The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About#3064-variances/denying variance-1992 . � • � ' , . �_=_\ i%/ O \�` j� � � %- O , O� -~j � ' C ITY of ORONO � =R .�,� �I ��,� ,�1��'��-. �;�' ,\'� ;a. ��.�.�; _�- � � G� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L �� •�:�+-��i;� ��,, ti� � ,;�'��4;,��.',� ; 3064 �kESH�g'' NO. A RBSOLDTION GRANTING VARIANCBS TO MUNICIPAI+ ZONING CODE S$CTIONS 10.03, SIIBDIVISION 14 (C) , AND 10.22, SIIBDIVISION 2; AND DENYING A VARIANCB TO SECTION 10.03., SDBDIVISION 15 (F) FII.E #1682 WHBR$AS. Christine Brickley (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 3262 North Shore Drive within the City of O=ono (hereinafter "City") and Iegally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (F) to allow a proposed detached garage of 672 s.f. to be constructed 3.3' from the west side lot I.ine where a setback of 10' is normally required from a side Iot line; and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to allow lot coverage in excess of the 15$ lot coverage normally alZowed; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone in excess of the 25� hardcover normally allowed. NOW, TH$REFORE, BB IT RESOLV$D by the City Counci 1 of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1682. 2. The property is located in the LR-1C-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, requiring a minimum lot size of one-half acre. 3. The Orono Planning Commission originally reviewed this application on September 16, 1991, at which time a 1,056 s. f. garage was proposed to be located 3.3' from the west lot line and 2.5' from the south lot line, such proposal requiring variances to hardcover, ?ot coverage, and side and rear setbacks. The Planning Commission indicated to applicant the likelihood of _a recommendation for denial , and tabled the request to allow the applicant to submit a revised plan. Page 1 of 9 � , . ��\• � ��\, , � �' '�'� C ITY of ORONO ;'j =�:�.:a_� ,',,� �,��'.-r�--1 �,, 'l �,�� 'i`. � 1�`;:�� ti:�� '*��?+�'-�i;;r,��,. G'�',' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L � ,�r L 4� � NO. 3064 � ' St.�.� G. �kESHO y=' 4. On October 21, 1991 the Planning Commission reviewed a revised proposal for constructian of a 24' x 32' (768 s.f.) garage located 3.3' from the west Iot line and 10.5' from the south lot line, requiring side and rear setback variances, a lot coverage variance, and a hardcover variance. The Planning Coanmission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approva 1 , ba sed on the f o I 1 owing findings: A. The proposed 768 s.f. detached garage replaces a pre-existing 480 s.f. garage, 200 s.f. barn, and 80 s.f. storage shed with a single structure of approximately the same square footage as the 3 pre-existing buildings. B. The pre-existing 75-250' hardcover was 50.6$. If an 8' x 32' portion of the concrete garage slab which was poured without prior approvals is removed, hardcover on the property would be reduced to 46.9$ in the 75-250' zone. C. Lot coverage by structures would remain at the pre-existing level of 17.5$. The small lot size of 0.28 acre constitutes a hardship to the property. Consolidation of 3 storage buildings on the property into a single building will reduce the visual density and clutter in the neighborhood. D. Locating the garage 10.5' from the south lot line is justified , from the standpoint that if the garage was 18 s.f. smaller, only a 10' setback would be required rather than 15' � for any accessory building of area 750-1000 s.f. The 3.3' setback from the west lot line is justified by the need to maintain the full 32' depth of the garage without encroaching on the loop driveway which serves the immediate neighborhood. 5. The revised garage proposal showed a roof peak running - east/west, which would discharge stormwater run-off to applicant's yard rather than the neighboring property. Page 2 of 9 . � � ---� �.�'\ � � O :, O � ��:��A� CITY of ORONO I � �� c"`� � RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL '� '; '•4�''' ��r �j,, G�' � �� / �`4 �' � 4�/ NO. 3064 kESIIO 6. After the Planning Coaunission meeting, applicant proceeded to construct a garage without final Council approval or the necessary building permit. During that construction, the roof line was reversed so that run- off will be directed towards the westerly neighboring property which is only 3' from the garage wall and less than 2' f rom the roof overhang. 7. The garage as constructed is 21' x 32', or 672 s.f. in f ootprint area, requiring 10' setbacks f rom both the south and west lot lines. The garage was constrncted 14' from the south lot line and 3.3' from the west lot line. The site plan with the garage as constructed yields 75-250' hardcover of 50.6$, with lot coverage by structures of 16.7$. 8. The City Council reviewed the "as-built" site plan at the November 12, 1991 Council meeting, and voted 5 to 0 to table the request, directing applicant to meet with staff to consider other options. 9. At the January 13, 1992 Council meeting, Council reviewed a number of alternative proposals resulting in � various degrees of variance to the performance standards of hardcover, lot coverage, and setback. On a vote of 4 to 0, Council conceptually granted a hardcover variance to allow 50.6$ hardcover in the 75- 250' zone, 16.3$ Iot coverage by structures , and denying the requested west side setback variance, based on the following findings: , A. No suitable hardship is demonstrated for al lowing the substandard side setback for this illegally constructed garage. i B. If the west end of the garage is remov ed ta the i 10' setback line, the remaining 21' x 25' garage � results in a final lot coverage of 16.3 $, a ' decrease of 1.2$ from the pre-existing 17.5$ lot � conerage by structures. Page 3 of 9 _ �O � � � �� o :,, o\ � �r� :-�� '� CITY of ORONO ';; � �`�',�,�T ;; .t _�. �,� \` � '�� . :1�-,` �i '.��'��- � �'/ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � jii�rl�.�, C,,, '�91I 1'E.ti�` � �; 3064 $ SHpg'.-� NO. C. Even if the portions of slab outside the footprint of the garage are allowed to remain, hardcover will still be at 50.6$ in the 75-250' zone, no change from the pre-existing hardcover conditions on the property. D. Allowing the illegally constructed garage to remain at a location less than 10' from the west side lot Iine creates an unwarranted encroachment of open space enjoyed by the neighboring adjacent property, such open space being critical to maintain in this neighborhood of generally substandard sized Iots. 10. 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 variances on the hea 1 th, saf ety and we 1 f are of the community. 11. 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 variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; 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 applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLIISIORS, ORDffit APD CONDITIOPS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to a11ow hardcover in the 75- 250' lakeshore setback zone to remain at 50.6$ where only 25$ hardcover is normally allowed; and grants an after-the-fact variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to allow lot coverage of 16.3$ where only 15� lot coverage is normally required; and denies an after-the-fact variance to Section 1a.03, Subdivision 15 (F), hereby disal lowing construction of the garage at a location closer than the required 10' setback from the west side lot line, subject to the following conditions: Page 4 of 9 � °� � o ; �, o ��T- C ITY of ORONO � } a '��'`j�.:t.- D., , - - � '�,� �s;�.`P �,�'�— ti � ''�-- I`' '�'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L '� �'`��I�1��G/ 3064 �kESIIO� NO. 1. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is approved at a level of 50.6$. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the - calculation worksheet and diagram enclosed with the resolution as Page 6. The current p�operty owner and all future owners of the property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level, and any proposed improvements over the property that would result in additional hardcover in either the 0-75' or 75-250' zone must be � approved by the City. Such approval may result in requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. Any existing hardcover \ not shown on the approved hardcover diagram and calculation worksheet shall be removed no Iater than June 1, 1992. 2. The garage shall be reconstructed to meet the required 10' west side setback. The west and south wa 1 ls of said garage shall then be retrofitted with proper slab reinforcements subject to review and approval by the Building Inspector. Further, if the garage is reconstructed such that the roof line continues to discharge in a westerly direction, applicant shall � provide a roof gutter system to direct such drainage to the north of the garage, away from the remaining portions of slab adjacent to the west and south lot lines. 3. Priar to commencement of reconstruction or completion of the garage, applicant shal 1 provide the building inspector with suitable construction plans conforming to the conditions of this resolution, and shal 1 obtain. the appropriate permit f or such construction. In addition to the normal building permit fee, applicant shall pay the after-the-fact investigation fee for the building permit because construction was commenced prior to issuance of the building permit. 4. Applicant shall pay the after-the-fact investigation fee for the zoning application because construction was commenced without the proper variance approval s being obtained. - Page 5 of 9 ' ' �� RESOLUTION #3064 i� . - � , �' � -,��p t � �t i � •_ � . ` ! � , 1 ��/ ' • � .��/ ' : ��/ ' �/ . � : � � .. � � . �,. ~ �.8 � �'�N %' �',�� < � � , . 1 . � � . �� c � ' t • �� . ,s E �! �``,��s ; � y �� . Ls �7 i j(IjE' %, h` Q � �, • . � � � '' � i . .� , � �,�_a� - ' . , _ — t� � � � � .,� 4 � , � �i� G" �' a� � � . o �L r o , o� � �,� 1 � � �, fr . � �� f : e Q -c � ' � � , 7 '� -�. . . a � . 4 t� . t� � � � 0 � _� i�.—i � � • � � `—�f� I `� �� 3,3j T � .� • :. . � , . I Co,,� pAo J �� 1�1�� ti�'`Z � . � Fo�a �� .1� , i P�°PniN�,C� (1� 455.3 : ' . . � , ¢Aie, � �z. � %� � . � . . . `� 32.3 , • ;� � - 5�g. � / '�ti �. ,56 • i . , i �- w�s� Ge.00• --' �► _ . . _ , -_: _._.G�`.a.T11t?Ca �/•1!�DCovt�,.=SC�E._�oT.4C�.s. ----•--- � _. o-�s._._�s-z�.��T.�_--. �}�P r2�� '`� � � ______ _ _______� _ I /�._sr.aoP y�x�o' - ya �lo ��/�-� �U`G� i � 8._W� Z.S�x3`� ._.-�.__.�40 �o � - - -----_._.-�-•------ - G_—[-f+�us� .v_o�� y3fo 8leC) _!z_9l._ � Ni¢�.DCouE:� ?v �/�E Gi.�� D�D��.,c_1.e x�.o' _ s�o - 3L0 � �ves� pru..-,�rouS�� ; � E•_Sr� 3_x s .1 S_._._—.= 1 s_ �1.s x q•s� s� F—..cHt►.wt-y' �X� � — !z !z --- 2o x Z y G� . C*_5l�qr8 � /uo._+^ �Q��._.�0 Sti..�._.__. 1�. �ZL7 g(bw_ N-.._Gn.Ev��vE M?�. - 1yz$ LY?-$— �_�r w�cs ..�xyy' —_q _ �a _ ZZ .�_- A pQecue� �J��couez t 5 .�- 'r° _.___— ----- gZo s�--3y��s�- y3�9. S��.._. P,�_�-xrsrrN� �a�co�� or- =sZ� �-:�a�$ �O. (� �/ � - ls.—� '� = sa,�% --- --_. . � . _. . . page 6 of 9 %O\ � �\- � O :�.. . � O�\ � �-y -�- - � CITY of ORONO , ,}�;..- � � �� . ��.�� ; � �ti� �=:14;��"� ti � ' '�+�"u;�r ��,. G / RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �`9k'��``;r{'pS��'� NO. 3064 ES�I 5. Removal of the encroaching portions of the garage structure shall be completed no later than June 1, 1992. The proper permits as noted above shall be obtained by the applicant no later than June 1, 1992, or the continued existence of said garage shall be considered as in violation of the conditions of this resolution. 6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval , or this variance will expire on that date (January 27, 1993). 7. 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 shal 1 be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 7 of 9 _ � e � O� • O O ��, CITY of ORONO � � � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L �t� 4��'G NO. 3064 k'ESH� Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of January, 1992. ATT T: • lX • 0 othy a in, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterso , Mayor , � � � Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of January 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy N,. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. _ /�� . �� Not ry Public LlNDA S. M,NN�� Page 8 of 9 NOTARY PUBIJC ' HENNEp�N COUN&�� _ My �mmissbn expires . , . . . . � O ' V . , O .:� Ov� �- `'� CITY of ORONO � �.:�;.:,�� , � , a ''j�� I � Z��;��;°�� ti�' P� °'I ��iti, G�'% RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L ��`9$��r�0�+� NO. 3064 ESH g' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COL]NTY OF HENNEPIN � . p�9 �` day of Z.Q--�i ► 19 9�„__ On this y ersonally before me a ary Publi within an� aid caunt � p appeared known to me to be the person(s) escrihe i and who executed e foregoing instrument, and Q a��d deedthat he (they) executed the same as his (their) fre Not ry Public •� JAMiE L BOSMA STATE OF MINNESOTA .) • HpTppypUeuC-MINNESOTA )5 S. �• , � HENNEP�N COUNTY COIINTY OF HENNEP IN ) •.... My Canm.ExPi►�s 12-is-97 day of � . 19 9 On thi s y e=sonailY bef ore me a Notary Pub lic within and f or said count , p appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who e�cecuted the foregeing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and de�d. . . Notary Public Page 9 of 9 • ' ` r e � . . i EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION N0.3064 LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Govez�rnt Lot 1, Section 8, Tawnship 117North, Ranqe 23, West of the 5th PrinciFal Meridian, Hennepin Coursty, Miruiesota, described us follcws: Begisuunq at me.3rsder corrier No. 57 on the South side of Max��ell Bay in the East line of said Section 8; thence South on the East line of said Section 8, 376.35 feet; thence due West at right angles 955.3 feet to the - ; actual. point of beginninq of the tract to be described; thence c�ontinuinq due ' West 68 feet; thence due North 140.7 feet more or less to the Southerly shore of Ma}:�•rell Bay; thence Northeasterly alcng the Southerly shore of Maxwel.l Bay ' to a point in a line c�sawn due North fztm the actual point oE b�i.nnir�;; thence � due South 183.7 feet more or less to t�e act�:1 goint oL beginnii�g. For the pux�ose of this description the East line of said Section 8 is oarlsidered to be a due North and South line. Tcgether with an easernent for driveway purposes � over that part of Govenune.*�t Lot I, Section 8, Township 117, Ftange 23, Hennepin County, Miruzesota, described as fol2ows: Be,ginninq at meander corner No. 57 on the South side of Maxwell Bay in the East line of said Section� 8; thesice South along the East line of said Section 8, 376.35 feet; thence due West at right angles 447.8 feet t� the actual point of beqiruzing of the tract to be descri}�ed; thence due South 82.05 feet; thence South 11 degrees, 47 murutes West 218.55 feet; thence South 12 degrees, 37 minutes Fast 71 feet more or less to a point in the Northerly right of way line of County Roacl No. 51; thence Southwesterly along said Northerly right of way line 15.1 feet; thence North 12 degrees, 37 minutes West ?3.85 feet; thence North 11 degrees, 47 minutes East 218.85 feet; thence due North 82.05 feet more or less to a point in a line drawn due West fram the actual point of beginning; thence due East 15 feet to � the actual point of begi.nning. For the purpose of this description t2ie East line of said Section 8 is oonsidered to be a due North and South line.