HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2576•
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
2576
A RESOLUTION DENYING
VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B)
FILE NO. 1296
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 a Community Management
Plan and Zoning Regulations for the protection of the public health, safety
and general welfare; and
WHEREAS, Merritt J. Peterson and Rick Stodola (hereinafter "the
applicants"). have an interest in the property located within the City of
Orono (hereinafter "the City") legally described as Tracts F and G,
Registered Land Survey #1216, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the
• property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to
Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) seeking an area
variance to allow construction of a principal residence within an
approximate building envelope of 5,500 s.f. and an average dry buildable
land depth of 95 to 105 feet where the zoning district would require a
minimum of 21,700 s.f. or 1/2 acre in area, requiring approval of an area
variance of 16,280 s.f. or 75%. Absent a site plan for the development of
this site, and in consideration of the minimum standards of the LR -1C
zoning district, the applicants would probably have to seek additional
hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1
& 2, and variances to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 that would prohibit
structures and excavations within 75' of the'lakeshore; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the
recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission; and the comments of
the applicants and applicants' attorney.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Orono hereby denies the requested variance for the property described
above based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning
this property:
1. Registered Land Survey #1216 was filed on May 8, 1967. The
property at that time was zoned R -1D, requiring 1/2 acre in area and
the subdivision regulations of the City would have required City
approval. The public records of the City do not provide any evidence
that the record owner at that time, Miriam D. Coffee, now Mrs. Ewald
Gustafson, had filed an application for subdivision approval, as the
majority of tracts within RLS #1216 are wetlands area, it is not clear
as to the original purpose of the division.
•
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2576
2. The property is currently zoned LR -1C, Lakeshore Residential
zoning district, requiring a minimum of a 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 = 0.126 acres or 5,500 s.f.
Variance = 0.38 acres or 16,280 s.f. or 75%
b) The following variances would be required if the lot was
developed as a buildable lot because of the limited depth of the
lot at an average depth of 95 to 1051.
Street Setback:
Required = 30'
Lakeshore Setback:
Required = 75'
Hardcover Within the 0-75' Setback Area Must be Maintained
at 0 s.f.
Average Lakeshore Setback Variance
3. The present owners (originally only Mrs. Gustafson) owned the
property prior to 1967. Ewald and Miriam Gustafson owned a residence.
on the east side of the County road, opposite the subject properties.
The Gustafsons have maintained single separate ownership of RLS Tracts
B, C, D, E, F & G. In addition, Gustaf sons own approximately a 1/4
acre lot to the north and adjacent to Tract G of RLS #1216,
(hereinafter referred to as "Exception").
4. The property, currently owned by the applicants, consists of
Tracts F & G, RLS #1216. Tracts F & G are divided by a lagoon area.
The majority of Tract F consists of wetlands. The narrow land strip
of Tract G is restricted by a County road right-of-way and by the
encroaching wetland and lagoon.
5. Per the Flood Insurance Rate Maps of the City of Orono, Community
Pannel No. 2701780005 C, the majority of Tracts F & G are located
within the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka. The flood plain elevation
of Lake Minnetonka is determined to be at the 931.5 elevation.
6. On November 24, 1967, Miriam D. Coffee received $100 from the
County Highway Department for the sale of an easement for the adjacent
• County Road 19 involving Tract G of RLS #1216. The relinquishing of
this additional dry land area created more of an impact on the
buildable envelope of this tract.
Page 2 of 9
n
LJ
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2576
7. Tracts F & G of RLS #1216 have never been assessed for sewer or
water.
8. The following table reviews the assessed market valuations for
Tracts F & G:
The market valuations suggests that the properties have never been
assessed as building sites, although the assigned valuation of this
property might change as a result of a new clarification in allowed
uses of .this property.
9. The LR -1C, single family lakeshore residential zoning district
contains 631 developed residential units. Of these 631 units:
209
Tract F
Tract G
1988
$100
$300
1987
100
300
1986
100
300
1985
100
300
1984
100
300
1983
110
270
1982
100
250
1981
60
140
1980
40
100
1979
30
80
1978
50
70
The market valuations suggests that the properties have never been
assessed as building sites, although the assigned valuation of this
property might change as a result of a new clarification in allowed
uses of .this property.
9. 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 with an area of 0.128 acres is not
consistent with the existing developed lot sizes in the LR -1C zoning
district.
10. The property falls so short of the zoning standards of the
district, that the area variance and the variances required to build
on the property are so excessive that they cannot justify the granting
of the variance.
11. On May 6, 1988 the Building & zoning staff discovered a dock
constructed on the property and posted the dock advising the owners of
the violation on the property. In addition, a letter was sent on May
12, 1988 advising the record owners of the violation.
Page 3 of 9
7
r 1
LJ
City of oR,olvo
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2576
12. The following code sections were violated with the construction
of the dock:
Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) - Time of construction. No
accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the
time of construction of the principal building to which it is
accessory. Section 10.25, Subdivision 5 (A) - Accessory uses.
Any accessory uses regulated in the R-lA zoning district, any
private docks subject to the City Code and other applicable
regulations, including boat storage density regulations.
13. On May 20, 1988, staff met with Al Michaels, the attorney
representing persons with an interest in the property, regarding the
violation and advised of the necessary administrative steps to be
taken in order for the City to determine that a dock can be legally
installed on the property, as a dock is considered an accessory
structure, staff recommended that a lot area variance application be
filed with the City in order to determine if the lot was a buildable
lot. If the lot was deemed unbuildable, then it was appropriate for
the current owners to ask what other reasonable uses can be made of
the property.
14. Tracts F & G of RLS #1216 were purchased by the applicants in
1987. The tax records refer to the fee owners as Coffee Landings.
15. At a preliminary application conference with the applicants, they
advised staff that they had met with the Administrator of the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District prior to constructing the dock in
order to determine if there was legal authority to construct a dock on
the property. The Administrator has since advised staff that he
cautions all persons to check the regulations of the local
jurisdictions before any improvements or use is installed. Applicants
failed to contact the City of Orono even to question the need for a
building permit for such construction.
16. On May 26, 1988, the applicants filed a lot area variance
application with the specific purpose of maintaining a dock on the
property without a principal structure.,
17. The applicants were allowed to retain the dock until the
buildability of the property was resolved by the Council. The
app 1 icants were asked to not use the dock unti 1 the Counci 1 had made a
final decision concerning the future use of the property.
Is 18. On June 20, 1988, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the lot
area phase of the variance applicationand recommended denial of the
requested variance based on the following findings:
Page 4 of 9
•
•
nm
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE (CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2576
A) There is only approximately 5,500 s.f. of area within the
defined building envelope, with an approximate depth of 1001.
B) There is not adequate area to build a house and meet the 75'
lakeshore setback requirement, the street and side yard setback,
and hardcover regulations.
C) The property has never been assessed for sewer or water.
D) The property was valued for tax purposes in the past at a
reduced amount to reflect the fact that these are substandard
lots and not appropriate for residential construction.
E) The lot is subject to flooding and is in the natural
drainageway to -the lake for the surrounding watershed. Any
construction would be subject to periodic flooding.
F) The property is substandard in size in relation to other lots
in the area upon which development has already occurred.
G) The granting of a lot area variance for this property would
result in additional traffic congestion, surface water drainage
problems, surface water pollution problems for Lake Minnetonka,
congestion in the area, diminishing value to the surrouding
properties, and parking problems in the area.
H) The applicants have failed to demonstrate any hardship to
warrant the granting of the variance, as the granting of the
variance would be hazardous to the health, safety, and welfare of
the citizens of Orono.
I) The granting of the requested variances would be adverse to
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Code of the City.
19. The Planning Commission moved on the second phase of the
application voting to recommend against the use of the residential
dock, an accessory structure, on a lot that cannot sustain a principal
structure based on the following findings:
A) The lack of the principal structure means that there is no
individual responsible for protecting the dock nor the boats
maintained at that dock.
B) An adjacent neighbor already has a dock located on Tract F.
Page 5 of 9
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
m
2576
C) The property is not wide enough to provide adequate parking
that would meet the required setback of 75' from the channel area
nor the required 30 feet setback from the street lot line. The
County Highway Department also does not allow parking along this
section of the County road.
D) Approval of the use of an accessory structure such as a dock,
without a principal structure would establish a negative
precedent in dealing with a similar request for lots of similar
size.
20. At the January 91 1989 meeting of the Orono Council, the
applicants submitted a written response/proposal dated December 19,
1988 that they felt addressed the concerns of the City:
A) To propose a lot line rearrangement with the neighbor's
property to the north so that neighbor's dock, now located on
• applicants' property, would be located within his redefined
residential property lines.
B) Applicants propose removal of illegal dock on Tract F, RLS
#1216 and enlarging neighbor's dock. Applicants would ask City
to credit residence structure on neighbor's property for shared
dock use.
C) The applicants would use the existing drive on neighbor's
property to the north for access to shared dock. They plan no
additional hardcover improvements within substandard building pad
of Tracts F & G and will park all vehicles on neighbor's property
with residence.
D) Security of dock is no longer an issue since dock is now
located on a lot with a principal residence.
E) The question of negative precedence setting is no longer an
issue since the accessory structure, now a shared dock, is
located on a lot with the principal residence requiring no
variance approval, merely a joint use dock license.
21. Council refused to accept the interpretation of the
accessory use/structure ordinance as proposed by applicants based on
the following findings:
• A) The City has never credited a preliminary structure on an
adjacent property to allow accessory uses or structures on lots
that did not sustain principal residences.
Page 6 of 9
�J
•
0
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2576
B) The credit of the principal residence for an accessory
use/structure serving an adjacent property will establish a
negative precedent for the City when dealing with similar
requests for accessory uses and structures on unbuildable,
substandard lots.
C) The applicants' proposed interpretation of the accessory
structure ordinances is in complete conflict with the original
intent of the code.
22. Approximately 2 to 3 years ago, staff met with Mr. Gustafson, the
former owner of the property, to discuss the potential use of RLS
#1216 and the lot referred to as Exception. Mr. Gustafson was advised
that if all lots were combined that there was a potential for a
buildable lot as it appeared that the lot referred to as Exception had
appropriate lot width but that a survey was necessary to make such a
determination, in addition to the filing of the appropriate variance
application.
23. It was unknown at that time by the reviewing staff, that the dock
of the neighbor to the north encroached upon the Gustaf son property
and that an earlier lot line rearrangement had reduced even greater
portions of the potential building pad.
24. Ewald Gustafson advised the City staff that prior to the sale of
Tracts F & G, RLS #1216 to applicants that his attorney required
applicants to sign off on a disclaimer that they understood that their
proposed use of the property may be in complete conflict with the
Orono Code. Applicants still failed to seek direction from the City
prior to the installation of the dock on Tract F.
25. The property can be put to a reasonable allowed use as the tracts
can be combined with the adjacent property.
26. 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 applicants must first comply before the requested
variances can be granted:
A) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds
that the essential character of the neighborhood will be altered
if the property was to be residentially developed.
Page 7 of 9
C
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2576
B) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds
that to establish a precedent that would allow severely
substandard lots to be developed in complete conflict with the
established environmental standards for lakeshore development
within the City and to be determental to the public health,
safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader
environmental principals and goals setforth 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
must also provide its citizens with defined and approved optimum
levels of density, open space and quality of life.
27. Approval of an application that requires a 75% variance to lot
• area would establish a negative precedent in the future development of
the LR -1C zoning district. The standards and intent of both the City
Zoning Code and Community Management Plan would no longer have any
effect if the City establishes a precedent of approving variances of
this degree.
28. The applicants have failed to satisfactorily respond with
supportive data and written response to the City's concerns. The
City cannot permit illegally installed dock to remain on a property
that cannot sustain a principal residence and found to be in violation
of Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) and Section 10.25, Subdivision 5
(A) of the Municipal Code.
29. In review of many of the findings noted above, it is very
apparent that applicants had received prior notice or warning prior to
the purchase of the property and prior to the installation of the dock
that the City regulations may not allow their proposed use of this
property.
AND, FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Orono requires
the removal of the illegal dock by May 15, 1989 and that no use can be made
of said structure while it remains on the property, and further directs
staff to formally contact in writing the adjacent property owner who has
installed a dock on applicants' property, Tract F, RLS #1216. Said
property owner shall be asked to provide the City with a satisfactory plan
to bring the dock into conformance within a specified period of time
subject to the City's approval.
Page 8 of 9
v.w.-- �.- •� � .fes � S . ':• f ' '3§' ♦ i'CJ ':_ L Y f"rt J. - Ci' - L �.�
( f
��wrw.:vtr
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2576
Adopted by the City Council of the Cit of Orono,
Minnesota at a regular meeting held February 13, 189 .
ATT T:
. ILGJ
Bo othj
•
L]
- v
Edward J. Cal
I,
n; City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Jr., Acting Mayor
The foregoing ins rument was acknowledged before me on
this day ofLtAQA RSI , 19�, by
Edward J. Callahan and Dorothy M. Hallin, Acting Mayor and City
Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and
said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
ar
Page 9 of 9
LAURi[ K(,�S-1►trrLCK
NOTARY PUBLIC - M N'OTA
HENNEPM COUNTY
MY Commi.aiq❑ etc�Fes6-_9�
4
imT= hxDlres