HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-1977 Planning MinutesIk ^
I. CURREm' ITBIS
A. Action Items
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Call to Order
Minutes of Regular Mating of April 4, 1977
#239 - Public Hearing - 7:30 p.m,
R. Biuce Kobs - 2732 Caroline Avenue
Subdivision (Preliminaiy)
1243 - Public Hearing - 7:45 p.m,
James Kallestad - 140 S. Brown Road
Subdivision (Prelindnary)
Gordon Coffin - Report on Platting - 8:00 p.m.
Subdivision Plat Vs. Registered Land Survey
Ski Tonka - Conditional Use Peimit (Second Phase)
Revis^^d Proposal - Require Application
#200 - Victoria Grain Company - 500 North Arm Drive
Dock Location and Dredging
#237 - William Odden - 3450 North Shore Drive
Lot Area 4 Width Variance - Proposed Addition to Dwelling
on Non-ConfoTming Lot
#244 - Charles Pihl - 2605 North Shore Drive
Riprap
#245 - Walters Port In^roveoent 4 Maintenance Assoc.
Walters Port Lagoon
Dredge • Seawall and Riprap
#247 - Henn^m County Vo-Tech - 2940 Sixth Avenue N.
Conditional Use Pemit For Crop Program - Rental
#248 - Gayle^s Marina - 3366 North Shore I^ive
Building Plan Approval - 1977 License Also
Review 4 Gomnent - Site, Traffic 4 Environmental Reports on Ritui
Medina Vo-Tech School Proposal
Review Platting Ordinance
Review Wetlands Dredging and Duck Ponds (Moratoriiiii)
Review Park Status (Moratoriian)
#235 - North Shore Drive Marina - 3222 North Shore Drive
1977 License Application Review
ii
B. Work Session Items
1. #210
2. #249
3. #250
Jack Rhode - 1410 Bohns Point Road
Variance - Lot Area 4 Width - Revised Plans
Virgil Doerfler - 4799 Tonka View
Variance - Lot Area
John Gulliclcson - 920 Fbrest Arms Lane
Variance - Lot Area
•ii
Mb.
\
■<‘7 -
iii:.. ..LSiaV:
•V
"yWT<>- - -V.: »• • >. ;^-. ., ■ -vy-^
* •«
Agenda
Page 2
- April 18, 1977
U
Pedfield Hones - 2100 Webber Hills Road
Variance - Lot Area ^ Width
Ken Roelofs - 2605 Lydiard Circle
Variance - Lot Area 6 Width
t’-
jv"' ■•
- V-: '
•'A A
t-' ■ •
I--::’
‘M
C, Incoinplete Items
#246 * Richard Brenstedt - 2675 Shadywood Road
Subdivision (Preliminary)
Public Hearing Scheduled for May 2, 1977, at 7:30 p.m.
#188 - Steve Wallack (T.M.G. Corp.) - 4100 Sixth Avenue N.
Subdivision (Preliminary)
#202 * Harrison Johnston - 925 Willoi# Drive
Conditional Use Permit 6 Variance - Tabled - Moratorium
#209 - Richard Ledstrom - 3465 Sixth Avenue North
Wetlands Variance > Conditional Use Permit - Duck Pond
#217 - Robert Birkeland - 1298 Wildhurst Trail
Wetlands Variance - Dredging Permit - Deferred - Moratorium
#200 - Victoria Grain Company - 500 North Ann Drive
Dock Location, Dredging and Outlets
Hithill PRD Proposal - Orono-Minnetonka Beach
Concept Only > No Application
II. CGMPLETED ITEMS FOR COUNCIL
A. Completed Items
#238 - Warren Orteiiblad - 1865 Shadywood Road
Variance - Lot Width - Tabled
#241 - Lou Warden • 140 Cygnet Place
Variance • Lot Area 6 Width - Concurred
#242 - North Star Marina - 3324 North Shore Drive
Conditional Use Permit 6 Riprap * Tabled
#182 - Ed Lehman - 3525 Shoreline Drive
Subdivision (Final) - Concurred
Review Uses in 5>acre Residential Zones - Veterinarian | Dog
Boarding - Concurred
#214 - Gordon Ritz - 1165 W. Femdale
Conditional Use Application for Guest House - Approved
4
1
mm \--
A
CITY OF ORCNO, MINNESOTA
REOILAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 18, 1977
Orono Planning Conmission met on the above date with the
following members present: Acting Chairwoman Gloria McDonald,
Members Dick Hassel, Paul Pesek, Diane Dunlap and George
Hosfield. Also present was Zoning Administrator Hank Muhich.
^or Van Nest and City Administrator Dick Benson arrived
later in the meeting.
Hassel moved, Pesek seconded, that the minutes of the Planning
Cofrniission meeting of April 4, 1977^ be epproved as corrected;
*Page 3 - North Star Marina (1242) - that the last sentence
in the second paragraph reads as follows: A considerable
amount of silt has washed in over the years according to
Mr. K«npf.**
Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0).
Oiairwoman McDonald announced that this was the time and
place for a Public Hearing on the petition of R. Bruce Kobs
for a subdivision of pr^rty located at 2732 Caroline
Avenue. The Zoning Administrator presented the Notice of
Public Hearing and the Affidavit of Publication.
le applicant is requesting approval for a lot rearrange
ment; one lot to consist of 1/2 acre and the other to
consist of 1 acre. Both lots would meet the miniimfn lot
size requirements.
Mr. § Mrs. Kobs were present. When asked vhat was the
reason for this rearrangement, their response was that
they felt more people vould be interested in purchasing
1/2 half acre rather than 3/4 acre.
The Zoning Admtoistrator stated that he had infoimed
Mr. Kobs that if the larger lot were to be divided again,
only the lakeshore lot would have access to the lake.
Mr. Ifydell, adjoining property owner, was present. He
stated that he is aware of the proposed chiuige and asked
vhat the chances were for a subdivision in the future of
the larger lot. The Commission informed him that a
subdivision meeting all the requirements would be legal.
After all the public were heard, the Pi&lic Hearing was
closed at 7:50 p.m.
Hassel moved, Pesek seconded, to recommend approval of
the preliminary plat on the basis that the subdivision
«ts all the necessary requirements and with the
iderstanding that if the bigger lot is divided again
only the lakeshore lot would have access. Subject to
a Park Dedication Fee. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0).
• •
ATTENDANCE - 7:30 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MEETING APRIL 4, 1977
PUBLIC HEARING - 7:35 P.M
R. BRUCE KOBS
2732 CAROLINE AVENUE
SUBDIVISION (PRELIMINARY)
(#239)
».r-
i i:
MINirrES OF A PLANNING CaWlSSION MEETING HELD APRIL 18, 1977 -
Chairwoman McDonald announced that this was the time and
place for a Public Hearing on the petition of James
Kallestad for a subdivision of property located at 2732
^jkroline Avenue. The Zoning AAninistrator presented the
^TOtice of Public Hearing and the Affidavit of Publication.
Tbe Zoning Administrator stated that the applicant is
requesting approval to subdivide his parcel exceeding
six acres into two lots both of v/hich would exceed the
minimum 2-acre dry buildable area.
Proposed location for the tennis court is only 30' from
the north lot line which runs adjacent to the private
access road to the Van Eeclchout property. This access
could become a pii)lic road resulting from future sub
divisions. The present ordinance requires a 50* set
back from the road, so the proposed location of the tennis
court requires a 20* variance.
Mr. § Mrs. Kallestad were present. Th^ stated that their
property falls off and any other location for the tennis
court, would require a considerable amount of grading.
After all the public were heard, the public hearing was
closed at 8:00.
After a brief discussion, Dunlap moved, Hassel seconded,
to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to
the following:
10* easement across the north boundary of the
property to provide for utilities and adequate
width for a 50* wide access in the event of more
dense development of the property to the east.
Park Dedication Fee ($250 per lot).
Approval of a 20* variance from the 50* street
setback requirement for the proposed location
of the tennis court.
Justifications:
(1) Tennis court is more of a temporary nature than a
dwelling.
(2) Contour of the land prohibits most other locations.
Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0).
Originally all property in this part of the country was
abstract property. This means that when you buy a piece
of land and get an abstract for it, it is a conplete
record of the history of the land. All entries against
that piece of property are included in this. An abstract
company will get this information from the court house
md enter it in. When an abstract is brou^t up to date
^1 entries are put into there and such things as
mortgages, sheriff sales, warranty deeds and village
regulations are put in.
REPORT BY GORDON COFFIN
SUBDIVISION PLAT VS.
REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
;o p.M.; > ^
V-
S t
•^1
OFFIKf
S.
RVEY
H
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMSSION MEETING HELD APRIL 18, 1977 - PAGE 3
Somewhere along the way, they got the idea (a man by the name of
Top^ns developed it) that you could have a certificate of title
which would show everything currently pending against that property
|P|tovner, mortgages, liens, etc.) on one sheet of paper instead of
ir^ving to go back and look it up at the court house, oi else have
someone bring an abstract up to date; it was right here on the
current sheet. When you sell that piece of land or when you
divide it, that certificate of title is cancelled and 1 or 2,
or as many as you create, are made out.
This system has been used in Hennepin Co'jnty since 1900. Land
can go into the Torrens system, but it caj^'t come out. A
registered land survey is for torrens property or registered
property, but not for abstract. As the years go on, more and
more land in Hennepm County will become torrens or registered.
Every time a certificate of title is cancelled and a new one
is made out, it is brou^t up to date. This is why attorneys,
in particular, IH^e it. It is a simple matter of having to
look up one certificate of title (the current one), and they
could find everything that is against that property.
The question vras asked, if you had an attorney to investigate a
piece of properly that you were interested in buying, would they
do anting more than look at a torrens? Mr. Coffin responded
that if this was abstract property, they would give you a title
opinion (now you are a little out of my field). They would
usually ask that the abstract be brought up to date, and then
they can check to find any encunfcrances against the property.
J^ally, it is supposed to be almost foolproof. With abstract
wbperty sometimes you are not sure of what you are getting.
Coffin felt that most of the land around this area is
still abstract. However, each year more of it is passing
into the torrens system.
Another question: When you have an abstract brought i:q3 to
date, how do you get it torrens? You go through a legal
procedure which your attorney would handle. In that process,
the examiner of titles will go back and check the old chain of
title. Any people who might have an interest in the property
are notified, if possible. He could not explain all the
details, but Mr. Coffin felt that this process does take a
ni^er of months. Adjoining property owners should be served
with a notice by a sheriff’s deputy.
The Zoning Administrator stated that one of our problems with
an RLS rather than the plat is that on a plat you can indicate
all the easements, etc., md on an RLS we can't. Mr. Coffin
said that this wasn't entirely correct. On a record plat,
the surveyor is permitted, by law, to only show drainage or
utility easements. If there are previous easements on the
property, these are not shown on the plat. If there are
easements for driveway or road purposes of some kind, trail
elements, or any other uses such as high line poles, etc.,
"^-.e are not shown on the plat.
GORDON COFFIN REPORT
(continued)
J
IpjiilPIPI
i-.r ■I :
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COWlSSTfTs’ MEETING HELD APRIL 18, 1977 - PAGE 4
ORT
The Zoning Administrator stated that we have three easements that
we are very concerned about, including a conservation easement
over all wetlands. This is never shown on an RLS. Mr. Coffin
|eplied that it is not shown on the plat either. Mr. MAich
informed him that the last couple of plats had shown this ease
ment. Mr. Coffin said that it can*t be labeled as a conservation
easement because the County won't acc^t it. You could have it
as a separate, written document, but it can't be shown on the
plat because the State law says that we can only show drainage
and utility easements.
What is the cost difference? It is more expensive to do a plat
than it is to do an RLS. Mainly because of the material used.
A plat has twice the area.
Both the plat and RLS is a hardshell. Hardshell is a nicloiame
whidi refers to a photographic print which has cloth backing on
it. This is done to make them last longer. These hardshells are
put into the public file at the Hennepin County Court House and
made available to anyone that wants to see tl'em. Therefore,
they have to stand up for years and years.
The hardshells for a standard record plat are approximately $45,
while the hardshells for an RLS are approximately $22-23. The
cost is the same for both as far as field work is concerned.
^fore material is required for a record plat as it has twice
the area. On the drafting work, a record plat is considerably
higher because you have to show the ownership of a record plat,
^-rf^naces for signatures and notorization. The signatures can
QJkry. An RLS contains the description only.
On an overall total cost, a record plat would be approximately
$200-$400 more. The field work here makes a huge difference,
and should be considered separate from the plat. Office work
also makes a difference. Checking up on the ownership is one
of the worst things. The survey in the field is the same in
either case. The amount of certification in the written part
nakes the difference.
An RLS was set up origiitally to eliminate lengthy descriptions.
He presented the only RLS he had for Orono which was approved
last year. The lengthy description has been eliminat^ so that
the description now shows someone as owner of a certain tract
of RLS i . This would then be the description. This is
the big advantage of an RLS.
The Planning Commission thanked Mr. Coffin for taking the time
to discuss this matter with them.
GORDON COFFIN REPORT
(continued)
: . •. .. ;• v::/. Vr - - -
•• ••
: ; ■■■ -t
MS • •••• V
hk'-Ow:
. i • *
■'■v
The Zoning Administrator reported that no additional infonfta-
tion has been submitted.
SKI TCX^KA - C0NDITKK4L USE
PERMIT (SECOND PHASE)
t- '
MINUTES OF A PLANNING CONWISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 18, 1977 - PAGE 5
m
* I
)1TI(KAL USE
HASE)
Thft Zoning Administrator stated that they are requesting
approval of the plat as submitted without any docking being
^xonsidered and no provisions for a conservation easement
Cy#ver the wetlands (Outlet B) vdiich we have always requested.
Mr. Muhich also stated that he had indicated to the engineer,
Mr. Wilensky, exactly \diat engineering data was required.
Apparently, there was a comnunication problem. The Zoning
A^inistrator had suggested a floating dock could be put
somevhere on Lot 6 and that scxne engineering would be
necessary to change the location. Mr. Wilensky misunder
stood and thought this m&ant dredging a trench which the
Zoning Administrator stated he certainly wouldn’t suggest.
He merely wanted to know the area that would have the
least impact on dredging.
Mr. Hacking, Attomey, and Mr. Cargill (owner) were
present. They presented a model indicating two possible
dock locations across the mar^; one dock directed to
the channel, the other from Lot 6 directly into the
lake. Mr. Hacking stated that the travel distance from
Lot 1 to the second dock location was 1/3 of a mile and
objectionable. Mr. Hacking also stated that because
they could not obtain the right to dredge, they are not
proposing the ccmmon dock.
The Planning Commission informed the applicant that the
City requires an open space conservation easement over
wetlands and marshlands on all subdivisions and felt
(v^at waiving this policy would only result in problems
nwith this and other future subdivision proposals. The
Conmission felt some provision should be made for one
comncn dock rather than an individual dock for each
lot. The INR had recoiiinended that a floating dock be
used.
After some discussion, Pesek moved, Hassel seconded,
to recoinnend approval, of the preliminary plat subject
to the following:
(1) Conservation easement over the wetlands with
provisions for providing access to the lake for
the riparian owners.
(2) This access would be limited to one common
dock for all property owners with a 6* wide
dock to navigable waters.
The location to be determined through agreement
between City and property owners.
Park Dedication Fee ($250/lot).
This access would be limited to only one, single, 6*
wide dock to navigable waters to be used for lake
access by all property owners of the subdivision.
The Planning Commission also requested some assurance
/T*^t all prospective purchasers by informed of the
V^^e access and dock status. Subsequent owners be
made aware of the fact that only one ccHimon access would
be permitted.
Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0).
VICTORIA GRAIN COMPANY
500 NORTH APM DRIVE
DOCK LOCATION ^ DREDGING
(#200)
:■ . ;•••. f-- •" : -.s
. ...
t--'- ^ h.
.v= . .\
%. ■?>
■4 plei:::
.'V
.< ■■■
)RIVE
^ARUNCE
TO
l^FOFMING
9 9
DRIVE
DVMVr
OC.
ON
^•Tiia
A lengthy discussion followed on the issue of ripxap vs.
aluminun seawall. Mr. Hartmann explained that the menhers
of the association have been meeting on a regular basis
for several months to discuss this problem, ^ring these
iscussicns, they established a set of comnon objectives -
arsh distuxbance, shoreline changes and total costs. He
also stated tiiat they did not want to est^lish a new pre
cedent for whatever they do in the lagoon. Ihey fouid an
agreement as to what frontage in this lagoon is comnonly
bmeficial to all homeowners (channel is oomnonly bene-*
ficial and the 340* west wall which is abutting the marsh).
They then came up with a fonnula to divide the lagoon
frontage between each individual owner.
Their preferred solution to this problem is a combination
of riprap and seawall; three meirbers prefer riprap (Ellis,
DeGregoxy, Crist), while four members prefer the s<
(Hartmann, Blunt, Nelson, Reese).
seawall
WALTERS PORT LA
(continued)
(#245)
fM N
Mr. Hartmann stated that from an engineering stan^int
ice would have a more damaging affect on riprap than it
would on the seawall. Riprap would also require removal
of the high bank. The cost of the riprap is much higher
than the seawall. Another menber of the association
expressed his concern for the removal of a large nunber
of trees that would be necessary if they were to riprap
the entire area.
The Planning Gonmission was not in favor of the metal
^sem#all and preferred riprap or a wooden replacement.
<_>However, this situation being unique because of the
straight sides and depth of tiie seawall and future
dredpLng would not be needed as soon as without rip>
rap we allow, the Commission felt the seawall was a
solution to this situation.
The Planning Commission was also concerned about the
seawall from a piblic safety aspect. Mr. Hartmann stated
that the Association would be willing to provide the
necessary safety measures.
After some discussion, Pesek moved, Hosfield seconded, to
recommend approval of a combination of riprap and aluminum
seawall for protection of the lagoon and channel subject
to the following conditions:
(1) 'Die City's receipt of revised, detailed plans
indicating exact location of riprm and seawall as
preferred by individual menbers ot the Association.
(2) A written s^tement of approval from all property owners
and mderlying fee owner of lagoon and channel.
(3) Provide safety measures along steep seawall such
as life line, rope ladders, etc.
(4) Bigineer's review and approval.
Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0).
^^Ihe Zoning Adninistrator informed the Connission that since
the work session at the last meeting, Mr. Lobben has sub
mitted some plans for a bridge going over the existing cre^
for access for the farm equipment from the Medina area. Proposed
bridge would be a flat bed 24* long and 8' wide, to be constructed
by the students.
^1. ^
HeJNEPIN OXJNIY VD-THM
2940 SIXTH AVENUE N.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR OOP PROGRAM - RENEWAL
(#247)
CM
Ktltl
tvtu:
lia^
tjirti
^IHSj
• VtJ •BlliiU
Ottvjni
lOOl
lO€tJtI»
rikllT»j
•)irc
• kilfj
OiltJt
•liH«
Otfrti ;HH;t
•M?#:
•)irii
>V:ii
ffelfl!i
V:-:--v._.;. :
■■■■{■ '■'■■■%
tlilltJ llillllp
mm
•J^ll tiiirf
tliKilWt
itiiirtHt
tBi
•I^il
i oil !•"• I • Mil*.tJiltWiTii
t.iiif]Mirti
rfiBiT*j
[•JlV:Tfl
•)lTtl >K«r*
PlIH
rfVTT»1
^UT%\
•,•■*,•■• •• •■■ ••■ 'VI' ••: ■• •■■>.-■ ••
:.’r
M*J»J
V, •V’' -v: ■
SVv-.:X:;K>
lA-S'-V:.'
y
[A?’ ‘''’ ‘■.-‘•^r. •• ..• •,^-
•••
• V:«»It:
;•. 5'
IVE HMUNA
RE DRIVE
PPLICMION
(4)
(5)
(6)
. ugdts arriving jate at the inarina would be left in the
staging area ui;til morning.
liork felt that the use of these racks ^vou]d eliminate
^potential hazards in the water caused by storms. He also
felt it would reduce vandalism.
After a lengtJiy discussion, Hassel moved, Hosfield
seconded, to reconmend denial subject to the following:
(1) Expansion of non-conforming use.
(2) Currently zoned LR-lC-1.
(3) The stacked stoi'age \,ould create an objection
able visual obstruction.
Racks would require a height v'ariance.
'ITie stacked storage lacks adequate natui'al
screening from road and lake.
Stacking would provide additional open space
for request for storage expansion in future. "
(7) T^ere is no way to control the number of boats.
(8) Would be setting a precedent for on-land slips
as our code addresses winter storage not slips.
Kfotion - Ayes (5), Nays (0).
Planning Cojiimission went into work sessions on the
following items: Jack Phode (#^2l0), Virgil Doerfler
(#249), John Gullickson (#250), Redfield Honies (#251)
^pnd Ken Roelofs (#252).
Mayor Van Nest handed out a copy of the preliminary
draft of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. He stated
that we are close to approv’al on this plan and that
we had to make one concession.
He pointed out sewer area 7 and 8 on the map and
stated that the interceptor is going through this
area. The ^^etro Council wanted us to put this in our
urbani zed area rather than our rural area as we
suggested. Our report indicates that we will not
do that, but we do agree that the Cn'stal Eav and
Minnetonka Bluffs areas would be sewered and*would
be connected to the interceptor within three years
of completion of the interceptor. We will not
provide sewer to any of the other areas.
After : ief discussion, Pesek moved, Hassel seconded,
to rec< )d approval of the preliminary draft of the
Compre)i- ^ ve Sewer Plan including the sewer schedule
for Cr>’Stal Bay and Minnetonka Bluffs. Motion -
Ayes (5), Nays (0).
Pesek moved, Diinlap seconded, that the meeting be
^^^djoumed at 12:45 p.m.
NORTH SIDRE DRA'E MARINA
(continued).
(#235)
.MU0UR.\^^Brr -