HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal04
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Acolication Fee $150.00
($50.00 per each additional variance);
Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 `
(no change from original application)
After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee)
-----------------------------------------------------------
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address
Property Identification Number (P.I.D. )
Please check one - Property abstract or x torrens?
Attach ' -cal dear -i nr- cn to acnlicazicn if not included on
required survey.
APPLICANT Phone (home) -)5 -_ )L0
Name r� PS c r �. Y a Y c F Phone (work)
c
Address-13S EA r�cr > _ City:'•'`c �i �. tnc%�.,1Zip: S.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - -•� - - - - - - ------------
OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)
Name Phone (work)
Address: _ C`_�: Zip:
Date Property Acquired
% t 4 (month/year )
I (do) (c�'o no`) aiso own the adjacent parcels of land.
------------- ------------------------------------------------
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY }
Present Zoning District (�
Present Use of Property r Residential
Other (specify)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost
Describe re St my detail:
`Aa� ,.r c' s r..� :!� Olt
rLt t`•rL C r��+� �,(,.. Y� \ i�,��.�1.. .i. ter. •� T - Lf lL'ki• 1 --- ,-t��L
- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area llr' Lot Width Hardcover
Setback Variances (
Front
k Side
_ Rear)
`
Oki,,�� ►s .� I�rM
Other ,
to� YC�i
��I �� t Qt i t Ut�t
4 V r ,` �
rA
HARDSHIP
Describe undue hazdship or practical frcm st c-
enforcement,1 of z j\��na reguiat-cns
----•-�a���t�.- ;�►�',--�--- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe unusual property cond-ticns preventing compliance with Zoning
Code Requirements ► r �' l - ' ' ,
--------- - -------------- ----- ----------* --- }---- \------------' ---, ; -
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
.1- Completed Application Form
42. Certified Property Owners List of owners witin 1'50' (you must obtain
this list from Hennepin County Department cf Finance A-603 Govt Center
348-3271).
43. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the
names on the above list with no return address (use address labels
obtained with property owners list).
+4. Certificate of survey including hardcuver calculations as required.
$. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes
in existing grade are proposed.
+6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list).
:1k. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of
any other persons you wish notified of this application.
8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign thl.s application. Please
remember that your variance application is not complete if the above
information has not been included.
------------------------------------------------------------•---------------
Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete.
Zoning Official's Signature Date
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or
requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or
unusual expenses incurred in review of this applicaticn, and certifies that
the information supplied is true and zorrect to the best of his/her
knowledge. �, I
Applicant's Signature ._ t X'.`r Cate f i , (PI C
'
OWNERS SIGNATURE
The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further
authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants,
agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga-
tion and verificatl�gn of this request.
Owner's Signature <<'> Date
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the
Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the
third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled
review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is
unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an
authorizesi agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning
Office of this change prior to the meeting.
•
DATA PRI'IACY ADVISORY
In accordance with M.S. 15.165, "Rights of subjects of data",
we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or
license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may
require you to furnish certain private or confidential inform-
ation.
You are notified that:
1. The informaticn you furnish will be used to determine
your qualificaticn for the permit or license requested.
2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require
that the City deny the permit or license.
3. The information may be shared with ot'ier local, state
or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process
the permit or license.
4. If your requested cer:7,i= or license recites council
action to approve, .some information may become public.
5. You have certiin rights under M.S. 15.165 to review
private data on yourself.
6.
Your full name, and date of birt are required to process
this P.pplication or permit.
CJCPU r
Firs midle Last
1155 Ar c y
Date firth laces not apply to building/general permits)
Phone
I derstand my ights as stated abcve.
S igna :-e
REIN DATE 07/20/89
• BATCH 004
38 10-117-23 23 0004
. PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
OWt:ER NAME NED INC ETAL
TAXPAYER NED INC
NAME/ADDR 121Z E WAYZATA BLVD
• WAYZATA MN 55301
•38 10-117-23 31 0015
PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
OWNER NAME ARLENE L HOPPE
TAXPAYER ARLENE HOPPE
• NAIIEiAODR 1295 ARBOR ST
CRYSTAL BAY 1% 55323
• 38 10-117-23 31 0018
PROF ADDR 02170 PROSPECT AVE
GN7IER NAME BOBBY D JOHNSON A WIFE
• TAXPAYER BOBBY 0 JOHIISON
NAPIE/ADDR BOX 123
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
•
38 10-117-23 31 C035
PROP ADDR 01295 ARBOR ST
•OWNER NAME ARLENt L HOPPE
TAXPAYER ARLENE L HOPPE
NAME/ADDR 12g5 ARBOR ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 10-117-23 31 0040
•PROP ADDR 01375 BROWN RD S
OWNER NAME KURTIS P RAKOS
TAXPAYER KURTIS P RAKOS
NAME/ADDR 1380 ARBOR iT
• WAYZATA ON 55301
•38 10-117-23 31 0051
PROP ADDR 0133S ARBOR �;T
OWNER NAME BARBARA J GARCIA
TAXPAYER BARBARA J GARCIA
• NAME/ADDR 1335 ARBOR ST
WAYZATA MN E,5341
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY QICIERS LIST
38 10-117-23 31 0013
02140 PROSPECT A'.E
G F BERGOUIST E'AI
GODFREY F OERGQkIIST
D0:{ 125
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 10-117-23 31 C.lo
02150 PROSPECT AFL
IRENE G NOYTCKE
MARK A t1 TINA M WHITE
2150 PROSPECT AVE
CRYSTAL BAY tiN E5323
38 10-117-23 31 0019
02180 PROSPECT AVE
FREDERICK W CURTIS
JAMES G THOMPSON
4856 ISLA.4D VIEW OR
MOUND MN 553,,4
38 10-117.23 31 003:1
02160 CRYSTAL AVE
M A J BLUE
t1ARCUS J A JUDY A BLUE
COX 62
CRYSTAL BAY MH 55323
38 10-117-23 31 OU49
01380 ARBOR ST
DOUGLAS DE MALIG'ICN
DOUGLAS DE MALIGt::'N
BOX 97
L01:G LAKE MN 551,56
38 10-117-23 31 0052
01355 ARBOR ST
G C PETERSON A J H PFTER.;ON
GREGORY i JULIANNE PEIER;ON
135S ARBOR ST
WAYZATA ttN 553ol
REPORT NO. PI435401
PAG, 10
38 10-117-23 31 0014
OZ145 CRYSTAL AVE
S F BERQUIST ETAL
G F BFRGQUIST
BOX 125
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 10-117-23 31 0017
02160 PROSPECT AVE
PATR'CIA 0 ORUMIIONO
PAT::ICIA D CRUM11CND
21oO PROSPECT AVF
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 10-117-23 31 0028
01290 ARBOR ST
STEVEN R BENSON ET AL
STEVEN R BENSON AND
JILL T OANIELS-BENSON
1200 ARBOR ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 10-117-23 31 0044
0129'r BRIAR ST
ALE/ANDER J JENTILUCCI ETAL
ALEXANDER A DIANE JE14TILUCCI
1245 BRIAN ST
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 30-117-23 31 0050
01395 DRONN RD S
C E CAMPION t; ASSOC INC
PHILIP KALEY
13Q5 BROKA ROAD SO
WAYZATA 11H 55391
30 10-117-23 31 0053
01380 BRIAR ST
S B BELT ETAL
MArEL M BELT
BUX 162
CRYSTAL. BAY MN 55323
RUN DATE 07/ZO/89
• BATCH 004
38 10-117-23 31 0054
PROP ADDR 01365 ARBOR ST
011NER NAME J E SUTHERLAND & J GUNION
TAXPAYER J E SUTHERLAND
NAME/ADDR 4865 MAIN ST E
• MAPLE PLAIN M21 55350
.38 10-117-23 31 0057
PROP ADDR U1335 BRIAR ST
OWNER NAME hERBERT A SHEPHERD ETAL
TAXPAYER HE;IBERT A SHEPHERD
• NAME/ADDR 1335 BRIAR ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
• 38 10-117-23 31 0060
PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
OWNER NAME MTKA CTR OF ARTS & EDUCATION
• TAXPAYER MTKA CTR OF ARTS & EDUCATION
NAME/ADDR P 0 BOX 158
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 10-117-23 31 0063
PROP ADDR 02180 NORTH SHORE DR
•011NER NAME MTKA CTR OF ARTS & EDUCATION
TAXPAYER MTKA CTR OF ARTS & EDUCATION
NAME/ADDR P O BOX 158
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
HENNEPIN LOLPdTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
!IROPERTY 0141ERS LI;.T
?8 10-117-23 31 DOSS
0I3C5 ARBOR ST
ENRIQUE A LIBATIGL€ ETAL
ENRIGUE LIBATIOUE
1385 ARBOR ST
WAYZATA PA1 55391
38 10-117-23 31 0058
02195 PROSPECT AVE
B!1IAN L GAMMON
PAUL LINODER3
2195 PROSPECT AVE
WAYZATA re4 55391
38 10-117-23 31 0061
00038 ADDRESS UItAr,;;ICNED
MTKA CTR OF ARTS & EDUCATION
MTKA CTR OF ARTS & EDUCATION
P O BOX 158
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 10-217-23 32 0001
02240 NORTH SHORE OR
MTKA CTR OF AFT3 & EDUCATION
MTKA CTR OF ARTS & EDUCATION
P 0 BUX 158
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
REPORT NO. P1435401
PACE 11
38 10-117-23 31 0056
02143 NORTH SHORE CR
DORIS I EISENKRAMER
DORIS I EI`.ENKRAt1ER
Z140 NORTH SHORE DR
WAYZATA Mt1 55301
38 10-117-23 31 0059
w
01755 BRIAR ST
MTKA CTR OF ARTS & ECUCATION
MTKA CTR OF ARTS & EDUCATION)
P 0 BOX 158
CRYSTAL BAY MU 55323
38 10-117-23 31 0062
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
MTKA CER OF ARTS & EDUCATION
MTKA CTR OF ARTS & EDUCATION
P 0 BOX 158
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
TOTAL BATCH 004 00029
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESE.N' 4E AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRE'-ENTATION OF INFORMATION AS I: PEARS THIS DATE ON IHE RECORDS
OF THE HEtNEPIN CCUI:TY DEPARTMENT OF VROPERTY TAXATION# TO THE 6E:T
OF MY KNOWLEDGE A:1'J BELIEF.
DATE�� BY
I
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss.
CITY OF ORONO )
I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing
concerning the matter of #1445, was mailed o the attached list
of property owners .
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal
this 22nd day of August, 1989.
Ja 'e Bosma
CITY OF ORONO - NOTICE
The Planning Commission will hold public hea-:ings in the Council
Chambers at 1275 South Brown Road on Wednesday, Septembei 6, 1989
to review the following land use applications:
1. #1441 Don Copley of 1185 Tonkawa Road seeks hardcover
variances for a proposed addition to the existing residence.
2. #1443 John Skogiund of 1840 Fox Street seeks a setback
variance for a proposed accessory structure (pool) that will
be placed in the front yard in front of the principal
structure.
3. #1445 Gregory C. Peterson of 1355 Arbor Street seeks
approval of a conditional ise permit for the installation of
an accessory structure on a through lot and side setback
variances for a proposed addition to the existing Lesidence.
4. #1446 Jack Yost of 1515 Green Trees Road seeks a
conditional use permit and variance for land alterations
located within the 75' setback area, required to restore
lakeshore damaged in storm and to correct existing drainage
problems.
5. #1447 Grant Wenkstern of Lakeview Golf Course located at
710 North Shore Drive West seeks a conditional use permit
for filling and grading activities in excess of 100 cubic
yards to improve the greens and tee areas.
6. #1449 MichaeA. Pirich of 2224 Shadywood Road seeks approval
of an average lakeshore setback variance to enclose an
existing deck within his lakeshore yard.
7. #1450 Ward Edwards of 2474 Carman Street seeks approval of
a renewal variance for a 50' setback from the lakeshore for
the construction of a new residence on the undeveloped site.
8. #1451 George & Theresa Bloom of 1374 Rest Poirt Road seeks
rear/street and side setback variances and hardcover
variances within the 75-250' setback area for a proposed 2-
story addition to the existing principal residence.
All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. The
meeting starts at 7:00 PM. Written comments are solicited.
Plans are available for review in the City offices by
appointment.
City of Orono
By: Planning Commission
J ne A. Mabusth, Building 9 Zoning Administrator
To be published t enweek of August 21, 1989.
CITY OF ORONO - NOTICE ,------yards
to -prove the preens and tee areas
Thy Pranniing Commission will hold public
S. No 1449 Michael Pinch of 2224 Shady.
wood Road seeks approval or an average
heanxpa In the Council Chambers at 1275
lakeshofe setback variance to enclose an P.
South Brown Road on Wednesday. September
8 1989 to review the following land use apple
sting deck within his Lakeshore yard
7 No 1450
catlons.
1 No 1441 Don Cot.ley of 1185 Tcnk,twa
Ward Edwards of 2474 Carman
Sheet seeks approval of a renewal variance fa
a 50 setback from the iak.esnore for Me con.
Road seeks hardcover variances for a pro
struction of a new residence on the undeve
posed addition to the existing residence
cped site
2 No 1443 John Skoglund of 1840 Fo■
Street seeks a setback variance for a
8 No 1451 Geo'ge 6 Thrresa Bloom or
proposed
accessory Structure (poolI that will :e place^,
.374 Rest Pont Road seeks rearstreet and
%ode setback variances aid hardcover vari.
in the front yard in front of trie onnciDal strut
lure
antes w hen the 75 250 sc.Aack Sias for a
9. No 1445 Cx e4ory C Peterson of t 355
proposed 2ada,t„n to the existing pr,n-
Atli- Street seeks approval of a -nndit.ongl
opal residence
All persons w+shinr, to be hearJ will armea•
use permit for the installation of an accessory
of this time The me-tmg starts et 7 00 D m
structure on a through lot and side setback vat
VvWlen comments a,- sgkCrild Plans are avail
lances for a proposed addition to the ex,Stirig
ac-e 'or re.yew -r ,ne Uty offices Dr at,
residence
4 No 1446 Jack Yost of 1515 Green Trees
pomtment
Road seeks a conditional use perm;' -d var,
City of Orono
ante for lard alterations located with,, .ne 75
By Planning Conim,ssron
setback area required to restore lakeshore
damage in slorm and to correct exist.ng
Jeanne A Mabusth
drainage problems
Building 6 Zoning Administrator
:, No 1447 Grant Wenkstem of Lakeview
Golf COufse located at 710 North Sr:ofe Drive
tPubkshed in The ' aker and P-oneer Aug 21
West seeks a conditional use permit for filling
1989,
and grading activities in e■cess of 100 cubic
I ti
CC l�
U�
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota. Counhi of Hennepin.
Bill Holm• being duly swt,rn, on oath says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound, Min-
nesota. and has full knowle:ge of the facts which are
stated below
A ) The newspaper has complied with all the require-
ments constituting qualifinations as a qualified
newspaper• as provided by Minnesota Statute
331 A 02, 331A.07. and other applicable lays, as
amended
B ) The printed
r
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and v:al printed and published once each
week for _successive weeks:
It was first published Monday.
the 11 day of
and was thereafter printed and published every
Monday, to and including Monday,
illG .__ day of 19—;
/ c
... . .. . . ... 1.1114;
�TTA A. , Aul'horized Agent
? .r
S.ibscfibcd find sworn to me on this
By \1na-�-_-
Notary Public
Rate Information
i 1 I Lowes. ciassdied rate paid by commercial users for compara-
ble space 69 80 per inch
t21 Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter 59 80 per ir'ich
13) Rate actually cnarped for &Dove matter S4 88 per ir..n
Each additional succes& we week S3 24 per inch
(;ITS' f)f• ORO NO
Post Office K)x titixt'rystal Hay. Minnesow h.532:i• Municipal Met -
On the North Shore of hake Minnetonka
August 2, 1989
Mr. Gregory C. Peterson
1355 Arbor Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
RE: Application d1445 - Variance
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Staff has scheduled a special meeting of the Planning
Commission on Wednesday, September 6, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. because
of the excessive number of land use applications filed for the
regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 21st.
If you are unable to attend this special meeting, please see
that an authorized representative, familiar with your special
request and improvement plans, attends in your place.
Staff would appreciate your contacting the Building and
Zoning Office (473-7357) to confirm that either you or an
authorized representative can attend the special meeting.
Sincerely,
yJeanne A. Mabusth
JAM/ls)
BUILDING A ZONING - 473.735' • ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473.7338 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473.7359
ASSESSING
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
Planning Commission Chairman Kelley
Orono Planning Commission Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
Date: August 29, 1989
Subject: #1445 Gregory Peterson, 1355 Arbor Street -
Conditional Use Permit - Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning District - RR-lB,
Required = ? acres
Existing 14,000 s.f.
Review of lot coverage (accessory structure ordinance
amendment)
Allowed = 2,100 s.f or 15%
Proposed = 2,068 s.f. or 14.7% - (pool area no' -
included because a fence 6' or greater in height is not
proposed)
Pertinent Crdinances -
Section 10.28, Subdividion 5 (B) -
Side yard variance
required = IrO"
proposed = 19'
variance - 11' or 37%
Section 10.03, Subdivision 10 -
Condition Use Permit required for accessory buildings on
through lots located in residential districts.
Section 10.75, Subdivision 4 (B) - Yards
A - Through lots in any districts shall have a required
front yard on each street.
required - 50'
proposed = 24' 9" (Pool structure)
variance = 25' 3" or 50%
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - Property Owners List
Exhibit C - Plat Map
Exhibit D - Survey
Exhibit E - Spec Sheet on Pool
Exhibit F - Foundation Plan
Exhibit G - Floor Plan
Exhibit H - West Elevation
Exhibit I - North/South Elevations
Exhibit J - Staff Sketch Approximate
Structures on Surrounding Lots
Location of Principal
Zoning Filc #1445
August 24, 1989
Page 2 of 2
Review of Application -
The applicant proposes construction of an attached 15 x 18'
screen porch to the rear or west side of the existing residence
and a proposed pool, accessory structure in the rear yard, 10' as
required frcm the proposed porch addition. Tota) pool area
including decking adjacent to pool is 1080 s.f. (actual water
area 64 d s.f.). Fencing will not be proposed along the pool as
the yard is surrounded with fencing. Natural pantings are
within this yard and the yard to the south (most impacted by the
pool). Please review Exhibit. J, staff's sketch that loca*es
approximate location of house structures of the residences on the
surrounding lots. Note that the house to the immediate soi:th is
located approximately 20' + from the street. right-of-way.
Proposet-' pool is 24' 9" from the Briar street right-of-way. The
lot to _c,e immediate north has a principal residence located in
line pith residence on applicants lot. Per new accessory
structure ordinance the proposed pool without fencing meets the
required 10' setback for a detached accessory structure.
Options of Action -
Denial - If application is *o be den.iecl please use the
necessary findings in Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A).
Approval - If approved the following findings or hardships
may be considered in your formal recommendation.
1. Proposed pool would he in line with the house on
adjacent lot that fronts on Arai r Street.
2. The proposed pool meets the required sideyard
setback for a pool structure without 6' high or greater
fencing.
3. The total lot coverage with addition remaina below
the allowed 15% at 2,06A s.f. or 14.7%.
4. The eyi�.ting principal structure is located 12' 9"
from the north side lot line. The proposed addition
wi 1 1 be 1 9' f rom the north lot 1 ine
Zoning File ti:44`.
September 20, 1 H9
Page 3
Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recoi.miendation -
The applicant advised that he did indeed intend t, install a
privacy fence aroune the prol:osed pool area. 7n fact,
applicant's insurance company requires a minimum 5' height fence.
The Planning Commission advised the applicant of the new lot
coverage standards for lots under 1.99 acres and advised that if
the height of the fence is to be at 6' or greater, that the area
of the pool would be counted against the lot coverage inventory.
This improvement would also require variance approval. Applicant
advised that he would install fence under 6' in height. ThH
enclosed resolution has been drafted per the P.:-nning
Comirission's approval recommendation.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1989
ZONING FILE #1441-COPLEY CONTINUED
Meeting. Motion, Ayes=5, ,;ays=O, Motion passed.
#1443 JOHN SKOGLUND
1840 FOX STREET
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 P.M. TO 7:10
Mr. and Mrs. Skoglund were
Mr. Jack Taylor, their Attorney.
P.M.
present for this matter, as was
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the
applicants were seeking a setback variance to the required
setback for accessory structures placed in frcnt of the front
line of the existing residence.
Mr. Taylor said that the house faces primarily west, even
though the designated front lot line faces Fox Street. fie said
that he understood the City's Code does not allow a front lot
line to be designated on a private drive, but that the Skoglund's
residence was situated in that way. He said that the proposed
pool would be located fairly close to where the previous pool was
located when a house was first built on this property. The pool
house is needed for the pool and will contain a changing room.
Mr. Taylor said that there is no other place to locate the pool
house. Mr. Taylor said that the pool house would be well
screened by trees from Fox Street. Mr. Taylor said that there
would be landscaping and trees planted around the pool on the
west side. He said that pool house would be located
approximately 100+ feet from F-)x Street.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, se- nded by
Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of the
location of a pool and pool house in the front yard subject to
staff's conditions a and b (see JAM memo 8/29/89). Planning
Commissioner Cohen noted that the proposal showed the pool house
to have two stories. Chairman Kelley said that was due to the
slope of the land. Chairman Kelley said that he would like the
plantings to be a requirement. Planning Commissioner Hanson
amended nis motion to reflect that, Planning Commissioner Johnson
seconded. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed.
#1445 0010MY PETERSON
1355 ARBOR STREET
COwDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE
MLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. TO 7:16 P.M.
Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were present for this matter.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
6
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1989
ZONING FILE #1445-GREGORY PETERSON CONTINUED
Building and 2;oning Administrator Mabusth explained that the
applicant's lived on a through lot and wished to install a pool.
Mabusth noted that she had spoken with Mr. Peterson, just before
this meeting and he advised hEr that he planned to put a 6' high
fence around the pool. Mabusth said that sne informed Mr.
Peterson of the City's recent code amendinent and that Mr.
Peterson decided to construct the fence at a height less than 6'.
Mr. Peterson's insurance company required the fence to be at
least 5' high.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of an 11' side
setback variance and conditional use permit and a 25' front yard
setback variance. Planning Commissioner Hanson questioned what
sight line impact a 5' fence surrounding the pool would have and
whether the Planning Commission favored such an impact? Chairman
Kelley replied that as long as the fence was under 6' the
Planning Commission could not deny it. Planning Commissioner
Johnson asked Mr. Peterson what kind of fence he intended to
build? Mr. Peterson said that he would build a stockade fence.
Kelley questioned whether the neighbor to the north had any
objections to this proposal? Mabusth said that that neighbor had
been notified, but had not indicated any objections. Motion,
Ayes=4, Hanson, Nay, Motion passed.
#1446 JACK YOST
1515 GREEN TREES ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING 7:27 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Yost was present for this matter. as was Mr. Don Hess,
Mr. Yost's consultant.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
duly noted.
Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that Mr.
Yost was proposing to construct new and replace existing
retaining walls within the 75' setback area. Specific land
alterations outside of the 75' setback area are also proposed.
Mabusth said that the City Engineer had done a basic review of
this application. Mabusth asked Mr. Hess if he had received a
copy of staff's memo and the letter from the City Engineer?
Mr. Hess replied that he had received the information and
said that he had no problem with the City's recommendations.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded tt
Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of the hardcover variance
7
CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE i1445
P. O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/12/89
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Gregory Peterson COPIES TO:
1355 Arbor Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance
-----------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 9/6/89 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Approval subject to conditions
addition Planning Commission advised
pool that exceeded a 6' height the
credited against the lot coverage
meeting to in. -,tall the fence under 6'
noted in previous staff memo. In
if fence was to be installed around
area of the pool would have to he
inventory. You have agreed at the
in height at approximately 5 1/2'.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council September 25, 1989, meeting starts at 7:00p.m.
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A VARIANCE TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) AND
SECTION 10.75, SUBDIVISION 4 (B) AND
GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER
SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 10
FILE #1445
WHEREAS, Gregory C. Pt_erson (hereinafter "the
applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1355 Arbor
Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally
Cescribed as Lot 2, Block 2, Markville, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City
of Orono per Section 10.03, Subdivision 10 seeking tha approval
of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a pool
on the property defined as a through lot an6 in addition seeks a
• setback variance to Section 10.75, Subdivision 4 (B) that would
require a 50' setback from the rear street lot line, applicant
has proposed a 24'9" setback requiring approval of a 2513" or 50%
setback variance. Per Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B),
applicant seeks a side setback variance for a proposed addition
to the rear of the existing residence to be located 19' from the
north side property line instead of 30' as required I-,. the
ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
Orono, Minnesota -
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1445
2. The property is located in the RR-lB Single Family Rural
Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres
of dry contiguous land.
3. The property is approximately .32 acres or 14,000 square
feet and is served by municipal sewer.
Page 1 of 5
•
•
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application
on September 6, 1989 and recommended approval of the
proposed variances per Zoning Code Section 10.28,
Subdivision 5 (B) and Sectin 10.75, Subdivision 4 (B) and
per Section 10.03, Subdivision 10 recommends approval of a
conditional use permit based on the following findings:
A) The proposed pool would be in line with the house
on the adjacent lot that fronts on Briar Street.
B) The proposed pool meets the required side yard
setback for an accessory structure.
C) The total lot coverage with the addition remains
below the allowed 15% at 2,068 square feet or 14.7%.
D) The existing principal structure is located 12'9"
from the north side lot line. The proposed addition
wi 1 ]. be 19' from the north lot line and will nct
encroach any further into the sub.tandard side yard
• setback area.
5. The existing sewer _ine within the street rear yard
prevents the pool structure from being placed on the
property meeting all required setbacks of the- zoning
district.
6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on
this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally
to other property in this zoning district; that granting the
variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions,
light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to
neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate
a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to
preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and
would be in, keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning
Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
7. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use
permit to allow the installation of a pool in the street
rear yard will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect
light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to
neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surround' 'ng
property values and that the proposed level of use of the
• property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives
of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, of the City.
Page 2 of 5
•
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono
City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code
Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.75, Subdivision
4 (B), and grants a conditional use permit per Section 10.03,
Subdivision 10, to allow the installation of a pool on a through
lot to be placed 24'9" from the rear street lot line instead of
50' and a rear addition to the principal structure that will be
located 19' From the north side lot line instead of 30', subject
to the followinq conditions:
1. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 4 (C) the applicant and/or
future owner is placed on notice that if a fence of 6' or
greater is installed around the pool, such improvement would
require variance approval fror,� the City of Orono.
2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the
property not with the applicant, but are uermissive only and
• must be exercised by application for a building permit for
the retaining walls within one year of the date of Council
approval, or the special conditions of this resolutir.�n will
expire on that date (September 25, 1990).
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation
of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate: any
authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and
hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf
of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees
to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of
the property.
Page 3 of 5
L�
•
Cit`v of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. I706
-
Adoptee. by the Orono City Coi.nci l on this 25th day of
September, 1989.
ATT ST:
04 Ha 1 n, City Clerk Edward J. Cali- an, Jr., :•--.ct.Ly Mayor
Proper ner(s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on
this 25th day of September, 1989, by Edwa _ d c'�'. 1._:h :r.. Jr. &
Dorothy M. Hallin, Acting Mayor & City C;--rk of the City of
Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was
executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
^' LAURIE K. SCHEFFLER
Fly Commission F. �e My clrllvo^ .■o'•.16
Page 4 of 5
•
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. _ "0
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
i�
`• , �" '
On this III day of _�fH 1 9 8_
before me Notary Tiiblic within,and for said 6ountyj personally
appeared Ff(-(I��� j��:t, ; ;L:� 1�.� . ,. r. A/
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed
the same as his (their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUB
LAURIE . ACHN rFLER
40(Aal �UWC. • *'N""'A
HENNEPIN ':OtUN(Y
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)Ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of , 198, before me
a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared
known to me to be the
person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that '-ie (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
• MY COMMTSSION EXPIRES
Page 5 of 5
APPLICATION NO. 1445
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/9/89
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Mr. Gregory C. Peterso: COPIES:
1355 Arbor Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: September 25, 1989 %OTE: 4 For 0 Against
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION:
To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution
previously mailed to you. A copy of the original amended
resolution will be sent to you under separate cover.
Variance Approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan
and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved
plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance
approval expires one year after date of approval. Permit
application must be submitted no later than September 25, 1990.
Please contact Jeanne Mabusth at the City Offices, 473-7357, if
you have any additional questions.
DATE TIME
CITY OF ORONO CALLED IN
INSPECTICN NOTICE SCHEDULED
PERMIT NO. COMPLETED L = DO
ADDRESS 1 3 S ol,
OWNER
TELEPHONE NO.
FOOTING
FRAMING
INSULATION
WALL BD.
FINAL
DEMO — SITE
DEMO — FINAL
COMMENTS:
WA
CONTR.
PLUMBING RI
PLUMBING FINAL
MECHANICAL RI
MECHANICAL FINAL
FIREPLACLIWOOD BURNER
WATER HOOK-UP
C METER SETiTURN ON
C SEWER HOOK-UP
SEPTIC MAINT.
SEPTIC INSTALL.
SEPTIC FINAL
SITE WELL
7 WELL TEST PUMP
0
WORK SATISFACTORY PROCEED
C CORRECT WORK & PROCEED
CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION
BEFORE COVERING
CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS
INSPECTOR WILL RETURN
STOP ORDER POSTED. Ct.LL INSPECTOR
INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE AC _ E S
FIRE PREV.
C FIRE SUPRESSION SYS.
EXCAVIGRADINGfFILLING
I- LAKESHOREWETLANOS
4 TREE REMOVAL
KENNEL LICENSE
C SITE INSPECTION
C'. PROGRESS
7- COMPLAINT
FOLLOW-UP
PHOTO TAKEN
CITATION 3SUED
ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
TEMPORARY
PERMANENT
Call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. 473-7357
Owner/Contractor on site:
Inspector.
While Copyrinspector's Fite
Canary Copyi&le Notice
a
CITY of ORONO
Post office Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 553P.3• Municipal Offices
On thA North Shore of Lake Ifinnetonka
November 28, 1989
Gregory C. Peterson
1355 Arbor Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Peterson:
1989 you were advised ro contact the City
On November 6,
offices in regard to the Ycon ODeuFtionr,IisYos writtenwnoticetto
rear street yard of your - - ,A within the right -of -
ins -al
advise you that the fence has been .---° i989.
way of Arbor Street and must be removed by December 8' —
If you remember during the discussion of your variance
- the installation of your cool there was much
application Lo_ o� a fence. You advised Council
discussion concerning the height
that your insurance company required a minimum height of 5 .
Council's approval was very specific as to limiting you to a
fence under 6 because of the lot coverage question anc: the fact
s to be
that you would need additional variances if Durir.hethatce wa
review you
installed at 6' or greater in height. gool area.
discussed only the need for the fence around the a lot line.
There was never any discussion about a fence aloe street rear
The only legal fence within the 50 setback of Y noted in the
lot line would be at 3�'r Althoughno
that re to of be installed
resolution, portions o- � th` ,, street
around the pool in excess of 3 locate-w=th
rear yard required a height variance.
eet with outoodiscusimagethat
future
Staff would like to mmy
plans for fencing in your rear Ward as -
review of height standards for fencing, in the previous paragraph
may create confusion. At any rate you should be aware that the
new fencing has been placed within the right-of-way of Arbor
Street and must be removed by the deadline specified above.
Please contact my office so I may discuss this matter in
more detail with you.
Sinzereiy,
/eanjne A. Mabust:''
3uilding & Zoning Administrator
JAM/tln
cc: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director
BUILDING & ZONING - 473.7357 s ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473.7358 • PL BLIC WORDS - 473.7359
ASSESSING
00
Ms. ;eanre
t j sr Jr on.
Lear Ms.
This :ette--
or this aate. ..s: ;515e
regarding *he p. Men' o:
unaerst ana, r,o m'i
Commission, ana the me ..::1s.
deceive the c.
f i I ed a,' cey..es! e.j 00:..'.1m..e,n; t R an
thought .gas ....a . 3ppr o',e. c'
misunderstand:na the proceas -:ee s ; N:
a. :' r
and
e..e• .
On the criy ..a. 3:,a%:e 'Se .gIp,.-.st.or. -�s e.
as on the building pewit application. : stated the intent to erect e
fencing. My intent trorr,� the beci=,r:o G tc ree';cF ;^e ailan;a=rFa
Picket fence along 5-.ar St. and rep ace renc:^g. as eedea, along
the two property ! iries. Spec;`. "-�ra`.'tir' tt '^3' er2e^� r :'9 r`Ot
requested of us by anyone, ana ': e ::. c no; t h i nY to prop' : oe .11 since it
warn t asked 'or. The on!., aiscussicn -71ss regaraing the need tc
remain under the d height to avoid hav:ng tc; inc:uae the •rho e yard
in the lot coverage calculation. we aid me-,;:r..^ ; coup;e of times the
nights of the Pianr.:ng Commission and C-Ounc. eer.ings our :n.tent to
remove the bac- l ook. i ng p: ci,.e t rence a' c;,g B: : ar "-na to rep': ace t
new fencing. Councilwoman. Peterson sa;a she na: ooservea the property
that day and agreed the p;Cket rence neecsea rep :3c;-a. No one else
commented about the fence. Its }oration •.JaS e,:aent to anyone who saw
the property, so I rn surer;sed no one brought up it's near prcy1rn:t,• tc.
Briar. if that is a concern. We comp!ieo .::th the requirement to
remain under 6 Bra erected the fence '.'here Qe had alt,ays intended tc:.
Pon Anderson. the previous owner or the prcpe,ty, had placed the
white picket fence in its 'oration near Briar St. to e ;,r r;; the
fence already existing on Mrs. Mabe! Belt -E� proper —
property to the South. We s:, pi; rep' acpa
line. After position.ng his rence aiong Hr:ar St..-..I,e: c a
fair amount of lanascapiro. !hich -e .^,a.e s:pp'P^:r'-- s;r;ce mo..ra ir,
last October (Io88). There ire a .^ er t f.re e-ergreen rrees 1t
are progressino very t•'ei ; within tnF or:w.-,a' :er:_'P:j .ar ra • .. -
obviously positioned to complement the fencing. :'here ;s even an. Oia
building foundation that extends over our actual property :ine. A''
of those things made it clear to us that the fence 3ho;:la be placed to
replace the ex;sting one. if the ne:-, rer:ce were mc•:ec: r. to the
actual property I i ne , it would Place :.' 1 Of the ! anascape:: trees
outside the fenced area and the b,,=i;, largest ree :s pcss;oi;-• r;ght
on the line.
We received a ye 1 1 ow nc•. ice from a .: 7g. . nspecr: r i n ;47o•-,emDec
CI m told Nov. 6th) and was requested ;c ca:. r�gara:ng ;tee re. ter.v
I caked the city office that day. but the inspector 4.39 nC; ,r;.
left a message with the clerk secretac, to have hiz cat! me. Aa
not receive a call back so I assumed he must have ookea up our permit
and decided everything was okay. Ther �,e rece.,:ea ccrrespenae—: -e trorn
you dated Nov. 28, indicating there is a mis:,nderstanding.
0
We were bc.h shoc.:ea. .. say the ;east . t.ec•_._
e
foI I owed er er• .. r eq. oet 10 .,, P' `e�, .
7( : 3pp_: er... , ra e r•ee:. ,s:.:g
;-.ear.
ZWo di. nt things. ... c_ ....^et.,.. i 3e
nor. e
a.^,a
had insta, .ec a .9rct .. _._7 h
S3',
t .n
your term. ROl ogy 7 31, a`. e"-e
the Prop-rt. 'ct :e a:iey .k P;�:x.
-re-.
would insta. 1 a 6 fen::!e . o..na the p^v.
.neant r e
understood that t. e rer �-e c seE
=ce e _ ... e-..
re'. t ,:as necessary. �e '�.a. . _>;:t _ =r�
,; rte-.. :� ._ ..
dtscus3.0^.5 3t the
. QG.
statements c: nter.. 'ere c,. ^'' '.e.roers
sc a' 0 e
questioned the ocat ;or, of the ^P , r re:
xt ...P _ •.^r a" .�
property lines. ;:thee ths,^. Ty st_.._..._ .tg
.. intent t:^ rep.are
existing tending as necessa:. r: o me....0r
as pec.ti ^a. , mac
s
ate gut
fencing along the side :_.t ' .yes--be:�n.se
•e _naerstooa that __
,nere
we were agreeing tc F;ace t^e :erc.r,a. :c,
._.rderstc:cc us to tie
placing the fence sorr,e•-mere . r:s. r:e .^r . .. yes'
It would meal. great hardship for us :: ..,e �,•rre rein_.,red tc
re -place the fencing. :. !reuid a!sc c7reate an extrem.e.y unattractive
environment for the e:ghborhooc. re: ate tc you my reasonir:g ir,
point form:
1 .) Fencing set hack frorr. Br . ar St. our actua l
property .ire would tie an jns.ght., tie'1;3ton from
other fencing done in the C:yRt a 5,y Brea.
Inspector �•ou:c reveal :hat hedges or other propert:,
enclosures along Crystal Bay streets are set tU pith;n
only a few feet of those srree*s. Tr.-, �esthet:cal'
p;easing to the eye.
2.) The new rence is NOW i n ; re .. -er,c : r.g or cur
neighbor s property to the SoLitn.
3.) The plantings in our yard were aes;dined to complement
the fence as it origira,ly existed.
4.) Someone would have tc care rcr the right-of-way outside
of a fence placed on our yctu.: property line. without
regular care that right---: •.-By °c:1 d become ve: •,• unsignt l.. .
If it is within our fenced area. •:e would care for, :t
diligently--3t our expense of money arc: effort.
5.) Moving the fence from its present Dc3tion :nward would
eliminate much of the prcpert;- we had Per ceivea •-�e ,.,ere
buying last October. :t .•Bs reasonab:e con us as buyers to
assume fencea-in property oe'�::nged to the Anderson s.
6.) Moving the fence would negate se:era: exhausting days
of personal labor. Every post ho'e ,,,as dug cy me
manually. The fence was painstaking., 1evelea and
carefully positioned to be a credi#, tr• the neight]onccoc.
We improved the e:: ;sting l oo�, of the ne i ghbo: hood. at
our expense, by rep; ac; rig .an .ors: ght l y rence.
1.) Moving the fence with snow aria ce on and : n the ground
would be a task I cculcn t ,inciertal,.e. Tye na the to-ce
down would leave a potential it-a3.^,gero..s pool --per, to
neighborhood children or pets.
V
We ara total : e i tc rr•e cry_ e-. �e
p 5r prc• ..-7ed t'^ ;n.s ete: ne ;an Qee 'ne :._r'�
^.E• eoge _. t^.e per
the ne, :ence r e a n. %e been _ . :e 7 ne
1 i ne? . f so. :her e:c. ry as ^e: a r.: _
requirement g: -en t.,, us o'll, e ...f•y ::.ri. ;~e 5r.37.^.e
proceed; ngs? Perhaps t :s ar. :. ers g^... ;... ► e
fence in from the of : r.es w:OU a be an e . eT:e n ac c9r:: p .
;t wou'.d chop our prope,;y up :t: a poc z3rei
and area w1tn r3 cont;nu.t, . .t would rec;.; ? !ne a::ect.:e
usetu;mess of our ent;re proper,- aro
question. reduce its va ue.
9.) Present a M^.Clsc ap . ng h as been p ;.;ecl ; r: cn--,p . eMe'
existina :ence :nes. P'arag a ne,. fence ^Y rr
ex; st 1 ng l ! nes .:ou l d negate se' er 9. !^uncrE'o U:.- : _ crtf:
of attractive shruboery.
10.) Moving the South rence :.^e .r.to the pr^rer!::—om is
existing location wou 1 a raterre.e _. e3s ;, :J1ng
already located on the property. .r- aae:; :-)n tc: 11sturb,r•9
the property appearance as it nas e.... sted ttir
having shared the above r e5 sen.rag. - e req,_.est approval tt.:
leave the new, replacement fence. wn1Cn .9 ess than ti ta:'. :n its
present location. That location be:r.g the .::a;:::n o: the ;c;a:n.%`
picket fence which Was here 'when we purchased the proper :n 1�368.
We further request Council approval :c p:ace :enc.-.9 a or.a •ne alert^
and South lot, lines to conform. with the pos:t:oning of e.:.st,ng
fencing as necessary to provide a cor.t;nuvus bcundar.- protect.r:g ,ne
ne i gnborhood children and pets from danger from the ne,.t pool .an : cn was
approved in our variance and condlt:orsl use app ;cations.
Because of the natural borders that have beer p anted and the
existing tencing. we feel 1t may be secure to leave the tenclno as ;t
now is: however. it may be necessary to extend the t..:er fencing
further down the North and South lot I nes tc. prel.:ae x sater
neighborhood environment. We have used red per. on ttie enclosed survey
to outline the area that present!,.- has new :encing. We have outlined
with green pen that area which we feel we may need tc fence in the
future to assure safety. We assume than. �'e have Z ears to complete
this building project under this building perr:•:t--BF :s prescribed by
City ordinance.
Thank you for the explanation you gave tudaf• cf this
misunderstanding. Thank you, too. for :•cur carets.: consoerat:or. of
this situation. hope our Council will seep conformity to our
existing Crystal Bay neighborhood rather tr.ar: ccntcrr-..:;r to ordinances
passed long after this property was f:rst p:.itted--and fenceo.
Sincerely.
Gregory C. and Julianne Peterson
To: Mayor Grahek & Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator.
Date: December 7, 198Q
Subject: #1445 Gregory Peterscn, 1355 Arbor Street -
Reconsideration of Variance Approvals
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Inspection notice
Exhibit B - Staff Letter
Exhibit C - Peterson Letter
Exhibit D - Peterson Sketch of. Requested Fencing
Exhibit E - Staff Sketch Denoting Al+roved Fence Heights/
Setbacks
Review of Current Request -
In the original variance application, both staff and Council
understood the requested 5'+ fencing was to be placed arounc the
pool. Mr. Peterson advises that this was never his intention and
clearly he was discussing fencing around the boundaries of his
property. Please note fencing around the boundaries of the
property do not as of this date require lot coverage
considerations. The current ordinance section discusses only
pool areas that are fenced on properties less than 1.99 acres.
In reality, Mr. Peterson seeks a height variance for a t.ri vacy
fence to be placed around the boundaries of his property. Review
the staff sketch (Exhibit E). Portions of the pool fence that
exceed 3�' in height located within. the 50' rear yard setback
area would have required a height variance approval. The height
variance for that section of the fence was not addressed in the
original review, but merely limited the height of the fence
around the pool to a 5'+ privacy fence
The privacy fence constructed tc the rear of Mr. Peterson's
home has been placed totally within the right-of-way of Briar
Street. The Public Works Director has denied alplicant's request
to maintain the fence in its current. location. Mr. Peterson
seeks an appeal of staff's decision. Please review Exhibit C,
the hardships and findings cited by the Petersons for retaining
fence in present location. John Gerhardson will be available for
additional comments at your meeting.
The second phase of the applicacion involves Mr. Peterson's
request to install 5'+ of privacy fencing along the north and
south boundaries of his property (refer to Exhibit D). Please
then review the staff sketch Exhibit E and note the areas of the
property where only a 3�' height fence structure is allowed.
Note the height setback variance will re required in the west
rear yard only as applicant doe.; not propose a privacy fence
within the 50' setback area of the east from yard.
Zoning File #1445
Decenber 7, 1989
Page 2 of 2
Alternatives of Action Regarding the Appeals Portion of the Request -
A. Denial - Require complete removal of fence structure
within the road right-of-way of Briar Street.
B. Approval - Based on the findings and hardships noted in
applicant's letter (Exhibit C).
Alternatives of Action Variance Portion of Application -
A. Approval of privacy fence less than 6' in height along
the north and south boundaries of property as proposed by
applicant. Depending upon Council's decision concerning the
appeals portion of the application, applicant may request
relocating fence along the street yard within the confines
of private property. Applicant should he further advised
that the approval of this height variance wiI I expire one
year from the date of original variance approval (September
25, 1990).
B. Denial. Permitting only a 3h' height fence around the
boundaries of the property and advising that additional
plantings may provide the necessary additional buffer to
pool area.
Council Action -
To provide conceptial direction to staff so that an
appropriate amendment of the original conditional use
permit/variance application can be prepared for the January 8,
1990 meeting of the Council.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989
ZONING FILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED
Counci lmember Callahan said that the road, regardless cf
where the cul.-de-sac is located, ought to go to the northern
boundary line of Lcts 1, 2, and 3.
It was moved by Ccur.cilrrember Callahan, seconded by Mayor
Grabek, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance in a,cordance
with the opinion of the City Attorney, which wi 1 1 require land
owners in the position of the Wear Subdivision ownership to
provide access to adjoining land owners and following such
preparation and in conjunction with it, the preliminary
subdivision be brcught back fcr review, and is therefore tatled
at this time. Motion, Ayes=', Goetter, hay, Moticn passed.
#1445 GREGORY C. PETERSON
1355 ARBOR STREET
VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION
Mr. and Mrs. Peterscn were present for this matte:-.
City Administrator EernharJsor summarized the events leadinq
to this reconsideraticn of variance approvals. Bernhardson said
that the Public Wcrks Directcr has denied the appiicant's request
to keep the fence in its present location in the right-of-way.
Zoning Administrator Yabusth said that this is a two part
application; the appeal of the administrative decision
disallowing the fence to be located in the right-of-way and the
height variance for the fence located within the 50' rear yard
setback area.
Mr. Peterscn explained that he had indicated that he would
be installing a 6' fence and that was part of the buildinq permit
application for the pool and the porch. Fe said that they had
indicated at the Planning Commission Meeting that they intended
to replace the existing fence. Mr. Peterscn said that they made
the same representations when they met with the Council. He said
that he is shocked to be back before the Council because he
thought he had covered everything the City required. He said
that he had all along asked the City Staff if there was anything
missing from their application. Mr. Peterson said that the
Resolution only refers to the fence in one paragraph, but the
fencing was part of the application from the very beginning.
Mrs. Peterson said that she distinctly remembered talking of
replacing the existing fence at the Planning Commission Meeting.
Councilmember Goetten read a
portion
of the Planning
Commission minutes from
that meeting.
Goetten
also recollected
the discussion that took
place at the Council
Meeting regarding
this matter. Goetten
said that
she did
not telieve any
discussion took place
regarding a
fence under 6' around the
property.
Mr. Peterscn said that this was a terminology issue. He
F
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989
ZONING FILE #1445-PETERSON
said that in his mind, the fence is around the po 1 area. Mr.
Peterson said he never referred to the fence being around the
pool. In Mr. Peterson's opinion, the backyard is the pool area.
He asked why there was no specific mention, other than, reference
to height, in the resolution, to where the fence is to be
located. He said they have done everything as they said they
were going to do.
Mrs. Peterscn said they do not have a large en.cugh yard to
have various fences breaking up the amount of area. She said
that 5' security is imperative because there is a playground
right across the street.
Councilmember Callahan said that he recollected -hat the
discussions at the Council Meeting centered around the pool, the
variance needed to put in the pool, and the requirements of the
insurance company to protect the pool with a fence. Cal lahan
said that the Council never thought, or thinks now, that they
gave approval for the fence that now exists. Callahan said that
there may be a misunderstanding, but he does not believe it is
proper to leave the fence in the right-of-way. Callahan said
that he could not allow a pool to be installed in that
neighborhood without fencing around it. Callahan said that what
is left to be decided is how to screen, tk:e pool and what
variances are required to accomplish that.
Mr. Petersen said that many of the decisions they have made
in regard to the pool were based on the approval given. He said
that at no time did he say anything other than they intended to
replace the existing fencino.
Councilmember Ca 1 lahar. said tha* he does not recall
replacement of a fence being discussed.
Councilmember Peterson said that she had listened to the
tapes of the Council Meeting twice today and at no time did she
make the comment noted in the Peterson's letter. Peterson also
said that at no time did the Peterson's mention replacing the
fence. Peterson indicated that she too did not approve of the
fence being located in the right-of-way because the Peterson's
neighbor to the north could come in and request the same. She
said allowing that to happen would create sight line problems.
Mr. Peterson said that Mrs. Belt, to the south of them, has
a fence in the right-of-way. Mr. Peterson said there are many
fences in that area that are located in the right-of-way. He
asked whether any size fence would be allowed within the right-
of-way? Mr. Peterson said that he does not intend to declare any
rights to the City's property by locating the fence there.
Councilmember Callahan asked Mr. Peterson if he had
discussed the installation of the pool with the City staff?
Mr. Peterson said yes, quite a bit.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989
ZONING FILE #1445-PETERSON CONTINUED
Callahan, asked if there was any discussion atout the need to
fence the swimming pool?
Mr. Peterson said yes.
Mrs. Petersen said that she was confused by the conversation
involved with the fencing and let coverage.
Callahan said that despite the misunderstanding, he did not
believe the fence should exist without a fence near the pool.
Councilmember Goetten said that issue was discussed all
along, but at no time was a fence around the perimeter of the
yard or in the right-of-way discussed.
City Administrator Bernhardsen said if the Council does not
allow the fence to remain in the right-of-way, a determination of
where to relocate the fence should to made. He said that the
Council probably will not require the fence to be moved this
winter.
Mrs. Peterson asked what the City considered a reasonable
distance between the fence and the pool? Mr. Peterson asked why
that criteria was not mentioned before this?
Councilmember Peterson said that her understanding is that
the fence would be put immediately beyond the width of the
decking of the pool.
Mr. Peterson said that he was told the only reason he needed
a variance was because he had a through lot.
Mabusth said that a conditional use permit is required
because of the through Iot, the variance is necessary for the
setbacks.
Mayor Grahek asked Mr. Peterson what his neighbors thought
of what had been done?
Mr. Peterson said that his neighbors were in favor of what
he had done and that Mrs. Belt had come to the Planning
Commission meeting to make sure everything was going smoothly.
Public Works Director Gerhardson said that the section of
Mrs. Belt's fence in the right-of-way had been removed at the
request of the City.
Councilmember Goetten said that she would be comfortable
with a 3.5' fence as it was existing around the property to pie
in with the front picket fence. Goetten said that she did not
want the fence in the right-of-way and she was concerned about
the "fencing in of Orono". She added that a fence around the
pool would also be appropriate for their own liability.
8
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989
ZONING PILE /1445-PETERSON CONTINUED
Mayor Grabek asked Public Works Director Gerhardson if the
fence in the right-of-way would pose a problem':
Gerhardson replied that fences usually do pose a problem
because of maintenance, tree removal, etc.
Mayor Grabek suggested requirin.q the Peterscn.s to move the
fence back out of the right-of-way, but keep the fence the way it
is now and if there is any change in the height, a variance will
be required.
Councilmember Geetten asked what height the fence could be?
Mayor Grabek said that it could rerrain at the 5' height on
the one side, but 3.5' will remain. He said allowing the fence
to be 5' all the way around would give a "bcxed-in look" to
Orono.
Mrs. Peterson said that all cf the houses in their
neighborhood were already bcxed-in.
Mayor Grabek said that the fence has to ne removed from the
right-of-way. He said the Petersons could then come back to the
Council with a plan of what they would like to do with the rest
of the lot.
Mr. Peterson said that he had thought he had already done
that.
Mayor Grabek said that he was trying to reach a compromise
for the Petersons that would mean the minimal amount of work at a
minimal price. Mayor Grabek said that in the Sprinq they can
mope the fence back out of the right-of-way and come back before
the Council with their proposal for the remainder of the fence.
Councilmember Peterson said that she understood their
hardship about buying the additional 18' of the adjacent
property.
Councilmember Nettles asked the Peterscns if their primary
concern was safety or privacy.
Mrs. Peterson said that it is hoth. The Art Center parking
lot is across from their property.
Councilmember Nettles suggested a cover for the pool that
could be locked.
Mr. Peterson indicated that financial . y that would not be
possible.
Nettles believed that it was unreasonable to have a fence 3'
from the pool.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989
ZONING FILE #1445-PETERSON CONTINUED
Nettles asked what problems hac' been encountered with Mrs.
Belt's fence that had been located ir: the rig".--of-way?
Gerhardson said that maintenance requirements differ from
year to year.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to move the fence back cut of the right-of-way by June
30, 1990 and present a plan to the City fc- the remainder of the
fencing on the property by May 1, 1990. Councilmember Goetten
asked at what height the fence being removed from the right-of-
way coul,1 be re -installed? Mayor Grabek said 5'. Councilmember
Nettles said that he would orobattly ve a against this because he
does not believe the fence should be moved cut of the right-ef-
way. He said that the fence has been in that location for many,
many years and has not caused any problems. Councilmember
Callahan said that he does not believe stuctures should be
allowed in the public right-cf-way. Councilmember Goetten
concurred. Motion, Ayes=3, Goetten, Nettles, Nay.
#1471 DARYLE UPHOFF
2699 KELLY AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION #2737
Mr. Uphoff was present for this matter.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained this application
for a conditional use permit to repair a sea wall.
It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by
Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolu-ion #2737, approving the
conditional use permit for repairing a sea wall at 2699 Kelly
Avenue. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed.
41472 DAVID CARLSON
1960 SHORELINE DRIVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mayor Grabek informed the public and the Council that this
item had been tabled at the request of the applicant.
City Administrator Bernhardson requested authorization from
the Council to direct the City Attorney to research reasonable
uses of this property.
Mayor Grabek stated that the City Attorney is so authorized.
#1474 DONALD RELAWSKI
1695 CONCORDIA STRET
VARIANCE
The applicant was not present for this matter.
City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council and
Mayor Grabek that the applicants were seeking a hardcover
variance to remove an existing garage and replace it with a
in
APPLICATION NO. 1445
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION
Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 47-1-7357 Cate c` Notice: 12/16/89
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Peterson COPIES:
1355 Arbor Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
T7P8 OF APPLICATION: Reconsideration of Application #1445 -
Variance/Conditional Use Permit
DATE OF METING: 12/11/89 VOTE: 3 For 2 Against
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION:
To require the removal of the portions of the privacy fe^ce located
within the road right-of-way of Briar Street by June 30, 1990. You are
further directed that you may re -install the privacy fence along your side
of the rear lot line. No further installation of the privacy fence is
apprc ed with thin reconsideration of Application #1445 until applicants
submit a revised site plan locating proposed location of privacy fencing
within applicants' yard. Please be advised that Council meets the second
and fourth Mondays of the month. Revised plans must be submitted at least
10 days before the scheduled meeting of the Council.
Please contact my office if you have any further questions on this
matter.
ORDINANCE #80, SECOND SERILI
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO THE
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SECTION OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Counr ' of Orono Ordains as follows:
Section 1. C. :er 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is
hereby amended by amending Section 10.03 Subdivision 14(C) to
read as follows:
Section 10.03 Subdivision 14. _arils and Coen Spaces.
C. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for 311 lots
of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas
of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of
the lot area. The following shall be included in calculation of
lot coverage by structures:
1990.
1. All roofed structures which extend more than 6'
above grade level.
2. Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar "open"
structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences,
railings or walls which extend more than 6' above grade
level (if any portion of such structures extends more
than 6' above grade level, the entire structure shall
count toward lot coverage).
3. Pools, including pool basin and associated deck or
patio areas, regardler=; of whether such pool basin,
deck, or patio is enclosed with a fence.
This ordinance becomes effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council this 26th day of February,
Edward J. Ca, ahan, Jr., Ac ayor
M..:
AUG M
Fr Orr,: 1;
I
Gr eg Pee r 9 c; -
tf 7
exp! a t c:
7r cl
pool to- t t- u clu r
permission t;:i .'emD.,e *ne e*-:.st n o 7 our
proper -: —'OLA I': LJ _;l r- . e S sr C t 0 ep;
5 feet :- ne.gn, p ne Jar
properties.
The C,oi,nc;l has aprr::,--,ed the s .3--e
betv,eeri the &roperties. 31no '-:1377,e Cf
along the p:-opert,,,, 'ine nt,
differc— ' , . - . .- I . I.. . We support t h C _P_e_t_e_r_5c,;
in their ceque I to replace the existing Property line fencing with
;stockade -stele t cqc i nq not - to exceed 5 feet in he i Qh t
you grant e 1: aL.- . an ,, e :- e,;:, e_- e
fencing.
aincerely,
Bar,t, Gar c. Be
J-k-
CITYof ORONO
Post Office Box (i o rystal Bay. Minnesota 5.'3230M.unicipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
May 7, 1990
Mr. and Mrs. Gregory Peterson
1355 Arbor Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
RE: Reconsideration of Application :445
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Peterson:
At the December 11, 1989 meeting of :he Council you were advised
that all portions of the privacy fence locat,•d within the right
of way of Briar Street were to be removed by June 30, 19110. In
addition, the Council granted approval of additional variances
that would allow a portion of the relocated privacy fencF! to be
placed within the street yard of ycur property, specifically the
portions that abutted the Briar Street lot line or street lot
line. You were further advised to submit an amended plan that
would designate the location and height of proposed fencing
within the remaining portions of your rear yard. All portions of
the existing privacy fence located within the -ear yard (50' east
of Briar Street lot line) and in excess of 3-1/2' have not been
approved by the Council. These sections cf the fencinq must also
be removed by June 30, 1990 deadline. It maybe helpful for you to
review the enclosed staff sketch that designates the allowed
height of fencing within the .-ear yard of your property.
M4-chael Gaffron has also advised that he has discussed with you a
recent amendment of the zoning code that would now include pool
and patio areas within lot coverage calculations. If you will
re_i:,-iber, only the house and detached structures were included in
the lot coverage considerations during your earlier review. Any
pool and patio improvements that were either installed or
proposed are not subject to requirements of the new ordinance as
they were added on under the directives of the previous
ordinance.
BUILDING is ZONING - 473-7357 a ADNINISTItATION 6 FINAliNCE - 473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359
ASSESSING FAX - 473-0510
Page 2
May 7,1990
Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Peterson
As the original notice mailed to you on Dece.nber 18th advised,
the Council meets the second and fourth Mondays of the month.
Staff would appreciate your revised plan for fence improvements
to be submitted at least 10 days prior to the regularly scheduled
Council meeting. Once again, I would encourage you to review the
enclosed staff sketch so that you will be aware of what sections
of fencing will require variances to height and setback.
As we appear to have difficulty reaching each other by phone
because of our hectic and conflicting schedules, it may be best
that we continue to communicate through writing. Please contact
my office if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Jeanne A. Mubusth
Building & Zoning Administrator
cc: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator
Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector
Michael Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator
Tom Barrett, City Attorney
JAM/lsv
anre
Dear Ms . ".6U5t f; :
Than ,'ou t the .etter of t'.i-, .OQC. nc.:.ite;1. his
been a,ff:c_ for ..•s tc, get a• s hPdu ens .cocrc. tec. sou,aw t
-
reet with eir., =Y; .' 'r_• ^+� a en t at)'. e. sp:.,�.p
with M:cnve. :aft: r- efPr.e.i aeff: ^11p ;C:
: Q�P4 3 °S. to C. 9" °'tx .P.. aP' 3� . ^' �' _ . ne t r .f
Orono to corr.r . , !. th the ;. =cest , t = .. z, ;e e: L:
fencing of at :r3st 5 feet he:yr` . ,fi e. _ fey,: _-•g of gh
would be insta. .ec or: our prcpert, y .>e rp, ... _ ... xP
request perrnl ss:.r t o nst a ' frnc ... g i ,g proper t j• r, ..:far , es t o
the North ina tc. the 7?-�1±+ wo, -.ct exe.eeo ' tee' Qr•
and :ou l d rep' ace tl^e 3 and D foot f er,: ; ny present ' y : n a A 1 so
requestec a: a threes 91tia . SeCt ,Or;s •of gatea 'pnC:-:g to the ' C•` th C!
the horse. cetween the garage and the hotise :k-i tc the 3.?..7h the
garage. We request perr-..s4. t; ;nsta. �:. fe^r. t:r. Fry: n,•c ar.a
the expiration date .,)f Bul::I ng pecm,t.
The i andscap: ng dor e Cy the pr e� . v...4- c%.?ners as t :, e ':: f c' 1 ow
the boundary-..ne fenc.ng. Fenc..r:g with., 'ne boun,,Ijr .es .!oY.d 'chop
up' our alre_ir sma': e.ac:.,'ara area. Ta :se a et ter C;' m;
two North and So:.th tie ghuors InjIc.at1no ^r.r 31,pp0rt for
request.
Mrs. Peterson and I heard the Counc:' 3t the 1Z .. 80 meeting instruct
us to remove the fence : rl5t 3 :: ec r, ',he Briar ght -Cif-4 3na a; .,e us
permission to re -place that fence a'..nix our pr;perry '.ne. "hat
action has been completed. ':he Cc. nc.. also giive ter the
remainder cf the new fence to oe left as :s. -he :If Council
action dated 12-18'80 stated :t as fcl'.o A: 11C 'nst 5.! : at i or.
of the p;lvacy fence .s apprc:ed...unt.; app.i,,ants SL.orn., it re•.,sed
site plan..." •"he new fence :ep, zcrc e..:et..,g fence that nay^ s.nce
been discarded. Hope fu:;y, th.s w::. o e c o m e -a moot point. :f t%:e
Council approves our plan fcr fer:C:r1g.
Because our confl::3t:ng schedules have de'a?ec :;s :n submitting this
site plan --I had Kopec tc -ept lth c:. perscnal 1,--. r:.st also
request an extension of the June 30. :000 deadline for action, r the
Counc;'. does not apprcve our rev:sect s:tr p ar:. Z�s a Ger-;,_. teacher.
I am lead:ng a smalI group of Students tc Europe and am remaining on
to participate in Q Germar. ed;;cstors _crkshop from J-,.e 5 througr:
early July.
Sincerely
C&� : ,Use
?regory and Julianne Peterson
CITE' of ORONO
Post Office &)x 660Crystal Bay. Minnesota 5532.39MunLnpal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake .Nennetonka
June 5, 1990
Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Peterson
1355 Arbor Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
Re: Reconsideration of Application 11445
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Peterson:
The City is in receipt of %our letter received this office
May 25, 1990 requesting an extension of the June 3Cth deadline
for the submittal of the revised fencing plars. This would
appear to be no problem on the par` of the City as the fencing
located within the right-of-way has been removed prior to the
June 30, 1990 deadline. Your fencing plans have been submitted
and will be placed on the Council agenda for the July 23, 1990
meeting. Based on the schedule set forth in your above
referenced letter, it appears you will be back in the United
States in early July. If the July 23rd meeting creates a
conflict with your summer schedule, please advise my office at
your earliest convenience.
As to the issue whether the Council )-as formally acted on
the portions of the new fencing already installed in the north
and south side yards of your property, I have enclosed a copy
of the Council minutes of December 11, 1989. It would be staffs
interpretation of the Council's recommendation on Pace 10 of
those minutes that all other propost--d fencinc- outside of the
privacy fence allowed to be reinstalled parallel to Briar Street
has not been included with this approval. Council has asked to
the applicants to submit a plan to the City for the remainder of
the fencing on the property". As your letter suggests, this may
be a moot point when the Council acts on your fencing proposal.
Once again, please contact my office if the July 23rd
meeting date creates a conflict with your schedule or if you have
any questions pertaining to the original directives of the
Council. The information that you have submitted for Council's
review appears to be very adequate.
Sincerely,
,ye ne A. Mabusth,
Building & Zoning Administrator
JAM/tln
cc: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members
BUILDING • ZONING - 473.7357 • ADMINISTRAT10% 6 H%ANCF. - 473-7358 ra PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359
ASSESSING FAX - 4734510
To: Maycr Grabek & Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardsor.
From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & %ning Administrator
Date: July 19, 1990
Subject: Gregory Petersen, 1355 Arbor Street -
Reconsideration of Application #1445 - Resolution,
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Planning Commission Minutes '2/11/89
Exhibit B - Council Action Notice 12/18/89
Exhibit C - Staff Letter 5/7/90
Fxhibit D - Petersen Letter 5/13/90
Fxhibit F - Staff Letter 6/5/90
Exhibit F - Mabel Bell Letter 3/28/90
Exhibit G - Peterson Survey/Site Plan (amended Irolosal)
Pertinent Ordinances -
Section 10.75, Subdivision 4 (B) - Street/front setback.
Required = 50'
PrcIosed = 16' (Arbor Street setback)
Prolcsed = 0' (Briar Street setback)
variance == 50' or 100%
Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) - Alicwed height 1oi
fencing �'n front yard areas.
Allowed = 3�'
Prolc.sed = 5'
Variance = 1.5' or 43*
Review of Application -
The al Iicans. has f
and has rej ocated the I ri
way of Briar Street ar
Frol.erty along the scree
your December 11, 198
applicant to submit a fe
property. Applicant cli
had aFproved all fencii
within the side yards
meeting clearly reflect
yards would be allroved
comprehensive fencing I1
submitted his final re(
noted above must be aljr
as Fresented. The alllic
M 1 -"" *hn nr,rfh 1 nft t i n
ulfilled the directives of the Council
vary fencing Ilaced within the right-of-
d has installed the fence within the
lot line adjacent to Briar Street.. At
i meeting, Council also advised the
ncing Irolosal fcr the remainder of the
ims that he had understood that Council
g in excess of 3L1' recently installed
.)f the Irolerty. The minutes of that
that the additional fencing in the side
at the time the aI y 1 icant I resented his
ans for the I roj erty. The aV- 1icant has
uest (review Exhibit G). The variance
)ved if the fence I Ian is to be aFlrcved
ant seeks al t rova 1 of 5' I ri vacy fencing
M_ "Ad1 from Anc(.r Street lot line. On
the south side yard, fencing is Irolosed 98' in from Briar
Street. Setback variances are required for the fencing located
within the 50' front/street yard adjacent to toth Briar Street
and Arbor Street (16' of fencing Extends into Arbor front yard).
Zoning File #1445
July 19, 1990
Page 2 of 2
At the Council meeting of December 11, 1989, Council already
aVtrcved variances to the above referenced sections fcr the
Irivacy fencing installed at a 5'+ height and located between 0-
1' within the frc;nt yard setback area. A resolution has been
drafted in order to extedite review of this all.licaticn. Ut-on
final resolve and determination cf the exact variances to be
granted, staff will fretare the necessary amendments of the
enclosed resolution. The resolution already addresses the height
and setback variance for Frivacy fencing along Briar Street
troterty line. In addition to the resolution, staff will 1relare
a site Ilan lcc:at inq the at I roved height and location of fencing
based on Counci l's final action.
Council Action -
Council must determine if it will ahfrcve 5' high fencing in
the north anO side yards as protosed by arrlicant. A height
variance cf 1�' must be attrcved for all Frivacy fencing llaced
within the 50' street yards (both Briar and Arbor Streets).
JAM/tln
ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL. MEETING HELD JUI,Y 23, 1990
ZONING FILE #1429-BURGESS CONTINUED
Gaffron stated that there is a two -car garage attached to
the house.
:•'r. Peters added that the attached garage is very small.
Nettles did not believe it was necessary to refer the matter
back to Panning Commission because the new structure will be the
same as what exists now. He added that it is getting late in the
construction season.
Callahan said that he is concerned about two garages on the
p-operty when there is excess hardcover. He stated that he did
not want to see the driveway area increase ss part of the garage
replacement. Callahan also asked that notice be given to future
owners of this property that hardcover cannot exceed 33.7%
existing now.
Mr. Peters said, "We are only trying to make the property
marketable. Mr. Burgess purchased the property with the
intentions of tearing it down. The only part of the house that
has any real value is the foundation. we would not do anything
more than what we can to facilitate selling the property."
In response to Callahan's third concern; Gaffron stated that
a standard advisory clause will be included in the resolution
advising future owners of this prope-ty that hardcover cannot
increase.
It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Mayor
Grabek, to adopt Resolution 42837, granting a hardcover variance
to construct a detached garage. The resolution is to include a
clause which will place future owners of this property on notice
that hardcover in the 75-250' zone is not to exceed 33.7%.
Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed.
01445 GREGORY PETERSON
1355 ARBOR STREET
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION #2838
Mr. Peterson was present.
Bernhardson provided a summary review of this application
(see Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated July 19, 1990).
Mabusth added that Mr. Peterson has provided a sketch
showing the fencing plan for the entire yard.
Mr. Peterson stated that ~he fence had been included in the
permit that he obtained for the porch and pool.
Mabusth replied, "If the fence :lad been included in the pool
- 3 -
ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUC,Y 23. 1990
ZONING FILE ;1445-GREGORY PETERSON CONTINUED
permit, it would have alerted staff at that time to the need for
a variance for the fence. Did the valuation given for the pool
permit include the fencing?"
Mr. Peterson stated that the fence value was included in
th&t permit.
Mabusth stated that it would be necessary for staff to
review the pool permit application.
Councilmember Peterson referrer' to a letter from Mrs. Barb
Garcia that had been submitted by Mr. Peterso<< in support of the
fencing. She noted that Mrs. Garcia had not signed the letter.
Mr. Peterson explained that the letter was not signed
because both he and Mrs. Garcia have been out of town.
Councilmember Peterson stated that she would like to have
the letter signed.
Bernhardson advised that staff will ask Mr. Peterson to
obtain Mrs. Garcia's signature.
Councilmember Peterson stated that she has had a problem
with this application from the very beginning. She said, "There
was extensive conversation regarding the location of the fence in
relation to the pool. I understand the need for a 5' fence.
However, the north side of the property is heavily vegetated with
an existing chain link fence. Wouldn't it be possible to use
chain link rather than wood. I am opposed to the boxing -in
effect and chain link would not be so opaque."
Mr. Peterson replied that chain link fencing is more
expensive than wood. He added that there is currently wood
fencing around other portions of the property and he would like a
more uniform appearance.
Councilmember Goetten also expressed concern about "boxing
in the property with fencing. She said, "The Petersons took
exception to the first Council decision, which was then changed.
They took exception to the fact that Council approved fencing
around the pool and placed it around the yard. They were then
given approval to put Fencing around part of the yard. The
Petersons were told to come back for approval for the rest of the
fencing. There was confusion about that request as the Petersons
did not believe it was necessary to come back to the Council. I
want to be sure that whatever decisions we make this evening are
very clear and fully understood by the Petersons. I cannot vote
in favor of this application. I believe it sets a poor example
to allow a yard to be completely fenced."
- 4 -
ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23,
ZONING FILE #1445-GREGORY PETERSON CONTINUED
Mr. Peterson stated that the Planning Commission had not
expressel any problem with the fencing proposal.
Councilmember Peterson said, "The Planning Commission may
have interpreted your request for a fence to be around the pool.
not around the yard."
It was Roved by Mayer Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2838. granting the street/front
setback and height variances to construct a fence, subject to
Mrs. Garcia's letter being properly executed and to staff's
determination regarding a permit. Motion, Ayes-2, Callahan,
Peterson, Goetten, Nay. Motion failed.
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded tv
Councilmember Peterson, to conceptually deny the application of
Gregory Peterson for front/street setback and height variances to
construct a fence. Callahan noted that Mr. Peterson is required
to have a 5' fence. Goetten stated that Mr. Peterson's insurance
company is requiring a 5' fence around the pool, not around the
yard. Mabusth stated that Mr. Peterson has the right to place a
5' fence out of the 50' setback areas along the side yard.
Callahan stated that since opaqueness of the fence seemed to be
the objection it may be appropriate to require that chain link be
used rather than wood. Mr. Peterson indicated that he is opposed
to chain link. Nettles suggested allowing a 3h' wood fence with
1�' of lattice board on top to reduce the opaque nature. Mr.
Peterson stated that the wood sections he intends to use are
514". Mr. Peterson indicated that he has considered removing
every other oicket to make the fence less opaque. Motion,
Ayes-2, Grabek, Nettles, Callahan, Nay. Motion failed.
It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by
Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2838, granting the
street/front setback and height variances to construct a fence,
subject to every other picket being omi ted from the fence, the
letter from Mrs. Garcia be executed, and staff's determination
regarding a building permit for the fence. Motion, Ayes-3,
Goetten and Peterson, Nay. Motion passed.
#1473 JACQUELYN KELLY
2056 SHADYWOOD ROAD
AFTER -THE -FACT VARIANCE
Mr. Dennis Johnson, Ms. Kelly's Attorney, was present on he,,
behalf.
Bernhardson informed Council that Ms. Kelly is presenting a
revised plan from the original that she proposed when Council
last reviewed this application. He noted that plastic
underlining would be removed from existing rock beds and in the
250' - 500' zone, fabric would be placed beneath the landscaping.
- 5 -
City of OR,ONO
CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF NO.
••• •
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A VARIANCE TO
MUNICIPAL. ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.75, SUBDIVISION 4 (B)
AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (C)
FILE # 1445
WHEREAS, Gregory C. Peterson (hereinafter "the
anplicant") is the owner of the property located at 1355 Arbor
Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally
described as Lot 2, Block 2, MarkviIIe, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for
variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.75, Subdivision 4
(B) and Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) to permit the
installation of 5'+ privacy fencing where only 3�' high fencing
is allowed within the front yards of th- through lot bordered by
Briar Street to the west and Arbor Street to the east. Privacy
fencing within Briar Street yard shall be placed 0' from the
street lot line and 34' from the Arbor Street lot line instead of
the required 50' setback.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
Orono, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1445.
2. The property i ,`_d in the RR-1B Single Family
Rural Residenti&l c. strict requiring 2 acres in area.
3. The Orono Council i-:.ewed this application on December
11, 1989 and July 23, 1990 and recommended approval of the
proposed variances based upon the following findings:
A) As approved, the privacy fencing will not create a
visual impact or "boxing in" of the property.
B) The appl 'cant's insurance carrier wil I require
fencing arounu the pool in the Briar Street yard.
Page l of 4
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
4. The City Council has considered this application
including the findings and recommendations of the Planning
Commission, reports by City stnf.f, commc-nt.s by the applicant
and the Affect of the proposed variances on the health,
safety and welfare of the community.
5. The City Counci ; f i nds that the condi t ions exist i nq on
this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally
to other property in this zoning district; that granting the
variances would not adversely affect traffic- conditions,
light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to
neighboring property; would not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate
a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to
preserve a substantial property i of the applicant; and
would be in keeping with the spir d intent of the Zoning
Code and Comprehensive Plan of tht. ity.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the
Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning
Code Section 10.75, Subdivision 4 (B) and Section 10.03,
Subdivision 15 (C) to permit the installation of privacy fencing
at a 51+ height to be installed within the front yards of the
through lot adjacent '- Briar Street and Arbor Street, subject to
the following Condit s:
1. Applicant/owner has agreed to o-nit every other picket
leaving an open space in its place in order to minimize
visual impact of privacy fencing.
2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the
property not with the applicant, but are per,nissive only and
must be exerciseO by installing the fencing within one year
of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
expire on that date (July 23, 1991).
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this variance shall constitu'e a violation of
the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority
granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and
hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf
of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees
to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of
the property.
Page 2 of 4
CITVol'
OF
ORONO
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Adopted by the ^:*
Minnesota at a regular me-
1990.
i
ATT`I-ST :
by �i. H lin, City Clerk
Property
STATP. OF M :NESOTA
sz.
-,F HENNEPIN
NO.
-)u.ilci 1 of the City o. Orono,
eld on the 23rd day of July,
b4.
-
Jam gs R. Grabek, Mayor
l ,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on
l.lc 23rd day of July, 1.990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M.
iidllin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City cf Orono, a Minnesota
nuni,�-I.a 1 corpor4.t : nn ar. ! said instrurierf was executed on behalf
of the City.
THERE" L. NAAe
N TAW PUNW . (N1N14e8oTA - -
NENNEPIN COUNTY Notary Public
Iy► N■iM�w �M waa
Page 3 of 4
City of ORONO
CITY
OF
ORONO
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
On this ";t -j da of Lk, 199
before me,a Notary Public within and1fo said county, personally
rt
appeared ,(, � (� I-' .• ,:. � , t
known to me td be )the persons escribe in and who execute the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (th-y` executed
the same as his (their) free act ar.? deed.
.0 ,
NOT.aggr Tr'
THEP•ESA L. NAAB
NOTARY P-JBLIG - MINNESOTA
�'`''��; HENNEPIN COUNTY
4. My OWMUM'jn Mtgraf "-92
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)ss.
COUNTY OF ":!'dNEPIN )
On this day o` 199, before me a
Notary Public within and f r said County, personally appeared
7e� I�LI�nr f.' known to
me to be the Aerson(s) described in and who executed the
for,, ping instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed
the .me as his (their) free act ana deed.
NOTAP.Y
THEFESA L NAAB
"MARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
My apnYMtllon expim "-92
M V
Paqe 4 of 4
RESOLUTION #2838
MATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
CITY OF ORONO )
I Dorothy M. Hall.- City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin
County, Minnesota. do .ereby certify that I have compared the
foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono
with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the
proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held
on July 23 , 1990 , and that the same is a true
and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City
Council at said meeting.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
16th day of August 19.90
I
0 othy M}. zllin, City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPL?CATION NO. 1445
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. box 66 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
473-735.' Date of' Notice: 7/25/90
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Mr. & Mrs. Greaury Peterson COPIES:
1355 Arbor Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance
------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF !MEETING: July 23, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against
------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION:
Council approved the height and setback: variances for proposed privacy
fencing of your property. Such fencing not to exceed 5 1/2 feet in height.
In reviewing the building permit application file, staff has noted that
fencing was covered in the original permit. Applicant reed not apply for a
building permit for the expansion of the privacy fencing. The amended
resolution enclosed for your review has been altered so that a building
permit will not be required for the additional fencing and also includes a
condition whereby you have agreed to instal 1 t;;e fence by omitting every
other picket for the remaining privacy fencing to be install -d in your
yard.
As you will remember, the City conditioned approval on the City staff
being in receipt of an approval letter from Ctrs. Garcia. Prior to your
execution of the amended resolution, the City must .:)e in receipt of Mrs.
Garcia's written approval. Please note the fencing cannot be installed
until the City is in receipt of Mrs. Garcia's response and you have made
arrangements to execute the three amended resolution copies at the City
offices (Monday through Friday, 8:00 - 4:30).
Please contact Jeanne Mabusth (473-7357) if you have any questions
concerning the directives noted above.
lsv
POPHAM. HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN,
LTD.
331)0 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER
MINNEAPOLI.S. MINNESOTA 55402
WAVNC G ►OPMAM
NE a
DAVID A JONCS -ELEPHOHE
10-c
'M' '�• W KUCK
Bg�CE A PE-CPSON
JI::IE TLCMING-WOLFE
OCBORAN A DYSON
RAY A MAIK
LEC E 6 2 -333- 46CO
gJ-w A MICr CLSCN
DENSON K WMITNCV
ROG(R W, SCMNOB AICM
ALAIN IRECON TCLECOPIER
_ANNA SEVERANCC
K%TMNrN M. WALKER
OCNV Cn KAUVMAN
LESLIE GILLETTC „3
612-334
wOMAS C MIELENM^USCN
GCORGC J. SOCHA
ROSE RT A wwsw
ROLFC A. WOROCN
MICHACL T. NtLAN �33
TMOMAs M SI PKINS 32 612 334-278
'=HAf.L O CH RW^ SON
:.MACE T2
SMANC R K(LL(V
MARK F TEN ECW
G. MARC WMIT[MCAO
AOBERT C MOILANCN
j' 612 334 2503
CAIRNS
�[FFq [r P CAIRNS
DUA..0 R Np[CM CA
BRUCE D. WILLIS
THOMAS F NELSON
C•.EN L MAAS
DEE POW
G. ROB[RT JOM NEON
7H0MA3 J RADIO
_EWIS J NOTMAN
GAP Y P GENGE. 12
GARY R. MACOMBER
ROBCRT S. SURK
DAVID L. HASHMALL
KATHLEEN M MARTIN gJ�`C 2400
TODO M. JOHNSON
P, SMITH
JOMN M BAK EP
AR[N M wCNS[N
HUG" V. PLUNKETT, III
JOMN C CHILOS �200 SEvENT[ENTH 5-PEE`
BRUCLOUTS
H. LITTLE
STE PACC' IRO
FRC DERICK C BROWN
DOUGLAS P. SEATON
OENVER COLO RADO BO2O2
MARK PALM^
MARK
LIPSS.A
EN
lTCVEN M PHiLLIPS
TMOMAS K BERG
TMQMAS E SANNEA
AICMARD ^ KAPLAN 'CLEPw 1C 3C3-803 2C 0
RUSSELL S PONESSA
LINO^ S .gIEONEP
ANORCW C PARKER
JAMES B OAUCK
J(FFREY S. HALPERN
BgUCE B. MCPHECTERS `CLECOPIER 303'803 2 U-
BRYAN L.CR^WEORD
MATT M(W E DAMON
JOY M w^LDEPA
BRUCE D MALKE RSON
SCOTT E RIC.TCR
JOMN W PROVE)
PATRICIA A 0LCARV
JAMCS R. STEILCN
PAUL J LINSTROTM SUITE 300 SO' 'w
DILL 1. FRIEDC A!
KARCN A COLE
JAMCS B. LOCKMAAT
SCOTT A. SMITH
1600 M STREET. N W
PAUL S. JONES
ALLEN W MINOERAKER
BRIAN N. JOHNSON
WASHINGTON, 0. C 20036
WILLIAM D MITTLEM
CLIFFORD M ORE ENE
BRADLEY A. FU-LCA
DONALD M LEWIS TEL(PM ONE 20>< 6=e'3300
D. WILLIAM RAV IMAN
PALL M. TICTZ
KC NNE" AOSS• TC L[COPIER 20t-e2eb]IB
GR(GORV a BROOKER
BRIAN W. OMM
PF CC 'EL
/RCO L. MORRISON
MICNA(L O FR[CMAN
OAVID R ST RANG
DIRECT DIAL NUMBED
JUD17N YOU NOCN
"OWARD SA MYERS. III
SCOTT K GOLCSMITH
QO NNE G ZA DENWEBCR
LARNY D ESP[L
GIPAAD P MILLER
E_IZABETM A. TMOMPSON
CE CI LIA M. MIC"CL
JANIC S. MAYERON
THOMAS J. SARRCTT
KEITM J MALLELANp 334-2707
ROB(RT C. CASTLE
TMERESC M MANKEL
•.Or'^�,r u✓MA.,. AwO rr[WPI
JAM CS A. PAYNC
MARK B. PETERSON
INCLUDING THE FORMER LAW FII M OF NALPERN
6 ORUCK
September 7, 1990
_
G
-` _.J
Mr. Mike
Gaffron
CITY OF
ORONO
P. 0. Box
66
_-
Crystal
Bay, MN 55323
EP
.S 1
0 .'1890
Re: Various Resolutions
Dear Mike:
The foi.Lowing resolutions are being returned
to you
without
being filed as they are all variances and all
relate to
Torrens
property. (Variances cannot be filed under Torrens.)
•
#2838/Peterson
42850/Denzel
#2849/Cullen
#2846/Gardiner
#2853/Powell
Resolution sent for filing:
#2847/Filkins
Please note that Resolution Nos. 2828/Fi_,�. (Document
#5695852) and 2841/Stubbs (Document No. 5695853) a:•.: ,also
encloseu' and have been filed.
Sir�¢erely,
//FF// 1 J
(-&_i� k--4
Carolyn A. S mers
Secretary too ancy
Legal Assi t nt
E. Husnik
1100ZNEH(32)
to
TIE DPLL, fllro%
301bT lNTo EAST, EjLV(�
! i w/ =iErL JOIST Np►+4ER1 r\�
)OIsTS - OVER.
Its,
D \�
I
� oN lo' x 24'� �u' FT4 •
/ r ID
to x to po `T
Ito- tout plim
DB�t• n�M ON 32' %32''x 1z' FTC,.
JCI STS
-t - r �/ 4 -� • S 'iq'.
^►=L';� J' ,�`y' � ems' . •.'• � �.j� .. ', '�• .. )� .'.' ,•�}� ;•�:.r �`,�r '•` '
�•. ems! ° ,�� � t lh.,,{ _ �� -
t AA
Pk
� • r • ,.i, . I. - :.. � .: swat •�iilw:'ris i' �-- - - =-t• ' - -
171 to A,
--s'"'cRe ReN
� •h t�t �� A��R * `°i.•. �al� r � 1: ' �s ��r� 3 �• .� V'. - ,\ !f•. - •r'
ow
r.rt►ic 1di6c► r rt� �' �� t ' �! '.:Yrw; ;. �X�STI!d�"WALK.'
(y .Mil-•. IMr.r •�i'ti .'�•lt �_ f ,. r •r- 4 - ' '
", li�+.•r�i �l ' r .+ ��1441 ' �.,�'L -!`.;�� +•'��•' , 'L�i - j• '/' '� y i . i• r• .
r •r
jA
.{}, . • ° i ..T f — _ — E y 1 b-C 1 W C.Y -' �\ •\ _ V - - -
IL
PRO, � 04..
Aftla
'
+niter r
i I : akf�.
jL
'%•; t .
_ -
•-
owm
pp�l C 4+ Ay D%T1 O 1J
112
i 1r_ -rt
I ( '
SM lea
aar
(3)
✓ 7z .. n
� .� � � T �?SS � �w • ti
o 0 5960
77
ea FRENCH 261ej �9 .
d�' 7 CREEK,°'.
G I R
6 �d/66 \
R E E
Ir
so
ICA
�e (.
G o
on N
rJ
f
d «
44 s
too c �..ss�c
�. � 6t
190) 2 _� 9„�� sy •R _�� , 's°-�. , P°„ter � /�
S�
p MUSTE i ,t STAL.I)
6
11�1.t�N���DQst. a mooOW
_ MINNETONKA _ AVE V
--3 �Y2
ir
('4Z) ,p
R 1
�\
4 --
��-L , ., I:• _., �� co `M TKO;:
q �iirc ow
Ell
-- ,� :'CRYSTAL
jtjw
PROSPECT 4' Iif ti
31405
FF
t�
J
C�C'�',�.oFO �o
31)
cu
wax
447.j
A.- m
.0111
Ap
3 15 3 3 7/10
31 - W
2
..,OUTILOT Ci
u . .1
Certificate of Survey
for Gregory C. Peterson
of Lot 2, Block 2, Markville
Hennepin County, Minnesota
6o
k
W
W
h
k
e
t
m
6o
I hereby certify that this is a tr::e and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 2, Block 2, Ilarkville,
the location of all existing buildings thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed house and pool thereon. IL does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
Date COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
7-11-89 JJ y
Scale: I" 20' �11Qr = `�"I ��g/-u+
o Iron marker (set) ar .ron erg n. IC. o.
Bearings shown are assumed 'J Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners
��, (� Long Lake, Minnesota
rtificate of Survey
far Gregory C. Peterson
of Lot 2, Block 2, Markville
Hennepin County, Minnesota
/
i
60
N a'f 'So'3o"w ivS.00 5°
(LI/OblO ti �
ar 4 h.e
ill 3(. to
W W
0
p o
h P �•ied Poo/ ! 4 A —A ; Eritriny 0 y
6 3 ti H ✓r e
. W A_.Ye�� � f � /•o/•/rd Jerk.:, j �
to
LANE tr.• K
Yr
o
Jerdr r. e
.31
Se
i
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 2, Block 2, Markville,
the location of all existing buildings thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed house and pool thereon. It does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
Date 7-17-89
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
Scale: Iron
n 20' j %f.��-4�
o iron marker (set) ar ron erg n. ic. o. 1T53
Bearings shown are assumed Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners
Long Lake, Minnesota
a 1
Certificate of Survey
for Gregory C. Peterson
f Lot 2, Block 2, Markville
Hennepin County, Minnesota
3r/l
y
& I
I ,Crn�e
r
I I o'y
60
're
Ex
PrIuAG
as`r� NoRrI
.i
14
YdLr
• 7 )
3T.7
I♦
._..-'2tij
....-.
W
�
o
h
m
n
3e. a
f
0
P lei Poe/
3
4
iY.e ♦
W
IB.•
�
:
a
W
I
o
C
h h /•/eJ
y
EriJ>•iny
e
M
—A
r
h Hare
i
_
0
(
�
1Y e
7
O
B.e Yf
0
e
'1
c..). 0
Q
ne.•
N
t
t=Kye,.� vF ��
SA•/f
f•
I I
f
PYIva�y F.,c'C'
IN
Ve9•Zn')u N .>s.on
yaY o
?� r'yr Frn LP r
3
�1\owep •�% (p F3T LP
�II ou:.0u
i hereby certify that this
the location of all existing
is a true and correct representation of a survey
buildings thereon, and the proposed location
of the boundaries of Lot 2, Block 2,
of a proposed house and pool thereon.
Markville,
It does not
purport to show any other
improvements or encroachments.
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
Date : 7-17-89
'
Scale: I" = 2 0
o : Iron marker (set)
Bearings shown are assumed
�r—�
aM k ron erg n. Ic. o. I733
Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners
Long Lake, Minnesota
h� a
"' �..
°
i i
I
Certificate of Survey
Q for Gregory C. Peterson
of Lot 2, Block 2, Markville
Hennepin County, Minnesota
10
:� M1
W r C
W ° � P �o]•d Poo/ 0 ti � A ° Ev.ifiny
P}}rt vpeY neiosd iefr.
°
0
tY. °
P•.l.d/e � Gonave
0's, t SAfda
f.•
Stt0.ug8 ERY —� .„
\ New F'°y'u t�P .VB9'2o'3o"w ): soa
�Y•Ivp° --- - Pk\ V kL,j Fe—C e
Fwu `-
6e
h
W
n W
l
aLA
�'
Y:
41
�e
°
0
m
e
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 2, Block 2, Markville,
the location of all existing buildings thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed housE and pool thereon. It does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
Date 7-17-89 ems.
Scale: I" = 20' ��,�„���f
o : Iron marker (set) aM�S-Gron erg 7mn-L c. o. 7753
Bearings shown are assumed Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners
Dew T!Q`a�lMQ+�} vk'\6'n3 Long Lake, Minnesota
VWrtA0.E Q--SsDERATZon►
To &. IF4'X-to
Cert.ficate of S,irvey
for Gregory C. Peterson
of Lot 2, Block 2, Markville
Hennepin County, Minnesota
i
6o
k
W
W
h
k
e
t
D
1
60
k.
W
o W
0
m l
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct repre.entation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 2, Block 2, Markville,
the location of all existing buildings thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed house and pool thereon. It does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
Date : 7-17-89
Scale: I" = 20'
o : Iron marker (set)
Bearings shown are assumed
COFFIN & GRONBERG, ZINC.
'Mark ran erg Mn. L'ic.V.-1Y755
Engineer:, Land Surveyors, Planners
Long Lake, Minnesota