Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPost mtg informationNIr�1�'D Melanie Curtis From: John Nielsen [JohnN@NortonHomes.com) Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 9:15 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: 1105 Brown Road S Melanie, Please accept this email as notice that we are withdrawing our application for variance on the property at 1105 Brown Road S. Thanks. John Nielsen Norton Homes 763-559-2991 Melanie Curtis From: Melanie Curtis Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 8:40 AM To: 'John Nielsen' Cc: 'Pat Hiller' Subject: 15-3571 / 1105 Brown Road S Attachments: 60day.pdf John I'm a little behind on emails, but I understand you're working on a revised plan utilizing the existing/legal building pad... A revised plan (building plan and survey) will need to be submitted at least two weeks prior to the Council meeting to allow for adequate staff time for review and preparation. The Council meeting this Monday is obviously out; for consideration on the July 27t" meeting I would need the plan submitted by this Monday, July 131h. Looking further down the calendar if that timing doesn't work, your submittal deadline would be July 27th to be on the August IOth Council agenda. Please see the attached review extension letter. If you have a moment would you please update me on your anticipated timing? Thanks Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Email. mcurtisCc dorono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us CITY OF ORONO Street Address: I Mailing Address: Telephone (952) 249-4600 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Fax (952) 249-4616 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 www.d.orono.mn.us 8 July 2015 Norton Homes, LLC Attn: John Nielson 18215 45" Ave N, Ste p Plymouth, MN 55446 SUB3ECT. zoning Application #15-3751 On May 20, 2015 your variance application for the property at 1105 Brown Road South was considered to be complete. Your application was before the Planning Commission on their June 15th agenda for their review and a public hearing. As a result of the feedback from this meeting, you have indicated that there may be revisions to the plan as presented. Submittal of revised plans is pending. The current deadline for City action on your application based on the application completion date is July 19, 2015. Because the date for Council review and approval is not tentatively scheduled until July 27th, the City is extending the time period for City action on application #15-3751 under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f). Please note the time period for action on this application is hereby extended until September 17, 2015. Your application is tentatively scheduled to be before the Orono City Council for their initial review on July 271h; submittal of revised plans and revised survey is required at least 2 weeks prior to the desired Council review date. Please contact me at 952.249.4627 or mcurtis@cLorono.mmus if you have questions on this matter. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO — WA<X� Melanie Curtis Planner c: John Neilson, via email Pat Hiller, via email Memo To: Finance Department From: Christine Mattson, Planning Assistant CW, CC: Zoning File DaAm July 21, 2015 G/L: 101-22205 Re: Escrow Refund Land Use Application #15-3751 pertaining to 1105 Brown Road South has been withdrawn. Please refund $2,500 to the property owner, Norton Homes. The following is attached: . Original signed escrow agreement • Copy of cash register receipt showing escrow amount received Mail to: Norton Homes 18215 451 Avenue N, Suite D Plymouth, MN 55446 z Voning applications12015 #3704 thru115-3751 (1105 broom road south) varrlescrow refund 15-3751.docx LAND USE APPLICATI�ON ESCROW AGREEMENT Application # ' /-/' 375/ AGREEMENT made this Z0y day of 04 , 20 15 by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and A/6 4, 1.4� �L 6 � Crt.C.. [a corporation — optional] ("Owners"). Recitals 1. Owners have filed Zoning Application # /-` - 375/ formally requesting the City to review plans for a Si — located at the property addressed: 11 V A"1.44 Ab S , (the "Subject Property") legally described as Ma Awo 16dua!DS 2. Owners request the City to review said plans which requires City approval and may require consulting legal and/or engineering review. 3. The City is willing to commence its review of the application and incur costs associated with said review only if the Owners establish an escrow to ensure reimbursement to the City of its costs. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEPOSIT OF ESCROW FUNDS. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Escrow Agreement, the Owners shall deposit $ 25t]O -- with the City. All accrued interest, if any, shall be paid to the City to reimburse the City for its cost in administering the escrow account. 2. PURPOSE OF ESCROW. -The purpose of the escrow is to guarantee reimbursement to the City for all out-of-pocket costs the City has incurred (including planning, engineering, or legal consultant review) or will incur in meeting with the Owners, reviewing the plans, and preparing agenda packet material for City Council review of application # /s - 3 W . Eligible expenses shall be consistent with expenses the Owners would be responsible for under a land use application. 3. MONTHLY BILLING. As the City receives consultant bills for incurred costs, the City will in turn send a bill to the Owners. Owners shall be responsible for payment to' the City within 30 days of the Owners' receipt of bill. 4. DISBURSEMENT FROM ESCROW ACCOUNT. In the event that the Owners do not make payment to the City within the timeframe outlined in #3 above, shall cease all reviews until the Owners pay all expenses invoiced pursuant to #3. The City may draw from the escrow account without further approval of the Owners to reimburse the City for eligible expenses the City has incurred. 5. CLOSING ESCROW. The Balance on deposit in the escrow, if any, shall be returned to the Owners when all requirements related to the project are complete. City Staff shall review the terms of this escrow agreement two times per year to determine whether the requirements of the project have been successfully completed and whether it is appropriate to return the funds. Owner may also request the release of the funds, and such funds shall be released upon City Staff receiving the appropriate verification that all requirements of the project have been successfully completed. S. CERTIFY UNPAID CHARGES. If the project is abandoned by Owners, or if the eligible expenses incurred by the City exceed the amount in escrow, the City shall have the right to certify the unpaid balance to the subject property pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 415.01 and 366.012. CITY: CITY Its: Internal Use Only: 13 Original to Finance Department Packet Last Updated: January 2015 Page 10 OWNER By: I AL Its: 16N iL. G Copy to. Zoning File 10 Copy to Street File Surveyor's Certificate SURVEY FOR : Norton Homes DESCRIBED AS Beginningata pointonthe eastlineof Government Lot4 Section 10, Township 117, Range23, Hennepin County, NAnnesota, distant 625.2 feet south of the northeast corner thereof; thence westerly . 33M74 feet to a point216.69 feet northeasterly at right angles from the center line of County Road No. 87; thence southeasterly parallel with said centerline 123.22 feet; thence easterly 2SIL72 feetto said east line of Government Lot 6; thence northerly %CO feet to the point of beginning, exc3ept road. ( From Hennepin County) J r r M 01 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Top of Foundation = 953.4 Garage Floor =953.4 Basement Floor = 944.7 Aprox. Sewer Service = Verify Proposed Elev. = Q Existing Elev. _ Drainage Directions Denotes Offset Stake = • Exl c % S I j Existing I cD 1 Garage I 1 945.8 L. _r---- -j949.3 .,sy 1 I oe D IP j DPP I:`T_" � 5.2 1 1 2 -74-589 5 9"TwInM /� 11.5e ap ` 951Ma/a124'Map 947. • 1 52,4 �� . {wry �1 INr 9M.2 947.5 6 7'Mop 1 I1, 1 M5 1r 8' 9Mne ` ) �1 v I 948 4 5'Cad�11 1 H F47.5 \ 4 tm-00 46. M ® e4si� ' Prop 11; 2—S t , /147 \ ` 1 �,F 947.3 // i NEa�sw - 951.2 1 / r 1 r FNQ IP \ 94&6 Qi i HERMY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION 0 OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE'ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SURVEYED L A N D F 0 R M BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO From Site to Finish p 4 SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN. _ I'fEDLUND 2005 Pin Oak Daw 55122 D. LINDGREN SURVEYOR �' { 51) 4405 6800 MINNESOTA UCENSE NUMBER 14376 CITY OF ORONO * 2 0 1 5— lm 8 6 4 5 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY DATE ISSUED: 05J21i2015 ORONO, MN 55356- (952) 249-4600 FAX: {952) 2494616 ADDRESS 1105 BROWN RD S city of Orono PIN 10-117 23-24-0004 2750 -Keelley Parkway LEGAL DESC UNPLATTED 10 117 23 Orono MN 55356 952-249-4600 : LOT 000 BLOCK 000 Receipt No: 3.013473 May 21. 2015 PERMIT TYPE ; ESCROW FEE - APPLICANT PROPERTY TYPE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TYPE : ESCROW FEE - APPLICANT Norton Homes NOTE: THIS $2500 ESCROW IS TIED TO ZONING APPLICATION 15-3751 APPLICANT NORTON HOMES 18215 45 M AVE N, STE D PLYMOUTH, MN 55446- (612) 386-7661 Minnesota State License #: BUIL-20514630 lq.ljz CHRISTENSON, JERRY 1105 BROWN RD S WAYZATA, MN 55391 AGREEMENT AND SWORN STATEMENT The work for which this permit is issued shall be performed according to the approved plans and specifications, applicable City approvals, and the State Building Code. This permit is for only the work described and does not grant permission for additional or related work which requires separate permits. Ail provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work shall be a mpied with whether or not specified herein. This permit will expire and become null and void if construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days of the date of issuance, or if construction is suspended for a period of 180 days at any time after work has commenced. The applicant is responsible for assuring all required inspections are requested in conformance with the State Building Code. This permit may be revoked at any time for due cause. Planning and,Zoning 15-3751 1105 Brown Rd S 2,500.00 101-22205 Deferred Rev -Developer Deposit Total: 2,500.00 Check Check No: 13580 2,500.00 Payor: Norton Homes Total Applied: 2,500.00 Change Tendered: •00 05/21/2015 11:14AM ESCROW FEE - APPLICANT 2,500.00 ESCROW FEE - DEVELOPER 0.00 TOTAL 2,500.00 Payment(s) CHECK 13580 2,500.00 t ermiteC r attm Applicant >� Issued By Signature Date MINUTES OR THE ORONO PLANNING CO';%IMISSION MEETING Monday, June 15, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. stated he does not disagree with that. if he would like his application tabled. VonFeldt asked whaNpuld happen if it gets denied at the City Council. Schoenzeit stated the City Co 1 could also table it for redesign end it back to the Planning Commission. Curtis stated the City Council could also ap a eve g but the lake setback variance. Curtis stated if it appears the City Council is going to deny th ' redesign Commission. she would recommend the applicant ask for direction on what changes should be made. C to the applicant could also make changes to his plan based upon the discussion by the Plann' ommissi VonFeldt stated it would likely havebe a complete redesign if thartion is denied. Landgraver moved, Schgpg&it seconded, to recommend approval of AppWq lion No.15-3750, Jeff VonFeldt and a Wyatt,1990 Shadywood Road, granting of side setb variance, a rear setback variancer6nd a lake setback variance; and to recommend denial of the po of the applicatio the requested lake setback variance within the 75-foot setback. VOTE: es 6, Nays 13. #15-3751 NORTON HOMES, 1105 BROWN ROAD SOL'TH, VARUNCES, 11:15 P.M. — 11:45 P.M. Pat Hiller with Norton Homes was present. Curtis stated the property consists of approximately one-half acre and is located within the RR-1B District, which requires two acres. The property is served by city sewer. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family home on the property and is requesting side setback variances to allow construction of a new residence to be situated 15 feet from the south side lot line and 19 feet from the north side lot line where 30-foot setbacks are required. Lot area and lot width variances are also being requested. The proposed home will meet the front and rear yard setbacks. The northern driveway and curb cut will be eliminated. Staff finds practical difficulties exist to support granting lot area and lot width variances allowing for redevelopment of this property. The substandard lot area and width are not the result of actions by the landowners, and the applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family home, which is reasonable and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. According to Zoning Code Section 78-72, the property could be redeveloped without lot area and lot width variances but for the applicant's request for side yard setback variances. The hardcover and structural coverage proposed meet the requirements of the zoning code. The request for 15-foot and 19-foot side setbacks, in addition to the lot area and lot width variances to redevelop this property appears to be reasonable. The setback variances appear to be based primarily on aesthetic reasons. The applicant should demonstrate practical difficulty to support the side yard setback variances. Page 40 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 15, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. The width of the structure of the adjacent parcels varies between 66 feet to 40 feet based on aerial photos. The proposed home and setbacks appear to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and do not appear to adversely impact adjacent properties. The Planning Commission should discuss the practical difficulties to allow side setback variances. Pat Hiller, Norton Homes, stated the lot is 100 feet wide and the current side setbacks are 30 and 30, which are consistent with the two -acre zoning. Hiller indicted they are requesting side setbacks of 15 feet and 15 feet and they are proposing a home that is set back from the front of the street that is consistent with the other homes in the area. Hiller stated in his view the proposed home does not overwhelm the lot and is in character with the other new homes in the area. Currently the home is about 19 feet from the property line to the south and the garage is approximately 10 feet from the property line. Hiller noted they are proposing 15 feet and 15 feet. Hiller indicated they are trying to construct something that is aesthetically pleasing, does not overwhelm the lot, and fits in with the new construction in the area. From a practical standpoint, the existing building pad is 40 feet on a 100-foot lot. Hiller stated from a practical and marketability standpoint, it does not make sense to remodel the existing home since it is very old and in disrepair. Leskinen asked what the practical difficulty is for granting the side yard setback. Hiller stated the existing building pad would allow a 40-foot wide home, which would be incredibly skinny relatively to the side. Hiller stated virtually all the new homes in this area have three and four -stall garages. Hiller stated a 3-stall garage is approximately 36 feet wide and they would end up with all garage, which is not very saleable and in concert with the new construction in the area. Hiller stated in his view that is a practical difficulty and that he would like to construct something that is consistent for the area. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 11:23 p.m. Robert Berrett, 1085 Brown Road South, stated he is located directly north of the applicant's property. Berrett stated the applicant mentioned he would like to make the house aesthetically pleasing, and under the City's criteria, it says that a variance may not be issued to satisfy the economic or aesthetic desires of the application. Berrett noted there was never a sign put out in the front regarding the project and that the applicant has only spoken with himself. Berrett stated in his view they are trying to get this application snuck through. Berrett stated the biggest issue he has with the project is the variance to the 30-foot setback, especially if you assume there will be 30-foot high walls on that side. Berrett noted there can be no plantings on that side that conceal this structure and that it would look directly into his daughter's bedroom. Berrett stated in his view it is a hardship to him since he will have to do plantings to protect his privacy. Berrett stated if the applicant is held to the 30 feet, he would be able to plant on his side. Berrett stated in his view it is important to understand that the applicant just purchased this property a month ago. The setbacks were understood at that point, and to say there is a new hardship involved is not Page 41 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING :Monday, June 15, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. true. Berrett stated in the end he feels there is adequate space to construct the same square footage of house without the variances, which would be the same situation as what existed a month ago. Berrett stated he does not have a problem with the lot area and lot width variances but that the applicant has not demonstrated a practical difficulty for the side setback variances. Schoenzeit asked if he has a front loading garage. Berrett indicated his garage is located on the right side of the house and that the original house was constructed in 1919. The house has since been remodeled. Schoenzeit asked if the width of the same is the same. Berred indicated his lot is 111 feet wide and that the applicant's property is 100 feet wide. Schoenzeit asked what the setback is on the other side of his house. Berrett indicated he does not know but pointed out the property line on the overhead. Schoenzeit stated it appears to be 10 to 15 feet. Berrett stated his biggest concern is with what can be planted in that 10 or 15 feet. Berrett noted this is a spec home and that it is unclear what the future property owners will do with the property. Berrett stated when the person constructed the house to the north of him, they stated they would construct a swale so his property would not get the runoff from that property. Berrett noted they never built that swale and that he had to spend thousands of dollars to keep their runoff off of his property. Berrett stated he has a concern that what is berg stated will be followed through on. Tim Cooley, 1115 Brown Road South, stated he is directly south of the subject property. Cooley stated tearing down the existing house is a good idea but that they have not seen any plans for what the new house will look like. Cooley stated he is concerned that a 15-foot variance will infringe on his privacy. Cooley noted currently the existing house is a one-story structure and that the applicant is proposing to construct a two-story house. Cooley reiterated the 15-foot setback would be an encroachment on his privacy. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 11:30 p.m. Lemke noted both neighbors are against the variance and that the lot is buildable without the variance. Schoenzeit noted this would be a clean sheet. Landgraver pointed out both of the neighbors have 15-foot encroachments on the other side of their properties. Landgraver asked how far the existing home is from the two neighbors. Curtis stated she is unsure. Hiller indicated the house is 20 feet from the south property line and the garage structure is 10 feet from the north property line. Page 42 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 15, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated perhaps a different setback could be considered, such as 20 or 18 feet. Schoenzeit stated that would be similar to what exists on the other side of the neighbors' homes. Schoenzeit stated it is unlikely the Planning Commission will approve what is being proposed, especially since this is a clean sheet and given the comments of the neighbors. Lemke stated he does not see what the neighbors currently have on the other side as having any bearing on this request. Thiesse noted there is an existing structure on the property that is outside the building envelope. Schoenzeit stated there is also something to the neighbor's comment about this now being a two-story structure rather than a one-story. Schoenzeit stated he would like to see a bigger side setback. Leskinen stated when she was going through the packet, she wrote a note that given the current setback requirements, it would be difficult to construct a practical home consistent with other homes in the surrounding areas. Leskinen noted the existing home is already encroaching on the neighbors. Schoenzeit noted this is new construction. Schoenzeit pointed out not everybody is at 30 feet in the neighborhood and so there is room for some degree of variance. Leskinen stated if they rebuild in kind, they would not need a variance, but that she does not see a practical difficulty or a compelling reason for the variance. Lemke stated they are able to build a reasonable house on the property without the variance. Schoenzeit moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 5-3751, Norton Homes,1105 Brown Road South, for the side yard setbacks, and to recommend approval of the lot area and lot width variances. Curtis noted without the side setback variances, Staff could administratively approve the lot width and lot area variances. Thiesse encouraged the applicant to speak with the neighbors to see whether a different side yard setback would be appropriate. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is not approving the specific number requested, but that he would be open to something other than 15 feet. Hiller stated they thought this plan was appropriate and that in their view a 45-foot wide house is not appropriate for this lot. Hiller indicated they would be open to some type of compromise. Leskinen stated if he is interested in bringing the application back to the Planning Commission, they could make a motion to table. Leskinen stated he could also choose to proceed forward to the City Council. Schoenzeit stated he would be willing to rescind his motion and table the application to allow the applicant the ability to discuss the matter with the neighbors. Page 43 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAti1ING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 15, 2015 5:30 o'clock p.m. Hiller requested the Planning Commission table his application. Hiller questioned whether the neighbors will accept something other than 30 feet, and stated that if they are required to build within the allowable footprint, the neighbors may not like the appearance of the house. Leskinen stated it may not be something that can be negotiated with the neighbors, but that there are parameters that the Planning Commission needs to approve an application, such as a practical difficulty. Leskinen noted the Council may prefer to deny it. Hiller asked if they are allowed to change the request in front of the Council. Curtis stated the Council will want something that is representative of what was discussed at the public hearing. Curtis stated if the applicant follows the direction of the Planning Commission, they likely would be fine with that, but if the applicant brought back something totally different than what was contemplated tonight, they might elect to send it back to the Planning Commission. Hiller asked whether the Planning Commission could vote on it tonight and whether he could then bring a revised plan before the City Council for something less than 30/30. Curtis indicated he could. Leskinen noted a motion and a second have been made to deny the application. Thiesse stated in his view a practical difficulty is attempting to fit in the neighborhood but the neighbors do not have setbacks that fit the lots that they have. Thiesse stated the applicant is the new guy in the neighborhood and this is a clean sheet, but that in his opinion the rest of the neighbors are not showing that they conform either. 6, Nays 0. 14. #15-3743 MAVW JACOBS,1700 SHORELINE DRIVE, SKETCH PLAN 11.45 P3L —12:02 P.M` N-.— A Irwin Jacobs, Applicant, was Barnhart stated this is a sketch plan review for -acre property compo d of one parcel. The applicant is proposing to divide the parcel into four single-f residential s. The new lots will be created on the portion of the property north of the home and access 4�ctension of Heritage Lane from the west. The existing home and its accessory structures and will be contained within Lot 4. All lots are proposed to be served with private wells and C'. sewer. The proposed 4-lot subdivision appears to be hyKnformity with the guidin this area for single-family rural residential development at a density ne unit per two acres. The prop located in the LR-lA District, which allows for sin amity residential uses with a minimum lot of two dry buildable acres, The sketch subm' by the applicant appears to meet this requirement. roposed single-family development ears to be consistent with existing development in the Burr g neighborhood. Page 44 of 53 fih.