HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 6801 ���p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y�, G`� No. 6 8 0 1
t�xESH04�
A RESOLUTION
DENYING A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-330
FILE#17-3968
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 zoning regulations for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2017, Frederick Johnson (hereinafter the "Applicant"),
applied for variances from the City Code for the property addressed 1565 Orchard Beach Place
also known as Hennepin County PID 07-117-23-43-0026 and legally described as:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of Block 18, thence North 100 feet; thence
Northwesterly to the Northeast comer of Lot 19; thence South 100 feet to the Lake
Shore; thence East to the point of beginning. All within SAGA HILL REVISED,
Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter the"Property");
WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance
to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 to allow a rear yard setback of 5.6 feet where a
30 foot setback is required; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has also made application to the City of Orono for
variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 to allow development of the Property
which is substandard with respect to area and width having 9,645 square feet or 0.22 acre in area
and 83 feet in width where 1.0 acre in area and 140 feet in width are required; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has also made application to the City of Orono for a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow development of the Property
which is entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line determined by the home on the
adjacent property at 1555 Orchard Beach Place; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2017, after published and mailed notice in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public
1
g-��p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�� G�� No. 6 8 0 1
t`��ESHO��
hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the
opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the lot area, lot width, rear yard setback, and average lakeshore setback variances; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2017, the City Council reviewed the application the
recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission; and the comments and written
statements submitted by the applicant and his agents as well as those received from members of
the public; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2017, the City Council directed preparation of findings
for approval of the lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback variances, and also for
denial of the rear yard setback variance; and.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby denies the requested rear yard setback variances as described above based on one or
more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #17-3968. 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 LR-1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 0.22 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 83 feet.
4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District.
5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]:
a. Lot Area Variance
b. Lot Width Variance
c. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance
d. Rear Yard Setback Variance
6. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances
2
�-��p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y� G�,� No. 6 8 0 1
�`�kESHp4�'
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 rear yard setback variance requested for the home
is in part due to the shape and size of the Property. The effort to move the house further
from the lake results in the encroachment on the required rear yard, which may not be
reasonable considering the slope, proximity to the adjacent home, and the City's desire to
protect the lake from unnecessary storm water runoff.
2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan." The Property along with all property surrounding it is guided in the
2000-2030 Orono Community Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) for single family
residential use. "The key goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan is to protect Lake
Minnetonka, which includes the preservation of the natural character of the lakeshore and
the water quality of the lake." Grading and development on this small lot will be in conflict
with many of the goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan, including
but not limited to the following: Environmental Protection Plan, Genera/Policy 8: Granting
of the variances will result in overcrowding of the lakeshore.
3. "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 in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not pe►mitted by the official controls.
The Applicant is proposing to use the Property for residential purposes, but
requires four (4) variances to site the house. Granting a substantial number and
degree of variances for that use is not reasonable given the unique site
background and characteristics. The Council has approved 3 of the requested 4
variances and the applicant has a building pad that would allow them to construct
a home on the property.
b. The plight of the/andowner is due to circumstances unique fo his property not created
by the/andowner.
The Property was platted before existing codes were enacted. While not created
by the landowner, this circumstance is not unique, as a majority of the developed
3
�-��p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�� G�,� No. 6 8 0 1
t'�kFS H 04�
lots in the neighborhood were also platted prior to existing codes. The size of the
other lots within the neighborhood are inconsistent the subject property.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
The proposed rear yard setback between 11.4 and 5.6 feet where a 30-foot
setback is required places the structure closer to the rear lot line than any other
home on Orchard Beach Place.
4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." The Applicant
purchased the Property for$100,000 in 2014. There is nothing in the record to suggest that
denial of the requested rear yard setback variance impairs the value of the Property.
Economic considerations have not been 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.
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 the use for a residence is an allowed use in
the LR-1 B Lakeshore Residential District.
7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a finro-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."The conditions applying to the Property apply to
all other properties in the LR-1 B zoning district, which are subject to the same zoning
standards as the Property.
9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located."The Property is extremely substandard in area under current codes, and
was originally platted as a Commons Lot, which traditionally and in this case within the
1885 plat of SAGA HILL was not originally intended as a building site. Building lots within
the plat of SAGA HILL were given standard Iot and block numbers, and were significantly
larger than the Property. The conditions that have been in place regarding buildability of
pre-existing record lots apply to all platted lots within the LR-1 B district.
4
���p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y� G�,� No. 6 8 0 1
t`�kES H O��
10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant." Granting variances in order to construcf a new
residence on a very substandard Property that has been devoid of a residence structure
is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
Applicant. The reasonable uses of the Property are the same uses that have been enjoyed
by the current and various prior owners for many decades. The previous owners, the
Pfeffers, purchased the Property in 1980 with constructive knowledge that variances to
build on the site had been denied just two years earlier, and would have known that the
Property could not be built on. The general parameters for buildability within the LR-1 B
district (lot area, lot width, setbacks, etc.) have not become more restrictive since the
current owners acquired the Property.
11. "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." The filling and
grading necessary in order to correct the existing site conditions to make the lot buildable
if variances are granted, i.e. redirect the natural drainage through the site to create a
buildable pad that won't be subject to periodic flooding, potentially requires removal of a
substantial number of protected trees within the 0-75'zone. This would be contrary to the
intent of the zoning code. Restricting the rear yard setback further intensifies the
challenges with the drainage.
12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." On three occasions in the past, the City
has determined that the Property should not be built upon. In the 1978 City Council
resolution denying the lot area, lot width and setback variances, the Council adopted a
number of findings supporting denial. The variance requests in 2013 and again in 2014
resulted in a resolution of denial that contains a number of findings establishing a basis
for denial of the variances requested.
CONCLUSIONS. ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the
requested rear yard setback variance to allow construction of a home on the Property befinreen
11.4 and 5.6 feet from the rear lot line.
1. The above-referenced lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback variance
approval findings are listed within Resolution No. , adopted on
5
g-��p CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y� G,� No. 6 8 0 1
`�XESH���
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 23� day of October, 2017.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
nna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
6