �
��b. - �� C ITY of ORONO
� , �
�� �'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� ��kESH�g'� NO. :� �a � O -:�
proposed subdivision configuration creates a "front lot" and a "back lot" per the
definitions in the Subdivision Code (Ordinance No. 122, Second Series), and the
newly created lots are subject to the lot area, lot width and structural setback
standards of Subdi�rision Code Section 11.30, Subdivision 5 (C). This section
would require the platting of an "access outlot" as a separate tax parcel adjacent
to the "front lot" leading to the "back lot".
6. Section 11.30, Subdivision 5 (C) requires that the "access outlot" be 30' in width:
That same Code section requires that the "back lot" contain 150% of the minimum
zoning district required lot area. The LR-lA Zoning District required lot area is
2.0 acres. Under the proposed configuration incorporating the required 30' wide
"access outlot", proposed Lot 1 (the "front lot") would contain 0.76 acres where
a 2.0 acre lot area is required; and proposed Lot 2 (the "back lot") would contain
1.09 acres in area where 150% of the two acre standard, or 3.0 acres, is required.
• 7. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 meet the 200' required lot width at all required locations
with the exception that proposed Lot 2 is only 190' in width.at the street cettiack
where a 200' width is normally required.
8. The property is within the Shoreland Overlay District and is subject to hardcover
lunitations. The proposed "access outlot" is in the 75-250' zone where only 25%
hardcover is normally allowed. Hardcover in the "access outlot" as proposed
would be 35.0%, a 10% hardcover variance. The proposed construction on Lots
1 and 2 would not incorporate any hardcover into the 0-75' setback zone where no
hardcover is normally allowed, but a variance for 28.8% hardcover where 25%
hardcover is allowed would be necessary for the proposed construction on
proposed Lot 1.
9. The proposed subdivision would create two extremely substandard lots from three
existing record lots which individually are currently unbuildable without many
variances. The three existing lots have historically been used as a single property.
There are a number of non-conformities attributable to the existing lots:
a. Each of the three existing lots is less than the required two acre minimum
lot area requirement [Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B)].
•
Page 3 of 9
' , . . . �
, , � ...
� O�
� O O
b. - CITY of ORONU
� � �
'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
"�,�� ��
� �kESH�g' NO. e� s � o
b. Each of th� three lots is less than the required 200' minimum width as
measured at the appropriate points [Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) and
Definition of Lot Width].
c. The house on Lot 10 does not meet the required 30' side setbacks [Section
10.3, Subdivision 6 (B)] and encroaches the required side yards [Section
10.03, Subdivision 15].
d. The housP on Lot 10 encroaches into Lot 11 to a significant degree [Section
10.03, Subdivision 15].
e. The accessory building on Lot 11 is not subordinate to any principal
structure existing on Lot 11, since the principal residence structure is
primarily on Lot 10 [Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A)].
• f. The septic system which serves both the house on Lot 10 and the cabins on
� Lot 12 is located on Lots 11 and 12 [Section 12.30, Subdivision 5).
g. The septic system is within 75' of the lake [Section 10.56, Subdivision 16
�C)�•
h. The septic system is non-conforming due to lack of 3' separation al�ove
seasonal saturation zones [Section 12.30].
i. Two cabins ("dwelling units") exist on Lot 12 although only one dwelling
unit per property is allowed [Section 10.03, Subdivision 7].
j. These two cabins are less than the required 75' from the lake [Section
10.55, Subdivision S; 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C); and 10.22, Subdivision
1].
k. The two cabins on Lot 12 each encroach over the lot line into Lot 11
[Section 10.03, Subdivision 15].
1. If the larger cabin is considered the principal structure on Lot 12, then the
� accessory building (i.e. the other cabin) cannot be used as a dwelling, since
no accessory building can be used as a dwelling [Section 10.03,
Subdivision 11�.
Page 4 of 9
. ,. ,.
� O�
• O . O .
b. - CITY of ORONO
� �
�� �,'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� ��kESH.Og'� NO. e� G � O �:
10. The above non-conformities and the historic use of the property as one site, as well
as the common o�vnership which supports the use as a single site, leads Council to
the following conclusion:
a. Each of Lots 10, 11 and 12 is an existing lot of record. None of Lots 10,
11 or 12 are conforming in lot width or area to the zoning requirements and
none meet the one acre/100' width standard in Section 10.03, Subdivision
6 (A-2) required for buildability of existing sewered lots of record in
zoning districts of one acre or greater.
b. None of Lots 10, 11 or 12 could be built on without many other variances
even if lot area and width variances were granted.
c. Any lot line rearrangement proposed to realign these three parcels into two
• parcels will result in the final lots not meeting the area standards of the
Zoning Code. Therefore such lot line rearrangement is not exempt from
subdivision, but is classified as a Class II subdivision [Section 11.03,,
Subdivision 2.65, 2.66] which requires a plat.
d. All plats are required to meet existing zoning regulations at the time of plat
approval. Subdivisions may not increase the overall subdivision density
above the minimum zoning lot area r�quirements [Section 11.10,
Subdivision 14].
e. As compared to other properties which have been allowed to replat at
densities higher than those allowed, other cases involved clear and distinct
use of each of the pre-existing properties as separate from the others. In •
the current case, however, no such distinction exists because buildings are
over lot lines, buildings on separate lots have made use of shared sewer and
water facilities, the three lots have been used and maintained as a sin�le
property, arid the three lots have shared a single driveway.
11. The fact that the three lots have been kept as three separate tax parcels does not
result in an inherent right of the property owner to have three building sites, or
even two. A subdivision with significant variances is required to make the
property marginally feasible for two building sites. The proposed subdivision
• results in lots that do not meet required lot standards.
Page 5 oi 9
.y.w R.:
' �•'-'S.,}'� ti�., � . . ,� ,. • " .' . .. �
. • , . •��,, � .ti' .�
, a ,
� O� .
• O � O �
b. CITY o� ORONO
� , �
'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��`9I�.E, p4�'�'G NO. e� � 9 0 "
� SH
12. The property owner has concluded that the market value of the property as a single
building site does not provide him adequate compensation when selling the
property, and requests approval for two building sites. Zoning Code Section
10.06, Subdivision 3 (A-4) states that "economic considerations alone shall not
constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of this Chapter". Reasonable uses for the property include use as a single
building site, which use would be allowed by the Zoning Chapter.
13. While the average developed lot size in the Hillside Park subdivision is
approximately one acre in the two acre minimum LR-lA zone, existing properties
to the south, west, and north of this subdivision have substantially larger acreages.
Although the zoning district boundary between the LR-1B one acre and LR-lA two
acre zones is near the property, the property does not abut the one acre zone, and
individually would not be a reasonable extension of that zone without including
• adjacent properties on the west side of Westlake Street.
14. Two existing lakeshore lots on Westlake Street were recently combined to create
a 1.4 acre building site. In the future, additional properties along this shoreline
could be purchased together and combined to create more useable building sites.
It would be cons�stent if Lots 10, 11 and 12 were combined into one building site.
15. The Stubbs Bay area including Lots 10, 11 and 12 was not zoned by the town of
Orono until July 10, 1950 at which time the "Stubbs Bay District" was created with
� required minimum building lot area of one acre. The City Assessor's records
indicate the residence structure on�Lot 10 was built in 1951. The City has no
apparent record of when the cabins were constructed. In 1967, while th� property
was zoned one acre, a prior owner proposed a subdivision very similar to that
proposed now, resulting in two lots of approximately one acre each. That
subdivision was tabled by the City Council and no final action to approve such
subdivision ever occurred. In 1975 as part of the City-wide rezoning, the property;:
(and much of the Stubbs Bay area) was rezoned LR-lA, Single Family Lakeshore
Residential, two acre minimum lot size, which zoning is currently in effect.
16. Approval of this subdivision with the required lot area variances would set a
negative precedent and could result in pressures for higher density development in
Orono's two acre zone.
•
�age 6 of 9
: :.x� . . _ :� �
,, . _
. , • • .. , ;. ..�•F t:. f'• � ' . .
w � O�
• O O
�b� � CITY of ORONO
� ti
'�' RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�L�kE H�g'�� NO. e� G � O -.
� S �
17. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 1996,
and on a vote of 4-0 recommended denial of the requested subdivision because the
hardships presented do not justify the variances required for said subdivision.
18. Approval of the requested variances associated with this subdivision is not justified
based on the necessary findings of fact which must be made for subdivision
variance approval per Municipal Subdivision Code Section 11.02, Subdivision 10,
as follows:
A. No unusual hardship on t�ie land exists.
B. The conditions upon which the request for variance are based are not
unique to the property and are generally applicable to other property.
• C. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the particular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the land involved
constitutes an unusual hardship to the land.
D. V�riance from the strict requirements of this Chapter would result in a
development density that the City would consider environmentally unsound.
E. Approval of the variance request would not be in keeping with the
provisions of the Orono Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
F. Approval of the variances would vary the minimum area requirements for
a lot as set forth in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code as applied to the
entire subdivision.
19. The granting of the required variances would not be in keeping with the
requirements of Zoning Code Section 10:08, Subdivision 3 (A) in that undue
hardship has not been demonstrated because:
A. The essential character of the neighborhood will be altered if the proposed
variances are granted, by creating additional density not consistent with the
• LR-lA Zoning District. �
Page 7 of 9
_ • . `� F�� v'`. . . .
. e • . .. � • "'t ��1•.���, ' � ' • . .
� O�
• O O
�b. - CITY of ORONO
� ' ti � ��
'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��`9kE p4��'G NO. e� � 9 0
� SH .t3.
B. The property in question can indeed be put to reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by official controls. The property contains a single
family residence which can continue to be used, and the adjacent land can
continue to be used as yard area in support of that residence.
C. The plight of the applicant would appear to have been created totally by the
applicant and not by circumstances unique to his property nor out of the
applicant's control.
D. Granting of the proposed variances would appear to serve as a convenience
to the applicant and owner, and the applicant and owner have not
adequately demonstrated any reasonable hardship or practical difficulty.
E. The conditions and �oning Code limitations imposed ancl existing on this
• , property generaliy apply to all other land and structures in the zoning
district in which this property is located.
F. The granting of this application•is not necessary for'the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant. Denial of a
subdivision to create substandard building lots is not considered by Council
to be denial of a substantial property right.
20. in review of the factual findings noted above, the Council finds that ;ranting of the
proposed lot area, lot width, setback and hardcover variances to allow the creation
of two new substandard building lots would be in complete conflict with the
environmental standards for lakeshore development within the City and would be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The City looks to the broader
environmental principles and goals set forth in its Community Management Plan
and the intent of the specific zonin; district when dealing with matters of the public
health, safety and welfare. Issues involving public health, safety and welfare are
not only resolved by securing the obvious traffic and drainage concerns, but the
City also feels obligated to provide the citizens with a designated and optimum
level of density, open space and quality of life.
• Page 8 of 9
. . ti .
- � . -
7 O� '
• O O
b. - CITY of ORONO
� �
�� G'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
. �`�kEsH.og'� rvo. � 6 9 0 -�
Adopted by the Ciry Council of the City of Orono on this l lth day of March, 1996.
AT EST:
�'1 . �
orothy M. n, City Clerk Gabrie Jabbour, Acting ayor
STATE OI= NiINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
• The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this l lth day of March,
��_,
1�96 by Gabriel Jabbour&Dorothy M. Hallin, Acting Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono,
a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
`� �.�-�
���� ��
LINDA S.VEE Notary Public
„� ..�rO+
�;.� N07ARY PUBLIC-MINNES07
;.,:. ,. HENNEPIN COUNTY �
� ires Jan.31,2000
;;�� s
=�';„j° ha,y Commission Exp'
� Pa e9of9
g