HomeMy WebLinkAbout Project Packet1ANU UZ)L rIANN1NU c.nntDtt
ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATIO'.+ 2 --
LC�LS��Jt' i!
CITY OF ORONO D
P.O. sox 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 473-7357I KM
INSTRUCTIONS: Please first read the attached Information Sheet, Complete Items 1 - 13
(Type or Print). If needed, attach letter or other information to bette c (I
describe your request, Incomplete applications will not be accepted.
1. PROPERTY ADDRESS Lot 18 spring Par': Addition
Legal description shell br shown on attached Sirvey, Exhibit 3
2. APPLICANT Name Douglas H. Smith Phone 822-2212
Mailing Address 3203 Sast Calhoun Farkway, t;pls., .� .
If Applicant is not owner, explain
3. OWNER Nsme Same Phone
Moiling Address
Date Property Acquired 4-15-77 (Month/Year)
I (do) o no also own other adjacent parcels of land
4. AGENT Name Thomas Johnson Construction Fhone 479-1826
'irm
Meiling Address 1820 Gladview Lane_ -Magle Pima, MN-
5. NOTICES Should be sent to' Applicant
1.2
7.
Z-OF EVIBITS
Description
Initial Application
must include:
1 X Application Form
2 Property Owners List
3 Certificate of Surve)
Fee Receipt •
Date Received
By �,
Staff information A/O /
4 Plat Mai lD [i /C'W
5 Inventory
6 Staff Comments
Other Information
7
8
9
10
11
PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT 12
PRESENT USE Residential (other)
Owner X Agent
Vacant Land X Vacant Building(s) Occupied Building(s)
8. DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 78,200
establish new use _ continue or expand existing use fir, build new _ add on _ remodel _ replace
Describe request in detail: Build 2 level res. :�ential single family dwelling
g .
VARIANCE (S)
REQUIRED to do
the requested
Work!
Lot
Area
Setback (
front
Side
Rear)
Other
E; S_ Lot Width Hardcover
10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS preventing compliance with Zoning code requirements:
Requirement of 1G0 front feet
11. Describe UNDUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY resulting :rots strict enforcement of zon;ng
regulations
Property is value at $56,400 for tax purposes, up from $49,00Dprevious year.
12. Describe EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK on neighboring properties and on the neighborhood in general:
:?one, adjoinin4 properties are mostly on 55 and Gn `t. iotc
The APPLICANT and the PROPERTY OWNER must sign and date this application. j
The AFPLIWri hereby agrees to provide all information The (xWER hereby acknowledges and agrees to this applicattoj
required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property
to pay all fees and/or unusuwl expenses incurred in review tiv Ciry staff, consultants, agents, commission members+
of this application, and certifies that the information and Council members for purposes of investigation and
supplied is t"pe and correct to the hest of his knowledge: verification of this request-
S.
Y �
Applicant's Signature Date (h, r s gnature Date
I
-��i FT'r• I..._ -c rIr S, +•C1L�?��' OF "'fi� :i0Ni1i B� z,nr� p* +,�•'� C0%@:'?SCION
r i� - CATI it ��. � ✓ 1 1 1. 1 �• ��.'.. .� . l� _ � _ v
1983
SUPPLEMENT TO ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF 0i'('+
10. Describe unusual 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
in Taylor's Subdivision of Spring Park, and the Spring Park
Subdivision. Tn width, Lot 18 is consistent with many, if not
most, 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 lots 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,
many other lots, such as Lot 19 to the immediate south of Lot 18,
are of similar dimensions and have been improved. Since the
properties to the immediate north and south are both improved,
and held by others, compliance with the zoning code is not
possible by combining the lot with the other lots, and, although
Lot 18 was severed in 1977 from Lots 16 and 17, those lots
comprised a conforming lot which .does not require Lot 18 in order
to meet the area and width re,,iirements of the Orono zoning
ordinance. Since the lot is bor(,--red 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 this case, 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 construction of a single family
residential home, and has no reasonable 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
sewer and water is readily available, and indeed, the property
has been assessed for those improvements. In fact, the property
has at all times been taxed 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, therefore,
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
similar parcel which is reduced to worthlessness through strict
enforcement of the area and width requirements of this zoning
district.
I also believe that similar variances have been granted in
recognition of neighborhood conditions in this section of the
City of Orono. In light of this, and given the fact that Lot 18
is, aside from the area and width provisions of the zoning code,
perfectly buildable in conformity with conditions prevailing in
the neighborhood, I believe that the zoning code is unduly harsh
in forbidding any reasonable use of Lot 18.
.12. Describe effect of proposed work on neighboring properties
and on the neighborhood in general:
The proposed construction of a single family home on Lot 18
should have no adverse consequences for the neighborhood or
neighboring properties. The lot is served by municipal sewer and
water connections. No drainage problems, to my knowledge, exist
on the parcel. The use of the property will be in exact
conformity 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.
ILL
se s 160 cr` r� 3 • Z u� a 4
�.. x •r,, .� 4 a oIs 12
•~ i ti
-AV
+c
40• S 166 tA":
14
60
r' 4 `�7 Q 1ri ' .• 170 K1\9 tip'
171
fin\ Is
151 17
65
21
bt
`48 .02� 2f' f'��� �I� 'y
t J 2� •' a^
J1a ` /• .. 1..' I �1. - Z;i / \ .r ice' -
33
` 45 42 41 O 39 3e 37 36 35, : `�•
i' I �111 I Ind Al 40JMOr�^/
LI
1 1983
Ij
CITY RONO
Clf*fl Y PF VIONO
CRYSTf,t. b, , I'41N 55 )?3
38 20- 11 7-2.3 #.�
THE i-ASk.0 DUMP A NY
kOoERT U MAtNIE
3135 GASGU Lik
WAYZATA MN 55391
uj31
n
u
RUN DATE 06/17/83
• BATCH 006
38 20-117-23 43 0010
PROP ADDR 03243 CASCO CIR
OWNER NAME JAMES H RICHARDS A WIFE
TAXPAYER JAMES H RICHARDS
NAME/ADDR 3243 CASCO CIRCLE
• ORONO MN 55391
w
. 38 20-117-23 43 0015
PROP ADDR 03233 CASCO CIR
OWNER NAME 0 M SPILSETH A P 0 SPILSETH
TAXPAYER DAVID M SPILSETH
NAME/ADDR 3233 CASCO CIRCLE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 43 0050
PROP ADDR 03241 CASCO CIR
OWNER NAME JAMES RICHARD TUTHILL
TAXPAYER J RICHARD TUTHILL
NAME/ADDR 3241 CASCJ CIRCLE
WAYZATA MN 55391
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
38 20-117-23 43 0013
DOUGLAS H SMITH
DOUGLAS H SMITH
3203 E CALHOUN PKWY
MPLS MN 5!:408
38 20-117-23 43 0016
03231 ::."CO CIR
K 0 HANSON A S K H.:.6. 4
KIETH 0 A SANDPA K HANSON
3231 CASCO CIRCLE
WAYZATA MN 55391
TOTAL BATCH 006 00007
C. 7
c
C
c
c
Q
0 1
REPORT NO. PI435401
PAGE 17
38 20-117-23 43 0014
03235 CASCO CIR
C JACK REMIEN JR ETAL
JACK C REMIEN JR
3235 CASCO CIRCLE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 .3 0031
THE CASCO CO
THE CASCO COMPANY
ROBERT 0 MACNIE
3135 CASCO CIR
WAYZATA MN 55391
S J \ R
CITY OF C
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON TH_ RECCPOS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY AXAT:ON, TO E BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF``. /
DATE�/Y
O-b
� ��)45��:; ••�P`5 qel 'al Sa.,09 Po.for.
• yy NO „� S
R.L.S' 'N6.III5• r"
,tea .. c�� • : �„i � , „ �' ' ?�• 44
,
' A Jrf • , S' �" s I �� oY , Oil Itil i1 O
lyl r I •rl� W r, a
r . a A � S � ` `f•: i . may • ISO ••
.�/•� y art .• •!f. • ..• .. •
UP
17
Al
let
IL
no
ea •�►`- 1 , �_� �i. r,Cp�• ..�). "Ids._• ;
it
�: lr, tSo
t
fit
0.
,+ y • n- •a '� \ •r •'��a
r•1y ••� '. I 61 ••i I .• +
apYl KA
ICpRMpNS O
M�
NN
o/ the Count o
y 1...............He�nePtrc:............................ and State o .............Minnesota ies
aof flu first part. and......J......RIGIIARD....TITfHII,�,._.and ....�HARYrT,B.,,. T ]TRILL......hu.sb'a ....................
t1a....wi.�e.,. .........................................................................................
... ....... I..... Hennepin .................... and State of.......--_. ri nse.sOta............._......................... .. of the County o
parties of the scrnnd part,
��MfSgCfb, That thus 'd p rtieg . of th e first na,t in. ronsi(7n-aticn of the sum of One
Dollar anti other gooq`u.:" valuable cotsi8eration _f
to .. them ... in hand paid by the said parties of the sccond part, the receipt u•hcr•eof is 1rc:•cby acb•nowl-
ed.cd, do hereby Grant, Bar?ain, .Cell, and. Convey unto the said parties of 'he serond part as j• int
tenants and not as tenants to common, their assigns, the suruiror of anal partiee, and tlrc heirs
assignsthe ep ivor,n... Forever, all the tract .. or parcel ... of land lying and Lein.? in. the County of
Hennep.i.n _ and Stote of Minnesota, described as follows, to -refit: I
...................
Lots Sixteen r (i6), and
(17), and Eighteen (18), in Spring Park,
also all the land, including the vacated highway, lying between the
front or easterly line of said Lots and the shore of Lake Minnetonka
and between the northerly line of Lot Sixteen (16) and the southerly
line of said Lot Eighteen (18), extended to said lake shore, and
being part of Government Lot Six (6) in Section Twenty (20), Township
One Hundred and Seventeen (I17), Range Twenty-three (23) and also I T
indicated on the plat of said Spring Park, all according to the plat !
thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register OY, .'Deeds
in and for said Hennepin County.
Subject to restrictions, reservations and easements of record, if an
Subject to thy, unpaid balance, if any, of that certain first mortgage f
to First National Bank of Minneapolis dated December 31, 1963 and
filed January 6, 1964 as Document No. 755092.
Subject to encumbrances, if any, placed against said premises by
parties other than parties of the first part since August 22, 1969.
Subject to real estate taxes due and payable in the year 1970 and ^:.fib- j
sequent years and all unpaid installments of special assessments, if
any, heretofore or hereafter levied.
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $149.60. t0 /
vivor of said parties, ana tine items and assr.0128 or tne, sur-moor, r orcver, me saris paruee o; the secona parr
tahcing as joint tenants and not, as tenants i• ^o?nmon.
✓Indthesaid C...,. Dean _,.McNeal .. and -Harriet .,.E....,McNeal,.. husband and
taifa......................... _...... ;
Part ie s of the first part, for. themselves, ,their. ..heirs, executors and administrators do
covenant with the said parties of the sccond part, th rig assigns, the surrivor of mini ,parties, and the heirs
and assigns of the survivor, that—they,are Trell seized in fee of the lands and rrenrises aforesaid and
have food right to sell and convey the same in mernprr and form aforesaid, and that the same arr
free from, all incum.rmnn.ces, exee, as above set forth.
.Rnd the above bargained and oranted lands and premiics, in the quiet and peaceolih! poresrssion of the
said parties of the sccond part, their assigns, the srtrvitor of said parties, and the heirs and assiirrs of the
•- ....; .rnr• nT..;...I nil .....__ ,_... t. ..
f O
X
N ✓ N
✓ L
� 4 r
1-C O
F-- U
%
t7Q)
169�Cj\[At 3..
4
c A58
0 12C ,
10
5.15 N, 6168
C9. 15P A 169 60 140
170
A
5- 52 Aik
r
151 p S G 60117
55
V
�i
S. Z: w J.
m - 4'-
As -
.ISO 59 1� 4 &b O)c
im
j
6 oll t.
1
jm
2
% t-, E atA 27 C2
7-
41B . \ 1\
it O
A 1 63 29
ij, A
. N;
64 ( so 31
32
46
45 I 4T3 i 42 4:;0' 39 55
41 4 °~ 38 37 36
po
Z7,
f� M
Plat c P Jurvey ` ,
"or J. Hi c:sir : Tuthill OCT 2 1 1983
Lots lh, 17, and 1F, Spring park
;t
Hennepin County, Minnesota I
CITY F 0R�
II \ 7
cwrrp
d 1! 1
1
' Z
r
y r
V
.. a .�
'.! �.• i`r ' 9.F A�ol �. of
c �
c_
I caret=y certif;; that this is a
tvit- :',d (-or7vet re•Yr:aantation (f
a :' irvev t.'l^ bcmdpri-9s of Lots 16,
17, -trci 18, op-in,g Park, ml-, all. tl-s land, in-
�1'1.: Lo- t uc,-ir. the `'rr nt nr %sterlJ line
r a and lmtweer. th - Ncrt'.•-rly line of said :.cat
1 :'r.' r ,,,i ,,ct• '_`', i.;:�,:.r.�.. V s4ir u:�'+ 'or+s, era: helnp -virt of
.w Hof'}a T Abn's) w• t or the ')tm Princilml
.,-•' •d1r:r,.� ^t• 1tq •i: , :,r the le-',tion of all
r1 a -� , • t--ii or fir
r lrntt3 .
"offin iM / No.
- - in i i= i Jurvm or a r.41 ?Iz nner
Lxmit :.eke, 41n ne:,f,ta
EXHIBIT
Certifirnte of Survey
fcr 7h-rr,a K. J-hnson
of lot 19, Sprir�p :ark
Hennepin County, Minnesota
N,
' S0. �CCC h'cr r
Scale: 1" _ 401
Date : 6-17-83
o . Iron marker
I hereby certify that this
is a true and correct repre-
sentation of a survey of the
boundaries of Lot A, Spring Perk,
the ideation of all existing bui.ic!inp
the reor, Knd Vio) )m posed location of
., ,.r -- -O ad oi-ildinp. It does not pur-
port is 3r.v4 ,they imorov"mont.s or
uncrL14c1►swntr .
A t c... I NC .
�inhbow: Rcb( 4
!Bark arc W,.rg kt, . hi .12755
Land Survr} c rs and elannr rt
.,c•nf, LARr, Minnesota
#'7�1
6
ce
t4
Ok
rt
Wft
� �ti 11 c �3 +
C
k4
L-41
Ili, I N , P .4v oll
r L% v
T
k Ll
0
ob,4
14
s seb" ki
64 cc,
�cO
=40
�y rCtUAL I'll,
I
I
1
1
LOT
150
SPRING PARK
—
SEE
SHEET
GAR
S
RING
�,
15
�,��1e`
16
17
6" B
SAM
f9
18
I—S
SPRU
E 21
20
2 - S
ti F-HO
„ ELPI
I MAPLE
24-MAPLE
" ELM
EF-
I Q
I— S
1a'OAK
' MAP
E
zz.3'
OMIER BE
1GfH 303�f
20' PERMA
r
MAPL
E
ASEME
AbH
„J
APL
•� T
r
^°
B PLE MAPLE
BLACK'
24 E
M
J41,
N
,
SH
RETAIN
WALL:
St
/
� LA
OST
onx
,_
..
EVERGREEN
MAPLE
L O-r d •
L4-v. - AL-t •,
s..f� ,.
LAKE
I-IC001
IPOINT__
;U
ti, �-j �s+' Y{cFl}•"t� - ti_ � /� •.' •� - -. ~ �- - i�'A'�..'G�' - •r ... ,�= ��x ,.far
\�rA
,; �. �� - - - :d r tab 3 4 � , . ,r .� , a _;�- �: .. » �• ,;;. .�s ��
j \ � �`•�\.1 \\\.� �� -- .���.--`ram ,• _.
1= tZ n r-4 T 1•-' 1-E-V•
�..� _ _.-_ � -_ --- __... �- �: -- - . __ �-ram--1�. �_'��--r _ �-•-�-� _ - --- � - --
_.
�{,� ti j
... r.a _ �.�---•-�e-_.���_ - =—� _—mow.-. �..+�.�...`�-'r...-... �--��"' �. w„M_- _�•,.t.� V� ..L�.- � �_ _—_ —�_. _. .-- -- t -� •
- l • . _ . - . --�ww ••-� — . __
;-V. kP
I jr
� - .. �.-.._�....: - 'L_ J� f•���• fir' � /lt � � •�� -
✓ ; i-
-
y.
--. - '��,2 rFs
wi
'"._
Ak
:.'. _-� ._��^`, f..+•fit .la.ifw
•._.�..-.._. �.:. ,' .' .. ... `��-•� is
rrNr-
wi.-sx+yswu.�«s.vfr-�-...i vs.•.►....�.��.�.+wa.�.:.a�......+aa.rt emu•'-i>.'.a.a .�a•.+eaa: i..��1. .a-•' _ �.y ��'•s._. _. =
--
1
,L' ; T D7 NG ... '.'•'T ..: FILICATION
F1'll ('":: IL .MT 41PLI"AT ION I,f.(AIIFF
Require -nts to Le hinds-d in with F.i11d7ng Fr:mit Ap,+llc.ttir.n: Cimstructlon FlAns shun;ld incluJe-
1) building P••tr'•it Application - to I,e filled out f. signed a) First floor plan
i) Mvclanicsl Prt'Intt Application 6 Calculate m filled out h) Footing & foundat'nn plAn
3) Energy Colculations - filled our C) Flr�ati'ma (cf LIT sides)
4) Furnish Septic Report A Design d) Wall srctions & cross s.'rt:uns
S) Furnish a Certificate of Survey e) Details - stairs and Any Special connections
6) Furnish A seta of Construction Plans:
a) 1 set for City to keep on (:10
b) 1 set for builder to use or, site
C1tY l'SE OSLy
fSUILD7NG PEk.M1T
No. DATE__
ZONING D:St RICT
1 IRE ZONE`-- -- `—
VAR DATE
CONO USE DAT(
LOT AREA
--�--
WIDTH DEPTH
►RCPOSE D SFTaACKS
f RONE R SIOE
NEAR l SIDE
LAKE WETLANDS
ACCESS -- - - -
NEW IKISTING
AGf NCr Ar►ROV DATE
City -------
clivNTv
PA EASEMENT-- --- - -
vEI;k,IT FLIS
lit PI NMI
STATE fit
PLAN At V11W
rriuTv
►ARA rtt
SAC CNARGE _
TOTAI DUE
TILE ABOVE INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BEFORE FLAN REVIEW IS DONE
Work beyond or without a required inspection .rill be subject to a penalt•:
tf GAt Ctscitw'ION PROF ID ---
LOT altK K_ ._—mil/ Dlv 1.'o•i--- - _ -- --
�ssrasssa�
AWN (Nam) ]\/`�; (Address)
lI C�'k 20
ARCHITEC /ENGINEER — Must Certify Multi -Family, Commercial & Inctivri�
;ERT.NO. _
(Firm) (Address)
(Phone) r, ).7-
lit
Constr ction Plans
(Phone)
IT
UIL ER(F m) (Address) (Phone)
YPE OF WORK ( New Addition Remodel genovate
CONST. TYPE
BLDG. SIZE
�f
I L 111b '_ vi 3y-C. III
RESIDENTIA
STORIES 6 1 ? 2
BDRMSIFLR
DYIELL.
UNITS
GAR STALLS
SEPIIC
ATT
APP DATE
DET.
-- - ------
DOCK
NON RESID
PROPOSEL USE
OCC
CLASS.
COUNCIL
STORIES
APP DATF
INS►tCTION 041OU:NED
WORK RfGUINING
StPAnATL I'krIMITS
.00r'w��.•�.a
� waAtlwti .•.�.•
•Ina -- —_ i--
anr• e1•W0011 wn per aa1
,I •.I .. -_•-�--_-- _ _ -
u.,.wly..»{crow wL{ a{ Wa
ALI IU.U•Lrr
v. 1.r _..w{ ..ale.
EST CONST VALUATION
N �C 1. `•L
K ,.,P.KS — -- --- — --- --
Me undersig+e•d h.'reSy '•alles appllcnti"n for a building
permit for the work ecticribed, agrees to do all work in strict
sccorlance with Me .,rdli.ances of the City of Orono and rulings
of the State Building Cade Division, ar "declares that all
facts and reyresentstions stated t.er art true and correct.
i
EXTERIOR ENVELOPE AVERAGE "U" COMPUTATION
tt ,`
OWNER i �.,�_ �"L'-..Ji -- -- -
SITE ADDRESS
CONTRACTOR , �r ✓ - DATE �' �-`�" '� PHONE
Determine working square footage of each.
1. Total exposed wall area ....0, 3)--s, f. X .19
2. Total roof/ceiling area ....%Sf. X .04 . "o
l'otal exposed wall area above floor
a. Total wall window area ....................
b. Total door area ...........................
e. Total sliding glass door area .............
d. Total fireplace wall area .................
e. Total wall framing area (average 10%)...
f. Total net wall area above floor...........
g. Total rim joist area ......................
Total exposed foundation area = ";p Cx.E%
h. Total foundation window area ..............
i. Total net foundation area above grade..... ofe2, 167
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
i.
Determine "U" 1,1�11ve of each wall se-ment.
X 11VI
�/ a
X IT11
U
c
•�/
X 11 i }11
X 1' u''
11111
1tj.11
K 11 u11
X
3. .............................Total =
If Item #3 is the same as, or less than Item #I , vet+ have met the
intent of SBG 6006(c)2.
Total exposed roof/ceiling area - /.; yW- Y3
J.
Total
skylight area ...........................
/ �(e,
k.
Total
roof/ceiling framing area (average 10%).
/3,
1.
Total
net insulated roof/ceiling area.........
I'
-
_4.1G';/r
Determine "U" value for each roof/ceiling segment.
J. X flu„ -
4.............................Total 61-t6q, lye,
If total of 44 is the same as, or less than f2, you have met the
intent of SBC 6006(c)l.
Alternate Builuiu% Envelope Design
To utilize the total envelope system method, the values established
by the sum of Items #3 and #4 shall not be greater than the sum of
Items #1 and #2.
1.
+ ?.
3. + 4.
�onstructirv,
Wall Framing Section:
I ,
--�(1 Intorirr air' film
2 rYl.'
�--13 n c hu s c :' t w
5
6 Fxt, .•- or air i'lim
r '
-r — ---� Wall Section (Insulated)
1 Interior air film
4
5
6 Fxt,�ricr air film
.—+ R1:1 Joist SOCtiOr.:
_ •��1 Interior air filn
3
�5 s i-
I6 E :terror air film
ion Section:
RR Value
0.EB
0
TOTAL R =mil
u 1 /R
0.
D.
0.
TOTAL R =
0.
0.
otal R
u = 1 /R = D,
1 Interior air film 0.68
2
3 oc
4 Exteriorair film 0.17
5 lri ?.�sKafiyn► �b.oy
TOTAL R =
u = 1/R =
1
r l
• ���/� T
Slab On Grade
vp
A .
� r
•
i 4 t
AIR
FLOW
CEILING SECTION (INSULATED):
1 Interior air film
0.61
�3 4
J4
Cel
4 Exterior air -film
(still)
0.61
TOTAL R
= Sy.!q
U = 1/R
= 0, 1'//
ED
CEILING FRAMING SECTION:
1 Interior air film 0.61
2 0 yram/ : L5,v/,
3 /9• ec /01,of e . /
4 Interior air film
(still) 0.61
5 3 & inches softwood f/,,Zr
TOTAL R = r/
U = 1/R = C�?O
CEILING SECTION (INSULATED):
1 Interior air film
0.61
2 fO 'l
0
3 All ��.
_
"c
4 Exterior air film
(:,till)
0.61
_
TOTAL R
= 34 /,�
U = I/R
= 4 rV
CEILING :FRAMING SECTION:
1 Interior air film
0.61
2 y/0fof>�o�d
3
4 Exterior air film
(still)
0.61
_
5 9 1 inche3 soft wood
1K0
TOTAL R =
u- 1/R=ons�!
1 Inside air ci.lm V.61
2
3
4
5 Outside air film 0.61
TOTAL R =
GLASS SIZE
140. PANES
NUMBER WINDOWS
SQ. I14Ci;
SQ. FT. GLASS
X 6,c
X
/
X
�''
144
,y X ��
X
X
/ _
144
X
X
X
144
=
X
X
X
144
=
X
X
X
_
14.1
=
/j
TOTAL
STEEL DOOR
X X =
WOOD DOOR
X -96- X
PATIO DOOR s ; < v
G
�y X 9 X + 144 = .71, !'f Sq. Ft. Class
FOUNDATION WALL WINDOWS
GLASS SIZE NO. PANES NUMBER WINDOWS SQ. _-INCH SQ. FT. GLASS
X X X 144 =
X X X 144
T
X X X 144
TOTAL
STEEL DOOR
X x _
X X _ { 144 = _�- - — _,4. Ft. Glass
ENERGY CONSFRVATION SUPPLEMENT TO HEATING PERMIT APPLICATION
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPAR'MENT
CITY OF �/ DATE
JOB ADDRESS
HEATING C0t' -RACTOR I,g���1� :�� ,,.� _ PHONE
BUILDING CONTRACTOR OR 0' ER y l.�T � �� f PHONEyz,,z--
**The basic information below must be ascertained from the calculations and
plans submitted by the contractor at the time of obtaining a building permit.
1. Sq. Ft. of exposed wall area above ground jlC
X "U" ,64 3k . X 82 degree design temp
2. Sq. Ft. of ceiling area l X " U"
X 82
3. Sq. Ft. of bascment floor area /'S �' X 3
4. Sq. Ft. of wall area below grade 5 tea— X 6
5. Lin. Ft. of infiltration for Windows
X .05 X (1.08) X 82
6. Lin. Ft. of infiltration for Doors
X (1.25) X (1.08) X 82
7. Lin. Ft. of infiltration for Sliding Doors
X (.75) X (1.08) X 82
8. Allowance for Kitchen and Bath Fans
# Kitchen Fans @ 600 BTU each
# ��— Bath Fens rd 200 BTU each
9. Allowance for Fireplaces
# 24" to 32" @ 1000 BTU each
# 34" to 42" @ 1300 BTU each
42" and larger @ 1500 BTU each
10. Total BTU loss for all above items
X allowable increase of 157,
*** To arrive at furnace input above answer X 125%
11. Add for combustion air (.001) X net input CCf
from answer above X (12.5) X (.075) X (82)
Answer from above X (1.25)
12. Add answer from above to answer (i *** for total
furnace input
;7y 3 1. P
.3`1). �C�
ey
3 la, rr
_ (o CO.
e)o
a
= 2 3rre). nn
s 7 �. 7
5-7Gjr
June 27, 1983
Jeanne Mabusth
Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
RE: Lot 18, Spring Park Addition - Casco Point
Dear Ms. Mabusth:
I plan to build a new home on my property located at Lot 18, Spring Park Addition
on Casco Point. Because my lot is a platted lot and the plans for my new home
meet prescribed setback requirements in a residential neighborhood, I believe that I
am entitled to a building permit. I have been advised, however, that the proper
procedure for obtaining a building permit is to request a variance for the
construction of my home.
Although the variance process seems inappropriate, it is my desire to cooperate
with the city in following administrative processes for obtaining my building
permit. Accordingly, I am enclosing an application for a variance to obtain a
building permit on Lot 18, Spring Park Addition. I make this submission with the
understanding that I do not believe the variance procedure to be applicable in this
case and accordingly, will not be bound by any adverse determination which may be
made as a result of the variance application. I trust that you can appreciate my
thinking and my hope that the variance process will result in the issuance of a
building permit for my home as soon as reasonably possible.
Thank you for your understanding and assistance.
Y truly,
Dougl4stmTi
DHS/dg
Enclosure
DM!
'LIT ' of OIZONO
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota+ 5S't23•Muniripnl Offices
T el-pFe•.ne 473 7357
Douglas Smith
3203 East Calhoun Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55406
cc: Thomas Johnson Construction
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Date of Meeting _
Votes: 5 _ For
7-18-83
Against
Planning Commission recommends the followin(.j:
Control No.
_X_ Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision, Preliminary
Date of Notice 7-19-83
Approval: As submitted
Approval: Subject to conditions noted
Approval: Additional information required before Council meeting
Denial: For reasons noted
Tabled: Pending receipt of additional information from applicant
X Tabled: Pending review by others, or further Planing Commission
study
No action required
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS Mr. Smith, the Planning Commission woula like
to give you_the opportunity to attend their next meeting to review the common
ownership issue involving your property. Unfortunately, they will have to table;
action on your application until the City has colleted a study of common
ownership properties and established new standards for reviewing applications
similar to your own. Please advise me by August 8th if you wish to attend
the Planning Commission meeting of August 15,�1983.
El
Applicant's- next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
Applicant's
additional
meeting is
for the _
Plar•- ing Commission
Council
next scheduled meeting : • J-po--ndent
information. Dea,21ine for the
—------- Mee t i fig.
upon receipt of
In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of
requested information within
or the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn.
If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please
contact t:te Zoning Administrator.
If you desi-e certified copies of the official Planning Conviission Minutes
they are available from the Building and Zoning Secretary upon review
and approval by the Planning Ccrrmission.
L I/ V [• T A T[ r L A N N 1 N O • O t N i A• L 1 N{ U A A N C( • U R V( V•
e1je fut4itt -Agency
1521 HOPKINS CROSSROAD
'AINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343
(612) 546-6777
July 19, 1983
Ms. Jeanne Mabusth
Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal. Bay, Minnesota 55323
Dear Ms. Mabusth
I received a telephone call late last week from Douglas H.
Smith who you know to he the party who is applying for a
building permit on a lot which T sold to him in April of
1977. He was quite upset, apparently having talked to his
contractor who represented him at the Council meeting that
preceding Monday. While he did not himself attend the
meeting, nor did I, he left me with the impression that
Inferences where made that T sold him a lot which I knew to
he unbuildable. T was greatly disturbed by any statement
which would be made at,ggesting such an act on my part. This
thing continues to annoy me and T wish to set the record
straight.
The lot in question, Lot 18, Spring Park Addition was a
separately platted lot of record on January 1, 1975. Tt was
originally platted in 1883, I believe. Tt has always been a
separate lot with its own separate tax statement. The lot
was titled in my name as a single individual as opposed to
a multiple or corporate ownership. While I may not have
received a building permit wit:tout approval of the Council,
according to the zoning code, because it was not within 80%
of the sanctioned width and area size, the code did allow
such a use for a single family residence "provided that in
the Judgment of the Council such use does not adversely
affect public health or safety". I believed then as now
that a building permit, with proper setbacks, etc. meets
ail of those tests, in keeping with the rest of the
neighborhood.
Sincerer,
F.R1chard Tuthill
cc. Douglas 11. Smith
�u
C@CCJM�
ORW It
August 2, 1963
Jeanne Mabusth
Zoning Administrator
City of urono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, yinnesota 55323
Dear Ms. Mabusth:
This letter :.s to comment on various matters pertaining to my
variance application to Lot IR, Spring Park Addition currently
pending before the Planning Commission.
I will attend *he Planning Commission Meeting of August 15, 1983
as you request, although I do not understand what I can add to
what you already know concerning the "common ownership" issue.
As you know, I purchased the lot from J. Richard Tuthill in 1977
and haven't proceeded to build on the lot until this year.
Certainly I believed the lot was buildable at the time I
purchased it. Since 1977, I have naturally permitted Tuthill to
continue to maintain and use the lot until such time as I was
prepared to tuild. Neither Tuthill or the neighborhood would be
benefitted if I had simply let the lot go to seed and I frankly
am astonished this was raised by you as an issue at the hearing.
Please call me to explain first of all, w'.at other facts 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 matter will be tabled pending a study and establishment
of new standards. 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 application calls for a study and
new standard:;. The obvious effect, and perhaps intent, of this
tabling is to delay my building long enough to render building
this year impossible- and I frankly am quite upset at the prospect
of beirig put on hold where 1 elieve my application is
mertitorous in all respects. Indeed, my builder, Mr. John—rn,
has informed me that you stated at the last meeting that ti.ere
was no reason the building permit should not be granted except.
for this common ownership business. In short, you have all the
fac,.a necessary to address this common ownership business without
any further delay, the application, we apparently agree, is
meritorious in all respects, and I Lee! entitled to a decision on
August 15.
Finally, I am informed that Jane Remein appeared and complained
that my proposed house would be too close to hers,
notwithstanding that I will abide by all side setback
requirements. Apparently Ms. Remeins' problem is that her house
violates setback requirements. I suggest t;iat it would be a
gross abuse of your discretion to deny any application in order to
protect her inadequate setback. The closeness of the homes is my
complaint, not hers.
Kindly phone me to respond to the questions I have raised at your
early opportunity.
vt y truly yours, r
Douglas�i. Smith
JEFFREI' R. BRAUCHLE
ttornc% at I aN
August 25, 1983
Jeanne Mabusth
Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay MN 55323
>w C- %F law
RE: Douglas Smith variance application
Dear Ms. Masbuth:
i
I
Hoi.ws & GRAVEN
( 11ARII RI It
d'tl pill%hun ( rntct \lutnrap..li. %lmntr.nta S�40:
le'-rh—Chl; tiN•II"
This firm has been retained regarding Mr. Douglas Smith's
application for variances from the City of Orono. That matter
had been tabled by the planning commission, apparently upon your
recommendation.
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 request 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,
Jeffrey R. Brauchle
JRB:kb
cc: Douglas Smith
("AITYof ORONC
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Ray. Minnesota 5532:4 0 Municipid Offres
On the North Shore o/ Lake Minnetonka
august 29, 1983
Jeffrey R. Brauchle
Holmes & Graven
70 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: #761 Douglas Smith, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance Application
Dear Mr. Brauchle:
As I attempted to explain to your c ent, Douglas Smith, the Planning
Commission has recommended tabling his lot area and lot width variance
application pending the completicn by the City of a study involving
lots held in common ownership since 1967 when the zoning districts
were established and the need to establish new standards for
determining the buildability of such properties.
At present, the City requires all lots held in :nmm,)n ownership to
meet 100% of all lot standards for a zoning district as opposed to
single separate lots that need only meet 80% of those same standards.
Mr. Smith's application was accepted as a lot of single separate
record requiring variance review because the area and width of Lot 18
did not meet the 80% requirement. It was in the review process
that the common ownership of Lots 16. 17 and 18, Spring Park Addition,
was revealed.
Staff has been screening all proposed lot area and width variances
for common ownership involvement and advising residents to wait
until we have established new standards for review rather than adopt
an ordinance for a moratorium. The Planning Commission made the
recommendation to table rather than deny the application.
Please feel free to contact th- Citf Attorney, Bruce Malkerson, or
myself if ,tiou have a6dition«i questions or seek further action on
the part of the City.
Sincerely,
a . mn demjc ,
Jeanne A. Mabusth
Zoning Administrator
cc: Douglas Smith
Bruce Malkerson, City Attorney
BUILDING & ZONI. J; - 473.7357 • AD.�tINISTRA'11UN & 11NANCF 473-7358 • PUbLIC %SORKS - 473.7359
ASSESSING
CITY of ORONO
1'utit Offi Box 660Crystal Bay. Minnesota W323 a Municipul Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
August 30, 1983
Jeffrey R. Brachle
Holmes & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear Mr. Brachle:
In review of my letter of August 29, 1983, and of the Planning
Commission recommendation for tabeling at their meeting of July 18,
1983, I realized that I have not presented the complete directive of
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission asked that Mr. Smith appear before them so
that they could review 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 Council
for formal action. In fact, Mr. Smith had advised me the Friday
before the Planning Commission. meet-'ng of August 15, 1983, r
that he would attend the meetil.g bu never made an appearance. He
was asked to advise me if he planned to attend the August 15, 1983,
meeting by Monday, August 8, 1983, so that the application could be
placed on the official agenda.
Please advise Mr. Smith that if he wishes to attend the next meeting
of the Planning Commission on September 19, 1983 that he notify
the Building and Zoning Office by Monday, September 12, 1983, to
permit scheduling on the official agenda.
If we do not hear from your client, we will assume that you agree
with the original tabling motion of the Plannina Commission. However,
if Mr. Smith cannot attend the September meeting and you wish the
Commission to act on the application, please advise my office by
September 12, 1983.
Sincerely,
u. 7A "..ar
Jeanne A. Mabusth
Zoning Administrator
cc: Bruce Malkerson, City Attorney
BUILDING k /.ONING 473.7357 • ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE -- 473.7358 • PUBLIC WORKS 473.7359
ASSESSING
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator
DATE: September 13, 198'
SUBJECT: #761 - Douglas Smith - 3237 Casco Circle - Variance
Application rescheduled before the Planning Commission at the request
of the applicant.
Application - Variance - Lot Area - Lot Width
a) Lot Area
Required - 21,780 sq. ft. (100% Required)
Required - 17,424 sq. ft. (80% Required)
Existing - 16,748 sq. ft. or 77%
Variance - 5,032 sq. ft. or 23% (100% required)
Variance - 676 sq. ft. or 3.9% (80% required)
L) Lv'_ , 1,(-III
Required -
1^0'
Required -
80'
Existing -
55'
Variance -
45'
Variance -
25'
List of Exhibits
(100% Required)
(80% Required)
or 45% (100% Required)
or 31% (80% Required)
Exhibit A - Lot Width & Lot Area Study
Exhibit
a
- Tuthill letter - July 19, 1983
Exhibit
C
- Smith let'er - August 2, 1983
Exhibit
D
- Brou•hle 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
- Planning Commission minutes -
July 18, 1983
Please review the exchanges in correspondence between property owners
(present and past), attorney and the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Smith's
secretary called to ask that his application be rescheduled on thc.
Planning Commission agenda. I assume for a recommendation, not a tabling.
If the applicant seeks action, you must act on the application and send
it on to Council.
If we are asked to review the question of a commoi: ownership of Lots 16,
17, & 18, Spring Park, then I feel additional information is required.
#761 - Douglas Smith
September 13, 1983
Page 2
What is the total area of Lots 16 & 17? Where is the principal
structure on combined Lots .16 & 17 in relation to the shared lot
line between Lots 17 & 18? What is the setback from that line? is
a lot line rearrangement feasible? Would a lot line rearrangement
bring their property into size and width conformance with the surrounding
properties? Re,.riew Exhibit A. Is this lot consistent with the pattern
of surrounding developed lots? Se,...z and water are available to the
property but Lot 18 ;sever-eceived a unit assessment, only footage charges.
If it is the Planning Commission's opinion that this additional informa-
tion is not necessary because the existing ordinances clearly define
your course of action, finding combined Lots 16 & 17 will not provide
adequate area or width for Lot 18 to satisfy 100% of the standards of
the LR-lC zoning district. Planning Commission may act to deny the
application finding the following standards cannot he upheld for approval
of this variance:
a) the special conditions applying to the structure of land in question
are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property; and
b) the conditions do not apply generally to other land or stru.;t:ures in
the district in which said land is located; and
c) the granting 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 in any way impair
health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrarl,
to the intent of the Zoning Code; and
e) that the granting of such variance will not merely serve a.
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate
demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
And direct Council to call for a moratorium on all lot area aad lot
width variances involving common ownership question until the City's
study is completed .,nd amendment of ordinances determined.
If Planning Commission is of the opinion that there is sufficient
information available to act on the application, you may consider the
following findings:
1. No available land - lots developed on either side
2. Sewer and water are available
3. House and improvements to be constructed without the need of
additional variances
4. Applicant purchased property not knowing of ordinance limitations
on development of Lot 18.
#761 - Douglas Smith
September 13, 1983
Page 3
Or Planning Commission cannot make a determination because it lacks
additional information on Lots 16 & 17, specifically a survey showing
the existing housE' location and setback from shared property line.
I would advise that you only ask for this information if you feel a
lot line rearrangement is appropriate. You may find the applicant
will refuse this request since he has no control over combined Lots 16 &
17.
'JITY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Nlunicipol Offices
Telephone 473 7357
Douglas Smith
3205 East Calhoun Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55408
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACT10N
Date of Meeting 9-19-83
Votes: _7 _ For Against
Planninc; Commission recommends the following:
Control No. 761
Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision, Preliminary
Date of Notice 9-26-RI
Approval: As submitted
Approval: Subject to conditions noted
_ Approval: Additional information required before Council meeting
Denial: For reasons noted
-- Tabled: Pending receipt of additional information from applicant
Tabled: Pending review by others, or further Planning Commission
study
No action required
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS The Planning Commission voted to table your
variance application atyourrequest. Please advise the Building & Zoning
Department by October 7, 1983, if you wish to attend the meeting of October 17,
1983 or by November 4, 1983 for the meeting of November 21, 1983.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
Planning Commission
Council
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of
additional information. Deadline for the _
meeting is or
for the meeting.
In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of
requested information within
or the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn.
If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please
contact the Zoning Administrator.
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission Minutes
they are available from the Buildirn; and Zoning Secretary upon review
and approval by the Planning Ccr%mission.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983
ATTENDANCE 7:30 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
Ad:,inistrator Mabusth represented City staff.
#761 DOUGLAS SMITH
3237 CASCO CIRCLE
VARIANCE Douglas Smith was present. Dick and Mary Tuthill of
3241 Casco Circle acid Jane Remien of 3235 Casco Circle
were present from the audience. Zoning Adminis-
trator Mabusth reviewed with the Planning Commission
the history of the Smith application. Mabusth noted
that the Smith application involves common ownership
in the LR-IC zoning district.
Goetten asked why the applicant hadn't thought of a lot
line rearrangement of the two lots which would solve
the common ownership problem.
Dick Tuthill of 3241 Casco Circle rated that Lets 15
and 17 are combined.
Jane Remien of 3235 ascc Ci c e noted that the corner
of Mr. Smith's lot i F 1/2' f om her house and stated
that she was opposed he riance request. Remien
noted that regardless of the common ownership issue
that the lot still doesn't meet current standards.
Callahan 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 current standards. Callahan noted that in
following the current standards that he would have i.
problem approving the variance.
Sime stated that he didn't feel that the common
ownership issue made a big difference but that the lot
by itself doesn't comply with the current standards
and noted that he would have trouble approving a
variance far such a substandard lot.
McDonald noted that the Planning Commission should
follow the current common ownership issues.
Adams stated that the common ownership issue wasn't a
big problem and i f the lc-t aas held in single separate
ownership that the variance would be a reasonable
request. Adams stated that he felt that the lot was
5uildable.
MINUTRS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 PAGE 2
#761 DOUGLAS SMITH Goetten noted that the common ownership issue must be
dealt with before considering the variance request.
Goetten stated that if this lot was single separate
ownership that the variance request would be
reasonable and would not have a negative effect on the
existing neighborhood.
Callahan agreed that the lot is buildable if the commcn
ownership issue was solved.
Sime stated that when the owner purchased the lot the
common ownership wasn't a problem and the owner wasn't
able to foresee the common ownership in the future.
Mabusth stated that Smith purchased the lot from
Tuthill in 1977 and that t'�-- common ownership was in
effect at the time of sale.
Rovegno noted that if the common ownership hadn't been
a problem that the application probably wouldn't have
any trouble receiving variance approval.
Adams moved to approve a variance request made by
Douglas Smith based on the 100% standards with a lot
area variance of 5,032 sf or 23% lot area and lot width
45% based on the following findings:
1. No available land - lots are developed on both
sid.-s.
2. Sewer and water are available.
3. House and improvements to be constructed without
need for additional variances.
4. Applicant purchased property not knowing that the
ordinance limitations on development of Lot 18.
5. Variance being granted despite the common
ownership issue.
5. By granting this variance there will be no
negative effect on the public health, safety and
welfare.
7. By granting 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
gar-ige is a non conforming structure and subject
to all pertinent ordinances.
10. The ,pecial conditions applying to the structure
of land in question are peculiar to such property
or immediately adjoining property.
MINWAAS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 PAGE 3
#761 DOUGLAS SMITH 11. The conditions do not apply generally to other
landor structures in the district and which said
land is located.
12. the granting of 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
in any other respect be contrary to the intent of
the Zoning Code.
14. That the granting of such variance will not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or
difficulty.
Rovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (2).
Minority Opinions - Callahan and McDonald - Callahan
noted that the Planning Commission is looking at the
common ownership issue backwards and the City has an
ordinance in effect that the Commission should follow.
Callahan stated that the common ownership issue must
be solved before granting a variance.
McDonald agreed with Callahan and she noted that there
is some neighbor opposition and that the common
ownership issue should be solved first.
#782 OLE OVERBOE
4460 FOREST LAKE LANDING
VARIANCE 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 plan on constructing 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' existing - zoning district
standards asks for 140' of width.
3. There is no additional land available.
4. The house has existed for 15+ years.
ITY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices
T elephone 473.7357
Douglas Smith
3203 East Calhoun Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55408
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Date of Meeting
10-17-83
Votes: _ 6 For Against
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Control No. �761
X Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision, Preliminary
Date of -Notice--TG-21-83
Approval: As submitted
X Approval: Subject to conditions noted
Approval: Additional information required before Council meeting
Denial: For reasons noted
Tabled: Pending receipt of additional information from applicant
Tabled: Pending review by others, or further Planning Commission
study
No action required
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1) No setback or hardcover variances will be
granted to this property; 2) The existing detached garage is a non conforming
structure and subject to all non conforming standards setforth in the Orono
Zoninq Code.
aApplicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
Planning Commission - -
Council November 14, 1983
t l Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of
' additional information. Deadline for the
meeting is ; o•-
for the m.-eting.
In all cases, the application must be continueA with
requested information within
or the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn.
the submittal of
If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please
contact the Zoning Administrator.
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission Minutes
they are available from the Building and f-nitg Secretary upon review
and approval by the [Manning Commission.
I1
TO: Walter R. Benson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator
DATE: November 10, 1983
SUBJECT: #761 - Douglas H. Smith - 3237 Casco Circle - Variance
Zoning District - LR-lC
Application:
a) Lot area
Required - 21,780 sq. ft. (100% required)
Required - 17,424 sq. ft. (80% required)
Existing - 16,748 sq. ft. or 77%
Variance - 5,032 sq. ft. or 23% (100% required)
Variance - 676 sq. ft. or 3.9% (80% required)
b) Lot width
Required -
100'
Required -
80'
Existing -
55'
Variance -
45'
Variance -
25'
List of Exhibits
(100% required)
(80% required)
or 45% (100% required)
or 31% (80% required)
Exhibit
A
- Application
Exhibit
B -
Plat Map
Exhibit
C -
Property Owners List
Exhibit
D -
Lot survey
Exhibit
E -
Zoning code reference - common
ou.iership
Exhibit
F -
J. Richard Tuthill letter - July
19, 1983
Exhibit
G -
D. Smith letter - August 2, 1963
Exhibit
H -
Attorney's Lotter - August 25,
1963
Exhibit
I -
'Zoning Administrator's letter
- August 29, 1983
Exhibit
J -
Zoning Administrator's letter
- August 30, 1983
Exhibit
K -
Planning Commission minutes -
July 18, 1983
Exhibit
L -
Planning Commission minutes -
September 19, 1983
Exhibit
M -
Survey of Lots 16, 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 the
formal application, the applicant himself notes the original ownership
pattern of Lot 18. He advises on the face of the application that he
purchased the lot From Richard Tuthill in 1977 (owner of Lots 16 & 17).
#761 - Douglas H. Smith
November 10, 1983
Page 2
Lot 18 is still maintained as part of the Tuthill yard. A detached
garage once used by the main house is located on Lot 18. Both the
applicant and Tuthill claim they knew noticing of the limitations of
the ordinance. Remember, the ordinance has been in effect since 1967.
Tuthill purchased all three lots in 1971.
1.e applicant has been advised of the City's common ownership study and
the final resolution of that study within the next few months. The
applicant was advised that if the Planning Commission were to act now
on the application, they would have to deny the application and that
they would prefer tabling the application until the study is completed.
I should add, this was conveyed to the applicant's contractor at the
first review meeting in July. Since that first meeting, Smith's attorney
has had contact with the City asking for action on the application. Both
applicants, Doug Smith and the Richard Tuthills,were present at the Planning
Commission meeting in October.
Review ExW bit M. The Tuthill house is located 11.6' from Lot 18 boundary.
I 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
shared lot line.
Review the lot survey of the Casco Circle neighborhood. The lot appears
to be 5' less in width than ether comparable lots on the Circle.
The 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 application until t:;c City's common ownership
study is completed. If not, you must act giving conceptual direction to
staff to draft the necessary resolution.
First, do you have enough information to act? For example: what is the
area of Lots 16 & 17? V-Ad a lot line rearrangement be feasible? Is this
lot consistent with the pattern of the surrounding developed lots?
Sewer and water are available. Lot 18 never received a unit charge, only
a footage charge.
If Council acts to approve the Smith variance application, they may use the
majority 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 a lot width variance (100% standard) of 45' or 45% for Doug Smith to
permit construction of a new residence on a property located at 3237 Casco
Circ'__ based on the following findings:
#761 - Douglas H. Smith
November 10, 1983
Page 3
1. No available land - lots are developed on both sides
2. Sewer and water are available
3. House and improvements to be constructed without need for additional
variances
4. Applicant purchased property not knowing the ordinance limitations
on development of Lot 18
5. Variance being granted despite the common ownership issue
6. By granting this variance, there will be no negative effect on the
public health, safety and welfare
7. By granting 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. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substan*' 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
14. That the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship or difficulty
If Council cannot act to recommend approval, you have two alternatives of
action:
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 23% under required 21,780 sq. ft. or 100% in
area and 45 feet or 45% under required 100' or 100% in lot width based
on the following findings:
#161 - Douglas H. Smith
November 10, 1983
Page 4
a) The City has an established policy and ordinance in effect that
must be enforced
b) Common ownership study must be resolved before variance can be
considered
c) The granting of the proposed variance will be contrary to the intent
of the zoning r_Ude and the City Comprehensive Plan
d) Tnat the granting of such a variance will serve as a convenience
to the applicant and there is no evidence of demonstrable hardship or
difficulty
2. Call for a moratorium on all lot area and lot width variance applications
involving common 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 ar.piicants may be "legally tabled".
CITE' of 011ONTO
Post Office Box 44i•t'r%stal Bay. ?lmnesut:, Offices
Telephone 473.73:17
TO: Douglas H. Smith
3203 East Calhoun Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55408
Co';Lrol 140. /761
Meeting Date 11-14-83
Notice Date 11-15-83
x Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision, Preliminary
Subdivision, Final
Copies to: Richard Tuthill
1521 Hopkins Crossroad
5,534c3.,.. >•c..,..... ...:c •Y .::.' ;Y •;Y; :ck::c: :Y;Y;Yic:'ck:cic. •Y;YsY;Y;rsY�lr*;k
COUNCIL ACTION Vote: 5 For Against Abstention
MOTION to table your application until the January 9, 1984 Council meeting at
which Councii willfirst
lots held in common ownership and then act on your application subject to revised
tion prior to January 9th please advise the City in writinq before the Council
meatina of November 28th. In anv case, the Citv requests a written acknowledge-
ment of your position in regard to this matter prior to the November 28th Council
meeting.
Council has asked that you submit the following information with the assistance of
1. History of ownership of property since 1967
2. How had the property been mortgaged during the year of Mr. Tuthill's
ownership? Was lot 18 ever included in the mortgage of the property?
3. Has the property ever been involved in a tax abatement proceedings?
Please call my office if you have any questions.
-s'c�c:c:Y:Y:c9c��k:.:YsY:Y;;c:....::Y::;Y:'r:.'c:c:'c:c�c:c:'ck4c:Y:Y•:.c:Y:'c:..; c:Y:....::Y:.:c4c�x;k;.-�-;YsY•�-;:k:Y�•�-•:.�C:'ric�-k�k:'c:Y:'c. "-
DEADLINE DATE
for submittal of new information (application may be considered
formally withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided).
for Work Permit for work to begin for work to be
application completed
WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED - contact Building Inspector before beginning
work.
VARIANCE APPROVAI is limited to the extent shown on approved plans.
Do not change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval.
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use,
or on deadline date specified above.
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must provide all information
and/or improvements inquired for final approval. Contact Zoning
Administrator.
FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must have drawings, resolution
and all other regiiired documents recorded, with certification of such
recording returned to thc., City by deadline date.
Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtained by
contacting; the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date.
Rempfer & Associates
Manufacturers' Representatives
3953 Meadowbrook Road - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 - Telephone 612/935-8271
Jean Mabusth
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Jean:
November 23, 1983
NOV?8W
In reference to my application for a variance on Lot 18 at 3237
Casco, I respectively request that this application be put on
the agenda for the December 12, 1983 Council meeting. I also
request that a determination on my request be niade as soon as
possible, but no later than January 8, 1984.
Yours very truly,
Doug1�5 H. Smith
DHS:rw
Electric Motors — A.C. ' D.C. / Gear Drives / V-Drives / Conveyor Belting
Serving: Minnesota 9 Iowa • Wisconsin - North Dakota - South Dakota 9 Nebraska
if
Council has asked that ,ou subrrjit the following information with the
assistance of Mr. Tuthill to compete the review of application no. 761
1. History of ownership of Propertv since t 67
Purchased .iointlr br Tuttei11 & wife 1969 from Dean McNeal.
Transf;:rred to Tuthill, 1973 divorce decree.
2. How had the Property been mortgaged during the rear
of the Tuthill's ownership." Was lot 18 ever included in
the mortgage of the Properrtr?
Mortgag•� of McNeal Paid off 12!73. Mortgage covered lots
16, 17, & 18. Mortgage Placed on Property br Tuthill, -June
1979 on lots 16. & 17 - not on lot 18. Lot 18 sold to Doug
Smith April 1977.
Has the Proper'.'v ever been involved in a tay abatement
Proceedings."?
Tax abatement Procee'irigs never started b, Tuthill. Do not
know about Doug Smitlt,
CITY OF L `_«
CITY of URONU
fast Office Mix 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices
On the North Shore o/ Lake Minnetonka
December 5, 1983
Douglas H. Smith
Rempher & Associates
953 Meadowbrook Road
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Dear Mr. Smith:
Per our telephone conversation of today, we agreed that it
would not be necessary L•o schedule your variance application
at both the December 12th and January 9th Council meeting.
As I noted to you the joint. meeting of the Council. and
Planning CcnLmission on December 19th would be of special
interest for you - hopefully, the resolution of the common
ownership matter.
I will schedule your lot area and lot width variance application
before the Council at their January 9th meeting. Council
is fully aware that you seek action on application No. 761
at that meeting.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Q • ffA
Jeanne A. Mabusth
Zoning Administrator vim
BL'II A%k; & !U\I\(, 473 7l57 • ADMI'sIS1 RA110% & PI\AXCT 473-73S8 • PUBLIC %ORKS J % 1 ? 159
ASSI SSI\(,
CITI' of OR()1\TO
t Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offiecs
Telephone 473.7357
0: Douglas H. Smith
3203 E. Calhoun Parkway
Minneapolis, Mn. 55408
opies to:
Control No. 761
Meeting Date 1/9/84
Notice Date 1/16/84
XXX Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision, Preliminary
Subdivision, Final
:�'•i ACTION Vote: 5 '' ... •'••'•�•'.........'::............:::tii;sr�lr�c
0�° - :. For Against Abstention
OTIOi,- to table all action on your application until you were able to attend
the scheduled Council meeting. Please advise me by Thursday, January 19,
1984, if you are unable to attend the Council meeting of January 23, 1984.
DEADLINE DATE
for submittal of new information (application may be considered
formally withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided).
• for Work Permit for work to begin �_ for work to be
application completed
WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED - contact Building Inspector before beginning
work.
VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans.
Do not change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval.
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use,
or on deadline date specified above.
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must provide all information
and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning
Administrator.
FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must have drawings, resolution
and all other required documents recorded, with certification of such
recording returned to the City by deadline date.
Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtained by
contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date.
e
TO: Walter R. Benson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator
DATE: January 3, 1984
SUBJECT: #761 - Douglas Smith - 3237 Casco Circle - Variance -
Resolution
At your November 14, 1983 meeting, Council directed staff to submit the
following information:
1. The property (Lot 18) has never been assessed a sewer nor water unit.
Review the enclosed "As -Built" plans. The lot was not assigned a
water nor sewer stub connection.
2. The original owner, McNeal, 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 1079.
3. Both Tuthill and Smith have never initiated tax ab,tement proceedings
on neither Tuthill's part for Lots 16, 17 & 18 norcn 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 information was not submitted by the
applicant after the November 14, 1983 meeting. nor did staff pursu,:
the followup response. I am sure the applicant would be able to .;ite
these cases at your meeting and staff would be able to provide the
background information if the subject applications were acted on
within the last seven years.
6. How does Lot 18 rank in regard to the other developed lots on Casco
Circle? Based on staff's current survey of common ownership lots
and undeveloped lots within the zoning districts, Lot 18 ranks as
follows:
Area - Lot 18 - 18,748 sq. ft. or 77�
Width- Lot 18 - 55 ' or 55%
Total Casco Point area - ?"?3 developed lot at 100%
57 or 26`� are within 60%-80% of area required
#761 Douglas Smith
January 3, 1984
Page 2
Casco Circle neighborhood
Total developed lots - 33 or 100%
7 lots or 21.5% are within 60%-60% of area
required
18 lots or 54.5% at or over minimum lot area
7 lots or 21.5% are within 80%-100% of required
lot area
1 lot or 3% within 40%-60% of required lot area
Review the width of 14 developed lots that surround Lot 18 - see plat map
enclosed.
Lot 18 - 55' or 55%
8 lots or 57% satisfy width requirements of zoning district
1 lot or 7% within 80%-100% of lot width required
5 lots or 36% within 60%-80% of lot width required
No lots within the 14 lot sample were under 60% of lot width requirement.
Council 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 the review process for substandard lots held in common onwership within
the sewered areas of the City. In consideration of the findings setforth
in the Planning Commission's majority opinion recommendation and in light
of the direction to the Council in the recommendation of the minority
of the Planning Commission members, staff has drafted a recommendation of
variance approval for your review. A copy of this memo and resolution
will be sent to the applicant for his review and comments prior to the
January 9, 1984 meeting.
The City Attorney should advise if the City is able to act formally on
the Smith application until the ordinance is officially amended by the
March 1, 1984 recodification deadline.
Control No. r76
,-t III I:%C k \ IA,•l'i �'tai I'..1:. M I I mt :..: I:,.I* .i"n iripaI Offiil•.
ro:
Douglas H. Smith
3203 East Calhoun Parkway
Minneapolis, Mn. 55408
copies to
Meetiog Date 2/27/84
Notice Date 2/29/84
XXX Variance
Canditi6nal Use Permit
Subdivision, Preliminary
Subdivision, Final
COUNCIL ACTION 1'otc: Fvr r,,aill Ft Abstention
MOTION to approve your lot area and lot width variance application subject to
the findings and conditions setforth in the attached resolution. Note
Item (3) of the findings has been amended as requasted'by Council by
adding "Lots 16 and 17 are now legally combined". I have enclosed the three
original resolutions for the necessary signatures (please see that the
signatures are notarized). Please return all three resolutions for the
City Clerk to complete.
DEADLINE DA l E
for submittal of nc�� information (application may be considered
formally withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided).
for Work Permit _ for work to begin for work to be
application completed
WORK PERI•tITS ARE REQUIRED - contact Building Inspector before beginning
work.
VARTANI CF. APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans.
Do not change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval..
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use,
or on deadline date specified above.
PRELIM NARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must provide all information
and/or improvements required for `final approval. Contact Zoning
Administrator.
FINAL SUBDIVISION AI'PPOV:+L - Applicant must have drawings, resolution
and all other required documer,s recorded, with certification of such
recording returned t.o thv City by deadline date.
Certi find cclticti of off :cial `:itv Coune' l Mini-tes may he obtained I,Y-__
contact itt, t tr :Ic rt-. A) low at least three weclks frk ne ct ins• di;t'.
0 jo
WAYNE G. POPHAM
ROGER W. SCMNOBRICH
DENVER KAUFMAN
DAVID S. DOTY
ROBERT A- MINISH
ROLFE A. WORDEN
G. MARC WHITEHE O
BRUCE D. WILLIS
FRECERICK S. RICHARDS
G. ROBERT JOHNSON
GARY R. MACOMBER
ROBERT S. BURK
HUGH V. PLUNKETT. M
FRECERICK C. B7OWN
THOMAS K. BERG
POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD.
4344 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5S402
TELEPHONE AND TELCCOPIEP
612-333 -4B00
BRUCE O MALKERSON
TAMES R STEILEN
JAMES B. LOCKHART
ALLEN W. HINDERAKEP
CLIF ORD M. GRE1-NE
D. WILLIAM KAUFMAN
DESYL L. PETERSON
MICHACL O. FREEMAN
THOMAS C. DAOUILA
LAPPY D ES -EL
JANIE S MAIERON
DAVID A. JONES
LEE E. SHECHf
LESLiE GILLETTF_
MICHAEL T. NILAN
Ms. Jeanne Mabusth
City of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
ROBERT C MOILANEN
STEVEN G HEIKENS
THOMAS F NELSON
THOMAS J. RADIO
DAVID L HASHMAI L
KATHLEEN M. MARTIN
JOHN C. CMILOS
DOUGLAS P. SEATON
BRUCE S. McPMEE-CPS
GAPY D BLACKFOPL`
SCOTT E. RICHTEP
GREGORY L. WILMLS
ELIZABETH A. THOMPSON
OF COUNSEL
FRED L MORRISON
April 9, 1984
Re: Resolution #1607 (D. H. Smith)
Dear Jeanne:
2060 PETRO-LEWIS TOWER
717 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER,COLORADO 60202
TELEPNONE AND TELECO►ICP
303-292-2660
SV ITE 802-2000 L STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
TCLCPHONE AND TELCCOPIEP
202 - 887-5154
Please be advised that the property involved in the variance
given by the City to Douglas H. Smith (Resolution #1607) is
registered. The Registralr nl Titles will not record variances,
therefore, T am returning the resolution tl) you.
i
Fe
ruly yours,
NE. usnik
LAs istarl'-
NEH/jf
4346j
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1607
GRANTING VARIANCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 34.552 - FILE 761
Whereas, Douglas H. Smith (hereafter "applicant") is the
owner of a property located at 3237 Casco Circle within the City of
Orono (hereaftE► "City") and legally described as follows:
Lot lh, Spring Park, also ail 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, (hereafter "property"); and
Whereas, the applicant has applied to the City for variances
to municipal zoning code section 34.552 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 IL30 feet of lot
width.
Minnesota:
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as zoning file No. 761.
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 14; and 17, Spring Park prior to 1967 through 1977 when
the applicant purchased the property. Lots 15 and 17 are
now legally combined.
4. Section 31.202 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.
5. The City Council has always required that when two or
more lots are owned in common, each lot must individually
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1607
meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before
any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more
substandard ;ots 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 �; month City wide review of the
comma ownership issue, on December 19, 1993, 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% oL the
required area. The property is consistent in area with 7
other developed lots within a total ieveloped 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 aighborhood at 60 Feet.
9. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this
application on October 14, 1983, 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) The proposed house and improvements can be constr.•cted
without the need for additional variances.
d) Applicant purchased property not knowing the eyistirj
ordinance limitations on development of the property.
e) Variance is being granted despite the current ordinance
demands because Planning Commission anticipates resolu-
tion and amendment of the ordinance.
f) By granting this variance there wi*11 be no negative
Effect on the public health, safety and welfare.
g) By granting this variance it is consistent. with the
development of the area.
city of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1607
h) By granting this variance there should be no need for
future hardcover and setback variances.
i) The special conditions applying to the structure of land
in question are peculiar to such property or immediately
adjoining property.
j) The conditions do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which said land is located.
k) The granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
of the applicant.
1) 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.
m) 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. The minority opinion of the Planning Commission in
their recommendation stated thal* ..ney would have no problem
in recommer"'4^q approval of the proposed variance
application common ownership issue was resolved by
the City ar-' necessary amendment of the ordinance
approved.
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 variance 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 effect traffic
conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other
danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a
convenience to the owner, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to
preserve a substantial prop�:rty right of the owner; and
would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning
code and comprehensiv,,� plan of the City.
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1607
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Cour►cii hereby grants
variances to Zoning Ordinance Section 34.552 to permit the
construction of a new residence or► a property 15,74A square feet in area
or 77$ of the required 21,7PO square feet (1 2 acre) and with a lot width
of 55 feet or 55% of the required 10(3 feet of lot width subject to the
rollowing conditions:
1. The detached garage located within the right of way of
Casco Circle is a nonconforming structure and subject to ail
pertinent municipal ord.nances for nonconforming
st.uctures.
2. No other variances are granted or permitted for this
structure.
3. Applicant Js hereby advised that in approving the
development of this substandard prcrerty that all future
improvements must meet the current standards of the code and
that a future Council may not approve any improvement to the
property that requires a variance.
4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the
property not with the wrier, but are permissive only and
must be exercised by application for a building permit
within one year of the date of Council approval or this
variance will expire on that date (February 27, 1985).
5. Violation of or noncompliance with any -�`_ .h^ terms and
conditions of this variance shall-unstitute a viol. -lion of
the 7 ,. code, shall autonaticaily termina;.e any
.city g,�nted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
6. The un,iersi,,.._.. owner ha. read, understood and hereby
agrees to the terms of this rL oiution and on behalf o
himself, his heirs, successors a d assigns, hereby agrees
to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of
the property.
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1607
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of February, i984.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ORONO
-- ra
��_.-- ---- -- - -------
City Clerk buy,.- -Ma or
y
Thomas Frahm, Acting Mayor
Prope y riwner (sj------------------------------------- ------
(2)
(3)
Property Owner (i)----- - - - - -- - - - - ---------- - - ---- ----
Property Owners(s)----_----•----------'-------------------------___
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HEN14EPIN )
On this /�-)� .--------day of `%iI(�lC'_, 1951 _-, before me a
Notary —Public within arid for said ,,unt-y, personally appeared
known
to me to be the person(3) described in and who executed tFie oregoing
instrument, and acknow,edged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and geed.
•ti'ryMY dbWIrYv Vr�vLYiALy�M�,11. � 1=� /�� r✓Y �r
CINDV L IINDA
y NOTARY NOTARY P PUBLIC MINNESOTA U{3L I C
HENNEPIN COUN1Y S
Mr C"'Oss"n EzPire, Jan 19. 1990
V -NVA .' : r.,�,,.,•�,, ..f.,,,�, ��t i� . a_'� 1` i �� �%d �___ - - - - - - - -
MY COMMISSION 60IRE:S
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1607
STATE OF MTNNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this _ _ day of _ __, 19 , before me a
Notary Pufil is wit�i�n and for said County`, personally appearee
known
_
to me to be the`peFson(i c iFFiEiedin *anc�' who executeTtgie *1oL-gr,ing
instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
1
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this _ _ day of _, 19 , before me a
Notary Public within and for 'said_ County, personally appeared
_ known
_
to me to be tFielper`�on(sj descrfl e�1n�anc3 w'ho executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
}
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
}
CITY OF ORONO )
I Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin
:ounty, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the
foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono
with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the
proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held
on Februarv_27 _ 19 _ 8y , and that the same is a
true and correct copy of said orio;.nal record -,nd that said resolution
w?s duly adopted by said City C(:uncil at said meeting.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
21 day of March 1984
Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk
(SEAL)
This dor!un,ent is being recorded for the benefit of the City of Orono per
Minnesota Statutes 386.77.
Bruce D. Malkerson, iff Attoc ^Py
State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exempt
This instrument was drafted by:
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
k�tystal Bay, MN 55323
Rempfer & Associates
Manufacturers' Representatives
3953 Meadowbrook Road • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 • Telephone 612/935-8271
December 4, 1984
Jean Mobush
City of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Jean:
I am in the process of receiving an energy audit on a building plan for the
lakeshore lot on Casco Point. We have received a building permit application
as well as a copy of the ordinances covering permits. I would appreciate
a written response from your office confirming the fact that we have until
February 27, 1985 to apply for said permit and that according to Section 12.05,
paragraph "A", I would have 2.4 months in which to initiate construction.
Your usual fine cooperation would be appreciated.
DS:rw
Yours very tr,,ly,
Doug i th
i.. 5MA
1441"1 f1 0RONO
Electric Motors — A.C. & D.C. / Gear Drives / V-Drives / Conveyor Belting
Serving Minnesota • Iowa 9 Wisconsin 9 North Cakota • South Dakota • Nebraska
5 12.05
SEC. 12.05. TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
Subd. 1. Permit Expiration. Notwithstanding continuing
or on -going work, any building permit issued by the City shall
expire and by liiitation be null and void and shall require
issuance of a new permit and payment of a full new permit fee if a
certificate of occupancy and final completion has not been issued
within the follo�.ing length of time after the date of permit
issuance, which new permit and fee shall he necessary to reimburse
the City for ongoing and more than normal number and cost of
inspection services.
A. Single Family Residential dwellings, including
new construction, remodeling or additions: 24 •-ionths.
B. Accessory Buildings on Single Family Residential
properties: 12 months.
C. All Multi -Family and Non -Residential construc-
tion: 24 months except when a longer time is authorized by the
Council at the time the original permit is issued.
Subd. 2. Exterior Work. Notwithstanding continuing or
on -going work nor issuance of new or extended permits, all exterior
work shall be expeditiously brought to completion to protect
adjoining and nearby properties as follows:
A. No land shall remain disturbed and exposed with-
out established grass or other ground cover for a period exceeding
12 months, o, any lesser period as may be specified in the permit.
B. All exterior construction including si,'ing,
roofing, doors, windows and finish shall be completed and present a
finished appearance within 12 months nf the start of construction.
City of URONO
RESOLUTION OF T14E CITY COUNCIL
NO _ 1607
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants
variances to Zoning Ordinance Section 34.�52 to permit the
construction of a new residence on a property 16,748 square feet in area
or 77% of the required 21,080 square feet (1/2 acre) and with a lot width
of 55 feet or 55% of the required i09 feet of lot width subject to the
following conditions:
1. The detached garage located within the right of way of
Casco Circle is a nonconforming structure and subject to all
pertinent municipal ordinances for nonconforming
structures.
2. No other variances are granted or permitted for this
structure.
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 may not approve any improvement to the
property that requires a variance.
4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the
property riot with t:.e 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
variance will expire on that date (February 27, 1985).
5. Violation of or noncompliance with any of the terms .►nd
conditions of this varia►,ce shall -onstitute a violation of
the zoning code, shall automatically terrinate any
authority granted herein, and shall be punis'..able as a
misdemeanor.
6. The undersigned owner has read, understood ant' hereby
agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of
himself, his heirs, successoLs and assigns, hereby agrees
to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of
the property.
CITY of ORONO
Post Office Rox 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5fi3130Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lak: Minnetonka
December 18, 1984
Mr. Doug Smith
Rempfer & Associates
3953 Meadowbrook Road
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Dear Mr. Smith:
Per Section 10.08, Subdivision 8, of the municipal code, enclosed for
your review, you have until February 27, 1985, to apply for a building
permit fora new residence on the property located at 3237 Casco Circle.
Per Section 12.05, Subdivision 1 A, also enclosed for your review, a
building permit issued for the new residence would expire two years
from the date the permit was issued.
Please call me if you have any further questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
)4-%� CA
Jeanne A. Mabusth
Building & Zoning Administrator
ps
Er.'osures
81-111)1%(,& /1:.,.1 471't, • 1k %110%A 11\,»(1 47171511 • H NII( %Okk% 4't'1514
ASS1 SSI%t,
To: File
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Date: May 30, 1985
Subject: 3237 Casco Circle - Variance Application No. 761
Resolution #1607 - Failure to complete a legitimate
application within one year of variance approval.
Per Section 10.08, Subdivision 7 and 8, a variance will
terminate if any of it's conditions are violated, and Condition 4
of Resolution 1607 states that the variance will expire on
February 17, 1985 if no permit is applied for.
Doug Smith submitted an application for a building permit on
February 20, 1985. The application consisted of a filled out but
unsigned application form, a set of completed energy calcula-
tions, a set of hardcover calculations proposing excessive hard-
cover (29.5% where 25% was allowed, even though applicant knew he
would not be granted a variance for more than 25% hardcover), and
a set of building plans. No survey was submitted; a survey was
later submitted (after March 4, 1985). Subsequent review by
staff indicated that a) the hardcover proposed in the 75-250'
zone was actually 39.5%, and b) the building plans were in-
complete. The applicant was contacted and he stated that he
wasn't planning to build that house anyway. The applicant was
told that he must immediately submit a new, complete application
for any new house he proposes, and that he is liable for the
$280.25 plan review fee for the initially proposed house. The
applicant has never further submitted any plans or further appli-
cation.
Based on the above facts, the City considers the variance
for this property to be expired as of February- 27, 1985 because a
legitimate application for building permit was never completed.
To: File
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Date: May 30, 1985
Subject: 3237 Casco Circle - Variance Application No. 761
Resolution #1607 - Failure to complete a legitimate
application within one year of variance approval.
Per Section 10.08, Subdivision 7 and 8, a variance will
terminate if any of it's conditions are violated, and Condition 4
of Resolution 1607 states that the variance will expire on
February 17, 1985 if no permit is applied for.
Doug Smith submitted an application for a building permit on
February 20, 1985. The application consisted of a filled out but
unsigned application form, a set of completed energy calcula-
tions, a set of hardcover calculations proposing excessive hard-
cover (29.5% where 25% was allowed, even though applicant knew he
would not be granted a variance for more than 25% hardcover), and
a set of building plans. No survey was submitted; a survey was
later submitted (after March 4, 1985). Subsequent review by
staff indicated that a) the hardcover proposed in the 75-250'
zone was actually 39.5%, and b) the building plans were in-
complete. The applicant was contacted and he stated that he
wasn't planning to build that house anyway. The applicant was
told that he must immediately submit a new, complete application
for any new house he proposes, and that he is liable for the
$280.25 plan review fee for the initially proposed house. The
applicant has never further submitted any plans or further appli-
cation.
Based on the above facts, the City considers the variance
for this property to be expired as of February- 27, 1985 because a
legitimate application for building permit was never completed.
V
• � -
� .� �`.-�
t
1
...�
,�
,^
_i"� ' ���
� �
;,
1 �)
l_
�.. �
�d k,
J�
�_ �....
.-'"L
--�'''
Jice�,I
(Q�
�� �.
,` '. �'
sec �> � � �
t lY,�, �,,,� �
J ��
(,� LV�
�,��LcC 4ti a;
R4." 0-4- _ a- 0 -dam
CHECK OFF LIST FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS
Address: 3 i• 3 -7
Initials
it approveci Are;. < Review Remarks
Building ::ode Review
Zoning Review �� �: a{•�_.c�-�r.�x.__
Access
a) State
b) Hennepin County
c) City (Public Works Dept)
d) Private Roads
(Public Works Dept)
Utilities (Public Works Department)
a) Sewer VO/V PJ VQNT
b) Water mod"
Septic Review
MCWD
LMCD
Special Grading Review
Engineer's Review
Attorney's Review
Special Assessments _
Taings to be noted on the permit:
11 JAM ❑ TJJ MPG JRG DMH
I$f,
City of OR ONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1607
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grant-
variances to Zoning ordinance Section 34.552 to permit try
construction of a new residence on a property 16,748 square feet in areo
or 77% of the required 21, 7RO square feet (1/2 acre) and with a lot width
of 55 feet or 55% of the required iol feet of lot wi-ith subje.:t to the
following conditions:
Cn
�pf,2. No other
strUCtUre.
1. The detached garage located within the right of way of
Casco Circle is a nor►conLorming structure and subject to all
pertinent municipal ordinances for nonconforming
structures.
variances are granted or permitted for this
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 may not approve any improvement to the
property that requires a variance.
4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the
property not with the 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
variance will expire on that date (February 27, 1985).
5. violation of or noncompliance with any of the terms and
-onditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of
the zoninn code, shall automatically terminate any
authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
m.sdemeanor.
6. The undersigned owner 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.
W. Brown Land Surveyingy Inc.
501 West 78th Streit WOODROW A. BROWN, R L.S
Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 President
(612) 881-0047
LAKE
SURVEY FOR: SUMMIT BUILDERS MINNETONKA
ELF-V. FEB 27,1985
~� 5 9.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Lot 18, and that part of vacated
Lake Shore Drive lying in Lot 18 .;
SPRING PARK ADDITION, according
to the recorded plat thereof, V4C4Tfp \ e,
Hennepin County, Minnesota �
�{ i, \fib 0 / \
bo+ � ,�OQ �►
SCALE 1": 40' \� � � � ��•�v ,�b �0R`� �"� t�„f
o�
O a IRON MON. oi°j ' Q�10 .�
"�� �� p r
i�hO ,lJA�n�AQ Q�,N {�Q,P
O9, �h
♦�g v� a•.:: �. �, (91.5) uenotes Proposes Elevation
89.7 Denotes Existing Elevation
oo\oA t+`0.: i ,''�� Proposed Garage Floor Elevation= 92.0
Proposed Top of Block Elevation= 92.4
Proposed Basement Floor Elevation=84.4
oo'� �jSSOti �� Proposed Walk out Elevation= 84.4
BENCHMARK: Spike in Power Pole at N.W. Cor.
of Lot 18 - 100.00
S '
I hereby certify that this sketch plan or report
��h \ was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly registered land surveyor
�o under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Date: March 4, 1935 Reg. No. 15230