The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutProject PacketJuly 16, 1993 Ms. Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist Minnesota DNR -Metro Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices -Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323--0066 Re: Application #1811 -C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle -Lot Area and Width Variance Dear Ms. Strauss: On July 12th the City Council on a vote of 3 to 2 granted approval for the lot area and width variance request noted above. Per your letter of June 14th, enclosed is a copy of the variance approval resolution including findings and conditions. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have further questions. Michael P. Gaff ron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adm. TELEPHONE -473-7357 • FAX -473-0510 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: C. Jack Remien COPIES: 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 APPLICATION NO. 1811 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 7/16/93 Tom Zappia, Iverson, Berndt & Zappia, Ltd., 941 Hillwind Rd. NE, Suite 301, Fridley, MN 55432 Peter Backman, Leonard, Street & Deinard, Suite 2300, 150 S. Fifth St., Mpls., MN 55402 Gary Nasiedlak, 1910 Shadywood Rd., Wayzata, MN 55391 Dave Truax, 4879 Drake St., Maple Plain, MN 55359 ----------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ----------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 7/12/93 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST ---------------------------------------------------------------- COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION: To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you. Please arrange to sign the 3 original resolution copies at the City Offices (Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolutions. You must apply for and obtain a building permit prior to commencement of construction. (The building permit application is a separate application from the zoning variance or conditional use application.) Variance approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. Permit application must be submitted no later than July 12, 1994. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the City Council. ch To: From: Date: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator July 7, 1993 Subject: #1811 C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle -Variance -Resolution List of Exhibits A -Notice of Council Action 6/30/93 B -Approval Resolution On June 28, Council voted 3-2 to conceptually approve the variance request and direct staff to draft a resolution for formal action. Such a resolution is attached, and I would note the following revisions or additions since the approval resolution contained in the May 19 staff memo: • Findings, Item 6 -The wording is revised to indicate that the City approved a policy change rather than a proposed amendment of the municipal code in December, 1983. • Findings, Item 8 -Since it was brought out during discussions that this 55' wide lot is the same width as at least two other adjacent or nearby lots rather than being 5' short of the narrowest lots in the neighborhood, this finding is revised to correct that statement. • Findings, Item 9 -The introductory sentence is revised to reflect the Planning Commission vote; Subitem B is revised to clarify that sewer and water are available to the property rather than stating the property is served with those utilities. • Findings, Item 10 -Revised to reflect all three previous variances that were granted. • Findings, Item 11-15 -Have been rearranged and/or added. Finding 11 is added to document the City's review process; Item 13 is added to reflect the Council's acceptance of the three specific findings noted by applicant's attorney; and Finding 15 documents Council's vote on June 28, 1993. Pursuant to the request from the DNR in its June 14 letter, staff will forward a copy of this resolution to the DNR within ten days. At this time, we do not anticipate further action on this matter by the DNR. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. Motion: Moved by __ , seconded __ , to adopt Resolution No. __ approving lot width and lot area variances for C. Jack Remien at 3237 Casco Circle. Vote: __ Ayes, __ Nays. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. 1811 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 6/30/93 ---------------------------------------------------- TO: C. Jack Remien COPIES: 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 ------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 6/28/93 Tom Zappia, Iverson, Berndt & Zappia, Ltd., 941 Hillwind Rd. NE, Suite 301, Fridley, MN 55432 Peter Backman, Leonard, Street & Deinard, Suite 2300, 150 S. Fifth St., Mpls., MN 55402 Gary Nasiedlak, 1910 Shadywood Rd., Wayzata, MN 55391 Dave Truax, 4879 Drake St., Maple Plain, MN 55359 VOTE: 3 FOR 2 AGAINST --------------------------------------------------- COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION: To conceptually approve lot area and width variances, directing staff to draft a resolution for formal action at the Council's July 12th meeting. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council, Monday, July 12, 1993; meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. This item will be placed on the Council's consent agenda, and is anticipated to be acted upon at the beginning of the meeting with other items. However, applicant should plan on being present at the beginning of that meeting in case the application is removed from the consent agenda for questions. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the City Council. ch A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE NO. 1811 WHEREAS, C. Jack Remien (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3237 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 18, Spring Park, also all the land including the vacated highway, Lake Shore Drive, lying between the Northeasterly line of said lot and the shore of Lake Minnetonka and between the Northwesterly and Southeasterly lies of said Lot 18 extended Northeasterly to said lake shore, and being part of Government Lot 6, Section 20, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, and also indicated on the plat of said Spring Park (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property that is 16,748 square feet in area or 77% of the minimum area required of 21,780 square feet or half acre and the width of the property is 55 feet or 55 % of the required 100 feet of lot width. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1811. 2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property was in common ownership with contiguous Lots 16 and 17, Spring Park prior to 1967 through 1977. Lots 16 and 17 are now legally combined. The property is now in common ownership with Lot 19. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (1) of the Municipal Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided a lot of record meets 80 % of the required lot area and lot width and has municipal sewer available. Page 1 of 6 5. Prior to December 19, 1983, the City Council always required that when two or more lots were owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. 6. Upon completion of a 6 month City wide review of the common ownership issue, on December 19, 1983, the City approved a policy change to permit all substandard undeveloped lots within the sewered areas of the City regardless of the ownership of these lots, the same standards for review. 7. The property is 16,748 square feet or 77% of the required area. The property is consistent in area with 7 other developed lots within a total developed neighborhood of 33 lots. 8. The property measures 55 feet in lot width, identical in width to two neighboring developed lots but narrower than the majority of lots in the 33 lot Casco Circle neighborhood. 9. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 19, 1993 and on a vote of 3-2 recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following findings: A. No available land -lots are developed on both sides of property. B. Sewer and water are available to the property. C. A house and improvements can be constructed without the need for additional variances. D. By granting this variance there will be no negative effect on the public health, safety and welfare. E. By granting this variance it is consistent with the development of the area. F. By granting this variance there should be no need for future hardcover and setback variances. Page 2 of 6 G. The special conditions applying to the parcel of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. H. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. I. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. J. The granting of the proposed variances will not in anyway impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. K. That the granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 10. This application is a renewal of variances granted on February 27, 1984, January 13, 1986 and February 9, 1987, and the findings stated in those approval resolutions (No's. 1607, 1904 and 2123 respectively) were acceptable at the time they were adopted and are still valid. 11. A public hearing was held pursuant to proper legal notice by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1993 at which time all parties wishing to speak regarding the application were heard. Further, at City Council meetings on May 24, June 14 and June 28, 1993 all persons present wishing to comment on the matter were heard, and their comments are a matter of record in the official City Council minutes. Further, the City Council in reaching its decision has taken into account written submittals by the applicant, applicant's neighbors, the attorneys for the applicant and applicant's neighbors, and other parties with interest in the matter. 12. 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 other parties and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3 of 6 13. The City Council finds that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use unless the variance is granted, and that use of the property as additional yard is not a reasonable use given applicant's reliance when he purchased the property that it constituted a buildable lot as evidenced by three prior variance approvals. The City Council finds that the applicant's situation is due to unique circumstances not created by the landowner, and that applicant's purchase of the property while applicant owned the adjacent developed lot does not place applicant in the position of being required to adhere to a higher standard of review as compared to an owner of the property who does not own adjacent developed land. Further, the Council finds that there are other similar sized lots in the locality that have been developed, that development of the property will be required to adhere to the same setback standards that apply to other properties in the area, and that construction of a single family residence on the property will not alter the essential character of the locality. 14. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 15. On June 28, 1993 the City Council on a vote of 3 ayes and 2 nays granted conceptual approval for the variance request and directed staff to draft a resolution of approval. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property 16,748 square feet in area or 77% of the required 21,780 square feet (1/2 acre) and with a lot width of 55 feet or 55% of the required 100 feet of lot width, subject to the following conditions: 1. The detached garage located within the right-of-way of Casco Circle is a non conforming structure and subject to all pertinent municipal ordinances for non conforming structures. Page 4 of 6 2. The only variances granted with this approval are lot area and lot width. No other variances are granted. 3. Applicant is hereby advised that in approving the development of this substandard property that all future improvements must meet the current standards of the code and that a future Council might not approve any improvement to the property that requires a variance. 4. Applicant shall pay the appropriate water unit charge and sewer connection fees at the time that the building permit is issued. 5. The property owner shall bear all costs of connection to the municipal sewer and water, including the installation of new stubs to serve the property, if required. 6. An easement must be granted in favor of 3241 Casco Circle over the portion of the sewer line which lies within the subject property, 3237 Casco Circle. The easement area must be of sufficient size to allow maintenance of the sewer line. 7. Side, street, and lakeshore setbacks are approved per the attached survey (Exhibit A). 8. As part of the normal building permit procedure, applicant shall provide a grading and drainage plan for the property. 9. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, 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 (July 12, 1994). 10. 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. 11. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 5 of 6 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of July, 1993. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner ( s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of July, 1993 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 6 0 0 o,.,, Sen la 1 tn tA, 0 I ~o 1 11 = /~O• 6-17-nJ Iron nY'. rkt• r EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. '"- ---- -..... . -·.,. I,-~ . " , . . •/ /.' /'? ,,,·/;;·i ebi• cortify t.h, t. lh\•, ,,, son ta tion o a ourvgy pf l 11,, , is\ ~\!~nd nortr~ t 1·<> 1-1·•1 ,, ,,, boundarfen of Lo 18, Spri nK I'•, r\:, ······ . ', . •,.· .. the location o!.' 1111 e st.in~ b\dld\111:11 the r(lon, and tho pro poso<l lo en t, t,1 11 c-r a proposed building. It donn n,,t. 1-.,::,-• port to ahov othr.ir 1repr-ov1)11.,.,,i1 •1 nr encroachroonts. D m_ ~ ~101:rn ~ IT{"o,· ·uHONO GOROON R. COFFIN CO., ING, ,a__~,/ d_ ~~-----Gordon ll, Coffin nag, No, 6t•l)/1 J.-\rlrk S. Cronoorg Ref;, No,1?755 1.;tn<l Surveyors nnd PlAIUhHn Lon~ Lcii<e, HinM£1otJl #761 r • MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Hurr reported the LMCD adopted the proposed qudget at their meeting on Wednesday. They did reduce the amount in their reserve fund to 6 months operating expenses, and the rates wi 11 increase to cities. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. (*#3) #1734 JOHN BURGER, 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD - FINAL SUBDIVISION -RESOLUTION #3294 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded . by Mayor Ca I I ahan, to Reso I ut ion #3294 for App I i cation #1734 for John Burger, Bayside Road, approving final subdivision. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#4) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE -VARIANCE Mr. Remien was present. adopt 3750 Mayor Callahan referred to a letter from Gary Nasiedlek, the only new Item since the last meeting. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to approve App I i cation #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, for lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence. Jabbour apologized for not attending the last meeting. He reviewed approximately 5 years ago the Counci I changed the pol icy regarding lots owned in common ownership. He stated he personally does not want higher density, but a I so does not want to force peop I e to develop lots so they do not lose the right to do so. Mayor Callahan clarified that Mr. Nasiedlek's letter infers that if the I ot be I onged to anyone e I se but Rem i en, it cou Id be bu i It upon with variance approval. Mabusth stated that the rights of someone else are no different than Mr. Remien's with respect to this lot. Both would need variance approval to develop. She stated the pol icy change intended that ownership of lots not be considered with regard to development of a property. 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. Vote: Ayes 3, nays 2, Mayor Callahan and Kelley voted nay. Motion carried. (#5) #1825 THOMAS L. MCCARTHY, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD -PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Thomas McCarthy and Mark Gronberg were present. Mabusth referred to a plat map of the area indicating only one other lot large enough to possible be subdivided. She reminded them of the Hepp application, in the same neighborhood, which was denied because of an existing easement area that had to be deducted from the total acreage. The new shoreland regulations allow for flag lots to be developed. The applicant is now proposing a 9.6' wide drive in the 250-500' zone meeting the al lowed 30% hardcover. Jabbour questioned whether the drive wou Id be wide enough for emergency vehicles. Mayor Callahan clarified that the shoreland regulations were an overlay of existing ordinances, and therefore the flag lot could sti I I not be approved. Gaffron explained with the adoption of _de f i n I t i on of meas u r i n g I o t w i d t h was chapter. the new changed ordinance, the for the entire Cook noted the road is only necessary to.be wider for emergency vehicles. He stated the road could easily be widened in the future even if approved at the narrower width. Hurr questioned the minimum standards for a private road. Gaffron replied a private road is required to be 28' wide when serving 7 or more residences. Mabusth stated there are parts of Shorehi I Is Road that are only 10 1/2' wide. Gronberg stated the Long Lake Fire Department has indicated most trucks measure 7.8' across the wheel base, and the largest truck they have is 8.1 '. Jabbour felt they were obi igated to consider public safety. 3 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. 1811 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 6/17/93 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: C. Jack Remien COPIES: 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Tom Zappia, Iverson, Berndt & Zappia, Ltd., 941 Hillwind Rd. NE, Suite 301, Fridley, MN 55432 Peter Backman, Leonard, Street & Deinard, Suite 2300, 150 S. Fifth St., Mpls., MN 55402 Gary Nasiedlak, 1910 Shadywood Rd., Wayzata, MN 55391 Kevin Staunton, Popham, Haik etc., 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower, 222 Ninth St. S., Mpls., MN 55402 Dave Truax, 4879 Drake St., Maple Plain, MN 55359 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 6/14/93 VOTE: See below --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION: Motion to approve failed on a 2 to 2 vote. Motion to table passed on a vote of 3 to 1, tabling this item until the June 28th meeting at which a full five member council is anticipated to be present. Enclosed please find a copy of the letter submitted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, which was distributed to Council at the June 14th meeting. This item will be placed on the June 28th Council agenda. That meeting starts at 7:30 p.m., at the Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. ch PHONE NO. STATE OF ~~rn~©u£ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS -lZOO WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 551~[ENO. 772-7910 June 14, 1993 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth city of Orono P.O. Box 66 crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 RE: APPLICATION #1811, C. JACK REMEIN (3237 CASCO CIRCLE), LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR LOT HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP, LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133, #9), CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNT~ Dear Ms. Mabusth: The purpose of this letter is to clarify points discussed in my correspondence of May 17, 1993. In that letter I noted that the city's ordinance requires contiguous substandard lots to be combined if they are under the same ownership. The lot in question for variance application request #1811 has a substandard width and is under the same ownership as the adjacent lot. Therefore, the city's ordinance requires that the lots be combined. I also noted that in order for the city to grant a variance that hardship must be demonstrated. Bill Clapp, of the Attorney General's Office, and I have had follow-up discussions regarding this matter ·and· felt further clarification was required regarding hardship. Based on the. information we have reviewed for this case, hardship does not appear to have been demonstrated. Hardship must be demonstrated to justify approval of a variance request. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: A. B. c. o. The proposed use is reasonable. It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns" and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. is due to peculiar homes in The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance circumstances unique to the property, such as topography. ·If the problem is common to a nt.11nber of the area, it is not considered unique. The problem must not be created by the landowner. E. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality, AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Jeanne Ma~usth June 14, 1993 Page 2 i:rhe courts have said that the applicant has a "heavy burden of proof" to show that all the. pre.requisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to ba used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. i:rhe Department should be advised of the action taken en this · request within 10 days of final action and copies of the official record should be forwarded to this office if the variance request is not denied. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, CJ~ Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Bill Clapp, Attorney General's Office Tom Zappia Peter Bachman City of Orono Shoreland File MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1737 -CONT. Mabusth answered the agent has contacted the City and has been shown the entire f i I e. She reported the gazebo, deck and deck above the boat house have been dismantled and need to be removed. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to approve the request for Application #1737 for Richard Ho! lander, 680 North Arm Drive, for a 60 day extension to the dead I ine date for removal of hardcover, subject to an agreement being signed within 10 days from this meeting and a Letter of Credit for 150% of the improvements be submitted to the City, and failure to provide such wi 11 result in the City enforcing the conditions of the original approving resolution. Ayes 3, nays 0. (#4) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE -VARIANCE Mayor Callahan asked the City Attorney to summarize the position of the attorney's of the competing parties. Staunton reported the Counc i I has broad discretion to grant or deny variances but they are required to articulate reasons from evidence as presented in doing so. Undue hardship must be present to approve a variance. He reviewed the many relevant facts presented by both sides, and said the Counc i I needs to dee i de a reasonab I e use of the property, and based on the information presented Counc i I has the discretion to either deny or approve. Mayor Ca I I ahan c I ar if i ed that the app Ii cant has a heavy burden to show hardship. Remien began by stating he has discussed the issue with several Counci I members who asked his intent in purchasing the property. He stated he purchased the property with the intent to add on to his existing residence, but always felt .if those plans changed, the lot could be sold as a bui I dab le lot. He referred to Mr. Bachman's letter which infers he wi 11 realize financial gain. He asked if it is a prerequisite that something must be gained from the approval of a variance, or is the purpose merely to prevent negative impact. He referred to the comment in the letter stating the development o f t h i s I o t w i I I have a n e g at i v e a f f e c t on t h e La k-e and s t at e d every bu i Id i ng has that same negative . affect, and he fe It this would be beneficial because it would provide a new structure on the lake versus old dilapidated bui I dings. He added, with the new residence the old shed and sidewalk leading to the Bielkes house would be removed. He said as a resident of Casco Circle, he sees a benefit to al lowing this lot to be developed. 3 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. Remien pointed out that Bielke claims that he wi 11 realize a substantial loss in property value if the variance is approved and asked to see a purchase agreement Indicating the value has decreased because of said variance. Thomas Zappia, app I i cant's attorney, asked the Counc i I to review the chronological order of events to find hardship. He stated when the Bielkes purchased their property, a variance had been granted for this vacant lot. He said if the lot were not owned in common, there would be no other reasonable use of the property. Mr. Bielke stated the benefit is greater to Remien if the property is combined and then sold, and added Remien has already attempted to sel I as a whole. Peter Bachman, Bielkes' attorney, stated that Zappia's letter does not present any new facts, and referred to a letter from the DNR indicating opposition to the variance. He reiterated that Remien opposed the variance prior to his owning the property, purchased the property knowing it was an unbuildable lot with an expired variance, and purchased the property with the intent to add onto his existing residence. Gary Nasledlek, potential buyer of the lot, stated he believes the hardship is the fact that they purchased the property based on the information and recommendation of staff. He referred to a pol icy change which requires the City to consider all commonly owned parce Is ind iv i dua I I y. He said they have purchased the property contingent upon variance approva I, and this contingency affects other buyers. Ke I I ey referred to the staff finding that the property was not. assessed individually for sewer and water. He felt the applicant has not presented adequate hardship. Gaffron explained Lots 16, 17 and 18 were commonly owned and assessed for one sewer and water unit at the ti me those ut i I it i es were i nsta I I ed on casco Point. The as-bu i It maps indicate the three parcels were considered by the City or its engineer as one existing bui I ding site. Lots 16 and 17 contained the residence now owned by the Bielkes. The sewer stub on Lot 18 is the only stub provided for the group of 3 lots and was used for the Bielke house as that was probably the most I ikely location for easy connection due to.site topography, etc. He stated the facts have changed as ownership has changed and felt that just because additional sewer and water units were not originally assessed does not mean that it was formally 4 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. determined to be unbui ldable at the time, but merely reflected the City code at the time. He noted that a variance review had not been applied for nor completed at the time. Goetten stated she appreciates the difficult position of both parties, but added her position has not changed, that being that previous approval was based on hardship, and in good faith the Counci I must grant the variance. She felt the development of this property would be consistent with that of the neighborhood. Hurr agreed that the property is very consistent with surrounding properties. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to approve Application #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, granting a variance renewal for the construction of a new residence. Mayor Callahan stated he has difficulty finding a hardship to grant the variance as he feels using the property as lawn a reasonable use of the land. He said larger lots typically on the lake are more des i reab I e, and wou Id f ac i Ii tate expansion of the existing house in the future. He said he was troubled by the comings and goings of the variance, and agreed a hardship must be found at this point to approve the variance and not Just base it on past practice. He thought perhaps the previous renewal variances were granted due to the lack of objection at that point. Kelley stated they just approved a variance that evening based on no add it i ona I I and ava i I ab I e to expand. He hoped they cou Id prohibit such on other lots by maintaining a minimum standard. He noted that as an elected official, he has individual thoughts, which may or may not be in agreement with past Counci I action. Huri questioned the assessed value. Remien replied the valuation is $57,000. Hurr reiterated the development of this lot is consistent with the neighborhood, and the value would suggest it is a bui ldable lot. Kelley felt the issue of assessed value was not quantifiable. Rem i en questioned why the Counc i I chooses to established in 1983 to deal with commonly individual merits. 5 ignore owned the P.O I icy parcels on MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. Mayor Callahan rep I ied the Counci I is trying to determine if there is justifiable hardship to approve the variance. Vote: Ayes 2, nays 2. Mayor Callahan and Kelley v6ted nay. Motion fa i I ed. It was moved by Mayor Ca I I ahan, seconded by Ke I I ey, to tab I e Application #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, until all Counci I members can be present. Hurr felt by tabling action, they were placing undue hardship on the potential buyers and sellers involved with this situation. Vote: Ayes 3, nays 1. Hurr voted nay. Motion carried. (#5) #1820 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, NORTH ARM ACCESS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT It was moved by Mayor Ca I I ahan, seconded by Ke I I ey, to tab I e App I i cation #1820 for Hennepin County Department of Env i ronmenta I Management, at the request of the applicant. Ayes 3, nays O. (#6) #1822 MARK PRUETER, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD -VARIANCES -RESOLUTION #3287 Mr. Prueter was present. Mabusth explained the applicant proposes an 18x26' addition to the rear of the existing residence and a sma I I er 15x1 O. 6' I akes i de deck in exchange for the removal of existing sidewalks on the west side of the house, pavement areas, replacement of steps and a 19x15' lakeside deck. The proposal has minimumal impact on the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has expressed concern about removal of the existing wooden walk to the rear needed to traverse a low area of the property. It has been noted that a hydrant exists to the rear of the property for emergency use. ·Prueter requ~sted that Condition #1 of the resolution be amended to postpone the removals unti I the completion of the project. Ke I I ey inquired about neighbors' response. Mabusth noted the applicant has discussed the plan with neighbors and there have been no objections. 6 TO: Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: June 25, 1993 SUBJECT: #1811 C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle -Variance -Continuation of Review List of Exhibits B -Notice of Council Action 6/ 17 /93 C -Letter Received from DNR 6/14/93 D -Memo and Exhibits of 6/ 10/93 This item was tabled at the June 14th meeting on a vote of 3-1, after a motion to approve failed on a vote of 2-2. The intent of the tabling was so this item would be brought back when the entire five member Council would be present. Exhibit C is the letter from the DNR distributed at the June 14th meeting. The only additional submittal received is a memo (Exhibit A) from Mr. Nasiedlak who is purchaser of the vacant lot. Staff Recommendation If Council accepts the applicant's hardship statements as sufficient grounds for granting of the requested lot area and width variances, then Council could grant variance approval. A resolution incorporating these additional hardships would be presented for final action at your July 12th meeting. Conversely, if Council finds insufficient grounds for approval, staff would draft a denial resolution for formal action on July 12th. ch m1' Date: Wednesday , June 23 , 1993 To: •• ,., 1 ~ From: Mayor Callahan and Orono City Council Members Gary N asiedlak rJU tf 2 2 "1993 Subject: Variance for property located at 3237 Casco Circle (Remien Lot) Although much has been said already about the subject property , I believe a few comments are in order: Can one person be denied the right to do something if all other individuals have that right? If Jack Remien is denied this variance , he would be denied the right of any other citizen - that of qualifying for the variance under Orono's hardship ordinances. This in itself is an undue hardship for Mr. Remien. The June 14, 1993 DNR letter mentioned that the proposed use be reasonable. Is it unreasonable to ask for a variance to build a single family home similar to homes on other properties within the area? This is no more unreasonable than the vacant lot proposed by Mr. Bachman. In fact , the vacant lot is more unreasonable than a property put to use as a homestead. A single-family dwelling built on this lot would be nothing more than what other residents on similar-sized lots in the neighborhood already have. The proposed use of this property is reasonable . A reasonable use is not vacant land. We cannot rely on the words contained in DNR's letter that states that hardship does not appear to have been demonstrated , since we do not know what information Mr. Bachman provided to the DNR. 1he plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Jack Re mien was aware of three previous variances on this lot. If he had been the new purchaser of this property three months ago , as I was, he would have contacted the city of Orono regarding this property, and just as they had stated in the past three variances, Orono staff would have led him to believe that this lot would receive a variance and be buildable. Never had Orono expressed the possibility that the lot may not be buildable. Since Orono's Planning and Zoning staff has previously recommended and the City Council has approved of the buildability of the Remien lot within Orono's guidelines , then the radical turnabout of the Council's position , not the landowner, created the hardship. Consequently , Mr. Bachman's argument -that when a variance applicant purchases the property with actual or constructive notice of the zoning ordinances' restrictions then the applicant's hardship is self-created and does not constitute undue hardship -is incorrect. Jack Remien used the correct procedure in applying for this variance. Mr. Remien had other options. He could have: --Sold the property to me under contract for deed and let me apply for the variance. --Given title to the lot to his ex-wife; the lot in separate ownership would then have been entitled to the variance under the hardship ordinance. But, Mr. Re mien and I chose to rely on Orono's Planning and Zoning staffs guidance in obtaining a variance for what we were led to believe was a buildable lot. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential characteristic of the locality. Mr. Bachman' s analysis referred to the May 24 City Council meeting where neighbors presented testimony on how a new home would effect the neighborhood's character. What Mr. Bachman neglected to point out was that most of the objecting neighbors live in nice homes that are built on lots similar in size to the Remien lot. The essential characteristics of a neighborhood will not be altered by a new home built on a lot essentially the same size as many other lots in the neighborhood. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Mr. Bachman' s analysis relied on his belief that there are no special conditions which specifically apply to lot 18 and distinguish it fr.om other property. I disagree. This property is quite distinguishable from the other similar-sized properties in the neighborhood since the other properties contain homes, while the Remien lot is void of any structure with the exception of an aesthetically unappealing garage. We are asking only for what others in the neighborhood have already done, and what alf others could do, except for Mr. Remien. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. This hardship is not created by the landowner. Mr. Re mien and I relied completely on Orono's staff when they told us what Orono's building restrictions were regarding the subject property. We believed the lot was buildable, and we acted upon the city's recommendations regarding the ordinances and restrictions pertaining to the lot. A substantial property right of the applicant will be denied if this variance is not approved, because any citizen who owns this lot, with the exception of Jack Remien, could apply for and be granted this variance. Therefore, in conclusion, I believe a hardship exists when an individual is denied what all other individuals would be granted. I hope you will thoughtfully consider the above statements, and grant the variance. casco3 .wpd CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, :MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. 1811 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 6/17/93 ----------------------------------------------------------------------·---------------------------- TO: C. Jack Remien COPIES: 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Tom Zappia, Iverson, Berndt & Zappia, Ltd., 941 Hillwind Rd. NE, Suite 301, Fridley, MN 55432 Peter Backman, Leonard, Street & Deinard, Suite 2300, 150 S. Fifth St., Mpls., MN 55402 Gary Nasiedlak, 1910 Shadywood Rd., Wayzata, MN 55391 Kevin Staunton, Popham, Haik etc., 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower, 222 Ninth St. S., Mpls., MN 55402 Dave Truax, 4879 Drake St., Maple Plain, MN 55359 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 6/14/93 VOTE: See below ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION: Motion to approve failed on a 2 to 2 vote. Motion to table passed on a vote of 3 to 1, tabling this item until the June 28th meeting at which a full five member council is anticipated to be present. Enclosed please find a copy of the letter submitted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, which was distributed to Council at the June 14th meeting. This item will be placed on the June 28th Council agenda. That meeting starts at 7:30 p.m., at the Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. ch STATE OF ffaD [AD rn ~ © rlJ ~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NO. METRO WATERS -12.00 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 5519=[ENO. 772-7910 June 14, 1993 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth city of Orono J?.O. Box 66 crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 RE: APPLICATION #1811, C. JACK REMEIN (3237 CASCO CIRCLE), LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR LOT HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP, LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133, #9), CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Ms. Mabusth: The purpose of this letter is to clarify points discussed in my correspondence of May 17, 1993. In that letter I noted that the city's ordinance requires contiguous substandard lots to be combined if they are under the same ownership. The lot in question for variance application request #1811 has a substandard width and is under the same ownership as the adjacent lot. Therefore, the city's ordinance requires that the lots be combined. 1 also noted that in order for the city to grant a variance that hardship must be demonstrated. Bill Clapp, of the Attorney General I s Office, and I have had follow-up discussions regarding this matter and· felt further clarification was required regarding hardship. Based on the. information we have reviewed for this case, hardship does not appear to have been demonstrated. Hardship must be demonstrated to justify approval of a variance request. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: A. B. c. o. The proposed use is reasonable. It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns" and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. ·If th~ problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. The problem must not be created by the landowner. E. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E:MPLOYER - Ms. Jeanne Mabusth June 14, 1.993 Page 2 The courts have said that the applicant has a "heavy burden of proof" to show that all the pre.requisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to ba used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. The Department should be advised of the action taken on this · request within 10 days of final action and copies of the official record should be forwarded to this office if the variance request is not denied. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any quastions regarding these comments. Sincerely, CJ ~ Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Bill Clapp, Attorney General's Office Tom Zappia Peter Bachman City of Orono Shoreland File TO: Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: June 10, 1993 SUBJECT: #1811 C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle -Variance Renewal -Continuation of Review List of Exhibits A -Letter from Remien's Attorney 6/4/93 B -Memo from Gary Nasiedlak (Buyer of Lot 18) 6/8/93 C -Letter from Bielke's Attorney 6/9/93 D -Notice of Council Action 5/27/93 E -Staff Memo 5/27/93 Re: Sewer/Water Assessment F -Section 10.08, Subd. 3 Re: Issuance of Variances G -Excerpt from State Statutes Re: Variances H -Memo and Exhibits of 5/19/93 Please read the attached letter from the applicant's attorney (Exhibit A) regarding hardship. To summarize, the letter provides a rationale to conclude that (1) the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without a variance, i.e. the use of the lot as additional yard, is not a reasonable use, and (2) the fact that Mr. Remien did not do anything to create the situation, and (3) constructing a new residence on the lot will not alter the essential character of the locality. Gary Nasiedlak, who is buying Lot 18 from Remien, has submitted a memo (Exhibit B) relating his position. Peter Bachman, attorney for the Bielke's, has submitted a letter responding to Exhibit A (Exhibit C). Also please review the sewer and water assessment memo (Exhibit E) which Council should have received in the mail previously. That memo concludes that Lot 18 was assessed footage for sewer and water, but no units. The basis for that assessment was a review of code standards and City policy at the time of assessment, but was not the result of a formal variance/lot buildability review. Sewer and water is available to the property and connection to sewer and water is feasible. If the variance is approved, the property owner would have to pay sewer and water connection charges and bear the cost of installing sewer and water stubs. Also attached are sections of the Orono code and state statutes regarding the question of "undue hardship". Zoning File #1811 June 10, 1993 Page 2 Staff Recommendation If Council accepts the applicant's hardship statement as sufficient grounds for granting of the requested lot area and width variances, then Council could grant variance approval. A resolution incorporating these additional hardships would be presented as a consent agenda item at your June 28th meeting. Conversely, if Council finds insufficient grounds for approval, staff would draft a denial resolution for formal action on June 28th. ch '••1·: ,: , I• •;!•I·--•-I• I II '. ; .. ; ' !_.;!•,!•'• .• I . ~ •.••• I • I I I '·' •·· ,, : ... ....,....-~1~7~:3=0 ID: IlJERSON BERNDT&ZAPPI TEL N0:_612 571-7734 JUne 4, 1993 IDT BY ~U -334-8888 Ml:'. Kevin p. Staunton M•• Karen Cole Popham, Haik, sohnob~ich & Kaufman, Ltd. J300 Piper Jaffray Tower 22~ Soutll 9th S~reet Minneapolis, MN 55402 l:f129 P02 - U: OUr Client: c. aack ~emien-3237 Casco Circle (11R&mien Lot.") Orono Zoning File N~. 1811 our Pilo No. 13193 Dear Mr. stauntoa a~d Ms. Cole: I would like to addr@s$ the issue of "undue hardship• as it relates to the Application tcr the Variance tor tha R•m1en Lot. it appeared trom the city Council meet.ing of May 24, 199~, that the c~unoil wos unwilling to grant the requested variance in the a~~en~e of a speei!1¢ fi~dins of W1due hardahip. First, it is again important to identify the three eleJ11Gnts necessary under Min~esota Law to establish an undu•·ha.rdahip: 1. Tha property in question cannot te put to a reasonable uae without the variance. 2. Tha situation of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to tha property Plnd not created by the land.owner. 3. ~he varianoe, if granted, wil1_het. alte~ the essential character of the loeality. The•• are the elements as identified in tove1l x, P91E4 or M1MIMIA~ 2, the city of Koorb•ad, 446 N.W.2d 917, 922 (-inn. ~pp. 1989). The staff Report of May 27, 1~93 ccn£irms the fOllowinq fact• which arQ rQlevant to the undue hardship i~•u•: I.IV I.I I ._,, •-' . JUN-04-'93 FRl 17:31 ID:Iui;:~s □N BERNDT&ZAPPI TEL NO:612 571-7734 ----=-..--··''"' ' lH28 P03 Mr. Kevin Staunton M1. Kelren Cole Juna 4, 1993 page 2 1. 3ack Remian purehaaed Lot 1~ wh•~• hia ho•• ia 1oaatad in 1974, 2. 3aek Remien purohased Lot 18 (the R.emien Let) in 1989. 3. The Remien tot h~d been granted a var!anee for construction ct a single family home in February of 1984 which •xpired in Fe~rua::-y ot 1985. 4. Approximately one year later the Roien liet was Gg~in granted an identical variance which ran trom 3anuary, 1986 and expired January 19B7. 5. Pina11y 1 an identical variance was aqain 9'2:'Anted from February ot 1981 to Februa;-y ot 19$$, 6. Lot 18 appears to never have been in common ownership with Lot 19 until 1989. 7. Lot 18 has never been legally combined with Lot 19. The ~0et 8ignifica~t fact of the ownership and variance history is that this is not a situation where Mr4 ~emien attempted to sell off Lot 1S as a pa~t of a larger parcel owned t.y him and then •ought to obt.~in ~ variance. It 1s not a situation Whe~a ha er•at•d the substandar~ size or tot 18 through any aubclivieion er saia on his part. He acquired the Remien Lot knowinq that thrae prior knlil4ing variances had been granted allowing th• Remian Lee, as a separate lo~, ~e he used for the eonstruotion of a single fa~ily residence. At the ti~e Mr. Remian began negotiating with Mr. Mertes for tba purchase ot LQt 18 1 the Ram.ien Lot was covered 'DY o~ono vari~nee No. 1101, In each of the oases relied upon by the neighbors in a,ppoai~icn to Mr. ~ien•a ~•guest for another variance, th.a applicant either (i) aftirmatively created the substandard lot; {ii) had 1Cnowled9e of th• sUbstandard nature of th« 10~ prior to acquiaition; (iii) waa aware ot t:he denia1 of prior varianoe r~quast.s; or (iv) the applioant 1 s pred.eeessor in title areat.ed the sub ■t.andard nature ot the lot. Kcst importantly, none ct the. oases cited by the neighbors in oppoaition has a situation wh•re the City Council on three prior oocasiona ha4 granted a varianQa for the identical purpose. In Btdlund Y, Oity 01 M&Rtlb9'1, Jti6 N.W.2d 624, 627 (Hinn. APP• 1985), the Court determined. that Hedlum1 c:reated his own l) 0 ' l_J I ' ..:.J ,J ..L / , 1,1 '-' .. ~ ._~ .. JUN-04-'9~ FRI 17!32 IbiIVERSDN EERNDT&ZAPPI TEL NO:612 571-7734 Mr. Kevin Staunton Ma. Ka.ran Cole Jun• 4, l~H~3 PAge 3 t:1128 P04 --··-- hard•hip. Mr. Hodlund acquired a substandard lot that could not bo uoed for building a singl• ramily home. The lot was twice as narrow a• any su~rounding adjacent lot. f!Jr. Hedlund did not ~ead or examin8 the Maplewood ordinanoes prior to A~quiaition. Ha Y•a aware that various municipalities had minimum width requi~ement ■ for the construction of single family homes. He waa advised in writing that local ~oning ordinances govarned the use Of tha purchasad p~opert.y. Mora impo~tantly, the Court of Appeals &pooifically n~ted 't.hat the City of Kapleweed. did not eontaat the faet an undue hardohip existed. Tho court noted that withou~ an ereo variance the substandard Hedlund lo~ aouid not be put to a reasonable use. t=plieit in this atatament is that the "eale 0 of t?i• lot to an adjacent lot was not a 11 :re~ur.onable use". But the variance denial w~s upheld because mr. Hedlund had Qreated hia undue hardship. As I indieatad in my prior correspondence gf May 2i, 19~3, IP lbt xa.tt•r of the tariano• aequest ot bldo 1nd b4ith J0Jm1oa, 404 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. App. 1987), is completely distinguishable from the Remi•n Lot. Q11tl• P«•ip Y, Cit¥ ot Ltk• 11&2~ 395 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. A.pl,. l9SG) i• al•~ distinguishable from the Remien Lot. The appliQant in 2A ■tl• Duiga. was denied a Variance Application beoau&e of the number and dagree of variances r~qt,l$mted. The underlying reason tor the denial was the concern over the proposed septic system. Ev•n after the applicant modified its building plan so that it would not require a variance for the septic system aatml~k, the variance was detani.inad to bA ~oo grea~ and there was still a cma.noa ot sewer system failure. More importantly, the applicant had actual notice th~t when they purchased the property tha~ i~ was undersized and without a variance. The Court held that this actual or constructive notice of theee zoning ordinance reett"ietions was a self-created hardship. Jack Remien purcmase4 the ~emien Lot with actual notice that three prior identical variane•• h&d hAen ~ranted while he owned the adjacent LQt 19. 7Y9kn9# Y• TQYAl)ip of May, 419 N.W.2d 836 is also clearly· distinguiabable t:rom the !t$mien Lot. ln lfucsknQ. the applioant owned four lots which wers contiguous pmrcels. A home was located on one lot. A eabin was loQated on another lo~. The two remaininq lots also bad a cabin which was rented out as a seasonal dwelling. None of 'l!ha individual lots met the minimum lot aiz• reqUiremente. The applic~nts were advia•d of the eontiguous lot provi~ions who~ 1:.hey pu%'ehased the two lots upon whiCh the seasonal ca~in wAe located. ~n fact, they we~e · l) 0 ' l,i J ' ~J .) .1. I , l.} I J.-_·l~.>. ,-----i-· JUN-~~7'93 ~RI 17:33 ID: !~ERSON B~RNDT~ZAPPI TEL N0:612 571-7734 Mr. Kevin BtAunton Ms. )Caren Cole .!una 4, 19513 Page 4 - i:t128 P06 specifi~a11y told that if they wi'uh to sell their pr0t,erty, all three structures on all fo\ll:' lots would hav~ ~c be sold ae a ain9la parcel. Again, thia property invol'Vtld an on-site septic system, 'rhe variance wculd have create~~ problem with the individual copcie systems eonstruoeed in residential areaa. '-'he court in 'l'J19lltr atated that the two lots with the seasonal cabin had a "reasona~l• uaen under the existin9 ordinance, i.e., the property eould continue to be used as a seasonal ca~in. The Remian Lot doe~ not have an altarnativa reasonable use. use aa a vaoant lot is not a rea$onable use/ Tne t:nreshold issue regarding the aeraien ~ot is, (i) what 11 an altern~~ive "raasona~le use"? A reasonable use is~ use as deten,.ined undar the existing ordinance. The Minnesota Courts have held that the reasonable U$$ reguiramant does not mean that a p~Qperty owner m~st show t.hat the land cannot be put to JU.l:Z use without a vari~nce. Joyell Y• 12GA of Adju1tmapt4 446 N.W,24 917, 922 (Minn. App. 1989). QUn:y v. YoungL 173 N.W.2d 410 (Minn. 1969) .. It t:.ha City of Orono ware to detQrm.ine that the use of any $ubstand&rd iot aa an anlargad yard is a reasonable use, then thara would be no reason to ']%'Ant any variance. Any piece of property th&t is substandard could aiways be sold to~ adjacent landowner. '!'hara would never be afty need tor a ~ariance sine• there would always be & reasonable use. However, a raasonabl•· use means putting tha property to & use u~aer ~he existinq ordinan~• othel! than simply as a vaeant pi~ce ~! preperty. In ou;;y:1 •n individual owned all of a lArge parcel ("J?~op«rtyn). He conveyed oft one parcel of the Property to one purchase ano the other half of the property to a se.eond purchaser. Ultimately the Youngs beoama the purchaser of both i:,aroels and owned the entir• Property. Thareafter, the YQunga aough~ to retranafer the one parooi ot the Prope;rty to the currys. Tha ~rya then 11ought a variance tor a sethack requirement to ~~ild a single tamily house on this parcel ot Property. The Court in Clarr'9 held th~t the mere faQt that the Younga re~aequired l:>Cth parcels of the Property attar severance Qid not reunite the two seas to constitu~9 ~ single lot. The Cour~ wen~ en ~o hold that l)Qo~u~a of t:.he peculiar size and shape of the one parcel a denial of tha va~iance would deprive currys ot any reasonable use of ~eir property. In tact, the court hel4 th•t even though th• granting of t:he variance would work a hardahip on othor adjoining proputy ownars, the variance must be granted. Against, the use of the property a• a vacant io~ waa not a "reasonable use" or 'the. l) t> .-· U J • ~J .) .L J : l.J V r _.,__~ JUN-0a-•g3 FRI 17:32 ID:IUERSDN E~RNDT&ZAPPI TEL N0:612 571-7734 Mr. ~•vi~ Staunton Ma .. :Ka:t"an Cole June 4, 1~~3 Page .5 pi:9p•rty. l:l128 P05 The Minne•ota Courts have also reoognize~ that ~•rtaih actions by ei~y eouncila may contribute tc es~ulishi~g the ul'J.due ha~dsbip, In 11;,iu l•rk QPM\IPity CAJmGil y, xononous,, 210 N.W.2d 416 (MiM. 1973), XcDonouqh acquired a lot in St. Paul to demolish tour exiating buildings and to construct a 32 uni~ apartment building. However, the lot was not large enough to oonstruct the 32 unit apartment bU1ld1ng and comply with tha ax1sting setbaOK and building coverage requirements. Mcnonough applied for a vari&noe so &s to &llow conatruction of a 32 unit apart:a•nt building. Approximately one year alter McDonough had applied for the variance, st. Paul adopted an amati.Qlllent increaaing the att st.reet parkin~ r•qu.irement tor multiple residential dwellin9s. McDonough then amended his Application for a Variance to include ~ variance froa the new increase~ Off•street par~ing requireunt. The Zoning Board delayed action upon his new Application for another year. Finally, tha City granted all of tho variances, Tharaatter, a neighl:>crhoo4 organization brought a Deolara~cry JUdgmm,.t 11aeking ~e 11ui~ aaide the city• a g-rantin~ of ~e variances. The Supreme Court held the 0 delay in processing detendant•s requests ~or va~1ances constituted a h&raship peculiar to the tract due to the faot tnat the ordinanaa requiring the additional ott-street parking space was passed during that delay." Tho Supram~ Court citing CUrry r~~ffirmed that a varianc• provides the opportunity to avoid unnecessary hardahipa resulting from the ri9id enforcement ot zoning ordinane•• even though the granting of the variance might work a hardship on adjoining p~cperty owners. In considering the Ramiett Lot, there is no queation cf council delay. Rather, prior eouneils have affirmatively grantad prior varianoea, the la~t of Which was contemporaneous with Mr. Ram1en 1 s negotiating the purchase of the Remien Iiot, The Remian Lot had three identical variances tor rour years prior to Mr. Remien•• acquisition. on at 1east one oceasien, ~he city Council hed granted a new variance for the Remien Lot even atter a year lapse ~etween variances. In light of the existing law, it appears that it aomeone othu than Jack Remian had acquired the Remien Let in 1988 the variance would mos~ likely have tc be grahtad. sinee the purehaaer could not put the Remian Let to any reasonable use. Does the tact that Jack Ramie", who oc,med an adjacent lot, and then later acquired th• :Rn,.ien Let.mean that he is not entitled to the variance simply l:Hacause he owned an adjacent parcel of property. Again, 06107/93 17:08 FAI FAI-L775 ----· .1.U.H-:-.@9:::'..93 FRI 17;34 ID: IVERSON BERNDT,;iZAF'F'l TEL NQ:612 571-7'734 Mr. Revin Staunton Mt!!. Ka~•n Oclo Juna ,, l.993 Paq• 6 [4]01)7;1)(Ji IH28 P07 it is important ~e ne~• that nothing that Mr. Remien did oreatad the ~ubatanda~d natw:e of the Relllien Lot. Jaok Ramien acquired it with th• knowled9e that yes it was substal'!dard bu~ that three prior variances had. J:Maan granted.. 'fe fore• Mr. RA1niAn to use the iotas additional yard is an u.nrea•onable use •na ther•~ore an undue hardship. Again, returning to Bo:tt:tll, if it is established that (i) the property cannot be put to a reasonable uee without a ~ariance, 1,e. tha use ot the lot as additiona1 yard, is not a reasonable use, an4 (ii) the fa~t that Mr. Re.mien did not do anythin~ to creat• the situation, and (iii) tha lot. will na~ alt•~ tho essential character of the locality, all three requirements of an undu& hardship hava been met. Very truly yours, xvuso», BmurtlT' ZDP!A, L~~- ~-r~ 'l'MZzjrh go: o. 3aok •ami•n (by tax) Pater B~ohman -Leonard, street & Deinard \) \J ._; •.,/ U.S. C,~J:'ICC!;• ::J,NVF.R, ¢O~ORACO •-~ .:;,o:;,-e~:.-1:.100 Mlr\l•H, i='LORIOA TC:L :)00·030·0000 WA!.MINC:TON, 0.C. TEL ~OZ·"11iZ·l:t7QQ POPHAM HAIK .$<;HNOBRICH 8: KAUFMAN, LTD. SUITE 3300 ;?.;?.;?. SOUTH NINTH $i'R!>l::T MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOT/1 5540:Z. TEL 6!2-333•4$00 FAX 612-334-8888 TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL SHEU INTERNAT:ONAL 0F'l7lC:C:!i! LEIPZIQ, CE!>MANV TEL ¢11$'7-41-4:)18471 STIJTTO/\RT, CEl'l'ANV Tl!L 01149·711·21'13:;16:?. TO:_~M~r~•:,.......0M~1=·k=e=-=G=a~f~f~r~o~n ........... -__ c=i~t.v.....,.o~f~O~r~o~n~Q~~---------- FAX NUMBER: ( ) 473-0510 PHONE NUMBER: ( } 473-7~57 FROM: KEVIN P. STAUNTON, ESQ. PHONE NUMBER: (612) 333-4800 DATE: June 7 1993 FILE NUMBER: _________ AUTHORIZATION NUMBER: 3015 NUMBER OF PAGES lNCLUDING COVER SHEET: ____ __...7 _____ _ COMMENTS: ____________________________ _ IF ANY PROBLEUS WITH THIS TRANSUITTAL, PLEASE CALL UARGARET NOYD AT (612) 334-2677 The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination~ distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this fax in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Date: To: From: Subject: Tuesday, June 8 , 1993 Mayor Callahan and Orono City Council Members Gary N asiedlak 1910 Shadywood Road, Orono, MN ~I .... I., fJ Ulr '9 r1993 Variance for property located at 3237 Casco Circle (Remien Lot) My wife , Mary Jo , and I are the hopeful buyers of the Jack Remien property noted above. Since Febmary 27, 1993 , we've been in contact with Orono Planning and Zoning staff, and have attended the appropriate Planning Commission meeting and the subsequent City Council meeting regarding the variance for the Remien lot. I made a statement at the City Council meeting that I believe was not clear to Mayor Callahan regarding how my purchase agreement for the subject property reads , as well as the agreement I've entered into regarding the sale of my home. On Febmary 25 , 1993, our realtor , Dick Kunz, informed us a lot was for sale. We expressed our interest in the land , and Mr Kunz contacted Jeanne Mabusth of the City of Orono. Ms Mabusth told him what ordinances and restrictions applied to the lot in obtaining a building variance. We wrote our purchase offer to clarify to both buyer and seller, the exact specifications as told to us by the City of Orono, and to make clear that these were the the restrictions under which the lot was being sold. We entered into a purchase agreement ( copy attached) with Mr Remien on Saturday , Febmary 27, 1993. Next, in preparation for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting , we contacted an architect who worked closely with the City of Orono in developing a footprint of a home based on the quoted restrictions and requirements. Our main goal was not to have an escape clause in the purchase agreement , but rather to clarify to both buyer and seller the Orono building restrictions. The restrictions that governed the variance were quoted to us by Orono. At no time were we led to believe that this lot was a non-buildable lot. In fact, it seemed that it was a matter of course that a variance would be issued, just as it had been in the past. On the day of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting , during a routine conversation with Commission staff, I was profoundly surprised to learn of an objection by the neighbor to the north concerning alleged erosion problems and the lot's substandard width. The Planning and Zoning staff were fairly unconcerned about the objections, and later that night the Commission voted in favor of the variance. Based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of a variance being granted on the Remien lot, we entered into a purchase agreement for the sale of our home. Not long afterward, the buyer of our home sold his home. We have a clause in our home sale agreement that states that the sale of our home is contingent upon a buildability variance being granted on the Remien lot. However, based upon the facts that variances on the Remien property were granted previously and that the Commission's recommendations have been rarely overruled, we indicated to our buyers the likelihood of a variance being granted. We were then placed on the May 10th City Council agenda. About five days before the meeting, we were removed from the agenda due to a complaint lodged by the neighbors citing a new DNR regulation that could possibly affect the lot's buildability status. The Commission was forced to postpone our hearing in order to research the complaint. Again, the City Planning and Zoning staff reassured me saying, "The council has a way of looking beyond the surface of these issues." We were never led to believe that a variance would not be granted. The City Planning and Zoning staff indicated to us that the variance would be issued if the specifications that were quoted to us were complied with. These circumstances in themselves have created a hardship not only for ourselves, but for our buyers, Jim McManus and Megan Tully, and for the buyers of their home. As a result, many homeowners' dreams will be made or broken based upon on the City Council's decision. The final decision regarding our variance has been delayed for nearly two months as a result of a sequence of timely placed objections. Not that these objections shouldn't be addressed in a public forum, but that the public forum should not be used as a vehicle to prolong or delay a commonplace decision. More specifically, a variance to this property has been before the City Council a minimum of four times. Orono employees, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission staff have done their due diligence and have reached a conclusion which they have expressed to the Council and to the buyers and sellers of this property --that this is a buildable lot. Please consider the following: 1) If the properties to the north and the south of the Remien lot were uninvolved, the Council would find that the lot has been a past hardship as demonstrated by the three variances Council granted to this property. The question is, how often has Orono NOT granted variances on properties which have historically been granted variances? If the answer is rarely, why then would you disallow a variance on this property? As Orono residents, we have placed our faith and trust in the City Council as a body of individuals who are principled and fair-minded. We believe the City Council should be consistent in its policies from year to year. 2) The Planning and Zoning staff provides a local perspective on matters. Their hard work in dealing with variances and ordinances and the due diligence they provide in making recommendations to the Planning Commission should be given deference by the City Council. If it is not, then Orono residents cannot rely on staff's advice and recommendations regarding opinions and ordinances for the City of Orono. 3) The City Council should use the same standards of hardship in the case of Jack Remien's lot as they do in all variances issued. In this case, the property to the north, prior to the Bielke' s ownership, created the current situation by selling off the lot as a buildable lot, one which has more value than a non-buildable lot. And through the next ownerships, from Tuttle to Smith to Mertz and then to Mr Remien, this lot was sold as a buildable lot always commanding a higher price than if it were not buildable. The ordinances say that a hardship exists when the situation of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and not created by the landowner. Mr Re mien did not create this situation, but in fact, the lot to the north which is currently the Bielke residence originally created this situation --it is ironic that this property is the very one fighting it. 4) The Bielkes should not receive the fmancial reward for having a non-buildable lot next to their property. The Bielkes purchased their property with notice that a variance had previously been given. Even while the Bielkes owned their property, two such variances were given; it is thus evident that the price that the Bielkes paid for their property reflected the buildable status of the Remien lot. Meanwhile, the price paid by the Remiens for their lot reflected the value of a buildable lot. By reversing the buildable status of the Remien lot, the City Council would unjustly enrich the Bielkes at the expense of the Remiens. I would like to address issues raised by neighborhood residents: SOIL EROSION -Jay Richardson, who lives two properties to the north, cited soil erosion as a problem in the area. The hill on Mr Richardson's property is located 150- 200 feet from the Remien property, and is adjacent to the Bielke property to the north. As you move south away from the Richardson property and nearer the Remien lot, the incline becomes much less steep. As a matter of fact, the Bielkes have stated in the fact sheet they show potential buyers of their home that there has not been a soil problem on their property (copy enclosed). At their April 19 meeting, we gave the City Planners photographs taken of the hill on the Remien property. The photographs show no evident erosion problem. In addition, our home would be positioned 55-60 feet behind the hill, and would not disturb it. TRAFFIC -Although traffic is a concern, the marginal increase in traffic caused by one home will be insignificant. LOCALITY CHARACTERISTICS -The objection that granting a variance for this property would alter the essential characteristics of the locality is not justified. There are many substandard lots in the area. Immediately south of the Remien property are two properties which are each 55 feet wide. Immediately north of the Bielke property is a 60-foot lot, similar to the Remien property size. As you look at this neighborhood, there is a mixture of homes, some are newer and some are older. In many cases, our potential home would be equal to, or an improvement to the area. I've attached a copy of our conceptual home plans for your review. PROPERTY VALUES -The Bielke' s real estate agent stated that the Bielke residence would be valued far less with the lot next door being built upon. This statement improperly assumes that the reference point is the value of the residence with an adjacent unbuildable lot. Please ask yourselves: 1) If no one was contesting this lot would you consider it buildable? 2) How often has Orono turned down a variance after it has been granted three times in the past? and 3) If two properties, one to the north and one to the south, have sold the same lot as buildable in the past, should those lots have the right to contest the buildability of that lot, as both lots have either made or paid a premium for it as a buildable lot? It is ironic that both the persons requesting the variance and the persons fighting against it, live on properties that sold the Remien lot as buildable at one time or another. Both neighbors will not live in this neighborhood after this matter is closed. At the City Council meeting, the new buyer to the south expressed his favorable opinion about the house being built on this lot. We cannot ask the neighbor to the north's opinion, since the house is not sold yet. Within 150 feet, other neighbors who have expressed an opinion are the neighbors to the immediate south and the immediate north of the Bielke and Remien properties, respectively. It is interesting that both of those properties are of substandard size and contain nice homes, one lot being 55 feet wide, and the other 60 feet wide. I hope you will consider the points made in this letter, and will grant the building variance on the Remien property. Very truly yours, ./4; Attachments casco.wpd l I ,,I' '' ·, ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT BLANK This form approved by the Minnesota Association of REALmRs~: Minnesota Association of REALmRs~ disclaims any liability arising out of use or misuse of this form. 1. Date -Z.. --Z..7-9 "2 2. Page 3 of' .3 Pages 3. Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated :2. -Z.? , 19-=l.::2__ pertaining to the purchase 4. and sale of the property at 32-31 C::.Ac::,,c;;o C:.11<..C../.J==.- 5 . .tLfoN flliA~f2:Jfa_t_k::E:-____'2_f-1HJc2 Af-t~ME.ct1 :(H~ -ze.~RS ; 6. A4R t:;E qt> ~-e;~P.:ocf=.½ /Ai I 1H 1HE:. ?tf--< Of O & ti O :fo 7. 6-Fi'--11'/ 7fA1f;:.. ::fl-IE;. VAG /b. l'lCE:-::fl-\tXf 1"1A'7 IN PkA Cf;: fQE-::fH'7: a. ptJRfoo/i;:: of BIJ/k/211'1.?1 AS -SHol,JN Of'/ :::fl-IE:. 5UP-V1;;i t?P+W /o-17-8 7 ). 9. ~ldd.:~K2_i~L"~tL~L1Rlf.:-E:..-:fo C00/7 eBA7£-W /:(~ :fl-/F:.-tW'lGFZ~ 1~ 10. ,,,2rC-UBt;: A Vf>-RIANc.e.. 1a Bllll-{2 A HotJ~g. ld11]-i t-,AM.c,E A?COfZ:DIN-4- 11. 1° 1:W:ie&:,' P&zpo21:;-D fl.-ANtz, B1r1e3~ ~,se.e. +HAT P&?P0 ~NS ·p, 12. fillkD WlkL Be-ldl:fl:/IN te.Xl~ll'lk/ <213'.Dt::lo 4UIDl==-klliE:.:S fe,4Af-.12/l'IL1 13. 4111.-:-puow 11':l 14. ~eN:[ 2ef /7A;;d< f&IYI (30AD 13/61:l1 op WAY kJll--1. Bl:: N°T 15. __ L-t:':-22 --P!&N 3 o fecr?:T, 16. . . 17. ~'?f: + r;,1}..CJ<. f&M 11-1 e. LAl?E-A:f NotsMPL-l::Hl,,l/ l✓-IA'[r=-f-MAB.k I :'.'J N°:f 18. 19. 20. • No 1:\J£D CL?lf;;.F:-Wtkk oc..c..U/Z. HITl:lltl 75 feE.f Of "NW-MAL-H/41:/ lt/JW=R-.'' 21. ~-l~f-:l?___Lp---'JEL~5_J)..E-f/HE-P B'LJHE----k.t(.J'.+_Bl=TJ;s/Ee.N A LJt/E. 16 ~ 22. fFoM "tlo/2-M~L-1-lfltlLJdlrp::.e;. '' AN/2 A WNE; 26° fl;3ef fisPM "NctZf1Al-, 23, l:l 1LrH ldf>-71=,g_" (;-Ill-/..~ gxae.12 z.s % Of ::f]:fA1 1-ANIJ Af3e.A. :fcqAL- 26. 27. 28. 29. " 1He "1'~_k *UC-=fUl½k uq: aVf;;J2¼E. 11 /;:,.':;, DEf/NED B)' 1JjE. c:.,p WILk NOf f;;.XGUD I~% op 1He :{?'fAl-kt-\ND Af?..l=A Of 1]-/f=-Luf · 30. • &ekke~Fee.:'2 10 f PoVID~ 13U'il;R, Wl:fH c.eg:pf t§D a?f'i of '.fHE.- 31. ~~1':l:f ::z1Jl2--v'l:SY k,llf!:l t>.tfi hi s. 32, 33. • 54..b ed-to SU(\~@.ssfu H\-PtiAL elec) GO)\,\ Se( e. 's. 0~ ~ • ~u..ferr (¥.y5 A.v-1 u..ti l'ity, \ook•u~ {e-es re Ul\re.A +or µec.u 34. ',,,_.' I , \ .~. ,~, ,. J REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT This form approved by the Minnesota Assoc:1a1ion cl REAlJCRS"" Minnesota AssoclalJOn o1 REALJOAS• d1sc1aims any liab1hty arising out ot use or m1sus1 ot th1.s :orm. 1. Date ______________ _ 2. Page _____ of _____ Pages 3. This disc:osure statement concerns the real propeny located in the City of 4. County ot _____________ State of Minnesota, described as S. _______________ This disclosure is not a warranty of any kind by the Seller(s) or any Agent(s) 6. represennng any Party(s) In this transaction, and is not a suostitute for any inspections or warranties the Party(s) may wish to cotain. 7. BUYER(S) AND SELLER(S) MAY WISH TO OBTAIN PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND/OR INSPECTIONS a OF THE PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN 9. BUYER(S) AND SELLER(S) WITH RESPECT TO ANY ADVICE/INSPECTIONS/DEFECTS. 10. SELLERS INFORMATION: The Seller discloses the following information with the knowledge that even though this is not 11. a warranty, prospective buyers may rely c,n this information in deciding whether and on what terms to purchase the subject 12. propeny. The Seller(s) authOrizes any Agent(s) represef'lting any pany(s) in this transaction to provide a copy of this statement 13. to any person or entity in connection with any actual or anticipated sale of the propeny. 14. The following are representations made 'ay the Seller(s) to the extent of the Seller(s) actual knowledge. This information 15. is a disclosure and is not intended to be part at any contract between the Buyer and Seller. 16. A. GENERAL INFORMATION: 17. 1a 19. 20. 21. 22. (1) When did you purchase or build the home? (2) Have you lived in this home lor the past 12 months? Yes_ ... V::'----No ___ _ (3) Has there been any llood or other disaster(s) at the property? Yes____ No_i..---__ _ If yes. give details of what happened and when: 23. (4) Has the structure ever been altered? (For example, additions. altered roof lines, changes to load bearing walls.) 24. ____ Yes \,/"No If yes, please specify what was done, when and by whom (owner or contractor): 25. 26. 27. (5) ts the property suitable tor year round usa? I/"'" Yes ___ _,No 2a B. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS: Do any of the following conditions currently exist or have they previously existed? 29. (Give details to any question answered "yes".) 30. (1) THE BASEMENT 31. (al Foundation prolltam Yes____ No t/' 32. (b) FlOOding Yes____ No >./'" 33. (C) W81 WaJls Yes ......-No --- 34. (d) Laaxagelseepage Yes I/' No __ _ (a) Drain tiling problem (f) C/lldald floors/walls (g) Sewer bad<up (h) Other Yes __ _ Yes __ _ Yes __ _ Yes __ _ No.....;._..-;.._ __ No_....--__ _ No ___ _ 35. Give details to any question answeid '>'es": ______________________ _ 36. Som~ xe--,c 0=1 ◄od"~e'::J«,., i':c sor·1oe·bm(., 37. ~.., • v r Q -i.. I: ., ... (., 3a 39. 40. a ~ (2) THE ROOF? (Give details to any question anSx,"ered "yes".) '/-,,, a. \,c,,d-\ C\ 'tr<,., L (a) What is the age of the roofing material? ·J,._ hot.!, .. y)ew -Comments: -------------~ 41. 42. 43. (b) Has there ever been interior damage from ica buildup? Yes____ No ✓ .t, (c) Has there ever been any leakage or other problems? _ __._ ....... _Yes ___ _,No (d) Have there ever been any repairs or replacement made to the \oot? Yes 1.-<: No ----: 3 ~ Givede1ailstoanyquestionanswered"yes":&,ot-!"gp-0ccmeat bolt o·f h,-,u~t-\h;ll 1<;9;;.. n/o i ~ 44. 1,se Sif\~{.. i-:1...e/\ 1l!. r,·, .... r ~II C~¥14iC ""'1S./:.~ J C 45. Por<-1-. aµ ves.hi~ '6elm""' ~ e,u:i~ •" E::::1~, ~c=~e.-oo cu,,II:,, mm,·\-J,, ... b o»-e.f'\ I ; 1 46. C. SPECIAL COMMENTS ON HEATING, PWMBING, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS: 47. The fotlowing are in working order and shall be at time of closing unless oth8IWIS8 stated in comments below. All items listed 4a below are not necessarily part of this sale. 49. YES NO YES NO YES NO 50. Range ✓ ln181C0ffl ~ CantraJ Healing System ~ 51. Oven ........ -Garage Door Openers .,,..-CantraJ Air Cooditioning _l,:::; 52. HOOd ,.,,,,--and al COOU01S v---WaJI Air Condltionar(s) ~;L_ 53. Refrigerator ...-Ventila!Jng Fans/Fixtures t..,," Furnace Humidifier ..i..:::: 54. Tu..,.,...,_';!_i~a ~.V;,., .. ,_,.,,.... .L Secwity System ,;v,4 Electronic IJt Purifier _J.::::' <1,l' L.S <----4?'1-55. u,snwasner Smoke Detector.i ...,... Supplemental Healer 56. Freezer ,.,,.,,...... CantraJ VaclJum ,1,-_,¢= Solar Collect0ra -vf'A 57. Wasner ~ Door Betts _::c" Fireplace Equipment ..JC' 5a Dryer ~-Window Treatments V Fireplace and.« Inserts _!:C 59. 7rash Compactor ~//-_ Wal&f Haat&f ,t..,,"' Woodburning Stove ..:r1_ 60. Garoage Disposal ~ Sump Pump _:::::::-lncinararor ~I'/ -61. ?!umoing Systems .........-Drain TIiing _!,C" Waler Soltener v- 62. 7ollat Mecnanisms -Privala s_, System .6'4_ Sprinkler System X .A):6.r 63. Pnvate Well ~-Attached Antenna and 11:i... '1'-'rr 64. Cables N'/.4 Electrical Systems -65. Pool and Equipment -~# 0Iner REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 66. Address _____________ _ sa 69. ol. Page 2 Unused Well: Is there a well on the property which is no longer in use? □Yes IBNo If yes, has it been sealed according to State Regulations MSA 156A? □Yes □No Comments: 70. 71. 72. Contaminated Well: Is there a well on the property containing contaminated water? Yes__ No...i.::::::.. Date well water last tested for contaminants: _____ Comments: _______________ _ 73. D. LAND USE AND PROPERTY CONDITION: 74. Are you aware of any of the following existing: 75. Encroachments? Yes_ No--k:; Soil problems? Yes_ No..k::' 76. 77. 78. 79. Diseased Trees? Yes_ No L,,"'"" Rodent Infestation? Yes_ No 1./""" Insect Infestation? Yes_ Nc:k""'.: Restrictions or Reservations on the use of the property? Yes ___ No V Easements other than utility or drainage easements which do not interfere with present improvements? Yes ___ No ~ Is the property located in a designated flood plain? Yes ___ No I::<': 80. Comments: ------------------------------------- 81. 82. 83. E. INSULATION DISCLOSURE: 84. Does the insulation in the property contain urea formaldehyde foam? Yes __ _ No V Unkna,vn __ _ 85. Date insulation installed: ________ Type: ________ Company: 86. Comments: ------------------------------------ 'ol. F. OTHER KNOWN DEFECTS: 88. Are there any other known defects in or on the property? Yes ___ _ No ___ _ If yes, explain below: 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. G. SELLER'S STATEMENT: (To be signed at time of listing) 94. We/I, owner(s) of the property at 95. acknowledge the above Real E Transfer Disclosure Statement and give permission to Listing Broker to disclose 96. this inf7ati~rosp l-£17. 97. &--.k::..' ',,,e_::::.::::.....:.· ==~~::,...1/~~~~,:~~ /4~~½!111.&l/t 98. H. BUYER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: (To be signed at time of purchase agreement) 99. We/I, the Buyer(s) of the property at _________________________ _ 100. do acknowledge receipt of the Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement and agree that no representations 101. regarding the condition of the property have been made, other than those made above. LISTING BROKER AND 102. AGENTS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ANO ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CONDITIONS EXISTING IN 103. THE PROPERTY. 104. 105. I. SELLER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: (To be signed at time of purchase agreement) 106. AS OF THE DATE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, We/I, the Seller(s) of the above 107. property. agree that the condition of the property is the same as noted above and will be in proper working order 108. on date of closing, except for the changes indicated above and dated: 109. , .... , io-1 110. MN:RETDS (5188) ORIGINAL COPY TO LISTING BROK~; COPIES TO SEU~, BUYER. SEWNG BROK~. ... ---·-~--~ _, i _1 _, ·-' ....J I 06/ 10/9,3 12:18 FAX F.H-Lii5 @OO~l,,()08 JUN S '93 15:48 FROM ONE SEVEN ONE ZERO PAGE.002 B LAW Ol"l"IC:1'.S LE:ONARO. $TRE·E.T AND C'elNARO Pl'l0/1'£SSIONM, i\$$OCIA1'10N - 'i4Q--ST .... N.AQ"fd HillLIIQL15 D. ne,\1:3, J1'. ~l'.H4•~ J, l;l,IHH Al.s~Ml,!./ll'!fi TMOl<..S I), ril~&~RQ "l>l'R\$ H, SH~J!.,AW Q(Qfi'4C #IJILLT IIA.ADI.C'f J., QILLAN illt~t-t•il. ~ M'•'¥.,. M••TH6. ~ .• J:11.AJ(Q ~"'II> ,,.i M•ra,..:s CA~L'tH"CJ-1A<.lt'CffS ,._,.~,, "'· ll'OTII •it:""~"• kM•IN "~ee~ i. ,-t't.u,• .$VITE: 2.3QO Is O SOU1"H FIFTM STFU~E.T Mll'INl':AJ:'01..15, MINN&SOTA 5$.402 "l'CLl:.l'>t-lONE: ldt:!1 :3:3S•l&CIQ 5','CSIMILI:. lt.12) 33.!l·ICS1:17 Ct1'(C.:,,y. OJtt~,\li(A,yM .._.SAN M, -.oi,, .. ~JI Ml'CHAt:L --.. COt,i'~• •A.i.CJ.t.et" .J. C.l,IM:N N.i~ :a.. W'I\T~Cff """°lk .... ll.llQl!1; """'..,_._..., ,OIL~, .. 'NWmt~• ltnPll"\tlN tUtu: .$Hi-, JII. Wl~i,1.1,ML,~Ht LOf!<k /,, 11..-tt•ifb~ ~c.atrH,T'Ci•Gt:Jtl.QH ~'Ja,.J,UM.l.4-C-l,."'~ JANN 111, li:'IC;Mitt;;~'(i,+(tT'Ji,1 •IJ'ft,411. C 1~!:iLL AtilC>«lWllll,"L.!.f '-"'•wi..U ~. l,&A't'Te+t' ,...\'ICN.~ ~tfll+!:t:M a. N"1.AUtil ClHA,-1.l&., w.a.-r.f:: \aOW'e~L J ~11Q0W q,o,oc ,, "~u•o•1~\.s.. .,us. RIG...,.Ae C, Kl'1N, ,1", f PiOlll';l T, -tMILA'M' 11N•0t1 I:. IIT,11~11'$ stcvtN .. 1 •1J•t11 .-;, ....... -... iTnn o, ;:ot~l/'!"le~ .JIii<" II, l>ORSET , IV,Y><!.S;H,.,~IUJ<A>( ""''""'t" .I. Q.O.V1QUIW JliTf;r>t,t.,< •• LITlfAII ~W .. RD "· "1tll.,.,!l.01:~ RQDi;:aT L.tw'LI M)II~ n1~MAIAO .,, ~ccNi• 04'1100. J, M,;.INIUttfliT\ Mf'\', tt!JOH lilf, f'f•'fJ,IA,-1:, • ,-.4-~,c~~ "'· li!0..-~11' .,,10~;;., 1Y,,,J~lt1H .. MCCl.,A I<, IIO>tM,.MN RQKR'T .,, 'Tl"'A'11S J,01!:ll G, 111,11.LARII .JO!lt"" >t, l'fM~&V LAW~~N ,J, P1tL0 f,IAY1i;JW.Ul,.Lt;,r ..... ~I'&, ,qn,, MV!Q I.. •IL~EH•VG ROwtllt J, "u,;oltll DIWlll I\Alrl'Otl ""'°''~",ew11"""' Mfl'\,.,,.INl>G"Elt ntNl'll' J, :!l>tt:'I Ill LOW"CC.I.W,~ -■,...,UN!w>.c. <U~II G, &.OMP$0N ~W"'' 'M~•;a.w ,.11,(!w,U.L G, "1'•Yt.Qd 'lil'OttK "'• oe.H,~c,. ~-~~.!l<o,<CCft! FHi~'•S.Jli' USL0¥,t4H 'f1MQ'TNYW1i .. ~ Kevin Staunton, Esq. Xtten Cole, Esq. June 9, 1993 ~oph:ui, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd. 330¢ Piper Jaffray Tower 222 s.. Nil'lth Street Minneapolis, MinnesotZl 55402 5'1'"''" I,. ,1:~n;i,j roatll M, IM:Hi«K .io.,,. s. •.tto•w ~11111~ I., dHH.L ...,._Ri;.D,.$111~ l;tlol>VI' C:, ... CVUTTQM JAHll J, U...,,..NC> ......... ,..,IU.L!.NAH'!'r P'iTJ;R •• «:><mtoT \,AWll£N" • leM~,r (:i!IIOl.'l'N'i,"'9\.SII( STIM:N II, l.lHl>tM.&Nlt 'IIILl,.IA><M,IIOCN fl911M.0 ~• ~,Cl,ILft 6"TM~ J. RltC~ ~ .. ~1',JIIIZ W"t.N01" C, !-IC..IUl\l[lt 1• ~•NtlL CO.. ltU':n1 r • flit.~ 0,A.V\D D, f:"l"lV,L~R YAH,otti t'I'-• ..W.I r, tllt>~ '!;~11;:H, ~~&'rl: 11¥114M'l'~!J,, -HE .u.dllUI G;,;,a,;~ I,·-~ INml•l-1 AIITMUR I.. H, lltwl:t.tl-•-• tcr,U~ fft....,llt>t1■H ••rl•' -S. OC:-~lllllH••-t 5J0Ht\' LOl!llt• Ull!fft !OOrr .,..~,e~o. r,::,r,. IWIIICJ. ><. JU.'TC!UUS ~~f,C', (612) 335-1$6~ Re: ~liea.t.ion. for Variance l:>y ~-.Jaok iteaio Dear Mr. Si:.a.untcn and Me;. Cola; This le-tter is in respcnse to 'l'hcmas zappia•s oorrespondence to you date.d June 4, .1.993, which you provided to .me via ·facsim·ila ort the afternoon of June 7, 19~3. At th~ City Counc;il meeting of May 24, 1993, a lllOtion to grant a varianoe to M"l::'. RemiGn was denied on a 3 to 2 vote because there was no showing of undue hardship. The matter was then tal:)l.ed to allow Mr. Remien time to produce evidenea cf undue hardship. Mr. zappia's corresponaence is apparently an attempt to produce su~ eviaenoe, :bUt it raises no nl!ilV tacts that wou.J.d rise to·the level of. und.u.e hardship required .for a variance. !'Urtho:r, a reading of the eases cited by Mr. Zappia marely conri:rms that there are no .grounds to grant a variance in this case. Mr. Zappi~'s att~s to distinguish controlling easas are legally unpersuasive and his relia:rtce on a case which has been overruled. is obviously JDJ.splaced. i.I'he key facta .in this Jllatter include: • There ha$ never be!M'l a v;1ria.nce granted to Lot 1a when it:. wa,;:. in <::ommon ownership -with Lot:. 19, and this distinguishes it from the prior c:;ases where-a variance was granted. oe11n1ea 12:10 FAX F.U-L7i5 JUN 9 '93 16: 49 FROM ONE SEUEN ONE Z~RO Kevin Staunton, Esq. Karen Coler Ei::q. JWle 9, 1993 Page 2 · =---. / @00--11(1(18 PAGE.003 • 'llh.ere is clearly a. ~ea~onable use for Lot ia in combination with Lot 19. nie lot has beeh used that way sinoe it.s purchase by Mr. Remien in 1988 and ther~ is no gue$tion that Lots 18 and 19 are ~ketable together. saleable 1akeshore property is in high de.mana. • 'l'he ReJniens actively oppot:ed the granting Qf similar variances for this very pm:eaJ. (Lot 18) during proe:eadings on both th~ Smith and Mertes applications. • When the lot subsequently caJDS up £or sale, Mr. Remien .bought the let intending "to expand my present residence on Lot 19 to COV(!!:r in some ~t, Lc1t. 18.fl See la~~er of April 19, 199~ fro~ ~ack Remicm to Jeanne Mal>usth. • Mr.,Remien ])ought the property with £~11 ~wledge that the last variance granted to the parcel , had exi;,ii;ed approximately one year earlier. • Mr. Remien bOUgb.t the lot with ful1 xnowledge that tne lot was substandard. ~-Relll.l.en has used the lot since the time of p1.1rchase a.nd maintained it. as part. of . the surrOWlding ya.rd of his bause on Lot :1.9. From all ou.twud appearances, Lot 18 appears to be part of the ya.rd of the home. on L_ot 19, similar to ~any ()'t.her, ho,nes on caaeo Cirqle situated on double lots., • Lot 18 does not meet the 8 0% · minim= lot width requirement of Orono Ordinance S 10.0J. • The fact that Mr. Remien • s attempte4 separate s:.ale of Lots 18 and 19 was made contingent upon the granting 'of a v~ianc;:e is pi:oof that Mr. ;R.811.ien Jcnaw that a variance :rn.ight not be gra:nted. If i't:. waa eertain that~ varianaa would be granted, there would ba no need to make the pu.rehase agr~ements continge.Tft. • Aceord,i.ng to finQing No. s of t:he prOpOSed resolµtion attached to the staff report dated May 19, 1gg3, x:.ot 12 meaianares n55 feet in lot width &ncl illii apprc,x:imately 5 feet short of the narr~st. 1ots .in the ;13-lOt CiAsco Circle neighbor~ood at ~o feet.~ • :c:r the variance is gz-~ted, thiGi would cr~te the only area along Ca$co Ciro1a with tltt'~e s\lh-gtanda.rd lots in 06/10.19.~ 12:19 FAX F.U-Lii5 JUN 9 1 93 16:50 FROM ONE SEUEN ONE ZERO Kevin Staunton, Esq ♦ Ka~en Cole, Esq. JUna 9,. 19:93 Paga 3 -,•, @005,,00S PAGE.004 a row, changin~ tha ess.:mtia1 character of the neighborhood. • lf it ww:e true that once a variance were granted, it must. l'.>E!J. granted again, then tb~ would .be no reason tor variances to expire. Mr.. Zappia' s eorre,i;pcmdence identif' ies three element.a require4 by Minnesota Statute, all of whicn lll.Ust .'..be met: to establish an undue hardship. We think it is clear that these threa elements are not met because there is a reasonable U$~ for the pro~rty and becauae. Mr. Remien purchased the lot with knowledge that. it was sul:>standard, Mr. Zappia nagleots to point out that where a municipality adopts by 0,:dinande add.itiona.l standards for granting a ·variance {as Orono has don8), thm'l those standards :must be met as well.~ o:i:-ono O:t'dinance S 10.os, sUbd. 3, apecit:ies 12 specifio standard.S, each o:f which must }:)e me't (if applicable) before a varianaca can be granted. The first three standards mrror tha statutory st.ar.idards. The Orono standi:ll:'d.s are a:s follows= Staz;tdard: No. 1. n'I'ha property in question .c;:annot l.)e put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowect' -,,y the orficial ccntrols." balJsise Lot 1a can veey clearly.be put to a reasonable use in conjunction with Lot 19, and in fac:t hu been so used since 1~as. Many lotti: on caeeo Point have been combined attd. all ot these are proof,that it is a reasonable use to combine·sinall lots. The cases cited. by Mr. Zappia ~eintorc::e this pqint.. :en Jieglul)d y, City o; Ma:sJ.-ewcqd. :366 N.W.2d 624 (Minn.App., 198~), a ease which d;i.d ~ involve couon ownership, the court :specif ioa·lly noted that without a variance, there was ma reasonable use for the property. similarly, in S!,u;:t;y v .. Young. 173 N.w •. ad 410, 411 (Minn. 1969), a.nether ease cited by Mr. Zappia, "'the t;rial court found th~t plaintitts' lot, in the absence of a variattee, wpuJ.d .J:ie unusable for any pµrpO§&~" (emphasis added). i"Urt::her,. in~, the lot Wa$ not currently 'Cinder c01!Ul1on owne,rship. Sta.rtdard No. 2. MTb,e, pl ;g-ht of the landO'{ffler is due to circwnstances unique to his property not created by the lan~owner. n · · . Analysia: Case law uneqU.ivocal.l.y px-ovides "It ...an .applicant for a :vari~ce pureha.sa<l the property with actual or.constructive notice of the aoning ordinances' restrictionc:, then its !lard.ship is .self-created and does net constitute 'undua hardship• as C'lefined by Minn. Stat. s 462.357, subd. 6(2).• [citations cmitt~d] 06/1019-~ 12: 20 F.U F.H-L775 !4J006,,008 JUI'-! 9 '83 1 6: 50 FROM ONE SEVEN ONE ZERO PAGE.005 Kavin Stauntonr Esq. Karen Cc:,le, Esq. June 9, 1993 Page 4 · :,.,,· S:i.:milar1y, in Hedlund Y, city o,t Kaplewood, 366 N .. W.2tl 624 (MJ.M.APP• 1985), another c,,1uu! cited by Mr. Zappia, the court went ~.vGrt fw::-the:r: and held that wlu~re a person purchases land with knowledge, actual or construotive, of the zoning re.f;tricticns which are in Etffect at the ti'lne of p=chase, the hardsb.i.p is &elf ... oi:-eated and~ variance ahould be denied even where ther~ is JlQ rea5ona.ble-use for tbe s'Ubstandard parcel. In tha present cas~, Mr-Re:mien purchased the lot, by his own adm.is&ion, with full knowl(!d9'e that th~ lot was s@standard. A.a a 1Uatter of law, ·Mr. Remien•s nplight:" is of his own making. standard No. 3. "The ,variance, if ~anted, will not uter the essential Chii'Xact" of the locality." Analy•:Ls: At the May 24, 1993 city COUll<.il. meeting., thare wa;;1 an:ipl.e tes.timony by neighbors on casco Point that -construction of a house on ::C.Ot lS wouJ.a alter the ossuantial character of the neighborhood. st·andard No. 4. "Economic c:onside1"atiQJlS alone shall not cons.ti tute an undue hardship if :reasonc.ble uise for the p~operty exists under tlle terms of this Chapter.It bal7si,u Ther$ is obviously a reasQnable use for. I.,ot 18 ·in conjunction with Lot 19. The only ~ssible argument that Mr .. RE®ien seems to raise t.o just.ify a variance-'. is that variances were granted be:rora and hQ might not make ns. :nruch :money selling-the lota together as if he sold them s;~ately, a purely economie argument. standard Nos. S-7 (Not applicable to this case.] St.lmda.rd No. a. "Whe speoial conditions applying to the structure or lattd in question are peculiar to such property or imm~diately adjoining property~• JUxalyais: 'l'h~re are no spec~al oonct1tions wlµch spegi.fica.11.y apply to Lot 18 and distinguish it from other pro~rty .. There is nothing about the topography, tbe shape, or other phyaieal attributes of the property that would justify a .va.riance,. :rn. this QaSQ, the sola argument is that it ~s a SU}:)standa:rd lo~. No~hi~g distinguishes this lat from oth~ substandard lots. Standard NQ. 9-"'l'lle comlitions do,ttot apply ~ener~1ly to ,:rth<!:.r' land or &t.ruct.ures in the dis~ict in Wh,i.eh said. 121Ild is loeated.tt 0 6110 / 9 ,3 12 : 21 FAX F.U-Lii5 JUN 9 '93 16:51 FROM ONE SEVEN ONE ZERO Kevin Staunton, Esq. Karen Cole, Esq. June 9, 1993 Page S · ,.,, l4JOOi.-OOS PAGE.008 Analysis; Again, there are no special conditions with respect to Lot 18. Standard No. 10. "'l'be granting of the application is necee.sary for the preservation. and enjoinment of a subs~tial property right of the applicant." As stated @oVe, Mr. Remien has no legal right to build upon thi~ parcel. castl~,gesign & ~loptnent Cqmpan,y_., VlP• v, cit>t of Lake Elmo, 396 N.W~2d 57S (Minn.Ap~. 1986}; BQ41und v. QitY of Mapl@:s(Oog. 36S N.W.2d 624 (Minn.App. 1985); ~ins:~. Johnson, 3.07 Minn. 313, 239 N,W.2d 91J. In The .Mattu pf Jphpso.n, 404 N. w._2d 298, 300, (Minn.App .. 1987) ("Where a landowner purehafr,es· with a~ual or constructive knowled9e that t.bo d.as:.u-ed usza i•. prohibited 1:>y zoning :restrictions, ~e harclshi.P is 1 creatad bV the land.owne::' and not gre,unds for a variance under the statute.A Standard No. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance.will not in any way impair h~altll., safety, ccntf"ort, lQ.Q::+als, or in any c>~e.l:." respect be r;ic:,ntx-aey to the intent of tb,e zoning cod~-" Analysis, Granting cf a variance in this ease WQuld alter the eharacter 0£ the neighborhood, re.duce the property value of the neighborin9 property~ dest%oy a number 0~ large trees, increase traffic and 4ensi ty around ttui lalce, and c~nfl.ict w:l th 'the guiding principles contained in the purpose section o~ ·the orono zoning Or~inance, S 10.01. Se~tion 10.01 p~ovidea. in relevant part: . The ,naintananoe of open s;pace and tjl.e A-mi<Jonpe Qf .OV@'s;J:QWgittg of la.pd ie a ;tmsic gu;!.a;ng: ;pi;:inc.:f.J;!l9 in 'this ~-·. .• • ot paramount importance to the citizens .of the City and. to the citizens of the mat:.l"opolitan area is the preae.rvat.iorx of Lake Mir.me.tonlu1.. • • • .fhe dj.s.astrays effects of in:t;ense resictentUtl and •eonercial deyelqpmep,t within the. c:ity, and. espe_c£aUy ,i:n th9fi are,a§ adj ac:ent. :to Lake Minnetcnkft and the wetlands, ~ painf;glly evident. . • • The guiding principles of :t11aintainine;r Op$21 spa~s, avoiding the ill etfeot.s of oy;_era;::qwding,· avoiding prem.atur~ ~~~l~t, a,v~iding the fut),lre pollm;ion prol:>leJll§ yhiQh . are inherent ;t.n airz plan to intensely develop l~ng adjggept to wetlands An.4 ~ke Minnetonka, and the need t.o change SO'll:le pr.ssently allowsd uses in order to p:x:es~e the quality of the ~ound water st.1pplies·in t.he a:r:ea, are :recognized. in the: oc:,m.prehenai ve municipal plan • • • the .zoning chapter is adopted for the purpo$es of .•. (5) J.tmitl.l'lg C!,'>ngestion FAX-L775 14] 006 ,' oos JUN 9 '93 16:51 FROM ONE SEUEN ONE ZERO PAGE'..007 Kevin Staunton, Esq. Karen Col.e, Esq. June 9, 19,93 Page 6 --,. :. i.n the-pu.blio right-of-way; (6) PU:ve:n:tinq QYGerowding 2t. land and undue q9neentration cf etructm::es, by reg,.tlating thA use cf the land ancl ~1,1ildings and the bulk of Wildings in relation to the land and buildings SUZ'1:0\1.nding thelll.. {Emphasis added. t: ) ~n addition, orono•s oomprehensive plan is full o! polioie~ to promote 1ower dansi ty development arc:)u:nd. ~e Minnetonka. These policies should be supported. Ras,PQU• to c.s• Lap Qi~ed. by Jf,;:. la,ppia Mr. Zappia's atte:ni:pts to distinguish controlling ease law are ineff~oti ve. Almost one entire page of his letter ia sp~nt discussing Merrig:eark CommY!Jity <:,ounail v. McDonough. 2.li,O :N .. W.2d. 416 (Minn.. 1973) • First., tha casa has nothing to do with the present matter, standing for tl\e propositic~ that where a city , counc:il unjust.it'iably delays action for two years on an application for variance (and in the meantime changes the ·controlling ordina.noes), a variance may be granted, This is irrelevant. -No one hare alleg~s delay. second, the case h~s been overruled ~or employing the wi:-ong acopa o-f review. Nor;'.thw;eatern Col-lege V. Ci,u o.¼ l>J;:den l1i1l.e, 281. N.W .. 2d 865 1 868 (Mllu:'l. 1.979). :Mr. Zappia.•s letter . completely fails to demonstrat• a:rry legally pensissil,le ~asis fo~ a finding of undu~ hardship. Co:g$!lusiop. Thora is notbing to gain ?,y gran:t::ir-.ag this "11a:J;iance. There. is :no :i::,enefit to Lake. Minnetonka, to the residents 0£· c.asco circle or to the city of Orono. '!'be on1y posaU>le,benafit is a pos~ible financial gain to Mr. Remien. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINA.RD /j By I#: jf ~ Peter a. Bacbman J?lm/tes_C::J OC! Warren and Christine Bielke PHB\IU£1;~\STAUWTOM .L02 ~~ TOTAL PAGE.007 ~* I) V ' ..L I_I .;_J ,J .L -• ..L ,_, J. --"1--l. r _;._~ -L l l ;) lf!j I_J u.:.:' I) I),'.) JUN 9 '93 1 6: 48 1ROM ONE SEVEN ONE ZERO PRGE.001 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL • Eli Efl IAW OF.1?1CES LEONARD, STREET AND OEINARD '' ·-·, '. PltO.FBSSIONAL ASSOCIAllON st.J1IE zm 1SO soum Fl£<'nl S'I'RBal' 'MINNEAP01JS,MJNNl?SOTASS40l TE'LEPHONB (d12) n'J..UOO P.ACSIMII.lt (612) 3:3$..1ffl ~ !Pffl: 'nJBlNFO~~ni'J.'DIS'l'RJW'L1f'YIIBSSAGBJSJ.EINO'lJlMWll'mD'lO.ANDJSlN.IENDED OM.Y PO'R. '11m 'lmI OFTa;IIINDIVJJltlAL N,Wl!D BiE!LOW. IPmBJmADi!Jt Olt'mlS JS 1«:tr'IBEJNTENDED ~ YOU .AU HBalmY ADY'JSm ~ANY~~ oa. a:Jl'Y OF '1'fflS TP.Lt!CQn' lS ~y ~IS>. IP YOU 'RA.Vil RStB.'YED 'DttS TSUil®n' IN' l3UOR, l'U!MB ~y NO'DP!l US BY 'lll:tBPUONB ANn t,HS'.J1U)Y 1lBS TSJBO'>P"" VPSSl'IGR. Date of TJ:anaittal: June 9, 1993 n,B,MB pEL:tVml, !PJm ._~DIG ,1ACSIJgLE. lG.i;rJRDLS Ml,~ NAME: Kevin Staunton, Esq. /K~en Col.e, Esq. , "-~ F:.t:mr/COMPANY: :Popham Baik Sohnobrieh Kaufman Ltd .. CITY: Minneapolis, MN FACSIMILE Ntt:MB!!R: (612) ~34-8888 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (612) 333-4800 SENDER'S NAME: Petex-H. Ba.eh.man, Esq./#317 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (l!IO%,Otll11G DI.Jllmc:tft.l.L Llfrl:D): 7 IMMEDIATE HOTlFICA'l'ION 01! T.RANSMITTA1k (Y/N}: N CLI:EN'T/MATTER NVMB:g:af;: 2gos-1.5996 CALL {612) ,$,-.l619 XII' -,;ou JIU DVDii.J PROBLmlS ~ 011 ~ orig~1 wil.i !'011.ow hy mail. .. ---~ --~ --~ ----~ --~ -~ --~ ---~ --~ ~ COMMEN'l'S: SENT BY~---~--- DATE: ------- 'l'JMB: ~------- NOTIFIED SENDER:: -------~ CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: C. Jack Remien 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 5/24/93 APPLICATION NO. 1811 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 5/27 /93 COPIES: Dave Truax 4879 Drake Street Maple Plain, MN 55359 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION: Tabled to June 14th meeting, in order for applicant to have time to provide a statement of hardship in support of the application. This item is scheduled for the Monday, June 14, 1993 Council meeting. Meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. Please submit your hardship statement and any additional materials you wish reviewed by Council, no later than Monday, June 7th. If you have any questions, please contact Jeanne Mabusth or Mike Gaffron at 473-7357. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. ch ' ) SEW ft~ vu /.¥r1::R.__ ASS es s MG>/0 r H i.S %' /2_ 1 1 AN I¼-i.( s I s 2.) t) WN ~.S tttlf' H-t S'TD I'<-'{ s) VMtMJC.,f-~vll~~ /-1-MDS#lr' 5.-,.;4-Nb~.S TO: Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: May 27, 1993 SUBJECT: Sewer/Water Assessment, 3237 Casco Circle Introduction Because some Council Members indicated they might place significant weight on whether the subject lot had been assessed sewer and water units, I have reviewed the assessment history of the property and the adjacent property. A distinction must be made between the sewer being "available" and whether or not the property has been assessed (and on what basis it was assessed). Summary Assessment records were searched for Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19. At the time of both the sewer and water assessments, Lots 16, 17 and 18 were held as three separate tax parcels in common ownership. The house addressed as 3241 Casco Circle was mostly on Lot 17, partially on Lot 16. Lot 18 was assessed for front footage for both sewer and water, but was assessed for neither a water unit nor a sewer plant charge. No water stub was provided to Lot 18. The sewer stub existing on Lot 18 and serving the house on Lot 17, was designed and installed to serve the house on Lot 17. The record suggests that Lot 18 was not considered as separately buildable by the City at the time sewer and water was installed and assessed. The 1 acre zoning standard in effect in 1965 (changed to 1/2 acre in 1967) and the code standard that allowed Council to grant variances for substandard lots in single separate ownership but by omission suggested that such lots in common ownership could not be granted variances, likely combined to suggest that Lot 18 would not be separately buildable. Council is cautioned that whether or not a sewer unit was provided based on someone's interpretation of codes in 1965 or 1971 should not be the sole criteria for determining whether a hardship exists for the current application. No variance/hardship review was done to make those assessment determinations. Sewer/Water Memo May 27, 1993 Page 2 Water Assessment The following is a table defining how Lots 16 through 19 were assessed for water. Lot 16 Lot 17 *Lot 18 Lot 19 Plat 43300 Parcel: 0500 0550 0600 0650 WATER 1971 -LW-1 Assessed 60' /0 Units 55'/l Unit 55' /0 Units 55'/l Unit Ownership as of 1974 {earliest tax record available Tuthill Separate Tax Parcel Tuthill Separate Tax Parcel Tuthill Separate Tax Parcel Remien Separate Tax Parcel At the time City water was installed, all properties were assessed a footage charge of $5.80 per front foot (Lot 18 was assessed $319). Only those lots with existing residences or those which were thought to be buildable were assessed a unit charge of $580 per unit. Staff has found no documentation to-date as to the detail of this attempt to determine buildability of vacant lots as part of this assessment; however, City Clerk Dorothy Hallin indicates that those lots thought to be buildable were assessed a unit. The placement of water stubs clearly reflected Mr. Tuthill's common ownership of Lots 16-17-18. Only one stub was installed for the three lots, and "connector arrows" were placed on the as-built drawing to reflect Tuthill's ownership. As it currently stands, a water unit has not been assessed to Lot 18. A water stub has not been provided. Front footage has been paid. If the City determines that the lot is buildable, the current water unit connection charge is $1,877 per unit which would have to be paid as part of the building permit. Further, the owner would have to pay all costs of connection to the water main, which is across Casco Point Road from the lot. A new stub-in can be created relatively easily by the owner's contractor. Please see the water system as-built and copy of assessment roll attached. Sewer/Water Memo May 27, 1993 Page 3 Sewer Assessment The following is a table that indicates how Lots 16 through 19 were assessed for sewer. Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Lot 19 Plat 43300 Parcel: 0500 0550 0600 0650 SEWER 1965 -LS-1 Assessed 60' /1 Unit STP-lC* 55'/No STP-lC 55'/No STP-lC 55' /1 Unit STP-lC Ownership as of 1965 (assessment drawings) McNeal Separate Lot McNeal Separate Lot McNeal Separate Lot Hulse? or Kelgzan? Separate lot *"STP-lC" is the $225 sewer plant charge, which was assessed for all existing residences, and still collected today for new connections in specific projects (no inflation factor) At the time City sewer was installed, all properties were assessed a footage charge of $12.00 per front foot. Those lots containing a residence were also charged the $225 plant charge. Lot 18 was assessed 55' x $12 = $660. Staff has found no documentation suggesting that vacant lots were assessed the plant charge if they were considered buildable, so it is quite possible that no buildability determination was made at that time. Other than the plant charge, there was no "sewer unit" charge for properties in the 1965 project. The 1965 sewer as-built contains a connector arrow for Lots 16-17-18, and indicates one stub was placed on those three lots. This stub was on Lot 18, and the house on Lot 17 was connected to this stub. It is likely that the Lot 18 stub location reflected the best feasible connection location based on the septic system serving the house. Sewer/Water Memo May 27, 1993 Page 4 If the Council finds that this lot is buildable, the sewer connection charge payable with the building permit is as follows: $ 225.00 -plant charge 191.50 -lift station #6 by-pass charge 1,238.50 -lift station #7 force main charge $1,655.00 total due with building permit Brief Zoning History The "Casco Point District" was established in 1950, containing no regulations regarding lot size for existing lots. Ordinance #22 adopted in 1959 established a minimum building lot size of 1 acre area/140' width, and allowed Council to grant variances for existing substandard lots in single separate ownership. By not addressing common ownership lots, this section clearly inferred that substandard lots in common ownership could not be granted variances. The 1967 Zoning Code included the Casco Point area as "R-lD", requiring 1/2 acre area and 100' width. Those standards remained in affect when the designation was changed to LR lC in 1975. Conclusion Lot 18 has been assessed the footage charges that were assessed to all properties for the 1965 sewer and 1971 water projects. The lot was not assigned sewer or water units, based on the City's apparent determination of potential buildability based on codes in effect at the time. Council is reminded that no variance review was conducted at the time of assessment to determine actual buildability of the lot. If the lot is determined by Council to be buildable, sewer and water connections are feasible although stubs are not in place and would have to be installed by the owner's contractor. Connection charges which would be due and payable at the time a building permit is issued would be $1,877 for water and $1,655 for sewer (based on permit issuance in 1993). ch s"-rrr, o. v. a Hvo 5' LEAD ", ·. '• ~ ,..,, ,, ,,,,' Ill •• I .,. • • ..... • • ••••• -1:· . t ~ LJ 16 'HO. . 17 . r ot\'3 . 40'\J)NG (~50) ( 500) (550) ' · ,a . 7" · · · . ( 600) , ., ' ;; I 1 .. ~ J l , sv ·.· . . . ········-t I I ··ia.o ',.1----'(650) .J.,415.5 ~ ,+90 " 46' \..ONG\\ ) Q-\-94 3?,1 \.!)NG .:·---·-( I OPP \ 'E] ---HO. 1 I ,,;:.,\ ••• 20 ~IJ)OG u) JR . ____ ___,( 70Q). ~r~.I ,,.-·-•.· 1 ...... ., •,;:, ~,~\~ "{' ' .. '· ' 2 J \ ~s; vtt Q' ·: ~y'I-'. .. :,f ' ""--· . MIN /o/'7/ IN~ Plat Pa1 .. col Resident Rssido Co:nri:110rco Commerco Oversized Assmtc As&uto Assnito Assmto Assmt., Footage Unita .B'to~11m.ge u:~:1.-.~t.1 . , Sarv1oea Resldc Reaid(' Commo Conmio S01.,v ,. ____ . ·-·--___:----~-----!~. Unit!!_ .. · )[oota@~~-.. ~-~: ..... 43220 2Li10 ✓ 24-6011 1 1427 olu-1-580000 2730 ✓ 200000 1 1160.,00 580000 3200..-237005 1 1J1!1-.,89 580000 3ioo 195075 1 1i35.,35 580$00 3 oo ✓ 178.,41 1 103U,-o 78 580000 3800-' 180000 1 lOLJl.J..,00 580"00 Lt030 150075 ]. l" 874 .. 35 580000 20.,on ii.050 1r.:·6 02 1 1" 9ot.,92 580000· 20000 ;, ,0 i.1.250/ 1~2o50 1 82 050 580~00 · li.ioo/ 216005 1 1253,.,09 580000 i~ 00 176073 ]. 1025,,0.3 580.,.00 11.800 182080 1 1060 .. 21.1. 580000' 5000.1 160077 l 932rJf7 580000 ,5200 211020 1 122io96 580*00 lI-3.300 --50 60000 3J.i ,, 00 5m;,.,,oo 12:5 120000 1 696000 200 60o00 1-3li8,,oo 580ft00 "Jf"''Q 60c.OO l 3~.8.,00 580:.00. C.._.J 300 ✓ 60030 l 349.,74 580~00·, "'"'5 120 .. 00 l 1" 696000 5Boo·pt, · 2{) c,(>. · 5i ..-/-or* ~50 60 .. 00 1 --~~gQO 5/.lO Q QQ mam •~FMr±t,?," 60000 -ii IT i®!!I hii 00 I '7 3 !-~00 550 55000 1 n l II 319,,00 5ao·.oo 20.,UC 6QO 55000 s. 319,,00 55000 1 I "1 J19o00 j80o00 5 '/ ,7 c, 9 \•-'t°' ' --5.5oOO --i %Mtililtm j:;L -tbO H-319.,00 · .eo·,.oo 775 78075 l 11.56,,:75 ·. 580.00 850 23075 1/2 1tt 137.,75 290 ... 00 20 C (): 900 210000 1, .. J./2 111 1218.,00 87oftoo 20.,0. 950 30000 1/2 111 1'/4.,00 290.00 2u .. o. 1000 30~00 1/2 17~(000 290000 1060 20.,00 11 ~00 1070 i.OaOO 232000 1100 OoOO 348000 1150 60o00 .31.i8nOO 580 .. 00 1200 22,.,75 131.,95 20 I \ " ...._ \ \ '-.. SEE -- SHEET LUI 19 0'4, 2-12" EVERGREEN 10V v1-H111v l 1~1 • \ I \. CA":S:.c_c::, ..,_ \I ~,~ . \ { . 15 I /4 (\,,tie-• I l /6 I 17 . I . ,a * . ------g 0 I [ ◊ f \\o" 18" M~PU: MAPLE I ~ ~ ( Ownership -Lots 16-17-18-19 1965, 1974-Present Tax Book Applic. Year 16 17 18 19 # ------------------------------------------- 1965 McNeal McNeal McNeal Hulse? NO TAX RECORDS AVAILABLE 1974 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Remien 1975 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Remien 1976 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Remien 1977 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Remien 1978 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1979 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1980 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1981 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1982 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1983 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien #761 1984 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1985 Corson Corson Smith Remien 1986 Bielke Bielke Smith Remien #988 1987 Bielke Bielke Mertes Remien #1101 1988 Bielke Bielke Mertes Remien 1989 Bielke Bielke Remien Remien 1990 Bielke Bielke Remien Remien 1991 Bielke Bielke Remien Remien 1992 Bielke Bielke Remien Remien 1993 Bielke Bielke Remien Remien #1811 NOTE: Dash(-) between same owner indicates lots legally combined. NOTE: Ownership is as listed at beginning of nominal tax year. Application History Am;ilication # Action Date A1mlicant #761 Approved 2-27-84 (Smith) Exp. 2-27-85 #988 Approved 1-13-86 (Mertes) Exp. 1-13-87 #1101 Approved 2-9-87 (Mertes) Exp. 2-9-88 #1811 (Remien) ·.::.--· -·· § 10.07 shall approve a certificate of occupancy for a non-conforming use. Failure to apply for such occupancy certificate will be prima facie evidence that such non-conforming use was either illegal or did not lawfully exist on January 1, 1985. Subd. 6. Building Permit. It is unlawful for any person to hereafter erect or structurally alter a structure until a building permit shall have been issued indicating that the existing or proposed structure and the use of the land comply with this Zoning Chapter and all building codes. All applications for building permits pertaining to the erection or major alterations which will affect the outside dimensions of a structure, shall be accompanied by three (3) copies of a site plan. If the site consists of land not a part of a subdivision or land composed of partial lots, the site plan shall be attached to a survey by a registered land surveyor showing the actual dimensions of the lot, lots or parcel to be built upon. The site plan shall also show dimensions of existing and/or proposed structures to be erected or structurally altered, their location on the site in relation to outside boundary, the required off-street parking plan and such other information as may be necessary to provide for the enforcement of these regulations. Site plans submitted for all uses except one and two family dwellings shall contain lighting and landscape plans, and all site improvements are to be bonded at the rate of 1-1/2 times their estimated cost. SEC. 10.08. VARIANCES. . Subd. 1. Variances: When Granted. The Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted, in cases where there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Zoning Chapter and where the variance does not adversely affect the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter nor the health or welfare of the public. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 2. Variances; Reference to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. A. The Planning Commission is constituted as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. The decisions of the Board are advisory to the Council. Before authorization of any variances, the request therefor shall be referred to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for study concerning the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Municipal Plan and on the character and development of the neighborhood; and for its recommendation to the Council for the granting of such variance so as to relieve such difficulties or hardship to the degree considered reasonable ORONO CC 264 (4-1-84) · .. ) . § 10.08 without impairing the intent and purpose of the Zoning Chapter. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall recommend such conditions related to the variance regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed building, structure, or use as it may deem advisable. The Council by unanimous action may waive reference to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. B. The Board shall hold hearings as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subd. 2. A notice shall be published in the official newspaper once at least ten days before the day of the hearing. Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 150 feet of the property that requires the variance. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the nature shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this Subdivision has been made. C. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the Council, the Board may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties. The Board shall provide for a record of its proceedings which shall include the minutes of its meetings, its findings and the action tak~n on each matter heard by it, including the final order. Subd. 3. Variances; Issuances. A. In considering applications for variance, the 'Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Board and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare. of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. Before granting a variance, the Council shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. ORONO CC 265 (4-1-84) /: "-·· § 10.08 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. 7. The Board or Counci 1 may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. ORONO CC 266 Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 (4-1-84) '. I. § 10.08 B. The Board or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances to insure compliance with this Chapter and to protect adjacent properties. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this Chapter in the district where such land is located. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 4. Variances in Border Areas. The Zoning Chapter seeks to regulate land use throughout Orono so that the location of the various zones will be compatible to each other and to existing uses and regulations. Where property in the City adjoins property in another municipality which is subject to regulations substantially different from those applying to the City property, so as to make strict enforcement of all the City regulations as to such property unreasonable, the Council may take into account the loca~ion of the property and the regulations of the adjoining municipality in considering application for variances hereunder. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 5. Variances: Denial. Variances may be denied by motion of the Council and such motion shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No application for a variance which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the Planning Commission. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 6. Variances: Failure of the Board to Act. If no recommendation is transmitted by the Board within sixty ( 6 0) days after referral of the application for variance to the Board, the Council may take action without further awaiting such recommendation. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 7. Variances: Violation of Conditions. A viola tion of any condition set forth in granting a variance sha 11 be a violation of the Zoning Chapter and automatically terminates the variance. ORONO CC 266-1 Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 (4-1-84) ( l § 10.08 Subd. 8. Variances: Expiration. Variances shall expire one year after the date of Council approval if not used. Any change in use of the property shall require a new variance. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 9. A certified copy of every variance granted under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.358 and 462.359 shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder. Variances filed with the County Recorder pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 4 6 2. 3 6, Subd. 1, do not constitute encumbrances on real property. The order issued by the City shall include the legal description of the property involved. Failure to file a variance shall not affect its validity or enforceability. SEC. 10.09. CONDITIONAL USES. Subd. 1. Conditional Uses: Purpose. In order to give the district use regulation the f lexibi li ty necessary to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Chapter, in certain districts, conditional uses are permitted, subject to the granting of a use permit. Conditional uses include those uses generally not suitable in a particular zoning district, but which may under some circumstances be suitable. When such circumstances exist, a conditional use permit may be granted. Conditions may be applied to issuance of the permit and a periodic review of the permit may be required. The permit sha 11 be issued for a particular use and not for a particular person or firm. Because of their unusual characteristics, conditional uses require consideration so they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the Comprehensive Municipa 1 Plan and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these purposes, the Council is empowered to grant and to deny applications for conditional use permits and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of these permits. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 2. Conditional Uses: Reference to Planning Commission. Before the Council may grant conditional use permits for such conditional uses as prescribed in the district regulations of the Zoning Chapter, the request therefor shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study concerning the effect of the proposed use on the ordinance and on the character and development of the neighborhood and for recommendation in regard to granting such conditional use and the conditions thereof, if any, or for the denial of such conditional use. The Council may by unanimous action waive reference to the Planning Commission. ORONO CC 267 Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 ( 4-1".""84) ,sand poses, Y, soil n sec ~fined Is and struc gs, or imply ttions l into iform >fuse )Se in · zon d the t two zon have land nless may )erty :om- plan 1c1es :)mit ure nmg plan il. I be · the ,ub..: y of ~ an the for iose any the 1 be )fO- ~cts >m- , by ; as ncy ..., shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within) 00 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner orany party purchasing any such contiguous prop erty within one year pre~eding the request, and after.the affirmative vot~_in Javor thereof by a majority oftlie members of the governing body of any such city. The gov erning body of such city may, by a two-thirds vote of its members, after.hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without such.written consent whenever the planning commis sion or planning board of such city shall have made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less than 40. acres, within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance. would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and alter~tions re~ders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the overall needs_ofthe community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily news paper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and recommendations in writing. . Subd. 6. Appeals and· adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjust~ ments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable con ditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (I) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or detennination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear reques_ts for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their ·strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of cir"'. cumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it _is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit. and intent _of the ordinan~ "Undue. h~r~ship" .as u~ed _in connection _with· the grantmg of a vanance means thb!property m question c~ot be put to a reasonable ?Se if used _underconditfon~ allowed by th~ ·official ~ntrol~e plight oft~e l~owner 1s due to circumstances umque to the property hot created by the la~wnei\!and the variance, if granted, will riot alter the essential character of the locali~conomic con..: siderations alone shall not constitute an un~ hardship if reasonable use for the prop erty exists under the terms of the ordinanc~ndue hardship also· includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered constru~ as defined in section 116J.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony:~vith the ordinanc~he._board.of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the ·case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permittt;(!_"\ijlder the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is locate\llthe board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or gov erning body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances tQ insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. · · · Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children To: From: Date: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator May 19, 1993 Subject: #1811 C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle -Variance Renewal Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (A) -Existing lots. Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (A) (1) -"R" Districts of one acre or less with public sanitary sewer. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) -Minimum lot requirements. 1. Lot area Required = 21,780 s.f. 80% area = 17,424 s.f. Existing = 16,748 s.f. or 77% Variance = 5,032 s.f. or 23% 2. Lot width Required = 100' 80% width = 80' Existing = 55' Variance = 45' or 45 % Additional Exhibits H -Remien Letter 4-19-93 I -Resolution for Approval J -Correspondence 1 -Bachman Letter 4-26-93 2 -Staunton Memo 5-4-93 3 -DNR Letter 5-17-93 K -Planning Commission Minutes 4-19-93 L -Planning Commission Memo & Exhibits A thru G 4-15-93 M -Original 1983-84 Variance Documentation Zoning File #1811 May 19, 1993 Page 2 of 3 Description of Request The applicant requests the renewal of lot area and lot width variances granted per Resolution No. 1607 (2/84), Resolution No. 1904 (1/86), and Resolution No. 2123 (3/87). The applicant, C. Jack Remien, currently owns the subject property (Lot 18) as well as the neighboring property (Lot 19), where the applicant resides. A potential buyer for this property who wishes to construct a residence would like assurance that the lot is buildable. The potential buyer has submitted conceptual plans which demonstrate that a residence can be installed which will require no additional variances. Please review the Planning Commission memo and exhibits for further information. This property, Lot 18, was originally owned in common with the two lots to the north, Lots 16 and 17, which were not combined. As a result of the common ownership study completed in 1983, the City changed its policy on common ownership lots in sewered zones and based on the individual merits of Lot 18, the lot area and width variances were granted. At the April 19 Planning Commission meeting, Warren and Christine Bielke, who live adjacent to the subject property (Lots 16 and 17), asked for the denial of the variance as they believe the lot too small and the impact too great with the construction of a residence. Exhibit G of the Planning Commission packet is a letter from the Bielke's indicating their position which includes signatures of other neighbors who support the denial of the application. Please refer to the Planning Commission minutes for further information. Included as Exhibit H is a letter from Mr. Remien addressing some of the concerns brought forth by the Bielkes. This letter was read by the Planning Commission Chair, Maureen Bellows, at the Planning Commission meeting as it did not arrive in time to be included in the Planning Commission Packet. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission approved the lot area and lot width variances with the vote 3 For, 2 Against based on the findings and conditions noted in the previous approvals. Jeff Johnson and Steve Peterson voted against approval of this application. Jeff Johnson felt he could not support the request as he felt the two lots should be combined as neither has sufficient area to meet the zoning requirements. Steve Peterson felt that the approval required too many variances. Zoning File #1811 May 19, 1993 Page 3 of 3 Subsequent Discussions Shortly after the Planning Commission meeting, Kevin Staunton received a letter from the Bielkes' attorney, Peter Bachman, indicating his discussions with a DNR attorney lead him to believe that DNR regulations prohibit the City from granting this variance. Further discussions lead to this item not being placed on the May 10 agenda pending additional information. Staff discussed this issue at length with DNR officials. While they initially indicated our "lots of record" ordinance may be inconsistent with DNR Shoreland Regulations, after further in-depth review they determined that our 80 % rule is not inconsistent with the intent of the D NR regulations, that the intent of the regulations was not necessarily to deny buildability of a lot that meets their minimum lot area requirement (15,000 s.f. on a General Development Lake) while requiring only minor variance to the DNR minimum 75' requirement for sewered GD lakes. The DNR letter of May 17 sets forth the DNR position, and concludes with a reminder that if the City grants a variance, Council must find that a hardship exists. Council may recall that upon recommendation of the City Attorney, in 1984 the City revised its interpretation of the existing lots of record code section relating to one acre or smaller lots with sewer. Prior to 1984, staff interpreted the language (which has not changed since 1967) to mean that the City would not even consider variance applications for existing vacant common ownership lots less than 80% of the lot width and area requirement. On the advise of our attorney, since 1984 the City has accepted variance applications for such lots, and based on the merits of each individual case, has granted a number of such variances. At the same time, however, recall that the City tightened up its ordinance language with regards to commonly owned unsewered lots. Because this application is controversial, at the risk of flooding you with paper, we have included documentation from the original 1983-84 variance review, which may help Council understand the basis for the original approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. Council's optional courses of action may include: 1. Approval. 2. Table, requesting additional information. 3. Conceptual denial. 4. Other. April 19 1 1993 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Acmini5trator Orono City Hall 2780 Kelley Parkway orono, MN Subject: LANO USS APPLlCA~IoN:#1811 AT 3237 CASCO CIRCLE Oea.r Ms. Mabusth: In an effort to expand on the letter submitted by Bielke & Richards, here a~e eome additional consi9erations which are pertinent to ma.king a W$ll-informed decision. · l) The eucce~~ion of ownership of Lot 18 is: 1976 1977-1986 1987-1988 1988-Present -- ' Owner Tuthill Smith .Mertes · Remien When MarteB bought the lot in 1987, it was his intention to build a heme after selling his other residence. By· 1988 Mertes was still unable to eell his existing home and subsequently, sold the lot to me for $80,000 as a buildable lot. At that point my intention was to expand rrtt present residence on Lot 19 to cover in sane pa.rt, Lot 18. I In Ootcber of 1985 when Bielke,purohased his home, there was a valid variance for that lot. In 1986 and 1987, variancei!!I were again srantad to build on Lot 18, At no time did Bielke file a request that these variances be denied. · ~e soil erosion problem referred to in Paragraph #2 was the result of the rain storm of the century in the early l980ta when 8-10 11 of rain !ell in a 12-hour period. There has been no other significant erosion cf record sinoe that time. · In Paragraph #4, the question df "owner hardship" is the result o! no adjacent property which could be addsd to mak& this lot buildable. There are numerou,9 homes on the east shore of ca&eo Point with eimilar sized lots, and a new resi&ince would not compromise the integrity of the neighborhood. · r.c Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Page 2 The question of financial gain for myself is minimal when one consider~ that I purchased the lot in 1988 for $80,000 and am 91ling it five year3 later for $95,000 less real estate corrmissions. In addition, I have paid real estate taxes based on that lot as being buildable. Without a renewed variancs, I would be subjected to a serious financial lO$ij on the property. In closing, there are two final comments which do impact the request for denial of this variance: 1) In 1986 and 1987, variances were passed without objections from Bielke. What is different is that toc:iay Bielke also has his residence. for sale. 2) At the present time, I have qualified buyers and signed purchase agreem.,nt~ not only for Lot 18, ·but also Lot 19. Approval of this variance would be greatly appreciated, not only by myself, but also by the two qualified bu~r.s who are scheduled to close on May 2e, 1993. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE NO. 1811 WHEREAS, C. Jack Remien (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3237 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 18, Spring Park, also all the land including the vacated highway, Lake Shore Drive, lying between the Northeasterly line of said lot and the shore of Lake Minnetonka and between the Northwesterly and Southeasterly lies of said Lot 18 extended Northeasterly to said lake shore, and being part of Government Lot 6, Section 20, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, and also indicated on the plat of said Spring Park (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property that is 16,748 square feet in area or 77% of the minimum area required of 21,780 square feet or half acre and the width of the property is 55 feet or 55 % of the required 100 feet of lot width. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1811. 2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property was in common ownership with contiguous Lots 16 and 17, Spring Park prior to 1967 through 1977. Lots 16 and 17 are now legally combined. The property is now in common ownership with Lot 19. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (1) of the Municipal Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided a lot of record meets 80 % of the required lot area and lot width and has municipal sewer available. Page 1 of 6 5. Prior to December 19, 1983, the City Council always required that when two or more lots were owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. 6. Upon completion of a 6 month City wide review of the common ownership issue, on December 19, 1983, the City approved a proposed amendment of the municipal code that would permit all substandard undeveloped lots within the sewered areas of the City regardless of the ownership of these lots, the same standards for review. 7. The property is 16,748 square feet or 77% of the required area. The property is consistent in area with 7 other developed lots within a total developed neighborhood of 33 lots. 8. The property measures 55 feet in lot width and is approximately 5 feet short of the narrowest lots in the 33 lot Casco Circle neighborhood at 60 feet. 9. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 19, 1993 and a majority of its members recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following findings: A. No available land -lots are developed on both sides of property. B. The property is served with sewer and water. C. A house and improvements can be constructed without the need for additional variances. D. By granting this variance there will be no negative effect on the public health, safety and welfare. E. By granting this variance it is consistent with the development of the area. F. By granting this variance there should be no need for future hardcover and setback variances. Page 2 of 6 G. The special conditions applying to the parcel of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. H. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. I. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. J. The granting of the proposed variances will not in anyway impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. K. That the granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 10. This application is a renewal of variances granted on February 27, 1984, and the findings stated in that approval resolution (No. 1607) were acceptable at that time and are still valid. 11. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 12. 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new Page 3 of 6 residence on a property 16,748 square feet in area or 77% of the required 21,780 square feet (1/2 acre) and with a lot width of 55 feet or 55% of the required 100 feet of lot width, subject to the following conditions: 1. The detached garage located within the right-of-way of Casco Circle is a non conforming structure and subject to all pertinent municipal ordinances for non conforming structures. 2. The only variances granted with this approval are lot area and lot width. No other variances are granted. 3. Applicant is hereby advised that in approving the development of this substandard property that all future improvements must meet the current standards of the code and that a future Council might not approve any improvement to the property that requires a variance. 4. Applicant shall pay the appropriate water unit charge and sewer connection fees at the time that the building permit is issued. 5. The property owner shall bear all costs of connection to the municipal sewer and water, including the installation of new stubs to serve the property, if required. 6. An easement must be granted in favor of 3241 Casco Circle over the portion of the sewer line which lies within the subject property, 3237 Casco Circle. The easement area must be of sufficient size to allow maintenance of the sewer line. 7. Side, street, and lakeshore setbacks are approved per the attached survey (Exhibit A). 8. As part of the normal building permit procedure, applicant shall provide a grading and drainage plan for the property. 9. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, 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 (May 24, 1994). Page 4 of 6 10. 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. 11. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of May, 1993. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner ( s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of May, 1993 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 0 I-HUI 1: !::, I HI+ Q C,I' Scnla 1 th U1 0 l" = ,.o I 6-11 .. nJ I ro II nY'-r\tt' r I U: / / ,,,,,• I LU ,::4, i .' I I \ · I , " EXH18lT ----··--- ........ / , ,, . / / ·•~' It( ,,-// 1 eby certify t.h, t. 1.111,, is I a h~1< and cortl'~ t. i-~ l't·•• · sl.lnta tion o n ow·vgy of t I\,, bountlurtao or Lo 18, Sprinl{ l'•n'-, the locntion of all e stin(t b\dld\111:r, ther~on, and tho proposo<l ll1c11tlon ,:-,( a. proposed building. It clonn nn I,, pm· port to aho1.1 othr.ir lreprov•,t1¥>11! ,, "'' encroachments. GOTUX>N R. COFFIN co., INC, :;,~ ~ / .,r ,✓,,_ ,LE:. . ...::!:::!._~~.,----·:,-~ Gordon fl. Coffin flea, No, u()h/1 Hnrk S. Cronborg Reg. No,l?'/~':i 1.;ind Surveyors nnd P1Arn11H11 Lon!,'; [.,(lk1,, HinM11otn #761 l~J\.W CJFFJC:E::~, L E O N A R D, S 1' R E ET A N D D E I N A R D $10ttr'Y AA.4h¢wt ~Akt)t.O O rlCLO, .,,itl: loOllr.'H1't\0 J V~~~ •ur-.i I s.111r"s. TM~"1M#o~ C, rE.'NDti:tC'i Mt;•~H'I~ "1 !HtrqLtAh 1J~t..'l"H.it PCl\.l,,V t:::11>-.~l r~ "'· ~A.Y'l"0'1 ::)A\'di "'· co~ !)Tt~HCN ~. PC-:,AUM CMA.lf .. t.5 A. 1-'AY; L~Wrt l .J, ,..OH.eoo1-1 :';F.C"~Cl , . Mc:CUNNlC\;,; •• ,Fi 1:,:tCH.t.nc :i PCPIJ.r • .JA f ru:.crrn:: T, ROSEN81.. .. T1 c"~ot~ r., s.,..,.,,e S,Ttv£'i M, RUDIN ,,HJtf~ M. HCRMAN !.rC:YCN D, OrAV"'7EFt .1,A,,urs, ~. 00~9!.Y' 11.ATHI FF,N M. Gjit~tU,M !, t.1'>1tN J OAVir,c;1;1;., ~TtrHCN n LITM,U.i CDWARO M, W0(Ft~1t.t.ocn ~¢1')Cq~· d.rVl:!:i elAJUfnW,"i ~'''"'~~c J. wcr.cNrP l,\61-J!l:L J, t-1c1NC~H•£'1", .,,111 !IV<';',q t.t ~A'f~/\q~ r~t~1r.rt1.,:,~, W W.JIHW1 JO•~N C. 10..ULHk f.sf!AOL.C't ,1 (~1t.1..•r1 M'.~..,An. A ~r.,uC.H ~Ai:;iru C. t:l).fANO riAVIO "1 tt>Yf.C!i. CA,tOLYN C':~At ¥!.~~ ..IAMC5i V AOT~ RIC114R:0 H, h1,t.'-ITIN '108!.HI l... Ur~AY AN.(..~LA M i\("1!•0.tA,o~ RonrRT ~ ., MA'YI~ .JAMr:; (i clvi..i..,u-to ,10S£.(1H ~ rn,Lr.Y L.~wnc•~cc.; 1nP1.n OAYfO W .<J:l If, MARK,;; W'.tTZ. OAY10 L. L.1\.LLHAUC; ACeL~, ., MIJAr= OAVIO •UNTO~ ANilrl A J.4 C,;,,;~fS,"tT ,_..._AK A, \,.IN'l:l(.:TI.CN ~f'NAT .;, !i-Ht!A Ill LCJWCLL V .c:;rn;..T7 CliJUGLA!i A (tR!'F.'NSWII..C,, r \ I r M (.. S.6.Ml'•~CN RQ$.C.NHt:. "(A f 1-1.1.N!aON Ml~HAt.L C TAYl.n~ iJt.>t1N W rtrT".i1N:,;;tt'~ TllnMA ... , ►· '°•6t.11l ► w~ Ri,P.r.rt' ll.!.fJ._,:,'J1":'.!>1 TJM,')'f ►IY wc .. t1◄ pR<'.JF'ESSIONAl A':',S.r)C'IATl1:::)f'.l SU(TF' :~:;\CO 150 ~OUTH F"IFTH STl'!S:ET MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA !';5402 TELEPt10NC: (61.;:) .,.'lF>•lt>l,ltl FACSIMIL.S" it,:,tC,1 ) :J-30 ISS7 April 26, 1993 GPrr.r •• } ··•J'\V/HIAl.,H ~u';Af.J,,. 111.">~1t;c,n Wll(HA!:.L 11 1.:01,~tl F,c~,;,ti_t.'t J G-Ulltl• ,; u;c,· A w1. Tr,r ., VI ~Of NIA r, (',(iN~ i-11~":~F'i ~J: A µ11.:_t_r, Ti""\"J,H'f'"' '1\,Vt,.t1?;:u,, ~;..AKt. fl ►lr.1:'AJ:U), ./R Wll..l..l~M L ni:.:rr ~.- ~11'r Yr.,j l A~I.TOH PJ'TF'~ M P..a.t; .... 1.1,1,N ,.,O~N $ &,►lt,NN.t-1' (, At:,/:\-1(. 1,, )-lt,,._.1:'tL ,,,u,tri;,; 0, !;IM"!iON ~>;AUN C M1•,r., 11A77('1~ ,IA~r rt ,j ~F' ,.,, Wu,q,., MAR~. W r1t1.t.~I\NIV ~rT~A € ~,),m !,l<,Y 1.i,.-n·~t..1tl'..t. ,, 1a.a1J.r.rr~ 1:"'l-!':11. YN v we1.nlo',l ~"!'CY'CN Q I INC'IF'M ... NN Wll.1.1,l,M I! ..:nc.J.o ~◊Nl'l\,('I ,! $,1-!ULll :0:, I~ V ►' N ,J MH/r0l~lt,,', ~IAMA "4 Krill wt.~e>Y c:. r,r.:.,c:~..-rN 1..c,~,u,.., 1)►1""tn:!.c.~1cn Rt .. ~t l◄T H. TVnCCR~Qu .>(1:::Jt-l/_., J ,v~~Ar:.'.A".'J:;(,A .J.a\."1"1 M r.u:,~trR <;t,t;TH 'lVTI n n'Nru.,. A"iO~·rw P tlr r tll\Nlfl ,;,:,1.P.H-l !11('.()1,I. 6, t.H(.;.1!$CII llA VU, 0 CT7Wlt. C ~ I A\•PJiC f; ~TA\<r,J. JA"'it: :-~t;t'lrA(T r=:11{~"'" OA.l.A'O: r,t,11;1-.i •, LAt(:iU.'t ~\")C.,'\1 1-,► • .J.t.t.:IJZ.ZI (~c.:n::i,:,r ~ 1,£0~.AFtD ,,0n,,,~Gl .'R,.IHJQ L ool STAf.:0' 1•0"1'1,1~(",d nrNN'l/(.T 0£1~,dtO t·C~~.,0,1.:.: liMC5 S, 0£1,-..)..AO,,n~l'l"~A~, !,11,',f'U;Y I.OAl\C';!' I nr NI' J'H-,VT7 DA,.11a, o ro1 .... t't/\Nlj'!,. M SAIOHIIJ.!:,: .:,r C.•!>v11~.:~ WrllT!:Q'c, C>1Rtte·1 U!AL NUM911'.n (612) 335~1862 Kevin Staunton, Esq. Popham Haik Schnobrich Kaufman Ltd. 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 S. Ninth Streat Minneapolis, Minnesota 5S402 Re; city of Orono; Request for Variance by Jack Remien Dear Kevin: Recently I called you to discuss case law providing thnt the City of Orono is not required to grant the above-referenced variance simply because similar variances have been granted in the past. Since that time, I have done a little additional research and I now believe that the city of Orono is definitely prohibited by DNR rules from granting the requested variance. Enclosed please find a copy of Minn. Rules§ 6120.3300. Note particularly the language in subpart 2(D) which provides in relevant part II r I) f, in a group of two or more contiguous: lots under the sarne ownership, any individual lot does not mGet the requirements of items A to E and subparts 2a and 2b, the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purpr,i:tt;S of sale or development." Under subpart 2a(F), the minimum lot width is 75 ft. The lot size proposed by Mr. Remien is only 55 ft. and clearly not in compliance with DNR r8gulations. I had a telephone conversation today with Tibor Galle, :from the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. Mr. Gallo confirmed that a 55 ft. wide lot in common ownership with an adjacent lot mtt!-:lt not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development. As you know, DNR rules have the force and E~ffect of law and are binding on the city of Orono. Orono, of course, K~vin Staunton, Esq. April 26, 1993 Page 2 could be more restrictive, but cannot be less restrictive than provided in these rules. I would appreciate it if you would give me a call to discuss this matter. PHB/tess Attachment Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARI) •') ,,(~_/'.-, /'/./ _ .. :::'·. /'·· ··--... , --. I ,,,.,..\, /') /'_j_·;:r .. , ... f;,. 1,-,. , ... ,,., ,··-••' By'/' '/i• '-•• • -•,:.L•l-· ....... . Peter H. Bachman cc: Warren and Christine Bielke (by facsimile) PHB\BIELKE\STAUMTOM.l01 (f I , \ •· r •'. 6120.3200 SHORELA.'I\TD A...~,m FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 5768 D. River classes in water-oriented commercial districts. Re-ForA Trans-Agri-Tribu-Uses mote ested ition cultural Urban tary Surface water--oriented commercial C C C C C C ""'Commercial planned unit development C C C C C C Public, semipublic C C C p p p Parks and historic sites C C C C C C Forest management p p p p p p E. River classes in general use districts. Re-For-Trans-Ag:ri-Tribu- Uses mote ested ition cultural Urban tary Commercial C C C C p C •*Commercial planned unit development C C C C C C Industrial N C N N C C Public, semipublic C C C C p C Ex.tractive use C C C C C C Parks and historic sites C C C C C C Forest management p p p p p p Mining of metallic minerals and peat p p p p p p *As accessory to a residential planned unit development ** Limited expansion of a commercial planned unit development involving up to six additional dwelling units or sites may be allowed as a permitted use pro vided the provisions of part 6120.3800, $ubpart 2, are satisfied Statutory Authority: MS s 105.48S History! J 3 SR 3029 '5,~ 6120.3300 ZONING PROVISIONS. Subpart 1. Purpose. To manage the effects of shoreland and water surface crowding, to prevent pollution of surf ace and ground waters oi the state, to pro vide ample space on lots for sewage treatment systems, to minimbe flood dam-• ages, to maintain property values, to maintain hi$toric values of significant historic sites, and to maintain natural characteristics of shorelands and adjacent water areas, shorcland controls must regulate lot sizes, placement of structures, and alterations of shoreland areas. Subp, 2. Residential lot size. All single. duplex, triplex, and quad residential lots created after the date of enactment of the local shorcland controls must meet or exceed the dimensions presented in subparts 2a and 2b, and the following; A. Lots must not be occupied by any more dwelling units than indicated in subparts 2a and 2b. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in subparts 2a and 2b can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments under part 6120.3800. Only land above the ordinary hi~ water level of public waters can be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subpart 2a, items D to F can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is avail• able to the property. B. On natural environment lakes, subdivisions of duplexes, triplexei;, and quads must also meet the following standards: 5769 narY high· 5Ystems th one locafr triplex, or ( or exceed trots also the guest be create surface 2 ity a.s vit phy, inc govern.n ment 01 to E an, from lo the lot becarn( time, a a.rerne· any usi evalua mcnt t varian c:ontig requ.ir ereda mustl parce and 2 for n, to pu su&d suit.I! over the· ripa con: ~ • .,,_,v ~i;:::tr:;f Jf t{:;;r:.::l1I%Iti{ ~f {Jiit;~~i1kWi!ilriwitit(lit:II;1 ,., r 5768 Tribu ban tary C C p C p Tribu- a.n t.ary C C C C C C p p involving ;i use pro- r surface !, to pro -Od dam gniftcant adjacent 11ctures, 1idential 1st meet owing: . ,d.icated .ensities esigned 0 .3800. used to I rdinary ;ubpart s avail- plexes, 5769 SHORELAND AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 6J l0.3300 ( 1) Each building must be set back at least 200 feet from t:he ordi• nary high water level. (2) Each building must have common sewage treatment and water systems that serve all dwelling units in the building. (3) Watercraft docking facilities for each lot must be centralized in one location and serve all dwelling units in the building. (4) No more than 25 percent of a lake 's shoreline can be in duplex, triplex, or quad developments . C, One guest cottage may be allowed in local controls on lots meeting or exceeding the duplex dimensions presented in subparts 2a and 2b if the con trols also require all of the following sta.ndards to be met: (I) For lots exceeding the minimum lot dimensions of duplr;;;r; lots, the guest cottage rnust be located within the smallest duplc;i;-sized lot that could be created including the principal dwelling wi i t. (2) A guest cottage must not cover more than 700 square feet i::>fland surface and must not exceed 15 feet in height. (3) A guest cottage must be located or designed to reduce its visibil• ity as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topogra~ phy, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government, assuming summer leaf-on conditions . D. Lots of record in the office of the county reco rder on the date of enact ment of local sboreland controls that do not meet the requirements of it1:ms A to E and subparts 2a and 2b may be allowed as building sites without variances from lot size requirements provided the use is permitted in the zoning district , the lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became substandard , was created compliant with official controls in effect at the time, and sewage treatment arid setback requirements of the shoreland controls. are met. Necessary variances from setback requirements must be obtained before any use, sewage treatment system , or building pennits are issued for the lots. In evaluating all the variances , boards of adjustment shall consider sewage treat ment and water supply capabilities or constraints of the lots and shall derny the variances if adequate facilities cannot be provided . Jf, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the requirements of items A to E and subparts 2a and 2b , the lot must cot be consid ered as a separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development. The lot must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more parcels of land, each meeting the requirements of items A to E and subparts 2a and 2b as much as possible . Local shoreland · · .1 size for nonconfonning lots or impose etr restnctions on t eir development. • E. If allowed by loci} governments , lots intende d as controlled accesses to public waters or recreation areas for use by owners of nonriparian lots within subdivisions must meet or exceed the following stand.lrds : ( 1) They must meet the width and size for residential lots, and be suitable for the intended uses of controlled access lots . If docking, mooring, or over~water storage of watercraft is to be allowed at a controlled access lot, then the width of the lot must be increased by the percent of the requirementr. for riparian residential lots for each watercraft provided for by covenant beyon dl six, consistent with the following table: Controlled Access Lot Frontage Requirements Ratio oflake size to shore length (acres/mile) Less than 100 100-200 Required increase in frontage (percent) 25 20 I I /93 09:48 POPHAM HAIK MEMORANDUM VIA TELECOPY TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ron Moorse Jeanne Mabouth hv Kevin P, Stauntoi~-1.J May 4, 1993 Remien Variance Application 3300 Piper Jaffr3y Towor 222 South Ninth Striot H,nneapolis, Minnaiot~ 5&4()2 (612) 333--4800 Attached please find a copy of a letter and a section of the DNR Shoreland Regulations which were sent to me by Peter Bachman of the Leonard, Street & Deinard firm in Minneapolis. Mr. Bachman represents Warren and Christine Bielke. In his letter Mr. Bachman takes the position that the DNR Shoreline Regs prohibit the granting of a variance to Mr. Remien. I am in the process of reviewing these regulations and am planning on discussing the matter further with him at 4:00 this afternoon. Prior to that time, I would like to visit with you both to get your input on this matter. Please give me a coll early this afternoon so that we can talk further. 481KPS ·j PHONI: NO. STATE OF ffa!J~~~©)u~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS -1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 772-7910 55106 FILE NO. May 17, 1993 Ms. Jeanna Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 • crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 RE: APPLICATION #1811, C. JACK REMEIN (3237 CASCO CIRCLE), LOT W!PTH VARIANCE FOR LOT HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP, LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133, #9), CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COtJNTY Dear Ms. Mabusth: We have reviewed the above-referenced variance application .which involves contiguous nonconf or:ming lots of record that are under the same ownership. The DNR's model shoreland management ordinance (based on the July 3, 198~ statewide standards) specifies that lots of record on the date of enactment of the local shoreland controls that do not meet the minimum area and width requirements may be allowed as building sites without variance provided: 11 the use is permitted in the zoning district, the lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it beca:rne substandard, was created compliant with official controls in effect at the.time, and sewage treatment and setback requirements of this ordinance are met," (Section 6.1, A.) section .6.l, c. in the DNR model further specifies that if, in a group of two or more contiguous lots· under the same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the area and width standards of the ordinance that the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for purposes of sale or development, but must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so the meet the area and width requirements as much as possible. In Orono's Section 10.03, Subd. 6 1 A., 1., it states that a lot of record which is .•• serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not :meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without council approval if the area measurements and width of.that lot area within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. However, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .i..· I 11 '•, f i .,_ I l ~ ._. f ', -s-• ..._._,,I 1 '• Ms. Jeanne Mabusth May 17, 1993 l?age 2 • We interpreted this provision in the city of Orono's Zoning Chapter to mean that if a common ownership lot met the 11 80% rule" it could be considered a separate buildable lot, but that if could not meet the 80% rule it must be combined with the continuous lot under common ownership. Since lots that meet sot of the city's 1/2 acre area minimum and 100 foot lot width minimum still meet the DNR standards, we feel this provision of the city's Zoning Chapter is consistent with DNR standards. However, we note that the city's intent in this provision could be clarified by adopting language more consistent with the DNR model. Therefore, since the Remein lot does not meet the 80% lot width requirement, the city's ordinance specifies that it be combined with the adjoining lot under common ownership, A variance can be considered, but the applicant must demonstrate hardship (in accordance with Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6., (2)). Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910. Sincerely, CJ~~ Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Tom Zappia Peter Bachman · City of Orono Shoreland File MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1810 -CONT. Weckman stated to his knowledge there is just block under this area. He said the apartment has its own access door to the exterior. He said this use has existed for many years. Recently the owners applied for a permit to upgrade the apartment, and It was determined they would need a conditional use permit. Bel I ows asked that this be ref erred to as a guest house, and clarified that they would not al low the renting of this area. She stated that assuming there are no footings under the breezeway, they can treat this area as a separate bui I ding, thereby al lowing the independent exterior access. DeNero noted the residence was bui It in 1937 and is a landmark to the area. She stated the house has been restored and maintained that way. They only wish to upgrade the electrical and other safety features. It was moved by Bel lows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of Appl I cation #1810 Henry DeNero, 1245 6th Avenue North, approving a conditional use permit for a guest house use. Ayes 5, nays O. (#10) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES -PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 -8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai I ing were noted. Mr. Remien was present. Weckman noted this Is a variance request has been approved three times in the past. He noted the applicant wants to assure bui ldabi I ity prior to sel I ing. The preliminary plans appear to meet height and hardcover requirements. He reviewed previously approved hardships for this property, and noted the common ownership pol icy of the City. He stated many lots in the area are of similar size. He referred to one objection letter from the neighboring property owners and a letter submitted by Remien providing background information. Bel lows read the letter from Remein. Warren and Christine Bielke expressed strong opposition. He stated the lot Is substandard, and there are issues that were not discussed with previous variance review. 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. Mrs. Bielke stated when they purchased their property, the variance had not yet been approved. She noted they along with Remien opposed the first variance request, prior to Remien purchasing the parcel. She read a letter from their attorney presenting reasons for denial. She referred to Section 10.08 dealing with variance approval regarding the health, safety and welfare of the public, and suggested the erosion problem in this area should make the lot unbu i I dab I e · as it wou Id be adding to the prob I em and wou Id be detrimental to the neighborhood. She added they did have their house I isted prior to this situation, but felt this may depreciate the value of their home. She felt this request does not meet the criteria for approval, and suggested this lot be combined with Lot 1 9. Mr. Nisiedlak, potential buyer of Lot 18, advised that the house wi 11 be bui It back from the lakeshore and wi 11 not add to the erosion problem. He felt the house he would bui Id would not lower the standards of the neighborhood, and said he would be wi I I ing to supply the Bielkes with plans to present to potential purchasers of their property. Weckman reviewed that the sewer connection stub for Lots 16 and 17 is located within the boundary of Lot 18. Mrs. Bielke stated it ls 3.5' within the boundary of Lot 18, and added they were unaware of that situation when they purchased their property. She said the records of the City indicate that Lot 18 was unbul ldable and that is why the sewer I ine was placed within its boundary. Mabusth disagreed, and stated the three parcels Lots 16, 17 and 18 were owned in common at the time of installation of that pipe, and that is why it was.placed on Lot 18. Mrs. Bielke read from memo from Gaffron to the City Counci I dated December 1985 which states, "they do not anticipate that Lot 18 wou Id become bu i I dab I e". Bel lows indicated that statement means the Bielkes need a new stub to their property. She fe It hard pressed to deny the request because of past approvals. She noted the property has changed hands several times as a bui ldable lot, and this request would not set a new precedent In the neighborhood. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. It was moved by of Application approving lot residence. Bel lows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, area and width variances to construct a new Johnson said he respects the pos It ion of a I I i nvo I ved parties, and could not support the request as he felt the property should be combined with Lot 19 as one cond It ion for approva I is that no add-itional land is available. Bel lows felt that was an incorrect interpretation of the code. Mabusth noted the code specifically states that substandard lots, whether in single separate or commonly owned, are to be judged on their own merits. The finding that no add it i ona I I and is ava i I ab I e was validated during the variance review because at the time the lot was not owned in common with adjacent lots. Peterson felt approval requires too many variances. Schroeder questioned why the neighbors did not buy the parcel. Mrs. Bielke stated they were unaware that it was for sale unti I too late. Jay and Gay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, stated they were given the impression that Remien purchased the parcel for use in conjunction with Lot 19. He said the on I y reason why the City approved the variance in the past was because It had been taxed as bui I dab le, and an attorney owned it at the time and the City did not want to be brought into legal action. Be I I ows fe It that issue was not pertinent. Vote: Ayes 3, nays 2. Johnson and Peterson voted nay. (#11) #1812 THOMAS PATRICK GOODYEAR, 712 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCES -PUBLIC HEARING 8:40 -9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai I Ing were noted. Mr. Goodyear was present. Mabusth reviewed the applicants request to add a second story to the existing residence, including the addition of a 2'+ expansion into the right side yard to square off the foundation.· The appl leant also proposes alterations to the existing boat house. 9 TO: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager • I • DATE: April 15, 1993 SUBJECT: #1811 C. Jack Rt1mien, 3237 Casco Circle -Variance Renewal -Public Hearing Zoning District LR-lC, Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre minimum. Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.03, Subd. 6(A) -Existing lots. Section 10.03, Subd. 6(A)l -"R" Districts of one acre or less with public sanitary sewer. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Zoning Chapter in any "R" District of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within 80 % of the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(8) -Minimum lot requirements. 1. 2. Lot area Required = 21,780 s.f. 80% area = 17,424 s.f. Existing = 16,748 s.f. or 77% Variance = 5,032 s.f. or 23% Lot width Required = 100' 80% width = 80' Existing = 55' Variance = 45' or 45 % Zoning File #1811 April 15, 1993 Page 2 List of Exhibits A -Application B -Property Owners List C -Plat Map D -Survey E -Resolution #1904 F -Front Elevation G -Bielke Letter 1./-11.~°i '.3. Description of Request The applicant requests the renewal of lot area/lot width variances granted per Resolution #1607 (2/84), #1904 (1/86), and #2123 (3/87). Each of the variances expired at the end of one year before a building permit was issued. The applicant, C. Jack Remien, currently owns the subject property (Lot 18) as well as the neighboring property (Lot 19), where the applicant resides. A potential buyer for this property who wishes to construct a residence would like assurance that the lot is buildable. Rough plans have recently been submitted for the proposed home and the potential buyer of the property will attend the Planning Commission meeting if there are any questions. A preliminary review of the proposed residence has been completed by staff. No hardcover is proposed within 75' of the lake and hardcover within the 75-250' zone is at 24%, meeting the 25% hardcover requirement. Hardcover between 250-500' of the lake has 16.5% hardcover. Lot coverage is at 10% and the structures appear to meet the height requirements. Therefore, no additional variance would be required. This property, Lot 18, was originally owned in common with the two lots to the north, Lots 16 and 17, which were not combined. As a result of the common ownership study, the City changed its policy on common ownership lots in sewered zones and based on the individual merits of Lot 18, the lot area and width variances were granted. The neighbors, Warren and Christine Bielke, who live adjacent to the subject property (Lots 16 and 17), believe the lot too small and the impact of building a residence too great and ask that the variance be denied. Enclosed as Exhibit G is a letter from them explaining their position. They have included a list of signatures of other neighbors who support the denial of the application. Zoning File #1811 April 15, 1993 Page 3 Hardship Statement Please review the attached exhibits, Resolution #1904 and the staff memo of December 3, 1985. Staff finds the hardships and findings of these documents to remain valid. ch .t 1~.1 1 CITY OF ORONO -VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3237 CASCO (IR.Cl£ ~ ~-., .. ,, .. ,,t:J 0 fee) Property Identif. Number ( P. I. D. ) ~0-ll 7-23-43-0013 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired __________ (rnonth/year) A ! "! f \-" IIL. !l!.l!i :\l!f L..·J. J l L'l L!I\L'lTL-' r:-nill•ii'L m::r:r,--1:' f .!. HMITL·l-!,.,'I J J. l..·'-- i 7C:.ii .. "Jl'u .. 1/ti1t1 -P.- .L tJi.Jv..:..vvvvv rr t1; rr:.1i 1 '?C: t1/'1 VJ. t.;"Llt .L J i..'•VV r ·urr·k' Ti 11r: l"u"1 l-·I IL L •f\ J L J. I 1-• 11: V\I fi'f'CEl"F-'T -T,4RNit YOU #268iJO COOj ,~'Oi T11 :~'7 OJ.~·· .. 25/9\"J I (do)(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential __ other ( specify) vacant/residential Zoning District: Residential7"7ingle family APPLICANT Phone (home) 4 71-7297 Name C. Jack Remien Add~ess: 3235 Casco Circle ............................... ____ _ Phone (work) 557-2300 --------- City: Orono Z . 55391 ip: _____ _ @lfH!BR (if different than applicant) ~nd ,·,,+v Phone (home) 4-'--70,-3S '-\~ Phone ( work ) L/'7 lo .-3 {; 3 'f Name Dav e.., Tr l1 CL,;l DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost$ --------- Describe request in detail: Lot width variance so that new owner may build. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area X Lot Width Setback: Front Hardcover Side Rear __ Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore __ Other (specify) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS T Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: This variance would be the same variance granted twice previously for pre=v=i~o=u=s,--- owners. We request a variance to build a home on tfie current .5.5' wide iot. Please see the addendum to this page a tt a ched for more details. (attach additional sheets if necessary) ·REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of . the fol.lowing information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. V Completed Application Form 2. 1./ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3.✓ Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4.v Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8½"xll" for A ,/,ti reproduction). 5.1.Vt-f.:LTopographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8½"xll"). 6.asketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8½"xll"). 7. As an addendum to this a _pplication, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. __ 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 info·rma .tion required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the est of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges 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 investiga- tion and verificati~t~i(brr:::st. :::::~:n:i:::u::ve ~:A: the City offi:::e 25-~:-~:-the Planning Commission Me ing. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at al.l 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. VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3237 CASCO CIRCLE The intention of this variance request is to re-instate previous variances #1607 and #2123, which were approved for previous owners. The current owner, Mr.C. Jack Remien, was aware of the previous variances, but was not aware that renewal on an annual basis was required subsequent to purchasing the property. The variance requested is for permission to build on the current 55 foot wide lot. There is no vacant property on either side of the parcel. The building permit would be for a building that is in conformance with all other building requirements: 1. Front setback from road right of way will not be less than 30 feet. 2. Side yard setback on each side will not be less than 10 feet. 3. Setback from the lake will not be less than 75 feet of the normal high water mark or otherwise at the sightline of the neighboring houses. 4. Hard cover, as defined by the city, will not exceed 25 % in the area between 75' and 250' of the high water mark. 5. Hard cover beyond the 250' mark will not exceed 30 % of that land area. 6. There will be no hard cover within 75' of the normal high water mark. 7. The total structural lot coverage, as defined by the city, will not exceed 15 % of the total land area of the lot. The hardship remains the same as outlined in the previous variance approvals. The lot is narrower than current conforming lots, but this is a pre-existin condition, and other lots in the area are of similar width. There is not vacant land on either side, and there have not been tax abatement appeals on this property by Mr. Remien. We respectfully ask the City of Orono to Grant this variance. Applic ant -- II RUN DATE 03/25/93 BATCH 004 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AO DR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 20-117-23 43 0010 03243 CASCO CIR JAMES H RICHARDS & WIFE JAMES H RICHARDS 3243 CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0015 03233 CASCO CIR D M SPILSETH & PD SPILSETH DAVID M SPILSETH 3233 CASCO CIRCLE l~AYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0050 03241 CASCO CIR W L BIELKE & CM BIELKE WARREN & CHRISTINE BIELKE 3241 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN . 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 43 0013 03237 CASCO CIR J E MERTES & RV MERTES C JACK & JANE REMIEN JR 3235 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0016 03231 CASCO CIR J E COOPER & J E COOPER J E COOPER & J E COOPER 3231 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 004 00007 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 11 38 20-117-23 43 0014 03235 CASCO CIR CHARLES JOHN REMIEN JR CHARLES JOHN REMIEN JR 3235 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE CASCO CO THE CASCO. COMPANY ROBERTO MACNIE 3135 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 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 ':i/4 OF PROPER]:l' ,><l<ATION, TO TW BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. DAT 1~sy ,,..., •,l , , , , -" -:::-✓.-/ ; _.;,,,r g L01 150 SPRI ~G PARK .•• • ( '31 ) :· : .... . ... ~ .. - ······•& .. ~)- ,\L,£ ~,6 ...... ~ ~ 'I 1-o:r .s>leP, ~sTe4J L;:J- ~,efi\..\e.H ;}--Of/1~ -~t/----- 0 Scala 1 1 11 = /.()1 t'uto 6-17~HJ o Iron n-nrlt1•r 0 .,, ···•·' . ', . ·•.>' / / EX H 18 \ T IV-------~ <~ D -1~~ ~ •'':--,._,,,;,.~_ ~:' /,'' /6 ' ,,,.,·; //~-,,bi• C. r t1 r,-t.h ., I. II,\ ., ia a 11 ~f~o and r.or t 111~ t r ~, J't ··• s,:,nta tion of o nux·vgy of I h,, bouncJurfaD or Lot 18, Spri 111~ 1•,, i-1,, the location of RU existin~ bu!.ldln1:•• tberaon, and tho propoi,o<l locn tl c111 ,~r · n proJX)Sed building. It do"n r,n~ 1•1 1r · port to aho\J ot..hor iir.prov,111~·,i1I ,, "I' encroachments. COR.OON R. COFFIN CO,, INC. 72, /? J._ // /! d~!-,..ct· ~ dJ'.efJ~-t-;1'✓. __ ,_ . ., -~· Gort.Jon ll, Coffin Ho~. ll o . bt:°.f)/, Hnrk S. Oronborg Ref;, No.l?'/~,'-i l.ftnrl S11I'V~ytJr11 nnd Pl.iuu1,H11 Loni,; [Alim, l·Hnn~11otn #761 City.of ORONO .,, .... :t•,,:;,)A ., R,ESOLUT_iP.N ~@~,~~E CITY COUNCIL m· __ 1_9_04 __ _ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE 1988 WHEREAS, James E. Mertes (hereinafter "the applicant") .has an interest in the property located at 3237 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 18, Spring Park, also all the land including the vacated highway, Lake Shore Drive, lying between the Northeasterly line of said lot and the shore of Lake Minnetonka and between the Northwesterly and Southeasterly lines of said Lot 18 extended Northeasterly to said lake shore, and being part of Government Lot 6, Section 20, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, and also indicated on the plat of said Spring Park, (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances .to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence. on a property that is 16,748 square feet in area or 77% of the minimum area required of 21,780 square feet or half acre and the width of the property is 55 feet or 55% of the required 100 feet of lot width. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #988. 2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property was in common ownership with contiguous Lots 16 and 17, Spring Park prior to 1967 through 1977 when the current owner, Douglas Smith, purchased the property. Lots 16 and 17 are now legally combined. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (1) of the Municipal Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regula tion, provided a lot of record meets 80% of the required lot area and lot width and has municipal sewer available. Page 1 of 6 lllt:Nyltit ORONO I\AICROfllffliltLuT10N OF THE c1Tv couNCIL ~·1 NO. 1904 5. Prior to December 19, 1983, the City Council always required that when two or more lots were owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the rquirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. 6. Upon completion of a 6 month City wide review of the common ownership issue, on December 19, 1983, the City approved a pro posed amendment of the municipal code that would permit all substandard undeveloped lots within the sewered areas of the City regardless of the ownership of these lots, the same standards for review. 7. The property is 16,748 square feet or 77% of the required area. The property is consistent in area with 7 other developed lots within a total developed neighborhood of 33 lots. 8. The property measures 55 feet in lot width and is approxi mately 5 feet short of the narrowest lots in the 33 lot Casco Circle neighborhood at 60 feet. 9. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 18, 1985, and a majority of its members recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following findings: A) No available land -lots are developed on both sides of property. B) The property is served with sewer and water. C) A house and improvements can be constructed without the need for additional variances. D) By granting this variance there will be no negative effect on the public health, safety and welfare. E) By granting this variance it is consistent with the development of the area. F) By granting this variance there should be no need for future hardcover and setback variances. G) The special conditions applying to the parcel of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately ad joining property. Page 2 of 6 ._fjflbf ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1904 H) The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. I) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. J) The granting of the proposed variances will not in anyway impair the health safety, comfort, morals, or in any other·respect by contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. K) That the granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 10. This application is a renewal of variances granted on February 27, 1984, and the findings stated in that approval resolution (No. 1607) were acceptable at that time and are still valid. 11. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the owner and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 12. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the appli cant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Sub division 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property 16,748 square feet in area or 77% of the required 21,780 square feet (1/2 acre) and with a lot width of 55 feet or 55% of the required 100 feet of lot width subject to the following conditions: 1. The detached garage located within the right-of-way of Casco Circle is a non-conforming structure and subject to all pertinent municipal ordinances for non-conforming structures. Page 3 of 6 ~y-ofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. -=19'-· O.c-4 ___ _ 2. The only variances granted with this approval are lot area and lot width. No other variances are granted. 3. Applicant is hereby advised that in approving the development of this substandard property that al 1 future improvements must meet the current standards of the code and that a future Council might not approve any improvement to the property that requires a variance. 4. Applicant shall pay the appropriate water unit charge, sewer connection fees, and park fee at the time that the building permit is issued. 5. The property owner shall bear all costs of connection to the municipal sewer and water, including the installation of new, stubs to serve the property, if required. 6. Applicant is allowed to remove the one fallen willow tree at the lakeshore, but removal of the three standing willows is not approved at this time. 7. Side, street, and lakeshore setbacks are approved per the attached survey (Exhibit A). 8. _Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not the applicant, 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 (January 13, 1987). 9. 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. 10. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 ITEM EEN ROfitiW of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. --=l..;;..9....:;..0...;;;4 ___ _ Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of 1986. Tim Ada111.s, Acting Mayor I OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1904 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN. ) 0/ sr On this .:.J day of ___j,~ 1.,1.,A,~~ , 1986 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _\ l.."'1A..F::., £. Me72~1E'S 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 · MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this zs-!?!' day of R~Jf"c;t/"Y , 1986, before me a Notar -,~ P~blf? wij;.bin ·.5:~ for said Cou«ty, personally appeared .;;!J7/,t''z.,/1.,/? __ ~#o// ./ /\._... known to me to be the person(s}-described in and who executed the foregoinginstrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of 6 D'. Ur0"7D Land 501 West 78th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 (612) 881-0047 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 18, and that part of vacated Lake Shore Drive lying in Lot 18 SPRING PARK ADDITION, according to the recorded iJ_at thereof, Hennepin County, m.in'a ' SCALE : I"= 40' NcrrE: / /\ '· \ ' , / //~ /-' / l..,) t,j ll . WOODROW A. BROWN, A.LS. 11.. •" President ' 0£1 / LAKE ,-,, ,-.,, ' ,~~ ;,f~ ~Op-~ ~~· ~~ <l NOTES ..,"E-° ~~ _ (91.5) Denotes Proposed Eleva !Kt9 'bt\, / ', , Oj/ V 89.7 Denotes Existing Elevation Proposed Garage Floor Elevation= 92.0 Proposed Top of Block Elevation= 92.4 Proposed Basement Floor Elevation=84.4 Proposed Walk out Elevation= 84.4 / BENCHMARK: Spike in Power Pole at N.W. Car. of Lot 18 ~ 100.00 I hereby certify that this sketch plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~ No. 15230 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) I Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resoluti o n of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of th~ proceedings of said.City Council at a lll.eeting of said City Council held on °anuary 13 , 19 86 , and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. 27 t in Witness Whereof, I hafebhereunto set my hand and ~al this .h • day of e ruary • 19 ------------ City Clerk (SEAL) April 13, 1993 Jeanne A. Mabusth , Zoning Administrator Orono City Hall 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota Dear Ms . Mabusth : .-...,; -I This letter is in response to the Land Use Application #1811 for the property at 3237 Casco Circle. The property owner, Mr. Jack Remien, has requested lot area/lot width variances on this substandard sized prope1ty (lot 18) to accommodate the sale of this property. (It should be noted that the adjoining property, lot 19, owned by Mr. Remien is also for sale.) We are requesting that these variances be denied . A brief history of this lot is as follows: 1. This property (lot 18) was 01iginally held in common with the two lots to the north (lots 16 and 17), which are now combined. 2. The LR-IC zoning distdct was created in 1967, establishing the requirements for buildable lots. 3. The lot was sold off from lots 16 and 17 in 1977. 4. In 1983, lot width/lot area variances were granted for the lot. 5. Subsequently, Mr Remien bought the property and infonned his neighbors that his intent was twofold: to keep anyone from building on the land, and to put an addition onto his cmTent home. 6. Now Mr. Remien wishes to sell both his cmTent home on lot 19 and lot 18 as separate parcels and leave the neighborhood. It is our request that the cmTent application for lot width/lot area variances be denied for the following reasons : 1. Lot 18 is substantially substandard to the requirements of LR-IC . The 55 foot lot width is far below the 100 foot width requirement of LR-1 C. In addition, it is not consistent with even the naiTowest lots in the neighborhood, being nearly 10% naITower than any others . The area is only 77% of the required half acre size. 2. Increased hardcover on this particular lot would exacerbate an already serious erosion problem that is occuring on lots 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. In particular, we would encourage the Planning Commission to examine the hillside erosion problem that is very evident on the north side of Mr. Remien's property. G 3 . To allow a two story home to be built on such a substandard piece of land compromises the integrity of the lakeshore as well as the neighborhood in general. 4. There is no "owner hardship" justification for compromising zoning standards to this degree. It is more one of financial gain for Mr. Remien . In summary, we would encourage the Planning Commission to not just reissue these variances, but to deny them. Please look again at the situation and the neighborhood impact. Possibly a solution that would benefit both Mr Remien and the neighborhood could be found. Sincerely, '1 , µ/~/2 ~ ~ifl. ' 3;i..,y; ww C\~<L/ Wa1Ten and Christine Bielke The undersigned also support the denial of these variances : 3 Jv y' 3 Cas co c :re /<._,, ' (fa{'~ ~ ~~ 3 ,2_3-3, C./15 CJ ~ /LL-L-6' ~ I \UV ~·~ ~\~J 52Z S: CA SC-0 C-l fl c_ CG' ~ ~-// I;~ PHONE NO . ~[j\~i'~T~©Lfffe, ~~DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL r~ESOURCES ' METRO WATERS -1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAU i~. MN 5510fi E 0 7 7 2 -7 9 10 Ff L N · --. June 14, 1993 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth city of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 RE: APPLICATION #1811, C. JACK REMEIN (3237 CASCO CIRCLE), LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR LOT HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP, LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133, #9), CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Ms. Mabusth: The purpose of this letter is to clarify points discussed in my correspondence of May 17, 1993 . In that letter I noted that the city's ordinance requires contiguous substandard lots to be combined if they are under the same ownership. The lot in question for variance application request #1811 has a substandard width and is under the same ownership as the adjacent lot. Therefore, the city's ordinance requires that the lots be combined. I also noted that in order for the city to grant a variance that hardship must be demonstrated. Bill Clapp, of the Attorney General's Office, and I have had follow-up discussions regarding this matter and felt further clarification was required regarding hardship. Based on the information we have reviewed for this case, hardship does not appear to have been demonstrated. Hardship must be demonstrated to justify approval of a variance request. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: A. The proposed use is reasonable. B. c. It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns" and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. D. The problem must not be created by the landowner. E. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of · the locality. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I I Ms. Jeanne Mabusth June 14, 1993 Page 2 The courts have said that the applicant has a "heavy burden of proof" to show that all the prerequisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. The Department should be advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final action and copies of the official record should be forwarded to this office if the variance request is not denied. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, ~~ Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Bill Clapp, Attorney General's Office Tom Zappia Peter Bachman city of Orono Shoreland File q: 18 FAX U.S. Offices Denvor. Color-ado Mi M'\7, Florida Wash, ngton, D. C. FAA-L775 POPHAM l!i.AIE SCHNOBRICH & KAUF["I.AN, LTD 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street M'inn0apoli::, MN 55402 Te1ephon2 5i2-333-4800 F',c.1;:~1lll)1r.' 612-334--88813 TO: •-... --. ____ -----------Mike __ Goff am. FAX NUMBER: 612-473-0519~--- PHONE NUMBER: FROM: --.... --------· _ _ _ __ J<a ren l{!J 001/ (_)l_llj InterTiational Office Leipzig_, G"1r111any AUTHORIZATION NUMBER: __ .. 1835~--_F!LE NUMBER: __ 364.3-001 IF PROBLEMS, CALL Th,-, foformti.Hon r.onta:ined in t.h,s f;,1csimile me!:sage is attorney privileged and confidential i~fomi:iJ:ion int.e-ndQd for the USP. of thf: individual or entity named ~bove .. !f the reader of this m2c;sc:g;.; -is not thi': intended recipient. "' the emp1oyi;;e or agent rflsp0nsibii;;e to deHver it to the int0nd~d reetpiAnt. yau are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of thi5 ~t:r:miunicaticn is strictly prohibited .. If you have received this tax 'in ~rror~ ple~se imrrH=:di~tE;;1y ~nt~fy u1 hy ts1aphone. and ~eturn the original message to us at the above address via the LI~S~ i''..'.s;::::·! Syst.cm. '·' 'J. ,J. ,.1 ~ ,::_1 •./ .Li.., .1.v .1.·.r1..::1. -. I r .. "1.A-L,I I ;,J tgjl_ll_l;::,11_11_1,'j '93 16:48 FROM ONE SEVEN ONE ZERO PRGE.001 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL l EI i EB IAW 01."FICES LBONAR.D, STREET Ah'D OW.IA.RD P-1:tCFl:lSSIONAL ASSOOA'.UON SUITE 1300 15fJ OOUl'B. ,~H S--~" MJNNE.Ii.PO'US; MINJ',,~ ~ 'l'Ef.EY".tiONE (n:1.2) 335-t:!OO FA.CSIMlUJ. (612) 33S-16S1 .----=-----~~------------~-----------~.n: .. • .. tlIY~ 'D.1BJNFO~~J!N1."Bll$~~Ell:iil!INO~'""'ll!u'l!OANI) ISINJ.DalD OM.'i POR 11m 'l1SB OF'Dmllt~~ nm.ow. 1!P"Dll!E!;~ Of'ffilSliS~'IBBINTi!NDBD ~ 'YOU Amt~ A'£iVl,Slm '!llU>J .ANY~~ o.a. (X)if\" OF 1mS 'lmJ'Y JS ~T ~ IP YOU RA.VB ~ ~ 1:'FUIO°IPV Di ~pg, ~ um-~JATELY ~ US BY~ AND Dl!SllWY 'X'Bl'= '11![~ ~ L------------~·--------------~--~---~--~----- ?Jdli}\$8 lfJ~,rn '.l'lm »..~gymG 111,.cs;gg:LE. D!.fJifflLU.S men~ NAME: :Ke.--.,in Staunton, Esq. /Karen Col.e, Esq.. \.c::§:, I, ) FT.RM/COMPANY~ Popham Saik Schnobrich Kaufman Ltd. ---- CIT::l: MinneapoliG, MN FACSIMILE NUMB:mi: {612} 334-gssa TELEP~ONE .NmmER: (612) 333-4800 SF.NDER 9 S NAKB: Peter H. Bachman, Eaq./#317 I TOTAL mmmm OF PAGES ( 11'®®:ttf~ ~BU'ffAL ~J;'Si) :; 7 I'.M:.-{EDIATE NOTtFICATION OF TR,.i:\,NSMI'l:'l'lffi (Y/Nj: N CLIENT/M.~TTER m:JMB:g:RS:: 2908-i5996 CJJ..I,L {$12) ~$!5-4~'.i.9 XI' '1:00 ARE l!mvnffi. PM~ !Im~~ 00 ~~ ----------------------- SU!'·.r"i!' l;f\(: •rl-'~~ --~----·-----· Di,1~ \IV' L 1,1' O•J .Lt;,., J..Q I'.,,'1.Ji. r:t,1.-1,1 I 'J '93 15:48 FROM ONE SEVEN ONE ZERO LSONARP. STREEi" AND c:n:a;!NARO wl0"f'T pMHQWS HA~QL,~ c. "C.'-D, ..rfit. nlt.NAAQ •'· ¥VHM Al.1.i1<1. 5.1.tt<. 1 HO...-.s 0, i"Ellll!~n<; '4QRAL';: H'. St-'1C'9:M,-.a.t QE;QR"''-AJlLLT \,,f'!a•-u.U .:\, f.o1,.•.'t'TvH ""YtC<N.ci;r& ~tP>H£lol lit. ~1.fil.UP,: CHA)\l.tfi,,., WA+.j: t.QWC\.L J ~Tf:SQOW ¥4:Crf!Ot r, Hs.--<:U!,HJ1t;.1,..\:,. _,,. H<C...,_kC ,:;. !"ZFi~, ,It!, rpc;u,o;; r, aQf.cr-:&I..A'fT IIMBOR C:. l>T'-ff1<$ :rtt:vtn: &I:, '.l:V91W #P'liHK. ~A/ill a.T~a-. C, ~lRll'"'•J'c .J ..... ,~ A, 1.>0..,,.S"< IO.Yki..'"~MM,Q~ ~~ft-. .J, ~viO!.Qril ,!i:;."r•fJ-"'11tH &, t.lfkAtt t:O)D'ARO H. ~~!.t.f'Jl'..R J.iO~t.,;Ar!.l;;\'il:!l.JIAl"l'PrOTral fllt;k.i.no .;,, 1":'C"=""k.!!'·i;; o.,,,.,-o(J. J ~i;.1i.a;,.-1t'"-T, .i~. t1ti-llt1 R, r1..c.'flol;,~e, l"""""-',;n.:::~,c-... w. 'Tl\6-..;.-.1~ ,>Qw-t.l't:, A.V'l:lrl~ GUU.Ol, C"f J, ,;11t..L.1.N Ml,;ttAG'\, ..t... ,,u;a;O;:t'I -4.t,IIITN'.lC. llll."AMO gi91>1\E7-jo1, "'•T,,.i'.S llAJIK"R'rirlf"CHAt.ll't.f.S JA,t•U:,~ Y, ftQTJ,{ ~ICKll'l.tl' rl, l<AllTH< ft6~i!:Ft+ "-p.~i.1,1,.,.. A.~CLA M. ifOHK.S.~N i1Qtii!:.ITT P, 1'1"11'.VU: JJ.jqU t,. Sl,ILLJ..Rg .103;:pt.: ..;, n~n.cv l.A ... ~"l~J, i"lt:.t..0 PAV10 W. ~U.f!T ..... ~~&,"'Ii= L'IAV!Q L, >ILL£H~I/G AO•tAt .J, 'J"IUCll'A CA '<l:l M>ITOfl •J.<.,;1.-ii, w, e1:1a~ l'"'J'.fi"', ft .. "-ou:x:;RE.t.J ntHl'rr J. :5\'!r;I, Iii Lentt.~~ 11, l!.1\')IIU ~lli',A~ Iii, ~t.e,MfflA.t '-'.UCti G, SAY~tl R>oOS,...,.~. lfA.~11:i~ utl!WAE.~ G, "T,6.Y~QO ,.,:-Ot,m 'I"", <u':.to.1r.-Of!A i'HO~ P, 9-MDl!f't~ i:tQtn::Fi' ~ea.bvl"l'C'H '!'t~QTI-IY w;;1,C111 ~evin stau.nton 1 Esq~ K~en Cola, :Esq. :,;1,/t'T'El!.300 ;so SOU"rH l"ll"Ti'\ STFte:E:i MINNP.Al"'Ol..15, MINNE:SOT..'>, ss ... o::;, TJ;.L!::j:>MQNE Cdl::!l :;13S•!5Q\:i ""ACSJM1t,r;: [<!;l~l ~~!l-1(;1?,1':' Poph~m, Haik. Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd. 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 s~ Ninth street Minneapolis. Minnesotfl 55402 C~to-:. .... ~.,,;..v;,,~~~1 iµJ~N ~. M~ll'ft:i= U~HAt.L foe. GOtii;• Q~(.ii.ff J. CV°V'H N•~ :a,, ~\r'TOi;U '"RdlMi,i. ii.~ ':!!!lio:tt!'!Lt.t.A. )ilfl.\,,@;,, Ti~V fi! itt"':'l"~h. @..U\!'tr $Hi!:f-A.'"fi:1 i!Fi, '='ltib,MM L, GE!U•d:i GT~;;tt~.Zi,it:1..TQ'r. >'£fiis I;, ,.;,::Hio(I\.H ...:OtiM> .S. GAi:l!!lrlAk C,i,,U'fl!: L, fdli?NiioeL UARf; b,$1t1~ ~HAV~ c. ~il.H.&T"TQM J;'\Mi!! .,J, U~,:l,HC1 '4R"K"rt,fJ!l.e..'<AK'f'r ~t.,s._..-,.;n::;1;::r !..AWRC'H~ P lieW~if C,'\ROi..Ytt +t. ~...5"{ ~;,,R,\.IH!lt. .... k~ Wit.t.iAM''H.~~ fl9ffa.l..0 -.!, ~~l,IL tz 61'['-"b:.;: .J~ o;m:::Ct"'~ OA!'-A '/;, ~Alt \'t't.Nt\'r e. !J.J(.J~lll:Vttt 11ZJ uu:_1,, 1.11_1,:, PAGE.00.: !.C4ft'..i,. "'· i.:..,,.t;iol.{;.:al,.~ 60-QtliY Pr. Wlat.t.R'&.CH,: ~IJ~.l. iLl~"l'~ JAW'4 M, =:;t,G~C".Ci+ilTid IIC:!j"i'i-1 tia, e'l~tfll .AkQ:!tt'H' I!', t.et:. I., Qol&filJ:(, 0.:-.1¢H itlr:'".ri I"' Iii 1"Ra~rtr.'ti OA.\tt'O :,. l:"l•Z'.:'H.ICR TAM1ll!lt i; tt~p; ...!J:v.l~ i-. Mnl"'\l-tV -;;.r.u;=-:.t;.:.~2.n -:rw~t-rr ~. u.~~ ROS'.4NN£JMUtzl <i-'i:QD'vC S. t.~ftO ft:n;oltoMU Aft'l'MUR I. H, i:.Tffl!it !11177·"""1 -ecm:ortti' ~llf.A~b UlilH•1t-yJ,? ~s.ll4:,-11i,11ao-e-,~t 5itikrt L~~ca 1Q:tnt.s...-orr ""'"'~1.0,l"()Tl, ~11:.L M. JUiOi:WJS a,'60t,tffp::1, Tbi$ 1e~ter is in resp0nse to 'l:homas Zappiats ~o?.Tespc~aa.~ce to you dated June 4, l9s3, whieh you provided. te.~e via,facsimila on the afteJ.."Tioon of June 7, 1993. At the city couricil meeting of Hay 24, 1993~ a ~otion to grant a va.rianoe to Mr. Re.mien was d~nied on a 3 to 2 ve;te oocau.se the:r-e was no $bowing of undue hardship. Th~ matte~ was then tabled to allow Mr. ~8mien ti.me to produ~ evidsnce. of undue hardship: Mr. Zappia' s eon::-espondence is apparii.:;!'"ltly ,a;.n a:ttetnpt t;;~ pr~w.ee s.1=1.ch evio.ence, but it raises no new facts that woul.d 1tise t.o·t.· le:vel of. unaue hardship reguired .for a variance. F13 7 ,~h®~., ~ 1t ~'lg o;f the eases eited by Mr. Zappia Ea:EeJ.y oont'in.' ·'hat th~~ 4e no . grounds to grant a variance in this ease.. Zapp.iii;:!. is a:tt~t:s to dist:.inguisb controlling eases a?."e legally unpars'l.llasive and his reliartoe on a. case which has been ovetti.tled is obviGlJ.Sly misplaced,. Tl"'.1.e key :fact~ .in th.is :wat:t{i!r include: • There has never be~.n a varias,c~ s"'TantGd to Lot 18 when it wai;; in oo:m::m~:n bl¾nership. t1t.i.th :t.ot 19, and thfa1. a.::tstingllisbes .it: from the prior -~~ies WhF.rg-a variancs was granted.. ~.• V • .!. '.', (I •J .Li;;.., ..L~' rtiA r:Lt-L/ I::> ~1_11.)4/l_l(J,"j ''33 16: 48 FROM ONE SEUEN ONE ZERO PAGE. 0(?)3 Kevin Staunton, Esg. Karen Cole, E$.q" June 91 J.993 Page 2 · : .. , . ." There is clearly a reasonable use for Lot 18 in eambin~tion with Lot. 19~ The lot. ha.s bean used that way since it.s purchase by Mr .. R@mien in 19SE and ther~ is no qu.~stion that tots 1S and 19 ar~ ;mar~etable tog~t:her. S~leab1e 1akeshore property is in high deffian~. 'I'h<t.1 Relnii!:',!ns acti veJ.y opp<,~e<l the granting of similar variances fo~ this very pareg1 (Lot 18) dt.tt'ing proeeadings on both the Smith and Mertes applications. When tne lot subsequently ~e up :for sale, Mr .. Rell.lien bought the lot intending ttto expand my present. residence on Lot 19 to eo~er i~ some ~t, Lei:!. 18~~ See le~~er et 1tpril 19 r 19-9:3 £rom Jll.ck Rq;.J'!iien to Jeanne Ma})Ue;th. Jl'.ir .. , Remien bought the property with :f~ll ~wled.ge that the last variance grante<Ji to the parcel· had expired approximately one year ea:tliiSr .. Mr". Rsmien bOugnt the lot with full JO'iowledge that the let. was substandard .. ~-Remien bais usad the l~t. since the t:iffie of pur~hase and maintained it as part of . 'l!b.e surrounding yard of his house on tot i9 ~ From all out1.1rard appearances, Lot. l.o appears to be part-0:f the yard of t.he home. on Lot 1.9, similar to :m.any Qt.her homes on caseo Ci.re.le siblated on double 1~,ts. • Lot. 18 doss :not m.eet the $ 0% miniiai.l!lll lot. width reguireman~ of Orono Ordinance S 10&03~ The fact that Mr. Remienas attempte~ ~epara"t:.$ ~al~ of LOts 18 and 19 was :made contingent. Up~n the granting ·of a varia..'1.1¥e is pr..,e;f t-h~t Mr. :Rem.fen :Iwew that a va.J:'.'ianoe I'iiight not. be granted~ If it waa certain ·that a va:rtance would he wanted~ there would be no need te Eake the purchase agr~ement$: continge~tv • Aceora;ing to finQing No. s of the prov..,..sed ~esolµtion attached to the staff report dated May 19u 1993, t.o1:. is ma~~tlres "55 feet in lot widt..~ an~ iG ~p~roxilllta~ely 5 feet short of the na::rrowest:. lots .in 'the ~3-lOt C-asco circle neighborhood at ~o fee.t~iw :Ct' the variance is g1;anted, thii;. WOYJ..ld c.r1E:ate tb.e only a:rea along Ca$.-;lQ C:i.ral.e with th:t'ee ,:ru.oota.nda..rd 1ots in ·-· ~ ~ ... .. .. ., ...l. -• ..L '-' ..L ~l..>.. r l'1 .. \ -L l I ,) FROM ONE SEUEN ONE 2ERO PfiGE. 004 Kevin Staunton, Esq. ~aren Cole, ,E,sg~ Juna 9, 1993 Page 3 ~~·: a :t'OW, changing the ess;;m.t;i.aJ.. ©haract.ar of the neighborhood. • lf !t wex:e true that once a varia.ne.e ~era granted; it :must ~ 9.rants-d again; then tb~e would .be no reason tor variances to :?..Ypire. Mr.. iappia' s eotte$pondence identifies three elements requ.ire'1 DY Minnesota statute, all of whicil l!llust be met. to est:abl.!sh an undue hardship. We think it i;;l. olear that thet3e three elements are not met be.cause there is a reasgr..ab1e u~~ for the property and because Mr. Remien purchased the lot with knowl~ge that it was substandard. Mr9 -Zappia n,eglects t§ point out. 'that wbe:ra a m~ioipality adopts by o'.t"dinan~e additional standards for granting a variance (as Orono has done); thM those standards must be :met as well~ o~ono O~dinance S 10.os, subd~ 3, specifies 1~ sp-ecifie st:andard.S, each of which mu.st ~ met (ii' applicable) befo~e a varianc~ can :be granted. The fir:s;t three ist~ds ~rror the st.at.uto:ty standards. Ti1.e Orono stand~s are a:s foll.ow"S; S~d.ard: No .. 1. wThe property in Q;Qestion .~=iriot, .be put. tG a reason~le use if used U..?!der conditions ~llo-~ed lb'-.{ the orfi~ial controls~~ bal18:i.lHl :Lot .18 can very clearly. be p,-..'i!,t, to a reasonable ,_me in conjunction with Lot 191 and in fact. baa b's@.so used sinca :t98S e Many lot~ on Caec:o Point have peen combined a1id all .:,'!; thase are proof that it is a reasonable use to combine -~~all lots. The cases cited ;cy Mr. Zappia :.c:eintorce this P(?int~ 1'.n Hedlund v. Citv. o; MaRJ..-ewooa; 366 N.W.2d 624 (Minrt .. App~ :1,e~) 1 $ eas~ which did not involve eo-Don o-wn.ership, the court :speei:fio1a·lly noted that without a variance, there was llQ. reasonable use f-or the p:ro~rt.y. similarly, in ~i v. Youn.qt 173 N .. Wo.3d 410; 4l.'.t (Minna 1969); another case cited by !'f..:r. Zappia, wt.he 'b.:ial court :totU:td that plaintittsi lot# in t..~e absence of a v-aianee~ wpuld be w~usabla !oct:,__any pµ;rpos<f!,~ 1r1 (ez:.ipha~is add~) ff FW::'th~r.,. in Cur::r;y, th.a lot wa.$ not currently wider com')ll.on owe.rsh.i.p. Standard No. 2. "'I'he, pltght of the l~owille"t' is dua to cirC"..tmstances unique to h,iiS prope..,.~./ n~t ereated by the laniJ.ot:n.1.er ~ (i1! • l\11.alysi•: ~se law u...,equ.i'vooally p?.'oii"ides ""If ..a.n .applicru:1t for 2?-vari:a.nce purchased the property with actual or.constructiva notice of the zoning ordinances• ~e8trietion~; t...i~~ its hardship i$ self.-created cl.l1d ~css not constitute 9 U-ndu<s haxdahip' as defined :Oy Minn. stat. S ,,i62. 357 r snl:xL 6 (2) ~ w (cH::.atie:ns ~~itt.acl.] ..J. -• ... ~.I ,1 .. ""l. . .:}.. r~'1. .. l.-Lf f V -, '83 1 6: 5G FRCM ON£ SEVEN ONE ZERO Kevin Staunton. Esq~ Karen Cole, Esq • .rune 9; 199:3 Page. 4 ' l{ll I.JU t;; I.J 1.J,', PAGE.005 Si:mila:rl.y, in Hedl.uy,9-y. Qity p,t. Ka.Plewooo~ 366 N,,W.2d 624 (M.iru'10APP• 1985), another c,ase cited by Kr~ Zappia, the court went even fw:the:r and h~ld that wh~e a person purchases land with know-l.edge, actual or oonstruetivet of the zoning restrictions which are in ,effect at the thle of pm:-chase, the hardst,.;i.p is self ... created and. a varianoe ehould be denied ~".an whera there is ng reasonal:.1e use for th~ substandard parcel. In tba present cas~, Mr-Remian pu.rchased the lot, by' his ow admission, with full knowledge that th.a lot "GJas s@standardA M a mat:ter Qf law, ·Mr. Remien.8 s "plight" is o:f his own making. · Standard Nc:h 3 + "The -qariance, if granted, wil.l not a.J..ter the essential oharaute~ of 'th.e locality." ADalflillli,.'J: At tl;i.e: May 24 1 1993 city CG1m:ic;;il. :ii4eet,ing., there wi:'l;;; a!.ttpJ.e tes.timo:ny by neighbors on casco Point t:b.at .construction o~ a house on tot 18 woul.d al t~r the ~sSQntial character of the neigh.;bo:!:.'hood" standard No. 4. "Economic conside?:ations alone sh.:).ll not constitute an undue. beird.ship if reasont:i.lb1e 'ii!Se for the p:e-.operty .s:xist.s under t..he terms of this Cha.pte);" o 11 b&l:ysi8~ Ther~ is obviously a :reas~nable use for, Lot 18 ·in conjunetion with Lot 19,. The only pqssible argument that Mr .. Re.mien seems t.o raise to just.ify a vaxiance ... is 1;.h&t. va:ri~ w~e 9Ta.nted ooJtora and '.b,!;i! tnight not make as. li!UCh .money :!lelling th~ lot~ teigethe:r as if htti: sold ·!:hem s'l?!parately, a purel;f economic axgginent .. standard Noso 5-7 [Not applioable to this caseQ] S~dard Nov e. "~e speoial cc:odi tiuns applying to the structure or land in ~-uestion are peouliar to such property or imill~diately adjoining prop-erty~n ~alyflliiSl: Th~re are no special conditions wll;iob. specifically apply to Lot 18 and distinguish. it fr01ll other property. There is nothing about the topography, th~ shape, or "?thsr physie~l attributes of the prope't"'ty that would justify a .v~rl.anee~ :tn tlu.s ca.so';!, t!.hg sol~ argt:m1ent is that it .is a ~standard. l.ot. N'oi!hi:p.g di~t..inguishes this lot. from other suhstan<l.:i:r~ J,ota... Standard No~ 9. "The condi~ions do.not appl¥ ~ener~iiy to crch{!r. 11':!.nd or &truotures in the <l.i•stxict in ~htch. said land is located. v>! l)!j-' l. !.I-' H:/ l<.'Ll-L I / ::> tf0 lJ 11 I ,· U t.J 1, '93 lto:51 FROM ONE SEVEN ONE ZERO PAGE.008 Kevin Stat.mton, Esq. Karen Cole, Esq~ June 9 1 1993 Page 5 A'Dal:y:aitJ;: l~g;:;d.n, there are no special condi'eions -vith respect to I..ot 18 ,, Standard l◄o. 10. 11vTb.e granting of the applieation i5 nec:eu,Jsacy f'or the preservation and enjoilma:u;~ ;;;;f a e.ubseantial. property right of the appJ.:i..cant.'"' As stated MOVe 1 Mr. Remian has no legaJ. right to buil.d upon this parcel., (;astle_ Dem~ ft Dfa£l2P;ti!ent .c.o:mpauYi ;rn,c .. y;, City of ,Lgte ~lmgq 3~6 N~W~2d 578 (Minna.App. 1986); HWlund Y-~itY Qf Mapleyoog~ 366 N.Wa2d 624 (Minn.App. 1985); ~ins: v. Jol}n§pn, 307 .Minn. 313, 239 N. w& zd 9J.J. In _The Hmtter 9f_ ;Johnson, 404 N ~ w. 2d 298 1 300. (Minn.App .. 1987) p•whexe a landowner pureha•fr.eG· with !;!tt;:tual or oonstt"Jl.Ctive k.&,owledge that til@l dia~i~lild US8 is. prohibited by zoning rest.:riet.io:ns; the hal:'dsb.ip ia ! cret1-te.d. ti'/ the lando'!m.t;l:J:" • and not gro ... mds for ~ variance u:nd~r t:/il.e statute .. " S""tandard !fo,; ll.. ~The •:P='anting of the propwsed \.<-aria.nae. will n@t. in any way impair b,galtb . .,. safety; ~Q:i;\'!~ 1lW~a.1s, or in ~.-.ny d°t;:l".'ier respect be Q<;'ltl~~L"':t to the int~t 9f t.P.e 2:oni...V1g cod~.~ AlllO.l'1Si!i!iI Gra.""'lting ¢:f a ;,-a:rian.ce. in tn.i~ ~s,-g would aJ.te:rr the cna;+acte.'t' 0£ the neighborhood# re-duce the 1,1;1:::ope:rty value of the neiql'-.boring pro-:perty, destroy a numbBl: of l&~e treas j/ increa-s-e traffic and qen.sity ar;i::-om-.1.d t.he. lake, and eon'fliet w:(:th the gui(Ung principles contained. in the purpose E!ection cf t'Jle Orono Zoning Or~inance, S 10.01. Section 10~01 pro~idea i~ ~elevaqt part: The maint-a:nancs: o:f open &;pace a.1.d the -:!-'¥1{:j,aam;e of .OV<9.l,"¢1."C'W<li:n(f pr. 1 a:nd ie ~ f.ii!:~ic c.r~s m;:inciple in 'tni.~ JUml= ·. .. o ot paramow,.t mt-oJttanc~ to the citizens .of the City and to the citize.::'"'ls th€: me.t.:eopolit:an araa is the prl"!::!i:isrvat.io:r.i. of Lake. :!!ir..flet~nka~ ~ ~ o ~ gl,saetr:ous effect~ of ;i.,l).j:.Bn~e xesidep;tial a..~ ·eomm~rcial d~VSi:lg,m~t within the c:ity ~ ~nd es~,g!gt.JJ,y_ 1n th9.!!i!~ arei/!f:E adj a.cent to Inake Mi:gnet-pnJ:;;~ and the we.tla.tids, ™ pain,fully; evident. . The g-uidi:ag principles of :t!'l.&intainin"3" open spaces, avoid.L."1-g the ill aff.!;!O'tfi o-F over<;rqwdi~gr· ~voi~ing pre~a~~~ ~~v~l-opment~ .2.,voidi,ns the futl!t:e po,ll,~,,:tioo PrO'bl..e::;p.,s Wh.~11¾ . g;.:a ~:p:\:lere:nt ;ln an .. { Plan to i!lt~n;;ielY gevelOJ:! land. a~cent to -~tlarujs an,g. L§.ke tfin,r1ei:onka, and tbe need t:.Q change so:rae pr.esently allowed uses in order t.o px:esere-1e tt.1.te. ,q-uality Qf the ground w-at.er S'IJ}?plies in the area, are. ;ceco~...ized. in the CG-mprehensi ve :municipal plai.-i .. . • the zoning ~bapter is adcipted. for the pu.rpO$<'c'5 ;;:,f -• • (5) lim.iti!1g co~gestion 1.10:1u:~1;5 r1-lA-LI I :J tg_J I_Jl_l() ,-l.JlJ() c '93 18:Sl FROM ONE SEUEN ONE ZERO PAG~.007 Kevin Staunton; Esq," Karen Cole., Esq. June 9, 19,93 Page 6 i.:n tb..c:3 pitbJ..ic• right~of~way; (6) ;m;-ey~·~·l;;:,i,;fi .. q__~~owding 2f. 1.apd and undu~~-~.Qncentrat:;on 2f . ~~ by :regu.1.ating thQ u!1.e ~f t..'i-).e land an.;;l ~uildinga ~d the bulk of bui.ldfng-r::: in relation tQ the la:r:td tm.ildingQ su..D::'ound.ing them. (Emphasis il!dd~,,.) In ad~ition, o.rono 1 e oomprehen~ive p1~1 i5 full of polieie~ tc, ·r.;:E"o:rn-0te .l~wer· de.1-:.sH::v develoPit!'J.e.nt aroimd L3.}.:e ML\:IT,etonka. These . .-_ .... _; .... t.., ~-·-i~• .,..,. ... -:, A ),....-d'il'i/~~~c..ri ... . .s-sOl,J.,C...:.~-t.:'!Bi 51-!V(.L_t_"a...-t J.J'.1...:.;. .....,.~~~U.a.. w,,-..,. • .- Mr. ZapDi~'s atte"\!!Ot$ to distintroish eontJ:olling ,;ase law are insffect.ive,: Al'l,;'iost one enti?;'e page of h.is letter is spent dis.cussing Merrialll, ;?91;'}; !°;;Cflp~g..>1ii;v cowcil v~,.~ct,q.rgv\lgb~ 2.l,O N.W.2d 4:L6 (Minn" 1.97:3}, F:b:'st, the case has nothing to do with the p:resant. matter, Gt.an.cling for t.t .. e p:eopositie~'i t:J:i.at t.11here a city counoil u..~ju~tifii;l.b1y delays aetion for two years on an for vdriancc {and in the m~antime di.ang~s ore::li:?i1a-noes) , a variance may ha grant.ed9 '£:°!!iis is l.J';;;, ·O'•};i_e i1,,-,;,.C> a 11.~•,=.-ee::. ...:;i,,:, i ~v SeGO"·Ld 'f!"'h.e ~<>,B ""as r<.s,.,cs,•;·, .e•c,·:·,.:.,~:;cl,l,/"···· ' -~ --' ...... "::::I ":'" i...;a ~ ........ ~ -..._z 'I· ... ' ~,;.;.;, -"Wi'li~ ,A..1,.' ~ --..t,;:ii=•·-~~.:,1o, :;::::;_,~ .. ~ ' ,"';:J.~ <.;llYJ.ployi:r.g th•e wong see-pi?; Of reviews N;prtb.~est~n Cvl1ege v. Cit.J: Qi' __ Mds;:n f!il.J,.§, 281-'.U.W?'..ad SGS, 868 (Mir~,;.Q 1979.} <, M:r6 Zappia.~s letter ,::::°':1inlete1v fails to d-~onstrate !1!Yt!f legally per.inissible s ~ ·fi~-~,~~ of Uhdue bardsh.ip,i; Th~r~ :a.s not:J1:i.r}.g 't..::) g~J..~ gra):'irti·t-1g t-;Jiis -rJ~.i~iir~e;, T.i,,.,_.teJ:~. is 1"10 ~e:riefi-t t:G-LaJ;:te £1Ii~"111e·t.or.L't.;:zrt, t:o tbs rG--sitt~:rrt:-~ ~,,_:t· C:asc:o Ci:t-cle or tc-of O:eonc,. TJ:1s 0:ri.ly po$i.;ible. """"'"''""'·!..-is a possibl.e June 9, 1993 ---' To: Jeanne Mabusth _t_l. t \ i ,._, V From: Gary Nasiedlak ~ Subject: Enclosed Memo to the Orono City Council I would appreciate it if you would include the enclosed memo in the Orono City Council Members' packets so they may review it in preparation for the June 14, 1993, City Council meeting. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Enclosure LgJ Ull:.-' 1 11) :' F~_L_l?:30 ID: IlJERSON BERNDT&!ZRPPI TEL NO:612 571-7734 i:i:i2S P02 Mr. ~•vin ~, ~t~uft~en • !A'iu:en Cole PophQm, Haikv se..~no~~ioh £ Kaufwan 1 Ltd" 3300 Pipe:!::' ,J"ar£ray 1!:t;rw;f!!r 2~J io~t.n ~th Strce~ !!i!i!'>Jt.1e!!!tpolls, :MN 5tt.q02: RI: our Cli~nt: C~ Jaek Ramien-~?3? ca~~o Circle { o,R~<ml"3il1 :[.;Qt. ti i Oli.'.'•Oll't,ei lh•J!:rdstg Fil~ N3~ Hn.l. fJtir Fil.re: N~, :t319J 1L woule.! like to addr•SH3S '1:11e isa • .xe of \i\J;t~J1.due hard.i!ihip,iil ~~ &:-el@..teg to ths A:pplicati.on tor t:.he v~.~i:;;J.!i1CE! for tha R•~ieir. Lot. :rt app~ar:r:~d from tha cit.y Coi:mc;Li.. meeting cf M:ty ildi.~ 199~ Q t:tmt the Ct'.,lJ.r.icil wai; tu:H1.rilling-t..;;i grant the l:·eguei~'t~d Vh:ri.~nca in t'-hi§i aJ;;;~enG:e of a e;piii:;;:if1¢ f ~.-ri!,UnClJ of 'l..lni.lU$ hardllhip. First; it is again im~~rt~n~ ~o identify the th:t'@€l el~~~rat,;il: :n~ce.ssary unde:?: '.Mi~f?.e~ot.Bl. Law to ,u.itahli8rl dt• in ~J\sstis::il!1 C\;'ilin!T.s~-r. bQ put to a ua~ without. th.a vial'.li:' iMca. 2. Th.I@: ed. tu.at.ion of t:he 1-li1nQii.;,,,m.8i.:-is due to ci~eU,.;~~/t'.a'nces uniyue to ~en:e p%"'~pe:rty and :riot ~~e la~d □i+nfis.5; _ ~rh~~! v&r:if~n~e ~ i-f g!:·ant~d ~3ffi~nti&1 e-ha~a~te~ or ~ill net. alt~r th~ ;,e,:,,;ilit:y. Tk.u~.iiiil!i: eU'S tiie <0lGlr<l@nt.1S1 as identif i.ad. in ~~@nl~ .Jli9il!O\i'!ii )'=fi:f 446 N.W.2d 917, 922 '!'he staff ~port of M8Y 27ff 1993 confi~~~ the ro11owi~~ :E'ta:t:rt~-,1hi~h ~-~~ z·eJre:•'if~~nt t:o the 1.Ah(~J.~l~ ~~F1 ~~:,t}ship i~t:'fd.lft~ l.)till.)/.'~J:5 11:uo .!:'AA .l:'.'i.\.-L I I 0 lf(J 1_111.); Ill.I I ... JUN-04-'93 f='Rl 17:31 mi IUS:RSON BE:RNDT&ZAFF'l TEL N0:612 571-7734 i:H28 P03 Mrv Kevin Staunton Mlilll• Karen Cole J'Ui'Jl!il Jj, V J.993 2 l ,; ,:Ja~k R~i'1;!n ptueena~ud ~t 1~ Whlil1.!:'iilii hi.5 h.0111111 ia l.ocated i:rs 1914. 3. The !cemien 'tot. had m!l!@n graflt.ed a va~ianee for ~onetrnetion ot a ~in9l~ family ~~me in February of 1984 whi.d1. exp:h:ed in Fel;)lj;'\:lHi~i' gf 19~5. 4. Approximately ona year later th~ R~mi®n Lot was ag~in grant~d an id~ntie~1 variance which ran f~cm January, 1986 and expi~@d J~nu~ry 1987. s. Finally, ~fl id~ntieal variance wa~ again ,ranted from ret,~i,zy of 1~87 to Februa;r-1 ©f: i,ee. 6. Lot 18 appears to never have been in common ownership with !,,o't 19 tmtil 1989. 7. Lot 18 has never been legally combi~®rl with Lot 19. The mg~t ~i~flifiea~t f~ct of the own~~~hip and variance history is th&t thi~ is net a situation where Mr. ~~ien attempted to 9 ~ell off Lot lS ~5 a part of a large~ para~l swn~~ i:iy him and then ~ought to obtain~ v~~ia~ee. It is not a 8ituation Where he c.rea~-d th~ ~Ub$tafi~a~~ ~ize of LQt 18 th~@ugh ~rty aubdi~iaion or s~l~ 19ft hi Si ~s.ri.:. HE! aequ:i.red the Reml'l_e.n Lot ltnOYl(liiUJ that urae pri~r bu1l~ifl~ variano~~ had b@@n gr~ntQd allowing th• Rmn1Qn Lt.'e t a.$ a s~p~r~'tre liol;.. ,:;,0 l:J.e u8ed for the. eoll'l.§'.'i;;&"U.Otion or a 8ingl~ family residenc~~ At the time Mr. Remi@n ~gan negoti~ting with Mr. Martes for the puren.a~e of Lot 18 1 the ~~ian Lot wa~ e©v~~d ~Y Or~ne variane~ No. llCla I~ @~eh of the ca~es relied upon by the neighbor~ in oJ,posi~ie~ to Mr. :R~~'d.<i\lri.~s ~i\iiqUet!!t fOi" anothei-varianee 9 'Che applicant ~ith~r (i) ~ffiitfflatively ~r~ted the suhsta~dard lot; (ii) had knowled9~ ©f tl"il.@ ~®$tand~d natur~ o~ th~ let prior to aetltli~iti@n: (iii} wa~ ~ware ot i:lie d&~ia1 ~~ ~~i~r varianQe ~@qu@~ts1 ~~ (iv) the ~pplio~~t'~ predeeessor iB ~itle created th~ subs-ca11d.a.rd nl§.'tu.:rte of the lot. H()Si: impo~'/J:.ly, none ct the e~~•~ ei~~d by "e.h.e Hsighbors in oppo~iti0ft ha~~ @ituation where t..h• Ci tv Co1!.li11Ci1 er& t:rueee -orior occasions n@i.e\ e-u:>erritSiild a vat""ianQ@ fo'.f' ~ll@.t"' .:t,;l~ttJ.~ia!.l p11i.itpic;,f/:,;5:. -- J:n bil\Ul.4 v., ___ ~i~"Jl=g_f ~P.tl.~~iii~ J/56 N.W~2dl. 15241a ~27 (Minn. APPa 1~S~), th~ Cou~t ~et~~ined 'that Eed1u..nd ~rea~~d nis own r_1L\.-LI 10 -· __ ----~ JLJN-04-'':?,;i FRI 17!32 Il)i IVERSON EERNDT&ZAPPI T~L NO:612 571-7734 Mr. Kavin Staunton H•~ Karen Cole J\ii!i(&li, ,4 d J.99:li P@i.g~ 3 lfil I.IU..J: !JU I lU28 P04 --··-- ha~~hip. Mr. H~dlUfld ~cquired a substandard lot that could not Joo uDed for ~uilding ~ ~ingle ramilY hom&. The lot was twice as narrow•~ atty surrounding adjacent lot. Mr. Hedlund did not read or ex&mi~~ the ~.l!plewg@d ordinances prior to ~~qi1i•ition. He wa~ aware that. various m\micipalities had :mird.m.um wid;!;;h req\\iremant11 for the construetion of aingls family homes. He was advised in writing that local ~oning ordinances governed th~ use Of tha purchased prop@%'t.Yo Ho~e importantly, the Court of Appeals speGifia&lly noted 'that the eity of Ma~iawaed did not conteat the fact ~n undue hard~hip exiated. The eo~rt n~ted tha~ withou~ an ~rea varianos the substandard Hedlund le~ gou1d net be put to a r@a~onable us9. Xmpiicit in thi~ 6ea~iun=nt is t.hat the "sala 0 of th• lot to an adjacr&nt lot was not a llit't!:i!$Gona:t,le use". But the va~iane• d$nial was upheld because mr~ Hedl~nd had greated his un.d.u@ hardislrnip. As I indieated in my prior correspondence of May 2l; 1993, Ip tht .Matt•r of the Y1r1ano• aemio1t of bl4o a;4 Ju4ith i2Jm12nh 404 N.W.2d 298 (Minn@ App~ 1927), ie compiate1y di~tinguishable from t .. t.ae Re:rniern Lot .. £1.11tl ♦ Pfl!liS,ffl, V's Cit.Y .. O~ ..•. L~ti'/ ___ Blll~"'~ 396 No W o 2d 51S (Minn. App. 1986) i~ ~lae di~tinguishabl~ from the Remien Lot. The appli~ant in ~11tl• D•~ wa~ deniea a Varianoe Application because of the n~~ a~a a~~e of variance~ r~quest~d6 The underlying r•aso~ for the deni&l was the eonee~n overt-ha propo~ed septic system. Ev•n ~ft~r the applicant modified its building pl~n so that it w~uld not r~qui~e a ~aria~ee fort.he septic ayst~ eetml~k, the varianae wa8 detarmi~~d to~~ ~ae ~rGat an~ th~~G was still a ehane~ of oewer system failure. More impert~Htly, the ~ppliellllt had a~tual netiee that when they purchased the p&gpetty tha~ !~ ~a~ un.dersi~~d an~ witho~t a varianee, The eow:t. held that this aetu~l or e~nstructive nQtica af the~~ zenin9 er'dinanee reett'!@tionc was a ~elf-er~~te~ hardshi~. Jaek nemie.n purcha•ea the ~~mien Lot with actual notice ~hat tbree prier identical va~iane@~ h~d ooen ~~a~ted ~hile he ownad ths adjacant Lot 19. ,,,;u;il§nt!I v,, .~@1tf1liJIJdtl! §f_mut/; 419 N.W.2d 836 is aliSc clearly· distingui~habl@ t~cm the ~~mi~n Lot. In ~D.Bu the applioant owed four lots which w~rs contigucus paresis. A home was l~eatad @n ~ne lot. A eabin was loQated on &Hgt.ii?.~~ lo~. The ~wo rt!i®~lning lot~ ~lso had a cabin whieh wa~ r®nted QUt as a seagonal dw@1ling. None of the individual lots met the minimum lot aiza r~qui~am~t6. The applic~nts wer8 ~dvi~~d of the contig-uoue l~t p~ovi~ions whe~ tl'ley purchased the two lots upon Which the sea5onal ~&~in w~~ lccatad. !ti faot9 thsy we~e t'.i\.\.-LI I ti _, . JUN-~4-• g3 FR J 1 7: 32 TD e IUERSON BERNDT~APP I TEL NO: 512 571 -7734 Mr~ R•v1~ St&Witon Ma~ K&ran ©cle Jurae 4, 1,,:ii Page S :pll:,""Q)P•t"ty. lt!.J t,J I) ;J , tJ 1) I i:t128 P05 Th• MiMe8~ta QQU~t~ have ~ls~ ~~eegnize~ that ~•~taih aetions by Ci~y eouneil~ may contribute to e~~elishi~g the undue ha~dship, :tn bxix::iu 11rlLJl~tLC9YIOiL v, Mt:!DonouqJL 210 N .. W~2d 416 (Minn. 1973), McDonough acquirad a lot in St. Paul to demolish tour existing buildinqs and to construct a j2 unit apartment building. Howevar 9 the lot waa not large anough to eonstruet th. 32 unit apartment building and comply with the ~xisting setba.cK ~nd building coverage requirements. MeDonough ~pplied for a variance so ~s to ~11nw constr~~tion of~ 32 1.1.~it ap~~-!llent building. Approximately one year after McDonough had applied for the v~riancGe st. P~ul ~doptsd rm amandlilent L,orea~ing thG att a'l:r@e~ p~rkitt~ r•~irement for multiple resid~nti~l dwellin9s~ MeDonough then amended his Application for a Va~i~nc~ to inelude ~ VA~i~nce from the new increase~ offw$t~eet pa~~1ng ~equirem.11nt. The Zoning Beard d~lay6d action upon his new Application for another yaaro Fin~llye thQ City grant~d all of the var-1anQ8S~ Thereafter, a neigh.b0rhooo organization brou~ht a Deelaratory Judgm•nt a•~ing ~e ~e~ a~ide the ci~y 0 ~ ~aHti~~ ef the variances. Thi! supr@!me Court held the 19 delay ilfll processing defendant•~ re(qlUests ror varianees constitute~~ h~rdship peculiar tc ~ll@ tract due to th@ f~ot tnat the @~dinanaa requiring the additional oft-street parking space wa~ passed during that. delay .. " Th~ Supr~l!'tl Court citing~ rea..ffi.rm.ed that a v~rianc@ providas tb.s opportunity eo a~oid u.rmeeessary hardship& ~esulting from the ri~id enfo~~@~~nt 9f goning o~din~ne•~@V.fi e..~oogh the granting of the variance might work a hardship on @djoining p~~p~rty ©Wnerg~ Ifl 0on~idari~g ~he Ramis~ Lot, therQ is no gu~~tion of council delay. R~thsr 1 prigr eouneil@ have ~frirmatively ~anted prior varianee~, the l~~t of which was ~ont.empor~ne~~~ with Mr. Ramien°s negotiating t..~e purchase of th@ Remien tsot. The Reian Let had three idftntical variances for fQ~r y~ar8 ~~io~ to Mr. Raien'• selQjUisition. on at least one oceasicft, ~he city council had granted ~ flaw var.i.ance for the ~emien l'.iot @V~H atter a yea.r liip$Ei bet:.w~eiti. var .iafi(;:~115. In light of the existing law, it apµ~ar~ th~t if ~@meone othu than Jsek R~mi~~ had aequi~ed the Remien Let in 1988 t.he variance would most lik~ly have to be grah~i!id ~ine@ th~ pu~e.haser could not put thG Remi@n ::wot to any reasonable us@. D~@B the taet that Jack Rsliiiie~u w"no ~ad a~ adjaee.nt lot, and then lat~r aeguir&d the F..eimian Let.mean that he is not entitled tot.~~ variance simply because he owned an adjae@nt pareel of p~operty. Ag-ain, J:fl..\.-L/ I ;:i ~ JUN-~17'93 FRI 17:33 ID:IVERSON B~RNDT&ZAPPI TEL N□:612 571-7734 Mr. Kevin S~munton N11 .. Karan Cole JU.n.lil!1. 4 1 19!il3 l[iiAgO 4 lgJ I.It.It), I.JU I l:t128 P06 speciriei~11y told that i:f they wi'ah to sell their:-pr~erty, all three structure~ on all fo\U:' lots would have to !'efi sold ae a ain~l• parcel~ Again: this property involvad an en-site septic system. The varianea weuld have Cr8ateQ ~ prgalem with the individual cop~ie systems construeeed in residential areas. The oourt in '99lltE stated that the two lots ~ith the seasonal cabin had a "reaeona~l• u~sn under the existing ordinanc~, i.e., the property eould gontinua to ~e used as a eea~anal eabin. The Remian Lot doe~ not hav8 an a1tarnativ@ raaaonable use. Use ae a vacant lot is not a r~asonable use/ Tn~ tbTeshold i8sue regarding the ~ien ~ot is, (i) what i1 an altern&~ive "raaagna~le u3e~? A reasonable use is a use aa aetenined under the existing ordinance~ The Minnesota Cow:ts hav@ h•ld that the reasonabl~ U$$ ~~guir6mQnt does not m8M that a p1r9perty own~ 6lm~t $how that the land cannot. be. put to~ use without a varill!lnce. l.!ttmll .. y, ..1Yr4 of J.dj\UiftmlAi& 446 N.W.2d 9l7u g22 (Minn. App. 1989)~ 0U:rf v. YOW'.li,;r_ 11~ N~W-2d 410 (Mbm.. 19169)"' If~¥ citr of Orone w~ra to dete~ine ~nat th@ u~@ of «ny ~ubstandard lot a~ &n enlarged yard is a reasonable use, then t:.h~r~ would be no r®ason to grant any variancea A.~y piace ot prope~ty th&t is substandard could always be sold tg i:m adjacent landowner. Th~r~ would never be any need tor a va~ianee since there would alway~ be a reasGnable use. Howeve~, a reasonabl• use ~ean~ putting th~ property to a u~e u~der ~he existinq ordinan~~ othase than simply as a vaeant pi~ee of ~~a~erty. In OvifiI, ~iii indi vidutal owne<i all of a larg= parcel P1Frop~l:''t;.Y'") • H~ oonveyed oft one parcel of the ~roperty to one purchase and th@ oth~r h~lf of t.h0 prcp~r~y to a seeond purcfta~ero Ultim~tely th~ Y~\mgs beea.me tha purchaser of !Oeth parettl5 anti owned the entir• Prope~ty. Th@reatter, the ¥Qung~ ~ought to retranafer the on$ p~~e~l ~f the Property to the curry&. The o.iirrya then sought .. variance for a 9etback requirement to t"ild a ~ingle family house on this parcel of Property. il'ha Court in C\U"ll held. t,hi;l.t the mere fa~t that the Youngp ra-aequired il.lO'th pa~cels of the Pr~~•rly ~fter severance Qid not reunite the two ~o as to constitu~* ~ m~ngl$ lot. The Ceu~t wen~ on~~ held that bQcauae of the peculiar ~i@® and shape of the one parcel a deni~l of the v~rianee would dapri~e eureys of any reasonable ~~Q af 'their p~operty, In faQt 1 th~ court hel4 tha~ even though th• granting oft..~• var!~nde would work e ha~dahip on cth@r adjoining property ovmars, t..he v~ri8~ee must be i;p:antad. Against, the use of the propor~y ~s a vacant lo~ wa~ ~ot a "reasonable use" of the le :\.I. -L I I ::> ~ .-LUU-:--:.\a.4:::.'.93 FRI 17:34 ID: IVERSON BERNDT&ZAPPI TEL N0:612 S'i'i-7734 Mr. K•vin Staunton .Milil. K&l:'illlfi Colo .'Jil.ln~ .t, 19g3 ij lgj ti ti f ' t) 1_1 J l:f128 P07 i~ 13 !mporlant. ~one~~ tna~ ~othing that M~~ ~ien did created the ~ub~tand~~d ~a~u~e Qf the ~ian Lot. Jaok Ramien acquired it wi~h ~.h~ kno~ledge that yae it w~s substa~dard bu~ that three pFior variances had ~tan gr.!!l.nted. i'e forea Mr Q R@mion to use the !Qt aa additional yard i~ an u~r~~~Qn~~l$ ~~e ~n~ there%ore an und.ue hard.ship~ Again, returning to IOWQlls if it is establiehad that (i) the prop@rty cannot be put to a r$asonable u~e without a ~arianee, l.e~ the u8e ot the lot as additional yard, is not a reasonable u~~, and (ii) t.he fs~t th~t Mr. Rem.ien did not de a~ything ~~ cre&t• the sitQ~tion 1 ~nd (iii) the lot will net alte~ the essential character of the locality, all three requirements of ei.n undue h~rd!!!hip h,;i:v'B h~en mE1:'t. fflizjrh gc~ c~ Jaok ~~mi~n (~y ta~) P8~~ Ba~~n -L~ona~d; street & 05inar~ __: '..:. L' :-.•. ! J,1,,,.,., , r ,.•~ H :..,{\ 1. 7: 0'1 FAX tgj 11 I' 1 ,· IJ 1,1 i P c:i J) t f A ~A H A K NUi{BER: ~-~--("iil2) .. 333 ... 4300 ~ -----~ . -- FILE NUMBER; AlYfHORIZA'rlOI~ INUMBER:_30L'l ___ _ 7 ·-· ---------------- IF ANY PRORf.FJJ5 WITH THIS TFr.4NSMITT.4L, PLEASE CALL H/J..R(;J1l{t7 li(ifO nr (612) 3.-:S.4-26'7? ThR information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intenrtRd for the use of the i ndividna 1 or Pn{-:i t:y na:mea above. Tf the 1'.'"8<tltif',r of this m~~sage is not the intended recipient, or ·the ern.i=•loyee or aqent responsible to rleliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notirien that any dissemination, dist~ibution or copyinc of this comrnunic;ait1on j:,;; strictly prohibited. It you have received thi.s fax in error, please. irrrrnedirltely notify 1:J.s by t:elephone,. and return the original message to us at the above address via the United St~tes Poslal Service. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1810 -CONT. Weckman stated to his .knowledge there is just block under area. He said the apartment has its own access door to exterior. He said this use has existed for many years. Recently owners applied for a permit to upgrade the apartment, and it determined they would need a conditional use permit. this the the was Bel lows asked that th .is be referred to as a guest house, and clarified that they would not al low the renting of this area. She stated that assuming there are no footings under th _e breezeway, they can treat this area as a separate bui I ding, thereby al lowing the ·independent exterior access. DeNero noted the residence .was bui it in 1937 and is a landmark to the area. She stated the house has been restored and maintained that way. They only wish to upgrade the electrical and other safety features. It was moved by Bel lows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of Application #1810 Henry DeNe ·ro, 1245 6th Avenue North, approving a conditional use permit for a guest house use. Ayes 5, nays o. (#10) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES -PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 -8:25 P.H. The Affidavit of Publ i.cation and Certificate of Mai I ing were noted. Mr. Remien was present. Weckman noted this is a variance request has been approved three times in the past. He noted the appi icant wants to assure bu i I dab i I i ty prior to se I I i ng. The pre I i mi nary p I ans appear to meet height and hardcover requirements. He reviewed previously approved hardships for this property, and noted the common ownership pol icy of the City. He stated many lots in the area are of similar size. He referred to one objection letter from the neighboring property owners and a letter submitted by Remien providing background information. Bel lows read the letter from Remein. Warren and Christine Bislke expressed strong opposition. He stated the I ot is substandard, and there are issues that were not discussed with previous variance review. 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1a11 -CONT. Mrs. Bielke stated when they purchased their property, the variance had not yet been approved. She noted they along with Remien opposed the first variance request, prior to Remien purchasing the parcel. She read a I etter from their attorney presenting reasons for den i a I . She referred to Section 10. 08 dea I i ng with variance approval regarding the health, safety and' welfare of the public, and suggested the erosion problem in this area should make the lot unbu i I dab I e as it wou Id be adding to the prob I em and wou Id be det r i men ta I to the neighborhood. She added they did have their house I isted prior to this situation, but felt this may depreciate the value of their home. She felt this request does not meet the criteria for approval, and suggested this lot be combined with Lot 1 9. Mr. Nisiedlak, potential buyer of Lot 18, advised that the house w i I. I be bu i It back from the I akeshore and w i I I not add to the erosion problem. He felt the house he would bui Id would not lower the standards of the neighborhood, and said he wou Id be w i I I i ng to supply the Bielkes with plans to present to potential purchasers of their property. Weckman reviewed that the sewer connection stub for Lots 16 and 17 is located within the boundary of Lot 18. Mrs. Bielke sta.ted it Is 3.5' within the boundary of Lot 18, and added they were unaware of that situation when they purchased their property. She said the records of the City indicate that Lot 18 was unbui ldable and that is why the sewer I ine was placed within its boundary. Mabusth disagreed, and stated the three parcels Lots 16, 17 and 18 were owned in common at the time of installation of that pipe, and that is why it was placed on Lot 18. Mrs. Bielke read from memo from Gaffron to the City Counci I dated December 1985 which states, "they do not anticipate that Lot 18 would become bui ldable". Bel lows indicated that statement means the Bielkes need a new stub to their property. She fe It hard pressed to deny the request because of past approvals. She noted the property-has changed hands several times as a bui ldable lot, and this request would not set a new precedent in the neighborhood. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #~811 -CONT. It was moved by Bel lows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of Application #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, approving lot area and width variances .to construct a new residence. Johnson said he respects the pos It ion of a I I i nvo I ved parties, and could not support the request as he felt the property should be combined with Lot 19 as one condition for approval is that no add it i ona I I and is ava i I ab I e. Be I I ows fe It that was an incorrect interpretation of the code. Mabusth noted the code specifically states that substandard lots, whether in single separate or commonly owned, are to be judged on their own merits. The finding that no additional land is avai I able was validated during the variance review because at the time the lot was not owned in common with adjacent lots. Peterson felt approval requires too many variances. Schroeder questioned why the neighbors did not buy the parcel. Mrs. Bielke stated they were unaware that it was for sale unti I too late. Jay and Gay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, stated they were given the impression that Remlen purchased the parcel fbr use in conjunctioh with Lot 19. He said the on I y reason why the City approved the variance in the past was because it had been taxed as bu i I dab I e, and an attorney owned It at the time and the City did not want to be brought into legal action. Bel lows felt that iisue was not pertinent. Vote: Ayes 3, nays 2. Johnson and Peterson voted nay. (#11) #1812 THOMAS PATRICK GOODYEAR, 712 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCES -PUBLIC HEARING 8:40 -9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai I ing were noted. Mr. Goodyear was present. Mabusth reviewed the applicants request to add a second story to the existing residence, including the addition of a 2'+ expansion into the right side yard to square off the foundation. ·the applicant also proposes alterations to the existing boat house. 9 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 12, 1993 (*#3) #1811 C._Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance -Resolution #3300 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor ca I I ahan, to adopt Resolution #3300 for Application #1811 for c. Jack Remien, 3237 . Casco Circle, approving lot width and lot area variances to construct a new residence. Ayes 4, nays o. (#4) #1821 MARGO & STEVE WIRTJES, 3085 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION -RESOLUTION #3301 John P I o e t z , a pp I i can t s ' at to r n e y , was p r e.s en t . Mabusth explained the conditions of approval. Mayor Callahan clarified that the resolution requires relocation of the wel I prior to final subdivision approval. Mabusth concurred that it does based on the Planning Commission recommendation. Ploetz said his client objects to this condition based on cost factors of moving the we I I. He ref erred to a dee I a ration of restrictive covenant that could be filed in the chain of title that would notify future owners that the wel I would need to be relocated if the alternative septic system were to be used. Mabusth said the on-site septic inspector granted a setback variance for the existing septic system to a I I ow the current owners use of such system. The septic system was installed first and the State We I I Inspector approved a 50' setback which does not meet City Code requirements cal I ing for a 75' setback. Rowlette explained she voted against the motion to require the wel I to be relocated as she felt it was a burden to the current owner. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3301 for Application #1821 for Margo and Steve Wirtjes, 3085 Watertown Road, granting preliminary approval of a .Class III two lot plat, subject to the resolution being changed not requiring the wel I to be relocated at this point. Ayes 4, nays o. 2 Tax Book Year 16 Ownership -Lots 16-17-18-19 1965, 1974-Present 17 18 1965 McNeal McNeal McNeal 19 Hulse? NO TAX RECORDS AVAILABLE 1974 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Remien 1975 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Remien 1976 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Remien 1977 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Remien 1978 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1979 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1980 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1981 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1982 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1983 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1984 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien 1985 Corson Corson Smith Remien 1986 Bielke Bielke Smith Remien 1987 Bielke Bielke Mertes Remien 1988 Bielke Bielke Mertes Remien 1989 Bielke Bielke Remien Remien 1990 Bielke Bielke Remien Remien 1991 Bielke Bielke Remien Remien 1992 Bielke Bielke Remien Remien 1993 Bielke Bielke Remien Remien NOTE: Dash (-) between same owner indicates lots legally combined. NOTE: Ownership is as listed at beginning of nominal tax year. Application History Application # #761 #988 #1101 #1811 Action Approved Approved Approved Date 2-27-84 Exp. 2-27-85 1-13-86 Exp. 1-13-87 2-9-87 Exp. 2-9-88 Applicant (Smith) (Mertes) (Mertes) (Remien) Applic. # #761 #988 #1101 #1811 9404 llG. omoting the public , ordinance regulate ubsurface areas, the es, size of buildings :he size of yards and ses of buildings and ;, or other purposes, ulture, forestry, soil Is, as defined in sec r systems as defined ,lish standards and sheltered construc ~ntial buildings, or 327.35 that comply ,n. The regulations : municipality into ns shall be uniform :lass or kind of use tffer from those in known as the zon linance extend the ,cated within two t has adopted zon unicipalities have the zoning of land nicipalities unless ,ns. Any city may s if such property 1rd adopts a com- >f a land use plan g out the policies tance and submit ~ct to the require- I amend a zoning "e municipal plan ;edes the plan. thereto shall be agency or by the tng shall be pub ::ior to the day of tries affecting an days before the tuated wholly or For the purpose ce may use any ,. A copy of the as sent shall be :ords of the pro ·ners, or defects attempt to com- , be initiated by perty owners as fanning agency 9405 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 462.357 shall be referred to the planning agency, if there is one, for study and report and may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation of the planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the planning agency. Subd. 5. Amendment; certain cities of the first class. The provisions of this subdivi sion apply to cities of the first class. In such cities amendments to a zoning ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or any party purchasing any such contiguous prop erty within one year preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body of any such city. The gov erning body of such city may, by a two-thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without such written consent whenever the planning commis sion or planning board of such city shall have made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less than 40 acres, within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the overall needs. of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily news paper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and recommendations in writing. Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjust ments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable con ditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of cir cumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it .is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinan<r,._ "Undue hardship" as used in connection .with the granting of a variance means th~roperty in question c~ot be put to a reasonable ~se if used _under condition~ allowed by the official control's;=the plight of the l~owner 1s due to circumstances umque to the property not created by the la~wne1~d the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locali~conomic con siderations alone shall not constitute an un~ hardship if reasonable use for the prop erty exists under the terins of the ordinanc~ ndue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered constru~ as defined in section 116J.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinanc~e board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitt~der the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is locate\l!,the board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or gov erning body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances tQ insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children 462.357 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENr, PLANNING, ZONING should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6a through 9, "person'.' has the meaning given in section 245A.02, subdivision I 1. Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. A state licensed residential facility serving six or fewer persons, a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons, and a group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 to serve 14 or fewer children shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for the purposes of zoning. Subd. 8. Permitted multifamily use. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 7 or in any town, municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivi sion, a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons or a licensed day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, municipal or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility, provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the facility which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the residential facility. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residen tial or day care facilities from single family zones if otherwise permitted by a local zon ing regulation. History: 1965 c 670 s 7; 1969 c 259 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 379 s 4; 1973 C 539 S 1; 1973 C 559 S 1,2; 1975 C 60 S 2; 1978 C 786 S 14,15,· Ex1979 C 2 S 42,43; 1981 C 356 S 248; 1982 C 490 S 2; 1982 C 507 S 22; 1984 C 617 S 6-8; 1985 C 62 S 3; 1985 C 194 s 23; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 333 s 22; 1989 c 82 s 2; 1990 c 391 art 8 s 47; 1990 c 568 art 2 s 66,67 462.358 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; SUBDIVISION REGULA TIONS. Subdivision 1. [Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35] Subd. 1 a. Authority. To protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic, and safe development ofland, to preserve agricultural lands, to promote the availability of housing affordable to persons and fam ilies of all income levels, and to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds, and other public services and facilities, a municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision regulations establishing standards, requirements, and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions. The regulations may contain varied provisions respecting, and be made applicable only to, certain classes or kinds of subdivisions. The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of subdivision. . A municipality may by resolution extend the applicati~n' of its subdivision regula tions to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction but not in a town which has adopted subdivision regulations; provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the subdivision of land equal distance from its boundaries within this area. Subd. 2. [Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35] Subd. 2a. Terms ofregulations. The standards and requirements in the regulations may address without limitation: the size, location, grading, and improvement of lots, structures, public areas, streets, roads, trails, walkways, curbs and gutters, water supply, storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas, and other utilities; the planning and design of sites; access to solar energy; and the protection and conservation of flood plains, shore lands, soils, water, vegetation, energy, air quality, and geologic and ecologic features. The regulations shall require that subdivisions be consistent with the municipality's official map if one exists and its zoning ordinance, and may require con- sistency with oth prohibit certain c with the comprel tion of agricultur for the purpose c terns. The regula surf ace develop1 potential mined 141, and access 1 for any tracts, le obtained. The regulati struction and in: and similar utili pality of a cas~ amount and wi1 utilities and imJ tions of the mm made by a subd The regulat ance with othe1 and to execut< approval. The r: ate legal and ec Subd. 2b.l proposed subdi roads, sewers, e or ponds and s In additior subdivision be public use as P municipality n for part or all 1 based on the f: (b) any cash p; used only for 1 reasonable por recreational, o for the subdiv to acquire tha· approval of th Subd. 3. I Subd. 3a. eels, tracts, or which create l platted. The r address subje1 Subd. 3b the content of and approval affected polit: consolidation visions. Prelii applications. planning com erning body < BURNET REALTY Warren and Christine Bielke 3241 Casco Circle Orono, MN 55391 May 24, 1993 Dear Warren and Chris, Wayzata Office 315 Eas t Lake Stree t Wayzata, MN 55391 612/473-3000 Fax 612/473 -3932 I am responding to your request as to the impact on the value and marketability of your property at 3241 Casco Circle if lot width and area variances are granted so a home can be built on the adjacent land to the south. Since I began marketing your property in February, the neighboring property became available and has since sold. Both potential buyers and real estate agents have been concerned with how the space and privacy would be impacted by a home being constructed next door. They feel that the area is too small to accomodate another structure. Since there have been reoccuring negative reactions to the proposed building site and subsequent loss of privacy, it is my opinion that the granting of these variances has and will continue to negatively affect the value and marketability of your property. Sincerely, ~ ~~f Robert Hare Burnet Realty MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 (#7) #1691 & #1702 CITY OF LONG LAKE, 130 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD -FINAL SUBDIVISION -RESOLUTION #3284 Ke I I ey inquired about the I andscape p I an and a provision in the covenants to ensure the plantings wi 11 be installed. Staunton replied there are provisions within the covenant that would al low Orono to obtain an injunction and to take I itigation to enforce if such violations are determined. Mayor Ca I I ahan suggested the City shou Id contact Long Lake if a provision is not being adhered to prior to litigation. He said the City of Orono wi 11 be the primary party to enforce the covenant, not the residents, and added the covenants are perpetual. Kelley questioned the time frame for the landscape screening to occur. Moorse replied as the properties are developed, screening wi I I be planted . It was moved by Mayor Ca I I ahan, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt Resolution #3284 for Application #1691 and #1702 the City of Long Lake, 130 Orono Orchard Road, approving the p I anned resident i a I development and plat of Fleming Trai I. Ayes 5, _nays 0. (#8) #1734 JOHN BURGER, 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD -FINAL SUBDIVISION It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to table action on Application #1734 John Burger, 3750 Bayside Road, at the request of staff, pending receipt of the required easement documents. (#9) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE -VARIANCES Mr. Remien was present. Gaff ron exp I a i ned th Is is a request for a third renewa I of a variance for lot area and width originally approved in 1984. When the original variance was granted the property was owned in common by the property owner to the north. The property is in a half acre zoning district, and contains 77% of the area requirement, and 55% of the lot width. The Planning Commission voted in favor of this on a vote of 3 to 2. A question has been raised about the consistency with the DNR shoreland regulations. 7 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. Jennifer Dotsenroth, 3225 Casco Circle, stated an objection to the variance citing additional hardcover and severe erosion problems Jn the area as reasons to deny. She felt most parcels in this area meet the lot area standard, and noted that Casco Circle is very narrow and they do not need the additional traffic on the road. Dick Kunz, realtor, said he disagrees with the adverse affects of this development on other property values. He noted the buyer of this property intends to bu i Id within the hardcover guide I i nes and one additional residence wi I I not create that much more traffic. Dave Sti lseth, 3233 Casco Circle, said if this property is developed there wi 11 be minimum separation between the three residences and be very congested. This does not fit the genera I look of the area. He felt the properties should be combined. Hurr inquired the width of his lot. Stilseth stated his lot is a bit larger than 60' wide, but added was grandfathered in and he purchased it 14 years ago. Gary Nas i ed I ek, buyer of the vacant I ot, said they began their procedure by cal I ing Orono and getting the specifications to bui Id for this property. They agree to remove the garage on the lot. He felt the house wl I I flt the neighborhood, and added the road could be widened. He said he has offered to postpone bui I ding unti I the Bielkes sel I their property. Mayor Callahan clarified that the buyer has a contingency in his purchase agreement based on approval of this variance, and that he was aware of the need for the variance at the time the purchase agreement was drafted. Nasiedlek concurred. Chuck PI a in, 3227 Casco Ci re I e, expressed opposition as most parce Is in the area are I arger pieces of property and approving this variance would place three residences in close proximity. Jay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, stated he was excited when Remien purchased the property to add onto his residence. He concurred that if approved this wi I I be the only area where three residences are placed in close proximity. He agreed there is a need to minimize hardcover in this area because of the erosion problems, and ·stated the Counci I may wish to consider making Casco Circle a one way road in the future because of its narrow width. 9 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 (#7) #1691 & #1702 CITY OF LONG LAKE, 130 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD -FINAL SUBDIVISION -RESOLUTION #3284 Ke I I ey inquired about the I andscape p I an and a provision in the covenants to ensure the plantings wi I I be installed. Staunton replied there are provisions within · the covenant that would al low Orono to obtain an injunction and to take I itigation to enforce if such violations are determined. Mayor Ca I I ahan suggested the City shou Id contact Long Lake if a provision is not being adhered to prior to I itigation. He said the City of Orono w i I I be the primary party to enforce the covenant, not the residents, and added the covenants are perpetual. Kel fey questioned the time frame for the landscape screening to occur. Moorse rep Ii ed as the properties are deve I oped, screening w i I I be planted. It was moved by Mayor Ca I I ahan, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt Resolution #3284 for Application #1691 and #1702 the City of Long Lake, 130 Orono Orchard Road, approving the p I anned resident i a I development and plat · of Fleming Trai I. Ayes 5,_nays 0. (#8) #1734 JOHN BURGER, 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD -FINAL SUBDIVISION It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to table action on Application #1734 John Burger, 3750 Bayside Road, at the request of staff, pending receipt of the required easement documents. (#9) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE -VARIANCES Mr. Remien was present. Gaffron explained this is a request for a third renewal of a variance for lot area and width original fy approved in 1984. When the original variance was granted the property was owned in common by the property owner to the north. The property is in a half acre zo~ing district, and contains 77% of the area requirement, and 55% of the lot width. The Planning Commission voted in favor of this on a vote of 3 to 2. A question has been raised about the consistency with the DNR shoreland regulations. 7 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. In staff's opinion, based on a letter received from the DNR, the City's codes are in compliance with the DNR regulations and the City may grant the variance if the City finds a hardship exists. He stated previous to 1984, the City would not have considered a variance for common ownership property. He referred to . a study in 1983 regarding common ownership revealing the number of lots in the City in common ownership and the size of I ots throughout the various zoning districts, and concluded that the number of common ownership lots that might end up requesting variances is relatively smal I compared to the number of properties in the varous zones, and therefore upon the recommendation of the City Attorneys at that time, changed ·the pol icy to accept variance applications for common ownership lots. Gaffron noted that the first and second renewals were fairly non controversial using the same documentation and hardship statement as the original approval. It appears the neighborhood now questions whether or not this variance should be granted. Staunton said there is st i I I some dispute whether the DNR shore I and regulations would prohibit approval of a variance. He opined that the regulations provide an opportunity for a variance and the DNR regu I at ions were on I y designed as guide Ii nes for deve I opment of the City ordinance. He felt the real issue for this case is whether or not a hardship exists to al low the granting of a variance. Mayor Callahan asked if it was the City Attorney's opinion that the Counci I's only task is to apply the City codes. Staunton concurred. Mayor Callahan read a letter from Robert Hare, real tor for the Bielkes. Tom Zappia, attorney for Remien, felt the real issue is the variance under the Orono ordinance. The primary issues are: the property in question has a history of variance approval proclaiming bu i l dab i Ii ty; the app I i cant acquired it as a bu i I dab I e I ot; there is no other reasonable use for the property; and the variance would not adversely impact the neighborhood as there are several other substandard lots in the area. Warren Bielke, 3241 Casco Circle, said he purchased his property in November 1985 and at the time the former owner of this lot requested a variance which both he and Remien stated objections to. Mr. Remien purchased the vacant parcel after that variance was approved to use for the addition to his residence. 8 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. Jennifer Dotsenroth, 3225 Casco Circle, stated an objection to the variance citing additional hardcover and severe erosion problems Jn the area as reasons to deny. She felt most parcels in this area meet the I ot area standard, and noted that Casco Ci re I e is very narrow and they do not need the additional traffic on the road. Dick Kunz, realtor, said he disagrees with the adverse affects of this development on other property values. He noted the buyer of this property intends to bui Id within the hardcover guide! ines and one additional residence wi I I not create that much more traffic. Dave Sti lseth, 3233 Casco Circle, said if this property is developed there wi 11 be minimum separation between the three residences and be very congested. This does not fit the general look of the area. He felt the properties should be combined. Hurr inquired the width of his lot. Sti lseth stated his lot is a bit larger than 60' wide, but added was grandfathered in and he purchased it 14 years ago. Gary Nas i ed I ek, buyer of the vacant I ot, said they began their procedure by cal I ing Orono and getting the specifications to bui Id for this property. They agree to remove the garage on the lot. He felt the house wi I I fit the neighborhood, and added the road could be widened. He said he has offered to postpone bui !ding unti I the Bielkes sel I their property. Mayor Callahan clarified that the buyer has a contingency in his purchase agreement based on approval of this variance, and that he was aware of the need for the variance at the time the purchase agreement was drafted. Nasiedlek concurred. Chuck PI a in, 3227 Casco Ci re I e, expressed opposition as most parce Is in the area are I arger pieces of property and approving this variance would place three residences in close proximity. Jay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, stated he was excited when Remien purchased the property to add onto his residence. He concurred that if approved this wi I I be the only area where three residences are placed in close proximity. He agreed there is a need to minimize hardcover in this area because of the erosion problems, and ·stated the Counci I may wish to consider making Casco Circle a one way road in the future because of its narrow width. 9 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. Richards asked that if approved the concept plans be a part of that approval as it is crucial that a smal !er residence be placed on this parcel. Peter Bachman, attorney for the Bielkes, referred to the Lorge case where the City was sued over the common ownership issue in 1982. He said this case does not set a precedent as it was settled out of court. He presented that even though variances have been approved in the past, there are major issues preventing approval at this time, including: the common ownership issue, and undue hardship. He referred to a case whereby the Court indicates that without the presence of a demonstrated hardship a variance cannot be approved. He felt the appf icant's plight is partially of his own doing. The Courts also have stated that if the property adjacent to the substandard parce I is owned in common, the properties must be combined. The Courts have also indicated that past variance approval does not entitle automatic approval of the present request. He felt the law is very clear in these areas. Mayor Ca I I ahan questioned whether the thrust of his argument is the Council's abi I ity to deny. Bachman rep! ied he is trying to point out that the Counci I has the authority to deny, but not the authorization to grant the variance if there is no undue hardship. Mayor Callahan said they are trying to determine if there is a hardship. Bachman distinguished that the owner purchased the property knowing that it was substandard and owns the property adjacent to the vacant parcel. Hurr pointed out when the owner purchased the parce I it was declared bui ldable. Bachman disagreed, noting that the variance had expired. Hurr noted the parcel has been assessed for sewer and water and historically been taxed as a bui I dab le lot. Bachman stated the app Ii cant has used this parce I in common with his homestead property. He said he has asked other city attorneys and the uni form response has been that it is nonsense to grant variances based on the property being taxed a bui ldable parcel. He suggested one cou Id request the assessor to tax a parce I at a higher rate and then request a variance based on such. 10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. Goetten felt that reply rather simplistic. She inquired about the assessment of sewer units. Gaffron reported that the properties in this area were assessed foot age and the re was no unit or area charge. This parce I was assessed the front footage charge and would have to pay incremental charges based on recent sewer upgrades. He added the sewer stub on this parce I is used by the Biel kes and needs an easement. Bachman clarified the point he was trying to make is the City has the ·right to contro I land use and it shou Id not be based on hi stor i ca I taxing practices. He fe It the on I y reason why these properties were not combined is the owner feels he wi I I make more money if sold separately, and a variance cannot be approved based on economic reasons. He said an applicant for a variance must meet al I applicable City and State standards. He said the property does not have any unique characteristics to distinguish it from other substandard parce Is. He fe It denial of the variance does not prohibit the use of the property as it can be combined with the adjacent parcel. Bachman reviewed the findings included in the draft resolution and felt they were lacking. Steve Si lus, potential buyer of Remien's developed parcel, stated he has agreed to this purchase knowing the adjacent parcel wi I I be developed. Hurr asked him if he felt that to be a negative. Si lus replied he did not any more than the property developed on the south side. Chris Bielke noted the three variances approved in the past have been to owners . not owning the parce I in common with adjacent parcels. Jabbour questioned whether the owner could sel I the two parcels independently and the new owner come back with the hardship that there is no avai fable land and this is a reasonable use. Staunton opined that could be done. Bachman retorted that the I aw provides that anytime property is owned in common ownership it must be combined. 11 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE *1811 -CONT. Ke I I ey asked the app I i cant his hardship. Rem i en said he purchased the parce I as a bu i I dab I e I ot and if combined he would suffer a substantial loss. He stated he purchased the parcel for $80,000 and intends to sel I for $92,000, but wi l I not realize a financial gain as he must pay the realtor fees, attorney fees and has paid taxes on the parcel. He felt the hardship is that there is no additional property to combine to this property to make it conforming, but added it does contain the necessary square footage. He said he has maintained the vacant parcel, but has viewed it as completely independent from is homestead parcel. Mayor Callahan asked the applicant if he had opposed the previous variance request. Rem i en rep f i ed his former wife opposed the variance in 1987, and in fact, she was not Ii sted as a property owner at the ti me. In final resolve, he purchased the property after the variance approval with the intent to maintain or sel I as a bui ldable lot. Hurr clarified that he receives two separate tax statements. Remien stated that is correct. Hurr asked about the narrowest developed property in the area. Bachman noted the staff report indicates this parcel is 5' narrower than the next smallest developed property. Gaffron clarified that the two parcels next to this property are also 55' wide, but there are no lots narrower than this property. Dotzenroth stated there are no lots narrower than this property, and requested Counc i I to again consider the env i ronmenta I impacts. Jabbour rep! ied that the vacant parcel could contain hardcover even if combined with the adjacent parcel. Dave Truax, Remien's realtor, disagreed with the position held by Hare that the values in the area wi f I be reduced. He stated both the Remiens and the Bielkes enjoy the benefits of the vacant parce I . 12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE ~1811 -CONT. Chris Bielke stated they do have a privacy fence long the lot I ine. She added during a recent open house of their property, there was conversation regarding this property and interest in their property has dwindled. Kelley said he would vote to deny as no undue hardship has been shown. Goetten stated prior Counci Is have decided this to be a bui I dab le lot, and she feels honor-bound to rely on their decision. Staunton indicated that it is correct that prior action does not bind the Counci I to grant the renewal variance as approval is time I i mi ted and I apsed. He said the Counc i I needs to independent I y confirm the hardship for this request and previous action cannot act as the sole support for this approval. However, he added that the Counci I is not legally prohibited from granting the variance based on hardship. Mayor Callahan questioned past ownership regarding variance approva I . Gaffron stated the variance was originally approved while under the common ownership with the property to the north, then it was sold to a separate owner, and now is owned by an adjacent property owner again. Mayor Callahan stated other than economic reasons, he did not see any claim of hardship. Hurr fe It they have set a precedent in the past by granting variances where the area meets 77% of the standards. She felt the on I y question is the ownership. She fe It they were bound by previous approvals. Mayor Callahan reiterated that they approve, and the property could be reasonable use of the property. must find combined a hardship and provide to a Hurr disagreed, that they declared this property bui ldable and now are disagreeing because it is owned in common ownership with the adjacent property. 13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. Mayor Callahan asked if the Counci I was mistaken with the first approval, why should they repeat that mistake. Hurr asked about the City's past pol icy to consider taxing history. Kel fey noted they cannot look at valuations. Goetten stated the Counc i I has approved variances in the past based on sewer avai labi I ity. She felt the Counci I does not have the right to require the combination. Jabbour said he is sensitive to the fact that a hardship must be demonstrated and also to the former promise of past Counci Is. He felt the applicant could demonstrate a hardship if the two parcels were sold independently. Mayor Callahan stated the hardship would have then been created by the app Ii cant. Goetten indicated the issue is not the common ownership, but rather the fact the property was purchased subsequent to being declared bui ldable. She felt they would be taking a right away by denying. She felt if they deny this application, the Counci I would be setting a real precedent and reiterated past practice has been to consider sewer and water avai labi I ity and taxing history. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to approve Application #1811 for c. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, approving variance to permit construction of a new residence. Jabbour asked the applicant to try harder to demonstrate a hardship. He said he would I ike to do the honorable thing. Kelley disagreed and stated they are elected officials and can be replaced if their actions are not agreed upon by their constituents. He felt they were not bound by past decisions. Goetten fe It the hardship is the ava i I ab i I i ty of the sewer and water. Vote: Ayes 2, nays 3. Kelley, Mayor Callahan and Jabbour voted nay. It was moved by Kelley to deny Application #1811 for C. Jack Riemen. 14 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 -CONT. Mayor Callahan asked the applicant if he would I ike additional time to demonstrate hardship. Riemen stated he would like the application to be tabled. Kelley withdrew his motion. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to table unti I June 14th Application #1811 for C. Jack Riemen, 3237 Casco Circle, to al low the applicant time to demonstrate hardship. Ayes 5, nays o. Mayor Callahan cal led for a recess from 10:30 to 10:40 p.m. (#10) #1828 CHRISTOPHER TULLY, 1355 NORTH ARM DRIVE -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -RESOLUTION #3285 Mr. Tu! ly was present. Gaffron explained the applicant seeks a conditional use permit for an accessory structure in the rear yard of a through lot, meeting the required 15' side setback and the 30' rear setback. The applicant has agreed to combine al I seven of his parcels. It was moved by · Mayor Ca I I ahan, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3285 for Application #1828 for Christopher Tully, 1355 North Arm Drive, approving a conditional use permit for the construction of an accessory structure on a through lot. Ayes 5, nays O. Hurr asked the intended use of the structure. Tully replied it would be used for storage. (#11) 1993 MARINA LICENSES Gaffron explained this issue involves six applications for 1993 marina licenses, in staff's opinion three of which are without controversy and similar to past applications: Crystal Bay Service, Windward Marine, and Minnetonka Boat Works. Lakeside Marina has made an application requesting 30 to 50 boats intended to be stored on land for lake use in addition to their 77 normal slips. They have not paid the s l i p fee for these 30 to 50 as part of the application. The question is whether or not the City is sti 11 in the business of regulating boat density. 15 ·' I ' ·city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ··-:-·· NO. .. 1607 GAANTlNG V RiANCt MUNlCCPAL 1.0NING COOK S!CT ONS TO · 4.S52 -FILE 761 Wher AS, D m1th (here afte r "applicant") is the wn o r t \ proo C'r \' d ? 7 Circle within the City of O n o ( h 1 <: l r '' C' \ nd ltg lly d scribed as follows: Lo 11-,, Spring P a rk, nlso all the lAnd including the vacated hlghw y, Lnk ~ S hore Drive, l ying between the Northeasterly line ot sairl lot <1nd the s hore of Lak Minnetonka and between thP Northw P.sterl y nnd Southe11sterly lines of said Lot 18 P.xtende<l Northeasterly to said lakP. shore, and being part of Gov e rnmr.nt Lot f'i, Section ?.0, Township 11'! North, Range 23 Wost of tho 5th PrincipAl Meridian, and also indicated on the plc'\t of s11id SprJng Park, (hereafter "property"); and Wher eas , the appl leant hAs applied to the City for variances to n,•,irdci pnl zonir,g code sec ·:.ion )4. 552 to permit the construction of a new residence on <"I property Llrnt l!31r;,111R squnre feet in Area or 77% of th~ mJnimum areA required ot 21,7R~ square feet or half acre and the wi<lth of the prop rty is 55 f et or ~5% of the required 1~r-, feet of lot w.lcit.h. No w, Them[ re Be It Res("llve<i by the City Council of Orono, Minnc>sot ei : FINDINGS 1. Thi s ;i pplicat ion wns reviewed as zoning file No. 761. 2 . Th e prope rty is locatPd in the LR-lC Single Family Lnk os hor e Rc>sldential Zoning District, 1. Tht~ property was in common ownership with contiguous lnt.s lt; tinci 17, Spring Park prior to 19fi7 through 1977 when the appl lc,,nt purch .'.lsNI t.he property, Lots l'i and 17 11re now legnlly combined, ~. Section 11 .2~2 of the Municipal Zoning Code provides for devolnpm<'nt of lots of record held i n sepanite ownership s ln ct> pr ior to the ef.fective riat e of the, zoning regul<'ltion, providPd" lot of. record meet s FIA% of the required lot lHel'I ft nri lot w id t· h . S. The City Council h<1s alw ;~ys req 1 1ired thnt when t.wo or •nnrc lots ,,r e ownod Jn common, each lot must individuAlly City of ORONO -RESOLUTION Ot=THECITV_COUNCIL NO. _,...1.,.6..,o...,7 ___ _ oning Code before that two or more be combined so that i h,; rPsul ti nq comhl n1:>d lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code bo[ore tho lots Cdn be built upon. ~. Upon completion of a~ month City wide review of the comm,· ownership issue, on r 19, 19i:J3, the City approved n pro amendment of the municipal code that wou d permit Rll substandard undeveloped lots within the sewered are~s of the City reg~rdleS$ of the ownership of theso l ts, the same qt~ndards for review. 7. Tho property i:'> Hi,7t'!Fi squari> feet or 77% of the required area, The property ls consistent in area with 7 other devt>loperl lots within a total Jeveloped neighborhood of 11 lot!'l, 8. The property mellsures 55 feet in lot width and is approinmAtely S feet short of the niurowest lots in the 33 lot Casco Clrcl0 neighborhood at ;o feet, 9. The Orono Plnnning Commission reviewed this application on October 14, 1981, and A majority of its members recommended 11pproval of the v:uiances as proposed bnserl upon the following findings: ll) No AvailAble land -lots arc developed on both side~ of property, b) The prop0rty ls served with sewer and watnr. c) Tile proposed hous!'.! ,incl improvements can be constructed viith011t the neNl for ar1ditlonal vnrit'lnces. d) Applicnnt purch1sed property not knowing the eyisting ordi11c1nce limiL'ltions on devl'.'lopm<'nt ot the property. e) V11rictr1c0 is bnlng gr;1nted despite the current or<!inance demnn~s becnus0 Planning Commission anti~ip~tns resolu tion ,ind t1mendmt!nt· of the orrlin,,nce. () 11y qr,intlnq t.his vririanr.e there will be no negative 1 f(pct on 1.hP publ!e hn,1lt:h, snfety and welf1lre, ')l lly qrnntinq this v,,rL1nc0 it is consistent". with the d eve l pm,, n I n f t h <' ,1 r P ,, • .Cityoi'· i) The spec Lil conditions applying to the structure of land In question are peculiar to 1uch property or immediately adjoining proper j! The ~onditlon d0 not apply rally to other land c, structures In the district In wh ch said land is located. k) The granting of thl" .ipplicl'ltion is necessary for the preserv;,t ion and enjoyment of a subst!rnt lal property right. of the applicant. l) The granting of the proposed variances will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or Jn any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. m) Thnt the grr1nting of such variances will not merely serve ac a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable h~rdship or difficulty. lA. The minority opinion of the Planning Commission in their recommendl'ltiMi st11ted thr1• ~ney would have no problem in recommen~'"~ 1'1pprov11l ol the proposed variance applicc1tion 'common ownership issu<' WilS resolved by the Cit.y M' · ,, rw::Pss11ry amendment of the ordin<'tnca ilpprovf'd. ll. ThP City Council hns r.onsickred this ;ipplicntion inclu<lin<J the findings nnd recommendations of the Plnnning Commission, reporti:: by City stl'lff, comments by the owner and Lim eftPct o[ the proposed varianct'! o.i tht'! hec1lth, safety nnd welfnre of the community. l?. TIH' City Council l.inrls tlrnt the conr!iti1~ns existing on this prt,perty ,ire pecul i:ir to it ilnd de, not ,,oµly gener,1lly to other propPrty in tlii:, zoning district: tlrnt gr,1nting th" v,,r!.,rwr>s would not ildversnly rfl.ect tr,1ftic c11nditions, light, ,,ir nor pos,, l'I fir<' h,1zard or other d,1nqer to neiqhbnrinri prnrwrty; would nnt m0ridy serve as,, convr-nience to th" own"r, hut is neces~i'.iry to allevir1te ,1 demonstr,1hl0 h,ir;h;llip or dilf.iculty; is nl"!cess,,ry t.o preservP ,, r,11bi1ti111ti.1l property right. of the owner: and would b(' ln kePpin') with t:IH' spirit. nnd intr-nt. ,,r tlH' zoninq cnde ,1nd cornp1Pli('t1siv" pl,111 of t:hn City. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1607 reby grants pnmi t the : 1 n )f .~ nr>w residPncP 011 a propcirty 1 1;, 748 square feet Ir. area h ,i r e qui red 21 , ·, R fl sq u ,He f ,rn t ( l / 2 c1 c re) and w i th a 1 o t w id th ff'et or 55% of the requirerl l0A feet of lot width subject to the it ion!>: '!'irn t chr:d q r,ig h•r:nt'. within the right of WAY of Circle is,, nonr:onforming structure and subject to all 1r1,.r1t municipni rd 1 nanc:er, tor nonconforming ,llCLlll('h, No othrir vari.u1c1•~1 ,Ht' gr.'1nted or permitterl for this !,!. r uclure, 1 l\pplic,1nt is hereby advised that in approving the development of this substandard property that all future improvements mu11t me1Jt. the current standards of the code and that ;i future Counci 1 rn;iy not c1pprove ;my improvement to the propnrty tlH'lt rr~gui res ,1 variance, '1. Authoritiris grm1ted by this variance run with the propr.•rty nol wilh thC' owner, 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 vnrL111ce will c>Xpir,, on th,1t d,1te (February 27, 1985), r,, Violt1tio11 of or 11,>ncnmpli.1ncn with M,y ')f th:' terms i'lnd (~ondltlons of thiti v,ni,111ce shall ;;onstitute a vioi,•~ion of U1e 7 11, rod<', sh,111 <1utoo,1tic,1lly termin,n:e ,,ny 1. ~rlty q, •ntN! hr>rein, and shall be punishable as a mi srl 1>mP,1 nor , ,;. Thi' un-i,sr(,1,1 ...... ,,wner Im, •-end, undorslood ,1nd hereby ,iririi~s to U10 t,•rm!, of thic. re olution and on beh.ilf of hlmsPlf, his lwlrs, succ1•i,1Hirs ti d Mrnigns, hereby agrees tn th<' recorrlinq of this r"sc,lution in the clrnin of title of t lH• pr t' p0 r t y. l\'I'TES'I': ( 2) C tt~.'of ·_ -y __ RESOLUT.ION OF .THE CITY COUNCIL . . . . N0.-_1_6_0_7 ___ _ ·rebruary, 1984. CI Ti' OF' ORONO Acting Mayor Property Owner(s) · ( 1) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUN'l'Y OF IIENNEPIN On thi.ci ___ r_/5 _______ rl,,yof_ A~1../~~'!·-:::_ .. _., 19'ilj_ __ ,beforemen Notr1ry ___ Puollc within and for s,11d Cr1u11 y, personAlly appeared ·-.1)LL-.~1, ... Lo .. s_ .Ll -~~ L1c.<-.U',,c:: _ r1· __ --, _ -·-·-·--·-·-·-_ -·-,-·-r,--r·--knoi wn o Jnf' to bP tll<! perGon(':l) 1J1iscrihN1 n .11)(1 whn executoc tH~ orogo ng instrument, ,ind ,1cknow1ed9Nl th,1t hP lthoy) oxecut,nl tho rrnme ilS hin (their) free act and ~eed, '•, ~ 'V\ -v ~'-\IVV,...., ,,_,.._ \ ",-.'\ \.V\V\ \. \'\ • , .. ··;:--, WIDI l /IND,\ : ~lt'1 NOT ARY P(HltlC MINNrsor A 'l\--. · HlNNf PIN GIJ'.INJY > Mv ::,,;.'"T1t,,1:111, •r1rP< J,1n 19. l9QO :: • \ ,_., \ •~-\,'_ '/ '\_\,'v 'ill Douglas H. Smith 3203 East C.lh6un Parkway Minneapoli•~'..litn. 55408 Meet int; Da tc Notkc Dnte XXX Variance 'Ciiv 2/27/84 2/29/84 --•_, Conditional Use Permit Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision, Final 14/tift:'IP•'r.,, •n•n'r ;"r".\' 1\,/ei"r·'lt\Y1?1\"''fl".*t\~n'r ·/n~" ,.,\~ ,._ 't ·.': ·:.: i't •:t ••-· ~ ..,-: ~'( "/( ~< 1ln ·n~ 11r ":: •/t .,,., ~ •,, ':":: \1n 't.., 'n"tl'r ~-r,~··l, l•r-trk·.1• .,~,. ,t ... •:,rlr·•ln'( ,~1•: ,~ ... tc ~ 'c ... ~,'c ,'(,\ 1'r,'t ,'{ \'t ··:r,'c1'n't"'t\ 1-r :;t1tlNCIL ACTION Vote: _A_ l'.1r i\gn inn t Abstention to approve yuur lot drca and lot width variance application subject to the findings and condit10·1s setforth in the attached resolution. Note ltem (3) of the findings lldS been amended as rcquastcd 'by Council by --·-~~--.. , ~ --~-·-·-··-------·--·,-·---··----·-·----· nddJnq "Lots 16 and 17 ~r0 n0w legally cornbincct". I have enclosed the three 01: iirn1 ,:-csclutions for ~;he :we .-1ssary signatures (plense sec that the signatures aro notarized), Please ruturn all three resolutions for the City Clerk to complete. ------~•---~-•------•-----~-.,~•-~•---,--,-•w•------••~-~--•~---"'-• Dl0\!JLINf': DATi: -------··· ------ for suhmittn1 of nc''.·J infonnntion (.:ipplicntio:1 1:1.iy be consi.\"Cteci forn1.1lly 1v:ltlldr,1wn if infr,nnnt'ion or cxplant1t.'rin is not providc<l). for \·iork Pendl for work t:o begin for work to be ,:1pp lien t ion completE>ci WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED -cont,1ct Bui 1 ding Inspector bcforc begi.nnin,~ work. V/\RJANG!:'. 1\PPROV1\L is 1 imitl'd to the extent shown on npp::-nved plans. D0 not chnn;{c• pln11··~-V,irl,l!ll'" a\lthnLi.ty ,.,;-:pire!; one yeu1· .:ifto1· ,1pprov,1l. co:~!JI'IION,\L llSE /ll'l'!W\l,\L n:pi r1·s upon chnngP of ownership or use, t'r on dradl in0 d,1 tc sp0ci fi r-d ,1hovc. l'RELJMJl~/\RY Sl!l\ll1\IJSJON Al'l'IW\',\L -/\pp1 icnrlt· must provicki nl 1 informati.on ,1nd1 ,11· inq1,PV(•t1t:n! •, tc·qui n·d r,,r rin:1 l 111'pn,v11), Gont,1ct 7.nn:ing ,\ drn i :1 i :; r· r I! t n r , FlNr\L ';{'JIJ)J\'JSJOi-1 /\l'l'IW\',\L -1\pplicm1t 11111nt h,1vr• dn1wi.ngs, t"('Solut.iPn ,ind [1 J] nth1,r n·q11i n•d d11ct11111'nt i; rr·,:nrdPd, will, C<'l'tificntion of sue!, n·cnnli:1 1•~ r1•turnc d In ~lw Ci l'.' liy clC',1cl] ine dnt<•, C<·rt:iri('(l crq,i,~; ,d ,,11:,•i,ll •"'it,• '.:ounc,•f c,··:1t :!1·1 i11:· I :11 "' '. .. ··1,: I· 1\1 lt•h' :ti lf':1::1 t In-cl' 1-·,•c·k:, fr,.•:· ·mTt in,· d·1: 1·. ' ., i ! l l t t f I· I ~- [ TOl Walter R. Benson, .City Administrator Casco Circle -Variance - At your November 14, 1983 meeting, Council directed staff to submit the 1 informa J. (I,ot 18) has never been assessed a sewer nor water t.nit. Hc2v:icw the <•nclosed "As~Built" plans. The lot . .Jas not assigned a water nor sewe~ stub connection. 2. 'l'he original owner, McNcal, had a mortgage on all three lots. Tuthill paid off that mortgage in December, 1973. Lot 18 was sold to Doug Smith in 1977. Tuthill placed a new mortgage on Lots 16 & 17 in 1979. 3. Both Tuthill and Smith have never initiated tax abatement proceedings on n1~ither Tuthill' s part for Lots 16, 17 & 18 nor on Smith's part for Lot 18. 4. There is no record of a letter on file from Smith in regard to the buildability of Lot 18; only his comment on the face of the variance application that he purchased the lot from Tuthill in 1977 for the purpose of constructing a future home. 5. If Council wishes to pursue the claim of the applicant that similar variances have been granted by the City, you may ask for that at your meeting of January 9, 1984, The informa~ion was not submitted by the applicant after the November 14, 1983 meeting, nor did staff pursu•) tho followup response. I am sure tho applicant would be able to uite these cases at your meeting and staff would be able to pr.ovide the background information if the subject applications were acted on within the last seven years. 6. !low does Lot 18 rank in regard to the otl'.0r developed lots on Casco Circle? Based on staff's current survey of common ownership lots and undeveloped lots within tile zoning districts, Lot 18 ranks as follcws: Aron -Lot 18 -18,748 sq. ft. or 771 Width-Lot 18 -55 'or 55% Total Cnsco Point ,HC'D -22.3 dcvelopc'd lot nt 100% 57 or 26i arc within 60%-801 of area required #161 Douglas smith January 3, 1984 Page 2 CHCO Circle neighborhood 'l'Otal developed lots~ JJ r,ts or lots or lot area 1 lot or 3% within 40%-60% of area minimum lot area 80%-100% of required of required lot area R.i;H• the width of 14 dt1Ve lots that surround Lot 18 -see plat map 'illflC losi:i,d Gat 18 -55' or 55% fJ lots or 57% satisf~, width requirements of zoning district l lo~ or 7% within 80%-100% of lot width required 5 lots or 36% within 601-80% of !ot width required No lots within the 14 lot sample were1 under 60% of lot width requirement. Coun~il has been asked to act on the Smith variance application at your meeting of January 9, 1984. The City has resolved and proposed amendments in tho review process for substandard lots held in common onwership within the sowered areas of the City. In consideration of the findings oetforth in the Planning Commission's majorjty opinion recommend3tion and in light of tho direction to tho Council in the recommendation of the minority of the Planning Commission members, staff has drafted a recommendation of variance npproval for your review. A copy of t~is memo and resolution will be sent to tho applicant for his review and comments prior to the Janunry 9, 1984 meeting. The City Attorney should 11dviso if the City is able to act formally on the Smith application until the ordinance is officially amended by the March l, 1984 rccodification deadline. "£L /~r~ :/" MAP E (1 --. . I I I lOT 150 SPRING PARI< \ L _ _:___::~~-~~-~-~-=--:-~-J -- ,_ SEE ,_ -- ----- -- ... 2/ 20 I -S 8 -HO s /9 I -S RING t-1 : \ 15 ,'\µ C l /6 I 17 I 18 G;] 2-s 0 I F-Ho L.o;--I e, ,:1 • ~~ N..-;- J.... .... ... ,' .S.'"f;;: l, f<'., ,, ..r"' .... ~ - -0, 0 Q ~ Ir c... ,, I -01 c.n 0 - X ""' 0 :.~ "'· ti) !".'. 0 ~ Cl --, __, -01 0 0 - dc.~,r ,~.'i- l.tv. ... :t-~ ........ \t'7-~ -0) [1]",," '. ' -,ta g - ~ -z z m -I 0 :z -r houqlas H •. Smith . 3203 East Calhoun Parkwat ' Minn•illnOlilll, MN 55408 Copies to: Control ,No. ~61 · Meeting Date . 11•14-83 Noti~e Date 11-15-83 Va.riam::e Conditional Use Pennit Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision. Final application suhject to revised ··H-~--hci-A•-+S-•-n&t-•....ll-Q~e-p.t~Q-&Ad--¥0u w.iah act.ion on your uariaoce appJ ica tion nrior to January 9th pleas~ advise the City in writing before the Council ;neeting,.0L.~mb.e1:.-2Jltb, In--iUlY, c~se,. th~ty requests a writ ten acknowledge t:ion in regard to this matter prior to the November 28th Councll cmrnc, J t; ,;1.~kcd that you submit the follow.ing information with the assistance of MY·; ··Tt:rth lJ;i:~-to-1:;01m:d ~--the re,,ieW""~~i-¼ea~t+i&f'tftn-ttnee ..... --+7,t,fi+.1-t-t------------ l, Hi tory of ownership of property since 1967 ··•-·----· .,,_., ___ . .. ··------------------------ 2. How had the property been mortgaged during the year -0f Mr. Tuthill's ______ o_wnership? Was lot 18 ever included in the mortgage of the property? 3. Has the property ever been involved in a tax abatement proceedings? Please ca11 my office if you have any questions. DEADLINE DATE -------------------------------- for sul,mittnl of new information (application may be considered form;:illy withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided). for Work Permit ,'.lppl icalion for work to begin for work to be completed WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED -contact Building Inspector before beginning work. VARIANCE APPROVAL ls 1 i.m:, 2d to the extent shown on approved plans. Do not chnngc plnns. Variance 11uthority expires one yenr after npproval. CONDI'fIONAL USE APPHOVAL cxpi res upon change of ownership or use, or on dead1i.ne dnte specified nhove. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -Applicant must provide all information and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning Administrator. FINAL SlffiDIVlSION APPROVAL -Applicant must have drawings, resolution and all other req11ired do~uments recorded, with certification of such recordin~ rcturne>cl to tht City by df'adlino date. Ceril ficd copit'S of offi cilll Gily Co_u_n_c...,.i..,.l--:-:Mc-:--i-n·-u-t_e_s_m_a_y_h,...e_o...,b,_t_a_i,_1-,e-a..,._,b-y ___ _ contacting the City Clerk. Allow ot least three weeks from meeting date. ( Counci I· has····askii'd .t.hat' you 5UbmH th• fol lci11. .. ;u1 information 1111th th• •1uhh.11c• of Mr· ·ruthi 11 to com,..l•t.i th., Ntvi•11.1 of .. ,..,..Jice.tion no. 761 Pr·oP11>rt .,, t>ei'!n Tuthill s ownerihiP,7 Was the mortsa!le of the ProPertv? 1967 Dean McNe&I. mort•a•~d durinl th• vear lot 18 •v•r included in ~F HcNea 1 Paid off 12/73. Mort•••• covered lots Mort•~•• Placed on ProP•rtY bv Tuthill, June 1•;:;79 i:.r, lot le,.~, 17 not on lot l8, Lot 18 sold to [lou!I ith APr I H>77, Ha~ the ProPertY ev&r been involved in a tax abat•~•nt Proce,;,d inst..? Tax abatement Proce0dinss never ■tarted bv Tuthill. Do not know about Doul Smith. ·\- ~.\J.Q_tvV -'\ \~~J \ ,"\ \ I• I ~ '-'.\ \:. I, / 1\\ I nFr. . , 1siH , I.J._l __ _ L CITY OF 0.-.L~l .. ~J' D . ' .. ~ I C\1 (\) c{, J\ o J( ' " ( ~ ' ,, '\aj 0 \ . ' t TO: FROM: Walter R. Benso_n, City .Administrator Jeanne-A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator H. ~mlth -3237 Casco Circle -Variance znnin~ District -LR-lC Applicat on 11) b) Lot .en Rt•quin;,d Rec1u i rod - Existinq - Variance - Variance - Lot width Hc>quired - Required - Existing - Vat·iancc - V<1rinnce - 21,780 sq. 17,424 sq. 16,748 sq. 5,032 sq. 6 76 sq. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. (100 required) (80\1. required) or 77% or 23% (100% required) or 3.9% (80% required) 100' (100% required) 80' (80 9, required) 55' 45' or 451 (100% required) 25' or 311 (801 required) List of Exhibits -----,~----- Exhibit A -Application Exhibit D -Plat Map Exhibit C -Property Owners List Exhibit D -Lot survey Exhibit E -Zoninq code r(~ for once -common 0\<.,1ership Exhibit F -J. Richard Tuthill letter -July 19, 1983 Exhibit G -D. Smith lntter -August 2, 1983 Exhibit II -Attorney's h~ttor -August 25, 1983 Exhibit I -Zoning Administrator's letter -A~gust 29, 1983 Exhibit .J -Zoning Administrator's letter -August 30, 1983 Exhibit K -Planning Commission minutes -,July 18, 1983 Exhibit L -Planninq Commission minutes -September 19, 1983 Exhibit M -survey of Lots l6, 17, & 18 Exhibit N -Site Plan -Lot 18 Exhibit o -Building elevations Mr. Smith's application was accepted as a lot area and lot width variance application for a single, separate lot. Staff worked with the applicant's contractor in the preliminary work on the application. In review of tho formal application, the applica11t himself notes the original ownorohip pattern of Lot 18. Ho advises on the face of the application that ho pul'.'chased the lot "':rom Richilrd Tuthill in 1977 (owner of Lots 16 & 17). n61 -~ ool.tgiiut a.· sn;'.titf .·,·:_.., November 10., -1983 Page 2 Lot 18 is still maintained as part of the Tuthill yard. A detached garage once used by the main hous.e is located on Lot 18. Both the applicant and Tuthill claim they knew nothing of the limitations of tho ordinance. Remember, the ordinance has been in effect since 1967. Tuthill purchased all three lots in. 1971. ,. • .a t:ti.-: t. ap!;llt on t:hF · they would ha1*,b••n adv,iaed of the City• s common ownership study and of that ■tudy within the next few months. The if-,t.M Planning Commission were to act now d•tinn hey would have to deny the application and that prt' fer tab I inq th,? ttppl ication until the study is completed. I should add, this was conveyed to the applicant's contractor at the firnt rrviow meating in July, Since that first meeting, Smith's attorney ha~ had contact with the CiLy asking for action on the application. Both appl ictmts, Doua Smith and thn Richard '.l'uthills,were present at the Planning Com111laf1ion mm,ting in October. Review Exhibit M. The Tuthill house is located 11. 6' from Lot 18 boundary. 1 have no confirmation as to the setback of the residence on Lot 19; although, the owner has stated the house is approximately 6 feet from the tihnred lot line. Review the lot survey of the Casco Circle neighborhood. The lot appears to ba 5 1 less in width than ,ther comparable lots on the Circle. Th3 applicant has provided a site plan showing the proposed residence meeting all setback and hardcover standards. I would suggest that Council once again ask applicant if he would agree to request tabling of the uppl ication until the City's common ownership study is completed. Jf not, you must act giving conceptual direction to staff to draft the necessary resolution. First, do you have enough info:mation to act? For example: what is the area of Lots 16 & 17? Would a lot line rearrangement be feasible? Is this lot consistent with the pattern of the surrounding developed lots? Sewer and water are availahl0. Lot 18 never received a unit charge, only a footage charge. Jf Council acts to approve tho Smith variance application, they may use the nu1.jority opinion (4-2) of the Planning Commission as follows: to approve a lot area variance (100% standard} of 5,032 sq. ft. or 23% and n lot widlh variance (1001 standard) of 45' or 451 for Doug Smith to permit construction of a new rcsidancc on a property located at 3237 Casco Circ•~ hascd on the following findings: 1761 -Douglas H. Smith November,).'tJ.,.. ~9Jf · · Pag~ 3 ' · · ~.-. . L . No available lan·d·.-: .. _lots are developed on both sides 2. sewetr and water· are availap.le Appllcjn~ pu1cha ■ed prupor on developm1;~nt of Lot: 18 need for additional the ordinance limitations 5 Variance being granted despite the common ownership issue 6. t;his variance , safety there will be no welfare negative effect on the 7. By ,·ranting this variance, it is consistent with the development of the area 8. By granting this variance, there should be no need for future hardcover and setback variances 9. Planning Commission would like to note that the garage is a non conforming structure and subject to all pertinent ordinances 10, The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property 11. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district and which said land is located 12, Tho granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment or a substan~· property right of the applicant 13, Tho granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of tho zoning code 14. That the granti~g of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to tho applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty If Council cannot act to recommend approval, you have two alternatives of nction: 1. Adopt minority opinion of the Planning Commission and vote to deny the variance application of Doug smith for a lot held in common ownership that is 5,032 sq. ft. or 73% under required 21,780 sq. ft. or 100% in area and 45 feet or 451 under required 100 1 or 1001 in lot width based on the following findings: * #161 -Douglas-H. Smith November lO, 1983 Page ~i --. . . a) The City has· an"est~blished policy and ordinance in effect that fflUlllt be enforced. _-· 0 bf common ownership atudy must be resolved before "tariance can be . , .. \~1:,;.'.i .•. vari•noe will be contrary to the "=~b.iat1aive Plan :::~h~ . intent !f '{} . if;-~- 2. ,-.~ ,, , d) That the granting of such a variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant and there is no avidence of demonstrable hardship or dit!iculty Call f()r a moratorium on all lot area and lot width variance applications involving comrnon ownership question until City has completed the common ownership study. The City Attorney has advised that this can be done at any time. In the calling for a moratorium, the Smith variance ap~licants may be "legally tabled". ·Jt~, ' t ' ,t l I ' l I 1> r r. ! f f t ! f MINUtES OF THE PLANNING COffl.lISSIOlFMEETING HELD OCTOBER 17 • 1983 ATTENDANCE .7: 3~ p.m. The Planning Commission met on the above date. The following members were present: Chairman Rovegno, Goetten, McDonald, Sime, Callahan and Adams. Planning ·commission member Kelley was absent. ·council Representative Hammerel was present. Zoning AdministrAtor Mabusth upresented City staff. • Dick and Mary Tuthill of Remien of 3235 Casco Circle audience. Zoning Adminis- th the Planning Commission th,~ Smith nppl !cation. Mabusth noted that the Smith 11ppl !cation involves common ownership in the LR-lC zoning district. ten asked why the applicant hadn't thought of a lot line UlHrang!?ment of the two lots which would solve the comnion ownership problem. Dick Tuthill of 1241 Casco Circle noted that Lots 16 ftnd 17 Mre combined. Jane Remien of 3?.35 asco Cf c e noted thAt the corner of Mr. Smith's lot i fi 1/2' f om her house and stated thl.lt she was opposed he riance request. Remien noted that regardless of the common ownership issue that the lot still doesn't meet current standar~s. Cal111han noted that there are common ownership standards in effect now and until the City can revise those standards that the Planning Commission should follow the curren+: standards. Callahan noted that in following the current standards that he would have a problem approving the variance. Sime stated that he didn't feel that the common ownership issue made a biq difference but that the lot by itself doesn't comply with the current standards and noted that he would have trouble approving a v11riance for such a substandard lot. Mcnonald noted that the Planning Commission should follow the current common ownership issues. Adams st/\ted that the common ownership issue wasn't a big problem and if the lot was held in single separate ownership that the variance would be a reasonable request. Ad.:ims stated that he felt that the lot was ':>uildable, MlltUTIS OP. '1'111 PLANNING COMMlSSION MiETING llELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 PAGE 2 1161 DOUGLAS SMIJU Go!fthn noted that the common ownership issue must be dealt ~lthbefore·eonsidering the variance request. Goetten stated _that if this lot was single separate -~·t own•rahl-P that the v~rhnce request would be -reasonableiand would not have a negative effect on the exieting netghtiorhbo~.- Callahan agreed that the lot ls buildable if the common ed. S me ated that when the owner purchased t'1e lot the common ownership wasn't a problem and the owner wasn• t able to foresee the common ownership in the future • . Mabus th stated that Smith purchased the lot from Tuthill in 1977 and that the common ownership was in et at the time of sale. · Rovegno noted thl'lt if the common ownership hadn't ht:~n a problem that the application probably wouldn't ha\·e any trouble receiving vatiance approval. Adams moved to approve a variance request made by Douglas Smith based on the 1~0% standards with a lot area variance of 5,102 sf or 23\ lot area and lot width 45\ based on the following findings: 1. No available land -lots are developed on both sidds. 2. Sewer and water are available. 3. House and impHwements to bo connt r uc':cd wi thou:: need for additional variances. 4. Applict10t. purchased property not knowing that the ordinanc~ limitations on development of Lot 18. 5. Variance being granted despite the common ownership issue. r,. By grantinq this variance there will be no negcltive effect on the public health, safety and welfare. 7. By granting thi~ variance it is consistent with the development of the area. 8. By grnnting this variance there should be no need for future hardcover and setback variances. 9. Planning Commission would like to note that the gc1rage is a non conforming structure and subject to all pertinent ordinances. rn. Th'! special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are pecul lar to such property or imm~diately adjoining property. PAG£ 3 •' 1761 DOUGLAS SMITH. ', u. ~ .. ,..,- The concHtions do not apply g~nerally to other hndor,.struetur.es in the district,and which said land is 'located. 1782 OLE OVERBOE 4469 FOREST LAKE LANDING VARII\NCE · 12. the.granting ot the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 13. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or ,,.+4 ,,,, .• ,,, ••• in othel'.',-r•epeot be contrary to the intent of th• ning Cod•. 14. Thllt the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Rovagno seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (2). Minority Opinions -Callllhan and McDonald -Callahan noted that the Planning Commission is looking at the common ownership issue backwards and the City has an ordinarce in effect that the Commission should follow. CallRhan stated that the common ownership issue must bo solved before gr~nting a variance. McDon~ld agreed with Callahan and she noted that there is some neighbor opposition and that the common ownorship issue should be solved first. Mr. and Mrs. Overboe were present. Mabusth noted that the applicant is asking for a variance to place a detached garage in their limited front yard. Callahan asked if granting this variance would be an obstacle in the future if they plc'ln on con.structing a house on the other lot. Adams moved to approve Ole overboes request for a variance for a detached garage to be placed 2' from the given right of way, 15' from the side and 38' from the travelled road based on the following findings: 1. Location of house on lot. 2. Substandard width 55 1 existing -zoning district standards asks for 140 1 of width. 3. There is no additional land available. 4. The house has existed for 15+ yoars. Planning Commission Members TOt FROM: DATE: J_,anne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator September 13, 1983 · • 3237 Casco Circle -Variance the Planning Commission at the request Application -Variance -Lot Area -Lot Width a) Lot Araa Hequit:od 21,780 sq, ft. ( 1001 Required) Hcqu.ircd -17,424 sq. ft. (80% Required) F:xisting .. 16 1 74 fl sq • ft. or 77% Variance -5,032 sq. ft. or 23% Variance -676 sq. ft. or 3. 9% IJ) L,.il lf' l ll Required -1"0' (100% Required) Required -BO 1 (80% Reguir..:!d) Existing -55 1 (100 % (80% Variance -45 1 or 45% (100% Required) Variance -25 1 or 31% (80% Required) List of Exhibits --- required) required) Exhibit A -Lot Width & Lot Arca Study Exhibit u -Tuthill letter -July 19, 1983 Exhibit C -Smith let·er -August 2, 1983 Exhibit D -Brou.·~le letter -August 25, 1983 Exhibit E -Zoning Administrator's letter -August 29, 1983 Exhibit F -Zoning Administrator's letter -August 30, 1983 Exhibit G -current survey with smith Application Exhibit H -Tuthill Survey dated June 1, 1973 Exhibit I Planninq Commission minutes -July 18, 1983 Please review the DXLhangcs in correspondence between proparty owners (present l'lnd past), attorney and tho Zoning Administrator. Mr. Sr1ith's secretary called to ask that his application be rescheduled on tht, Planning Commission ngcndll. I nssumc for a recommendation, not a tabling. If tho applicant nooks action, you must act on tho aprlication and send it on to Council. If we arc asked to review tho question of a common ownership of Lots 16, 17, & 18, Spring Park, then I feel additional information is required. I I #761 .. , Douglam Smith· September 13,· 1983 Page 2 What is tho total aren of Lots 16, 17? Where is tho principal structure on combined Lots 16 & 17 in relation to the shared lot i' l · 1-tween .i..ot-a-17 6 18? What --i•. th• setback from that lino? Is a · · ine ,3ai:r•n9•ment feaeib1•1: 5Nould a lot line rearrangement ·.,i:\rJ).(".i;n¢:'-::theJ.r · · nto ·•iz• ~ndrv.tdth conform~nce with the surrounding , 1 proi-t'ti .. ? hJ.lUt,k.•:r·~ta this. lot consutfmt with the pattern j ot <iurrounding develoµnd lots? 8u' ..... : and water are available to the f property but Lot 18 novPr r:,.:-ceived a unit assessment, only footage chargea. 1 ~ ff it: is the Plnnn ing Commission's opinion that this additional informa- !. hn is nnr. neces1:rnry because the existing ordinances clearly dofine yonr ,:,cn.n:·se of actJon, f.ind.inq combined Lots 16 & 17 will not provide l c1,fo·1u;1to 11!:'a:1 or wid.th for Lot 18 to satisfy 100% of the standards of th,, u,-1C zoning di!'ltrict. Planning Commission may act to deny the .,pp1 ice1tion finding tlm followinq standards cannot l;\e upheld for approval of thia vnriance: a) tho special conditions applying to the structure of land in question ,:irE, pec 1.1lfor to such property or immediately adjoining property; and b) tha conditions do not apply generally to other land or stru~ture$ in tho district in which said land is located; and c) tho yranting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; and d) the granting of the proposed variance will not jn any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contra.:"y to tho intent of the Zoning Code; and e) that the ~ranting of such variance will not merely servo as a convonionco to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty, And direct Council to call for a mora ►nrium on all lot area nnd lot width variances involvinq common ownership qucE"ti.on until the City's study is completed uml arncndrn~,nt of ordinances determined. If Planning Commission is of the opinion that there is sufficient information ava~lable to act on the application, you may consider tho following findings: 1. No available land -lots developed on either side 2. Sewer nnd wntcr urc 11vailable 3. lhttsf! .:rnd improvements to be construct0d wi thuut tho nood of additional variances 4. Applicanl purchased property not knowing of ordinance limitations on development of I.ot 18. t761 -Douglas Smith September 13, 1983 Page 3 or Planning r ,11baion cannot make a determination because it lacks additional i11, 's•rmation on Lots 16 & 17, specifically a survey showing axi-.ting nou cation ana aetback from shared property line. wcitntt advi · · ··· on a•k fol:". this information if you feel a 1 will 17. le appropriate. You may find the applicant xequt:ist since ho h,u; no control over combined Lots 16 & •• CITY of ORONO North Short? .. of Lake Minnetonka -~· .. · . Pillsbury Center Min110,1polis, MN 55402 lwn Mr Brachle: my 1 r ust 29, 1983, and of the Planning , , n~commcndntion for tnbcling at their meeting of July 18, rN1l .izctl t:hat: J hnve not presented the complete directive of Commission. 'l'ho PJnnning Commission asked that Mr. Smith appear before them so that they could revicv; with your client the common ownership issue and how it has affected this review and to give him the option of tabling the application until the City wide study is completed or to act on the application so that it can be passed on to Cou~cil for formal action. In fact, ~r. Sr·•h had adv~sed me the Friday bcfon, the Planning Commissiot. mer• ·q of August 15, 1983, th,1t he would attend the meetir.g i" never made an appearance. He was asked to advise me if he plann, to attand the August 15 1 1983, mucting by Monday, August 8, 1903, , that tho applicatio~ could bo placed on tho official agenda. Please advise Mr. Smith that if he 1shcs to attend tho next meeting of the Planning Commission cm Sept ,mber 19, 1983 that he notify the Building and Zonin<1 Office by f1 ndny, September 12, 1983, to permit scheduling on the official n 1 "'ndil. If we do not hear from y0ur client, with t:hr ori<dnnl tablinq motjon of if Mr. Smith cnnnot attcncl Lhc Sept, Commi i;sion to act on the applicntio: SeptrJmbc,r 12, 1983. SincPrcly, Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator cc: Bruce ~~lkerson, City Attorney ~c will assume that you agree ·· lie PL:innino Commission. However, 1bcr meeting and you wish the , please advise my office by lll111()1~<; & /0~1~(; 473.7357 • AIJ\tl~ISrnATION & I ,·,,\~CE 41J.7J58 • l'llDLIC WORl-:S .. 47.l-7359 ASSISSl:s;c; IT I CITY of ORONC .·· Or,:theN.otth Shore of Laite Minnetonka ... , .. , ... -....... . ,1c 1 ! :: P flr,iuch ! <' ll(\Jmes & Cra,,cn ~n Pillsbury Center is, MN 55402 Ho: l nouglas Smith, 3237 Casco ircle -Variance Application /\f; 1 11tt<'!·,pted to cxpl;:iin to your· c ,cnt, Douglas Smith, the Planning Comr:i.i ss ion lvrn rccnmmcnded tflbl i ng his lot area and lot width variance application pondinq the compJ,,ti.c,n by the City of a study involving 'tots held in commnn ownon,hip t7incc 1967 when the zoning districts wen\ establ :I.shed ,rnd the .need l,) ostabl ish now standards for determining the buildability of such properties. At present, the City requires all lots held in •.:ommon ownership to meet 100% of all lot standards for a zoning district as opposed to single sopar~te lots that need only moot 801 of those same standards. Mr Smith's application was dccoptod as a lot of single separate record requiring variance review bccnuse the area and width of Lot 18 did not meet tho 801 roquiremrnt. It was in the review process that the' common ownership of Lots 16, 17 and 18, Spring Pnrk Audit.ion, wc1 s revcn led. Staff lrns bec11 scrceninq .111 proposed lot urea ,rnd width variances for common ownership involvement and advising residents to wait unl ii wr, )hive-estnblished n,:,w standards for review rather than adopt nn onlin,1ncc for ,1 moratorium. The Plnnning Commission made the rrco~nendntion to table rather than deny the application. i'lcasc feel (roe to ct~nt·,1ct th,, Cit:,r 1\ttorncy, Bruce Malkerson, or 111ys1~lf ir you have ,:1rjdilionc1l questions or seek further action on the part of the City. Sincerely, ~Q,((Y\~ Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator cc: Duuqlns Smith Bruce Mnlkerson, City Attorney Bl'II IJINC & 7.0NINli -473.73~7 • AllMINISlllATION & l'INANCH 47J.1H8 ASSl:SSING • JFFfRf'.V R, rnurn1u:. AW<ttwY al ,a .. August 25, 1983 IT tfi-....-1,.,..,__, __ HOLMES & GRAVEN t'HAATfllED 411! l'ilhNkl) nnlft. Min-"'"'" Min.,..ma !~l Tt'•r"-1'12 lli,11'1 RE: Douglas Smith variance application ne • Mas bu th: •rh is han appU for had be,1 t,!b led recommenrhi t ion. been retained regarding Mr. Douglas Smith's variances from the City of Orono. That matter by the pVrnn i ng commission, apparently upon your Mr. Smith has now plainly lost any opportunity to build on the lot this year through this delay in considering his application. Further, Mr. Smith has not been advised in what manner the city intends to proceed with its study, nor when his application is likely to be passed upon. I rPqueAt that you or the city's legal counsel contact me regarding this matter so that I can advise my client regarding his options. As before, Mr. Smith will promptly respond to any requests for further information. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, JRD: kb cc: Douglas Smith Jeanne M11busth Zoning Administrator city of urono P.O. Box 6€ Crystal Bayt ~innesota 55323 Dl'.'tir Ms. Mabu11th: This letter :.s to comment on various matters pertaining to my variance application to Lot 18, Spring !?ark Addition currently pending beforn the Planning Commisoion. I will attend t-he Planning Commission Meeting of August l!i, 1983 i'lS you reque~t, although I do not understand what I can add to what you alr 1?ady know concerning the "common ownership" issue. As you know, I purchMed the> lot from J. IHchard Tuthill in 1977 and haven't proceeded to build on the lot until this year. Certainly r believed the lot was buildable at the time I purchased it. Since 1977, I have naturally permitted Tuthill to continue tt. 1naintain and use the lot until such time as I was prepared to build. Neither •ruthill or the neigllborhood would be benefitted if I had simply let the lot go to seed and I franklr am astonished this was raised by you as an issue at the hearing. Please c11ll mt' to <!Xpln in fir st of all, w'rn t other facl:rt you require regarding this "common ownership" question and second, what importance the maintenance of the lot can possibly have to my variance application. I am also in receipt of your notice of July 19, 1983 which states that the matt:er will be tabled pending a study and establishment of new stand,uds. Certainly the city has had ample opportunity to administer its zoning and building codes over the years and I fail to see in what manner my applicatior calls for a study and new standnrdt,, The obvious etfect, and perhaps intent, of this tabling is to delay my building long enough to render building this year impossible and I [rankly am quite upset at the prospect of being put l,n hold where 1 i elieve my application is mert i torous in all respects. Indeud, my builder, Mr. J1)bnson, hns informed me that you st<1tc)d at: the last meeting tlrnt there was no reason the building pe!rmit should not be grnnted except for this common ownership buainet11s. In short, you have all the facts necessary to address this common ownership business without any further delay, the application, we apparently agree, is meritorious in all respects, and I feel entitled to a decision on August 15. Finally, I am informed that Jane Remein appeared and complained th•ty,, ,-,.,.:-p...,...;-.;hqua•t;~;,.-oul4· b• · too close to hers, notwlWtan · · · · · l · •ftl1 · -.bide. by all side . setback .r)~qu · · · ts. tly M• •. R•fltein• • problem is that her house vfo .. t . .. .t"tdtea•nt.. I augge•t that it would be a uu, ot' ~'ydi.tr' tttaoretioii to dehy my application in order to protect her lnA<l~~u~t~ ~etback. ThR olosenene of the homes ls my complaint, not hers. ~lndly phone me to respond to the questions I have raised at your r!11t 1 i·* oppo,: tun it y. ~~ y Lru 1 y yOUfR, ' ' ~. '· f -r, ) 'l 0011,J .1 :,« 11. Smith t I I ' I , .. "· y: 1.. t' ~ .I<: I< ff I ff • fl P II r "11 • ~t II hurt th afbe. arut~ill .AgeQcy 162 l HOll'l<INR Cl'IOllilll'IOAD M!NNl!!l'.ONKA, MINNl!IIIOTA f!l.l!l!"i (6121 Mtl-6777 ,:;-_____ ...... T r•rPtvrd n tP1PphonP r11ll lAtP lnnt werk from nouRlne tt. ~mfth who vo11 know to hp t!11, f"lrt.y who Is llpplyinR for a hull<l!np pPrmtt nn 11 lot which T sold to hfm tn April of I q 7 7 , II " w r, ,1 q II f t " 11 f"' P t , 11 fl 11 ll r " n t 1 y h It " I n r, t A 1 k r d t o h t 11 rnntrnctnr who rPpt'PRPntPd him nt thg Council mrrtlng that prPcPdlnR Hondnv, Whl Ir hr did not htmsrlf attPnd the mcrttnr, nor did I, hr 1Pft mP with thr 1mprenefon thnt tnrrrPnrPn whnro mnde thnt 1 nold him a lot which I k"ew to ho unhufldnhlr, T WAR RT'Pntly dlfllturbrd by any etatemPnt which would he mndP 1111p,grRtlnr. Ruch 11n Act on my part, Thfe thlnp, contfnnrR to Annoy me nnd T wteh to set the record ntralp,ht, The lot ln queAtlon, T.ot lll, Sprfnp, Park Additfon was a anparntely plnttnd lot of record on January 1, 1975, Tt wae orlp,inal ly plntted In 1883, I bnllevn, Tt haa nlwnye heen a nnpnratn lot with fta own anparale taK atntnmont, The lot wnn tltlnd In my namr AR n alngle Individual ne opposed to n multiple or corporate ownrrnhlp, While I may not hAve rrcrfvnd n huf ldlnp, pnrmf t without AFprovnl of the Council, nccordtnn to thn zonfnp, code, hncnuRc It was not within 80% of thP AnnctlonPd 11ldth and nr,•n aft:1•, the corle dtd allow Ruch ., 11Rn for II Alnp,1P fnmf ly r1•Bldn11ce "provided that 1n thf' ludp,tnl''lt: of thr-r.ouncll Ruch lll'le <loPA not ndversnly 11rrr<'t: p11hlfc h 0 nlth or rrnfr-ty'", T hellovod then 1H1 now t. 1111 t A h u l I d t n r. p ,, rm t t , w 1 t h p r op,, r 11 ,.. t I-a ck 11 , I" t c , m E' n t A all of thoAf' tnstn, In keeplnp, with the rest of the 110!11,hhorhoocl, SlncPrely, cc. no11nl1111 11. Smith r ~ I' l, SUPPi.EMERT TO ZONING VAllIANCE APPLICATION r;·, r 1 c~r,'f]\V/'· ''. -~, : i :) , •; \.~_;1 t 2 , , , ' , . : I'\; ~ I r---~.,.,•--"J,$ j, 1/,Jj ; ,; , , • . i·ro . • i \ L -, l I • ' : I I I •. < jdli ___ I I ___ CITY_Of cw:i·• 1 10. Describe "u~usual property conditions preventing compliance with zoning code requirements: The only thing truly unusual about the parcel in question, Lot 18, Spring Park, is that it remains unimproved. Lot 18 is 300 feet long by 54. 36 feet wide. In area, the lot appears to be larger than the majority of lots to the north and south contained tn Taylor'at,~'.f!'.Jlubdiviaion of Spring Park, and the Spring Park Subdi•idon. · ··in vidth, Lot !8 is consistent with many, if not mt>st, of the lots in those two subdivisions, and appears to be wider than some, Your applicant knows of no lots in those two contiguous subdivisions, however, which remains unimprovmed. Although some of the lotf! in those subdivisions, such as Lot 16 and 17 of Spring Park, have been combined to form lots which conform with the current zoning in terms of width and zoning, m"'ny oth,!!r lots t such as Lot 19 to the immediate south of Lot 18, are of .similar dimensions and have been improved. Since the properties to the immed.iatl" north and south are both improved, and held by others, compliance with the zoning code is not possible by combining the lot with !:.he other lots, and, although Lot 18 was severed in 1977 from Lots 16 and 17, tho~e lots comprised a conforming lot which does not require Lot 18 in order to meet the area and width requirements of the Orono zoning ordinance. Since the lot is bordered by Central Avenue and the lake, no expansion of the lot is possible in those directions to achieve compliance with the area requirements of the zoning code. 11. Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations. In tliis carie, strict enforcement of zoning regulations prevents the landowner from putting this land to any beneficial use whatsoever without the requested variances. Lot 18 is plainly suited only for· the consttuction of a single family residential home, and has no r~asonable use other than that. As shown on the survey submitted with this variance application, an ample single family home can be constructed on the lot without violating the zoning district setback requirements. Municipal !lC'W!H and water is readily available, and indeed, the property has been assessed for those improvements. In fact, the property has at all times been tax~d as an individual buildable lot. For taxes payable in 1983, the property was taxed at a market value of $56,900, up from $49,000 for taxes payable in 1982. Plainly, the only reasonable use for this property is as proposed. A denial of the requested area and width variances, ther~fore, would prohibit any beneficial use of this lot whatsoever. Moreover, the physical buildability of the lot is emphasized by the similar construction common throughout the neighborhood. Similar houses on similar lots are common throughout the two subdivisions mentioned above, as well as elsewhere along the lakefront. Unlike those property owners, however, this property owner will suffer the undue and unique hardship of owning a ' j ... ~" similar parcel which is reduced to worthlessness through strict f'!nforcement of the area and width requirement• of this zoning 'dis tr iet. I also believe that similar variances have been granted in recognition of nej.ghborhood conditions in this section of the City of Orono. In -light of this, and given the faet that Lot 18 is, aside from the ana and width provisions of the zoning code, to .eonformJ,ty with condition, prevailing in iev• that.:._the zoning code is unduly harsh nable use6tLOt'l8. lect of 'proposed work on neighboring properties neighborhood in general: The proposed construction of a single family home on Lot 18 should have no adverse consequ:!nces for the neighborhood or neighboring properties. The lot is served by municipal sewer and w<1ter connect.ions. No drainage problems, to my knowledge, exist on the pRrcel. The use of the property will be in exact conrormity with the use of adjacent and neighborhood properties. No material increase in traffic, pollution, or noise can be anticipated from the proposed construction, nor will the proposed home aesthetically differ from those in the neighborhood. In sum, to the extent the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinances are to preserve and protect the residential character of this district, the proposed variances promote rather than threaten that result. /959 -/?/, 7 ORDINANCE NO. 22 An Ordinance io Preserve ihe Public Health of the Citizens of Orono by Regulating the Mini mum Size of Residential Build ing Lois WHEREAS, the Village of Or ono has no community sewage system and depends upon septic tanks and soil absorption sys tems for the disposal of waste; and W H ERE A S , such disposal methods are apt to create a ser ious problem affecting the health of the community where applied in residential areas serving more than one dwelling per acre; and WHEREAS 1 other communities have serious health problems by reason of the enlargement of res idential areas with substandard lot sizes served by septic tanks and absorption systems; and WHEREAS, the Planning Com mission of the Village of Orono has recommended to the Council that regulations should be estab lished now to prevent the same sort of · serious health problem from arising in the Village of Orono; NOW, THEREFORE, for the sake of the general welfare and health of the residents of the Village of Orono, it is ordained .--~..a!llows: Section 1. After the effective date of this ordinance, no build ing permit shall be issued for the erection of a residence in any residential zone of the Village, except upon a building lot con taining a minimum area of one acre, and having a minimum width of 140 feet at the building line. Section 2. It is recognized that there are several built up resi dential areas in the Village which are substandard · and overbuilt by the terms of this ordinance. In such areas, building permits may be issued for lots not meeting the minimum requirements estab lished by this ordinance, if the Village Council feels that such building will conform to the gen era characteristi~s of the neigh- borhod and will not have an im mediate and specific adverse effect upon the public health. Section 3. It is recognized that the enforcement of the minimum provisions required by this ordin- ance with respect to lots held in · ~ single, separate ownership at the 7f' time of the passage of this ordin- ance might be an arbitrary depri- vation of a valuable right from said owners. Therefore, where a lot which fails to meet the mini- mum standards of this ordinance is held in a single, separate own- ership at the time of the pas- sage of this ordinance, the Coun- cil may issue a building permu ·t, provided that there will be no LJmmediate or specific adverse ef ect upon the public health. Section 4. This ordinance su-· percedes and repeals any provi- sions in the platting ordinance or zoning ordinances of the Village which are inconsistent herewith , except that provisions of prior ordinances establishing higher standards than those prescribed by this ordinance are continued in effect. Section 5. It is recognized that the establishment of definite standards for all lots in the entire Village is impossible, as there may be, in every case, reasons to relax the standards, or to en force stricter standards. The Council reserves its discretion to increase or decrease the stand ards hereby set for good cause, whenever the particular facts of the situation convince the Coun cil that the public welfare, and particularly the public health, re- quire such modification. · Section 6. This ordinance shall be published in the Minnetonka Herald at Wayzata, Minnesota, and shall be effective immediate ly upon such publication. Passed by the Village Council of the Vilage of Orono this 12th day of October, 1959, by a -vote of 4 yeas and No nays. H. R. ROSS, Mayor Attest: 0. E. JOHNSON, Clerk (10-15-59) -~;:( ·;_·-~~;;-·;---~-~_=:.:._;_,~ ~,-; ,< ... ·• t~r; ~ ,;.,_ .. "• ,_.::: : ; .f_ ~ ,,. .--.: -· ...... - 31.100 MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORONO larged, reconstructed or altered, and no structure or land shall be used for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Code. 81.100. Non-Conforming Uses. Any land or buildings which were actually and legally devoted to a non-conforming use on March 10, 1967, may be continued in said non-conforming use pursuant to con ditional use permit granted pursuant to, subject to the following regula tions and such land or buildings may not be: 81.101. Changed to another non-conforming use; 31.102. Re-established after voluntary discontinuance of said use, such discontinuance having-lasted for at least one year; 31.103. Extended in area . .-. · 31.104. No "junk · yard" may continue as . a -non-cop.forming use under any circu.m.stances. 31.110. Apply to "Uses" Only. The non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Code · apply only to the use to .which land and build ings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the Zoning • Code. Where, however, such a situation existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council . will not unreasonably require strict compliance arid will generally look with favor on granting of a variance under 32.300ff .. 31.200. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon Sept. 14, 1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in a . "R" ~e13idential District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning · Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family · detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety. Single sep arate ownerships includes joint ownership by not more than two persons. 24 31.210. One Building per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Resi- 1-1-68 .:. ---~------~-~---~--~__._..,. _ _,..,_.........,_,__~_,,..,....._,.,.,,m..,2...,,_,...,,.., __ ,.,,..-0+-.,; ..... w--,_~_..,..,.,,....._-_;-~~~-~-~ .......... structure with an assessor's fair market value upon the effec tive date of this Zoning Code of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) or less, may be continued for a period of thirty-six (36) months after the effective date of this Zoning Code, whereupon such non conforming use shal.l cease, unless brought into conformity with the Zoning Code. (Ord. 172, 12-19-74, effective 1-1-75) 15 31.107. Any proposed structure which will, under this Zoninn Code, become non-conforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted not more than six (6) months prior to the effective date of this Zoning Code, may be completed in accordance with the approved plans; provided construction is started within six (6) months of the effective date of this Zonina Code, and continues to completion within two (2) years. Such structure and use shall thereafter be a legally existin~ non-conforminq structure and use. (Ord. 172, 12-19-74, effective 1-1-75) 31.108. Normal maintenance of a buildino or other structure containinq or related to a lawful non-conformin~ use is permitted; includina necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alter ations which do not extend or intensify the non-conforminq use. (Ord. 172, 12-19-74, effective 1-1-75) 31.109. Alterations may be made to a building containinq lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building. (Ord. 172, 12-19-74, effective 1-1-75) 31.110. Apply to "Uses" Only. The non-conforming use pro visions of the Zoning Code apply only to the use to which land and buildinqs ·are put, and do not apply to situations where location or heiqht of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the Zoninq Code. Where, however, such a situation existed leaally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance under 32.300ff. 31.200. Lot of Record. A lot of record is anv lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded-in the office of the _ Register of Deeds or the Reqistrar of Titles for Hennepin County, !·1innesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the City Council if required. (Amended Ord. 172, 12-19-74, effective 1-1-75) 31.201. Existina Lots. A lot of record existinq upon January 1, 1975 (the .effective date of this Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in an "R" District, which does not meet 16 " ·- the requirements of the Zonin~ Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided · that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: 31.202. In "R" Districts of One Acre or Less and With Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Zoning Code in any "R" District of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Code as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within 80 percent of the requirements of this Zoning ·code. 'However, the lot -of record shall not be more - intensely developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to c~eate a lot meeting the requirements of this Zoning Code. ' 31.203. In "R" Districts of Greater Than. One Acre. A lot o:: record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one 2cre,_wh ich does not meet the requirements of this Zo~in~ Code as ~o area or width only, may be utilized for s.:.ngle fa.rrlily detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (l) it is at least orie acre in size, and the averaae width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and (2) -it is either served by public sanitary _ sewer or meets all the septic system require ments of the City or other governmental body; and (3) it otherwise meets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. (Ord. 172, 12-19-74, effective 1-1-75) - 31.204. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement, which results in any sesxment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning district, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of quali fying under the minimum acreage, open space, required yard, set- :~::--:--.-.. back or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building ,~ .. -.. >----~' !--~-.-.. , \. ,,:, __ ,; 'v or density credits be credited or transferred between such par cels under any provisions of this code. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of this code in connection with construction of improvements thereon. (Ord. 172, 12-19-74) 17 31.210. One Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residential Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal buildin~ shall be located on a lot. 31.220. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. 31.300. Accessory Buildinqs. 31.310. Time of Construction. No accessory buildinq or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. 31.320. Heiaht Restrictions. No accessory buildinq in the "R" District. shall exceed the heiqht of the principal buildina exce?t barns or st.ables which shall be subject to the approval of the Council. 31.330. Area Restrictions. In all "R" Districts no acces sory building shall exceed one t~ousand (1,000) squa1e feet of floor area except barn, stable or areenhouse • • 4 . 31.340. Location. No detached garaaes or other· accessory building shall be located nearer-the front lot line than the principal. buildinq on that lot except on lots which have frontaae on a lake. 31.341. Location of Principal Building to Lakeshore. No principal building shall be located closer than 75 feet to the natural ordinary hiqh water mark of a lake abutting the property. This lakeshore setback shall be determined as .the mean horizontal distance between the natural ordinary hiah water mark on the lake shore and the allowable building line~ (Ord. 155, 10-24-73 -effective 2-14-74) 31.342. Variance from Lakeshore Setback. Any application for a variance from the requirements of Section 31.-341 shall be referred to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for its approval before final action by the City Council. (Ord. 155, 10-24-73 -effective 2-14-74) 31.350. Conditional Use Permit Required. All accessory buildings on through lots located in "R 11 Districts shall require a conditional use permit. ' . ·,- i . .,, ....... _ ... /18'1-p,e.Es~, § 10.03 I. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 J. Apply to "Uses" Only. The non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Chapter apply only to the use to which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Where, however, SUGh a situated existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance under Section 10.08. Subd. 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if required. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 1. In "R" Districts of One Acre .or Less and With Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Zoning Chapter in any "R" District .of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. Howev~r, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless ORONO CC 253 ( 4-1-84) ·1•, -· .,.,:---;-... ,,.. J -~ .-_,.: -: -~· . ·. · . . ••.:-:•:•:I .. •-\,_ .. ,. . combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 2. In "R" Districts of Greater Than One Acre and Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area o·r width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (a) It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; (b) It is served by public sanitary sewer; (c) It otherwise meets the requirements of this Chapter or other applicable City Code provisions. 3. In "R" Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utilized ,,...f-or single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement, which results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning dis trict, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying under the minimum acreage, open space, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any provisions of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a -contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area anawidth requirements of the Zoning Chapter. ORONO CC 254 Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (4-1-84) TO: City Council Planning Commission J. A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator FROM: M. P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: December 16, 1983 SUBJECT: Common Ownership and Zoning Study LR-lC and LR~lB Districts The common ownership and zoning study is nearing completion for Monday night's meeting. Briefly, the following process has been followed: 1. The owners and/or taxpayers for each tax parcel in the city were identified using the 1922 tax books. Where two or more adjacent parcels were found to have a common owner, a worksheet was filled in including the name of the owner/ taxpayer, the pins numbers, a short legal description, and the separate and combined lot area and width. 2. The locations of these common ownership parcels were designated on a plat mat.of scale 1"=400'. 3. Using a template overlay and scale to measure lot dimensions on the 1"=200' plat maps, approximate lot areas were deter mined for each parcel in the zoning districts. Note that without an actual survey, and because of the proliferation of non-rectangular lots, and because lakeshore location may be different than drawn on the plat maps, the lot sizes may vary as much as +5% from the calculated sizes. (But I think they are very-close for the most part!) 4. The lot sizes of existing residential units were.compiled into tables showing the following.information: a. Number.:·of units in 'th_e ·district,··hy street .. b. Number· .and per'cent of uni ts in the· distr:;ict. which are over the zoning district requirement (ZDR) for lot_ area. c. Number and percent of units in the district which meet 80 -100% of the ZDR for iot area. d. Number and percent which·meet 60 .. -80%, 40 .-60% and less than 40% of the ZDR for lot area. 5. Based on the informatiOn above, an attempt .was ~ade '.to determine how :many potential new lots would be created· ~y lowering the zoning district standards to 80'% and to 60% of the existing standard. · City Council J. A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator December 15, 1983 Page 2 A number of interesting facts have come to light as a result of this survey. First, in some cases the zoning maps we are currently using do not exactly line up with the legal descrip tions of the zoning districts, and should be changed to avoid confusion. Also, and predictably so, the data for the portions of the LR-lC District in Navarre show that the vast majority of existing resi dential units do not meet the 1/2 acre lot area requirement. A change in zoning might be in order, and the boundaries of such a proposal are delineated. This information will be presented Monday night as will the results of the common ownership study. MPG:jl ,,·,:::: SUMMARY ZONING DISTRICT LR-lB . (TOTAL) (1 acre)._: '\••'·. SE NAVARRE ONLY. . ,.:· ALL EXCEPT SE ·NAVARRE' LR-lC (TOTAL)_ (½ acre) .. :· CASCQ PT. ONLY··' ,. NAVARRE HGTS ... : NORTR-'OF NAVARRE .. HGTS # ·of· .,_ sip,:gle : res~ units 657 . (100%) -· .•., :# exceeding ' ·•.·area req. ·: ., ·?: :·· / 209 ·. (32%) l26 ·. . 48 (lQ0j) < '.'.' (38%) . • ·-\f 53L·· ( 10"0·%) . 631 . (100.%)··· ;, .. ' :~; : 161 . (30%) . -~-'. 20 9 (33 % ) .·:•··' ;, ;· 223 (100.~) , •:., li1°4' · (100 % ) 264 (100%) 97 ( 43 % ) 5 ( 3 % ) 107 ( 41 % ) .... :}{. # exceeding # exceeding # exceeding # exceeding ~~!~ 80% area req. 60% area req. 40% area req. 20% area req. 20 % 278 363 508 634 23 ( 43 % ) ( 56 % ) (79 % ) ( 96 % ) ( 4 % ) 67 91 115 126 0 (53 % ) ( 72 % ) ( 91 % ) (100%) 211 272 393 508 23 ( 3 9 % ) (50 % ) ( 73 % ) ( 95 % ) ( 5 % ) 285 433 517 -(114) ( 45 % ) ( 6 9 % ) (82 % ) ( 18 % ) 130 187 209 (14) (58 % ) ( 8 4 % ) ( 9 4 % ) ( 6 % ) 16 52 64 ( 8 0) ( 11 % ) ( 36 % ) ( 44 % ) (56 % ) 139 194 245 ( 19) (53 % ) (7 4 % ) ( 93 %) ( 7%) JOINT COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 19, 1983. ATTENDANCE 7:30 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA* CONFIRMATION INSURANCE BID AWARD* J800 THOMAS BURNEVIK 3630 NORTHERN AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION 11595* COMMON OWNERSHIP The Joint Council and Planning Commission meeting was held on the above date. The following Councilmembers were present: Mayor Butler, Adams, Frahm, Hammerel and Grabek. The following Planning Commission members were present: Chairman Rovegno, Goetten, Callahan and Kelley. Planning Commission members McDonald, Sime and Adams were absent. Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Adminis trator Gaffton, Building Official Jacobs and Recorder Sutton represented the City Staff. City Attorney Malkerson and City Administrator Benson were not present. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda*, with all staff reports concerning items reviewed at this meeting to be attached to the original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's office. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays ( 0) • Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to approve the bid award to Krum & Forster. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to approve Resolution #1595, A Resolution Granting A Variance To Municipal Zoning Code 34.552 to permit construction of a new residence. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron gave an overview of the City and all the lots that are held in common ownership. Gaffron noted that the majority of the lots in certain zoning districts don't meet the current zoning standards for that area. Mayor Butler sta t-ed that they should consider rezoning in light of this new information that many lots don't meet the current zoning. Councilmember Frahm stated that rezoning would open the City up to al 1 different kinds of development and that the current sewer systems could not handle the rezoning. Frahm also noted that it would not be fair to rezone for those lots that do meet the current zoning requirements. Frahm stated that they should just eliminate the common ownership. JOINT COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 19, 1983. Page 2 SUBDIVISION REGS. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 p.m. ATTEST: Chairman Rovegno stated that the City should just be blind to whoever owns the lot. Chairman Rovegno moved, Planning Commission member Goetten seconded, to recommend to eliminate all the language in the zoning code which refer to common ownership and to use the same stand a rd so f a lot held in single ownership. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Councilmember Adams moved, Councilmember Hammerel seconded, to eliminate all references to common ownership in the zoning code so as to not descriminate against anyone in the City. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays ( 0) • The Planning Commission and Council reviewed the subdivision regulations and submitted written changes to the Zoning Administrator. Pages 42-59 wi 11 be reviewed at the next Planning Commission meeting. The Joint Council and Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Mary C. But\~S' Mayor \ Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk FROIO DATE: SUBJECT: 9Rtion A - Wftlter R. Benson, City .\dmlnistra~9;r1 Orono City Council · · · Jeanne-'• Mabusth, Zoning Administrator December 29, 1983 Approval of Proposed Amendment to Section of Zoning Code dealing with common ownership of substandard lots By removing "under single separate ownership" in Subdivision 6 (A) per counc i 1 1 s directive, the Cit}' wi 11 now al.low all lots in urban/sewered residential districts of one acre or less, no matter what thtl ownership, for use as single family detached dwellings without Council approval if the area and lot width are within 80% of the requirements of the zoning district. All lots that fall under the 80 percent requirement will require variance review and approval by Council. Note also in Option A what would now b~ permitted ln Subdivision 6 (A) ( 2) in residential zon~d distr lets in tne rural/unsewered areas for lots greater than one acre. Council did not give specific direction as to any proposed changes in our current policy for rural/unsewered lots.. With the amendment noted above rural lots, no matter what the ownership, would be buildable in the rural areas if they met at least one acre in area, HH1 feet of width and met all standards of the septic code. Alden Anderson's vacant lot of 1.5 acres, l!UH feet of lot width with suitable drainfield area as required by Septic Code would have been a buildable lot. Council's review and approval in each case is still required. option B - This form of amendment would exclude rural/unsewered lots flom specJal consideration. The City would continue to required HH:s\ ,>f the standards of thE' two and five acre rural l<'ning districts and specify such by adding the following subsection -Subdivision 6 (A) (3). l -Division or separation of substandard pucols located within rural zoning districts not legall/ combined and aligned in a contiguous pattern not divided by a publia or private road or road easement and under same or common ownorship is prohibited. No such grouping of lots or parcels of land may be separated without Council approval unless that separation and legnl combination results in individual building sites that satisfy the minimum lot acreage and width standards for that rural zoning district. Council should specify which opt ion i 1 accept11ble llnd make any necessary ch1rnges for clar 1 t y anll d 1 rect staff to make the necessary amendments to tho zoning soctions AS specified above. S 10.03 I. Alterations may be containing on-conforming residential units when they l improve the ase the number of hereof, provided they will not in uni r bulk of the building. t Ordinance No. 172 cHve Date: l-l-7S Source: Municipal Code . Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office o~ the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January l, 19,s, and after approval by the Council if required. A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 unuar etngle separate owner1~,p in an "R" District. which does not meet the requirements of the toning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met t . , l. In "R" Districts of One Acre or Less and With Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record existing upon the effective data of this zoning Chapter in any "R" District. of the City ot up to and including one acre, whic~ lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this zoning Chapter as to area.or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within ~i9ht1 percent (801) of the requirements of this loning Chapter, How&ver. the lot of record shall not bo more intensely developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions t.htreof so as to create• lot meeting the rtqulrementa of this loning Chapter, 2. In .. R" Districts of: Greater Than One Acre. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in •~ce11 of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of thia lonin~ Chapter ORONO CC 253 S 10.03 as to ~rea or width only, may be u t 1l hed for single f arni ly detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (a) It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at st 100 feet; (b) It is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the ic systea requirements of the City or other governmental body: , (c) It otherwise meets the requirements this Chapter or other applicable City Code provisions. B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohib' ed. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, ivate or platte road or road easement, which results in any seg nt thereof being le than the minimum acreage required for tha zoning dis trict, sha be allowed to be combined with any sepa ted parcel of land across e road for purposes of qualifying u er the minimum acreage, open pace, required yard, setback or nitary or septic system require ents, nor shall building or nsity credits be credited or tran erred between such parcels der any provisions of this Chapter. ch separate parcel must i ividually conform to. the provisions of is Chapter in connecti with construction of improvements thereon. subd, 7. , Except in the case of Planned Residential pments as p vided for hereinafter, no more than one principal bu'lding shal be located on a lot • . l_,,.,JV' Subd. 8. Lots to F ce St. ets. Each lot shall face on a rr·a fUblic street or appropriate p iv e easement, Subd, 9. Accessory B dings, A. Time of C stru tion. No accessory building or structure shall be constru ed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the princi l buildi to which it is accessory. B. Heigh Restriction the "R" District shall xceed the heig except barns or stabl which shall be the Council. Area Restrictions, accessory build' g shall exceed 1,000 except barn, s le or greenhouse, No accessory building in of the principal building ubject to the approval of all "R" Districts no feet of floor area o. Location. No detached gar ges or other acces- sory build principal on a lake. ORONO CC g shall be located nearer the fron line than the uilding on that lot except on lots have front~ge 2S4 Sourcet Municipal Codo Effective Date: 9·14•67 (3•1-84) ., I. lawful non-confo livability thereo dwelling units or 5 10.03 Alterations may be made to a building ing residential units when they wi mprove the provided they will not increa the of k of the building. dinance No. 172 e Date: l•l-75 J. "Uses" ly. The non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Cha te apply only to the use to which land and buildings are put, a do not apply to situations where location or height of struc re lot size or other factors not involving the use of the emises revent strict conformance with the requirements of th oning Cha ter. Where, however, such a situated existed le ly under the rior applicable law, the Council will not easonably require rict compliance and will generally · h favor on granting of variance under Section 10.08. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January l, 197S, and after approval by the Council if required. A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January l, 1975 u1iui-er sl:n9l:-e HpHett:e ow11euAip in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpo~e provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: . l. In "R" Districts of One Acre or tess and With Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Zoning Chapter in any "R" District of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for sihgle family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this loning Chapter, Ho~ever. the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions therevf so ~s to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Zoning Chapter, 2. In 11 R11 Districts of Gnater Than One Acre~~ A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter ORONO CC 2S3 (l-l-8() 5 10.03 as to ar.,.a or width only, may utilhed for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds; (a) It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet1 (b) It is aJ'lli.n. served by public sanitary sewer 011 111uta 111:H tl:t11 septic 1¥ftem U\ahemen_ca of bh..i. Git!( H atehu ,en11m11cau11 bel::IY, amt, (c) It otherwise meets the requirements this Chapter or other applicable City Code provisions. B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a publi~ priv e or plated road or road easement, which results in any segment hereof being ess than the minimum acreage required for that z lng dis trict, all be allowed to be combined with any separate parcel of land aero s the road for purposes of qualifying under he minimum acreage, o n space, required yard, setback or sani ry or septic system requ'rernents, nor shall building or den ty credits be credited or t nsferred between such parcels und any provisions of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must indi dually conform to. the provisions o this Chapter in connection th construction of improvements ther Subd. 7. e Building Per Lot Except in the case of Planned Residential D velopments as pro lded for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall e located on a lot. Subd. 8. Lots e public street or appropria Subd. 9. Each lot shall face on a A. · ruction. No accessory building or structure shall be constr te on any lot prior to the time of ~onstruction of the princi al bu1 ding to which it is accessory. B. Heig the "R" District shal except barns or stab Restrict· ons. No accessory building in exceed the hight of the principal building s which shall e subject to the approval of the Council. C Area Restrictions. accessory buil ing shall exceed 1,000 In all "R" Districts no uare feet of floor area except barn, able or greenhouse, D. Location. No detached &rages or other acces ing shall be located nearer the f nt lot line than the princip building on that lot except on lot which have frontage on a ke. ORONO CC 254 Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 (3-1-84) REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JANUARY 9, 1984. PAGE 4 #798 NORTH SHORE DRIVE MARINA APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION OF ZONING CODE DEALING WITH COMMON OWNERSHIP REVIEW OF PROPOSED LIBRARY SITE FUNDING -STUBBS BAY/ CRYSTAL BAY AREAS CRYSTAL BAY & STUBBS BAY SEWER FEASIBILITY REPORT CABLE TV AWARD REPRESENTATIVE ADAMS COUNTY ROAD # 15 Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Bruce Douglas noted that in the meantime he would convey to City Attorney Halkerson a proposed stipulation for settlement of the litigation. Douglas noted that the Council may want to review that stipulation at their next meeting. Councilmember Frahm moved, Mayor Butler seconded, to approve Option Bin Zoning Administrator Mabusth's memo dated December 29, 1983 which amends the zoning code dealing with common ownership. Motion, Ayes ( 5 ) , Nays ( 0 ) . Councilmember Adams stated that he felt that it was an excellent site for the new library but asked that the City be cautious that this isn't a way for a commercial area to be started and asked if it would be a contractural use. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated it would be a contractural rezoning based on final subdivision approval and a conditional use permit approval for Hennepin County. Councilmember Frahm asked if the property has to be rezoned. Frahm suggested just amending the condi tonal use section of the zoning code to include libraries. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that she would inform the Planning Commission of this suggestion. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to table this i tern until the City Engineer can be present. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Mayor Butler moved, Councilrnember Frahm seconded, to table discussion of this feasibility report until the City Engineer can be present. Motion, Ayes ( 5) , Nays ( 0 ) • Mayor Butler announced the franchise award to Dow-Sat for Cable TV in Orono. Councilmember Adams asked for Council's input on determining where right and left turn lanes should be placed on County Road 15. TO: FROM: DAT.Bi: SUBJECTt Walter R. Benson, City Ad'ministrator City Council Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator February 22, 1984 Approval of Amendments to Zoning Code q, •• i The amendments to the zoning code are minimal. The deadline for the codification of the code will not allow adequate time to make major substantive amendments to the Zoning Code. The majority of the amendments are required per Minnesota Statutes. Item B below sets forth Council's new policy for lots under common ownership. The amendment establishes new performance standards for existing lots of record. The item cited immediately below is the Planning Commission• s proposed amendment of the RR-lB zoning district permitting a library use as a. conditional use. Please review for approval as this addition will be included in the codified zoning chapter. Add Section 34. 824 LIBRARIES -Non-profit libraries provided that all buildings are located 50 feet or more from the lot line of any abutting lot in an "R" District. Screening and signage requirements shall be determined with each individual conditional use permit. AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS A) Amend Section 30.040 Definitions as follows: Amend -Yard, Front -A yard extending across the front of a lot between the side yard lines and lying between the front street line of the lot and the required front yard setback line, which front yard shall be provided on both street frontages of corner lots and double frontage lots. A lakeshore lot shall not be considered as having a front yard, but rather shall be considered as having a lakeshore yard on ono side of the building and a rear yard o~ the other aide of the building, Add -Yard, Lakeshore -A yard lying betw\len the natural ordinary highwater mark on the lakeshore and the required lakeshore setback line, for the full width of the lot. Amend -.Yard, Rear -A yard lying between the required rear yard setback line and rear line of the lot, for the full width of the lot. on a lakashora lot, the rear yard shall be the yard which fronts on the street lying between tho street line of the lot and :.:he required r\'tar yard setback line, Add at the end of the definition section. Additional definitions unless specifically deHned above, the words and phrases used in this zoning chapter shall have the meaning given to them in the subdivision ctu,ptur. B) Exhibit A -Common Ownership 1. Amend :H. 301 -remove "uhder single separate ownership" 2. Amend 11.201 ns followst Section :n. 203. In 11 R11 Districts of Greater Than One Acre and served by public sanitary sewer a lot of record in any II H" Di strict in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (n) It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; (b) It is served by public sanitary sewer, (c) It otherwise meets the require ments of this Chapter or other applicable City Code provisions. C) Add new section In "R" Districts not served by public sanitary sewer. 1\ lot of record in any 11 R11 District in the City not served by public sanitnry sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Code and shall not be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. D) Add new section The separl!\t ion by the transfer or sale of non conforming• undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous Arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under sAme or common ownership is not permitterl without Council approval, Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual builrling sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Code. E) Exhibit B Amend Section 32.100 as follows I Section J2.llrn 2 REGULA,R MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL HELD FEBRUARY 27, 1984 PAGE· 1 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES* APPROVAL OF MINUTES* The Orono Council met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Frahm, Councilmembers Adams, Grabek, and Hammerel. Mayor Butler was absent. Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson, City Engineer Cook, City Attorney Radio and Recorder Sutton represented the City staff. City Administrator Benson arrived at 7:33 p.m. Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Counci lmember Hammer el seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda* subject to removing item #14, with all staff reports concerning items reviewed at this meeting to be attached to the original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's office. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember Hammerel seconded, to approve the special meeting minutes of February 9, 1984. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember Hammerel seconded, to approve the minutes of the Council meeting held February 13, 1984. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays ( 0). PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no Park Commission comments. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT Jo Ellen Hurr was present. Hurr stated that the LMCD PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS APPROVAL OF ZONING AMENDMENTS had adopted a new dock license for the North Shore Drive Marina. Hurr noted that the LMCD has reduced the night time speed limit to 30 mph on the lake. Hurr stated that the LMCD is still trying to get something passed which would require a water skier to wear a floatation device. Hurr stated that this summer each patrol boat will be equiped with a radar unit and that speeders will be tagged. Hurr stated that the LMCD has a proposal for car and trailer parking standards. Hurr noted that a public hearing will be held on March 7 ,, 1984, concerning the west side setback variance for Chaska Marine. There were no Planning Commission comments. There were no comments from the public present. Councilmember Adams moved, Councilmember Grabek seconded, to approve the amendments to sections of the Zoning Code Dealing with Review Procedures for Variances, Conditional Use Permits and Vacations, Updating Definitions, New Performance Standards for Use Districts and Existing Lots of Record. Motion, Ayes ( 4) , Nays ( 0) . Crystal Bay. Minnesota ·· . (Coaplete inJ>up1!cate) 0 ', •," ,>' This for• to be used in all a.pplicaU.ons ·· for special use pemi ts and for· naoninin dividing or consolidatin1 parcels of land, vacating 1trc1t1t alleys and variances.-· · · . . -----·•-•" Type of Application 7~:: :;_,,;,.,,. Date -¥3/67 ·_ Owner of Property: Name_t _____ /,$_ Phone No. lk-lf'I,.,,, _ Address 8).~',( · 044c9 (t;.,/.e. Applicant (other than owner): Name /10, M /44, Phone No, 41...._c; Address ..51:r """" -42.. Relationship to Owner.....iht~!...-~-..811(, ________ _ / Engineer: Name ______________ Phone No._....,.,_ __ Land Planner: Name Phone No • ...., ___ _ Subdivider: Name Phone No, _____ _ Location (How do we find itt) forft ,,ti, 1-O,...co C,'.,/,,_ Legal Description: LQf:1/, .at:;;.,;,;;D r?,.;~l=s;: · ._,_..··. Date Acquired'? &4" 4 196/:,Area (sq, ft,)~ 4N ~=~=t~~:!&tf' '"; Date of last Division of this Property ___________ _ Do you own any adjoining propertyt_--4JNo,....__..._ _________ _ Action Requ11t1d ...... ~--~wm--.-.-111111---1-1-...-...i..w..-llWIIIIIW!iil, ... ~--... -- Inspection Dept. AdMinistrator: RECORD 0~ ACTION TAXBN Date Action, """''° .. -., ...... , ~ J. .. Kc,L. &t ,t!t,, bhH. 11,,rq i &ll- ti,h_ .IL~~--·-·•--- (Complet• in .... 11,••"·• This form to be u1ed in all applications fot 1p1ci~lfu1e penl for ff1:n!rr:,:1:::1::,r:a:::~olidatin1 parcels of ~,~d~",~~!;:t . ADJIM.A"m1'Gc112 n'l::cl'lln'I" .. than own&r) : Addres• .. ·-------------------- Re1ationship> to Owfter ~ :.~,.•·1 '>·A~~~tfft ;, ::.;·:.,:~·~"'.7.,0,.:L~~:·· Subdivider: Name ______________ _ Location (How do we find 1 t f >-...J:~-,:..;.....:~-'Ji. ....... 4-~i.;..;&A,l,ij,j~_..~iiii(,C,,., Legal Description: Lq-/-11 "·B;;;;; __ ·• ;~ ·-.. ~c;,=s;?,:._.·.l•.·· .. ,_/1\·;·;·f.: .. _tt ~ -► Wat• Oiiiersfip~ .~. Date Acquired-? a-, 1, 19/J,Area (sq. ft.)¢ Mt Separate Otmership-~/•zq,• 7 ;. Date of last Division of this Property ____________ ,.. ·· ·, Do you own any adjoining propertyt_.....,.tl,, ____________ _ Action Requested--=:1.4---~u::r:--ltll!:r--'-_,.;..,_....IW""-=--.._...~ ..... -i=--~-- In1pection Dept. Adminhtrator: Village Counc:~1: Village Engineer: Village Attorney: Planning.C0Ml11ion: Vill•a• Council: RBCORD 0~ ACTION TAXBN !?!!!. Action f'Jftt,,f)6t,I' /.!t1 "'J II. R1'. I; /1• "' , ":=) C41c..• /).{,.,~ < ,,' "••,.· ,., I inspected thb···si te with B'ill cµrry;~;oftfthct'?.J>ia Commission .··about •isth'ree>\weeksl:1ago~1i: .we·; gtee there<was nothing·adve1ise · to:}thtt"setba. •··.. .h setback is.•further,:back: .than. the/Mactleli~~gal'!l' north and Lundqui;st to the south• has;IbO~;gar,ae , from· ·appearances • ·'iif 1 he would 1•cons truc•t';;o11tt,fJi t .\f pre tty;• close. to . the·1HUlse .setback. s!1ithe·~c,onto~17,!,~f;~zt: property, is·· most. amen dab la to ·.t.4l . f.,♦t~fic~1.::1,f{o'R.eg&'td:!n1·· ;the side setback of three feet,,th~a•tage·.,iwr:,uld be!'·'fa enough from the MacNeil garage tb:'.pteclude~an,.l<possibilft of a fire hazard. · •1 • '"·.:/:. ".'.;f:,' 1:f r. f' ·-·· VlLLAGB OP ORONO Regular mooting of the Village Council, June 12, 1967 The Village Council met on the above date with the following aembers present: Mayor Ross 1 Trustees Bagley, Pranzel, Searles, and :stubbs. · Searles moved, Bagley seconded, that the minutes of the regular meeting of May 22, 1967 be approved. Motion, Ayes (S) • Nays (O). Messrs. P. Eklund and D. Schroder; and Mrs. V. Woefel appeared in TORard to the 3.2 Beer Llcense and Set~up Permit for the Lighthouse. · Stubbs moved, Searles seconded, that the application of Carl Jonas for the Light• house for a 3.2 Beer On-sale and Set- up L~cense be denied as not.a suitRble location for·a tavern. Motion, Ayes (5) • Nays (O). Pranzel move4 1 Searle, seconded, that the garage setbacK request of Weldon Hulse at 323S Casco Circle• be approved. Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). Searles moved, Pranzel seconded, that the referral of tne Building Permit request of Ray Anderson at 324S Crystal Bay Road, to the Planning Commi1sion with a letter clarifying policy, be approved. Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). ;,;;;ffl;};,i,t'1g!J 'Jf.iyf;i~ Franzel moved, Searles 1econded, that th• referral of tne coaercial sign request for Ronnie's Cleaner,, to th• Planninf Conission for review and reconendat on be approved. Motion, Ayes (5) <!!)fays (Oj;.~, Pranzelmove4, Searl•• 11cond14, "that the Special Use Penlt reque1t for con1t1'Uctton of the Orono Sontor His!\ School at 685 Cry1tal Bay load North,,. approved. Motion, Ayes (5) • Nay1 (0). · 7:35 P.N. MINUTES ON•SALB • SBT•UP , LICBNSB LIGHTHOUSE. GARAGB VARIANCE WBLDON HULSE BUILDING PERMIT RAY ANDBRSON SPIC!AL ORONO IBHIOR HIGH SCHOOL . '1'01 Orono Council Members Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: December 3, 1985 Subjects #988 James E. Mertes, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance (Renewal) Zoning District -LR-lC (1/2 acre minimum area, 100' minimum width) Application -Renewal Lot Width/l,ot Area Variance List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit I1' Exhibit G -Application -Plat Map -Property owners List -Survey -Resolution 11607, Dated February 27, 1984 -Minutes, Documents, Etc. Leading to Resolution Planning Commission Minutes of 11/18/85 Variances Requested a) Lot Area -Required• 21,780 s.f. 80% Area• 17,424 s.f. Existing• 16,748 s.f. or 771 Variance• 5,032 s.f. or 231 b) Lot Width -Required• 100' 80% Width• 80' Existing• 55' Variance• 45' or 451 11607 This property was granted lot width and lot area variances in February 1984 per Resolutiun No. 1607 (attached). The variances expired at the end of one year and the owner, Douglas Smith, never submitted a completed and acceptable building permit application. Smith since then has had the property for sale and the current applicant, James E. Mertes, apf,lying for a renewal variance. This property (Lot 18) was originally owned in common with the two lots to the north (Lt>ts 16 amd 17, which are now combined). A• a result of the common ownership study the City changed its policy on common; ownerahip .. "· lots in sewered ?.ones, and based on the individual merite of Lot 18, the· lot areiCifrfiY~f'i:!tlrv'l'riances were granted. •. A brief review of the issues, disregarding the previous common oWMr• ship status, is as follows: l. Lot Area is 16,748 s.f. or 771 of the required 21,780 aore). 2,, Lot width is 55' or 55i·-of the required 100' width .. Zoning Pile 1988 December 3, 1985 Page 2 of 4 3. The applicant. iw proposing no variances to the hardcover limita tion, and feels he can build within the 251 limitation. Note that the previous applicant, Doug Smith, submitted a survey/site plan which showed approximately 401 hardcover, but was never followed up. Note that in order to meet the 251 limit, the house will have to be fairly close to the road and/or the existing garage will have to be used. 4. The existing garage is non-conforming in that it liea partially within the right-of-way of Casco Circle. The structure is atill in good crndition and functional. If the applicant was forced to remove the garAge to a site more conforming on the property, the hardcover would necessarily increase because of the additional driveway needed, perhaps increasing the needed hardcover over the 251 limit. 5. No setback variances are requested for the new construction. 6. City water is in· the street but no stub waa ever provid11d to the property, since at the time City water lines were installed, it waa not anticipated this lot would be built on. A $580 water unit onarge must be paid, and the owner will be responsible for the connection to the City line. 7. City sewer is available on the lake side of the property, how ever, the stub on Lot 18 was used by the house on Lots 16 and 17 according to City as-built drawings, again not anticipating th~t Lot 18 would become buildable. A new stub and connection would have to be provided by the owner. Note also that the sewer unit charge for Lot 18 will be $1,457 ($225 initial unit charge, $165 for t.s t6 bypass,. $1,067 for L.S. f7 forcemain, per Resolution 11854). s amount would be increased to $1,569 if building permit is not app.lhd December 31, 1985.) The applicant has not provided a proposed sf t~ plan, but .i o aw,u:e of the hardcover and setback limitations of the lot. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their November meeting and recommended approval (5-1 vote) of the lot width and area• variances based on the following findi.ngs ar,d conditions: PIJIDIIIGS 1. '!'his application was reviewed as Zoning 2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Residential Zoning District. · 3. The prope.rty waa in common ownership with contiguoue Lota aT1d , Spring Pa:rk, [Jrior to 1967 through 1977 when the current owner,. ,Douglas. Smith, purchaaed thflt property. Lots 16 and 17 are now combined'! <: : Zoning Pile f988 December 3, 1985 Page 3 of 4 4. ~ection 10.03, subdivision 6 (A) (l) of the Municipal Zoning provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownerahip since prior to the effective date of t~e zoning regulation, provided a lot of record meets 801 of the required lot area and lot width and has municipal sewer available. s. Prior to December 19, 1983, the City Council always required two or more lots were owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the zoning Code before any of the lots built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirement• zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. 6. Upon completion of a 6 month City-wide review of the common ownerahip issue, on December 19, 1983, the City approved a proposed amendment of the municipal code that would permit all substandard undeveloped lotl within the sewered areas of the City regardless of the ownership of theee lots, the same standards for review. 7. The ;roperty is 16,748 square feet or 77% of the required area. The property is consistent in area with 7 other developed lots within a total developed neighborhood of 33 lots. 8. The property measures 55 feet in lot width and is approximately 5. feet short of the narrowest lots in the 33 lot Casco Circle neighborhood at 60 feet. 9. No available land -lots are developed on both sides of prop•rty. 10. The property is served with sewer and water. 11. A house and improvements can be constructed addi~:1onal variances. 12. By granting this variance there will be public health, safety and welfare. 13 •... By granting ·this variance>i0it ·is consistent'· area. r• 14. By granting this variance there. should be no need •fo#:,,111,•n1 ~nd setback variances. 15. The special conditions applying to the parcel.:of. landf~~QU peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property;. J.6. The conditions do not apply generally to other. land the district in which 1aid land is located. 17. The granting ot' the"~applioation is neoa1111ary tor' t,be;;;,preae enjoyment of a subat.antial, property right·· of. the appLicant"' · Zoning Pile 1988 December 3, 1985 Page 4 of 4 18. The granting of the propo11ed variance• will not ,in any way iapair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the zoning Code. 19. That the granting of such variances will not merely serve as a con venience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. · 20. This application is a renewal of variance• granted on J'ebruary 27, 1984, and the findings stated in the approval resolution (Re11olution Ho. 1607) were acceptable at that time and are still valid. Staff recommends the following conditiona are appropriates l. The detached garage located within the right-of-way of Casco Circle ia a non-conforming structure and subject to all pertinent municipal ordinances for non-conforming etructures. 2. The only variances granted with this approval are lot width and lot area. No other variances are granted. 3. Applicant is hereby advised that in approving the development: of this substandard property that all future improvements must 1t1.eet current standards of the code and that a future Council might not approve any improvements to the property that require a variance. 4. Applicant· shall,pay the appropriate water unit charge, sewer fees, and park fee at the time that a building permit is issued. " .. A resolution for approval is attached for Council'.• review. > .Suggested Motion, approval of lot area and lot width varia11cea in f'>'Yrl&';'• to ·-construct a residence on property located at 3237 Casco Circle per the resolution drafted by staff. Motions _______ ..,. Seconded _"""*"·- Vote: For Against • · -- .. 501 West 78th Street WOOOAOW A. BROWN. RLS. , Bloomington, Minnesota 65420 (612) 881-0047 RESOLUTION 1904 Prnldent • SURVEY FOR: SUMMIT BUILDERS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 18, and that part of vacated Lake Shore Drive lying in Lot 18 SPRING PARK ADDITION, according to the recorded &lat thereof, Hennepin County,·•nesota ' \ -~-- \ SCALEr I"• .«>' I', ............. ...,, ""'c-4t~o ........._ 0 'ii" NOTE! (91.5) Denotes Proposed Eleva 89.7 Denotes Existing Elevation Proposed Garage Floor Elevat.ionlll .92.0 Proposed Top of Block Elevation• 92.4 Proposed Basement Floor Elevatfon•84.4 Proposed Wa'lk out Elevat 84.4 BENCHMARK: Spike in Power,,Pole tt thW~ . of Lot;;:j8 • ,lQ~ · I hereby<certify thatYth1S"'s ... report was prepared by me or~ . .under. rny1.dfrect.: ~upervh ion ....... and .that J am a duly registeteJ";land surveyor · ur1der the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~~~~ :· . ftOll1 Mayor Butler Mark hrnhardaon, City Adainiatrator Orono Council Mobers Planning Co•i•sion Members Michael P. Gaffron, Aasiatant Zonin9 .Adlliniatrator January 7, 1987 11101 James E. Mertes, 3237 caaco Circle - Variance Renewal -Public Hearing Liat of Exhibit• - A -Application B -Plat Mat> c -Property owners List D -Survey E -Resolution #1904 F -Staff memo of 12/3/85 Application -Renewal of Lot Area/Lot Width variancea granted per Resolution 11904 dated 1/13/86. Pertinent Pacta - Lot Area, Lot Width; Required 21,780 s.f. 100' Exiatin9 16,748 s.f. 55' Variance 5032 s.f. or 231 45' or. 451 Previous approvals require that development on this lot meet ~11 setback, average setback, and hardcover standards of the Lft zoning di strict. Diacuaaion - The applicant has been unable to sell hia residence in Shorewood and hence has not commenced construction of a new residence on Casco Circle. The variance approval expires on January 13, 1987. Applicant anticipates construction will commence in 1987, hence a. variance renewal is requested. No chlmge& are .requested.2f~om at.belt previous approval. · · Please review the attacbeclfi,eXhibitS,i:SffJ.<Stali' r••llCJJlmtttn(l per the findings and condit!ona previously approved i1cao4., ,,,<:.. , l ... W" 9""1: 1/llll Land 501 West 78th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 (612) 881-0047 SURVEY FOR: SUMMIT BUILDERS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 18, and that part of vacated e Shore Drive lying in Lot 18 ING PARK ADDITION, according the recorded ii.lat thereof, nepin County, ~nesota ' ,CALE: I"= 40 1 () J 't)v'>t L1.-,,-.ir~' ' bot -t<}r)""r ~ 1N o -rHt Af'Ptib~L 1/J Rl SDLLA'r/OA,J ( HO tA ~ t:;.i. ..... , 11. ]I ,1 i,.; , Inc. WOODROW A. BROWN, A.LS. President - NOHS (91.5) Denotes Proposed Elevat 89.7 Denotes Existing Elevation Proposed Garage Floor Elevation• 92, Proposed lop of Block Elevation• 9~ Proposed Basement n oor EI eva ti on"'8. Proposed Walk out flevation= 84.4 BfNCHMARK: Spike in Power''po"le at N.W. Col, of Lot 18 • 100.00 · .... I hereby certify that this h plan.or r@port was prepared by me or under my direct superv1s10r and that I am a duly regh tered land suriveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. / / .//. :,, . , .. -~~~.~---. Date: March 4, · 1J85 Reg. Ho. Revised: Ja m1~1fl.· lQL 19{36 15230 ~' •-a~-~•---•,~ TO: Planning Commission FROM: ,Jeanne A. MilbuL;th, Zoninq Administrutor DATE: July 14, 1983 SUB,JEC'l': ;t76l Doui:71·,~; II. Smith, 3237 Casco Circle -Variance - Lot Arca & :,ct W.idth Zoning ~istrict -LR-]C Applicution -a) Lot Arca Hc:qu i rc·d Rc:quir(:d Existinq Variance! Variance b) Lot Width Reem i r,,d HequirNJ Exi ~;tinq Variance Variance :;.. 2 1 ,780 17,424 1(1,74 8 5,032 G7G :; f t; f !,.;[ sf ul ( 1 OO'i, Re:qu ired) ( 8 0 ~. Re q u j r c.: d ) or ·n 'i or 23't (lOO'l required) or 3.'J't (80't. required) 100' 80' ( 1 O O ~-I-( , u i n~ d) ( B O 't, R 1: q u i red ) 55' 4S' 2 r·1 I or 45 or 311, ( 1 0 0 'L HU q U i rte cl ) (BO~, Rcqu ired) This c1pplicc1tion was c1ccc:1Jtc:d nn the l1iis.i:; th,it the lot: of: scp.::irate record did not m<,c!t 8U c;f the lot standardn requi re:d for the LR-1C zoning district. In n,vicwinq the site and the ~xisting improvements on Lot 18, on1~ cannot help but noticed previous usu/ownership connc!ction be:twi•(:,n combinl~d Lots 16 and 1·; to the irnrnediatr• nQrth. The Jot is still maint .irwd part of the yard. 1 r<}Vic·wecl UH· t >: ol<'B b, r·k to }q79 ,Hid that Douglas Smith i thD owrv, f l t 18, 'l'he i 1 i conf inns the sale in 1977, I I ti1c, tax file.Hi 1 G and 17 and found tl,<> erwlnswl t tho sa ln tl1rc,! 1o',~s to ,J. Ri rd '!'uthi.11 i ,Tnrn• ,. r '.J71. F Commj ssjon has tlrn folluw1nq opUons in review of thi ;ipplication: 1) •ro table pending n1solution of common ownershi1 questio:1 -I'm sure we' 11 have'. an t.rnh.::ippy applj 'dnt as he is ready to bu i 1 d. P led se notu that in ti '" adder1dum to the app] i c.i t ion, he openly revE;,Jl t Lot 18 wa:, separi:lted from Lots 16 and 17 in l':J The LR-lC ~011 ing dis tr .ict Wd s c rea in 196 7. upplicunt has dcmonstJ',llt.1d complete: nncss in his re sponset; to the inf orm,1 t ion sought in the application. One~ again review enclosed Ordinu s 3 l. 20 l uncl 31. 2t);t. Our appU Ci.mt could not undt;ir sLi nd why ho had to ilpply for a var ianc·e because he:: di.cl not mccit the 80% standard. The common owncnJ1 ip question will compound that difficulty even more. Hopefully, l will get rJpportunity to oxplaili the common ownership issue 11riur to Uw mocitinq. #761 Douglas Smith 3237 Casco Circle va·riance Paqe 2 2) To act on the variance application for a lot of separate record per the staff survey of vacant lakeshore lots held either in common ownership or separate ownership based on the following findings: a) Staff accepted the: application believing it was merely for a lot ar~a and width variance. b) The proposed development of Lot 18 as a single residential unit is consistent with surrounding pattern of neighborhood development. c) The proposed dpplication does not require ;rny variances. d) Existing garage should be noted as a non conforming structure and subject to all pertinent ordinances. 3) To deny th~ lot urea and lot width varia~ce apolica~ion finding Lot 18, originally held in commor ownership with Lott; 16 and 17 prior to 1971, cJcJcs nrJt mer!t tf1(! r<~(1uir<ic1 100 f ll lot standards of th, LH JC I nq di· t t. 'l'his is a difficult cmo ic1r I would strongly suggest you rosolution of the common c VI on, .. I •. I _,, ! • I ··--.. --' . --. --.. ~. ·-~ ·;..~ ,._,.:-_:"':_ "-.-.:: ~.:." . ,JNING FILE #1810 -CONT • . ~." ·J- ; .. 7_,~. " _,,,, ,,..Uecknan stated to his knowledge there is just block under this area. He said the apartment has its own access door to t}1e exterior. He said this use has existed for many years. Recently the owners applied for a permit to upgrade the apartment, and it was determined tl1ey wou 1 d need a cond it iona 1 use permit. Bellows asked that this be referred to as a guest house, and clarified that they would not allow the renting of this area. She stated tl1at assuming there are no footings under the breezeway, they can treat this area as a separate building, thereby allowing the independent exterior access. DeNero noted the residence was built in 1937 and is a landmark to the area. She stated the house has been restored and maintained that way. They only wish to upgrade the electrical and other safety features. It was moued by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approual of Application tt1810 Henry DeNero, 1245 6th Auenue North, approuing a conditional use permit for a guest house use. Ayes 5, nays 0. Cfl10) B1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES -PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 -8:25 P.H. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Remien was present. Weckman noted this is a uariance request has been approued three times in the past. He noted the applicant wants to assure buildability prior to selling. The preliminary plans appear to meet height and hardcouer requirements. He reuiewed preuiously approued hardships for this property, and noted the common ownership policy of the City. He stated many lots in the area are of similar size. He referred to one objection letter from the neighboring property owners and a letter submitted by Remien prouiding background information. Bellows read the letter from Remein. Warren and Christine Bielke expressed strong opposition. He stated the lot is substandard, and there are issues that were not discussed with preuious uariance reuiew. 7 I ' -' ' ., \ " _:~~ .,,;,----· ING FILE tt1811 -CONT. I I. r1rs. Bielke stated when they purchased their property, the uariance had not yet been approued. She noted they along with Remien opposed the first variance request, prior to Remien purchasiny the parcel. She read a letter from their attorney presenting reasons for denial. She referred to Section 10.08 dealing with uariance approval regarding the health, safety and welfare of the public, and suggested the erosion problem in this area should make the lot unbuildable as it would be adding to the problem and would be detrimental to the neighborhood. She added they did have their house listed prior to this situation, but felt this may depreciate the value of their home. She felt this request does not meet the criteria for approval, and suggested this lot be combined with Lot 19. Mr. ___ , potential buyer, presented that the house will be built back from the lakeshore and will not add to the erosion problem. He felt the house he would build would not lower the standards of the neighborhood, and said he would be willing to supply the Bielkes with plans to present to potential purchasers of their property. Weckman reviewed that the sewer connection stub for Lots 16 and 17 is located within the boundary of Lot 18. Mrs. Bielke stated it is 3.5' within the boundary of Lot 18, and added they were unaware of that situation when they purchased their property. She said the records of the City indicate that Lot 18 was unbuildable and that is why the sewer line was placed within its boundary. Mabusth disagreed, and stated the three parcels Lots 16, 17 and 18 were owned in common at the time of installation of that pipe, and that is why it was placed on Lot 18. Mrs. Bielke read from memo from Gaffron to the City Council dated December 1985 which states, "they do not anticipate that Lot 18 would become buildable". Bellows indicated that statement means the Bielkes need a new stub to their property. She felt hard pressed to deny the request because of past approvals. She noted the property has changed hands several times as a buildable lot, and this request would not set a new precedent in the neighborhood. . . . ..; . -~,-:::-~:: .. ---• . --- f' 7 ,J i1 :1 .'~ i d ; l .• ''" .. \ -· . . . k·~ .. · c-,.,~, o• ,,. ::ye -'ING FILE B1811 -~ONT. It was moued by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approual of Application #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, approuing lot area and width uariances to construct a new residence. Johnson said he respects the position of all inuolued parties, and could not support tl1e request as he felt the property should be combined with Lot 19 as one condition for approual is that no additional land is auailable. Bellows fe 1 t that was an incorrect interpretation of the code. Mabusth stated the Courts do not support the position that lots owned in common ownership must be considered together, but feel each should be looked at indiuidually. Peterson felt approual requires too many uariances. Scllroeder questioned why the neighbors did not buy the parcel. Mrs. Bielke stated they were unaware that it was for sale until too late. Jay and Gay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, stated they were giuen the impression that Remien purchased the parcel for use in conjunction with Lot 19. He said the only reason why the City approved the variance in the past was because it had been taxed as buildable, and an attorney owned it at the time and the City did not want to be brought into legal action. Bellows felt that issue was not pertinent. Vote: Ayes 3, nays Z. Johnson and Peterson uoted nay. Ctt11) B1812 THOMAS PATRICK GOODYEAR, ?12 TONKAWA ROAD UARIANCF.S -PURI.TC HF.ARING A:4n -'3:ns P.H. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Goodyear was present. Mabusth reviewed tl1e applicants request to add a second story to the existing residence, including the addition of a Z' fireplace to extend beyond the foundation and to square off the foundation at that location on t}1e right side of the house. The applicant also proposes alterations to the existing boat house. May 6, 1993 Ms. Ceil Strauss Minnesota DNR, Division of Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323--0066 Re: Application #1811 -Lot Area -Lot Width Variance for Lot Held in Common Ownership Dear Ceil: I have enclosed the file for Application #1811 as you requested. Please get back to me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~C'1JL~ Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch Enc. TELEPHONE -473-7357 • FAX -473-0510 '·--•,::.• -' ·-··------. --- t 1'--I I•••-• I••--'.,_•-•• l -.., PHONE NO. T OF T R l. METRO WA'I'ERS -1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PA.UL, MJ."'4 772-7910 1993 55106 FiLE NO, Ms Jeanne Mabusth ci-:::.y of Orono P.O. Box 66 crystal Bay Minnesota 55323-0066 APPLICATION #1811, C, WIDTH VJ,.RIANCE ?OR MINNE'I'ON'KA. (27-13 3, J-ACK REt.rnIN p2:n CASCO CIRCLE), LOT LO'I' HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP; LAKE #9) , CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COtn-l"TY Dear Ms. Mabusth: we have reviewed the above-referenced variance application which involves cont1guous noncon.fo:tming lots of record that are under the same owne:rship, The DNR' s :model sho:r:eland management ordinance (based or1 the July 3 ! 1989 state·wi:1~ standards) specifies that _s; of record on date of enactment of the local shoreland controls that do not Tues~ the minimum area and width requirements may be allowed as b,;,C, sites without variance provid~d: 11 the use is permitted in t:te zoning district, the lot has been in se.parate ownen::'ship :fr::nr, abutting lands at all ti·mes since it became s1..1bsta:ndard,: was created compliant with official controls in effect at the.time, and sewage treatment and setback requirements of this ordinance are met." section 6. 1, A.•) Secti~n 6.1, c. in the DNR model further speciiies thac if, ~n a gr0u:9 of two or more contiguous lots under the samE:: ownership 1 a individual lot not meet the area and width standards of the ordinance that the lot must not be considered as a separate l of land for purposes of sale 01~ lopment 1 but :mu.st b$. corr,bined with the one or w,ore cont lets so the meet the area and requirements as much as possible. ln Orono's section 10.03, subd. 6, A., record which is it that a lot. cf ,,. serviced by sanitary sewer and which does not: meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized fot· single fa:rrdly det;;:.ched dwell ina F 1 ,r1~.nses w;· t<r-out t"',·,ut1c1 ·; ab·"",-o-""'' 1 -l -P t· be :..-..-~" -.. ;,,' J..'-c'"..-,.-J.......,,,_ '"" •-r'w.t .. -y ,.J. -~ .L_t-"...,.. ~-~_..,_ .......... .,.,,.., '1..A,.L-•:,:,::il. rneasuremert'tf1 aJ)d v:id cf tha.-t lot area ;iriLt.hin eigf1t:;t percent (80%) of the reguiraments of this Zonin9 Cho.pter. Fiowever I the lot record ehall not be more I~ ,. A "' :'.1 ..., ~, ... ~ 1.nt:ense.t.y .,,eveJopec. un.l.ess G·;:)1nn.1nect with one or more abutting lote, or portions thereof so as to create a. lot meeting the requ -of this zoning Chapter_ Af\J t.OUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOVER ~s. Jeanne Mabusth M2;y 17, 1993 Pdge 2 I 1'-~;:J We interpreted this provision in the city cf Orono I s Zont ng Chapter to me.an that if a common ownersh:lp lot met. the 11 80% rule 0 :!t coc,ld be considered a separate buildable lot, but that if could not TI1G21et. the 80% ruls it must be combined with the continuous lot unde:r common ownership. Since lots that meat 80% of the city's 1/2 acre. area minimum and 100 foot lot width minimum still mAet t.he DNR standards, we feel this provision of the city 1 s Zoning Chapter is consistent with DNR standards. However, we note that the citv;s intent in this provision could be clarified by adopting language more consistent with the DNR model. Therefore, since the Remein lot does not meet the 80% lot width raquirement, the city's ordinance specifies that it be combined with the adjoining lot undG:r common ownership. ."4. variance can be considered, but the applicant :must demonstrate hardship (ir-i accordance with Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6., (2)). Thank you for the oppc~tunity to comment. 772--7910. Ceil Strauss A~ea Hydrologist cc: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Tom Zappi.a Peter Bachman City of Orono Shoreland File Please contact me at ·--........ _ l-i~-T); , __ _ § 10.03 I. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 J. Apply to "Uses" Only. The non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Chapter apply only to the use to which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Where, however, suqh a situated existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance under Section 10.08. Subd. 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if required. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 1. In "R" Districts of One Acre .or Less and With Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Zoning Chapter in any "R" District .of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. However, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless ORONO CC 253 (4-1-84) combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this zoning Chapter. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 2. In "R" Districts of Greater Than One Acre and Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Ch~pter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (a) It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; (b) It is served by public sanitary sewer; (c) It otherwise meets the requirements of this Chapter or other applicable City Code provisions. 3. In "R" Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utilized ..,..for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement, which results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning dis trict, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying under the minimum acreage, open space, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any provisions of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and-width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. ORONO CC 254 Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (4-1-84) -~·.--r_ • ,. ,,... -~~ .. -~.:.: SECTION 6.0 -NONCONFORMITIES All fogally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may continue, but they will be managed according to applicable state statutes and other regulations of this community for the subjects of alterations and additions , repair after damage , discontinuance of use, and intensification of use ; except that the follmving standards will also apply in shoreland areas: · 6.1 Construction on nonconforming lots of record. A Lots of record in the office of the county recorder on the date of enactment of local shoreland controls that do not meet the requirements of Section 5.1 of this ordinance may be allowed as building sites without variances from lot size requirements provided the use is permitted in the zoning district, the lot has • been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became substandard, was created compliant with official controls in effect at the time , and sewage treatment and setback requirements of this ordinance are met. B. A variance from setback requirements must be obtained before any use , sewage treatment system, or building permit is issued for a lot. In evaluating the variance, the board of adjustment shall consider sewage treatment and water supply capabilities or constraints of the lot and shall deny the variance if adequate facilities cannot be provided. ----. -~ ---·--~~---····--~----·----·-··--~--~--- ---~-- ,---.... \ -C. If, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same J ID '0 3. S-4 .J.:p_ & ( A) ~ ~. ~ Cc) ownership, any individual lot does not meet the requirements of ~ w /½:;...A.,-r Ov i"<:_ µ,~1:sr·t>tV{-01~ Section 5.1 of this ordinance the lot must not be considered as a ' separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or developrnen t. The lot must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more parcels of land, each meeting the requirements of Section 5.1 of this ordinance as much as possible. - ,., I Ti A -6 -e.,eA:::r, C,oW ~P. '; yiAD{-t" S 'T"'e-te,--r .rtf P:rf'-.) Dt.A-!2-S ( £.e:.--QiA.1~~.s. , Co rJv\#,.t r0~~0 ·/J) - 6.2 ·. Addition~/ expansions to nonconforming structures . A All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of Section 5.0 of this ordinance. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance pursuant to Section 3.3. r /S - . o l-\.,~.-~De ~o ~½ ~ P·t"-C-.\' Fl c.A--t..L '7 )-/k1Je ~ S ~o~ /_ 61.A."I' ,7+1 .s r s ~ v.J ~ ~ c·'"'-J Fvf2-C-k:"" r r j~v '1 ;+ovJ l ~~ e>r0 b t~ER.k\-fcz..ov1 '\1o l'-l s.. oF /o.os. ~. y .· B. Deck additions may be allow~d✓wit~~to a structur _e __ .,__ __ --------·-·------· · ----· - not meeting the required setback from the □~·ctt~;:;.f high water ~, --r-.-_, , ,,..., .. , ;-...... , / A , O 7 --< ' t...../ V /\t? I ;-1-' l if r bl,</~ L-GSC~ S: ,__,, ...-.l o I""' --• r /'10 c, ~ ... a_ or?;-? oN S. evel all of the following criteria and standards are met: (1) the structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were I lJ l t..A--()LA--{L_ · C-ov1N t f L {'<t,<.,..O w ~/ S. -;> / <:[ ~ v'\C>~ N oT .... , established; v · .. .,.-- (2) a thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary high water level setback of the structure; 33 ) POPHA!v1 lJ.AIK ~ ;': 1-1 ~ O 1.t H I (.. I I a-K I\ U F M /, N . L T 0 GUITE 3300 Ti:.L 903 ln:.i~.1~06 Tr.1.. 01 l:37·41·4918471 'T'l'I llf2·33:3-4900 TEL£COPY TRANSlnTAL SH{ET TO: _ _.....,R=o~nl..-..L,M~o=o-r~s~e~l~J~e~a~n~u~e ........ M-a~b~o~u~t-b._ _______ _ FAX NUMBER; __ 4 ____ 73.,._-Q~~-....10 ______________ _ PHONE NUMBER:_~4~7=3_-~7~3~5~7 ___________________ _ FROM: KEVIN P. STAUNTON, ESO. PHONE NUMBER: (612) 333-4800 DATE: May 4 , .1.9.~-~-- FILE Nt.TMBKR: ________ AUTHORIZATION NUMBER:_J_"'"'QJ..,_.5....__ NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SIIEET: ____ q~------- COMMENTS: ___________________________ ~~- -~--------------------------------~ IF ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMITTAL, PLEASE CALL MARGARET NOYD AT (612) 334-2577 The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended racipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy:ing of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this fax in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the United States ~ostal Service. · SECTION 6.0 -NONCONFORMITIES All legally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may continue, but they will be managed according to applicable state statutes and other regulations of this community for the subjects of alterations and additions, repair after damaize, discontinuance of use, and intensification of use; except that the following standards will also apply in shoreland areas: 6.1 Construction on nonconforming lots of record. A B. Lots of record in the office of the county recorder on the date of enactment of local shoreland controls that do not meet the requirements of Section 5.1 of this ordinance may be allowed as building sites without variances from lot size requirements provided the use is permitted in the zoning district, the lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became substandard, was cr.eated compliant with official controls in effect at the time, and sewage treatment and setback requirements of this ordinance are met. A variance from setback requirements must be obtained before any use, sewage treatment system, or building permit is issued for a lot. In evaluating the variance, the board of adjustment shall consider sewage treatment and water supply capabilities or constraints of the lot and shall deny the variance if adequate facilities cannot be provided. > v,A. ITT?"''Y~ 5,e,-{;A(,{,:;.. $TC.--.."Ji::;;.e:.,2:;:,:; ~? (_(:5::-·, ,.;:::.. C,~c,r;,'.'. ~ /f·.} (:.,. , ,'-.. ! #. r---', -C. ~~~:sf~~~n~fi;7J~u~f~t ~~~ti~o~u!~~~s ti~~~~~;e:~:ts of J ';;:, ~::~ ~v~) :,:;~!; ~~-5-P-__ --.f-J-~_r_.:.._€:._t.. _____ !,_o_T __ -=-~-;,-~--lo--re--1=:i_e_--l---~--f:--(-;;,1--z-1-:---§: -~;:~~t~L~ Sectmn 5.1 of this ordinance the lot must not be considered as a ' · separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development. ~ } T~ ( A 6 f.._.e~ Coi0 ~P. Tl )"✓LD·/c-f:5 f : -I 6.2 The lot must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so ~ they equal one or more parcels of land, each meeting the J-1-n vJ Et...) 'F:orZu'..:> l;.,"2.::.l C? IS T7:lt S " STe-tcr -r't-1 ~ C)V-!2-S ( ~<A 1 ~·S. , requirements of Section 5.1 of this ordinance as much as possible. { \--:---CorJVvP,..uJ~<'f1o/0) ------·-----•------·--·------·----·---------------------------------:__ _________ _ Additions/expansions to nonconforming structures. A All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of Section 5.0 of this ordinance. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance pursuant to Section 3.3. B. Deck additions may be allowt:;d-witn~~to a structure ___ -- not meeting the required se.tba_gjrorn the ordinary high water \! level if all of the following criteria and standards are met: (1) the structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established; (2) a thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary high water level setback of the structure; 33 /_6v\.,-·17-n~ I :5: ~,__,,_J ~~ (:NFt.:'(2.CAc~ IT ~,1':;'\Jl.fJ+ovJ l ~~ c,w {;,t~E~ fe,ov1c:; ,o/J s_ oF Jo .o~ "2..~, y ) j I --------------------· -· 6120.3300 SHORELAND AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 201-300 301-400 Greater than 400 15 10 5 5770 (2) They must be jointly ov,rned by all purchasers oflots in the subdi vi!iion or by all purchasers of nonriparian lots in the subdivision who are pro vided riparian access rights on the ;3.ccess lot. (3) Covenants or other equally effective legal instruments must ~ developed that specify which lot owners have authority to use the access lot and what activities are allowed. The acti0.ties may lnch.1de watetcraft launching., loading, storage, beaching, mooring, or docking. They must also include other outdoor recreational activities that do not significantly conflict with general pub lic use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property rights by adjacent . property owners. Examples of the nonsignificant conflict activities include swim ming, sunbathing, or picnicking. The covenants must limit the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked and the total number of watercraft allowed to be continuously moored , docked, or stored over water, and must require centrali.?a. tion of all common facilities and activities in the most suitable locations on the lot to minimize topographic and vegetation alterations. They must also require all parking areas, storage buildings, and other facilities to be screened by vegeta tion or topography as much as practical from view from the public water, assum- ·ing summer, leaf-on conditions. Subp. 2a. Lot .area and width standards for s ingle, duplex, triplex, and quad residential development; lake classes. The lot area and width standards for single , duplex. triplex, and quad residential developments for the lake classes are: A. Natural Environment , no sewer. Lot area (square feet) Rip.arian Nonriparian lots lots Single 80 ,000 80,000 Duplex 120,000 160,000 Triplex 160,000 240.000 Quad 200,000 320;000 t .ot width (feet) Single 200 200 Duplex 300 400 Triplex 400 600 Quad 500 800 B. Recreational Development , no sewer: Lot area (square feet) Riparian Nonriparian lots lots Single 40,000 40,000 Duplex 80 ,000 80,000 Triplex 120,000 120,000 Quad 160,000 160,000 Lot width (feet) Single 150 150 Duplex 225 265 Triplex 300 375 Quad 375 490 5771 C. Gtr Lot area<~ Single Duple,t Trip\ex. Quad Lot widili Single Duplex Triple:c. Quad 0.1--- 1.ot area Single Duplex Triple:t Quad Lot wid Single I)uple:x Triplex Quad E. Lot~ Single Duplex Tripleit Quad Lot wi Single Duple:t Triplex Quad F Lot a Single Duple;l 70 di ro- I be I .nd ng, 'b.er llb ent m ·of be za. the lift it.a im- iWl gle, 5771 SHORELAND AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 6120.3300 C. General Development, no sewer: Lot area (square feet) Single Duplex Triplex Quad Lot width (feet) Single Duple~ Triplex Quad Riparian lots 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100 180 260 340 D. Natural Environment, sewer: Lot area (square feet) -Single Duplex Triplex Quad Lot width (feet) Single Duplex Triplex Quad Riparian lots 40,000 70,000 100,000 130,000 125 225 325 425 E. Recreational Development, sewer. Lot area (square feet) Single Duplex Triplex Quad Lot width (f~t) Single Duplex Triplex Quad Riparian lots 20 ,000 35 ,000 50,000 65,000 75 13.S 195 255 F. General Development, sewer: Lot area (square feet) L 4~ 15 .000 26 ,,000 Siegle Duplex Nonriparian lots 40,000 80 ,000 120,000 160,000 150 265 375 490 Nonriparian lots 20,000 35,000 52,000 65,000 125 220 315 410 N onripari ... n lots l 5,000 Z6,000 38,000 49 ,000 75 135 190 245 . 6120.3300 SHORELAJ"i'D AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 57'72 Triplex Quad wt width (feet) Single Duplex Triplex Quad 25,000 32,500 75 135 190 245 Subp. 2b . Lot width standa,ds for single, duplex, triplex, and quad residential development; river classes. The lot width standards for single, duplex, triplex, and quad residential development for river classes are: Lot width (feet) Re-For-Trans. Agri-Urban& mote ested ition cultural Tributary No sewer Sewer Single 300 200 250 150 100 75 Duple'I. 450 300 375 22S ISO 11 S Triplex 600 400 500 300 200 ISO Quad 750 500 625 375 250 190 Suhp . 3. Placement and height of structures and facilities on lots. When mol'e than one setback requirement applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. The placement of structures and other facilities on all lots must be managed by shoreland controlfl as follows: A. Structure setbacks. The following minimum setbacks presented in the following table for each class of public waterS apply to all structures, except water. oriented accessory structures and facilities that ate managed according to item H: (I) Structure setback standards Ordinary high water Setback from top Class level setback (feet) of bluff (feet) U nscwered Sewered Natural environment 150 ISO 30 Recreational devclopmer.t 100 75 30 General development 75 50 30 Remote river segments 200 200 30 Forested and transition river segments 150 150 30 Agricultural, urban, and tributary river segments 100 so 30 (2) Exceptions to structure setback standards in subitern (I). Where structures e:xist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact xone. B. High water elevations. In addition to the setback requirements of item A, local sboreland controls must regulate placement of structures in relation to high water elevation. Where state-approved, local flood plain management controls e:xist, structures must be placed at an elevation consistent with the con• trots. Where these controls do not e:\ist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement , is placed or flood~proofed must be determined as follows: (1) Forlakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three feet above the highest known water level, or three feet above the ordinary high water. level wate belo, requ feet, placi by Cl' tion · tion. with area! detei plaCI st.tu< eqw pate• debr eras: pern ture: ditic exis1 fron stru1 cem appl ture oftl: ume tlwl or2 1 Clas! and ties, Stan one th.ai: excl Det. wati viev incr mer CITY.OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1811 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 23, 1993 -------------------------------·------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: C. Jack Remien 3237 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 4/19/93 VOTE: 3 FOR 2 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council on May 10, 1993; meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. lsv j lc:1 c,;,;,D I o' -b7 .. 0 \\ I ,::;:, () FROM:STAFF j)o'7 LAUJ-w VJV• ti \ \ ' " / '\,,, ..... ,, ~ ,.,,,,_,, 0 0,.,' 0 ~ -s._ ~ -,.. ' "°)"L, 0 . SCAlo: D, t.e 0 I /,() l 11 =:; fl) I t)•• Iron mn.rhPr / TO: / .. 612<l73]'3]2 FE3 24, 1 oci·~ I l '. 1 :1 EXHtB\T fV _________ _ ,(' _, '1· ~ ...... ,•L, I· / ·--... ~, ';,.,., -,---·•", I ~o ' ""'- .. ·' / -·----~ --,,., " -~ "" ... -~ / // ·. I h .,,by cortif;,• '.h·, 1 I h I , · is a t \l~nd c:on(•(•I· ;•1 son ta ti.on o n ourvgy 1,f I h,, bournJurjes of Lo 18, Sprln1i 1·, \,, the location of all e btinfr. l 1ulldlnr•• thar1t1on, and tht'l prop.,sod loc11tt,,11 ,~r a pr·opoaed building. It do"'" wd, I'' port to shov othl'lr irr.pnwn1r,,i1t" nr encroochroonts • CORDON R. COFFIN CO., INC, •)t e. / , ,t/..,?., ,L/4~!L:_·.nt.,._,,::ti?i~_.£::.'f!:..'!;;:;r., ___ ... ,, Gordon H. Coffin Ro(!, t/o, (,1 Mnr·k s. Cronoorg Rog. No.L''F,''i l,i-1t1f! Snr-v•,yorfl nnd PlA1lll,;n1 Lon~: Ln 1rn , P,jn n" 110 t.n #76 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold public hearings in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, April 19, 1993 on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications: 1. #1807 Susan Marie Sumey of 1330 Cherry Place seeks approval of a conditional use permit and variance for proposed land alterations within the lakeshore protected area where no such alterations are allowed. Proposed land alterations involve filling and regrading of the lakeshore bank and the installation of geotechnic fabric for the purpose of stabilizing the eroding bank. 2 . #1808 Mr. and Mrs. James R. Abrahamson seek approval of an area variance to construct a residence on the undeveloped property located at 4630 Tonkaview Lane. 3. #1809 Daniel A. Hoffman and Barbara J. Hoffman of 1135 Heritage Lane seek approval of a lot area and front and side setback variances to reconstruct a residence destroyed by fire within the same location as the original residence structure. 4. #1810 Henry Denaro the current owner of 1245 6th Avenue North has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the major renovation of a guest apartment within the existing residence. 5. #1811 C. Jack Remien, the owner of the property located at 3237 Casco Circle , has applied for area and lot width variances for the purpose of constructing a new residence on the undeveloped property. · 6. #1812 Thomas Patrick Goodyear, current owner of the property located at 712 Tonkawa Road, seeks approval of side setback variances for the purpose of installing a second story over the existing residence located 4' from the left side lot line and a small addition at grade level that would be located 6' from the right side lot line. In addition the applicant proposes structural alterations to a boat house located within the 0-7 5' setback area where no such structures are allowed. 7. #1814 Tom Berthiaume and Cherryl Kachenmeister current owners of the property located at 3035 Casco Point Road, seek approval of hardcover, side and average lakeshore setback variances for a two story addition proposed at the lakeside of the residence. 8. #1816 Kent and Susan Swanson, owners of the property located at 3229 B Casco Circle, seek approval of hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances for a proposed two story addition to the street side of the existing residence. 9. #1817 Thomas F. Johnson, owner of the property located at 2795 Shadywood Road, seeks approval of hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for the proposed installation of a detached garage within the street yard. 10. #1819 Chuck Rusch has filed a lot width renewal variance that would allow a residence to be constructed on an undeveloped property located at 1920 Shoreline Drive. All persons wishing to be heard will appear. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available in the City Offices for review by appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission J e A. Mabusth ~---v--/ Building & Zoning Administrator To be published the week of April 5, 1993. •• J =, ; . i .=, " ., " ·::i~ CITY OF OR ONO NOTICE The Planning Comm issi on will hold pub lic hearings in th e Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, April 19 , 19 93 on the maner of reviewi ng the following . land use applications : ·. ·· 1. #1807 Susan Marie Sumey of _1330 Cherry Place seeks approval of a cond itional use permit and variance for proposed -land alte rations within the lakeshore protected are<;1 whe re no such attera ti ons are allowed . Proposed land alterations involve filling and regard i ng of the lakeshore bank and . the installation of geotechnic fabric for the purpose of stabil izing the eroding bank. "\' ',_ 2 . #1808 Mr . and Mrs .. James R . Ab rahamson seek approval ·0·1 an ·area variance to construct a res idence on · the undeveloped proper ty located at 4630 Tonkaview Lane. 3. #1809 Daniel A. Hoffman and Barbara J . Hoffman of 1135 Heritage Lane seek approval of a lot area and front and side setback variances to reconstruct a residence destroyed by fire wi thin the same locatiori as the orig inal re sidence structure.. . . . , .. . · 4. #1810 Henry Denaro the current owner of 1245 6th Avenue North has applied for a conditional use perm it to allow the major ren ovation of a guest apartment within the existing residence . 5. #1811 C. Jack Rem ien, the owner of the property located at 3237 Casco Circle, has applied for area and lot width variances for the pu rpose of constructing a new residence on the undeveloped property. · ·. · 6. #1812 Thomas Pa tri ck Goodyear, current owner of the property located at 7.12 Ton kawa Road, seeks approval of side setback variances for the purpose of installing a second story over the existi ng residence · located 4' from ihe left side lot line and a small add ition at grade level that would be located 6' from the right side lot line . In additi on the applicant proposes structural alterations to a boa t house located within the 0-75' setback area where no such structures are allowed .. ·-. 7. #1814 Tom Berthiaume and Cherryl. Kachenmeister current owners of the property j' located at 3035 Casco Point Road , ·seek approval of hardcover, side and average I lakeshore setback variances for a two story addition proposed at the lakeside ·or · the residence . . 8 . #1816 Ken t and Susan Swarison, owners of the property located at 3229. B Casco Circle , seek approval of hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances for a proposed two story addition to the street side of the existing residence. 9. #1817 Thomas F. Johnson , owner of the property located at 2795 Shadywood Road , seeks approval of hardcover and . lakeshore setback variances for the proposed installation of a detached garage with in the . street yard . · · · · · -:· · · ·• ·" 10. #1819 Chuck Rusch has filed a lot width renewal variance that would allow a res i dence to be constructed on an undeveloped property located at 1920 Shorel ine Drive . ·. · · All persons wishing to be heard will appear. Written comments are soliciied . Plans are available in the City Offices for review by appointment. . ,, -~-:-, City of Orono ,· •· By : Planning Commission _._,, _. .--JeanneA .Mabusth -:-:.·• .. : ,, ;, Building & Zoning 11mJ,~i~tr~.\~r-,,._.J..,~ . _,.____ ~ .. , • .. ,.,1l {.fl l'~"'\ (Published in The Laker and Pioneer Ap ri l 5, 1993) . · , 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 amended. B.) The printed e_lt}r~, 4:"//7 1/,. ;/ . /J OiJ{1f/lfJ{;j_j f. t . . which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for / successive weeks: I It was first published Monday, /-_)tr 'l I o 2 the J · day of f l {}~J~· 19_/._J_, J . and was thereafter pointed and published every Monday, to and including Monday, the ___ day of _______ 19 __ ; By: Notary Public Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial tisers for comparable space: $10.76 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter : $10 .7 6. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $5.98 per inch. Each additional successive week: $4 .12. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss. CITY OF ORONO I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #1811, was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 9th day of April, 1993. Jam~ DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, "Rights of subjects of data 11 , 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: -,,.....::.s--•• 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that · the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information ~ay be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process ~the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. :JM/c . First Middle Last CA-.sc.o Cttt.a.£ Address City State Zip 3/7/-7;)97 Phone I understand my rights as stated above. FR □M:STAFF TO: Certificate of Survey for Thomas E. Johnson of Lot 18, Spring Park Hennepin County, Minnesota 6124733932 ::-~ TLr. · FEB 24, 1993 11:12AM P.03 S~HIBIT N __ _ THIS ITEM. HAS BEE#. MICROFILMED · ti \ .••··· .. , .. , .. -.... ' .... ~. ' ' ' ... ~. 4 :: •• I hereby certify that this is a true and correct repre sentation of a survey of the boundar:i.es of Lot 18, Spring Park, the location of all existing buildings thereon, and tha propoaad location of a proposed building. It does not pur port to sho~ other improvements or encroaoh.n:ents. GORDON R. COFFIN CO., -1NC • Scale: tote l" == /I)' 6-17-83 Iron rrBrkor ~d ~ ·;; . ·GordonR. Coffin Re • No. 064 Mark s. Gronberg1 Reg. No .12755 0 "-~ I.and Surveyors a.nd PJ anners ~g Lake, Minnesota #761 ' - · NAME AND DESCRIPTION O.an MeNeal Routt! 1 Bo~ 344 'lolaysata• Minnesota 55391 REMARKS AND SKETCH ACRES· HIGH: h~ LOW:----------- BUILDINGS: l ASSESSED: 63 STP 1 63 TS 63 TLS 64 LS 61 SL 1 I ..1· 1 I ·_. I Sl!ct. 1..01:·. TWP I . AG ai..K. . ADDRESS: 3241 Casco .Cl rel• 43300 I PAftCl'.I. I ,oo NAME AND DESCRIPTION Weldon Rut" Route 1 BOlt 343 Wayaata, Minnesota 55391 REMARKS AND SKETCH A.CRES: --------- HIGH:--------- LOW :----------- BUILDINGS: 1 ASSESSED: 63 STP 1 63 TS 63 TLS 64 LS &i SL 1 f//C J. I/ /, j ~-~,t .. Sll:C:. LOT /9 !Ci01H. ADDRESS: 3235 Caaoo Circle PLAT I PARC£ 43300 6'0 ASSESSED: 63 STP t 63T.i> 1 63 TLS 1 64 LS 1 ' 6SLS 1 i. ASSESSED: .63 STPb 63 TS t 63 TLS 1 64 LS 1 6,:LS l ► ASSESSED: 63 STP 1 63 TS 1 63 TL.S 1 ~ LS 1 • • ACRES: -.....::.•'.u.9.._..--•_·---- BUIL..DINGS, ASSESSED: 63 STP 1 63 TS 1 63 TLS 1 64 LS 1. rs' 6St,S 1 l BUILDINGS: ASSESSED: 63 STP 1 63 TS 1 Q_:,ft 63 1 64 LS 1 ASSESSED: 63 STP 1 TS 1 1 1 ASSESSED: 63 STP 1 63 TS 1 0,5, 63 TLS 1 64 LS 1 • v{;'%11V..> .245.95 Tl-:ECOOI<: f4 iUJH,:~ ,~r ll i.77-l THECOCr<.E A iu1A MARY C JH11:P .jlit 1 ·cAsci:rcIRii E WAYl4lA l41' )5391 ........... LOTS 1$ .AND 1£31<,~~AC ST. S GEk TAX kOME~T~l.U 1 LESS EXCISE lAi Ctl 13,908 __ .. Jt ... _.90NOS ANO Jt~TEREST :S31U AES W~Tt;.ijMAJft JfllJ lw-1 581. S.lREE l l,U.iHTlN~:.~& Sl-1 ... :: ·,.,, ·1•· ·1 il::.i i.7: . /,l:.,:)':,~s~·:ir:; ·•... '11'.ll ,;. II:. ·-·"' -·~---· ····.~~ .~:..~.--•~-4 ~~"'~ t;~~~,;L ,\_;2t " , .·. _.4_JI_'!!_ ~ :i,/! __ ..,,",-~----'~"" ""'-"""'~·~•--·•~ "' T AJ.t?J:il .. :'!,~'..:.".'.':~. TALBOT J 32't3 C iiiAYlt..TA 1 > 1 8 :>lul ~u'tS -.O'ti !lcl 10,t.Jl .::a'!_~:1._ 953.98*• 39,27v -•·-·-·---·--· ------------'--1,1t39.09 325.C0 ~P"'8tL 159.46 13.99 .. 1.32,JllltZ••--·--------------------- 31,080 1,100.10 325.QO __ 31.25 3.eo 73.91. -··· ····-··-·-- 23.15 114.20 11.,, 1,035.46" 10,800 .... : ·.= ,·-: . ·--~ ··-·0951J··--· __ ._J ,~•~ .. " ... •.-w. ·~.,,, 6 .o.e 'tOft.9 !ilfd •-Ct: .. ~ I i <i70 L.,-1 139.<;7 A.>.~.Sl97~_ ~ ICt'!t.Rl. TuTHllL. HAL__ . . _l77-~. U1HILL J RiCHAk~ i'wl C CH.CLE 17 l.~IA ,..~ INCl a eor-. fl. -.u-. B l :.T Er:Al f,-ER u:> LSl ;;}_~j _______ ~::S ..,ATEkMAIN lilO l)lli':~-·-·-·--· SilB SD.EEi llGHTJNG 68 SL-I l ,o 14.ltS . 194.89 A-,.._.~ .. u i<I ·lulnlll JlHILL J qitHA;J. 1 (,A~CC CJF ;, J~ (I !'I., LHA • t, \,· T ::i5:.Sl j J1: ( ,,....A r ' :: ! 18 O'i'ii 19 t_;:., lt,320 J.8, 790 3,1a4 '?,~4(; 38-0RONO 459.69 73.97 2J.15 42.85 · !'>99.!.lb** :>l,1t7~ l,9•Vt.23 325.00 55.22 bl.81 _ 113!'()9 __ 13.99 1,869.31t•• 0,eou ~02.66 67.81 __ _ 3•;.29 509. 76** 27, 8:>0 ',t.;b.42 32S.OO --... t - 2211 4l30C os.s-· -------f-7~ ----···------------- ----------------------------,,---------,ifi_,>.• -----------------060:/ loOI() 065.~ oto~ ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT BLANK This form approved by the Minnesota Association of REALTORS®: Minnesota Association of REALTORS® disclaims any liability arising out of use or misuse of this form. 1. Date Z--Z... 7 -'1 3 2. Page 3 of 3 Pages 3. Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated Z -2-7 , 19..'.:1.:2_ pertaining to the purchase 4. and sale of the property at 3 .2. 2 7 c:::J:,,"!;.;?C-CJ CIRCLJ==... 5. VpoN f/NA/... A&:,e,~NCE;:... Of 11-410 A.!1p;..r;:EME3-rtf 1]41;;. 5e.l-:kf==RS ; 6. Al1ReE 1J? ~IN 1H~ f?fSOGE;½ Hl+H 1HE:-?ff'i t:JF Of5.0 tl 0 1<J 7. fZ~11'17f41f::-+He VAR/b.l"-ICE.:-11:!:A--:( hlh.e_; IN PL-Ace. r?;2E: ::Jli17 8. p u IZ po~f;.. 0 F But kO 11'-IL,i As :SH O l1J N tJ I'{ 1ll e :5 UFC.Ve. "( DJ'.):fe.D l.o -I 7 -8 ) . 9. 0e..u... eR :S AL-70 AL1 {<. e:.e.. 1£1 Coo f' EM'TE::-w /1)1 111 f;;._ Bu'[ f= & ,s p 10. /2re-UBR=-A VARIANC-£---p B/Jll-!2 A ld 0 u~e.. ld/1}-I t,AAA'0E MCOfZ:Dlt'ilq I 11. 1° BU'ff;:l<S P&?f?P.:zG.:O f?kAtl-S. BU'fef3.-::':> A✓-jF<F-E-+HAT P& po~~k 2 -:fo 12. 0illkD ldlkk BE-: ld11!:I IN ~Xl'?f'Cikt Of;o/'JO 4u112eklr'/f;::-S f3£=4,AFS/2/1'1L-1 13. 4rlt:=-fvU-OW ll'ltq : 14. • ffZt>Nr ~ t2P<.d< f&M &?AO '31/21±1 "f 11-IA'i' W/1.-L BG: N°J 15. 16. • :SIDfS YAW ;5£;.J: BACK ot:/ EA?J--l :'.'71DE:-I? 1'1 6 1 L-f=--:2 XI--IAN to f@@r- 17. ., '2£:f BACK ~M 1'He. Lbl?e. A-+ NofSMPL t:tlL1f-l /dATIE:& MARK I,:;-; N°T 18. 1.-~ !71> 7]-lAc-1 75 f:Be'f OfZ ?Y[H1:::,.?;ld12E.. ~T :fl-!$:-.S.t/·1 HT UtH:; ... 19. St:::q]r:-J t;::.EN 11}&, NE;:. I 4 H BOF4N?, H:oUs f;'.-::::, " 20. • No ~AFl:2 CO/f;:..E-Wikk occUIZ HITHIN 7S fe:E-T Of NoF-MAl--Hll,1-J le/WR.'' 21. • HAS? _cpv1=.g., As_J).EfiNE:P P>'f -me C-:111' 1 Bi=Tv✓P-..E.N A 1.,,~ 22. f&2M '' No/2-Mf-\L--/-JViH HP.1'=-R. '' AND A L-/NE:... 25° f@=;f ff?,PM II Ntf4Vf/il--- 23. H 1l1H /tlA7Eg." /;j/LL Noy f=-XCF-e:-12 :Z.S % Of :fHA+ 1-1?:ND AP..t;:.A · 'f6fA/... 24. H:PfZ::D uVE.1?-IN 17+12 Af2..EA l,,✓/L-L--Ncq EXC&ED Z, J..Joto ?6< · f T· 25. • HAJZD QVE[Z B£'1or-Jo il:lt=:-250 ft--1?:T L--!1'/IS WlkL Mtrf f::.><CeE-D 3o % 26. Of 1]-1-A+ kP.N/2 /£J=A. f/ " 27. " 1He-:fo:fA:k ~UC-JUfsl?:k l-oT OYl=.IZA4E.. AS DEf/NEC' B1 :JHE. Gtfl' 28. WIL-k NOf f;;,XaE.D IS"°o/a op 1HE ~'(Al-L-1--\ND AUA 0 f 1f:/t=. 4!f· 29. 31. 32. 33. 34. (Seller) 3-1-q~ (Dae) (Date) (Buyer) /T / . Staff Contact___ Date: .3 -;JS ~ C/7.:) l! 1 ~ I I rr ____ _ ~pl i cant : _C.::::::_. ----,~,=+<~c,,,~L=-...J.~=..:..:..:::.-· --=::;____ _____ _ / '.dress: 3 .;)_ ?><;:; lMtrJ ~d.,e_ luOJ-O?t-b-,· l'vt 1u css ?J ~ 1 . Phone : _ __:4-'-l,;_;1:,_-_7.:..._~---=-q--=7-'--_ <il==-=)'----..:::5_5_1..;._-_:;;;i__=30-=-u----"--{0_:')_,___ Site: 3.;1-3-, C,_,,4C,D {;,y,. C'.J>-- Application Fee Paid $ . 17 S . 00 Authorized Date Page Amount --------------------------------------------------------- Staff Time: Invoice: $ ____ _ Legal Fees Paid $ __ --'---"----- Legal Fees Incurred: 9/ 13 I 1/ 73 71 <f-3 · s ; c2-7 J'. oc) 4!1/ oo 3o.Sa 6~~ ~l( l~ rt!rF-r- Dated: •• 11 ,4f'p4e,wr/kuCMl'l> kT'f c D -o~ , . ,, /U (!76fJ&o/ /(Jt§J &f¥!0as kT'I (}(<?._ CA/J ', 70--L(~ g€ C ll"t-A-rw~~"f ~ be:N~ POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, & KAUFMAN, LTD. REMIT TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE WASHINGTON OFFICE 1300 I STREET N.W. Client No: 3643 A City of Orono 3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH 9TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, 'MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612-333-4800 DENVER OFFICE 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 2400 DENVER , COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE 303-893-~00 ..., Yage: :, SUITE 500 EAST WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 TELEPHONE 202-962-8700 MIAMI OFFICE 4000 INTERNATIONAL PLACE 100 S.E. SECOND STREET MIAMI, FL 33131 TELEPHONE 305-530-0050 August 23, 1993 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE I -n:,i-Ar-t-:1 ·~ Bl 1.-'---S. ' CoL--6' ,,,, +1c,,.1o* s.3 so For professional services rendered, including~ Matter No: 47 J,z¾,-~ IS ~., STA\.1."->.,,--0~ , -+ 1--/ · 1-/ _,_ ?..., 0 JLL VV\,A--L ~so~ Z . I ~ t i,11-A Land Use Applications REMIEN 06/01/93 06/07/93 06/08/93 06/09/93 06/10/93 K. Cole K. Cole K. Cole K. Cole REMIEN : Confe rence with counsel for landowner to advise of schedule for submission of any material; and regarding position on merits. Remien Contract. .4 REMIEN: Conference with counsel .2 for neighbors regarding material submitted and regarding timetable. Remien Variance. REMIEN : Analysis of memorandum .5 submitted by Mr. Remien's counsel regarding variance request; conference regarding same. REMIEN: Analysis of written 1.2 submission from counsel for neighbors opposing variance; conference regarding status and strategy. REMIEN: Analysis of treatises 2.6 to find caselaw supporting argument that prior grant of variances creates hardship; analysis of staff reports and letters about history of prior ownership; conference with staff about history of prior ownership of land and written materials received by staff on application; analysis of letter submitted by prospective buyer; analysis of caselaw to find cases supporting issuance of variance when substantially just. C C Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, & Kaufman, LTD . FEDERAL 1.D. NU MBER 4 1-0947885 1100 PinPr .I A/frnv TnwAr • ??? Sn . q1h ~t , Minnp,i,-,nli<: MN 'i'i'10? POPHAM,. HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, & KAUFMAN, LTD. Client No: 3643 City of Orono REMIT TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE 3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH 9TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE . 612-333-4800 DENVER OFFICE 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 2400 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE 303-893-~00 t'age: 4 WASHINGTON OFFICE 1300 I STREET N.W. SUITE 500 EAST WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 TELEPHONE 202-962-8700 MIAMI OFFICE 4000 INTERNATIONAL PLACE 100 S.E. SECOND STREEt MIAMI, Fl 33131 TELEPHONE 305-530-0050 August 23, 1993 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE 06/14/93 K. Staunton 06/25/93 K. Staunton 06/28 /93 K. Staunton Hours: 9 .6 REMIEN: Review Rernien variance application; discuss application with Atty Bachman; analyze options for counsel. REMIEN: Discussion with MGaffran regarding Rernien variance and marina licensing. . ~ REMIEN: Advise cou n£t l member regarding Rernien variance application. Amount Due, Professional Services: $1,298.00 Total Amount Due: $1,298.00 MARKOE ADDITION 06/21/93 C. Bazella Hours: .2 ¾ I~' l MARKOE ADDITION: Transmit Markoe Addition documents to Ms. Mabusth. Amount Due, Professional Services: $17 .00 Expenses Advanced: 06/04/93 Metro Legal Hennepin County Recording, 2 Plats Markoe Expenses Advanced: $99.00 Total Amount Due: $116.00 4.o c/D .2 A .2 99.00 Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, & Kaufman, LTD. FEDERAL I.D. NUMBER 41-0947885 3300 PiDer Jaffrav Tower • 222 So. 9th St . • Minneaoolis. MN 55402 POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, & KAUFMAN, LTD. REMIT TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE WASHINGTON OFFICE 1300 I STREET N.W. Client No: 3643 City of Orono REMIEN 04/13/93 B. Malkerson 04/16/93 K. Staunton 04/19/93 K. Staunton 04/20/93 K. Staunton 05/04/93 K. Staunton 05/11/93 K. Staunton 05/14/93 K. Staunton 3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH 9TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612-333-4800 DENVER OFFICE 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 2400 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE P 4 303-893-1200 age: SUITE 500 EAST WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 TELEPHONE 202-962-8700 MIAMI OFFICE 4000 INTERNATIONAL PLACE 100 S.E. SECOND STREET MIAMI, FL 33131 TELEPHONE 305-530-0050 July 20, 1993 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE Discussion with Peter Bachman, .5 c_ Kevin Staunton regarding requested variance in substandard lots on Casco point, prio_r Lorge litigation, relevant issues. A Discussion with J. Mabusth .4 regarding Remien variance application. Discussion Remien variance 1.2 C application with Attorney Peter Bachman; analyze caselaw regarding Remien variance application. Discussion with Attorney .3 C Bachman regarding Remien variance application. Review and analyze letter from .7 Ajcjb Attorney Bachman asserting that DNR shoreline regulations prohibit granting of Remien variance; discussion with Jeanne Mabusth regarding impact of DNR shoreland regulations on Renlien variance; discussions with Attorney Bachman regarding impact of DNR regulations with Remien variance application; draft letter confirming that we are pulling the application from the May 10 agenda. Discussion with Attorney Tom .4 B Zapia regarding impact of DNR shoreland regulations on Remien variance application. Discuss Ahern/Voronyak 1.4 variance issue with Jeanne Mabusth; discuss ,.7 Remien variance issue with Jeanne Mabusth. Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, & Kaufman, LTD. FEDER AL 1.D . NUMBER 4 1-094 78B5 POPRAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, & KAUFMAN, LTD. REMIT T O MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE WASHINGTON OFFICE 1300 I STREET N.W . Client No: 3643 City of Orono 05/18/93 K. Cole 05/19 /93 K. Cole 05/20/93 K. Cole 05/21/93 B. Malkerson 05/21/93 K. Cole .05/22/93 K. Cole 3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH 9TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612-333-4800 DENVER OFFICE 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 2400 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE P 5 303-893-1200 age: SUITE 500 EAST WASHINGTON. D.C . 20005 TELEPHONE 202-962-8700 MIAMI OFFICE 4000 INTERNATIONAL PLACE 100 S.E. SECOND STREET MIAMI, FL 33131 TELEPHONE 305-530-0050 July 20, 1993 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE Analysis of staff reports on Rernien variance proposal; analysis of · applicable statute and rules. Analysis of city ordinances, statutes and states rules applicable to Rernien variance request; conference with DNR staff person about their position on the I\., variance application; conference with special /l.. assistant attorney general about < interpretation of DNR rules and caselaw; conference with attorney for landowners • \ '(°,........ opposing variance regarding views and legal '::'\ ''-> -tiJ"" authorit su porting position. ~ ',i) Analysis of caselaw a re · ~/ when undue hardship justifies a variance. ~ Conference with Ms. ole regarding facts and law relating to variance for substandard lot on Casco point; review staff report. Analysis of caselaw addressing issuance and denial of variances, drafting of memorandum regarding same; conferences regarding caselaw and strength of alternative positions; review of memorandum submitted by variance applicant; conference regarding procedures for consideration of variance at meeting. Analysis of caselaw on standards for variances; analysis of caselaw regarding effect of prior approvals of variances. 1.4 3.2 1.3 5.2 D 4.6 D FEDER AL I.D. NUM BER 4 1-0947B85 Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, & Kaufman, LTD. .POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, & KAUFMAN, LTD. REMIT TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFIC E WASHINGTON OFFICE 1300 I STREET N.W. Client No: 3643 City of Orono 05/23/93 K. Cole 05/24/93 K. Staunton .05/24/93 K. Cole .05/26/93 K. Cole 05/27/93 B. Malkerson 05/28/93 K. Cole 3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH 9TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612-333-4800 DENVER OFFICE 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 2400 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE P 6 303-893-1200 age: SUITE 500 EAST WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005 TELEPHONE 202-962-8700 MIAMI OFFICE 4000 INTERNATION AL PLACE 100 S.E. SECOND STREET MIAMI, FL 33131 TELEPHONE 305-530-0050 July 20, 1993 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION" WITH REMITTANCE Analysis of caselaw regarding 4 .2 effect of previous grant of variances on city consideration of variance request; analysis of caselaw on standards for grant of variance; completion of memorandum regarding same in preparation for council meeting. Analyze legal issues regarding 2.0 Rernien variance application. Conference regarding analysis 3.2 of law concerning grant of variance; conference with staff regarding same; review of additional material submitted by staff and interested counsel in preparation for meeting . Conference regarding status of work on variance request and research needed; conference with council member about concerns and about legal standards for granting of variance. Discussion with Mr. Staunton regarding relevant case law on variance . Conferences with property owner's counsel regarding r e mi en variance .3 .4 request. --- 33, b D Amount Due, Professional Services: $4,891.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE : $4,891.00 ,,,_,, --\ \ \,A"J Poph am, Hai k, Schnobrich, & Kaufman , LTD . FEDERAL 1.0 . NUMBER 41-0947885 .~.i.--(,1...-- > 3, -r_ '& A -~.'2..~S C ~ ·-,~ ~~ ,o t,2-+4 '2-.;.. '2.-i--~ ' C, -s ~ '--( ~ C/D -L--( '° j+t-S A/c/P -o ,, ~_s A/c -2.~ ~ A/D -O ,5 ~s A/B/c/D -3 1-~~ jY o/o l; &/~ Ii 1~ ·POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, & KAUFMAN, LTD. Client No: 3643 City of Orono REMIT TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE 3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH 9TH STREET · MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612-333-4800 DENVER OFFICE 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 2400 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE 303-893-1200 Page: 7 WASHINGTON OFFICE 1300 I STREET N.W. SUITE 500 EAST • . WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 , ,_ TELEPHONE ··, ·;_ : :. ·. 202-962-8700 . . . ., ·· MIAMI OFFICE · ·· .·. ·'" 4000 INTERNATIONAL PLACE 100 S.E. SECOND STREET . MIAMI, FL 33131 TELEPHONE 305-530-0050 September 22, 1993 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE Total Hours: 5.2 Amount Due, Professional Services: $499.00 MISCELLANEOUS Expenses: 07/09/93 07/09/93 07/09/93 07/13/93 08/10/93 08/11/93 08/11/93 08/11/93 08/11/93 08/11/93 08/12/93 08/12/93 08/12/93 08/12/93 08/12/93 08/26/93 08/26/93. 08/26/93 08/26/93 08/26/93 08/26/93 Metro Legal Attempt Rec Res 3288 (1824 Liljiquist) / Metro Legal Rec Res 3231 (1791 Bichanich) ✓ Metro Legal Rec Res 3285 (1828-Tully) ✓ Metro Legal Rec Res 3288(1824-Liljiquist)/ Metro Legal Rec Res 3289 (1827 Nelson)/ Metro Legal Rec Res 3274 (#1810 DeNero)✓ Metro Legal Rec Res 3302 (1830-Oorlog) / Metro Legal Rec Res 3303 (1833-Elsen),/ Metro Legal Rec Res 3300 (#1811 Remien) ✓ _ . Metro Legal Rec Res 3305 (#1837-Frederickson) ✓ Metro Legal Rec Res 3276 (1814 Berthiaume) ✓ / Metro Legal Record Resol 3189 (1761-Hunsley),/ Metro Legal Record Resol 3287 (1822-Pruetter) ✓ Metro Legal Record Resol & Easement 3276 (#1814 Berthiaume) V' Metro Legal Rec Res 3295 (#1826 Henson)// Metro Legal Rec Res 3195 (#1768A Omlie) . Metro Legal Rec Res 3310 (1834 McCarty)/· Metro Legal Rec Res 3309 (1823 Rossing)✓ Metro Legal Rec Res 3304 (1835 Phelps) ✓ Metro Legal Rec Res 3297 (1832 Matbusth) / Metro Legal Rec Res 3240 (1801 Blanch) ✓ Expenses Advanced: Total Amount Due: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, & Kaufman, LTD. 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower • 222 So. 9th St. • Minneapolis, MN 55402 10.00 32.50 61.50 32.50 32.50 33.50 32.50 32.50 30.50 29.50 33.50 72.50 72.50 33.50 52.00· 30.50 32.50 33.50 30.50 32.50 33.50 $784.50 $784.50 FEDERAL 1.0. NUMBER·41-0947885 \ \ Plat of Survey for J. Richard Tuthill ~ Lots 16, 17, and 18, Spring Park Hennepin County, Minnesota 17 / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ / !B \ <..\ ">(' \ ~ ~ \ 0 / . :f'-'\. \ \ \ ~¢- / ::f:'-/ \~:~ \/ "' \'->\ "' ,~ ,._.. , .. _ \ ·. . . ~ ,_,s .2- \ \ ·' ·· .. )1 1/ ~/ _ __,,,,,'\·. / Certificate o f Survey: I hereby certify that thi s is a tr11e ·md cor:-ect re pr esen t a tion of a survey of the bound ~rie~ of Lots 16, .; 17, and 18, Spring Park, al sn all t he land, in r-lud .l~~ t}-:.~ Vf1r:·L,,; "i[~.\..1~-:y, ~1·-:~ .:1--,cr~ .Jrive , l y ir-g bet-ween the rront o r ~sterly line of ::,-~~d 'o ".~-,c 1 r-~-.:·•·,ore o·, L.:i;;:,::i ;:i::u1 e t0n::a and between the Northerly line of said Lot 16 ·-,DJ 1:1:-0• .:-c:. !,nearly lim: of 3rii d i..ot 1 8 , e;ct1cmd13ci t o s aid l a!{e .:.rore , ,.nd being part o f r.:;.._,.,,~r"r.i•,rnt :..io+, .', ;:-:i jedirm 20, Toi.m3hi 0 117 t!o rt 11 , I{a n g e 23 'w,;s t o f the 5th Principal • 1"rir::i_q_1,, ::-.d ·11," indice1ted on the :-,lat o f s~,i d Sor in !:' . .>n rk, a n d of the loc a tion of all r-t) ~l .:in :·:, ~· ('r~c,. It -io es r.ot ::i·u.r :,ort t.o s hou otlv;r i 11oro rencm7,s or e ncr oa ri.L1ents . ~ 6? ~ ------ ::.cai ,::i: l" = SO ' Go~don R. Coffin No. 6064 Lar,p t -l-73 knJ Surveyor and Planner o Iro n '.!18.rkP.r Lon~ Lake , Minnesota.