Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-21-1980 Planning Packet
r I AGENDA Planning commission meeting MONDAY, JULY 21, 1980 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL 1. Call to Order a Roll PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS 2. 7:30 P.M. #563 Stephen Ward, 4705 North Shore Drive - SUBDIVISION 3. 7:45 P.M. «571 Gregg Hannah, 3185 North Shore Drive - SUBDIVISION ACTION ITEMS 4. #456 Wolsfeld Lake Company, Brown Road i County Road € - FINAL SUBDIVISION 5. #546 Jack Rhode, 1410 Bohns Point Road - VARIANCE 6. #572 Donald H. Nelson, 2705 Halters Port Lane - VARIANCE 7. #573 Erwin Martin, 3360 Shoreline Drive - C PLAN REVIEW RCIAL BUILDING 8. Planning Commission recomnendation regarding t%#o vacancies on the Commission. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 9. #574 James MacKinnon, 3468 Lyric Avenue - SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF MINUTES 10. Meeting of July 7, 1980 1 ■■ •« TO: PROM: DATE: Planning Comnission and Council Jeanne Mabuath, Zoning Administrator July 15, 1980 SUBJECT: #563 Stephen Ward, 4695 North Shore Drive - LOT LINE REALIGNMENT Public Information Meeting - July 14, 1980 Staff recommends approval of the metes and bounds division of Stephen Wud for a lot line realignment based on the following findings: 1. Correct existing setback problems for existing principal and accessory structures on Ward property. 2. Division will not create setback variances for Major's property. 3. Applicant may now maintain his property and structures without encroaching on neighbor's property. and based on the following conditions: 1. Parcel B, an unbuildable lot, must be combined with the Ward property, and 2. Applicant is required to provide all off-street parking on his property - no backing onto County Road 19. W44**00 4 ••• • M* 0 9**00- 0* • • .*• #563 ^‘fll l« Ol . **^^ */ fi r r C. • r !r 1. BUr Nr^wlil 4 ►Ir^tiuna*.^ . fv, iH^r, * « \t turner . . ## .* • • • > 1# t t • r- : \ r. t - .:.* . #. •• ■ *; /d7^ //i^, kIi rh]Xm V 1 r r»* ••-C- • i'. — •**• • .;’ -..vr./ ' t *.,•. » t ■ rv .Ti r • f . •*.! '••■'•■..*■ ‘ .9 .., ' •. .; . *r • 7- I •• I . . . •' i<'' I ■' >'•■*••• • ; ' • ■ ,» I . . Ju if- .»i . • - f ^ r « . • ^ m * f . 4 «f / r .t ■ HC 1233 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST OtMRTMCNT OF FINANOC A-OOS OOVERNMCNT CENTER MINNEAROLI% MN 584S7 Ojlono LIST SISK 'boo FEE OWNER -TAtEViaZ- l£0 SCH6RT.6IZ- '<y I CCRTirV THAT TNC VACTt RCPIlCtlNTfO ON TNI etNTITICATI ANf AN ACCVNATI AND THUf NfMi- rioN or mroNMATiON At rr AoriANt TNit N TNf NCeONOt or TNf NtNNtriN OOUNTT IVItlON. TO TNt OCtT Or MY ANOWkfO tr. CO. riNANCC mvltlOM W OATt kNCC mvltlOM TILUMAN i^. ^(/ts tocxou /EC c 5>V|UP. G. ‘Vf: lc.\iSON UeEMAI^ C'CAU/WP itI 0^ PROPERTY ADDRESS MOUA/P fS-S3^4) M OUAJt> ^73^ -TOA/KAl/iew ^ ITZfiiL Im Md JAJU A^/>4 - tt'est<^o*c> .ViIKA________^ g3l>/ 474^ ' T>P- 4736- SHflEiF 1^12. aIa J^ENMtS A Atgygg.c 4(f80 - /VflRW 3/ttfEC D~R.4731* /VORTX SM6iU2. T>‘R. 3.i>.f V 472^- NCV-T^t 5Hdl2.(2 PE. DeUNtS A. MgVER.•see /y-fcovL^473> - /Vflgw SHtfRg g%ilc JR..O'AIDS' NOZTH ISO-a T>lrlVM/.S .3 . /V\(sV(£K •EirMAPD A. UWQHLiN see a /a 46 3S" - 1(5N ICA a//V A/- LCCJCtt/^ IXrTMAjfS A. ywgyeiL. A I A Tt •sec ABovie UiAlt^4(AS'^WgtVt ^rtoiLcr •D'E- SAMUBL 6. AIILU61LEA/' PC7MI5R- M^N€S V i345 ’-T^esT “pomr ^ 'ifjj /ViJRlH SHURe DR. J. UEDNAM SAMP4 VV *i - ResT ?o I nt LA MfkXLUkt E. H6TWA r34f - ^) NTLA UiAi A/. ^HKf&OiU X^SO- TZeST V^/A/T M tCHAlLQ P. yVUcH iv IY?3- TesT yuiA^r n i f I { 0 I*< TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Conmission and Council Jeanne Mabusth* Zoning Administrator July 16# 1980 ■A #571 Gregg Hannah# 3185 North Shore Drive - SUBDIVISION e^aff recoBBuends approval of a metes and bounds division pro]^sing a lot line realignment of Darrell K. Stewart's property based on the following findings: 1. division reflects natural topographic lot lines 2. will not create setback variances 3, Hannah's substandard lot will be increased in area# based on the following conditions: 1. newly created lot must be ccxnbined with Hannah's property to the west 2. no payment of park dedication foe 3. applicant must submit a certificate of survey designating legal descriptions for newly created parcel and remaining Stewart property. HC 1233 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST ^ «OCRI^IITMCIIT OF FINANCE A-009 OOVCRNMCNT CENTER MINNEAFOUa^ MN 80407 I CCRTiFY TN*T T#I#rACTAyPltClA ON N CCNTiriCATC ANt AN ACCURATT mO TNUf NfNNf SCNTATION or INTONMATIOM At IT ATTf ANA TNII OATC ON TNI NieOROA OT TNI NUMfOM COUM1 PINANAI OlVIAION, TO TNI MAT Of NY RNOWLII and AtUIP. NINNinN CO. riNAMCI OlVIAION UMV SSh^i ) #4 TO: FROM: Planning Commission and Council Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator DATE:July 17, 1980 SUBJECT: #456 Vtolsfeld Lake Co., 1870 County Rd. 6 - FINAL SUBDIVISION The Wolsfeld Lake Company requests final approval of their two lot plat. The applicant has completed the necessary steps to bring the plat to final approval stage. Council did approve the lot width variance of 10 feet for Lot 1 based on the hardship that applicant no longer owns parcel to east. Staff recommends final approval of the Wolsfeld Lake Company Addition plat subject to the conditions in the enclosed resolution. im i I - A m Jk fr V < ■ '■ 1 I s 5- .. City of OROIVO »’»“fv »RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL mh M*NO. ‘ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF THE WOLSFELD LAKE COMPANY ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and i WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat by the Wolsfeld Lake Company, the subdivxder. and WHEREAS, the Subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Dedication of drainage and utility easements. 2. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for a public street and road, shown as County Road 6, the City ororoJo^h^re^'approve^the'^plat^orwolJfeid^La^ AdLti™, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: with a certified original copy of this Resolution. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if been filed bv the date specified above. In that event, it will . . ne«ss«y to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this day of 1980. William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Walter R. Benson, City Administrator PAGE ^ OF / ’ll jn organized adopted ve lopnient nation for ler; and ints of the ublic cil of Company .ng conditions: Ln County jgether plat has not will be .for subdivision ft'"-tNcrfh iin% pf S.E. cf S»e. £7, T,mm l$4B. SO m.M£* e0rMr dl£. «5«c. t7j ’moo--] MS.*# /6SSLS0 * . Ti' ll-: I liff rifhf ^•fiumeev /»>•• if* 2 ^ vf / ■■ c-i 'It .:v: V- ii "ai^aSTy .51 "c: / Ao/zA/r v* /'t n n I *>** / .•**. .• • • •••• •••• • • • ••* • # r ■ V •••. 85v^ • iIn- 17. 4%v /k #/ •f- .* .' S^4U ! r'i •? ^C. %ia •'" /P 4-'!r ri • '. /*' <j».j • /•*> A •''' aux • # '.t: T. a ■! lii • I' ■ H|r^ Tir^i f* ^ ^ ^ ^..a. ;. .\, wm ■.^.- H ' . ■ • ■ -. jiai.‘*V'' •' ^ • ■■ i 1'4S An. A ■ g¥:;■ ^ -> ..:•>.'a ............... m i-ff .wv* > »a M WM Iffm R^C>& A;r«* •.■■4 ■■ .V^ ;■' •' 'iv • A’Wn.‘-jB . K %:*■*! iJ « . •■■•r.'yn-''." M;'“:f.’. •. .sW-'Si.-ai m mm mmmm. y $ TO; FROM; Planning Commission I ! ' t f i •• #•It V-. C- J ..• i; t • 6 ‘'T"f / ♦ < _ I f \’ Alan P. Olson, Village Planner DATE;July 16,- 1980 SUBJECT; #546 Variance - Jack Rhode, 1410 Bohns Point Road This application is an amendment and renewal of Item 210 approved by the City Council on November 14, 1977. Due to litigation, and perhaps other factors, the variance conditions were never agreed to by !*r. Rhode (no signature on Resolution #851) and construction has never comirienced. Staff is treating Item #546 as a new application because of the time lapse and because this proposal is for a redesigned house, with a request to change the previously determined lakeshore setback line. Council heard the matter on June 30, 1980 and referred it to the Planning Commission for fact finding on those changes from the plan approv'ed in 1977, which changes include; 1. Lake setback line; determined as line D to D to C in 1977, proposed as line D to D in 1980. Compare Exhibits 3 & 8. 2.Hardcover; 1977 hardcover, including driveway, was 6,500 s.f. 1980 hardcover proposed is 8,300 s.f. In 1977, a gravel driveway was proposed and was not at that time considered to be hardcover, therefore no hardcover variance was required. See Exhibit 17C. Today, gravel drives are considered hardcover. Applying this determination, an 8% hardcover variance would have been required in 1977. This compares to a 17b% variance per Exhibit 3. The Council expects a recorrimendation for their July 28, 1980 meeting. A cabin existed on this lot until 1974 or 1975. The remains were not completely removed until after Hr. Rhode's purchase in 1976. A lot area and lot width variance was approved in October, 1974 for Fred Rogers "subject to no other variances, removal of the cabin and removal of t)»e (still existent) carriage house". It expired. A renewal request (#79) by Rogers in 1975 v;as tabled pending completion of the cabin demolition which had been left half done. This application was never completed. Rhode purchased the lot and applied for a lot area and lot width variance (#210) in 1976. The first request would have built a house at the 75 ft. setback line all across the lot. Neighbor Becker objected and lobbied for no variance or for placing the house behind a line shown as A - A on the new Plan, Exhibit 3 (i Exhibit 9). - - - - / / July 16, 1980 Jack Rhode (#546) 1410 Bohns Point Road VARIANCE Paqe 2 t K A O. Most discussion regarded how close the house could be placed toward the lake in relation to Section 34.201 relating to average lakeshore setback. Line A - A was drawn between the Lauer & Becker houses with becker saying all construction should be behind that line. Line B - B represents the 75 ft. setback line with Rhode initially requesting construction to tliat point. Line C - C was a line drawn midway between lines A - A and B - B. Line D-D represents an extension of the front line of the Becker house. The Planning Co-;T.ISaion recommended house placement behind line D-D in August, 1977. See Exhibit 17. The Council continued to review the situation and eventually drew in line C - C as a compromise. The final building envelope approved by Resolution No. 851 is shown on Exhibits 8 & 9, with the lakeshore sf.tback being line C - C except where the corner was cut off to preclude any construction in front of line D-D. See Resolution No. 851, Exhibit 7, for the findings, conclusions and conditions. Additional concerns were raised regarding walkway easements across this lot in favor of two properties to the rear which provided lake access and dock rights. Becker contends these constitute a multiple use of the property and therefore preclude residential construction. See Resolution No. 851 and Judge Nicholson's findings. Exhibit 14. NOTE;On June 30, 1980, the Council specifically directed the Planning Commission not to reconsider this issue as there has been no change in status since 1977. This proposal is to renew the lot width and lot area variances previously approved, and proposes to locate the lakeshore setback position as line D-D. Mod', lications to Resoluzio.: No. 851 are suggested by Rhode in Exhibit 15 wliich would affect this change and would also provide for continued use of the walkway easements and docks subject to annual joint use dock licensing as required for more than two users of any dock. This application also requires review of three other variances not applied for nor previously reviewed: 1.The plan indicates the deck encroaching at one corner to within 72 feet of the shoreline contrary to Section 34.202. There is no apparent hardship and no reason why the plan cannot be changed to eliminate this encroachment. July 16, 1980 Jack Rhode (#546) 1410 Bohns Point Road VARIANCE Page 3 ^^546 11 2. The plan indicates an open parking space within 5 feet of the Becker property line enc’*oaching both the required 10 foot setback (yard area) for parking. Section 38.201, and the 10 foot walkway easement. ^There should .e no reason why this can not be eliminated. 3. The plan proposed is for a larger house than that proposed in Item 210. This plan requires a 17.5% variance for 3,414 s.f. too much hardcover within the 75-250 ft. setback area. No hardcover variance was considered in Roger's applications. See Exhibit 17C for the Planning Commission's 1977 hardcover review of the first Rhode application. This point was not clearly made in Resolution No. 851, although the final determination in finding 14 was idenviral with the Planning Commission's position. The 1980 plan increases the house size and overall hardcover 1,850 s.f. more than the 1977 plan. If that much hardcover were removed from the current plan, then the hardcover variance situation would be the same as it was in 1977. In any case, a hardship should be demonstrated in order to grant any variance. Rhode argues for a quick "renewal" of variances issued in 1977 per his suggested amendments to Resolution No. 851; see Exhibit 15. Becker has sold his house on a contract, but continues to argue for no residence or for one located behind line A - A. See his position in Exhibit 16. I suggest Planning Commission members review the case history for background and concentrate discussion on the new information provided with this application. 1. I recommend a finding that comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and health considerations such as sewer and nearby lot development have or have not changed since 1977. If not, then there should be no change in the buildability status of the lot. From my vantage as planner, I know of no such change. 2. I recommend a finding that the new plan does or does not conform to the 75 foot lakeshore setback. 3. I recommend a finding that the new plan does or does not conform to the 10 foot side and 30 foot rear yard setbacks of the LR-IB district. IS July 16, 1980 Jack Rhode (#546) 1410 Bohns Point Road VARIANCE Page 4 ±h ^ Arr o 4. I reconunend a finding concerning the purpose of the average lakeshore setback provision of Section 34.202: 5. a) Is this provision intended to protect the views of the neighbors toward the lake? b) Is this provision intended to protect the views of the new building toward the lake? c) Is this provision intended to provide a uniform appearance from the lake? d) Is this provision related to storm water filtration and natural vegetation preservation. Based upon the answers to question A, which setback line conforms to the intent of Section 34.202 protecting the interest of all concerned parties? a) line A - A between the Becker and Lauer houses b) line B - B at the 75 foot setback c) line C - C midway between A & B d) line D - D as a projection of the front of the Becker house e) line D - 0 - C as per Resolution No. 851. 6. I recommend findings pertaining to hardcover: a) Does the final plan have more or less hardcover than the 1977 plan? b) What hardship justifies a hardcover varianci? 7. The final recommendation should be to: a) Approve Plan #546 as submitted; or b) Approve Plan #546 less deck and parking encroachments; or c) Approve Plan #546 less deck and parking encroachments, but only to the extent of no more hardcover than the 1977 plan; or J July 16, 1980 Jack Rhode (#546) 1410 Bohns Point Road VARIANCE Page 5 d) Approve Plan #546 as far as lake setback line (D - D) but require redesign for no hardcover variance (this would be less hardcover than 1977); or e) Revert to approval of lake setback line D - D to C as per Resolution No. 851; or f) Require redesign for a lake setback ine of A - A. ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO r.O. loi M, Cvyiul ■ay, MlwwaaM SSSI9 479«»9?#54 liitTKIICTIOWSg firtc w4 tW mtfcM lufoMtlMi Sh««t. Com^Uf ItM I - IS If ottadi l«tt«v »r •tlior InfaraotlM tm hmttmt 4mm€Wth% ywm tofnoot* •pfllcatlont will iiwf M «cc#|K«i* Application to modify resolution No. 851 1, PROPERTY ADDRESS 1410 Bohn's Point Road t«g«l ohflll W oliMi m oCMcImS iwnrsf« iafilSit S- APPLICANT ium J«ck F. Rhode______471-7101 Res. AMr— 1690 Shadywood Road WOT If AfflicaiiC io mmt iplala OWNER —. Same Date Property Acquiri I (4m) (do not) also ootT 4. AGENT James T. Swenson ^ r«ar) ircels of land 333-1341 Mackall, Crounse a Moore ,..^_^1000 Fir8tNational Bank» Minneapolis» MN 5540Z PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT_ _ _ in limi <Od«r>_____ LIST OF EXHIBITS I Staartotl — Initial A—Heaat — ■uat Inclitia: X. A»»tlcatte tapaa-- /A^Cl Cartlf )( Fa* lacalft # / Ataff lalafatlf ___ nat Hap PRESENT USE •aaMa.tl.l _JL. e l«ai X Saaant BiiliaincCa) X CtwplaA iHUAlMCa) ESCRIBE REQUEST _ MtakUak mm naa ^ aMttoMi ar Bscribe request in detail: letter, copy attached ' ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION aatatlat naa X Drevioua aPDlication and March 10. 1980 VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED ta Sa tl» ta«aaata4 UaiHt A tHMk C SMa laar) Otkat * Judge Nicholson stated that a variance was not needed - See March 10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS ytatatla, aa^Uaaaa M laaiA^WPiWttMtAar. See Resolution No. 851 and Judge Dana Nicholson*s July ‘24. 1978 Findings of Fact# Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment 1^1^ Describe UNDUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY aaaaitiiw tm attici aataaiMn «f tacaiatiaaa See Resolution No. 851 and Judge Dana Nicholson*s July 24, 1978 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment_ _ _ 12. Describe EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK a* aaliiaarlaa yraaa rtlaa aa4 mm tSa aaimeailMaS la •aaatAlx See Resolution No. 851 and Judge Dana Nicholson's July 24, 1978 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Lav and Order for Jiidgment The APPLICANT end ths PROPERTY OWNER aust sign end date this application. Afct AlflJeiBF katiSf tfraaa *a ptwrlAa alt lafMaatlaa Ika aum Iwtafcf aauMwIaAgaa aaA agraaa ta thla ap^laa taaaltaA a* raaaaat^ tha SMlai Atelalattacar. agraaa aaA latUiar aaifwlaaa raaaMkla aacrv aata tka aaaaart ta gaf all A af iSla afglteattaa. !• tvww 9md — tiiMrr«4 in nnwImi ••rttfftWN tlMt UlfofMttOTI 'Mt tw tlM Wf lltN IumwIw4 C IMS ^ tUf Ntaffa mm4 tewMtl w«rlflc«ttOTi wf >• MMtSNlWW •f tPWWRttt«tl4 t • r /4 fLOTO C. MCLSQN OONALO A.MOAKCN IK JAMCt 9, MANNAM «MII«TOM C. MUMSON CtAV m, MOOWI CfiMNOM r. ICMMIO VAt M. NisaiNm LOWCMt 9. attVMCSTAO woooauilv M.AMO«t«rl ftCOUSK ff. A. JOMMAON 90999 V. STABCfllMB AMOMKW M. CLAUS rHAMS A. OVDMAS IIOSKBT O. BIBVOLO MAAVIM C. INBBCA rAANi 9, jcvNC m •ACBOAT J.PULLCB MAATIN V. AVOCLOTT •QBCAT 9. LCC JOHN •. LUMOSUIBT jamcb t. bwcnbom KAIC O.MAOBON MICNACL «. rffOBT DONNA t.AODACS MACKALL. CRQUNSE & LAW OFFICES lOOO rm«T NATIONAL OANIC OUILG MINNCAFOLIS, MINNESOTA TeLCAMONC IAI7I aa J'lJAl tclcm : a*-a«OA MOORE or couMOCL MCNAT C. MACKALL tmomab a . hcumct June 17, 1980 rocoiAiCK M.tTiNCMriCLO ACAAT A. HOOBK OAAA-l«AA> OONAtO A. MOLMCB 11004-10731 AOOCAT M.CAOUNOC 11003*10741 #546 Mr. Alan P. Olson Village Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota ClDt OE ORON® 55323 Re: Jack Rhode Variance - 1410 Bohns Point Road Application #546 Dear Mr. Olson: Pursuant to your March 17, 1980 letter, I hereby request that the Rhode matter be placed upon the calendar for the June 30, 1980 City Council meeting. This letter has been sent in order to meet your 10 day deadline. I have also enclosed the property o%mer*s list and the survey showing all three lots and home locations, both pursuant to the above-referenced letter. On March 10, 1980, I sent all concerned a letter outlining Mr. Rhode's position. It remains the same except that he has compromised still further as is indicated on the survey sub mitted in response to your request. No part of Mr. Rhode's house will be situated any closer to the lake than the former Becker house (line D to D). I have also enclosed a proposed amendment to Resolution No. 851. The new material is all underlined for ease of reference and that part of the original resolution «rhich needs to be striken is indicated by the dotted line. Mr. Rhode's appeal of Judge Levy's decision in the Rhode v. Stewart and Hannah matter has just recently been briefed and no decision is expected in the near future. Very truly yours. JTS:dr Enclosures Hr. 1233 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE A-iOS GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN 65487 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST - CflONO 2. LIST sue fee OIVNER /''</) -ft cSnlltl-lJ*!!!* 11* »t^«CSC»ITCO ON TNIS NENNCNIN CO. JM TAX PAYER/ MAE.ING ADDRESS ,T, ffOFF JM-L F, LAfJfrP H, k/a/m/ M <?re2L)Af i£»»H] /|s Vr^ : FACTS NCFNCSCNTCO ON THIS ACCUNATC AND TRUK NCFRC- IMATIOH AS IT AFFEANS THIS OS OF TNt HCNHCFm COUNTY rO TNt NEST OF MV ANOMkEOSE A»m rr. <'3/? •' ■ • * 1 HARDCOVER mz.------------------------ WtIM 0 -M rt.. o*A/X4 MAm 0 •n rt. K /s i2< lAk« *ase rt. rs* 2%0 •soe rt. aoK Af/J Ui« SQO •1000 rt. ass A//4 r uMr. Fred Rogers, 3175 North Shore Drive, requested to be renoved from the agenda at this time. Melsh moved, Butler seconded, to grant the variance for Fred Rogers, 1410 Bohn's Point Road, conditioned on the following recommenda tions of the October 15, 1974 Planning Conmiaslon Minutes: 1.No other variance but lot else and width be allowed. The present house be razed by August 1, 1975. The bam be rAzed as soon as a new residence Is constructed. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Welsh moved, Butler seconded, to approve the division for Charles Schoen, 1225 Briar Street, to transfer 12* from Monterey to Block 3, Max wells, for the sole purpose of allowing a garage to be built, conditioned on combination of parcels after division. Notion, Ayes (5) - Mays (0)• Paurus moved, Welsh seconded, to grant a variance ‘for Russell Wenkstem, 645 North Arm Otive, of 15* from the required 75* lakeshore setback. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) • Butler moved, Paurus seconded, to approve the division for Dr. N. N. Yokoyama, 1675 Shady%iood Road, conditioned on .both lots using the saiae curb-cuts on Shadywood Road and stipulating that all water and sewer assessments are paid. *on both lots. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Nr. Samuel Warfield, Soot^ Pine X*ane, requested •to be removed from the agenda at this time. Welsh'moved, Paurus seconded, to approve the building permit for Mr. Gary Dack, 4035 Dahl Road. Motion, Ayes (5)- Nays (0). 3175 North Shore Drive Representatives of the T.N.G. Investment Corp. appeared befora.the Ci^ Council to discuss their prcqmsed development at Waterto%m Road and County Road 96. Xt was agreed by all parties concerned that* the status of the rerouting of Hennepin County High«ray 96 in conjunction, with the proposed taring route was a factor and that the Hennepin County Highway Department was involved at this tliM with ■ developing a pian to acquire right-of-ways in this area. Xt was further agreed that we would request a progress report on the status of this proposed high way construction as soon as it is available. VARIANCE 1410 Bohn's Point Road DIVISION 1225 Briar Street VARIANCE 645 North Aim Drive DXVXSXON 2675 Shadywood Road VARIANCE Scotch Pine Lane i BUXLDXNG PERMIT 4035 Dahl Road PRELIMINARY PLAT Watertown Road s 96 a L c»py'#is- eiTyt P Resolution No. ssi M»«< /f77 ‘ RESOLUTION GRANTING JACK RHODE A CflY OF (MONO VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOT KNOWN AS 1410 BOHN*S POINT ROAD WHEREAS, Jack Rhode has applied for variances to allow for the construction of a single family residential his lot commonly known as 1410 Bohn's Point Road, WHEREAS, Jason C. Becker and Mr, Laucr, neighbors who have property adjacent to that lot, have appeared and expressed concerns related to the possible construction sites on that lot, and WHEREAS, the applicant, the neighbors, city staff and city council have raised at different times numerous facts and legal questions concerning the application for variances, and WHEREAS, the planning commission, city council and staff have studied this application at length, and have studied the testimony and memoranda previously submitted by Mr, Rhode and his attorney, James T. Swenson, Esq., and Lawrence Q. Brynestad, Esq., and the material submitted by Mr. Jason Becker and his attorney, Jerry Rice, Esq., and WHEREAS, the city council has reviewed this testimony at city council meetings on August 8, 1977, August 22, 1977, and October 11, 1977, and WHEREAS, the city council is charged with the responsi bility of enforcing the Orono zoning code in order to promote the intents and purposes thereof including the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Orono, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon all the testimony and memoranda submitted by the applicants, his agents, the neighbors adjacent thereto and their agents and city staff, the city council grants the variances as noted hereinafter for the following reasons: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That Jack Rhode's lot, commonly known as 1410 Bohn's Point Road, is a lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, under single separate ownership in an LR-IB use district. J • • i kiL 2. The lot does not meet the minimum requirements of the Zoninq Code as to area and width for a sinqle family dwelling in an LR-IB use district. a. The lot is 29«300 square feet in area« based upon the survey of Gary L. Gabriel. b. The lot is 107 feet in width. c. The area and width are not within 80% of the minimum requirements and therefore council approval of a variance is needed before a single family dwelling can be constructed thereon. 3. The lot is isolated from other undeveloped land. It is surrounded on all sides by lakoshore or lots con taining existing single family dwellings. The lot is therefore unique and the general conditions of the lot are peculiar to such property 4. The lot is presently served by the public sani« tary sewer system. 5. The proposed location of the single family dwelling meets the 35 foot front yard, 10 foot side yard and 30 foot rear yard requirements. 6. The existing carriage house is located 24 feet from the rear lot line. 7. There is presently in the chain of title an casement which purports to provide for a walkway over the lot to the lake. 8. The easement runs over one of the side yards, a. The easement excludes any driving privileges. b. The side yard affected by the easement will remain covered by grass or foliage. There wiXl be no building or other obstruction in the easement area. « The access to the proposed dwelling in case *i*'® will remain the s^une as if no easement existed The light and air within the side yard will remain the same as if no easement existed. I I n- I wKii ■T'm w °P®"”css or "open space" of the side yard win remain the same as if no easement existed. 4s -.4. proposed location of tJio single family dwelling tv ?h." ttl) « ?o,uir.d"’ a. The proposed location of the front of the house exists closer than the average distance from the shore line of existing residence buildings and nearby lots. ^A,- K*'® average set back roquirtinent" was not designed nor has it been interpreted in the past to prevent the P^'^Pfsed on this sort of unique angulated shoreline adjacent to Jack Rhode's lot. ^ d. The only neighbors whose sight lino or view of the lake be obstructed by the proposed location, the the^dwelling t® the proposed location of cases i“ihe''pls?!‘^ councU has granted variances in such feet frii'th^ lltHhOTe!*' approximately 40 as possibie.”'" ‘>““■’^"9 •>« as far forward as possible.building as far to the rear 4T a.u ^'5®® than 25% of the area lying between 75 fea^ -ha^d%ow!-^"® covered by , The carriage house, presently in existence on tha ®’‘istence at the time of the passagroraopticl- erMfld^InH*^*® well as at the time when Mr. Rhode's lot was created and given its description as presently recorded. ****®^e*« proposed use of the carriage house for passenger cars and personal belongings does not qualify th® house as a garage and therefore ^n alclllorTltrZl ture. The carriage house Is in excess of the size limitatinn or an accessory use. Such a continued use of the carriage < - 14 I'' i; ■ n '■iI < f ■ y 1 house would be adverse to the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code# would result in diminution in value to the surrounding property. Plans for the house show construction of adequate garage and storage space attached to the home. There would be too much hardcover if the carriage house remained and the proposed house was constructed. 17. There is presently in existence a purported walk way and lake access easement that runs over the land and pur portedly allows the easement holders to construct a dock on the lot. 18. There is presently in existence one dock used jointly by the two easement holders. 19. Prior to purchasing the lot# Mr. Rhode discussed the "buildability" of the same with Hank Muhich# Zoning Administrator. 20. Mr. Rhode was told that lot had in the past been determined to be "buildable* by prior council action. 21. The fact that Mr. Rhode's "lot of record" exists isolated from other undeveloped land makes it unique and different from the conditions which apply to other land in the area. a. The substandard width and area are peculiar to the lot and do not apply generally to other land in the area. b. The lot cannot be combined with undeveloped land. (1) Mr. Rhode's predecessor in title# Mr. Fred Rogers# never had record legal title to the lot at the same time he had record legal title to any adjacent lot. (2) Mr. Rhode's predecessor in title never had an equitable interest in the lot at the same time he had an equitable interest in any adjacent lot. (3) It was never possible for Mr. Fred Rogers to have combined what is now Jack Rhode's lot with what is now Jason C. Becker's lot. By the time Rogers acquired an interest in Rhode's lot# he had given up his interest in Becker's lot. 22. It is necessary that Mr. Rhode be granted a vari ance as to lot size and width to preserve his enjoyment of a substantial property right# to-wit: the right to build a single family dwelling on an LR-IB lot for which he paid 84S#000. mL.. 23. Without the variances as to lot size and width* Nr. Rhode would suffer the particular hardship of not being able to use his residential lot for residential purposes. 24. Granting the variances as to lot size and width will not be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. a. There will be no threat to public health occurring because of excessive crowding of private sewage dis posal systems. b. One more dwelling in the already developed area will not materially'increase the density* as long as the present carriage house is removed first* prior to construction. c. Adequate open spaces for access in case of fire will insure that there will be no increased danger to the safety of the neighborhood. d. No impairment of morals will result from the prO' posed construction of the single family dwelling. e. The existence of one more dwelling in the area will not materially increase the traffic in the area. 25. Requiring Mr. Rhode to build in a location further back than proposed would amount to a practical difficulty as it would have a deleterious effect on the property values of all concerned and on the strength and durability of the diall ing because of soil conditions. 26. The same conditions outlined above apply to grant ing a variance as to the "average set back" rule* to-wit: it will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and there will be no adverse effects. 27. The planning commission* after hearing testimony* recommended to the council that Jack Rhode be granted a vari ance from the "average set back" requirement* which would allow him to build as proposed. 28. Any variance for the lot should not be granted unless carriage house is first removed. The above findings of fact are in part based upon and dependent upon the following findings of fact: A. That the single family residential home is to be built in a location noted on Exhibit A attached hereto and that prior to any construction that a survey be conducted \ \ to insure that the house is located as noted on Exhibit A and that the city zoning and planning .ulininistrator is informed of the commencement of construction at least 24 hours prior thereto. B. That there be only one dock allowed on the Rhode lot which dock shall be no greater than lOQ feet in length C» That on the Rhode lot cither attached to the dock« moored in front of the lot or located on the lot# there may any time more than three boats moored or stored. D. That-a resolution be filed in the chain of title for the lot noting that the city council hereby finds as follows: (1) That the existing easements which purpo^'^ to grant dock rights and walkway rights to the lake are invalid in that they were granted in 1974, and the sub division ordinance in effect at that time and to this point in time requires that any division of land of that size including a division for casement purposes, required compliance with the subdivision ordinance of the City of Orono and these casements did not meet those requirements. (2) That the action by the city council approving this variance does not in any way constitute approval of the joint use of the lake shore on that lot by any one, the joint use of any dock on that lot, or the existence of the purported easements to the lake. (3) Any joint use of the dock presently and in the future may be only pursuant to an annual joint use dock permit as set forth in Chapter 74 ©f the Orono Nunicipal Code. - - - E. That the granting of a private dock rights or pri vate dock easements on the lot is not a permitted or condi tional use in that use district and that any such casements are invalid under the city ordinances. That Mr. Rhode and any and all other owners of the the effective date of this variance, roust execute covenant in the form approved by the city attorney, which restrictive covenant sets forth the above items relating to docks and which hereinafter will restrict the use of the -,^00 feet in length, with not more than three boats of any size or shape moored at the dock, in front of the lot, or on the property at any time. G, A dock is an accessory use and must be attached dircct.ly to the residential lot for whitrh it is dcsiuned to serve. • H, The three boats allowed purmiant to this rosolu** tion may be owned only by Rhode or I lie I wo present casement holders, Cre^g Hannah and Darrell St. w.ut. This resolution docs not giant •my continuing or vested right in Rhode or the present or ful ure easeinr nt holders to maintain or utilize the dock. II. GRANTING THE VARIANCES ®®®®d upon the above findings of fact »ind contingent upon specifically those items as noted in p.iragraphs A through I, the city council of the City of- Orono grants the following variances: 1. A variance as to lot size and width with respect to the lot commonly known as 1410 Bohn's Point Road. 2. The variance from that part of Section 34.201 of the Orono Zoning Code which provides that no building may be located closer to the shoreline than the «ivcM*.ige distance from the shoreline of existing residents* buildings on adjacent and nearby lots. 3. The above variances are contingent upon and shall effective until the existing carriage house is removed the property and execution and riling of the restrictive covenant relating to the use of docks on the Rhode lot as set forth in the findings'of fact, in a form acceptable to the city attorney and a filing by Mr. Rhode ox a title opinion on the property on an up-to-date abstrace showing all people with any interests in the property, which people must thereafter execute the restric tive covenant. . ,, . The city council hereby finds that the variance shall be dented and will be considered to be invalid unless the above items are completed to the satisfaction of the city prior to the grantins of a building pemit, and \xrianccs would have been denied except for Mr. Rhode’s agreeing in writing to the provisions of this resolution. This resolution was adopted by the city council of the City of Orono by a vote of 4 nycs ayes and 1 luys on l)ovciiber 14, 1977, ATTEST: 1 have read the terms of the above resolut ion and ayree to be bound by them. Jack Rhode Rhode i Li tfSaJL. ■^4 /iNwr pk *n^K gfo S eesoL. trt trttNSiT a *!sr?2fjsr?-s i \ i.iiTum^iM k. Tint /M«C T€A iMisu fs’f ?LO"f ■’••AM SAC^ * ' •: Ui«/. 47 f T Antli#**) ZSSJFTUjft- lUer ^iA6 FTM^Cumg,. U 3 *■ // >v FT £^i> u«»er I I Cah//ntr^ J93/ici > js—I75FT / U.~*5 . )3S-fT-0K,rct,n«r •VD #546 ^JRj/pT Ktitiitif' Mill. ^ M«fr S£f 4iie Sei^ Mill CmiJ ^uliJt »UMY Ssyib^S So4c 'rtiiiliriiniwiigi 5“Tr*' ft [ Beacee ¥546 t Vii^^s 9S9P£L^ ^ _____ >V/<7Sr -k? ^^-jc 7f' l!liP 2Sjr . < Sh r :*'«"v^ /■ . * ^* • . - —^ PW^b \ \ ' . *• > r / c , . V '^T'' j *;* -r_-'.IH’P W^l i .V# i » ^ • V 1 .' ■* .* r> IM i. fi ' .*'• ^ t ^ i®£L-<Syfe« <SE««6 aMDc V(f<>' wacso. /"f/t OtA,^ H0IPC vfol/ w«;e ,;r^»»:ig *<? '.;„ r>. ■•^1 irf Or>46 sm. 0 ¥Ot 3 V-J!C 7^ '.s' - • C*’ liU>»%*? ■V • t >v^ ^/5r> **ere'*^' 4J^.. m P 'MM4 i ^ ^k 4mw s^'M,{ ?f, PI ♦ ^ - - ^4 "w»<e #546 Ovsr wms 1% • « if^edLtc *. 'i Bisnsi ‘»t*, ••*1 46 y- i- 0 19 tm 90 M ^ I 4 iAi/r0 fV^A/r«xf.%u r CCr«l..v --k i.* \**\11 .. -.IV'J' . *r»v • : tmr- c< M j*n • o 7. e«' \ I — — • J 4 JW€M4SHr ¥ee 546 if ■m •\ s •• • W546 ^\Tf rr.t$*'*» r ■ l,» .»••'• • STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN •'ll r*<-. f.. tyr .^ • Hro d5 «.i 0 . H5 m’^WM FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CITX OR ORONO Jason C. Rocker and Carol Becker, Plaintiffs. -vs- City of Orono, Orono City Council. Mayor Brad Van Nest, and Jack Rhode, II.E NO. 743063 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT Defendants. This action was tried before the undersigned without a jury conffl'encing on April 24, 1978. Counsel appearances were:Jerome Rice. Esq., for plain tiffs Jason C. Becker and Carol Becker;Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. for defendants City of Orono, Orono City Council and Mayor Brad Van Nest; and James Swenson, Esq. and Roger V. Stageberg, Esq. for defendant Jack Rhode. Having beard the evidence and considered the briefs of counsel, on all the files, records and proceedings herein, the Court now makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for judgment: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendant Jack Rhode, hereinafter "Rhode,” is the owner in fee of a lot in the City of Orono, hereinafter Rhode property^” located at 1410 Bohn's Point Road, Orono, Minnesota. 2. Plaintiffs Jason and Carol Becker., hereinafter "Beckers,” are the joint owners in fee of a tract of land in the City of Orono, hereinafter "Becker property,” located at 3145 North Shore Drive, Orono, Minnesota. 3. The Rhode property is a lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, under single separate ownership in an LR-IB use district. ri w • . dIEEIWI ^ ^ |H|^T^%C|^OUlCT OURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTerne of, orono S4_6 II.E NO. 7A3063 flNDINGS OF FACT, :0NCLUS10NS OF LAW IND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT Linder signed without a ice. Esq., for plain- e D. Halkerson, Esq. uncil and Mayor Brad V. Stageberg, Esq. sidcred the briefs of eedlngs herein, the act, conclusions of if ter ’’Rhode,” is the , hereinafter "Rhode id. Orono. Minnesota. »ckcr., hereinafter A tract of land in the y.” located at 3145 of record enistinc upon ership in an LR-IB use • _ ) 4. The Rhode property does not meet the minimum re- qulrements of the Orono Zoning Code as to area and width for a single family dwelling in an LR-IB use district because it is: (a) only 29,300 square feet in area and (b) only 107 feet wide. 5. The area and width are not within 80% of the mini mum requirements as set forth in Section 31.202 of the Orono Zoning Code and, therefore. City Council approval of variances was needed before a single family dwelling could be constructed thereon. 6. The Rhode property is surrounded on all sides by lakeshore or lots containing existing single family dwellings. 7. The Rhode property is unique and the general condi tions of the lot are peculiar to it. 8. The Rhode property is presently served by public sanitary sewer system. 9. The Rhode property has been assessed approximately $6,000, including interest, for a sanitary sewer. • 10. The council approved proposed location of the Rhode house meets the 35 foot front yard, 10 foot side yard and 30 foot rear yard requirements of the Orono Zoning Code. 11. A prior house, now renuved, was approximately 40 feet from the lakeshore on the Rhode property and was near the RHode-Becker property line. 12. The Beckers live immediately north of the Rhode property in a two story home which contains approximately 2950 square feet per floor and which is located only about ten feet further from the lake than Rhode is permitted te build under the granted variance. The Beckers' house front is parallel to the north end of the front building line approved for Rhode. 13. The Beckers' lot Is deeper than Rhode's lot, but the Beckers' lot has 23 feet less shoreline than Rhode's lot. 14. There are presently in the chain of title two easements which purport to provide for a walkway over the Rhode -2- i F >T»;lYf ■ Bet the minimum re- rea and width for a rict because it is: only 107 feet wide, thin 80% of the mini- .202 of the Orono proval of variances could be constructed ided on all sides by Le family dwellings, and the general condi* tly served by public assessed approximately sewer. ed location of the 10 foot side yard and 0 Zoning Code. was approximately operty and was near the ,y north of the Rhode IS approximately 2950 1 only about ten feet :ted to build under front is parallel to approved for Rhode. than Rhode’s lot, but ne than Rhode's lot. chain of title two walkway over the Rhode property to the lake and to provide for bMch and dock use. The easements are ten feet wide and run over the side yard which is adjacent to the Becker property. The easements exclude any driv- ing privileges. These easements wore established over the Rhode property at the Beckers' request by Fred Rogers, Beckers' immed iate predecessor in title, in order to replace the easements de scribed In the next paragraph 15 of these findings. They-are useable by the easement holders only through the easements de scribed in paragraph 16 which were modified pursuant to the Beckers' request referred to hereinabove. The side yard affected by the easements over the Rhode property will remain covered by grass or foliage. There will be no building or other obstruction in the side yard easements area. The access to the proposed dwelling on the Rhode property in case of fire will remain the same as if no easement existed. The light and air within the side yard along the Rhode-Becker property line will remain the same as if no ease ment existed. 15. At one time there were two sixteen foot wide drive way easements which ran along the southern boundary of the Becker pj^operty to Lake Minnetonka. Those easements allowed joint use of the beach and construction of docks on the Becker property. 16. There are presently walkway easements over a portion of the Becker property to allow the two Rhode easement holders to walk across the Becker property and thence across the Rhode property to Lake Minnetonka. 17. Prior to entering into the purchase agreement evi buy the property, Rhode was informed by Mr. Muhich, the Building; and Zoning Administrator for the City of Orono. that at one time in the past the City of Orono had granted variances for lot size and lot width to Mr. Rogers. He was also told that absent a change in the Zoning Code or a change in circumstances, a similar variance probably would be granted to hiin. fI -3- ;h and dock use. The t side yard which is mts exclude any driv- % Lished over the Rhode gers, Beckers' inuned- ace the easements de- indings. They•are h Che easements de- pursuant to the Beckers* yard affected by the in covered by grass or ir obstruction in the le proposed dwelling on lain the same as if no I the side yard along Che same as if no ease* Lxteen foot wide drive boundary of the Becker nts allowed joint use the Becker property. easements over a portion ode easement holders nee across the Rhode purchase agreement . kuhich. the Bulldif*® rono, chat at one time variances for lot size fold that absent a 18. Rhode first filed an application for the approval of requested variances on November 22, 1976. 19. Rhode's neighbors to the south, the Lauers, informed the Orono council that they preferred the approved location of the Rhode house as being lakev/ard from line A-A hereinafter referenced. 20. The Beckers objected to the Rhode house location which was authorized. 21. The Orono council considered the Rhode application at council meetings on August 8, August 22, October 11, October 24, November 14 and November 28, 1977. During these meetings Rhode and the Beckers or their counsel, or both, were present, testified for and against the application, and submitted legal and factual memoranda and reply memoranda which addressed all of the issues raised before the council. 22. After having reviewed several drafts and revised (j]^aft8 of a resolution, including drafts submitted by Rhode and* the Beckers, on November 28, 1977, by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 the O^ono council adopted Resolution No. 851 which granted zoning code variances subject to stated conditions. 23. The easements over the Becker and Rhode properties were granted without Orono council approval and are of dubious . validity. 24. The variances as to lot size and width granted to Rhode were justified because of the undue hardship which would result from Rhode being unable to build a residence on the property for which he paid $45,000 in reliance on Mr. Muhich's above mentioned statement and the variances are* in keeping with the general spirit and intent of the Orono zoning ordinances. There is no undeveloped land adjoining the Rhode property which could be acquired by him to meet the lot size and width require ments . circumstances, a similar -4- ^ «u> • for the approval the Lauers» informed >ved location of the reinafter referenced, le house location e Rhode application tober 11, October 2^, se meetings Rhode e present, testified legal and factual all of the issues [rafts and revised tted by Rhode and' if 4 ayes and 1 851 which granted :ions. md Rhode properties id are of dubious nd width granted hardship which a residence on the e on Mr. Muhlch's re in keeping with nitig ordinances, ode property which I and width require- 25. The eranteJ variance, if needed, a, to set back was Ju.ti£led by the following facte and waa in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono zoning ordinances: (a) The Beckers home would impair the lake view from the Rhode house if the latter were built back of line A-A on the map attached to Resolution 851. (b) Rhode could not build as large and attractive house on hi. property as those of the Beckers and Uuers. nor such a house as is economically warranted by his sizeable lot investment, if required to build back of that line A-A and this would depreciate the values of the Becker and Laucr houses. (c) Building back of that line A-A would necessitate removal of some existing mature pine trees. 26. The council approved location of the Rhode house will not impair the Beckers’ view of Che lake and will not de preciate Che value of the Beckers’ property so they have no legal or equitable standing to challenge the setback variance granted. ('■OMCLUSIONS of law 1. Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction enjo Ing defendant, from building or permitting the building of any •structure on Che Rhode property is denied. 2. Plaintiffs’ request for a writ of mandamus ordering Che defendants City of Orono. Orono City Council and Mayor Bradley Van Nest to enforce the Orono Building Code and/or Zon ing Code in such a manner as to deny the variances which are pro posed and which have been granted in the form of Resolution No. 851 is denied. 3. Plaintiffs’ request for an Injunction specifically enjoining defendants City of Orono, Orono City Council and Mayor Bradley Van Nest from granting any building permits for the construction of a building on the Rhode proper.ty is denied. -5- . A. Plaintiffs' request for .'ittorneys' fees is denied. 5* Defendants City of Orono, Mayor Bradley Van Nest and the City Council and defendant Jack Rhode shall recover from the plaintiffs their costs and disbursements tb be taxed and allowed herein. LET JUDGhJENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Entry of judgment is stayed for 30 days from the date hereof. The attached memorandum is incorporated herein and made a part hereof. Dated thisZ./^ day of July, 1978. Dana' NTchoTsoh “tr\ Judge of District Court P--' - ■/ tOlQRAHDUM The adoption of Resolution 851 was a quasi-judicial action by the Orono council. The resolution should be upheld by this Court under established principles If it does not violate established principles of law. It is apparent that the council members studied the problems carefully and devoted much time and attention' hearinp evidence .in** ••T*'*.’im«'nts before adopting the resolution. ^The stanuaru lor review of quasi-judicial acLi>. i.y of a municipal council in grantlng^a variance are reiterated in Merriam Park Community Council v. ltcDonoui;h (1973) 297 Minn. 285, 210 N.W. (2) 416, where the Court said: '*Witli respect to decisions of municipal and other governmental bodies having the duty of making de- cision.s invol'^ing judgment and discretion, this court has repeatedly said that it is not the pro vince of'the trial court,to substitute its judgment for that of the body making the decision, but mere ly to determine whether that body was within its jurisdiction, was not mistaken as to the applicable Iciw, find did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably, and to determine whether the evidence could reasonably support or justify the determination. Edina v. Joseph, 264 Minn. 84, 119 N.W.2d 809(1962). Unquestionably the Orono council was acting within its jurisdiction and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or un- reasonably, but instead made a wise and just disposition of the controversy presented by the opposing positions of the Beckers and Rhode. Therefore, the only question presented is whether the council was mistaken as to the applicable law. The. Beckers claim that there were several mistakes of law which yill next be dis- cussed. The Beckers claim the size and width variances should not have been granted because Mr. Fred Rogers, the immcdi.itc predecessor in interest of both the Beckers and Rliodc, h.ad con- interest in both the Becker and Rhode properties and could have combined them to comply with the size .-md width re quirements. Clearly Rogers did not have such controlling intercstg -7- w in both properties when the 1975 zoning ordinance became effective on January 1, 1975. Rogers had no interest’in the Rhode property until he contracted for its purchase on September 9th or during the early part of August, 1974, and by either of those dates Rogers had lost control of the Becker property by contracting on August 1. 1974 to sell it to the Beckers. Therefore, Rogers never could have legally joined the two properties in sole ownership. In asserting this contention the Beckers rely on I^dering v. Jo^son, (1976) 307 ^?inn. 315, 2.39 N.W. (2) 913. Dederin^ is distinguishable because there two adjoining undeveloped lots were owned in fee by the same party when the zoning ordinance was adopted, because the court there relied on pollution avoidance as an important factor warranting denial of a variance and because the governing body had denied, rather than approved, the variance. Coi II •n fee ownership of the two lots was ruled to be a sound basis for denying of the variance but was/stated to pro hibit the granting of a variance. The court there said at page 322: ••In denying a conditional-use permiti and variance to appellant, who acquired a substandard lot with full Minnesota. A county board calinbt arbitrarilj S^ny^n applicant a variance from local zoning restrictions. 2d 45^?iqfiqT* Crystal. 283 Minn. 192. 167 M.W.Zd 45 (1969). However, where. ,is here, i.hc action.*; based on substantial evidence which It considered in analyzing the proper future course in this important and sensitive land-use field, a court must uphold the board’s decision. of Bloomington.267 Minn. 221, 125 N.W. 2d 846 (1964) In CujfrV. Young, (1969) 285 Minri. 387, 173 N.W. (2) 4L0. the court mandated the allowance of a variance to a zoning setback raqutramcnt after the council he,I denied the verlence. There two lots had been owned by one party for a period after the tonins setback ordinance was adopted and that owner conveye.l the two lots to the plaintiff and another owner. The court pointed -8- JLil. out thut the variance ordinance permitted a variance for hardship only if the hardship "has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land." The court approved the variance because "to take away from this lot the right to a vari ance by the adoption of this ordinance would he, as the trial court found, a violation of due process in that it would deprive the property of any value." By this last expression the court seems to have been considering the lot alone as being a unit which could not be taken from the owner without rendering it valueless. This is an attribute of a lot enjoyed by its owner which should not be affected by the prior state.’ of ownership of an adjoining parcel, except where health policy considerations perniit the result as in Oedering. The Orono zoning ordinance provision relating to variances (Section 32.340) seems to recognize the right of a present owner to have his property right protected regardless of the chain of t^tle of his and adjoining laiidswhen it provides in aubparagrapb (c) as follows: (c) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The applicant Rhode had a substantial p:-^perty right which should be protected even though his immediate predecessor in title may not have had a property right entitling him to protection because he might conceivably have combined the Rhode lot and the Becker lot to meet the size and width requirements of the zoning ordinance. •I The stature authorizing variances, K.S. §462.57 (6) does not limit the granting of variances because an applicant* s predecessor in title could have avodided the hardship. The Beckers second objection to the granting of the area and width variances is the existence of the two beach casements over the Rhode property. Having caused these casements to be created and having easements on their own property necessary to enable the cnjoymeiic oi these beach easements, the Beckers arc -9- Vl \ S'"iaaiiiil I variance for hardship by any persons presently The court approved the >t the right to a vari ed be, as the trial court >t would deprive the ’t seems to have been ihich could not be taken ss. This is an attribute not be affected by the arcel, except where suit as in Dedering, ng to variances ht of a present owner less of the chain of vides in aubparagrapb ation is necessary nt of a substantial ntial piiperty right nnicdiate predecessor entitling him to e combined the Rhode width requirements 8. M.S. 5A62.57 (6) ;ausc an applicant's i hardship. estopped ccpiUably from asserting that those two easements bar the use of the Rhode property for a residence. Either these easements ai’c invalid as not permitted by • • the zoning code which was what the council concluded, or their existence plus the addition of the Rhode house does not violate the code. If either proposition is sound, then the Beckers' contention is not sustainable. In any evetJt, the council- could have granted a zoning variance to permit the co-existence of the easements and the Rhode residence since otherwise the Rhode property would be without value and the Becker-created easements would establish an undue hardship Justifying the variance. There being no sound legal objection to the granting of the size and width variance, those variances were properly granted because otherwise Rhode would be deprived of any use of his property as was ruled In Curi*y v. Young, (1969) 285 Minn. 387, 173 N.W.(2) The Beckers object to the granting of the setback variance 0 Claiming that there is no undue hardship which Justifies this variance. They seem to Insist that a setback variance may be Justified only when necessary to make property buildable as urged at page 11 of Plaintiffs' post-trial brief. Merriam Park Community Council v. McDonough, (1973) 297 Minn. 210 N.W.(2) 4l6, clearly establishes that there is no need to prove that land will be valueless unless variances are r.ranted as to zoning setback and other requirements. The 1 court there said: •» "riaintiffs corjtend that the wordr. of Minn. -jt. 462.357, subd. 6, require that the undue hard ship must arise from clrc'umr.tanees unL<iue to the property Hsclf - not the owner, surround ing neighborhoo'l, economic fonslblllty, or like elements... If this line of reasoning is followed. :he granting of the area •i:' i- , e tvMO easements bar ce. not permitted by * concluded* or their luse does not violate then the Beckers* jt, the council- could le co-existence of ? otherwise the Rhode cker-created easements r»G the variance. to the Granting of es vie re properly eprived of any use oung. (1969) 285 Minn. f the setback variance ihich justifies this lack variance may be >erty buildable as L brief. :DonouGh* (1973) 297 3 that there is no unless variances r requirements. The . *J f')f Minn. T't. undiir^ hnrd- unlqni' to , suiTound- ity, or likr is followed. the granting of any variance, no matter bow mini mal, would be practically impossible except where the topographic conditions of a specific parcel of land xiiould render the tract of land in question otherwise valueless. .it does not prohibit grant ing nen-use variances such as tliose of area, height, setback, density, and parking requirements, if the granting thereof is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the refusal to grant them would cause undue hardship-" In Merriaro Park the St. Paul City Council had granted variances to the front and side setbacks, buffer area, density, and building coverage, requirements of its zoning code. The setback requirement was an average setback limitation. The trial court found the following undue hardships or other justi fications for the variances: (1) '•that the required 35-foot setback, under the conditions presented, was an undue haidshlp to the development of the tract for multiple- residence purposes; that the tract could not be reasonably and economically developed with out the reduction of the setback requirement to 16 feet." (2) "that the delay in processing defendant's re quests for'variances constituted a hardship peculifir to the tract due to the fact the orci- inance requiring* the additional offstreet park ing space was passed during that delay." <3) 'tJhat the anticipated demand for offstreet park ing v/as not greater than that provided after granting the variance requested." (4) 'that the variances for density, ground coverage, and side-yard clearance? were minimal in nature • and would have little, if any, effect upon the valuation of adjacent properties." (5) 'that the construction of a 10-or H-unit apart-. ment on the tract would be economically unfeas- ible and totally impractical because of the high land cost involved." (6) (7) "that the granting of the parking variance requested was ccdsistcittL with the public health and general welfare." "that a reduction in the number of units in the proposed npartmont building from 3?. to 30 would not iiialcrially change the design and function of the building and would only cause economic har«l- sliip to the applicant without any benefit to the community." ! In rulinii that these hardship rindiiiGS were adequate to 0 Justify the variances the court said: "There was substantial evidence in this case that sufficient practical difficulties existed to Justify varylnG the provisions of the code as ordered by the city council. Likewise, there was a sufficient showing to Justify the conclusion by the city council and the court below that the variances granted were • in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and that the public health, safety, and general welfare were secured and substantial Justice was done. Thus, we need only consider whether 5*162.357, subd. 6, prohibits granting the subject variances. The trial court found that defen- datjt would suffer undue hardship if the literal pro visions of the zoning ordinance were strictly enforced. The statute provides that property owners may request variances where .strict enforcement of the provisions would cause undue hardship 'because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration.* The trial court held that the evidence Justified a determination that if the variances were not granted defendant would suffer undue hardship because of uni que circumstances not reflective of conditions gen eral to the neighborhood." The hardships in Merriam Park were based on economics, rea sonableness and practicality. Similar hardships exist to Justify the Rhode variance as to setback. ft The Beckers object to the council's Interpretation of the setback ordinance as not forbidding the approved house location * when the Beckers, and not the Lauers .object to that location. That ordinance (Section 3*<.201)provides: "The setback from the shoreline for lakeshoi’e lots shall be at least seventy-five feet and no building may be located closer to the shoreline tlian the average distance from the shoreline of existing resi dence buildings on adjacent and nearby lots." Since this setback limitation applies only to "lakeshore lots", the council could properly construe it as being intend ed to protect the sight line of existing residences to the lake. The council's interpretation of its own ordinance should •I be given great weight under well-recognized principles of admini strative law 9 So l.n'-.ernreted the ordinance can be deemed not to pro hibit the approved Rhode house location inasmuch as the Lauers are the only nearby neighbors adversely affected by the location and they want the house to be ahead of Line A-A. The Beckers' sight line is not adversely affected by the approved location. '' T >- 12 - • 'I *»f*r*'**^-^’-* r -^ ■ I ‘ “ The Rhode sight line would be adversely . rfectcd if lie were required to build behind line A-A and this ordinance should be applied so as to be fair to new as well as old I’csldcnccs if that Is reasonable as it is here. The wise enforcement of an ordinance should give effect to its purpose. Having in mind the purpose of this ordinance to protect neighbors' sight linest the council could properly con- elude that the ordinance should be Interpreted and applied here to protect the Beckers' sight line and require that the Rhode house be set back as far as needed for that purpose but no further The ordinance is clearly ambiguous in that it does not limit the number of residences to bo considered in determining the "average distance" other than to mention "adjacent and nearby lots." Presumably adjacent lots were included because their sight lines would be most apt to be adversely affected. Nearby lots logically could have been Included to protect them in the event an adjoining neighbor whose sight line was adversely affected had no objection. To illustrate, let us assume this situation. The Beckers' house is 115 feet and the Lauer house is l60 feet from the shoreline. If a Jones' hou.ie was next north of the Becker house and was 120 feet from the shoreline, Jones could obviously not object to a Rhode setback parallelling the Becker house because he would not be adversely affected. However, if a Smith house was next south of the Lauers and was 150 feet from the shoreline. he could object even though the Lauers did not object to the Rhode location because his sight line would be adversely affected. The •f Inclusion of "nearby" lots shows that preserving sight lines was the purpose of the ordirjance. Ho standard other than sight line could be used to determine which lots are "nearby" within the meaning of this ordinance since no othei* proper standard can be conceived. If no standard Is set for the nearby lots to be considered there is no specific setback required. - 13 • • b I. The Beckers in championin[!; line A-A as the required setback line are basiiu; this on the line of sight from the Lauer house ana thus are impiicdly approving the sight line interpretation An arithmetical average setback based on the Decker-Lauer set- backswould be half the total of the Becker setback of 115 feet and the Lauer setback of l60 feet, or 137.5 feet. Using this 137.5 feet figure would place the setback on a line which is about 20 feet inshore from line A-A on Rhode's north house setback line and 8 feet lakeward from line A-A on Rhode's south house setback line. In Curry v. Young. (1969) 285 Minn. 337, 173 N.W.(2) AlO, our Supreme Court said that a "definite setback" can be required "so that the appearance will be uniform." If that is the purpose of this ordinance, then reasonable uniformity, not an exact mathematical uniformity, seems logically to be all that can be required. Rea sonable uniformity is achieved by the setback ordered by the council since it achieves some ta'perlng of the southerly side of the Rhode house between a line drawn from the southerly front of the Becker's ) house to the southerly front of the Lauer's house. The initial departure from uniformity was achieved by the Beckers locating their house so much closer to the lake than the Lauers, so the Beckers are not in a sound legal position when they object to another house being about as close to the lake as theirs. If the Lauer house were also 11> feet from the shoreline. obviously the Beckers could have no possible objection to the approved Rhode setback. It is only the Decker Induced fortuity of the long and shorter setback:; of the Lauer and Becker houses which gives the Beckers any basis for an argument that the approved setback is improper. Under established principles the Beckers have no legal standing to challenge the approved Rhode house location because of the farther setback of the Lauer house. Thus, in Schultz v. Krosch. (1939), 204 Minn. 585, 284 H.W. 782, the court said at page 588: - 14 - » I. . . . .... •* "It is elementary that a party may not defend an action by asserting facts or rights which do not concern him and in which he has no lawful interest, * • • Just as he cannot predicate a cause of action upon such facts or rights. • » » This is true for the very simple reason that a party may assert and champion only his own rights, riot those of others, (asterisks show omitted citations.)« « «n The Beckers claim that they were denied due process for several reasons. In view of the many planning conunisslon and council meetings held where the Beckers were present and represented • • and the opportunity given to them to submit briefs and a proposed resolution to the council, as well as the extended time devoted by the council td hearings, there is simply no basis on which the Beckers can reasonably assert that they were denied due process. The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that only limited due process rights are granted in quasi-Judlcial hearings before a governing body. In Barton ContractiriK Co.. Inc, v. City of Afton. (decided April 1<», 1978) the court said: "When the governing body considers an application for a special-use permit pursuant to such ordinance, its action no longer bears on an open class of per sons but directly on the particular Interest of the applicant, in which case'it acts in what is usually called a quasl-Judiclal capacity. Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, supra. The basic rights of procedural due process required in that case are reasonable notice of hearing and a reasonable oppor tunity to be heard. These quosi-Judlcai proceedings do not invoke the full panoply of procedures required in regular Judicial proceedings, civil or criminal, many of which would be plainly Inappropriate in these quasi-Judlcial settings." A reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence and arguments is all that due process requires and the Beckers were given that opportunity. Dated: July 24, 1978. Dana Nicholson Judge of District Court - 15 - end an do not interest, or action ,rue for isert and ’ others. .) ic process for commission and esent and represented efs and a proposed ided time devoted basis on which the (lu0 proc6SS* t only limited due earings before a » r.\ty of Afton, lication ordinance, ss of Pur est of the is usually 1 Co. V. ghts of ase are lable oppor- pT'Oceedlngs ires required • criminal. Late in these present evidence and the Beckers riTon )istrict Court ■n £.etac 9S7 !B uoN I® AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 851 £)fM /s' village Ofi OBOfciO resolution granting jack rhode a VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOT KNOWN AS 1410 BOHN’S POINT ROAD WHEREAS, Jack Rhode has applied ^ liZi variances to allow for the construction of a single family residential home on his lot commonly known as 1410 Bohn’s Point R®*®' and has now applied for ^ amendment ^ Resolution No^ B^Ll and WHEREAS, Jason C. Becker and Mr. Lauer, neighbors who have property adjacent to that lot, have appeared and expressed concerns related to the possible construction sites on that lot, and vniEREAS, the applicant, the neighbors, city staff and city council have raised at different times numerous facts and legal questions concerning the application for variances, and WHEREAS, the planning commission, city council and staff have had studied this ^ first application at length, and have had studied the testimony and memoranda previously submitted”by Mr. Rhode and his attorney, James T. Swenson, Esq., and Lawrence Lorens Q. Brynestad, Esq., and the material submitted by Mr. Jason Becker and his attorney, Jerry Rice, Esq., and whereas the city council and sta^ have studied the riioplication at length, ^ ha^ studied all additional testimony, including that of the Grgg S^ Hinnahs and~Darrell Stewart, and all additional written material, and WHEREAS, the city council has reviewed this testimony at city eowneil meetings 0" August 87 i9??r August Jir and eetober ii- 19??t matter on _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ V7HEREAS, the city council is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Orono zoning code in order to promote the intents and purposes thereof including the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Orono, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon all the testimony and memoranda submitted by the applicants, his agents, the neighbors adjacent thereto and their agents and city staff, the city council grants the variances as noted hereinafter for the following reasons: v: I. FINDINGS OF FACT Thdt Jack Rhode's commonly known as 1410 Bohn s Point Road^ is a lot of record existino upon January 1, 1975, under single separate ownership in an LR-IB use district. T**® does not meet the minimum requirements or the Zoning Code as to area and width for a single family dwelling in an LR-IB use district. a. The lot i£ 29,lOO^quare feet in area, based upon the survey>sf Gaiy L. Gabriel.' b. The lot is 107 feet in width. c. The area and width are not within 80% of the minimum requirements and therefore council approval of a variance is needed before a single family dwelling can be constructed thereon. 3. The lot is isolated from other undeveloped land. It is surrounded on all sides by lakeshore or lots containing existing single family dwellings. a. The lot is therefore unique and the general conditions of the lot are peculiar to such property 4. The lot is presently served by the public sanitary sewer system. 5, The proposed location of the single family dwelling meets the 35 foot frond yard, 10 foot side yard and 30 foot rear yard requirements. 6. The existing ca^rriage house is located 24 feet from the rear lot line. 7. There is are presently in the chain of title an easements benefiting Darrell K. Stewart and the Greg S. Hannahs which purports to provide for a walkw^ over the lot to the lake. 8. yards.The easements runs over one of the side a.The easements excludes any driving privileges. The side yard affected by the easements will remain covered by grass or foliage. ~ -2- c. There will be no building or other obstruction in the casement area. (1) The access to the proposed dwelling in case of fire will remain the same as if no easement existed. (2) The light and air within the side yard will remain the same as if no easement existed. (3) The openness or "open space" of the side yard will remain the same as if no easement existed. 9. The proposed location of the single family dwelling is set back more than 75 feet from the shoreline as required by the city ordinance. ar The proposed loeation of the front of the house exists efoser than the average distanee from the shoreline of existing residenee buildings end nearby letsr br a. The "average set back requirement" wa? not designed nor has it been interpreted in the past to prevent the development as proposed on this sort of unique angulated shoreline adjacent to Jack Rhode's lot. ct bj^ The intent of the "average set back requirement” was to protect the sight lines of neighbors. dr Cj^ The only neighbors whose sight line or view of the lake will be obstructed by the proposed location, the Lauers, have no objection to the proposed location of the dwelling. d. The sight line or view of the lake from the lakeside facade of the Becker house will not be obstructed by the proposed location as shown on Exhibit A. 10. The city council has granted variances in such cases in the past. 11. A prior house, now removed, was approximately 40 feet from the lakeshore. 12. Mr. Lauer wants the building to be as far forward as possible. 13. Mr. Be* '*er wants the building as far to the rear as possible. -3- 1 r J or other obstruction roposcd dwelling in same as if no easement Lthin the side yard easement existed. an space" of the side if no easement existed. $ the single family feet from the shoreline ehe front of the average distance g vesidenee baiidinga equiremenf' wa« not rpreted in the past proposed on this eline adjacent to age set back requirement •s of neighbors. 56 sight line or view »d by the proposed ) objection to the lling. the lake from the house will not be ration as shown on {ranted variances in moved, was approximately uilding to be as far building as far to the > Less than fSBTTbf the shoreline and the rear lot covered by "hard cover . 15. The carriage ^th^pasaage of the lot, was in „*n^as at the time when Mr. SSSle”‘’lot“fs"«nterand ,iven its description as presently recorded. U. Hr. ■«'<-e;%f3°^rstnS« ?lrfInr^rslnal house for storage the^house as a garage and belongings does cjtructure. The carriage house therefore an limitation for an accessory use. is in excess of the size ^-rriaae house would be such a <=o"^i"®®tn?eSt°ind^purposcs^of the Zoning Code, adverse to the intent * to the surrounding SSuld result in JJe shSw construction of property. Pl®®®,^®^!S®Sripace attached to the home, adequate ^^rage and storag sp carriage house -S constructed. i?T There is presenfciy *" *IJ®t*runs*over^ ^Srnid"«nd*pu%e”eK/”|^^^ <^he easement holders to eonsfcpuet a dock on the lotr ter 17. There is referred to inused joiTitTy by the two easement holders refer- - - - - - paragraphs 7 and £. »n 18 prior to purchasing the lot. past^'S^e^ote^iS^to''?^ iSitlSMeJ°by'’pri« council action. at, 20^ ’'5®,'“°‘oth« ^developed liSd MkU'lt r„‘4ul ^rd'*dme«n; ijrtSf'conditions which apply to other land in the area. ?o thr!o?“tnrSo“ot"ippty%en«turto ‘lt!;et“ land in the area. b. The lot cannot be condiined with undeveloped land. -4- # I (1) Mr. Rhode's predecessor in title, Mr. Fred Rogers, never had record legal title to the lot at the same time he had record legal title to any adjacent lot. (2) Mr. Rhode's predecessor in title never had an equitable interest in the lot at the same time he had an equ' able interest in any adjacent lot. (3) It was never possible for Mr. Fred Rogers to have combined what is now Jack Rhode's lot with what is now Jason C. Becker's lot. By the time Rogers acquired an interest in Rhode's lot, he had given up his interest in Becker's lot. 22r 21. It is necessary that Mr. Rhode be granted a variance as to lot size and width to preserve his enjoyment of a substantial property right, to-wit: the right to build a single family dwelling on an LR-IB lot for which he paid $45,000. 23r 22. Without the variances as to lot size and width, Mr. Rhode would suffer the particular hardship of not being able to use his residential lot for residential purposes. 24r 23. Granting the variances as to lot size and width v.’ill not be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. a. here will be no threat to public health occurring because of excessive crowding of private sewage disposal systems. b. One more dwelling in the already developed area will not materially increase the density, as long as the present carriage house is removed first, prior to construction. c. Adequate open spaces for access in case of fire will insure that there will be no increased danger to the safety of the neighborhood. d. No impairment of morals will result from the proposed construction of the single family dwelling. e. The existence of one more dwelling in the area will not materially increase the traffic in the area. -5- 2§t 24^ Requiring Mr. Rhode to build in a location further back than proposed would amount to a practical difficulty as it would have a deleterious effect on the property values of all concerned and on the strength and durability of the dwelling because of soil conditions. 25. The same conditions outlined above apply to granting a variance as to the "average -.et back" rule, to-wit: it will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and there will be no adverse effects. a?r 26. The plannin<^ commission, after hearing testimony, recommended to the council that Jack Rhode be granted a variance from the "average set back" requirement, which would allow him to build as proposed 28t 22^ Any variance for the lot should not be granted unless carriage house is first removed. 28. The situation which existed as of November 14, 1977, when Resolution No. 851 was passed, has not changed with respect to the reasons underlying the decision to use line D to D, as depicted on Exhibit A as the lake shore '-.et' back line for the Rhode property. 29. That that part of line D ^ D ^ C represented ^ ^ C" on Exhibit A ^ Resolution No. 851 does not provide any greater protection for the Becker * s sight line of the lake than "D to D" extended all the way across the Rhode property. 30. Line D ^ extended al1 the way across the Rhode property, protects the Beckers' sight line or view of the lake. (See finding No. 9^ herein.) The above findings of fact are in part based upon and dependent upon the following findings of fact: A. That the single family residential home is to be built in a location noted on Exhibit A attached hereto and that prior to any construction that a survey be conducted to insure that the house is located as noted on Exhibit A and that the city zoning and planning administrator is informed of the commencement of construction at least 24 hours prior thereto. B. That there be only one dock allowed on the Rhode lot which dock shall be no greater than 100 feet in length. -6- C. That on the Rhode lot either attached to the dock» moored in front of the lot or located on the lot, there may not be at any time more than three beats watercraft, as defined by regulation 3.01, subd. 13 of LMCD regulations, moored or stored. D. That a resolution be filed in the chain of title for the lot noting that the city council hereby finds as follows: (1) That the existing easements which purport to grant dock rights and walkway rights to the lake are invalid in that they were granted in 1974, and the subdivision ordinance in effect at that time and to this point in time requires that any division of land of that size including a division for easement purposes, required compliance with the subdivision ordinance of the City of Orono and these easements did not meet those requirements. (2) That the action by the city council approving this variance does not in any way constitute approval of the joint use of the lake shore on that lot by anyone, the joint use of any dock on that lot, or the existence of the purported easements to the lake. (3) Any joint use of the dock presently and in the future may be only pursuant to an annual joint use dock permit as set forth in Chapter 74 of the Orono Municipal Code. E. That the grafting of a private dock rights or private dock easements on the lot is not a permitted or conditional use in that use district and that any such easem'.'nts are Invali.d under the city ordinances. F. That Mr. Rhode and any and nii ether owners of the 4ot must execute, prior to the effective date of this variance, must exeeute a restrietsve eevenant in the form approved by the eity attorneyr which restrietive eevenant sets forth the above items relating to deeks and whieh hereinafter will restriet a document to be filed in his chain of title, which restricts the use of the property to one dock of 100 feet in length, with not more than three beats f>f any sise or shape watercraft noored at the dock, in front of the lot, or on the property at any time. G. A dock is an accessory use and must be attached directly to the residential lot for which it is designed to serve. -7- H. The three beats watercraft allowed pursuant to this resolution may be owned only by Rhode or the two present easement holders, Gregg Hannah and Darrell Stewart^ or their successors. 1. This resolution does not grant any continuing or vested right in Rhode or the present or future easement holders to maintain or utilize the dock. II.GRANTING THE VARIANCES Based upon the above findings of fact and contingent upon specifically those items as noted in paragraphs A through I, the city council of the City of Orono grants the following variances: 1. A variance as to lot size and width with respect to the lot commonly known as 1410 Bohn's Point Road. 2. The variance from that part of Section 34.201 of the Orono Zoning Code which provides that no building may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residents' buildings on adjacent and nearby lots. 3. The above variances are contingent upon and shall not be effective until the existing carriage house is removed at Mr. Rhode's expense from the property and execu> tion and filing of the restrictive eavenant document relating to the use of docks on the Rhode lot as set forth in the findings of factr in a farm aeeeptabie ta the eity attarney and a filing by Mrr Rhade af a title apinian an the praperty an an ep-te-date edsstraet shawing all peaple with any interests in the prapertyr whieh peaple must thereafter exeeute the restrietive eavenantr 4. The city council hereby finds that the variance shall be denied and will be considered to be invalid unless the above items are completed to the satisfaction of the 'city prior to the granting of a building permit, and variances would have been denied except for Mr. Rhode's agreeing in writing to the provisions of this resolution. -8- \i J This resolution was adopted by the city council of the City of Orono by a vote of _ _ _ _ayes ayes and _ _ _ _ nays on , I960. William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Halter R. Benson Clerk/Administrator I have read the terms of the above resolution and agree to be bound by thorn. Jack Rhode Rhode -9- ^—-- \ r \ froa IN# d«tk of JAY lECVEi ^ 7-f( ^0, /*?^^..' c^'TC-X i -^C-' 0 , */3‘" A/u-^ 7^ Cn^uU'^ ^ /C/lA.l’t. t U. » . -V • —• 4 .# UA80N C. BECKER 2700 WHITE OAK CIRCLE LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA S93S8 •«U9M wjmcBoumJuly 8, 1980 REGISTERED -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED £Xt4* iC Mayor Wm. Brad Van Nest City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota S5323 Dear Mayor Van Nest: At the Council meeting on June 30, 1980, you indi cated that even if the easements held by Hannah and Stewart were legal and valid as adjudged by a court of law. Jack Rhode should still be allowed to build on the lot at 1410 Bohns Point Road. You may recall that when I asked why this issue was not being re vetted to the Planning Commission for discussion, there was a lot of "hemming and hawing" and Bruce Malkerson made the statement that "the easement issue did not ever come before the Planning Commission." Jim Swenson, attorney for Mr. Rhode, noted at this point that the matter had come before the Planning Commission. I believe it is procedurally incorrect for this matter not to be referred to the Planning Com mission for the foTlowing reasons; a.I believe the minutes of the Planning Com mission meetings will show that it was discussed. b.Mr. Rhode is really asking for a new variance There are a number of changes in the original variance which are substantial. As a new variance, it is required by Code to go to the Planning Commission (Sec. 32.330). c.Even if the Code did not specify that new and revised variances should be submitted to the Planning Commission, it is only fair that the Commission, in making its recommen dation to the Council, consider the fact that the easements which the City of Orono declared i Mayor Win. Brad Van Nest d. e. f. July 8, 1980 Page 2 to be illegal subdivisions of 1410 Bohns Point Road are now, on the basis of a court decision, considered "legal." Also, how do we know that the Planning Commission would have approved a variance had it known all of these facts: that the lot was only 67 percent of approved zoning size (one acre), that the width was substandard relative to the Zoning Code, that the position of the proposed Rhode house violates Section 34.201 of the Code relating to setback distance from the lake, that building the Rhode house 26 feet from the Becker house would substantially reduce the value of the Becker house, that there were two valid easements across the property including dock rights and rights to 55 feet of beach, that a survey dated 9-3-74 proves Fred Rogers controlled both ^145 North Shore Drive and 1410 Bohnr Point Road, and that the easements represent a legal subdivision of 1410 Bohns Point Road. Certainly, I have a right to know why the City of Orono is break ing precedent and permitting multiple use of the lot which by the City's own definition is an "out lot" or "illegal subdivision." According to the Orono Zoning Code, if a variance is not acted upon within a 12-month period after Council approval, it must be resubmitted to the Planning Commission (Sec. 32.371). Sections 32.350 and 32.370, reasonably con strued, say that if part of a variance is denied or violated, a new variance must be submitted. Section II, Paragraph 4 of Resolution 851 states that if Mr. Rhode fails to meet all of the provirions in the resolution, the variance will be considered denied. Mr. Rhode did not meet the provisions of the resolution, therefore, the variance is auto matically denied. 1 ta Mayor Wm. Brad Van Nest July 8, 1980 Page 3 Mary Butler stated that the request by Mr. Rhode for changes in his variance request was not significant. Since Ms. Butler does not want to follow the rules of conduct as suggested by the Code, which calls for the matter to be submitted to the Planning Commission, I can only assume she is beholden to Mr. Rhode or wishes to discrimi nate against me. Mr. Rhode is asking for three changes, each one individually being material. He is asking that the house be put in a location different from that specified by the original Resolution 851. He is asking for a waiver of Paragraph 28F calling for a restrictive covenant between Mr. Rhode and other owners of the lot rior to the effective date of the variance.fhirdly, he is asking to delete the provision of the variance which calls for Mr. Rhode to extinguish the easement rights for future ease ment holders who might purchase Mr. Hannah's or Mr. Stewart's domicile. The request for changing the position of the house and placing it forward of the line specified by the Orono City Council is, in itself, a major change since it violates the City Code which provides that no building may be located closer to the shore line than the average distance from the shore line of existing residence buildings on adjacent and nearby lots (Sec. 34.201). The City Council erred in*permitting Mr. Rhode and his lawyer to make an argument tor changes in Resolution 851. Mr. Alan P. Olson's letter of June 18, 1980, states that he would recommend "a complete review by the Planning Commission as per the City's standard procedures.'* I was not prepared on June 30 for a hearing before the Council, in view of what Mr. Olson had said in his letter which indicated that the Planning Commission would be the proper form for arguments. Also, in talking to Jean Mabis at 3:30 P.M. on June 23 4 > 1 Mayor Wm. Brad Van Nest July 8, 1980 Page 4 1980, I was similarly informed that the Planning Commission would be the proper form for a hear* ing. I believe the Council was out of order in permitting Mr. Swenson to present his arguments on June 30 since this will unduly prejudice the Council in favor of changes in Resolution 851, whereas I did not have proper opportunity to prepare the many arguments which indicate a change in‘the resolution should not be made. The City Council seems to have forgotten the terms of Resolution 851 including one which specifies 1 j that the variances contained in the resolution would have been denied if Mr. Rhode hadn't agreed in writing to the provisions of Resolution sSl. I refer you to Section II, Paragraph 4, which states that the City Council ’’hereby finds that the variance shall be denied and will be son- sidered to be invalid unless the above items are completed to the satisfaction of the City prior to the granting of a building permit, and these variances would have been denied except for Mr. Rhode's agreeing in writing to the pro visions of this resolution." Now that Mr. Rhode is unwilling to abide by the conditions of the resolution, why is the City Council changing its point of view on this matter? 5) The question of the legality of the easements has been challenged by Mr. Rhode and is before the Supreme Court. In view of the fact that the City held in Reso lution 851 that the existing easements are "in- yalid" and are a subdivision of 1410 Bohns PoTnt koad, why wouldn't the Council wait for a final decision on this matter as rendered by the Supreme Court? 6) The City of Orono is unilaterally breaking a contract that exists between me and the City of Orono. Mayor Wm. Brad Van Nest July 8, 1980 Page 5 Judge Nicholson, who ruled that Resolution 851 was valid, made several errors in his judgment. One of these errors was, as he stated, "The easements over the Becker and Rhode properties were granted without Orono Council approval and are of dubious validity" (Paragraph 23, page 4). It is my understanding that Mr. Malkerson, attor* ney for the City of Orono, approached my attorney, Mr. Rice, and stated "Was there any way that Becker would drop his appeal to the Supreme Court?" Making a long story short, I agreed to drop my appeal if the City of Orono stated in writing that Mr. Rhode could not build unless and until the easements, which the City of Orono and Judge Nicholson declared invalid, were ex tinguished. The City agreed to this, as I under stand it, and 1 subsequently dropped my appeal to the Supreme Court. Apparently, now the City of Orono feels that it was mistaken in terming the easements "invalid." I think the City Council should reflect long and hard on the ethical and legal question of offering something to Mr. Becker for which it received something in return and then, subsequently, "taking back" what it gave to Mr. Becker in exchange for consideration, namely, the dropping of a lawsuit. The Council should also reflect on the fact that if it unilaterally breaks its covenant with me, I am no longer impeded from seeking ledress in the courts. I believe the City of Orono made a "good faith" contract with me for which it received consideration, and that breaking this contract would be illegal. Mr. Swenson presented to the Council on 6-30-80 the argument that the Lauers were all in favor of the new location for the Rhode house. Mr. Rhode and Mr. Swenson are proposing to move the Rhode house toward the lake and away from the Lauer house. Obviously, the Lauers gain in the value to their own home in direct proportion to the distance that the Rhode home is from the Lauer home. Conversely, the further away the house is from the Lauers, the more it adversely affects the value of the Becker home. Also, the A Mayor Wm. Brad Van Nest July 6, 1980 Page 6 Council, in deference to the Lauers, has stipu lated that the -carriage house roust be torn down. This carriage house, which is located close by the Lauer's house, will, upon its elimination, further improve the value of the Lauer's house. It should be clear, therefore, that this is not a case of the Lauers being "nice people" and the Beckers being "bad people." It is a question of "Whose ox is being gored?" By placing the Rhode house close by the Beckers' house on a substandard lot, it will decrease the value of the Becker house, as testified to by three different people on three different occasions. By removing the carriage house and placing the Rhode house at a distance from the Lauer house, the value of the Lauer house goes up. The Council should examine its conscience on this issue alone. Should this matter go to court again, I intend to pursue the issue of whether the dealings with the Lauers and the Beckers have been at "arm’s length." The Council is ignoring its own Code and ruling as stated In Resolution 851, Paragraph 28D(1). This paragraph states that the existing easements are an illegal subdivision of the Rhode lot. For this reason, the Council decided that Rhode must extinguish these easements before he has a "buildable lot." My lawyer and I have argued continuously and without interruption that the easements are legal and that* therefore, the lot has been subdivided, is a multiple-use lot, and is, by Orono's own definition, an "out lot." It would be used by no less than three families-- Rhode plus the two easement holders--and any friends of the easement holders who were invited by the easement holders to swim, bathe, or boat on the 55 feet of beach and docks granted by the easement. That the City of Orono would overlook the damage to the Becxer property by the multiple use of the lot is unprecedented in the history of Orono. (I have researched this matter by reading the minutes of all Council and Commission meetings for the past four years.) Since the City, in its own resolution (8S1) • i.1 t i Mayor rim. Brad Van Nest 10) July 8, 1980 Page 7 states that the easements are a subdivision of the land, and since the City is now leaning toward accepting the lower court's decision that the easements are valid, then this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that we are, in fact dealing with subdivided land. The square foot age of the easements must be calculated and deducted from the square feet of the remaining lot at 1410 Bohns Point Road to determine the actual size of the lot. Furthermore, the ease ments cannot be included in determining the set backs from the front and sides of the lot. In other words, Mr. Rhode must build ten feet from the easement boundary, not ten feet from the lot boundary. Most importantly, it is my con tention that Mr. Rhode should not be allowed to build at all because of the fact that it is a multiple-use lot, it is a substandard lot, and is virtually an out lot. The Council is ignoring the Code provision (Sec. 32.340) which states: "No variance shall be granted to which the use of the property is extended or changed beyond the use permitted in the Zoning Code." The property's intended use is single-family housing (one), whereas the lot is of use to two other families as a beach and dock area via granted easements. Mr. Swenson stated that the fact that there are two peoplw driving over a segment of my properTy in order to get to their garages proved tnat I have easements on my property andT therefore, that the easements on the Rhode property should hot be an issue. First, I did not create these roadway easeraents-- they were created by Mr. Lauer who, at one time, owned all the property. These easements allow Mr. Lauer to get to his garage by driving over the westerly segment of my property, and allows Mr. Campion to reach his garage which is west of my property. (Mr. Campion has since built another driveway directly from North Shore Drive into his 1 i j Mavor Wm. Brad Van Nest July 8, 1980 Page 8 garage so he rarely uses this easement.) The main point, however,* is that the fact that I purchased a house which had driveway easements is irrelevant to whether a house should be built on the Rhode property. First of all, I am not asking for a variance to build a house. Secondly, these are not easements to the lake and do not create a ”mini-marina." Thirdly, these ease ments do not pass within sixteen feet of my house or anyone else's house as do the walkway easements to the lake on the Rhode property. And, lastly, no one has challenged the validity of the easements on my property. 11)Resolution 8S1 represents at l^^st three instances of deliberate misstatements of fact! a.Paragraph 25, as drafted by Mr. Rhode's counsel, says that because of soil con ditions and deleterious effect on property values, Mr. Rhode cannot be required to put the house where the Code says it should be. Soil tests claimed by Mr. Rhode before the Planning Commission and Council were never undertaken. Soil tests taken by a reputable firm (Braun), at my expense, can just as easily be located in the vicinity of the carriage house. Placing the home further back does not adversely affect anyone's value since it replaces a ramshackle structure the carriage house--with a new residence. b.Paragraph 24C says there will be no fire danger from the Rhode house (26 feet from Becker's). I believe an expert witness would refute this. c. Paragraph 21(b)(3) states that Rogers did not have an equitable interest in Rhode's lot while he owned 3145 North Shore Drive. This is untrue. Rogers had his brother buy 1410 Bohns Point Road from Cutshalls (i.e.. Purchase Contract) before I took title to Rogers' house at 3145 North Shore Drive. |-‘i| f i r.J % Mayor Wm. Brad Van Nest d. e. July 8, 1980 Page 9 A survey dated 9-3-74--a week before I took title to 3145 North Shore Drive--shows Fred Rogers moved the easements from 3145 North Shore Drive to 1410 Bohns Point Road. He could not have done this if he did not control both properties. Paragraphs 24(b) and (e) state that building a house on 1410 Bohns Point Road won’t create overcrowding or materially increased density or materially increased traffic. The facts are that (1) there is already too much noise and traffic in the area resulting from three easements running on either side of 3145 North Shore Drive, (2) there would be at least five boats on the two adjacent lots plus canoes and miscellaneous small craft, (3) any of the three easement holders, in cluding the one given by Duane Hoff before he moved, can and do invite other families to use the beach and docks, and (4) the City of Orono has absolutely no way to enforce covenants which purport to limit (illegally) the use of these three easements. Paragraph 28D(1) states the easements are "invalid” (as stated by Mr. Rhode|s counsel to counter Mr. Malkerson’s objection to granting a variance to a lot with easements) since this would make the lot a subdivided one. Having been "subdivided" the lot would no longer be a legal building lot. Mr. Malkerson's acceptance of Mr. Swenson's characterization of the easements as "invalid" rescued him from facing up to the subdivision and out lot problems. That Mr. Malkerson would state that these easements (and pre sumably all lake easements) are illegal subdivisions and the easements themselves invalid** is a gross bending of fact since, as the courts have verified, the easements are valid. There is nothing in the Orono Code, Mr. Malkerson’s comments notwithstand ing, to even suggest that the easements are invalid. Jl Mayor Wm. Brad Van Nest July 8, 1980 Page 10 12)One June 30, before the Council. Mr. Swenson quoted Judge Nicholson as saying that "Becker created the easements." This is a misstatement of fact. Judge Nicholson, in his final ruling dated 10-5-78, said "These RhnHp nrnnertv in nis tinai ruling aateu easements were created over the Rhode property by Fred Rogers." I would hope that the City Council, exercising an even hand in fairness to all, would agree with these conclusions: I.In view of the substantial revisions to Resolution 851 being proposF3~HyTiFT Rhode, and in view of the Code which clearly indicates that a revised resolution would be a new variance, and recog nizing the Council's own language (Resolution 851, Section II, Paragraph 4) which terms the variance invalid through nonperformance, a new variance should be offered and should be reviewed in full by the City Planning Commission and the City Council. This is, as Mr. Olson states, the "City's standard procedure." Failure on the part of the City to approach this matter in an ethical, even-handed wav will, unquestionably, result inw w warn 1* ^ ^ ^ ^ f 1 _ _ T—, i 1 ■■ - having to escalate the point of decision to the courts again" I think the Council membersshould be held responsible for any discriminatory action which results in a loss of value on my property. In this regard, I expect the Council to t>e guided by its practice as well as by its Code which has always been to put variances before the Commission without restrictions. II.I believe that now 1.*at Mr. Rhode cannot live within the provisions of the resolution, it is only fair that a variance be denied. Why should the City "automatically" revise the variance regardless of circumstances so that Rhode can build? Three years ago the Council said that the easements were a barrier to granting a variance because they constituted an illegal subdivision. Now that the lower court states they are legal. 1 If} I Mayor Wm. Brad Van Nest III July 8, 1980 Page 11 don't we have a subdivision? And, as a legal subdivision, how can a variance be granted? How can the area of the easements be included in calculating the size of Rhode's lot?^ The "facts"are that the lot is substandard in width and size; that a number of families are using the lot, making it a multiple-use lot; and that the value of the Becker house will be adversely affected by placing a home in close 'proximity (26 feet away). Historically, when there have been a number of conditions which make a lot a multiple-use or out lot, and when a neighbor who is affected objects, the Council has re fused a variance. Why is that practice not being continued in this instance? In this same regard, the neighbor on the other side of 3145 North Shore Drive has apparently granted some kind of easement to the brick home directly behind mine since there is now an enlarged dock with two boats on that narrow lot (less than 100 feet) and one of the boats is for a home without lake access which requires the neighbors and their friends to walk across the lot adjacent to mine on the other side from Rhode's lot. This means that there are at least three easements immedi ately adjacent to my lot, and at least five families (plus friends) using the two lots on either side of me fronting on Lake Minnetonka. I have always said that in my attempt to be fair to Mr. Rhode, I would accept a variance to 1410 Bohns Point Road providing the City stipulated that Rhode's house must be built in the approxi mate same area as the cairiage house. This de cision, which I believe would be fair to all parties including the L.'uers, Beckers, easement holders,* and Rhode, is the only solution I can think of to a problem which is complex, at best. Soil tests and statements by an impartial architect in court prove that there is no reason why Rhode cannot erect a house in the vicinity of the carriage house. No one would be hurt by such a decision since it would place a modern house on the site of a run-down carriage house. it Yours truly. JCB:bbb cc: Thomas M. Mayerle Faegre 5 Benson I Streeter A.NDRUS April 26, 1978 OR OROMO Mr. and Mrs. Jason Becker 3145 North Shore Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: Appraisal of residence located at 3145 North Shore Drive. Dear Mr. and firs. Becker: At your request, I have completed an analysis and investigation *^?®l^estate for the purpose of appraising the market value of the land and the improvements thereon. Based upon my research and investigation, my experience as a estate appraiser, it is my opinion that the captioned property has a market value as of April 20.1978, as follows: BEFORE CONSTRUCTION ON RODDY PROPERTY . . . . . . . $220,000.00 After construction on roddy property . . . . . . . $203,500.00 I have personally inspected this property and have assembled and considered pertinent data, much of which is used as a test against my judgement. Information has been gathered from what we are c^fident are reliable sources and has been verified for accuracy as far as possible. I have no present or contemplated interest in the property under appraisal nor is my fee contingent in any manner upon the value reported. RespMtfully submitted. Gerald R. Helgyen Appraiser GRH/11 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DIVISION liidi«M(u*t "Miiof*.Onilitd ComnwrciM A inmimtnt UtmtmfVMp.Naiienal A«cs«f>on of RMlton . M.ontapot« CommorcMl Multipit Lininp Stfvict. Iwpiptfip tni Em Approptf* AmociM^a^^ 1 BURNET BAGNER REALTORS r> f u aI :: • 1 • .* r* •*. V •• S**« • ! t. . • • •••. tlVil .»i: i*i ;»:* ••’.!. !. ••• I .• t i- .1 tJ ••• 'S’* n: -.'i ’Ait I •.? >• * • V ... • !... •. • •/*. ic;. -«•- Iw*;^ lA.r U ■. •V* * . •• L . j I* • • k • ••*- * ♦nr. t! VI! :r f »•* j> o . . • • rj‘!» »;> • •« A.* *15 V fawi •••; •tVi CM TA'.I U • o* !,»• 0 ,e# S»*<» Si ••f. "101 ■»**•*» WA>rAlA Jl.** S'—•» SI Vi «S29l iCi?i 47} 3300 C0»»»'Ci'AU c«v 7?V) !.•• •»• i» 24 • f»'.3 l3.f*A Ml* iei?l U44 w A August 19, 1977 Hr* Jason Becker 3145 North Shore Drive Uayzata, Minnesota 55391 JUUO I Dear Mr. Becker:MUAQ6 06 OROOQ You asked that I give you ny oplnTon of the ramifications of the proposed building on the lot adjoining your property. I think that there are several things to consider and they are as follows: l..Your new neighbor will be building within 10 feet of your property line. This places him within 2»' feet of your bedroom window. Naturally this will affect your privacy and also general noise levels. 2. The proposed house will also partially cut off some of your lake views and this has the potential of affecting you on a resale basis. 3. Since your home currently has an approximate market value of $200,000 , the proximity, size, and place* raent on the lot of this proposed building is of the utmost Importance. In this price range another home Juxtaposicioned on yours cannot help but prove detri< mental. In view of.the above considerations, I feel that there is a high probability of signiixcant adverse effects to your property should the proposed house be built on the adjoining property. Sincerely, Alexandra Ferris Sales Associate 1 f eURNET 6AGNER REALTORS I r- • •«: AVJ. 4P*»rJC • • •• •* 5 t| • A •’ • •. ..j,:# •• . •. • • ; V .j K? •• . * ?'. . li «. <**• . . .*«• I t ^ . : /*•*•*. •• • • .. • • • 'Aft* ti* •. I, ••• * ?..> i*; • •. . :• w. • .••.ti*..*. f • • • *. • ♦• • • s* .# I, r. t ••• • . I •*' * ^ " •• t\ ».# • 1. /. I. -I V^3i! » «•».» .#**. » I I* In. ». - ii I Aur.ust 22. 1977 JUi Mr* Jay necker 31A5 NorttsiiorcOrlve Orono. Minnesota or oro^ Re; J7.45 NorthshorcPrive Dear Jay: Pursuant to your request I have inspected the above captioned property and the surrounding nelgliborhood as to its character and continuity. Rased upon this inspection 1 have reached ny conclusion respecting your question as to what effect. If any, will be caused by construction of a new home on the vacant lot Innedlately to the west of your home. The extent to which your property and the property of the nelp.li- borhood homeowners of such construction wo<ild depend entirely upon tlie location of the future home on the lot. If tl«e home is built directly adjacent to and on line with your home. It is my considered opinion chat it would not only restrict the size and quality of the resale market you could expect for your home, but would also have a deleterious effect on Its value. In addition such a situation would seriously disrupt Che existing character and continuity of the ndigh* borhood. Specifically, it has been ny professional experience that there are very few neighborhoods surrounding Lake Minnetonka which enjoy the coapati- hillty of size, design, land utilization and value that currently exists in your neighborhood. Completion of a hone as above discussed would take away the feeling of openess and privacy and replace it with the haphaz ard conditions one sees so often In the surrounding Lake Minnetonka areas. Q O August 22; 1977 Re: 31A5 HortletioieDrive In that vein, I would urge and suggest that the future hone be soraewliere within the Inmediate vicinity of the structure which now exists on the lot. I nake this suggestion for the follow ing teasons: 1.The value and narketablllty of the future home, as well as yours, will be enhanced and preserved. 2.Tlie continuity of the nelghborliood will remain unaffected; 3. The Vic*.overlooking tiie lake of the future home will not be adversely affected; 4.Problems of noise and congestion occurlng between your home and tlie future lione due to use of the lakeshore easement whlcli would run between the houses would be avoided; 5, It would not cause any undue hardships upon the owner of the neighboring lot. If you have any further questions concerning any of the above, do not hesitate to let me know and 1 will attempt to answer them for you. Otherwise, I appreciate the opportunity to have been of ser* vice and I extend to you my very best personal regards. Very truly yours. I Thomas S. Fierce Sales Associate j MirrjXS OF A rU'C^’lNG caMISSION MEETING HELD AliaJST 1, 1977 - PAGE 3 _ Mr. Olson advised that Council had referred this item back to the Commission for reconsideration, IVhen applicant was advised of this action, he informed the ty office that because of prior commitinents he would not be able to attend this meeting. mi7ti Hassel moved, Dunl^ seconded, to table this application intil the next meeting. Motion - Ayes (7), Nays (0). The Asst. Zoning Administrator advised that preliminary and final subdivision approval had been granted approX' imately one year ago to this property. However, the park dedication fee was never paid. Previous approval was subject to a paik dedication fee of $2,000 and no lake access easement be given for Lot B. Mr. Reardon was present. Conmission reviewed final propmal with applicant. Planning Commission advised applicant that it would be necessary to record access easements for Lot A through Lot B and that Lot B would have no riparian rights. Hassel moved, Guthrie seconded, to reconmend final subdivision approval as submitted subject to access easements being recorded for Lot A through Lot B, no riparian access for Lot B and a park dedication fee of $2,000. htotion - Ayes (7), Nays (0). The Asst. Zcniril Administrator stated that Mr. Rhode has submitted a new set of plans. He has relocated the house so that the lake edge of the house is in line with the Becker house next door. The current proposal has been moved back 35 ft. from the original location. TACf Jack Rhode, his architect Bob Peterson, and builder Jerry Guetzkow were present. Mr. Rhode explained that he was withdrawing his request to use the existing structure as a guest house. He is now proposing to use this building for storage. In terms of the topo graphy of the land, he preferred the original proposal ^ felt that moving the house farther back was a merit of conpromise. Mr. Peterson advised that there would be more costs involved with the current proposal because the farther bade you go on the lot the more fill it will take. There would also be a problem with the grade. Oiairman McDonald felt that after visiting the site again this proposal had less of an impact to the Becker ••’operty because the side of Mr. Becker's home affected the proposal has no windows . This pit^sal also appears to be more in line with the Becker home. r L ROBERT F. WHITE 320 WDOmiLL ROAD VARIANCE - REAR YARD SETBA' (1275) LAURENCE REARDCN (PHILLIP DYKSTRA) 3080 NORTH SHORE DRIVE SUBDIVISION (FINAL) (#73) i^ACK RHODE 1410 BOHNS POINT ROM) VARIANCE - LOT AREA g WIDH (DNDITIONAL USE PERMIT ^ _ (#210) M1.''JTES. OF A PLNNSING OCJrnsSIQNJ MTJn ’ING IIHIJ) AllQIST 1, 1977 - PAGE 4 • Mr. ( Mrs. BccVcr were also present. They expressed their concerns and objections regarding the proposal. Some of these were: (2) (3) (5) (6) When was the land legally platted? It was their uiderstanding that if the land was legally platted before the 1965 zoning, Orono policy would tend to grant variances. Did prior owner own the lot as an adjacent property? Lot in question was less than the 1 acre area and 140 ft. width requirements. His nearest neighbor is presently 140 ft. away, hhen he purchased his house he was advised by his attorney that the lot in question w.is unbuildable. He is opposed to the 26 ft. setbacl; on Mr. Rhode's house. Becker's prefer the quiet and felt that the noise level would be increased. A variance had been granted in October of 1974 to this property siiiject to no other variances being granted and the carriage house being razed. Mr. Becker felt this should be enforced. It is his understanding that a driveway should be 10 ft. from a lot line. Mr. Becker felt that the proposed driveway for the Rhode property was too close to the lot line. No more than 1 principal building located on the lot. requested that the Planning Comaission should take these Acems into account when making their decision. After all the connents were heard from the concerned parties involved, the Planning Conmission discussed the proposal before them. In addressing the points brought up by Mr. Becker, the Planning Conmission advised that the lot in question was a si2)standard lot rather than an unbuildable lot. The variance granted in 1974 and the conditions set forth at that time were noj^r void. Ha^-ever, the same conditions could again be applied to this application. Due to the fact that Mr. Rhode has \dthdrawn his request to use the existing structure as a guest house, there would be only one principal building on this lot. Conceming the driveway being too close to the lot line, Orono code does not specify ai^r setback requirement. Conmission also discussed the 75 foot lakeshore and average setback in relation to this property and the adjacent and nearby properties. Given all the facts, they felt that Mr. Rhode was cooperative in trying to resolve this matter. C rf-f f IIA tl I JACK RHODE (continued) (#210) MlN'jrtS OF A riA\MNG CQMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 1, 1977 - PAGE 5 Connission also determined that if the proposed driveway were to be gravel, current proposal would be under the hardcover requirement. There were some negative feelings on the Conmission with regard to the carriage house. Members Dunlap and Hurr felt that there was too much building bulk for .the size of the lot and therefore the carriage house should be removed. Guthrie moved, Hosfield seconded, to recommend approval of the application siibject to having a gravel driveway in recognition of the total hardcover on the planned house and existing building. , Motion: 4 ayes (Hassel, McDonald, Hosfield, Guthrie) 2 nays (Dunlap, Hurr) 1 Abstain Asst. Zoning Administrator e^lained that this application is for filling and grading within the lakeshore area. This area had been dredged one time before and has filled in over the years. Applicant is requesting permission to refill area so as to be level of adjacent properties and level off to make lawn area. Letter from engineer recommended that the area should be riprapped across the ^Tont prior to any filling. Mr. Metz was present. He stated that he was proposing to use sand or area like fill for the project. Planning Conmission expressed concern about authorizing any filling in the lakeshore area, but felt this would be the restoring of a natural situation rather than creation of anything new. After some discussion, Hurr moved, Hassel seconded, to recormend approval contigent on the fact that the shoreline be riprapped prior to any filling and that the type of fill be approved by the city engineer. Motion - Ayes (6), Nays (0), Abstain (1) McDonald. Planning Commission was informed that applicant had called advising that they would be unable to attend this meeting. M.Oe, JACK RHODE (continued) (#210) JV mc it77, Their request is for a conditional use permit for the keeping of a horse. Applicant owns 1.13 acres at comer of Watertown and Willow and has leased the adjoining property to the north which is 2.68 acres. Mr. 8 Mrs. Gonsolus, property owners across Willow Drive, were present and had some objections. Adjoining property a»ner Riisciano has submitted a letter of no objection to the maintaining of a bam on this,property. Hannah moved, Hosfield seconded, to table this application until the next meeting to allow the Martin’s to be present to indicate where the bam is located on this lot and the length of the present lease. Motion - Ayes (7), Nays (0). THEODORE METZ 4300 NORTH SHORE DRU'E CONDITIONAL USE PER^^T (#286) WILLIAM MARTIN 2380 WATERTOWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HORSE AND EARN (#287) r y \ •*.' ( £yM/r iUN SO VH.LAGE OS OMW VJilliam J. Lauer 1^30 Bohn's Point Poad Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 June 26, 1980 Orono Village Council Orono, Minnesota To Whom It May Concern: Mr. Jack Rhode has shown us the site plan prepared by Demars - Gabriel Land Surveyors showing the proposed Rhode residence as drawn on April 15, 1980. Mrs. Lauer and I agree that the area as shown is the best area on which to place the house. This puts the house in the center of the lot and will allow an area for landscaping on either end of the lot after the carriage house is removed. Sincerely yours. ^ * y / / William J. Lauer WJL/lrb \\ 1 .‘I 1 i r n1 I LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLllSATION \ CITY OF ORONO ' koa M. Ci7»t*l *»r, mni>«*of SS>»^ EXHIBIT 1 *79-7357 tHcramiflMS' riMM fi»«» •»»•«»*•< Information Ihoot. Cooiploto Uomo * “ J* 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 8. ZTriV. b. ocpto-. PROPERTY ADDRESS <^7^S U b «I 4n»erlrtlo« ol-ll W •»*«« on ottoeho4 turvoj, bhlklt 3 applicant —LJ. Ng4.»eA>Fho«o—*3.^(0 onsir QMT LAP9Mlllng Addroto jfj^JOt------SCBSSLSlS*------------------------------------- If Applleonc lo not ownor, oaplota *V 3. OWNER —• >■niofit Halllnc Addrooo Date Property Acquired C—M*----------- (do not) also own other adjacent parcels of land agent —--------- USX OF exhib T b £ PgQcriptioii Iwitipl ApplicPti<n mmt inel«i4p: 1 (^^llcptlep Fpf» 2 fro^rty Lfpi 3 Cortlflcnco of »«i ^ roo lucoipt # Bat*«Mod^ •y ‘ ‘ " ff to A \y not Hop 5 If Invontory A >/ Scoff CoMonto Or her InformOttOB ^ rfe rtn Hollins Addrooo NOTICES *hw»M fc« «•* ___Applleont PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT - - Oimpr S^mt 7, PRESENT USE koolAonttal Jk. <oti«r) VacPfit Occupied BuilAlns] DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST S_ _ poCPblUli MW M« _ eootinM ot •spoii4 aisKifig _ bwlM pm •• _ riauijl _ rppUpo K fSI-k nPAilf T^linib ---- f ■ ‘ EXHIBIT 1 LIO ) of land Afcnt LIST OF EXHIBITS I £ PMerl»tt— Initial Apaltcatiwi ■uat Inelii4a: 1 AppilcatiM fmwm t Froparty Ownara t4al 3 Ccrclfleac* mt T— # 9 Dae* Mc«l««4 ^ »y ‘ ‘ w/ Invantory Staff Othar liiforantinn 7 ✓ ^ j+e IIrfyiLi lOICTION COST $ sSTOM.* iwtM MW __r--ifil ^ 1*1 la» cu c^//c»»n>T* PROPERTY OWNERS LIST - Q R OEFARTMENT OF FINANCE I--------------------/j L frr^ Q A-609 government CENTER ' ^ MINNEAPOLIS^ MN 55487 LIST Size Ar/:> -fA 1 CeSTITV THAT T CCRTifICATC ARC Av fCCURin MID TRUM RCRI SCNTATION OF MFdllMATIOIlNiis^rAFFZMs TH’iS OATS OR TMC RfCOROS OF TMS NINNCFIR eOiMTV FINANCe OlVISIOR. TO TNt StST OF MV KNOWLCOSC AND OELIEF. NeRRCFIN CO. FINANCE DIVISION. C'»V' ( // ’ DATE FEE OWNER tax PAYER / ------------------------------------ MAILINC ADDRESS WOPERTY ADOr^ ( /A DtrP^^J^mrS 1V ]-----^' lb \ ■mhM 712/-//7-Z- fT I Olc -------------------------------------------------------- 7 .^9_£a Jin ~r, aij<^\ 21^.99 //.Xfe^'3K| 77^)3Papt Qh j//r 11.T~7(!)7//JA/jri^K prjpT,'Mf: iJjl\ 7I^AIS -MAitrH f}f\j 'Z.yo ^ ^*' ‘yc 4/6|''Hl<U7'fi£ C- G. Pl.Ofi\s ) 7/T>5- itTru-im A OPjtGA^ /i. ^\)B '7-,'t^y A" . .Si'PRriK'yianfTL fifzp ------------ G. PiMH/i 7-7/P U7ttru-A^'7 f>w7WL-oP '"■ /■ I i i Ii i rtr i k mL ig; H /. h 'I :tJ^: • ^ftfoLiLv *iiJ iliij i igv C8i% w tfc\ r ^ USE punninc “INC variance inventory l?^*MNCES_REgyiR|g density " "^iJSi!L!i£mj& actual. VAWiXiicr - coot tttpftWM asasa-saama aiujs. »»0»O< fpp VMlANgg — £°Pt «eP7f»Tf » rt. J* «.. I HARDCOVF p ““ •- »«. « 1*^ • - M rt. AUC a JKU. ^c^njTTm ••AnocnvE**3flSTlKC p__ o ^ hajidcovoi ^aoposo JU1._lt>TAL VAUXAftCB ^OOC SCI »»• - 500 f-t. ^ “«•«»-looo rt. 3„ fflS.SECT10l« *“*"* ■•‘•••t tmmm.t l»IU.) X.»0J M.iei 34.204 fe A>-e€L SPg «e«~rii LAMP ---------------------------■ ------------- r:r. '•' •”•■■'••- / ^ •'p^. .......— o*tl«na» ------- **«blB*d with other oar. •l»»»»to ownorahlo•^—P mXopmm •fmm ^fmmm ___----------mAOpmm _________ ——I.....:;; —»v a^------ --- _ _^..ri-ri .-nr ^ntormina ------- ------- ••i.tlo, aubataSa^Td'*""*'*** ***"**"• land USP lot I® ^ ®*1*TI*6 land ike occupi^ I-------------------------- ^ ~ iSTRUCrtlltPs I Mdriae MiLoucg •>«<«|«oel... •“ — *• «OB01tlonal 0.0 "®"-oonfo»t^ 0,0 WIl taxes & assessments WO^tETT ID. '*•••••»•»• I—iod.^ ■•Mr |oo| "•« «-Pl, wu. —------------------------ ^ 'uhataodard yartTlj...,,^ «ntt^ *'•*•» Umt witta exhibit 5 ^72 Use j r-Oistricr22l37 lAWCX total VMIIANCB i-JU_____/M £fiBt_2£sz2i *»-«n M.>02 M.iea M.Mt AKCT1«» *'••>• - ................... ■—. TOiiiM, mu. ►-csoafoi prepared FOR: land use planning STAFF COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS Nanniny eo»iwl„ion Heating (OataJ Council Haeting Ibata) -----S— ■ ^.fm.TY WHIBIT 6 #^7 application reviewed BY; . City Adminifltrator • a Attorney &>9in««r Villaga Manner Zoning *4tainiatrator Planning Oonnission ^•rk Ooneiiasion ------- Public Horka Coordinator ------- Hublic saf.ty Director ------- Finance Director ------- Zuilding Inspector - - Soptie Inspector Mates) ► Wennepin Cty. dot Hifin. State DOT* Hinn. Dirs SPECIAL COMMENTS (i,j STAFF recommendation »P*»Wt application as oolaBittod em .pplieation lor r.aaon. notod ohooo liAe. ^ ^-n ngi* /| g LAND USE PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS Page 2 SUGGESTED FINDINGS •■"' - ct>ndJllofis Applyina «w ** —»r«ntii»f of the applicacioB **‘*'*et in .. """ " -Mi-c^ - - —-------------- ^ »ra?a o, -*» "Ot i„ a^ .ay ^ .................................................. _ ^ ^ • «»•« i£:’.::iS*o5;r« •“* ~* - •-..n,».,»^ ^ ^ .. 2r “ “• •' “• —^ ^.ILviat. a«»„.t,at.d hardaM^J.^* ^ ~"vnl-nc tc ti.. applicant, but i. „.ca..a,, -------- «•• appl leant baa daiwnatrat.a .... ^ varianea «iould aaral. *” ^ »»cognlaad hardahln nr . (St “ •PWi««..r‘ *"* >*• w.i. .( ..a. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OP APPROVAL $• 9 lLr:£Jr.. • - mL.. exhtutt Page 2 -th., ,.oa „ .t,ueto..rio';:r;:rtnc f, !•"- or .tr»et«r., to »!.• di.trlct to r th. pr...,v.Uo« .»d wjoyooot of • Poblie h..ith, ,.„t,. cohort. . *. ■afoty. coaton. aorala «r e( tho eo»pr.h.„,ivolood D m ‘•w Of tha eoapr.h.„,iv*Iona Uao •e. u, th. .ppitcot. hut 1. n.e...,^ y •»< therefor* the of eiidi #572 June 13, 1980 Mr. and Hr^. Donald W. Nelson 2705 Walters Port l^e Excelsior, Minnesota [3331 J Subject: Api-'roval for Patio Extension Nelson Residence - Walters Port lane Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nelson: Ibis letter conveys our conplete approval for the extension of the Nelscxi's patio across the rear of their hone. Ibis approval in cludes the construction of flower beds, benches, shrubbery, hedges, hot tub, and barbecue pit, located as depicted on the general plan attached. Should any variance or legal approval be necessary by the Nelson's, our signature below gives our conplete approval. It is our belief that this constructicxi will beautify our neifi^bor- hood. Wfe understand that because of the low terrain in the ax^ of this patio and the extreme closeness to the level of the lake that Uiis brick patio and garden area is necessary to make the area usable, as designed in the original plan of the Nelson home. Yours truly. /nb '■»*jirggiagqi # •• ^ cl' ^ n V. .. -V ?=y «■'■. a ^.' June 13, 1980 Mr. and Mrs. Dcxiald W. Nelson 2705 Walters Port l^e Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Subject: Approval for Patio Extension Nelson Residence - Walters Port I^e Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nelson: Ibis letter conveys our conplete approval for the extension of the Nelscm's patio across the rear of their home. This approval in cludes the construction of flower beds, benches, slmibbery, hedges, hot tub, and barbecue pit, located as depicted on the general plan attached. Should any variance or legal aj^roval be necessary by the Nelson's, our signature below gives our conplete approval. It is our belief that this constructi<» will beautify our nei^bor- hood. We understand that because of the low terrain in the area of this patio and the extreme closeness to the level of the lake that this brick patio and garden area is necessary to make the area \isable, as designed in the original plan of the Nelson home. Yours truly. j i if . June 13, 1980 f: P ^ • • / w-' ■\ • I c/ f^- ■/ (p flJ- Mr. and Mrs. Donald W. Nelson 2705 Walters Port lane Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 $ Subject: Approval for Patio Extension Nels(» Residence - Walters Port lane Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nelson: Ibis letter conveys our conplete approval for the extension of the Nelson's patio across the rear of their hone. This approval in cludes the construction of flower beds, benches, shrubbery, hedges, hot tirt), and barbecue pit, located as depicted on the general plan attached. Should any variance or legal approval be necessary by the Nelson's, our signature below gives our caqplete approval. It is our belief that this construction will beautify our neighbor hood. We understand that because of the low terrain in the area of this patio and the extreme closeness to the level of the lake that this brick patio and garden area is necessary to make the area usable, as designed in the original plan of the Nelson home. Yours truly. Allis' /rib :kbJr: . #572 June 13, 1980 Mr. and Mrs. Donald W. Nelson 2705 Walters Port Lane Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Subject: Approval for Patio Extension Nelson Residence - Walters Port Lane Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nelson: This letter convesrs our conplete lypproval for the extension of the Nelson's patio across the rear of their hone. Ibis approval in cludes the ccmstructlc» of flower beds, boiches, shrubbery, hedges, hot tub, and barbecue pit, located as depicted on the general plan attached. _old any variance or legal approval be necessary by the Nelson's, our signattuie below gives our conplete ai^roval. It is our belief that this construction will beautify our nei^ibor- bood. Wie understand that because of the low terrain in the area of patio and the extreme closeness to the level of the lake that this brick patio and garden area is necessary to make the area usable, as designed in the original plan of the Nelscm h e. Yours truly. /rJL /?^o / <1 jiSa JL4 '1 u J Ur.1-- » •f / b y/I J June 13, 1980 Mr. and Mrs. Donald W. Nelson 2705 Walters Port Lane Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Subject: Approval for Patio Extension Nelscxi Residence - Walters Port lane Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nelson: This letter conveys our oonplete approval for the extension of the Nelson's patio across the rear of their home. This approval in cludes the construction of flower beds, benches, shrubbery, hedges, hot tub, and barbecue pit, located as depicted on the general plan attached. Should any variance or legal approval be necessary by the Nelson’s, our signature below gives oiu: oonplete approval. It is our belief that this construction will beautify our neig^ibor- hood. We understand that because of the low terrain in the area of this patio and the extreme closeness to the level of the lake that this brick patio and garden area is necessary to make the area usable, as designed in the original plan of the Nelson home. Yours truly. 0 0 ^ u ^^ / 9 /nb % '* J I sHi t *' Planning Conunission and Council #.^70O Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator July 16, 1980 #573 Erwin Martin, 3340 Shoreline Drive - COMMERCIAL PLAN REVIEW Mr. Martin proposes construction of an additional bay on the northeast side of the existing structure. The addition will be 31' X 24', unfortunately, neither the survey nor the plot plan designate the side yard setback from Navarre Lane for the proposed structure. In Council's review of the proposed Haefele, Martin vacation application, they conceptually approved the vacation, but the applicant has never completed the conditions of that approval - please review enclosed Minutes of February 11, 1980. The applicant will submit a certification of setback by the meeting night. It appears from the scale on the plot plan that there is a 10 foot setback. If street setback applies, variance is as follows: Required: 35' Proposed: 10' Variance: 25' = 71% The residential zoning district runs along the centerline of Navarre Lane If the vacation is considered applicable, there is 33' of additional side yard for Martin's lot. A variance would not be necessary since the required 35' would be met. The site has adequate area for the parking that serves both the towing and repair use. Planning Commission should consider asking for additional screening along the fenced area - specifically Shoreline Drive. Staff recommendation: 1. Require a setback variance application since the street vacation is not complete - applicant may wish to complete vacation application before we pass on the site plan. 2. Require additional screening along fence area. 1^. *573 ~ commercial plan review rni^K^ northeast'111 be 31' X 24', plan designate the side In Council's application, they never completed enclosed Minutes of back by the meeting night X, a 10 foot setba^L of Navarre Lane J Of additional t be necessary since the serves ^th the towing vacation is ation application before *«g«l Description ^dress “ ^fel # —(t£9«Ji “®Er Na„,g ~= toiling Tel # ----- 530.00 ___ 550.00 Rezoning $250 “«tlon SlOO **^®sent Zoning FEE ®®fe~R^'dBy orainan.. — r"”—^21^" same _✓<?., , . rr ' .4 WMIWcb required I®t Area Width Se.^"™"fonnlty ---------»K **"‘her, explain' Specif hardships to or ** property Side Rear SUBDIVISION application Residential explain COHDITioHAh USE AND OTHER - Of Lots explain proposed use of P«Perty in a.tan 3- J?t“';p‘- -DUted ° -”--o“^^inq, ^ V3oJ. Ml7of, —on Plana, i, .. rI^f^n^r--^ nppii ■ - -^■PPUcant * s S4ma a. end Council necessa^^°f' Enginee/"c?r^^^^®^^^^ : ------"-‘"•^%":s.^.r ■»»s..“.“s:';.;P?S5;5 ‘ agrees to f t // i : < CT ^/P7^^3 'SC £ 1 • •»***f'• • } .> • AILAR meeting of the ORONO council, FEBRUARY II, 1980 Page 5 curing the past week, 1 have contacted Captain Langhoff of the Army Corps of Engineers and hopefully, very soon, we will receive the necessary forms, to initiate the program. Captain Langhoff has indicated that construction could begin in July or August, if there are no problems. Councilmember Paurus, Orono's representative to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District reported on LMCD activities. No comments from the Planning Commission. No comments from the Comprehensive Planning representative. No comments from the public present. Representative Robert L. Searles, State Legis lative District 42B, addressed the City Council and attending public# commenting on legislative accomplishments during the past year. Mr. Leo Duehn, 1140 North Arm Drive, was present to discuss his application. Mr, Duehn agreed to deferring the matter until February 25, 1980, when further information will be available. Mayor Van Nest moved, Massengale seconded, to table until the February 25, 1980 Council meeting the conditional use permit for KK & Kompany and Leo Duehn, 1140 North ^Arm Drive. Motion, , Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record the request of Haefele, Martin & Hassel for vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane dated February 6, 1980, which states: ‘•I BEDERWOOD PARK (Continued) LMCD REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PUBLIC COMMENTS ROBERT L. SEARLES REPOR' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1140 North Arm Drive «489 KK & Kompany - Leo Dueh V" » • n V- STREET VACATION Part of Navarre Lhne The abutting property owners, Richard J. Haefele, representing the Church, Richard Hassel, representing the Lafayette Ridge Development,and Erwin Martin, owner of Martin's 66 station, have petitioned to vacate A portion of Navarre Lane from the inter section of Navarre Lane at County Road 19 to the intersection of Navarre Lane at Olive Avenue. (Continued) J t r'-j. ULAR MEETING OF THE 0R0!;0 COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 11, 1980 Page 6 no County has closed the Navarre Lane access off at County Road 19 because of its nearness to the traffic signal at the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19 and dangers arising from left turns being made by cars going south on County Road 19. The County has stated that the Navarre Lane access will never be opened and that an additional curb cut will not be approved in the right-of-way if the City approves vacation. STREET VACATION Navarre Lane (Continued) The applicants propose a general cleanup and landscaping of the subject area. A corner of the Church encroaches into the Navarre Lane right-of- way. The Church has been unable to obtain clear title to the property. The service station owner is concerned that he retain access to County Road 19 and wants to cleanup the frontage along Shadywood Road. We have heard nothing from the Lafayette Ridge group except that they signed the applicants letter. Please review the Planning Commission Minutes of November 26, 1979 and January 28, 1980 for back ground discussion and recommendation. The following are summaries of reviews from staff meibers and the Hennepin County Highway Department: A. Comments from the Public Works Coordinator; 1.How costly would it be for the City, gas and telephone companies to locate the four under' lying utilities? The cost for the location of all utilities should be borne by the party requesting the vacation. We can assist by making sewer and water as-builts available to them. 2.What type of access would be necessary if the entire area were grassed? If the entire area is grassed, this does- not create a problem as long as there are no fences or barricades. 3. Would a 10' easement be sufficient for each of the utilities? We would need a 20 ft. easement which is the normal utility easement. (Continued) 1 ,ULAK MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 11, I960 Page 7 i • Does the Orono road department use Navarre Lane from the intersection of Olive Avenue to the west? Do you see any future use? The Orono street department maintains that part of Navarre Lane to allow access to the church parking lot and fire hydrant accessibility. I only wish to suggest that we should deter^-.ine what effect, if any, this would have on our total miles in the City in regard to M.S.A. monies. We should also be concerned that the fire hydrant at the south end be accessible to the gas station on the corner, perhaps the street cannot be vacated all the way to County Road 19. B. Hennepin County Highway Department's Respond "The Traffic Division and Preliminary Design Section reviewed the CSAH 19 ~ CSAH 15 inter section revision along with your vacation of Navarre Lane. To allow for channelization at the intersection, we are requesting an additional 33 ft. of right of way through the Navarre Lane corridor, making the right of way 66 ft. from the center of CSAH 19. I have attached a half section map showing the area requested." Although Mr. Weigelt's letter does not respond specifically to Mr. Martin’s request to maintain access off Shadywood Road (Cty. Rd. 19) , he has assured me that there would be no problem. In fact, the additional right of way requested by the County would assure that access. The Planning Commission moved to recommend a partical vacation of Navarre Lane to enable the Church to obtain a clear title to the property. The Church must submit a legal description for the area to.be vacated. The City should be furnished a certified copy of the document at the time of filing. Council Meeting - February 11, 1980 Mr. Haefele, Mr. Hubbard, and Mr. Martin were present to discuss the proposed vacation. Mayor Van Nest commented that further information is required to reach a decision on this matter. STPJ:ET VACATION Navarre Lane (Continued) (Continued) 9 n mL JUI^AR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 11, 1980 Page 8 4r. Hubbard stated they would submit a survey showing their proposal. Mayor Van Nest asked the applicants if they would absorb all costs that would occur with this street vacation. Mr. Hubbard replied they would. Mayor Van Nest moved, Paurus seconded, to concept ually approve the vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane, subject to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Plan being submitted Relocate hydrants Remove blacktop Retain adequate frontage Landscape area Provide easements Complete survey showing driveway, street centerlines, and barricades Church drive not to be on property line Vacation to be determined to be in the public interest Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator, informed the City Council that she has reviewed the 1980 list of seven tax forfeit lots. Staff recommends retaining three parcels for road and drainage purposes and releasing all others for unconditional sale. Mayor Van Nest moved, Paurus seconded, to adopt Resolution #1110, Tax Forfeit Lands Retained For Public Use By The City Of Orono. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Mayor Van Nest moved, Paurus seconded, ’to adopt Resolution #1111, Tax Forfeited Lands Released For Public Sale. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). A memo from Michael Gaffron, On-Site Systems Manager, was presented to the City Council concerning On-Site Systems Program Service Charge dated February 8, 1980, which states: The 1979 on-site inspection fee was established at $25.00 per system. Based on a projection of program costs for 1980, it appears that the On- Site Systems Program Service Charge can be lowered STREET VACATION Navarre Lane (Continued) TAX FORFEIT LANDS* RESOLUTION #1110* Retain Tax Forfeit Lands RESOLUTION #1111* Release for Sale Tax Forfeit Lands ON-SITE SYSTEMS PROGRAM SERVICE CHARGE (Continued) re TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission and Council Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator July.16, 1980 1574 James MacKinnon, 3468 Lyric Avenue - Subdivision #574 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 0 The applicant seeks conceptual approval for a proposed division of three substandard lots (each 50* X 134') totalling 20,100 s.f. and combined for tax purposes. There are two water unit charges against the property and each lot has a sewer stub. There is only one sewer plat charge for the existing house. The house is located on ^ - and a detached garage is located on Lot 20 (middle lot). If divided through the middle of Lot 20 as proposed, the detached garage will reguire a setback variance. Please review the enclosed plat I have noted the residential units on Block 5 in the Navarre Heights ne:ghborhood. The proposal involves the following variances: A) Lot Area Variance: Required - 21,780 s.f. Existing - 20,000 s.f. Proposed - 10,050 s.f. Variance - 11,730 s.f. = 54% B) Lot Width Variance: Required - 100* Existing - 150’ Proposed - 75* Variance - 25* C) Setback Variance for Detached Garage: Required - 10* Proposed - 7.6* 2 4 tVariance - ^ ^ r' d July 16, 1980 #574 James MacKinnon 3468 Lyric Avenue SUBDIVISION Page 2 ^41.• 0 a - it;v>- The following points should be considered in reviewing the application: 1. Cotmcil's previous policy concerning mutual ownership vs minimum lot size. 2. The pattern of neighborhood development in relation to the zoning district standards. 3. Setback variances for existing structure where lot lines can be adjusted. 4. To what degree does the two water unit charges and sewer stub location affect the decision making in this application. K ^7 A.• ') d ~S.•.* . •% eviewing the application: 1 ownership vs relation to the here lot lines ^■968 and seller stub » application. Land Use Application uxariw OP proposal (or property) ’’ sLegal Description APPLICAMT Maine ^ , Hailing ffm/^f^vfunM Tel #V7</. Address Hailing ’ '/- -pee type op application Sketch Plan Review $50 . Subdivision $150 + $10/Lot Conditional Use Permit _ _ $30.00 _ _ $50.00 Rezoning $250 Vacation $100 (Minimum) ^*^«8«nt Zoning / ^ *^ate ltec*d '^///~75ZJ zoning ordln««» Section Relating to Requeat Ordinance Requirements Present Use 4- i ZRplain your regneat -U . / y.. y.i / ^ -cJfrh:^ J 2,srs.“’ _ _ Other,Side Specify hardships to explain Rear proj SUBDXVZSIOM application Residential Other, explain Ho. of Lots •ITIO^ USE AMD OTHER - e^iai„proposed use of detail Application completed Plat map section os: survey of propertv eketch location and setbacks of proposal Construction plans, if applicable DATE 7 ~ if— Vr) ‘=“- ».Pt. of Pin«,ce A 603 Government Center sized envelopes (#loj ®®®^ the^nameson the above list DATE Applicant's Signature •s. Owner's Signature Applicant hereby agreeT toTrovld« 1-- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - •11 fees as established by ordinance. farther agrees to pay 5/78 pil I I ilHIUi LVtS « S\ifv S HM*^vs W»6\fVS I •