HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2015 y . . n � rF ' I • � . ^ t . ,
--" ., a � '! . i . � . .
. � .. . ' � . . , � . {� , .� . ' •
, �
. . . _ : . , .C�i.t '�o�j OR�ONO . ,. . , , , . .
� .
' � � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� � NO. 2015 �
, � � • • . _
�
;�� •
A RESOLIITION DENYING "
DIIANE N. HALL'S
APPLICATION FOR SDBDIVISION AND VARIANCES
j � FILE NO. 1010
,f
_ � WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the laws. of the State of Minnesota; and
� ' WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter
� • "the City Council") has adopted zoning and subdivision regulations
pursuant. to the powers vested in the City by State� Statutes 462.357
� et. seq. and 462.358 et. seq. for purposes of ensuring the orderly,
economic and safe development of land within the City; and
, WHEREAS, the City Council has considered an application for
a subdivision and variances made by Duane N. Hall (hereinafter "the ,
applicant" ) , dated January 31, 1986 for property located at 1860 .
Shadywood Road and legally described as Lot 27 except the North 15
• feet; said 15 feet being measured at right angles from the North line
of said lot and Lot 28, al 1 in Shadywood (hereinafter "the property");
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the written reports
by the City staff; the unanimous recommendation of the Planning
Commission; the comments and petitions . submitted by surrounding
neighbors; and the letters and comments made by the applicant. .
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Counci 1 of the
City of Orono hereby denies Duane N. Hall's requested subdivision of
the property and further denies any and all variances from zoning code
� performance standards, wl�ich variances would have been required in
order to approve said subdivision, all based upon one or more of the
following findings of fact concerning this property and this
application: _
FINDINGS OF FACT �
l. The action of the City Council is based upon the layout for
proposed subdivision attached hereto as Exhibit A, a survey by
Mark S. Gronberg dated January 21, 1986, revised plan March 21,
1986 by the applicant. This is the plan conceptually acted upon
by the City Council on� April 28, 1986, and is the only' plan ever
placed before the City Council for their consideration.
� 2. The Hall proposal conforms to the definition of "subdivision"
contained in Section 11.03 definitions 65 and 66 (G) of the Orono
Subdivision Code, and was therefore reviewed according to the
standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 11, the subdivision
. code:
Page 1 of 9
_ ..... � . .... ,.. . . _ __ ... . _._,.._....�.......v.».._._....-.__ ,_.,._... -�
. • . • � .. . '�i . , t,► � � . �. •
,
. . .�. . . _ . C�t���o� ORONO . �_ . . . .
• � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
_ �
� NO. 2015
• � � • .
.�� � �
' � 65. "Subdivision" - The separation of an area, parcel, or
.. tract of land under single ownership into two or more
� parcels; tracts, ' lots, or long-term leasehold interests
� where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates
. . the creation of streets, roads, or alleys for residential,
. " commercial, industrial , or other use or any combination
thereof, except those separations: �
a. Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or
' int�erests will be 20 acres or larger in size and� 500 .
feet in width for residential uses and five acres or
� � larger in size for commercial and industrial uses;
� b. Creating cemetery lots; ,
c. Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a .
lot line by the relocation of a common boundary as long
. as each of the two resulting lots meets the require-
• ments of the. Zoning Chapter of the City Code.
66. "Subdivision, Classification" .
c. "Class III Subdivision" - A Class III Subdivision�
� shall be a plat which includes, bixt is not limited to,
a subdivision which meets one or more of the following
criteria: ' • �
1. The subdivision results in three or more
�• , buildable lots; or,
2. The subdivision involves a flexible zoning
� application; or,
. .
3. The subdivision involves the vacation or
' . dedication of a public roadway; or �
4. The subdivision involves the extension of
� municipal utilities.
� 3. The application of Duane N. Hall is for land subdivision and
variances to zoning and subdivision performance standards.- A
f lexible zoning application is defined as follows:
Flexible Zoning - Flexible zoning includes but is not
� limited to, all special or conditional use permits ,
variances, planned unit development and rezoning.
: 4. The property is located in the LR-1C Zoning District, which
district has the following minimum lot requirements:
� Page 2 of 9
v._.�,_.._..__..,.._ ._ ._ . . ''y. ..._.: , .. .. . ;.'�..�.......� .,._. . . , . . . K~.�.,_ .'. _.. ._ . ........ ..,r
� � Clty o� ORONO �
` � � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ,
�
. i � NO. 2015
;. • � • • .
ction 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B)
'�� Lot Area = 1/2 acre or 21,780 s.f. �
` Lot Width = 100 feet
Street Setback = 30 feet
' � Side� Setback = 10 feet
,�
� Section 10.22, Subdivision 1
� Lakeshore Setback = 75 feet
-�` . .
� Section 10.22, Subdivision 2
Hardcover Regulations
• , 0-75 Feet From Shoreline = No Ha'rdcover .
75-250' Feet From Shoreline = Maximum 25� Hardcover
: '� � 5. The subdivision proposes a new division line of legally .
combined lots and seeks the fol lowing variances to Section 10.25, .
. Subdivision 6 (B) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning
Code: � `.
. Lot A
� l. Lot Area = 20,850 s.f.
• Area Variance = 930 s.f. or 4.2�
2. Lot Width = 70.5 '
Width Variance = 29.5 or 29.5$
� �
, Lot B
l. Lot Area = 18,450 s.f.
Area� Variance = 3,330 s.f. or 15.2�
, 2. Lot Width = 65.5 '
Variance = 34.5 ' or 34.5�
Lot A �
Hardcover Within 75-250 ' Setback Area (15, 560 s.f. )
Allowed Hardcover = 3,890 s.f. or 25$
Existing Hardcover = 5,174 s.f. or 33�
� Hardcover Variance = 1,284 s.f. or 8�
6. Lots A and B as proposed would also require variances to
Section 11.31, � Subdivision 2, Lot Dimensions, and� Subdivision 3,
. Lot Area, Minimum, of the Subdivision Chapter because minimum
standards of the LR-1C Zoning District can not be satisfied. .
7. The applicant purchased the property on November 15, 1979
from James E. Stoddart and Adell G. Stoddart.
! 8. The property (part. of Lot 27 and Lot 28 ) was created in 1903
as part of the Shadywood Plat consisting of a total of 41 lots.
33 defined residential units exist today of the original 41 lots.
9. The original lot areas range from approximately 7,000 s.f. to
26,000 s.f. The lot widths range from 50 feet to 95+ feet.
Page �3 of 9 �
^ - . . , . .. .�� � .' y . e���w ; ' �r'f. � . �=-� � • � .
� . . , �., . . . . . :� �. . ..
: � � �a C�t�:o��ORONO . .
,, 3 .. . . �,. . .. ...._..._� . _ . _ �.,�.__ . . _ �:` ...._� . . _. . ��_. . __.
' • � . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
:,
�. � NO. 2015. .
A.% • - • •
,.t. . ,
NY�, .
.��
�1 . _ .
:,
;' . 10. ; Of the 33 developed lots the following pattern can be noted:
K a) Lot Widths
-' S0 '-59 ' 60 '-79 ' 80 '-99 ' 100 '-150 '
'��` --------- --------- ------- ---------
i� 5 or 15$ 16 or 48� 1 or 3� 11 or 33$
' � l. � 11 of the 33 units satisfy current lot width
standards .
;. 2. 9 of the 11 units ranked at the 100'-150' widths
� � are legally combined lots the same as the subject
' property. � �
b) Lot Areas �
� 7000_10, 000_s_f_ 10, 001_18,000_s_f_ ,
• 8 or 24� 16 or 48�
;
. 18,001-22,000 s.f. . 22,001-40,�000 s.f.
4. or 12$ 5 or� 15$
1. 9 units or 27� satisfy the 80� area standard (per
`• Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 A (1) existing lots of
record that satisfy 80� of the area standard do not .
require variance review) �
2. 5 of these 9 units contain 34,000 s.f. to 39,000+
s.f. in area and are legally combined as is the subject
property.
11. The property consists of 39,300 s.f. in area and l36 feet of
lot width. � .
12. The Registrar of Titles Office confirms the earliest record
of the property appears in 1952. The division of Lot • 27
(separation of 15 feet along t�e north boundary) took place
before 1952 as well as 'the legal combination of the property.
• 13. The house was built in 1955 prior to the City adopting lot
standards for development. The City adopted zoning districts
" designating residential areas in 195�0 but never established
standards or setbacks for construction.
Page 4 of 9
t • . � ' � L . � 1 1 � . � _ • . . . . 1 . . . �� � � . � M '1 ' LY�.� .� � i / 1 / 1
• � � I 1 � . �. J . . v �y „'.tr�s • � . � ♦
� � , Ci.t� o� ORONO
• � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�
� � NO. 2015
i
. • - • •
' ; 14. In 1959, the City adopted a minimum lot size ordinance
. requiring approval by the City before a building permit could be
. " issued for any lot less than 1 acre in area and 140 feet at the
� building line.
' � 15. Since September 14, 1967 to the present the property has
- been located within a residential zoning district requiring 1/2
acre in area and 100 feet of lot• width.
16. The property is served with sewer and water and has been
assessed for. 1 water unit and 1 sewer unit (1 plant charge and
lineal footage). �
� 17. On May 12, 1980, the City Council approv.ed a street setback
variance for the applicant to construct a 24'x25' detached garage
on the property. The site plan placed the garage right on the
� shared lot� line. The Planning Commission, at their May 5, 1980 .
meeting, spe\cifically noted the following:
� "staff confirm that Lots 27 and 28 are legally combined
before building permit is �issued."
� 18. A recent inspection of Lot 28 by the Orono staff has
, conf irmed that either a drainage or retention area f or a sma 11
watershed exists within the proposed building envelope of ,
proposed Lot B.
19. The neighbors most affected by the proposal have all written
to the City asking that the City Council uphold the standards of
� the LR-1C Zoning District. Their comments are summarized as
follows : • �
a) Crystal Bay and Shadywood neighborhood is already over-
� crowded
b) negative precedent would be established with future
. subdivision applications requesting variances with
subdivisions .
c) the 'request is in complete conflict with� the lakeshore
environmental policies of the City. .
20. � Mrs. Durwood A. Taylor of 1880 Shadywood Road (immediate�
neighbor to south) has confirmed in writing that on January 5,
1986, the applicant attempted to purchase l5 feet of her property
• . which she refused. •
21. At the Planning Commission meeting of March 17, 1986, . the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the application for
subdivision and variances based on the following findings:
• Page 5 of 9 �
. ..___.........:�..._.._...,._.,._.__........_.._ .. ....,,��.._.--.._.__ __. _�,.�._ . _._
� . �,;,, � ' :.��
' • . y ' _ ,��' ;i, • . .
. , . „ . . .. �. . �..:. . . _ . , . . ..c . _ . .,_ . .. . . .. .
. � � C�t� o� ORONO �
• � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� NO. 2015
; I • - • •
� "a) multiple variances sought are excessive
� � b) applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence of a
� • hardship which is unique to that particular circumstance°
:
. 22. The grantimg of the lot area, lot width and hardcover
variances would result in the following violations of Section
, 11.02, Subdivision 10 of the Subdivision Regulations with which
the applicant must first comply before the required variances can
be granted: . , •
' � a) the applicant has not been able to demonstrate an.
. unusual hardship on the land to warrant the granting of
� variances to the subdivision code; � -
b) the proposed subdivision with multiple variances will . '
pose a detriment to the public welfare by permitting intense
development of sensitive lakeshore property within the
already overcrowded Crystal Bay/Shadywood neighborhood;
• c) surrounding property owners claim that to allow the
substandard lot to be developed would diminish their
property values; '
d) the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there
' exists unique conditions to the property to permit the
� granting of these multiple variances;
�• �e)� to not enforce the standards of this Chapter and permit
these variances would result in environmentally unsound
development and be in complete conf lict with the overal l
. policies and goals of �the Comprehensive Municipal Plan of
the City as fol lows:
Orono's Planning Goals
1. THE FOREMOST GUIDING PRINCIPLE AND GOAL OF ORONO'S
PLANNING IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE LAKE MINNETONKA,
' ITS WATER QUALITY AND ITS RECREATIONAL ASSETS. This
goal con,tinues a commitment established at least twenty
' five years ago. It includes preservation of . the
associated marshland, wetlands and natural drainageways
" as the only practical, cost effective way of preventing
flooding and of filtering out the nutrient pollution
• � f rom storm water runof f. ,
7. TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY AT DENSITIES
CONSISTENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE
. PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN.
Page 6 of 9
. _ r , . ...,...,.. .� ... ..�.. __ . .. . . . .. •.... ^i� .., . _. ` `.._.. .. -
. . ' •
. Clt� o� ORONO
• .
� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
j � NO. 2015 .
• - • •
' � Orono's Planning Policies ,
` 1. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GUIDED TO PROTECT AND
. ENHANCE THE LAKE MINNETONKA WATERSHED. Lake Minnetonka
� has local and regional significance as a vital
� . ingredient in human experience and in the quality of
°_ life of all Orono residents. No development will be
- permitted that would have a detrimental effect on the
� Lake.
6.• NATURAL FEATURES AND SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS WILL BE
', PROTECTED BY ORDINANCES BASED UPON EXTENSIVE INVENTORY,
ANALYSIS AND ESTABLISHED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
GUIDELINES. Natural resource information wil 1 be used
.� and evaluated in review of all land use developments.
Ordinance provisions will be reasonably established,
- - fairly interpretted and strictly enforced.
IIrban Planning Policies
• 4. URBAN DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE CAREFULLY SCREENED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY. Most of Orono's urban
neighborhoods are located very� close to Lake
Minnetonka, therefore any urban development has the
potential for direct adverse impact on the Lake. Storm
water runoff control, erosion an�d sedimentation are
particular concerns requiring careful design attention
in al 1 new urban developments. In addition, particular
• care will be taken to preserve open spaces, wooded
areas and solar access.
, ., .
f) the multiple variances sought by this applicant wil l
� greatly vary the minimum requirements for a new lot within
the LR-1C Zoning District.
23. At the Council meeting of April 28, 1986, when Council
conceptually .denied the application for subdivision and
variances�, members advised the applicant that a subdivision that �
needed variances to the minimum lot standards for the creation of
a new building site would have to be denied by the City. ..
24. Since January 1 ,1975, with the inception of the current
Zoning Code and the adoption of new standards for lakeshore
development, the City Council has not granted variances to the
minimum lot area or width standards with subdivisions that create
� new building sites. .
• 25. In granting multiple variances to lot standards such as
. requested in this application, Council would abandon a long-
standing established policy in the review of subdivision
applications and thereby establish an adverse precedent in the
future review of similar applications.
Page 7 of 9
i
. .__., . ... . ......,._..... ... . ... ,,..._ _.._., __...�.__�._ . ._.�..._.,..�.._._._._ . . _ _ . .. _ .�_..,�.. ... _. .. . .e._... . _
+ • � . � , � ; " . ..�` .
. • .�� .. � � ' � . �t - � . . . �' -
Y . � � ' � . ' - • ,i • � .
� j . .� ..
� J ��a � C�t ��o� OROl!`TO .�
. . . . . �.� . . ...... .�. .. . . � t!`. ....�. . .... _._. ..•, . , . _i�... . . -. ,�. - . .. - .,� . . .
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL •
Q�
i NO. 2015
, • � • •
„ . �
.� .
� 26. The City's ordinances define distinctly different review
": : procedures for the separation of commonly owned substandard
- sewered lots with independent property indentifications and legal
descriptions and for the separation of properties that consist of
. two or more lots that have been legally combined and defined with
a single property identification and• a single deed or registered
` land survey: •
27. Sect.ion 10.03, Subdivision 6 A (1) , (2) & (3 ) defines the
� review procedure for existing record lots to be developed for a
single family dwelling use. Each commonly owned lot is permitted
this review procedure. ` •
28. Legal•ly combined lots can only �e separated per the
, standards and directives set forth in Chapter ll, the subdivision
. regulations of the City as follows:
a) legally combined lots separated on existing lot lines
• are not subject to the regulations of this Chapter if the
� resulting parcels meet the requirements of the Zoning
Chapter of the City Code. 3
b) legally combined lots separated on existing lot lines
are subject to the regulations of this Chapter if the
. resulting parcels do not meet the requirements of the Zoning
�• Chapter of the City Code.
c) legally combined lots separated by a proposed new .
division line are not subject to the regulations of this
Chapter if the resulting parcels meet the requirements of
the Zoning Chapter of the City Code.
. � d) legally combined lots separated by a proposed new
division line are subject to the regulations of this Chapter
if the resulting parcels do not .meet the requirements of the
Zoning Chapter of the City Code. � • '
' 29. The City has never approved the division or separation of
substandard lots that were legally combined as one conforming
record lot.
• 30. The applicant, in an attempt to purchase additional land
from the adjacent property owner, recognzied the limitations of
the proposed new building site and the need for the additional
area and width.
Page 8 of 9
,. -
� � C�t� o� ORONO
• RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL�
�.
: � �. NO. 2015
• - • •
31. Denial of the required variances, and therefore denial of
the subdivision application, does not constitute a taking of
property or loss of. substantial value because the property has
always been one residential building site, all of which has
served as required area, yard and open space for the residence
which continues to occupy said property. Applicant Hall pur-
i chased the property in 1979 with a deed that defined the property
as one property containing one residence, has enjoyed its
benefits as a ful ly conforming residential lot within the LR-1C
Zoning District for seven years, as did the previous owners for
over thirty years, and can continue to enjoy the same benefits
and value without the requested subdivision.
, 32. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary tc�
any of the above findings of fact. The applicant has claimed
only that the property would be of greater value to him if he
r • could sell Lot A with the existing house so that he may build a
new home more suitable to his current needs, and particularly if
'+ he can obtain full riparian rights for the proposed new building "
site. .
•� ,
'' .
.
r
,_;
t
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the 23rd �
of June, 1986.
�; .
`' ATT T: _. _. _.
.�
�-
� _ . � •
Clerk Mayor
'#S •
�
T
-• Page 9 of 9
a
�