Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA21-000017 (480 Big Island) Ex F All Public CommentExhibit F PUBLIC Champlin Comments: 2'10 BIg Island COMMENTS From: Aleva Oiamolln To: Mdanle Curtis SubjaR: PeTlk 2equeR ror 460 BIg Islane� Orono (LA21-OOOOLJ) Data: Sunday, Minch 9, 202Y 11:16:21 PM A[WCM1manis: Dear Ms. Curtis, As a matter of introduction, my husband Jud and I are the owners of 21 O Big Island. We have owned this property since 2007 antl are so grateful to the City of Orono for all the improvements made to Big Island over the years, preserving its natural beauty and historical signi£cance. We received a notice from the City of Orono regarding the upcoming March t5 Plannin9 Commission meeting to discuss iha above -referenced lantl use application permit request. We have read the permit request document submitted by Joseph Thull, and are planning to attend the March t5 meeting. This past weekend, we went out to Big Island to do awalk-through of the area described in the permit request to gat a batter understanding of Mr. Thull's proposetl plan prior to the Planning Commission meeting. We are provitling you with our comments regarding this permit request in the attach¢d document. There is a link to a video of our walk-through in the document, but in case that IinK does not work for some reason, here it is again: Please do le[ us know if anything in The attached document is unclear or woultl benefit from additional information. Thank you so much for your time and consideration, Aleya antl Jud Champlin 2643 Thoroughbred Lane 2'I O Big Island Orono, MN 55356 952-476-0258 (home) 6'12-4�9-0200 (Aleya's cell) 6t2-240-8100 (Jud's cell) 0 :�_. U .� i U �A N � -O i C O � U'--� cQ a� .._. O �--' c � � -� _ �_. a� � °' � � o � .� �. a� Y _ cn U - � �- � O N c� O a O O C6 � N �, O O � � N i _ � C�/� c�6 O N N a�i � � � � � � Q) N C � O � _ O � c..� : �_ i N � Qi c.i O +--� � � a> T � C> � m a i — O `-� � i � C� --� � _ � � N � � O O C — _� � 1 m C � a c� � o — � a� c � E � � O � � N "�� �-� � t6 ado � � d C � _� � t � V Q O � aJ � .o 0 �. cv U O J v U O Q> cp O O i �� _� L Q� � � d d d V� a N�) W d 2 .� L d� ~ c O .� U O J 0 c� 0 U �_ !l') C O U w m 0 rn 0 a E .� Y O a� 0 a 0 a L E 0 0 c O s a O (/> + i Qs N O N L U l0 O � O :Q N Y O 1R O L d _� i �//��/ Y� �� C Z O _O O y J N �G Qi U � O �� C6 N W �� - .--�i _ .- _:.�z ..�� �_�a e-® --- °" -+�e....!tleoo_.. �,aiic :'ice... #w - e � � - \� � \ �_ - - - __ � » -� ///\ _� � \ƒ4 k7 - 2 k/ � �� �2 � \/ƒ �� \\\/ \2 _ /\ - - - 7) -_ _ - � _ _\ \/ � _? z2 /\/j �- / � )#jp y §/a ( � - 5 fA _- _ _ A � /}K -_- ; 2= a � - a � \!t \® \{2 \\k � � £ � - \ ff{ 2/\k - \]§ \k2 k§f7 � / �_ ©�%]» Z\» _ � /\\ ///kj \/k �/� �/f � R _ �# * _� — � � k5 � 2 a ■ - _ �� _ �� ƒ7/ � � � - _ � � 2 � _ � t: / m � � �/ �jk —% � ���k _w � \2 � ��� �J � � �7 _ �f« � �- �� � ��/ �� �_ -=2 � // �� �// m � f� �% %��� s � — � » — - f _ /�J 2 /J/� �� �\ 7 f���� — tEft q §e � /a 3a�� e// �$ J iC t O J J L V � O a� O Z � a� ✓ � d � }. •- .� 0 0 _Y b�Q O � LL 4� (� J � N L N Q d C L O � � p ©!r � � �$ a> a- _� � � O Y � � � C U O � � N N N N � Z' � V f�6 c6 -_ C6 G6 C6 Q � [.� � N Q; i—s � U � C/i Q O O O � L N � N Y � � p � O � Q N (6 O N O N N �_ [6 _ O O � � � °J z C6 N Q -� C O N Q� � U C6 � N � � N �• U) c6 (6 O O � i � _U � � N a1 O � � � � N C6 'O N Q �� � C6 C C � � V� _� O fl� O L fl� � � -� o � o � __� cul _ � � � � N � p U i o � � O � N � N G Y Q � m OU � d Q • • • • ��a � p i s e� � 4 5 � � ra fl � v 5 � .�^ .g � � � � '� � � .i' a� c E E S L -� e E � � a � � � � .� o � � N � � � � � e a � � � A e� U � E � � � a - £ ` a � � ��g ago �A�� � a �� � � » �� � � s � � � � i o� � � �§�E� �A� ���� �a a �a�` O a ��� m s �� s a a 3 a� � a a � �� d a��" a s U � �,���r �sy.� a��� � � � � � � s A �a��� ���� a��-� 3 O � �q� � A��a As�A � � � � A g � � e � � � s � 8 " � a e � � A � y � e E � � � pt g � � � d 4 �_ � d> 9 E ,�. w g �S z y m � ����� ��� �'��� yr �, w � _ � � _ O � Q 8��£� ���� as�� �F � s �a � `' e,„s � � � �£��_ ���g q��� �� E � 9� 4 s� $ a� 6 � 0 9 a a a � � 5 � ry c e 8 S $ .PL g � � � � ? `o `o C m "�$'`S a a � � r3 cica � � £ � � � 6 E S i m' E � i� c6 3$ .� _ e g �� a _ }�Q 6 Em fie+' � y� � 9 rxn � c � _ � � 3 $ _ '8 i ao 8 .5 8 � _ �s \ \ = # � o �f % � � - � _ � \ \ � _ -- � { \_ A ] �2 ƒ 2_ m k e - � \\ kf � / \ \/ \\ 7 - : � /k � � // � ,\ . / / *a+m aQaa 2 k �// 7a«»-a {k!)\d 2)�®�& a«e- 0 - � � 0 � � # § 2� / b k g • _� � � � � O � ca �-_. O � � � N `a i }� L �%� 0 L U Q c From: Judson CM1amolin To: Me a ¢Cur[ s Ce: Aleva cbamol n SubJae t ae0 Big ISIHntl Dack Permit Oates: TM1ur3dey. MHrCM1 ll. 2021 2:31:OB PM Hello Melanie. I know this is coming in late, but I figured it might be of some help to you. I tried to figure out my own way through all of the LMCD rules, and decided I better talk to an expert. I ended up speaking with Mathew over at the LMCD about the proposed dock, and he was able to rattle off enough of their Hales to get my head spinning. One thing he mentioned was that docks need a 10 foot setback From any adjoining lots. I guess this setback actually extends beyond the shoreline and into the lake. At least this is how I understood it! Attached are a couple of sketches I made to try to show this. In the handmade one, I used a ruler to determine where I O foot setback is, and 7 calibrated my measurement based upon the 38.5 feet of shoreline stated in one of the slides in the application. I also tried to illustrate it by overlaying a slide from the application itself, but that is just me eyeballing it_ If you figure a dock is maybe 3 feet wide, plus the width of any boat tied to it, the dock might have to be pretty short to stay within the setbacks. I have no idea how accurate any of this is, so It might be a good idea to get this all surveyed to figure where these boarders actually lie_ Mathew said he would be very happy to help out with any questions you all might have. From my limited understanding, there are a number of relevant LMCD rules that might have an impact here. Hope that helps! Thank you again and take care. -Jud Judson K. Champlin Westman, Champlin and Koehler, P.A. Suite 1100 121 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 wck c 612-334-3222 Intelleetusl Property Attorneys u WARNING: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged or confidential. It is intended only for the above identified recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please forward this transmission to the author. Please delete this transmission and all copies. Thank you. �� U O J .� i N �_ U O c/� N O p) � � O i. � � Q ti-- O O i r� _N � � N U C� � i _� Q Q r.om: ian itnrnio Flornlg Comments: 450 Big Island To: Ce: O1 In H Su¢jacc Big 19and Dock Permit Oatc: ThurStlay, Memb 9, 202'1 t2a9:20 PM Melanie Thank you for your time on the phone. Five[ and foremost. my wife Olivia Took the itme to review [he proposal vs a knee jerk no response. We have decided that we are opposed to this dock permit as proposed. I have 3 thoughts for the appllcation. 1. MOHVHtlOn. I am concerned that the motivadon is purely finantlal gain which is not a reason to allow the permit. Obviously a lot with Lakeshore is worth I Ox what a lot without it >s worth. He has owned his lot for 12 years and hasn't done anything to start a build process. Being in housing, the cabin he wants to build in the picture he included I estimate [o cos[ around $650-$950k with s¢ptic. I looked up his home in Chanhassen, worth about $600k. I would be surprised if they buUt a cabin worth more than their primary residence In my experience. A solution would be to tie the allowed dock permit to his building and septic permits. When he applies far those and starts constructlon, his dock persnit fs approved at [he same time. This creates tax revenue Por the city and proves his motivation is pure. 2. Opttons for Docks: He states that he has to boat over, anchor. swim to his lot. The power squadron is right next door to his property and is very affordable. If he never joined the power squadron in the 12 years I question his motivation, going back [e hfs financial gain being his primary obj¢ctiv¢. 3. Lend Locked Lots on Big Island: As we discussed, If you allow for this petmi[ the other lots will quickly want and expett the same thing. Perhaps this is the Ume to address the whole issue. IE [his is going to be approved. I would propose that all the landlocked lots get a permit at fhe same time for Utat space and allow a dock for each of them on that stte. Thank you for your time and effort on this issue Jeff Homig � Owner. 450 Big Island. Lakes Sotheby's International Realty Jackson Hole Sotheby's International Realty Sun Valley Sotheby's International Realty t 952230.3165 Maravelas Com mentsa '130 Big Island Flo To:m SvbJaec Joe TM1ull lake access request lA2l-OOOOIJ Oata: Monday. MamM1 8, 2021 9:39:'Ifi PM Dear Ms. Curtis, I am one of several landowners at 130 Big Lsland and a historian of the island. I wanted to share my opinion regarding Joe Thull's lane access request (LA21-00001'�. I don't think it 3s reasonable to ash the Thull family or the irnrtt¢dlate neighbors to trek overland to the northeast a considerable distance as is contemplated in the conditional use permit application. It is difficult enough to bring materials and supplies to the island without adding the additional complexity of having the lake access so far away. It would impart a great convenience for the owners of 480, 490, and 500 (lots 12 through 15, Morse Island Park) to have their docks and boats nearby as well, where they can be conveniently monitored. I believe the city should condemn a part of the southerly portion of the Three Rivers Park land in order to extend Anawan Avenue to the southwest through the Three Rivers land to the lake. Anawan Avenue is a platted street which adjoins Mr. Thull's property on the southeast side. It appears to me from maps that the distance from the current termination of Anawan Avenue to the lak¢ is about 50 feet. The extension of the street would not affect the pazk district's land inordinately, as it lies on the extreme edge of the pazcel and would not divide it. The west end of Anawan Avenue is platted to be 33 feet wide, but the extension I propose could probably be reduced in width if wanted. Paul Marav¢las Mayer, Minnesota 612 581 8207 Kolar Email: 'I80 Big Island Champlin: 210 Big Island rrom: wla.,a � 3rd Common! Submittal To: a Curt s Ce: "Jutlson CM1amnlln" Sul{jaet: Re: 988 BIg Islentl OOCk PBrmi[ Oates: Suntlay. Marah l9. 2021 '1'1 :3B:43 PM M[iaOhman[s: Dear Ms. Curtis, Thank you for Kintlly adtling our earlt¢r-submittetl uptlatetl comments in the public packet for this application. Please fintl attachetl atlditional comments pertaining to the Minnehaha Creek Watersh¢tl District (MCWD) antl its wetlantl classification of various regions of Big Islantl, Including the unimprovetl right-of-way that is the subject of the 4H0 Big Islantl Dock Permit Request. I sincerely apologize for [he timing of these further aatlitional comments, but I worketl over the weekend to learn a little about [he MCWD antl its rules pertaining to Lake Minnetonka. It is clear that in atltlition to the City's ortlinances, the MCWD rules n¢¢tl to be atltlressetl, along with the rules of the LMCD antl the DNR as tliscuss¢tl previously. 1 completely untlerstantl if [his submission is too late to be included in the agentla materials for tomorrow's meeting, but I tlo thank you for your consitlera[ion of the points made in this tlocumen[. I look forward io attentling the meeting tomorrow. Thank you very much, Aleya Champlin 2'10 Big Islantl On Fritlay, March l2, 2021, 0�:09:45 AM CST, Melanie Curtis <mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> wrote: Thank you. 1 will atld these uptlatetl comments to your original antl [hay will be inclutletl in [he public packet for [his application. Melanie Curtis i1�962.249.4627 ®maurti=rme�i n All p¢rmitting is now done through our n¢w online portal -lJtlK[ From: Judson Champlin [mailto jchamplin@wck.com] Sant: Thursday, March 'I'I, 2021 2:30 PM To: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> Cc: Aleya Champlin <aleya @champlins.us> Subject: 480 Big Island Dock Permit Hello Melanie. 1 know [his is coming in late, but 1 figured it might be of some help to you. I ttietl to figure out my own way [hmugh all Of the LMCD rules, antl tl¢citletl 1 better talk [o an expert. 1 entled up speaking with Mathew over at the LMCD about the proposetl tlock, antl he was able to rattle off enough of their rules to get my head spinning. One thing he mantionan was chat tlocks neetl a l O foot setback from any atljoining lots. I guess [his setback actually extentls beyond the shoreline antl into [he lake. At least [his is haw 1 untlerstootl i[I Attachetl are a couple Of sK¢tch¢s I mane to try to show this. In the hantlmatle one, 1 usetl a ruler to O¢termin¢ where l O foot setback is, and 1 calibra[etl my measurement basetl upon th¢ 38.5 f¢e[ of shoreline statetl in one of the slitles in the application. I also trletl to illustra[¢ it by overlaying a slitle from the application itself, but that is just me eyeballing it If you figure a docK is maybe 3 feet witle, plus the witlth of any boat tietl to it. the tlock might have to ba pretty short [o stay within the s¢tbacks. I have no itlea how accurate any of this is, so It might be a gootl itlea to get this all surveyetl to figure where these boartlers actually li¢. Mathew said he would be very happy to help out with any questions you all might have. From my limitetl untl¢rstanding, there are a number of relevant LMCD rules that might have an impact here. Hope that helps! Thank you again antl take care. -Jutl Jutlson K. Champlin Westman. Champlin antl Koehler, P.A. Suite 1100 l2l South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 �rK r' 612-334-3222 Intellectual Property AHomays IIAi WARNING: The information con[ainetl in [his Vansmission may be privilegetl or confitlential. IL is in[entled only for [he above itlentifietl recipient If you are no[ the intend¢tl recipi¢nq pleas¢ forwartl this transmission to the author. Please tlelete this �� 0 U C� +-• N �- O �--� N can cn cn Q ccs 0 �. U � _ / . / � � \ƒ // _ ƒƒ�\ � \\ - � � $ ƒ § % � \k // /k 2 �� - � ��/_�� q - -- ���� ��k � - � / ¢ - / «/// �k� � _ _ - � 7 e e 2 �� -� \ \� - \ _ �¢ � � � �� - - ��( � � 7 / § \ _ f � \27f7 /\f.ƒ � a �3.m2 G&� �§ � /]�\7�7�»ƒ �/% � ye4«a-2rm/ a � 2 @ � 2 \ g /§�Jfƒ37A» /�& G 3 V �gg� 8& ! �� s �; �, U N L N L N C C N L L c6 0 U 0 a� 0 U 2 3 3 � �� � goo �ll M a� a U ca ca a.> .N ca U .� a> Q U O � - � o O Q_ 3 E �# I � ~r,:, � k{!k| � k \\la� ; $ !kƒ # « ! m f - 2{2|{ � « - - _ � ) � f2\77 � ; f ■,;!» � � , ! )!®!m . [ ( / ; ) � 7 � , ° ) ���k7 � � $ {�/«() m {•�, � q .. f,;2'! � / / §$,«§! o k , e e g k| !�!!ik � ) ) ` !#!■f7 + § \ { $\{{i¥ ! ! - -ƒ !$) � � / � � �§� = f �� � � \ iii � f ! f , \ § \ \ )§kkk) ��U1 y �� c) �� �_ ��' � a ��� y �,���"j -�{i � � �� '_� �F �� — `��� ��� � i 7 �� �� \k{ / �§k� I z_« � .2w �f#{/ 2®E � � f2r !)f\ =j = » \\\ \)#{ � k "�/){ � {{{ /_.. � � � d{; k\k/k � A � 2{$ fk7r# � � � @2f E!|§( � � { ;£f »§®`. � � ; 7)] §§�/� , !-» � � \!22 §,■« ,m! !�f! � � k k)\ \f)`I» o -k� -&/$!* � �/{ �))//) � k ))f t))#2 � , «£)�{wlk2 .�»!;« � -` k)f !■a;)$ \� lk2k ��22+! /) !)!§ {\�2(/ ) /» ! � / /7 � - 7 { � -® {k ) � _� ` 2 7f {/ ! � A � k�k /(»\ 3 � / ƒ k{\ /}�\ � �, ! � � / { {\)� {!k7 � � ) ) k`f[ !�2[ ''; � � � +kk �®;� � � � -+`! \§2k � � � /�` !2{t R � - / �k&ktlkt, � � ' ��§!!2 � � - (. i°//ikƒ! � � §y�=«a»-§z| k) #«@{;)2k2;� 2k°®k`#`\�k � §( . =a!)■» ƒ2�\t!!f«I; /! i!\;F\§��k\ §k� � - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PC PACKET PU BUSH EO= Saari Comments. 260 Big Island From: Ta: Cea Subjpc[: REc Jae TM1ull Ua[a: Ftltlay. MarcM1 t2 2021 L06:29 PM Melanie, As I think about The CUP requ est from Joe Thull, some thoughts: Fred Bru ntjen has had an approved access in place next to our lot 260 for years — an obvious need for his cabin to continue to have lake access o BTW -Fred's cabin was built by my Grand Parents back in the mid 40's - Unfortunate the Three Rivers Park District is not willing to allow an access to Joe with an easement adjacent to lot 470 o From your perspective is there anY hope the TRPD would change their mindT o The best and easiest resolution for Joe Given no movement by the TRPD, logic would suggest the best solution for all property owners is for the interior lots to access the lake utilizing the city owned right of way with access to their bays o East Bay— Access via city owned right of ways adjacent to properties 12p, 140, 260 and 280 = West Bay —Access vta city owned right of ways adjacent to properties460 and 460 e North Side —Access via city owned right of way adjacent to property 130 o Souih Side —Access via city owned right of way adjacent to property 380—may not be an option, appears 370 may own a 10' frontage at the shoreline Obviously Joe's property is facing the West Bay —granting access via the right of way adjacent to property 460 is the most logical choice for all involved Thank you for your consideration. Look forward to seeing you Monday evening. Dave Saari 21035 Oak Lane Greenwood, MN 66331 612 747 3606 From: Melanie Curtis <M Cu rtis@ci.oro no.mn.us> S¢nL: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:07 AM To: David Saari<david.saari@advantagesolutions.net> Su bjecL: Joe Thull M¢lani¢ CUKiS, Plann¢f Olrect 952.249.4627 Planning 8a Zoning OfFlce 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Email: mn rri=®,-i ,v Websl[e: no mn Tltiss Comments. 270 Big Island From: To R�e� � •n� Ga: SUDJaet: LA2t-OOOOI] JosapF TM1Y11480 Blg ISIHnd Oat¢: Fritlay. Marcb l2. 2021 Sa0:02 PM Hi Melanie, Thanks again for returning my ca31 on March I Oth regarding [he request to revoke Nancy Farnes dock permu m Front of her cottage. and switch ¢ to ThuLL an inland property owner. 1.2 Miles away. as well as Info regarding the use of ATV's on the walking paths. First, we have been neighbors with Fred and Nancy for close m 25 years, they go to their cottage. hang out like the ¢st of us. In the past couple oP years health Issues have come vp so 1[ has been more difYiculi, however I carmot understand how you could even corvsider revoking their dock access in the right away. It's my undexs[anding that they have had their cottage for 35 years and the permit Sn [he access has always been m place for One Dock, One Property owner. None of the neighbors next [o the public access wan[ to see a marina situation, R needs to be one dock- one family. All [he people [hat invested in inland lots will be requesting to cut down paths [o improve and sell their investments with a dock if we let this revocation take place. As I mentioned on the phone, the best solution is for Thull to rent a boat slip at the Power Squadron, they have showers, bathrooms and he could walk [o ids property from there. All the neighbors enjoy the quiet woods/wildlife and are no[ advocating f0 develop Big Island inm development central. it's rally not conscientious to tape an older couples dodr permit away after 35 years. Thaxdv for listerllng and have a nice weekend Sury Thiss Brand Ambassador Minneapolis Ray -Ban Genuine Since 1939 Ph: 952-452-0168 CS: SOO-422-2020 Fames Comments: 230, 240, 250, 460 Big Island Fmm: Nencv Fames To: Melanie Curtis Sut,jacb 1 am ONE hour late Oates: Montlay. March 'I 5. 2D21 taa:D� PM Melanie, 1 can tlrive over or fax the attachments starting now. Please call antl aCvtsel I am so,. so sorry; this took on a life of itsown. I have been tleligently working steatly on ibis all weekentl. Hope my exhaustion antl brain overloatl tloesn't reflect in this. Antl appr¢ciat¢ your Fl¢xibility in this very s¢rious matter to tlefentl best as I coultl in a week. Nancy March 14, 2021 To: Melanie Curtis, Planner Re: #LA-21-000017 ThuII Your drafted March 15 letter to Chair and Planning Commission Members Melanie, In reviewing above I note the below for consideration due to Ilth hour changes with research, discovery etc. this last week. Background last paragraph: Two dock permits have been issued in the past 35 years. Resolution 2038 (exhibit F) was granted to 230 August 1986 with an existing dock use and structure. Resolution 4465 attributed to 220 and 130 May 2000 (Exhibit F). Page 2 third paragraph, fifth sentence ...informal agreement with City since early 1940's. Tenth sentence ...Permit 2038 has remained in effect since 1986. See Nancy Farnes revised comments submitted March 15 in exhibit 1. Discussion: Second paragraph ...formal revoke. I did not receive a formal 30 day notice of revocation. An application twenty years ago for a dock permit at 230 set precedent; no discussions or notice to revoke was entertained or enforced. Permit 2038 was undisturbed; new application withdrawn to submit new application council approved/recommended for 220 at 130; it was not revoked. Does this merit a revocation or discussion of "intent" when 2038 was properly secured for 220 Big Island dock permit after 35 years and already met LMCD, city codes etc. requirements? Planning Staff Recommendation Tabled until further research if it is feasible for applicant to propose sharing one dock, or add a second dock, apply for a second permit if so or reasonable to revoke 220 Big Island until done. 2038 Permit went thru proper procedures in 1986 to secure permit to 220 Big Island. The permit issued 35 years ago is one dock for 220; one boat w/one dock meets LMCD guidelines. Comments indicate 33-34' lakeshore does not facilitate applicant for two boats with one dock OR two docks in LMCD ordinances. A withdrawal or denial is reasonable based on preliminary efforts and work submitted by others that applicant didn't do or include in application. It may be served better for all that an application/request to amend the code will protect and conform all prior work invested by city, planners and applicants on the two dock permits issued. It is a hardship on all to revisit the same issues resolved; it also complicates a dock permit application. Exhibit L March '14 Comments in Highlight for Curtis Dear Ms. Curtis, I am writing to submit additional information and clarity based on further discovery of the existing permits and submitted feedback and concerns from property owners directly impacted by my application. As stated on the first page of my background and context that I submitted with my application. I am hopeful that an amicable and a neighborly solution can be found and still allows me access to my property. I have gained additional historical content on the rarely requested dock permits on this part of the island <I believe two in the last 3S+ years). My request and application follow's similar precedent to the other interior property lot holders who have also requested access to their property and which has been approved. 1 would like to add some clarifying points and also pose a potential scenario for the council to consider that balances some of the concerns of the most affected parties. As 1 reviewed feedback submitted by Ms. Farnes and Mr. Bru ntjen at 230 Big Island with an existing permit, one of the unusual aspect is the following language within the permit. It states; I withdrew reactionary material to M. Curtis. The complexity, legalities and narrative in application did not have clarity for me to accurately respond. "Shou/d there be any other another request from an in/and property owner to use this site for the insfa//a tion of a docK to their properties this permit is automatics//y revoked." '1983 �ocK Parm it was issuetl to a uniqu® 220 props rty with structures. A docK was used since 1940 for 220. Prior to purchasing 220 the owner went th ru proper process with surveys, etc. to include legal use of existing dock for 220 in '1986. While I do not the know the intent of that language when crafted so long ago, the language seems extremely strong and harsh for any permitted dock holder. I request adequate time with M Curtis to research relevant, accurate intent and documents for her recommendation to committee and council. Given the harshness of this language, it would seem reasonable to find a solution does not create awin-lose scenario. Applicant is only person in 35 years stating permit is "harsh language'. Existing Dock Permit Dated June 1983 One potential resolution for the council to consider would be to create a new permit where both #480 and #230 are named in the permit, the old permit is retired and we share a dock, each permit holder having a side. Please see my replaced narrative, LMC�, lake shore feet, drain fields, trench etc. and also the relative material submitted by Jud_ This solution is designed so owners at 230 Big Island are not materially impacted, they still retain their permitted dock rights to access their property and allows me access to my property. While this is not the perfect solution it does balance the needs of each party and would work to limit the impact on the existing construct that exists today. 230, 2'I O, 260, land and lakeshore right of way are negatively impacted... As a show of good faith, should this scenario be feasible, I would consider purchasing a dock at my expense if one is not currently available from Ms. Farnes and Mr. Bru ntjen. I believe this outcome would be similar in spirt to how the lot owners at #130 and #220 share an access point. Not remotely similar, 220 had structures and access points not accurate. Right -of -Way Construction Traffic Concern: As a point of clarity, 1 am not proposing that this site and right-of-way be used as an access point for construction vehicles. The right-of-way I am requesting would used as a walking path from the dock up the main road everyone currently uses. Who is everyone, where is assumed "path"? This path will have no impact on the trees and topography on that right-of-way. The "path" on right of way is a drain field, mature trees, drainage trench... One application in 35 years set precedent to this identical request in early 2000. After much turmoil and discussions with city and private owners it was resolved a new application would be approved at 'I Any future construction would use the primary access point on the other side of the island that all other property owners use getting on an off this part of the island. Any future construction would use the primary access getting on and off this part if island. Applicant states #4 is a primary access point; it is riprapped private property owned by 460. Right of way was a 'I O' alley; not a 30' road. In summary, 1 hope this clarity's a few points and provides a scenario for all interested parties to consider. Applicant's summary opens up a Pandora's Box for a dock permit. Some are matters between neighbors, Variances, easements, permits etc. Many of the issues have precedence by lengthy proper procedures. Regards, Joe Thull M:6'12 S'12 '1280 Joe.Thull@gmail.com March 15, 2021 To: Malanie Curtis, City of Orono Planner From: Nancy Farnes Re: #LA-21-000017 Joe Thull, 480 Big Island, Dock Permit This serves as my requested response to assist in above -named matter with attachments for reference. The application and updated letter as exhibit L still dismisses City Codes, LMCD ordinances, and precedent set on an identical application. It was a tumultuous hardship on neighbors affected. And it was resolved by withdrawal of application for a new application granting dock permit #4456 by council. Doesn't the City have a duty to protect property rights of Thull and property owners affected as well as the city codes, right of ways and LMCD ordinances? Isn't the intent of planners, Planning Commission and Council to review applications and not to create issues down the road or hardships? The application was submitted without relevant research. A harsh burden fell on me and neighbors a week ago to provide it for planner on informed recommendation. Attached validates a handful of wrong narratives in Thull application. He includes what should be several change requests on existing precedence, city codes and LMCD ordinance packaged in his dock permit. Considering a new code for easements and many sales I hope common sense may prevail to withdraw it. 1)230 Big Island was purchased at 45K with an existing dock and structures since 1942. a) Precedence was set 2038 conforming w/existing lakeshore, traffic and quite enjoyment. b) Precedence was set 2000 by 4456 resolution where application for dock at 230 withdrawn. c) Precedence acknowledge by last buyer of 220 inside 4.5 acres at 100K. He asked us and inquired for dock at 230. 1 believe he dropped idea after his due diligence. d) Right of way between 210 and 230: 1) It is a drain field with established trench for water runoff in spring and storms 2) 78-567 (1) violation; see attached notice from City Orono dated October 22, 2003 3) Right of ways became small walking trails about 3 feet wide. Some are established behind private properties. Per code78-567 (5)... No permit shall be required for any person whose property abuts a platted public right of way or a platted park to control weeds or brush, seed, sow mow or otherwise maintain the right of way or park ....record lots ...divided by platted, unopened public right of way may incorporate and use such right of way as PART OF THEIR YARD without a permit.... e) The city does not maintain right of ways, survey or provide signage. Perhaps administration inquiries should be directed to abutting property owner who preserve land, "incorporate and use such right of ways as part of their YARD without a permit" lacking sufficient knowledge to advise. f) Approx 34.5 lakeshore footage at right of way in front of 230 does not conform to applicant proposal for 2 boats sharing 1 dock or two docks and two boats. Attached is LMCD ordinance, 210's video/diagram submitted and mine. Summary: Applicant's proposal for his 10 yr. 9K purchase transfers 130K wealth to him and tanks 35 yr. 45K purchase at 230 (intent of permit) down to 20K. I respectfully ask if his proposal to "revoke" 2038 may be harsh. It has no precedent, due diligence or communicating to affected neighbors etc. 2 460 statement that it is a right of way with an access point used by all with lakeshore. a) See attached bona fide survey on the subject property. b) The right of way was conversion of a 10' ally between 450 & 460 with no lakeshore. c) The strip (lot 2 and 3) is privately owned; was riprapped years ago in neighborhood project. Summary for applicant and planner for consideration in recommendation to deny/approve: Given a week for me to locate old relevant files and with planners help, this should be tabled if needed, denied and or applicant may withdraw application submitted with no diligence or data to validate it. From my perspective and observation the City has exhausted and gone above and beyond to facilitate application for a dock. Per 78-567 (1) .permit application (did not) demonstrate a reasonable alternative and (does) unreasonably affect me at 230, other properties abutting right of way (six). I request planner to review Ilth hour work I submit along with others last week to deny a recommendation. It negatively impacts drainage and vegetation; includes mature trees for a permit, survey and proposal damage the established trench. Perhaps applicant may choose to review all the work and LMCD provided by neighbors to assess if his application is feasible And pursue to revoke 230 from a 35 year old permit assigned to 230 in unique situation since 1942 on grounds it is "harsh" language, etc. doing the neighborly thing to withdraw it. It may be wise for applicants to perform their own due diligence prior to official application submission. Hennepin site is friendly user BUT clearly states "as is", not a survey or to be used as such..... 2038 Resolution is intended for 230 Big Island. Besides Hale family division in 1983 Orono was working to established ordinance 246 to increase lot size from 2 acres to 5 acres with 10.31 code attached. Nancy Farnes 230, 460 and 38 Big Island Transfer Entered May 7, 2020 1:24 PM Hennepin County, Minnesota Mark Chapin County Auditor and Treasurer Doc No T05706602 Certified, filed and/or recorded on May 7, 2020 1:24 PM Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 98 Document Recording Fee Document Total PID(s) 22-117-23-31-0020, 22-117-23-31-0029, 22-117-23-31-0031 Existing Certs 1369897 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. Pkg ID 1985689E $46.00 $46.00 LAKE ACCESS EASEMENT THIS LAKE ACCESS EASEMENT ("Easement") is made and entered into this 231d day of April, 2020, by and between, Selden Thompson Robb, Jr. and Helen A. Robb, husband and wife; and John F. Robb, an unmarried individual, ("GRANTORS"), and Janet M. Fieger, and unmarried individual, ('GRANTEE'). RECITALS WHEREAS, GRANTORS are the fee owners of the following described property in Hennepin County, Minnesota: Lots 19, 20 and 21, Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka (the "GRANTOR PARCEL") WHEREAS, GRANTEE is the fee owner of the following described property in Hennepin County, Minnesota: Lots 22, 23 and 24, Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka (the "GRANTEE PARCEL"). WHEREAS, the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota has adopted Ordinance No. 236 allowing "An owner of a riparian lot within the Seasonal Recreational (RS) zoning district may grant an easement over their riparian, RS zoned property to benefit a non -riparian, RS zone property for lake access purposes." WHEREAS, both the GRANTOR PARCEL and the GRANTEE PARCEL are within the Seaasonal Recreational (RS) zoning district. WHEREAS, the GRANTOR PARCEL is a riparian lot and the GRANTEE PARCEL is a non -riparian lot. WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to memorialize an easement for lake access purposes over the GRANTOR PARCEL to benefit and be appurtenant to the GRANTEE PARCEL; and 1 LAKE ACCESS AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the parties desire to memorialize their agreement regarding maintenance and repair of the lake access easement area; ACCORDINGLY, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: The contents of the Recitals set forth above shall constitute a part of this Lake Access Easement. 2. Selden Thompson Robb, Jr. and Helen A. Robb, husband and wife; and John F. Robb, an unmarried individual, (GRANTORS) hereby grant to Janet M. Fieger, an unmarried individual, and her guests, invitees, heirs, assignees and transferees (GRANTEE) a non-exclusive easement for lake access purposes across the GRANTOR PARCEL limited to a ten foot grass path directly adjacent to the East Lot Line of Lot 21, Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka running from the street to the lake (the "EASEMENT PATH") to benefit and be appurtenant the GRANTEE PARCEL. 3. GRANTEE will be responsible for repairing any damage to EASEMENT PATH including re -grading and re -seeding. GRANTOR will be responsible for mowing of the EASEMENT PATH. 4. This Agreement is binding upon the heirs, successors, transferees and assigns of the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. GRANTOR: Selden Yhompson Robb, Jr. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23' day of April, 2020 by Selden Thompson Robb, Jr. (SEWNOTARY =-MINNESOTA Notary Public 2 LAKE ACCESS AGREEMENT GRANTOR: Helen A. Robb STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF S)C�0* The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ZI day of 2020 by Helen A. Robb. (SEAL) ----z Notary Public� ANNA 6 BREKK NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA My COMMISSION EXPIRES 01/31/25 AN 3 LAKE ACCESS AGREEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF a. IbU8 ss. C 761MIL� ' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Ll day of , 2020 by John F. Robb, an unmarried individual. (SEAL)E111-1 JAMIE LSHERLOCK Notary PublicMinnesotaNO PUbIiG My Commission Expires ]i, 2024 Jan 4 LAKE ACCESS AGREEMENT GRANTEE: 1 � Jan". Fieger STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23rd day of April, 2020 by Janet M. Fieger, an unmarried individual. (SEAL) #ANNA B BREKKE NOTARY RUJC - MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01131126 This instrument was drafted by -.- Barbara J. Weckman Brekke, Atty. No. 0349434 Brekke, Clyborne & Ribich, L.L.C. 287 Marschall Road, Suite 201 Shakopee, MN 55379 (952) 402-9410 2kgCG A111Z Notary Public 5 LAKE ACCESS AGREEMENT 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL 9 Cover Sheet March 15, 2021 To: Melanie Curtis, Planner From: Nancy Farnes Pages: 24 including this cover PAGE 01 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 02 3 pages for 460 survey, Certificate of Title 01/20/2003 04:25 4 u rfI D .Zi m m n0 0 •m•�om �L 1 ' 1 9529217257 CROMWELL 4 /' � � 1L.•W.^r /r�s .f aw r. l•h a, 6.- tz, r,na til r v Da I bP I bQ iD , 60 . N r0'vA'� MOSt_IN AVE PAGE 03 •-E 6 O o�— x i7} S ` S •.0 4 \\\ .f, 0 N A a r \ tl IOD F� � • IN Yy"rpC'a m ^n'�nao•arx 111SSS���777111 p a P � }} 'rD N •lDY�?D P�nsp,o NlLp mIr 0...ab -Ilk FIFI- n T•m•o m� ern �v�i EGAAW-51 'r 6atix- nsa a.m.aaya€ o1 rt n v o _ yn7T3Pw =a RGn~�� o n an � Ewa D� �•"J'N�� rin _7y aw' k�'in ��-Siv.cS- gg� e9'� •°reRmm • F� ` M'l yeu`V Nn} r4 �turt m 7 Om"- 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 04 This legal description came from tax information for tax parcel 23-117-23-32-0002. Please matte any corrections on this sheet or attach copy of the correct legal description. That part of Lot C Morse Island park described as follows: Commencing at most southerly comer of Lot C, thence easterly to the southeast corner of Lot C; thence northerly along the easterly line of said lot to the southeasterly line of Lot 56, Morse Island park extended, thence southwesterly on the southwesterly line of lot 56 extended a distance of 100 feet, thence northerly to the most northerly corner of Lot C, thence westerly along the northerly lot line of Lot C and southwesterly along the westerly lot line of Lot C to the tn.ost southerly corner of Lot C. SO 39Vd `1-13MWOZ10 LSZLTZ6ZS6 SZ:vO E00Z/OZ/1O 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 0G 3 pages Letter from Orono to Big Island Owners; use of right of way 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 07 .......... .,• 1 4'.:' .. ' ,� • . r� . ?z•' F:n wit A" low rt rt. 'Y,'3 �!' rr. '!Iry ��; ';�• ' • .. �• E • ' I1'd n:•�'1�• .Airs }ice.. � , 'j;'"�' i Yi ': � - + ftIft 0-9 W.,t1 Joil: lk .-, .ficwm arw t �s�irel� i eii' H: r'a1ti �' 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE bum"" ; Ea IA '0AW . "that d. 001 to 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 09 MINNESOTA, STATUTES 2009 548.05 548.05 TREHL)E DAMAGES FOR TRESPAS& whoever sliall carry away, use or destroy any wood, timber, lumber, hay, grass, or other personal property of another person, without lawful authority, shall be liable to the owner thereof for treble the amount of damages assessed therefor in an action to recover such damages. If upon trial, the defendant proves having probable cause to believe that such property was the defendant's own, or was owned by the person for whom the defendant acted, judgment shall be given for the actual damages only, and for costs. mstory: (9396) X.I. s 4268; 1986 c 444 C-opyd&M 0 2009 by txc R-ii,,or of Starum, 5>dc of Minnesota. All Rights ReseAvod- nlilai�d03 04:25 9529217257 CRDMWELL PAGE 10 6 pages 10.31 code referenced in 2038 and letter to Elsie Family Intent for 2098 Dock Permit In 1986 for 230 by Tim Adams, Mayor and council 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 11 mina"M 4W �. ,o,X coup= mmm U061 COCK C Larry Cook was present and oubmitted the ettex of approwal. from the p atterfield' e. lULTMsS r; � -?�7 s � �PQ3B act-ing mayor 84ama stated that he Wa ctom€artable with the Planning Cbssaissian rasr atian subject to applicant boring part an notice the. is only allowed a maxim= of three horses an the rt�y. Councilmember Frahm asked p�ioant if he proppeed a riding ring. Me also a e�# that a► conditional use paaft is required for trai:►eq done. Xr. Coot stated ghat, * planned to have a riding ring VuLah woula be lemeated approximately 50, from the propoxty line. Slrr baz Jf1Walmg gusstlowed whether the orig.iftal pr sal of from the set�ei-aassagrcial use property wool be a appropriatae in order to maintairn more dZ f the strictly residential area.. lst. 1Gov n ed that tha��re is alto a� rrattura 1 serawessi:atg of mat tree wean his property and the aettsrfiaalQ y. I Kara moved by C ci ltaember srabek, seconded by Acting ayor �Adaas, to a t Resolution #2037 approving a variance to censtr Mt ba tat 501 frwa the pspertp line (per Planning Cosmiss re at ztion) subleto a 3 "roe limit. UdYeion. A 4, Mays 0. There vets no rnmrt frog► the l WQTb . Acting Mayor Adams stated the at a la��st Cable TV meeting the hudget was approved noti n the philosophy in which Cable Tv budge•te their monie0. a also noted that approximately 1/3 of the households Orono are bei" bog*ed up to Cable TV. City Aaministra►tor Harnhardson explained the regpest for a dock permit on a parcel of land (an interior lot) that has had a soak on the City right -of -way for the past many bears which Is currently undergoing a► change of ownership. Since the City does require a permit to allow theta to have a dock on City right -of -way, staff 7 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 12 ?moo tS(04 IizNUTBB 08 "r8B RSGIII•hR O'tt080 CQOBCI L IEBTIdG MUD AUGUST 2 , 1986 WOCR PMUMT COMIN= recommends that this be permitted subject to the owner being liable to any use related, that the dock be maintained appropriately, and effective until. 6uch time as there are other requests from other inland properties requesting a dock at the same location. . It was moved by Acting Mayor Adams # seconded by Councilmember Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2038 approving a dock permit on a platted unimproved right - of -Kay known as Bay Place on Big Island to serve Lots 19 and 20, P.I.D No. 23--117-23 23 0033, until such time as there are other requests from other inland properties requesting the installation of a dock at this location. Motion, Ayes 4, Bays 0. City Administrator Bernhardson explained t the Big island Board of Governors made a letter raa at in early August to be put on the agenda, in which aff responded \ by letter requesting that they conta staff ahead of time to no avail. present for this matter were4 D ld A. Miller, Stuart Gorney, Alan Niedorf, Joe H ua, and Laace Ba<rtl.ett. Don llet explained that e� Chairman of the board of Truth sr Lepnard Car on, has been 04t of town tberefo wxre unable o respond to staff's letter. As former airmam of he Board and friend, Mr. .Biller was Basked to oak o shelf of Chairman Carlton and the Board of Gover rs Mr. Killer rev the process that ways undertaken in order for th vets a retain possession of the Vets camp, Re a ained th areas of concern while trying to rebuild t camp notin that most of those problems existaad r saany years for to possession of the proper 0, less than a y r ergo, . by the Board of Mucth hs® issued 3 oita\ting the storeys of houses on the islanthat the fish houses have been stored onprevious years and this is the first yead of Governors has had any c9ntrol. 8e t the issue is now tied up in the court sthe city Arad the owner of fish houses aof Governors is caught in the middXee of the issue. CITY of ORONO )N1 gt office Box fill • crystal Day. Minnesota 55323 • Municipal offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka 5, 1983 7,E.5,C, ' 5= 6 -8 5 . re0rl Lot _� "`�Tr I'1-is Record Lot consists of tar. 6992 W. Clive #39 parcel(s) as follows: Arizona 85345 2.5- 117-23 3;?- 0-0,1, a3 --117- 23 32 00!7 Approximate lot area is acre. tluar island Landowner: ,F!.,1 - _rut:pose of this letter• is to privide you with information regarding vli,e. ,:eceitc r.oning changes on Bid; Is' a -ad and what this means for your nt .F;•a e cv, '-1'i+t: :r.r •.r ltS' :ieasonal. Recreational zoning regulations were established I,•; t;i.t:f i:cunci.l adoption of Ordinance No. 246 on December 30. 1982. :i bc+ pre\•taus oni.ng ordinance required two acres or more £car any rro�rty i:c! ba to-iAt ThL new ordinance increased this minimum lot size to five acres for creating new building sites, but it also "grandfathered" seasonal building rights for all'existing lots having a cabin, and for vacant Lots in common ownership that exceed one-half acre in area. Your property is one of seven vacant Record Lots that is'less than one- half acre in area. Because of this small &ize, the City Council has z peterminecl that your lot is not automatically buildable without sewer available, and would need to go through 'the formal application and•revi.ev to determine whether a variance might be granted or not. This is xact7.y the same status and procedure necessary under the previous ordi_ance. The new zoning regulations have thus not affected the b�;xl.ci�11>la.�,ty of your property in any way. 'lair, Ylu'rt oi:dinaace, does, however. specify that one -family seasonal rcc.a•c�at zorr�l ut e of „our land witlFou,_ a cabin is notir a permitted use. 11k1s pit AD!x you may camp overnight• b,xzld a barbeq,ue pit, an outhouse. or f. 1?Fi,117. $1 tCG'il ltvu:�e or st:oragt, L.ii.3,di.ng to f.aci.litate temporary uSe .,.[ :l:e Ukf;d Vie ordinance also provides that if your lot is sold :ano,!o�.- combined with other similar: mmall loss so that the resulting lot ��..c exccrcdg one-half acre, that it taay then be large enough to be used car: a seasonal cabin. 'All•'c0nstruct3.cn of any kind remains subject to building permits ,and other regular.iolts. Please review the Record Lot information shown above and notify the City if there is A problem or If there should be a change. (over LAilLOING 6, ZONING — 471-7357 • ADMINISTRATION A FI1JtiNCE — 473.7358 PUBLIC WORKS — G73. 359 :ISstsSirg6 ET 39yd 713MWMJ0 L9ZLTZ6Zg6 9Z=b0 E00Z/0Z/10 Island Landowners February 15, 1983 Page 2 A summary of the ordinance is ,:attached. if you are interested, a complete text of the ordinance Is also available fora nominal charge of $3.00 to defer printing and mailing c_o,sts. On behalf of the City Council and Planing 00mmissioa, I tY"' t to take this opportunity to thank each and everyone of you whose into: esl: ,.,,, participation this past year has helped so much in the completion of this planning process. Z have certainly enjoyed meeting all of yak- and ,learning so much about your island. Sincerely, 41�aKuP Olson City Planner VT JJyd 113MWOJ0 ZSZLTZGZSG SZ=V0 800Z/0Z/T0 § 10.31 E. Permit Exceptions. No permit shall be required for any person to walk on or over any platted public right-of-way or any platted public park when such tise is made witbout altering the natural state of the land. No permit shall be required for any person whose propel ry, a1l1,L-, a platted public right-of-way or a platted public park to control weeds or brush, seed, sod, rnow otherwise maintain said right-of-way or park in a neat and presentable manner. Persons whose lot established by Subdivision 6 consists of tax parcels divided by platted, tulopened public right-of-way may incorporate and use such right-of-way as part of their yard without a permit, provided no permanent structures arc erected or maintained within the right-of-way. F. Public Use Limited. Any permit issued under this. Subdivision -shall be deemed to open the platted public right-of-way only to the extent necessary as established in the permit, and for the limited use of the permittee and his invitees. G. Permit Limitations. A permit issued under this Subdivision shall not grant or vest any property rights to use of the public right-of-way or other public property, or in any improvements made thereto. Permits issued under this Subdivision shall be valid for one year, shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the Council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the City to the permittee at least thirty days prior to the anniversary date. H. Hold Harmless. As a condition of issuance of any permit, the applicanti shall in writing release, indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims or calls: s o" action arising out of the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant or his iavilr_P5. I. Pen -nit Hearing and Notice. The Planning Commission or the Council shalt hold a public hearing or hearings on each application for a permit. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not Iess than ten days or more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in the legal newspaper for the City. Such notice shall contain the description of the land and the proposed use. At least ten days before the hearing, the City Clerk shall mail an identical notice to the applicant and to each of the property owners within 350 feet of the outside boundaries of the land in question. Failure of the property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission or the Council shall review the application and the statements and drawings submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained. Subd. 6. Lot Area Requirements. Within any "RS" Seasonal Recreational District, no new lot or parcel shall be created less than 5.0 acres in dry buildable lot area exclusive of airy designated wetlands. Within any "RS" Seasonal Recreational District, the following provisions shall govern the buildability, use and/or subdivision of each existing record lot as defined and identified therein: ORONO CC 313 (4-1-84) 6Z �17d -11EMNOND L6ZLLZ6Z66 5Z:b0 £00Z/0Z/t0 § 10.31 approved subdivisions pursuant to Subparagraph-C of this Subdivision, or by combination of two or more complete record lots listed hereinafter. B. Tax Parcel Combination Required. No new building permit, variance or conditional use permit shall be issued for any purpose on any record lot composed of two or more tax parcels unless or until the owner of such record lot shall apply for a formal combination of all commonly -owned property into one parcel. If contiguous, all property shall be combined into one tax parcel. If separated by public right-of-way, a special lot combination form shall be executed and filed in the chain of title of each separate parcel. C. Subdivision of Record Lots. All record lots established in this Subdivision shall be continued in common ownership and shall not be subdivided, sold in parts, reduced in area, leased or otherwise separated without application for and Council approval of a "subdivision" in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations Chapter. Such subdivisions will normally be approved and additional new record lots created only if all resulting lots are each 5.0 acres of dry -buildable lot area or more. No existing record lot shall be divided or reduced in area to less than 5.0 acres of dry -buildable lot area, except as follows: 1. Lot line rearrangements between abutting properties that do not create an additional building site will normally be approved. 2. Separation of platted lots divided by public rights -of -way maybe approved provided the separated lot is combined with other abutting property to enlarge said property without necessarily creating an additional substandard building site. D. Subdividable Record Lot Inventory. The following record lots are hereby established, each of which is determined to have a dry -buildable lot area in excess of 10.0 acres per owner. Therefore, each of the following record lots may be subdivided into two or more lots in ednforrnance with the minimum lot area requirements of this Subdivision subject to subdivision application and approval pursuant to Subparagraph C of this Subdivision and Yo the Subdivision Regulations Chapter. Record lots are identified by Record Lot Number, and each includes all property identified thereafter by the listed tax parcel property identification numbers: Record TaxParcels in Combined Lg o, a Com[loll Qvvnel5hit2 DEY Acreage 1) Big Island 14-117-23 34 0001 23-117-23 210001 23-117-23 22 0001 44.5 ORONO CC 315 (4-1-84)- 9T 39vd-MMWOND L9ZLTZGZ9G 5Z:V0 600Z/0Z/T0 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 17 7 pages LMCD relevant ordinance Approximate diagrams notfeasible for two docks or two boats and one dock Please refer to 1ud's video and submissions as well 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 18 0 the Lake. The authorized dock use area includes the area on, under, and over the surface of Subd. 3. Setback Adjustments and Common Use of Adjacent Dock Use Areas_ Two or more adjoining site owners may by mutual agreement adjust the side setback requirements between such adjoining sites or may use their combined authorized dock use areas for a single common dock or mooring area subject to the following conditions: a) Adjustment of side setback requfrements is permitted subject to the fallowing limitations: 1) adjustment is only permitted: a) between or among owners of two or more non-commercial docks for the private non-commercial use of the site owners, or b) between an owner of a municipal dock and an owner of a multiple dock. 2) owners must observe side setbacks at the outer site lines of such adjoining sites. 3) setbacks may not be adjusted if the effect is to increase the authorized dock use area of a site used for a structure or for watercraft storage which is not in compliance with the current provision of section 2.05. 4) separation between docks on such adjacent sites must be no less than the following: FOR THE PORTION OF THE LENGTH OF THE DOCK WHICH EXTENDS FROM THE SHORE zero to 50 feet 50 to 100 feet 100 to 200 feet THE MINIMUM SEPARATION IS 20 feet 30 feet 40 feet b) Use of one or more sites for a single common dock or mooring area is permitted subject to the following limitations: 1) combination is only permitted between or among owners of two or more non-commerciaf docks for the private non-commerc(al use of the site owners. 2) only one dock structure may be constructed on the combined dock use areas. 3) no more restricted watercraft may be stored by any owner of a combined dock facility than would be permitted at that owner's site. LMCO Code of Ordinances -20- Revised 06-28-2017 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 19 Section 2.02. Shoreline Requirements, Subd. 1. General Rule. No docks or mooring areas shall be constructed, established or maintained that provide space for or are used for mooring or docking a greater number of restricted watercraft than one for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline in existence on May 3, 1978, unless authorized to do so by special density license pursuant to Section 2.05_ For sites with continuous shoreline greater than 100 feet, when measurements determining the number of restricted watercraft allowed result in the provision of a fractional restricted watercraft, any fraction up to and including one-half (112) shall be disregarded. and fractions over one-half (112) shall be counted as one additional restricted watercraft. Subd. 2. Special Rule for Sites in Existence on August 30, 1976_ Unless a greater number is authorized by the provisions of Subd. 1 above, up to two restricted watercraft may be moored or docked at any dock or mooring facility that is located on a site (as defined in Section 1.02) that was in existence on August 30, 197B_ Subd. 3. Additional Watercraft Allowance in Certain Cases. Unless a greater number is authorized by the provisions of Subd. 1 above, up to four restricted watercraft may be moored or docked at a dock or mooring area located on any site (as defined in Section 1,02) provided that all of the following conditions are met: a) There must be one, and no more than one, single family residential structure on the site. If there is no residential structure on a site, any one off -lake lot, parcel or other piece of property that 1) is legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the County Recorder; 2) adjoins the site or is separated from the site only by a public right-of-way; 3) is under common ownership and unified use with the site: and 4) is occupied by one single family residential structure, may be designated to be a part of one site by the owner, for purposes of this paragraph. b) The dockage rights at the site are owned exclusively by the owners of the lot parcel or other piece of property on which the residential structure referred to in paragraph a) is located. c) All of the restricted watercraft moored or docked at a dock or mooring at the site must be owned by and registered to persons who live in the one residential structure referred to in paragraph a)- LMCD Code of Ordinances -29- Revised 06-28-2017 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 20 c) Side setbacks and dock use areas between two or more adjoining sites may be adjusted by mutual consent of the site owners subject to the following conditions.- 1 adjustment is only permitted: a) between or among owners of two or more non-commercial docks for the private non-commercial use of the site owners; or b) between an owner of a municipal dock and an owner of a private non-commercial dock. 2) owners must observe side setbacks at the outer site lines of such adjoining sites. 3) consent to the adjustment is revocable by any party to the agreement at any time. In any case in which any structure in the dock use areas of any of the adjacent sites requires a license under this Code, each annual license application must include a written consent of the owners of all affected sites. 4) no more watercraft may be stored at the adjacent sites affected by the adjustment than the sum of the number of watercraft which would be allowed at each site if there were no such adjustment. d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Code, the Board may approve, as part of a new multiple dock license, adjustments to side setbacks and dock use areas between a commercial multiple dock site and one or more adjoining residential (noncommercial) sites that are under common ownership as follows: 1) adjustments to the side setbacks may be allowed if all of the following conditions are met: (a) side setbacks at the outer site lines of such adjoining sites are maintained; (b) the residential site may maintain dockage and watercraft density as allowed by the Code; however, no more watercraft may be stored at the commercial multiple dock or at the adjacent residential site as a result of the adjustment that is otherwise allowed by the Code; (c) the property ownership is verified and the setback adjustment is indicated on each license application submittal; and (d) if the ownership of the properties change so that they are no longer under common ownership, the dock use area must be reconfigured to meet the setbacks as otherwise indicated in section 2.01. 2) shoreline measurement, for the purpose of calculating watercraft density, may be transferred from an adjoining residential (noncommercial) site to a commercial multiple dock site if all of the following conditions are met: (a) dock structures, watercraft, or similar may extend up to, but not across, the extended property line between the different properties; LMCD Code of Ordinances -21- Revised 06-26-2017 01/20/2003 04:25 311=07A Interactive Maps Property i Go to Property links W ire"8 fQUf7d 9529217257 CROMWELL Property Interactive Map I HanneOn County L- TtVw w Coto... oe cmzs "WI-Pul C—ty m fthta Rftw"o oludglmor PAGE 21 01/20/2003 04:25 9529217257 CROMWELL PAGE 23 perty Interactive Map j Hennepin County uuNa.rJt;w-:J..•.....r....r...r _ Interactive Maps Type an address or a pro Property Measure + l Feet 4Goto .� Property links —Orono Measurement Result _ — 34.0 Feet No results found Disclaimer: Results not survey -grade ��' T5'V', I:y; r'"✓••:i �l?}7::j^)7tiS :.t'. { nl, �. ti'. "''4i�ti .'iiwf] '• �4i r''�"1 {�FF�: q•; K.. t . .'.+r" ,. ->f c 'S•a G:,jri:�J ra'�¢•,14 a'..C:� f..: :7 £' „''fjt'.11,r _ �t i,S .7,a5 t. 'G�t; �.. ...r6S�..j�•'' �,:.i.: :'t'z f; ��', b'e' n 'Sir:. ei+� jr�j;�;�:�F w.. {{ •� ;'j ,"-. i':��i •, .;. .•�t�•'rr•nY`-��'� r�i:; irJ','�::_:n.. �` '.l$;. •._}•y°. '� � � ':�: r�' 1.Tcnk-r�.?.: ai.7'S�,'.r.�.!•=II�•fvr,: �.d: i i;:� i;'i; "ryi,f r ':�k?i}rr}�" tr,+;..1 �j:N•`µ• ^•'t' _ ': iv AP•• I: 4.?J1�-: C..J.�i ..: ;�1 %,L';..j:..:�•h:.t:i df t'ti. :•i.. .n'�' Go to... p 0 6oft 0Z021 Hennepin County— All Rlghts Reserved Disclaimer 1 of 1 3/12i=l, 6:57 F 01/20/2003 04:25 3525217257 )perty Interactive Map I Hennepin County CROMWELL PAGE 24 https://gls.nenriepin.U5,lptuNcALy,lktap, ..w — r••-r Interactive Maps Property + t Go to Property links No results found Type an address or a •I 44' q��. ' ,i' 'y�'•51 �r, TE gd• ' . ''.�:?^: ➢:;r fie•{ �ti'- �' :: i..�::' >.�'� V F PO Go to... ao Oft W'r• y,„. I': ;,i'{y AM ;,+3 + ,! ,".%'.L4 pJi.• �Lfyt:�r j ,.'S hn.: Ln;3 . ;r. '.rY:�rti ic,�:!`- Si:[a• ':r'r:�+„"; :A. 4FI'' :��., '.:l' I . r�i �','.4:Y,^��' ^'' ��Y'.., �•;'M-t �d �• ��I �'i !k.'yl:".1y .:9;�A 'f�l., •�;SLFI.6 +.Ap 4.Yli:lf� •j�:q``' : .1��:';: �, ':!;: '.1;, i�:?4•'• y+•, Y.M- :jlil••'Pi:!:+'RA.{f l'C D,�, ir,,. t,�i' �. 1rhi �ribA, r�•• :ii• YA, k){ I r. f,F'.: ��:� •'•k`::• jN J i '!1�i1?IJA.;Y�!: •di �r.ii: ' ��t'^- "nl'•n:,• ram'^ � Y M ��'ai�A �'.j t �J �'.!.'.�"� i+.i�' g-3' �... Sri,• ' iY'"-x i", YG 55 ;1 i 'AA ) yy.�' th {.lr Y -��Ypr I+�ji tt 1'C'••I'`�'��• i J 1':. 'i'f r i f i.'Y,li s�l,t'••+,i i.h'i �.� •.F•. .. J,..•,. •. I' .lr. '{ "^1 ��, A:•'� ��i�:{�. M1''•'a/�a [��,'.: i', r�'. r{� t����:,'A-r. (r' 't:r4.' �t: �.;i-:•. yki .,t ..:' ,�4'; �t: ;.d,: •}-L'','7,. �:•' 1�}?' '7 �� Dili i 't"S. "'Y••�" i =�, a. ��'•'}{frp6J• '•"��'��" '�':f�;L�✓.';,f,R��rfJNc.,.?4••'{r..tiy !4.i4«1..u•'' , .i,. JP i.M1N�r.• ..., fi�:i�r' 1 '•'At'i ;4! ' ''a� �.. - •.; zi.' .'';ri'v+' �;•^�4i'`.„:,-'�.T'��f't'?''fil'�..r7r.'•;i!rli;•°(T - �;x;}t•• gj�q, :• pJy, ", •!(,r.�F'airy�j.E,t4,a,, : ;. o-.?p; T'•�; .1Sf`"•' �t�t-R::ii l"rr'y ,,:, i.d�:. .. IV V 4 :.' .. 02021 Hennepin County —Ali Rights Reserved 01sd*j*h•rloi; I of 1 3112/2021, 7:11 1 +.� -'-�j �'X"S Y 4` � _ ` N_ <� Win. ? _ _. - - � y '1 „_ � � 1. i _ _ 1 _�s� -' _� � _ c `l \��}: . � � ~�` �� `� . � �A\! . _ .� ��\ ¥ : . . �® � /^j/ \\/ ?= \� �\ §�.\��� 2.� vim:' \/ ... - 6 a�a �. . z : �, . � .k \� /. a >.<. �� � . _ » / . � =c \� f� yy r« ®° - - .3�\_�§32-. a ��. -- d - . : _� *� a - . ¥� ?�&� _ :/ v�/<� �� �� \ : \ \�- ^� ��t. z �f � «� / / z� \��� � §� . . � /�� ?� «� � &. . �� i� � } ��� � ,� � = �� y� 7 _ '� ?� a � ° < «Z� .2: ; x - : � �°%}\ ?»��" \�. 2\ . . . ? �� d^a� �� G� �\� -.-- ` � � aw r�* ^� _ - a - = S - �� �� :: _ - _ . . . �/ © .. � .-.2© ���\�y �,� «©~»: _ - _� w��/ « ° : . � 2 t? � �- ? ��-< . /_�/.. � �� \ d � . . \.� \: � >. --.- . � �� w > � � Z ». : . ? � �� � � < � -. _\r�a w� \2 . � m� . x,» w. ,« . ` ^ � � � 2d2»� �� � � � :_ �.. 2 a.�a-�,�� ' , w � -«� «. z. .«• -� .����� .� �_-_� - �» �-.. - i �� ;� ���, ' 3, l' ~ I' ! �' L• ii�ir���i���ii.:: _ f��,.�.: i..� __Erin—. —_ _ _�.: t' � . �� U _. py is l_''