HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-1969 Planning MinutesmM
V
NOTICE
A ABOULAR MEETING OF
AGENDA
variance - Doniarais
2, ORDINi^CB - Accessory Building on Separate Lots
Ii,i irirf^tllirfTni^iliMriii
VILLAGE OF ORONO
Regular Meeting of the Planning Conjnission,
September IS, 1969
The Planning Commission met on the above
date with the following members present:
Chairman Russell and Nicholls. Absent;
Bartig, Dongoske, McCarthy, and O’Malley,
7:30 P.M.
The members present studied the request
of John Demarais, 780-790 North Arm Drive,
for a variance on lot frontage on Lots
788, Aud. Sub. 362, from 140’ to 100’
for each lot.
The members present recommended approval.
Respectfully submitted.
VARIANCE
780-790 North Arm Drive
Mike Scheller
Secretary
in
TO;
FROM;
DATE:
Mayor Herbert Ross, Village of Orono
D, J. Russell, Chninnan, Orono Planning Cocmlssion
September 16, 1969
SUBJECT: Variances for Cnragos on Separate Lots
A garage is rarely as well built ind well maintained as a house,
since it is basically Just a storage structure rather than a hone
in which people tako pride. For this reason a garage fronting on
a resident^.tl street Is very likely to dopreciute the vclue of not
only the adjoining properties, but the yhole neighborhood.
In writing Orono’s present zoning ordlj.!^jce, adopted in 1967, tho
Planning Cemmission and the Council mads very careful studies of the
nodcTU zoning codes of many other municipalities in Minnesota and
elsewhere, and also sou^lit the advice of Midwest Planning and Research,
Inc., a well*'regarded professional planaing firm. Without exception,
tho ordinaiicos studied ruled out garagos on separate lots in residential
areas.
Section 31.S10 of Orono's ordinance reads;
Time of Construction. No accjssory ouilding or structure
sHi^mfe constructed on any lot prior to the time of
construction of tho princinel building to wliich it is
accessory,.
This clause was adopted werd for word from Section 4.5(1) of the
proposed roning ordinance^ developed for Orono in Maich, 1965 by
Midwest Planning, as were Sections on neecssory building floor
are.i, 31.310 prohibitiag location nearer to the street than th.e main
building and 31 3S0 glvlnr similar pretaotien to properly owners
adjacent to both ends of through lots by requiring a conditional
use permit for accessory tuildings ca such lotS'
Typical of similar ordinances on other Minnesota nmnicipnllties are
Section 5,2.3 of the Duluth code, which, provides in rosldrntial
zones for ’*a private garage custoraarily inuideut to the above uso.s,
but not; involving the couc'uct of a business, providing any such
accessory building shall be erected #.r the same time or after the
construction of the principal building", end Section 12.02 1 of
Golden Valley’.s zoning code which defin.-? an "tccessoiT building"
as a subordlnato building which is locn:od on tho lot of the main
building aJid as "o subordinsto building vdiich Is located on the iot
of the main buildir.j» and the use of which is clep.rly incidental to.. ^ _i na.TC a* r i n#*<s a '*irn r •the use of the main building". Sectlcn 12,02*15 deTines a "garage
private as "a garage with a capacity of r.oc more than four power-
driven vehicles for storajiC only, lad which is erected ar. an acoossoiy
to the building..,..”.
Similar wording can bo found in hundreds of other zoning ordinances,
M any professional planner will confirm^ All such ^'boiler plate*'
laws have been developed over the years us the need for them has become
apparent. They have been worked out through trial iind error to solve
frequently recurring proMoros, and they have been well tested in the
courts- Any Comuil ignoring the n'?od or tVe tested solution does
so at its peril.
Conceivable, in very npotlal and jnique circumstances, the general
rulo may work an injustice For this reason, lacst, if not all, such
ordinances do peiT.it vnriai'.cofl, (Irene*s variance procedure is covered
in Sections 52,300 32 57* , ThJ application for a variance must state
the "exceptional c»indi:lc?n!; and peculiai end practical difficulties
claimed as a basis tor a v.-jria.icc" The appllcotlon must be referred
to the Planning Conmlssion "for study ccncerninj- the effect of the
proposed variances upon t ho Comprohenslvc Guide Flan ,7nd on tho
characteristics of tue nflghbovhood; and for its recommendation to the
Village Council for tlie i.runtiag of such variance so t»s to ro3 ievf
such difficulties or n.aro?.hlp to the deproe cenridered rocsonable
without irap.iirir.g the Intri.t aid purpose of the zoning cocc,.
The Council must then coi ; Ldor the advice-. ;ind reco.mmendat Jon of the
Planning Comalsrion and tho effect of the- proposed variance upor. the
health, safety and welfare of the cormuriitv oxi.stiig and cntici^ted,
traffic conditions, light .ind air, danger of fire, risk tc tHe pul^ic
safety, and the effect or. ’ alues of property' in the surroinidin® aro.n
In addition, it must fine hat the variance will not \e centratT' to
the intojtyt of tho^ t and that the granting of sucTF"a^vaffance
wili. nof 'mbveiv serve is'a convenieuca to the cppllcant, but is ntcessan*
€6 ~il I CVj^r, 'aeiwhs rf .nn c Vi ritih i*i' ~oT'd 5 f fTcu f ty :- - -
We have had only two >ipp3ioations for gur.’.ges on ' *psrace lots since
passage of this ordinance, one by Stanley Rudd in 19C8 and one by
Sigrid Johnson in 1969, Both applications wore very carefully received
by tha Planning Commiaaicn On the basis of the criteria mentioned
above, the Planning Commission turned doicr. both of these applications,.
In the Hudd case, the Coi-ncil nevertheless approved the variance at
its March 10, 1969 meeting by a uanninouf; vote, and { unJersceii'l
construction of the garage has beer, started, I also understand one
of the neighbors is planring to bring suit against the Village, claiming
that the garage will dopvcclate the value ov bis property My guess
i'i that he can rather ansiJy win his cas t and force removal of the
structure. \t that poim , Mr, Rudd will probably sue tho Viilrgo for
the expenses involved .nnd the inconvenience caused him by the wronaf"!
granting of his epplicatio,,,.
T.io Council has not y^t acted on the .Tchsison applicaticm
A conference with the Vill'ige Attorney on both r,iatters would scorn
appropriate.
If tho Council really do^'s want to rnakc i general prartlco of poinlttiug
garages on ioparato lots it could do so by amerdlng the coning code
to pvovide for >iich strur-tures on a conditional use. Any such m.njcr
change in the zoning code yould reoinre -.Miblic hearings a«: specified in .Sections 32,S30 und * r .