Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-20-1982 Planning Packet
r. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1982 *Asterick items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the Planning Commission under Constent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Council Representative - Jo Ellen Hurr Call to Order 1. Call to order/roll Consent Agenda 2. Approval of Consent Items* Public Hearing 3. 7:30 PM #697 Larry Langhans 1366 Rest Point Rd. Preliminary Subdivision 4. 7:45 PM #701 Nta.Gregory/David Duff 1420 Shoreline Preliminary Subdivision Action 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Work Session *k686 Merrill Gibbs 3125 & 3135 Fox Street Final Subdivision - Resolution #693 Theron Hineline 1565 Orono Oaks Dr. Conditional Use Permit #700 Thomas Vickerman 679 Minnetonka Highlands After the fact - Conditonal Use Permit #702 William Gregory 1410 Shoreline Drive Conditional Use Permit #703 Mark Pox, 2130 Shevlin Drive Variance *#704 Douglas Aabel 1580 Long Lake Blvd Variance #705 Philip G. Bradley 4075 Oak Street Variance #706 Home Builders of Wayzata, Inc. 3545 Ivy Place Variance #707 Charles Downey 2665 Casco Point Rd. Variance 14. that's V'; #708 Pheasant Lawn Area Residents Pheasant Road Rezoning Information Items 15. Select member to attend Council Meeting of October 13, 1982 Joint meeting of Council and Planning Commission, Saturdav September 18, 1982 at 8:00 AM. ^ Approval of Minutes Approval of Planning Commission minutes of August 16, 1982 nr. . I Ovaim CoTI>^l«li>u j «-0 /jfAA VILLAGE W OEONO ^ t.Mt .mi 4 'lip mm m •* ••■••< 'Si ;Fi L- z. *■» -fc tOt PROMt Planning Connilssion Jeanne A. Nabusth, Zoning Administrator V T.; ‘i DATE: September 13, 1982 SUBJECT: #697 Larry Langhans, 1374 Rest Point Rd. - Preliminary Subdivision Zoning District - LR-IB Application - Subdivision - Formal Plat - Lot Line Rearrangement Planning Commission Action - Recommendation of preliminary approval List of Exhibits: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Application Plat Map Property Owners List Formal Plat Plan submitted for work sessions (this survey shows location of all structures) Nr. Langhans has submitted a formal plat as required for the public hearing. The new dividing line will allow a garage to be constructed on lot 1 , Block 1, Rest Point without the ne^ of a variance. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Rest Point subject to the following conditions: 1.All future construction on both lots 1 a 2 must meet all standards of the LR-IB Zoning District. 2.The Public Works Department must review any new access off Rest Point Road created by construction of garage on lot 1. — ** — . ,V - #697 JU.30HS EXHIBIT date rec*d by Vtf Hi_______ fee gec’d Mailing / ' ^ ^ yS^C A^trtr^y yfV PROPERTY Name OWNERS Mailing Address * (Attach list of more than one) Telephone _ Rd. - Preliminary Subdivision Line Rearrangement preliminary approval X, Ions (this survey shows quired for the public arage to be constructed d of a variance. Staff Rest Point subject to \ must meet all standards y new access off Rest ge on lot 1. Legal Description (PID)^ 7«=^ ^ v3~*^ ^ ^ EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / f , • Present Use (check) Present Zoning Dist. Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no, of units Other (specify) ^_ _ _ PROPOSAL lot line rearrangement only (no new building sites) subdivision for new building sites number of buildi.n9 sites: proposed gross density minimum lot size: proposed use: (check) existing units new units total units units per _ _ acres square feet dry buildable land residential other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION (Must be subnutted 10 days prior to Planning Commission meeting) Application completed Preliminary Plat information on a certificate of survey Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350* - from Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A—603 Govern** ment Center Stomped, legal sized envelopes i910) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list. 5. Application fee per current fee schedule: sketch plan only 2 lot prelim, plat 3-f lot prelim, plat (sketch plan included) Additional improvement review fees per fee schedule $ $50.0 0 200!w + $10/Iot DATE DATE APPLICANTS SIGNATURE owner's signature IZ lation required or jp^uested bv and Council^^essarv ^ Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission k\^d ^EXHIBIT I date rec’d H Mt fee Jec'd JSP^ r^LC-fy■0 relephone ^ Ik [*elephone cs Dry Land es Wet Land es Total, all parcels idential; no. of units er (specify)/ w building sites) ing units nits units per _acres e feet dry buildable land ential (specify) Lssion meeting) fee per current fee schedule: ch plan only t prelln. plat $50.00 200.00ot prelin. plat tch plan included) $10/Iot tional improvement ew fees per fee dule $ % 'V T required or jeequested by rney. Planning Commission end further agrees to pay i; * ' ejn j> ,L< 1 ; fs-J ' rb. m _ ^ — 1 \' <£ ‘*5-^ '^a Ov L- \vr\ X f.'/V VN X V ii / /' X X' yi! ryy^S' '697 >77 / \ I (c v' C' y.---v t? V-.- > '*Kky^ .tv X W'' :-v // t*y^***2g \v 0“=. Q\ I ^ u f ^ J A- ;tv .J*.- ill \.k . -'a t" ■> '^11'. O',u ifi ^ ‘ r» ^ A O «9 *ol - » \ ..V •V \ s \ f 5&C■X - I t •**' : N '^StKt/X'O. .iT .A f- 4 M ■f.N \.<7. 'i A 7; ❖ \ \ ’.Xx \ :x. r u 5^ •- o ►- V • »/> ifa q: u 9m Cl» "S' \ Jf>r> V.. O ii: t O O g 5'cd O 3 -. cn •••••/«>/ • ^ lEXhibii I^. V XX \ 697 4i% \ I. \ ii A Hfc 1233 dept of property taxat A-S09 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAROLIS^ MN 0S487 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST gXHIBITI«r=: 1.I9T SIXt I CCRTirv THAT THE FRCTS RCPNESCNTCO OH THIS CENTIEICATE ABE AM ACCURATE AND TRUE RERRE- SENTAtlON OR IRFORMATIOR At IT ARREARS THIS DATE ON TNE RECORDS OR TNE NENNCRIN COUNTY RINANCE DIVISION. TO TNE OIST OR MV HNOMtEOCE AND OEUER. NENNCRIN CO. OtRT.r£sa.”WM Lo i J' /3/u.m 'JUL U./n^ IrldAijetf Gr^cQ A >ifi^A /na/t 6* Ms/C' A H- /^dLAjL. O. AfchnScA fT4 S fe\/9uS6f^ PROPERTY ADDRESS SBJn£ TAnyi ff ^ -/ /Z-jc isny . sff/nE Sff/T£. L -2. /3trC> >^5/- p7e>ii ~}n^ S ■> TlfcTfA/ c fCct^Ytes*-^*^ jcr-i/' yc c/y ss sa/nf. ^finiE SfiOIE lanf&tos /^./tl. Si^^S £tbe*J- VdiC- jN^Wd5 H. TJMJV^^______ 1^ ^ sj/n£ */ /<A ^ ^'S-36 sff/nE /3'7'Z A-^ Morf^SS/C/VE£> /rwujk'D -A^- Al/ttJ a/ ^5^a/^ a‘7T lei<r)a.id. £sHie\^ /)7ckif/its y97^ _____________ /3fs~'£es^/ttCilM 7% 'Yirt jif ■ .•> S* Z^yr ^ ^ /VvKn S-EyDE cSfn£\-y //7c S. I }h////eM AchC'tf' 6- Srt^e^A^ r/ S. {ttc4iC A", l a /Li/At/PS \l./Ci. C. 'd. JoAn^o/J U/d^sh SfimE^ ^ ^re Ae. 3. ZZ^ ~~ZH£<»^e!€'(f . y /P^S^ /T- e. S^^/CufJi /39fT J(hf^,nA /f</ /Vcc A /Ai^iAifa rntJ Sff/nS, L (. /3f» r**"tr A3e\vsm-.Xk/' ^ ROPERTY ADDRESS 1C 4 ----n 1iL. SR/ns X /< sffm£ <^R/n£ sffrm S.R/VE Sff/n£*5 ^RmE S SA/H£i! s/tmE sR/wB- . .S 'of R^/C a /BO 1 S'Bm£ Sff/0£ SR/n£M s£m£ . '^/e^ &re ^ Sff/nE.j£ &f J. c sa-mE.!. sff/ns. ^/M/E (, Sffm£.c p, _____ 1 1 *Sr A ^4?V.^ NE e®r«tr ol V* \ L0I9 \\ V • \* bLi', m #697 exhibit .'V « • • ^r~. ■ .r'*** *•A/« .* • ••««.. « •• r.(< •’r:M*. • r; •« s rv.'/ .; •• . w ; "V. :. r. • • t‘ V'* ^ ^r r ' * i.ft*, r ^ ijr« • ■ ’ • ■ t! 7 r- •.’ vj-r:jr. -.. '"f’flr. » .: Jrv- or nr.;: ^7-,», ’ • I ■ ' I .' i r»i W'. «• • • » ■ »• «» • ................1 A iltiiinf I V*. • 1 I».-^ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Conmisslon Members Jeanne Mabusth^ Zoning Administrator September 16, 1982 #701 - William Gregory/David Duff - 1420 Shoreline Drive - Subdivision Zoning District • LR-IA Application - Subdivision ~ plat ~ lot line rearrangement Planning Commission action: List of Exhibits: recommendation of preliminary approval Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property owners list Exhibit c - Plat map ® ~ Zoning Administrator's letter to Highway Department Exhibit E - Preliminary plans J^plxcation #677, Gergory/Duff, four-lot plat, has been formally withdrawn. The applicants have returned with a plat for lot line rearrangement involving the Duff property. Duff will retain two acres of dry conti^ous land for his homestead lot (Lot B) and the remaining one plus acres included in Gregory's Lot A. con.«v.tio„ Staff has approved road width deduction as shown. The Duff portion ^signating 58' of width is consistent with 55* width accepted by Coutny to imnediate south in recent torrens action by James Rivers. The toegory portion shows a maximum 66' width, consistent with maximum width approved by City in past reviews. It is still not clear as to why the b^th^ P Pl^t^^ill^for^the^^lJiStiirgMvil^SMkinriormiiStSiSid***^by the County, staff would recommend dedicating the remaining portion or the parking lot to Hennepin County. Remember the majority of the parking lot Is already located within the railroad right of way. J L William Gregory/David Duff September 16, 1982 Page 2 Per my meeting with the Highway Department concerning the road dedication issued for original #677 subdivision application, I was given to understand that the vacation of Bracketts Avenue vrould be no problem as long as the 66* width stemdard was maintained (and, of course, the parking lot deduction included). The legal question of what governmental level retains an interest in Bracketts Avenue is of no issue since both the City of Orono and Hennepin County sign-off on the plat. I have asked the Highway Department to confirm this position (see Exhibit D). The Duff's failing septic system and the encroachment of that existing drainfield into Lot A must be resolved prior to final plat approval, in Consideration of the present date, Gaffron recommends October 30, if a system is to be installed before next spring. I have asked the Gregorys to file a conditional use permit for a second residence or guest house if it is their intention to build this year. This review is covered under item #702. Riparian/dock use should be addressed in this review. The outlets must also be designated on the plat. One residential dock to serve each residential lot. The question of dock *use for the guest house will be addressed under review of #702. Staff Recommenations: To approve the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement of the David Duff property located at 1420 Shoreline Drive based on the following conditionst 1. A new septic system to be installed on Lot B, the Duff homestead by October 30, 1982 2.Plowage-conservation easement required over all designated wetlands dated August 2, 1982 to also include the following additional dedication of right of way: ; a) remainder of gravel parking lot maintained by County M b) continue dedication of Shpreline/County Road 15 right of way at northeast corner of property 4.Plat must show riparian outlots created on Bro%ms Bay side. Riparian/ dock use limited to one residential dock per residential lot. All docks to be constructed in accordance with the City of Orono and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. 5.All future construction shall meet the standards of the LR-lA zoning district ♦ CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM rc^' -Vi i ■dat«k rec*d W23BK aat«k rec’d er CITY OF OiuM\ j /3 APPLICANT Name coTelephone 473-9017 I Mailing Address ^40 Peavey Road, Wayr.ata, Minnesota 55391 IKI j INGTRUivlLNT*Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 -* Address * (Attach list of more than one) tavid J. Duff and Anne B. Duff, husband and wife, 1420 Shorelilie 'ir.s ING'iillJiV.lN: M- PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address 1420 Shoreline Drive» Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Legal Description see Exhibit B (PID)2 117 23 33 0003; 2 117 23 33 11 117 23 22 0002 EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 10.07 2.958 Acres Dry Land (excludes County Acres Wet Land 12.91 Present Use (check) Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units 2 Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning Dist.LR-IA PROPOSAL lot line rearrangement only (no new building sites) _ _ subdivision for new building sites number of building sites: 2 existing units 0 new units • HO 4 v --«-Sl^WSiii i - -c ■r'- 33 , ♦ */01 CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM William D. Gre MS23BK CITY OF Oiv.Mui dat^rec'd fee Tec'd ^ ^ t3 APPLICANT Name f^Telephone 473-9017 I • ! MailingAddress Peavey Road, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 ‘.,p ' David J. Duff and Anne 3. Duff, husband and wife, 1420 Shoreliiie ilWGTRuXlLNTf^'^-'Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Address ^ (Attach list of more than one) U'.S lf«G t llU.'ulN I PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address 1420 Shoreline Drive# Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Legal Description (PID) see Exhibit B 2 117 23 33 0003? 2 117 23 33 0007; 11 117 23 22 0002 EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) Present Zoning Dist. 10.07 2.958 12.91 LR-IA Acres Dry Land (excludes County Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units 2 Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _’ PROPOSAL ^ lot line rearrangement only (no new building sites) ______ subdivision for new building sites number of building sites: 2 existing units new units total units proposed gross density minimum lot size: proposed use: (check) 6.455 units per 1 acres acre ..2.01 sqsxssxssss dry buildable land residential other (specify) MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION (Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning Commission meeting) Application coBpleted ^ Preliminary Plat Information on a certificate of survey Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' - from Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A-603 Covcrn- ment Center Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) —l^sesaddressed to each of the names on the above list. /.•- y i / ^\ Stanley Gregorr fH 5. Application fee per current fee schedule: sketch plan only $50.00 2 lot prelim, plat _J50.0Q. 3-f lot prelim, plot 200.00 (sketch plan included) + $10/lot Additional Improvemei review fees per fee schedule $ f William D. Gregory II Date ! 5:« I r>'1 .1 - -j: Z ! i date by wrec*d ^-A3- fee xec'd M ’\ J i ephone 473-•9017 ta 55391 fe, 1420 Shorelihe iK'.i INC* I iiiJuilN Wayzata# Minnesota 55391 7 23 33 0007; Dry Land (excludes County Rd 15)Wet Land Total, all parcels ential; no. of units (specify) building sites) IMS dry buildable land tial specify) lion SMeting) le per current fee scbedule: plan only •reliai. plat prelia. plat I plan Included) nal iaprovece fees per fee e $ $50.00 ,150.00. 200.00 ^ $10/lot — .j a ST* ^U7W3 Lil o 'I h ) /V^yvU^jJ / Ji ) >) I V THij? S3/3/)iyj 0 \m c.^ ^ ~y^/v£ffru' A 77ff^ ri-i^ih^JrV '-/A^/d/w ------------------------ ^■ ^/vcus y J* yim M ^ M •• a > f4 5 r*7T"*yr"~'***~^^ . I tuiy. ^JIaIIM U -Z.-T.T.T-. yu/ffs AAU/ fO^s^HAt ^^^^4577 /!/^7D \ ml ss3daav oNiiiVN /M3AVd XVI d3N/M0 333 •00 ni Lnih q onj ow>y y A»0 iMIrNld^Wdf^ 32(S xtn aeoaiAONM am so aiis ina oa 'NoitiAio MM»iiu ^SnoO MiaiNNIN INA AO eOUOOSW INA MO axva ••M .WIM. .1 » .OI1.I.II..., M i,” “n -IMAM insA ONV aivunoov mv iuv iivalxiiMn «»HA NO oiANieiMAie iaoua ina i ISn 8ti3NA0 AJLUSdOtfd •Xsri *> /• NM *8nOdV3NNlN MaiNSD AN3NNII3A0d C08-V NOIIVXVX AldSdOdd 30 ld3Q Ccjrw__#>, ^ wWTRffUilgllJ C£| MiNNCAPOLia^ MN 95497 »•••▼ 8II»_ ^ OWNER v:%Vm7 ow7^?*thVTO T.. .Y.TT.r:^.V„ TAX PAYER/ MAILING ADDRESS property address nwFswn S’ff/np ^ " «■ (»1 1^ <P i2 l>&!liiLdJi^U£iL£mi 'Ml K D MA/.^-ffp '/fl0 ]£____ ISf^ yg Sffrn/^JL %\ KQT ^^Sr^d//^f^ ______ ffCfZZA/ Z^OX^A/ ^p ;/i«g? (( ir ‘ I (/ i££!Z SZ^/p{'^/^f (f iZlZLL£^Mr/A/j^/i/ ^£/£^^^Js///i9i^(9f) u u ^^Siuaj£er /7/fcx ^€A/jj/_M'Zsy>. MA/ f\ n /! C gy/y-f _-S~ //?y^ /»^ -s^/^tysrz/i//:- ,/y zm '•/ i@ffffsv7i^ S^S'/C'A/^jr> n c o « M / NJ \m1 ^ 1 \ t ^ I w \\\ \ » •• 1 • •• •"#.,•!* .»*,no.»r: \ \ mr/ vw \ \ \ iiM ef O , I .*• • ..V »o. i •••i \A \ A» ^ •”•«i’-i^‘f\\ \ S & p? \ V s:> / *sc f U i », .1 vm E' • • f ClTYofOiH»H> F*«rt Otticf bus 66«Crysul Bay. MinitMOU 3532{*MHnici|Mil OfficM On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka September 13, 1982 Mr. Les Meigelt Hennepin County Highway Dept. 320 Washington Avenue Hopkins, MN. 55343 RE: #701 Gregory 6 Duff, 1420 Shoreline Dr. - Lot Line Rearrangement Dear Les: I have enclosed a plat of a lot line rearrangement of the David Duff property. The City has asked for all the necessary dedications of road right of way for Shoreline Drive (County Road 15). The Orono staff would approve the right of way dedications as proposed and would ask for additional dedications at northeast corner of Gregory property not now shown. In addition, we will ask that the remaining portion of the gravel parking lot not already included within the railroad right of way be dedicated to Hennepin County. ^ for t^t portion of Old Bracketts Avenue shown on the plat and the legal question of what governmental level still retains interest i*»ue as long as the County acquires the of right of way.requested 66 Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Soning Administrator 3 JAM/msw Enclosure i r 1 M/ILMWVaXtMiSU .47J-71S7 • ASmsSIMi AUMI!^ISf KA1ION « »INANCI - 471 7J5a n SLIT IKMIKS - 471-71SA I « WA w \ >^ * ••.r? ’ ,.-p UM ";i/, • y**- ’.v'Tf»' ■ ' ''■ ' m • >~rVn*^< 4. • ? - . mm liil '^-v:r- ■ ■, '■■>- ■M , •‘•i-’rV' of OROM<:> Ni ;;>•.. /elHiSWCfli,k . .* , r • . #•"'.M- Planning Conmlssion Manbars Jaanna Nabusth, Zoning Administrator Saptambar 17, 1982 .i i w • ■» > ' ' m*' # ;.i V '• «686 - Marrill Gibbs - 3125 & 3135 Pox Streat Pinal Subdivision - Rasolution Planning Commission action - Pinal subdivision approval i't • ' \ . ' *jj * • ■davalopar has fulfillad all conditions satforth at praliminary approval, staff raconmands final plat approval subjact to tha flndinga and conditions satforth in tha anclosad staff rasolution. . •* ' - . .:;:4iii^ V •■'■ ■ ■ 'i f;?''-''' ' '■■■’^'-y.-y ■y; im'A m-y I 1 f. J’ iSkS < ■:vm ^ .a, V y , V*. ■'.c' c'rl^OT^4’ .it" : Vrija^ iOT ^ -vh^ l^SS <>i i»i.vl sr!o>ow^t. #*' ?,. : "tvf-v* W|^ - -^ i f •■• ;■ =:;.' ■• • ' ■ • . ..- -v-.k, V:"V.;-3nmmm if 4! ■. ,' > '’tft • .«4i, V?- > :■<■’*■> - t.j^||||||pwv.afvjt:»y> ' Mh i'. ■ ■•' ;! •." ,‘. P*iit h\t * '. ■ -' * •'•<’ ■ ■' . ■ ■ . .’ ••, fJi- r, t<v ’’’.ftr, ; ' :••■ •■ •• •' ■'■• '*■ ■ ■■■• ‘ sjbm- ' * u-w .<; j ISr w '1 •• V , I m- 's» * V* »-•' .city of OROIVO .) K ORONO . r. :v.'‘ 3 SI'S li' RftOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.________ St r- -rW V A RESOLUTION APPROVING TH£ PLAT OF NEST POX Jil ;vwmmfv: - V V.. ■ .. .,. WHEREAS# th« City of Orono io a municipal corporation organised and existing under the laws of ths Stats of Hinnssotai and WHEREAS# ths City Council of ths City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for ths orderly# economic and safe development of land within ths Cityi and WHEREAS# ths City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat by Morrill H. Gibbs# ths subdivider; and WHEREAS# the City Council and ths subdivider have entered into a settlement agreement whereby the City relinquishes any claim to a public cartway over the easlT 16.5 feet of Lot 36# Auditor's Subdivision No. 230 in exchange for an easement from the subdivider over the east 12 feet of Lot 36) and REAS# the subdivider has CMqpleted all requirements of the platting regulations of the City# including) 1. 2. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution #1407 Dedication on the plat of right of way for a public street shown as Council Road No. 84 5 3. I-Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements 4.Dedication to the City of a Plowage and Conservation Easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands and/or drainageways described therein and shown on the plst as "drainage easeMnte* 5.Creation of a 12* wide outlet shown on the plat as Outlet A# said outlet to remain in common ownership with Lot 2# Block 1# West FOX 6.Concurrent with the creation of Outlet A# the subdivider has granted a non-exclusive perpetual easement to the City over and across Ckitlot A# West Fox# limiting the City's use as follows) y.* i c - :.i Ii:. (if ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._____________ •ii. '■.I' A footpath aasemnt for podastrian accass to and from Laka Minnatonka An accaas easanant during tha months of Oacaabar, January, and Fabruary only, of aach yaar, for paasangar* typa automobila, truck, and van accaaa to and from Laka Minnatonka An aaaaaiant for City maintananca vahiclaa for tha purpoaa of inapaction and maintananca of tha aaaamant araa 7»Paymant to tha City of a Park Oadication Paa in tha aa»unt of $100.00 Paymant to tha City for tha lagal raviaw and racording of tha plat and all" ddcumants ralatad tharato in tha anraunt of $100.00 p;. ■hum »• • _ - : f 1 r put ter JiwiJiSSI'wJlJS! »* orono AdopM by tha City Council of tha City of Orono, Ninnasota at a ragular maating hald on Saptambar _ _ _, 1982. ■/ f' •, J -- 'V ' Liii 1 or |I^MlCMtatB««tt*Cnr«(al Bajr.MiniMMU S6333*MttM«pal OMrw TtbplMiM 4W73S7 Control No»6<» ^ Theron Hlneline 1S55 Orono Oaks Drive Long Lake, MN &53S6 ttOTtCB Of fXAmtXIIG CONNZSOIOil ACTXOii Date of Heeting 8-16-82 Variance conditional Uae Pemit Subdivision« Preliminary Date of Mptice 8-17-82 Voteas Por Against Planning Conmission recomnsnds the following: i ■ iff -7 ■ '•M' ■ <.• i' ■■ ‘ L f *» • VI: \. '• ivy • Approval: As sutsdtted Approval: Subject to conditio?^ .^>ted Approval: Additional infor%^<^ required before Council meeting Denial: for reasons noted tabled: Pending receipt of additional information from applicant tabled: Pendind review by others# or further Planning Commission study No action required HOtBS AND SPBCZAL OONDXtZONS Planning d iAfl apalication at vour raauaat. Sfeaff win raagHa<lii1a ygMf» apyvH Applicant's next scheduled meetiiig is confirmed as: iK^»» lesoPlanning Commission Council _________□ t a Applicant's next sOheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the meeting is ____________________ for the __ J or ting. Zn all cases# the application must be continued with the submittal of requested information within or the City will consider the application as fonaally wiUidra%m. Xf the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information# please contact the Zoning Administrator. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission Minutes they are available from the Building and Zoning Secretary upon review and approval by the Planning Ccrmission. L -■gat- j;:”" . 'I, i 1 r*’< '/*..' ■ »■ ;^si ^ A--.; Planning Commiaslon Jeanne A. Nabueth August 9, 1982 s: #693 Theron Hineline, 1565 Orono Oaks Drive - Conditional Use Permit + Variance t : • , ■■ Application <• Conditional Use Permit 4> Variance required to dredge wetland and create wildlife pond Action Required - Planning Commission to act on application - all property owners within 300 ft have been notified. Planning Commission should review the following pages of the CMP Environmental Section Map 4, CMP 3-4, 3-5, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19 (Policies 3,4,5,6 & 7) 3-23 (Policies 1 & 3) List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Engineer's letter Exhibit B - Planning Commission minutes July 19, 1982 Exhibit C - Property Owners List In rovioi/ of tho englnoor's report, tho proposed alterations c:? the wetlands will not alter the drainage characteristics of the Watershed - storage capacity will not be increased nor will it be decreased. Clearly if the wetland is converted to a wildlife pond that must contain standing water of a minimum 3* depth, there will be drastic changes in the aquatic vegetation and the assimilative rate. The CMP finds limiting urbanization of the rural areas of the watershed to be the key factor in controlling quality of water. Aquatic vegetation in wetlands or marshes has been found to function only during summer months because of the freezing winter tesqieratures, much of the filtration value of the natural marsh process is lost during the annual spring snow melt. It further notes that marshes that have dryer areas, which have water in them only interimittently, absorb a greater amount of phosphorous and have an assimilative rate of 20 Ibs/acro/year as opposed to marshes with permanent standing water with an assimilative capacity of 4 Ib/acre/year. I have been in contact wxtn Clifford Reap of the M.C.W.D. who advises that if approved by the City a permit would be required. I gathered from talking with Reep that they would follow the guidelines of the DNR. 1 M693 Theron Hlneline Pag« 2 < z Conditional Use * Variance i.' ■i' t ■••. =:. • .\ .. ■ •:. y' Z have been in contact with the DMR, specifically, Ray Schultz, hydroligist for Region 6, he noted that although the wetland ifould qualify in area (existing 2.8 acres -* 2.5 acres qualifies for DVR permit) the %retland is not one included in their designated wetlands system. He added that the DNR would probably approve e wildlife pond finding them beneficial. Schultz also noted that Steve Scbimmer of the U.S. Soils Office reviews all of Region 6's wildlife pond applications - if you remember this is the same individual that I have used in the review of recent after the fact wildlife pond applications. a Option of Actions A. To deny the conditional use permit + variance application of Theron Hlneline based on specific findings noted in environmental section of the CMP and the intent and objectives of Ordinance 125 (Wetlands t Flood Plain Ordinance) To approve the conditional use permit * variance application of Theron Hlneline based on the following findings: 1) No negative affect on the existing watershed. 2V..,CNP notes marshes with standing water provide a *'habltat which is uniquely suited for certain bids A and mammals", subject to the following conditions: 1) Principal + accessory structures must meet all required setbacks plus 26* setback from wetlands. 2) Septic both principal alternate must be located 75* from wetland/pond area. If , Whether the conditional use permit is approved or not the City will require that the low grade elevation of the proposed home on Lot 12 should be above the low point on Orono Orchard Road or a detailed hydrolic analysis of the watershed should be conq>leted to determine the water elevation in the pond at the time of a 100 year storm event. I * ■ .. i re ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . i. ' .K . > i’ ■ i!i1-1^i4£tarn ■ .«r-.,H'-Ii. . i;,\» c.f '•'»< f - Vtr • * ' . ' E»,<■#•-'* * A .-v- fiiHMm, Amd%%Uk St /liitcittUi, 9i <kmC i§tts Pi Jtmpi C AmPrHd. Pi. Pr909nlA. Umitra. Pi- Ptri^i fmMm.Pi Hmt% C (Mum. Pi . jkS r ; ^ :.i .1 -^p^snc.’-'.■ i :.'* <v. C >?S<^ •' •■> i i**" ■ .;. :#' VO’-' «J>* IV'* '•■ ■.• • V. , August 3» 19A2 • *■ -i" ^sJi'jvav ' •■ .'*i'fj.sir..Jf lia i. . vi; ;ir:NI6-5Be kv i''-. • City of OroAO ^-■xc«v,"-iou 66 Ccystsl Boy« Niaassots SS323 ' ;-;^i'L..v2'J:'.o GitmPCmi.Pi imiiA. CMm Pi- nmmi SA9»*Pi amM0i m. imm. Pi Mfrr a ScAHMrftf. Pi MhnmL. SmAi. 0,«Mr At Jmf A PumAom. P,t AM >6 Mmm. At. fitf r #«M. AA AlirM r ff«MrinM«. Pi CkaAn A. inritum U9 m. PmmiU jf Hmtm if (A^>» Otamii OM Z- < iA V. *. ‘M . W:- <'Atto:Joaaaa Mqrbusth 4 o- -'i 'i r»V ^ %• • . f la:Oroao oaks - ■ 'Our rila #139-693 »T- t <4» ' i t -1»* "j »■ -J * tear Jmiim Wa havo rsviowod cho altsratioas ia tha poadiag araa oa Lot 12 of tba Or one Oaks Flat. Iha davalopasat of tha pood as proposad vould aot altar tha draior ago eharactaristics of tha watarshad to aoy appraciabls dagraa* Tha pood would aot iocraaso tha storaga capacity of tha watarshad sod thara would ba oo daeroaaa io tha storaga capacity available io tha watarshad. Tha oxcavatioo of tha pood would altar tha filtariog eharactaristics of tha poadiag araa aod likaly chaoga tha oatura of tha aquatic vagatatioo. $fa would hava to survay tha upstraaa aod dowostraaa areas aod obtaio alava* tiens to datarwioo tha baoafits of tha poadiag araa to tha aotiro watarshad. Tha low gradii alavatioo of tha proposad hooM oo Lot 12 should ba above tha Iw peiot oa Orooo Orchard toad or a detailad hydraulic aoalysis of the watarshad Should bo cowplatad to dotarwioa tha water alavatioo ia the pood at the tiao of a 100 year storw evaot. mi ^>■'3 r.',"' Invgr ♦.Mail If you hava aoy quastioos* please cootset this office. Tours vary truly, ■OMifTtOO, tOSIIIB, ANDgtLlK 6 ASSOCIATES, IIIC. w;. . , "twl ClaoB t. Cook GK/jo V CM ♦ .." . ’» V ar -» ' I ■ i.-.'j. , 4.'4 . »*« r^tjuvne^-waan..^ ht;4# tiv- ■ ■t m ,-»r, i l iwt- t '.<** ijpjfe ccOptw*! #04 .';r,|/rtS'V«Hfl th»» i.r* : ,*;« co^*? 1 •« ,a wi 14H?w 5K r j av'S v'«ir i- will tA’ at thv water table one? stay K I .-M • = :'V- rr- <. mm.mmmm i• 'T-rr-^ •■•W'WLBU >jw i - -• Mf-* j i MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP JULY 19. 1982 Page 11 Applicant was present. Applicant noted for the record that there was no water in the wetlands today. He noted that last year the water always renained high* has killed sone trees* and the area is always a j/t McDonald noted that this is a designated wetlands Mabusth stated that it is designated on the City wetlands map but not on the approved Orono Oaks plat. Opheim asked which one governs. Mabusth stated that the wetlands ordinance applies to designated and undesignated wetlands - all wetlands within the City. rv:- Goetten wanted to know the dimensions of the proposed excavation. Hineline stated about 6*000 yards of dirt from the pond would be removed. He noted that the plan and proposed is based on ONR standards. Rovegno stated that this was 4 acres of %retlands on City maps but that it wasn't designated on the plat. Applicant stated that he has owned the property for 12 years and that sometimes its wet and sometimes its not. Rovegno asked if the drain tile doesn't work and why hasn't it been repaired? Mabusth stated that this was not the City's responsibility for the old agricultural drainage tiles are located within private properties. Ophiem stated that the pond would probably fill in if man %fould leave it alone. Zn other «iords if man left it alone it would probably become dry land unless they do something to keep it wet. Applicant stated that he would be upgrading the property. ONR stated they had no problems with it. He noted that the City Council didn't determine that it was wetlands in l'>78 whsn they approved the plat. The wetlands were never designated on the plat but Council still approved it. Rovegno questioned the buildability of the two lots involving the wetlands. If they are tru wetlands than those lots are not buildable because they no longer fit the lot requireswnts of 2 acres dry buidlable land. THERON HINELINE 1565 Orono Oaka. Or Condi tionaX ITse Permit »693 Applicant again noted that the Council accepted and approved the plat in 1978. He noted that all he wants to do is create a wildlife pond and when they excavate deeper it will be at the water table and stay full. ft , y ■■ ■ I . ' y K ■m ■-■4 r % % J • \ rsTV MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSidil MEETING OF JULY 19, 1982 Page 12 Ophein stated that approval of this application depended on whether or ntot this issue falls under the %»etlands ordinance. HlNELINErtCONTr * Nabusth stated that the wetlands ordinance does apply. Opheim stated that it would be ecologically better to keep it natural habitat - not a iretlands area. NoOonald stated that 6,000 yards of dirt being excavated out of there you would be ruining the natural filtration process into Lake Minnetonka. Kelley stated that it is a wetlands and that it should be enforced under the wetlands ordinances of the City. Bineline asked why they were against the wildlife Pond* Re noted that ONR and MCWD approved of this why wouldn t the City Council approve of this. Kovegno noted the only tietlands application which was approved was the Orono Schools, which was used for educational purposes. A poll was taken by the Planning CoimisaLon as whether they thought the application could be recossaended for approval. Kelley felt it was a wetlands area and should be enforced through the wetlands ordinances. Goetten stated that this was definitely a %retlands area and that excavation and alteration of wetlands is not allowed. She noted that 6,000 yards was a lot of dirt to be removed. Opheim felt the wetlands should not be disturbed. Rovegno questioned if it is a designated wetlands “ he doesn't believe that these two lots are even buildable. i • / »»« 4 * Bineline noted once again that the Council approved of the plat in 1978 and these are officially buildable lots.V- ■ No Action Required . • c , ■ 4 ■■ HC 1233 w PKOPgWTY oumew list— ORONIO k ^ OCPT OF FROPeRTY TAXAT A-009 aOVKIINIiCNT CCNTCR MINNCA^OLItk m 99487 klfT tltf m SL I CCRTIPt TM»T Tl*f PAOtt MMitfllTtO OH tillt eCRTiriCATC AAC AN AOCUNATC AND TNUC MMt> •CNTATIOM OP INPONNATION AO It APOIARO TNlO OATt ON TNt RCCOROO Of TNt NfHNtflN COUNTY flNANCI OlVIOION. TO TNC tlOT Of MV HNONLCMC ANO OCUCP. . HMTY[flH CO. OCfT OATCi FEE OWNER Mil uifi& UKXP <a?0(S TAX PAYER/ MALIN6 ADDRESS - ofM/MM. ri/L-fismex’ ^efiueu fiiP h/CT / fj/tr fl/rrA<Si6A/t^ 'i. " If // MjUi0 / i t t i.AjSC^ 4 7 % m u 0(6116 (SS¥>7\ C f6^L fidt< D( f KivK^ G. MAHC ^/as^gfo /2S^> lYM/M M 'igp^ tJOT 7 <¥■ fitUEP ■ ’=»Civ, yt.;..y^WA a^^-vsVi- ■? !>./•/ A V.-/ /i Jz C •rT^ v; ^ tv> a* .) . A- . 1^.,,*'- :i ■ Z. '*A vat -*pu* Ar?* ^ ftpi 4k.t ■ " ' k' ■'* r*k^iA'ti # ^ r - J >5s •’i^' z v''-''^ J , . , ■» ' ,V, : ■ t zJMk HC 1233 sfessisiYdimRs OePT OF FMPfRTY TAX4TI *••08 OOVCmiMCNT CCNTCR MWNe**0U8t MM aS4»7 r k'tT tin ^^_____^ _________ I eiNTirv TNUr TM MCTS MMIItfllTIO ON tIn$ CCKTtFICATC A«t AN ACCURATf AND TMI MNAt- •CNTATtON or mrOOMATION At It AOrtAOt TNIt OATf ON TNt OieOOOt Ot TNt NINNtriN OOUNTV riNANCf OIVItlON» TO TNI lltT OF MV RNOWkCOtC AND otuir. FEE OWNER ^NM UffMf//// TAX PAYER/ MAILING ADDRESS I •I*—, '/'/!/j. d£cmT> a^L-p^ ^£ifi»!su U rJAT U/A V<g7~/ ^ V IMS- Utt^^/STS* g) ^ ff o 3>A.9i^Hi '7>. ^/=^c;uj/llh ^repftpu Qeim{s5^7\ Mr /f^/^s7> W«n,=H^]/22^j nu3= ii,-,ir rTTi,in alters » ^/fiz£V P/uA» ------1.^^:sr4 2--//7-2^ ' ^ SP/7.V JfUP y/iiii I (ST/fm rz. L^7)e^ Nor <g/tf<<?7>/'> -2 jgsygvM=7> gjer.fy^r/MT SlSBS^ ------------- M>r if ■ .<';>■ iM>J^ \\lli i i - A-. v':'*- ■;•••'• :•■ ■•'"• •■; >. ■ ’ •; it-iV'• , - ' .♦ IV '•V '■ fV^:‘ _______________ t;. ■■’ :• i>i tho at'..:” « b-’. rj'. i tt. .tMy !►: '> FROM* l^h.v * • planning Commission Members '■• » i fa *?■'»,. ■■.!. •■'».• r'Or . V#* ; Jeanne Mabu'*th, Zoning Administrator DATE:Septesiber 16, 1982 SUBJECT:1700 - Thomas Vickerman - 679 Minnetonka Highlands La. After-the>fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance . ■ lotting District LR>1B Anplioation a) Conditional Use Permit per Ordinance 31.700 - Ordinance 31.832(b)(8) for construction of retaining wall within 0-75* and 75'-250* Variance per Ordinance 31.831, 34.201, 34.202 1. Lakesliore setback required - 75* proposed - 68* deck - spaced wooden proposed - 0* cement pad paving starting at shoreline 2. Hardcover - 0-75* setback area -75*-250* setback area Setback area 0-75* Total Area 11,025 s£ Allowed Hardcover Existing 0 0 Proposed 75 •-250*'^ 500 sf or 4.5% 24,850 sf 6213 sf 8952 sf or 36%948 sf or 3.8% In t)ie spring of 1981, Vickerman inq>roved his lakeshore property without the benefit of a building permit. The la)ceshore improvements consisted of retaining walls, cement pad access stars and a detached, spaced, wooden, two-tier deck area. The deck required a building permit. The retaining walls and associated land alteration required conditional use patmits. If staff had had the opportunity to advise the applicant, certainly, a more environmentally acceptable construction of the access stairs would have been reconmnded. I have reviewed the site with Glenn Cook; and as before with other after the fact applications, %«e would strongly recommend that the retaining walls with stabilised plantings be allowed to stay based on negative environmental affects if required to be removed. There is no question that the walls have seemed to stabilise the steep lakeshore banks. i:&'V • /’< .-a n I--' I -',. rg^4r. ■ ■ ' « TtioMas vicker«an 8«pt«irt>er IS, 1982 F«9« 2 ; r*^"•m . > ■ :-:^v .'v;':<:-;“r^:-V ■ :■ v^--'.f: vV. ■ V :xvv;; 'r- . ■ -1^ A portion of the deck. anpe;*rs to encroach the 0*75* setback area. Mote the setback line has not been designated by the surveyor. Applicant may wish to have his surveyor designate the 75* setback liM on the survey. ■ • JBlSi. -« '• N The ceamnt pad stairs should be removed within the 0-75* setback area and that portion of the encroaching deck/staircase could be extended down the embankment to serve as new access stairs. This item has been scheduled for action at this meeting, if the Planning Cosmdssion requires no additional input, Z would very much like to get this long delayed application scheduled for action by council at their October 13, 1982 meeting. Planning Commission should note that we are dealing with a variance application also and an additional fee of $100 should also be paid by applicant. .i- VA. * r^.'i ■•>' -■ ^'• . ' -♦. . •Jr ‘ ■ -.r •■/ . ,:) a »r ‘* ' if 'i ' r '■ . ,# rr t.%. -X \ fc..r mmm pPp: . •{ '.t :■' :\. Bf"-n . ” \S. X, ■■ V . . V. •■ . >■ V..--i” fc :•.•••:■rV.:^--i: • . • '•-» V. • r'. X--. • t ,r„ ' -.I •'. '•.' fe..' i i| . / 'i jfc' i ivr. ■mmm'.jv ’ar-T.- i;v‘- K ' • •\. VH^iis: iit-L •••, Vf • ■ •Ci.A3Sir 11^ "-• > !.“• •• <U 75* Mtback ar«a. th« surveyor, e the 75* eetbeck . i'> v- •■ i' he 0-75* eethaok aireese could be ess stairs. ■sating, if the # I would very WKCh led for action by ning CosBdssion should tion also and an plicant. ■xy ■ Vi* w U:m MS,■ ■V i’v 't •; ■ m ■'!^m .VO-••/'::.•.> ,V-;j|ga*»i M ; CITY OP ORONO MINNESOTA Land Use Application ia X!!ATI0N op PROPOSAL (or property) CONDITIONAL DSE APPLICATIOM -5' S7T Tlinnetonka Hlahlan«^ Long Lake, NN 55356 Wg “li?dV*"E8-tglej; ’> ■ MinilPtnnIra APPLICANT Name_JU Nailing Address ^45 Daniels Street. Long T^lce. mm H Viglc»riii..n Tel #_423bl52< $30.00 a) Res. ACC. Use $50.00 b) Institutional (Church, Sch. etc.) "■■ ■'i; 43S.BT) c) Duplex Or/Blg CMMBR Mane Mailing Tel #S7i-i CO, Land Alteration Address 2345 Daniels Street, Long Lake, MN ling) $100.00 e) Coe/Ind. Use PRD/PIO « See fee schedule Variance $50.00 ^Present Zoning ^-|.^^resent Use v^Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request ySpecify Ordinance Requirements __ _ _ _ _ _ _ nrlal ii^B®[§ow[iri^ i kC lW OF ORONOwivyyivw Areasons for same I wish to seek approval for land- scaping and deck work completed on my property. **- - - - - -**** VARIANCE required - extent of nonconformity - - lot Area _ _Setback Front Side _ _Width ?•* Specify W _ other, explain t rty SUBDIVISION applicatic^Residential Other, explain f tots •a ITIONAL USE AMD OTHER - explain proposed use of property in detail MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPIETE APPLICATION (Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning commission meeting) Application completed Plat map section Certificate of survey of property sketch location and setbacks of proposal Construction plans, if applicable DATE Certified Property Owner*s list of owners within (300*) (UfiL*)- from Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A»603 Government Center Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#10 pre-addressed to each of the names on the above—list. DATE Applicant's Signature VVV\gLVV Owner's Signature to provide all information required or requested by and City Engineer, City Attorney, Plannlng^MiaaiM and tounell necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all fees as established ordinance. i '• 7 I '-r*-, HC 1233 "'.■4 ovmens oerr of fmfbity taxati A-«OB •OVCmntlNT CCNTKA MIMMCAFOLIA MN 804*7 >jy kltT tilt300 -fe I CCItTIPV THAT TNf FAeTt MMICtfNTCO ON TMt CfRTIFICATt ANf AN ACCUtATC ANO TtUf ACFAt- •CNTATIOR or INrONMATlOH At IT AOriARt TNIt OATf ON TNI RCeOROt OF TNf NINNIFIN COUNTT FINANtI DIVItlON. TO TNI MtT OF NT RNOWI.Ifttl ANO tIUlF. / y NINNIFIN 00. OIFT. 01. r!^kOt||^TT OATI. FEE OVVNER // TAX PAYER/ MAH.IN6 ADDRESS P iieNHiueeA' 3C)Hf/ S ’t'Z A idSKf lf6f Ut. y ^K4Saiilf(m&79iiiNM0^A Ui&kA^ U T Ag~2gteP^gy^ '769 P^£: Vo^i pere/L n. yo^iMneniNiM /V V f: TBme omp t wmmiimmmsim s i i /c |15(glMUW/l^p A«-9BB TDIf fflr OF ORONO Ivor m >iabj£^c:t PR^P bitS } L ( ,5 t , .* r j 1 m.i^- < t • ■ ^ ‘A*C \- y.-y% S. 1 'C'spsfflsp^ r'"' «U6-9BK y ’ i riW iiF OROKO J - I »‘T 42'11 «V*l«t4P t» f^' S'l5/i N.ila:fc»' S^fTrrxS •fe.S j,.-■'1;. is m i^-‘. -’i • ' ^ I ' *-**•%» 4 ■j» *y Vi % : '< ■: : ■ ■ • V -1• -I I dk\' Uim *rA »r<t /it r /fm^ Ck <?•■> '» H.«ZS S.K S90S.K 7S-iS: -. ^ ff^ jr ^ ffgg j. ^ • /a.3SpT.F. /ys3 j.r. nut • xf. ft,95« s./: tg.t9» ':-. fj; jfjt *.*^r •. ••• • % % •*• • •, • #' !#> •» •; ..-r W-* ., -.1 It,Lif' t * * * * ** t ^ .>•• • •• • ». V . X %. '•:-> .- •: »■•)» . > 'A wit;* jr.;, t •.*.;* :^ yr ♦.:-c :■'• ;.>.*f.}■:->% h;j;v ' w. •:l: -l:.u . .*}'•• •. . r .5, or :f: ' ■ <• t J|.;.' • y .t i -"- ' yr* ■•:«• J 1 1 * t r M 1# I '14{ of ■"' f-Kt i'. Sea'.' I I* .- M*' *- I»tV ; : Iron au?‘*<or Sait^ IwrovaaenU Aavitad 11-6-6* to show hard covor. '.diT.i .ifr*'*.. • •». I. .‘Lsnnnr k»i:r .•■v%t i, 1^ '• ‘ ^ ‘ ,:.ivh ■■■ -^^ •* »• ^1^-‘•^i*ik'.si'‘» xi' ■,Trffi^>^;-*x... -(,■ ;h»|. ■•\S wl Planning Commission Members Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator September 16, 1982 #702 - William Gregory - 1410 Shoreline Drive .•7^. . ♦ ■. « Conditional Use Persdt \) ■’ Zoning District - LR-IA Application - Conditional Use Permit per Ordinance 34.027 Planning Commission Action - Item is scheduled for action Please use the survey submitted with application <701 in the review of this application. The Gregorys propose construction of their new residence within the next few sonths. The iH^plicant asks that the existing rental hcnne be allowed to remain as a guest house. Per Ordinance 34.027, the guest house may not be rented but is for the specific use of the residents/owners of the principal structure. Our previous subdivision review confirmed that two residences on the subject property can satisfy all area, width and setback standards of the LR'IA soning district. That same review confirmed that there , is adequate and suitable drainfield area for both residences. Planning Commission's review should be concerned with the following: 1. Will the guest house be allowed a separate residential dock from | the principal structure? I 2. At iriiat point is the existing house to cease being rented? 1■I-a) when building persdt is issued for new house? b) at time of certificate of occupancy? 3.Per Council's direction at the variance setback review, if a garage is to be constructed to serve existing house, it smst meet all setbacks from all structures per standards of the LR*1A zoning district. usamm. l'. • H *ar- M r• .•*-■■.■ -------------------- mi U5U: .r^*5 - . • 1,_ . ^ .^'V. *^4 ■-.if:Aikd-H -»’ f v: ^ 3t' >i-a» .>a 1^!Sl>:l'-.'iV ■h- •i ' ^ ’■ : -S nistrator if 10 shoreline Drive ice 34.027 >• for action V' k #701 in the review eaidence within the listing rental hone nance 34.027, the cific use of the j|p: »■ WO residences on end setback standards confirmed that there fi residences. with the following: isidential dock from being rented? luse? vvifcv'4Wl kck review, if a r house, it must indards of the LR >^:is m • e cm OP ORONO, MIHNE80PA Land Use Application ^/3// CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION lOCATIdl OP PROPOSAL (or property) Address Shoqline Drive, Orono, MN Legal Description See Exhibit A William D. Gregory II & 473-* APPLICANT Names tan lev B. Gregory Tel # 9017 Hailing 340 Peavey Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 OWNER Name Stanley B. Gregory Mailing 473- Tel # 9017 Address Peavey Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 $30.00 a) Res. Acc. Use $50.00 b) Institutional (Church, Sch. etc.) $75.00 c) Duplex Cr/Blg d) Land Alteration (grading, fil ling) $100.00 e) Con/Znd. Use PRD/PIO - See fee schedule Variance $50.00 Present Zoning LR-IA Present Use Rental (Residential) Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request Specify Ordinance Requirements #?e f¥ »era Explain your request and reasons for same Applicants would like to con< struct a new single family residence on the property and use the small cottage currently on the property as a guest house. VARIANCE required - extent of nonconformity ____ Lot Area Setback Front_ _ Side Width _ _ Other, explain ll Specify hardships to property CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION application Residential Other, explain No. of Lots CONDITIONAL USE AND OTHER - explain proposed use of property in detail Applicants desire to*obtain permission from Orono to maintain the existing cottage on the property as a guest house after construction of the new m■'f- ;• '•;-V ■in:. MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR CONPIATB APPLICATION (Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning Oomnission meeting) Application completed ,,Plat map section Certificate of survey of property sketch location and setbacks of proposal Construction plans, if applicable Certified Property Owner's list < ovmers within (300*) (ISO*)- froi Hennepin Go. Dept, of Finance A-603 Government Center Stamped, legal sized envelopes(# pre-addressed tQ..pach of the nam* on tJie abo; DATE August » 1982 Applicant's Signj DATE Owner's Signature .orney in :anus Applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all fees as established by ordinance. K lEP*"^ / CONDITIONAL USB APPLICATION $30.00 «) Res. ACC.Use $50.00 b) Institutional <Churchf Sch. etc.) $75.00 c) Duplex Cr/Blg d) Land Alteration (grading, fil ling) $100.00 e) Con/Xnd. Use r PRD/PID - See fee schedule Variance $50.00 Rental (Residential! nts would like to con- rty and use the small \'^tl^dWSIrii 1 _[y :her* •xpl^in No. of Lots >£ pxopsrty in dstail I to maintain the existing instruction of the new B AFPLIGATZOM Dsnission aaeting) fled Property Owner's list « s within (300*) (ISO*)- froi pin Oo. Dept, of Finance Governswnt Center ed, legal slsed envelopes(# ddressed tcueach of the nan on required or requested by torney. Planning Oosaission HQ 1233 mimwm PSOPEWTY owness L«T ■.v-< oerr or property taxat A*t01 OOVCRNMCNT CCNTCR MINNCAPOLia^ MN 88487 LIST SUB 7 CM I CBSTIPY THAT TNB PACTS SfPSCSCNTCO ON TWS CCSTIPICATC ARC AN ACCURATC ANO TSUC IICPRB- SBNTATION OP INPORMATION AS IT APPBANS TNIS OATf ON TNB RBCOAOS OP TNB HBNNBPIN COUNTY DIVISION, TO TNB SBST OP MV RN0WLB06C LLIBP. CO. OBPT. ___ OATB4 FEE OWNER 7m. ^ ^ M _ ____ .A7 a '7LJ2 A’ srOK'/: TAX PAVER / MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS Sff/7)£ sm£ 0£^£ajtBSn.£ffL iS£M^£eCMeD£P.=£^. £fP£!f)k ‘ejejS/.n£- ni/£s^. 'm7£H/a'^(y£m/i'/n'/^ /3^7o/( sr- iv/A'r£7s ff£/yp ry/PpA'k - l^ff y£/?7'/f Pjr/^a£*CTy 'Tlinj^rKr ^fTTP 7p^A/ji> iv0{'jrj7.r^ t4/7fy^fnW,Q££i'.B££U£t' £rvc \3990/PnA)ocf). Ncr ffSS-/7?»/fD fl/or ffS£//7A/£X> .£ 4t c /V/0 Sf/ar^'hnl ^m ____sff/ne __ /.S77 <:.ff_____( sg/M_ jgf- //7>^7. ua y D tfffA/££i(>S£m£ _ _?fo weififA'iecmio-nTjni’)DEC0Tl'm^Vt7MH^l3JCjitiiiniiniet>«ii»iuiM.mi/ .1 MVT ^Er//7//££> if /m£ Dc/£/= r./y/. (7^-SMmi/pEJ'Ai __ W^. Sffj7J£ f( ‘I t ( ! / /yf<P .DtP u Tf/Ck" M____n yor^ ^ss'/y^A/yjo zwfs}fk>/pe//ji7^ ^%ii tsti£S£i>r \nra^^jfyu lC^ffn\V7?Y?T:-^.l f. / c •i • - ^ n, JT-ir- / • %:;.. enffp^ t‘3>bT,;i. iS. ■" '•.* i..,i-. -I " V;- •>'' •s” r-fc«w>p. SUBJECT: , Tt^Sw^ Planning Commission Members Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator September 16, 1982 #703 - Mark Pox - 2130 Shevlin Drive - Veuri’tnce Zoning District - RR>1B Application - Variance - setbacks a) Side setback: required - proposed - variance ~ 30* 28* 2*or 7% Front/street setback #• s '. -• «. required - SO* proposed - 29* variance - 21* or 42% The applicant will require setback variances to construct an additional stall on the existing garage. The additional stall on the garage will permit the construction of a bedroom and mud room with the existing structure. An addition to the rear would require the loss of mat\ire trees, fencing, and extensive landscaping. The proposed side addition appears to be the only feasible location given the interior layout of rooms. Staff recommendation To reconsmnd approval of a street and sideyard setback variance application of Mark Fox to permit construction of an attached single stall garage to the residence located at 2130 Shevlin Drive based on the following findings and hardships: a) Findings 5 > 1. The Webber Hills plat consists of one-acre lots subject to the standards of the RR-IB zoning district, t%ro-acre minimum lots ■i ikk 2. No additional land available 3. Approval of the neighboring property o%mers .•5k »H t'w^'N»s Tf.;r M ^ ;•.».> .*» W •••#• •■ ‘ ^ -■ ^* r--i <r « -^* • —• ^'*^2^' r fC- A ™ . ' i '*..■ A P'-‘ Iterk Fdx :' ' SpptMdter 1C« 1982 «> >4 Pag« 2 b) ^><W !4 ’«« ry' '"'.iBardships X; Location of home on lot 2. Location of mature trees and plantings on lot 3. Steep grade to immediate rear of house 'r ■ 1 ^:m fe»" •,*■•' ' /•:■ >' '' ■ -J '^.[ . . . ■r^!: . '■; , •/•.,• mm • \Tiw Stil mm :JP:.?'. • i;- •v:,’;:- iWP Ik ’-• • •* ' ’ ' ’’ •■ ■ '• '7\h<* wAm-i' ’ ‘l-*4 : J|1!^^ iMf ■ ^ / 4#H' . ' '. ■ 4 'ft ■ X*y :-r‘-h:T f ^• •• V^ I •■o V - -- 4.. \9 t.”. '* J ..* ••;*tir>oy?X't^ Oi • — -• for .-unJp--.n :«ro*.V-r« tiftnirtU.n of wPi ' H>.imt«riA County, » V’ ;• m. i.,. ^^.5- . «urvi»v of tho bound^krteu of Lot 5, Bloe>. 3, ^ |, „t, rwroort to nhov is.grcnr»p»nU • \ !• ■ 5f • l?-U-73 Iren mr)*r fofSl R. rol^S® • • *"Cr>n!<ici Lond 3ur\oyor ond S* mi^r Ung Lr.»», Klnnonntn iiSfisr'” 5?" ~^y@fl0p 2? filial CKHSS ' sfzilta. -.i-V F'' ^ '^* ■ V-J^, ■■"•,: ^:.; TOt ./I, :r.v» .»^w;’> ■ ' ■ -*.tt, „1-3 Planning Comnission jaanna A. Mabuath, Zoning Administrator V Saptaotbar 10, 1982 SOBjaCTt #704 Douglas Aabal, 1580 Long Laka Blvd. - Variance ■-«: '-i .*«!> • mm JIL- .■-- ;• *i' v.rl.nc. > - », .•» Baquirad Existing Proposed Variance 30' 5.6' 5.6' 24.4* or 81% A I , iSU 4 ’ II ^ «■»!• rABidanca at 1580 Long Lake Blvd, AabalIn the process of remodeling ^ ^ . -«eh ooor and unsafe condition found the tha^Joof andTwalls. Although our original wiw%!rSi5Jr thJ Jub.Mnd.rd lot »M.^.nd ^J2lM*ttI.'1SS.t?uSSS’*s5 ‘s;;n5*i;JMj;;‘nsur»;.nbJsj:‘3S tS s?.tm, •*.•■ st.££ ..kod Mb.1 to .pply £or . .id. y.rd ..tb.ck v.rlMC. .. »o. .. .. realised the zoning problem. Lon^Laka Blvd. based on the following findings: '• ^:.rre::ts2 s^^nj^rnst^s; the applicant. r* .truetor. .nd pr...rv. th. £ront y.rd £or dr«ln£i.ld. .»-r '1^' i3i 2a' vi' -••'. ::■ r-. ■ ■- . ,'.V:: it ail:.'.• •.Ai.- • ?<■£ .. m fti: • : ::• •• .■.!•■■ r-:.- ■■■mm. mmwmm v'- .■;: ■■ -.to*.I f * t mi ■■’I A. - Variance v5 :v^.' -‘• > r.» •80 Long Lake Blvd, Aabal and unaafa condition .la. Although our original ►t width* tha na^d to approve HI bacauaa tha conatruction ta axlating atroctura. >ack variance aa aoon aa wa application of Doug Aabal nciating atructura at 1580 A ia naeaaaary for tha bial property right of in tha aaaa location HI tha waat aide of tha : drainfiald. A • : • ' LAND USB PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION HIBIT 1 ■ ' -V m. r CITT OF ORONO .y****.*— **» Ccywl Uy, Wtwweu 55J1J EK18S* H w fy< U m *tTtnftH tail ♦I3-I3S7 —*•••*• OoapUt# ItMt I . 13 .***3ft ******* lafetMtlon Co koctor •kkUcotioM l»ltt ROC ko oe«o»co4. ®"9B® 374 try-. > t lY ** ^itoooc to ROC OWMC. OaplOlR LIST OF EXHIBITS f Bcocrtotlmi S}c*tLtei-*“*“ 3 AooUeoctoR Fora 2 Frofortf Otoioro Llo 2 _ Cwclfteoc# of Suffv _ Foo loeolH 9 goto iwoivoa k IttttJaCuMUsa * _ rue Nor T /J^\ ' V’r-------- •-/—^ <HDRCh/Toor) * tmmtmwy I (do) (do not) alao own othat adjacent parcala of land • _ suffcoMco 4. AGENT _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Ik... ita Property Acquired gtttr Mm rtfk NOTICES aMvi4 ko oorc tot Ap^liCNllE PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT . PRESENT USE looiURtut (otiior) VoeORC Iull4tn«(.)OM«rto4 liUUla«(0> . ^ DESCRIK REQUEST BSTIN8TED CONSTRUCTION COST $ _ OOCOkltik «RI RM _ OORCtaUO or OR h M ORUClRt RM . . .-------------------- _ ““ “* ^ •" — '•■•••» ^ for U coOaacribe requaat In detail: 9. VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED UC HI4Ck L_*rm J^«l4o.,^Koor) OChor 10. Deacriba UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS • :V m__ ■;■■•... • : . . • • .. ... r-«. ' m U. “•»««»• WnWE NAROSHIP or PRACIICAL DIFFICULTY rosMUeUR. rooulclRR froR otrloc ORforoMMic of MmiRg 12. Deacriba EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK o. Roiaaocta. RroRoreu. ..4 « ,k, ^ta»it»ac4 te mm i » C *v* of :.» "j.. •’^" r» ’. la.- !^, (i t*'*« • in «^trd XI *»>«. p !; *rnc"in Co'irt.y, r.l: :•• ?< tr^ fh 1 horoby «»ertifv tK il t!.lr la a .ruj nr..' rorroct ror>." . touRiarldS of; • «•»••• . • • » • • • ^ tiOl 12 e.YC>‘ r ",.rt jout'nerli' of v? '*?il:'wlni♦*ri Co:«er.clr..' .it t.‘y ic’.;tnoui-*. nr: :• c:* u-.Ij lot; thor.~«* l.o."!.'; n.nr.: v.ist .ir. • o*' raid let •: uirt .r.v-? x t T Cf Ot' f;'.3 liJU? i.*-:'::* wC::r;‘U*»;;; thence X *: t 'f 4,’ tr. t'■' - orly line of cni.; lot, an.: t:v.*re ••r.oin?*, ”Albe«*e Lor.| At-aitiw. ; ' ^ That 'Jart n;’ w**t Ivic? ...t't-ri'i: I*:-? foilovlng-UucrrlLc.i ilr.c -.r.- iU I-c : a;:tsr.sicr.:• I * • .% «%• comer'of sale lot; thjnce ‘ort:. .i!.-)r. t.;M West line :f t..»lr: let a Jislunce ot VI;,!' !’eet tc tl:e 'XJlrit of aot.'innl.';; of tn-.* el... dcce’'v.tjdj ‘.:;jr.ra d *.‘'lecLin..’ ri»-^ 14"' a dista.'.cr of l',’*i fe-j*.: i.nr.rfi don.'^'llr.,* loft 13® to t*;.» ■ jrt-.arly Uj’.-j sf -alj , ard there or.eis,;,’*nilo-i't U.'.i C/ Thnt part cf ,,ct 12 l;/ir.,: Sc'-thorly oT tr.e followlnr-Uo.'-erlbec linat Cor.Tonei.-.K ut tl.e Southoes comer of raid lot; th:r.'*o forth nltn». the .li*^t line of ^ Lot ll e.'teoot that xirt t.hornof lyini' 'wastorly of tha follculnp-described line < I^rtherlv exter4il.ont 'orr'.nrinr at tne South.asturl;- rcr.ner cf said lot; thence lU said lot a dlit-..r'»j of 7!,? fu.Jt I > t...t r »ir.t of tO:;ir.rin<: o ’* t’;3 linn hnlr./f r>3rrlf«u; th.2r.''e d>jflortin,. loft li5®24* t-ce Southerly ,lr.e of rai.! lot, and taore er.dlnp,"Albee's Long Lake Addition**; and lie }L»rth alone the West lin o** aalcj lot a distance of 73*J x'oot to the point of bei:irxini ’ of the line belr.r :escrited; tho.nce dericctln.* ri^ht 24®3c* a distance of lfe,73 feet; thence de- flectln.? left li° tc t!.e Northerly lint of said lot, t-nu there endin«r, ***lfce.j's Lone iJt-'oo Addition; ur.d the locTition of all exlstinf luiidln^c, an a/.lstir.f fence and driveway theraor. It does not purport to »>ov other innroverjenta or encroacheonts. Sealei 1" - AD* Date t 7-29^ o t Iron mrker #704Gordon d. Coffin Lund Surveyor end flenaar Long Lshn, Ntanepotn r. ■m .«M• •«•••» f ■> . -r : n . * ■' *• -j > • J V .i%lA'-iar> . Os--,*-;. « '■ '' ' ■''■i TOt »,||tr i.*. - w ;. r X V a %;an,»»>w '.‘r r^« fr: Vfr« M Arr Planning Conmisaion Menbers Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator September 16, 1982 KWrti W SUBJECT! I #705 - Philip G. Bradley - 4075 O^k Street Variance Zoning District - LR-IB Application - Variance - front/street setback Required • 35* Proposed - 15* variance > 20* or 57% Mr. Bradley began construction of his new home on August 10, 1982. J^ts 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, % 17, Block 8 are legally combined as one gilding site. The total area of the site is approximately 38,750 sf. The house is 38* X 26' and meets all setbacks of the LR-IB zoning 1** order to conserve and save the natural screening of mature trees surrounding the residence, Bradley would like to construct ® oetached garage 24' X 24' as close to the access location on Oak Street, if he places the garage at the 35' setback line, it would require the removal of several mature trees and major land alteration because of the tegree of slope at the setback line. As proposed, the garage doors will face away from the street providing adequate turnaround on the site. Hardcover is reduced because of the shortened driveway. doubt that a detached garage could be located on the property meeting all required setbacks. application is to be denied, members must use the findings criteria cited in section 32.340. If the application is to be approved, the following findings are recommended: 1. To meet the required setback line %«ould result in the loss of several mature trees 2.To locate the garage at the 35' setback line would require major land alteration 3.The proposed setback with doors facing away from the road and turnaround provided on the site is consistent with the City's proposed amendment to the accessory structure ordinance Ihe proposed location wuld result in a reduction in hardcover. V *• v' -j"-*- t m UMD USE PUNNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION EXHIB CITY OF ORONO y.O. ■— —, ftym lay, Mbwom JSJ2J /|0 .-I^----- — — ___ ^ S8>-IW ) 1 i iwj ItM* 1 • I) **Mk IntOT «r otlMr UiforMttM *• k«ct«r ayrltMClcM will wt k« ft»tpu<. L^r i^iVriwny^^ ^ atrtft. Prong^ 9m atnolwJ Itarvy, lahl^tt 3 U 3. 0-91982 Philip G, Br«dl«y 871.9340 MdtMP 2420 Clinton Ave.. W !i5404 #E-24 iltaMC to MC ewwr, nptoto tmwan fc— —1»« «» abcv Date Property Acquired int^iM (MMtk/TMr)- \wmmwfmwmrn9 I Ido) (do not) also own other adjacent parcela of land AGENT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ rif»______________ I S 6. 7. NOTICES tkawM km MM Mt AppltoMK PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT _ _ PRESENT USE kMUMtiai___ <otiMr>__ Agmt LIST OF EXHIBITS t ftMtrlKl— illeaElon fowm1 t froforty OuiMrs Ll« 3 C*rttflc«Eo of SufV* Fto locoiye i/3 fr Oito Roeoiv«4 i-* P w 1 M. ^ j 1 « lEOff fj^orndtloo 4 Plat Hap 0 3 _ XovoAiory i ___ Stoff Qtlior lafoi—eUm I i 9 10 II 12 VocMC ioiliiocfo)Oeeupioi 9uil4toi(i) 8.DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ A, 500 ~ ••Mkltofc MM MM ^ aaMlMM or aspatto Mtoctap mm Deacrlbe requeat In detail: ^ kwlM Maw ^ mM m _ riMial ^ raplaaa j|{<_J*l£h_to_bulld_d»^ched 2»ct gar«gp pt 15 foot —tbpck frow 0«k Street. CMrag* dooe*.«r-^-* -- - - - - - - - -- ^ h » C^t ¥<<•, • .V' O-T*t"fc ■ ,:saiaMaAier r j ^ > a/ . “ Vk': yri»r‘.V 'rUi. ................................................................................ .......................................................................■, , , _i. JM II iiPi" r-r—'■ "** ' ■ ■ ■• ‘ tV • -v 'ji • ■ iriiiii^r1kiT**tilWfWI** *^*^'*~" 11(10 **"***‘^^****** ^ — . Wi M Mi'.Ti X iim raOPERTY ADDRESS 4n7^ n,i. r>- *^•■1 4M€rlpcte« alMll hm 9hmm on otiocfco< iorvojp^ Uiibit 3 Philip G, Bradley tu^ 2420 Clinton Ave.. Mull.. W 5S404 «E.2* t os^loin WHBR tawit o> abov Vliofio llillli« AMrooo Date Property Acquired int./M <ltoiitli/YMr) I (do) (do not) also own other adjacent parcels of land AGENT «»• rin 5 . NOTICES nmA4 hm »mt cot AppltconC Afont 6. PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT Iwtciol *«« ■uot inoluA LifiOtlon 1 2 3 JC ^ »plicotlofi Fors Froporty Oonort Ll« Cortificoto of Surv> T— Mcoipc i/3 f Ooco Rocoivod %y- ^ ^ toft ^orooelow * Plot Nop 3 „ Inventory 4 ___ Stoff Other Infor^tton 7______________ a __ f___________ 10_____________ 11 ___ 12 ___ PRESENT USE toidootioi (Ockor) VooMt Um4 Vaeooc lnll41a((o)Oeeuplod luUdlotCo) DESCRIBE REQUEST _ MtOkUok MO OM _ OaOtliMM OC ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 4.500 OBlSCtllg MOO “ kiilW oow ^ o4d on _ riaodal ^ roptooo Describe request in detail: We wish to build detached 2»ct gragp it I5 foot____ Mtback froa Oa k Street, Garage doora would be ot right angle to Ptraat. lum-oround area would b« on lot. 9e VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED to do ti» ro^otod mdiu: X lothodi I Front _ Sido . Lot Aroo Lot Width iordeovor ioor) Othor 10. Describe UNUSUAL PRdPERTY CONDITIONS pravaatlaa eoapltoiwo «*lck toolog ObSo roaolrownto: Lot elevation rlaea approxlaiately 6-8 feet from etreet tc aetback point at 35 feet a ----build at that point Mould require retoval of all treea and natural covor. Describe UNDUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DIFFICUI.TY r-utiM tc .cnoc o.corco.«,t ot '•■“lattoa „Ji^ddjMjjiulre__^_ciltlng__£ut__lnto^^8treet^iinnece«8arlly long drlvemp with elope. 1 of many treea and ahruba. 12. Describe EFFECT OF PROFOSED MORE - ^ € .ffhttic cj • Propoaed site la completely screened (except for drlveW-ty/'from*^'the street and The APPLICANT and the PROPERTY OWNER must H»o APrUCAKT hortbjr aprooo to prowtOo oil InforMtlon roqulrod or toauoiced bp tho Zoning Ateinlotrator. ogrooi ff? end/or kouienol onpensoe ineurred in roviaA# of thUoppi loot ion. ond cortifUo thot tho Inforootion •nppllod to tw%m Olid oorvoct to tho boot of hio hnonlodgo: c. sign and date this application. n«* harobp oeknowlodgoo ond ogrooo Co this apolleati SC '•••«“• -‘nr onto tho proparep otoff^onoultanco, ogonca, coa^aalon taaiAora, and Cwwall oa^ra for piirpoaoa of tavaotlgacton and vorlfteoclon of tld;^ rogoaoc: ^ . -Of - i '• ‘ -I ^ii i S3 * a;> ii I mn* EE^S i^'I.SIlls i^sissH if I §11*%• #Ms ®I I •I ^ \ ? :: S3 S t ii I Siili! M M M Ht M Hi l|5|i S s S9|i6 Slf4d|»m ss*ss i H!!i: iSi, I 3^ y < %m \ 9\iHi u ? 81^ H § Ji| i I|S|I ta II!!!,1.-, ;;!!{| T--* 8 3i asi I rv - •1 , ' ■ >' V:- ‘Za-!^ '-I N' *.*- ■ ‘ M Xor - ' ^ m hi. § 1 fr; mi I?*'?:;- mm ttlMf!! • M ^*1 • Vi» ^ ■* imiii« wBli 1'" i.Mt. N§ff^ V /% y y’ 7»T •». #70 S »l*Ji VOINON T* HOPK ^ nNAHCe DIVISIOH URBCTCR MIN!lsScJ?sI!*MlK»eS«A *5**’ D£/tX sir; ■ •!. «.». R«««t Wl R ****** fOUjOUlNB DCSOtlRED LAND* ON TIB imrni*. Park* Lot* 1 and 2» Block 8»Minnetonka Sunmit Park, - -- -- - - M<«n«tonKa 8a»~** * ■- ^ yi.Mtonk. Samtt PwK, Lof 1* «nd ^- - - - Hlnn.tonk. S«-tt WH. 1^* »» , - - - - - --- - - -T At.in-23 «l 00*5, 06-117-»S «1>rop.tty I.D. «<«»«»* 0«-117-23- - - - - - - - - -- *1 0073. 06-117-23 41 00^ 06-117-23 41 0013 ana 06-117-23 41 0076 tCMlI* VltXRGI OR 0IS1Rlcr,_3A-5 Ozono 81 - . \ 9tm .1983 MrSiHH It ^ HAIR OP TAX rail* rxu.K -Tf ^.'1 : A > iriilfc ^ I . % ’J0 k it ilks: C- ' •# wT *. ■ •>Vrt ;,-’ 15e t »•■ Hr 1!0: FROM: OATS: SUBJECT: '■ '■. •<• i f ' t«- . Planning Comnission Members Jeanne Mabueth, Zoning Administrator September 17, 1982 #706 - Home Builders of Wayzata - 3545 Ivy Place Variance Zoning District - LR-IC ^plication - Multiple Variances Area variance: Required - 21,780 sf Total area as platted - 14,565 sf or 69% Lot eurea to travelled road - 11,40(T sf or 52% Lot area to shoulder - 10,000 sf or 46% Let width Required - 100* Width along Maple Avenue - 60* Width along Ivy Place - 224* Building setback variances 1) Side setback Required - 10* Proposed - 3' Variance - 7* or 70% !, *v. ■ i. ■ ''>»Y iy t‘CMwii. ,i»4 .-id O. J. y n I Front/street setback Required - 30' Setback as platted - 25* Setback at travelled road - 12' Hardcover variance - 75'-250* setback area Area as platted - 11,438 sf Allowed hardcover - 2860 sf or 25% Area excluding travelled road - 9186 sf Allowed hardcover - 2297 sf or 25% Proposed hardcover - *3922 sf 34% hardcover as platted - 9% over 42% hardcover excluding travelled road - 17% over . •' V-- . ■V ■ssam B Home Builders of Wayzata September 17, 1982 Page 2 Breakdown of hardcover: House & garage - 1632 sf Driveway > 1620 sf Deck - 670 sf •r-. -'i ' ■ ' ' , Total Hardcover 3922 sf • s. . i List of Exhibits: * vV 1^4 Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Application Property Owners List ' Plat map Plat map Klint letter - May 26, 1982 Site plan - application 1706 Site plan - application #219 State Statute 282.018 Resolution #762 Resolution #843 Are?, survey Council Minutes - #219 Ei.'hibits involving requests, to release Tract V Very brief review of application #219 In 1977, Petersen applied for multiple variances to permit construction of a house on Lot 184 and part of Lot 185, Taylor's Subdivision of Spring Park lots. He was advised by Council that they could not approve the application as proposed finding the lot severely substandard in area, drainage concerns and requiring numerous variances if built on. Council passed a resolution (Exhibit I) abating all special sewer and water assessments and, at that same meeting, advised Petersen to work with staff to see if Tract V (Exhibit L), a pending tax forfeit lot, could be purchased by Petersen and combined with the subject property. Oi. October 11, 1977, Council adopted Resolution #843 (Exhibit J) releasing Tract V for public sale with the express direction that it be combined with the Petersen lots. The DNR removed Tract V from the public auction per S.S. 282.018 (Exhibit H), as it met 50'-f lakeshore length and width of two rods. Clint's letter (Exhibit E) and the many attached exhibits confirm the applicant's many attenqpts to acquire the tax forfeit lot. Review of current application The applicant has returned with a new proposal. In comparing the original site plan for #219 with the current plan, note the house has been moved closer to shared lot line of Tract V. Applicant feels this repositioning of the house to be more acceptable now since the DNR cannot release Tract V for public sale. i in'""” ■ i V ,\ ..• Hone Builders of Wayzata Septenber 17, 1982 Page 3 J7 * ^ ■i :T „ ^ ■ i ^ V'S •*. •> V If approved, the City will as.< for a quit claim deed for that portion of the travelled road that encroaches Lot 184. Review the enclosed Council minutes of that first review) the issues remain the same. Look at the pattern of the surrounding neighborhood development. Vfhat affect does Resolution #762 have on this current review? flow does the inability to acqfuire Tract V affect this review in consideration of Council's directive? If denied. Planning Comnission must address the listing of findings cited in Section 32.340. If approved. Planning Commission must also use the saaie listing of findings in addition to the following points: 1. 2. 3. Ask for a reduction in hardcover - trim back on decking Ask for quit claim deed to City of travelled road and ditch area Require complete drainage plan with building plans to address issue of existing topography and direct drainage into lake 4. Limit all future use of hardcover fa*. ,, i*'” '.I ' <1^J ..-V -tBo ',1? ’•? >8 ifWwi *^d X- i » ^ »*V*<*' i . ■J. ¥ ■ ^ :V , ■ ^1' f - •• >vt LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION EXHIBIT I 7*6 CITY OF ORONO P.O. toa M( Cry*cal lay, Ntnnaaoca SS323 ♦73-7357 exhibit SXEitSUSSl* riyf ftf t tkB InfomtliNi Jlmt. Gbh ^U u Um$ I • IS •tU€k Utur or otlMr lnl«rMti«i tm httt •p^llMtiofie trill mt hm acem*^* > S/ffC ^ Addyfsj •M tm m IdRa^latt •p^llMtiofie trill iwt 1m 7>. ‘1 /«vi J - V /fty 4 ca-v^?r»‘aa .♦ *>> oa attaclw^ iiiw*y, aj>t»U 3 —■• 27?^g|*PEiyMIT -4^ l^in,xc K.:o // KSiiapa^'/^#Ttj0 1. PROPERTC AOMIESS 2T^ '■! I’ - 9 Bffi V I / ^ , !'}(<sn/ //ctj -n _ t* lieMt U not oimor, os^Uiii y»}9t c*IImnio Niiliiit Ad4roii Date Property Acquired (NMth/YMr) I (do) (do not) also own other adjacent parcels o€ land A/Ul___________««.._________4. AGENT ■« Plra g- MilltH AM tm* 5. NOTICES «ioui4 k« Mac M)i^ppUeaat 6. PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT _ 7, PRESENT USE _ (ooiar) £u LIST OF EXHIBITS it Attfi£l£ilfll toUlii ^UiULwi ■not iaoln^: I Appiteotlofi Form S Froyorty Onnoro Llo ircificoto of Surv* Foo locoipc ttfAl !«1v«4 f~ ’ -V" i/^ F« Stoff Inlfcr OM 4 5 i unoiClon ___ riot Mip . - Invontory ___ Stoff Othor Infotmittiin 7 8 f 10 U 12 VOeont Lm4 Voeont iuildiiit(o)Oeeupiod OuildlngCo) 8. DESCRIBE REIQUEST ^MUklUkaMaM . ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST S • osiotiat ••• Jj^bniid Mr ^ oii oa ^ roaodol _ roplooo S^ec y ' ZfAcAt.-/ /r EXHIBIT 1 exhibit tfr LIST OF EXHIBITS £ jittfiKittin _ Applicaeiott Font _ Frof rty OMMrt Lit _ 0Brtifie«(« of Sutv* JiC^— ratv«4 italLM Flat Nip — - Invantory of land * lafof Him ISJ^/ • Agcat r lUCTION COST $ au M» ' .W«b4*1 _ rapU«* :-rTB.vr>-gsgfc-t?sjs- -«**■' •• y/ i LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION EXHIBIT 1 5.*t CITY OF ORONO FaOa %om Ciyatal lay» Nlnnaaota S5323 473W337 exhibit §1BBEEISS* Flaaaa flrat f 9 bfvraatlon ihaat. Ooaplata Itaaa 1 • 19 atuok Uttar «r atkar Uiforaatloa to kottor »lata ap^tlaocloiia will not ka aaa< tka attaekaO IffATai *** ' i^**^**** ap^llaocloaa will aat ka aaaa||ta4. S.^rec ^ Acff^yrsj j 1. PROPERTY ADDRESS a akMoi o« attaeka4 laiaav, Mitktt 9 7a^ /arZ o« attach 9vtvap, Mim^^ • • iJnA,, *>,c. I~?Cq^/ ■? . /}J; ^ “ 91982 MitMN Mtaaat ta aat -J< -1 ■ \ aKplaiii Adtfraaa Date Property Acquired 7^7A (Hoatk/taar) fde) (do not) also own other adjacent parcels of land 4. AGENT ___CLUi--------------------------------------------- __________ g. ^_____ NillUt Addftaa '1 5 k NOTICES Shaiild \m wmit to:leant (Amcr 6. PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT _ 7. PRESENT USE Haat^aatUl_____ (Otkar> >p- LIST OF EXHIBITS f aMcriatioB ******* jUflieatlaa ■aat taoliiAa: I __ Applicatlofi Foni ^ •«— Freparty OMiara Lit 9 _ tertificata of Suiv# Kaealpt Odfl salvak y- */-{-• Oata^Jteeaiva^•rSIpi Staff loiftimatioi Othor Infoiawtion I Vaeant Laa4 Vaaaat lalMlag(a)Oeeupiad BuildingCa) 8. DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIHATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ / ■ _ aacaklUk aaa aaa _ aaatlaaa or aapaa« aalatlag aaa aaa ^ oM oa _ rawkat _ ropUea Describe request in detail: ■5 ' • ■ >£ 9. VABIANCE(S) REQUIRED to 4a tka raaaaatak Uark: .111 Ut Araa Fraat _ kaar) Othar Lac MUtk Nardtovar Id. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS pra»«tla» aaapllaaaa altk laalag Co4a raaalraaaata: 1' Describe UNDUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ra.«uia« fraa .cnat aatarcrat aC .oala. ragylationa rr.c ^1 4'' . ^ i" /•/■/»T V ^ / V. 12. Det-cribe EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK on nalikkarlnc praparcUa aa4 oa tka aalkMatkoad ta goaaral: The AP^l^NT and the PROPERTY OWNER must sign and date this application. TilA APPLICAIfl* ik^ap^ia^ 1 * - - - - « ^ * .*Hia AFFLlCAIft haraby agraaa to yrovida all inforaation ragulrad or raotttatad by tba tonloa Adainiatratorp agraaa lo H7 •it Faaa and/or vnvaiail aapanaaa incurrad in raviaa of tbia applieationp and cartifiaa that tha infonntloit oupgll^ la tnia and eorraet to tha bait of bla hncMladga: Tba OUNEg haraby acbnoaladgoa and agraaa to tbia ayplleatl and furtbar authoriaaa raaaanabla antry onto tha proparty by C/ty staffp consultantSp agantSp co—lsalon nanbarSp and wounell naabara for purpoaao of invastlgatlon and varifleatlon of tbia raguaat: ItBIT 1 nerr ’it'r LIST OF EXHIBITS £ tesUttlm t _ ApplIeatlMi For* I _ Fwptrty Omft% Lli 3 tertificat# of Suiv* t— Meatpc fttJX rue Mip __ Invmtorjr Scoff fittacJnfgnula d • — COST S / v^:w • «. •' « . __ «4# m _rfoitl __r«pU«« uc mmk IlirdMmr ‘I frai otrUt —loro—Bit of Booiai Ills application. io%oe oo4 otrooo to Olio o^lieoct roooooo»lo ooccy ooco Oio o^^oporty icot opoofOp Boooloolflo oooOorOp pMffoooo of ioooociaocioo ond loooc: i ^ HC 1233 ► iiiiiB.mmiii .1 •- DWT OF PHOPERTY *-•09 «OVtlWM|NT CIKTCR MINMCAPOUBk mm SS407 • M /I I Mi.^ iltT Sllf gWOPEWTY OWIIFIM n«T , ------ PXHIBIT — g l5jlMr !**• OM THIS5551"!!**^* •** *** AHO mut RBMt-SCNTATION Of INfONMATlOH At IT AffBARt TMIt ^ atcoaos oa thi Htmii^iN eoiaiTY" ”* "Ssisii 00. OtOT. OLHloOi^ U OUTNER r.L. 1/). LLIPlCUf // // // TAX PAYER / MAILING ADDRESS IROPERTY ^OR 2X>-/n-7^~‘/7 // T AfiTftUR u 3^4fT o P,a'i‘BE: rt 'IR&M/A -Wa^ J5c?g- // /S//>T TVV PU^ 2 ___,J^SfeS2S ^£oLui£-j2mm. ^SMt L A'. I vi ■’ •U Klint, Adams and Hill, V .^Ts,\ rUt M€0 SMOnaUNa IHIIVC .K, 4 p.o. monas4 r.w<^^A ' wAvaATA.MiNNaaoTAaaaai . Ir ATTOaNBVa AT LAW TataaMONa: laiaiATa-itAa Twx ato*a7#.»Aaa #70^ eXHIBIT ■•,»v ; A 14. aiMFSON aTwaaT LAWoa. NiaaaiA vrnt TucttatAS OOUWLAS a. HUNT •HAOLaT A. ADAMS saraa a. mill oa couNsaLi C.S.I. iwuji. aso. ,1 ■* -V - Jiff. May 26, 1982 !> t» I 1 ' , 1. Mr. Bruea Malkaraon Topluai, Balk, Schnobrich, KaufMn & Doty, Ltd. Suita 4344 IDS Tovar so South Eighth Straat Mlnnaapolla, MN 55402 Ra: Tract V, R.L.8. 461 Oaar Mr. Malkaraon: 1 ,va so} at' i ;'u - ■. • • 1 ^ aiCC i r l%aS <2 iJL i''^z t V A‘;.^ ‘'SA.r«cf -.hi A<a,*' ^ ^-ML • -»v A ' I hava baan aakad to rapreaant Mr. P. Cary Pataraan ragardlng a aubdlvlalon of tha abova daacrlbad proparty. Mr. Pataraan ovna Lot 184 and part of Lot 185, Taylor'a Subdlvlalbn of Spring Park, and haa baan attaaptlng for aavaral yaara to acqulra Lot V and coiri>lna It with hla lot to aaka ona bulldabla alta without auccaaa. Lot 184 la a aubatandard building alta alnca It doaa not saat tha Blnlwai lot area raqulraaant of tha Orono Zoning Ordlnanca. In 1977, Mr. Pataraan aada a requaat to the Orono City Council for a variance of tha alniaun area requiraaant in order to build a houaa on tha lot* A houaa could be placed on the lot and aaet all other city raqulreoMnta* * See attached aurvay. The council auggeated at that tlaa that Mr. Pataraan acqulra tha adjacent tax forfaited lot. Tract V, R.L.S. 461, and conblna tha lota Into one bulldable alte. In October,. 1977, tha City Council paaaed Raaolutlon #843, a copy of which la attached, which ralaaaad Tract V for aala and encouragaa combination of tha lota. It waa not until the fall of 1979 that the County put Tract V up for auction. Mr. Petersen was prepared to buy the property at that time, but the day before the sale, the County withdrew the property from public aale alnce the DNR bad put a hold on the property. Tha DNR would not allow tha aale of tha property because of the provisions of Minn. Stat. { 282.018, a copy of which is attached, which requires tha withdrawal from public sale of tax forfaited landa which border on meandered lakaa. Mr. Douglas Klint had numerous meetings and conversations with both county and state officials In an attempt to get Tract V raleaae for public aale, or to arrange a sale between tha county and City of Orono, «^r to laMe tha proper* for a minimum of 30 years, all to no avail. Enclosed find correaponduncD reflecting those discussions# ■J\ Hii w*rr I s r. Lf i 4 ••1. ??icrris‘iLiS'S^ ?? •• «» •CM«mrti«ir ' co«IttM la im and oatMa* »aa Mt. ntot^dJTJTJlirali^'.i;..*'" iVfUtln taaalcn by " «oald ba don. la that ."KjT ‘“ ““* S2s*:jrj.''2r;s a'r,s.;*jsr.“" •»««•ubdlviaion could br^do It Trwt V J* ^W-tod thee «- ^ • mj that a lot uaa craatS «“LL JLTjS ^ •««*» to a Una 2 roda frea tha high nark^f^rJJf*? It would appear that thla newly craatad lat rlTrS*#? P«rtlon tharaof; VMtrlctiona of Minn. Stat. I Is2 018^ tha thla aubdlvlalon would iioralgnlfieia;^ «bulldahla,Moraorar, it would ratum i*P^r tha valua of tha lot. m Uy m ssrr-lano^aS ---- m: Tours Vary truly. r Patar C. Hill Attorney at Law PGH:bn Kncloaura •■r ^ mtT: i • v\O'' o Lf.tyr-tA •.>: -V.-l k V> ■ »;• \ , Cy m I K *. •: ' . ’f . / • *-* ^ ' I'^v^w I ^ !.•♦ i$% • ;* V .11: r J ri ' * 4^d i.ro . • • • • # 1 •* • • if. / I;*<r.iMr,>ir; County, F*’'r.«:;ntt exhibit : C«rtlfieat'^ cf Sur^ <y: I h«r«ly certify l-.'il thin • true and rorrorl r»*vro- •entatlon of e siurvoy of th« Loundarlae of uot IC/. end Ibet part of Lot 1R5 lylnjj Soutbuosturly of > line doocrlbo'i as follcur.: Scfiir.r.inr et a -point in lb? tiorthvoct line of said Lot 1?5 distant 45 feet fortheaetcrly froic the irost Vastorly corner of suid lot: thenre in a straight line to a point in the SoulhoaLtorl" lire of raid lot distent 45 foot Kcrthcor.t- / orly froo the ewet Couli.orly corner of tali lot, an»- thor-i ending, ell in Taylor’a f*:!- diviaior. of Spring Tarl? lots. It does not purport' to* sl ow lipnvovorior.tr or enrrcachKCTitr. Seale: 1** ~ 10* Celt. : o I Jrcr. Mrrtar L'ino .5u~voyr:* enc ?ls.nnor- i#'r.r L-/.C, >.irT.rrota t* • Wm"m. I : 'iV X i'Cmt I y A « ' • ■/»•.•■■ f ■: !• » ^■t':- 1:C ■ ^ if .•;»' ■ -I !’l-.t .19 ^r-/rr'i"/. n!,j“!>s, •A n»»sM!i:pin ro»:nf-7, Mlnnonotn />. .• TnvIor'r '.Mifrlv:: io* rf .';p:*i:i/; ?arl: i.ots \ V * U» 145 ' EXHIBIT & M ;r «-3 ry*.:\ f-". V, tk • * 8#. ‘'.4 "•»»*« ',• ■ f lij# ^ + "S-’- * « ;J M vilfiit -. .' ^ mst * \n tWi^^ (.'» UMtUt . ’.'t * I. ; .<*4, «i»- »I • J-- *.V •«w.. C«rtlfieata of Survey:’ 1 horobgr certify that this ie a true and rorj*oct reoro- aentatlon of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 184 and that part of Lot 185 lyinK Southuostorly of a line deseribod as follcus: Ooglnnine at a point in the Northwest line of said Lot 1?5 distant 45 faot Kortheaaterly »‘ron the irost Westerly comer of said lot; Ihonre In a straight line to a point in ' the Southeaster!' lino of said lot distant 45 feet f'erthnont- erly fmn the .-rost Soulhorly corner of said lot, ent? there ending; all in Taylor's Cul- dlvlsle. of Spring Park lots. It does not purport to show ImnrovoRients or encroachments. t» »5 t'* V Scale: 1" - 40* Date : 3-3-7^ o t Iron marker C;.rion .. Coffin f,0fi4 Land Surveyor and Planner i^ni: Like, Minnesota * S3U., pill & v5* ^ »’ * • •'*Vi *»^*:‘,^ > •*'• '" -■ :;■■■' - •fc * * ^ % .( ■ ArtV, -i^^Vj /6.r {i :; * c. •^'ai?*. .•/•>* •• § 282.012 TAX-rOKPEITED LAND SALES 282*013 Prl«r twiitr wiy purthMi f, Co»«ttryCtl*fi mn6 ypplle#tl#ii _ ...4i ffn» Ai^rific D^flurmbfic "X'CKHIBIT Co»»tuy«ti*" 4W. ,1^ MrUo pnltTpa in»® *!**.P**TSIlSJIn nuH for »p«clflc p^rlormonct by tnt t^ . |p®mo Iom wUb tht iritowt Upii »••«•" v?f, •‘.V.t. V« h. ’.ISi#'. •.............. ~«*»<**npppnl lalion by ihc oiot# from jii^- jluSTTliin^n judicial •loltmonl rb.“.v."-jsK- a"s.IS.™;•■»•> SSflKSiii- “”• •”“■«■ “’• ”■ fnant finding plalnilffs tUl» to Im mar- Ing >valton l^»airva ofL^tairvo oi haiaUr and rrqulrinr nndowSem. Inc. v. Siatt. Dtpi. otJSmX-is; Tisrsr^ ’"’• ’“ “'• 3824)18 Tti-lorfeltnd liad; nidP-iirap laawp. •—• - thaTi«.lorl.lt«4 Imd: tM0’Uni UHm; mI«; •■e#pHo« ,uu for noDpoymeni of “«y Ul«» tor U*>i>B (Uttrlcu. onil which border* M or to o^wn -„wlns or „d other public wur. “^eJS il L«I«Aer Srorlded. S."‘..^.~5 ~ -j »*• ■•;-•"« -“ STumir olLniii. prorld«I hr '-w for culUof ond remov.l o .... . _ AO -____nrfl I o%*cr tbd tiinbtf on dny guci* lonu* I ^ lAW for cutUng nod romovol nodw docn Uloed yield forestry ^ ^ ‘,Jeh «SltloM u the .utborlty timber eball reserve »uch Umter end im^^^ «ndiife hehlttt. oborellnea. !ss^ t.TJJuS' sjr...*r.s;i”’i !.vsi?cr ..»’ ~- by to rewrved for pubUc travel thereon "“f .",rtletlon overthe chore line or coodltlons require, the euthortiy havnc jur so •ueblend.ebUl "«7** ?M‘l2KMTfeet of w.ttrfront m.y be^d*5'tte^eu*th“rity hevln* 2Tio?birity“d'S^lIi•tSTt KS ?ur is;;:s rcBoaroBBe Added bj Laws 1073, c 369,11. Library raftrtncct Taxation ^»«Sl. ,C.J.B. Taaallon ft 7£t. 7W, til. NON-CONSEnVATlON AREA Sr'uiK; w S SS.7JS.T7? "”•« SJ'ifTSti"'™ with the county nudlior . Itot of perceli of lend I -.Itn* v.loe Itot .hell contain a description of the petcete of !•"•** ^ omittedtberSf; provided that the dc«rlptlon end apprai-d value may he omitted 42 1 I?- / • • M u EXH»B\T RESOLUTIOH #762 A RESOLUTION TO ABATE SEWER AND WATER ASSESSMENTS r r.- >■ SX°PaiK':“«4i*ro2o“S^t*r8r« l unbuUd.ble substandard lot} and tap '■tg, ife-'K; vJ WHEREAS, the total amount of the above described property for the sewer and water special assessments are the following amounts: Plat 43480 - Parcel 6000 - Levy 4048 - $288.00 Plat 43480 - Parcel 6000 - Levy 5383 - $618.65 the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the sewer special assessment ?n the aJwunt'of $288.00 and the water special assessment in the amount of $618.65 is hereby abate . -liidLf/\ /Jr A^.* i t iA- William B. Van Wst, Mayor Attest Clerk-Administrator RESOLUTION 1843 A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL PUBLIC SALE OF TAX FORFEITURE LAND TRACT V, RLS 461 #70b WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal co^ration organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesot , WHEREAS# pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, the City Council h.i re»iewT«rtiiS"?operties forfeited to the State for nop-pay«nt of real estate taxes, and tWEREAS, the City Covincil has decided to release for public sale Tract V, RLS 461, tax parcel 38/43088/6000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City City of Orono approves the public sale of Tract V, ^S 46 , following stipulations to be entered in the chain of title. The parcel exceeds the current minimum The Council will not vary the required lakeshore conservation setback requirements and making tne lot Taylor’s Subdivision of Spring Park, said combination p]fovidin9 ono conforxtiing building sitB» Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesote at a regular meeting held October 11, 1977. /UiilL William b. Attest:W^nT^^lerk-Administrator It V \- ' ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 28, 1977 EXHIBIT Page 18 Mayor Van Nest stated to the City Council that he and other CounciImembers received a letter from Mr. Douglas KUnt representing Mr. Gary Petersen, 3545 Ivy Place, which states: I represent Mr. P. Gary Petersen, who has submitted an application for a variance on the above described property in the City of Orono. The property is located on Ivy Place in Casco Point. Enclosed please find a copy of a plat depicting the location of the property. Mr. Petersen acquired the property in 1976 from the estate of Arthur P. Bendel with the intention of building his home on the property. Mr. Bendel has owned the property since 1958. The property was platted in 1885 as Lot 184 of Taylor's Sub division of Spring Park Lots and was in compliance with all zoning and platting laws at the time it was platted. The Village of Orono subsequently accepted and approved the plat. Of the 13 lots in this subdivision, Mr. Petersen's property is the largest. The other 12 lots range in size from 10,400 square feet to 12,500 square feet. Mr. Petersen's property measures 14,271 square feet on the plat. All other lots in the subdivision have houses erected on them. Only Mr. Petersen's property is undeveloped. The prop«>rty has been assessed for sewer and water and the following special assessments remain unpaid: $225.00 sewer plant charge; $375.00 SAC charge sewer and water; and $250.00 park dedication fee. -All special assessments will be paid if Mr. Petersen- is granted authority to build on the property. The only zoning requirement from which a variance is sought is the area and width requirement. Mr. Petersen's proposed dwelling will comply with all other requirements of the zoning code; e.g. setback and use requirements. Enclosed please find a survey of the property which includes a sketch of the dwelling and the position of the lake and alley. You will notice that the travelled portion of the alley encroaches on Mr. Petersen's property. This alley was inspcectd by Alan Olson. If the City feels that they need an easement for the alley, Mr. Petersen will grant them one. In determining whether to grant or deny the variance request, the Council should be concerned with the hardship on the property owner if the variance is denied, the uniqueness of the property, and the interests of the City. ^YOR'S REPORT >^etter - Douglas Klint Re: Gary Petersen 3545 Ivy Place (Continued) [ ^NO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 28, 1977 Page 19 If the City denies Nr. Petersen's variance request, he will be stuck with a piece of property ^ich is absolutely useless to him. He cannot build on it or put it to any productive use. The property will be sterile and condemned as a practical matter. LETTER - GARY PETERSEN 3545 Ivy Place (Continued) It has been suggested that Mr. Petersen purchase the adjoining property and combine both properties into one big lot. While this may sound like a good solution, it is extremely impractical and perhaps inqpossible. The adjacent property is tax forfeited and will be auctioned off later this summer. The back taxes alone are over $10,000 and one cannot predict what will be bid for the property over and above the back taxes. Moreover, there are redemption rights to be considered, as well as the first refusal rights of the City and the problems of obtaining clear title. Mr. Petersen cannot afford an additional $10,000 plus for this land or the additional time before he can get clear title. This property is not readily available now and may never be available for purchase. As stated earlier, the property had been platted over 80 years before the zoning restrictions were adopted. The property is the largest lot in the subdivision and is the only lot which is not developed. Prior to 1967, Mr. Petersen's predecessor in title could have built a house on the property and there would have been no restrictions in the sale of the dwelling and land to Mr. Petersen. Should Mr. Petersen be penalized for the failure of his predecessor in title to build on the property? The uniqueness of the property is also demonstrated by the fact that the property has been assessed for sewer and water. Implicit in an assessment of this nature is a finding that the lot is build- able. If the lot is unbuildable, the assessment is invalid. Of primary concern in the granting or denial of any variance, aside from the hardship to the owner, is the interest of the City. Factors to consider in analyzing the City's interest are the welfare of the conommity and the City's planning objectives. The %#elfare of the community can only be enhanced by allowing Mr. Petersen his variance. To deny the variance would be to sterilize the property. Since the property would be unbuildable, taxes and special assessments would be unpaid. If the variance is granted, a dwelling would be placed on the property and the taxes and special assessments would be paid.(Continued) -*flO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 28, 1977 Page 20 I The tax base for the City would be increased to the benefit of the community. Moreover, the house Mr* Petersen plans to build on the property is a quality house which would increase the property value of the surrounding lots. LETTER - GARY PETERSEN 3545 Ivy Place (Ocntinu^) Not only would the variance enhance the welfare of the community, but it would have no adverse effect* Since sewer and water is in, there would be no pollution or environmental concern. It obstructs no one's view of the lake* In fact, the houses across the alley all face the lake and most have their gar^'it^s and fences along the alley* Mr. Petersen has spoken with several of the neighboring propti'rty owners and none have expressed any concern or objections about his proposed house* The only legitimate concern the City has expressed is their planning objective, which, if analyzed, is not significant in this case. One must remember that this whole neighborhood was platted in 1885 and developed years before the City even envisioned a zoning code. The character of the neighborhood was set in 1885 and firmly established in the first half of this century when the homes were built on this property. While this neighborhood may not conform with contemporary planning standards of lot size and width, this is not a raodernly designed neighborhood* The character and design of this neighborhood were struck in the early 1900*s when this property was platted and developed. All the lots, except Mr. Petersen's, are 50*-foot lots. As noted earlier, Mr. Petersen's lot is the- largest of the subdivision. Unfortunately, this size lot was standard when this subdivision was platted and develped. I'm sure everyone wishes' that the lots were bigger and that the subdivision were planned differently, but that is impossible to do at this late date. It is not practical to impose 1977 planning objectives on a lot which is part of a subdivision and neighborhood which was planned and developed according to planning objectives in 1900. Refusing to allow Mr. Petersen to build on the lot or requiring him to somehow purchase additional l2uid, which may not even be available, will not aid the planning objective in that subdivision. Any larger lot would stick out like a sore thumb and not be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood. Planning objectives must be realistic and should take into consideration the average lot size and general character of the neighborhood. Mr. Petersen's lot is larger than the average lot in that sub division and is in conformance with the general character, use and plan of the neighborhood and should not be denied a variance.(Continued) *<0N0 COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 28, 1977 Page 21 m If the Council were to grant a variance in this case# it does not necessarily raean that any substa.idard lot would be entitled to a variance. cSS5id«a?iSM*'ShiSh®IIoSld^pJoSp? TciS Suncil to grant a variance in one case may not be present in another. A precedent would not be established if a variance were granteu in the present case. letter - GARY PETERSEN 3545 Ivy Place (Continued) arbitrary and capricious. End of letter Mavor Van Nest coimnented that the City staff hSHotUeceived this letter for their review. Mayor Van Nest moved# Massengale seconded, to abate the water and sewer 354I standard Lot 184 and part of Lot 185, Place, in the amount of $225 because of a City error in assessing substamdard lots. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). us.s«unt search in October, 1976. °5 ' 1976. the City of Orono received $17,154el6 paying the issessments in full with the the principle and interest due on the tax for 1976e ^The FWBI assumed that when ttey requested an assessment search that it would include the amount of assessments remaining on the tax statement. Therefore# the second half of 1976 assessments reflected on the tax statement were not P-*«* Penalties and interest have ?®«'*®2,b^fnalti^ wishes to have the Council abate the penalties and Interest. FRESHWATER BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE - ABATEMENT REQUEST The attorney attempting to transfer the deed to SI U of M from the FWBI should have discovered that the second half of 1976 special had not been paid and# therefore, were delinquent. The FWBI has paid the balance of assess^nts due S the amount of $1,557.18 and should also ^ responsible for the interest and P®”®^^^®® themn. Therefore# I do recommend that the City of Orono does not abate the interest and penalties at this time. : (Oontinued) ^fQCUF.nt.llRD that: /c Page 10 GARY PETERSEN 3545 Ivy Place I represent Mr. P. Gary ®descri^an annlication for a variance on the above oescrioeo property in the City of Orono. The property is located on Ivy Place in Casco Point. Mr. Petersen acquired the i^Jntfntion4>i>l estate of Arthur P. Bendel with the intention S building his home on ‘"e property^ Mr. Bendel 5:: re?ter!n'’wirr. division of Spring Park Lots and was in compliance with all zoning and platting laws at the time it was platted. The Village of Orono subsequently accepted and approved the plat- oi’thril”. All othei lots in the subdivision S2vrho5se^erect-d on them. Only Mr. Petersen's property is undeveloped. *rh« nrooertv has been assessed for sewer and water and the following special *.”«”LdT.te?; end $250 00 irSi^-pHeisenxll soecial assessments will be paid it nr. re is g?Mted authority to build on the property. in determining whether to grant or reauest. the Coiincil should be concerned with the JSSrtIp on the property owner if the varran« is denied, the uniqueness of the property, and th interests of the City. If the City denies Mr. Petersen's variance request, he will be^stuck with a piece of property la absolutely useless to him. He can t build it or out *t to any productive use. The property will be s irile and condemned as a practical matter Tt has been suggested that Mr. Petersen purchase Jha^adioining property and combine both properties iS?o oirEig loJ! While this may sound like a good iElEt?EE, i? is extremely impractical and Perhaps timruj-LiiciHif" The adiacent property is tax rorxeire iXSill hi auctioned off later this summer. The ™dlE? Shat will be bid for the property over and 4>ha hack taxes Moreover, there are redemption S^h« SS'consllUed? a. well « th. flr.t refusal (Continued) uauaed .iDLUED ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 17, 1977 Page 11 m .hts of the City and the problems of obtaining .ear title, Mr. Petersen cannot afford an idditional $10,000 plus for this land or the additional time before he can get clear title. This property is not readily available now and may never be available for purchase. GARY PETERSEN 3545 Ivy Place (Continued) AS'stated earlier, the property had been platted over 80 years before the zoning restrictions were adopted. The property is the largest lot in the subdivision and is the only lot which is not developed. Prior to 1976, Mr. Petersen s predecessor in title could have built a house on the property and there would have been no restrictions in the sale of the dwelling and land to Mr. Petersen. Should Mr. Petersen be penalized for the failure of his predecessor in title to build on the property? The uniqueness of the property is also demonstrated by the fact that the property has been assessed for sewer and water. Implicit in w assessment roent is invalid. of the community and the City's planning oDectives. The welfare of the community can only be enhanced by allowing Mr. Petersen his variance. To deny special assessments would be unpaid. If the variance pro%?tr«nd' the^taiei”and°speciSl''aM would the house Mr. Petersen plans to build on the property is a quality house which would increase the property value of the surrounding lots. sewer and water are in, there would be no pollution s? rc'tr?h. fiiceralong thi^alley’T^Mr’^ Petersen has several of the neighboring property owners and none have expressed, any concern or ojections about his proposed house.(Continued) £DULED ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 17, 1977 Page 12 the Council were to grant a variance ise. it does not necessarily mean that any sub standard lot would be entitled to a Each lot must be taken on its wn ^«rits considerations which would Prompt a ^ity Council i? rSariaice were granted in the present case. GARY PETERSEN 3545 Ivy Place a 4 Hayor Van Nest seated that In comparin|t his computations of lot sizes with Mr. Klint s rne* are vast discrepancies in Jhe sizesizes Our information indicates that “i*« rih;. “s*,: sss that other lots ‘'^®2nts"*^In^the 1800°s, small rhi:^er«rc^n ISvironmental°conceJns that effect the safety, health and welfare of its residents. mt- noualas Klint commented that the City Is S'pylviS, the -«»„^MnSe“2y“tai?n, that existing condition of the vacant lot as it exists today. “r.Su“ «hi=h Jlgnlres ?Saf m«t°te^dS«sseS* S'rrSlu^ KuSt"rtrt:dnr.?‘ii;e Sppuc^t Hr\ pete«en. "U signed a purchase »?J«*"t"''„*°%eJe?sen; if he Malketlon ashed the ^Hr^ailwie vaf SeSieS. U°"^p.?Laen"tnsw?.d*'yes’. Mr. Malkerson asked If S^: SSrfull kUledg. ‘•'‘‘.‘Hia^ierJnswered ?;M“"'*M?o?vtrNes? SSted that the Co^U does ^ l:‘;tl?X%J“u?h“ts«.'’s>'‘“l‘' address-themselves to:(Continued) haasajt 4. .EDULED ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 17, 1977 Page 13 3. 4. f Hard cover Discrepancies in lot sizes lot conttguSufto^piop^B^S building «ite ^^ Review drainage patterns into t 9 lake. resolve the ®?5«°"that*all alternativesSSre-SSt S^eS’'iesnirhe^"t“«icSTr^iLnahle solution. 5 >«»»I* iSov^’d . ' b» ai9)oti'>'«a '-ft J5W’ - * C V ' yit'', h r-.// >,->ar*tiek ■ n '■V - , a.* ^ - I t C R * ia'. ■ ... .!nnu^i#£M* v*>‘: vr. r l Sl^' jifcV '.1-4. • ;: GARY PETERSEN 3545 Ivy Place (Continued) > ■ • • ^ . A>. >r V . < J n .4V i vj • •- nvi' y- /V / y. a%'. '•« / T^. 4 .» ‘ f ^5T eoui .ed obono council meeting held mabch 17, 1S7 7 Butl«r .***®J*I2J^*ebru»ry*28,^1977 Council. th. »otion .«5. Feb«^^ reconsider motion .3545 Ivy Place ^ February 2»» Petersenthe motion mace i request for ^ meeting 3545 Ivy .Place. Motion#EXHIBIT ' vad Has»en««l. secona«a, to adopt ?®“J]U^“.^/5Stt«”M8esLaants iy- <«> - ‘*> • : 1 B«tl.r «ov.a, Hasa.n9.le .econded. to dir«^ “ locate all •'*st.od.td lotj^in^or_^ ,,, their assessments. • Motx # jr SUBSTANDARD LOTS assessments Nays (0). ADJOURI4MENT r. ' :•m W Mm .Sm ^ ^ mMmMM m m J wT ^ William B. van Nest# nayoiT Attest<^MnT'^S^rK^-RSnlnlstrator wiU f • 4' ' «* I ir * % ♦ • n : ■ j Vr) '• »»»>. » ' V6 . . -• -t- o»- ‘i *■ \ ■ t > ■tejN .4 EXHIBIT £1 V'*’. I * 6318 Maple Excelsior, ^ ^5331 April 29, 1981 V Representative Tad 235 State Office Burldxng St. Pau!, MN 55155 #706 T1 Titins « you matter tor wniw* * •— i^a a In March, 1980, my wife and ^ i° happen^, we became i" " oS ot n«ar lake ^ LteraeS of Miller-Petersen 'S£n?of^ SoruroVUfk^|« able conforming lot uee a , . * . _____a.viA ^av roles as aable contorming i a as a The City of Orono wanted the Pj[°|®^^g|.°Jiy^wife^and I in* con- SliLntial property, it “PP®*i|^acquire^Tract V and combine it junction with ,*’®5®”?S4 to yield a buildable lot. Con- lith Mr. In place. What we had ^®?rcl^ni^iia'^SnS ^In^the MiSuesota Pepart»ent of Resources was about to take.ources was afcrw«<- — — Wr,l<i The DNR, on the day ^®|°^® .^gfited the^propert”muih^to our ”“®a.K» tax forfeit sale and seized tne p ^ months in which°=Sa55in "Mt n“e:^tL^ritvrerrt«en.pSra%rfina out what, “I;uim done to set the P«P«!’' of whlc i 7 “iuIfb^dSne iH^'tSe property released loa"Jls JS2'tS^details of ‘he ~rrespondence,^(co?«^ « the property, hence, this letter to you. CONTINUED • • • -2- •««.<* it if you could review this ^tter and to enable u. . come voting members of y Thank you for your assistance r \ sic1, 1,. « Enc. t- ' '<' i' ■ ■ ’ t i.. Xii- ,'U/^ «t COM'-• TTart ^,.,t j '■ ?e - a if.h i *■f' ■, r«* i '’- •' •* 4 -• JaWP*P^” * jL' :,'?.vu-' :.;, -*S% actior. r>.. r’l ■u ^ it ■ ^"tay ^**^^ * ‘ Dili*. •*'•'* ,;l« t« Sincerely t Peter G» Hill ♦- r 1 •I m>m exhibit 6318 Maple Excelsior, MN 55331 April 29, 1981 ■•44,^ 4 i -i Iirsfat^fmce-Butialnr State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 7"‘*.7r. \\ r • y- i ‘U 'U AD10 ■“ The City of Orono wanted the PJ^°P®^wJt°my^wife*and I in Cv;'n** residential property, it ®PP® ,^ acquire Tract V and combine itj^ition with Mr. ^Peterson couldjcqu.re^^^^^^^^ S°”"into With Mr. ? ^fii®in^plice. What we had not taken into the Minnesota Department of Resources was about to take. »••• i-weu -- - - - - - a In March, 1980, my wife it happened,°we became lime on or near I^®il® T Gary leUrsen of MiUer-Petersen associated with a Silling to work with «®.an^^5lStConstruction Company, who was wiix^^g determined that owned a parcel of „j5hin our^budget limits, if aa home could be built within our by matter could be 's Subdivision of Spring Park) Sas not a conforming building sit ''® access except through ?”ct V,RLS461, to Lot 184, which has^no^ac^ ^ Lot 184, and was itself ^”^J^ben combined would 7^®}*^^^_„'^ig43)forfeiture sale. These^l^^^^^h^^ Resolution able conforinin9 lo^ ^ . OfES AS S Resources w«s> -- -— The DNR, on the day '=«*°”a*«Ued Se^|rope?tr~=h‘’to our on the tax was a period of three months i"chagrin, what attempted to find out what, we# through Mr* Peters ^ t-he oroperty released*?f anything. the correspondence, (copies of which Sparing you the 5®^*^^® ® reply was^that we would need special ;r0i“0i!0f k «leO U Obtam tine to the property, hence, this letter to you. CONTINUED * * * • i . I 1^' >r: ’ -M^ .. ^"<r' ^ -2-j^ ^ T I {H u <.<.4 9«-o 4*- if vou could review this matter and Thank you for your assistance.^ Sincerely/ fft'•., -'*■Peter G. Hill 8XC Enc. »-Aj ■ •H' 4.i •vr ’TFfp^- ; i STATE OF ihOG^ISS®Tr/& DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BUREAU OF LAND, ACQUISITION & EXCHANGE SECTION 444 LAFAYETTE M>. • ST. FAUl, MINNESOTA 55101 • PHONE 296-7945 • 296-7949 June 25, 1980 exhibit Mr. Douglas Klint, Attorney 316 East Main Street Minneapolis, MN 55414 RE: Registered Land Survey #461 Dear Mr. Klint: Attached is correspondence X have received relative to your inquiry. Hopefully this will be of some assistance tc you. . ... e- V^ / A For ■J ■ e*f.' DCDtmlm Attachments ' 'U ^ I i'-. - ► #706 >» ' > T*- - li ■»■' •■'i i t* f>J I ‘t. L... AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER v,> i • § , . .rf. .Am. . ■V-V lUOO 1/711 STATE OF MINNESOTA -• D^tr.tiiTMF ’^’T ^^atural Resources - Bureau of Land Office Memorandum .iiv: A Rod Rowe, Acting Administrator Bureau of Land exhibit U: , FROM By: Merton V. Christian, Supervisor Acquisition fc Exchange Section Denis Dailey, Supervisor .eTTT~^ Realty Specialists U/ DATE: June 2, 1980 oPHONE: SUBJECT: CounQr Tax Forfeit Lands Tract V Registered Land Survey 5461 Section 20 Township 117 Range 23 Hennepin County JUN • ® *-’-5 & ^VAT£R Ways C' we are forwarding a plat of the above described land to you for Investigation and di^osltion. Douglas Klint, attorney for an abutting landowner is seeking DNR aqpproval for release of this tract so the county nay offer it for sale. He has a willingness to accept it with vhatever easements the CNR nay vant to return. We have forvrarded a copy of this plat and letter to Mike Markell who presunably represents the only program {Water Access)- that nay be able to utilize the site. However, Mr. Klint has indicated the City of Qrono v;ould not approve DNR using this site for a public access. If yoa have further questions, please ccntact Mr. Klint at 421-5413. He has also talked to the coun^ land people. DD:sm oc: Mike Markell Wendy Odegard Douglas Klint \~i •N j/ C[ . '■ -./t-/ • ! - I Enc. f" : J w- » ^ // I 1'•••• .A . ; / •• • ^ / • / • /;■'?' L hi- //■ " Li\' • / ^ . KEA u C —STERS ■ «JUT3 J «. •I '•* rv •i'w»iil xniHHnf^4 ADMIN '000 M. *. I 781 SF.OOOOi-Ui ST AT E OF MINNESOTA I)KI'AI{-I MEN! -NaturaJ_B«fiuCCfei. Bureau of Land I .: r^;.'•», ,7/. 8. Office Memorandum Denis Dailey exhibit “ 4^ 3240 ATI;Miun9^l9yS9980j| rC- FROM Rod Rovre ^ Land Sales, Leases & Record^ PHONP.: 6-0659 SlTU-rXI: Survey #461, 20-117-23 The above described land cannot be sold without special legis lation (more than 50* fronting on public water). This could not be sold to the state. . • a ret It appears that from the location (residential) and opposition of Orono rules out the site as a public access. If you have any questions, give me a call. RWR:kms rjl CflUrtrr ’ tOKW, ta b» • j llk^ received m 181980 ACQ. & EXCH. SECT 5 • V -- • • r% !\:x ft isdjeuf'd • f\' al «•.. • . *a - • ■ . .'J'K? ' ! ft *Xl-> i *T §, ''i "tI exhibit £d Ally 31, 1980 >^700 Hr* Aon Haine Dixnefaor of Pzoncorty Taisatian A-G ESannepin Gbunty Oovemnent Osnter Mimoap^is, HinnesoOa 55437 -------- AttentLonx Oaoxge Richey RB: Tkact V, Aegdatexod Zand Survey No. 461, Hennsln Oounty, Minnesota Dear Mr* nicheyx X repcBSoA Mr. P. Gary Petersen vto is tiie mner of lot 194 and part of lot 185, Suibdivision of ^irln^ Park Lots, Kenneoin Oounty, Ilinnssota is adjacent to tiie above described property. On the enclooad loas, wf eliant's lot is outlined in blue and tiie above lot is outlined in ted, As you know, the Above lot is tax forfeited and is being held by the county with the EUR having an indefinite hold on the property. I understand that a noertineT is to be held in the near future to determine the disposition of this lot. Oi hrtialf of ijy client, I am requesting Hennepin county to this lot to irv fdlcifit; oar in the alternative, to lease said lot to xxy client for a of at least 31 yaars. ^ 1977 ity client requested sesncral'varianoes from the City of Oram in order to build a house on his lot. Cit^' nminrHi felt that the best BEnroach was to oorfaine Tract V with ry client's lot bo fcaan one site. fV client has atterptad to acquire •mit V since that tine but with no suceess. * I've been in ocntact vd.th both Janes Blooningdale, Regional Land Specialist for the nm, and RlxShard Uessberg, Attorney for the CNR, Ox> advise ce that tha TKR would nob imhsan t, to a sale of that lot because of the restrictions of Minnesota Stat uta $282.018, but wrxxld have no objection to a long tesn lease arrangsnent. The taxm of tixa lease vnuld of necessity have to be at least for 30 vears in order to gualiiV ^or a nortgaoe ooirdtrent. I have also been advised ly it:. Sruoe Hal kerson, City 7ittomey far the City of ttoxo, that the dt/ vnuld not alia/ an/ public \ise of Tract V Iv the EUR, tiut the Citi' vnuld not alio/ a dock to be plaoad on that lot without a (t-nllincr plaood thereon, and also that the lot is unbuildable unless it x«ro joined'with W client's lot. 1 r July 31, 1980 Paoe 2 It ic d^ixe of the City to xetuxn this trsot to the ta:-: zcIgs and the City is oonsidcmiQ leoisletion in ozdsr to have this lot sold and ccnblned vdth ny client's lot. A long toosr. lease frcr>\ tir; Oavntr.' to zr^” client of l^:act V irculd achieve this end. Thank you for your oor.sideration. VEary truly yours.n Douglas £. ICint EET'/jb Cnc. "-i •’ - • i.o r. H ■ \y h V . -V i * , • % c-' ?Ts ^ y«nr '$ o r ' < <. d r. • r -m y \ I ' -•-.-WTTffrr "T t^,- £>i<£tifej Tflcphonf 47.'i-7.‘i57 EXHjgfrj, Y QjJQJU Q Hurt Office Hoa 66*Cryaial Bay, Minneaota 55323*Municipal Office* On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 29, 1980 Mr. Gordon Ranun Tax Forfeit Land Department Hennepin County Finance Division A-603 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 Re: Tract V, RLS 461 Dear Mr. Ranun : #70S ••• —' ATTEKTION: GEORGE HICKEY the property to the tax roles but not as a separate lot. Tavlor^^*lnSJ<,^® V abutting Lot 184 of hoii substandard building sites and have Howevor^if®?hesf^tio“iii^ unbuildable by separate Council actions. buildino combxned, they would make'one good buildinfl area and setback requirements (the idealbuilding location straddles the property line) P®' DNR's apparento? adjacent platted Maple Avenue is not improved in the abuttiHi“lagoon is its use as\n°outlo?'^f^**^^*‘zoning standards prohibit ICS use as an outlot for residential dockage purposes. Orono encourages Hennepin County to cooperate cc: Mr. Douglas Klint “lie n-,^4.« «• •.^ r ^ A n w TO:Planning Commission Members FROM: DATE: Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator September 16, 1982 SUBJECT:#707 - Charles Downey - 2665 Casco Point Road Variance Zoning District - LR-IC Application - multiple variances a) side setback: required - 10' existing - 1.8* proposed - 1.8* variance - 8.2* of 82% b) street setback: required - 30* existing - 20.8* proposed - 20.8* variance - 9.2’ or 31% Hardcover variance: 75* - 250* setback area = 8350 sf allowed > 2088 s£ or 25% existing - 3500 sf or 42% proposed additional hardcover—260 sf or 3% total hardcover - 3760 sf or 45% Please review the enclosed survey submitted with application. Downey plans to construct an entirely new garage, not add an additional stall to the existing garage. Staff has advised applicant that we will require a minimum 3* side setback for the garage. In addition, he was advised that the garage could be located as close as 10* off Casco Point Road right of way if doors were to faoe away from road and a turnaround provided on the site. The existing gravel area could be used as part of that turnaround. Downey contends this would destroy his backyard as he plans to sod gravel area if the second stall and additional driveway are installed. 4 2. A rV'-? 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Charles Dovmey September 16, 1982 Page 2 Please get out to this site. Downey will argue that this is the only location for the garage to insure neighbor's continued privacy and view of the lake. Staff cannot see how moving the geurage 10* closer to the road will interfere with neighbor's privacy or block view of Carmans Bay. If the garage doors were to face onto the street, the gravel area would be needed to provide for a much needed turnaround. Staff recommendation: You must require at least the 3' side setback. If you are convinced the doors can face onto street, require at least a portion of the gravel area to remain as turnaround. To be consistent, staff must recommend that the doors face away from road. . o *■'1 • 'r ■ t-i •-/'I c‘ ■ h •11 argue that this 4-w »Oea to provide ‘lorT.n:Si “ a^east ” ^rt“S road. staff must i^j r ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION F«fe ~^ITY OF ORONO " *fe‘wnSST- ^3^3-7351 •9MOt. tncoi^Ut^ %[UST OF EXHIBITS 2. APPI TOAMn. . •“"'•y. #l^NCrlpHnti '■ rv... IfilllCJLAeej^caclon ■«t Inelud*: "■‘"^ gfVVt^ pr PO *< Ap»lteant la not mmar. aapUln _________ 3.OWNER H,^ e ^ ^ Niiling AddrMt_____ Bate Pro^rty Ac^STred Al/jU^ A (OO) (do not^ .Ian lit. include: Appliratfon Form Property (Vnere Ll§ ekl Certlflcete of Surv« U.. Fee Receipt §/ • D*t« Received "y —1., / i>y Trru’ot Xa„d| ' Phone Flm_____ Steff ^ ___ Flet Hep ^ . inventory ^ Steff CoiMente Other ^•llln§ Addreeo notices .^onia .......... present zoning use district PRESENT USE >«*ldantlal X (Otiiar) C^er Agent 8. Veeent Lend- - -Veeent Buildinefe) describe request -----------•— ~ «,.« “urr® COST SJssa^ Describe request in detail; _-ad o« _ r«.d*i — roploe* ’• ^*IANCE(S) required .. e. .h. --------Satbaeh (--------front--------$«.--------^ id>t Aree i^t Vidth Nerdcover 10. Describe UNUSUAL PRdPERTT CONDITIONS .-...11“ “• owom^ Mav,u....Tr „, ........ ^l-^'!AI- C. '^1 l"?g- .......- SrT«=^ •-‘ILU 01 PROPOSED WOK . --------------------Z /Vt>r na ^ "•ighborlna prop^tlo. an4 «. vk- s=2iy- p»TvAc «P/Uca«on. 7 ?- (f- / ^- Applicant ’s Slgnacure.P ’wr----------rr---------------- Cj » Signs tuj;--5JE? first MONHAV nr* mt.., ___ Ife*DEADLINE IS >T MONDAY OP THp MriMmtt COMMISSTOM I it - .. - J. " iili l*|S M C ^ O O M mm jf' -i t X %pvf l.iv/.^;iJ 1 iS!5gg«S aS|ilnS *"■ «*♦ O ^'S « rti 68-s :3 f“ '"i o 8 O 8 IM fsisasa a’8g;;ir.ac»i ?0 C W _ Miai V m o n M H o Vi ? M «8Vi ^8 33~ “Ss gs ig^*:§« ssasn::*-isgv 8S8 M M si —8- 111S-5 VI wH g P 3 8 n Q n M*8gigr M M n9 M M n IN» O P P O Vi M H H 8:^558^III Z m rn g rs> _ M M 30 m m ^ o I o VI30 e o > P i|||P 5^3s > 18 -.18S ^2^8 I OOgCm M 9 f» ^ O Vi §8~ M 9( X O Vi ni M P --8M P P o o ^ O 8 .L 8•"8PS M r«i S5* 85 §S 30 O 33!M ISSo8- IMS s*sS£i 18iS8§8^mir.a * r r P linIIMM «4 M Vi 38 M Pa M o 8* 0i / ^ p |§«8«Cj£ 7 S 8VI Mi8««B5 18 siEv3II88„3 1188 Siii38 S8 838 «s-f=is1 3gS ;s 8- g=«|i50.n§ 1 8 S 5i 82 IM M •gIN Vi 38 3 oM w •4 * »■ f. :v ^o.«• V ! 8 § US 10MJS» -tmM 5-—^ A; \<'*' o p cno • C» U O K-» •-4 >r H* ►t • S On I r ii •1 Ti 1 « ^ * ► ^ -•/ " % ' t. I- r.| '-JbCo r* ? *'u'1 I 1 4 > i *f&7 ■>W Mr ', TOs FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Members Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator September 16, 1982 #708 - Pheasant Lawn Area Residents - Rezoning Zoning District - LR-IB Application - Rezoning per 32.520 - 32.540 reveiw plat map designating area of rezoning Planning Commission action ~ work session - no action required. Review the following sections of the Community Management Plan: 1. 2. 3. Chapter 2 - Page 5 - Item 4 Chapter 3 - Environmental Chapter Chapter 4 - Land Use Plan a) b) c) d) e) Page 2 - Item 5 Page 4 - last paragraph General Land Use Policies - 2,3,5,9,12, 13 Urban Land Use Policies - 10 & 12 Page 25 - Urban Residential Development - specifically one dwelling per acre - two dwellings per acre List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Application Petition Plat map of area to be rezoned Map - signers of petition Lot area conqparisons - Planner The City has received a petition from a total of four'-.een residents/ owners requesting a rezoning from LR-IB to LR-IC of the area designated on the enclosed plat map (Exhibit C). Review the plat map designating the house locations of the current signers (Exhibit D). I have taken a lot area conqiarison survey done by the Planner for an earlier lot area variance review. The following table reviews the potential new building sites that would be created by a rezoning to LR-lc: .V ^ ■1 Pheasant Lawn Area Residents September 16» 1982 Page 2 Table reviewing potential new building sites based on LR-IC zoning standards Lots New Building Sites 2 6 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 22 23 24 33 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 potential new sites in review of the pertinent sections Planning Commission S*SiS2SnS issues that »..ber. feel should be addressed at this work sessxon. a) b) Does the subiect area meet this standard? ^ ^es Se proposed area for rezoning offer special physical Characteristicsor environmental concerns? le rtrlattern of neic,hborhood development within the 9iven «e“LSilar to that of Casco Point or Navarre Heights neighborhood? IS this request consistent with the intent of Jhe Coi^ehensive iSnageSe” Plan standards for urban lakeshore development? If approved, how would you deny similar reroning requests in other LR-IB or LR-IA zoning districts? Are the boundaries of this area to be rezoned realistic? Would this rezoning be considered spot zoning? Nhat affects would this rezoning have on the surrounding one acre, LR-IB district? application? -i:t’. "• a..; ased on LR-lc zoning ‘ehensive Management .he Planning Commission isues that members for areas with lake cabins, etc.> d within the service area. r special physical ? nt within the given avarre Heights E the Comprehensive i development? ling requests in other realistic? Would surrounding one acre. wners involved in a determination of the ‘■•I • • OP PROPOSAL (or property, Address ^9al Description cm OP ORONOp MINNESOTA ^"d Application ^ fji \ ^ m exhibit USE APPLfLtTnM ‘ $30.00 a) Res. acc . Use applk Mailin, Addres; OWNER Name Mailing Address Tel # ■U iaik J Aq^/v ' ■ <wv^rTel # --------------------*------------ Present Zoning L ^nin, ordinance Section Relating to Request Specify Ordinance Requirements Present Use - ^50.00 b) Institutional (Church, sch. etc.) _ $75.00 c) Duplex Cr/iUg d) Land Altoratior (gradin'.,, fil ling) $100.00 e) Com/Ind. Use PRD/pid - see fee schedule Variance $50.oo a 5*0 Explain your request and reasons for same VARIATE required - extent —A tot Area ___ SideOther, explain ! I \ ------- --- w Specify\ardshlpa to property \ S»01V1SI0N application __ Realdential \Other, explain No, of Lots cohditiokal use and other Xel!^ ----------- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ proponed use of property m detail 4. Application completed Rlat map section Construction plans, if applicable DATE Certified Property Owner's lisi- ^ers within (300') (150')i fL Ben^ep^ Oo. Dept, of Pi*°,ine'” ^vernment Center pre-f^dr envelopes (#pre stressed to each of on tSTVbou. ‘Be nan DATE Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature t^bove list. and Council necessarv to'rs^ Engineer, city Attorn^^off f *^equested by aU fees aa eetabi^^rp,-— a^Tfur^^e “‘"|rr“^«X" -J. K,V: r ■ 1, 2. EXHIBIT _Jl__ PETITION TO: THE CITY OF ORONO This Petition is beging initiated by the undersigned affected property owners, all residents of the City of Orono and located within the boundaries of the proposed eunended zone. This Petition for amendment to zone requests that the City of Orono change the existing LR-lB one acre zone to LR-IC 1/2 acre zone. The boundary of the proposed zone is the land included to the south and west of the following description: Commencing at the north end of the Narrows Bridge at the center line of County Highway 19 (Shadywood Road); thence northwesterly along the center line of said highway to a point where Highway 19 intersects with the center line of Old Beach Road; thence south* westerly along the exteotion of the center line of Old Beach Road along a line that is also the northerly property line of Pheasant Lawn Sub division and the southerly line of Walters Port and Auditors Subdivision 344, to the waters of Lake Minnetonka; thence easterly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to the center of the Narrows Bridge, also being the boundary line of the c*V.y of Orono; thence northerly to the point of begin ning, as shown more fully on the attached Exhibit A to this Petition. WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray that the City of Orono retain the above Petition and take action in the most expedient man ner and at the earliest time to set this matter before the City Council and the Planning Commission as required by Minnesota Statutes S462.357, Suhd. 4. Name Address Lot ,/ / /• 'Oc,yr ^ .k-AAj. r, i (. ) V. s. Name c f L . I 4. 5.0 JL h 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. I ^ f ^ i" ^^ /') .^-;. ^ .? ^< iL f.// L t icC 7- A /-' 7’ltil Address Lot -> /•J ^7.' , • L/ *.. i A./ >' c {a 0, / *^. ^ At c t_v ’ ^l.vV Z 0 '' ^ ^ Xr, -/^.,. ■ A\ / . (Otcno fi ^ •yo V rA* .4- / /i-7 /' O r f'!\:/\ <7 /Y . -2- I --- t'Jv.r.- ‘»e PETITION TO: THE CITY OP ORONO This Petition is beging initiated by the undersigned affected property owners, all reside its of the City of Orono and located within the boundaries of the proposed amended zone. This Petition for amendment to zone requests that the City of Orono change the existing LR-IB one acre zone to LR-IC 1/2 acre zone. The boundary of the proposed zone is the land included to the south and west of the following description: Commencing at the north end of the Narrows Bridge at the center line of County Highway 19 (Shadywood Road); thence northwesterly along the center line of said highway to a point where Highway 19 intersects with the center line of Old Beach Road; thence south westerly along the extention of the center line of Old Beach Road along a line that is also the northerly property line of Pheasant Lawn Sub division and the southerly line of Walters Port and Auditors Subdivision 344, to the waters of Lake Minnetonka; thence easterly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to the center of the Narrows Bridge, also being the boundary line of the City of Orono; thence northerly to the point of begin ning, as shown more fully on the attached Exhibit A to this Petition. WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray that the City of Orono retain the above Petition and take action in the most expedient man ner and at the earliest time to set this matter before the City Council and the Planning Commission as required by Minnesota Statutes 1. S462.357, Subd. 4. Name Address Lot 2. J/36-JLj %,>C* \ 1a/ Name Address Lot V yt o y7 J C /LC^l^cU.y^■^ /x.'^ • / y \ •'’’ ^ ) ‘ '/ t ff (^'v>. C ./ y/^; •/4. 5. ✓/r /;/'-y 6.}jOru<% / •ji‘>i // —I .O/’ /I t-l-.ft..<v ,. 7 RdLy :^>r.r Pl.cu.y.J- Qcl? y ^ V) !'"T .:5- -:5 , y.c//. ^ y \ V i'jA 'A" ^i .•j76S t,(r^ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. -2- ■w:•-—-«g~JIHI^’ /:> Ic /o : ' . ’,. . . i • V •”1 -^1 , EXWBIT April 19. 1979 Robert D. Watson 2775 Shadywood Road Variance Page 4 LOT AREA CX)MPARISOW Minimum LR-IB Requirement - 43,560 s.f. 140 ft. width T?atJ*on Lots: one site as existing (total) 60,100 s.f. (1.38acre) 211.6 ft. «_ _ __ _ _ _ _1 r r» CC n AA A £ /Iless road tr. C & F 56,100 s.f. (1.29acre) Watson Lots:two sites: existing house E,F,G less road tr. F proposed house B,C,D less road tr. C 31.300 29.300 28,800 26,800 s.f. (.72 acre) s.f. (.67 acre) s.f. (.66 acre) s.f. (.62 acre) 110.0 ft. 101.6 ft. 1.27,120 s.f.21.30,000 s.f. 2.32,850 s.f.'22.46,200 s.f. 3.46,000 s. f 23.48,600 s.f. 4.38,500 s.f./I a 24.44,000 s.f. 5.45,625 s.f.25.37,800 s.f. 6.49,540 s.f.26.33,000 s.f. 7.48,770 s.f.27.29,900 s.f. 8.82,870 s.f.'*28.24.200 s.f. 9.50,500 s.f.29.25,000 s.f. 10.44,900 s.f.30.25,500 s.f. 11.39,060 s.f.31.26,000 s.f. 12.37,145 s.f.32.42,625 s.f. 13.41,265 s.f.33.53,000 s.f. /a6 Miffs 34Z Hoc 14. 15. 16. /AO »/17. •U8. 19. 20. 39,270 s.f. 38,000 s.f. 38,420 s.f. 29,190 25,960 31,680 s.f. 91,600 s.f. 9 • i. • S.f.\/.^^ O'? a f J (9ts fU4J fiZf - fttiu hit ^ Mt / O O a,** f 4 (Aif€m4mJ»l 1 I 7rr4c StfiLbiA/c STTTS ( I*- mpaa nnapa I "" MINNESOTA PLANNER August 1982 Vol. 3. Mo. 2 Wetlands Issue Hydrological Headache Prescription By Jim Bokor In the Twin CitiM Metropolitan Area, poorly corweived land manage ment techniques over the last several decades have rMulted in a number of serious drainage conflicts among communities sharing common water sheds. Corrective improvements for only 11 of the more serious problems have an aggregate price tag of more than *100 mOlion. It would be impossibie to accurately estimate the untold thousands of dolars spent on legal fees and salaries of personnel involved in ritersHy years of intsrcommunity negotiations often required to solve these problems. In sddhion to these 11 ••catas trophic" repair projects, there are some 100 smaller drainage problems rtcw exit ing in many of the metropolitan area communitiw. CoHectiveiy, these pro blems are expected to cost more than anothsr 1100 million to repair. While these drainage management problems motivated the State Legis lature and Metropolitan Council to enact and adopt new measures for better drainage control, neither body has yet gone far enough. A 1982 law now requires watershed planning in the Twin cities area, attd the Metropolitan Cound will provide plan ning guidance, but statewide Minne sota still lacks a cogent, modem, effective policy structure for seMirtg drainage disputes and preventing and settling conflicts in other areas of water resource management. Never theless, these measures constitute an important improvement in watershed policy by requiring planning which can lead to more thoughtful manage ment of drainage waters hy communi ties sharing common vwtershed bounce arias. A watershed is a tract of land whose perimeter is defii^ by an erratically circumferential ridge that is higher in elevation than any other part of the tract. Moat drainage •*rur»s off the surface of the land, flowirtg downward from the ridge throu^ a systsm of natural ••oorKluits,^' vegetated depres si ons, open channeb, marshes and wetlands, ultimately leav ing the watershed at the absolute lowest point, usually in a perennial stream. As drainage water flows through a watershed toward the outlet, much is held by vegetation or in upland depressions, and later evaporated, vwhile a small but crucial percentage is absorbed into the earth from where it is often later drawn for human water supply. Much is also passed along to ponds, marshes and wetlands before flowing into streams and major rivers. In a watershed whose original contours and vegetation have not been disturbed, all of the natural lattdscape features from the rim of the watershed to its outlet can be thought of as an intricate ••system.'^ all having evolved over geok>^ time r, a see-sawing balance. The surface of the land must be changed to accomodate a growing popuMon with its desires and needs . The question of how much growth a community should ertcourage or dis courage is largely a furtctlon of ecoTKMnic, geographic and political considarations related to the avaU- abOity of utility networks and proximity to major business districts. Those Conti:iiMd p§g9 2 Local Standards & Water Quality Robert D. Sykes, ASIA Among the greatest obstacles to good surface water marwgemern are requirements which have been a part of moat subifvision codes sinoe World War II. They include exces sive and inappropriate road standards, mHes of unnecessary sidewalks, and over-built storm sewers and storm drainage systems. All of these standards focus on the artificial and out-dated ••fast runoff approach to storm drainage. Although thb concept has been the startdrvd since the 19th century, its benefits are minimum and its costs maximum. It is also responsiWe for the increasing amounts of down stream flooding and erosion that plague our nation. By re-directing our subdivision re quirements to focus on a ••slow runoff^ concept, everyone benefits. Homes cost less to build. Towrrs save on long term maintertance and replacement costs. The environment benefits because more water is left on-site where it belongs, reducing downstream flooding and erosion. The benefits of natural drainage can be achieved through development standards that encourage slow runoff systems ar>d discourage fast runoff systems. The first step is simply to put a ••speed limit'^ on the rates of runoff which may be generated by new develoments. A good ••speed limif for runoff is that which takes place in nature: the runoff generated Continuad page 3 Hydrologic Headache (Continued) ^ ...______ .K- w-«te«hed bv homelots. dead leaves, grass a^ concerns are really separate from questions of how different uses w the land, which are agreed *o “ desireble, ought to be designed. Drain age “improvements" have long bow recognized as one of the first Infr^ structural changes to bo installed in lar>dscspes to be newly developed or intensely farmed. The 100 or so developmont-roWod drainage conflicts in 76 metropolitan area communities, however, suggest that more thoughtful designs w needed. In fact, it is increasingly obvious that despite plenty wisdom about how a new building should look and function, how h should be located relative to other buildings and how it should be ser viced vwth a network of ubiitlw and oven how its foundation should be corwtructed to properly bear w building's weight on the site's soils, one crucial consldaratlon b still often overlooked: the Integisl nature of the chosen site with the/ surroundi.»g terrain, artd the natural "Wrtetlc relationship the site has with Its surroundings. Intvsstingly. kinetic oonnectiom (the natural energy dynamics existing mong, in this case, the integral, if separately definaWo, systems of land and water) can tolerate considera^ physical disturbances before they be gin to rovorborato out of control. An excellent example of natural systems with dynamic parts that are kinetically related is the landscape and Its hydrology, or drainage system. The landscape is, in fact, one wholly integrated system of land and water features. It can be thought of as a kinetic (i.e.. energy interactive) system. Tharo ora significant dliact and indirect monetary advantaf^ to be realized from maintaining Wnetic en ergy balances of the earth's systems as the landscape is changed to meet physical devetopm wt nee^. Present day economic condWor» demartd tto we use our best technical skills, wisdom and thinking to minimize kinetic disruptions In our landscape systems or wie wrill continue to pay the consequences in hard cash that we don't have. Orre of the best ways rroT to minimize such dhruptione isto instafl extensive highly ertgineered systems of stonn sewers, which can efficientiy collect drainage water from a specific she. but upset the hydro- logic balance of the water^ed by increasing the volume and intensity of drainage water sped through pipes to lovirer reaches of the watershed. This short-circuiting of natural pat terns of flow causes downstream flooding, erosion and nonpoint source pollution. Stream banks we often the orthen features most seriously peer ed by erosion when they are forced to carry more water from frequwt storms than they vrere naturally de- sigrted to carry. A common cause of nonpoint source pollution is storm sewers which dis charge directly into lakes or streams, having collected water from large areas of now development or farmland. CUKuroBy generated, nonpoint source pollution really has two components. The first Is a huge array of organic and mineral substances (call them "residuals") which are intentionally placed on or "fall out" onto the surfaces of the landscape. The re siduals come from manufacturing, commerce, residential and recreations areas, the transportation network and farming. , The second component of nonj^ pollution is simply a mechanism which carries the re^uals directly to a lake, pond or stream. ___ Residuals, therefore, are only ^ tential" nonpoint poHutants until they are scrubbed into a drainage stream and transported to a receiving wrter. While hard-falling rain or rushing meltwster need rro assistance to pick up the residuals, extensive netwo^ of stnrm sewer dreinage pipe proviw urtintemjpted uansportaion for the pollutanu to the surface watw. Drainage tiles beneath farmland have the same effect. Over time, common nonpoint pollutants, such as elements of fertilizer (which come not only from farms, but also from homelots. dead leaves, grass and other vegetation), accumulate inthe bottom serfiments of takes and pondsi When lakes naturally turn over every year, the accumulate fertilizers Imteirabie algae "blooms." New load ings coming into the water each ywr add to existing loadktgs, also recycling annually. Eventually, algae blooms. In addition to other aesthetic nuisances, can kill desirsbie forms of fish that require high oxygen cortcentraiions for survival. Waters degraded in this way can cost thousands of dollars per acre to reclaim. Loft to doclirto, a water which diminishes aesthetically also diminishes both the market and tax able value of real properties whw original value was associated dlrecfly or indirectly with the water. Since forests, fields, moedoi^. marshes and wetlands serve as highly efficient fihers, they can help mainta|n high quality drainage waters, even in fully developed or farmed areas. Watershed knbetanco ptobtarm, ty- mg corwoquonceo Bko those described above, alirwet always occur over tinw, as many small chartges—each with storm sowers that will load more drainage water at a faster rate to lower features of the vrotaished which did not evolve to, and cannot, cany the increased airrounts-are made In disparate kjcatiorte of the watershed. The effects of the changes on the hydrology of the watershed may not be noticed until a 10 or 20 year sir, m, firrally comes alottg. Major Cj^^Jy retrofitting Is then usually re quired to solve the problem. Extensive stripping, filling and grad ing the landscape for new physical prefect is very expensive In economic terms. It costs much more ihw natural "system seniltive development' techniques which integrate r»ew physi cal projects into the existing land scape uting the natural fearores of the terrain as furtctional design ele ments of the new project. Using the natural terrain to manage drainage is a prime example of this design philosophy. It can save sub- stmtially in initial construction attd ongoing maintenance costs to the community; and results in aestheti cally diverse and ecologically stable, affordable finished development. Th« author It Involved In Ir-*— rMMirch 00 puWie poiky onohnit Local Standards (Continued) by the land parcel in Itt pre-develop- ed conditioo. AdnMedy, this strict standard may be difficult to achieve on very smaU parcels arwl other existinQ situations. Howvever. most developments of all acaloii con meet this reouirement, often with substantial savings in con- stniction costs. (For a thorough over view of the available technology, ^ Tourbier and Westmacott Water Re sources Protection Technology, published by the Urban Land Insthute.) In the MeticpoStan Tvdn Cities, wa ters hed dtatricts have inipcMod this Rmit on runoff vrith good succe ss. Many site ptanners and devdop« around the country would vwnrtgly design for natural dtainaga, but are frustrated by local insisiance ondeslgn Standards which make natural drainaQa needlessly costly or impossible to achieve. Such limitations include: re quired excess pavement vvidths, re- Quired curb and outter, iTOrsmuin permitted overland flow, and required storm sewerage. Al have been into the fabric of our dtarking with threads of steel,, but really don t make any sense In most suburban communities. In a recent joint study by the Association of Metropolitan Commu nities and the Metropolitan Council (The Cost of Public Services for Housing, 1981). street pavement widths required by most Metro-area communities were found to be ex cessive when compared to national aources and standards. Excessive pav ing for roads and sidewalks needeaaly cuts down the area available for runoff to soak into the ground. Groundwater recharge capacity is lost and runoff is increased. The extra paving raises developmem costs and city maintenartce and replaceniont commitments need le ssly- At a time when 1/42nd of every barrel of imported oil goes for asphalt paving, extra paving adds to our nations energy problems. The decision as to whether to use curb and gutter on new streets is pivotal to the choice bet ween fast versus slow nmoff drainage systems. Curb and gutter concentrates and contains water on the road surfaM requiring storm sewers and dr^ inlets to dear runoff water from it. Storm sewers ore clearly fast runoff systems. Most communWes <k> not undersmd that curb and gutter str^ make natural drainage ^ possible to achieve. This o**^®J*° Supported in The Co« o1 Public Services for Housing (Cited earlier) where 98% of the corr«wi^««^ veyed stated that they allowed storm iwater drains where Yet, 74% these sairte cocnmunities always required curb arrd gutter, making natural drainage impractical. Apparently, the curb and gutter detail is thought to serve more than A word about non-dr atnage uses for curb and gutter: nonsense. The standard uses named indude snow plow and traffic guides, pedestrian protection, and road edge stability. The facts do not support those claims All of these functions are, at best, poorly addressed by curbing and can be much better fulfilled by good site planning and other design dements at much lower costs. 11 1 J-i - ■y . .,4 SebSykM The third major area in which wo can make changes to benefit frtw naturd drainage is to encourage the detention of vi«ter on-site through the use of ponds and ponding sys tems. VWhh a smaB amount of cia^ design, such ponds can greatly ^ runoff through 8 tompofsry holding action vwhao adtSng amenity and value to the subdivision. Such ponds an most accurately designed and easily evduated using Oottirtg the Most Out of Your Raindrop Hydrology Guide for Minnesota, public by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conseniation Ser vice in St. Paul. Minnesota. It ^ be obtained free through yw County Soil Conservation Service office. This publication and others by the S.C.S. .will enable your commun^ to step away from the outdated "Rationd MdhodT' of computing stoim nmoff (the standard in m<^ a drainage function. In fact, the curb was originally developod as a drainage control device for intense urban en vironments where drainage ditches took up too much horizontal space. Most modem suburban zoning re gulations have eliminated that problem. Today, suburban streets have the horizontal space adjacent to tt^ to accomodate grassy drainage «twes. Such ditches slow nmoff as vnell m mtpoaa it to percolation into the ground and evaporation due to ex posure to the sun. Drainsge swales are much cheaf» to build than curb and gutter ^ its associated storm sewers. In just curb and gutter alone the construc tion savings is «.00 per lineal foot (11.40 of vdiwh is directly r^ed to energy costs). As a drainage device, grassy ditches are dear win ners over curbs artd gutter. Thu^ for natural drainage, elin*iate curb and gutter. runon tine sianoaiw im _« ing and municipal engktesnng off*®^ The Rational Method typicaUy rewto _________M mH o\msi2adin poor pond design »id overdzed systems. Ponds that work bettor low better and make a positive contri bution to the community. The S.C.S. is one of the best fiiara* for communitieB artd develops to turn for guidance in dovolopl^ and revievring proposals fix naturd drainage systems. Tfw free of charge and the S.C.S. «»- qineers are especially expert in tfw urban applications of the r^ural "slow run^' approach to designing drdnage systems. Natural drainage is a system tw has been generated by lepetrthw trial and field tested for thousands of years. Why not try it in your community? Remember, its not eco nomical to fight Mother Nature. How Not to Manage Water By Larry Whittakar Administrator City of Laka Elmo Lake Elmo is a rural city of 5,300 people in the middle of the Valley Branch Watershed District, in central WasNrtgton County. The watershed runs from the urban fringes of White Bear Lake, Oakdale, North St. Paul, and Mahtomedi on the northeast side of St. Paul, to very rural area of West Lakeland Township atHf Afton, on the St. Croix River. Within the watershed, there are two large landlocked basins which receive most of the run-off from the urban frirrge and large agricultural areas. Or>e of these subwatersheds eiKls in Lake Jane, within the City of Lake BnK>. It is a 180 acre lake surrounded by homes. Lake Jane would have to rise 20 to 30 feet above the basement floor elevatiora of these homes to reach Hs “natural" outlet. The other subwatershed winds its way from Oakdale through Eagle Point Lake into Elmo Lake. Aftw the high wate' levels threaten septic systems aruJ homes on Lake Elmo, it witKis its way through an under sized culvert into Tartan Park, the 3M recreation cemer, where it has flooded large parts of a golf course, threaterted tennis courts, and pilled up in end around Horseshoe Lake. It flows out of Horseshoe Leke end the City of Lake Brno into a small pond in West Lakeland. That pond is the last "safe" resting place: and it is six miles from the St. Croix River, the only netural outlet for run-off and floodwaters in the Valley Branch Watershed District. Since 1968, when the Wetershed District was formed, the city has spent over $100,000 trying to control flooding on Lake Jerw. We have instelied temporary dams, weB^, ar>d pumps, and we have twice petitioned tiw Watershed District for a solution. The first petition resulted in a plan that was found to be not cost- effective. The second resulted in a permanent pump being placed on Lake Jene, wAiich pumps the floodweters into e pond in a City Park. It, too, is not a permanent solution to the Cit/s water problems which stem from increasing nsvoff generated by urbart- ization in the upstream portkMts of this subwatershed. The City has built holding ponds, iratalled control structures on ponds, built dams on Eagle Point Lake, arnf also twice petitioned the Watershed DiMrict for a solution to the flooding problems on Lake Brno, Hbrseshoe Lake and the West Lakeland pond. Each time we have petitioned, we have decided to withdraw from the protect after preliminary engineering and cost estimates have been pre pared by the Watershed District be cause the proposed solutions were, basically, too expensive to finance with the preasnt largely niral tax base. Now, after al thaaa City investments end 13 years of planning by the Watershed District stkI the affected communities, we are rtot much closer to a compr^ensive solution to the problems than we were in 1968. We have not been able to control the run-off from upstream communities nor create an outlet through down- streem communities. We have not reached a greemem with the Water shed District or affected communities on how to solve the preasnt problems nor how much we can afford to build to deal with future development in the watershed. Most of our petitions to the Water shed District have resulted in proposals to solve the "dtimats" problem in the watershed. But most of the work that has been done has been piece meal and temporary: and almost all of it has been paid for by the property owners in Lake Brno, even though much of the rurt-off comes from outside Lake Brno and eventually flows away from Lake Elmo. Where have we gorte wrong? What have we learned? You cannot ignore surface water management no matter how rural you are. You must watch your neigh boring commuttities as wM as your own. You cannot hope they win limit or control surface water unlese you have a dear idea of the pioblenns it wkl cause your community, the opportunities they have to coii^ it upstream, and your limits for accept ing additional run-off. Despite the years we have been fighting this, the City still does not have a plan to control our own surface water. You have to conskfer surflsoe water in an land use control activities-plan- ning, zoning, subdivision, variartces, conditional use permits, and building permits. You have to adopt and enforce shoreland and floodplain man agement ordinances, inventory artd control the development of wetlands aruJ poor soils, and encourage neigh boring communities to do the same. When you petition a Watershed District for a solution, you have to define the problem very dearly. We tended to ask for "a solution to the flooding on..." We did rwt defirte our ability to pay. We were often not clear if the "solution" we sought was for existing problems, ultimate d^ velopment, or simple planned growth. Most of the convnunities in this Watershed District and, I suspect, in your watershed did rtot think about the effect of devdopmem or agricultural practices on rurt-off utttil flooding be^n to occur. Ail com munities issued permits and variartces to build homes on virtually every attractive oond or lake in the dty lintHs. We did not preserve all of our martagement options. You must pro tect yours. You must protect your wetlartds, ponds, lakes, and water ways as th^ are esserttial for surface water martagemertt. You should also rementber that the manic reactive approach to surface water management equates to tinker ing with the natural surface water system, which does not gatteraHy solve the over-all management pro blem: it relocates it aruf it's very expensive. Plan first and buRd later. Realistic comprehensive plannktg for surface water management must involve your Watershed District (if one exisM) and all affected consnurti- ties particularly for any capital improve ment projects within the watershed. Any p^ion to a Watershed District should include: a strict defirtition of the area it will serve, the planrted use of larKf in that area for the time period you expect the project to serve, and life of the project (you cannot build the ultimate system urfoss you have ultimate davalopmant or unlimited resources), the preferred method of ssseeament (as you may want to protect certain clssees of land —agricullural land —or find a spe- ■e* 6 > % Intent of New Water Act By Conni* L*vi 8tat« RaprMMUativ* Surface water rnanegemem has hMtoricaNv been a politically volatile issue. The Minnesota Watershed Act (1954) has been only intermittentiy successful at facHitati^ peaceful re> solutions to water-related disputes betw een local govertMnents in the nnetropolitan areas. The act has also been much criticised for being vague and ambiguous. Further, its place ment of power in the hands of a few appointed watershed district offi cials had. in some cases, tended to exacerbate political problems as much » facilitate resolution of hydrologic ones. Until passage of the Metropolitan Area Surface Water Management Act of 1982, (Chapter 509, Minnesota Sessions Laws, 1982, known also as the Levi-Merriam bill) the Watershed Management Act was the only device available to those faced with a need for water planning in a watershed which transcertded local government boundaries. The new act, however, provides some ahemativee vrfiich ought to provide surface water management options w4tich are both less expensive and less controversial than manage ment by a watershed district. Despite some perceived dissatisfac tion the Wdtershed Management Act, the rww law ntakes only minor changes for existing metropolitan area vatershed districts. Each will be re structured to accomodate a larger board of managers, and each will assume a mandate to carry out watershed planning in a manner con sistent with the intent of the law. Minor watersheds not currently re gulated by a planning body now must also have comprehertsive plans devel oped which provide for the unique characteristics of the indmdual water shed. Ultimate responsibility for de velopment of this plan lies with the several metropolitan counties, but this responsibaity may also be assumed with a maximum of local flexibility, the law authorias counties to delegate planning authority to the County Soil arKf Water Conservation Disthct, to petition for the formation of a watershed district, or to faciiitate the execution of a joint powers agre e mwit between munidpelities located wholly or partly within the watershed. The plan itself involves pt similar to those followed by other governmental entities in planning for land use. These include formulation of management objectives unique to each watershed; assimilation of in formation relating to water quality, hydrology, and soils: and development of an implemontatim program to be used in meeting management ob jectives. i . \ Connie l#vl Following adoption of a plan by an individual watershed management or- ganizaticn, the plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Cound, the Minn esota Pollution Control Agency (PCA), and the Minnesota DepartnMnt of Natural Resources (DNR) for review and comment on the conformity of the plan with state law and consistancy with metropolitan systems. Rrtally, the plan will be for^rded to local units of government wHMn the watershed. These units will thm be obliged to sdjust existing plans or prepare a specific water manage ment plan which will be in confo^ artce with the plan developed by the governing water management or ganization. Funding for the planning process may be derived from a number of sources depending on the type of water management organization select ed to govern the watershed. Water shed districts will retain the capa bility to levy ad valorem taxM and special levies within the boundaries of an identified watershed. Joint powers organizations will also derive revenue from those parties residing witNn the watershed, but through a slightly different process. Rather than mtaking a direct assess ment. tite joint powers board will require contribution from munidpalities party to die agreement. The muni cipalities, which have been given authority to create special taxing districts and exceed levy limits for this purpose, will be required to contribute according to a pro rate formula based on the relative water shed area contained within the muni cipality. Funding for surface water manage ment projects undertaken by water shed districts has created a great deal of controversy in the past. Voter dissatisfaction with what has been perceived as "taxation without representation" was a major motivat ing force in my search for alternative systems for surface water manage ment in the metropolitan area. I am convinced that joint powers entities are one viable solution to the problem, principally because the funding for a given project would be raised by the municipalities involved rather than through the management organization itself. This localized control on finan cial resources should insure a height ened political sensitivity, reducing the chances that major projects will be undertaken unless such a project is consistent with a general community philosophy of surface water manage ment. This same feature ought to increase the likelihood that management prac tices will be followed that are ^oth environmentally sound and inexpen sive to maintain. That is to say. it makes precious little sense to spend millions on stormwater construction projects when wetland preservation, floodplain management, and other stomsMter ret e ntion mechanisms can be used at a much lower cost. Further, if a community values these latter types of stormwater con trol methods, then they ought to at least have the opportunity to be governed by a planning organization that is sensitive to those values. Surface water management through the use of joint powers entities pro vides such an opportunity. Monitoring Wetlands N \ nut »Hidf nwm coorfwcfd m port of tho land UM Ontip* prafct houtod In thm Planning DMHon ol MJnnotota Oaporlmani ol tnargif. Planning, and Oovlppwiowt and lundad bf Hta laglthHva cammittlon on . AUnnotofo't RMowrcM. Tha projocf 1$ diorgod «wl(h oaomMng tho most rapM and Inoapon- tivo mothodi of monitoring lond uto ond land covor cfco ngo. Wailamh tuara soloctod at otto of Ifio crillcof rotoorcot lo monllor. Contributing outftort oro Pralatl Coordinator Mm ffomilram ond ttudont workor* Oaboroh Bartal* and Diana Kloutnor. The preservation of wetlands repre sents one of the most critical and oontrovorsial land use issues facing Minnesota today. At the heart of the wetland issue is the fact that our wetland resources have not been adequately identified and that change c annot be accurately menured. Are wetlands being lost? If so, \Mwre and what types are they? Are protection program s working to preserve the most valuable wetland compl exes? The development of sound policy arKf refinement of existing protection programs deperKf upon an adequate wedatKl monitoring s^em. The last decade has been marked by an incieesed awar erteaa of the 60oioQicai oontsQuoncM or mo loot of such a valuable resource. The drainage of wedartds speeds runoff, increases fkwdkig and reduces water quality; limits the land's capadtr iui water recharge; and destroys prime habitat in one of the most rroductive waterfowl areas in the naJon. Opposing the ecological conse quences of drainage is the increased demand for good agricultural land. Wsiland cMn^ has created some of Minnesota's richest farmland. World demand for iicraased food production and the high cost of farming has in creased farm land needs. In addition, a growing metropolitan population re sults in urban expansion and increased land demands for housing, commerciA davalopmem, and recreational areas. There is controversy over the extent and location of the loss of wetlands. There are many estimates regarding the amount of wetlands drained, but they uaualy are baaed on speculation. The lack of knowHedge about the resource only perpetuates the contro versy. Ifie Physical Planning Division of the Department of Energy. Ptarwiing. and Development ex»nined data col lection programs which provide infor mation on the size and location of Minnesota's wetlands. A pilot study was conducted to determine how this data could be used to monitor wet- larxfs. The study reviewed information from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), the Western Minnesota Wet land Inventory, assessor's records, and govemmem acquisition and easement programs. Dovre Towsiahip in KarxCyohi County was chosen for the pilot study be- ccuse it is located in an area where wetland drainage was determined to be critical by both the DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition. National Wetland Inventory information had been digitized (corv verted to numerals) and entered into the Minnesota Land Management Irt- formation System (MLMIS). The MLMIS aOowsd for quick and accurate statistical tabulation of wetland t/pes, acreage arKf shoreline, arKi ih« de tailed mapping of wetlands. The study showed that the com parison of existing wetland inventoriea is of limitad usefulnesB. The dispersed pattern, small size, and fluctuating water levels of wetlarufs ntade accu rate comparison of acreage figures impossible. These difficulties were compounded by inconsistent defini tions, criteria, and data collection procedures. Future monitoring efforo deperKf on development of stand ardized or compatible deflnitkms arKf the trend toward computerized rather than manual storage of information. The pilot study also examined the extent to which Dovre Township wetlarKfs are protected by goverrt- mem programs. The study concluded government ^ulations/oweiership pro grams are highly effective in protect ing total wetlands acreage (83%), but have only limited coverage of the total number of wetland basins (33%). represent a majority of the total protected acres, while smaller wat- larKfs are not protected. Further, the DNR Protected Waters Program applies to most, but not all of the t)^ 3, 4. and 5 wetlands in Dovre Township. Wetland typM 1. 2. 6, arKf 7 have littia or rw protection. As a result, tabulating arKf mapping tha DNR Protected Waters arKf the government owned wetland does not provide a complete picture of Dovre Township's wetlands. The pilot stud-/ concludes Dovre Township wetlands are relatively well protected under a currem umbrella of government programs. The Wet lands Tax Credk Program is espedaRy important, protecting % of the pri vately owned wetlarKfs. The development of a procedure to accurately monitor Minnesota's chang ing wetlands will require a compre hensive aiKf detailed inventory. Such an inventory (the National WetlarKfs Inventory) is in the procMS of being completed. The pilot study concludes that the national wetlands inventory should be entered into the Minnesota Land Managarnent Information System. Pu blic decision-makers would then be able to see the impacts of exsisting or proposed policies in both statistical and map form. Copies of The plot study "Monitor ing Wetlands' An Assessment of Data Collection Programs" are aval- able from: Jim Ramstrom, Dept, of Energy, Planning, arKf Development, Room 110, CafMol Square Bkfg., 550 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101. (612) 296-2559. Slide Tape Show Now Available "Partnerships in Water Managemem: Minnesota's Challenge of the 80's," a Aide-tape show recently completed by the Minnesota Water Ptortning Board, is avalable on a first come first served basis for use by interested groups. The 23-minute presentation high lights Minnesota's water arKf related land resources problems and oppoitu- nitias. Erosion, flooring, water quality arKf land use problems are examined and subsequently discuned by con cerned local leaden. The show features the Water Planning Board's recom mendations in the "Spedal Study on Local Water Management" as steps toward solving aiKf preventing these problems. Contact John Weds at (612) 297- 2377 at the Water Plarming Board for reservations and more information. .Courts uphold Wetland Legislation r y . ___A(»o^r/sCMC«rpf«d from o protooloWon by Curfli A. Paorion of Wof»». Corro/f ond Poorion. o( Mo IWt MPA OUlrlct Workiftop. Surface water if that which is diffused over the surface of the grouruf as a result of falling rains or meiting snows. It continues to be such until it reaches a well defined channel in which it is accustomed to flow with other waters so as to become the running water of a stream, when it ceases to be surface water. Minnesota common law for surface water says that an individual land- owner can (iipoee of his own surface water up to the point of unneceasariy or unreesortably injuring Ns neighbor; it is evaluated based on "reasonable- ness." The state courts have been the aibittr, deciding the "reasonableness" of land ups/weier use decisions. Their decisions have been the basis for local land uss decisions. The problem with this law is that "reasoreblaneas" is a subiective deter mination subject to ch^ng inter pretation with time. What was reason able 20 or 30 years ago may not be today. In many instances we are feeling the collective impact of what is preceived as "reasortable" drairtage of hundreds of private residential lots into grossly overburdened watershed districts wNch have not planned or made provisions for these increased surface waters. w The enabing legWsdon giving com- - munities the power to do compre hensive surface water planning has been on the books for years, but \^it hasn't been untii recently that ^case law has upheld these powers. ^^^({f^^Sahl vs. MiSe WBe Cre* Water- f shed District, the court upheld the designation and enforcement of a floodplain district and its floodplain encroachment regulations, and it fbuTKl that the exercise of such zoning powers was not, constitutionsily, a » 283 NW 538 (1979) In County of Ramsey vs. Stevens, the Supremo Court indicated that it was "right and proper" to do a flood martagement pkm and agreed with the dseWon of e lower court ordering the City Council to adopt regulations. 283 NW2d 918 (1979) if With this case law precedent established, communitiM can do the rteeded water management planning with little risk of being sued by aggrieved landowners provided that the plans are wed thought out and are adopted pursuant to statutory authority. When a community develops a comprehensive water management plan that will stand the test of the courts, it must: 1) establish facts; 21 determine the problem which is to be solved; 3) plan based on statutory/ legal authority; 4) plan on a watershed basis; 5) cooperate with other com- munitim: 6) educate the people con cerned and affected—they are part of the problem and do iK>t realize h; i.e. the person who lives on the top of the hill; 7) take advantage of existing porufs, marshes, flood- plains, etc; 8) protect the process,, document all the way through and keep everyone involved, reach out and bring in especiaily those who will be impacted by the decision; 9) plan on a total s^em vs. benefits to irtdividual landowners; 10) use good technical people; 11) plan and regulate on facts, not on emotions. Community officials have to stay ahead of water problems. With a plan as prescribed above, problerra that could become extremely costly in terms of property damage, project costs and expertsive litigation can be entirely avoicM. Th* commants and concornt In Ihtt articl* mof b* modUlnd by (ha 1982 l•gttlallon. Chapter 509. ©©OQQSlBg tUlg) *rCemmunity Dr Miopmwit Block GraM Smea CM m AuguM 12: Sbentem bw Monhrwct. Brooklyn PaM. Auguct 17: Hotel FarSMult. Faribault. Auguai IS: Kandl Entartafcvnant Cantor. WBmar. Auguot24: Hofiday bm. Grand Rapidk August 26: HoSdoy ha», Bomldp. ______FKa onaday htWInBi on how the program prtxridao a furaSng raaouroa to mcM communWaar neada. riaaimart by U.8. HUD bi uooparadon wWi the Mbmoaou Dap*, of Enargy. Plannbig mtd Davalopmant. coordbiotad by the Gowamman* Training Sorvica. For bite: GTS (612) 222-7409 or toS frao (6001652-9716. Saptambor 16-18: Uppar Mldwaat PtoMiins Contaronco. Conoourao Hotel, MaiSaan. Wl. MnAPA is oo-aponaor with the Wnola, Wlaoonabi and tec* Chapter For !nte: Tyiy FBpowItch (ScSi^HM714, or Paid Smith, (612) 291-6406. Soo alao onictea bi this nMMitetar. Octobar6G7: Imptemontlng Local SurfOoc WWar Managamawt: A BanaMa Pfonalbto ■ Btrataav. Fraahw or Biological bialituia. Navarra, MN. 9 o.m. to 4:30 p.m. An cwploratien of the aourcao of technical data and land managsmom isauoo with amphaoia on pracdcM application. For bifo: Jbn Bokor, (612) 872-6741. Octobar 7 8 8: Worhahop on Mlerocomputora. Chicago. Sponaorod by APA. For bite: John Wawim (312) 947-2111. Atu Oteobar 21 8 23^ Now York, and Oaoambv 2 8 31 loo Angdbo. Octobar 24 8 26: APA'a Saoor.J Aimual Zonbig btoUtuia. HoBday Inn Goidon Gateway, of the coming yoora. For bite: John Wteonan, (312) 947-2111. Octobar 26-30: Aaaoctetfon of PubBc PoBey Analyols Hyift Raganey Hotel, MbmaapoSa For bite: Choriao E. Phalpo, Rond Graduate biailtuto, 1700 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90406. piogrTi dwinmn, Ihm