The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About#4660-variances-2001 1i �/ - , A' �''�,.�� '�,�,�'� `�° , �� 4�. �wc�oc��. ,'_�� ; ��,. �- � \ � i//� � \�\ i0 O \ ,4 - � CITY of 4RO1�T0 � �� ti � �� G'�'/' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL .1,9 �� N0. �� '�sK�' A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO NIUNICIPAL ZO�iING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBD. �(B) AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO SECTION 10.03, SUBD. 9(A) - FILE #O1-2673 `�'HEREAS,the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and e�istina under the la��s of the State of i�linnesota; and �ti'HEREAS,pursuant to State Statutes 41� et. seq. and 46? et. seq. the City Council of the Cit�� of O:ono has adopted zonin� reQulations for the protection of the public health, safety and _��neral ��eltare: and VVHEREAS, I�risti Roesler (hereinafter "applicant") is owner of the properties leQally dzscribed as: Lot 7, "SKARP AND LINQUIST'S FERNHILL LAKE NIT�"; and Lots 17.36 and the north'/of 3 7,"SKARP AND LINQUIST'S FERIvTHILL LAKE MTKA" all in Herulepin Count`�, Minnesota; and ti�'HEREAS, the appIicant has applied to the City for variances to �lunicipal Zoning Code Section 1U.2�, Subd. �(B) to pein7it the construction of a principal d��ellinQ structure on Lot 7, "SKARP AND LI�IQUIST'S FER�HILL LAKE Iv1TKA".which Lot contains 11.100 s.f. or 2�.�°ro of the required =�3.�60 s.f. lot area and �1 feet in width or�6.�% of the required lot �vidth; and «'HF,REAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of Cit�� :taff and P1arulin� Commission; the comments submitted by the public; and the comments and/or •��Titten statements of the applicant and applicants attorney. NO��', T'�IER�E�'�0� BE I�T �SO�,V��, that the City Council of the Cit}- of Oroiio hereby denies the requested lot area znd lot width��ariances for the property described above based upon one or more of the following tindin�s of fact concernina the property: PaQe 1 of 7 ��-- --� ,i�—��; ;'� ��\ �� b. - C ITY of �RONO (� - -� �) �,,; \�� G'�/,% RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL `\`glf�g��/ NO. � � � � �� 1. As of January l, 197� the property has been zoned LR-1B, One-Famil�� Lakeshore Re�idential Zoning District, requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area and 140 feet mini:-.um «-idth. Based on the zoning district's required performance standards, the proposed use of the �-opem- as a residential buildable lot would require the followintr variances: aj Lot Area Required = 1 acre or 43,�60 s.f. Existing = 0.2�� acre or 11,100 s.f. Variance = 0.7�5 acre or 32,460 s.f. (74.�%) b) Lot Width Required= 140' Existing = 51' Variance = 89' (63.�%) ?. Prior to 197�,the property w�as zoned R-1 C,effective since September 14, 1967.�re:idential ��one requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area and 140 feet minimum width. 3. Per the assessment policy of the 1970-1 sewer district, Lot 7 ��,-as assessed for :�i' of front footage at $7.80 per front foot, a total of$390, but �vas not charged the $2�� Pi�nt CharQe nor the$1270 tinit charae,because the property did not contain a dwelling. The��sessment for front footaae did not act to grant atitomatic buildabilitv to Lot 7. =�. L.ot 7 and the property at 1169 North Arm Drive (PINS �07-117-23 14 0060� have been o��ned in common since 1971 or earlier. Lot 7 and the property at 1169 North_�rrri Dri�-e are not directly across Elm�vood Avenue from each other but are offset by aprro�imatelv 1�0'. In 1971,the then o��ier Gary Beito applied for lot area and �vidth ti�arianc;.�for Lot i. indicatinQ in a�vritten statement that "We purchased This lot for access to the la��e kno«�in� the current codes did not pennit buildin�."The requested variances��-ere subsequenti� denied b�� tne City Council, based on the fact that there �vere other vacant lots adjacent�,;� it, ��nich could potentiallti be purchased and combined to make a more conforminQ 1ot. �. The condition of tne property and the zoning standards have not chanQed since:^e��ariance denial in 1971 to make a findina of a ne�v hardship. Paae ? of 7 /� �� '� \ / //� �\\ \ /O O ` ' - �'� CITY of ORON4 � b II I� � �. %� �� ,'�/�` RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL , ��9kESH�j� NO. � � � � ��_i 6. In 1981, Beito aQain applied for a variance to lot area and �vidth (File #627) concurrently �vith a similar application by the o�vner of the adjacent vacant Lot 6(Hans W'eiler,File#628). ��'eiler also owned the developed residential property directly across the road from Lot 6 (11=� North Arm Drive, PINS #07-117-23 14 0064). Beito and Weiler claimed that the increase in ta�es has forced them to apply for variances to make each lot buildable. 7. On July 20, 19S 1 the Orono PlanninQ Commission voted 6-0 on a moti�n to recommend denial of the variances for each individual lot, based on the lack of sufficient hardship and the followinQ findin�s: a) The o�vners have received substantial benefit in the use of these lots for private lakeshore access purposes. b) r�substantial property value remains in each lot since it can be sold for combination �vith the other. c) These individual lots are not unique or special since all nearby building sites(e�cept Heii Lot S) have been created by combination of 2 or more lots similar to these. d) Neither lo� has been assessed for sewer as a separate buildinQ site. e) Grantin� of two adjacent�0' lakeshore lots in a 140' minimum district is contrary to the intent of the zoninQ code. Combin�tion into one 100'�vide lot«ould at least meet the minimum DNR Shoreland mana�ement regulations.the LR-1 C '/�acre district lot �vidth , and be similar to most nearby lakeshore lot�vidths. S. On August 10, 1981 the Cit�- Council tabled the application at the applicants request and no fiirther action occurred re�ardin�the variance request. 9. In approximately 1991 Beito sold Lot 7 and 1169 North Arm Drive to Todd Van Den Einde. In July 1995 the current applicant, Kristi Roesler, purchased Lot 7 and 11 C9 North �rm Drive from Van Den Einde. Durin� each transaction, Citv files containinQ the history of variance denials w-ere available to the propert}- owners for revie��. 10. The curren? estimated market value for Lot 7 per HeiLnepin Cotintl Tax records for 2001 is ��0,000. The current estimated market value for adjacent Lot 6, ��hich is similar in status to Lot 7 as a separately o�vned vacant lakeshore lot and similar in area and �vidth to Lot 7, is $�0.000. Bv contrast, the current estimated niarket value for the land poRion of adjacent Lot 8 (��hich contains a residence structure and includes an additional 6,�00 s.f. of non- shoreline land because it is combined �vith Lot 19 across Elml��ood �venue) is �160,000. PaQe 3 of 7 ��-�� i� ��A�\ i �\, . / � S \\\ /�O o , I ,� ��°� - .�. ,, i C ITY of UR011T0 � �', \\� ��;/i� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL \`�`9 g'�!%� (V O. � � � Q� \�SH� This comparison illustrates that Lot 7 has be�n valued ior tax purposes at a rate siQnificantl�� less than its value would be as a buildable �i�e. � 11. In 2001,Roesler filed application�O1-2678-.questinQ variances to lot area and lot width in order to build a residence on Lot 7. The aF�:ication further requested that in the event that area�width variances�vere denied,applicant��.�ould request Council approval of a Special Lot Combination to formalize and leaalize the relationship bet�veen Lot 7 and 1169 North Arm Drive, so that Lot 7 could continue to be u�:� for pri`�ate dock purposes accessory to 1169 No:-th Arm Drive. 1?. On Ma}�21,2001 the Orono PlanninQ Comn::�sion held a public hearing on application�Ol- �'67S at �vhich time the applicant� applic`:t� attomey and the public ��-ere `iven the opportuiiity to comment on the variance rec��est. The Plannin� Commission subsequently voted 4-0 to recommend denial of the lo� area and �vidth variances, and voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the Special Lot Co�_�bination. 13. On May 29, 2001 the Orono City Council r�-.�ie�ved application�01-2678 and �-oted 4-1 on a motion to deny the lot area and width vari:�.ces and approve the Special Lot Combination request, and directed the staff to draft a Re_olutior� containinQ findin�s supportin� that motion, includin�the fact that 1169 North_-�:-rn Drive and Lot 7 are in common ownership and can be combined via Special Lot Combin�:ion,th�reby eliminatin�any hardship suffered by the applicant. 14. The Council finds that�rantinQ the propos�c iot area and��idt:�variances�vould be contrary to the intent of the 2000-2020 Orono Comm��nity I��lanagement Plan(Comprehensive Plan), specifically the follo�vinQ sections: a) General Land Use Policies No. 6: "Protection of lake resources ivill allow reasonable access,use and enjoymer.t«hile preventinQ overcrawdinQ and excessive encroachment. In conformance tivit= Orono�s Shoreland Management re�ulations, Oron��vill prohibit overly dense de-,�elopment�vithin 1000' of Lake�Iinnetonlca..." b) General Land Use Policies No. i:: "Future development must enhance the community. Land development shouid respect and enhance neiQhborinQ properties and existin� de��eloped character of_ne nei�hborhood and the City, preservinQ the Page 4 c:7 �i--�� !;�° �� V'\`� /�� .e - 1�� C ITY of OR4N� �a �,l'i �� G'�i/ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL \�`_�`9 4�t'%/� N 0. �.� � � �` �SH� value of the land and the inte�rit�-. stability and beauty of the communit}�." 1�. The Council finds that the grantinQ of lot area and lot width variances for Lot 7 would be inappropriate becatise allow-in�construction of a residence on the lot��,�ould not be in keepinQ t�ith the spirit and intent of the ZoninQ Chapter and the LR-1 B District, and would not meet the necessary Statutory findin�s of"undue hardship" required to arant such a variance, as follows: a) "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used by under conditions allo�ved by the official controls." The property in quzstion can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allo�ved by the official controls. Continued use as lake access for 1169 North Arm Drive and for docl: use, as has occur.-ed for the past 30 years OI IOIIaZI", is a reasonable use of this very substandard lot. The City will approve the necessary Special Lot Combination to allow said past use to continue. This oti�ner and past owners have enjoyed a substantial bene�t of Lot 7 for many years by usin� it for lake access purposes. b) "ThP nlight ef the!anL�ti�ner is due#a�i��,::r.stan�e��:^iqL�.�#hi,pro�e:t-�nat created by the lando�vner." The pli�ht of the landotivner is that the lot historicallv used as lake access for 1169 North Arm Drive is e�tremely substandard in area and �vidth as compared to the standards of the LR-1B zoning district. This condition is not unique to this propert}',as man��such lots were platted many decades aQo before zoninQ standards tiuere in effect.In r?iany cases a1_ong the shoreline of Forest Lake Bay of Lake Minnetonlca, tu,�o o;more substandar� lots have beer. combined in order to more closel�� meet the LR-1B standards. In this case, the landowner had ample opportunity to ��ie�v the historv of variance denials for the propert_y �rior to purchasintr Lot 7 and 1169 North Arm Drive toQether. The property owner should have had every expectation that such denials would be upheld considerin` that the zoning district lot area and �ti�idth standards have not changed since those denials. c) "T'he ��aa-iances, i�' granted, ��il➢ not aYter the essential character o�' t3�e neighborhooc�." GrantinQ of the ��ariances�vould alter the essential character of the neiahborhood. Constrtiction of a residence on such a substandard lot �vould create additional develcpr.7ent densitv not in character�vith the e:�isti,��neiQhborhood. i he Page � of 7 .�� \\ �:''� � ' V \'�� ///� � � - � CITY of I�RON� � � �� ,i �� ,'�/,�' RESOLUTIOIV OF THE CITY COUNCIL \�SH�j// NO. � � avera�e lot area of developed 1al:eshore lots �ti�ithin 1000' either side of Lot 7 is approximately 33,100 s.f. or tnree times the area of Lot 7. The average width of the 21 developed lakeshore lots�-ithin 1000'either side ofLot 7 is appro;cimately 80-90', nearly double the �0' width of Lot 7. While de�-eloped lots in the neijhborhood on average fall short of the area and�,vidth standards of the LR-1B district, the area and width of Lot 7 are estremel�- substandard when compared to the nei�hborhood average, disregarding the LR-1B standards. v d) "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the propert}� exists under the terms of this (the Zoning) Chapter". Since reasonable we for this propem� does exist, and since that use has been enjoyed by this and prior property o�vners for the past 30 years or more, economic considerations are not a valid hardship in this application. 16. The Council finds that grantin� of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property ri�ht of the owner. Granting of the proposed variance would be contrary to the intent of the zoninQ code; because it would allow for development density not in keepina with the intent of the LR-1B District. The grantin� of the requested variances would merely se�ve as a con�-enience to the applicant, and no tmdue hardship has been demonstrated that would support the variance request. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the request of the applicant for a ��ariance to Zonins Code Section 10.03 Subd. 9(A.) to allo�x� Special Lo± Combir.ation to allo�� fo: the per�ar.ent use of Lot 7 for lake access for 1169 North Arm Drive, includina the ability to const:uct a dock on Lot 7 ��%ithout a principal structure, based on the followinQ findinas: A. Undue hardship exists because, �vithout the continued ability to use Lot 7 for lake access as it has been used for the past 30 ��ears or longer, the property o�vner would be denied a substantial property right and «-ould be denied reasonable use oi the property as it has historicall�� bzen used. B. The close pro�imity of Lot 7 to 1169 North Arm Drive will allow for the o�vner to previde reasonable security for the dock facilitiec on Lot 7, thereby alleviatinQ the P2ae 6 of 7 _� :i�—�� ,:�-� ��'� �� , � ��6. - �� CITY of ORONO ��, ��i \ � C,/" RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL \�\\�9x�SH�/ NO. � � � � . ��—� normal concerns regarding lack of security when a property has accessory structures and uses without principal structures or uses. The Special Lot Coinbination shall be documented via a separate Resolution of the City Council, shall contain appropriate conditions, and shall be filed in the chain of title of both Lot 7 and 1169 North Arm Drive. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, R�linnesota at a reQular meetina held the 1 lth day of June; ?001. � � ATTLST: � ��C�t_.r`,C.� �Ct:fr ._: 1�:.. ��,-intla-�S.—�ee--Eit:v�-C--��-r�e- Barbara A. Peterson; Mayor ; _ __, . _! , _- ,. ., , . ,,,. i-y—��-'r�<.-`i_ L�Gd_��-rE ��`r�JL-7.�; �1 t'r.`"�r�- PaQe 7 Of 7 �G3�.% �J :'%�✓ �-G \\ rn � � 1' - � � t�c}u��,a'„��i9t f. �y `=;��..'`� r rn �-1 ' d��'r 7tC�_. =rJ rt'�.• A C7 '�y�>>L�- rr; ., n�v c� \.. �� rn �� `' � f„ ;1 _'� O :_ J !! �= ch ;\; =�a �;o o�, `J'` �,T� r , —, �,��-' � � _ '� � CSi -r,-'1—i+�'f '.`...G �., �� r _.=G��7 .. .. � � �--� rn '�J � `� C`\`;� O O�� - �) � � �� cn �% rr, -t r. -- � � P� C � � �� —i m O � t''' -� cn � � � }-� � �U SPECIAL LOT COMBINATION � ';3;��'41�,�1�` �i !LEp ��,� AGREEMENT ��':,j� i�} ��I�� . This indenture is made and entered into tllis 23`d day of July, 2001, by Kristi Roesler,`her heirs, successors and assigns(hereinafter collectively referred to as"Grantor") and the City of Orono, a nituiicipal corporation under the'laws of the State of Miru�esota,its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). '� � J i...i; �.� ,,�r J�� . VJITNES SETH: �� `VHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property in the City of Orono, COtlll� of Herulepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as folloti�s (and hereinafter collectively referred to as the"properties"): � Lots 17, 36 and the north '/� of 37, "SI�ARP AND LINQUIST'S i' FERNHILL LAKE MTI�" (hereinafter described as "Parcel A"); and Lot 7, "SKARP A�?�D LINQUISTS'S FERNHILL LAIiE MTKA" (hereinafter described as "Parcel B"); aild VVHEREAS, Parcel A uid Parcel B are physically separated from each other which prevents their being combined into one legally described lot or parcel, and/or for the same or other reason the Hem�epin County Assessor camlot combine Parcel A u1d Parcel B into one parcel for tax purposes; and WH�REAS, notwithstandin�the above it is the intent of Grantor and Grantee that Parcel A and Parcel B are and shall henceforth be continued in common ownersliip by the same person or persons, and fi.irther that Parcel A and Parcel Il are intended to be used and/or developed in common by Grantor as if they�-�rere in fact one parcel instead of t�vo. NOW THERE,FOI2E, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, Grantor liereby covenants, grants, gifts, quit claims and conveys to Grantee the ri�ht to restrict, and Grantor liereby aQrees to restrict, limit and preclude the olvnership, use, improvenlent and development of Parcel A and Parcel B PaQe 1 of 4 according to and under the conditions and covenants herein contained, as follo�vs: 1. Grantor and Grantee agree that Parcel A and Parcel B shall henceforth be contained in common use and ownership even if recorded as separate lots or parcels, and that Parcel_� and Parcel B will not be used, conveyed, so1d, leased or otherwise encumbered e�cept together as if they were a single parcel. ?. Grantor and Grantee agree that Parcel A shall be considered the primary parcel �vhich ma}� be used or developed for any principal use as may be permit�ed in the zoning district, subject to all performance standards and approvals required therefore. 3. Grantor and Grantee a�ree that Parcel B shall be considered ac.cessory to Parcel A, and that Parcel B may be used or developed for lake access purposes only, including the construction of a private dock, but no structures other than said permitted dock shall be constructed on Parcel B unless specifically approved by the City Council pursuant to application by Grantor. 4. Grantee shall not issue any building permits, zoning variances or conditional use permits for any structure or use on the properties inconsistent with the covenants contained herein. �. Grantor hereby �rants to Grantee the right to enter upon the above described properties for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the covenants contained herein, and to cause to be lawfully removed from these properties without any liability any structures. uses, substances and natural or unnatural materials inconsistent with the covenants contain�� her�in. 6. In addition to ar.y other remedy Grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor who is in possession of these properties shall pay to Grantee all costs and expenses includin� attorneys fees incurred bv Grantee in enforcing the terms of this indenture. 7. The terms and conditions of this indenture may be modified, amended or etitin�uished and thereafter Parcel A and Parcel B may be subdivided, sold separately or reduced in part only upon application by Grantor to Urantee for approval of a `�Subdivision" in accordance �vith the plattin� code of the City in effect at the time of such application. Page 2 of 4 8. Grantor agrees that recording of this indenture shall not vest any property rights in the properties and that any zoning of development authorities granted herein or hereinafter because of this indenture shall remain subject to future re�ulation, modification and/or limitation by Grantee or other regulatory bodies in accordance with legally applicable and enforceable zoning or other ordinances of Grantee. 9. Grantor does not intend that the public. shoul_d have any irterest in the �'�o�✓e �roperties by virtue of this indenture or otherwise, except as hereinabove set forth. All provisions hereof shall run�vith the land and shall extend to and bind the heirs, successors, representatives, grantees or assigns of the respective parties hereto. CITY OF ORONO Grantox� �j '�/G�1 t� ///� ,,?/ � `�� . 1�`� a_ (� .� /.� . � D�, ;r'•�—�,h,.��.'��ii"l��_�L.�M.� '✓�i' T l�:L��;�{�i � � —��L{��'�{—�-��: �, N' Mayor ;=� _ � ,{, k J . f K ^Pr. �: 3 �,' s �� ' p fj+ ,� ,f `; � � � �% i_ _ � �ric�. � ��,�� ,-' -=• - � - } �'�';;{ - �ity i lerk � ', ;Y P� �}�_ � }.. ... r r ..iT . s, °' {.''. , ' �TATE�OF MINNESOTA ) ,�'' ) ss. (City Acl:no�vledgrnent} COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23`d day of July, 2001,by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Glerk, respectively, of the City of Orono, a Miruzesota municipal corporation, on beh.alf of the municipal corporation. _��,_, ;'% L� �� -' � • — --- NOTARY PUBLIC �.-�-,��,��-r-�-.----7---.-�� . c. 'S ; _ .� .. :, _��I. ��Ji'Qi��.i: ,, ,. � _ , ,- - r� 6 �� t'_� ;�0'i ARY PUELIC-P/�INF:FSOiA �• �-�. _ • � � , �� _ . _.-.-% ;' �,,,��'.3,,..;�`y` Pf��Comm.ssicncr,piresJan.3�,2Ci�5 � I�SY/COMMISSIOi�T EXPIRES r_� �., � �;--�� -. - ---�<.�;��. Pa�e 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. (Individual Acl:nowled�ment) COUNTY OF HE�]NEP1N ) On this 23rd day of July, 2001, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ��;'��i._;�; !i`,�%-c%S',�� -t'-- � � �,-- L= n t�,�; . 1cno�vn to rne to be the person described in and�.vho executed the foregoing i�tstrument, and acicnowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. - ... � ,.,, .. �.,. �� ° � -s 1 � ., ,., � i �.. i!,.�. . , h?:• .,�.,. i! J��..^h l�� I/ �l � �i %%�1 r, � � � '� � i , ' r � NOTARY PUBLIC .vs. ..�N.a.-..�t_ '�..... .......�1.'�_. ..-..�:.....li This document is beinj recorded for the benefit of the City of Orono per Minnesota Statutes 386.77. State Deed TaY Due Hereon: EYempt This instrument�vas drafted by: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN �5323 95'?-?49-'�600