HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 1246 V< < �t o� oR,oNo
• ,
c �
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� NO. 1246
• - • •
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES REQUESTED
BY RICHARD LORGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATEL AT
2697 CASCO POINT ROAD
ti9HEREAS, 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, Richard Lorge has applied for a lot width variance
to permit construction of a new single family residence on 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
�he 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 a�plications were made, which variances are lot width
variance (Section 34. 552) for Lots 3 and 4, lot area variance
(Section 34. 552) for Lot 4, side setback (Section 34. 552) for Lot 4,
ancl development of substandard lots of record held in common owner-
ship (Section 31.202) for Lots 3 and 4, based upon one or more of
the following findings of fact concerning this property:
l. The property is located in the LR-1C Single Family
Lakeshore Residential District which has the following minimum lot
requirements :
Section 34. 552 Lot Area 21,780 s. f.
Lot Width 100 ft.
Front Setback 30 ft.
Lake Setback 75 ft.
Side Setback 10 ft.
2. Lot 3 is deficient in regards to lot area and 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. (400)
Page 1 of 6
• 3 . Lot 4 is also deficient in regards 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
ft. (40�)
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 f ailed 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 �
zoning 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 from Lot 3 .
•
Page 2 of 6
� o
• 13. A steep hill on both lots precludes construction of
separate driveways without major land alteration.
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 visibility. Having two
. driveways or multiple use of one driveway at this location would
increase the safety problems. �
15. Only one water service stub �nd 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 unit. Vacant Lot 3
has not been assessed unit charges for sewer or water.
16. 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.
17. At the request of applicant Lorge, the City Council
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, with the agreed upon
understanding of Lorge that such approval for combined use of the
separate lots may be an additional factor in considering denial of
the variance for which Lorge had applied.
• 18. Both lots have been zoned for a minimum lot size of
1/2 acre, 21, 780 s . f. since Ordinance No. 93 in 1967, at which
time the two lots were held in common ownership by Kaare and
Kathleen Gronvold and which lots combined met the requirements of
this zoning density.
19. Richard and Jean Lorge purchased both lots in 1972,
with certificate of title document 480490 recorded August 10, 1972,
at which time the lot in combination met the requirements 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 rezoning in 1974, Ordinance
No. 172 changed the District designation but did not change the
minimum lot area, lot width or yard setback standards for this area
as originally established in 1967.
21. Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, has stated in
the record that in January or February, 1980, she received a call
from a realtor representing Lorge asking about the 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 build a house on
Lot 3.
•
Page 3 of 6
• 22. Lorge sold Lot 4, but not Lot 3, to Jerome Reinan 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.
25. 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.
26. Any 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.
27. The 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.
Stat. �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
prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the
lot of record meets 80� of the required lot width. Lot 3 does not
conform to this Section because it is only 60� of the required lot
width and 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 be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets
the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built
upon.
• Page 4 of 6 •
• 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. The safety and welfare of the community would
be adversely affected for the reasons outlined
herein, especially increased traffic and drainage
problems.
c. The amount of light and air in the neighborhood
would be diminished by adding a structure on the
substandard lot.
d. The values of surrounding properties will be
adversely affected. '
e. There are no special conditions applying to the
land in question which are peculiar to the land
or immediately adjoining property.
• f. The condition of having a substandard lot or two
adjacent substandard lots held in common applies
generally in the lakeshore residential districts.
g. The granting of the application is not necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
h. 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
Page 5 of 6
•
y , �
• it to a third party with the variances necessary to build a home
upon it.
33. Now that Lot 3 and Lot 4 are no longer held in
common ownership, the City Assessor is directed to review the
estimated market value of Lot 3 to insure that the estimated market
value reflects the fact that the lot is not buildable.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Ororio on the
11 day of Februar� . 1981.
. �
Tilliam B. Van Nest, Mayor
ATTEST:
C
Walter enson, City Administrator
;
� __,'���:>����Z�_>
Alberta Strom, City Clerk
�
Page 6 of 6