Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-1979 Planning PacketI AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION ^^EETING OF JANUARY 22, 1979 COUNCIL CRAMBERS -7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 1. Call to Order/Roll 2, Comprehensive Planning Comments PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS < ) 3. 7:30 P.M, #443 Robert Olson, 4665 Bayside Road SUBDIVISION •.V. 4, 7:45 P.M, #434 Fred Herfurth, 225 North Ferndale ^ PRD/SUBDIVISION/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ' 6 / ACTION ITEMS 5. #436 Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT f •• SKETCH PLAN REVIEW . y 6. #451 A. D. Ingham, 640 Tonkawa Road SUBDIVISION WORK SESSION 7, #452 Warren Ortenblad, 3870 Shoreline Drive CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I A.! U TNFORMATION ITEM 8, #440 Louis B. Oberhauser, 200 Wayzata Boulevard PRD - Public Hearing Scheduled February 12, 1979 (7:30 P.M.) approval of MINUTES 9. Meeting of December 11, 1978 10, Meeting of January 8, 1979 ----jj nfi 4 y /?-Z£ VDLILAOE OF ©JRIONCD »-jr »*«s Ld qr F-< fv X -,.. f\A i H a; tCAtC f«B« li ••I {,»*%• T •»•;;$ **.» • k- • • «»4« TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission and Council Ji -- - -- ^ Jeanne Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator November 21, 1978 SUBJECT: Robert Olson, 4645 Bayside Road SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mr, Olson has submitted an application for a two lot subdivision originally submitted and approved by Council (May 28, 1974) by Harold Anderson, 4665 Bayside Road. The original application was never finalized because Mr. Anderson did not complete specific obligations to the City, The two lot subdivision now involves a 1,9 acre lot and a 17.3 acre lot. Mr, Olson requests an area variance for the 1.9 acre lot and a setback variance for the pole bam. Hardships following code requirements to the letter would result in an unusual and odd shaped lot. The pole barn is jBT'^from Anderson's south property line (150' required for a barn - 10' required for an accessory building). The pole bam is 2,400 s.f., the State Building Code requires 10* setback from the lot line or the building must be structurally altered to meet code. A one hour fire wall is required and all openings within the wall enclosed. The lot line could be movedto the north along building line and a compensatory southern shift in line could give the necessary two acres. The septic Inspector will Inspect the existing systems. Park fee to be determined. Items for consideration:1. Determine use of pole bam. 2. Can Planning Commission determine a more feasible division line? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - NOVEMBER 27, 1978 Staff reviewed the need to either move lot line at least 3 additional feet along building line or to require applicant to make necessary structural changes in the building to meet the code. Planning Commission advised that it would be economically more feasible to adjust lot line and, in addition, the lot line should be adjusted to bring the lots to the 2-acr(i minimum requirement. Planning Commission gave conceptual approval to the subdivision subject to north lot line realignment. Public Information Meeting scheduled for 1-22-78. Kovember 2, 1978 Fred Herfurth 225 North Fcrndale Suhdivision/Cond. Use Perrolt/Variance Page 2 Zoning District - R-IA I' /u >4 1. Variance (Ord. 34.029) Duplex Credit - A duplex in an R-IA District must be constructed at least 200' from a comnercial or industrial district. 2. Variance (Ord. 34.028) Attached Dwellings - PRD developments in an R-IA District are limited to detached single family dwelling only. 3. Variance (Ord. 38.610) Density Credit - Total number of lots or dwelling units must not exceed number of lots or dwelling units permissible under minimum lot size requirements of zoning district. Lot Size Required: Proposed: Variance: 1 acre or 43,560 s.f. per unit. .772 acre or 33,623 s.f. per unit 9,937 s.f. per unit “ 237. Please read enclosed memo from applicant. PUNNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 8, 1979 Zoning Administrator reviewed letter from Wayzata City Engineer confirming capacity of sewer and water facility and two changes requested by staff in plan submitted - extension of cul-de-sac and lots 7 & 8 fronts to be repositioned in a southerly direction. Planning Commission reviewed the three variance requests. The duplex credit ordinance does not apply since Mr. Herfurth's application is for a PRD of eight units, not twelve. The variance request for attached dwellings in a R-IA District is not perceived as a serious problem. Council and Planning Commission have discussed the possibility of amending code to allow attached dwellings in sewered, rural, one-acre zones. Planning Commission has reservations concerning the third request in which they doubt they have the authority to recommend to the Council a variance granting an overall reduction in minimum lot size for a P.R.D. In the past, Council has granted variance in minimum lot size for specific lots within a subdivision when overall lot Jensity has been satisfied. Planning Commission to make determination after reviewing issues raised by neighbors at Public Information Meeting on 1-22-79. fA{t-^L 7 'JA^tft^ru^ zioo OtA-'r^ a c j)^- A^-; j)m^ 4-^'n bAffTU 0 A.. ■ -t^l ^ {<^^- It .'2‘ ^ h T*.^, yXU \/xiJ oL^ ;^' ^1> v-f- <«/ /j,jnt^-^- OyMj/ tn^-^ /tt*-,^ a-UiAnt "3 . ^ *^*^- C: Idi. /)^-’»tAv> <r7 *7 P^mo *^// ^ fhll^*^'1 / X) CnAZl^ -*^^^-nfAs3V !'' ____________________ TO: FROM: DATE: ,-<] <n)■fly Planning Commission and Council //* * M • '.H) Jeanne A, Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator January 16, 1979 SUBJECT: /M36 Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I. Tentative Schedule for the Holzer Application We have scheduled the Holzer application as an action item for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 1979, for staff has received the City Engineer's letter reviewing Mark Gronberg's report on need for construction of wall and accompanying land alteration. Robert Mitchell, applicant's attorney, has stated in a letter that he would be on vacation from February 8, 1979 through March 3, 1979 and asked that any action to be taken by Planning Commission or Council be postponed until his return. (See letter dated December 29, 1978) We have tentatively scheduled the application for Council's agenda at their first meeting on March 13, 1979. Michael Neklch, attorney for the Smerllngs, called the Village Planner to ask for a postponement if the Holzer application was to be scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1979 because the Smerlings would be vacationing. He was advised to write a letter requesting postponement but this office has received no written communication as of January 15, 1979.i II, Review of Application Since Planning Commission Meeting of November 13, 1978 A. Letters listed in chronological order - if you have not received copies of the letters listed below, please contact the City office. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Letter Letter Letter Letter Letter Letter Letter Letter Letter to to to to to to to to to Mayor Van Nest from Michael Nekich - 11-20-78 Bruce Malkerson from Michael Nekich - 11-21-78 Alexander Holzer from Alan Olson - 11-24-78 Alan Olson from Robert Mitchell - 11-28-78 Alexander Holzer from Alan Olson - 11-30-78 Mayor Van Nest from Michael Nekich - 12-1-78 Alexander Holzer from Mark Gronberg - 12-4-78 Jeanne Mabusth from Bob Mitchell - 12-29-78 Alan Olson from Glenn Cook - 1-12-79 Letters #3-^/5 and #7-(*9 have been included with the agenda packets. —« January 16, 1979 Alexander Holzer 2677 Casco Point Road Variance/Conditional Use Permit Page 2 o ' 1 B.Response to Planning Commission's Questions Concerning Legal Interpretation 1.The "front yard" as now written in our code refers to the street side, hence all front yard requirements are street side requirements. Since this code was drafted, the Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that the lake side is "front yard", hence all front yard requirements are also lake side requirements where they refer to open space, etc. The "front yard" extends from the building line to the lake or to the street. 2.The front yard (Section 31.433) is primarily concerned with view and height. No setbacks are required. Fences and walls are both "structures" as defined in the code. Differences exist in terms of hardcover (area) and construction method which shift regulation of walls to the lakeshore setback (Section 34,200) and grading (Section 31.700). 3.The height limitation is imposed for construction and open space purposes. Therefore, height requirements should be measured from the ordinary (original) ground level to the top of the structure. 4.The purpose of the height limitations anywhere are as stated in #3 above. Open space, view and esthetically/ environmentally "natural" landscapes are prime concerns on all lakeshore property. C. Summary of City Engineer's Letter (dated January 14, 1979) City Engineer states new drainage pattern will not "cause any hardship on adjacent property o\%Tiers", in fact, it will improve drainage situation for neighbors to south and north. The wall will create greater erosion problems to the west because all drainage will be funneled in the direction of the lake, engineer recommends all excavated material be placed against west wall and ground cover established as soon as possible. The applicant's plans for storm water disposal must be reviewed by City Engineer before installation of any system. January 16, 1979 Alexander Holzer 2677 Casco Point Road Variance/Conditional Use Permit Page 3 IL /7l ' cl J>o III. Alternative Actions Open to Planning Commission A. Retaining Wall Within 0-75' of Lakeshore 1, Reasonable - Variance granted (Ordinance 34.202), a) Hardship - extreme slope causing erosion - need for wall within 75' setback. b) Corrective measures; 1. 2. None . Excavated material along slope to lakeshore be placed against the outside of existing west wall to equalize pressure. 2. Unreasonable - Variance denied. a) Corrective measure 1.Existing wall removed within 75* setback, and new west wall to begin at 75' setback mark - all excavated material deposited along slope to be placed against the outside of new west wall. B. Reasonable Height for Side and Front Yard Walls 1, Determination of Height a) Low Point 1. Original grade - attorney & engineer recommend original 2. New grade b) High Point 1. Top of main structure 2. Top of pillars or columns #! t , t U. /I .‘f't' January 16, 1979 Alexander Holzer 2677 Casco Point Road Variance/Conditional Use Permit Page 4 2. Reasonable Height for Front Yard Wall or Fence a) 3-1/2' Maximum Height allowed by Ordinance 31.433 1, Corrective action - reduce height of wall in front yard to 3-1/2' where ever a deviation in height exists. b) Less than 3-1/2* - Lakeshore property requires greater height limitation - concern with esthetics and natural environment, open space, view, etc. 1. Corrective action - reduce height of wall to _ _ _ _ _ (Recommendation of Planning Commission). 3. Reasonable Height for Side Yard Wall or Fence a) 6* Maximum Height allowed by Ordinance 31.434 1. Corrective action -reduce height of wall to 6' where ever a deviation in height exists. b) Less than 6' - Would a wall less than 6' have less impact on neighbor's property - esthetics, financial. etc... 1. Corrective action - reduce height of wall to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Recommendation of Planning Commission) r II: /3 Q77 ^ ^ L' /■:yy/s /-y-'A .77.'// / ^ #■• ' 0f 4 ^ m* /I 4. I > V . * -'5***. l! f r 4 D REGULAR !1EETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, NOVEJ3ER 28, 19 78 Paqe 3 Planning CorL"iission fiovting - Novcjrb-r 13, 1978 ) Planning Comnission noved for prolininai-y approval of the Burt Corwin plat. Corvnission r.c-rbors felt it was not rcces?ary to • r'rH'Ove the unsafe shed on the 19-plus acre lot. There are no setback problems for the existing buildings. Park dedication fee to be determined by staff and applicant to select method ot wetlands designation. SUBDIVISION 1125 Hunter Drive (Continued) Council Meeting - November 28, 1978 Mr. Coi-win and Mr. Robert C,' Scott, real csta broker, were present.4 3 G Mayor Van Nest move I, Posek seconded, to give preliminary approval for the subdivision request of Burt Corwin, 1125 Hunter Drive, subject to two acres dry buildable land, not to include road right of way or wetlands, park dedication fee being paid, dedicated right of way for Hunter Drive, and conservation and flowage easement. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Mr. James Bloemendahl, Department of Natural Resources, presented plans for a rest area at Willow Drive ^uld the Luce Line Trail, Niforopulos property. He stated that there would be no snow­ mobile trails, no camping nor over-night camping, and no off-street parking. It would consist of trails, picnic area, and general rest area. LUCE LINE TRAIL Rest Area Willow Drive Mayor Van Nest requested that concerned citizens in the area: Donald Scott, Judd Ringer, and Mr. Dickey be infor.T.ed of the plans that will be presented again at tiie next Council meeting. Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, stated that the Planning Conunission is in the process of review­ ing an application by Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road. The application is for a variance and conditional use permit to approve work which is already substantially completed. Involved is a concrete wall, a retaining wall and some filling and grading. / CONDITIONAL USE PERMI VARIANCE 2677 Casco Point Road #436 Alexander Holzer The Council is asked to give staff direction concerning two procedural issues. The Council is not asked to review any substantive issues until the Planning Cor.missicn has conpleted their review and made* their recorj.end?.tion.(Con tinued) 1^^ ‘ HKGUL/\R !l££TING OF THE ORONO COU>;CTL, ;-.0VK.VM-;R 28, 1978 Page 4 The City is asfted to author ire extra expense* by the City Attorney and the City Engineer to under- ) take studies requested by the Planning CouTtssion. According to ordinance, the Council nay direct that such charges be paid by the applicant. CON’DlTrONAL USE PER.’-!: VARIANCE 26 77 Casco Point Roai. (Continued) •7 The attorney has already answered the Planning Conmission's questions. The ipplicant's attorney has requested time ♦'O submit his own , - additional engineering before the City undertakes-^'^-. a special study. The staff recommends that no // j unusual engineering studies be undertaken but that the City Engineer should review the applicant's submittals according to normal procedures. :r'"A .V >*\ The City Council is asked whether or not to reopen variance case #417 concerning a garage on the property. A complaining neighbor has charged violation of the variance and has requested re.- review along with the other natters. Staff recora- nends that the variance was properly reviewed, proper permits were subsequently issued, and the building is being built within the code and variance requirements. We recommend not reopening the case at this time. 0 Mr. Mitchell, the applicant's attorney, requested by letter that no work be ordered v/hich would be chargeable to his client and that he be allowed tine to respond to all matters. Mr. Nekich, by telephone, agreed to the delay but did restate his request for an‘independent City engineering review. Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to deny authoritv for unusual City engineering expenses, limiting engineering costs to the normal review procedures; to decline to reopen variance case #417 according to staff recommendations and to defer all substantive review of the issues until after the Planning Cofiunission makes a study of the facts and presents recommendations to the Council. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). r? minutes of a planning C0>2<1SSI0N IJEETING held on NOVEMBER 13, 1978 Page 3 H >; i It was noted that due to rr-any trees in the area the garage would not cause any sight problems to the neighbors, Wilson moved to approve the variance of the side yard setback due to the narrow width and extreme grade of the lot as well as the difficulty of entering the new garage. Motion seconded by Hurr, Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. Mabusth explained the request. Due to the complexity of the application, the Planning Commission decided that the purpose of this meeting would be to sort out and clearly define the violations anti the requests of this application. RICHARD PERRY 4A0 Willow Drive So, Variance & Cond, Use Permit (Cont.) Alexander holzer 2677 Casco Point Rd, Variance & Cond. Use Permit #436 The violations are: 1. Hardcover 0-75' of lakeshore 75-250' of lakeshore 2. Fence height over 6' in side and rear y The requests are: 1. Variance for hardcover from 75'-250'. 2. Variance for fence height on side and rear wall. 3. Conditional Use Permit for grading and filling. Comments were heard from Mr. Holzer, Mr. Gronberg (civil engineer working for Holzer), Mr. Smerllng, Mr. Nekich (Smerling's attorney), and Mr, Downey (a neighbor on the other side of Holzers). Although Mrs. Holzer, Mrs. Smerling, Mr. Oberhauser (Smerling's attorney) and several neighbors were present no comments were made by them at this meeting. The Planning Commission felt the following issues must be addressed before they could make any recommendations: 1, Written determination of front yard by the City attorney. 2, Reasoning behind the height restrictions. ^43 o MTNYTES of a Plv'.NTaNG COWISSION I-fEETING HELD OH HOVEM3ER 13, 1978 Page 4 3. Some direction or determination of the wall/fence/stnicture definition. Also vhich section rules - fences or fences- walls? 4. Are the pillars a part of the wall or are they ornamental? 5. Engineer must determine the actual grade of Holzer's property and the adjoining properties as well as the erosion protilefl^ 6. Amount of fill must be determined. f ALFJCANDER HOLZER 2677 Casco Point Rd Variance & Cond. Use Permit #436 Mr. Smerllng strongly opposed the construction of^a concrete "wall” within 2' of their property. He felt the wall "destroyed the ambiance of his retreat”. Mr. Nekich stressed the fact that no wall would be permijtted in the front yard by Orono's code. Mr. Smerllng stated that he would have appeared before the Commission during the variance for the garage to express his oposition to that, but was out of town during that period of time. Mr. Holzer, when questioned regarding the reason for the wall, stated that it was for erosion purposes and to beautify his property. Mr. Downey stated that when the Holzers first purchased this land It was a shambles and to this point everything they have done has only added to the value of his property. He has no objection to the wall except if it blocks his view of the lake. • • Wilson moved to table this item pending receipt of the information needed to answer the many issues. Motion seconded by Hammerel. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0), Motion passed unanimously. /i■ d b Mr. Bloemendahl, DNR, presented the plan. Due to the fact that no motorized vehicles are allowed in this area, the Planning Commission requested the deletion of snowmobiles from the plan. When questioned about the parking, Mr. Bloemendahl stated that Council had requested that no parking area be provided during the previous review of this plan. If was definitely . stated that no camping, or overnight uses were to be allowed. Hassel moved to approve the plan, with the deletion of snowmobiles, with the stipulation that the park would not be used for camping, parking, or any overnight uses, that the rules, restrictions and hours of use would be posted at the entrance and that the DNR is responsible for policing the park. Motion seconded by Frahm. Vote: Ayea (7)» Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. JAMES BLOEMENDAHL DNR > APPEARANCE Wakefield-Conry Rest Area, Willow Drive ■j’ Hcui^iUoix, H<yUtie, & /hicciafcd, !f,KC, 2335 W. *Juuik Jii^Juvatf 36 St Pout, MluuoioU 55ff3 Pttcut 636-^600 QouXultln^ ^H^ZuceAi C/M C F • ifl/'P**, fX. Ke*,ft II* r r-.e PE. ti'.rfhC P.E lud c»d A Lefnbe^t P.E. D Frli^ud PE Ptthitd f Turner. P.E ta-ne$ C Ohon P E. leureize F. Pe!dslen. PS. G'.en/t R Co.'k. PE. Kruk 4 CcrdoH. P E Tkcr^u E. S^yes. PS. Rir\3-d If*. Fetter. PE. Mctert G SeSurUkt. PE. t. Scr\ata P.E. C Pu'gfi'Jt P.E Ffn^eth R. Memer, P.E. Chzflet A Erickiom January 12, 1979 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 A UXLU.JZO O Q.o Lee M. Pat*f!iky Harlan M. Oltem yl$EWE[| Attn: Mr. Alan Olson JAN 15 1979 Re: File No. 139-436 Halzer 2677 Casco Point Road CITY OF ORONO Dear Alan, We have reviewed the wall construction on the Halzer property relative to drainage and potential erosion problems. The construction of the wall retain precipitation on the Halzer property and generally drain west to the lake. This will not cause any hardship on adjacent property owners. The construction of the wall will create erosion problems as all water from the lot will now be directed towards the lake over the recently dis­ turbed soils. We would recommend that the excavated material below the wall be pulled back to support the wall and the ground cover established as soon as possible in the spring. The disposal of the storm water from the lot should be addressed by the home owner but we would recomend some type of coarse rock filtration percolation system adjacent the retaining wall with excess water from heavy rainfalls being allowed to spill over the length of the wall. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li -s*»r f ^ **• k SCAMAvk * 1 S V AC* «-AS Ot®AiO r maonu *«C*» C2 aai *o m CtCNSOH *'Civ'N . C>atS»TC'N r »- *• C S t •* *CA*IN& P MAO*tSC*W •'CMAao ^ riT7r.C0*LD •**‘t'»* j oatmun m p** oc CC/-A®Cj PAR»(» jOm». a r^KifiC it ’^•tt'AM c ro» ^LAfcOkO r BCASrALM am t OOla N ’•'•LLtAM c MOBTCNSCN ^0*<N •« BTno‘**«**AN CAVIO O KC^HACC A GUCCNtCV “OlfCBT V. ATMOMC -'Ohn b WiiwBTON CAt/PASCt m WACOOCM Thomas m garrctt IZZ DABYtc t uPHorr WAYNC A. live ATSON LINDQUIST 6. VENNUM r Av>r j rA.c**i c»^ *4? OO tCS C C NTC o eo ^CuT M n*- ST C € t7 MINNEAPOLIS. *^ NNLS0TA St^O^ TCLCP**0NE 6I?| 37l-3?i cable aedrcss LINLAW u^- I J ■" ;i t.; ,r ^ * 3!it d -V maap n .'0»-NS.0N OtC'^AAC A PPiMUTH .•trruir H s.C hm '0^ r B.f'SC J i'fiOM •’MGThp h Mu^iCA a ;bi »^ o m.^c-cll J M.CHAC I r AO* J * C»r.*« C 0S*LC Y SADtsr S^»C'5?CN AN o *c*«k.cA wAfZATA orncE JAN L?9 7PO CAST lap C 57»tCT MAYZ a TA. MINNCS07A SSJ0I CITY OF C.RCi:o December 29, 1978 or COVNICL Thomas vcnnw M OCNNtS M. MATHIBCN Ms. Jean Mabusth City of Orono Crystal Bay, MN /. u fx Re:Mr. & Mrs. Alexander Holzer 2677 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Jean: Per our conversation of December 29, 1978, about the above matter, you have not yet heard from your engineer as to his thoughts about our engineer's report and recommendations with respect to the Holzer's Casco Point Road property. As a result, you have not been able to schedule the Holzer matter as yet. On our side, I have been extremely busy with year- end matters but intend to get you some more materials which would be pertinent for the planning staff to review before the matter came before the planning commission. As a result of the foregoing, you and I discussed getting this matter on before the planning commission on January 22, 1979, hopefully thus allowing plenty of time between now and then to get the matter fully explored. 1 also explained that I would be on vacation, happily, from February 8, 1979, through March 3, 1979. Because of the scheduling of the council meetings the only one that I could thus appear at would be the meeting of January 23, 1979. I realize that that puts the planning commission and council appearances immediately one after the other, but considering that this matter has been before the city before and considering that the staff will now have had hopefully ample opportunity to delve into the matter, perhaps this would be possible. My understanding then is that nothing more need be done from our side to be on the planning commission meeting of January 22, 1979, and I look forward to seeinq you then. Thank you. Very truly yours. ✓ . / ^ '------- '' /> RGM:crg cc: Mr. & Mrs. Holzer Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. 7 1 • 1 • tr % ! ■ GORDON R COFrIN LASO SUPVtVOR ASD PLASStR 3025 V* At t RT r/. N ROAD LONG LAKE Mf*4N S5356 ^5^ /Csy/^-7-^ 473 4141 12-4-78 15rs, Alexander Holzer 2677 Casco Point Road Vaj-zata, Minn, 55391 Dear Mrs, Holzer:IT V^» ry /-A* •o The following comments are Intended to expand upon the brief stateoente Dade in the letter to you dated October 31, 1978, Nature is constantly at work trying to reduce steep slopes to a flatter pade. Remedial works are carried out with the object of stabilizing the por- wons of the slope where slips have occurred or where they are likely to occur. This can be achieved by the following measures: (1) by providing some external support; (2) by removing some of the weight tending to cause slipping; (3) by Increasing the strength of the soil within which the slip surface occurs. Not all of these measures are required in every sitxiation. The most ex­ pensive and safe measure would bo to construct a retaining wall at the bottoa of the slope. In order to bo sufficient, however, the wall would have to be high compared with the height of the slope in question, When the height of the wall represents only a small proportion of the hei^t of the embanknent, little support can bo expected, and slides at the top could still occiu. The foundations for the wall would also have to extend below the slip surface in order not to be undermined. I feel this would be too costly a measure for your situation. Another measure available would be to remove some of the weight of the soil at the top which could cause slippage. This coidd be accomplished by construct­ ing one or more berms to reduce the weight in the upper portion of the bank. Small retaining walls would be needed to hold back the steep slopes between the flat berms. The retaining wall that you have partisdly constructed, and the removal of some of the material at the top of the bank, as evidenced by the flat berm, have helped in this respect. I feel a series of berms and retaining walls would be safer but probably more costly for your situation than required. Most slips occur in cohesive material and take place because the soil has become weakened by an increase in moisture content. This is what appears to have happened on your neighbor's property to the south, and considering the similar soil conditions, slope of land, and vegetation present, a similar result could occxu* on your property unless remedial steps are taken. The measures needed to remedy this sitiuition are providing surface drains to direct the vater in s desired manner, and establishing ground cover to bind the soil and provide transpiration and shedding of moisture. I jj'/^ ■ > r Mrs. Alexander Holzar - 2 -12-4-78 Your property is higher in elevation than the surrounding property to the north and south, and therefore runoff from yo\ir property has been flowing onto the neighbors' land. Thus, retaining walls on the sides of your property with some type of gutter or surface drain system would be necessary to direct the runox*f from entering adjoining property and also to prevent erosion of the small banks on the sides of your property. If Just a fence were constructed on the side lot lines, the water would flow onto the adjoining property as before. Seeding or sodding of all disturbed areae should be undertaken to prevent Infiltration and weakening of the soil. In aodition, vegetative cover should be established along the steep bank to the lake to prevent erosion and weaken­ ing of the soil there. The planting of shz^bs or bushes would also servo & useful purpose. Some typo of remedial work Is necessary to prevent ero&ion and slippage similar to that which has occurred on adjoining property, I feel that of the above described measures, the use of the retaining wall along with a properly constructed series of sw^es, catch basins, vegetative ec/er, and drainage pipe to divert water from the top of the bank would result in the required protec­ tion at the least cost. This will also prevent runoff from entering the neighbors' property, which would exist if the ground remained In its natural state. Should any additional information be needed, please notify me. Sincerely, _ _1_ _ _ _ n MSC:gre ee> Robert G. HitcheU Mark S. Gronberg, P.B, 4 > ■1 TO:Planning Commission and Council FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator DATE: January 11, 1979 SUBJECT: A. D. Ingham, 640 Tonkawa Road SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW - Zoning District LR-lB J.I. /■! .V/1 Mr. Ingham proposes dividing 4.34 acres into two lots. There is a designated wetland in the west of the subject property, but there appears enough dry-buildable in both lots to satisfy the one acre minimum requirement of the district. We will request an accurate aetermination of the wetlands by preliminary review. ^ere is an existing house on Parcel B that is served by sewer. Parcel A has no designated sewer stub, the Public Works Director will advise as to expense and nature of such a hookup. Parcel A will have no riparian rights. Access for new lot will be approved by City staff. i ministrator # r » • - two lots. There is ect property, but there satisfy the one acre 1 request an accurate review, is served by sewer, ublic Works Director a hookup. ss for new lot will I«AT10n of FROPOSAL (or property) Land Use Application • Ad(3ress ’• H i !. I -n J-__ ^ • u Tel #*t7/-7/‘«ci t ^gal Description __________ Address -r ■->t,» r. ,7 ^ ^ER Name Tel # Wailing ’ Address TYPE OF REQUEST ^Subdivision $150+$5/Lot _ftonditional Use $50rl f _ Variance $50 Rezoning $250 Riprap $15 ($65) fee Date Rec*d_^ Ey ^ ^ /- S-- ? Present Zoning _ _ / Present Use Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request Specify Ordinance Requirements 7 dyCcA Ix'^cpl I; plain your request and reasons for same (c,. \..-r ^4l2ftRlANCE required - extent of nonconformity ------- lot Area Setback Front ___ Side i* Width _ Other, explain Rear Specify hardships to property SUBDIVISION application Residential Other, explain _ No. of Lots ^^^ONDITIONAL USE AND OTHER - explain proposed use of property in detail MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION (Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning Commission meeting) Application completed Plat map section Certificate of survey of property sketch location and setbacks of proposal 4. Construction plans, if applicable Certified Prop^rtSfe^pwner* s list of owners withinCjfSoO^^ from Hennepin Co. DSptTof Finance A-603 Government Center ^6^ Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#10) P^®“addressed to each of the names on the above list. DATE yxU^ /y4,Applicant*s Signature DATE IV 11)1 *-Dwner*s Signature Applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and fxirther agrees to pay all fees as established by ordinance. 5/78 n 5>£ €e.c S’ t! /I • .1 /-------V • -- — II ■••* * „•> —--------r:r-^ y ’O- ^ ' i*’5 /r^ .rV“*rr^ / ""is'* heights * W ‘. I*---------" & -'l ■. ■: "• ■./ c /■■! ;:•->• tnLl^ ^if . / !! Ji. . >5aa_ / ; I %i- /«• ¥ it3^- m ^ N ix % %•\ i.'l i north lake MINNETONKA OZQ-----.... — - X:< ■ ■ ■ (itftO *•••* PM»«) » r »^C5J4 5"^, -/ ^DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE A-603 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 4±*. —^ •* 3(")A -f^ ‘'i"/“ '■PROPERTY OWNERS LIST it r\ 11 h' ADDRESS AaPiToR^^ '4£lZ. i fHiTTer-ifts-c/mppirN. A/-‘‘; Mpps PAfiTf^t^S A 3 //vr F/i^t DNlS/pVi . _____ 'iO[(Rr\5^lzrciwsi)t ^3"nRoU() DESCRIPTION CpLAT ■'A pkpT 3K1 TO^/CAi^/^/<u i L-A f^J:: LOT /Liz m ^ f^.L.P'l\/?) /36S PAP-T- m^mMppLCCf^PkM^h • ( 6^3/SSO TZys^fB. -PtPifPi. y / A-.S. L_______y/Yrt<?L_ rm<PT. :p 7- C: BLK.PARCEL 'd^ZQ ¥5Pz) 6cJOD^ DESCRIPTION LOT BLK.PARCEL ■ -■ -- --^ 1 k . Da//5/^^ 7/. /z — ) 7 / — 2- s~ r:'^0)0) ^/9t0f .7 ____i 'SY/C-/'^ OUJAJe=fL '*£» 't^/zc: DiFF ut.r nrvi rit.111 rillMPILL A-603 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 /// • , 4- ‘ ft ^'3 J'H • ■,(CFL r- * ' • :;>.ADDRESS ['R^NT\______ PROPERTY OWNERS LIST i/.'JS DESCRIPTION AuPm/?^ 5d/BD hJ6 -2.07 iWt rsr-mj^ cfiMP/^/ynCWrMTi^'sf^-/^r OR ___vjRTFmT dnis/a y 1 LOT BLK. PARCEL . s wn /^66 72T75 U‘/Cf\RlSiRi S^^i\C5 ccf ^S<oji.CCJAPAHl(^S ’C X(VC.__/ f • ( 'o 77fA 0^ /. -_7®feZ o \fsfi& £.tiRm^VhRiFr,FF "i, ^oCK 6«r a!t Rp^TC A'X' ......- :v5?7t'i>5 ' f.1 / /i; Ai/^p?)l^k'A on tnis ce^ificote aie an accurate ~lkrpi£Cc> *7w Ur<U 0^1^ ^7^. and true feprcsentation onntormft- - ft / i - K iirn ns U appears this d&le on the rerords of tn* Henn. Co. Fi*'.ance i>h ^B~lePm4s- 7ik\ kC3C' T> riC Ut^'J l-y LA^t, ^±i3J / f // 'f/i '/ijmu-.$AR K- rcp«*cscnted j.ft . :c> me res; of my kncwiecge a o bt i?f. hii/1 Cn finop^ Division ^5ZO mk) Tr.FPjS f-6^ /H \cHAfi.i>m<s>4ti\/ni^ Mu'fi \\i'i^i^‘j!RS T<: Rt6 R f306 R'/2S ^Od. f TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: t Planning Commission and Council //J Jeanne A, Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator January 16, 1979 #452 Warren Ortenblad, 3870 Shoreline Drive CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Richard Freeborn represents the applicant. Conditional Use Permit for Duplex, Zoning District LR-lC-1 (1/2 acre minimum) Mr, Ortenblad requests a conditional use permit to construct a duplex and a detached garage on a 3/4 acre lot. At least 1/4 to 1/3 acre of the lot is made up of wetland. This is not a designated wetland but a wetland created by local drainageways in Spring Park and Orono draining into the lowland area to the north of lot and to the southwest of Hennepin County Property, It is Impossible in this season to give an accurate determination of wetland acreage but Planning Commission may feel a variance to the Flood Plain Ordinance should be required: ”31,841 Minimum Lot Area Requirements, (b): For properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area Is Included In one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access Is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area,” Lot Area - 34,950 s.f. - ,8 acres Possible Wetland Involvement - 14,520 s.f. Lot Area Required - 21,780 s.f. Variance - 1,350 s.f. ■ 6^ .3 acre Staff recommends applicant enter Into a Flowage and Conservation Easement agreement with City for the purpose of designating the drainage area. Kntrance - Applicant must submit copy of permit from Hennepin County stating that he has approval to use their private road as access. Rii-tldlng - A variance will be required for detached garage as no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 s.f. In floor area. The garage Is 1200 s.f. and In a final site plan must be located at least 10* from main structure. f J n istrator Drive dltlonal Use Permit ninimum) to construct a duplex jst 1/4 to 1/3 acre 1 designated wetland Spring Park and Orono Lot and to the southwest Ln this season to give t Planning Commission i should be required: (b): For properties i minimum lot area may led at least one half irea is included in il sewer and legal te without encroachment acre and Conservation Easement .ng the drainage area. from Hennepin County ;e road as access. ;hed garage as no •oor area. The garage >cated at least 10* :> DescripUon applicant Name Address ^'^NER Name Mailing -<4ASpZ2:Tel # Variance $50 Rezoning $250 Riprap $15 ($65) FEE Date~Rec*d By _ _ _ ■ ^ ning Ordi„«ce Section Relating to H^est ;/^ ^ / BP®CifV OrH^ne..._________. / ----—Specify Ordinance Requirements Explain your request and reasons for same VARIANCE required — extenf* «•#? other, explain Side R^r- ^^^^^^hardships to property i SUBDIVISION applicatioi ^sidential Other, e)q>lain No. of Lots CONDITIONAL USE AND OTHER ~ , ,- - - - - - - - --- - - - ^ use Of prcp«ty i„ detail (Must l>e"u’SSt““o“ayrp “o“to^pf APP ucatiomys prior to Planning Cone,ission meeting) Application completed Plat map section Certificate of survey of propertv sketch location and setbacks of proposal Construction plans, if applicable DATE Applicant's DATE A-b03 Government Center Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#10' on the above list. Signature 6. _ —- -—^ / y- - - -Onaier's Signature \ 5/78 s • • _________ ^'- V?V yl’s'lj ' • •• ^ t/ m •* . ■*’•••I */'• • • •* ; fy lli^t Nolf ^nT<r^fmon*§ Sub if Lsl 7 72f/#^»-- SkOfp ft LinpQuitt't hoitIM A0dil»p«l fo Mmnttp«lba* ! h®** ^M3;»7,s®^t,§s,70| .# i' !, ' I r- . . 1 '*1 HI n ; ■ 1: t.Ln Sftv.'.V?4#*' r *“ ft « ■ • ff f \u ..n r-. 0 >‘ f<rJ wm ■ f .*■• • • • • r ‘ . .. 1'- 4rPARC*iT %»ac OF CWTAltS ^ I5(/U«wr€4) j^-------------- SLJ14CK kiwej lf-»'-Jr I jf 5 \. ■ ♦ -* t»f • r r OfTC^ CQ /^ . .. : • ,... %i » . . r«>. - r-• I . - ♦A • . 1 •.* • *> •* * • « *- ■ ^ • • •* » « V • • < w-. . •.’ .. v^’,. , ' .-rl:.^ . -••.'ftlc'-* i'-'j w.; J - M ^ 1. IV C.r *' ; I . . • . - r,rv'« * i. *- *• ‘ . '.rl r- . •■••:*r \ . j.. i • ri ■ . • • r'j'- i * r.4 • " •*•«’ i * *-i -—-r—*. ^ lir .• c. .v ‘. •— M-'t: : • - V ' V. r ^ . cr ^ . rcc. • . .^-v* ; »v •rr’T:, ..*.,'C ^ i. i.'. •-.T.-i.i .' , o:?'*' ")* «. i . * .- r, r/u? ' ’• - •'i ♦» . • # • * * t *♦ p r. *% i * ' 1 'i if 1 // . k ^ • • • • -**r-V >.44 * f;:; Jr. . .*. . ti r ' ^ * It t • .'i:.. r.jrr. ^ : h¥ Pl*jt cf 5ur\'?»j' for U.A.C. Cortrp.etcTi!, Inr. Ir. Loverr.rient c, Sc-clion 17-117-23 M I'.'i : tf * I \ y y V. -y 'ji: <-> O ..i Vi ><s V-. (u j I «4t *•>• f*« -• V* •-----------------------^c<? «*> / r r- i'j • • f* . -.r.‘:,: I ■ :• '•t r* 1 •. • i'- i: • <**;rv3C*- rv>i:;v.c- *. .. -i :: /. Ij' 1. (. .■ t; .• Av-r*. • ... j:r*. n-«:. :s.,!- : .V • r» o :^ « i «^ ^ i* V ;! **' • - rV ‘l17 ! ortr.,; .• .. i*. o;'«w. ♦ •* ^ • ••^-r [•’r.. 11' .t* ' f ‘.t -*1 •r. Iv.It. .r;Qi *, Tu.Tfrt t. fcJ.o;.«. .'icrc c •• jr.i;, :-.l-: o L'* t*' Cv^ 1*1 - 4,(»l 1 - ^-7<« Ir^r r-Mr‘<cr lnrdrr?r< ■*jiriin i.. ''offin ic^L^r!. . 60C4 nlvlr. r.. .x..=er !.:,i32Vi> -mj Surveys; t. c:^ r'i*>;ir.eri **uice, Mintiftotfc - mill ilWiat Mil