HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2005-19 - Approving Variances For Ernie Mayers On Property Located At 21000 Larkin RoadCity of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-19
Motion By: Thomas
Seconded By: Grabowski
CITY OF CORCORAN
APPROVING VARIANCES FOR ERNIE MAYERS ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 21000 LARKIN ROAD.
WHEREAS, Ernie Mayers has requested approval of variances from: rear and
side yard setback, and architectural standards on a 2.5 -acre property legally
described as follows:
That part of the South X of the Northeast % of Section 27, Township 119,
Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as
Commencing at the Southwest comer of said South % of the Northeast
of Section 17, thence East along the South line of said South % of the
Northeast Na distance of 926.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of
the land to be described, thence North at a right angle 370.00 feet; thence
East at a right angle 300.50 feet, thence South at a right angle 370.00
feet to the South line of said South % of the Northeast %, thence West
along said South line 300.50 feet to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the above listed variances
at a duly called Public Meeting, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does
approve the request by Ernie Mayers for the above listed variances subject to the
following conditions:
1. The variances from the rear yard setback, side yard setback and architectural
variance standards are approved in accordance with the plans and
application received by the City on January 19, 2005.
2. The variance to allow a 15 -foot rear yard setback and 10 -foot side yard
setback where 100 feet is required, is approved based on the following
findings:
a. The size of the lot, location of the existing structures, septic system
and the drainage swale located within the buildable area of the site
create a hardship for the applicant to meet the 100 -foot setback for
agricultural buildings.
U
Resolution 2005 -19
Page 2
b. The conditions upon which the variation is based are unique to the
parcel of land for which the variance is sought. The size of the lot, the
location of the existing structures and drainage swales create a
hardship that makes compliance with the required setbacks difficult.
c. The granting of the variation would not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood.
The reduced setbacks would be adjacent to the 70 -acre parcel owned
by the applicant and his sister.
d. The proposed variation would not impair light and air to adjacent
property, substantially increase congestion on public streets, increase
the fire danger, endanger public safety or diminish property values in
the area.
e. The variance will allow the applicant to place farm equipment inside
the building rather than outside and the location of the proposed
building is more desirable than placing the agriculture building in the
front yard as allowed by the ordinance standards.
3. The variance from the architectural standards in Section 1030, Subd. 3(A) of
the Zoning Ordinance requiring accessory buildings to have identical roof and
siding as the principal structure is approved based on the following findings:
a. The applicant has indicated that the hardship is caused by the fact that the
building is truly an agricultural building. The Zoning Ordinance standards
requiring accessory buildings to match the principal structure on parcels
less than 3 acres in size. The building is compatible in color, but does not
match the materials in the main house. The ordinance may not have
anticipated true agriculture buildings on parcels this sized.
b. The conditions upon which the variation is based are unique to the parcel
of land for which the variance is sought. The farmstead has been
separated from the existing farm.
c. The granting of the variation would not be detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood.
d. The proposed variation would not impair light and air to adjacent property,
substantially increase congestion on public streets, increase the fire
danger, endanger public safety or diminish property values in the area.
4. The applicant must provide detailed architectural plans for City review prior to
issuance of a building permit. The building color should be compatible with
the existing home.
5. A site plan and agricultural building permit must be submitted for review
required prior to construction of the new farm building.
Resolution 2UUb-IY
Page 3
ADOPTED by the City Council this zz+ day of March zuun.
VOTING AYE
_X Cossette, Tom
_X Grabowski, Chuck
_X Jacobs, Paul
_X Lymangood, Chuck
_X Thomas, Ron
:} 7 .
Bea Lindberg, City
VOTING NAY
CossettNOW , will
Grabowski, Chuck
Jacobs, Paul
Lymangood, Chuck
Thomas, Ron
T n s et e I C a r
b- —
HENNEPIN COUNTY
RECORDER /REGISTRAR
Or TITLES
Minneapolis,
MN
Description
Please bill the
below governmental
aqencv for
recordina /filing
tha
--juiiawing instruments
pursuant
to M.S. _: >
Document No.
Instrument
Description
4S,!Jt
l
TOTAL
By
uvvciiiniciitai r,yCiiuy
HC 1118