HomeMy WebLinkAboutControl # 581...variance denial T } X"yz -74,
1 �t Qf
fit. ..:.di.aet�.�'...,..��Li,:.. t•✓ «.R.:;. �.:4r, ;rr 1 yy.'�tisi4Ynk ;.:ry, ° .....
® ontrol No. 531
t
h'st Ofiice Box 66•Crystal Baa. Nlinnesota S."� 2' 3-Municipal Office 2-1.1-81
er_ing Date
Telep'None:;3735" �''otice Dai`, Z—1.2—til
i'0: Richard J. Lorge
Rt. 1 Box 170D Variance
Carver, MN 55315 Conditional Use Permit r
Subdivision, Preliminary '
Subdivision , Final
Lou Oberhauser
Copi._s to: —
....,c„:c k•......fk„n'- 'k.;k .. T.-��. .c k�i•:4�k•- J„-�• k �. �.,c•�h..r:c�.��k•x±..
COUNCIL ACTION Vote: Far 5 Against Abstention
MOTION Council voted to deny your variance reaues -. at this February
11, 1981 meeting. 121hie denying resolution :.as been enclosed for
your review.
F %
s�
,
A,
4.
k
i"
•�-k�•4rk4c'.r-x4c-k-��*k•*•-k�� + ,..n-k�l�:-'ck�-•��;-•k�.;c-,.. -�•��..,LJ�..: ,c;�':-k-x:.-}�K�i:k-;�,k.••���xri:L%
DEADLINE DATE
for submittal of n,,3w infor-,za .:.on (appiic -Hon may be considered
= formally withdrawn if info,-mation or e.: ration s not provided) .
w" for Work Permit f it *.cork to o�`:..:z nor raorIr ccs be
application
WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIR -1D - con'--act Buildi.r,-- s ector b fore beair�nir.
,: work.
VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited tc the extent sl-:::;:m on approved plans .
Do not change plans. Variance authority expi -es one year After approval. y :a
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon chat:ge .Jr ownershi-p or use,
t or on deadline date specified abo,7e.
R PRELIMINARY SUB .:
DIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant rst provide all information
r.
and/or improvements regt:ired for final appro.-,:.1. Contact Zoning ,.
Administrator. R>.
,;. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must h. vc drawings, resolution
s ., and all other required aocuments recorded, wi :h certifi^stion of such _.
recording returned to the City loy deadline dr=_:e.
Certified copies of official City .Council Mic.stes may be obtained by
contacting the City Cle_ �
k. Allow at least tl-: ee weeks from meeting date
A ^a.'rat'te�i'r re� -^r;_..* ..t.�
} '�' Y•' : 'r 5 i - s
.."1F� Ya
»`.2 t ;�` j ~� ':'✓c`!{ k 3 t k ht't
., _
• ' �•��;. ,., .A,�,Et rte`%� a%.,...� �... ;, ';�a.
*l,',
g; p
RESOLUTION' OF THE CITY COU. 'CiL �,• y
1246
® NO.
+;r A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES REQUP•,'TED
BY RICHARD LORGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATE:._ AT
2697 CASCO POINT ROAD .; � ;
WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a munic pal corporation
r
organized and existing under the laws of the S ..ate of Minnesota;
and
WHEREAS, 2ursunt to State Statute _ '_2 et. seq. and '
462 et. seq. the City Council of the City o� one has adapted.
zoning regulations for the protection of the ib-L health, safety
and general welfare; anu
WHEREAS, Richard Lorge has applied fc= a lct. width variance
to permit construction of a new single family -esidei.ce on Lot 3, I
Auditor's Subdivision Nc. 265 by some future 'sayer of Lot 3; and
€,
WHEREAS, the City Council has review .: the < pplication; � >
the recommendations of :staff and 'che Planning omnis. i ; coma,tints
and petitions submitted by neig:`iborhood citi�: s; a.nc loci:ers and fit.
comments made by the applicant, t
r.
NOW, THERLFORE, BE IT 2ESOLVED, that he City CCL'riC i Of +. a
the City of Orono herebyrequestdenies the re es;.ed lot ti rdth variance �
(Section 34.552) for Lo''' 3, and denies the o :.ar requ�ru-d variances
for which no applications were .rade, which aa.. lances are lot width
s
variance (Section 34. 55< area rariance:) for L��`.s 3 and 4 , .,
(Section 34. 552) for Lo't 4 , side setbac:: (pec . an 34. X52) for Lot 4, ,,
and development of substandard lots of record held in common owner-
ship (Section 31.202) for Lots 3 and 4 , based upon ons, or more of
the following findings of fact concerning thi_, propert:y: `
1. The property is located in the --R-1C Single Family
Lakeshore Residential District ahich has the ollowinc_• minimum lot (,
requirements:
4
Section 34. 552 Lot Area ::1,780 s.f. '.
Lot Width 10 0 f t
Front Sathack 30 ft.
Lake Setback 75 ft.
Side Setback 10 ft. t kF" q
2. Lot 3 is deficientin regards t ; lot area and _lot F
t
width requirements as follows:
- '
Lot 3 actual area is 19,41 s. ---. . short
2, 139 s- 1- - (10%)
Lot 3 actual width is 60 f— - _' (:,:ort 40 i t 40 1)
Paye _ of 6
MW
Vq
.r.
• it4t
3 . Lot 4 is also deficient in regards to lot area and .
Lot width requirements, 3s follows: �
! Lot 4 actual area is 20,202 s. -`. - short
1,578 s.f. (7%)
`± Lot 4 actual width is 60 ft. - short 40
'rbr
4 . Lot 4 contains a residence which is deficient in
regards to required setbacks as follows: 5
Actual lake setback 64 ft. - i�ort 11
ft. (15J) '
North side setback 6 ft. - sh:-rt 4
ft. (40`.)
5. Lorge has failed to apply for a variance for side
-j yard setback for the }souse of Lot 4.
6. Lorge has failed to apply for variance from the "
i.ot area requirements of the zoning Code for Lots 3 and 4.
s
.t
7. Lot 3 was owned in corcumon wit:.. abutting Lot 4 of
s Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by applicant I,orge from 1972 until
May, 1.980, when Lorge sold Lot 4 and retain<-d Lot 3.
8 . Lot 3 hod been owned in commcr_ with Lot 4 sincek
1920 by a succession of S different owners.
µ`
Sa
9. Lot 3 and Lot 4 had frequently been combined by
prior owners on one Torrens Certificate and since 1940 Lot 3 and ,
4 have been combined on one Torrens Certificate.
4.
10. Lots 3 and 4 have frequently jeen encumbered jointly
by one or more mortgages since 1940, and du-ring the time period '*+
when Lorge owned Lot 3 and 4.
11. Vacant _mot 3 has since 1920 b., an used as lawn area
Z
or the residence of Lot 4. With this use ..nd with the lots in
common ownership, the two lots combined met all the District
+ zoning requirements, except lakeshore setback, as follows:
Lot 3 & 4 combined lot area - 39, 843 s. f.
Lot 3 and & combi.ned lot widt:-. - 120 ft.
North side setback - 66 ft.
12. The driveway access for the _., siuence or, Lot 4 '
crosses subject Lot 3 and enters the public street from Lot 3.
Page 2 of 6 �t
h
�5
I �` a M� ,t ��•,�.E'gax�'�65 — 4�'���i
t r ?
F k
r C
a
, i-
"`'K' s x•.i"t$- '0r Asa r;. ,eY'j .af t k ? k lit F F 4sj, t 5" 2 S ..
ham'.' ..Y'�,�� �, Wi � 9 .�•. € .L.nett �` ti���.;;, �-tl - a �� ra'J� �".1�a �ts�;. ,��Yk' `�` .S'u�,v-��i�� "� y,f �
�t�`'lffk
iC F I'
13. A steep hill on both lots preclud<�s construction of
separate driveways without major land alteratior:. ;Rx +,,"
14. Access safety onto Casco Point Road at this location
is a concern because of a curve in the public street and because *`
the steep hill on these lots reduces exit visib _lity. Having two :
driveways or multiple use of one driveway at this location would
increase the safety problems. r5
15. Only one water service stub and one sewer connection
stub have been provided for both lots. Occupied Lot 4 has been
connected to public sewer and water service and has been assessed
for one sewer connection unit and one water uni'-. Vacant Lot 3
. '.:
has not been assessed unit charges for server or water. , ,
16. Water service for the residence o: Lot 4 was connected
in 1972 via a pipe through Lot 3 to a service s .ub provided on Lot 3.
17. At the request of applicant Lorge: the City Council n � .
on November 24, 1980, adopted Resolution No. 1231 approving creation
of private easements over Lot 3 in favor of Lot 4 to accommodate
the existing driveway and utility services, wit' the agreed upon r
understanding of Lorge that such approval for cc;mbined use of the
separate lots may be an additional factor in co,-:sidering denial of � r
the variance for which Lorge had applied.
r
18. Both lots have been zoned for a m. -nimum lot size of
1/2 acre, 21, 780 s.f. since- Ordinance No. 93 i:-. 1967, at which
time the two lots were held in common ownership by Kaare and
Kathleen Gronvold and which lots combined met i:;. e(- uirements of
this zoning density. °
19. Richard and Jean Lorge purchased 'coth lots in 1972,
with certificate of title document 480490 recor_..ed August 10, 1972,
at which time the lot in combination met the recuirements of the
1967 zoning code, and at which time Lot 3 would not have been
separately buildable without the same lot width variance applied
for herein and a variance for lot area, for which Lorge still has
not applied.
20. In comprehensive city wide rezoni:,,q in 1974, Ordinance ,
No. 172 changed the District designation but di ' not change theo-��rr.
minimum lot area, lot width orand setback star:,�ards for this area
y �x��� �Y:�k-•.
as originally established in 1967. :
21. Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, has stated in
the record that in January or February, 1980, sire received a call
from a realtor representing Lorge asking about :e buildability of
Lot 3 if Lot 4 were sold to someone else, at which time the realtor
was advised that vaiances would be required to iuild a house: on
Lot 3.
Page 3 of 6
�f
.;
k _
-�' �� `"�� ... ,ryu ^=t.� _ .Yt d� .._ i'7 - ._ ^gym. ,_.T.,y,... ^..,�..i�..c.arn.,:w' n c.4.•.,C,.ai,..�.ti�F:e."ta^=
y '
"'MANN
P '
67:
22. Lorge sold Lot 4 , but not Lot 3, to Jerome iteinan on
May 29, 1980, thereby separating the parcels for the First time
dard and
since 1920 and thereby making bottGuiorementst 3 daL; enumeratednabove.
deficient in regarls to zoning re , - .%
23. Lorqe applied on August 29,. 195. for a lot width '
variance for Lot 3, but not for any other vai : ances, stating as
�� a ailable" .
a hardship that there was no adjacent land
the Lorqe sale of Lot on May 29, 1980, hfi
Prior t o
24.
there was adjacent land available to Lot 3 in the form of Lot 4
which historically had bee, owned in common wzth Lot 3. `
d not
te
25. Denial of thessuob3substantect ialevalue, because oLot 13uhas
a taking of property or los Y ,
always had value and been used as required area and yard space for �t-
the residence on Lot `
26. Any hardship resulting from the separate ownership of
Lot 3 has been caused by the applicant's sale of adjacent Lot 4
common ownership by the ap both lots and
icar,t or
eight years after c applicable minimum, zoning s
ears after the adoption of the app _ � .
thirteen y
requirements. dentir!
27 . The developmantoo�heoexistingrdrainageaproblemsefor
s
proposed by Lorge would ad owned by
Lot 4, previously
' the properties in the area, including '&
Lorge.
i
28. The granting of the variances .,ould be .7dverse to
nnhe r
i state promulgated low density shorelands development policy, 75
Stat. §105.485, Subd. 1, which callsfor a reationa nDevelopmentwidth
Lakefsuch r
feet on a General Development or Rec
as Lake Minnetonka. ,
29. Section 31. 202 of the Zoning Cade provides for F
development of lots of record held in separate ownership since
prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the
Lot 3 does not
lot of record meets 80% of the requirE,d lot width.
conform to this Section because it is only z'0with Lot 4ebetween o
width and because it was in common ownershil
1967 and 1980. x;
Council has always rccuired that when two or
30. The City mus individuali1 meet or "
' more lots are owned
in common, each lot
OCode ore any of the 1°'s
4• exceed the requirements of the 'zoning ';.".
ard
can be built upon and that two or , ore subs -ar'combinedJlotnmeetn
common must be combined so that the resulti ;g
the requirements of the 'Coning Code before ie lots can be built
{ upon.
�v Paye 4
D
14
rsF
i
x'r
M- •^A 711-77-
in
n mimF 1. r hzC�r r`'aa°�
':'�5ei 1y-f gAmar+�,:.-zB�P'' ^a.k �qX•i+b7� ��`:`,""' .$.: .�' t'Y., '. o w ..�h.,F_ ,.n '� ,� �_,k� ,..
M,
r
;. 31. The granting of the required variances would result in
the following violations of Section 32. 340 of the Zoning Code with
which the applicant must first comply before the required variances
can be granted:
a. The variances would have E..n adverse effect upon
+ the health, safety and welfare of the community
for the reasons outlined herein.
b. The safety and welfare of the community would
be adversely affected for the reasons outlined
herein, especially increased traffic and drainage
a problems.
C. The amount of light and ai in the neighborhood
would be diminished by adcing a structure on the
substandard lot.
d. The values of surrounding )roperties will be r
adversely affected.
e. There are no special condi.-ions applying to the
land in question which are peculiar to the land
or immediately adjoining p.-operty. 4,',t
a
f. The condition of having a :,ubstandard lot or two
adjacent substandard lots `field in common applies
generally in the lakeshore residential districts.
i
g. The granting of the applic�.-ion is not necessary .`
for the preservation and e:.joyment of a substantial
property right of the appl ;ant. ` hal
h. The granting of the variances will impair the
hearth, safety, comfort anc' be contrary to the
intent of the Zoning Code n.nd Comprehensive Plan.
i. The granting of the variances will serve merely as
a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary
' to alleviate demonstrable 'r_ardship or difficulty.
32. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary
to any of the above findings of fact. 'Ihe v-plicant has claimed
r only that Lot 3 would be of greater value to i:im if he could sell
Page 5 of 6 '
P,
a` '
,„
, .-..
� � g#? �
�'. # �" �' �.
&y ,tii ✓' ,.4 aj'. fF� 5 � r ,4}'s �, r -� 2 Sq " �
it to a third party with the variances n;,cessary to build a home
upon i t. �w.a.
33. Now that Lot 3 and Lot 4 are no :conger held in
common ownership, the City Assessor is directeca to review the
estimated market value of Lot 3 to insure that the estimated market
value reflects the fact that the lot is not bu-.ldable. pry '
Adopted by the City Council of the Cite of 0?-OIlo on the
II day of , 1981.
-�-- �SN
71--lam B. Van I;est, Mayor
ATTEST: • n
r
4 '
Walter R: Benson, City Administrator
w►
A erta trom, City Cler
r
}
r
f'
N
E; `
r
tv�•
Page 6 of 6
E -
'. r.. ,:.