The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-3554 - Variance Background Info - 3884 Cherry AveCity of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Incomplete applications wi PROPERTY INFORMATION: Application # Date Received: Staff : Fee: $700 7p S Renewal: $350 After -the -fact: $1,400 Double Fee Escrow Fee: $700 5 0 / � 4/0`T on Planning Commission Agendas. Site Address: 3884 Cherry Avenue, Orono, MN 55364 Property Identification Number (PIN): _08-1 1 7-23-33-0084 Date Property Acquired (month/year): SEP/1 9990 Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Zoning District: LR-1 C APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name: Douglas and Ann Englund Phone (home): 703-978-7359 Phone)(ymt):(mobil) 703-568-4994 Complete Address: 3884 Cherry Avenue City, State & ZIP Orono, Minnesota 55364 Email: doug.englund@gmail.com Fax: NONE Phone (home): 703-978-7359 Phone (M Complete Address: 3884 Cherry Avenue City, State &ZIP Orono, Minnesota 55364 Email: doug.englund@gmail.com DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (mobil) 703-568-4994 NONE Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): We are requesting a variance to allow us to tear our existing house to build a new house with attached garage on our property at 3884 Cherry Avenue. The square footage of all structure over 6 feet -high will be 2,200 sq. ft., which is the allowed 15% of the total area of the property. At the same time we have reduced the hard cover area in Zone B by almost 500 sq. ft. (from 4,229 sq.ft. to 3,711 sq.ft. Variance Application Updated: January 31, 2012 APR 16 2012 - 13 #3554 CITY OF ORONO REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. APPLICANT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Applicant and/or Owner acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature: Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature: Variance Application Updated: January 31, 2012 LDate: En _Date: %lam_ 12-12 , 2D12 �22 0 12 DECEIVED 14 - #3554 APR 16 2®"f�, CITY OF ORONO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided., 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." We believebplieve our proposed use is reasonable 2. ",The plight of the landowner is due to c, r%imsbtgrlcips unique to his property not created by the landowner." Gee l�el�eSe his tb 6e tthe ase'. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." This variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The request it Qrantea, will result In a moaesr increase In structure, to the 15% limit, but will also result in almost)a 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonabl use for the roperty exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." 500 sq ft decrease in %ardcovxr. 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." Do not believe this to be applicable. Variance Application Updated: January 31, 2012 RECEIVED 18 - APR 16 201Z #3554 CITY OF ORONO 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." N/A 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." N/A 10. 'The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting of this application will allow us to replace our sub —standard home with one more suitable to our needs. 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." We believe this to be the case. 12. 'The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficultv." staying within the 15% of gross area allowed for structure, e also managed to eliminate almost 500 sa ft of hardcover. We believe we have reduced hardcover to the practical maximum and therefore have a demonstrable difficulty to achieveoourgaal Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): See attached statement variance Application Updated: January 31, 2012 RECEIVE® APR 16 201Z#3554 CITY OF CF��NO Practical Difficulties Statement We purchased the house and property from my wife's parents in 1999. Our intent at that time was to use the property as a summer home at least until I retired from the Department of Defense. At that point we planned to decide whether we would move to Minnesota in retirement, or continue to live part time in Minnesota and part time in Washington DC. If we were to move from the Washington, DC area, our intent was to renovate the house and bring it up to modern standards. Upon purchasing the property, however, we were faced with the immediate need to repair the existing garage. It is a concrete block structure, two walls of which are dug into the ground. One of the walls had buckled over the years from ground pressure, and the entire structure was in danger of collapse. We have since put more than $30,000 dollars worth of repairs into the garage: new concrete block wall; new floor and apron; new retaining wall from the garage to Cherry Avenue; new concrete steps alongside the garage from ground level to the attic level; two new garage doors and a service door; insulation, skylights, and new windows in the attic; and a new electric circuit from the house to the garage. I have since retired, and we have decided to move to our property on Lake Minnetonka. While we understand that we could probably get approval for a renovation with little difficulty, we have gradually come to the realization that tear -down and rebuild is the best option for us. The house is poorly insulated; the HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems are all problematic, windows all need to be replaced —just to mention some of the problems. Thus, our goal is build a new house with an attached garage and to keep the existing garage. We want an attached garage because we are at retirement age and an attached garage only makes sense in Minnesota. We also want to keep the existing garage because it is now in excellent condition, and also because it will be used for a third vehicle and as a workshop. Additionally, because the garage is built into a hillside, if we were to remove it we would also have to expend significant resources to replace it with some kind of substantial retaining wall system. The practical difficulty arises because even though we can meet the 15% structural limit (which is about 2,200 sq ft), we cannot meet the 25% hardcover requirement in Zone B. The existing property is already significantly out of hardcover compliance and has been since well before we purchased the property. Our proposed plans stay within the 2,200 sq ft limit of structure (house, attached garage, and existing garage). We have nevertheless managed to reduce overall hardcover in Zone B by almost 500 sq ft, from about 40% to 35%. Our bottom line is simply this: Had we decided earlier to build our retirement home on our property, we would have torn down the existing garage, rather than repairing it, and would have designed a retirement home of a size much closer to the allowable 2,200 sq ft RECEIVED #3554 CITY ,. 16 2012 OF ORO4, of structure. Now, having already made considerable investment in the existing garage, we have chosen to design a somewhat smaller home to remain within the allowed 15% of gross area of structure. We believe we have stripped away as much hardcover as is practically possible. We are prepared, however, to work with the city to explore other ways to mitigate hardcover, such as a permeable driveway and/or some type of rain garden. GU-1,4 F4tlk� Douglas M. Englund Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired) RECEIVED APR r0 4,3554 CITY ORONO RECEIVED APR 16 Z01Z n RECEIVED APR 16 2012 CiTy OF ORONO, e,0 I9kSFD; aaAVNA 0/ l --mm u&. m Kr plr%-_ 4AnA(X 5-MFv-'to tMAx.'Lf26ae_ IF— Ll M r 4 r - --- iEMYY E LLUTA Pa {nf.b• t� C.., z > ca LN LL ®. LU a CJ N Z �a Q3 A,:::- � c)� -4-L I r � #3554 o ZN 0 f _ — co _VP ti�.,�N m V LL c1c, 0 Q A tUM YL �bINING-,(75Y[)- - — I _ T RA we `N i " (CliG41> 1 iy°.xqQ cn (V� _ i RAN&E i... ..._ UP N --- z5 - . - DN rn f V� Wm ill �I-011 2 GAK GARAa� N ATE eF _ HouS (1-17 5v _ �,krztiC� A7.'a Fora( eorzc�F 40 oq —_4=4t 3 Sa � C► ��Y eve,, 0 0� 0 Nr'W . In w W 0 lu lz X", KIND —......... 5 5 No poK G 6INK 0 r1 LLJ ci jr CO 4 0 [L u4, - wt,ol -�xowi7 -M js7orz- '� Fvr�uaa�corz�sroJ 2 25�t2 #3554