HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-13 Resolution 2961• S.
CITE' of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2961
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A VARIANC1 TO !!MCIPAL ZONING CODE
SRMON 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 9 (C) & (D)
FILE NO. 1629
WHEREAS, Craigbank Associates represented by W. Duncan
macMillan (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the
property located at 1700 Fox Street within the City of Orono
(hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows:
Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City to
permit the construction of additions to an existing sports
center/recreational accessory building. Such additions require
the following variances:
A. Individual accessory structure footprint area
exceeding the 3,000 s.f. allowed for this property per
Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C).
B. Total of all accessory structure footprint areas
exceeding the 6,000 s.f. allowed for this property per
Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C).
C. Additions to accessory structure are located closer
to the front lot line than the principal residence
structure on the property, contrary to the requirements
of Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Orono, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1629.
2. The property is located in the RR-lB single family
rural residential zoning district.
3. The property contains approximately 13.5 dry buildable
acres in area.
Page 1 of 10
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2961
4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application
at a public hearing on March 18 and March 20, 1991 at which
time comments were heard from all interested parties. The
Planning Commission voted 2 to 2 on a motion to recommend
approval of the requested variances.
5. The Orono City Council reviewed this application on
April 8, 1991 and voted 3 to 2 to conceptually deny the
proposed variances and directed staff to draft a resolution
of denial.
6. The Orono City Council reviewed additional information
submitted by the applicant and the staff on April 22, 1991
and voted 3 to 2 to conceptually approve the proposed
variances, directing staff to draft a resolution for
approval.
7. The applicants were granted variance approval in 1987
per Resolution #2204 of the City Council, to allow
construction of a 16,875 s.f. floor area detached sports
center/recreational accessory building located between the
defined front lot line and the principal building on the
property. Resolution #2204 granted variances to Section
10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to allow a maximum accessory
structure floor area exceeding 1,000 s.f.; a variance to
Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) to allow such accessory
structure to have a defined building height of 33' and a
peak height of 40' where only a 30' defined building height
is normally allowed; a similar height variance per the
similar requirements of Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (A);
and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) which
requires that no accessory structure be located nearer the
front lot line than the principal building on the property.
8. The following hardships and ar+-as of practical
difficulty for justification of the requested variances
granted in 1987 are as follows:
A. As evidenced by the soil samples taken on the
property, the water table is very high. Several
samples indicate that the water level is only 4-5'
below the land surface. The overall height of the
tennis facility could be reduced by placing it deeper
into the ground but for the level of the water table.
Additional, the composition of the soil also dictates
the location of the facility. To move the building
from the present designed location would require
extensive soil ccrrectior.. Both the soil composition
and water table level are out of control of the
Pe►gc 2 •� ��
O�
C ITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
2961
B. The main residential structure is French Provincial
in design. To move the tennis facility closer to or
attach it to the main residence would severely affect
the aesthetics of the residence and thus destroy the
architectural integrity of the building. Great care
has been taken to design and landscape the tennis
structure in such a way as to make it unobtrusive as
possible. To relocate the structure may cause it to be
more visible from Fox Street than it will be in its
proposed location.
C. Under the City ordinances, the construction of a
tennis court is permitted use within zone RR-lB and is
considered an "accessory structure". The size of a
tennis court is approximately 60'x1201, for a total of
7,200 s.f. It is impossible to enclose a tennis court
(a permitted use) and have it less than 10,000-12,000
s.f. after taking into consideration perimeter area
needed around the court, changing areas and storage.
D. The Orono Ordinances governing setback of accessory
structures from the "front yard" is geared to the
normal positioning of the house to the street, i.e. the
house normally faces the street and is located a very
short distance from the street. The ordinance is
intended to help preserve the character of the
neighborhood as to not allow accessory structures such
as garages, sheds, etc. in the "front yard" which can
have detrimental impact to the neighborhood. Here the
property is approximately 13.5 acres with the residence
overlooking a small pond. The residence has its back
to Fox Street (a full 400' from the street), and is
barely visible from Fox Street. Clearly this situation
does not fall within the original and normal intent of
the definition of "front yard". The caretaker house
and the tennis structure would be set back 125' and
150' respectively, from Fox Street. There would be no
detrimental visual impact on the neighborhood by
allowing a variance from the "front yard" ordinance.
Landscaping which would shield the structure from Fox
Street has been incorporated into the design.
E. Because of the size of the property and the
landscaping design, the essential character of the
neighborhood will not be altered by allowing the
variances.
Page 3 of 10
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2961
9. Based on the above noted findings, the City Council on
June 22, 1987 adopted Resolution #2204 on a vote of 3 to 2,
granting the above noted variances, subs.-t to the following
conditions:
A. This approval is for the construction of the
structures and driveway as shown on referenced
exhibits. Any changes in plans which result in a
relocation of structures or driveway, or which result
in an increase to the f loor area or height of either
proposed structure, or which result in a reduction in
the degree of screening proposed, shall be required to
be approved by the City Council.
B. This resolution shall not be effective and shall
not be filed in the chain of title for the property
until the City Attorney has reviewed and approved a
covenant to be agreed to by the property owner. The
purpose of such covenant is to ensure the City the
following:
i. The sports center structure shall never be
used for commercial purposes but shall be used
only by the property owners for their private use,
and for the use of their families and to non-
paying guests.
ii. The sports center structure shall be
adequately screened from the roadway and from the
neighboring residences so as not to appear as a
commercial -type structure.
iii. Access to the sports center structure shall
never be directly via the public roadway but shall
access from the private driveway.
iv. The sports center shall never be sold
separately from the main residential structure on
the property.
B. If the property is subdivided, the principal
residential structure and the sports center
facility shall remain on a parcel of property that
maintains at least 13.5 acres in area and
maintains at least a 150' setback between the
sports center and all newly created property
lines, and maintains appropriate screening for the
sports center.
Pace 4 cf 10
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2961
Additional conditions of Resolution #2204 related to the
caretaker residence and the use of Fox Street during
construction and are not pertinent to this review.
10. The applicants executed and filed the required covenant
in the chain of title of the property and constructed a
sports center of actual floor area 13,886 s.f., 2,989 s.f.
less than originally approved. The building was completed
and a certificate of occupancy was issued on August 15,
1989.
11. On August 14, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance
72, Second Series regulating the location, area and heigi.'
of accessory structures. Ordinance 72, Second Series was
published and became effective on August 28, 1989. The
effect of this ordinance was to allow construction of
accessory structures in excess of 1,000 s.f. as a permitted
use, the allowed footprint area increasing with acreage,
subject to more restrictive setback requirements, and
subject to the property owner executing a covenant that
stipulates:
A. No future subdivision will be approved that places
the structure within a lot that has no principal
structure, except that the City in its subdivision
approval may grant a finite time period in which the
oversized accessory structure may remain within a
principal structure, in order that a principal
structure may be constricted. At the end of this time
period thn oversized accessory structure must be
removed if no principal structure has been constructed.
B. If the property is subd_rided, the oversized
accessory structure and principal structure wall be
located within a lot that meets the minimum lot area
requirement for the given size of the accessory
building.
C. In subdivision approval, the setback required for
the oversized accessory structure as defined herein
shall remain. Such covenants shall be binding on
current and future property owners and shall be filed
in the chain of title.
?age 5 of 1C
�kEsHo4. ,
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2961
The further effect of this ordinance revision was to limit
any property of 9.01 acres or more to a maximum allowed
individual accessory structure footprint of 3,000 s.f. and a
maximum allowed total of all accessory structure areas on
the property to 6,000 s.f.
12. As of the date of issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the structure constructed under the findings
and conditions of Resolution #2204, that structure became an
existing structure subject to any existing and future
ordinances of the City. Although the sports center
structure was constructed with somewhat smaller square
footage than originally proposed or approved in Resolution
#2204, issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for that
structure terminated any vested rights for further
construction within the approval granted by Resolution
*2204. In order to increase the size of that structure
outside the existing walls or roof of the building as it
existed as of the date of the Certificate of Occupancy,
requires a new variance application.
13. The applicant contends that Resolution #2204 allowed a
building of 16,875 s.f. total floor area, and that the
building constructed pursuant to that variance was only
13,886 s.f. With the proposed addition of 1,950 s.f., the
building will contain 15,836 s.f. of total floor area, still
being 1,039 s.f. less floor area than allowed in Resolution
#2204. The applicants contend that the unique nature of
Resolution #2204 and the covenants restricting future use of
the property are sufficient justification to allow the
building to increase to the 16,875 s.f. floor area approved
in that resolution. Applicants further suggest that while
the footprint of the 16,875 s.f. building approved with
Resolution #2204 was 13,200 s.f., the building footprint as
constructed was only 12,100 s.f. Applicants acknowledge
that the additional 1,990 s.f. footprint addition increases
the footprint of the building to 14,090 s.f. or 890 s.f.
larger than the building granted the original variance
approval. However, at the time Resolution #2204 was
adopted, the building footprint was not a regulated standard
in the Orono Zoning Code.
Page 6 of 10
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2961
14. Applicant has stated for the record that one of the
primary reasons for the enclosed tennis facility on the
property is for the security of family members. Due to the
high profile nature of the family business, family members
are provided a greater measure of security by a p: vate
facility rather than having to use one of the available
public recreation facilities.
15. The applicants have invested substantially in
improvements to the property based on the City Council's
previous approval to allow the sports center structure to be
built, and have given up substantial property rights which
virtually eliminate subdivision of this 13.5 acre parcel as
long as the tennis court building exists.
16. The proposed additions meet or exceed the required 150'
setback which would be required between the sports center
and any new lot line if the property was in the future
subdivided in conjunction with other neighboring parcels.
This is three times the most restrictive lot line setback in
the 2 acre zone.
17. The Council finds that the sports center as constructed
has created no adverse impact on the neighborhood. The
applicants have complied with the letter and intent of all
conditions composed by Resolution #2204 in construction of
the sports center. The Council finds that the proposed
additions to the existing facility will not significantly
increase the traffic in the neighborhood and will not create
any new visual impact on the neighborhood due to the
relative location of the additions.
18. 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
variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions,
light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to
neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to
preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and
would be in keeping with the spirt and intent of the zoning
code and comprehensive plan of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Eased upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono
Cat•, Council hereby crants the fc'_lok'_^g rzr ances:
Pa ae 7 of 1 C
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2961
A. A variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to allow
construction of additions to the existing sports center
recreational accessory building, such additions increasing
the footprint of that structure to 14,090 s.f., with actual
floor area of 15,836 s.f.
B. A variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to allow
the total of all accessory structure footprints on the
property to exceed the 6,000 s.f. normal allowance.
C. A variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to allow
the proposed additions to the accessory structure to be
located closer to the road than the principal residence
structure.
Approval is sLbject to the following conditions:
1. This approval is for construction of the additions shown
on the attached site plan, Exhibit B. Any changes in plans
which result in relocation of the additions or which result
in the footprint or floor area above those currently being
approved, shall require further Cite Council review.
2. The declaration of covenaT'-s executed between Craigbank
Associates and the City of C i.o on July 13, 1987, shall
remain in effect.
3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the
property not with the applicants, Sut are permissive only
and must be exercised by applica.t.i4n for a building permit
within one year of the date of t uncil approval, or this
variance will expire on that date (May 13, 1992).
4. violation of 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.
5. The undersigned applicants have reLd, understood and
hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf
of themselves, their —1ccessors and assigns, hereby agrees
to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of
the property.
Pa ae 8 of 10
1�0 0
\9kE8804� ,
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2961
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on
this 13th day of May, 1991.
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
Property-Owner(s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on
this 13th day of May, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M.
Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf
of the City.
THERESA L NAAB Notary Public
NOTAM PuBUC - -
HENNEPIN COUNTY SorA
W 60MMly60n ftP,r¢w S.&92
Page 9 cf 10
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY of dRONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2961
On this cj(c`514A, day of Pat
before me a Notary Pub l c within ano for a
appeared
01
known to me to be the persons desriibed in a
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that
the same as his (their) free act and deed.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)as.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
199
county, personal y
id wno executed the
he (they) executed
J� r
uj (a JI(a Rj-�-
NOTARY rBLIC
On this day of , 199 , 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
Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION #2961
DESCRIPTION:
Part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE 1/4,
SE 1/4) of Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Seventeen
(117), North of Range Twenty-three (23) West of the Fifth
Principal Meridian, according to the U.S. Government Survey as
follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Northeast Quarter
of the Southeast Quarter (NE 1/4, SE 1/4), thence East along the
South line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE
1/4, SE 1/4), Nine Hundred One (901) feet more or less to a point
Four Hundred Twenty-nine and five tenths (429.5) feet West of the
Southeast Corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter (NE 1/4, SE 1/4), thence deflecting to the left at an
angle of 124° 58' from the last described course One Hundred Two
(102) feet; thenr�e deflecting to the right at an angle of 110
from the last described course Fifty (50) feet; thence deflecting
to the right a: an angle of 150 30' from the last described course
Fifty (50) feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 110
45' from the last described course One Hundred (100) feet; thence
deflecting to the right at an angle of 30 50' from the last
described course One Hundred (100) feet; thence deflecting to the
right at an angle of 40 58' from the last described course One
Hundred (100) feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of
10 41' from the last described course Ninety-two (92) feet;
thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 130 31' from the
last described course One Hundred Eighty and Five tenths (180.5)
feet to a point in the lake on said property; thence Westerly on
a line parallel with said South line of the Northeast Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter (NE 1/4, SE 1/4), Eight Hundred Seventy-two
and Seventy-five Hundredths (872.75) feet more or less to the
West line thereof, thence South along the West line thereof Seven
Hundred Forty-four and Eighty-five Hundredths (744.85) feet to
the point of beginning.
Also known as PINS #03-117-23 41 0003
I
LAI-llbl'1' b
RESOLUTION #2961
THE MCNULTY COMPANY
r l Ijj�.,*...129
C1 r .. 1
e
cr
luorCS-- T- /":,aO'
+ �z
-------------
•% y
I
I
i
I
! Gam' Li 7i}�ir.
' c ABN m-
0
/ 1 I
1\?'ram i �% i / f� l I l l = s•••-_ slr�z
! • � l�l�l 11 1� T I _ ���e
1'•1 • I I � \ �� 1 I [7
1.-
1
l 1
i