Re: code violation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , , Christine Mattson From: Christine Mattson Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:32 AM To: 'krisrudd@mchsi.com' Cc: Melanie Curtis Subject: FW: Rudd 601 Park Lane Attachments: admin@ci.orono.mn.us_20110126_092137.pdf Kris, Thank you for the information you've provided. We agree that the deck indicated as "required to be removed" with the variance was removed. Thank you. We mistakenly confused the shed on your neighbor's property with the shed on your property which was also required to be removed. Your conversations with Melanie have resolved this confusion, thank you for your patience in this matter. However, the shed on your property still must be removed to be in compliance with Resolution No. 4952. The final survey governs the removals is the survey attached to Resolution No. 4952, labeled as Exhibit A. This survey reflects the deck and shed to be removed. Within the resolution itself, under Conclusions, Order and Conditions, #3, it states, "..structural removals as shown on Exhibit A..."Attached is a copy of the resolution and exhibit for your reference. We understand this time of year is not suitable for removal of such a structure, therefore will extend the compliance date to May 1, 2011. Please remove the shed on or before this date in order to avoid legal action. The property will be inspected after this date for compliance. Please contact Melanie or myself with any questions. Christine Mattson Planning Assistant 952-249-4620 -----Original Message----- From: Kris Rudd fmailto:krisrudd(camchsi.coml Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:20 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Rudd 601 Park Lane Melanie, I apologize for not getting back to you last week. Over the weekend, I had a chance to 'dig out' our remodel file/paperwork. In reviewing my files, I had MANY drafts of different surveys. Attached is the last survey we had done....which was marked in my files as 'Final Survey.' I am not sure that the survey we received from you in the mail was of the final draft, as it looks a little different? I also noticed that the one I am sending was signed and dated by Gronberg. In a nutshell, even though we did not add any additional hardcover in building the addition to our home, The City of Orono wanted us to give up something because compared to current standards of acceptable hardcover, we were over that percentage. In discussions with City Officials, they seemed to be most concerned with eliminating any hardcover that was near the lake. That is why we agreed to remove the deck located less than 50 feet of the lake shore (abuttin up to our neighbors boathouse/shed). As agreed, we took that deck down. (It used to be raised with a railing). Typically, when our dock is removed for the winter, large i