HomeMy WebLinkAbout#6791- Denying prelim plat-2017 ���p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� `� No. b 7 9 1
��' G
`�XESHO��
A RESOLUTION DENYING
PRELIMINARY PLAT
INCLDUING A VARIANCE FROM CITY CODE SECTION 78-330
AT 4035 DAHL ROAD
FILE NO. 17-3963
WHEREAS, JHG Properties LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company,
(hereinafter the "Applicant") is the owner of 4035 Dahl Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter
the "City"), identified as Hennepin County PID 07-117-23-14-0003, and legally described as:
That part of Section 7, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows:
Commencing on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
of said Section at a point distant 275 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof;
thence South 150 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said Section to
the center line of the road; thence Northwesterly along the center line of said road
to the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East to
the beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City of Orono for approval of a
variance from City Code Section 78-330 in order to permit a subdivision of the 1.8 acre property
within the LR-1 B, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zone requiring a minimum of 1.0 acre and
140 feet of width (hereinafter the "Proposed Development") and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 16, 2017
and reviewed the application at this same meeting and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2017, the City Council reviewed the Proposed
Development and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2017, the City Council directed preparation of
findings for denial of the variance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby denies the Proposed Development as described above based on one or more of the
following findings of fact concerning the Property:.
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 17-3963.
1
���p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�� G�� No. b 7 9 1
t'�$ESH04�
2. The documents submitted by the Applicant, the analysis contained within staff
memos, 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.
3. The Property is zoned LR-1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential. The Property is
approximately 1.83 acres in area of which approximately 0.01 acres is wetland.
4. The LR-1 B zoning district requires a minimum of 1.0 acres in area and 140 feet in
width.
5. In considering this application for the Proposed Development, the Council has
considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the
effect of the Proposed Development 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. The Applicant purchased the Property because a substandard house was located
on the Property and he considered it a blight to the neighborhood. Further, the
Applicant wanted to make sure that any home built on the Property was consistent
with the surrounding homes and wanted to ensure that a trailer home wasn't located
on the Property, even though the City Code would allow the placement of a trailer
home. The Applicant stated that he paid a premium for the Property and that it is
not feasible to build a single home(valued at over$1,000,000)on the lot and recoup
his investment. The Applicant stated that the market would support subdividing the
lot so that he could build finro homes valued at approximately $800,000.
2. "The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance."
The intent for the acreage minimums set forth in the ordinance for each district is to
maintain and control density to the desired levels. This Proposed Development
proposes creation of a property which is nonconforming with respect to area and is
not in harmony with the ordinance. This criterion is not met.
3. "The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan." The primary goal within
the Comprehensive Plan has been, and continues to be, the preservation of the
lake and natural environment. The Comprehensive Plan finds that high density in
the Shoreland senres to harm the lake water quality because of increased
impervious surfaces, runoff, and a loss of natural vegetative buffer areas. The
minimum lot sizes are intended to address overcrowding of the lake and the
designated Shoreland area, thus preservation of the lake quality. The Proposed
Development resulting in the addition of a second lot is inconsistent with the density
2
���p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y� `� No. b 7 9 1
G
t�xESHO��
objectives and preservation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not
met.
4. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there
are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,'
as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls;
The official controls require a minimum acreage and width for each newly
created building lot. The Proposed Development does not meet the minimum
standards for acreage. This criterion is not met.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The size of the Property was not created by the /andowner however it is not
unique. There are many properties which exceed the minimum acreage
requirement, yet are not able to subdivide because they do not have twice the
minimum lot size. The 1 acre lot size is a minimum standard and is not meant
to guarantee a property owner that they will be allowed to subdivide their
property simply because they have more than 1 acre in land. The purchase price
of the Property was determined by landowner and is not unique. This criterion
is not met; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality."
The Proposed Deve/opment will be used as a residential lot.
5. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have been identified as the most relevant factor in the variance
request by the Applicant." In the Applicant's practical difficulties statement, they
indicate that the Property was purchased "at a premium at public auction" and
identified this as "a facto►" in their practical difficulty determination. The purchase
price of the Property is not a valid practical difficulty. The Applicant has stated that
the Proposed Development is more economically viable if he is allowed to build two
homes valued at under$1,000,000 rather than a single home valued at more than
$1,000,000. The purchase price of the Property and the marketability of the land is
the primary reason for the variance request. This criterion is not met.
6. "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
�� G�� No. 6 7 9 1
t'�kES H p��
7. "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 a residential use is an
allowed use in the LR-1 B District.
8. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling." This condition is not applicable.
9. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
such property or immediately adjoining property." The Property contains more land
than the minimum LR-1 B acreage requirement and is able to utilize the existing land
as a single family residential development without variances. This criterion is not
met.
10. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in
which the land is located." The Property contains more land than the minimum LR-
1 B acreage requirement and six of the surrounding properties contain more than
one acre and less than two acres. This is not unique in the district nor is it a practical
difficulty. The Applicant has pointed out that there are several lots in the proximity
of the Property which are less than one acre. However, The Applicant did not
demonstrate, or introduce into the record, any evidence that those lots were created
under the current zoning ordinance. This criterion is not met.
11. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting a variance from the minimum
lot area requirement of the LR-1 B district to create the Proposed Development is
contrary to the goals of the ordinance and is not necessary to protect the property
rights of the owner. The Property can be developed with a single family residence.
This criterion is not met.
12. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety,
comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter."
Granting the requested variance to create the Proposed Development resulting in
a substandard building site in the neighborhood impairs the comfort of the
immediate neighborhood and is contrary to the chapter. This criterion is not met.
13. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty."The variance serves
solely as a convenience to the Applicant by allowing them to subdivide a lot into lots
that do not meet the minimum requirements of the Code. This criterion is not met.
14. All of the platted properties less than 1.0 acre in size within the 350 foot notification
buffer were platted prior to 1965; prior to the LR-1 B designation.
15. The City Council finds that the Applicant's request would not be in keeping with the
4
���p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�� G�� No. 6 7 9 1
tAxES H 04�
spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the variance and
subdivision for the Proposed Development.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 25th day of September, 2017.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
.
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
5