HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 1874 e};
�
d � ; Clt� o� ORONO �
• : `. ._
. �:; RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�^, �r
�. ,y s.,:+", F
��; �' NO. 1874
tf..;:_�. ..
•
• • '.•.«
i ,.
w`'� ��:�;�,
;3:.
A R$SOLQTION iUENYING
A VARIANCE TO MLTNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.25 SQBDIVISION 6 (B)
FILE #912
WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal. corporation
organized and existing under the Iaws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHER$AS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et
seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning
reg�lations for the protection of the publie� health safety and
general weifare; and
WHEREAS, Gordon Hedlund (hereinafter "the applicant") has an
interest in the property Iegally described as the South 120.00 feet of
• Lot 13, Hickory Hill , Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter
property) within the City of Orono (hereinafter "The City"); and
WH$REAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a
variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25 Subdivisi.on 6, (B) to
permit the construction of a principal structure on a property that
contains 9,532 s.f. or 44$ of the required 21,780 s.f. in area in the
LR-1C Zoning District; and
�` WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the
recomriendations of the staff and Planning Commission; the comments of
the neighbors; and the comments and written statements of the
applicant.
� NO�l, THER$FORL, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
Orono, hereby denies the requested I.ot area variance for the property
desc-ribed above based upon one or more of the folloi��ing findings ef
fact concerning this property:
FINDINGS
l. As of January l, �1975, the east- half of the property has been
zoned L'R-IC, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a
minimum of 1/2 acre in area and 100 feet minimum width. The west
half has �een zoned LR-1B, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District,
requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area and 140 feet minimum width.
� Based on the Ieast restrictive performance standards of the 1/2
ac"re zoning district, the proposed use of the property as a
residential or buildable lot would require the following
variance:
' Pa.ge 1 of 5
. �
����� � C�tY o� ORONO �
�' •`an• .. !/
• `����..�j
';";��;�� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L
y.,.;�
."` 1874
,y;;:;;;�� N O.
�,. ;,:
� � • •
:,r.: .
Lot Area
Required = 1/2 acre or 21,780 square feet
Existing = 9,532 square feet or 44�
Variance = 12, 248 square feet or 56$
The Iot area would be further reduced by 700 square feet or down
to 8,832 square feet ( 0.20 acre) if the variance was approved
subject to granting Hennepin County additional requested area for
right-of-way.
2. Prior to 1975, the west and east halves of the property were
zoned R1-C and Ri-D respectively, effective since September 14,
1967, residential zones requiring minimum lot widths and areas no
different than the current zoning performance standards.
3. Per the 1963 sewer district assessment policy, the easterl.y
o parcel was assessed area, front footage, and unit charges. Per
the 73-1 sewer district assessment policy, the west parcel was
assessed front footage and area charges. The Ievy of sewer
assessments does not in itself guarantee that a property is
buildable.
4. A seasonal cabin existed on the property until the fall of
1968, when it was razed. No structure has existed on the
property since then. ,
5. On Aprii 28, I969, the City Council approved granting of a
variance to the then owner Gary Setterstrom to allow the property
as a buil.ding site, conditioned on proof of ownership of both the
easterly and westerly parcels.
This variance was never used, and no application was ever made
for a building permit. Ordinance 172 adopting a revised Zoning
Code effective 1-1-75, stated that "variances shall expire one
year after the date of Council approval if not used". Based on
, this, any variances approved prior to 1/1/75 and not used by
1/1/76 are presumed to have expired on 1/1/76.
6. The easterly parcel was forfeited to the State Land
Department in 1979 for non-payment taxes. The westerl.y parcel
was forfeited to the State Land Department in 1978 for non-
payment of taxes. �
• 7. � The City Council released the easterly Iot for sale to the
pulic by adopting Resolutions #937 and #944 in 1978 and #1046 in
1979. The easterly and_ westerly parcels were again released for
sale by the Council per Resolution #1250, dated February 23, I981
with the foliowing notice to the public:
PaQe 2 of �
(` ♦
�;��4, d Clt o� ORONO
�� �
• ��.,: .�, .. _
;;�� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'
������ NO. 1874
• - • •
'�`Rele.a e of these Iands by the City Council does not constitute
an assurance that each parcel is or will be approved as a
building site. AII. parcels remain subject to alI applicabl.e
zoning ordinance provisions , incl.uding those regulations
providing for minimum lot area and minimum Iot width.
Substandard parcels may be useable only in combination with other
adjoining parcel (s)".
8. On April 17, I981, Gordon Hedl.und of 1255 Pi•ke Lake Drive,
New Brighton, MN 55112 purchased the two parcels for a combined
price of $4, 000, the easterly parcel at $2,400 and the westerly
parcel at $1,600. Hennepin County Department of Property
Taxation conditions all sales of properties either at public
auction or over the counter with the following disclaimer:
CONDITIONS - Sales are subject to existing Ieases, to building
restrictions appearing of record at the time of forfeiture and to
easements obtained by any governmental subdivision or agency
thereof for any publ.ic purpose. The appraise value does not
represent a basis for future taxes. Contact the city where the
• land is Iocated for details of building codes or zoning laws.
ALL PROPERTY IS SOLD "AS IS° AND MAY NOT CONFORM TO LOCAL
BDILDING AND ZONING ORDINANCES. THE COUNTY MARES NO WARRANTY
THAT LAND IS 'BUILDABLE'. ALL SALES ARE FINAL, AND NO REFUNDS OR
EXCHANGES ARE PERMITTED."
9. Any hardship sustained by the applicant is self-imposed. The
tax forfeit property was purchased by the applicant in 1981 prior
to his application for the necessary variance approval. The
requirement from which a variance is required has been in effect
since 1967. �
10. On April 23, 1985, Gordon Hedlund applied for a lot area and
Iot width variance for the subject property.
11. The pattern of existing development on properties located
within 1000' of the subject property is as follows:
No. of Developed Properties
0. 00 - 0.10 acre - 0
0 .11 - 0.20 acre� - 6 �
0.21 - 0. 30 acre - 15
0. 31 - 0. 40 acre - 13
0.41 - 0.50 acre - 11
0 .51 - 0.60 acre - 14
0.61 - 0.70 acre - 8
e0.71 - 0. 80 acre -� 1
0. 81 - 0. 90 acre - 1
0 . 91 - 1. 00 acre - 0
1. 00 - Greater acre - 9
78 Total Properties
Page . 3 � of• 5
,
d C�t� o� ORONO
• � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'
� NO. 1874
• • • •
The total number of existing developed properties� within 1000' of
the subject property which are smaller than 0.22 acres is 6 of 78
(or 8$ ). The total number of existing developed properties
within 1000' which are Iarger than 0.22 acre is 71 or (or 91$).
One existing developed property is 0.22 acre in area. Based on
the above figures, the proposed building site is considered as
inconsistent with developed Iot sizes in the surrounding area.
12. Approval of a variance application requiring a 56$ variance
to lot area in Orono's half-acre zoning district would establish
a negative precedent in the future development of the area sur-
rounding the subject lot. A review of the ownership pattern of
the remaining vacant Iots in the area of radius 1000' surrounding
the subject property indicates that at Ieast thirteen vacant Iots
in the 9,000-10,000 s.f. range exist and could be considered as
potential requests for buildability if the current application is
approved.
• 13. The access to this property would necessarily be very near
the "S-curve" on County Road 19 and 151; any driveway Iocation on
the property would be considered hazardous.
14. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at their
May 20, 1985 meeting and recommended denial of the variance based
on the following findings:
A) Lot does not follow the neighborhood pattern of existing
development, being smaller than 91$ of the developed Iots
within 1000' of the property. •
B) Relatively unsafe county road access.
� C) Applicant had forewarning that Iots may be unbuildable
prior to his purchase.
D) Denial is consistent wit.h past denials on vacant
� substandard Iots of this size.
E) Property could be combined with adjacent properties to
the east or south, both of which are substandard in area.
F) Intent of the application is contrary to the letter and
intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. .
• G) Granting of this variance would set an adverse precedent
in the City.
H) The property falls too short of the zoning standards to
justify granting of the variance.
Page 4 of, 5
I�'
L'.i
d C�t� o� ORONO
� � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� NO. 1874
• � • •
I) There is an existing hazardous traffic problem on the
"S" curve and that an additional access onto this point
would further the dangerous situation.
15. The property can be put to reasonable use by either
combination with adjacent developed parcels or by the County for
right-of-way purposes; and the County has stated they are
currently in the process of negotiating with the applicant to
purchase the property.
16. In review of the factuai findings noted above, the City
finds that establishment of a precedent that would al Iow severly
substandard Iots to be developed would be in complete conf lict
with the established environmental standards for lakeshore area
development within the City and wouid be detrimental to the
public, health, safety and welfare. The City also Iooks to the
broader, environmental principals and goals set forth in its
Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning
• district when dealing with matters related to the public, health
safety and welfare. Issues involving the public health, safety
and welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvious traffic
and drainage concerns of surrounding property owners but the City
also must provide its citizens with a designated and approved
optimum level of density, open space and quality of Iife.
17. In denying this application, tYie City reverses its previous
action of April 28th, 1969 (in which a Iot area variances was
granted to Gary Setterstrom) in consideration of the findings
contained herein. That variance approval is considered to have
expired as of 1/1/76.
. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of
Octo er, 1985.
�' ATT T:
. ,� \ 1�,
�
othy M. all.in, City Clerk Mary C. Bu r, Mayor
� �
Page 5 of 5
�
_ �
.�
, � „1
ti.
� � �. � Clt� o� ORONO
• �:
. , �� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL"
.� F� N0. 1875
+ �`#.». � ,�. �._
;s.'
� r�S;. .,i'��.:
4 • � • •��,,..
e�.�• •
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 3A — FILE �928
WHEREAS, Richard W. Pula, (hereinafter "the applicant" ) is
the owner of the property located at 2015 Webber Hills Road located
within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City" ) and legally described as .
follows:
Lot 12, Block 3 Webber Hills, P.I.D. 03-117-23 34 0029
(hereinafter "property" ) ; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of
Orono rc�r a Conditional Use Permit to permit construc'r..;.on of a
temporary guest apartment to be located in the upper f loor of the garage
for the specific use of applicant' s mother-in-law and a variance to the
area requirments of that same section as the property consists of . 9
acres instead of the required 4 acres.
• NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
l. This application was reviewed as zoning file #928 .
2. The praperzy is located in th� RR-1B Ruidl Res�c�ential.
Zoning District.
3 . On October 7 , 1985 the Orono Council conceptually
approved an area variance to Section 10. 285ubdivision 3 (A)
based on the following findings :
a) The property has adequate area to sustain accessory
uses associated with additional apartment unit.
b) There is adequate septic area to provide future septic
needs for existing house demands and the apartment unit.
c) There i� adequate area on site for one parking stall to
serve apartment unit.
d) The apartment area within the garage area of the
structure can be easily modified for single family use
� purposes.
e) The exterior appearance of the house still remains as
asingle family house consistent withsurrounding Webber
Hills residences.
� Page 1 of 4
0
��
� ,
� ' . .
•
•
M . . •
•
�-