HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-11 Resolution #1246City of ORONO
L CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF
ORONO
NO.1246
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES REQUESTED
BY RICHARD LORGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2697 CASCO POINT ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corpor.ation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Miniesota;
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, Richard Lorge has applied for a lot width variance
to permit construction of a new single family residence cn Lot 3,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by some future buyer of Lot 3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application;
the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission;; comments
and petitions submitted by neighborhood citizens; and letters and
comments made by the applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of
the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot width variance
(Section 34.552) for Lot 3, and denies the other required variances
for which no applications were made, which variances are lot width
variance (Section 34.552) for Lets 3 and 4, lot area variance
(Section 34.552) for Lot 4, ^ide setback (Section 34.552) for Lot 4,
and development of substanda;i lots of record held in common owner
ship (Section 31.202) for Lot.^. 3 and 4, based upon one or more of
the following findings of fact concerning this property:
1. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family
Lakeshore Residential District which has the following minimum lot
requirements:
Section 34.552 Lot Area
Lot Width
Front Setl;ack
Lake Setback
Side Setback
21,780 s.f.
100 /t.
30 ft.
75 ft.
10 ft.
2. Lot 3 is deficient in regards to lot area ani lot
width requirements as follows:
Lot 3 actual area is 19,641 s.f. - short
2,139 s.f. (10%)
Lot 3 actual width is 60 ft. - short 40 ft. t40%)
Page 1 of 6
-» •,fv|i {V V" ■ ;rv-*’v*i tctt-tt j'..u».r<.a --"jT*>^r..■:•#•--.
^iV
■-’■y .
3* Lot: 4 is also deficient in re^di^ds to lot area and
Lot width requirements as follows:
Lot 4 actual area is 20,202 s.f. - short
1,578 s.f. (7%)
Lot 4 actual width is 60 ft. - short 40 S '
ft. (40%) V-
4.Lot 4 contains a residence which is deficient in
regards to required setbacks as follows:
Actual lake setback 64 ft. - short 11
ft. (15%)
North side setback 6 ft. - short 4
ft. (40%)
5.Lorge has failed to apply for a variance for side
yard setback for the house of Lot 4.
6.Lorge has failed to apply for a variance from the
lot area requirements of the zoning Code for Lots 3 and 4.
7.Lot 3 was owned in common with abutting Lot 4 of
Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by applicant Lorge from 1972 until
May, 1980, when Lorge sold Lot 4 and retained Lot 3.
8* Lot 3 had been owned in common with Lot 4 since
1920 by a succession of 5 different owners.
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.
10.Lots 3 and 4 have frequently been encumbered jointly
by one or more mortgages since 1940, and during the time period
when Lorge owned Lot 3 and 4.
11.Vacant Lot 3 has since 1920 been used as lawn area
for the residence of Lot 4. with this use and with the lots in
common ownership, the two lots combined met all the District
Honing requirements, except lakeshore setback, as follows:
Lot 3 & 4 combined lot area - 39,843 s.f.
Lot 3 and & combined lot width - 120 ft.
North side setback - 66 ft.
12« The driveway access for the residence on Lot 4
crosses subject Lot 3 and enters the public street frcxa Lot 3.
Page 2 of 6
1^
i
i'.
t ■
t-.
f
^ Steep hUl on both lots precludes construction of
separate driveways without major land alteration,
. Access safety onto Casco Point Road at this location
w .. water service stub and one sewer connection
conne^tln t®®*' Provided for both lots. Occupied Lot 4 has been
foK rtnl public sewer and water service and has been assessed
for one sewer connection unit and one water unit. Vacant Lot 3
nas not been assessed unit charges for sewer or water,
in 10-7 0 Water service for the residence on Lot 4 was connected
in 1972 via a pipe through Lot 3 to a service stub provided on Lot 3
. „ request of applicant Lorge» the City Council
on November 24, 1980, adopted Resolution No. 1231 approving creation
driveway and utility services, with the agreed upon
Lorge that such approval for combined use of the
the an additional factor in considering denial ofthe variance for which Lorge had applied.
1/2 zoned for a minimum lot size of
t- since Ordinance No. 93 in 1967. at which
time the two lots were held in common ownership by Kaare and
this foIJinraensity?'’ ‘he requirements of
W4 1-K .... Richard and Jean Lorge purchased both lots in 1972,
sk*- title document 480490 recorded August 10, 1972,
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
not applied? “ variance for lot area, for which Lorge still has
Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, has stated in
January or February, 1980, she received a call
trom a realtor representing Lorge asking about the buildability of
were sold to someone else, at which time the realtor
a., advised that valances would be required to build a house on
i-^O t 3 9
Page 3 of 6
■ •—iO.,-'-. T.-->• o J - >rmr-t
I of
nected
Lot 3
Of
of
nance
area
M=.„ oa ^oin Lot 4, but not Lot 3, to Jerome Heinan on
May 29, 1980, thereby separating the parcels for the first time
since 1920 and thereby making both Lot 3 and Lot 4 substandard and
deficient in regards to zoning requirements as enumerated above.
23. Lorge applied on August 29, 1980 for a lot width
variance for Lot 3, but not for any other variances, stating as
a hardship that there was "no adjacent land available".
24. Prior to the Lorge sale of Lot 4 on May 29, 1980,
there was adjacent land available to Lot 3 in the form of Lot 4
which historically had been owned in common with Lot 3.
.... Denial of the subject variances would not constitute
a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Lot 3 has
always had value and been used as required area and yard space for the residence on Lot 4. j t' »■
r«4. “j u hardship resulting from the separate ownership of
Lot 3 has been caused by the applicant's sale of adjacent Lot 4
eight years after common ownership by the applicant of both lots and
thirteen years after the adoption of the applicable minimum zoning requirements. ^
development of Lot 3 for residential purposes as
proposed by Lorge would add to the existing drainage problems for
the properties in the area, including Lot 4, previously owned by Lorge. ^
28. The granting of the variances would be adverse to the
state promulgated low density shorelands development policy, Minn,
btat. §105.485, Subd. 1, which calls for a minimum lot width of 75
feet on a General Development or Recreational Development Lake such
as Lake Minnetonka.
29. Section 31.202 of the Zoning Code provides for
development of lots of record held in separate ownership since
the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the
lot of record meets 80% of the required lot width. Lot 3 does not
Section because it is only 60% of the reauired lot
because it was in common ownership with Lot 4 between 1967 and 1980.
30. The City Council has always required that when two or
more lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or
exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots
can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in
common must bo combined so that the resulting combined lot meets
the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon.
Page 4 of €
* T V*m■ :\4
4.i
:'■£*
*♦
! •
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 an adverse effect upon
the health, safety and welfare of the community
for the reasons outlined herein.
b.
d.
f.
The safety and welfare of the community w'juld
be adversely affected for the reasons outlined
herein# especially increased traffic and drainage
problems.
The amount of light and air in the neighborhood
would be diminished by adding a structure on the
substandard lot.
The values of surrounding properties will be
adversely affected.
There are no special conditions applying to the
land in question which are peculiar to the land
or immediately adjoining property.
The condition of having a substandard lot or two
adjacent substandard lots held in common applies
generally in the lakeshore residential districts.
The granting of the application is not necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
The granting of the variances will impair the
health# safety, comfort and be contrary to the
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan.
i. The granting of the variances will serve merely as
a convenience to the applicant# and is not necessary
to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
32. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary
to any of the above findings of fact. The applicant has claimed
only that Lot 3 would be of greater value to him if he could sell
g
h.
Page 5 of 6
.:.■ .* .• * . ■'1
• ■ • . . ' ' •' * '
ill.. :•■• . :! ■ •!■. : • ■■■■'.':■■ . :.
. ■■■■.".'V -■ . i