HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2014 .. .. .....ti..........._....,..........._._ ....> ._.._ ...,.,..+..,.�...�.....�.........._..._..,..�.... - ...._
. . . . . . ..1. r-f� . . . .
� ... 7^ "s . '�." . , * .;x.� ..
:� l `�• .i �
� .
- :� Clt�:o�� ORONO � . �
� 4 . . ;i
. ' � � ���� RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL � ° - � � '���
� NO. 2014 .
� • - • •
, ;_ r
:, � � A RESOLIITION DL?NYYNG VARIANCES
' TO MU1dICIPAL ZONING CODE
`.� SECTION 10.22, SIIBDIVISION 1 & 2
�. AND SECTION 10.55, SIIBDIVISION 8 . .
:
s • FILE NO. 999
: WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et.
seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning
regulations for the protection of .the public health, safety and
general welfare; and �
WHEREAS, Bennett Belden and Evan Meline (hereinafter "the
applicants") have an interest in, and Leslie and Blanche LaBresh are �
the owners of property located within the City of Orono (hereinafter
"the City") legal ly described as follows:
�� That part of Lot 9, Block 2, Baldur Park, Hennepin County,
• Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the Northwesterly right-of-way
line of County Road 51 (hereinafter "the property" ) ; and �
' Y
, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied .to the City for variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit
the construction of a principal structure on a property that contains
5,300 square feet or 24� of the required 21,780 square feet in area,
� and �}9 f eet in width or 4 9� of the required 10 0-f oot width, and
setback of 10' from the County Road 51 right-of-way where a 30' set-
back is normally required, and setback of 8' from the side lot line
where a 10' setback is normally required, and setback of 63' from the
, lakeshore where a 75' setback is normally required; and requiring
variances to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2 and Section 10.55,
Subdivision 8 which sections prohibit structure, hardcover, and
grading in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the
• recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; .the comments and
written statements submitted by the neighbors; the comments and
written statements of the applicants and the property owner. _
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Orono hereby denies the requested variances for the property
� described above based upon one or more of the following findings of
fact concerning this property:
Page 1 of 6
.. _. _ . .,......, . . _. . .. . . ,...�_..,�,...�.�,..e:._....�....�..............:...,.......,.....�
• �.. . . • � � F' . � . ~ . 'f�. „ � ., a
�j"iF� ��.�WLRt��1.J� � ��.�"}7^.il�: �(,t� .1'e..
. i � ; � y _ L. . F ��
. . • '� ' ��I��e . � � . ' �i. 4 . . ,.
s
. : � , �._ .. _� .._ C�t���o�� ORO �:�.�� O_....�_�. . _ _ �.-. .�.
� •
; � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� � • NO. 2014
,�� � • � • • . FINDINGS
v 1. As of January l , 1975 , the property has been zoned LR-1C, �
x Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, requiring a minimum of 1/2 acre
•`` in area and 100 feet minimum width. Based on the performance•
. standards of the zoning district, the proposed use of the property as
�� a residential or buildable lot would require the following variances:
::
'� a) Lot Area' ' " , � '
� � Required = 0.5 acres or 21,780 s.f. �
�_ Existing = , 5,300 s.f. or 24�
�� Variance = 16,480 s.f. or 76� �
a) Lot Width � � �
Required = 100 feet �
f Existing = 49 feet
� Variance = 51 ' or 51� . •
2. Additional performance standards of the LR-1C Zoning Di�strict for '
which applicant's proposal would require variances are as follows: �
• � a) Street Setback � •
Required = 30 '
Proposed = 10 '
Variance = 20 ' or 67�
b) Left Side Setback ' � �
• . Required = 10 ' .
Proposed = 8 ' ' _
Variance = 2 ' or 20� � �
c) Lakeshore Setback
Required = 75 ' .
Proposed = 63 ' �
Variance = 12 ' or 16�$
d) Hardcover 0-75 ' (Lot Area in 0-75 ' = 3,100 s.f. )
Required (allowed) = 0 s.f. or 0�
. Proposed = 360 s.f. or 12� .
. Variance = 360 s.f. or 12�
. . e) Hardcover 75-250 ' (Lot Area in 75-250 ' Zone = 1,450 s.f: )
Required (allowed) = 25� or 362.5 s.f. �
� Proposed � = 760 s.f. or 52.4� '
Variance = 397.5 s.f. or 27.4$
f ) Requires a variance to Zoning Code Sections 10.22 ,
Subdivision 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 8 which prohibit structures
4 and prohibit grading or filling in the 0-75 ' setback zone.
Page 2 of 6
.. . .. � .._�..._...._..... _.._..._..,...,�.....___.... . . ..�.�..............�.r.w...,........._....... . . ... �. . ....�c...r�ru.o....,..«.n.v......«..-,......�.-.�..�..,....
' � 1 ;rt' � . , }" •` "�„-ilE', . . � ' '
.. • . '3 -d._i'i' t . . "!' . , � ' � T�y' � .
. ;� i
� . .."�:�a � •t � , ` .
t r
, a � ��V �.o� ORONO . � . : -
�, . �':,: . � ,
• .,� . . . . , . _�;.i` _ _ . .i . ;__._� _.�...__.. . . _ _. .
� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL _
� � NO. `2014
, • - • • � .
1
° 3. The LaBreshes acquired the property in 1950. The property was
� sold on an unrecorded contract for deed to Meline and Belden in
.January, 1986.
; 4. A small cabin in severe disrepair existed on the property prior to
November, 1985, at which time it was demolished by the owner per City
E Permit No. 5827 dated 11/4/85 to forestall Hazardous Building Action
by the City of Orono per City Council Resolution No. 1857 dated
, September 9, 1985. The building foundation was not removed and re-
mains on the site in a hazardous condition.
5. The property was assessed 1 sewer unit for the 1963'-1 sewer
project and the cabin was connected to municipal sewer in 1972. The
total amount of the sewer assessment was $644.80. �
6. The valuation of the property for tax purposes has been as
follows : �
Taxable Market Value
Total
� Year Land Structure Est. Market
1986 $34,100 $2,200 $36, 300
1985 38,200 2,200 40,400 �
1984 38,200 2,200 40,400 .
1983 38,200 2,200 40,400
1982 34,800 2,000 36,800
1981 20,600 1,400 22,000
1980 13,900 (LV) 700 (LV) 19,300
1979 ' 9,300 (LV) 700 (LV) 16,000
1978 . 7,300 (LV) 700 (LV) 12, 000
1977 6,050 (LV) � 720 (LV) 7,500
1976 - - 6,160
. 1975 • - - 5,600 •
, 1974 - . - . 5,600
LV - Limited Value •
The tax valuations suggest that the land has been recently
valued as a lakeshore building site for tax purposes. However, the' .
tax assessor's assignment of valuation to property is merely an
opinion based on the perceived existing or allowable uses of a parcel
of property. The assigned valuation of this property might change
substantially as a result of this clarification of allowed uses of
this �property.
• 7. The" Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application at a
Public Hearing on December 16, 1985 and tabled the application pending
applicant's receipt of information regarding the possible purchase of
an adjacent parcel of land.
Page 3 of 6
,. .� �.. . . ., ..... . � �. .. ..�N. ��...�..........�.�«....�,-.�..a......,.�
. y y R.
. - . .. . ��w.� " '• L��N 9Y�7u-k-�' .' - . � .. ' .
. ' , w .l 1�� s � . #�:
� . ��.;Jr . • �� • . . � .
:' � . ;. . : C.�t�..o�- ORO_.NO :�� _ _ ._ _. _ . . �, .
.�• � �� J ,
_ �� RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� NO. 2014
• � • • -
fl .
: 8. The Orono Planning Commission again reviewed this application on
; " February 18, 1986 and again tabled the application pending information
;� on purchase of the adjacent lot. .
,� 9. The Orono Planning Commission again reviewed the application on
� April 21, 1986 and recommended denial of the requested variances,
finding that: . �
a) The variances requested are excessive considering the
� extremely small dry buildable lot area.
b) The property cannot be feasibly built upon. without excessive
, variances being granted. � ,
c) The building which was removed was required to be removed
� because it was dilapidated and hazardous and was not removed •
merely to appease the Planning Commission, and because the
building was vacant for a great many years, there are no
"gr.andfather" rights to build on the property and that this is
not a "taking" of property. � � .
, .
d) The high level of Lake Minnetonka in the Spring of 1986 gives
a good indication that if the variances were granted, the
proposed house would be potentially adversely affected by the
lake encroaching within 12 feet of the proposed foundation on an
. annual basis.
� 10. The City Council reviewed this application at their May 12, 1986
meeting and directed staff to draft a resolution of denial of the
, requested variances, and directed staff to research £or the applicant
what other potential uses the property may have.
11. The property can be put to a reasonable allowed use; it can be
combined with the adjacent developed property for use as yard area,
- and it can be used for picnicking, or for a garden.
12. Applicants are not able to obtain adjacent vacant property, and
the physical character of that property is such that the added vacant•
" property �would not alleviate the major problems with development of .
the subject property. �
• 13. The proposed setback of 10' from the County Road 51 right-of-way,
in conjunction with no garage being provided on the property, would
force applicants to park their private vehicles within public right-
of-way, creating a potential safety hazard. �
Page 4 of 6
..� ...y,...� ... ..... � ..,......_..._. ..r...n_-'-'------�... �......_ .. , .•.s � .,..�..�..�u.�F.me.,Z......n�,...,..+,.w..�..�...�.-.......»..».�
... . ... .. _ . ., . -_ .i . • K ..
. � . � j� ' . . . . r� 'r �^-iw.1 1Q s"_ , . . •
' ' �� . . � �+•:'} , . �N . . . • ' T�l� .
,' . ' . � � • . `�::*� �n . .
� � C�t�::�o� ORONO - .--.__ . _ . .. ��.: _
• . � �
� � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L ,
. � NO. 2014
. • - • •
r .
I • .
14. The applicant purchasers of the property were aware of the zoning
code requirements prior to their agreement to purchase the property
and in fact appliecl for variances prior to the date of their purchase
� agreement, which they stated as being January 1986. Any hardship
. would seem to be self imposed. �
" 15. The LR-1C Single� Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning� District
contains 631 developed residential units. Of these 631 units:
- 209 of 631 (or 33�) exceed the 0. 50 acre lot area requirement
� - 517 of 631 (or 82� ) are in excess of 0.20 acres
- 611 of 631 (or 97� ) are in excess of 0.15 acres
� The Council finds that this lot of area 0.12 acres is not'
consistent with the existing developed lot sizes in the LR-1C Zoning
District.
16. The property falls so far short of the zoning standards that the
requested variances are too extensive to justify� their granting.
17. Variances of the number and magnitude requested have not been
previously granted for any property in the LR-1C Zoning District in
con temporary times. The Council finds that denial of the variances is
consistent with previous Council action and does not deny applicant
equal treatment and protection under the law.
18. The property does not conform to the current development pattern
. • of the neighborhood.
19. The granting of the variances for the proposed development would
set an adverse precedent in the City.
20. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter and
intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan.
. 21. The amount of light and air in the neighborhood would be
. diminished by adding a structure on this substandard lot.
22. The vaiues of surrounding properties wi,l 1 be adversely affected.
� 23. The proposed variances would have an adverse effect upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined
herein.
Page 5 of 6
d F
�,,
' � Cit� o� ORONO
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�
� NO. 2014
• - • •
24. The granting of the required variances would result in the
following violations of Section 10.03, Subdivision 3.A of the Zoning
Code with �which the applicant must first comply before the requested
variances can be granted:
a) In review of the f actua 1 f indings noted above, the City f inds
that the essential character o� the neighborhood will be altered
if a building permit is issued for this property.
b) In review of the factual findings noted above., the City finds
that to establish a precedent that would allow severely sub-
standard lots to be developed in complete conflict with the
established environmental standards for lakeshore development
within the City and to be detrimental to the pubiic, health,
safety and welfare. The City also looks 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 life.
- 25. Approval of an application that requires a 76 per cent variance
' to lot area would establish a negative precedent in the future
; development of the LR-1C zoning district. The standards and intent of
bbth the City's Zoning Code and Community Nianagement Plan would no
° longer have any effect if the City establishes a precedent nf
`; approving variances of this degree.
,j
i
� Adopted� by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota,
at a regular meeting held June 23, 1986.
' ATT ST: �
�
,
_ . , ' . (�
\
-,e othy . Hall'n, City Clerk Mary C. B er, Mayor
. Page 6 of 6
,
1