HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketUd LI' al'C-U a�, / tS /
Fee 4t3C1- rn
Receipt
Initial
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original applicatioiCYTYOF OROMIT I
After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee)Fib" ICE OFFICE J
-------- __________________________________________ q!
PROPERTY LOCATION O1 LEk :00.00
Site Address
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)
Please check one - Is the property ! abstract or torrens7
YOU
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
__________________________________________________________..________________
APPLICANT C'"� Phone (home) Zi7%-,f4R2.
Name &4QU n A RI.T A-141l n _ Phone (work) 9y/ /0i0
Address: 2.iie5 64Aep Pogurp-d. City: (.A -fay _zip:
___-
_____________ _-________________
ON = (if different than applicant) Phone (home) y1A.tu-.
Name 9"4r Phone (work)
Address: City: Zip:
Date Property Acquired (month/year)
-_-__I (do) do not also own the adjacent -parcels of land.
________ _______________________ _____________________-___
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY
Present Zoning District 1.-(L
Present Use of Property IAVYJ).( ttt::,,Q Residential
Other (specify)
________________.____-___..___________-______________________________________
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction' Cost $
Describe request in detail:
___________________________________________________________________________
VARIANCES REQUIRID
_ Lot Area Lot Width ✓ Hardcover*Ar
Setback Variances (_ Front ✓ Side* Rear)
Other ire"d OAM,ti IM 10 �w� P�t_..
1 ---- 1---- -- ---------------------L
'-'--' #Ir ikVk CIvfX e11 Lt'i�Ru,.' �rT HlL/lo�i &49
HARDSHIP
Describe undue hardship or practices difficulty resinkinq from `�trict
enforcem@@nt of zoning regul tigns: � e.6,-T] �i� ues c�aAu7 Wge,
------ ------------------------------------ 4---------- --------------------
DESCRIrfION OF UMUSL PROPHRTY CONDITIONS
Describe unusua. property �nditipne,.p�eventing comf once with Zoning
Code Requirements: e�ia�lvdJ )
____________________________________________.___________________________-___
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
1. Completed Application Form
2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain
this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center
348-3271).
3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (i10) pre -addressed to each of the
names on the above list with no return address.
4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required.
5. Plat Map.
__.-________________________________________________________________________
The Applicant and Property owner must sign this application. Please
remember that your vs once application is not complete if the above
information has not bee.. included.
__________-._______________________________________________________________
Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete.
Zoning Official's Signature Date
-------------------------------------------- _----- _________________________
APPLICAMT*S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or
requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or
unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that
the information sulplied is true and correct to the best of his/her
knowledge.
Applicant's Signature Date G-ZG-b%
OWNERS SIGNATURE
The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further
authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants,
agents, Commission members, and Council members for rurposes of investiga-
tion and verification t s r e
Owner's SignatureDate
__________________CY________________________-______--_____ __________
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the
Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the
third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled
review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council, and, if an
applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, to please make arrange-
ments to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advises the
Building i Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY
In accordance with M.S. 15.165, "Rights of s bjects of data',
we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or
license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may
require you to furnish certain private or confidential form-
ation.
You are notified that:
1. The information you furnish will be used to determine
your qualification for the permit or license requested.
2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require
that the City deny the permit or license.
3. The information may be shared with other local, state
or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process
the permit or ' :ense.
4. if your requested permit or license reqires council
action to approve, some information may become public.
5. You have certian rights under M.S. 15.165 to review
private data on yourself.
6. Your full name, and date of birth are required to process
this application or permit.
VTRAIV OwT I �-?Ns4tI"
F lrsts. - Mia��ie� Last
6_-•i6
Date— oiTiit oes not eoply to building/general permits)
riil-lA&ZZ
Phone
i undo sand igh atted above.
x
FicInature
: io Ivy• 59:� � iflf—.. •.
' s,p .�.frY r.r•�sw.
/'/ vry(y{ `� . eel / I* L,My61M. ,.0 0••I.O.
1
w
n .Oda
s
wr: DATE ft""?
'A"CH Cal
TO 20-11f-23 23 00%
Ig
won AMJR
02xs CASCO miff m
Ov EP NAME
S R PETERSa A E A REVISION
TA. nA r[R
STEVEN 0 PETERSON
NT'r/AMP
2T4s rA3U1 MINT m
M IZATA IN SS391
ONNR,
3E Z9-112-23 23 "Mwa
AODO
way: "
lABR ER
T
CIT. mNo
G
Nuvi/4.
PAR
6!I3" 33a]SO
G
is 20-I12-23 13 "IS
PROP IDDR
6:799 CASCr POEM a
WAR .ME
Tao A r I U
C
TArWrtr
Tap Rd t-a
NUO'AMR
Z794 CASCO MINT RO
ado TN SS391
C
113-23 23 nH
FROM A000
6s ni CASCO MINT a
"FEW NNE
0 A iwman
TAXPAIER
REcfnRCff�� wrraw
NUR/ADOP
2xS r1300 PO3fE M
NATnrA IN\ss»L
RENEPIN COUNTY PROP O'll INMONATIOI SEVEN
PROPERTY OOEPS LIST
I0 20-11?-23 23 0097
62735 CASCO MINT M
CLARENCE N PETERSON ET AL
CLAWKE N PETERSON
2950 JOPPA AVE
NPLS LN 55426
N 20-117-23 23 nil
3 lY0 OER
clrr ado
vARR
6/i L]9 EFD I56736
U 29-I13-23 23 001E
02M CASCO MINT M
O T BL EVIC A M R BLAZEVIC
MULLET LET T A WRY R BLAZEVIC
27" CASCO MINT M
NAYZATA RN 55391
TOTAL OATEN 902 00010
REPORT M. P1435401
PAGE 12
20-112-23 P3 0009
STA LAM DER
CITY BOUND
PARK
4/IV"DEED 156759
38 20-112-23 23 0012
0277 CA3L'0 MINE M
ROLE RACE ETAL
ROLE" A POKE
2226 U MINT M
NAYZATA m 5539E
U n-117-23 23 001A
02223 CASCO MEW M
ELAINE E OLSON
ENINE ELLEN [RIM"
2271 CASCO R M
WIIATA M 5539E
1 CERTIFY TNAT THE FACTS REPRESENTIO ARE AN ACLIATATE AM 11 E
P[R.ESrNgTIOT OF ITfalOT1O1 AS IT AP1ERRI EYES DATE ON M RECUMS
T OF THY HEIVEPIN CWFY OEPMTLENT BE PMPEN" TAXATION, E BEST
DY MY PHOULE0GE AND BELIEF.
— DAT1�'Y/9
1gnC[
n. Pw c,i— . ^ae oue•.
IwrignlNCp/IC•bwCw.n �IrS yvin
hewn 1101e O11/u`0./. Ah a01n ee)UM.
mpryl el +1y IyWp Wq uw Y`K[tlpnl
.:.::'ems, : `, e.°:`:•
Affidavit of Publication
• erlaiye er•a• erlWr .1N1 IN N11r.�
2 Irr'1 Ir•
a nee Iir111N1 o+n°. IarrFr.l +Mn
State of Mmuas0la. county of Hennepin
ltlWYw awri•. ••ml rrertlw lY
Wa b caWNn. xn. as
a nsr uerre rx +r ww erJ+•.
Bill Holm, being duly 5worr n cath says that he Is
2elacaloo lU.l eels we••rNwtl o�Ne
e.r ra ner snic•.rWcw wcoN•n.cl
an aulhori2ed agent and employee of Ih0 publisher
1e^ +° •^+rye "0^'•
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound. Mm-
. I fee RX: o lrnan 2e95 c••ro
n,.,l eei 1.r.1 N1mn .w .+1.•F1
nesota. and has full knowledge of the facts which are
IwrY•Y. Yiei•1rV o^'°r°"r""�1•••'
stated below
ceeery Wei..rn -n
5 1122 Phwir+IM eR. auaur.r •wn�.
wNr NOr»rn •Ind WtIV• Mercn aY
rcl.lo crWN1•e.e• w1n IN ora Ye
A I The newspaper has complied with all the require
IMM111rtlW. Yw
ments constituting qualifications as .. qualified
N rr•. on11 w111 nr11 .re ifff .
newspaper, as provided by Mmnesola Statute
1n'I le w.mn•WI.rNaery. win mw
331A.02, 331A.07. and other applicable laws as
Off. Lent y" rx
r trSWww rY yYRY ECLrl xis.
amended.
car eele r1.• • a .w.rwcl w orn
r6w In
�J� /Q
7/,o'//al��Le
61+1�d "mri..o1.n+o•o
5e•�ra�n1
6 f The printed
w6lweco.�re.$.w
G
In[M1NGI .OwnM aril WMVnr le ..
`,ate 0
AIM e�.• 91N1Yew iM11Y
%�•/
✓ � r1
IN Ica n1r•YV tll.lrr 7000. w1n
M
which Is attachetl was cut fliolf,the columns of said
attached
Ir1 u1nwWY r• Y✓'1b Hr11 r1 nYYI1
b. •..caw n M d• . •cw M iewyrynl
nevispeper, anQwas puled and e0 once each
an)
weak for ve weeks
ssuccessivessuccessiveweeks
•Irrvv crNlrm
rbllrl P otln°n
•w rr..e c.e iYYe •alrwf.tlo
pu nday.
It was first Published Monday,
IP.pMye n iN lY. rtl r.Yw JWY a
per/
6'
Ian
the day of 19 a /.
—
and was thereafter ted apubllshed every
Mondayto and including Monday
the v of 19
A(1hZ2ed F,tent
Subscribed and sworn to me w this p
L• day of r ,
JUL - g 199T
I By t tcsZ
Waw Public
Raise MfOlffAMee
I II levnsl c1W11ya Ind. 01q ey w.y •a cpllpr..
IW ic. fl N 1:e� in
121 aee1Y11.11.M reow.e N Iw'a 1ew•r nitltr N M c+ r n
lal 1W. •cry W rNyaW la •Der. 1ntl1r N 5. {�• .u,
Fa � eem.ru r.c«Yw car ea OJ on .un
CITY OF ORONO
NOTICE
The Planning Commission will hold public hearings in the Council Chambers
at 1275 South Brown Road on Monday, July 20th, 1987, on the matter of the
following land -ise applications:
41165 Steven Fay, 3045 Casco Point Road - seeks front yard
setback variance to construct a detached Garage partially within the
defined front yard area.
2. 11166 Hartmut Ginnow-Merkert, 1840 Lakeview Terrace - seeks front
yard setback variance to construct r 2nd story deck.
3. #1167 Leonard and Mary Ann Bachkes, 2813 Casco Point Road - seek
renewal of hardcover and side setback variances to construct additiLn
to existing home.
4. 11168 Richa- Helstrom, 2095 Casco Point Road - seeks
hardcover and ave t lakeshore setback variances to construct a
second story deck and screen porch.
5. #1172 Christine Beck, 3820 Cherry Avenue - seeks hardcover and
lakeshore setback variances to construct a deck within the 0-75'
protected lakeshore area.
6. 11173 David and Tress Gardella, 1230 Orono Oaks Drive - seek a
front yard setback variance to construct a detached garage within
their defined front yard area.
7. 11175 Walter and Nancy Erickson, 335 Hollander Road - seek a lot
area variance to construct a residence on an undeveloped lot.
8. 11176 Richard Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road - seeks hardcover,
ei&6-setback variances to construct room and garage additions to
existing residence.
All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. The meeting
starts at 7:00 P.M. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available
for review in the City offices, by appointment.
By: Planning Commission
Mrchaol P. Gs ron
Aset Planning 6 Zoning Administrator
To be published the week of July 6th, 1987.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) as.
CITY OF ORONO )
I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing
concerning the matter of #1176, was mailed to the attached list
of property owners .
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal
this 2nd day of July, 1907.
i
Jamie Bosma
1J �rt 1'
NARDCOVIIR R1 LATIOIIS AND NORRSNRRT
A. RARDCOVER ORDINANCE - In 1975, the Orono City Council adopted an ordinance limiting
the percentage of lot area that can be covered with impervious surface. ('hardcover')
such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of
a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oil., and debris carried into the lake
from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the
lake. The intent of Orono'. ordinance 1s to ensure that rainfall run-off will be
cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the
lake.
E. HARDCOVER SETRACR ZONES - PERCENTAGE ALLOWED
I. 0-75'z in the area within 75' of the lakeshore, No Hardcover is allowed
(Os).
II. 75-250'z in the portion of the lot located between 75' and 250' from the
lake, 250 of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered.
III. 250-500-1 in the portion of the lot located between 250' and 500' feet
from the lake 300 of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered.
IV. S00-1,000'z in the portion of the lot located between 500' and 1,000' feet
from the lake 359 of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered.
NOTEt Thee* regulations apply even if yi have a lot that doe, not abut the lake but is
within a lakeshore zoning district.
C. HOW TO DETERMINE LOT AREA WITHIN EACH SETRACR ZONE (To be used es denominator in all
hardcover percentage calculations)
I. 0-75' Zone
Area - 75' x /Average width of lot in 0-75 zone)
1 measure parallel to shorelf ne J
75' x 6L'5 ft. - 4(17,5 _s.f. (1)
(Avg width) Area of 0-75' zone
II. 75-250' Zone
Area - (175'or avg lot depth in zone) A Avg width of lot in 75-250' n"no\
measure parallel to sho. in, 1
175' x /.L ✓' ft. - J0F9,.,7 5 e.f. (2)
(Avg width) Area of 75-250' zone
III. 250-500' Zone
Area - (250' or avg lot depth in zone) x Avg width of lot in 250-500' rone\
measure parallel to •horellne /
S
-JW x 2F ft. - (7`,O e.f. (3)
(Avg width) Area of 250-500' zone 1�315 lvf A)7-ii. >Y7�
IV. 500-1,000' Zone Ai ctWi7
Are (500' or avq lot depth In tone) x/Avg width of lot in 500-3000' zone)
` measure parallel to shoreline
500' x ft. s.[. (4)
(Avg width) Area of 500-1,000' zone
D. HARDCOVER CALCULATION SUMMARY
A. B. C. D. E. P.
Existing Final
Lakeshore Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Allowed
setback Lot Area Hardcover Percentage Hardcover Percentage Hardcover
Zone In Zone In Zone (B/A)x100 In Zone (D/A)x100 Percentage
0-75' 46�ef O O \ O Bf O \ 0 \
-250' ip,en 1; t 44-7S`e sf:I `IM; \ NSbr1 Sef 4ibZ'7 \ zs \
2/5D-400' I,'I�ib of iSDn af` 8�,7 \��sf `K6,5%% 30 \
500-1000' Nn e[ of \ef \ 35 \
HARDCOVER LIMITATIONS INCLODEst
St,,ctures with roofs
c°" 4'�•e& �A� - Decks, even if slatted
°r. •°� OM' y Sidewalks
Pt
- Driveways (paved or gravel)
�5 \\k_ - Decorative landscaping areas underlain bl
plastic @heating
- Tops of retaining wells, rock wells
46N 0 - Any other surface that does not allow direct
absorption of rainfall into the ground
ROA O
E. OTHER LARESRORE REGULATIONS
BBC. 10.22, REGULATIONS YOH 'LR-IA', 'LR-IA-l-, •LR-IB-, -LR-1 Ce AND-LR-IC-1. ONE
FAMILY LARESHOR■ RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Within sly 'LR-1 A', LR-lA-l', 'LR-16',-LR-IC', or
*LP-IC-l' One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply!
Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set back from the shoreline for
lkeshore lots shall be at least 75 feet and no building may be located closer •l the
shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing reridence
building& on adjacent and nearby lots.
Suhd. 2. Lakeshore Hard Cover Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there
shall be no excavating, filling, hard rover, t,.mporary or permanent sttuctures.
Within 15 to 210 feet of tl,e shoreline there shall be n^ greater than 25% hard cover.
Within 250 to SOO feet of the shoreline there shall ..e no greater than 300 hard
cover. Within 500 to 1,000 lest of the shoreline the, vhall be no greater than 3Sa
hard over.
Subd. 3. Tree Removal Regulations. No trees within 75 f±et of the shoreline
with the diameter of six (6) inches or more shall be reeoved without first retaining
a permit froe the Council.
HARDCOVER CALCULATIL,N WOR.'(SHEET
_ '
Setback
:or*: !circle
on) 0-75'
75-250'
500-1000'
9
a
[.gating Mrdcovsr \ . hug Existing HArdegrer
a 300 /
Sal-te-e
Aardco..r in
tons
Lot ACAM.AILLIkin Zone
•.
Sou"
i
O f.t.
^
�`~� f•f f 100 q
length
ridth
A
S.f.
Additional Hardcover to be Added in Sent
A
a.r.
It" LenatA A Width
TOTAL
A.f.
A
S.f.
- 'kl • A
S.f.
b.
Grage
—_
..f.
x
--
a.f.
c.
CtevevtY _
ISOO f.L/
A
S.f.
..f.
I ) TOTAL S.F. TO RE ADDED
(2i
d.
st er.a a
x
_
_ ..f,
Existing Hardcover to he ReAOved, 1f any,
_
Item Length x Watt
TOTAL
J.
..
Patic/
A �—
_— • —__
s.(.
=+-LiCIfL�'�' _LaL_
s.f.
Dock
f.
Land .c•pe
i
J.
- A
S.f.
•re.e
vnari.in
.
r—A�
I ) TOTAL E.F. TO BE RENEVED
/y�
Gi(/
(n
by plastic
..f.
i�
.h.etinq
a
f
Final Hardcover Prop ..1, '
•
A
J.
(Lin- (1)�. Lin (2) -Lin(3)1 .
Ot Ker
A
s.f.
I
1 -- a G
I
f.f. (4)
Existing TO be Added To be P... ad
Final
A
A.I.
Proposed Hardcover \ .
•
s.f.
TOTAL
[YiST1}0 RA}Dt•OV[} IN ZONE
•
/,59DO S.f. I11
Line (1) S s'f• a
100
�y, r.�.\
Line IL j'),p s.f.
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORRSHEET
Td'TA_L.. C..Lr AWO*,.
�1L74'{61A
Ytb"k tone, (Circle one) 0-]S' ]S-ZSO' 250-500 500-1000'
Ytetir
Existing pardcover \ Total Ex Ltlne X d � t :00
Yreeowf in goes
Lot Area Within Zone
e. we �-S_. t U-S, . %43z t.f.
_ ST• s.f. t 100 . \
30. L�}
Length width
h bh s.f.
—�� x 50,3 • [
Additt... I Rsrdoowe to Oe added in •one. '
. /J 5 9.1.
_ ttm Lonath t Width TOTAL ..f.
R s.r.
IV ..f. '
B. Yr.ge gyp_ • ZO q_ .. C.
—Tf
e. Drlvaeay giQ_ A •sue
•
3 ].S x _ 115' . q 3� s x f
TOTAL S.F. TO BE AODFD /&
—
(Z 1
d. stdeesix R alM C
Eti.ting Xardcover to he Reeoved, if anyt
ia,L t 2(L.f7
Item L?
p,(•
ngtM W{dtM
t TAL n.f•
�_
..f.
t /LZi a.fl
i
Logo s.f.
.. Landscape ..[.
_ t a.l.
a reaa
.Pdevl.in t a f
by ♦++m1e �MM&Mre,. n+..lk
TOTAL S.F. TO BE REMOVED /R1 9 (3)
eeeeee-T t a
Final Nordcove- Proposal,
x S.[.
;Lane (1) • Line (2) -Line (3))
' f. Other t �D
5
( s'I . /LSO _ /b?4 52
•.[.
ICY
a.f. (al
Etiatin 1
9 7o De Added to De Removed Final
R .
`ock-.alxr. i.5►Rw.a! 4NZ
Proposed Xardewer \ .
,�i_
A.
TOTAL Et ISTIM MAROCOVER IR zouz . r.Q 7j f e,f. I11
tine (al t 100 F Sa•f•
100
wi•f. f�1"AtE► � y.. _a a_t
t
Lin. (1) %PJ s•[• ✓V
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Setback tone: leircl. on.l 0-75' 15-i50' 250-500' 500-1000'
Yint/N Hardcover i. Zone
a. Nose 14 '32- ..r. .
length width
h. Data,. -
c. Drivoay
d. Sid. lw
• 4� a.t. ✓
e J.
• 4m ..r. V
_ dr`L NPi,xpy Yyiy �' �e.t.�
a. Putr./
Each
r. Landscape °r
Bran•
ea, lain _ _ • a. [.
by µaatlr
shantieg x
{�.�� � IS_..f.
t. OtMa poor vt . .-y s.f.�
1C W a 'L- .. /
e.f.
TML EXISTING NAROtTWrs IN ZONE
K I� �19D' 'r91?Y.s Yt
--
Existing hardcover t . Total [dating Hardcover a 100 A
Lot Area Within Zan.
t11�i 51 se.f. x 100.
IU9377 a•r. �
r i5G.4 Z
Additional Hardcover to be added !n son..
its����,,}} Langth x Width 'TOTAL e.t.
a^r— 1 %D e.t.
'�' • ZO
TOTAL S.P. To BE ADDED (=)
Existing Hardcover to be Renamed, it any:
It" Length x Width TOTAL s.f.
��-lw�(IA, iii I.s 7_48 s.:.
• t'.b y0(i s.f.
TOTAL S.P. TO BE REMOVED /Z Zj 131 _
Final Hardcover Proposal:
ILtne III t Line (2) -Line (1)1
'en s
Existing To be Added To be Removed final
Proposed Hardcover \ -
Line (d) ItJOD _ 44� S•.r.
. iao - 4a.z1
Line (n /0076' •.t.
. -. ,,! r,� �, ✓ a-..... '^dt fir, �'/:. (.
�.....�vaCwf+rl � e"f C.F• � ...�. � Y'Zt+zw a...,j.
l+t� � rem � - r f. ,. _ ..,' �.,►-k'..c► •�rkt�✓
3nN3Ab( ojsd,9 `
3 Des oe P*&So Qf:-est
N _ --0009- lk_
`,
IG 6 atf0
Rli�.t iG
Wh-4 Lifts
f'f ' O�
0 0
Qu
ri
d N
_ EN 1n i c
Jw
16
0
7 )EtiiM��/y �• Bf Of
o-WAVft .T+
m �
N
`- Of
Tor-
r
I I
I -
Flo.
• l I
_ e pp5s �.,QQ,,,
d 24'8a 5/ �poOp�p•p'd"1'YO wwo
4 a
� ° F(O Ic _
�f yy w
i .?;�:'•[':'iK ,�.� l 8n5errrgi:,�c PICV,W9BN
/ b5 6iD
24Tak I• ��\ •� a 950!' ry a w�
nvx
•9916
v 2' •e
91.
9-�
v; 4i1�5-
Bnsenrnf F,I�elev : a3r3
/'•�
"r6 ; ASS PAS NO lku� INS . Owwrj
frlCw+T IS To 3 =S 1-
SrwcT e0deR . E71/s/uG Au6.STtSK
SfO1+16¢lo ,' 2755 �s DEw•c'�I /r.�PLaCFd
I.IIrw A NO.ts6 /�tCCrf.vG it•G. SP>'NK-K
gerkrW z7YS.w•n Z�r,r. Gs..�v..Ns�_
O IF (Z)NAOYCe 1 WMICI( IT 4N�D4gTVpL.y WILL
-b—nAY, 276S VI .-e BAa IS
I
So H•* A• •.....fin
i
TtGNANChcLY fdE LE+:•.L
WltlF $PWCTyep
8 I? STi Jia f4-43f,
l6p ZV o r PoK
• a4'r I s o�l�
•_ .. .... p/r✓3- t3.5-INS f'E�-•
W
Q
V
y
v
f " 20'
24'Cok
90,
..tea
� Q 2%�S ,
I
I'
• 4 ! I !E I • } ii N�
�= r• � Z
° • 1
+pp0' p'd'NO .•I
..L. W
'.'--
ease�+N,�ela a3e
16
950 P _�••i n� __
tj,VV : 2757S- IF•S Nu 1p .. 6%N C.. Ow,.
JP' T 15 r" JWA4L o ,N A,
F•CT Z • E sr/NC.A4.STAK
Scw^mae/2755 /3 DEti.c'c /vP•
1 17-m A 00SE /Kee"NG */G.
0 IF Q NpiAe+ , wwc11
St.••rMY 27G5 s MCt." /�"I[i Se
L/�E �.•
So PaTNAw\
I
•RGFi�•5'C6CCY
wiTw S�+,cr•,.•
AsF+-K/�'
v rleof'osrz� C-.t
ys o"T- F
ICewcxO• L
+ • gk•r I s JAK
9 f I 6 Z
0
e
I
• I V
--,
r
1
Id
I
4
ouuu. J. variauucs; a:,suances.
A. In considering applications for variance, the
Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Board
and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and
welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public
safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding
area. Before granting a variance, the Council :hall h,�ar requests
for variances from the literal provi-.ions of this Chapter in
instances where their strict enforcemerc would cause undue hardship
because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with t'.te spirit
and intent of thia Chapter'Undue hardship' as used in connection
with the granting of a variance means:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official
controls.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the locality.
4. Economic considerations alone shall not
constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property
exists under the terms of this Chapter.
5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not
limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for sclar energy
systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered
construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06,
Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.
6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the
Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted
under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected
person's land is located.
7. The Board or Council may permit as a
variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family
dwelling. _
section i. ordinance Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) is hereby
amended by adding the following:
landhe in special
qconditions
lir c such tthe
structure or
in question arepecua
property or
immediately adjoining property.
or
structures in i then s do t apply
distictinwhich esaid land is locatednerally to other . .
preservation
r the
granting application
andenjoymentof necessary o asubstantialproperty right
of the applicant.
(11) The granting of the proposed variance will not in any
way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other
respect be contrary to the intent of the zoning Code.
(12) The granting of such variance will not merely serve as
a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
R. A. Putnam and Associates, Inc.
/ 6f
-4
71
31,,W
tF PeWM a 11HW Mentet Plea. late Holds Office Park. Eden Prune Minnesota W144 a 181U bu J@
IW.MYe a iDM e.Cuao rnmt Road. Wa data. Minnesota11181 r Ifllb OI WUR
TO: Mayor Grabek
Orono Council Members
Planning Commission Chairman Kelley
Planning Commission Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
FROM: Michael P. Gaffron,
Assistant Planning 6 Zoning A4Linistrator
DATK: July 17, 1987
RD67: 41176 Richard Putnam, 2765 Casco Point FAwW
Variance - Public Hearing
Swing District - LR-lC, 1/2 acre severed
Application - Hardcover, side setback, aware" lakeshore setback
variances to construct an addition to existing moil
List of Kxhibits -
A - Application
B - Plat Map
C - Property Owners List
D - Conceptual sketch of proposed site plan
E - Survey of existing development
F - Letter of non -objection from C.W. Peterson, owner of
property at 2755 Casco Point Road
G - Hardcover calculations by applicant, verified by staff
H - Conceptual elelvation sketches
I - Floor plan
J - Code Section 10.08 Subd. 3(A)
Pertinent Pacts
Allowed or
Existing
Required
Proposed
Variance
-Hardcover
0-75'
0
01
0
--
75-250'
36.4%
25%
40.2%
15.2%
250-500'
85.7%
30%
48.5%
18.5%
-Average Setback
6'
0'
25'
25'
Encroachment
-Side Setback 2' 10, 2' 8'
Detached Garage
(changed to attached)
Discussion -
Applicant proposes to attach his existing house and detached
garage. The garage is currently 2' from the lot line. He notes
he might have to replace the garage foundation, but does not want
to move the garage further from the lot line because that would
force the removal of a large maple next to the proposed 3rd
garage stall. He also notes that the trend in the neighborhood
is for garages to all be at the edge of the lot, so visual
spacing is maintained. The required setback for either a
detached or attached garage is 10' from the side lot line in this
zone.
Zoning File i1176
July 17, 1987
Page 2
The proposed deck and screen porch on the lake side of the house
will cause an encroachment of as much as 25' to the average
lakeshore setback. However, the house that is located to the
rear of the others in the neighborhood, 2755 Casco Point Road, is
a unique building in that it has had all plumbing removed and is
intended eventually by Mr. Peterson to be removed and a new house
built, which likely will be placed forward to conform with the
rest of the neighborhood. Peterson has stated he has no
objections to the proposal.
The hardcover variance is a result of the addition after
hardcover removal and general revamping of the site. The wide
parking access area will be limited, which will be a plus in the
traffic's perception of road width in this area, perhaps slowing
it down a bit. The hardcover involved with the house addition
results in a 3.8% increase in khe 75-250' zone. The hardcover
removed in the 250-500' zone is significant. Net result is no
net increase in hardcover on the property, but major trade-off of
non-structural hardcover for structural hardcover.
Sardships=
Side Setback - Although the house additions all will meet
semis, the existing garage won't. the hardship is
that it exists and is presumed to have met whatever code was
in effect when it was built. If the garage foundation does
need to be totally replaced, the hardship is the location of
the tree in relation to the third garage stall. Is the need
for a third stall legitimate?
A_veefaiee Lakeshore Setback - Perhaps the only hardship is
that the neighboring house thdt forces the issue is not in
line with the rest of the neighboring houses. Is this a
reasonable hardship? Does neighbor's non -objection and the
potential future relocation of the neighboring house create
a justification for granting this variance?
Hardcover - Staff notes that without the variances,
app �fcant cannot accomplish his proposed home addition. Is
this a hardship? Is the lot size a hardship? The lot is
only 60' wide but is 300' deep for a lot area of 18,000 s.f.
or 0.41 acre in a half -acre zone. There is virtually no
hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. This is typical of
Casco Point. Is this a unique situation, or is it the norm?
Is 251 in the 75-250' zone reasonable for this property land
others like it) or is a variance appropriate?
Staff Recoaendatioo -
Staff requests that Planning Commission review the application in
terms of the provisions of Section 10.08 Subd. 3(A) and determine
whether the conditions for granting of variances to side setback,
hardcover, and average lakeshore setback are present. If so, a
recommendation for approval would be appropriate.
MINUTES UT TBE PLANNING Co1MISSION MEETING HELD JULT 23, 1987
#1173 GARDBLIA CONTINUED
Tresa Gardel Is was present for this matter and stated
the hardship was the need to house Mr. Gardella's sports
cars. She felt that a 5 or 6 car garage was a
legitimate need for a 5 bedroom large home.
It was noted that the proposed garag, was less than
1,000 s.f. in area.
There were no comments from the public regardinq this
matter and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Taylor, seconded by Johnson, to
recommend approval per staff recommendation finding
topography a hardship and the need for enclosed storage
space for more than three cars. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0.
11175 MALTRL AND NANC7 =ICRSOM
335 NOLLRMDRR ROAD
PUBLIC REARING
Application Withdrawn at Applicants Request
1176 CHARD PU7711M
�5 POINT BOILD
V IANCBS
PUBLIC 101"ING 9:38-9:38
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing
was noted.
There were no comments from the public regarding this
matter and the public hearing was closed.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron exp.'ained the
request for the following variances to construct an
addition to the existing residence:
Hardcover:
75-250' - Existing = 36.4%
- Allowed = 25%
- Proposed = 40.2%
250-500' - Existing = 05.7%
- Allowed = 30%
- Proposed = 48.5%
Average Setback Encroachment.
- Existing - 6'
- Allowed = 0'
- Proposed = 25'
Side Setback -Detached Garage (changed to attached):
- Existing - 2'
- Required - 10'
- Proposed = 2'
10
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HBLD JULY 20, 1987
01176 PUTMAN CONTINUED
Applicant proposes to attach his existing house and
detached garage. The garage is currently 2' from the
lot line. The applicant notes that the garage
foundation may have to be replaced, but he does not want
to move the garage further from the lot line because
that would force the removal of a large maple next to
the proposed 3rd garage stall. Applicant has noted that
the trend in the neighborhood is for garages to all be
at the edge of the lot, so visual spacing is maintained.
Richard Putnam was present for this matter and showed
rendering! of the proposal.
Cohen, Bellows, and Johnson felt that hardcover was not
a problem in light of the slight increase in the 75-250'
and the proposed reduction in the k50-5001.
Planning Commission majority felt that the side setback
of 10' should be adhered to if the garage foundation is
to be replaced.
Johnson felt that the existing/proposed location of
garage was acceptable.
Mr. Putnam stated that the hardship was the need for
more storage space for cars and outdoor recreational
equipment.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the
adjacent house at 2755 Casco Point Road currently has no
plumbing and is intended to eventually be removed and a
new house built, which likely will be placed forward to
conform with the rest of the neighborhood. Because of
this fact, Planning Commission felt that the average
Lakeshore setback should take into aeration the
house location north of 2755 Cas.- Point Road.
Planning Commission felt this more accurate average
lakeshore setback information was needed to act on the
proposed porch addition.
Planning Commission member Hanson's written comments as
follows: 'I have reviewed the applicant's proposed
project and generally feel the design is appropriate for
that neighborhood. In general, I feel the lack of
hardcover at 0-754 weighs favorably against the change
at 75-250'. A third stall, ir.* egrated in the design as
it .a, is acceptable but tr^dable. Side setback at
garage in O.R.'
Mr. Putnam did not wish to del-y the application pending
additional information, t,trefore, asked Planning
Commission to make a recommerdrtion.
11
MISYl6B Of TWO PLY•ISC COM 19SIM IO WING RID JOLT 20, 1987
1117O POT%A6 COORIBOm
It was moved by :hairman Rel ley, seconded by Cohen, to
recommend denial of the proposal based on insufficent
facts regarding average lakeshore setback. Motion, Ayes
1, Mays 1. Johnson voted nay.
0117O O3ICOML PLAR
41e5 IO TOWDUE so"
3SS1CM PLY RPITi
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the
sketch plan to divide off second dwelling from main
house that i■ being required as a condition of
Resolution 12122. Applicant has been allowed to use th,.
easterly access pending this subdivision request.
Applicant is submitting two preliminary proposals review
for:
1) Conceptual review of the proposed driveway access
corridor: and
2) Conceptual review of the proposed lot line
revision with the applicants westerly property. Ths
boundary change is intended to give applicant more
land in the easterly parcel by dropping the westerly
parcel to the minimum of 5.0 acres dry buildable.
Applicant prefers Proposal I, leaving 5.0 dry acres
.n Lot■ 1 and 2 and 14.4 total acres in Lot 3, a
flag lot with a 30' access corridor to serve that
house over the driveway that is in place (access
point to be Moved so it i■ within the 30' corridor).
Staff has no problem with this access location on
Watertown Road from a safety standpoint. Proposal
II is essentially the some but leaves a 50' access
corridor. Staff prefers Proposal II. The wetland in
the westerly parcel (Lot 1) has what staff would
call an •indefinite• boundary.
Chairman Kelley felt it important to define the wetland
prior to %ny approval.
Mr. i Mrs. Michael Plank •Here present for this matter.
Michael Plank stated that after the wetland is defined,
Lot 2 will be adjusted to meet the minimum of 5.0 acres
dry buildable.
Assistant Zoning Adminis Bator Gaffron noted that the
adjacent neighbor, Joe Saw .:uk, •105 Watertown Road, has
concerns with the access ! e^ause it is so close to his
house.
Mrs. Plank stated ttat it their intention to heavily
screen the access from the+wchuk property to protect
the privacy for both proN•- -wners.
12
To: Mayor Gr,hek
Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
?rota: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator
Datez August 6, 1987
Subject: 41176 Richard Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road -
variance
List of Rzh.'bits
Exhibit A - Survey With Staff Sketch of Average Setback Lines
Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes of 7/20/87
Exhibit C - Memo 6 Exhibits of 7/17/87
Discussion -
Please rev ew the memo and exhibits of 7/17/87 and the Planning
Commission minutes. Applicant requests variances for hardcover, side
setback, and average setback to construct additions to his home.
Planning Commission reviewed this request on 7/20/87. Their
discussions led to the following conclusions:
- Regarding hardcover variances - 4 approved, 1 disapproved
- Regarding side setback variance - 1 approved, 4 disapproved
- Regarding average lakeshore setback variance - concensus was that
2nd house to north (2745) shoulc be shown on survey since it
ultimately determines how far forward the immediately adjacent house
(2755) will be rebuilt toward lake wher, exi ting seasonal (no
plumbing) structure is torn down.
Upon applicant's request to avoid a time-consuming tabling, Planning
Commission voted 4-1 to deny the variances, noting that additional facts
would be needed to fairly consider the average setback issue.
Staff would refer to Exhibit A which discusses the average setba k
issue. If thr house at 2755 moves forward as far as it legally could,
Putnam's prop,sed gazebo would require a 9' average setback variance
instead of 25'.
Also review the issues as outlined in the memo of July 17.
Staff Recommendation -
Staff recommends that Council review the requested variances relating
to the justification andardships presented. Staff will draft a
resolution reflecting Council's action for your next meeting.
NINU'PES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL NESTING HELD AUGUST 10, 1907
11173 DAVID AND iREBA GARDELLA
1230 ORONO OARS DRIVE
VARIANCE
:.RSOLUTION 12242
David and Tress Gardelld were present for this matter.
City Administrator Sernhardson explained the requt for
a front yard setback variance to construct a detached
24' x 36' 3-stall garage. He noted that a side setback
variance would be needed if garage were attached to
existing house. In addition, major land alteration
would be required if garage were placed on north and
east side, the well is located on the east side of
house, and septic system located in backyard. The garage
would not be visible from the neighboring property if
constructed in the proposed location.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that there is an
existing 3 stall attached garage. The purpose for the
additional 3 stall garage is for storage of ccllector
automobiles.
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Sime, to adopt Resolution 42242 approving
the front yard setback variance to construct a detached
1.. - garage as presented. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Ie1176• RICHARD POTMAN
2165 CASCO POINT ROAD
VARIANCES
City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for
hardcover, side setback, and average setback variances
to construct additions to the existing house. Planning
Commission reviewed this request and came to the
following conclusions:
1. Majority (4-1) approved the hardcover variances.
2. Majority (4-1) denied the side setback variance
for garage feeling that if garage foundation must be
replaced, garage should be moved to conform with
setback.
1. Regarding average lakeshore setback - consensus
was that 21.d house north (2745) should be shown on
survey since it ultimately determines how far
forward the immediately adjacent house (2755) will
be rebuilt toward the lake when existing seasonal
(no plumbing) structure is torn down. Upon
applicant's request to avoid time-consuming tabling,
Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny the variances,
noting that additional facts would be needed to
fairly consider the average setback issue.
4
MIEUTES OF TEE REGULAR ORONO COUIICIL MEETING SOLD AUGUST 10, 1987
11176 PUTNAM CONTINUED
Richard Putnam was present for this matter. He reviewed
drawings of his proposal to construct an addition to
connect the existing house to the enlarged garage, and a
porch addition. He explained the reasons for placement
of garage and porch due to the effort to save mature
tree(s). He noted the letter presented to Council this
evening from neighbor Kenneth Erickson stating no
objection to the plan.
Planning Commission Chairman Kelley noted that Planning
Commission discussed the lack of hardship involved and
also the fact that the house may be for sale.
Mr. Putnam stated that the house is not currently for
sale, but if his request is not approved he would sell
the house because the existing house currently does not
meet his needs.
Planning Commission Chairman Kelley noted that Planning
Co ission felt the project as a whole was ambitious.
Councilmember Sim felt that the proposed screen porch
would obstruct the sightline even given the most
generous average lakeshore setback line, and also felt
the proposal was too ambitious.
Councilmember Goetten felt the plan should be scaled
down in order for her to approve. She felt a 3 car
garage was not appropriate for this area.
Councilmember Callahan felt that the attaching addition
seemed appropriate in conjuction with necessary repair
of the existing garage. He did not feel the porch would
affect views and would enhance the lakefront.
Councilmember Goetten reiterated her feeling that a 3
car garage was not appropriate for this area. She felt
an average laksshore variance for an open deck area
would be appropriate but not for the proposed enclosed
screen porch.
Councilmember Sime concurred with Councilmember Goetten.
It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to approve the variances and
proposal as submitted. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 1.
Councilmember Goetten voted nay.
KENNETM N. ERICKSON
2773 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, Minnesota 55891
471.7882
To CiTv OF ORONO
Re Remodeling plans of Dick 6 Jan Putnam
2765 Casco Point Road
August 8. 1987
we have gone over the Putnam remoaelmg plans with them we think
they would result In a definite improvement in the apoearance of our area
and be an asset to this commumtu It would be a continuing upgrading and
improvement in homes such as Other recent remodeling projects in the
area
Examining them In relation to other adjacent homes snowed that theirs
would be very much in a comparable line'10eside with the two houses on
their south side, and the second one or, the north The yellow hoU9e
adjacent is old and not a year -around facility and is used only as a
summer piece part-time or weer -ends
we hive no oblections to the Putnam s plans Fatner we believe they
would result in a distinct improvement to our immediate area This would
be especially true for the appearanre along Casco Poll,' Foad
Sincerely.
/� 9��t Road
Kenneth H ri .Fson
To: Mayor Cmbek and Members of the
City of Orono Council
From: Janet and Dick Putnam AM 1007
2765 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, Minnesota
Date: August 10, 1987
Re: Variance Requests Necessary for Remodeling or Existing Home
2765 Casco Point Road
Mr, Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I would like to briefly explain our proposed Improvements to our current residence on
Casco Point, expecially since the 4 to I vote to deny ocr application at the July Planning
Commission meeting. My family was surprised by the four commission members' objections,
and the approach the Individual members exhibited.
To begin, I wish to compliment Mr. Caffron of your staff for his help in explaining the
city procedures and for his understanding of our project. Mr. Caffron has visited our home
on three o. casions to Inspect and discuss our plans. The staff report of July 17 presents
most of the issues In a fair and concise manner. The staffs recommendation suggests
review of our application based upon the,nrovisions of section 10.08 subs. (A), conditions
for granting a variance. I would like to respond to those conditions as set forth in subd.
(A).
1. Tie basic reason for granting a variance as stated in subd. (A) is that such a variance
and the resulting Improvements to the property will not adversely affect the public health,
safety and welfare of the community, traffic safety, reduce surrounding property values,
or create a danger of fire or public safety ccncem�.
Our proposed plan will enhance public safety and tmffi- an Casco Point Road by defining
the roadway aryl reducing speed on the comer (refermA to In staff report). Also the
proposed plan will narrow our existing driveway frontage rmm 80 + feet to 30e feet.
Our proposed home additions will Increase the value or surmu ding properties by the
improvement of our existing home. The existing garage is about 9" to I foot below the
elevation of Casco Point Road, due to repairing or the street over the years without a
permanent curb. The street's grade water runs into our garage and has ruined the floor
and helped crack some foundation walls. The garage is not of an adequate size to allow
parking for vans or utility vehicles without removal or the doors (one door is currently
removed). The inability to lock our property no doubt contributed to the theft of items
from the property in 1985. The current appearance or the 18'8" X 18'8" (interior dimension)
garage without doors is not a positive neighborhood influence.
Presently our refuse cans are kept In a three sided enclosure ad)acent to the street an
our south property line. Because these containers are adjacent to the street and not kept
In a garage they am a constant source of delight for dogs and racoons. Me resulting mess
and the unsightly visual aspect or refuse cans adjacent to the street. is not an asset to
August 10, 1987
Page 2
the neighborhood. If our plan is approved, all refuse storage will be in the added garage
space.
The cur,ent garage is 2 feet from our north property line and our south neighbors, Ken
and Elaine Erickson's garage, is currently located 3 Inches on our property. We have told
Ken and Elaine to draft a deed for the property to convey the land under their garage
to their lot. The garage on the property on the north, C. W. (Bill) Peterson's, Is located
on the other side of his tot (north side) and leaves ample space between our existing garage.
Mr. Gaffron explained this unique circumstance in his report, unfortunately, four Planning
commissioners did not consia,r the existing conditions of the neighborhood. If we were
to move our garage as recommended by the four commisioners, we would remove a 24"
maple tree and have our lot frontage with only 171 feet from Erickson's garage, and 10
feet from Peterson's property line. Basically, the home would not be visoble from the
street, only the garage doors. Our architect and nd(acent neigh do not believe this
would be of benefit to the neighborhood.
2. The lot is very well suited for the plan proposed by our architect due to its shape
and location of structures. The 300 : foot deep lot allows our home to be located about
150 feet back from the take, and the patio/deck area 130 feet back from the shore. No
hardcover is proposed, or exists, closer than 125 feet from the shore. The issue of average
Lakeshore setback was not clear ' t the planning commission meeting. Purther study by
Mr. Gaffron and myself, Indicate that the Erickson home and deck extend to our existing
patio, and the nearest permanent structure north is located about even with our existing
deck. I completely agree with Mr. Caffron's analysis of C.W. Peterson's plans and the
unique condition of his cottage. 1 do not believe that a home which would not be given
an occupancy permit should determine the average setback, when all adjacent permanent
structures conform with each other.
The distance our home and screen porch addition are set back from the take share, and
the fact they are in line with neighboring properties, should provide ample reason for
a variance, if indeed one is needed because of the nonarabitatated structure.
3. The lost Item of concern is the hardcover requirement in each of the zones. As
Mr. Gaffron confirmed, the proposed plan would result in an Increase of 3.8% in hardcover
in the 75'-250' zone. His report states that no increase In hardcover on the property is
proposed. In fact, we are reducing total hardcover by 225 sq. ft. on our lot. The staff
points out that we are replacing non-structural hardcover with structural. Review of
our hardcover worksheet puint.: out that iron -structural hardcover is driveway, sidewalks
and concrete patio or deck, no rock planting, etc. are included. Much of the proposed
structure Is located over the existing hardcover areas; driveway, patio and sidewalk areas.
We are adding to our home between the existing home and existing garage, not within
existing side yards or toward the lake (except for porch). We believe removal of 30' of
driveway and replacement with gross and plantings gives the neighborhood significant
benefit.
SLmma
1 have been a resident of Orono for 40 years and grew up in the same area we currently
are living In. We remodeled our home nine years ago by adding a basement and completely
remodeling the home. Sloat/Logan Architects has prepared plans for our proposed
remodeling and we truly believe that the proposed home design, and changes to the site
plan will greatly enhance our property and will enhance the ndjacent homes and general
August 10, 1987
Page 3
neighborhood. Janet and 1 respectrully request that the Citv Council grant the variances
required to allow remodeling plans to proceed through the city's building permit process.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
I�vc- C -t Jost !Wt"-Wn
Dick and Janet Putnam
APPLICATION NO. 1176
CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8/11/87
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Richard Putnam COPIES:
2765 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATIONS XX Variance
------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MENTINOs 8/10/87 VOTE: 4 For 1 Against
COUNCIL ACTION - NDTIONs
Council granted conceptual approval of your proposed variances for
side setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover. A formal
resolution of approval will be drafted and presented to the Council for
review and final approval at their August 24 meeting.
If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they
are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and
approval by the City Council.
To: Mayor Grabek
Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
lr4: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator
Date: August 20, 1987
Subject: 01176 Richard Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road -
Variances - Formal Resolution
Attached is a formal resoltuion for approval of the side setback,
average setback, and hardcover variances conceptually approved by the
Council on August 10 by a vote of 4-1.
Note that Condition 1 requires the dedication of a portion of right-
of-way for Casco Point Road. Ihile the legal description of applicants
property includes area to the center of the 40' Casco Point right-of-way
corridor, only a small portion of the traveled road lies within the 20' on
applicants side of the corridor center line. The City Engineer recommends
dedication by quit -claim deed of 10' of right-of-way outside the traveled
pavement as noted in Condition 1 of the Resolution.
•ROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , to approve Resolution No.
granting side setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover
variances for Richard Putnam at 2765 Casco Point Road. Ayes , Nayes
REVISED 8-21-87
(DISCARD MEMO a RESOLUTION OF 8-20-87)
Tos Mayor Grabek
Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
Freers Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning a Zoning Administrator
Date: August 20, 1987
Subjects #1176 Richard Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road -
Variances - Formal Resolution
Attached is a formal resolution f(r approval of the side setback,
average setback, and hardcover variances conceptually approved by the
Council on August 10 by a vote of 4-1.
Note that a thorough review of the plat map and survey indicates that
the 20' strip at the east end of the survey is actually the 20' dedicated
for right-of-way on the plat of Spring Park, although only a small portion
of the actual traveled roadway is within this 20' corridor. TFis
technically results in the need to grant a front (street) setback variance
for a 20' setback instead of the 30' required, although the paved roadway
will still be 40' from the garage. The hardcover percentages are based
on applicants actual "used" property area, since you are approving removals
of his private hardcover existing on porti(ns of his property that are
technically dedicated for public use.
We realize that although the facts of the proposal have not changed,
our representation of the lot line versus right-of-way line has changed so
that your perception of the project and the variances technically may be
are slightly altered, hence this memo of clarification.
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _, seconded by _ , to approve Resolution No.
granting side setback, street setback, average lakeshore setback and
hardcover variances for Richard Putnam at 2765 Casco Point Road. Ayes
_, Nayes
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357
----------------------------------
TO: Richard Putnam
2765 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION= XX Variances
----------------------------------
DATE OF IEETING: 8/24/87
COUNCIL ACTION - NOTIONt
APPLICATION NO. 1176
NOTICE OF COUNCIL A-MON
Date of Notice: 8/31/87
--------------------------
COPIRE:
------------------
------------------
VOTE: 4 For
Against
To table formal action on your variances application pending further
review by the Planning Commission. Council referred your application Lack
to the Planning Commission for additional review based on the introduction
of new information involving the dedicated right-of-way of Casco Point Road
and need to grant additional street setback variance for proposed
construction.
Your application will be scheduled before the Planning Commission at
their special meeting on Tuesdai. Se tember B 1987 and rescheduled for the
Council at their September 4, 987 meeting.
TO: Planning Commission Chairman Kelly
Planning Commission Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
Pro» Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building 6 Zoning Administrator
Date: September 1, 1987
Subjects 11176 Richard Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road -
Referral by Council for Additional Review
At their August 24, 1987 meeting, Council referred the Putnam
Application back to the Planning Commission for additional review at the
request of the Planning Commission representative based on the introduction
of additional information.
The actual status of the road right-of-way was never determined. The
subject 20 feet is actually dedicated right-of-way for Casco Point Road and
the now attached garage is not 38 feet from the str,�et setback line but 20
feet.
The hardcover calculations originally presented to the Planning
Commission have been altered by removing the area of the dedicated road
(20'x60') from the total lot area.
A copy of the Planning Commission minutes of 7/20/87 have been
enclosed for your review with a sketch of the actual right-of-way and
travelled road.
r c- �) - iK 1,7k 7
rgorc,,) -rd DtNY EASU-b oOpy �rngn�cxuAlts�
OF IHE 6enNrcr Vorr 5-r?
— D)D NeYr ADDRtSr sPt crs�c /S SUES �'R. FAN IY NG.�
RUT <./ ab TPA- Tyf k fNUf'7 Cl:a
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HEIR SEPTEMBER 8, 1987
I1176 RICHARD PUTNAM
276S CASCO POINT ROAD
VARIANCES
REFERRED BACK FROM COUNCIL
Mr. Richard Putnam was present for this matter.
Acting Chairman Bellows explained that she was the
representative at the Council meeting when this was
presented. The Planning Commission originally denied this
application 4-1 because the Commission had a lot of questions
and reservation about this application, and Mr. Putnam wished
to not be tabled for a month but be sent on to Council. The
general concensus from the Council was there was no strong
feeling about how the Planning Commission felt on this issue.
As it was brought before the Council, the need for an
additional variance was determined by staff and at that point
it was recommended that it be brought back to the Planning
Commission for further review.
Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that
the original review of this application presumed that the
edge of the dedicated road came to a point further east, but
in fact the dedicated roadway cuts into the property more
than expected which does change the street setback for the
garage from 38' to 20'. The property to the south has the
same portir, of dedicated roadway over their property and to
the north .t is questionable. The road is actually off -set
from the corridor quite a bit. The major change resulting is
the 250-500' zone is actually smaller. In calculating
hardcover for the property within the dedicated right-of-wa},
which yields a hardcover percentage reduction from 85% dowr.
to 48%; or, if applicant's property for hardcover purposes
does not include the dedicated right-of-way the hardcover
reduction percentages are from _% down to _i.
Mr. Putnam noted that nothing has changed but the
interpretation of the plat.
Asst Planning s Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained if the
garage faces the street, it requires a 30' setback. The
attachment of it to the house also means the entire 20' front
the right-of-way where 30' is required. He noted that per
the drafted resolution, page 3, 4 variances are required (:
if the 250-500' area is separate).
Johnson felt that the Commission had denied the application
once and he feels that the application should not have been
brought back to the Commission.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 8, 1987
11176 RICHARD PUTNAM
2765 CASCO POINT ROAD
It was moved by Acting Chairman Bellows, seconded by Cohen to
deny application i1176 for Richard Putnam of 2765 Casco Point
Road, based upon the number of variances required for this
project, all of which when combined together constitute an
overly ambitious use of the land. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Cohen noted that he seconded the motion because he feels that
if this application is approved it would be setting a
negative precedent.
#1164 GERALD T. MCCOURTMEY
1055 PERNDALE ROAD NEST
VARIANCES
CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 - 7:07
The Affidavit of PuLlication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
Gerald McCourtney end James Credit. his architect, were
present.
Building 6 Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained the
applicant is seeking a hardcover variance for a bathroom,
laundrette and dinette addition in the lakeshore yard. This
is a 1.58 increase in hardcover in the 75-250' setback area.
They also will require a 15' side setback variance; 30' side
setback is required. The house currently does encroach into
this setback and they will not be encroaching any more.
There is no increase of deck space and the additions are
actually over the existing deck area.
Mr. P',-ourtney noted that the
are doing these additions and
replacing inadequate windows
their hcme up to a closer
neighborhood.
house is older and while they
remodeling they will also be
This project should bring
valuation as others in the
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed. Staff has received no
negative comments from any of the surrounding neighbors.
It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Hanson to approve the side
setback and hardcover variances as proposed. Motion, Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
#1186 DOUG BUMCARDNER
3800 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
WITHDRAWN PER APPLICANT'S REQUEST
TO: Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
►rm: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator
Date: September 9, 1987
Subject: t1176 Richard Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road -
Variance - Resolution
At your August 24, 1987 meeting, this item was referred back to the
Planning Commission for further review of the proposal in light of the
staff's revised conception of the street lot line location. This resulted
in better hardcover percentages in the 250-500' zone (575/750 or 77%
reduced to 270/750 or 36%, rather than 85.7% down to 48.58), but also
results in the technical need for a street setback variance for the garage
to be 20' 4nstead of the required 30' from the street lot line.
Planning Commission again voted to recommend denial, based on the
sheer number of variances required and the 'overambitiousness' of the
project.
Please review the resolution attached in the August 20, 1987 memo,
which reflects Council's 4-1 conceptual approval of the project on August
10.
AWOvtt y-1
ZONING PILE NO. 1176
CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/9/87
-----------------------------------------------------------------_-----___-
TO: Richard Putnam COPIES TO:
2765 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION: XX Variance
---------------------------------""----------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 9/8/87 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against
Planning Commission recos ends the following:
XX Denial for reasons noted below
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Motion to deny was based on the project being too ambitious for this
limited property; Planning Commission stated that the number of requested
variances in total was too extensive to warrant approval.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council Septemberl4, 1987; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission
minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
7../' f j yt1
VIA t
A,
l 67
...w.a../ I
/ j
City of ORONO
CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF NO. '254__
♦ C
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
VARIANCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 611B) AND
SECTION 10.22, SUWXVISIONS 1 AMD 2
FILM #1176
WERRHAS, Richard Putnam (hereinafter "the applicant") is
the owner of the property located at 2765 Casco Poi:,t Road within the
City of Orono (hereinafter -City-) and legally described as follows:
Lot 132, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according
to t::e recorded plat thereof, that part of Lake Shore Avenue
dedicated on the the recorded plat of Spring Park and now
vacated and that part of a tract of land on the opposite
side of said avenue all lying between the westerly extension
of the north and south lines of Lot 132 in said plat
(hereinafter "t'.e property); and
NEEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a
variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to
permit the construction of room and garage additions to attach the
existing residence to the existing detached garage which is only 2
feet from the side lot line where a 10' side setback is normally
required for an attached garage; and a variance to Section 10.22,
Subdivision 1 to permit construction of a deck and enclosed porch
(gazebo) structure that will encroach 25' past the existing average
lakeshore ■etbacl .ine and 9' past the potential future average
lakeshore setback line, where no encroachment is normally allowed; and
a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow an increase in
hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setbact zone from 36.16 existing to
40.21 where only 251 hardcover is normally allowed, and to allow 48.5%
hardcover in the 250-500' lakeshore setbacK zone where 05.71 hardcover
exists but only 30% is normally allowed; and a variance to Section
10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a street setback of 20' where 30'
street setback is normally required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RSSOLVRD by tue City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File i1176.
2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore
Residential Zoning District.
Page 1 of 6
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2254
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on
September 14, 1987 and recommended denial of the proposed variances
based upon the following findings:
a) Four of five Planning Commissioners present indicated
approval of the hardcover variances, finding that the
proposal results in a net overall decrease of hardcover
square footage on the property and in the dedicated right-
of-way of 224 square feet.
b) Four of Five Planning Commissioners present indicated
disapproval of the side setback variance for the garage,
based on the knowledge that the garage will likely require a
new foundation and the opportunity to move it to a
conforming location would then exist.
c) The Planning Commission generally felt that the average
lakeshore setback should be reviewed under the assumption
that the seasonal residence immediately to the north will
eventually be removed and replaced with a house closer to
the lake, thus revising z.pplicants average setback line.
4. The City Council finds that the increase in hardcover in the
75-250' zone is adequately counterbalanced by the proposed
decreases in the 250-500' setback zone.
5. The City Council finds that the magnitude of actual reduction
of potential or existing lakeshore views froc neighboring
properties will be such that it does not create a significant
view encroachment.
6. The Council finds that the location of an existing mature tree
is a hardship to moving the proposed garage to the south, and the
locations of garages in the immediate neighborhood generally
located nearer the northerly lot line then the required 10'
setback, will not create a safety hazard nor a visual crowding
effect if the proposed 2' side setback for the garage is
retained.
7. The Council finds that as a result of the attachment of the
house and existing garage, the house setback will technically be
20' from the dedicated right-of-way where a 30' street setback is
normally required, but will still maintain a 40' separation from
the edge of the actual paved and traveled roadway.
8. On August 10, 1987 the City Council voted 4-1 to conceptually
approve the requested variance and directed staff to drat• a
formal resolution for approval.
Page 2 of 6
City of ORONO
CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF I NO. 2254
• •
9. The City Council has considered this application including
the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission,
reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect
of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
10. 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 variance
would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would
not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is
necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the
applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ONDNR AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grant■ a variance to th^ Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25,
Subdivision 6(B) to permit the construction of room and garage
additions to attach the existing residence to the existing detached
garage which is only 2 feet from the side lot line where a 10' side
setback is normally required for an attached garage; and grants a
variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit construciton of a
deck and enclosed porch (gazebo) structure that will encroach 25'
past the existing average lakeshore setback line and 9' past the
potential future average lakeshore setback line, where no encroachment
is normally allowed; and grants a variance to Section 10.22,
Subdivision 2 to allow an increase in hardcover in the 75-250'
lakeshore setback zone from 36.4% existing to 40.21 where only 25%
hardcover i■ normally allowed, and to allow 48.511 hardcover in the
250-500' lakechore setback zone where 85.7% hardcover exists but only
30% is normally allowed; and grants a variance to Section 10.25,
Subdivision 6(B) to allow a 20' street yard setback where a 3C'
street yard setback is normally required, subject to the following
conditions:
Page 3 of 6
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
• NO.
1. Hardcover on the property in the 75-250' setback zone shall be
limited to the following items: (Area of 75-250' zone = 10,937
a.f.I
Existing Home
1432
s.f
Garage 4 Home
Addition
1100
e.f.
Existing Garage
400
s.f.
Driveway
238
s.f.
Deck not over
patio
85
s.f.
Patio
576
s.f.
Rock walls
194
s.f.
Sidewalk
260
s.f.
Added Deck N.
of patio
120
s.f.
44 55
or 40.2%
(Refer to Exhibits A 6 8 Attached)
Hardcover in the 250-500' zone shall be as follows: (Area within
250-500' zone is 1950 s.f. total, of which 1200 s.f. is in the
right-of-way for Casco Point Road as dedicated on the Plat of
"Spring Park", and 750 s.f. is within the property boundaries
westerly of the dedicated right-of-way)
Driveway (west of right-of-way) 270 s.f.
Driveway (within right -of -ray) 580 s.f.
Sidewalk (included in 75-250' ---
zone calculations)
TOTAL 850 s.f. or 48.5E
Note: For percentage calculation purposes, because applicant is
removing unnecessary hardcover within the dedicated right-of-way,
the 250-500' hardcover percentages allowed are based on using t
"combined area of property and right-of-way less the paved
roadway", or 1750 s.f., as the denominator.
2. Applicant is advised that future proposals that result in
additional hardcover on the property will not be approved, but
might be approved only if concurrent hardcover removals result in
no net increase in hardcover.
3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property
not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be
exercised by application for a building permit within one year of
the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on
that date (August 24, 1908).
4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the
zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted
herein, and shall he punishable as a misdemeanor.
Page 4 of 6
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION Of THE CI Ty COUNCIL
NO. 1254
5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby
agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself,
his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording
of this resolution in the chain of title of the property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of
Jeme
R.
Gra
�
,✓ Mayor
4..L LZn6Y-YVL
Page S of 6
CITY
OF
vmcll
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
City cif ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2254
On this 20th day of October , 198 7
before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally
appeared R' known to me to be
the per sons) described in and whc execu ed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as
his (their) free act and deed.
N TARY P LIC
* L
�Nas� �r�t•
y, w�rr„ r� cww
9/8/92
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)as.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 198 , before me
a Notary Perin and for said County, personally appeared
known to me to be the
person •described n and who executed the foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
Page 6 of 6
I
"E,K(J
90
I Q� OI
0 •
•
/
40 a
Bosenrvrlf re(ev Q43a
�I
As
TVs
� �
n
A
t
i
7r�
of I
Ci
o C
i far
1jG
EXHIBIT A(tEsa�. No. 2254
i
EXiss�4 i4ARCCOVfk
��`
Ct�r7-kt�l�i
�T ticAr.wv.)
I I i
EXHIQIT g , RESOL , No.
APPROVED Ho%abco V /FFrEjt 12cmoYAf.9
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY or VINNIPIN
CITY OF O1O10
I Dorothy M. Wallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono. Hennepin
County, 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 September 14 . 19- - , and that the some is a true
and correct copy of said resolution was duly ■dopted by ■aid City
Council at said meeting.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
'h , day of OCLObet 19
/Dorotny M allin, city C •rk
(SESL1
MINUTES OF THEREGULARORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 198, T
RICHARD PUTNAM /I-1,b
2765 CASCO POINT ROAD
VARIANCES
FINAL RESOLUTION 02254
City Administrator Bernhard -on explained the request for
variances to permit the co:,struction of room, garage,
deck and enclosed porch ae..ditions to the existing house.
On July 20, 1987, Planning Commission recommended denial
of the request (4-1) based on insufficient facts. On
August 10, 1987, Council conceptually approved the
request (4-1). On August 24, 1987, Council referred the
application back to Planning Commission for further
review of the proposal in light of the staffs revised
conception of the street lot line location which
resulted in lower 250-500' hardcover percentages, but
also the technical need for a street setback variance.
On September 8, 1987, Planning Commission recommended
denial of the request (5-0) based on "overambitiousness"
of the project and excessive variances in total. City
Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the actual status of
Casco Point Road right-of-way.
Richard Putnam was present for this matter and addressed
the reasons for Planning Commission denial as follows:
1. "Overambitiousness" of project - he did not feel
the current proposal is overambitious based on the
extent of work he has already done to the house
since he purchased the property as a seasonal
cottage.
2. Regarding the variances requested, he noted that
all variances either currently exist or are an
improvement from what currently exists.
Councilmember Goetten noted that "overambitiousness"
refers to the project being too large for the lot, in
which applicant's lot is only a 60' substandard lot.
She felt the project should be scaled down as done in
previous applications that were considered
overambitious.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Sims, to adopt Resolution 42254 granting the variances
as proposed in consideration that many of the requested
variances currently exist and that the project is
consistent with the neighbohood. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays
1. Councilmember Goetten voted nay. Motion carried.
Richard P,•tnam commented that the Casco Point residents
were pleased with the City staff 'a handling and
operation of the Parade Home in their area.
CITY OP ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357
----"-----------------------------
TOt Richard Putnam
2765 Casco Point Rord
Wayzata, MN 5539:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: XX Variance
---------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 9/14/87
COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION:
ZONING PILE NO. 1176
NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION
Date of Notice: 9/15/87
-------------------------
COPIES TO:
---------------------------
VOTE: 4 For 1 Against
To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution
previously mailed to you.
Variance Approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and
as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject
to further review by the C`. ty. Variance approval expires one year after
date of approval. Permit application must be submitted no later than
September 14, 1988.
You must apply for and obtain a building permit prior to commencement
of conattuction. (The building permit application is a separate
application from the zoning variance or conditional use application.)
Please should arrange to sign the 3 original resolution copies at the
City Offices (Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30). All persons with an
interest in the property must sign the resolutions.
If you desi_e certified copies of the official Council minutes, -hey
are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review a?d
approva: by the City Council.
POPHAM. HAIK.SCHNOB RICH 6 KAUFMAN. LTD.
JJOO VV[N Jwatnu rO N[e
MINN4wIOWS. MINNESO.w 55.02
•[L[orvO+t
i •BOO
O. Nr V~. •...v [ x •• BWq N00 • • .•..•� u
.Bea.• . .. o0o sara.txN.x s.cu. . e.[ o..
.o[. ocNvice. cotncwoo eoa oc ., ..•.x �` o
o •• .n vxoua ao J
..Bcaco ...v o.Rc ,o a.er Jve. B.Mox
o.. o' • a0..[ l o CO.—.no�
era .cox.c.•• a..m B.,.n •. .goo M .•.0... go. ..ae�.
�e..:;•. coca•.... •.� wwa.a No+o N. o. c. cooze .....
.•a.LB
¢aarxaxa ro.-eze ...c.
• o.a. c •• •• .naco•n. zoa-es-u s .n.a.w•.
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER ry ry a •v[x .00rv4ax.
• ...
334-2549 w .x..Bx ....,....
.. w ax
B.......N :tee ......... November 23, 1987 8=.-..Bxx.e. ....8..,.Bx
Ms. Jeanne MabUsth
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Jeanne:
T,isted below are variances which cannot be filed in the
chain of title because they are registered as torrens properties.
Name Resolution No.
Swenson 2256
Rahn 2276
cinnow 22
-9erkert 2241 151987
Perry 2284
Huber 2274
Erickson 2215
Putnam 2254
If you have any questions, please feel free to call either
me or my secretarf, Joyce Pedersen at 334-2736.
very truly yours,
N�� E. Husni�/�
Legal Assistant
EH/jlp/.'7f
Enclosures