HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-10-20 Resolution #2254City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. _______________
A RBSOLOTIOH GRAHTIHG
VABIAMCB8 TO
MmiCIPAL ZOHIHG CODE
SECTION 10.25, SOBDIVISlOH 6(B) AND
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2
PILE tiiie
the owner :?'?h“V--op^tt“'Jlth^’/hl
City of Orono (he^^i^fter "City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 132, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according
to^the recorded plat thereof, that part of Lake Shore Avenue
dedicated on thi the recorded plat of Sprln,
vacated and that part of a tract of land on the opposite
side of said avenue all lying between the westerly
of the north and south lines of Lot 132 xn saxd pi
(hereinafter "the property); and
NBEREA8, the applicant has applied to tne City for a
variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section Subdivision 6(B)
permit the construction of room and 9»rage additions to attach the
existing residence to the existing detached gar age which ° ^
feet from the side lot lin? where a 10* side setback
required for an attached garage; and a variance to Section 10. ,
Subdivision 1 to permit construction of a deck and enclosed P°tch
(gazebo) structure that will encroach 25' past the existing
iakeshore setback line and 9* past the
l;S^a^='’w''hVre’’on\’’y* /sV h.°44«r U^nor^^t^ nrowldra^'Vo 'allow a’s.M
JirdcoveV^in the Iakeshore setback zone where 85.7% hardcover
etistsTut only 30% is normally allowed; and a variance to Section
10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a street setback of 20 where
street setback is normally required.
HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile 11176.
2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore
Residential Zoning District.
Page 1 of 6
1
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITV COUNCIL
NO. 2254
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on
September 14, 1987 and recommended denial of the proposed variances
based upon the following findings:
a) Four of five Planning Commissioners present indicated
approval of the hardcover variances, finding that the
proposal results in a net overall decrease of hardcover
square footage on the property and in the dedicated right-
of-way of 224 square feet.
b) Pour of Five Planning C''mmissioners present indicated
disapproval of the side se back variance for the garage,
based on the knowledge that the garage will likely require a
new foundation and the opportunity to move it to a
conforming location would then exist.
c) The Planning Commission generally felt that the average
lakeshore setback should be reviewed under the assumption
that the seasonal residence immediately to the north will
eventually be removed and replaced with a house closer to
the lake, thus revising applicants average setback line.
4. The City Council finds that the Increase in hardcover in the
75-250* zone is adequately counterbalanced by the proposed
decreases in the 250-500* setback zone.
5. The City Council finds that the magnitude of actual reduction
of potential or existing lakeshore views from neighboring
properties will be such that it does not create a significant
view encroachment.
6. The Council finds that the location of an existing mature tree
is a hardship to moving the proposed garage to the south, and the
locations of garages in the immediate neighborhood generally
located nearer the northerly lot line then the required 10*
setback, will not create a safety hazard nor a visual crowding
effect if the proposed 2* side setback for the garage is
retained.
7. The Council finds that as a result of the attachment of the
houso and existing garage, the house setback will technically be
20* from the dedicated right-of-way where a 30* street setback is
normally required, but will still maintain a 40* separation from
the edge of the actual paved and traveled roadway.
8. On August 10, 1987 the City Council voted 4-1 to conceptually
approve the requested variance and directed staff to draft a
formal resolution for approval.
Page 2 of 6
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2254 ________
mm
9. The City Council has considered this application including
the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission#
reports by City staff# comments by the applicant and the effect
of the proposed variance on the health# safety and welfare of the
community.
10. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this
property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other
property in this zoning district; that granting the variance
would not adversely affect traffic conditions# light# air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would
not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or
necessary to preserve a substantial property right of th
applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
COaCLUSIOHS# ORDER AMD COMDITIOMS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10^.25,
Subdivision 6(B) to permit the construction of
additions to attach the existing residence to the existing
garage which is only 2 feet from the side lot line
setback is normally required for an attached 9«rage; and grants a
variance to Section 10.22# Subdivision 1 to permit construciton of a
deck and enclosed porch (gazebo) structure that
past the existing average lakeshore setback line and 9
TOtential future average lakeshore setback line, where no
is normally allowed; and grants a variance to S®ction 10.22,
Subdivision 2 to allow an increase in hardcover in the 75 250
lakeshore setback zone from 36.4% existing to 40.2% where only 25%
hardcover is normally allowed# and to allow 48.5% . nnlv
250-500' lakeshore setback tone where 85.7% hardcover «xist8 but only
30% is normally allowed; and grants a variance to Section 10*25,
Subdivision 6(B) to allow a 20' street ^
•treet yard setback is normally required, subject to the foil g
conditions t
Page 3 of 6
♦•OPOfJOMOj
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2254_________
1. Hardcover on the property in the 75* 50* setback zone shall be
limited to the following items: (Area of 75-250* zone » 10,937
s.f.)
1432 s.fExisting Home
Garage & Home Addition
Existing Garage
Driveway
Deck not over patio
Patio
Rock Walls
Sidewalk
Added Deck N. of patio
1100
400
238
85
576
194
260
120
s.f*
s.f.
s.f.
s.f.
s.f.
s.f.
s.f.
s.f.
4405 s.f. or 40.2%
(Refer to Exhibits A & B Attached)
Hardcover in the 250-500* zone shall be as follows: (Area within
250-500* zone is 1950 s.f. total, of which 1200 s.f. is in the
right-of-way for Casco Point Road as dedicated on the Plat of
•Spring Park", and 750 s.f. is within the property boundaries
westerly of the dedicated right-of-way)
270 s.f.
580 s.f.
Driveway (west of right-of-way)
Driveway (within right-of-way)
Sidewalk (included in 75-250* -
zone calculations) _ _ _ _ _
TOTAL 850 s.f. or 48.5%
Note: For percentage calculation purposes, because applicant is
removing unnecessary hardcover within the dedicated right-of-way,
the 250-500* hardcover percentages txlowed are based on using the
•combined area of property and right-of-way less the paved
roadway", or 1750 s.f., as the denominator.
2. Applicant is advibo^'* ♦•hat i utTire proposals that result in
additional hardcover on ^.r -pcrty will not be approved, but
migi'ft tee approved only if concurrent hardcover resiovals result in
no net increase in hardcover.
3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property
not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be
exercised by application for a building permit within one year of
the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on
that date (August 24, 1988).
4. Violation jf or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the
zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted
herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
Page 4 of 6
lONO:iTY COUNCIL
jO* setback zone shall be
of 75-250* zone « 10,937
or 40.2%
I as follows: (Area within
(hich 1200 s.f. is in the
dedicated on the Plat of
the property boundaries
b-.-'m 4f - *. •'City of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254_ _ _ _ _
5. The undersigned applicant has read, unders^ od and hereby
agrees to the terms of this resolution and on b' .If of himself,
his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agre to the recording
of this resolution in the chain of title of tne property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of
September, 1987.
ATTEST:
V.
til
James R. Gr<, Mayor
•roperty Owner (s J
y /a*
270 e.f.
560 s.f.
^50 s.f. or 48.5%
sea, because applicant is
he dedicated right-of-way,
aed are based on using the
t-of-way less the paved
tor.
proposals that result in
fill not be approved, but
rdcover rea»vals result in
nee run with the property
lissive only and must be
I permit within one year of
variance will expire on
ith any of the terms and
titute a violation of the
nate any authority granted
Pmge t> of 6
I
m City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2254_________
STATE OF MINNES».TA )
) 88.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this 20th day of Ort-nhftr 198_7
before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally
appeared Richard A. & Janet L. Putnam known to me to be
the person(8) deecribed in and who executed the foregoing
instrumentr and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as
his (their) free act and deed.
L. NAAB____. minncsota
IPtN CC UH^
NOTARY PUBLIC
J
9/8/92
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
STATE OP MINNESOTA )
)S8.
COUNTY OP HENNEPIN )
On this day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _» 198_» before me
a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared
known to me to be the
person!s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
Page 6 of 6
� 3 Q tA 3nlV3A tl OOGUL?
..P -N ^as_ ..
:..�� . • �.. .
Ln
ofto4a
-k