HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA18-98 ExA Resolution
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-395
FILE NO. LA18-000098
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2019, Anthony Ishaug and Jennifer Ishaug, husband and wife
(“Applicant[s]”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 4245 Chippewa Lane
and legally described as:
The east Quarter of South Half of northwest Quarter of southeast Quarter of Section 31,
Township 118, Range 23, Except the railroad rightaway, together with an Easement for passage and
travel over the north 1 rod of south half of northwest Quarter of southeast Quarter of said Section 31,
according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the
“Property”);
made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-395 to
allow an accessory building to be located within the front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all
persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
variance; and
WHEREAS, on February 11, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings
of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA18-000098. The analysis contained within staff
memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned
meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by
reference.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
2. The Property is located in the RR-1A Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 4.86 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 329 feet.
4. The Property is exempt from the Stormwater Quality Overlay District regulations.
5. Applicant has applied for the following variance
Front Yard setback, permitting an accessory building to be located within 20 feet of the front
property line, where a 100 foot setback is required.
6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and
air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding
area.
ANALYSIS:
1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the ordinance . . . .” A detached garage as an accessory use to a single family home is in
harmony in the RR-1A district.
2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.” A detached garage as an accessory building in a single family zone is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with
the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The use of the property for the single family home with a detached garage is
reasonable for the RR-1A district.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the
landowner.
The applicant has stated this to be true due to the existing structures on the lot and
the unique topography located in the front yard of the property.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
The applicant has stated the proposed location would be placed behind
existing mature trees and outside of existing challenging topography limiting
the need to excessive grading. The property is located at the end of a dead-
end road limiting its visibility in the neighborhood.
4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations
have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar
energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §
216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not
applicable.
6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City
Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition
is not applicable, as the use for a single family home with a detached garage is an allowed use
in the RR-1A District.
7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-
family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable.
8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property.” The property has some unique topography with the grading
sloping down along the East side of the parcel limiting some of the buildable footprint forward
of the principal structure.
9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is
located.” The topography is unique to this lot within the neighborhood, dropping off sharply
to the east and the south.
10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.” The applicant has stated this to be true by allowing the property
owners to maintain the appearance of the property.
11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals,
or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” The property owners believe that
granting the proposed variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, morals,
or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary
to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The property owners believe the granting of the variance
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
is necessary to alleviate the demonstrable difficulties of topography along the East side of the
property and in the rear of the property.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to
Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-395 to allow an accessory building to be located 20 feet from
the front property line, where 100 feet is required, subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the site plan dated December 12, 2018 and building plans
submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.
3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further
Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and
commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year
of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 11, 2020).
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result
in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of February, 2019.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Site Plan
December 12, 2018
FRONT ELEVATION1
A1 1/4" = 1'-0"
1'-0"
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
NOTE:
1. WALL HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR IS 10'-2"
2. PEAK OF ROOF HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR IS 23'-0 5/16"
3. TYPICAL 1'-0" OVERHANG ON DORMERS
23
'
-
0
5 16
"
10
'
-
2
"
9'-0"
8'
-
0
"
38'-0"
1'-0"1'-0"
A1
LEFT ELEVATION2
A1 3/16" = 1'-0"
1'-0"1'-0"
1'-0"
22'-0"
23
'
-
0
5 16
"
10
'
-
2
"
REAR ELEVATION4
A1 3/16" = 1'-0"
1'-0"1'-0"
RIGHT ELEVATION3
A1 3/16" = 1'-0"
1'-0"
1'-0"1'-0"
DRAWN BY
PROJECT
JA
U
S
T
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PH
O
N
E
:
3
2
0
.
4
9
2
.
6
3
6
4
F
A
X
:
3
2
0
.
3
9
8
.
3
1
3
2
15
9
9
8
9
3
r
d
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
K
I
M
B
A
L
L
M
N
5
5
3
5
3
D.
P
O
S
T
22
X
3
8