Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketJEREMY D. BUPP Feb/March, 2001February 24, 2001 NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE Dear Sir/Ms: Please consider this formal Notification of Address Change, and thus please update your records. OLD ADDRESS: Jeremy D. Bupp 19735 Chartwell Hill Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Phone: 612-401-8822 NEW ADDRESS: Jeremy D. Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Orono, Minnesota 55391-9794 Phone: 952-471-0964 Thank you for taking the time to update this address information. Sincerely, 2696 CAROLINE AVENUE • ORONO, MINNESOTA • 55391-9794 PHONE: 952.471.0964 FR°Z~ Z: tJb~==Phte tffiona, 11Aa s~391 ) □ CHECK IF ADDRESS CHANGE Mf'LS MH 554 ot t:° ~~1, oo' Q6 ~lij;S*'f.sS] .·. . t PO.STAG.E . 11~~~~ /J ~ijf '." . ~~:IK~;tl~~ . /7,tJ. ~~. ,MJ1) S~3Z-3 ~--(/f l,l,l,,l,l,,,ll,11,,,,l,l,,,,llll,,,,l,l,l,,l,l,,l,I HERE-' --, -...- February, 27, 2001 Mr. Paul E. Weinberger City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Variance Request The Bupp Residence 2696 Caroline Ave. Dear Paul: STEPHEN LONGMAN Enclosed please find 2 copies of the deck platform and stairs that was granted to us by the Orono City Council. This design has been approved by Mr. and Mrs. Bupp. Please note that we are behind the site line easement, as per the instructions of the City Council, and have satisfied the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. We will proceed with construction as soon as weather permits. Thank you again for all your time in this matter. Co 0-Jq r /-() J i--~ l 0012 GRISTMILL RIDGE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 952-943-8226 ~ b--r--s ,J 11-t , ~ rU,lAJ ;;!~. I I I >----· I b c.. --------------_-_--__ ._-· __ -_-.-__ ---· .:.::.:..:::±:::===:::::=:::-~ \ '[----_\ CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 NOTIFICATION OF 60 DAY EXTENSION February 14, 2001 Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline A venue Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Application #2651 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 State law requires that Cities shall decide on zoning applications within 60 days from the date an application is considered complete. The review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was complete on December 20, 2000 The 60 day review period expires on February 18, 2001 following the date the City Council can take final action on this item. You are scheduled to appear before the City Council on February 26, 2001. Because the 60 day review period expires prior to the Council meeting the City of Orono has extended the review period an additional 60 days to April 19, 2001. Do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding your application. Sincerely, ?....JtJ~ Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner cc: Thomas Barrett, City Attorney Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us ,..-,:--:-.::.:=::..::::.-_.=:=..::.:-:,~ ~·~04;-~ .. ~ o.... o~ ~ ~ ·. .. ,._,. ,, . ;-, ... /-,:::~,, . ,.., •Ii ·l~\· ' :>. 1,. l\l / ,,; i,t ,:1 t:,, ~ ~ 1 t1 \1~'-~ :J1·.~•. Jv, v"';j \> \.·Y·.!y,.,:\1:.r..,,,:, .. '-<1:t;. ., .1,1, ~v,, <~.esu~::c:/ -----:_-:=-::-:=..------ CITY of ORONO P.O. BOX66 CRYSTAL BAY. MINNESOT,\ 5512.1 Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline A venue Wayzata, MN 55391 ,/.:- / ; ( q.ur 1' •" \ \ '. •I· l,I ' \ / '"----tll!..-.,.// -r-~..:.-,:,-.E.~~;,.jw ~~ l i ;; ~, -. -, I I, ~" :::fi')11 I:!' '•I ,._ V,,. : !J _., I ! , ~, I "'_fl_)_ ,:;7r"'t -a-•< ___ l:_ .1 I 02 ,.:.L MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCil, MEETING February 26, 2001 (#2650 Kirsten and Patrick Burton, Continued) Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4612, a Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for guest house; a Conditional Use Permit to allow a two foot chimney height; Variances to permit a 30 foot, three story guest house; and to deny a variance to permit a 2 ½ foot railing; and deny a conditional use permit for a six foot chimney height. · Sansevere stated he wants to be clear that no precedent is being set with approval of this resolution . Nygard stated he voted in opposition to this proposal at a previous City Council meeting because in his view a justification is being shown for three stories rather than an actual hardship . Nygard stated the amount of square feet being proposed can be accomplished with two stories rather than three. Nygard stated in his opinion the approving of this three story house may lead to other applicants requesting three story houses, which the City may not be able to deny. Nygard commented he is glad there have been some conditions included in the resolution which restrict the future expansion of this house. Nygard stated in his view this property could be subdivided in the future and this guest house could tum into a primary residence. Nygard noted at the previous City Council meeting Mike Gaffron indicated this application was precedent setting with the architect making a compelling argument that 30 feet is more restrictive than 2 ½ stories . The City Attorney also expressed a concern that approving this application would open the door to someone else requesting a much larger structure that is three stories high. Nygard stated in looking at all the information in front of him , he asked himself what the risk and reward for the City would be by making this decision. Nygard stated the reward would be making a new member of the Orono community very happy. Nygard commented the risk that he sees is very great and provides many open-ended opportunities which the City may not have control over in the existing ordinances . San severe stated the City Attorney raised the issue of the trees being a hardship . Sansevere stated he feels there needs to be a hardship demonstrated before he would vote in favor of it. Sansevere , stat ed he concurs with the hardship . Nygard stated in his view preserving large trees does not create a hardship for constructing a three story house . Nygard stated the trees could play a hardship on the position of the house or the shape of the house, but not to create an extra story. VOTE ON ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Nygard Opposed. (#10 , #2651 OBIN AND JEREMY BUPP, 2696 CAROLINE A VENUE -VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4613 Weinberger stated the City Council directed Staff to draft a resolution denying variances requesting hardcover over 25 percent for a lakeside patio and expansion to the driveway w ithin the 75-250' lakeshore setback. Weinberger indicated the Council did approve a variance to PAGE 17 , / MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (#2651 Robin and Jeremy Bupp, Continued) permit a 3 by 8' landing and steps outside the patio door to access the front yard from the main living level of the house. Staff has drafted a resolution reflecting denial of the hardcover variances and approval of the variance for the landing and stairway totaling 36 square feet.. White moved, Flint seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4613, a Resolution Denying hardcover variances to permit construction of a lakeside patio and expansion of the driveway, and to approve a variance to permit a 3' by 8' landing and stairway for the property located at 2696 Caroline Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Nygard and Sansevere Opposed. Jane Clemons, 2690 Caroline Avenue, noted these property owners have cut down a number of mature trees over 100 years old. Weinberger stated a couple of the trees were located where the house was to be constructed. White noted the issue before the City Council was not the removal of the trees. Mayor Peterson indicated she was unaware of the removal of the trees. Weinberger stated there is a question over which property one of the trees was actually on. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated the difference between this application and the previous application is that the previous applicants suggested that by saving certain sized trees they would need a variance to construct a certain size house. Barrett indicated the City does not have an ordinance requiring trees be preserved except those within 75 feet of the lakeshore. *(#11) #01-2660 KEITH WATERS AND ASSOCIATES FOR JEFFREY AND LEONTYNE MAXWELL, 740 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH-VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4614 Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4614, a Resolution granting a variance to lot area and lot width for the property located at 740 Willow Drive South. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#12) #01-2662 RVC HOMES, 1080 WILDHURST TRAIL -VARIAN CE - RESOLUTION NO. 4615 Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4615, a Resolution granting a variance in lot width to construct a new residence at 1080 Wildhurst Trail. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 18 / J' Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 12/20/00 4/19/01 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 19, 2001 ITEMNO.: /0 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator !trm De~~:ription: Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: #2651 Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline A venue Variance LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) 33,076 s.f. (0.76 acre) A Approved Site Plan B Original Site Plan C Deck/Stairway Plan and Dimensions Application Summary: Agenda Section: Zoning The Council directed Staff to draft a resolution denying variances requesting hardcover over 25% for a lakeside patio and expansion to the driveway within the 75-250' lakeshore setback. The Council did approve a variance to permit a 3' X 8' landing outside the patio door to access the front yard from the main living level of the house. Additional hardcover includes steps down from the landing to the ground level. The Council voted 3 to 2 to approve a variance to hardcover to permit the landing and stairway subject to the requirement no part of the landing encroach on the average lakeshore setback. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving a variance for the landing and stairway and denial of a variance to permit the patio and expansion of the driveway. A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2); AND APPROVING VARIANCES PER SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2) FILE #2651 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Jeremy Bupp and Robin Bupp (hereinaft::"!:' "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2696 Caroline Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for variances to permit construction of a lakeside patio and expansion of the driveway to exceed allowed hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, requesting the following approval: Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. (16) (2): To allow 5,975 s.f. (26.5%) hardcover where 5,625 s.f. (25%) is normally allowed. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the apr lication; the recommendations of the City staff and the Planning Commission; and the comments and written statements submitted by the applicants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the requested after-the-fact variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: Page 1 of 6 1. A building permit was issued to permit construction of a new residence on the property based on a site plan that was submitted with the original building permit application. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (T.C.O.) has been issued with the requirements all the site grading and drainage plans are completed within 180 days. 2. At the time the building permit was approved, the submitted site plan met all requirements of the zoning ordinances and building code. After additional review of the site plan it was discovered the 75' lakeshore setback was not measured correctly. The site plan indicated a 75' setback to the lakeshore (east side of the property). However, it was discovered the lakeshore bends around an adjacent property within 75' of this property. This resulted in more area of the property being included in the 0-75' protected zone where no hardcover is allowed. As a result, the area of the 75-250' zone is actually smaller than initially indicated, and the owners have had to omit certain items ofhardcoYer to remain at the 25% level. 3. When the setback issue was discovered, construction of the new home was nearly complete. Since the house was nearly complete, it was not possible for the property owners to reduce the size of the structure. To conform to the hardcover requirements, the property owners had to reduce the size of the driveway, and remove a concrete patio from the plans. Neither had been constructed. 4. Swales are being provided around the house to direct water from the road, driveway and roof around the house and beyond the adjacent homes where the water will then naturally flow towards the lakeshore. 5. In addition to the drainage swales, gutters are being added to the northeast roof line to direct water towards the front of the house and not towards the neighboring house. Draintile will also be installed to take the \vater from the house around to the front of the bank. Final grading and the draintile will not b~ completed until the ground thaws in the Spring. Because the additional grading and drainage improvements cannot be completed until Spring, staff issued a T.C.O. rather than a final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). When the improvements are complete, a C.O. will be issued. The City of Orono has routinely allowed individuals to occupy a home by a T. C. 0. without all the exterior work being complete subject to a defined time period to complete the work. Page 2 of 6 6. The property consists of 0.76 acre, or 33,076 s.f. in land area. The lot is a legal building site in the LR-1 C zoning district. 7. It is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to protect the water quality of Lake Minnetonka by limiting the amount of hardcover a lot contains. No hardship exists on this lot that would support approval of additional hardcover for a paved patio or expansion of the driveway. 8. The granting of the requested after-the-fact variances would be contrary to the provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) with which the applicants must first comply in order that variances be granted. The Council finds that: A. The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls if the proposed after-the-fact variances are granted. The driveway has been approved as part of the general site plan as minimally acceptable for access to the property. B. Granting of the proposed after-the-fact variances would appear to serve as a convenience to the applicants and the applicants have not demonstrated a reasonable hardship or practical difficulty acceptable to the City Council for the patio and driveway expansion. C. The conditions and Zoning Code limits imposed and existing on this property generally apply to all other land and structures in the zoning district in which this property is located as well as in adjacent residential zoning districts. 9. FURTHER BE IS RESOLVED, the Council hereby approves a variance to permit 36 s.f. of hardcover to permit a 8' X 3' landing and minimal stairway to access the ground below the patio doors, based on the need to provide for a safe access at this location. The house has a patio door entrance off the main floor that would have provided access to the patio. Since the patio door was installed under the original building permit, it was planned that hardcover would be available to allow a stairway and patio landing. Following the discovery that the entire 75' lakeshore setback was not fully delineated on the original site plan, it did not allow a reasonable access to the patio doors that have been installed. Page 3 of 6 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 proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 11. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, 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 (February 26, 2002). 12. 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 shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 13. The undersigned applicants have read, 11nrler<st:::mrl nnd hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 26th day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner( s) Page 4 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day ofF ebruary, 2001, by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public ST A TE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this __ day of ________ , 20_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _________________ known to me to be the person( s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this __ day of ________ , 20_ before me a Notary Public within and for sai~ county, personally appeared _________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT A Lot 4, the Northwest½ of Lot 5; that part of Lot 3 lying Southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 60 feet Southeasterly of the Northwesterly line of Lot 23 and the same extended, and that part of Lot 23 lying Northerly of the Southerly line of said Northwest ½ of said Lot 5 at Southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 60 feet Southerly of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 23 and the same extended all in Wessel' s Subdivision of Spring Park Lots, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Also that portion of unnamed alley which lies between Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 the N orthweterly half of Lot 5 and that part of Lot 23 lying Northwesterly of an extension Southwesterly of the Southeasterly line of the Northwesterly half of Lot 5, Wessel's Subdivision of Spring Park Lots, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 60 feet Southeasterly of the northwesterly line of said Lot 23 and the same extended. Page 6 of 6 I I / --. CITY OF ORONO Ji. SITE PLAN JS.. GRAD\NO ff'LAN ~APPROVEO--Nc;w ~ □ A?PHOVED W!TH REVISIONS O D\S~PEJ1~EOQ 8Y SJ] ( ~ DATE ,'-~ cti. o\ EXIST HOUSE I I I •-- \ ~ --- ---------' I ..________ --------....... J -------- ~ ~----~ ~ ----'\ "------.,. ' ______ _,,,.. " :•.:. -?:-·. OHW 929.4 -----~ '\ -----" - SCALE 1 11 = 30' V> PROPOSEJ ELEV A TIONS <( o GARAGE =-LOOR=951.0 z O TOP FO'.~ ,;)A TION=952.8 0 ~ LOWEST =-LOOR= 944.0 1-'-.. -<( c.o AREA CALCULATIONS 11 /28/00 {REV. 12/28/00) 8 2i LOT AREA (TOT AL ABOVE OHW) = 33076 S.F. / 0.76 ac __J .- X 15% = 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRUCT. ARE.t.. W 4194 S.F. = 84.5% OF ALLOWABLE U) EXIST -HOUSE LOT AREA (75-250 SB FROM OHW) = 22500 S.=-. ~ -X 25% = 5625 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER _:..~:.A I. -5625 S.F. PROPOSED ~z :>-< ~~ ril ~~ > i:o~ ~ 0 :::J z 0::: U) 1-10 i:o~ ~ 0~ ~z 0 w Cl~ ril Z- b <!!~ <: _ _j u >-iO 1-f ~~ ~ 1-f r:c::l u b ~ ~ l.O ril r:c::im u ~~ : ~ HOUSE = 4194 S.F. FRONT STOOP = 296 S.F. SIDE STOOP&POST=38 S.F.· 1 -2;.::_99 HC AR REV AREAS 11-9 M • R 7,00 ORC)P H - ERT 4/13/00 PATIO STEP = 6 S.F. RETAINING WALL = 45 S.F. DRIVE = 1046 S.F. TOT AL = 5625 S.F. LOT AREA ( <250 SB FROM OHW) = 60 S.F. X 30% = 18 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER A?.EA 9 S.F. PROPOSED = (50% ALLOWABLE) REV HOUSE 7 /24/00 A Y 10 HOUSE R::V-AS3I!... T HSE, '-iARDCOVER, DRIVE, GRADING 10/6/00 OCT 25, 99 99056 1 A - I I I I I I I I I I I \ . ----' \ ----' ..J -------- I / ---- EXIST HOUSE I I I I I I / , \ / \ \ \ \ \ \' J \' J ~ ·. __ ~ ·._ '1 ·._ / / ·. / /. / ] ! i . ' 1- _J ::) m SCALE 1" = 30' if) PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS <( o GARAGE FLOOR=951.0 z O TOP FOUND A TION=952.8 0 ~ LOWEST FLOOR= 944.0 1-"- AREA CALCULATIONS 11/28/00 <( c.o u "-o O LOT AREA (TOT AL ABOVE OHW) = 33076 S.F. / 0.76 ac _J-,- w if) ::) 0 :r: REV AREAS 11-9 REV HOUSE 7/24/00 REV-ASBIL T HSE, HARDCOVER, DRIVE, GRADING 10/6/00 LOT AREA (<250 SB FROM OHW) = 60 S.F. X 30% = 18 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 9 S.F. PROPOSED = (50% ALLOWABLE) 1S - ~z ~ ~2 r:r:l :::>~ > m~ ~ 0 0 z O::'. U) ....,..o m~ ~ 0~ ~z 0 w i::::i ~ r:r:l Zw E-t <l!z ~ _j u ::,-. 0 t-i ~~ ~ 1--1 ~u E-t ~ ~c.o r:r:l ~ (J) u I-;)~ z 2 < ..) 0 _, REVIS:ONS 1-21-99 HC AREi MAR 7,00 PROP HSI CERT 4/13/00 MAY 10. 1,-iOUSE '.)ATE 7 OCT 25, 99 PROJECT NO. 99056 SHEET NO. 1 THE BUPPS 2696 CAROLINE AVENUE Mr. & Mrs. James & Peggy Kadlec 2726 Caroline Avenue Orono, Minnesota 55391 February 7, 2001 Re: Your Letter dated January 9, 2001 to Mr. Ronald Moorse, City of Orono Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kadlec: We felt compelled to write to you after reading your letter to the City of Orono. We'd like to share some perspectives, and review facts that have been overlooked. First: We reiterate our apologies expressed in a Christmas flyer to all Caroline Ave. residents in December, and we regret that the neighborhood felt frustration regarding our new home, the loud construction activity, and the yard and/ or vegetation damage that may have occurred. We are also sorry that your specific anger is so great as to result in the accusations made in your letter of January 9th, 2001. Second: You may find it hard to appreciate the following points, but they are truthful & factual; a) Your letter makes serious accusations regarding our honesty. However, you do not even know us. You do not know that we are a small, loving family that holds truth in high regard. Every day we instill our midwestern born & bred values in our 9 year old boy, who is confused by the accusations leveled at us. After living in Connecticut many years, we dreamed to one day return to I\1innesota, build a home, and again enjoy a friendly, neighborly environment. But we have been saddened, taken aback, and brought to tears by relentless accusations and palpable hostility, and the personal nature of attacks by certain neighbors on our character. These accusations are unfounded, untrue, and hurtful. b) Your letter accuses us of fraud. We would never, ever consider "premeditated disregard for city ordinances". Further, there was not and never would be an "intent to defraud the city and neighbors". This violates our morals. We simply would not do such a thing. The city staff would agree that we have been cooperative, open, honest, and forthright. c) Never were "false house plans and survey documents submitted". As city staff will attest, we in fact did the opposite. We submitted initial proposed plans that were larger than what was ultimately built, with modifications along the way that reflect typical, iterative design modifications needed to make the proposed plan more affordable, and ensure city codes and requirements were met. d) You state that we are guilty of "having no drainage plan". This is untrue. We have had, and agreed with the city staff on drainage requirements months ago. We are putting in gutters, drains, swales, and regrading at great expense. All anyone had to do was ask us, or the city about th.is. Instead, we have been drawn, quartered, and condemned continuously as having "no drainage plan". e) You accuse us of many "premeditated" changes. The truth is, plans were approved by the city, and any substantive changes were re-reviewed and approved by the city. You claim that our "patio walls are an intended violation". This is just untrue. These were in the plans, were reviewed, measured, inspected and approved. These walls are below grade, and are thus not violating site lines nor setback requirements. -2-FEBRUARY 7, 2001 £) You accuse the City of Orono of being "derelict in its responsibility". This is unfortunate. The city staff that you accuse, including Paul Weinberger and Lyle Oman, are the very people that have most responsibly represented your concerns, and with whom we've willingly worked to accommodate those concerns. g) It is with resigned disappointment that we witness our family name publicly and in writing disparaged as acting with "deliberate and premeditated acts of defiance". We have not conducted ourselves as you charge, and you make presumptive accusations that are inaccurate and baseless in fact. The saddest, most disturbing part of all is that a child, brand new to the neighborhood, has been brought into the fray of adult pettiness, causing him fear and anxiety. This hostility is imposed upon a friendly, naive, and considerate 9 year old boy. This is just not right. If you have been able to read this letter without further castigation of us, then also try to accept that our emotions and experiences surrounding this situation are as real, and as valid as your own. it may be too much to ask that your condemnation of us, somehow turn from emotional accusation to respectful disagreement. Only time will tell if there can be a measure of civility restored with our immediate neighbors. We hope that situations like a recent one in which another immediate neighbor actually verbally abused and physically intimidated Robin -all fade into the background. We intend to do our very best to establish neighborhood rapport, and make a welcoming home for our son. All of our past neighbors and friends that do know us, know that we do not lie, we do not deceive, and we are a good, honest, and friendly family. Sincerely, .·,,. ~-.•. ·;/ JEREMY & ROBJN BUPP 2696 CJ\ROLJNE AVENUE ORONO, MINNESOTA 55391 Uf ~~ P ktv/ {>~zc /eLb //?YA -.: ~?' i '1, ,~ J\.r. l.l.l11l1l11111,, ,1,I, ,I I, 11 I, II Mr. Ronald Moorse <§ya@ Weinberger/ Mr. Lyle Oman Mr. Greg Gappa City of Orono, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 ,, .. , ~::;.;J, P o~~'\ if!:.~ F' M \ i'i: . . ... () ! ~ r_) I ) "t il , \-/ . ' '"'/ ' <OC\\,./ ~~''-.....:...___.. \..;:.:'i t~. :;~~.~--~·~ i::3 .. }· Ci()!f: 4 ?~ i ! i 1lnl1 \!I! n. u\1l ! ,Iii II rnl\ II 11H ml\i II IL II I\ I I l Hi ,l February 8, 2001 Mr. Joseph Clemons 2690 Caroline A venue Wayzata MN 55391 Dear Mr. Clemons; CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Attached you will find the approved survey, approval date January 8, 2001, for the new residence at 2696 Caroline Avenue. This survey constitutes the drainage plan for this property. The survey shows both the existing and proposed contours for this property. The existing contours are shown in dashed lines, and the proposed contours are shown in solid lines. The property owners will be required to grade the site to match the proposed contours before final approval of this project by the City. The red dashed line from the house to the lakeshore indicates the drainage divide on this property with water flowing in both directions from this divide. This drainage divide is essentially the same for both the existing and proposed conditions. Basically, the drainage divide is down the center of the property with the entire property draining toward Lake Minnetonka. The property elevations range from elevation 951 at the street to elevation 929 at the lake. Both the upper and lower sections of the property are relatively flat ,,ith a steeper area in the center between elevations 950 to 932. Both the existing and proposed contours show the property on the west side of the drainage divide draining northeast across the adjacent property to the lake. The walkout level on the lakeside of the house was cut from an existing elevation of 950 to an elevation of 944. The area in front of the house was cut from elevation 946 to elevation 942 to provide for a flatter yard. This material was then graded forward in a flatter slope than was existing to match into existing grade at elevation 934. The new grading is at a flatter slope, than was existing. This is evidenced on the survey by the grater distance between the proposed contours than between the existing contours. This flatter slope is advantageous as the velocity of the runoff is reduced. No grading is shO\rn within 75' of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed grading is not changing the drainage divide and \\ill not adversely impact the adjoining property. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us The driveway will be graded to drain to the east. This water will then flow along the east side of the house toward the lake. At elevation 950 a swale will be graded to direct the water past the house. From elevation 948 down the existing contours indicate a natural swale evidenced by the contours bowing in uphill. This drainage pattern basically matches the existing drainage and will not adversely impact the adjacent property. The lawn area west of the driveway will drain along the house in a graded swale from an elevation of 950 to elevation 944.5 at the bend in the property line. This swale will be approximately five feet wide and range from one to three feet deep. Past the end of the swale, the water will follow the existing contours and drain northeast toward the lake, as it always has. The graded swale will allow for drainage past the houses into undeveloped lawn area toward the lake. In order to reduce the roof drainage in the swale, a gutter and underground drainpipe system will be installed on the west side of the house. The drainpipe outlet will be approximately 11 0' in front of the house at elevation 934. From this point the water will follow the existing contours and drain northeast toward the lake. There will be no site drainage directed toward Caroline A venue as the driveway and yard will drain past the house toward the lake. This is no change from the existing conditions. This drainage plan basically preserves the existing site drainage conditions and does not substantially change the drainage impacts on the adjacent properties. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact me at 952-249-4621 should you have any questions Sincerely; Jli7 0L ~7&1-l Gregory A. Gappa P .E. Director of Public Services ; / I t i ! CITY OF ORQNO ...JS... SITE PLAN JS.. GAAD\NG N.AN 0 App ROVED ... N c:;v..,) t2-t::!!> D A?PHOVED WITH REVISIONS ODIS~Ef~ ~Ti ' \ -~. or -. ta_ ' ~----~ ' ------'\ "------·'\ ----------- --0HW 929.4 -----~ ---- - ~> . ~&-··-"'· f"'''",µ ~~"' o,sc.vsse.JI) f:lM1N p,1~ I ~ . o~, ~ ' Glnlf ~ ~, I I ,,,. / EXIST HOUSE I I I I I ... ~~ .. EXIST HOUSE I-- -__J . I,. i1,-"t;, ::) s ;._ !..) co l1J SCALE 1" = 30' (.I) PROPOS:::J ELEV A TIONS <C o GARAGE =-LOOR=951.0 z: o TOP FO~ 'OA TION=952.8 0 ~ ac u" o2 __J w (./) ::) 0 :r:: . -- ~z :>-t ~~ µ:::J :::>- > p:i ~ ~ 0 0 z 0::: 1----10 lf.l p:i - µ:., 0~ ~Q 0 i:::i=< i:-r:l Z-~ <~ <: ._J u >,-iO -~~ µ:., -r:z:::io ~ ~ ~ c.o C"=:l r:c:i CJ) u 1-:,~ ! • 1 -2,-:.99 HC AR REV AREAS 11-9 M R 7,00 PROP H ERT 4/13/00 RSV HOUSE 7 /24/00 A Y 10 HOUSE R::V-ASBIL T HSE, '-!ARDCOVER, DRIVE, GRADING 10/6/00 OCT 25, 99 99056 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 JO. #2650 Kirsten and Patrick Burton, 2601 Rainey Road-Variance/CUP- Continued Sansevere asked about the size of the house . Mr. Huntress stated the vertical portion of the house is 19 .5 feet by 19 .5 feet, and the first story is 20 feet by 3 0 feet. A similar 2 ½ story house would be about 40 feet wide. Flint stated the Council would want documentation about the trees and their drip lines, also the resolution should reflect that the house would be constructed as such specifically to save large trees. Mr. Huntress stated that the railing around the roof was for safety purposes, and they would use a special cable that was not visible from about 50 feet away. Mayor Peterson stated she did not see a hardship for the railing . Flint moved, and Nygard seconded, to allow a second residential unit on the property. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Flint moved, and White seconded, to require chimney height on the main house to exceed the roof peak by only 2 feet, at a height of 32 feet. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Flint moved, and Nygard seconded, to deny the request for a 30 inch high railing around the roof of the guest house. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Flint moved, and White seconded, to have staff draft a new resolution for the next Council meeting that shows a 3 story structure would be permitted because its design saves large trees on the property, reducing its impact on the land. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1 (Nygard). 11. 2651 Robin and Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue--Variances Mrs. Bupp arid Steve Longman_, t~e builder, were present. Weinberger stated that a building permit was issued to the Bupps in June 2000. The house was nearly complete when it was discovered that the shoreline along the next door neighbor's property bends inland and the 75 foot lakeshore setback was not measured properly by the surveyor. The proper setback reduces their hardcover area by , approximately 200 s.f. Currently, the applicants were at 100% of the allowed hardcover in the 75 -200 foot setback zone. 12 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 11. #2651 Robin and Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue-Variances-Continued The applicants have requested variances to permit additional hardcover on the property for an expansion to the driveway and to construct a lakeside paver stone patio. The total hardcover request is for 350 s.f. Staff has issued a temporary certificate of occupancy. The applicants are required to provide swales around the house, add gutters to the northeast roof line to direct water away from the neighboring house, and install draintile. The exterior improvements cannot be completed until spring when the ground thaws. Staff recommended denial of the application, and suggested a 3 foot by 8 foot landing with a stairway could be constructed to the patio door to provide safe access instead of the requested patio. The Planning Commission voted 4 -0 to recommend denial of the application. Mr. Longman stated that the Bupps are in an unfortunate situation and feels that the shape of the lot creates a unique hardship. Gary Thompson, attorney for Joseph and Jane Clemons of 2690 Caroline A venue, stated they believe the Bupps are already over the allowed hardcover. The Clemons' independent contractor came up with different hardcover numbers from the city. He stated the Bupp's house will create drainage problems for the Clemons that won't be revealed until the spring thaw. He stated the Bupps have a side door with no walkway and air conditioner wiring with no intact unit that will require a concrete pad. He also stated that the lot was overbuilt and the Clemons object to the retaining wall installed where the patio was to go. Joe Clemons of 2690 Caroline A venue stated that he has asked for a written drainage plan for a year and has not received one. Gappa stated they have met several times with the Clemons and last Friday a letter was sent to them. \Veinberger stated the City would not normally provide that information to neighbors and did not recall the City providing that information in the past. Mr. Clemons stated that the Bupps had agreed to put up gutters before they occupied the house and it hadn't been done. Mrs. Bupp replied that they signed docum~nts with the City stating they would install gutters within 180 days. Weinberger stated the City has provided copies of the plans, including drainage, on several occasions to the Clemons. Mr. Clemons claimed that the Bupps have removed well in excess of 501 cubic yards of dirt without a CUP, and he had a printed article stating a CUP was required for excavation. White asked if the 500 cubic foot limitation was in addition to dirt removed for a basement. Weinberger stated that the Bupps removed a house, then prepared the lot for construction of a new home and the grading on the lot has not changed significantly. He also stated that the ordinance Mr. Clemons referenced applies to construction absent 13 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 11. #2651 Robin and Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue-Variances-Continued the house. The ordinance allows normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building without requiring a CUP. Mr. Clemons stated that the Bupps have put in retaining walls that are higher than allowed. He stated the walls should be removed and fill put in, and they should install stairs off their deck instead of off the sliding glass door. He also claimed their house obstructs his view and has damaged his property. Mr. Clemons stated that the Bupps improperly measured the silt line by walking out to the dock and then measuring back. He stated that roof overhang has not been included in the hardcover calculations and should have been. Sansevere asked if overhang was typically included. Gaffron stated that the Code states anything that impedes direct absorption of rainwater is hardcover and overhang is not considered part of the hardcover unless it is supported by posts or a wall. Nygard asked if the hardcover ordinance was a yard requirement. Gaffron stated it was not. He stated the overhang was allowed to encroach 1 ½ feet into the required yard, that is, into the 10 foot setback from the property line. Sansevere asked if the retaining walls were a hardcover issue. Weinberger stated that 45 s.f. have been included in the hardcover calculations for the retaining walls. Mr. Longman stated that Mr. Clemons statements were unfounded and requested that they not vary from the requests before Council. Mr. Clemons reported that Peggy Kadlec of 2726 Caroline A venue, quoted the builder as saying, "You can try to stop me, but I'm building as fast as I can and once it's built all I have to do is get a variance from the City." He also stated that the first footprint was in error and Lyle Oman, the City's Building Official, found that the lakeside structure was 3 feet wider than what the survey had indicated and extended 3 feet beyond the legal setback line. Neither Ms. Kadlec nor Mr. Oman were present at the meeting to comment. Sansevere asked if the retaining walls would remain, even if the 3 by 8 foot landing were allowed. Weinberger stated that the retaining walls would remain and were allowed with the building permit. Mrs. Bupp stated that the retaining walls retain preexisting dirt, they were not filled in behind as Mr. Clemons suggested. Mr. Longman stated that Mr. Clemons' charges were fabrications. He agreed that he hired the surveyor who made the mistake. He stated he did not see how the driveway and patio would impact the neighbors. Mayor Peterson stated that it was a hardcover issue and the City tries to never grant variances to hardcover for new construction on a conforming lot. 14 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 JI. #2651 Robin and Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue-Variances-Continued Mayor Peterson stated she did not see a hardship to allow the extra driveway and the patio. After some discussion, Council agreed that the Bupps should be allowed the 3 by 8 foot landing for stairs down from the sliding glass door for safety purposes. Anne Wilbur of 1410 Cherry Drive asked if the retaining walls could be removed to gain hardcover. They could not be removed. Lorrie Rejzer of2715 Caroline Avenue stated that she felt the Council was indulging the applicants after-the-fact, and that the lot was overbuilt. Flint stated that the Council believed the error was on the part of the surveyor and was not fraudulent. The Council was trying to be fair in resolving a tough issue. White stated that the Bupps would be denied their request and only granted a landing for some stairs so they could use their door. He hoped that the neighbors would move on and try to be friendly with the Bupps. Sansevere indicated he could not approve the variance because he did not see a hardship. Nygard agreed. Flint moved, and Mayor Peterson seconded, to allow a 3 foot by 8 foot landing with stairs from the existing door for safety purposes that would be behind the average lakeshore setback, and to deny the request to increase the size of the driveway. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 2 (Nygard and Sansevere). *12. #2652 Ron Lauer for Dennis Anderson, 1720 Bohn's Point Road- Variances-Resolution No. 4606 Flint moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4606 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2) to allow 13,045 s.f. (48.7%) hardcover in the 75-200 foot setback zone to construct a paver walkway and outdoor stair addition; Section 10.22, Subdivision l(B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6) to allow a second story addition to the existing residence to encroach 88 feet and 92 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *13. #2655 Robert and Nancy Lux, 1209 French Creek Rive--Variance-- Resolution No. 4607 Flint moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4607 granting a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(l) to allow replacement of a deck and addition to the west end of the residence that are both located within 150 feet of a Natural Environmental lake. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 15 Se: ,t By:. PRAGMATEK 012 335 5035; 10 Jan 01 1;21PM;Job 210;Page 1/2 Janua1y '.5, 2001 Jer~my & Robin Bupp 1973.c; Chartwell Hill Shorewood l.\1N 55331 Dc<1r Mr. & Mrs. Bupp; CITY of ORONO Straet Atldress~ 275 □ Kelley Par11way Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Malllnll Addrt'l$S: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 The City ufOrono is authorizing a "Tc:rnpornry Certificate of Oucupancy11 valid until June 1, 2001 for your new residence at 2696 Caroline Avenue subjei..:t to the conditinns described bduw. This Tt::mporary Certificate of O1,.;cupancy i::1 i:;:;ued based on the property site survey compleled by Alta Suivey Company am.l approved by the City of On.mo, with conditions. on January 2001, The i:s~Lnmcc of a 11 Pcrmanent Ctirtificatc of Occupa11cy" by the Cily is required to allow for cuntim1cd occupation ofthtl residence after June l, 2001. In order to ohto.in a Permanent Cc1tiftcatc of Occupam;y, all of the conditions listed below 11m~t-he satisfied. If all ul' these item,-are not satisfactorily comr>leted by Jun~ 1. 2001_. the City will compl~t~ lhE.:sc items at your cxpcn!1e end, if neeessary, rec.over any City coslfl through a spec.ial a:;se~smem kvi.ed against th,: property. I.) The sile grading as shown on the approved Alta Survey musl be satii::fo.ctorily compl~t~d. This si.t.c grading specifically iucludes, hut is not limitetl, to the drainage swale along lhe 1101thern side of the houso, and grading (lf the fill material in the lakeside yard. Grading also includes turf re&toration of all uisturbed nrea.c: to prevent suil ernsion. . 2.) Installation ofa gutter along the nonhc.rn edge of the roof and a downspout o.nd drainpipe .sy:;torn LO discharge water into the lakeside ya.rd i::o as to minirnue water flow onto the adjactnt prnpe1ty at 2690 Caroline Avenue. 3 .) Driveway im,talla.tion rn the dimensions shown ou the approved site survt:!y. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Flolx (952) 249-4616 www.d.orono.mn.us Se~t By~ PRAGMATEK 012 335 5035; 10 Jan 01 1:21PM;Job 210;Page 2/2 .-.. -. Both the City of Orono .tild Milmehaha Creek Watershec.l District. regulations requiro thi:!l adequate cro:sion control measures be used to prutect Lake Minnetonka and adjoining properties. from damages caused hy construction sit~ runoff and erosion. Adequato :silt fonciug and any oth~r rl1::cessary cro5ion control measures must be maintained at all tii:nes. 1n tl1e event that erosion control measures are not adequately maintained. and r~pairs arc ordered hy the City, these rcpn.irs must be completed within 24 hours of notification. ff these item~ are not sati~factorily completed, within 24 hours, the City will complete these item:; at your expen~~ md, if necessary, recover any City costs through a special assessment levied against the property. Thank yo1.1 for your assistanc~ in this matter. Please contact me at 952-249-4621 should you have a.ny questions Sincerely: 9g-a .1Jci!ffh Gregory A. Gappa Diret:tur of Public Services Copy: Ron Muorse, City Administrator Lyle Oman, Building Official Th~ undersigned property owners hereby cortify th.it we arc in receipt of this letter and are in agreement. with the conditions list~u. J~ p. _Gut/7 mt Na.me Print Name 1 Date I Date Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 12/20/00 4/19/01 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 5, 2001 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: #2651 Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variance ITEM NO.: Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) 33,076 s.f. (0.76 acre) List of Exhibits: A Approved Site Plan B Original Site Plan C Planning Report ( January 8, 2001) Application Summary: I I Agenda Section: Zoning The applicants have requested variances to permit additional hardcover on the property for an expansion to the driveway and to construct a lakeside paver stone patio. The total hardcover request is for 350 s.f., 250 s.f. for the patio and 100 s.f. for the driveway. Driveway The property owners have submitted an approved site plan, revised 12/28/00 by Alta Survey Company, Exhibit A. The property owners had originally requested a wider drive to allow more space to maneuver a vehicle, and are requesting approval to install the wider driveway. Patio/Steps The paving stone patio being requested is a ground level patio, with stairs located below a patio door. Two issues are the 1) variance to permit a patio and/or 2) variance to permit hardcover to allow a stair access to the patio door. There would be about a 3-4 foot drop to the ground without a stairway. The State Building Code does not permit patio doors without a safe landing. The City has required the property owners block the door so it cannot be opened more than 4 inches. Without blocking the door the house could not be occupied. Background: A building permit was issued June 20, 2000 to construct a new house. The house is nearly complete and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (T.C.O.) has been issued. At the time the building permit was approved, the submitted site plan met all requirements of the zoning ordinances and building code. After additional review of the site plan it was discovered the 7 5' lakeshore setback was not measured correctly. The site plan indicated a 75' setback to the lakeshore (east side of the property). However, it was discovered I. V0-.-,ri'~ ~ /2tJdc~ ~ 2. e..1-k-via-v ~,-~ S . ~ ~ s i V\ cl v-.d.J ? ( yo.. rJ r -e ~ 0 i r .f'r,,w,.l:s) t./ . R <.-\-"'-< "'\ V\ _".) vJ o.\\ S. .Q Y\ C Y O ct' l, nu,.,.d-s. S . D (' o..., no..,~ ? \ CV\.0 &>. c.uP~ 7. D <' c f \ Y'\ 3 . '5 + o '-/. a -f:.e .. ~ +- the lakeshore bends around an adjacent property within 75' of this property. The area that should have, but was not originally included, in the 75' setback is shown on Exhibit C, also note the irregular lakeshore. As a result, the area of the 75-250' zone is actually smaller than initially indicated, and the owners have had to omit certain items of hardcover to remain at the 25% level. When the setback issue was discovered construction of the new home had begun, and was nearly complete. Since the house was nearly complete it was not possible for the property owners to reduce the size of the structure. To conform to the hardcover requirements the property owners had to reduce the size of the driveway, and remove the patio from the plans. The site plan, attached as Exhibit A, is the site plan that was approved by Staff and met the requirements of the zoning chapter. The grading plan has addressed the concerns by Staff regarding proper drainage on the property. Swales are being provided around ~he house to direct water from the road, driveway and roof around the house and beyond the adjacent homes where the water will then naturally flow towards the lakeshore. · In addition to the drainage swales, gutters are being added to the northeast roof line to direct water towards the front of the house and not towards the neighboring house. Draintile will also be installed to take the water from the house around to the front of the bank. Final grading and the draintile will not be completed until the ground thaws in the Spring. Because the additional grading and drainage improvements cannot be completed until Spring, the (T.C.O.) was issued rather than a final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). When the improvements are complete a C.O. could be issued. The Cify of Orono has routinely allowed individuals to occupy a home by a T.C.O. without all the exterior work being complete subject to a defined time period to complete the work. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff had recommended denial of the application to the Planning Commission, however an alternative to the 250 s.f. patio could be to permit a 3' X 8' landing with a stairway could be constructed to provide safe access to the patio doors rather than to approve the patio as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 4 to O to recommend denial of the request based on no apparent undue hardship being inherent in the land, and the property has been redeveloped and is new construction. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct Staff to draft a resolution for adoption on Monday, February 26, 2001. Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 12/20/00 2/18/01 TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: January 9, 2001 SUBJECT: #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline A venue Variances --Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: A Application LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential(½ acre) 33,076 s.f. (.76 acre) B Hardship Statement C Site Plan (11/28/00) D Site Plan (12/28/00) E Plat Map F Comments (James and Peggy Kadlec 1/9/01) G Property Owners Notification List Background: A building permit was issued June 20, 2000 to construct a new house. The house is nearly complete and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (T.C.O.) may be issued in January, 2001. At the time the building permit was approved, the submitted site plan met all requirements of the zoning ordinances and building code. After additional review of the site plan it was discovered the 75' lakeshore setback was not measured correctly. The site plan indicated a 75' setback to the lakeshore (east side of the property). However, it was discovered the lakeshore bends around an adjacent property within 75' ofthis property. The area that should have, but was not originally included, in the 75' setback is shown on Exhibit C, also note the irregular lakeshore. As a result, the area of the 75-250' zone is actually smaller than initially indicated, and the owners have had to omit certain items of hardcover to remain at the 25% level. When the setback issue was discovered construction of the new home had begun. Most of the structure was built. Since the house was nearly complete it was not possible for the property owners to reduce the size of the structure. To conform to the hardcover requirements the property owners had to reduce the size of the driveway, and remove a concrete patio from the plans. Neither had been constructed. A revised site plan, dated 12/28/00, has been submitted. #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variances --Public Hearing Page 1 of 4 --- The site plan, attached as Exhibit D, is the site plan that is approved by Staff and meets the requirements of the zoning chapter. The grading plan has addressed the concerns by Staff regarding proper drainage on the property. Swales are being provided around the house to direct water from the road, driveway and roof around the house and beyond the adjacent homes where the water will then naturally flow towards the lakeshore. In addition to the drainage swales, gutters are being added to the northeast roof line to direct water towards the front of the house and not towards the neighboring house. Drain tile will also be installed to take the water from the house around to the front of the bank. Final grading and the draintile will not be completed until the ground thaws in the Spring. Because the additional grading and drainage improvements can not be completed until Spring, staff will be issuing the (T. C. 0.) rather than a final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). When the improvements are complete a C.O. could be issued. The City of Orono has routinely allowed individuals to occupy a home by a T.C.O. without all the exterior work being complete subject to a defined time period to complete the work. Variance Request: Driveway The property owners have submitted an approved site plan, revised 12/28/00 by Alta Survey Company, Exhibit D. As previously stated the plan removed a portion of the driveway and a paving stone patio. Staff has determined the approved driveway is acceptable to provide access to and from the street and garage. However, the property owners had originally requested a wider drive to allow more space to maneuver a vehicle, and are requesting approval to install the wider driveway. Patio/Steps Secondly, the paving stone patio being requested is a ground level patio located below a patio door. The second issue is how to access the patio door since placing a small stairway with a landing up to the patio door absent the paving stones would also constitute hardcover. Two issues to discuss are the 1) variance to permit a patio and/or 2) variance to permit hardcover to allow a stair access to the patio door. There would be about a 3-4 foot drop to the ground without a stairway. The State Building Code does not permit patio doors without a safe landing. The City has required the property owners block the door so it cannot be opened more than 4 inches. Without blocking the door the home could not be occupied. Patio Discussion: The natural grade below the patio door has been altered to accommodate a raised area. The grade can be changed in this area by 2 ½ feet. The raised elevation is equivalent to the height of a patio/deck that is permitted without being considered "structure" ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Most of the patio would be closer to the lakeshore than the average lakeshore setback line. The code prohibits any patios/decks over 6' in height from being located closer to the lakeshore than adjacent residential buildings. A patio or deck more than 30 inches above the natural grade would #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variances --Public Hearing Page 2 of 4 constitute an encroachment because the State Building Code requires railings when patios/decks are more than 30 inches above grade. The Building Code requires railings to be 3 ½ in height. The total height of the deck/patio would then be 6 feet. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: "Tennis courts,patios, decks, and all similar "open" structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6' above grade level, the entire structure shall count towards lot coverage." The City of Orono has interpreted this section of ordinance to include anything that is considered lot coverage or structural coverage to be structure and those structures are not permitted to encroach into the average lakeshore setback. Required Setbacks LR-1 C Front Yard= 30' Side Yard= 10' Lakeshore = 75' Hardship: 1. Approval of a variance would require a hardship be inherent in the land. The fact that there may have been an error in a site plan would not necessarily be an issue with the land. However, the irregular shape of the lakeshore does have an impact on the property. 2. The City of Orono has been consistent with new construction that lots develop to not exceed allowed limitations for hardcover. The lot has been developed to use all the allowed hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Any additional hardcover would require a variance. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the application based on the Staffs finding that no hardship exists that would allow additional hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Orono has been consistent with new construction that lots develop without requiring variances. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Other action. #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalfofRobin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variances --Public Hearing Page 3 of 4 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-18, Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f. (1/2 acre) Actual 33,076 s.f. (.76 acre) Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 33,076 s.f. Allowed: Existing: Hardcover Calculations: Distance from Total area in Allowed shoreline setback hardcover 0-75' 10,516 s.f. 0 s.f. (0%) 75-250' · 22,500 s.f. 5,625 s.f. (25%) * 250 s.f. for a stone paver patio 100 s.f. for expansion of the driveway 350 s.f. additional hardcover #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variances --Public Hearing Page 4 of 4 4,961 s.f. 4,528 s.f. Existing hardcover 0 s.f. (0%) 5,625 s.f. (25%) Proposed hardcover 0 s.f. * 5,975 s.f. (26.5%) A - CITY OF ORONO -VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional .variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Application # 2 (p f; I Date Received tz.h.o loo Amount Paid J2..s D Site Address UR °I Lt, l CLVV I t,;l,,u_, vhre, . Property Identification Number (P.1.D.) UJ i 112::3 2-±0 0 ~4 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date P~cquired S e pfemb..er /5~ / q 9 '1 (month/year) I (do) ~_g!))also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: :i_residential __ other (specify) _________ _ Zoning District: _________________________ _ '"!f·· ··- APPLICANT \2, . Phone (home) ( "t6-ij~DI-Ch2-(e Name l5¼£h~'-~liv~ ·c.,1,A.:J.durt.,1 ~~-Phone _ workt ~J3~g'2-,2--& _.,,,_ _ Address: t00l2--6-110~ @1 ci vr City: 6:l-cv 1 11 -e,u..,vl--l, Zip: ~34-7 lf-<~f. & OWNER (if different than applicant) . Phone (home) b/2-1.fol -f K2-Z-fJ A._. Name Rohn /kbnBupe anJ JevPm~ Tuvio! B~r Phone (work) ~/2 -070-2,~7 I Address: [q7 35: Chdffwe.1.1 H di ity: Shwewaj . Zip: 5~33 ) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ~o - Describe request in detail: :+tt<Kli CMl V Vfit V: 1 CUii CL UA t:k:1--C:.. ·'1 G-'J.-9.) (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: Front Side -.L J. t;'-Z. 50 r Hardcover Rear __ Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore __ Other (specify) _______________________ _ HARDSIDP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 5-Ce. a.tf:-A e-0:ed...- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 6 REQUIRED SUBMITT ALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date · in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 . Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11 "). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your · variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expe · d in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied i d correc to the best of his/her knowledge . Date / J -I J. -0 <> OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents , Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation nd erification of this request. · Date 9/;WKD Applicant must have all submitta mto the City ices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting . 7 December 18, 2000 The Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Variance Request The Bupp Residence 2696 Caroline Ave. STEPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS INCORPORATED Members of the Planning Commission: ---- We are asking for a variance from the allowable hardcover of 25 % in the 75-250 zone in the following two areas approximately divided as follows : 1. An expansion of the driveway of approximately 100 additional square feet or 0.44% of additional hardcover; 2. The construction of approximately 250 square feet of hardcover paving stone patio, as shown on the registered land survey dated May 10 , 2000 and all subsequent "As Built" surveys, or 1.1 % of additional hardcover. 3. The complete request is for an approximate total of 350 square feet, or 1.54% of additional hardcover. Please be aware that the expansion of the driveway and construction of the patio itemized above would not exceed allowable hardcover in the 75-250 zone were this lot calculated independently from the neighboring lots. At the time of permit application the surveyor and the city staff believed us to be in strict compliance with Orono's hardcover ordinance. Our building permit was approved and issued on June 20th, 2000 and we began construction. In November, at the request of a neighbor, the city again reviewed our survey and hardcover calculations and we were informed that, as our lot is situated on a point, it was necessary to establish the 75' setback line from the ordinary high water elevation even if it required measuring across someone else's adjacent property. (See survey). Unfortunately Alta Survey Company, Inc. had never heard of this requirement and the Orono city staff did not enforce it at the time of permit application. In June it would have been a simple matter to adjust our design to conform. l 0012 GRISTMILL RIDGE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 952-943 -8226 However, in November the house was approximately 90% built and we were put in the impossible position of being asked to eliminate hardcover essential to the existing design and clearly shown on our application documents. How can we now be asked to settle for less driveway than our neighbors enjoy and a patio door and stairs that go nowhere? The variance you would be granting is minimal and would have no impact on the lake nor any impact on any neighbors sight line. In fact, if it were not for the shape of the neighbor's lot to the west we would be in complete conformance with the letter of the hardcover ordinance. We have even gone so far as to provide gutters and drainage swales to the west side of the house and garage to lessen the impact of any roof run off on our neighbors. Obviously we are in conformance with the spirit of the ordinance and we feel it is unfair to hold us to a stricter interpretation than our fellow lake shore owners. Therefore we ask that you recognize the unique situation and hardship that is created by adjacent neighbor's lot and the untimely enforcement of this ordinance and grant us our variance. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Stephen Longman President STEPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS, INC. Minnesota Contractor's License #2166 Homeowners: I I ::t ~ 0 ~ 0 ;;:J "' 0 en en I I I I I I I I I I I EXIST HOUSE I .. · 250'' SETBACK LINE \ \ \' _) ' \' _) --. 7 \.. 1- __J =:, (D SCALE 1" = 30' (J) PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS <( o GARAGE FLOOR=951 .0 z O TOP FOUND A TION=952 .8 0 ~ LOWEST FLOOR= 944.0 I-"-- <( <.O AREA CALCULATIONS 11 /28/00 ~ LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE OHW) = 33076 S.F. / 0 .76 ac ' X 15% = 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRUCT. AREA u "--o O __J ..- 4194 S.F. = 84.5% OF ALLOWABLE '0~ LOT AREA (75-250 SB FROM OHW) = 22500 S.F . X 25% = 5625 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 5614 S.F. PROPOSED = 99% OF ALLOWABLE HOUSE = 4194 S.F. STQOP = 268 S.F. RETAINING WALL = 45 S.F. DRIVE = 1114 S.F. TOTAL = 5614 S.F. 5614 SF / 5625 SF {99 % ALLOWABLE) LOT AREA ( <250 SB FROM OHW) = 60 S.F. X 30% = 18 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AR~A 9 S.F . PROPOSED = (50% ALLOWABLE) w (J) =:, 0 ::c REV ARE.AS 11-9 REV HOUS E 7/24/00 RE V -ASBIL T HSE, HARDCOVER, DRI VE, GRADING 10/6/00 C ~(~ "' .. CD CD I ~~ >< i -~F: ~ ~~ 1· : Cl~ lie ,tins: d~ ,S d~ "=-ii! >< ~.>i.!. (~ ":ar-~~ 10..!l~ ~~ "'~ D<C><ED ""'"" OtSIQ€C t -u . ~~ow~ ~i5~~g !:c>-~ Li..~ ~:~~~ 0 ~~;~~ z ~~~WW ic o < ~ - ~ z :>--t ~~ ~ ~A > o:l~ 0::: 0 ~ z et: rn _o o:l A ~ 0~ ~z 0 w ~~ µ;:i Zw E-i <z <:r: __J u >-40 1-i ~~ ~ 1-i ~o E-i 0::: ~ c.o µ;:i ~en u i-:, ~ z 0 ;::: < u s REVISIONS 1-21-99 HC AR E1 MAR 7,00 PROP HS CERT 4/13 /00 MA Y 10, 1,10USE DATE OCT 25, 99 PROJECT NO. 99056 SHEET NO. 1 I I I I I I ./ I I I /. EXIST HOUSE I I I I I -I ~r..1 -' 250'' SETBACK LINE 7S 1-- HOUSE 1- _J => QJ SCALE 1" = 30' m · PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS <t:: o GARAGE FLOOR=951.0 :z o · TOP FOUND A TION=952.8 0 ~ LOWEST FLOOR= 944.0 I-"-. <J:: CD AREA CALCULATIONS 11 /28/00 (REV. 12/28./00) 8 ~ LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE OHW) = 33076 S.F. / 0.76 ac _J X 15% = 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRUCT. AREA . W 4194 S.F. = 84.5% OF ALLOWABLE en LOT AREA (75-250 SB FROM OHW) = 22500 S.F. ~ X 25% = 5625 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA ::r:: 5625 S.F. PROPOSED ...... - O..z :>-i 0.. ~ ~ ·:::> - > ~~ 0::: 0 :::, z0:.:: U) _o ~- ~ 0~ ~-z 0 w A ~ ~ z UJ ~ <z .< -' u ~o -~~ ~ -p.:iU ~ 0::: ~ co ~ P:c:i (j) ·U -.,~ ~ ~ HOUSE = 4194 S.F. FRONT STOOP = 296 S.F . ~DE STOOP&POST=38 SF. PATIO STEP = 6 S.F. RETAINING WALL = 45 S.F. 1 -2~99 HC AR REV AREAS 11-9 M R 7 00 PROP H · ERT' 4 /13 /00 RE V HOUSE 7 /24/00 AY 10 HOUSE DRIVE = 1046 S.F. TOT AL = 5625 S.F. LOT AREA ( <250 SB FROM OHW) = 60 S.F. X 30% = 18 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 9 S.F. PROPOSED = (50% ALLOWABLE) RE V -ASBIL T HSE, HARDCO V ER , DRI V E, GRADING 10 /6 /00 Oo\TE OCT 25, 99 99056 St€£T-J<'I. 1 D '/ ,, ,, ,, .. -·--~···~ r 1 ',i,!,l .-.1'••.•,.,,,\ :, -,,~ •,;~\/ a ,r 05/20/1908 04:43 January 9, 2001 Mr. Ronald Moorse City of Orono PObox66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 KADLEC&ASSOCIATES ....... . by Facsimile & U.S. Mail Re: 2696 Caroline Ave. Variance Notice -#2651 Dear Mr . Moorsc: 61: F As residents of the adjoining lor to the cast al 2726 Caroline, this letter documents our concern regarding the requests for vari,incc lo cily ordnances and the grant.ing of lempormy occup,111cy for the building site at 2696 Caroline Ave. Having built a home ourselves in 1988/89, we are very fan1iliar with llle city of Orono building ordnances and rules for building on lakeshore property . The buildi11g next door bas been riddled with issues from tbe beginning. There has been apparent premeditated disregard uf city ordnances and intent to defraud tbe city and neighbors . Specifically, fc1lse house plans and survey documents were submitted to the city for building approval. The house was then built lo a much larger scale . Having built our home, we arc aware that to build a larger home than the origim1 IJy stated foolprinl, major changes to foundation, the ordering of roof tmsses, etc . etc., in advance is required. Having tbe house ''happen 1o end up large1 ·" is au impossibility . Disregard for lhc hardcover rcquircm~nls is just one of several outstanding issues. To our knowledge a drainage plan l1as yet to be submitted, imended violation to the set back rec1uiremems exist --two retaining walls bave been built and a deck which is being called a palio. Dw·ing this entire coustruction prncess, the city was made aware of the concerns oft.he neighborhood. We as well as others, bave had to hfre outside surveyors and consultants to recheck the work in progress rather th,m rely on the city 1o monil~lr il. We believe the city has been derelict in its responsibility to protect us from this sort of fraudulent building activity . We can understand and support requests for variance approval due to "human error'', but this situation was premeditated and planned with no concern for the neighborhood and wilh total disl'especl for tbe ordnances that average residents must adhere to . In July we believe the builder stated his intent •-"You can try and slop rnc, but T ,1m building as fast m, T can. Om:;c il is buill, all I have to do is request. a variance". It would be of interest lo knuw bow many limes this builder mutinely requests variances as a convenient after thought.. We will have to live with 1hc rcs1111s of u,is couslrucliuu for the 1-emainder of our residence at our home. ll has uudoublably reduced Lhe value of ou1· home . ll is obvious to eveiyonc thc1t the building is inappropriate lo the lol 011 which il slauds. ll will be a constant l'em.iuder of the selective application of the laws and ordnonces by 1he City of Orono 05/20/1908 04:43 KADLEC&ASSOCIATES ....... . RonMoorse January 9,2001 Page 2 6124717043 P.02 Afte1· adhering slrictly lo the city ordnances in building our l10use, we feel .it is unjust and unfair lo reward deliberate and premeditated acts of defiance lo lb~ rul~s by granting variances and temporary occupancy cenificatcs. Respectfully, Cc: Honorable Barbara Peterson Jay Nygard Bob Sansevcrc RUN DATE 12/18/00 BATCH 510 PROP ADDR. OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME · TAXPAYER NAME/~DDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/A~DR 38 20-117-23 24 0005 02726 CAROLINE,AVE J H KADLEC & 'PL BERNHARDT ·J H KADLEC & PL BERNHARDT 2726 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 3,8 20-117-23 24 0025 02691 CAROLINE .AVE THELMA J PULVER THELMA J PULVER 2691 CAROLINE AVE, , WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-111-23'24 .0041 02732 CAROLINE AVE CHARLES & SUSAN PERCIVAL CHARLES & SUSAN PERCIVAL 2732 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST '38 20-111-23 · 24 0001 · 02715 CAROLINE AVE TM & LB REJZER T & LREJZER .2715 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA. MN. 55391 3,8 20-,117-23 24 0033, 02690 CAROLINE AVE J & J CLEMONS' ·· .JOSEPH & JANE CLEMONS .2690 CAROLINE AVES WAYZATA MN 55391' TOTAL BATCH 510 00007 REPORT NO. PI435401' . PAGE 30 38 20-117-23 24 0013 02700 ETHEL AVE JULIAS JENSEN JULIA S,JENSEN· .2700 ETHEL, AVE. WAYZATA MN 55391 :38 20-117-23,24 00~4' 02696 'CAROLINE AVE JEREMY D BUPP 'g ROBIN H BUPP JEREMY D BUPP & ROBIN H BUPP 19735 CARTWELt HILL SHOREWOOD MN . ,5533i ~E;::!~~;A~~~~ ~~EI~:g!~A~i~~E!;N~~\:~:A~~ *~~~~~!~EA~~ ~~~ERECORDS OF'.THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF'PROPERTY TAXATION~ TO THE BEST . OF HV KNOWLEDGE. AND •::::• ;J{-/1-o(:/ .•. ~J;~ ' '. '", ' ... .:_,-· ......... ~' ..,· \.ff));, .. I \\, " ~:.~~ :' ;i ~. ~ .-) :) ~, .. J \tn THOMPSON &THOMPSON LAW OFFICE PLLI? Gary A. Thompson• Kay M. Thompson •Roi Pioperly Law Sp~e,.li•t Certi[i..J by Minne•oto St,,.t,, Bar Ae•o~i..tion 17717 Highway Seven Minnel:onka, MN 55345 BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. l\fAIL Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box: 56 Crystal Bay, :M:innesota 55323 Re: 2696 Caroline Avenue January 15, 2001 Variance Request No. 2651 Our Client: Joseph Clemons File No. 1024-1 Phone 952-474-3221 Fax 952-474-2575 On behalf of Joseph and Jane Clemons of 2690 Caroline Avenue, I urge the Planning Commission to deny the request for variance for 2696 Caroline Avenue, the property adjacent to the Clemons property. I will make three points: (1) The amount of hardcover already allowed before the variance is in dispute and has not been verified by the city. (2) The city has not yet required from the owner, nor has the owner submitted, a drainage plan to solve the drainage issues resulting from the construction. · (3) The patio for which the variance is requested, as well as the existing retaining walls already built around it, are structures which encroach across the building setback line and will also require a setback variance which has not been requested from the owner. First, the amount of hardcover resulting from the new construction as represented by the applicant was questioned in October by neighbors who had a consultant calculate from the builder's own survey drawing the hardcover resulting from the house, not including the patio, driveway or eaves, at 4,748 square feet. The city corresponded with that consultant about his calculations which are on file with the city. Since the square footage of the house as represented by the applicant is 4,194 square feet, that considerable difference should have caused the city to verify the numbers with its own calculations. The neighbors believe on November 1, 2000, Mayor Jabbour instructed the city staff to have the Bonestroo engineering firm make those calculations as well as the lot area . calculations to determine which representations were accurate. I understand that Bonestroo was asked by the staff only to verify the exterior dimensions of the house as 9/l 'd 06l8'0N The Planning Commission January 15, 2001 Page2 built and not to calculate the square footage of hardcover. Therefore, the hardcovet" already created by the house is still in dispute. The applicant's survey drawing showing hardcover of the house, stoop, retaining wall and drive incorrectly totals their own numbers at 5,614 square feet when the total is actually 7 square feet more. Also, the applicant originally represented the lot area to be 35,000 square feet and only recently amended that number down to 33,076 square feet. It would seem all these numbers should be verified independently by the city. In addition, the applicant's hardcover totals do not include an extra column and stoop not shown on the ''as built" drawing on the northwest side of the house and whatever cement slab will be built to hold an air conditioning unit on the northwest side of the house (see photos). Will there be a sidewalk along the northwesterly side of the house to reach the door there? These additional hardcover elements must be figured into the total hard covet". Because the total hardcover has not been verified by the city, the city should not entertain a variance when, we submit, the hardcover requirements are already exceeded. Second, the new construction and change of grade on the applicant's property creates new drainage problems because of the close proximity of the Clemon's house to the new house. However, as of yet, no drainage plan has been submitted, which any qualified person can verify will solve the drainage issues presented by the large roof runoff on the Clemon's side of the new house. City Ordinance 10.03, Subdivision 21, provides that when substantial earth is moved, such as occurred here, at the time of issuance of the building permit, the Building Inspector will approve of a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property. Not only was a building permit issued without an adequate drainage plan submitted, recently a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for this property without a proper drainage plan having been submitted. The city staff seems to feel that a proper drainage solution can be achieved in the spring and all parties will cooperate. However, this runs counter to your own ordinance which requires submission of a proper drainage plan before issuance of a building permit so that the city can assess before construction begins whether drainage problems will be solved. The neighbors do not understand why this procedure was not followed for their protection. The applicant asserts that they have "gone so far as to provide gutters and drainage swails to the west side of the house and the garage to lessen the impact of any roof runoff." Neither the gutters nor the swails have been provided yet. That will be the minimum that would be required for an adequate runoff protection for the neighboring properties. Because this new construction which moves hardcover so close to the adjoining properties presents new and tricky drainage problems for this site, no request for variance 9/8 'd 06l8'0N The Planning Commission January 15, 2001 Page3 from hardcover requirements should be entertained until it is known whether the present drainage problems resulting from the hardcover already built have been solved. Third, the proposed patio as weU as the already built retaining walls adjacent to it (see attached photo) are structures or part of the house structure, and encroach across the building setback line for this structure. Therefore, a variance from the setback requirements is also required, but none has been requested. Ordinance 10.02 (69) defines "structure'' as "anything which is built or any piece of work artificially built up which requires a location on the ground or attached to something having a location on the ground." How can these patio and retaining walls, which are structures themselves, and which are attached to the house, be anything other than structure under this definition? The set-back restrictions in your Ordinance 10.22, Subdivision lB provide that "no principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing resident buildings on adjacent lots." Finally, a variance should not be granted unless there is undue hardship or unless the "plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by landowner." The applicant complains that the configuration of the adjoining. lot's lakeshore creates a hardship. However, the configuration of that lakeshore, and the houses on adjoining properties were there when the applicant designed the house. It is not the adjoining properties that have created the hardship here. It is the applicant's wish to push wall to wall with his design and to overbuild this lot. The large house built leaves no extra room for additional hardcover. Please help protect the interests of the neighbors by denying the variances requested. Respectfully submitted, .dn1flscml.aw OfficePLLP By: ~A Thompson cc: Ron Moorse Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Clemons 9/v 'd 06t8·0N Wd89:£ IOOl ·91·uer ..... :, ,: ~ .. • I'~: ' •', 9/9 · d 06l8'0N 9 /9 . rl 06l8'0 N -. ~;;/-f:J .... ~ ... ~.,,. ·"' ;, . -~-;,.,,•,, ·. ,:-.:~,-~:>~h .. ·.• '•.u•.-:-.· l . -~ , ... , ...... ,,:-. __ '..-..._ · ............ '• ..... ' ... IOOZ '91 ·uer • .. ... C ,f-y f.:.? F' o rl:>V\ ~ f. o. l'3 6 y. l l Cr-ys+"--1 B~y 1 /'v11V 55 3 :Z3 Oe.o ... v Mr. Mobr.se. ~ :J. l Cl/ CCi r oft.,, c. A\K. 'vv ct\/ z_ c,._ +-·--1 ft7 /V 5' 5' 3 c; I J a Vl w...(!{. 1r Y :;-1 .:z. o o I I hO\,u e-( , i + l V~c 0. J. l, Gt/ c~,0 I! V1 e.., l-f ,.x n Uc:.. -P-ov :;)_ :$ .'/ ecz,rs • 0 tln v-, L) +-L-, t 5 +-( vY\ c.. +-t.. c:.. ro. l. ~ vl,• ''-f e__ v ---C2 r o Vl-1 C c-1.,,, ~ l (. vi e__. A V-C::. C,t, V\-J /;; +-fr. e-( A-U'C. • /--1 Ct_) rw., V) o Ft-D V'\ VY\ y fr-a ( c' +y ,. ~Vv i,.,A .. l d "-/ 0 L., r l C.Q.)c:_ Me--. 1~ Sl,tre,_ +hC\_,.t-+he... we'--+ c. ... t2v◊v,, +\-.e-1("\-c,vJ hou~--e-61,A_LI+ 6~,+hc.. prc:;,rc.,..+y Q_f-. ~ & 9 (., Co...v-C It V1-<--4 ~-·--c... d (;;, C.) h b + V' L,{_"' b ., -+-o VY) '1 I I 'f. + 1 °'-. VY\ <> ,r -c. \.Iv ,,._ + e,v 0 V') pv b r~• -ry, +-Cot"--c:~, K-c. v>y ~Y p•~ pe,-+y. j_ L,V :.) l4-l J r e.c:-.. ll y ~ r "f I" e. c... \, c,_ -1-< '/ Ov.. v-h c:. I r I s~ 'r\C..C vi:: 1 r '/ C, C'{_r S; .J~ f} ' fa~-e-, THOMPSON &THOMPSON LAW OFFICE PLLP Gary A. Thompson• Kay M. Thompson • Real Property Law Specialist Certified by Minnesota State Bar Association 17717 Highway Seven Minnetonka, MN 553-?5 Mr. RonMoorse City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 56 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: 2696 Caroline Avenue Our Client: Joseph Clemons File No. 1024-1 January 22, 2001 l-ll-a \ Phone 952-474-3221 Fax 952-474-2575 ... • • J .. ~ ' -' • : '. '. ,., ' . ., • • l_/ I understand from comments made by the city staff at the Planning Commission hearing on January 17th, that the temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued for the above address had conditions attached to it. Or possibly, there is a separate agreement between the city and the contractor or owner including requirements to be carried out by the owners before a permanent Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. Would you please send to me a copy of the temporary Certificate of Occupancy and any other documents that include those requirements? Thank you for your help. GAT/se cc: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Clemons TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SITE ADDRESS OWNER MAILING ADDRESS City of Orono Building and Zoning Department 2696 Caroline Avenue Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Ave P.I.D. BUILDER DATE APPROVED: 2011723240034 Stephen Longman Builders BUILDING PERMIT: NO. P02343 DATE ISSUED --------- 01/01/01 02/20/00 THE FOLLOWING ARE NOTED AS INCOMPLETE OR MISSING. THESE MUST BE CORRECTED OR COMPLETED AND REINSPECTED WITIIlN 150 DAYS OR TIDS CERTIFICATE WILL BE VOID. Failure to correct these deficiencies will cause occupancy violation citiations to be issued. 1. Final grading per attached revised survey. 2. Gutters & draintile as discussed. 3. Driveway installed. 4. Resolve patio door issue. 5. Maintain silt fence until ground cover is established. I hereby agree to make the above corrections and to call for reinspection within the time allowed: START BILLING FOR: City Sewer City Water Wednesday, January 17, 2001 Building Official White: Owner/Builder Green: Billing Clerk Yellow: File Se':':t By;l PRAGMATEK January :;) 200 l JertJmy & Robin Bupp 1973 ;c; Chartwell Hill Shorewood :tvil\i 55331 Dc<1r Mr. & Mrs. Bupp; 012 335 5035; 10 Jan 01 1 :21PM;Job 210;Page 1/2 L( 0 \ 6 CA\UJl/ 1'Jt ~V{, CITY of ORONO Strut l!tdl'lUS: 2750 Kelley ParKway Orona, MN 55356 Monkipsl Offices Malllni Addra:.:.: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 The City ur Orono is authorizing a "Tc:::mpornry Certificate of Ocuupancy11 valid until June 1, 2001 for )'O\.ll' new residence at 2696 Caroline Avenue subjeut lo the conditions described bduw. This Ttrnporary C.enificatc uf Q1,;cupancy i:; issued based on the property site survey compleled by Alta Survey Company .u1u approved by the City of Orull0, wir.h conditions. on Janmuy 2001. The b::;L1<1ncc of n. 11 Pcrmanent Certificate of Occupancy" by the City is required to allow for continued occupation ofthtl residence after June l, 2001. In order to ohto.in a Permane.nt Ccitificntc of Occupanvy, alJ of the conditions listed below rnu~t. he satisfied. If all of these itcrn~ are not satisfactorily completed by June: 1. 2001. the City will compltltt: the.sc items at your c:,,q::ct1!1e end, if necessary, reoover any City cosls through a !1.pecial assessmeut kvi.ed against th,; property. l .) The ::.ite g,rading as sho-..vn on the approved Alta Survey musl be satisfactorily compl~t~d. This site grading specifically includes, hut is: not limited. to the drainage swale along the northern side of the house, and grading (lf the fill material in lhcla.keside yard. Grading also include.9 turf restoration of all tlisturbe<l nrea.<:: to prevent soil erosion_ 2.) Iru;talh1tion ofa guttei along the northern edge of the roof ~ml a downspout o.nd drainpipe :sy:;tom lo discharge water into the lakeside yard i;o as to minimize water flow onto the adjat.:t:!Ill prupe1ty at 2690 Caroline Avenue. 3 .) Driveway in:.tallation to the dimensions shown on the approved site survt:y. Telephone (9Sl) 249-4600 • F~x (952) 249-4.616 WW\V,c:i,c~::.~.:::::l.\1& s·erit By: PRAGMATEK ; 012 335 5035; 10 Jan 01 1 ;21PM;Job 210;Page 2/2 .-.. -. Both the City of Oronu and Milmehaha Creek Watershed District regulations require;; thlll adequate erosion control mcas_urcs be used to prutect Lako Minnetonka and adjoining propcrtie~ from damages caused hy construction site runoff and erol1ion. Adequate: l)ilt foncing and any oth~r ntcessary cro5ion control measures must be maintained at all times. 1n the eve11t that t,l'Osion control measures are not adequately maintained .• and repairs arc ordered hy the City, r.hese repairs must be completed within 24 hours of notification. lf these itetn~ are not · satisfactorily compleled, within 24 hours, the City will complete these item:; at your ex:pen:se md, if necessary, n:covcr any City costs through a special assessment levied against the propeny. Thank yo1.1 for your assistanc~ in this matter. Please contact me at 952-249-4621 should you have any questions Sincerely: 9g-a,1Jcf)!h Gregory A. Gappa Dirt:lctor of Public Services Copy: Ron Mourse, City Administrator Lyle Oman, Building Official Tht:l umJersigncd property owners hereby certify th.it we arc in receipt l."lf this letter and are in agreement. with the conditions listt:d. J~P-.Bu/f' Ult Name Pri11t Natne l Date I Date January 18, 2001 Orono City Manager Ron Moorse 2750 Kelly Parkway P.O. Box 56 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Moorse, This letter is in reference to land use variance application #2651 by Steven Longman Builders on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp regarding the new home built at 2696 Caroline Avenue. We live directly across the street from this lot (our address: 2715 Caroline Ave). We have endured nearly a year of yard damage, road destruction, noise, massive truck and trailer blockage and traffic to the point that we could not allow our young children to play outside in front for months. We understand there are always neighborhood inconveniences when there is new construction, but the behavior of the many crews has been excessive. Orono Police were called on several occasions, signs, cones, chains, stakes, have all been placed independently b1 4 different residents. With nearly a year of this type of disruption, the owners and builder have taken little or no interest in communicating directly with any of us. All of this aside, we are very concerned at the number of blatant inconsistencies on behalf of the City's approval of plans and Orono Building Ordinances. Even when violations have been documented and noted, the city has shown little consequence for abuses of original survey plans vs. as-built, accurate hardcover numbers and as-built hardcover areas, lack of drainage plans, and much more. It appears ordinances are broken with little consequence to allow for pure over- indulgence. Last summer, we built a small (14x15') ground platform onto our deck. We abided by all applications, specs, ordinances, inspections and especially fees. Our neighbors built a small deck 3 years ago and had to pay for a complete land survey, but did so, to comply with the letter of the City Building Code. It is so disheartening then, to watch a builder come in, submit survey and building plans, gain City approval, then actually build something much larger, on a substantially smaller lot size. With so much in dispute, how could this be allowed to move forward? Are these ordinances only enforced for those projects small enough to be easily held accountable? The city inspection team appears to be inconsistent in their recommendations, ability to monitor the building process to insure compliance, and inspections, otherwise, how could this be allowed to happen? What is built right now at 2696 Caroline Ave. is in violation, let alone any variance request. This request (and any future requests regarding this property) to add to a larger driveway, and install a deck/patio within the lakeshore setback does NOT constitute any form of hardship. Plans to apply for variances after the fact were most likely in the plan from the beginning. I am disturbed about this situation. The financial and emotional hardships my neighbors have had to endure to hold the Builder, Owners and City accountable for keeping within lawful codes is of great concern. Please show all of us that the City of Orono is ready to stop this selective ordinance enforcement, hold itself accountable for what has been done to this once lovely lakeshore lot, and not approve further variance applications. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Respectfully Submitted ~) / </Ltt~- Thomas Rejzer {} 2715 Caroline Ave Orono, MN 55391 h: 952/471-7774 w: 763/449-6367 cc: Jay Nygard Bob Sansevere Jim White Barbara Peterson Richard Flint d/a1d/4;Da-- Laurie Rejzer 2715 Caroline Ave Orono, MN 55391 h: 952/471-7774 w: 612/304-9532 !HOMPSON l?THOMPSON LAW OFFICE PLU' Gary A. Thompson• Kay M. Thom.peon • R~•l Prq,•t'fy Law S-e••i$1,.t Cernfi•d by Minne,ot$ State Bar A••oai-.~on 17717 Highway Seven Mim.ietonka, MN 55346 BY FACSIMILE AND BAND DELIVERY Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 56 Ccystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: 2696 Caroline Avenue Varia:nceRequestNo. 2651 Question of Size of Eaves Our Client: Joseph Clemons File No. 1024-1 January 17, 2001 Phone 952-474~3221 Fa=.:: 952-474-25'.Zo The eaves on the house at 2696 Caroline A venue extend at least four feet from the walls of the house. Therefore, the roof over the house is quite large. The city staff has maintained that the size of the roof is not to be included in computing the 15% footprint requirements and the 25% hardcover requirements. However. your Ordinance No. 10.03, Sub. 14C provides for the 15% house size requirement which is a '"yard requirement" under Section 10.02, 76(a) which reads: "Yard Requirements- Those requirements which relate exclusively to the size of yard areas when such are required within specific zoning districts," Section 10.03, Sub. 15 provides that eaves will not be considered as encroachments on yard requirements if the eaves do not extend .more than 1.5 feet. The eaves in question here extend more than that and therefore the size of the roof, not just the foundation footprint, must be computed into the 15% of lot size restriction for the house .itself. Likewise, with the hardcover requirements of 25%, why is the total roof size not bejng included in the hardcover computation? The attached Hardcover Ordinance Calculation Worksheet provided by the City, and attached hereto, clearly includes roofs within the coroput.atio:n of the hardcover requirements. We believe that properly including the full size of the roof in hardcover computation will show the hardcover requirements are already greatly e~ceeded, even by the applicant's own computations. In addition> the 15% house size restriction should be re-calculated using the full roof size to detemrine whether the 15% restriction has been exceeded. /~4- ~A-~mpson GAT/se · 8/0 'd 8tZ8'0 N CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices HARDCOVER ORDINANCE Malllng Address: P.O. Bolt 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 In 1975, the Orono City Council adopted an·ordinance limiting the percentage of lot area that can be covered with impervious surface ("hardcover") such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, ere. on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the lake. Toe intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that'raiofall run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake . . Hardcover Zones -Allowed Percentages: 0-75 0% 75-250' 25% 250-500' 30% 500-1000' 35% Hardcover includes: -Roofs -Sidewalks -Paved or gravel driveways ~ -Patios & decks (includes slatted decks) ':f. -Tops of retaining walls & rock walls -Decorative landscape areas underlain by plastic· sheeting or fabric -Any other surface that does nor allow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 1. Circle which setback zone (0-75', 75-250', etc.) the calculation is for. 2. For each item of hardcover within that zone, enter the length and width, and multiply to get square footage (s.f.). 3. Add up all'the square footages to get total square footage of hardcover. 4. Divide by the total area of propercy within the zone and multiply by 100 to get percentage of hardcover in the zone. 5. If changes in hardcover are proposed, you must do a "before II worksheet and II after worksheet. If either results in percentages greater than those allowed, contact City staff before proceeding with your project planning! 8/8 'd 8tz8·oN Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 11 ~d9l:8 lOOZ ·u·uer THOMPSON 0' THOMPSON LAW OFFICE PLLJ? Gary A. Thomp11on" Kay M. Thompson 17717 Highway Seven. • R.c~l l:'rop~r\y Low Sp*oiili•t C:•xnficd. hy Minn,oota Stat• Bai A••odation Minnel:onka., MN 55346 DATE: FAX TRANSMITTAL RECORD Januazy 15, 2001 TO: Planning Commission COMP ANY: City of Orono FAXNO: 952•249-4616 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:· &, FJLE NO.:1024-1 FROM: Gary A. THOMPSON NOTES: Phone 952-474~3221 Fax 962-474•21515 The :infonnation contained in and accompanying this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential infonnation intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the read.et of this message is not the :intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver jt to the intended .recipient. you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying o{ this commumcati.on is strictly prohibited. Jf you have received this fax in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and retum. the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. IF YOU HA VE ANY QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS, PLEASE CALL (952) 474~32-21 9/l 'd 06t8·0N ~dL9:8 lOOZ ·g[·uer THOMPSON THOMPSON LAW OFFICE PLLP Gary A. Thompson* Kay M. Thompson * Real Property Law Specialist Certified by Minnesota State Bar Association 17717 Highway Seven Minnetonka, MN 55345 BY FACSIMILE AND U.S.MAIL Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 56 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: 2696 Caroline Avenue Variance Request No. 2651 Our Client: Joseph Clemons File No. 1024-1 January 15, 2001 Phone 952-474-3221 Fax 952-474-2575 On behalf of Joseph and Jane Clemons of 2690 Caroline A venue, I urge the Planning Commission to deny the request for variance for 2696 Caroline A venue, the property adjacent to the Clemons prop~rty. I will make three points: (1) The amount of hardcover already allowed before the variance is in dispute and has not been verified by the city. (2) The city has not yet required from the owner, nor has the owner submitted, a drainage plan to solve the drainage issues resulting from the construction. (3) The patio for which the variance is requested, as well as the existing retaining walls already built around it, are structures which encroach across the building setback line and will also require a setback variance which has not been requested from the owner. First, the amount of hardcover resulting from the new construction as represented by the applicant was questioned in October by neighbors who had a consultant calculate from the builder's own survey drawing the hardcover resulting from the house, not including the patio, driveway or eaves, at 4,748 square feet. The city corresponded with that consultant about his calculations which are on file with the city. Since the square footage of the house as represented by the applicant is 4,194 square feet, that considerable difference should have caused the city to verify the numbers with its own calculations. The neighbors believe on November 1, 2000, Mayor Jabbour instructed the city staff to have the Bonestroo engineering firm make those calculations as well as the lot area calculations to determine which representations were accurate. I understand that Bonestroo was asked by the staff only to verify the exterior dimensions of the house as The Planning Commission January 15, 2001 Page2 built and not to calculate the square footage of hardcover. Therefore, the hardcover already created by the house is still in dispute. The applicant's survey drawing showing hardcover of the house, stoop, retaining wall and drive incorrectly totals their own numbers at 5,614 square feet when the total is actually 7 square feet more. Also, the applicant originally represented the lot area to be 35,000 square feet and only recently amended that number down to 33,076 square feet. It would seem all these numbers should be verified independently by the city. In addition, the applicant's hardcover totals do not include an extra column and stoop not shown on the "as built" drawing on the northwest side of the house and whatever cement slab will be built to hold an air conditioning unit on the northwest side of the house (see photos). Will there be a sidewalk along the northwesterly side of the house to reach the door there? These additional hardcover elements must be figured into the total hardcover. Because the total hardcover has not been verified by the city, the city should not entertain a variance when, we submit, the hardcover requirements are already exceeded. Second, the new construction and change of grade on the applicant's property creates new drainage problems because of the close proximity of the Clemon' s house to the new house. However, as of yet, no drainage plan has been submitted, which any qualified person can verify will solve the drainage issues presented by the large roof runoff on the Clemon's side of the new house. City Ordinance 10.03, Subdivision 21, provides that when substantial earth is moved, such as occurred here, at the time of issuance of the building permit, the Building Inspector will approve of a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property. Not only was a building permit issued without an adequate drainage plan submitted, recently a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for this property without a proper drainage plan having been submitted. The city staff seems to feel that a proper drainage solution can be achieved in the spring and all parties will cooperate. However, this runs counter to your own ordinance which requires submission of a proper drainage plan before issuance of a building permit so that the city can assess before construction begins whether drainage problems will be solved. The neighbors do not understand why this procedure was not followed for their protection. The applicant asserts that they have "gone so far as to provide gutters and drainage swails to the west side of the house and the garage to lessen the impact of any roof runoff" Neither the gutters nor the swails have been provided yet. That will be the minimum that would be required for an adequate runoff protection for the neighboring properties. Because this new construction which moves hardcover so close to the adjoining properties presents new and tricky drainage problems for this site, no request for variance The Planning Commission January 15, 2001 Page 3 from hardcover requirements should be entertained until it is known whether the present drainage problems resulting from the hardcover already built have been solved. Third, the proposed patio as well as the already built retaining walls adjacent to it (see attached photo) are structures or part of the house structure, and encroach across the building setback line for this structure . Therefore, a variance from the setback requirements is also required, but none has been requested. Ordinance 10 .02 (69) defines "structure" as "anything which is built or any piece of work artificially built up which requires a location on the ground or attached to something having a lqcation on the ground." How can these patio and retaining walls, which are structures themselves, and which are attached to the house, be anything other than structure under this definition? The set-back restrictions in your Ordinance 10 .22, Subdivision lB provide that "no principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing resident buildings on adjacent lots ." Finally, a variance should not be granted unless there is undue hardship or unless the "plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by landowner." The applicant complains that the configuration of the adjoining lot's lakeshore creates a hardship. However, the configuration of that lakeshore, and the houses on adjoining properties were there when the applicant designed the house. It is not the adjoining properties that have created the hardship here. It is the applicant's wish to push wall to wall with his design and to overbuild this lot. The large house built leaves no extra room for additional hardcover . Please help protect the interests of the neighbors by denying the variances requested . Respectfully submitted, ~~tsonUw Office PLLP By: Ga";/A~ Thompson cc: Ron Moorse Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Clemons -~-.... .,. l~.-- . ~" . . . _____ ..... ' i THOMPSON THOMPSON LAW OFFICE PLLP 17717 Highway Seven Minnetonka, MN 55345 i·;$-~:i-i--.oost. \fi1F'L.~-;: i,1,111! ,I, 11 ! I,, ,I ,I 111 I, 111 ,II Planning Commission City of Orono ·.•~-t.;;e-~ %,.t. Mr,1 . '5~1 .ci1l:V V~·····o i~ ~liHl:fJPlitf~#B /ti'' \\t: ') 0 . . . ~ \'<./ lH.l ·ii; rt" ·'·' = ', ,;<,11.1.,.l}(J = \ \ = \\"-._//5 .. '~~ '# fPll$lAUA281i1t'.\ ··<-----· 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 56 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 -i•1 j 1l1•;l 111uH I ul.l1 i li;HwH1ull,l 1iH1 ul1ln H 114i111i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2639 Zoning Code Amendment, Continued) Bellows inquired whether it goes to the railroad tracks . Gaffron stated the new Comprehensive Plan identifies an area east of Willow Drive between the tracks and Watertown Road that has been guided for single family/higher density. Gaffron stated that area could potentially be developed through the RPUD standards and could be included in the Highway 12 corridor study area . There were no public comments relating to this matter. Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2639, Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Item Nos. 7 through 11 follow Item 12) (#12) #2651 STEPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS, INC., ON BEHALF OF ROBIN & JEREMY BUPP, 2696 CAROLINE AVENUE, VARIANCES, 7:09 p.m. -8:09 p.m. Jeremy Bupp, Property Owner, and Stephen Longman, Builder, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted . Weinberger stated the Applicants were issued a building permit on June 20 , 2000, to construct a new house on this property. A temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued on January 17, 2001, as the house is considered complete subject to a few conditions that still need to be met before the final certificate of occupancy can be issued . Weinberger stated some grading issues still need to be completed as well as installation of drain tile and excavation of the drainage swale . Weinberger stated at the time the building permit \Vas approved, the site plan did meet all the requirements of Orono's Ordinances and the State Building Code . A later review of the site plan , which occurred after the City received some phone calls from the adjoining property owners , discovered that the original site plan submitted by the surveyor was incorrect with regard to the 75 foot lakeshore setback. A new survey was submitted depicting the correct shoreline, \Vith a small portion of the property being located within 75 feet of the lakeshore that was not originally deducted from the buildable portion of the lot. · · Weinberger stated this created a situation where the owners were required to omit certain items of hardcover on the property to remain within the 25 percent requirement. The areas that do reflect the changes to the site plan relate to a patio, which has not been constructed, and to the driveway, which has been constructed to a minimal ten foot width . It was determined by City Staff and the property owners that the ten foot width was the minimum width that could be constructed and still be able to fully utilize the three-stall garage on the property . Weinberger stated since the m,istake on the survey was not found until after the house was almost completed, it was difficult to make any revisions to the plan. The grading plan submitted by the Applicant does address concerns raised by City Staff concerning the property, with drainage swales PAGE7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued) being constructed on either side of the house to direct water around the house and gutters being installed on the north side of the house to direct the water toward the lakeshore. Drainage has been a concern with this application since the property was more folly developed than what had been in the past and due to the close proximity to adjacent structures. Weinberger indicated the Applicants arc requesting a variance for the driveway. If the driveway is expanded, it would result in hardcover beyond the 25 percent limit. Weinberger noted the Applicants currently are at the 25 percent hardcover limit with the items that have been omitted. The second item that was omitted is the patio, which is now depicted as a grassy area. The Applicants are requesting a variance to construct the patio. Weinberger stated the original plan had intended for there to be a foll patio door with a walkout. At the present time there is no ,Yay to access to the ground, with any type of access requiring a variance. Weinberger indicated there is approximately a three to four foot drop from the patio door to the ground. Weinberger stated the State Building Code does not permit a door to open out without a safe landing. The City of Orono has required that the patio doors be permanently fixed so they cannot be opened. Weinberger indicated the natural grade of the land has been altered to accommodate a step-down patio in this area. Weinberger stated the grading that has been done in this area was approved. Grading in excess of two and a half feet would be considered an encroachment on the average setback. Being that it is a ground level patio, that area could be paved (with a variance) without it being an encroachment into the setback. Weinberger stated in order for a variance to be granted, a hardship inherent to the land must be demonstrated. The property owners have stated that had they been aware of the hardcover limitations in this area they would have been able to redesign the house to meet those standards, and at this time are requesting a minimal patio and a little additional driveway space to enable better maneuvering of a vehicle due. Staff is making a recommendation of denial on this application since it is new construction and the Planning Commission and City Council have been consistent in the past on adhering to the 25 percent limit. Staff does not feel a hardship has been demonstrated that is inherent to the land. Weinberger stated the only possible hardship that could be considered would be the irregular shape of the shoreline, which has caused more of the property to be considered within the 0-75' setback area. Bupp indicated he understands they are at 100 percent of their hardco~er allo~vance at this time with the present design of the house. Bupp stated as way of background, this property was essentially an unused lot with a small cabin having been located on the lot. Bupp commented it is his opinion the neighbors in the area adopted this land as a small park and are having trouble dealing with the inconvenience or imposition of the construction of a new residence. Bupp stated the construction has caused some distraction to the neighbors as well as some damage to a grassy area, which has upset the neighbors, and w'hich he has apologized for. Bupp stated due to the neighbors' concerns, the construction of their residence has been very carefolly scrutinized. Bupp stated although their plans were approved by the City, they were requested to resurvey the property a couple of times, which resulted in the finding that the PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued) shoreline was incorrectly identified six months into constmction or when the house was 95 percent complete. Bupp stated that finding came as a complete surprise to them and puts them in the position that they are presently in. Bupp stated, number one, they have acted in good faith with the City and attempted to work with the City in order to comply with the various requirements, such as reducing the size of the driveway and the deck, regrading, and adding of gutters in an attempt to accommodate the requests of the City. Bupp stated he received a document from the City which includes a summary of the hardcover ordinance and hO\v to calculate hardcover. Bupp stated nowhere within that document is there reference to setback to the adjacent property. Bupp stated the second point he would like to make is that the hardcover being requested tonight is only .44 percent for the driveway and approximately I percent for the patio. Bupp stated depicted on the approved site plan was the patio, the walkout, and the larger driveway. Bupp stated currently they have patio doors that open to nowhere, which makes them unuseable at this time without some type of stairway. Bupp stated that is their only access to the back yard, with their house being designed to access the back yard via the patio doors. Bupp commented in his view the irregular shape of the shoreline does have a negative impact on the property. Bupp stated if the irregular shape of the shoreline is taken into consideration with the property line, that results in the 75 foot setbackfor this area. Bupp stated the incorrectly identified shoreline was a complete surprise to both the City and himself, and this error of omission should be shared by the City and himself and should have been caught upfront during the planning process. Bupp requested the Planning Commission take that omission into consideration when considering his hardcover variance request. Bupp stated due to that omission, they have been placed into an impossible situation and have attempted to accommodate the City's hardcover limits as best they can. Longman stated he disagrees with City Staff that no hardship exists. Longman stated the fact the house has been constmcted ,,ith a patio door designed to access a patio should be considered a hardship since they have acted in good faith through the application review process. Longman stated the variance law is designed to handle this type of situation, and requested that the Planning Commission take into consideration the irregular shape of the shoreline and the fact that the 75' setback was incorrectly marked and not discovered until the house was nearly completed. Bupp stated had the shoreline been correctly identified upfront, they would have taken the necessary steps to accommodate that. Bupp stated in his view they have done a good job of complying with the City's regulations and have tried to respect the neighbors' opinions throughout this process. Longman stated they are open to compromise and are not asking for much additional hardcover. Gary Thompson, Attorney-at-Law, stated he is here on behalf of Joseph and Jane Clemons, noting he has submitted letters to the City dated January 7th and January 15, 2001. Kluth indicated the Planning Commission does have the letter dated January 15 in their packet. PAGE9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued) Bupp requested a copy of the letter. Thompson stated the amount of hardcover currently on the property is in dispute and has not been verified by the City. Thompson stated the issues relating to hardcover and setbacks changed due to the problem with the shoreline setback. Thompson stated the actual square footage of the house is also in dispute, which also needs to be verified. Thompson indicated the Clemons were told the actual lot area would be verified by the City Engineer, which has not been completed. Thompson presented some pictures of the new residence to the Planning Commission. Thompson stated there are a couple of items that have been added to the residence which are not depicted on the original plans which impact hardcover on the property, such as a column supporting a roof and the roof overhangs. Thompson commented the roof overhangs should be included in the hardcover calculation when the City's ordinance calls for that to be included. Thompson expressed concerns that a drainage plan has not been submitted to the City to solve the drainage issues resulting from the construction. Thompson stated the neighbors have a number of concerns relating to drainage in this area, which should be addressed. Thompson stated the patio and the retaining walls will also require a setback variance, ,vhich has not been requested by the property owner. Thompson stated in his opinion a hardship does not exist and the lot has simply been overbuilt, with the City and neighbors not being responsible for creating this situation. Thompson stated the neighbors are here tonight requesting the City take steps to protect their properties from any issues resulting from this project. Joe Clemons, 2690 Caroline A venue, stated the certificate of survey makes no mention of a deck, with the amount of allowable hardcover on this property being 5,625 square feet. Clemons stated the property o,vner is at 5,621 square feet. Clemons stated in his view the driveway is equal to or larger than what it was back in May and should be remeasured. Clemons stated in his view the driveway exceeds the area depicted on the survey. Clemons noted the retaining wall has shrunk from 80 feet to 45 feet, and questioned which number was correct. Clemons indicated that Orono's Ordinances state that whenever a roof extends out beyond one and a half foot, the additional overhang should be counted as hardcover and would result between an additional 600 to 900 square feet in hardcover. Clemons stated in his view there is not a hardship. Clemons stated the building official found several inconsistencies on the footprint that existed during construction. Clemons indicated the deck had to be removed and reconstructed because it was found to encroach three feet into the setback. Clemons stated in addition to the shoreline being inaccurately measured, the survey does not include a large cement planter or a pillar and rooflocated on the northwest side of the house. Clemons stated his concerns regarding the hardcover relate to the drainage, noting the grade of the land has been changed significantly. Clemons stated in addition, his view of the lake is pretty much gone. Clemons requested the variance request be denied. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE OROl\"O PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued) Thelma Pulver, 2691 Caroline A venue, expressed drainage concerns that might result from this project, noting she currently experiences water runoff from the two roads near her property. Peggy Kadlec, 2726 Caroline Avenue, indicated she did submit a letter to the City expressing the concerns of the neighborhood relating to this project. Kadlec stated at the time they constructed their residence, they were required to comply with the City's regulations and setback laws, which should also apply in this case. Kadlec stated they are a tolerant neighborhood, but in her view the Applicant went ahead with his construction knowing he will need a variance later on. Kadlec stated due to the construction, a grassy area on their property as well as a I 00 year old Oak tree has been damaged. Kadlec expressed doubts that the actual house built is the same plan that is depicted on the original plans. Kadlec requested the Planning Commission deny the variance request. Weinberger stated the hardcover calculations ha,·e been verified, which indicate the Applicant is currently over the 25 percent limit by four square feet. Discussions have been had with the Applicant regarding where the four square feet could possibly be removed, with there being very limited options. Weinberger stated the first issue he would like to address relates to the measurement of the house, which is actually three feet wider than what was originally depicted on the survey. Weinberger stated there were two architectural features at the end of the house which were not depicted on the survey and are considered in the hardcover. Weinberger stated the columns are depicted on the newest survey and are also included in the hardcover calculation. Weinberger stated the issue relating to the grading is valid, noting the area was filled in quite a bit to bring the land back to the natural grade prior to the cabin. Weinberger stated there still is a fair amount of fill that still needs to be regraded in the spring. Weinberger stated the survey does show some corrected figures which the land will need to be regraded to. In addition to the regrading, the property owner will also be installing a gutter system, drain tile, and improving the drainage swales to direct the water rnnoff from the house down towards the lake. Weinberger stated the house located at 2691 Caroline A venue should not be impacted by any water nmoff from this project. Weinberger indicated a temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued with the stipulation that no final certificate of occupancy will be issued until the grading issues are adequately addressed and done in compliance with City standards. Bellows inquired whether anyone from the City has compared the approved drawings with the residence that was actually constrncted to see whether it complies. Weinberger indicated the actual residence that has been constrncted does have a few minor changes to it that are not reflected on the original plans but is fairly consistent ,vith the approved plans. Bellows stated approved plans are supposed to be complied with and not changed. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued) Weinberger stated the Applicant did receive approval from the City regarding the minor changes that were done. Weinberger indicated the change relates to the garage. Bellows inquired why the shoreline measurement was not verified and included on the original survey. Bellows stated the shoreline setback is not a ne\v requirement, and inquired whether the builder has constructed other homes in Orono prior to this residence. Longman stated he has. Bellows stated the setback has to do with the lakeshore and has nothing to do with the neighbor's property. Bellows commented in her view the hardship relating to the patio doors is really not a hardship and could be changed to windows. Bellows stated she does not see a hardship inherent to the land for this property. Bellows inquired whether the roof overhangs have been considered in the hardcover. Weinberger stated the hardcover numbers that have been approved deal with the footprint of the house. Bellows commented that the City may have been remiss ,vith the roof. Weinberger stated roof overhangs typically are not included in the hardcover calculations. The building inspector has indicated that unless the roof line is used for a covered walkway or patio, it typically is not included in the hardcover calculations. Bellows expressed concern that these issues were brought to light back in September and that perhaps steps could have been taken at that time to limit the amount of hardcover on the property. Bellows indicated she is not in favor of granting a hardcover variance on this property. Berg inquired how many surveys for this property the City has. Weinberger stated there are four or five in the file. Berg inquired why there needed to be so many sun-eys done on this property. Weinberger stated the City ,vould request a new sun-ey whenever they felt something was not in compliance with the plans. Weinberger stated the encroachment of the deck was six inches and has been relocated out of the setback. Mabusth inquired whether anything was done regarding the roof overhangs. Weinberger stated the roof overhangs were depicted on the approved drawings. Kluth commented he is not in favor of granting a hardcover variance for this property since the property owner has built right up to the maximum allowed, leaving no margin for error. Kluth indicated the Planning Commission and City Council has been fairly consistent in requiring the PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued) 25 percent hardcover limit be complied with on new construction. Kluth stated in his opinion he does not see a hardship inherent to the land. Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2651, Stephen Longman Builders, Inc., on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue, and not grant a hardcover variance. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:30 p.m. (#7) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, PUBLIC HEARING, 8:05 p.m. -8:29 p.m. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission has looked at various revisions of this basic concept plan a number oftimes, with the latest revision showing a four lot development. Weinberger stated this area is located within the two acre zoning district. This is a 20 acre site, with 14. l acres being dry buildable. The City Council voted to return this item to the Planning Commission to review the new four lot concept. This matter was also reviewed by the Long Lake Planning Commission due to some road access issues that need to be resolved. Weinberger stated one of the main issues with this development relate to access to the various lots. North of the site is the City of Long Lake and Apple Glen Road, ,vhich is a private road. The Long Lake Planning Commission met on January 9th and tabled this request to consider access due to some issues relating to notification of the neighbors and discussions with Long Lake's City Attorney. The application before the Long Lake Planning Commission depicted seven lots rather than the four lots now before the Planning Comission tonight. Weinberger stated what the Applicant is now proposing is a four lot development with access back to Brown Road, which was originally considered with a cul-de-sac and a five lot plan. The revised concept plan does meet a couple of the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission early on by reducing the number of lots to four. The Applicant is now proposing two lots at the north end along with three lots to the south, which would also include the existing house which is owned by the Applicant. Weinberger stated this plan is again at the concept plan stage, with the Applicant looking for some direction and some type of recommendation to move this matter before the City Council for consideration of preliminary plat. Weinberger stated the two main issues that have held this application up were a technical evaluation review of the actual wetland boundaries on the property, PAGE 13 Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 12/20/00 2/18/01 TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: January 9, 2001 SUBJECT: #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variances --Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: A Application LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential(½ acre) 33,076 s.f. (.76 acre) B Hardship Statement C Site Plan (11/28/00) D Site Plan (12/28/00) E Plat Map F Comments (James and Peggy Kadlec 1/9/01) G Property Owners Notification List Background: A building permit was issued June 20, 2000 to construct a new house. The house is nearly complete and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (T.C.O.) may be issued in January, 2001. At the time the building permit was approved, the submitted site plan met all requirements of the zoning ordinances and building code. After additional review of the site plan it was discovered the 75' lak:eshore setback was not measured correctly. The site plan indicated a 7 5' setback to the lakeshore ( east side of the property). However, it was discovered the lakeshore bends around an adjacent property within 75' of this property. The area that should have, but was not originally included, in the 75' setback is shown on Exhibit C, also note the irregular lakeshore. As a result, the area of the 75-250' zone is actually smaller than initially indicated, and the owners have had to omit certain items of hardcover to remain at the 25% level. When the setback issue was discovered construction of the new home had begun. Most of the structure was built. Since the house was nearly complete it was not possible for the property owners to reduce the size of the structure. To conform to the hardcover requirements the property owners had to reduce the size of the driveway, and remove a concrete patio from the plans. Neither had been constructed. A revised site plan, dated 12/28/00, has been submitted. #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variances --Public Hearing Page I of4 I~ The site plan, attached as Exhibit D, is the site plan that is approved by Staff and meets the requirements of the zoning chapter. The grading plan has addressed the concerns by Staff regarding proper drainage on the property. Swales are being provided around the house to direct water from the road, driveway and roof around the house and beyond the adjacent homes where the water will then naturally flow towards the lakeshore. In addition to the drainage swales, gutters are being added to the northeast roof line to direct water towards the front of the house and not towards the neighboring house. Draintile will also be installed to take the water from the house around to the front of the bank. Final grading and the draintile will not be completed until the ground thaws in the Spring. Because the additional grading and drainage improvements can not be completed until Spring, staff will be issuing the (T. C. 0.) rather than a final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). When the improvements are complete a C.O. could be issued. The City of Orono has routinely allowed individuals to occupy a home by a T.C.O. without all the exterior work being complete subject to a defined time period to complete the work. Variance Request: Driveway The property owners have submitted an approved site plan, revised 12/28/00 by Alta Survey Company, Exhibit D. As previously stated the plan removed a portion of the driveway and a paving stone patio. Staff has determined the approved driveway is acceptable to provide access to and from the street and garage. However, the property owners had originally requested a wider drive to allow more space to maneuver a vehicle, and are requesting approval to install the wider driveway. Patio/Steps Secondly, the paving stone patio being requested is a ground level patio located below a patio door. The second issue is how to access the patio door since placing a small stairway with a landing up to the patio door absent the paving stones would also constitute hardcover. Two issues to discuss are the 1) variance to permit a patio and/ or 2) variance to permit hardcover to allow a stair access to the patio door. There would be about a 3-4 foot drop to the ground without a stairway. The State Building Code does not permit patio doors without a safe landing. The City has required the property owners block the door so it cannot be opened more than 4 inches. Without blocking the door the home could not be occupied. Patio Discussion: The natural grade below the patio door has been altered to accommodate a raised area. The grade can be changed in this area by 2 ½ feet. The raised elevation is equivalent to the height of a patio/deck that is permitted without being considered "structure" ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Most of the patio would be closer to the lake shore than the average lakeshore setback line. The code prohibits any patios/decks over 6' in height from being located closer to the lakeshore than adjacent residential buildings. A patio or deck more than 30 inches above the natural grade would #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalfofRobin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variances --Public Hearing Page 2 of 4 constitute an encroachment because the State Building Code requires railings when patios/decks are more than 30 inches above grade. The Building Code requires railings to be 3 ½ in height. The total height of the deck/patio would then be 6 feet. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: "Tennis courts,patios, . decks, and all similar "open" structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6' above grade level, the entire structure shall count towards lot coverage." The City of Orono has interpreted this section of ordinance to include anything that is considered lot coverage or structural coverage to be structure and those structures are not permitted to encroach into the average lakeshore setback. Required Setbacks LR-1 C Front Yard= 30' Side Yard= 10' Lakeshore = 75' Hardship: 1. Approval of a variance would require a hardship be inherent in the land. The fact that there may have been an error in a site plan would not necessarily be an issue with the land. Howeve~, the irregular shape of the lakeshore does have an impact on the property. 2. The City of Orono has been consistent with new construction that lots develop to not exceed allowed limitations for hardcover. The lot has been developed to use all the allowed hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Any additional hardcover would require a variance. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the application based on the Staffs finding that no hardship exists that would allow additional hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Orono has been consistent with new construction that lots develop without requiring variances. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Other action. #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalfofRobin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variances --Public Hearing Page 3 of4 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-1B Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f. (1/2 acre) Actual 33,076 s.f. (.76 acre) Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 33,076 s.f. Allowed: Existing: Hardcover Calculations: Distance from Total area in Allowed shoreline setback hardcover 0-75' 10,516 s.f. 0 s.f. (0%) 75-250' · 22,500 s.f. 5,625 s.f. (25%) * 250 s.f. for a stone paver patio 100 s.f. for expansion of the driveway 350 s.f. additional hardcover #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalfofRobin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variances --Public Hearing Page 4 of 4 4,961 s.f. 4,528 s.f. Existing hardcover 0 s.f. (0%) 5,625 s.f. (25%) Proposed hardcover 0 s.f. * 5,975 s.f. (26.5%) CITY OF ORONO -VARIAN CE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION A - Application # 2 (p s; / Date Received 12 .. h,o/o o Amount Paid $25 0 Site Address 1-{; Cl(.;; l llXLJ I v~·\._L fn,-{'_ __ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) W 11] 2-;~ 2-±D O ?:> 4 '"".'r· . ~ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date P~rcy____Acquired Seol-e mb..e-r { 5-+A I 9 9 9 (month/year) "----.·.•_'.\.. -.f_)t,-,:;,, I (do) ½.-n___91))also own the adjacent parcels of land. -. Present use of property: ,::i__residential __ other (specify) __________ lil'.:,.\ ~t--' Zoning District: __________________________ _ APPLICANT . . 0 . , . Phone (home) l q5-z}bD[-c,;2y \() Name ,5¥rht::t-1. ~~~y ~~-~\ t~t 0 ~d,i.,v4 , L:1\C-;/~hone.~~rkt"0~):}P~: ):{2,~~'7, /., •.. -:. Address: l(,.(J l 2-b'Yl'7Jl,·I. '-\_.L-L \~/1 etc-_~ City: t--:-£ l-Ci:t \ ~ :.Lq1 G\... Zip: -:j:? -:::r~] .~;,.-•-\ i} ~ l8\1 OWNER (if different than applicant) _ Phone (home) ~•/2-'--fDl-f gz,z_ ·>,_;_, "-~ ~~r;,:f;b1m•~t{t~f,J ?fr{m~ TuvJ 13~: :dii~:::tl ~ 12 -~y:,-~~~ : ~£0 ~:;: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constrnction Cost $ ·'2-C:;L-.,o - Describe request in detail: +tccvdt.nve r V/1 VI tci-r1 Cl-lk\ t:k\·C.. ~7 i:;._;,-:z_c::;0 (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: Front Side 7.r;-z. so -r,-_ Haracover Rear _. _Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore __ Other (specify) _______________________ _ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 5-fe. o..+tAc !tt:ecL (attach additional sheets if necessary) 6 December 18, 2000 The Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Variance Request The Bupp Residence 2696 Caroline Ave. STEPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS INCORPORATED Members of the Planning Commission: -- We are asking for a variance from the allowable hardcover of 25% in the 75-250 zone in the following two areas approximately divided as follows: 1. An expansion of the driveway of approximately 100 additional square feet or 0.44% of additional hardcover; 2. The construction of approximately 250 square feet of hardcover paving stone patio, as shown on the registered land survey dated May 10, 2000 and all subsequent "As Built" surveys, or 1. 1 % of additional hardcover. 3. The complete request is for an approximate total of 350 square feet, or 1.54% of additional hardcover. Please be aware that the expansion of the driveway and construction of the patio itemized above would not exceed allowable hardcover in the 75-250 zone were this lot calculated independently from the neighboring lots. At the time of permit application the surveyor and the city staff believed us to be in strict compliance with Orono's hardcover ordinance. Our building permit was approved and issued on June 20th, 2000 and we began construction. In November, at the request of a neighbor, the city again reviewed our survey and hardcover calculations and we were informed that, as our lot is situated on a point, it was necessary to establish the 75' setback line from the ordinary high water elevation even if it required measuring across someone else's adjacent property. (See survey). Unfortunately Alta Survey Company, Inc. had never heard of this requirement and the Orono city staff did not enforce it at the time of permit application. In June it would have been a simple matter to adjust our design to conform. l 0012 GRISTMILL RIDGE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 952-943-8226 ti"-..'.,- -.;_;_: /·~'""~) ~.'.~j \ I / However, in November the house was approximately 90Yc built and we were put in the impossible position of being asked to eliminate hardcover essential to the existing design and clearly shown on our application documents. Hmv can we now be asked to settle for less driveway than our neighbors enjoy and a patio door and stairs that go nowhere? The variance you would be granting is minimal and would have no impact on the lake nor any impact on any neighbors sight line. In fact, if it were not for the shape of the neighbor's lot to the west we would be in complete conformance with the letter of the hardcover ordinance. We have even gone so far as to proYide gutters and drainage swales to the west side of the house and garage to lessen the impact of any roof run off on our neighbors. Obviously we are in conformance with the spirit of the ordinance and we feel it is unfair to hold us to a stricter interpretation than our fellow lake shore owners. Therefore we ask that you recognize the unique situation and hardship that is created by adjacent neighbor's lot and the untimely enforcement of this ordinance and grant us our variance. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Stephen Longman President STEPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS, INC. Minnesota Contractor's License #2166 Homeowners: ~I{ Robin H. Bupp ~ I I I I I I I I I \ I EXIST HOUSE I I I ~o,1-\ .. · 250';-· SETBACK LINE MH ----- \ \ \ \ ~ \' ..J ' x(938.0) \ \ \ \ I l' J ~/ ~ - / /. ·/ / / 1- _j :::) en SCALE 1" = 30' U1 PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS <( o GARAGE FLOOR=951.0 z O TOP FOUND A TION=952.8 0 ~ LOWEST FLOOR= 944.0 I-"- <( (() AREA CALCULATIONS 11 /28/00 ~ LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE OHW) = 33076 S.F. / 0.76 ac ' X 15% = 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRUCT. AREA u" 00 _j ..- 4194 S.F. = 84.5% OF ALLOWABLE ,:f LOT AREA (75-250 SB FROM OHW) = 22500 S.F. X 25% = 5625 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 5614 S.F. PROPOSED = 99% OF ALLOWABLE HOUSE = 4194 S.F. STQOP = 268 S.F. RETAINING WALL = 45 S.F. DRIVE = 1114 S.F. TOTAL = 5614 S.F. 5614 SF / 5625 SF {99 % ALLOWABLE) LOT AREA (<250 SB FROM OHW) = 60 S.F. X 30% = 18 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 9 S.F. PROPOSED = (50% ALLOWABLE) w U) :::) 0 :r: REV AREAS 11-9 REV HOUSE 7/24/00 REV-ASBIL T HSE, HARDCOVER, DRIVE, GRADING 10/6/00 P-tz >-. Pot ~ ~ ~- ?--~~ 0::: 0 ⇒ ZO'.: UJ _o ~- ~ 0~ ~z 0 w A~ ~ Zw E-< <z <: ....J u ~o 1--1 ~~ I=-. -~() E-< 0::: ~(O ~ ~O) u I-:,~ z Q < '-' 3 RE•;'$:~~~ h 1-2'.-99 HC AREi MAR 7,C•O PROP HSI CERT 4/13/00 MAY , 0. i,iOUSE OCT 25, 99 99056 1 C / I I / I I I I / / EXIST HOUSE I I I I 0;i') \? '-- .s...-952--\?b '-':J ~ ~ >i-9':)1-· a~ \ ~~ \ ~'t. \ u' \ \ <-::iP ~9..J I ' ~----~ . ' ----'\ ~-----------'\ OHW 9~9.::.,_ ____ -~ 1s •--- EXIST HOUSE 1- _j ::) OJ SCALE 1" = 30' U) PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS <t: o GARAGE FLOOR=951.0 z: O TOP FOUNDATION=952.8 0 ~ LOWEST FLOOR= 944.0 1-"- AREA CALCULATIONS 11 /28/00 (REV. 12/28/00) LOT AREA (TOT AL ABOVE OHW) = 33076 S.F. / 0.76 ac X 15% = 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRUCT. AREA 4194 S.F. = 84.5% OF ALLOWABLE LOT AREA (75-250 SB FROM OHW) = 22500 S.F. X 25% = 5625 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 5625 S.F. PROPOSED <( c.o u" oS _j w U) ::) 0 :c O..z !>-t 0... ~ ~ ::::> -> o::i~ ~ 0 :::> z~ (/) _o o::i- ~ 0~ ~z 0 w A~ ~ Zw E-< <z < __J u >-iO -~~ ~ -i:-:i::1 () E-< ~ ~ c.o ~ i:-:i::1 O> ·U 1--:, ~ = ~ HOUSE = 4194 S.F. FRONT STOOP = 296 S.F. S~E STOOP&POST=38 SF. PATIO STEP = 6 S.F. RETAINING WALL = 45 S.F. 1 -z;'.:99 HC AR REV AREAS 11-9 M R 7 00 PROP H ERT' 4-/13/00 REV !-':USE 7/24-/00 AY 10 HOUSE DRIVE = 1046 S.F. TOT AL = 5625 S.F. LOT AREA ( <250 SB FROM OHW) = 60 S.F. X 30% = 18 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 9 S.F. PROPOSED = (50% ALLOWABLE) REV-,.!.S81L T HSE, HARD::OVER, DRIVE, GRAD::-.::; 10/6/00 '"' OCT 25, 99 99056 1 D ' '' " ,, ,~; / '~-...#-··· .. ~->~ \:J - ~•'·t?' 1;- ,, ;;J(/f \ ~~-~. ¾ / ·---~ /' ·-----~ 05/20/1908 04:43 KADLEC&ASSOCIATES ....... . January 9, 2001 Mr. Ronald Moorse City of Orono P0box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: 2696 Caroline Ave. Variance Notice -#2651 Dear Mr. Moorsc: by Facsimile & U.S. Mail 61: F As rcsidcnls of llle adjoining lot to the cast al 2726 Caroline, this letter documents our concern regarding the requests for variance to cily ord.uances and the grnntiug of Lemponuy occupa11cy for the building site at 2696 Caroline Ave. Having built a home ourselves in 1988/89, we are very familiar with the city of Orono building ordnances and rules for building on lakcshorc property. The building next door has been riddled wilh issues from tbe beginning. There has been apparent premeditated disreganl uf city ordnances and intent to defraud tbe city and neighbors. Specitically, false house plans and survey documents were submitted to the city for building approval. The house was Llt<m built lo a much larger scale. Having built our home, we arc aware that to build a larger home than the origim1 lly stated foulpriuL, major changes to foundation, the ordering of roof tmsscs, etc. etc., in advance is required. Having the bouse "happen to end up larger" is an impossibility. Disregard for I he hartlc~JVcr rcquircmcnls is just one of several outst;mding issues. To our knowledge a dri:linagc plan bas yet to be submitted, intended violation to the scl back rec:1uiremems exist --two retaining walls have been built and a deck whicl1 is being called a patio. During Lhis entire construction process, the city was made aware of the concerns of the neighborhood. We as well as others, have had to hire outside smvcyors and consultants to recheck the work in progress rather th.in rely on the city 1o monilur iL We bclieve the city has been derelict in its responsibility to protect. us from this sort of fraudulent building activity. We can understand and support requests for variance approval due to "human error'', but this situation was . premeditated and planned with no concern for the neighborhood aud wilh toLal disrespect for tbe ordnances that average residents must adhere to. In July we believe the buildel' stated bis intent •-"You can try and stop me, b\11 T ,1m building as f;ist a:; J Clln. Om.-c il is built, all I have to do is request a variance". It would be of inlcn:sl lo know how mauy times th.is builder routinely requests variances as a convenient after thought.. We will have to live with 1hc rcsul1.o; of this constructiuu fol' the remainder of our residence at our home. It Ji.as uudoublably rc.-:duccd Lhe value of our home. It is obvious to everyone that the building is inappropriate lo the lot 011 which it stands. ll will be a constant 1emi11der of the selective application of the laws and ordnnnces by the City of Orono 05/20/1908 04:43 KADLEC&RSSOCIATES ....... . RonMoorse January 9,2001 Page2 6124717043 P.02 After adhering strictly to 1.hc city ordnances in building our bouse, we feel it is uujusl SJld uuiair lo reward deliberate and premeditated acts of defiance lo tbc rufos by granting variances iHJd temporary occupancy certificates. Respectfully, Cc: Honorable Barbara Peterson Jay Nygard Bob Sansevcrc RUN DATE 12/18/00 BATCH 510 PROP ADDR. OWNER NAME TAXPAYER,· NAME/ADDR I PROP ADDR OWNER NAME · TAXPAYER NAME/~DDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AIJDR 38 20-117-23 24 0~05 02726 CAROLINE-AVE J H KADLEC & :p L BERNHARDT -J H KADLEC & p' L BERNHARDT 2726 CAROLINE AVE . WAYZATA.MN 55391 ,38 . 20-117-23 24 0025 02691 CAROLINE .AVE .THELMA J PULVER THELMA J PULVER 2691.CAROLINE AVE - WAYZATA MN · 55391 ·38 20-111-23'24 .0041 02732 CAROLINE AVE CHARLES & SUSAN PERCIVAL· CHARLES & SUSAN PERCIVAL 2732 CAROLINE AVE · WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 20-117-23"24 0007 · 02715 CAROLINE AVE TM & LB REJZER T & L REJZER 2715 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0033 02690 , CAROLINµ AVE J & J CLEMONS' ·· ,JOSEPH & · JANE CLEMONS .2690 CAROLINE AVES WAYZATA MN 55391' TOTAL BATCH 510 00007 REPORT NO. PI43540l PAGE .30 3~' 20-117-23 24 0013 02700 ETHEL.AVE JULIAS JENSEN JULIA S,Jf:;NSEN· .2700 ETHEL, AVE . WAYZATA NN 55391 ·38 ·20-111-23 24 0034' 026~6 'CAROLINE AVE . JEREMY D BUPP. 'g ROBIN H' BUPP JEREMY D.BUPP & ROBIN H BUPP 19735 CARTWELt HILL SHOREWOOD. MN . · ,5533i ~E~::!~~~Ai~~~ ~~E I~:~!~A;i~~E::N~~\:~:A~~--~~i~~~!~E A~~ i:~ERECORDS OF· THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF·. PROPERTY TAXATION~ TO THE BEST . Of HY KNOWLEDGE ANO BELIEF. ~-(: ~ ' DATE l:j-JC/-tJ(1 ~ ' . ''"1,' .. ,:~--... ~ ' ' ' ) t:)~J;,.' . if,1 , 1,)\ <, 4Ji.~~ fii'·r\ .,~1 ~ 4i :) ') \ ; \tn January 9, 2001 Mr. Ronald Moorse City of Orono PObox66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: 2696 Caroline Ave. Variance Notice -#2651 Dear Mr. Moorse: by Facsimile & U.S. Mail J As residents of the adjoining lot to the east at 2726 Caroline, this letter documents our concern regarding the requests for variance to city ordnances and the granting of temporary occupancy for the building site at 2696 Caroline Ave. Having built a home ourselves in 1988/89, we are very familiar with the city of Orono building ordnances and rules for building on lakeshore property. The building next door has been riddled with issues from the beginning. There has been apparent premeditated disregard of city ordnances and intent to defraud the city and neighbors. Specifically, false house plans and survey documents were submitted to the city for building approval. The house was then built to a much larger scale. Having built our home, we are aware that to build a larger home than the originally stated footprint, major changes to foundation, the ordering of roof trusses, etc. etc., in advance is required. Having the house "happen to end up larger" is an impossibility. Disregard for the hardcover requirements is just one of several outstanding issues. To our knowledge a drainage plan has yet to be submitted, intended violation to the set back requirements exist --two retaining walls have been built and a deck which is being called a patio. During this entire construction process, the city was made aware of the concerns of the neighborhood. We as well as others, have had to hire outside surveyors and consultants to recheck the work in progress rather than rely on the city to monitor it. We believe the city has been derelict in its responsibility to protect us from this sort of fraudulent building activity. We can understand and support requests for variance approval due to "human error", but this situation was premeditated and planned with no concern for the neighborhood and with total disrespect for the ordnances that average residents must adhere to. In July we believe the builder stated his intent -"You can try and stop me, but I am building as fast as I can. Once it is built, all I have to do is request a variance". It would be of interest to know how many times this builder routinely requests variances as a convenient after thought. We will have to live with the results of this construction for the remainder of our residence at our home. It has undoubtably reduced the value of our home. It is obvious to everyone that the building is inappropriate to the lot on which it stands. It will be a constant reminder of the selective application of the laws and ordnances by the City of Orono RonMoorse January 9,2001 Page2 After adhering strictly to the city ordnances in building our house, we feel it is unjust and unfair to reward deliberate and premeditated acts of defiance to the rules by granting variances and temporary occupancy certificates. Respectfully, Cc: Honorable Barbara Peterson Jay Nygard Bob Sansevere C. ,f-y (:;> t (? r'bV\ ~ P-v , f'.sc,>< li Cr-ys-i-o,J {3o..y 1 (YIN' 55 3 :l.3 j & °t / COLro /1.,, C.. Av-t., . I \Na'-( z c>,... f()\_1 /VI IV S" 5' 3 q J a nv..,eA.. _,,. Y s-1 .2. o o I L h~u,:, lt've-J. 0-+ ri 1 ,,.,1 C I Y\ n ~ <.., -, ()AJ.:> i Y1 ~ r[ tfi f\ u_e.., i-OV 2 :5 '/ eavs ' .J 1 YYI e.. n c.. v-et. L ~ w "'--r-e.. v -+-r "" vvi C ~,,.. "" t' vt ~ 0 U,.V-L ""j + h L ~ +-' +-' , , 0 t ,4 lK-,:,. vcJ ~ J-h e,/ 1-/--=. V\ "'-' V"L<-VI "'f-(: D >, v-ny f" o F u+y' \No"'-tJ '/o"°' Fl'-'""-rr-_=k su,~ .+to~+ -1-lA"--wo-.+e• {2,o"'°' +\..<.-'V'O,J hou.,~ b~,I+ 0 .,,+h~ p•o'('"-'-/-{ a_-1-- :). I, C, (,, Co..r O I, .., <-4 ,-<.. d o c, n o + Y "'-'" o h -h> 'CYl '/ I'' b P"' +-y. ../-c.0c ~•+ + ~ /<.-,_ cc~ y m • <-c. u., "--+ e....-o ..-, vv--. y f .--"' r~ .--+ 'l · ·-r:. l)JDLA.LJ y-e...?\..lly ~r'fye,.C:..\.°'+c. 'fDiAlr \-.c:.tr • S-L \r\C....G v---c. l '( '/ o '-'I. r S; _j~]"--P~ \) \I\ \-() S) ~ 0 0 7 > .Q ~ ~ 0 () (;{.. r ~ + -~ u ((1 rl ('(\ 1._i, I..{) > ~ ..... "r ,.J 1:$ -9 ca I- 0 c:fJ ~ ..+ V\ 0 )-- Q..... CJ ··-= ~- -. ..... -~ ~ --~ -...,.. =· .. --- December 28, 2000 Mr. Joseph Clemons 2690 Caroline Avenue Orono, Minnesota 55391 Dear Mr. Clemons: NOTICE OF TRESPASS This letter serves as formal notification to hereby request that you cea's~ \h:spassing onto the property located at 2696 Caroline Avenue. You are further notified that additional attempts to enter this residence shall be considered unlawful entry, and any conduct that tends to intimidate or in any way interferes with our privacy shall be considered actionable. It has been witnessed, by multiple corroborating parties that: 1. On December 13'\ 2000, at approximately 12:15pm, you trespassed onto the property at 2696 Caroline Avenue, entered the house without requesting permission, "stormed" toward and assertively confronted the homeowners wife, Mrs. Robin Bupp. You then commenced to loudly verbally assault her, causing mental anguish and fear for her safety, due to your physical intimidation and verbal behavior. This was witnessed by (3) employees of M.L. Baxley Painting & Decorating, and of Tri-Star Electric. 2. On December 15 th, 2000, we reported this incident to the Orono Police Department. We submitted that you trespassed onto our property, entered a private residence without invitation, and proceeded to intimidate and verbally assault Mrs. Robin Bupp. We further informed the police that on many prior occasions you have trespassed onto this property, "inspected" construction, interfered with work crews, interrupted schedules, caused work stoppages, challenged building permits, and aggressively questioned workers. This trespassing was against the builders and homeowners will, has caused financial detriment, created an environment of fear and discomfort, and violated our privacy. 3. On November 20, 2000, you were notified verbally by Stephen Longman Builders, that you were prohibited from trespassing onto this private property, and warned that continued violation could subject you to arrest. We have also been informed that you were advised by public officials of the City of Orono not to access nor enter the property without specific permission. We consider your conduct justification to file a formal complaint of criminal offense, and bring civil action for both a protective restraining order and an award for damages. This is on the basis of your trespassing, unlawful entry, harassment, and December 13 th assault. We intend to delay any action in hopes that your trespassing, your contempt for us and our private property, and your threatening behavior ceases. We ask that you treat us with a measure of respect, and further hope that as neighbors, we ultimately coexist with civility. CC: Officer Larry Tomcheck, City of Orono Police William S. Dickel, Johnson & Wood, P.A., Attorneys at Law Stephen Longman, Stephen Longman Builders Joel Seltz, Seltz & Seltz, P.A., Attorneys at Law Ronald Moorse/Gary O'Brien/Lyle Oman~/Greg Gapp, City of Orono THOMPSON &THOMPSON Gary A. Thompson• Kay M. Thompson • Real Property Law Specialist Certified by Minnesota State Bar Association BY FACSIMILE AND U.S.MAIL RonMoorse City of Orono P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: 2696 Caroline Avenue LAW OFFICE PLLP 17717 Highway Seven Minnetonka;"MN 55345 December 18, 2000 My Clients: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Clemons File No. 1024-1 Phone 952-474-3221 Fax 952-474-2575 .-~. '.· .. · -' Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on the telephone on December 14th regarding the new construction at the above address. As I indicated, I represent one of the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Clemons. You are aware of their concerns about drainage and hardcover. I understand the city is obtaining its own engineering-:firm' s measurements and calculations regarding the size of the new structure and hardcover components as well as calculating the permitted hardcover. You indicated that I could contact you next week to see if you had obtained those calculations and/or survey drawing accompanying them. The owner's engineer originally submitted a survey and a revised survey showing the lot area was 35,000 square feet. You tell me that engineer has now contacted you amending that calculation down to approximately 33,000 square feet. I will ask you for a copy of that survey drawing showing that certification also. You are aware that the neighbors submitted to you calculations from another consultant showing the lot area to be 31,549.79 square feet. You tell me that your engineering firm has not been asked to compute this lot area. If you do not obtain your own calculation of lot area, you cannot rely on the owner's engineer who first told you first 35,000 square feet and now tells you 33,000 square feet. We would urge you to have your engineering firm determine the lot area to resolve the difference between the numbers that have been submitted to you. Regarding a drainage plan, I note your ordinance requires a formal drainage plan be submitted for protection of the adjoining properties. You said the original building plans submitted had some drainage information on them which the owner asked the city to accept as the drainage plan. Because of the great increase in hardcover on that property, which will now be much closer to the property lines, it is clear that drainage will be a tricky problem. There is not much room between the two houses to carry the significantly increased amount of runoff from the hardcover. To avoid the problems that will surely arise from an inadequate drainage solution, the city must require a more formal engineered drainage plan with specific elevations, contours and sewer piping, if RonMoorse December 18, 2000 Page2 used, so that your building officials and engineers can make a determination of whether the proposed plan will actually be sufficient. The city has a responsibility to sign off on the drainage plan for the protection of the neighboring properties before it is built, rather than waiting to see if a vaguely drafted plan actually works. If it doesn't work, it. becomes a serious problem to the adjoining owners, which should have been avoided by proper design and review by the city. In this case, where the hardcover is greatly increased and moved closer to the adjoining houses, we urge you to take a more formal design and review procedure to this drainage question before the construction is complete. We believe this is a requirement of your ordinances. Regarding the large amount of excavated dirt still remaining on the lake side of the property, we agree that no filling or change of grade can occur within 75 feet of the shoreline pursuant to your ordinance. The amount of dirt remaining is substantial and is more than will be used to backfill around the edge of the house. None of it can be graded down to within 75 feet of the shoreline. Leaving that amount of dirt between the house and the 75 foot line will more substantially affect drainage to the adjoining properties as discussed above. We urged the city to be diligent in monitoring the use of the remaining dirt fill on the property. If the calculations you will receive from your O\,;n engineer agree that the house area already exceeds the 15% allowed for structures, ,ve will look to the city to protect the adjoining owners from that limit being exceeded. The neighbors will also insist that the City enforce the hardcover restrictions with (a) the proper calculation of the lot area and structures, and (b) inclusion in the hardcover numbers the complete roof area, sidewalks, driveways, patios and decks, retaining walls and other areas that do not allow absorption (your ordinance). Finally, the patio under the existing proposal or any revised proposal which lies within the average set back line is a structure under every zoning definition of which I am aware, including your ordinance at Section 10.02, paragraph 69. It is considered part of the house structure or a structure on its own that cannot be built within the average set back line. Your ordinance Section 10.56, paragraph 6 provides exceptions only for stairways, lifts, landings and lock boxes. A patio or deck attached to the principal structure is part of the principal structure and in no way falls within those exceptions. Therefore, building of a patio across the average set back line would require a variance from the set-back requirements. RonMoorse December 18, 2000 Page3 I will contact you during the week of December 18th to see whether you have received updated information which would help settle some of these issues. Thank you much for your ci?;;• matter. ~,{!6mpson GAT/se cc: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Clemons Honorable Gabriel Jabbour Barbara Peterson Jay Nygard Bob Sansevere STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Mary Ann Johnson, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #2651, as mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 4th day of JANUARY, 2001. : !~<-·:~ . . . .·, . : .~~1 ~:.~-~~\r p. -:.:. ·:'~-_;15,• ... _) .... . •-,~ .; = -~ .. ··:.. . -~ _:ff •. "'·. ,· .. · CITY OF OR9NQ.' :'.i)_;:,{.~;. . l, ral!lng above the 30' inu!mum height of tt,e 2750 Kelley Parl,(way, P.O:.B01t'68;: . gues t house. : ·._,,, , ,·:.··' ' Crystal Bay, MN -' 55323 ;·~·'!.,.'1. . · ~. •-'! '. -· '.'- .. _. ;' Phone (952)249~4600 :,.· ·' ',,'. · ·, 6. #2651 Stephen Longman Bullders, • ,, •>·: .,. Fax-(952)249-461 ,6 • . , Inc,, on behalf of. Robin.and Jeremy Bupp, , '. ,, .. , .. · •. , :.·, ~~l', '\: ···:/.>:: (, ·• · .. 2696 (:arolln•J Avenue, request variances •, , .. _·. . ~ ;'}k· ~~j•;.~ '\ 10 permit expar:,s~n of a driveway to 8!!0't¥ ~ .r . .. '.··:<: _.,, 0 -.,-· --':.:,c· ·.,.,.,;,,_:,., .• _ improved mob1llty, and to Install a 15 :X ,17 .. --The Planning · Gom,nlssiori'~:wjll 'h'old ' • patio both ~!thin· the 75~250' lakesh6re P\Jbl.ic"hearings ·in the ,Council ·chambers at ' setback constituting total hardcover of 5 971 2780 Kelley rarkway 'on ,Wednesday;"January •· squareJeet (26.5%) where 5,621 Square O feet 17; 2001, beginning at 6:30 pJn.~ on the (25%) exists and 5,625 s.f. (25%) ls permitted. m~~e~ ~f .reyiewing tJ:le following land us~ · • · '!, · ' ap;-1:f~f ~./s~\::. ::,. :::1;.:"<:,f{ JefF-/ t:\ De~~s 't;3;r!on~ 0 ~7~~ 8 ~oinn•~~h:~:i: ., 1,-.#2646 · John Adams and CleaAltmarr; . Road, requests variances to permit a garage 42~!i ' Chippewa · Lane,. request a variance·;,:~' and entrance addition, and instal_la~on of a to·construct.a new residence on a 4.8 acre : · _pavedwal k'.,and patio to an existing residence p_roperty loca!eil,!n the RFHA zoning district ':• on _a p~operty exceeding the 25% hardcover where· a minimum lot •size ·0 1 5 acres -is ::, ·llm1tatlon in the 75-250' lakeshore setback· requir.e. d for ,new construction.·\, tJ-r '?1. ~ '· '°' ... and a se<:0nd. story_addidO!) ericroachlng ·lnto · ·l'~' •' .tf•, .·. ,: , ·. ,,, .. , ': ;.,;:.;--'·'' _..:. ,_ .. t~.e average .• lakeshore setback .-on ' a ·,2~1'#2647 :. Robert·Zaii ri<fa·37 Rii t ·.-' peninsulalot t~",f·"', ,;., ' · .. _.:,:£,., Point'·. Clrcje.~-reques is 'i •:· arlance-to· .. : ... ~:.·~:: •. ~;: '5'J(i"·'." _:. ,~::,; .·:-:-,;-.,;.::: )'.:.•;,11,, co~s!".uct a ?1 ' X 33' attached garage to the . . 8. #2655 Robert and ~ancy L.ux, 1209 existing ·residence 22 feet from : the north · '. ,. Fren~h _CrHk . Drlv■, reque_st variances to property line where 35' is required : . ... ,· , · permit expansion _of a patio and pool · . · · . ·· · ·· · :· ' · '" structure within the .. 150' setback to French · 3.: · .. #264'8 : Pe ter and Nfcole Thomas ; • Lake where no structure ls permitted., 1385 Oro~o : Lane ;;re_quest·,!f COl'Jd.itio11aJ ..... ) ,1 .,, . · · · · • , .. use . :per.m1t , and varia~ces to permit . '·. 9 . .1 #2658 . Timothy and Amy ~andon, replacement of a retaining wall' constituting '. ~• 1360_ Vine . Pl~ce, requests a vanaoce to hardcpver arid structure within , 75 feet of the ·. · p~rm1t construction of new residence on a ·lot lakeshore where no hardcover or structure ' with a 90 foot lot.width w~r~ 1_40' Is required · are permittec:I and varian'ces · 10 permli ·•. lntheLR-1Bzomngdl9trlct ·}•' ··. -:·, .; · replacement o! a _retaining _~ail :along !h~ "'; ,i ,· · ·11~ '• ·· ,. · ·• .. ; · .. ,,,~:._·,' ·. i: driveway resulting in hardcover.greater tlian ... · All persons wishing to be . l)eard are 25%. . . encouraged to attend 1hls ·meeting. Written ·. ~ -~ :" -. ·-· , .•. __ ... --·... c9mn;,ents . are accepted and, shall . be ,. 4 . #2649 Charles Leekley, has an submitted to the City of Orono by January g · interest in the property located at 1525 Long 2001. Plans are available.in the City Offices'.. Lake Boulevard, ,requests· variances to • For an appointment, please call (952) 24S: permit construction of a two stall detached 4-600· · ' •-,~·• ··' ·· .. ,. - garage within the 50 ', front yard setback • .Ci"'.·or Orono.' '_· .·. < _ :S, :;_._~._·.-./<_._}_<..~;,}_· · replacing ·an existjng one stall detached ·---.. • · ·•· · • garage. By: Planning Commission ·· . 5. #2650 Kirsten and Patrick.Burt~n. J Pa.u l· Weinberger, Zon i ng 2601 Rainey Road, requests a conditional •. Admi ~~tr~to~/Pla~ner~ ' 'I;:: use permit for th e con structlon °1 two dwelling · (·Published in The Lak·e,· a·nd P'1o neer units on a 4.8 acre property In the RR-1 B (2 acre) zoning district, a con'dldonal use perl)lit J!I", 6, 200 1 ). · •· · . -. · · ·.• • . for construction of a 38' cliimney· ·on the principal .dwelling and a variance to exceed allowed building height to permit a 2.5' deck I :·. ..!• ,-·. , Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin . Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath , says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER , Mound, Minnesota , and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as ame nded. B.) The pri nted Land Use Applications which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for 1 successive weeks . It was first published Saturday the _6 __ day of __ J_a_n_u_a_r-""y ___ 20_Q..!__, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the __ day of _______ 20_, M~ zed Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on this 8 :t_h_d_a~-+tyf-""of"""_d:~..:,,..:_JILJ,~-a,LJ.Jm_n"'-)u~a~r~y~~~:::_•2_0_0_1 __ ~ Notary Public KRISTI HOLM NOTARY PUBLIC· MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jij/1 . 31, 2005 Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space : $15.00 per inch . (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15 .00 . (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.73 pe r inch . Each additional successive week: $5.62. RUN DATE 12/18/00 BATCH 510 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME · TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 20-117-23 24 0005 02726 CAROLINE AVE J H KADLEC & PL BERNHARDT J H KADLEC & PL BERNHARDT 2726 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0025 02691 CAROLINE AVE THELMA J PULVER THELMA J PULVER 2691.CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 .0041 02732 CAROLINE AVE CHARLES & SUSAN PERCIVAL CHARLES & SUSAN PERCIVAL 2732 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 24 0007 02715 CAROLINE AVE TM & L_B REJZER T & L REJZER 2715 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0033 02690 CAROLINE AVE J & J CLEMONS JOSEPH & JANE CLEMONS 2690 CAROLINE AVES WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 510 00007 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 30 38 20-117-23 24 0013 02700 ETHEL AVE JULIAS JENSEN JULIAS JENSEN 2700 ETHEL AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 ·20-117-23 24 0034 02696 CAROLINE AVE JEREMY D BUPP & ROBIN H BUPP JEREMY D BUPP & ROBIN H BUPP 19735 CARTWELL HILL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ~ , DATE l?t-JCJt(J w?J&i s.pt'J/uy:-tf l/ . PA1f 11.:-20-(JO ~£W 1-\0USf PLAN • -- DP.JtJIJJ\6f fu,W ___ ,.,_ ---- 012.AllJA,t AlttJ\ BDONVAIU/ 1 JllL itdAOIV'v N SCI\LE l ,'(PA-~tl I I ' -----~ ' --\ ~----\ ------- ---OHW 92~-----~ \ ---.---"' I I II'!"'/~ ~7 \\ ~ \., ,\\ SILT \\ FENCE~ ~ 0 .. , \ >7 ·\ ~~~ \ d) -z_ ~,.. s:.-<J') '=z_ ~'3) -\ >7-Z % '-'F--- >7 . I- SO'~ 0>:~ .. 21 SCALE 1" = afi, (I) PROP.OSED. ELEV A TIONS <( o .GARAGE FLOOR=-951.0 zO . . 'TOP FOUND A TION,,952.8 0 ~ LOWEST FLOOR= 944.0 1-~ <( (0 AREA CALCULATIONS 11 /28/QO 8 ~ LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE OHW) = 33076 S.F. / 0.76 oc _J . X 15% = 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRUCT. AREA 4194 S.F. = 84.5% OF ALLOWABLE · LOT AREA (75-250 SB FROM OHW) = 22500 S.F. X 25% = 5625 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 5614 S.F. PROPOSED"= 99% OF ALLOWABLE HOUSE= 4194 .. S.F. w (/) :::::, 0 . :::c REV ARE;AS 11-9 d~ I ~ ~ .if . n: i,~ c=:!lu .,.f = it;! ~► 6LX ; a~ •. b-.: -· l :,:. &~ ril ~-> p:i~ p::: :::i z~ ('./) ....,o "" §w 0 ~~ w A> ril z--= E--< <~ < 0 :,...~ ~ ~~ e:: µ::iu p::: ~tO ril r,::i 0, 0 ,., tO 5 N ,_ g STOOP = 268 S.F. . RETAINING WALL = 4"5 S.1'". DRIVE= 1114 S.F. tOTAL; = 5614 S.F. REV HOUSE 7/24/00 I MAY 10 """"" REV-ASBILT HSE, 0 ' HARDCOVER, DRIVE, OCT 25• 99 GRADING 10/6/00 PSO.£t1 "'· 5614 Sf / 5625 Sf (99 % ALLOWABLE) LOT AREA ( <256" is-. F-ROM OHW) .;,; 60 s:F: ." X 30% = 18 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 9 S.F. PROPOSED = (50% ALLOWABLE) 99056 St<CTNO. 1 I ·~so I 11-10-06 __ ____,. NE\v 1-\0CASf 1 ► t t'LAW 9(5. 6 -A P AAltJA,f . FLOW N -------.,,, 1 Oft/\lJJMf : ~ All.EA 80£1UPAP-V ', -,,zL· - \~ :t ROIJ>l 'Ow I ( -- © Lt(:,~ L ()Es ci1 fT, orJ i I s-:-v-: :ti,t'i\'The;:land·:referred:: r:o:;=:i•n-1::this: po11cy.:_;i.s.,dsscribed"''.as "t:o.Llclv'S: , . ··~·-·. -.~:. ~. ,.:•r .. w; __ ';-·:·::'1;. ;; .. : ... • .· ~:•:H~:~-:;~i/•1 .. ,·~~;•J'~""' l':,.:~ '•: · . .i-':~\·:ri,l[::··•,•1.\ . .' :~~·,:.·= .. lr.;:~p.· .. ~1!.-:' " .. ·. l .... ·. l . · . '.' : ·,, · _·' LQt: '.'4 :·; che · Hor1;hwesttl/2 ;· of' L6t' 5 ;, :.;hac~·parc:;:.::;f ;~l..Dt:': 3 ·.lying .:Sou~heaet:erl y c-t • I' J ,.-l• •r• ) I,,"·• "1';-.t, '•' • -t '!•~•• ,..,, • ..-, .-,-. ....._ .. ..., ... ,1-._,.... _,,i-•.~. • • -~~•, .. j"'~ t';,• "' ,.. ••• J• .., •' ':' •• • l . :·-'···'.·: .. /::~'a;~;; 'B-· 1·1ne· dra',J,111 .'p~:i:-·~llel,tWi ch·; and "distant:.; 60'~~fee~_.iSoucheastarl v ot':-~che ·:· ': __ · ~:~i~!t-~.i~fir-}YNorthw8si:.erl-~tj-ln'ef!-~/t':'~Ut-~~2~t!a\ndt;ch0eis'am~~ie,.;:fsnd&d'~;:,~· a·ri<f: t:'r.a ~:., pa1h~: of· L0t: i 3 .. ,.,_;,~•J'.'Y.,Ct,' 'I, •.t ... : __: • , __ ....;._...:....~. ~----_,.·-•. ••• ,-:'".~~..o-\i.-!,.<' ••'c.J\.: .~!. -•-:• .. , • .. -..~ • 4-,a., • .,-• ~.., i.•"l •• ~" I••• I ~ \ ' :(~~:::~~-~':'\=~:)~yir)g· ·Norther! y', of.;i.tne·.··south~l."1 ✓, · ~ i_n~.'. cf:,: _Sf!.:Y .. \iNo~~~w,e~ t · l / 1 of .. sa·1.d Lo;: ~ a· f.. .• , ...... ,_!-f •• -........ _ .·. ·.· .• ~, ........ , ... _:..-•·-•···:J-',..•~·-,, .. ···.· ...... , .. :-... ··-·-··~·~····~---· ;::'.~';1:.d{~~;, •'.i so\icheas terl yo;·ot ··::a:•_li::ie:',~rawn~:para 11 e:!1~ !Jii c,:,:j and. c;3t~~l-;it. E-o f e~r._.sc.1;:: ~ : .. , . ;.:1:>'..-.,::~:~:J.· ' . h, : .. -~rl •· ,. ', .. ,. ··1·:. \-·• .'·.,:,.... r:;• -◄,--·· ";;_:(;.,,~·3·•r··:":: -~·:/~"1' .,-.-t.:,-:\:.·:: :.· .. -,,,, .•. :r d -. ·. ·' l · .... .~ .... :.,.:;.;;.:~-:~:':!!~!-Q! t:. e-,.~OitlW~~~er ;/~'..Lln6.,\(?. ~.sal.v:i.t0.,,0 :_~ •.• •, ~-" ... 18:,:.:iaO\e .... x ... ,en eO.·'.'e\.,. :-•;; .. •• ',,·i:/ ::_'·~n··•t::, Wessel fs\ .s~bdi,. visio'iff o.i:;,':spring\rark{Lot~·:.~ .. ::·iccord'i'rig' t::6·;:·:n'e ';.;:i. at"' .. ~her~~f =,,l ; .·;...-; ........... i, .• 'i11#_'· :.• • • :· : ' ·':"",;~''t" ,' .. ··.,-: .... ·:·.· ~ :·· ... ;·=:·'!':::.:·.: -·.::·, . ·--• ; '.. ·.· _:_:_:,·. -~ :._:.. •. .:.. :, ... . . , • .. <;,,!:: ,.·,' >,..,.f11 t! . and of 1·ecord.:Jin ~ the. off ic:() ,of.;•, ~:ie r:,ti;~9i'3C::'e;r:IofF.:.i:.e~ds!. ot .: Hcn.."1ep1n Coun.: •i ,i ll~J~!~J~,'.~:ttlWt~;;Wt~I$tit~i\i/~ Ji~?Jj~l~\;i~Ji~.&l~~;i,1 i:~6\,i;t?#ii/,;.•••:,,,:J·: .. ... ·~ 1~;a.,i~;ri~-'lf"f"1:'''::;;Ji;g1A!.t~.!f{:~~J:Jfh.~.f,;,«;f~~\l!l.!(~•WJ.itfJittf •. './..~.~~ .. 0 :i!Ii~~~(l~~.:mtc ~,r.,!\~•ltaSt~::::::-:1;-.:-:.·;.~.~-· · :,. . • ... ·''.,:·' ~~·;· .:i:•·· · · ; .· "· · ~~':lf':(;;r.;i_.fifr·.A1so"::;that·,,_port:1on'/Qf:;:µnr1amed:al ey:•:wnl··,;:tr•:,1:1es~•4•e.tween:-r.o:s .l, 2. 3, -1 cl'.e J'.'.'.,: . .:.,:••·••••~•; •.!'-'..'r,,~,•M". _~ •.,:_~---:,.•, •. :.. •• O"'tt •• '•• ••• l., • ; 1_• , '• ( • • . " ! , • ;.;_ •••,•.•, •• •,•• _. . •••;•,•;t•• -•1t•.','-•t,"'• l•-• '::~?/tt//:1-::· Nol.··tr .. westerly half:_ ot·'Lot~: 5 ind; ~ha.:'_:·~art of .·Ltit;t23fl:yir'!g-:\,Nor=.nwesce~:.i.;• a:: ;;:.:, , • • ,., • , • • ,. , .' • ,',. •· • 1 ••• ' "· ,_ , .. • l •·•· ·:u {•,.•~• _1 \"\ •• •• '• • " t, ' '. ' '• ; · '.L '. '. ·:·-'. exteil:!1iciri.. $dut;'owaater.ly,_ 0£: c}lQ Souche:a.:rc;ei:ly.~ritje~ofXt:?'fe~ No::-c~weicerl y ha.~ f ~ ,~.:A ..... ·r·· ... ~-...:..--~~--.. ' ... -· ·._ .. : .. _;:·. ·• ;'. ',· ·~:··--·:.,-.. -·-.·· ·;· .---' ,·,: •. ,\:,., ..... t:~·v.,,•~..,,~~·/r-tlJ"•,•\t'"'~· ,-' . ' . \,:p'-·, .. -;: i ... of. Loe S ~ •·wessel' 9·:. Subdiyi11ion't of~,.;£~ ~ing;;Pe.r.k,4-ocs'.;:r}He?"lnepin. Counc.y,1_ ... ·., ;;:~ •· thl~;;f:)i){r.~~:ne.s."t·~\;~#~:¾4i~~4.e.~~·st~iiirfe(tiF-¥1X~~=at~ti?i>1i'~Xt!ti?wfi:~·-·an,f.aist'~1t\;_o re:_;;:;,. ., . feet:·. souchei\ st: er!y:· ~tF:tht:;c_No:::-thwe~::erly · 1 in~ ci'f fgal.d Le-;: '.?',3 and ·t:ne·: sarne ':_::~•· .· · ·' ·: ,;;:::::\r:t;}~;:~r!t~~!'.::::~;;~:5 ;,.,,,:··::;;f tii~~~~tf·F:-.;:, . .· ·.· .·-"··-· -·c -•····'. Registt~red~. ~·~~operty,:?·tJs -~·e_\1 idenced: :by·: Cert:. f ica·fe/6:'\'I'i:: l ~fU,:; .. -: 4 :7 J:.. ,· .. ~- ·• :;;~~~:q?~f Smf ~~Jt~~~JBt~~{'''•:-;o; . : .-'.('ff ~;;;lfu0¥Jil'ii±~!tf';,-~·0EU i\ ·.. , ' ,. __ .:. CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 In accordance with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. 3. 4. 5. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 117 3S-ChoA/ lvel I !hi/ Address <· c)fiovelu D10 o( City /}J;J s-~331 9S?-9o/~Jr22.. State Zip Phone Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 9 SignatureSec.13.04 RIGHTS OF SUBJECTS OF DATA Subdivision 1. Type of data. The rights of individual on whom the data is stored or to be stored shall be as set forth in this section. Subd. 2. Information required to be given individual. An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concerning himself shall be infom1ed of: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system; (b) whether he may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; ( c) any known consequence arising from his supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and ( d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This requirement shall not apply when an individual is asked to supply investigative data, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 5, to a law enforcement officer. The commissioner of revenue may place the notice required under this subdivision in the individual income tax or property tax refund instructions instead of on those forms. Subd. 3. Access to data by individual. Upon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether he is the subject of stored . data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon his further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without any charge to him and, if he desires, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data. After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to him for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. The responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within five days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. If he cannot comply with the request within that time, he shall so inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Subd. 4. Procedure when data is not accurate or complete. An individual may contest the accuracy or completeness of public or private data concern1ng himself. To exercise this right, an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the disagreement. The responsible authority shall within 30 days either: (a) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or (b) notify the individual that he believes the data to be correct. Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual's statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data. The determination of the responsible authority may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the administrative procedure act relating to contested cases. 10