The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About#6722-denying V's - 2017 ��p CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL y�, ,�' No. � � � � G l�kESH�� A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1405 FILE NO. 17-3890 WHEREAS, Steven L Anderson and Stacia J P Anderson, a married couple (hereinafter the "Applicants"), are the owners of the property located at 517 Ferndale Road North and legally described as: That part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5�' Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the South line of said North Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, distant 211 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence East along said South line 330 feet; thence at a right angle North 344.5 feet; thence at a right angle West to an intersection with a line running from a point in the South line of said North Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, distant 391 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof, to a point distant 675 feet South of the North line and 830.75 feet West of the East line of Government Lot 3 in said section, said last described line being hereinafter designated and referred to as"Line A";thence Northerly along said"Line A"to a point 200 feet south of the North line of said North Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence West parallel with the North line of said North Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to an intersection with a line drawn northerly from the point of beginning and parallel with aforesaid "Line A": thence southerly along last said parallel line to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, on December 14, 2016, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for after-the-fact variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1405 to allow two entrance monuments to be 3.5 feet and 4.0 feet from the paved, travelled roadway where a 10 foot setback is required, and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2017, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variances; and 1 g'��p CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��, Gti� NO. � � � L.. j�kESHO�� WHEREAS, on February 13, 2107, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and WHEREAS,when considering applications for variances,the following criteria was taken into consideration: FINDINGS OF �ACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #17-3890. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos,all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the RR-1 B Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 129,994 square feet(2.98 acres)in area and has a defined lot width of 330 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 3 and hardcover is limited to 35% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. FronUStreet Setback Variances 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the .Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The constructed entrance monument improvements are within the required 10-foot separation from the road on the Property. While entrance monuments are appropriate in residential neighborhoods, the purpose of the setback is to preserve a clear zone off the roadway and to preserve visibility though the roadway and driveway intersections. The need for a clear zone allows for snow storage and on street parking when necessary. The two driveways, coupled with the entrance monuments at the street line, impede these goals. 2 ��p CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��,tR wG�� NO.�j_% ��— kESHo� 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Residential entrance monuments at the required setback are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical difficutties,'as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonab/e manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the o�cial controls. The entrance monument improvement itself is reasonable, given an appropriate location. The existing placement is unreasonable and does introduce unnecessary structures in close proximity to a street, inherently increasing risk to the traveling public. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by fhe landowner. The narrowness of the private road serving a total of 10 residences was not created by the Applicants. The entrance monuments were recently constructed and could have been constructed to meet the required setback. The placement of the monuments on the Property was created by the Applicants. Alternative to placing the structures within the drive circle, the structures could be placed on the outside of the drive, and back, meeting setback goals. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." There are entrance monuments similarly situated throughout the City. The character of the neighborhood is not driven by the placement of minor, accessory structures. The City received public comment stating that approval of the variance to permit the substandard setback will adversely impact the character of the neighborhood. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties."The relocation of the entrance monument structures adds cost to the Applicants. Economic considerations may not be a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78."This condition is not applicable. 3 ��p CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��,1 G�� NO. � � � � '�kFs x o��' 6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." This condition is not applicable, as residential entrance monuments are an allowed use in the RR-1 B District. 7. "The board or council may perrnit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two family dwelling."This condition is not applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property."This criteria has not been satisfied. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." Information supporting the uniqueness of the Property has not been submitted. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicarrt."The Applicants have indicated that it is necessary, though the issue of "substantial property right� should not be applied to an omamental feature. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair hea�h, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." The City engineer has indicated that from a safety standpoint it is ideal to have a minimum of a 5-foot clear zone from edge of pavement (this site has 3.5 feet). There are other similar obstructions on the private road and that the low speed and traffic volume of the private road may not be impacted by the entrance monuments. 12. "The grarrting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficu�y." It is feasible for the entrance monuments to be located to conform to the 10 foot setback. It would be more convenient for the applicant to not relocate the structures. CONCLUSIONS. ORDER AND CONDITIONS: WHEREAS the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendation of the City staff and Planning Commission; and the comments and written statements submitted by the Applicants. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the findings of fact concerning the Property contained in this Resolution. 4 �"��p CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL y�, G, NO. _ j'�xFsxo¢�` . _ ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of February, 2017. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: �_� nna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor !��-� � -�� 0�e-�' � ��,� s