Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 1300 . . • Y �.! � Cit� o� ORONO � � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • NO. 1300 - A RESOLUTION DENYING AN "AFTER THE FACT" VARIANCE APPLICATION OF JOHN C. ERICSON FOR MAJOR • STRUCTUR.AL REPAIR TO A NON CON- FORMING STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1620 SHADYWOOD ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 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, John C. Ericson has applied for an "after the fact" variance for major structural repair done without a building permit on a pagota, a non conforming structure, located 15' from the lakeshore; and WHEREAS, the pagota, hereinafter refered to as structure, is located on a property legally described as lots 3, 4 and the south 5 • feet of lot 2, Shady-wood, hereinafter referred to as the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission; and comments made by the applicant. , � NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the "after the �fact" variance application of John C. Ericson�.to permit major structural repairs to a non conforming struc- ture based on one or more of the following findings of fact: 1) �he prop,erty is located within the LR-1C zoning district requiring a minimum of 21, 780 sf of lot area. The property consists of approximately 34, 375 sf. The zoning district requires 100 ' of lot width; the property is 12°5' wide. 2) On May 4, 1981, a stop work order was issued to the applicant for work done on a lakeshore struc- ture without a building permit. The following alterations were observed: a) The upper section of the structure was jacked above the top of the lakeshore bank. b) The old foundation had been removed and replaced with a slab of insufficient thickness. � c) There were no frost. footings. d) There were no foundation walls between the 1eve1. of the slab and the underside of the wooden second story. � � . ,' ,. E�3.cson Page 2 _ � C�t� of ORONO _ • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL . • NO. 1300 • � • • ,,�... , ) The proposed improvement to the structure is major structural repair. 4) Ordinance 31. 108 does not permit structural repair of a non conforming structure. 5) If the directive of Ordinance 31. 108 had been - followed, the applicant would have been made aware of the alternatives available to him at the time of the required staff inspection as . � follows: a) If the structure could have been repaired , by simple repair (no structural alterations) this could have been done with a building permit. b) If deterioration of the structure was so severe that removal of the structure is required and applicant is made aware that replacement permits cannot be issued, Ericson could have had the use and benefit • of the structure for a few more years until it failed. 6) The structural repairs proposed for the structure will require approval of new building work within 7•5 ft. of the shoreline; Ordinance 34. 201 does not permit this. 7) The proposed major repairs to the structure would perpetuate 234 sf of hardcover within the 75 ft. setback area of the lakeshore which is . not allowed per Ordinance 34. 202 . 8) The complete replacement of the foundation of . the structure will extend the life of a non conforming structure; approval of this action would be contrary to the intent and objectives of Ordinan�ce 31. 108. � 9) Ordinance 31. 10G would require the removal of the structure for the assessor' s records show the fair market value of the structure at $1, 170. 00 in 1976. ' 10) The applicant was in violation of section 69 B . 020 of the Municipal Code when he raised and jacked the building without a permit. The work required • a licensed housemover. � M * _ -, . Er,icson � Page 3 � Ci.t� of ORONO • . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ; � NO. �,�nn _ '� ' • •� . � ��, z-��x. �"- . � 11) The applicant was in violation of State Building Cocle . 301 when he maved, altered and repaired the structure without a building permit. 12) The applicant was in biolation of State Building Code . 305 when he poured the concrete slab without - an inspection. 13) The value of this accessory structure has been . well amortized in the 60 odd years it has existed • � without any major changes or repairs. . 14) Council has encouraged the applicant to obtain a building permit to relocate the upper section of the structure on a new slab on grade; said structure' s new location must meet all the zoning and lakeshore setbacks standards. 15) 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 variance can be granted: a) The variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. b) The value of surrounding properties will be ad�ersely affected. c) There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. d) The granting of the application is not nec- • essary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. e) The granting of 'the variances would impair the health, safety, comfort and be contrary . to the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. . ' f) The granting of the variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty� except that caused by the applicant � himself. ; g) The granting of the variances would be adverse to the regulations or the Minnehaha Creeek Watershed District. � ` . �ricson _� ,�P�ge 4 l - Cit� o� ORONO r � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • NO. 1300 . • � • • 16) The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary to any of the above findings of fact nor has he demonstrated sufficient hardship except to state that he was not aware that a zoning inspection and building permit was required before beginning the proposed improvement. FURTHERMORE, BE IT RE50LVED that based upon the foregoing findings that confirm the proposed improvement was begun in violation of the rules and regulations of the State Building Code and the Orono ' Zoning Code, the City Council hereby requires the complete removal of the lakeshore structure at 1620 Shadywood Road subject to the condit�on that the applicant obtain the necessary permits to remove the structure and fill the remaining �excavation by February 15, 1982. Council would encourage Mr. Ericson to relocate the structure in a location that meets all of the City' s lakeshore and zoning setback standards finding that there is adequate area and no hardcover problem for the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota • this �'� day of C/ (� AA��, 1981. � 7 P ' William B. Van Nest, Mayo ATTEST: . � �_�G�%d7a-�� Alberta Strom, City Clerk , • �