HomeMy WebLinkAbout#3044 Resolution 5224CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 5 2 2 4
A RESOLUTION DENYING A
VARIAN CE PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-350 (B)
FILE #04-3044
WHEREAS, 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 regulation for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; and
WHEREAS, Je1mifer A. Simon (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the
property located at 3 925 Cherry A venue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City")
and legally described as follows:
Lots 1 & 2, & in Lot 21, HICKORY HILL, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a variance to
permit construction of an addition, requesting the following approvals:
1. Section 78-350 (b): To allow a rear yard setback of 20 feet when 30 feet
is normally required.
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendation
of the City staff and Planning Commission; and the comments and written statements
submitted by the applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota hereby denies the requested variance as described above based on one or more
of the following findings of fact concerning this property:
1. The property consists of 0.39 acres, or 17,195 s.f. in land area.
2. The Zoning Ordinance specifically states in Section 78-1 that the front lot
line on a corner lot "shall be the shortest dimension on a public or private
Page 1 of 3
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 5 22 4
street." The lot line abutting Minnie A venue is therefore the front lot line,
and the westerly lot line is the rear lot line.
3. The granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the provisions
of Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-123 with which the applicant must
first comply in order that the variance be granted. The Council finds that:
a. The prope1iy in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under
the conditions allowed by the official controls if the proposed
variances were granted.
b. The plight of the landowner was created by a misinterpretation of what
is considered the front lot line for zoning purposes. However, even if
the applicant has interpreted the ordinance correctly variances would
still be required under this current proposal.
c. Granting of the proposed variance would appear to serve as a
convenience to the applicant and the applicant has not demonstrated a
reasonable hardship or practical difficulty acceptable to the City
Council.
d. The conditions of the Zoning Code limits imposed and existing on this
property generally apply to all other land and structures in the zoning
district in which this property is located as well as in adjacent
residential zoning districts.
4. 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.
Page 2 of 3
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 5 2 2 4
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 13 th day of September,
2004.
ATTEST:
r/ c!:t4<th ,J ti~
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13 th day of
September, 2004, by Barbara Peterson & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City
of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf
of the City .
JACKIE YOUNG
NOTARY PUBLIC· MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan . 31, 2C05 ~a-? Public / I
Page 3 of 3