correspondence re permit/platform

Home Browse Search

� R RECEIVED � MAY 17 2��2 May 15,2o1z CITY OF ORONO Christine Mattson Planning Assistant City of Orono,MN Dear Christine, This letter is being written to acknowledge receipt and to address a few questions from the letter sent to me at my property at 3465 Crystal Place,Orono, MN 55391. I received and read your letter on May 2,2012. For the record, I purchased this abandoned Orono property,on October 4,2011. Since then,we have transformed this single family home from a dilapidated,disgusting property into a beautifui home that delights every Orono neighbor who has witnessed our work. Six months later,I have done my best to renovate this home and the lawn/ landscape and would gladly welcome any positive feedback from the City. I am very proud of what has been accomplished throughout the renovation process at this property. Now, I am down to one minor project- replacing an old curved lawn platform with a new safer and stronger floating platform structure. I ask you to please recall that my carpenter and I came to your office on March 21,2012 and submitted a Pro Deck Construction Plan,designed by the Home Depot building experts. On that day,my intent was to ask Orono for permission to build an attached deck. Clearly I was doing what the City of Orono asks its' residents to do—GET A PERMIT AND GET PERMISSION to build a deck. At that time,you informed me that there would be a$700.00 non- refundable appfication fee for the Orono Planning Commission to review my proposed deck plans,and then they would make their recommendation to the City Council—this Variance Process would take city officials up to two months and you stated that"you didn't want to paint a rosey picture,because this property was already over the allowed 35%hardcover..." You also mentioned that there was a possibility of an additional$2,500.00 engineering fee,associated with the proposed deck footings. So,after reviewing the variance and deck building process required by Orono, I realized this huge expense and time delays did not work for me. Instead, I chose to move forward with another plan-to simply replace the existing unattached platform that had been at this property since the day I first considered buying it. And,though Orono city workers(Lyle) have recently made it clear to me that 1 now need a structural platform permit— originally,there was no reason for me to consider needing a permit at all,since I was simply replacing the existing floating curved platform. Also, I already have a variance resolution for hardcover from 1998,and I was not adding new hardcover or adding new encroachments. Keep in mind that this will be a removable 16'x 9'unattached floating platform structure, being built directly over the present landscape rocks. My new plan was to simply replace an old platform structure with new materials, making it safer and structurally sound,for my new tenants. So,imagine my surprise to return from an out-of-town funeral,only to be informed by my construction workers that this platform project had been red flagged by Lyle and The City of Orono and that they had been ordered to "stop work." Now I need some clarification of what the definition of"unanimously"and "approved" means to The City of Orono. And I need to know why Orono Administration is telling me that I have to apply for new 2012 zoning guidelines,when I already have a 1998 Hardcover Variance"unanimously approved"and grandfathered into this property. I am also not clear as to why The City of Orono thinks I am asking for increased hardcover or why Orono wants to question me about encroaching on my neighbors rights. All my neighbors have applauded my efforts to improve this property, and there is only a trail across Crystal Place—not a residence. So,1 am confused about why Orono is asking me to re-apply for"Resolution"on a hardcover matter and also get a new survey that already was approved and resolved in 1998. In fact,we have improved on hardcover ratios by removing the existing 12'x 16' cracked-up cement hardcover slab on the southeast side of the home,allowed in the 1998 variance. This results in 192 square foot less hardcover,than when 1 originally purchased this property,last fall. So, how is this not a positive with regard to reducing hardcover percentages from the"approved"variance of 48.6%in 1998?