HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-02 Memo, Site Development ChronologyTo: Street File - 2811 Farview Lane (Nitz-owner)
From: Michael P. Gaffror, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date: April 2, 1987
Subject: Chronology
12/18/86 Received 2 copies of house staking survey from Stugar-Roscoe--
Fausch. Staff notes:
- House is not within drainage easement;
- Proposed driveway entering from County hoad 84 not
allowed;
- House appears to meet required side/front/z�ar
setbacks;
- No septic report on file - no building permit
application or plans submitted. . .
.
Survey placed in street file 2811 Farview Lane awaiting further
information.
1/12/87 Received from Bruce Knutson Architects, 1 set of house plans
(sheets A-1 thru A-4)
1/13/87 Received from Hakanson-Anderson Assoc4ates - site evaluation and
sewage treatment system design.
1/15/87 Received from Bruce i'nutson Architects, 2 additioral sets of
plans. Received building permit application ',,igned by Nit -
dated 1/10/87) and energy calculations. Application accepted as
initially complete on 1/15/87.
1/2"/87 Letter to Nitz dated 1/23,187 requesting additional grading and
drainage information. Note that during period 1/15/87 to
1/23/87, stafr contacted Hakanson-Anderson, Stugar-Roscoe-Fausch,
and Bruce Knutson Architects, all of whom iniicated they had no
authority to act in Nitz's absence to discuss site plan. Nitz in
Colorado and not available to meet on the sitC.
Prior to 2/9/87 MPG phone discussion with Nitz noted:
a) septic location concerns;
b) site planning concerns;
c) driveway location to County road is a problem, as
is proposed location of driveway to Farview (undated
survey received between 1/15/87 and 2/9/87);
d) drainage concerns relating to intent of original
subdivision.
2811 Farview Lane
April 2, 1987
Page 2 of 4
2/9/87 Met with surveyor on the site per Nitz's direction, I asked for
elevations and location of proposed Farview access driveway,
elevations and location of septic test holes, culvr:rt and berm,
house corners as related to bottom of drainageway.
2/11/87 Received additional survey from Stugar-Roscoe-Fausch with most of
requested information (missinq traverse E-W from house to road
across basin - not critial item).
2/11/87 Call from Wyman Haherer, 2879 Farview, requesting status of "lot
next to him".
2/23/87 Received copy of letter to Nitz from Wyman Haherer dated 2/18/87,
requesting compliance with covenants and threating injunction.
2/24/87 Met with City Engineer, Glenn Cook, to review site - he verbally
noted that driveway lccation on Farview may be a problem because
of fill needed, location of culvert, and setback from County Road
84 and he suggested possibility• of access to County Road 84; also
discussed drainage concerns and suggested we require that a
storage basin be re4uired north of the culvert at south end of
lot to ensure that original intent of the subdivision grading is
continued.
Prior to 3/5/8 , Phone discussion wi t:h Nitz regarding change in attitude
toward access given new information regarding 6riveway location
proposed; discussed problens with septic location as related to
elevation of drainageway. Nitz to set up meeting wi"i principals
(Hennepin County Department of Transr)ortation, site evaluator,
etc.).
3/5/87 Meeting on si�.e with Nit-z/Gaffron/Gerhardson/Zetterstrom/Other -
Rathbun absen•.:; Hennepi:-, County DOT agreed to access at southeast
corner of lot on County Road 84 - paper work to follow.
See MPG notes 3/5/87 prior to site meeting. Plans turned over to
Jacobs/Oman for plan review, since site planning/zoning review
appears to oe reachin.• agreeable :;onclusion.
3/6/87 Met with F.athbun on site - no
a) slope on NY. side of lot too steep for mound;
b) MPG agree) that proposed si*es per Rathbun prior
reports are suitable only if:
1. house moves 15' south;
2. drainageway is redefined/regraded to protect
drainfi.eld site, i.e. provide a more channelized
flow ay.ound the bases.
!'12/87 Letter frLm Tom Jacobs tn Nitz requiring additional information
regarding deck joists and decking.
2811 Farview Lane
April 4', 1987
Page 3 of 4
3/13/87 Received Hennepin County access permit for County Road 84 access.
3/17/87 Received sketch from Nitz showint, 1'x50'xl6C' pondir,q area above
culvert, noting house would be moved 15' south.
3/24/87 Received additional deck design information a-. requested.
3/?.7/87 Call from Farview neighbor (unKnown - - "digging on corner lot" -
staff went to the site approximate.: y 12:15 p.m., found excavator
from Bollig and Sons, Inc. excavating for basement. MPG told cat
operator that he must stop work because he was excavating in
violation of Code since the building permit had not been issued.
He said he "thought Nitz had the permit already". He called his
boss on his truck radio. His boss told him to stop wo k as
ordered by the City. Then I proceeded to show the cat operator
what the City intended to approve. He was not aware that the
house was going to be 15' south of the staked location. He was
not aware of the septic location and had piled dirt on about 1/4
of the primary drainfield site already. His excavation for the
basement was perhaps 1/3 complete. MP_. posted a stop work order
and ordered that the steep banks of the e>.cavation be flattened
out for safety purposes, then MPG left the site at 12:30 p.m.
l (Oman also present during the above). I then met directly with
�< JAM who stated that we should require the excavation to be
returned �o original grade, since no permit had been issued. I
\e returned to the site at 12:45 p.m. and informed cat operator of
the change, that he would have to restore the site to original
4grade because a) no permit had been issued; b) if for some
� J reason permit was not issued we would ha-'� no leverage to get it
restored; ^) because of the potential ioi an =njunction by the
ne' , it might be a long time before the mattter is settled
��d we ccn't allow an open excavation on the site for a long
period.o) He then called his boss and stated that "the City is
telling him to restore the site because they might never ge} a
permit" which was an inL.rrect statement on his part. He was
given the go-ahead to restore, at which time he said he would
restore as requested, and I left the site. We did not issue a
tag to Bollig, but noted to the cat operator that we might issue
a tag +.o Nitz.
When I got back to the office about 1 �.m., t`-e footing
contractor was waiting to get a permit; however, the plan review
was not complete, and he also said "well I do- 't have the check
with me anyhow". The secretaries informed me chat the footing
contractor supposedly had a check for ^V1,200 based on an estimate
he had received from the secretaries used on what he said the
value was. The actual fee was not yet established as of this
time. I toll him (footing man) to get back to uo on Tuesday or
so, by whic_. .:ime we expected plan review to be complete, and to
expect a penalty fee.
2811 Farview Lane
April 2, 19e7
Page 4 of 4
4/1/87 Jacoas completed plan review and delivered plans back to MPG for
final zoning letter of condition as noted by MPG.