Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2667 . . . . . . ' . � �4. . . . .. . " '. . . ... � � . .� . . . . �. •. .... . ... _ . ,,� :r ' ° d Cit o� ORONO � � � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. 2667 • - • • A RSSOLDTION DENYING SIIBDIVISION OF PROPERTY AT 1360 vzr� pr�,cE FILE #1420 WHER$AS, the City of Orono is a Municipal Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHERBAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adoptec3 subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WH$REAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision by Earl and Revin Norwood, the subdividers (hereinafter "the applicants") for property located at 1360 Vine Place in the City of Orono and legally described in • Exhibit "A" attached; and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in , accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et seq., and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19, 1989 , at which time all persons . desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on June 19 , 1989, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend denial of the proposed subdivision; and WHER$AS, the City Council of Orono reviewed the subdivision request at their regular meeting of July 10, 1989 , and voted 5 to 0 to direct staff to draft a resolution for denial; and . WHEREAS, the Orono City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact regarding this subdivision application: FINDINGS 1. The property is located within the LR-1B Single Family, I,akeshore Residential zoning district requiring a minimum of 1.0 acre of dry buildable land and 140' of Iot width for • each buildable lot. Page 1 of 8 �.r.. �.:; . . ...., ... ._ : ... .._ , _ . . _ _ . ; _ , . i ..- � - ; . ' _ ' ( - , , � � : ��� Cit� of ORONO • =; f.ii Jj�k; : . � ` E��' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL :, �' � . ";y�� ��" NO. 2667 ;'t � �.: : ;:: ; ,• - • . • '� ', � E , � 2. The property contains 1.58 acres in total lot area, all • of which is considered as dry buildable land. ; 3. The proposed subdivision contains two lots. Proposed � Lot 1 contains the existing residence and detached garage, and contains approximately 0.62 acres in lot area and 76' in lot width. Proposed Lot 2 is proposed as a new vacant building site, and contains 0.96 acre in total lot area and approximately 300' in lot width. The lot area of Lot 2 by definition is reauced to approximately 0.90 acre due to the reduction for a driveway easement bisecting the property. 4. Proposed Lot 1 requires a lot area variance of .38 acres y or 38$ and a lot width variance of 64' or 46$. Proposed Lot } 2 requires a lot area variance of 0.10 acre or 10�. _ 5. The property is served by two existing sewer stubs, one . of which is currently used for the existing residence. The : , property was assessed a total of two sewer units as part of the 1970 LS-1 sewer project. � 6. The proposed subdivision would leave an excessive amount of hardcover on Lot 1 with the existing residence. Sn the 250-500' zone, hardcover on Lot 1 would be 74.13g where a : maximum hardcover allowance of 30� normal ly applies. Lot 2 would not require a hardcover variance, and could = potentially be developed without the need for a hardcover � � variance. The property in total contains approximately 16.4$ hardcover in the 75-250' zone, and approximately 17.9� in the 250-500' zone, conforming to the maximum respective 25$ and 30� hardcover allowances for a single lot. However, . in order to have Lot 1 continue with conforming hardcover � percentages, the 250-500' zone area for Lot 1 would have to increase by approximately 8,176 s.f., which would make Lot ; 2, the proposed building site, even more substandard in lot area. 7. The Orono Zoning Cocle has required a minimum of 140' width and 1 acre building lot size for this property since 1959 . 's • , Page 2 of 8 , ; . ; i i , ' . � � ��� clt o� oR,oNo ;� �� � a _aaq, i ,u �"�.�-... S ,k{ ��. �>}.. �,� "' f' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � �`��� � �,: ��/��J��..� ��' NO. 2 6 6 7 AT o. ,V41� _.�: . � � � � ...���� . . 8 . In 1975 , the applicant requested and was granted variances to front and side setbacks to construct a detached garage on the property. The City granted � variance approval subject to legal combination of the four individual tax parcels existing at that time, so that the detached garage would be on the same parcel as the principal structure, per � the requirements of the Municipal Zoning Code in effect at that time and still in effect today. The configuration of the f our individua 1 tax parce 1 s was such that a 11 f our had to be combined � in order to place the garage on the same parce 1 as the house. City Counci 1 Minutes of November 24, � 1975, indicate then Zoning Administrator Henry Muhich, had discussed the substandard status of the four parcels with the applicant and applicant had agreed to the combination of the four parcels if the variances were approved. The combination occurred in July, 1976. • 9. Lots 1 and 2 as proposed would not only require variances to the Zoning Chapter, but to Section 11.31, Subdivision 2, Lot Dimensions and Subdivision 3, Lot Area Minimum, of the Subdivision chapter because minimum standards ot the LR-1B zoning district cannot be satisfied. 10. The property, consisting of portions of Lots 3, 4, 12, 13 and a portion of vacated Cana1 Street, al 1 within the plat of Saga Hill Revised, was originally platted in 1887, and modified to create the existing lot boundaries at some undocumented time thereafter. 11. The existing residence on the property was apparently constructed in 1950, prior to adoption of the lot standards current ly in ef f ect today. 12. The Planning Commission at their meeting of June 19, 1989, recommended denial based on the following findings: a) The subdivision creates two substandard lots from one conforming lot, thereby setting an adverse precedent. • , � Page 3 of 8 � ... � . .. . ' f. ._. _ , .. 4. . . • '• . . . " . . . .. . .. . . __ .. � � . .. . � • � • ���`��� Cit� o� ORONO • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ` � NO. 2667 • - • • ,-� .�.,;.: b) Approval would be inconsistent with the City's established policy of denying lot area variances � associated with subdivisions. Such a policy has been adhered to since establishment of the current Zoning Code in 1975. c) The proposa 1 results in the need for a hardcover � variance in the 250-500' zone for Lot l. d) Prior assessment for municipal sewer cloes not in of itself constitute grounds for approval of lot area variances to create a subdivision. e) The extent and number of variances sought is excessive. f) Applicant has not submitted evidence of a hardship • which is unique to the particular circumstance. Many properties are similarly situated in the LR-1B zoning district. 13. The granting of the lot area, lot width and hardcover variances would result in the following violations of Section 1 1.02, Subdivision 10, 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 more intense development af sensitive lakeshore zoned property within the neighborhood served by Vine Place, consisting of 9 existing residences of which 7 are already on properties less than the required one acre in area in the LR-1B zoning district; c) Applicant has failed to demonstrate that there exist unique conditions to the property to permit the granting of these multiple variances; • . Page 4 of 8 . .- . .. �^�c�-�•�.♦. .rr,. _. ..n�.. . .. . _.�,� . _r.�m lr �.�.�1 H. t .�.. t_ .+.� .....'A....< ... _.... .. ... .. .. •i n ... ♦.. .. .• .. _.... a..F: . ._..._�. ,..... .. . v _... .. . . .. .... � ' - , . . . . . . � . . . , . �� i �r�` �'aF� Clt o� ORONO � • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. 2667 : s�,., . • - � � � � d) To not enforce the standards of this Chapter and , permit these variances would result in environmentally unsound development and be in complete conflict with - the overall policies and goals of the Comprehensive � Management Plan of the City as fol lows: , Orono's Planning Goals - � � 7. TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY AT DENSITIES ' CONSISTENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN. Orono's Planning Policies - � � � l. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GUIDED TO PROTECT AND . ENFiANCE 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 will 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 and sedimentation. � are particular concerns requiring careful design attention in all new urban developments. In addition, ! particular care will be taken to preserve open spaces, wooded areas and solar access. � • Page 5 of 8 � _ n_ ..._,,.. .� :.� .. _ __ ... .. _.. _ , ' _ _ . ... . .. ..._.._. .. . _ .. .... � - '. ..�. _ .. .....w��.. . _ _- .. - -ro..... .. . r., � ��. � ��£� ����°, Clt� of ORONO L� �_ • �L� Y� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ;� � � �° . NO. 2667 .._..,.. • a.: �.,< e) The multiple variances sought by this applicant will greatly vary the minimum requirements for a new lot within the LR-1B zoning district. 14. At the Council Meeting of July 10, 1989, when Council conceptually denied the application for subdivision and variances, members of the Council 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. 15. 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 standard with subdivisions that create new building sites. 16. 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. 17. Legally combined lots can only be separated per the standards and directives set forth in Chapter 11, 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. 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. • Page 6 of 8 - --___-___ _._...._.. __.,_�..___....... ........_ ...._.. _ .,<...... ..,�_.,_ .._.. r-.,, � , ,._.r. , _....... . . �_..,- .-- . ; , r._, ._ . . ... .... .. . _.,_ .n�.....a_.- .,is,.. .�u. •s ,c� .;S.s�.,cwar:e- . . :.,.7'�� .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . � . .... . . , z � . ' - :_ d'� :.. _:. _ _ .. ,a � . . , . � , , _ ..__. � ' - - - . . ; . . �. -�� - ei��v_._ . � .� .� . - . � . --- .. . . ,. , . . , .. , .. ._ . . . ._. _ _.. _ . . , . . ' . �� . .�� � . . . � }. . .. � � . . . . , ri�.�a�:�� ��' � -� � C�t� o� ORONO . •t3�a � 'Ya# Y4r� 'a RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4-� , .:..,. `. �: � . NO. 2667 , • - • • -,�: . y'p,"���"�9::���F � . 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. The proposed subdivision falls under category "d" above, being a total of 4 lots legally combined for tax purposes with a proposal to separate the total of 4 parcels into 2 total parcels by a proposed new division line which does not follow any ot the existing lot lines. . 18. When 2 municipal sewer units were assessed to the property in 1970, that assessment anticipated the potential possibility that variances might be granted for construction of a second residence on the property. However, assessment of the second sewer unit did not, in and of itself, grant the property owner a future right to build a second • residence on the property. 19. Denial of the requested 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 lot area, yard and open space fvr the residence which continues to occupy said property. The applicant of his own free will combined the four pre- existing tax parcels into one tax parcel defining the property as one property containing one residence in 1976, and has enjoyed its benefits as a fully conforming residential lot within the LR-1S zoning district since that time, and can continue to enjoy the same benefits and value without the requested subdivision. NOW, TH$R$FORE, B8 IT R$SOI,VI3D, that the City Counci 1 of the City of Orono hereby denies Revin and Earl Norwood's requested subdivision of the property and further denies any and all variances from Zoning Code performance standards, which variances would have been required in order to approve the said subdivision, based upon one or more of the findings of fact concerning this property noted above. � • . Page 7 of 8 � , _ _ ... , . ' i . • . + Cit� o� ORONO . � � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL , � NO. 2667 � � • - • • . ! Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of ' July, 1989. . ATT ST: - �I'� . • .� � ! . othy . Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Cal a an, Jr. Acting Mayo F STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. � COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) : The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me on : this 24th day of July, 1989, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. 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. � f No ary Pu � �f�°�"�� LAU IE . SCHEFf{ER �.�_'�``�y , � ;-.�..;�}�.�:.f''%� NOTARY VUBLIC-MINNESOTI� � ' " '�r's-;+ HENNEPIN COUNTY �;;,;;y;�`.;'`' My commission expires6•8-93 ' My Commission Expires . :, . � , Page 8 of 8 � �.._...,,._.._,_,..:........:........ .... .,.._.r._ ..,:-..,>:.:..�..,.R_, . ,_ _ _,. �r. .,...�,... .�»�... . _ . ,._ � _ . .,.... .. . .. ... < ., _. . . , , ... . ,.