The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 2622 �N�"`'` a. � � �� Clt o� ORONO � • RESOLUTiON OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. 2622 • - • • A RSSOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO � MQNICIPAL ZONING COD$ SECTION 10.22, SIIBDIVISION 2 FII,$ #1376 WHSREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHERSAS, 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, Dale and Chris Palm (hereinafter "the app licants") are the owners of the property located at 1710 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as fol 1ows: • That part ef Lot 11 lying Southerly ef the following described line: Beginning at the Southwest corner ef the North 14' of said lot; thence South 87 degrees, 27 minutes East te the shore af Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka; and that part ef Lot 12 lying Northerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 71.2 feet Northerly, measured at right angles frem the Southerly line of Lot 13, all in Shadywood, an addition to the County ef Hennepin, in the Township of Orono, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the office of Registrar of Deeds in and for said County of Hennepin, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property" ) ; and WHEREAS, the app licants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to al low 32.2$ hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zene where only 29$ hardcover had previously been appreved by the City Council en March 10, 1986 as set ferth in City of Orono Resolution #1936 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the written reports by the City staff; the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission; and the written and oral comments ef the applicants and ether interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R$SOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies Dale and Chris Palm's apFlication for variances for the property described above based on one or more of the follow�"ng� findings of fact cencerning this property: • Page 1 of 4 < �`�� "�� i o� ORONO ��` � C t� • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL _ _�� NO. 2622 • - • • _ >: FINDINGS . r 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1376. = 2. The current request to retain the existing detached garage in its - existing substandard location, which would necessitate retention or placement of hardcover in excess of the 29$ hardcover in the 75-250' : zone allowed per Orono Resolution #1936, was also the subject of previous application #1244, which was denied per Orono Resolution #2415, adopted April 25, 1988. The findings of f act appearing in - ' Resolutions #1936 and #2415 are incorporated herein by reference. 3. The applicants wish to retain the existing detached garage in its � substandard locatien less than 2' from the side lot line, and 4.7' �: from the street lot line where 10' setbacks are normally required. ' Furthermore, the current request is for 32.2� hardcover in the 75-250' ' zone where only 29$ was allowed in the original variance request per - • Resolution #1936. . 4. The Council finds that the applicants can develop a suitable and safe driveway access to the property within the conditions of approval - attached to the original variance granted per Resolution #1936. . Furthermore, the Council finds that the applicants had every opportunity in applying for the original variance app lication in 1986 to design the attached addition to accommodate their reasonably � anticipated storage needs on the property. � 5. The Council finds that the hardships and practical difficulties claimed by the applicants were created solely by the applicants own • doing, and are not a result of physical factors inherent with the property. 6. The Orono Planning Commission at their March 20, 1989 meeting ,: voted 4-0 to deny the requested variance, based on the following � findings: A) No reasonable hardship was shown. . B) There is no justification for approval of the variance given � the history of prier applications and the findings ; resulting from those applications. 7. The granting of the required variances would result in the . • following violations of Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) of the zoning code with which the app licants must first cemply before the requested variances could be granted: Page 2 of 4 - .. • . City o� ORONO • R�SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. 2622 • - • • A) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that the essential character� of the neighborhood will be altered if the proposed variances were granted and the hardcover and garage were allowed to remain. B) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that the property in question can indeed be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by official controls. The City has already approved substantial increases in hardcover to allow the app licants to improve the property and app licants can continue to reasonabl�r enjoy that property. C) In review of the factual findings noted above, the plight of the applicants would appear to have been created by the applicants and not by circumstances unique to their property. D) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City would find that the granting of the proposed variances would appear to • serve as a convenience to the applicants and that the applicants have not demonstrated any acceptable hardship or practical difficulty. E) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that to establish a precedent that would allow a property owner to make improvements to a property conditioned on that property owner complying with special directives, and then asking the City to reconsider its original decision after those improvements have been installed, to be completely unreasonable and in complete conflict with the established environmental standards for lakeshore development within the City and to be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader environmental principals and goals set forth in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when dealing with matters related to the public health, �safety and welfare. Issues involving public health, safety and welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvious traffic and drainage concerns, but the City also feels obligated to provide its citizens with a designated and approved optimum level of density, open space and quality of life. The applicants are hereby advised that all structural and non- structural hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of Orono Resolution #1936 must be completed by July 10, 1989. Applicants are further � advised that the 15'x15' apron approved in the or3ginal app lication �an be relocated to provide greater maneuverability on the property but in no case shal 1 the hardcover within the 75-250' setback area exceed 29�. Page 3 of 4 . . . - . . Cit� o� ORONO • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. 2622 • - � • Adopted by the Orono City Council of the City of Orono on this 24th day of April, 1989. ATT ST: . �__-� l.�'6 orothy M a11in, City Clerk James R�. Grabek, Mayor V STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of April, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Ha11in, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporatien and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. � . Notary P ' � �+''�`�� LAURI . SCNEFFLER �r.�. '��`m��"1" NOTARI PU6LIC-MINNESOTA � ''-�3:.". �: �` HENNEPIN COUNTY � �� l�Ay commi:�ion expires6•8•93 My Commis ''"""`��' Page 4 of 4 �