02-21-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;■ ‘ ' '■'^V^!^:>■>- '*i . -iffSfc’ - .,«h.0^' w- ■ ■: ,-p r --7V -•/ =■5!ififfife:-'f ■!: ■ "lii'- a*, :v-^;?9®fa} :::v.*->^-'•-•••> _i^ ’Inistrator -. .•■•W loWf ion of a Lot Line mMrn n application is required I of the zoning district, is to be classified as a - ■■■a -lij'J'-; ■ <,»Ar - ' '■■■•: pit th variance, LR-IB width itlon) » 140' It itPpp’-rl wM Setback: ■...a. •• ■•■•/■■•. \ ■ ■■ :v:v a: K.'" ’■^;:’ ■ o:t; arrj*:%:; i-i'a:..®'mmm ^ Tiers relow Properties) srs of Sisk Property St re low Property) Zoning Pile #1370 February 17, 1989' Page 2 of 3■eview of Application •*At the tine Mr, Sisk acquired the building permit to build the residence at 4340 North Shore Drive, the Orono staff advised that the property was not riparian to Forast Lake. Approximately 20 ’ of land (located within Lot 4 of Strelow's property) divides the east lot line of 5 (Lots 5, 6 and 7 combined make up Sisk property) from the shoreline of Forest Lake. In later discussion with applicant and in consideration of the 1965 survey (Exhibit H) and the plat map designating 20* wide vacated canal, staff advised applicant to review with the DNR the possibility that the property was once riparian to Forest Lake. Staff advised Sisk that a lot line rearrangement to create a new riparian tract would require that the lot width at the shoreline meet the required standard for zoning district. Sisk was also advised by staff that such a division would be recommended for denial in light of pravious actions with similar applications. Staff further advised that the only lot line rearrangements for riparian tracts by the City involved the inqproveaient of existing building envelopes and never the creation of a new riparian use unless the width standard at shoreline was satisfied. Sisk filed the current application because he believed the property to be once riparian to Lake Ilinnetonka. Sisk contacted the DNR to determine if permits had ever been issued for dredging or filling areas of the property. Unfortunately, Sisk used the names of the previous property owners of Lots 5, 6 and 7 and as a result the DNR reported no permits ever being issued. Staff received word from one of the property owners notified for this review that the previous owner of the Strelow property, Mr. Rask, had obtained a permit from the DNR fill a 20' wide portion of Lot 4 in 1964 (review Exhibits K 6 0). Please note the permit was issued solely to Mr. Rask and it would appear that Mr. Labovsky, the owner of the Sisk property at that time, had not joined in this application. Clearly the filling project had an impact on the Labovsky property, now Mr. Sisks. The City as witl. the DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District consider the conditions that exist today. The property and 20' of Lot 4 were filled in 1964. The Sisk property is not riparian to Lake Minnetonka and thus the subdivision application cannot be considered an Improvement of existing riparian tracts. Sisk can clearly pursue his rights regarding the filling in of the property negating his riparian access with the DNR, Staff has not heard anything from Mr. Laboski at this point in the review. Many of the neighbors notified have either sent letters of concern or have called the office with additional comments. The canal that was designated on the plat never existed per anyone's recollection but those that were there in the early to mid 60's do remember the lagoon and the area filled by Mr. Rask. It is not clear whether the previous owner ever had a dock Installed during the 1960s. :*•:,'v’ litiii.-. ‘ Vji: J 1 m mrm