HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketCITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
473-7357
TO: Cortlen Cloutier
2480 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision-Class I
APPLICATION NO. #2000
NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION
Date of Notice: November 3, 1995
COPIES: Cortlen G. Cloutier, Jr.
2480 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
·---------------------------·---
DATE OF MEETING: October 23, 1995 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST
--------·--------------------
COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION:
To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution enclosed herewith.
Mr. Cloutier, I apologize to you as I note that in the resolution I will need copies of the easements
in favor of your property over Lot 1 to be included with the resolution for filing. The legal
descriptions for the easements have been prepared by your surveyor and are described on the most
revised survey prepared by John Larson. Please contact my office if you need copies of the easement
description.
The Building Official, Lyle Oman, is proceeding with the review of the building permit application
submitted by Brandl Anderson Homes.
Please contact my office if you have any further questions concerning your subdivision application.
lsv
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
I\-1EETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 1995
(Public Comments -Continued)
Hurr said she recalled the application noting the problem with side yard and roof
overhang. Goetten said she would need to review the application. Callahan did note that
the applicant himself was not present ar the meeting where it was denied. He was
represented by his architect, Greg Frazee.
Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to put the application back on the Council agenda
for the November 13 meeting of the Council.
Hurr questioned ifby law the Council can reconsider a denial \.vithin the SL'< month time
period. Barrett said a Council member who had a prevailing vote could vote to
reconsider the application.
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
~--
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
(:l:#4) #1820 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARThlENT OF ENVIRONJ\fENTAL
MANAGEMENT -NORTH ARI\1 ACCESS -CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT/VARIAN CE -RESOLUTION #3620
Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3620. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#5) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIE~ 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD -CLASS I
SUBDIVISION -RESOLUTION #3621
The Applicant was present.
Mabusth reported that the application is for a Class I subdivision requesting the division
ofLot 1 from legally combined lots 3, 4, and outlot 1. The Planning Commission had
tabled all consideration of the application providing applicant adequate time to consider
the impact of code and options for future divisions . The property was purchased by
Cloutier in 1967, who legally combined the lots but said it was done in order to receive
one tax statement. In proceeding with the review of the division of Lot 1, all LR-IC
standards are satisfied. Combined lots 3 and 4 meet standards for lakeshore lot ofLR-lC
district. There was a question regarding the access driveway with the division of Lot 1.
The Planning Commission was concerned if the driveway was to remain serving both lots,
an easement would need to be created. It has been determined that there will be 1/2 acre
of dry buildable west of the shared driveway. The area of easement driveway has been
deducted. Staff supports current division oflot 1 from lots 3~ 4, and outlet 1. Staff has
asked to state in the resolution that the City and Cloutier agree to disagree but division
may occur but future division is subject to City regulations.
Goutier informed Callahan that he has seen the resolution and is satisfied.
4
l\.UNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
~IEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 1995
(#5 -#2000 Conlen Cloutier -Continued)
Hurr questioned if the sewer unit has been paid. Mabusth said one sewer connection
charge is to be paid but the lateral and trunk charges have been paid against the property.
Two water units have also been paid. This does not include lot 3. Hurr noted that the
payment of sewer and water charge does not guarantee that the lot will be buildable.
Jabbour inquired about the boathouse on the propeny. Mabusth reported that if Cloutier
desires to make any changes to the boathouse, he must apply for a variance for structural
~mprovements.
Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded. to adopt Resolution#3621. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. . .
Hurr clarified that the division of the property is not based on the connection with the
ownership between family members. .Mabusth concurred that th.is was not in the findings
oflhe resolution.
{*#6) #2051 MICHAEL HILBELINK, 2760 WATERTO\VN ROAD-FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -RESOLUTION #3622
Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3622. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#7) #2041 PHIL AND DARCY OTTO, 4116 HIGHWOOD ROAD -AFTER THE
FACT CONDIDONAL USE PER.'VIIT -RESOLUTION #3623
The Applicants were present.
Mabusth reported that the original variance application for new construction was
approved for a single access off of Highwood. The property contains steep elevations
requiring cuts to gain access to the garage. Retaining walls were shown on the original
plans. During construction, however, further excavation was performed, some during the
digging of the well and some due to the difficulty in maneuvering at west stall, which
resulted in two tiered retaining walls being constructed 4' from the lot line. A new curb
cut was also created., which has subsequently been approved by John Gerhardson. The
additional fill was placed in the side and rear yards. The drainage was a concern and a
catch basin was discussed. Gutters and downspouts with a tile funneling through to
another tile was added. There was a question on how to restore the bank without
encroaching the neighbor. The slope was restored with planting crown vetch and placing
a curlex blanket to stabilize the soils. The Engineer has signed off on this but will
reinspect during various stages of restoration. One such reinspecrion will occur before
seeding to look at the island area and the grades. The Engineer did approve the retaining
walls also.
5
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: October 19, 1995
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Michael P. Gaffron Zoning
Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator
Item Description: #2000 Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road -Class I Subdivision -
Resolution
Zoning District: LR-1 C
Application: The application involves the division of a lot previously combined for tax
purposes. The five-lot subdivision of Tillson's Villa Carman was filed in
December of 1962. The applicant purchased the properties from the original
owner and legally combined them sometime in 1967. Lot 1, the parcel to be
divided from Lots 3 and 4, meets all required lot standards of the LR-lC zoning
district. Remaining Lots 3 and 4 also meet the required standards for a lakeshore
lot within the LR-1 C zoning district.
Pertinent Ordinances
1. Section 11.03, Definition 66 (A-2) -Division of properties previously combined for tax
purposes can be achieved via a Class I subdivision review by the City.
2. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) -Review of LR-lC lot standards.
a. Required lot area = 21,780 s.f. or .5 acres
Lot 1 = 31,009 s.f. or .71 acre (total lot area = 34,215 s.f. has been adjusted to
reflect reduction of easement areas)
Combined Lots 3 and 4 = 54,182 s.f. or 1.24 acres
b. Required lot width = 100' to rear of 30' street setback
Lot 1 = 200+'
Combined Lots 3 and 4 (lakeshore lot) = at shoreline approximately 182+ ', at 75'
setback approximately 200'
c. Proposed setbacks for new residential construction on Lot 1. Proposed residence
meets all required setbacks, 30' front and rear, 10' side.
Request for Council Action continued
page 2 of 5
October 19, 1995
Zoning File #2000 Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road
3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 -Review of hardcover.
a. Lot 1
75-250' setback area = 4,375 s.f.
Existing = 0 s.f.
Proposed = 0 s.f.
250-500' setback area = 26,634 s.f. (29,840 s.f. area has been adjusted to account
for easement areas at 3,206 s.f.)
Allowed = 7,990.2 s.f. or 30%
Existing = 0% (2,119 s.f. of driveway within easement area has been
excluded from hardcover inventory)
Proposed = 3,398 s.f. * or 12.7%
*Driveway serving residence = 1,352 s.f.; residence = 2,046 s.f.
b. Combined Lots 3 and 4
0-75' setback area = 14,238 s.f.
Allowed = 0 s. f.
Existing = 1,122 s.f. or 7.8%
75-250' setback area = 31,685 s.f.
Existing= 3,547 s.f. or 11.1 % (25% allowed)
250-500' setback area = 8,259 s.f.
Existing = 2,019 s.f. or 24% (30% allowed)
4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (B) -Combination of separated parcels prohibited. "No
platted road or road easement, which results in any segment thereof being less than the
minimum acreage required for that zoning district, shall not be allowed to be combined
with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying under the
minimum acreage, open space, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic system
requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such
parcels under any provisions of this chapter. Each separate parcel must individually
conform to the provisions of this chapter in connection with construction of improvements
thereon."
Applicant's surveyor has confirmed that the area west of the driveway easement (15' wide)
that encroaches Lot 1 is confirmed at:
Required = 21,780 s.f. or .5 acres
Proposed = 22,216 s.f. or .51 acres
Review factual findings noted in survey/subdivision plan, Exhibit T.
Request for Council Action continued
page 3 of 5
October 19, 1995
Zoning File #2000 Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road
List of Exhibits
A -Application
B -Plat Map
C -Property Owners' List
D -Paurus Letter of 9/12/95, Neighbor to West
E-1-2 Sewer and Water As-Builts
F -Original Plat of Tillson's Villa Carman Filed 12/62
G -Council Minutes 10/9/61
H -Planning Commission Minutes 10/26/61
I -Council Minutes 11/13/61
J -Topographic Map and Location of Drive Serving Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4
K -Planning Commission Action Notice 9/29/95
L -Planning Commission Minutes 3/20/95
M -Planning Commission Action Notice 3/28/95
N -Cloutier to Barrett Letter 4/12/95
0 -Barrett to Cloutier Letter 4/20/95
P -Cloutier to Barrett Letter 6/27 /95
Q -Barrett to Cloutier Letter 6/28/95
R -Cloutier to Staff Letter 8/28/95
S -Staff Letter to Cloutier 9/11/95
T -Final Subdivision/Survey Plan
Description of Request
Applicant proposes division of Lot 1 from combined Lots 3, 4 and Outlot 1. As already noted
above, Lot 1 meets all required lot standards. The division can be completed through a simple
Class I subdivision process.
The subdivision was reviewed at both the March 20, 1995 and September 18, 1995 meetings.
During the March 20th review, the applicant advised of his future intention to divide Lot 3 from
the homestead parcel, Lot 4. At that point, both the City staff and the Planning Commission
advised applicant of all Code and policy issues that may impact this property with the future
division. The applicant asked that the application be tabled allowing applicant additional time to
review the Code, to consider his legal rights as the property owner and to research the background
on the legal combination of the properties in 1967. He noted his request was based on the
convenience of receiving one tax statement. Cloutier noted he was never advised of the impact
of the legal combination on the properties and has always assumed that he had three potential
building sites.
Exhibits N -S document the many exchanges between the City Attorney, staff and applicant from
April through August. Much of the discussion centered around the legal combination of 1967 and
Request for Council Action continued
page 4 of 5
October 19, 1995
Zoning File #2000 Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road
the problems created for applicant based on requirements of the current Code. Staff has met with
the applicant to go over the specifics of the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Code
requirements. Applicant advised that his main goal is to obtain a building permit for his son's
new residence. Staff reconfirmed that the division of Lot 1 is no problem as the lot meets all
requirements of the Zoning Code and the division will have no impact on the parcel that remains.
Road issues were only raised when applicant discussed a future division of Lot 3. Applicant noted
he will remain the owner of Lots 3 and 4 and his son will own Lot 1. If Lot 3 is to be divided
at some future date based on the standards of the Code at that time, the applicant's son may be
asked to join in that subdivision if needed.
Review Exhibit R, the applicant has asked the City to reconsider the original simple subdivision
application before the City.
As staff has noted in recent reviews, it becomes necessary to set forth the intent of the City where
disagreements or unresolved issues remain for future consideration and action. Staff has asked
the City Attorney to provide language that will memorialize or set the record straight as to both
the applicant and the City's positions regarding this division and any further division of mr.
Cloutier's property. Tom Barrett has drafted the following language which staff shall incorporate
in the resolution approving the division:
In the subdivision application, it became apparent that Mr. Cloutier and the
City disagree about the status of the land which is being subdivided herein.
The City takes the position that the land being subdivided by this
application had been combined into a single lot. Mr. Cloutier takes the
position that the land combination was not authorized by him, that the land
has never been legally combined, and that the lots created by the
subdivision previous to the combination are still in existence. The City has
made clear to Mr. Cloutier its view that this and any future subdivisions
need to be consistent with the Zoning Regulations in place at the time of the
subdivision application, and that it will not recognize the lots as they
existed previous to the combination. Mr. Cloutier disagrees, but has
determined to proceed with this subdivision, recognizing that the lots
created hereby are not, in the City's view, subject to further division
without a subsequent approved subdivision application.
At the September meeting, the applicant raised the issue of an additional payment for a sewer
"assessment" for Lot 1. Mr. Cloutier has been in contact with the City and has been advised that
the payment is not a sewer assessment but is defined as a sewer connection charge resulting from
costs to the City for improvements to the existing system and maintenance costs. The City will
expect payment of $1,284.50 based on the current 1995 Fee Schedule.
Request for Council Action continued
page 5 of 5
October 19, 1995
Zoning File #2000 Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road
In discussions with the City Attorney, he has advised that in dealing with lots previously platted
that unless there is an amendment of the park fee ordinance that the City cannot ask for a park fee
or land dedication for this division.
The final survey submitted with the division confirms that building area to the west side of the
access drive that encroaches Lot 1 will exceed the required .5 acres in area. All driveway
easements (Frederick Street access drive and Casco Point Road drive) have been excluded from
lot area and hardcover determination.
Review Exhibit D, the Planning Commission has advised the property owner that the City has no
control over trees removed out of the 0-75' setback area. The applicant is not asking for a
variance as new construction will conform to all pertinent sections of the Code.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Class I subdivision
application for Cortlen Cloutier that seeks to divide Lot 1 from Lots 3, 4 and Outlot 1 of Tillson' s
Villa Carman, finding all current standards of the LR-lC Zoning District have been met and all
pertinent standards of the subdivision regulations for a Class I subdivision. Approval is subject
to the following conditions:
1. Upon application for a building permit for new residence on Lot 1, applicant shall
make payment to the City for a sewer connection charge of $1,284.50 based on
current 1995 Fee Schedule plus a Service Availability Charge of $850. 00 ( charge
of Metro Waste Control Commission). The property has already been assessed
two water units and trunk and lateral sewer assessments have been paid.
2. Applicant to create easements over Lot 1 in favor of combined Lots 3 and 4.
Applicant's surveyor has created legal descriptions for the access easements to
facilitate the creation of deeds over the Frederick Street driveway that intersects
Lot 1 and the main drive that intersects Lot 1.
3. Disclaimer language drafted by City Attorney is to be incorporated in resolution
approving subdivision.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To either amend or adopt the enclosed approval resolution.
lsv
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CLASS I DIVISION
OF LEGALLY COMBINED LOTS LOCATED AT
2480 AND 2490 CASCO POINT ROAD
FILE NO. 2000
WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has
adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the
City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a division by
Cortlen G. Cloutier (hereinafter "the Subdivider") that would divide Lot 1 from Lots 3, 4 and Outlot
1. The properties are legally described as follows:
Lots 1, 3, 4 and Outlot 1, Block 1, Tillson's Villa Carman, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has completed all requirements of the City for a Class
I Division of legally combined lots.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Orono hereby approves the Class I Division of the property for Cortlen G. Cloutier as shown on the
Certificate of Survey by John C. Larson, a registered land surveyor, Minnesota License # 19828, of
Pioneer Engineering, dated February 15, 1995, most revised date October 12, 1995, and attached to
this resolution, subject to the following conditions:
1. Subdivider shall create access easements over driveways that encroach Lot 1 and
legally described on the above referenced survey. Driveway/access easements shall
be granted in favor of Lots 3 and 4 over Lot 1. Subdivider to provide fully executed
easements to be filed with the resolution approving this Division.
Page 1 of 4
2. Upon application for a building permit for new residential construction on Lot 1, applicant
shall make payment to the City for a sewer connection charge of $1,284.50 based on the
current 1995 Fee Schedule. In addition, the applicant shall make payment of a Service
Availability Charge of $850.00.
3. The aforesaid Division of Lot 1 from Lots 3 and 4 and Outlot 1 as shown on the
attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the
Hennepin County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before April
23, 1996 together with a certified original copy ofthis resolution.
4. The Subdivider is hereby advised that in order to fulfil the intent of this Division that
additional documentation must be created by Subdivider to provide for the legal
transfer of fee title of Lot 1.
5. In the subdivision application, it became apparent that Mr. Cloutier and the City
disagree about the status of the land which is being subdivided herein. The City
takes the position that the land being subdivided by this application had been
combined into a single lot. Mr. Cloutier takes the position that the land
combination was not authorized by him, that the land has never been legally
combined, and that the lots created by the subdivision previous to the combination
are still in existence. The City has made clear to Mr. Cloutier its view that this
and any future subdivisions need to be consistent with the Zoning Regulations in
place at the time of the subdivision application, and that it will not recognize the
lots as they existed previous to the combination. Mr. Cloutier disagrees, but has
determined to proceed with this subdivision, recognizing that the lots created
hereby are not, in the City's view, subject to further division without a subsequent
approved subdivision application.
The undersigned Subdivider 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.
The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the Division has not been filed
by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City
of Orono for subdivision review.
Page 2 of 4
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 23rd day of October, 1995.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor
Cortlen G. Cloutier, Subdivider
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of July, 1994 by
Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a
Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this __ day of ________ , 199_ 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 he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 3 of 4
. -:_ !\
-----PROPERTY LOCATION
Site address A · · 0 CJ ---'----L..-------'----'-----t-----+-----:----S-..C-~.:....__,,,,___-+-4---
Property Identification Number (PID). 2;() ·-Ii -2-?J :z-
Please check one -Property Vab~s-tr-ac_t_o_r-:_~_-_-_-to_rr_e_ns_?~---r---->----
Attach legal description to application.
APPLICANT
Name ~ o rL£N G {!__ LO l/77 EFL
Address . ;&Jat) CA.sco f?o1/IIT Jo/ff-D
City l.UA VZ/4TZJ--1 1/ .tV/VE':SOTI I ,
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name C-t> TL/€ I\} G-C..L O ti Tl £/2..., Ja_,
Address ;J..£/&O CA '5C!.O ?()JA/r Jfr>fiD
City WIIYZ-1t77h,#;#/Vb~5 om Zip ..f";~ij' Phone (work)~-------
(attach li~t ~f0 ~o,r~~n o ,,e{!, LJ)l..ff7E/2_ rrz.~ ~ ~~cf/vu£.) dtTU-t-,, ~O~
EXISTING LAl~ USE
!) O-nf2_,,
Number of Tax Parcels
Development Size
I
J..3
0
I
Acres Dry Land
Acres Wet Land
Acres Total, all parcels
Residential; no. of units ----Present use ( check)
Present Zoning District
Other (specify)
&5, tkwf-.ui f ----
PROPOSAL /
Division for Tax Purposes
--✓---=-Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites)
Subdiv is ion for Ne w Building Sites
Number of Building Sites I Existing Units
I )( ~ New Units
Proposed Gross Density
Minimum Lot Size
Proposed Use ( check)
2,.,-* $ Total Units
/ -7 Units per · , Acres
-J ~~MJ--.----,....,,.0-Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land ( Q L-. rs 57'JI.,! .... ~
'v · Residential ----
Other (specify) --------
~(LAS Sfl4t-NP L
B (LAN DL--~d-€,;t.,S' 0 AJ
~~L/--1301
MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUJRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
I. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below.
2. Completed application form.
3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey.
4 . Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance
A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271).
5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application.
Zoning Official's Signature ___________________ Date _____________ _
MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUJRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION
I. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable).
2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat.
3. Title opinion.
4 . Easements, covenants, etc.
5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit.
Zoning Official's Signature __________________ Date _____________ _
I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply)
A. Application Base Fees:
__ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $200.00
Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $300.00
Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $300 .00
___ Preliminary Subdivision Application $325.00 + $25.00/lot (Class ill & all non-residential)
___ Final Plat Application (Class III) $175.00
___ Legal Review and Filing :
___ Subdivision only $75.00
___ Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00
___ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62)
___ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred)
___ Renewal of Class I and II .Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application)
Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application)
___ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $100.00 (No change from original application)
B. Special Improvement Fees:
__ Proposed Private Roads $600 .00 + $.50/lineal ft.; __ lin. ft. x .50 = $ __ _
__ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; __ lin. ft. x .50 = $ __ _
___ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900 .00
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250 .00 + $25/stub
___ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub
___ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00
___ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications)
$50.00/new lot proposed for on-site x ___ new lots
C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees
Variance $200 . 00
Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $75.00
PRO Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit
The applicant hereby agrees to p_:;ro~v:.oi,,.... __ ~
Attorney, Planning Commi · n and
established by ordinance
Applicant's Signa~~~:=::~~~:;;:=~;;:_,4;;~~~~~==:::::===--~
Applicant must have all submittals in e City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission mee · g. 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 authorized
agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
11
,,
5
( 25)
T
'
~)\ LAHcoo
-4 '\
[ 23)
9,---
( 24)
A
, '
,,,.,." ',, .. h.~ , ;-;.
~-~ DO C NO 29 314 04 I
' ,,
I \
I \
I '
'
', --------, /'
--"-I I
' I ,
.' " ,'
20 .. 111-2 3 -l 2.
··--,~rvs
B4r
Ox--oV\b laV\J
(h f~eres5
( 4/ 41",!>
CAD,.
I
···:· f;;,
:··♦• •... I.P :
8
I
I
1-·
fJJ',J>AY4k
-
u
RUN DATE 02/16/95
BATCH 502
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AD OR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYl;;R
NAMUADDR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
· TAXPAYER
NAME/AD DR
PROP ADDR
Ol'!NER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
PROP ADDR
Ol~NER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
38 20-117-23 12 0009
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ·
DAVID A BUTLER
D~V:i:D A BUTLER
4475 HIGHWAY 12
CHASKA MN 55318
38 20-117-23 12 0013
02443 CARMAN ST
DIANE M FISCHER
DIANE FISCHER
2443 CARMEN ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 12 0016
02469 CARMAN ST
BANK OF AMERICA TRUSTEE
THOMAS A LIND
2470 CARMAN ST
WAYZATA MN. 55391
38 20-117-23 12 0019
03580 FREDERICK ST
LY NEWTON ET AL TRUSTEES
BRUCE O NEWTON
3580 FREDERICK ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 12 0022
02428 CASCO POINT RD
SP J SKORO
STEPHEN°J & JEAN K SKORO
2428 CASCO PT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 12 0050
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
WARDE EDWARDS ET AL
RICHARD A EDWARDS
· 2480 CARMAN ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST.
38 20-117-23 12 0010
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
DAVID A BUTLER
DAVID A BUTLER
4475 HIGHWAY 12
CHASKA MN 55318
38 20-117-23 12 0014
02447 CARMAN ST
TA ANDERSON & SL ANDERSON
TERRY A & SHARI L ANDERSON
2447 CARMAN ST
ORONO MN 55391
38. 20-117-23 12 0017
,03555 FREDER.ICK ST
W F & PM ANDERSEN
WILBUR F ANDERSEN
3555 FREDERICK ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 12 0020
02474 CASCO POINT RO
LYLE A BUERKLE ETAL
LYLE A BUERKLE
2474 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
·38 20-117-23 120023
02408 CASCO POINT RD
TD MICHAUD & CL MICHAUD
THOMAS D MICHAUD
CARRIE L MICHAUD
2408 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 12 '0059
02450 CARMAN ST
RC KUNCIO & SE RALEIGH
RC KUNCIO & SE RALEIGH
2450 CARMAN ST
WAYZATA MN 553?1
REPORT NO. PI435401
PAGE 8
38 20-117-23 12 0012
02431 CARMAN ST
JALMAR E AUNE & WIFE
JALMAR E & GLADYS V AUNE
2431 CARMAN ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 12 0015
02455 CARMAN.ST
J E SNELL & CE SNELL
JOHN E & CLARA E SNELL
601 WOOSTER ST
LODI OH 44254
38 20-117-23 12 0018
03565 FREDERICK.ST
JOHNS MCLEOD
JOHNS MCLEOD
3565 FREDERICK ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 12 0021
02454 CASCO POINT RD
JC ROBERTS & J E ROBERTS
JOHN C & JANET E ROBERTS
2454 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 12 0025
03585 FREDERICK ST
JD PUGH & J A JOHNSON
JD PUGH & J A JOHNSON
3585 FREDERICK ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 12 0060
02470 CARMAN ST
TA & DK LINO
THOMAS A LIND
2470 CARMAN ST
WAYZATA MN. 55391
II
.RUN DATE 02/16/95
BATCH 502
PROP ADDR
01-'lNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
PROP. ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AD DR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AD DR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
38 20-117-23 21 0010
02500 CASCO POINT RD
NORMAN W PAURUS ETAL
NORMAN W & IRJA FPAURUS
2500 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZAT~ MN 55391
38 20-117-23 21 0014
02530 CASCO POINT RD
T CHALUPSKY & DY CHALUPSKY
T CHALUPSKY & DY CHALUPSKY
2530 CASCO POINT RD
ORONO MN 55394
38 20-117~23 21 0017
02520 CASCO .POINT RD
THOMAS H FRAHM ETAL
THOMAS H FRAHM
2520 CASCO POINT ROAD
WAYZATA MN 55391.
38 20-117-23 21 0028
03605 SHORELINE DR
NW BELL TELEPHONE CO
US WEST INC
TAX DEPT ATTN KLAUS COX
6300 S SYRACUSE WAY STE 700
ENGELWOOO CO 80111
TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH ,502 00030
NAME/ADDR
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LISt
38 20-117-23 21 0012
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
MARIE A SVANG
MARIE A SVANG
4140 11TH AVE S
MPLS MN 55407
38 20-117-23 21 0015
,02528 CASCO POINT RO
MARIE A SVANG
MARIE A SVANG
4140 11TH AVES
MPLS MN 55407
38 20-117-23 21 0022
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
VIL OF ORONO
CITY OF ORONO
PO BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359
38 20-117-23 21 0029
03607 SHORELIN~ DR
F J WAGNER & ML WAGNER TRST
FRANK J WAGNER
1322 ROMONA LA
BOULDER CITY NV 89005
20-11,~2j-21-0036/0037
pending
Corilen G Cloutier Jr
Cortlen G Cloutier Jr
2480 Casco Point Rd
Wayzata MN 55391
REPORT NO. PI435401
PAGE' 9
38 20-117-23'21 0013
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
MILDRED E HERMANSON
MILDRED E HERMANSON
6120 LOREN DRIVE
MPLS MN· 55417
38 20-117-23 21 0016
02510 ·cAsco POINT RD
HUGH. R MORRIS ETAL
HUGH R MORRIS
2510 CASCO PT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 21 0025
03745 SHORELINE DR
NW ENG LUTH SYNOD
GOOD SHEPHERD. LUTH CHURCH
3745 SHORELINE DRIVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 21 0033
03701 SHORELINE OR.
CASCO RUN LTD PTNRSHP
CASCO RUN LTD PTNRSHP
C/0 LISABETH C CREAR
BOX 126
MINNETONKA BEACH MN 9S361
-
fl
RUN DATE 02/16/95
BATCH 502
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
REPORT NO. PI435401
PAGE 10
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REl>RESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT O.F PROPERTY TAXl\l:.ION, TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLED,GE AND BELIEF. .·.. . <;'>... .
DATE 2·11·?SBY U'\M.,. ,4'~
D
2500 CASCO POINT ROAD• WAYZATA , MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 471-8639
DATE: September 12, 1995
TO: City of Orono Planning Commission/Council
FROM: Mr. and Mrs. Norman W. Paurus
SUBJECT: Subdivision Application #2000
Re: Mr. Courtland G. Cloutier
Unfortunately my wife and I will be traveling at
the time of the September 18, 1995 meeting, so in lieu
of attending we submit the following.
We, as the closest and most affected neighbors to
Mr. Cloutier's requested subdivision, have no
objection to the application, since we have been
informed that the current request is identical to the
March 20, 1995 submittal. However, if the Planning
Commission and/or Council, along with Mr. Cloutier,
change the application or the response to it, we . wish
to reserve the right to be informed of the changes and
be allowed to comment on them before they are approved.
We additionally request that the house as it was
shown on the original application be moved 5 to 6 feet
to the northeast to save several well developed trees
that would be destroyed otherwise, and that all
aspects of the subdivision, house construction, drive
ways, etc. comply with the current city ordinances.
Thank you for your consideration.
Norm and Rusty Paurus
pp
(1 SIGN
1-=-~·-, __ -
I :f ···J· ..
·. . · .. ~
·.. 40.6
. -..
60.7 ,· •• ••••• ...... · .. ....... ·. ~ ........
\ . •
(2000)
( 2899)
·-····. , .... ··--·J ' . . .. ,. . . . . . ' . .... . . ... . ·1 • \ •• • ' t : •••••• : : :
'v
I----
pp
@
7
5
.··.1•• : : .. ! ::···:··.:···.!-.: . -:--. .... . ... . .. . . . .. . ... . ··-· ............. .. • •• • •••I • =···::.; :-: :': . . . . . . .
j
1o"x6
11
T~
•• 12"vcP ~-----M .... B _ _.._
I -,1-·-
,.
\ I
! !
'...J...
! -: ~ . ;-:-_;-..
11.8
0
2''ASH
( 1950) (2050}
\"' ,.r,.i. o~r::,
,.AP< ~G \ '\; 10 i. , \,.o,
&r>
>
35.0
( 2100)
qAt ,n
o'<, \.,c~
1'
>
( 3055 )
35.8
f,
{2200)
.lfr,.:,~G
0 '\..! 1:i
<
( 2150 )
N.WB.
co.
1-s~ sR
2
' I••••• • • •• •• • I 1• ._ . .. : • . .;: ·=·· ... ; :: ... : ... · .. ··-..·:•.:,.·
( 3040)
6
SANITARY SEWER
10" C!P
•_J.il f"I M 8 ____ x_
I
.••. ,. : .. : a < : •• , ~ :.;,, .... : •.J: :.l : .... ... .. .. . .. . . . .'! ... : : : .~ • •• • : .. : ... t-wt• • 17
( 3055}
7
18
SANITARY · ...... ... .. , .....
• 1 •···· .... 16 ::..•:. . .
••\.
'''I -z.E> \,\ ••• :'#
O'r. ~G •••~-
i,\ . :· .....
:-... . ····• ... . . . ... . . . .
• ••• ... •
.....
••.•· • • ..... -... . -. . ·-· ...... .. -~ ••\" ..... .. . ......
+\S .... '2 • \ ,....._.r.. •••
\4 \..V'"": -J-S-F
EJ
12.7
15
7E:.9
13
97.6
12 ·\ .. ···
63.0
6 .. G.V. fr HYO
2.i' LEAD
~
SEWER~
-<o)'-/1/
I
I
~ u
/
/
/
17
-c::
LLJ
0 w
fE II
7~.1 .... •
9
1-S-F
r,i;,
,.
71.7
18 19
9
-----G
8 7
---
50.1·.:: 4'l5 ·-·:.-
.. ..... E], ...
1-S-F
20
~O~G
15 A l,..O
20
I ..
• •• . . ,:\ :-.., ' .. \: :. . . . :.1, ••• •
:?)A~ 7,'f '\.0
\>r'<P~G ,z.O
\A \.J
8 7
1-S-F
. 48J•:·
41.9.•
.':.,56.8
•.
T.
6
/ ~;'
23..0•< 39.2
22
\11-0,8\,0~G
'52
0-1:~:o\'\" ,-;
6
CASCO POINT
c, 0 0
·····• ... ,.2fi.!I
-0
0 23 co 24
(D -
5
2-S-F EJ
49.S .. :··
..-.. Ti:-E ... -~:'.-Ta.1 6 ·. -'. ·a H'i.D G.V ..
9'LEAO.-·
17.6
..
;
5
I
D.
7105 25
3
6" CIP
T-
r
I-
(
,
~ .,' __ ,_ #
"
-
--------------------~--··-
,....
"' CJ)
•,
Minutes of meeting held on Oct.9,I96I,were read and approved.
Mrs.Emil Peterson,Secy.of the Casco Point Community League,was present inviting
Council members to attend a meeting of their League at the Elizabeth Gardner
School on November I7th,I96I,at 8:00 P.M.
Geo .Oscha o:t· Fox Inc. 1\iavarre, we.s present requesting permission to move a house I
20x22 ft.to a low lot on the grounds of the former Ferodowell nursery the site"
to be filled in for a split level home.The house and site will be vie~ed by t
Bagley and Hanson for furtner report at our next meeting. I
.Ted Wolf requested approval of his plans for building permits on Lots 5,6,7,8, 1-
<"and 9,Block 6,Berquist-Wickland Park Addn.Bagley reported favorably recommendg, _·
-issuance of two permits which was approved.Mr.Wolf also requested approval of ,
/'perm1tfl'tor Lots 5,6,7,8,9 and IO,in Block 3,in same Addn.(Referred to :itan.Com .
. Hearing on petition of Geo.Heathcock and Maud Johnson,for vacation of Portland
_ :~lace,adjacent to Lots I.and 2,Block I,Saga Hill Revised Adan.was held with no
:;,orieobject1ng and on motion of Bagley,seconded by Scbrnitt,petition was approved
G~o:Tilleon and nis attorney Wm.Fox,presented plans for division of the FertJ
will property in Casco Point.Referred to the Plang.Com.for their recomendatio
~-Wesley 1/egen and Henry Meyer were present in reference to the possible purchase~
ot Lot I3,Shadywood Addn.They werecreferred. to our attorney now defending suit l
"with reference thereto. ~
John Hurley and a committee,representing the Shadywood Improvement Assn.were
present with petitions for extension of the biound we.ter system to ttie Shady
wood Point area.They were advised that a puolic hearing would be necessary
and subject should first be approved by the Village Council of' tiound.
Fred Olson was present requesting the hard-topping of the Baldur Park Road.
Due to lateness of season bla.cktopping would be deferred but gravel would be
applied to road end drainage problems checked to extent possible.
Donald Wnite presented plans for a 20 lot subdivision of his property at the
intersection of Co.Hi-ways I9 & 84. ( Submitted to Planng.Com.for review.)
The hearing set for rezoning of property described in notice of published
nearing referred to in minutes of of Oct.9th from residential to commercial
classification involving petition of Melvin Olson was approved permitting
use of this aree_ by the Henn.Co.Highway Dept.
Cnanges in codes and ordinances submitted by Hanson were reviewed and ordered
submitted to attorney Newhall for review prior to publication.
Verified Accts.and bills No.I6?5 'fJhrouE;,h :fo.I709 were reviewed and approved.
Lleeting adjourned.
O.E.JonnAon,Clerk.
PN111entu D.J.Ru1eell,Ob.,W,W.11o1fe1W.;.A.cunr,tf,K,Bt2.4cnltVllt
T.Hille,S.M.Balper1n,H.8.R1ce & !,~.S.lt,seo. .
8.M.ldpnln Nported_on tbe MetropoU.te Stvqe t11tte1111•
water pl"Oblae ot tu Metropolitan uoa,meou••t-teu_,,,
Dould Vblte eublldtted plea tore wentr•lot eubdlf'•'• Jt tbo .jtanction ot eo.1w,1.19 and 64, '!'be v ewin« oOJilllld.t
Ru1aell and Mill1,reooaitnded di1app•ov•l ot tu p1Nt ._
bee£• ot a dead•en4 poad loQger than ponde1ble,1111Ultl
d1Nct eoc11N• onto co.Rw7,19llot1 that an W3dQ a1,e
Ud Mtbing .1et Hlde tmo publ c u.•• An <ffM.q s
•~•ted bf tbe oomd.tt.e 1n which tbe oul•do•••• tUal-
ut.4 bf u OftO•fUllCHB l'OadwCIJ' onto c:o.Bv1,19 and .. ., •• te ••
bail~ eite• Pl'OPOHd,inatead of twent7. DUlle aoved,Bold~
··r· == ... :-.:::.::..:·::·.= ::::·::===·~ . prop••t1 into tiv• lote. 'l'be v1ew1n,g comitt•e,Cun7,Rloe and · ·
. BM•. on. ,repol'ted .f&YOJ."i.bly on the ple,'fbo l"f!POl't WH accept·ed. ·.· .. ·· and •••~ndatlona tor appl"OYal paaeed imaniaoual1, · .
·. . fed Volt Nqueated approH1 ot thNo btdldlng llitH on Loil(,_(.u)'
$-6-7..&-9•10,Jlk.J,Bell"gqul111ta and Wioklanda Pnk Addn. 'fb8 {.·· · .. · J.;' Yievina cO!lllld.ttee,CUff7 and !U.ce., NpOll"Md that tbaN wo11ld · ~,,., ..
bo no 4•duc• pll"Obleiu and that tha siae ot tu pl"opoaed • ~ • "
lot• would oon•epond to sunoundinge. It waa pointed out
tbat th• Plamin.l COil!lllldHiOD had pHvioue1:, appl'OVOd tu,...
q1.1Ht ct R.L.l)mold.n (JIUUI 29,1961 mimatea)t01' two building .. /
.. pe?'lld.to on tbeae •-l.>ta. 'l'be Comisaion tind• no objection • ··
• ¾•to tm-H •1tea,bat ,nabmd.te tho r111ques1t to tb4' Village counon · ♦, .. ,.
on • question of po1101. • ,.,.
ClaNno.Gatbn nqueatedtbe Hcoaenatlon.e ot tu Coaia-
1111on N a Pffll!dt to build a two•o,.~ .,1111'"'30 c.e TM 8,Blk.3, .
CHOO Be!gbts. Apgwcnrd va111 J>eCOll!Unded •ciJJeet .:o 1n.-,u,tf.&lli-
tion bf BaailM.ng .In11poctor.,Geo.-Baruon.. ·
_; ',, '' ' ,.,,;; :~,.~· ·:./: ,:\,> .. ,,;:1;'·~,i;z/~::~:::~~•:,;rf'· •·~~~J'c,~:;v"'.<>
ftaNO.b•hl·•• . .fvtbff: bll.lWH~tb •t J,:#· ·~t·' .. ' ..
------~--~
Village of OrQno
Crystal Bay~Minnesota.
Minutes of Council meeting held in the Village Hall on Nov.I3,I96I,7:30
Present: H. R. Ross ,Mayor;1.I!/'. J. Schrni tt, R. C. Bagley, K. Turnham. E. 0. Woodx Trustee1t
G.A.Hanson,Assr;A.G.Stinson,Foreman;G.H.RoasxChr.Police;O.E.Johnson,S.B.Belt
Minutes of meeting held on Oct.23,I96I,were read and approved.
Robt.i.Swanson requested approval of divisioh of tne three acre property of
Lennox Stubbs on County Rd.I46.Referred to Planng.Com.under Case No.37 .
,._~~
{!
.::irs.r:T.':1 ... 'Tolf and Mrs.J.E.Swedberg were present concerning street signs posted
on Baker Place.Referred to Engr.Iifills for investigation.
{.. • 0 ~..,_ •
MriLa Pa.ge of t.ne Eberhardt Co was prE?s~oncerning plans for addition to
tne Anna E. Smi tn property in ffi:le.dyl're'04.Bagley and Hanson had previousl~ viewe
the property recomending favorably and project was approved by the Council.
Ted Wolf was present concerning approval of three building permits previously
handled under Planng.Com.Case # 34.Held in abeyance pending review by Bagley·.
Mrs.Emil Peterson,Secy.of' tne Casco Point Com.League,was present reporting the
erection of commercial signs 1n residential areas contrary to present restrict
one.Referred to Foreman Stinson for investigation and report at next meeting.
David E.Lippert requested approval of plans for a two car garage on his prop
erty in Shadywood,tne problem being distance from property line.the plans and
property were previously viewed by Bagley and Hanson and on motion of Turnham,
seconded by Scnm1tt,a ;ninimum of 5 ft.from property line was approved. ··
John Hurley and a committee from tne Shadywood Improvement were again present
concerning t'~x;,ension of the Hound water system as ref erred to in minutes of -·
Oct.23rd.~ will eontact J'flound for further advise and report results later.
Everett Dexter,Hayor of Long Lake, was present reporting on present status of ,·
progress of plans involving sewage system.We will be contacted further if th~
proposeci plans involve areas controlled by our Village.
Foreman Stinson reported on road improvements during current year to date.
Purchase of a loading bucket costing$ 15.00 was approved.Stinson and Engr.
~ills will report later on progress of street signs erected.
Geo.Tillson was present i~volving division.of the Ferodowill property
1nder Planng.Com:case # 35 was approved.
!::essrs.Pederson and :McKay of the County Highway Dept.presented resolution
involving State Project# 27-615-02-,US 63Ii4(3)( Arcola Bridge) involving
6onstruction of Highway# I5 whicn was approved.
Normal E.Nelson,Orono Civil Defense Director,was present to discuss organiza
tion or personnel and activation or plans.Proposed passage of an ordinance
was tabled for considAration at next meeting.
Building,plumbing, sewage and-e~,ell drilling ordinances were discussed and minor
cnanges suggested and approved.
Council approved the retirement of tne remaining liquor store warrants of $6000-
Council approved the purchase of an Adler typewriter at$ I79.50.
\
.. . . •. ,·
\
,, 1../, ) I ~l'O ..
\
' \
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
473-7357
ZONING FILE #2000
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE: 9/29/95
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Cortlen G. Cloutier
2480 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
COPIES TO: Cortlen G. Cloutier
1800 Midwest Plaza Bldg.
801 Nicollet Mall
Mpls., MN 55402
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Class I Subdivision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 9/18/95 VOTE: 5 FOR 1 AGAINST
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed division of Lot 1 from Lots 3,
4 and Outlot 1 subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant to provide an amended survey locating sewer and water connections to
residence on combined Lots 3 and 4. Amended survey must also provide
confirmation that through driveway that intersects Lot 1 will still maintain 1/2
acre contiguous building envelope to west side where development will take
place. Per the comments of the meeting, given the total lot area at 34,000+ s.f.,
the driveway could be easily realigned to maintain the 1/2 acre contiguous
standard. Applicant's surveyor to confirm contiguous buildable area west of the
final located drive.
2. If Frederick Street access is to remain, an easement shall be created over the
portion of the roadway that encroaches Lot 1 granted in favor of applicant.
3. Applicant has agreed to work with the City to achieve the clean-up of the debris
and storage of boats and trailer on Lot 1.
4. City to review assessment files to determine if applicant had paid an assessment
for the Frederick Street sewer connection prior to sewer being installed on Casco
Point Road as suggested by applicant at the meeting. It would be helpful for
applicant to provide some kind of written verification of such payment.
Assessment records were reviewed and it was determined that the only assessment
ever charged against this property was the one sewer charge and the two water
units. The City staff will recheck the assessment rolls.
5. Disclaimer language developed by the City Attorney as set forth in the staff
memo of September 12, 1995 shall be included in the resolution approving the
division that shall be signed by both applicant and the City's Mayor and Clerk.
Zoning File #2000
September 29, 1995
Page 2
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of the additional information
requested above. The following is a schedule of the deadlines for the upcoming Council
meeting:
MEETING
October 23
November 13
November 27
DEADLINE
October 16
November 6
November 20
Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any further questions concerning the review of your
application.
ch
ROLL
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
lVIINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 1995
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members
present : Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith , Dale Lindquist ,
Candace Rowlette, Charles Nolan, Jr., and Janice Berg. Building and Zoning
Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Sherry Frost represented Staff.
Councilmembers Jabbour and Goetten were present. Chair Schroeder called the meeting
to order at 7 :00 p .m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
(#1) 7:00 P.M. #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER, 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD -
PREL™INARY SUBDMSION, CLASS I-PUBLIC HEARING 7:00-7:53 P.1\1.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted .
The Applicant, Mr. Cloutier, was present.
Mabusth reported that the application is for a division oflegally combined lots 1, 3, 4 , and
outlet 1, which is a type 1 classification of subdivision . These lots were originally
combined for tax purposes . The applicant is asking for a division of Lot 1, which meets all
requirements . The issue is access . The existing access will serve lot 1. The access
currently serves the homestead parcel. The drive would be altered to only serve lot 1, and
the homestead parcel (combined lots 3 and 4) will be served by existing drive at Frederick
Street . When the land was subdivided, an outlet (20' wide) was created within the Tillson
Villa Carman subdivision. Lots 1-4 could gain access from the road outlot and lot 5 from
Frederick Street . Today, lot 2 achieves access from outlot and combined lots 1, 3 , and 4
from direct accesses at Casco Point Road and Frederick Street.
At this time, Mabusth commented that it was important to determine what are the future
plans for the lots ~ mainly, if there would be a future division oflots 3 and 4 . The new lots
must meet requirements of current code and provide approved legal access . There is
adequate area to subdivide lots 1, 3, and 4 . The required area for each lot will depend on
whether the lot will achieve access via a private road or driveway outlot . Lot 1 has access
from Casco Point Road from an existing approved curb cut . Lot 4 has an existing access
from Frederick Street . The code states that only two lots can be served from a driveway
outlot and that the back lot meet 150% of required area.
The lines of existing sewer and water service to residence would need to be located and
shown on survey. The location for the water connection for the original house is
unknown. The sewer may come from Casco Point Road. There may be a need for an
easement depending on their locations. A municipal sewer line intersects lot 4 at the
northwest comer. The City would ask for an easement over the sewer line.
L-
l\1INUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO:MMISSION
:MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995
( # 1 -#2000 Cortlen Cloutier -Continued)
Mr. Cloutier said he had nothing to add to the report and had no plans at this time for lots
3 and 4. He reported that he purchased 4 lots in 1965. The property was platted with a
roadway on outlot 1 providing egress and ingress. Cloutier said he used outlot 1 for
access at one time, and then he put in a guest driveway and now uses access off of
Frederick Street. The applicant said that the outlot 1 roadway has existed for over 30
years. The driveway he created has been used for less than 30 years along with the access
on Frederick Street. The applicant reported he created the access so as not to
inconvenience the residents oflot 2, the Paurus family.
Mr. Cloutier said he called the County ta-x division in 1967 and asked for one tax
statement. He reported that he was not aware that he had legally combined the lots, which
was done. Cloutier would like to divide lot 1 to build a house for his son. The lot division
can be done through metes and bounds division through the City. The lot meet the area
and width requirements. With the lot division, the driveway through lot 1 would be
removed, as it was never legally installed.
The Commission members discussed what would happen with lots 3 and 4 if lot 1 were to
be divided now. Rowlette said that lot 3 would become a back lot. Rowlette questioned
whether access would be through a new road or an outlot for the back lots. Lindquist
thought that since it had been subdivided in the past that it would have to be allowed to be
so again. Rowlette suggested having the city attorney peruse the situation to eliminate a
problem with subdivision in the future.
Wilbur Anderson of 3555 Frederick Street asked how the lots were declared for sewer and
water hook-up. Mabusth responded that the property has been assessed for 2 water units
but with this sewer project, by lineal footage along the roads were assessed.
John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood Road, who owned two lots on Shadywoo4 which his
parents had since 1941, said that people were asked at that time if they wanted one or two
tax statements if they had two lots. He reported that he has one statement but owns two
lots with two sewer stubs. Mabusth agreed that their land use planning was not consistent
when sewer and water stubs were given out to properties.
Schroeder noted that 3 sewer hookups would be needed if the lots were subdivided. Mr.
Cloutier said that the house located on lot 4 is not hooked up on Casco Pt but hooked up
through Frederick Street. When Casco sewer was installed, he had been asked where he
would like the sewer stubbed in. There is a sewer stub to serve lot 1 at Casco Point Road.
An easement runs through lot 1 for lot 3 for both ingress/egress and utilities.
2
:MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO:M:MISSION
MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995
(#1 -#2000 -Cortlen Cloutier -Continued)
If the lots have been combined, which Mabusth verifies that they have inqeed been
combined, then the Planning Commission would have to determine the size of the lots for
subdivision and how access would be provided. Rowlette questioned whether lot 3 should
be treated as an already designated lot or not.
Mr. Paurus asked about the boathouse located on the property. He reported that it was
old and unsafe and needs to either be repaired or removed. Schroeder responded that this
application does not apply to the boathouse but did ask the applicant what his plans were
for the future of the boathouse. Mr. Cloutier reported that he wished to rehabilitate the
boathouse. He had installed a 3-season porch on top of the boathouse and said he had
thought he had been given verbal approval to do so by the building inspector at that time.
Mabusth said that the permit on file was given for a sjngle story boathouse only.
Rowlette informed the applicant of the City's desire to have no structures in tpe 0-75'
zone. If the boathouse is to be repaired, and the cost would be more than 50% of the
value of the boathouse at the time of the 1975 code, the boathouse must be removed. No
repairs can be done without a pern:µt.
Rowlette said she would like to have the city attorney's opinion on whether there woµld be
any rights grandfathered to the property if it had been legally combined. Mabusth
responded to the negative saying that the current code would apply to the property.
Lindquist agreed that any further division of lots 3 and 4, once lot l was approved for
subdivision, would have to follow the current codes.
Nolan reiterated to the applicant that ifhe desires any future division of the lots, the
commission needs to see the plan at this time. Cloutier responded that he did not wish to
be concerned with future division at this time, only the one lot as presented. Schroeder
emphasized that the present plan for Jot 1 could mean that lot 3 would not be able to be
subdivided in the future because of the issue of access and would be subject to current
standards. The commission members suggested to the applicant that he come back before
the commission with an amended application with plans for all the lots.
Mabusth said, once again, that the subdivision could be done with a simple metes and
bounds sl,l-bdivision. Mabusth put the applicant on notice that any future subdivision
would ne&:i a new plat due to the access issue. The current code may not allow the
division oflots 3 and 4 at a later date. If the applicant's intentions are anything other than
the two lot subdivision as stated in the applicant, the intentions of the applicant needed to
be known at this time.
The applicant said he had no plans at this time but that his children said they would like to
see a future division of lots 3 and 4, therefore, requested tabling of the application.
Mabusth said the property would have to be replatted.
3
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO:MMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995
(#1 -#2000 -Cortlen Cloutier -Continued)
Schroder moved, Peterson seconded, to table application #2000. Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#2) #1950 GLENN UPTON, 3685 NORTH SHORE DRIVE -VARIANCES -
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:53-8:03 P.M.
The Applicant, Mr. Upton, was present.
The application originated in the summer of 1994 for an increase in hardcover in the 0-75'
setback requiring a variance for a deck. The Planning Commission denied the application.
The applicant asked to go back to the Planning Commission with an amended plan.
The amended plan is for 192 s.f. of additional living space and 484 s.f. for an attached
garage. The amended proposal is for 52' lakeshore setback, where 75' is required. It does
meet the minimum DNR required setback of 50'. A hardship list is included as well as a
petition from the neighbors which support the second proposal.
John Erickson asked where the property was located from him. Erickson asked about the
garage location, and how the proposal affects the deeded access and the public right-of
way. The original garage is being removed, and the new garage will be attached to the
side of the house. The applicant said that the land crossing the public access had been
deeded to him by the county. Schroeder said that this issue does not affect the
application.
Rowlette informed the applicant of the city ordinance disallowing any boats larger than 20'
to be stored outside on a property. ·
Schroeder noted the 68 s.f. increase in hardcover in the 0-75' zone with the remainder of
the increase in the 75-250' zone. He also noted the attempt by the applicant to meet as
many requirements as he could and the large number of hardships pertaining to the
application.
Peterson asked about the status of the survey and side setback. It was determined that the
survey had been updated last year with the filing of the current application. Mabusth and
the applicant confirmed that the side setback requirement was met with 11.3'.
Nolan asked if the applicant was willing to remove the shed and other items located in that
area, which the applicant said he would.
Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve applicant #2950 as amended with the
condition that all hardcover removal be completed prior to construction to include shed
and miscellaneous items. The access garage could be retained until the proposed attached
garage is completed. Ayes 7, Nays 0.
4
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
473-7357
ZONING FILE #2000
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE: 3/28/95
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Courtland Cloutier
2480 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
COPIES TO: Brandl Anderson Homes Inc.
1602 East Cliff Road
Burnsville, MN 55337
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Class I Subdivision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 3/20/95 VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST
Planning Commission recommends the following:
The Planning Commission voted to table your subdivision application per applicant's request
providing applicant additional time to consider and review all options available to owner
concerning the future division of Lots 1, 3 and 4, Tillson's Villa Common.
As already stated at the meeting, if applicant proposes the division of legally combined parcels
into three lots, each lot must conform to the current standards of the municipal code. Staff has
enclosed many of the pertinent code sections for a property division within the LR-1 C,
Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Staff would be happy to meet with either you or your
surveyor to explain the various code sections included with this notice.
The City Attorney, Thomas Barrett, has advised that you have been in communication with him
and have posed certain questions that he hoped had been resolved for you. In any case, it is our
understanding that Mr. Barrett will be preparing a memo to address many of the legal issues
raised in your conversation with him.
I have enclosed a new subdivision application which includes the schedule for upcoming
meetings. If parcels are to be replatted, you will be asked to file a Type III subdivision
application. Staff will be happy to credit any of the unused funds from the original application
against the new application.
Staff would encourage either you or your representative to meet with staff so that we may
discuss or answer any questions you may have dealing with the directives of the code and the
filing of an amended subdivision application.
Enc. Code Sections
1. LR-lC, Lot Standards
2. Definitions Lot Width & Lot Area
3. Subdivision Regulations for Back Lots
4. Subdivision Regulations Private Road Standards
ch
A TTOI\NEYS AT LAW
CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER
ll..llAloETH ;,, O~OUTl!aR
Ki'.FIMli N, FRVt;CHiG
HAND DELIVERED
Thomas J. Barrett, Esq.
1...A \'ii OFFICES
CLOUTIER & CLOUTIER
nOFESSIONAL ASSOC IA T!ON
1800 MIDWEST PL,-\ZA WEST
801 NIC<.)LLET MALL
1',111'-!NEAPOUS, MIN!',;ESOTA 55402
TELEPJ-101'.'l! (612) ~,7.,~100
TOl,L fREE l-800-l:l7,~-2ll4
FACi!M!Lii (612) .H4-l220
April 12, 1995
POPHAM, HA1K, SCHNOBRJCH &
KAUFMAN, LTD.
3300 Piper Jaffray Tower
222 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, MN 5 5402
RE; City of Orono
Application for Building Permit: Lot 1, Tillsnn's Villa Cam1an Addition
Dear Mr. Barrett:
LEGAL. ASSIST /I NT$
JOl.faNI! K. 0LD58l;R<;l
THOMA$ J. TrllSS;;N
I appreciate the opportunity to express my view· to you regarding the application for a building
permit for Lot 1 Tillson's Villa Carman Addition. Pursuant to the concerns I expressed in our
earlier discussion, 1 have reviewed the npplicable City Ordinances and performed extensive
research as to the legal aspects of what I understand to be the issues involved.
HISTQRl'
Tillson's Villa Cannan Addition was subdivided into five lots and an outlot in 1962. All lots
were approved and recorded as meeting the proper area requirements for buildable lots under the
City's 1955 Zoning Ordinance. A copy of the Plat is attached.
In 1965 I purchased Lots 1, 4 and Out lot 1. In 1966 T purchased Lots 2 and 3. That same year
Lot 2 was sold leaving me with my ownership interest in Lots 1, 3, 4 and Outlot 1.
In January 1995, I conveyed Lot I to my ~on. In February 1995, my son requested a permit to
build u single family dwelling on Lot 1. The City refused to issue a building pennit to him, for
Lot 1, despite the fact that Lot 1 meets all current area requirements under Municipal Zoning
Ordinance sec. 10.25 (1984).
Thomas J. Barrett, Esq.
April 12, l~J95
Page Two
The City has required me to apply fo1· re-subdivision of Lots 1, 3, 4 and 01.itlot l I before it will
consider issuing a building permit to my son. The City has required me to present a current
survey of Lots 1, 3, 4 and Out lot I, showing hardcover, square feet and dimensions. I11 nn effort
to avoid the delay and cost of litigation, I have tried to comply with the City's demand for re
suhdivision of Lot l, pursuant to the City's interpretation of its 1984 Zoning Ordinance. All of
the City officials, who have examined the survey of Lot 1 agree that it is in full compliance (as
presently platted) with the requirements of the 1984 Zoning Ordinance. 1l1e appl icarion for re
subdivision of Lot 1, which I was compelled to present to the City, was tabled at the last
Pl<'lnning Commission meeting in order to give me time to evaluMe the appropriateness of
applying for re-subdivision of Lot 3 and Outlot 1. I was advised at the meeting, that ifI did not
apply for re-subdivision of Lot 3 at the same time as Lot 1, I would never be able to do so later1 •
11.or could Lot 3 ever be legally eligible for a building permit.
APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AND APPLICABLE LA,v
The applicable ordinance governing area requirements for building on this type of property is
Municipal Zoning Ordinance sec. 10.25 subd.(6)(b)(l984). It designates a minimum lot area
req\.iirement of 1/2 ucre.
The City of Orono has a "grandfather provision" in its Zoning Ordinance. It provides that ''If an
existing "Lot of Record", in an "R" District, serviced by a sanitary sewer does not meet this and
the other minimum requirements, the lot may be utilized for single family dwelling purposes
without ccrnncil approval if the area measurements and ,:vidth are within eighty percent (80%) of
the Zoning Chapter requirements". Municipal Zoning Ordinance sec. 10.03 subd.(6)(a)(1).
This type of langwige is meaningless tmless construed to "Grandfather" in previously recorded
lots that meet the requirements. Day v, Wri2ht Conney, 391 N.W.2d 32 at 34 (Minn. App.
1986). T f the party seeking the permit meets all the standards prescribed in the ordinance, the
council has no discretion to deny the pennit. Its refusal to grant the permit in such circumstances.
is arbitrary as a matter of law and mandamus will lie to compel the council to grant the permit.
lih, 34.
Zoning Ordinances are in derogntion of the common law and should be construed strictly against
the City ,md in favor of the property owner. l.da, nt 35.
In Day v. Wright County, a property owner petitioned the Court to compel the Wright County
Board of Adjustment~ to declnre his property a 11 b1.iildable lot" and grant him a b\.tilding permit
for it. The property owner l½rgued that the Wright County Ordinance on Zoning had a .
grandfather clause, deeming his prope1iy buildable by law. The Court found that the property
owner was in full compliance with the ordinance under a grandfather clause and when these
standards are met the City Council hui;i no discretion to deny the permit.
Thomas J. Burrett~ Esq.
April 12, 1995
Page Three
In my situation, the Lot which is short of area space is not the one my son wishes to build on
(Lot 1 ). It is Lot 3 \Vhich is separated from Lot 1 by the outlot. The commission is attempting to
force me to re-subdivide in order to bonow urea from Lot I and add it to Lot 3, making both Lots
within 100% of the 1984 requirements for new subdivisions. According to the Zoning
Ordinance, this action is unnecessary and inappropriate. Lot J is a "Lot of Record", within an
11 Rn District, serviced by u sanitary sewer and within 80% of the current area requirement. Lot 3,
in fact meets the current width requirement und approximately 95% of the cu1Tent area
requirement. This makes Lot 3 a "buildable'' lot under the grandfather provision, sec. l 0.03
subd.(6)(a)(l )(1984), It explicitly waives the full compliance requirement. According to the
language of this provision, if I wanted to build a home on Lot 3 today, this grandfather clause
,vould allow me to do it. Therefore, I believe that the commission's insistence that I re-subdivide
a previously subdivided parcel, and adhere to the requirements for new subdivjsions, is clearly
incorrect and arbitrary, Furthermore, what makes their denial and re-subdivision demand even
more 1.mreasonable is the fact that the Lot for which I am seeking a permit already is within
l 00% of the current requireme.nts.
The plruming commission's requirement that I re-subdivide leads me to believe that they do not
view Lots 1, 3, 4 and Outlet 1 as separate "Lots of Record", but as one unplatted parcel. They
have mentioned the phrase "previously combined" in reference to my Lots and have given that as
a reason why the Lots must be re~~mbdivided. However, nowhere in the Zoning Ordinance or the
Subdivision Ordinance did I find this phrase defined nor did I find any requirement that
"previously combined" parcels m1.1st be re-subdivided. The only reference to "previously
combined" property is in the Subdividing Ordinance, sec, 11.03 subd.(2)(66)(a)(2):
,ti\ class I Stibdivision shall be exempt from platting by the City
and shall be permitted subdivision by metes and bounds
description described by a Registered Land Surveyor if it meets
one or more of the following criteria: .... The subdivision Is a
division of property previously combined for tax purposes."
A careful reading of this provision, in context, will clearly show that the designation of property
as "previously combined" is intended for inclusive purposes regarding new subdivision
proposals. To construe or apply it any other way is a misinterpretation of its language and intent.
[ believe the City Administration views "previously combined" parcels as "one" single lot which
would require subdivision for further building. And in doing so, the new subdivision must
conform to current standards. However, according to the Hennepin Cow1ty Assessors office,
"previously combined" simply means that all individual lots ovmed by one O\Vller are to be given
'CJ
; ? ,..,,,.
J
Thomas J, Barrett, Esq.
April 1 L 1995
Page Four
one P.I.D. number for ta.'< purposes. This was done as an administrative benefit so the tax
depru-tment would only need to send out one tax statement for all property ovmed instead of
multiple statements. By no means was this intended to change each lots designation as a "lot of
record" or "buildable lot". Proof of this lies in how each lot is considered by the Tax Assessor.
Each Lot is listed as a separate buildable lot and is taxed according to its value as n "buildnb!e"
Lot. When they are combined, there is no change in tax consequences.
The County Assessors office supports my claim that its practice of billing four individually
platted lots on one tax statement, since 1967, has no legal effec.t on the lots designation as a
"buildable lot". No formal petition or procedure was involved in the four lots being combii:ied
and taxed together on one billing statement. -
Finally 1 an issue of equity arises since there surely was never any intent to lose my "lot of
record" designation, which essentially amounts to my future interest to build.
It appears our impasse is the result of a misinterpretation and application of the Subdivision
Ordinfmce. I believe you will agree that the proper requirements governing my request to build
are not found in the Municipal Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 11, but rather in the Municipal
Zoning Ordinrutce, Chapter 10, I hope my analysis has been helpful for your consideration of
this situation. V./e would welcome an opporttmity for further discussion to expedite this process
of securing a b1,.1ilding permit for Lot 1.
CGC/tkf
U .S . OFFICES :
DENVER, COLOR A DO
TEL 303-893-f 200
POPHAM HAIK
·----·----·--------·-·---... -·--·--· -
SCHNOBRICH 8c KAUFMAN, LTD.
INCLUDING THE L AW PRACTI C E OF
MASON, FENWICK & LAWRENCE, ESTABLISHED
SUITE 3300
1861
AFFILIATIONS:
BEIJING , CHINA
TEL011861-5135261
LEIPZIG , GERMANY
()
MIAMI, FLORID A
TEL 305-530-0050
222 SOUTH NINTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3336
TEL 612-333-4800 • FA X 612-334-8888 TEL O 1 149 -341-49 I 8429
WASHINGTON, 0.C.
TEL 202-824-8000
Cortlen G. Cloutier, Esq.
Cloutier & Cloutier, P.A.
1800 Midwest Plaza West
801 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
THOMAS J . BARRETT, ESQ .
DIRECT DIAL (612) 334-2676
April 20, 1995
Re: City of Orono -Application for Building Permit:
Lot 1, Tillson's Villa Carman Addition
Dear Mr. Cloutier
STUTTGART, GERMAN Y
TEL O 1 149 -71 1-223 63
APR 2 11995
)
Thank you for your letter of April 12, 1995; I have discussed it with . Jeanne Mabusth
at the Orono City offices, and I wanted to offer you this reply.
Your son has made application for a Building Permit on Lot 1, Tillson's Villa Carman
Addition and the City has responded that a precondition to the permit is a Type I subdivision
. which would allow you to treat Lot 1 as a freestanding lot. The City is willing to allow yo u
to subdivide the area described as Lot 1, but it has raised the cautionary note that if you do
so without attention to the remaining areas, which you call Lots 3, 4 and Outlot 1, that you
will find it difficult to further subdivide that area. It is the City's recommendation that you
consider t.'ie entire area of Lots 1, 3, 4 a.11d Outlet 1 for subdivision at thi1: titne.
Your response is a legal argument which is essentially this: the effect of the lot
combination which you requested on Lots 1, 3, 4 and Outlot 1, and which the City approved,
left the lots subdivided for zoning and planning purposes and therefore able to be
independently developed without further subdivision. The City's position is that a legal lot
combination has the effect of ending the separate legal status of any lots so combined, and
that separate development of the lots requires subdivision under its code.
I have reviewed the language of Orono's zoning code at 10.25, subd. (6)(b) and
subd. (6)(a)(l). I believe tbat ~ µµigu.age speaks to an existing lot of record, and our
082/220794814/20/95
Cortlen G. Cloutier, Esq.
April 20, 1995
Page -2-
disagreement is whether or not Lot 1 is an existing lot of record. It is the City's position that
it is not, since the effect of combination (on any of the other lots combined) has been to
create one large lot where several previously existed. It seems likely that the assessor must
hold that view as well, since I suspect that the tax impact of holding three lots, two of which
are not homesteaded, would be different from holding only one homesteaded lot.
Further, the City's previous authorization of a boathouse on the combined property
would be inconsistent with its zoning regulations as to accessory structures if the former lots
were treated as individual parcels for zoning purposes. Indeed, that is the meaning of the
language "combined for tax purposes" in Sec. 1 l.03(2)(66)(a)(2). The language assumes that
simple subdivision will be allowed if the combination had only the effect of combining for
tax purposes, and not the further and complicating effect of subsequent development which
relied for zoning compliance on the area and characteristics of the combined parcel as a
single lot.
Please let me know if you have further questions.
cc: ~ne Mabus th
082/2207948 l 4/20/1)5
()
ATTORNEYS AT I.AW
COAl'l.lW 13. CLOUTl=R
ELIZABETH A. CI.OUllE:R
KERMIT N. FRUECHTI.
HAND DELIVERE~
Thomas J. Barrett, Esq.
LA \YI OFFl<..:~S
CLOUTIER & CLOUTIER
rROt:;ESS!ONAL ASSOCIATION
1800 MIOWEST Pl.l\Z/\ WEST
$01 NICOLLET MALL
MlNNEAPOI.JS, MINNESOTA SS402
TELEPHONE (612) 332-5100
TOl.t. fRI;E ! ,800-878·2JJi
FACSIMJLE (6! 2) 3"1•+-1220
June 27, 1995
POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH &
KAUFMAN, LTD.
3300 Piper Jaffray Tower
222 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE: City of Orono
Application for Building Pennit: Lot 1, Tillson's Villa Carman Addition
Dear Mr. Barrett:
LEGAL ASi:iJSTANTS
,IOLE.NC K. OL0$0~fH3
THOMAS d. lrll$SHl
This is to follow our previous conferences and correspondence with you relative to my son's
request for a residential building permit for Lot I, Block 1 ., Tillson's Villa Cannan Addition,
Orono, Minnesota.
You will recall that my son's application was denied on the grounds that Lot 1 is not considered a
buildable "lot of record'' because I allegedly "combined Lots 1, 3~ 4 and Outlot 1 for tax
purposes," and our ordinances thereby require re-subdivision. We understand the City in relying
on the factual accuracy of the following:
1. That I ltcombined the lots for tax purposes/' i.e. I combined my lots
and received a real estate tax savings or credit becnusc of it.
2. To build on one of the Lots on this previously combined property,
I must now re-subdivide -creating new "Lots of Record" .
3. In re-subdividing the Lots, the mea requirements of the 1984
subdividing and zoning ordinm1cc must be fully complied with.
Thomas J, Barrett, Esq.
June 27, 1995
Page Two
I beiieve we all agree that the important question~ that have to be a11swered are as follows:
1. Was there a record that I authorized the combination for tax
purposes?
2. Did I receive a tax saving with this alleged combination?
I was unable to find any record that I was involved in combining these Lots for tax purposes or
any other purposes. Instead ofrelying on my memory, I contacted the City of Orono Assessor's
Office, the Hennepin County Assessor's Office and the Hennepin County Tax Payers Service
Office to see if there is some sort of record that would support the claim that I requested a
combination of my Lots for tax purposes. They all reported that no such docwnent exists, In
addition, the City of Orono Assessor's Office, who is very familiar with this property and our
dispute believed that a combination of property of this size and value would not be wise. I
agree. This has been my position. Why would I ever wish to lose a "lot of record" designation
and essentially lose the potential value ofmy lots as buildable lots without something of value in
return?
The City has suggested that I was motivated to combine the lots hecause I received some tax
benefit from combination, Le., that the "combination was for tax purposes."f have searched
through my records for the last 30 years and located most of my real estate tnx statements for that
period. They clearly show that there was no tax savings to me, after my lots were allegedly
combined. I was receiving the maximum homestead tax credit against the real estate taxes
charged against Lot 4, on which my personal residence is located. The real estate tax credit for
the owner of a homestead in Minnesota in 1965, when I purchased my homestead on Lot 4, was
the lesser of 25% of the general tax or $250.00. The homestead tax credit remained the same
until 1974 when the credit was increased to $325.00. Since the general tax on Lot 4 has always
been over $1,000.00, while I have owned the property from 1965 through 1973 (in 1972 the
general tax on Lot 4 was $1,201.25). I was always entitled to and received the maximwn
homestead tax credit of $250.00 every year without a combination of my lots. That was also tme
after 1974 when the homestead tax credit was increased to a maximum of $325.00, and in 1980
when the credit was raised to $550.00, and when subsequent increases were made in the amount
of the homestead credit. There was no economic reason for me to request combination of my
Lots into a larger homestead, because increasing the aggregate market value, aggregate assessed
value, and aggregate general tax did not entitle me to a larger homestead tax credit. There was
no advantage to me to combine the lots for real estate tax purposes, and there was no
disadvantage to the City if I hud combined the lol!:i.
Thomas J. Barrett, Esq.
June 27, 1995
Page Three
In 1972, where the combination of my lots for tn.x purposes allegedly occurred; I was already
receiving n $250.00 homestead tax credit for Lot 4. You will note on the 1972 tax statement for
Outlot 1 and Lots l 1 3, and 4 the l st statement where they appear combined, the aggregate
general tax was the same as it was on the individual tax statements for the three lots; and the
homestead ta..x credit was not changed from $250.00, to a higher credit because of the
combination.
Copies of my pertinent real estate tax statements are attached for your review. The statements
that arc missing can be located if needed.
I hope from your review of this new information, that you will agree that the City's position and
its requirements arc creating great inequity and damages in this case. I have already expended
about $3,000.00 to $41000.00 for surveys and other charges trying to satisfy the City's demands
for o. pem1it. A favorable mortgage interest rate commitment has been lost because of the delay,
which will amount to thoi.mmds over the term of the mortgage. I would like to avoid litigation
on this matter, but not at the expense of my rights as a property o\V!ler. In that regard 1 would
appreciate your advice as to whether there is any way this problem can be resolved on an
administrative basis. May we have this matter placed before the City Council as soon as possible
so there will be no issue as to whether I have exhausted all of my administrative remedies
available to me.
Thank you for your consideration and assistance with thi~ matter.
CGC/tkf
Enclosures
POPHAM HAIK
SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD,
INCLUDING THE LAW PRACTICE OF
MASON, FENWICK & LAWRENCE, ESTABLISHED
U.S. OFFICES:
DENVER, COLORADO
TEL 303-893-1200
MIAMI, FLORIDA
TEL 305-530-0050
WASHINGTON, 0.C.
TEL 202-824-8000
Cortlen G. Cloutier, Esq.
Cloutier & Cloutier, P.A.
1800 Midwest Plaza West
801 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
SUITE 3300
222 SOUTH NINTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3336
TEL 612-333-4800 • FAX 612-334-8888
THOMAS J. BARRETT, ESQ.
DIRECT DIAL (612.) 334-2.676
June 28, 1995
1861
j\j~ 3 0
AFFI L!ATIONS;
BEIJING, CHINA
TEL O I 1 861 -51 35261
LEIPZIG, GERMANY
TEL O 1 149-34 1-4918429
STUTTGART, GERMANY
TEL O 1 149-71 1-22363
Re: Application for Building Permit: Lot 1, Tillson's Villa Carman Addition
Dear Mr. Cloutier:
I have reviewed your letter of June 27, 1995. But I do not entirely understand it. Do
you mean to say that your lots have not been combined, or do you simply mean that you
never authorized the combination?
The City's records show that the lots are combined. The City relied on that
information when it issued a building permit for the boat house some years ago. The City's
plat maps continue to show that the lots were combined.
If you believe that the combination is an error, you should take that up with Hennepin
County, since the City has no power to "uncombine" the lots other than through the
subdivision process.
Further to the tax benefit question which you discuss, combination for tax purposes
does not improve the tax status of the existing homestead, but could of course reduce the tax
burden of the other lots which are joined to the existing homestead by the combination. But
ultimately the City's decision not to issue the building permit is based on the fact that the lots
are combined, not the motive for the combination.
082/22086547 6/29/95
Cortlen G. Cloutier, Esq.
June 28, 1995
Page 2
Finally, it is not my understanding that the building permit application was "denied"
as you suggest in paragraph two of your letter. When the application was made, the City
pointed out that you would need to seek a subdivision because two houses could not be built
on the combined lot. You applied for such simple subdivision and then, at the Planning
Commission meeting where the subdivision was considered, asked to have the matter tabled.
Procedurally then, you might consider the following: if you believe that the combination is
not a legal bar to the building permit, you could dismiss the subdivision application, and then
appeal the City's denial of the building permit, which will be based on the fact that the
combined lot cannot have two houses on it. Alternatively, you may wish to continue working
with the City to allow the subdivision you think appropriate which, if denied, would also be
available for review.
Please let me know whether you have any questions.
~ir:Yl\~ft
Thomas J.
082/22086547 6/29/95
IAWOFFICES
CLOUTIER & CLOUTIER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CORTLEN G. 9LOUTIER
ELIZABETH A. CLOUTIER
KERMIT N. FRUECHTE
HAND DELIVERED
City of Orono
Planning/Zoning Department
2750 Kelley Parkway
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
ATTN: Jeanne Mabust
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
1800 MIDWEST PIAZA WEST
801 NICOLLET MALL
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE (612) 332-5100
TOLL FREE 1-800-878-2334
FACSIMILE (612) 344-1220
August 28, 1995
Building and Zoning Administrator
RE: Application for Residential Building Permit: Lot 1,
Tillson's Villa Carman Addition
Dear Sir and Madam:
LEGAL ASSISTANTS
JOLENE K. OLDSBERG
THOMAS J. THISSEN
This will confirm my verbal request to Ms. Mabust at our meeting on August 22, 1995, that the
City of Orono consider our application for a residential building permit for Lot 1, Tillson's Villa
Carman Addition at the next City Council Meeting.
Ms. Mabust has advised me of the Building and Zoning Ordinances, and it is my wish to proceed
at this time, with the building permit application for Lot 1.
Respectfully,
CGC/tkf
CITY of ORONO
September 11, 1995
Cortlen G. Cloutier
1800 Midwest Plaza Building
801 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Street Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Municipal Offices
RE: Application #2000 -Class I Subdivision, Simple Division
Dear Mr. Cloutier:
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
At your request, we have rescheduled your subdivision application (#2000) at the Planning
Commission meeting of September 18, 1995. Prior to the meeting you will receive a staff
memo reviewing the issues discussed with both the City Attorney and City staff.
Based on the issues reviewed and discussed at our previous meeting, you agreed that you
would proceed with the division of Lot 1, Tillson' s Villa Carman Addition as originally
proposed to the City.
Sincerely,
g.f (l//!o'Le a , r11 d,_,/ L{ la-c/c.,,
t~£ef.-l,)
Jeanne A. Mabusth
Building & Zoning Administrator
JAM/lsv
cc: Tom Barrett, City Attorney
Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510
POPHAM HAIK
SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD,
INCLUDI NG THE L AW PRACTICE OF
MASON, FENWICK & LAWRENCE, ESTABLISHED 1861
U .S . OFFICES :
DEN V ER , COLORADO
TEL 303 -893-1 200
MIAMI, FLORIDA
TEL 305-530 -0050
WASHINGTON , 0 .C .
TEL 202-824-8000
VIA FACSIMILE/473-0510
Jeanne Mabusth
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
2750 Kelley Parkway
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
Re: Court Cloutier
SUITE 3300
222 SOUTH NI NTH 5TR EET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3336
TEL 612 -333-4800 • FAX 612-334-8888
THOMAS J. BARRETT, ESQ,
DIRECT DIAL (612) 334-2676
September 11, 1995
Pending subdivision application
Dear Jeanne:
AFFILIATIONS :
BE IJING, CHINA
TEL 011861 -5135261
LEIPZ IG, GERMANY
TEL O 1 149 -341-4918429
STUTTGART, GERMANY
TEL O 1 149 -71 1-22363
You have asked me to propose some language which will memorialize the dispute
between the City and Mr. Cloutier with respect to the status of the land he is now seeking to
subdivide. I got your fax of the August 28, 1995, letter from Mr. Cloutier indicating his
intention to proceed with building permit application for Lot one. I recommend this:
In the course of this subdivision application, it became apparent
that Mr. Cloutier and the City disagree about the status of the
land which is being subdivided herein. The City takes the
position that the land being subdivided by this application had
been combined into a single lot. Mr. Cloutier takes the position
that the land combination was not authorized by him, that the
land has never been legally combined, and that the lots created
by the subdivision previous to the combination are still in
existence. The City has made clear to Mr. Cloutier its view that
this and any future subdivisions need to be made consistent with
082/22093739 9/11/95
Jeanne Mabusth
Re: Court Cloutier
September 11, 1995
Page -2-
the zoning regulations in place at the time of subdivision
application, and that it will not recognize the lots as they existed
previous to the combination. Mr. Cloutier disagrees, but has
determined to proceed with this subdivision, recognizing that the
lots created hereby are not, in the City's view, subject to further
division without a subsequent approved subdivision application.
Very truly yours, c:h'tt
082/22093739 9/11/95
1-fINUTES OF THE ORONO PLA.J.'mING COi\lIMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
(#2 -#2065 Marfield!Hillffoles -Continued)
Hawn withdrew her amendment to the motion.
Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2065 to gain specific input
from the Fire Department and general input on the issues . Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1,
Rowlette, who would have liked to have voted on the amendment.
(#3) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIE~ 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD -CLASS I
SUBDlVISION -CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING WITH
RENOTITICATION 7:18-8:00 P.~1.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The applicant was present.
Weckman reported that the proposal is for a two lot subdivision from property that had
been combined from a 3-parcel property consisting oflots 1, 3, and 4. The applicant had
previously stated he had not intentionally combined the lots but it was done as a result of a
request for one tax statement. The two lots meet the area and width requirements .
Weckman said the main issue is with the access roads on the property . Lots 3 and 4 are
the current homestead and have access from Frederick Street. A more recent driveway
was established from Casco Point to the lots and is now a thru driveway with a circle .
The applicant said this driveway existed between 1931 and 1985, but he allowed
vegetation to grow over the driveway after 1985. The driveway was reestablished in
1994 . The original subdivision shows an outlot with a drive circling around and
connecting to the cul-de--sac, but the drive used as the connector cuts through lot 1.
Weckman asked for direction from the Commission on what to do with the driveway.
With the driveway serving lots 3 and 4 going through Lot 1, the requirement of 1/2 acre
contiguous on Lot I with the principal structure placed on the lot is not met. An option
was noted to end the driveway as shown on the drawings; or since Lot 1 is being sold to
the applicant's son , an option would be to allow the use of the driveway on a temporary
basis while using the adjacent two properties and not adding an easement in favor oflots 3
and 4 .
6
MINUTES OF TI-IE ORONO PLANNING CO!vfMJSSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
(#3 -#2000 Cortlen Cloutier -Continued)
Peterson asked the applicant if there was a reason to leave the driveway going through
Lot 1. Cloutier said when the property was subdivided in 1962, outlot 1 provided ingress
and egress to lots 1, 2, 3, 4. When lot 2 (owned by Nfr. Paurus) was sold, provision was
made for lot 2 to use outlot 1 up to the lot line. The applicant added that lot 4 has an
easement right to use outlet 1 as well as lots 1 and 3. Cloutier preferred that only Paurus
use the drive near his property in order to maintain privacy for all parties concerned. The
driveway through lot 1 is used to access Cloutier's lot 4 instead of the driveway through
Paurus' lot 2. Weckman said there was no easement for that driveway to come through to
lot 4. Cloutier said the driveway provides use as an alley to his residence and as the main
drive for delivery trucks and other large vehicles.
Peterson suggested closing the access from Frederick Street or have the applicant decide
between the Frederick Street access or the driveway through lot 1.
Schroeder commented that any decision should be based on the possibility of a future
subdivision. If lot 3 were proposed as a separate lot, the road by lot 2 could be used for
access. The problem with that solution would be the use of 3 properties on one
substandard road. Weckman was concerned with lot 3 not having the 1/2 acre ofland
required with the structure. Schroeder said the resolution would need language to address
access for future subdivision. Gaffron noted that lot width was also a potential issue for
splitting off Lot 3 in the future.
Cloutier said he had no plans at this time to subdivide lot 3. He did not wish to be cut off
from the thru road.
Hawn noted that emergency vehicles would have a difficult time accessing Cloutiers
property from Frederick Street. Hawn suggested extending the center road to the cul-de
sac from Frederick Street. Topography was found to be a consideration with this
suggestion. It was further noted that this option would not solve the problem with cutting
lot 1 in half Weckman said if the 1/2 acre requirement could be met by relocating the
driveway on Lot I, this would be an option. This would require new plans and
calculations.
7
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
(#3 -#2000 Cortlen Cloutier -Continued)
Peterson asked if there were any other issues to consider. Weckman noted that no park
dedication fee would be required. The City Attorney said the property had already been
subdivided as of record. There was also a difference of opinion on whether this was one
parcel or 3. Weckman said Mabusth had requested language be added to note that any
future subdivision must meet current standards and codes. It was further noted that the
property has been assessed for two water and one sewer connection but would require
assessment of another sewer and SAC charge. Cloutier responded that it was his belief
this was incorrect as lot 4 was connected to sewer from Frederick Street. He added that
when water was provided on Casco in 1971, a stub line came from Casco to his property.
Gaffron said he would follow up on the charge for the sewer unit. Weckman said if the
sewer line crosses a neighbor's, the City would need to verify and identify any easements.
During public comment, Wilbur Anderson, 3555 Frederick Street, read a letter from Norm
and Rusty Paurus. The letter said the Paurus' approved the application if no changes were
submitted from the 3/20/95 submittal, or asked to allow their feedback on any changes
made. The Paurus' asked the proposed house be moved 5-6' to the northeast to save
several mature trees and that all construction and driveways comply with current City
ordinances.
Peterson asked for Cloutier's comments on the letter. The applicant was unsure what
trees were being referred to as there was a solid line of trees on the lot. Cloutier did not
believe it to be reasonable to redesign the house with the topography since there was no
lack of trees on this or neighboring properties. Peterson said the proceedings cannot be
stopped because a neighbor was not in attendance.
Commissioners noted that the driveway was the main concern with the application. The
lack of 1/2 acre contiguous on lot 1 because of the configuration of the driveway was the
problem.
Cloutier commented that lot 1 consisted of 3/4 acre and contained woods continuous over
to Frederick Street. He asked for approval of the driveway for he and his son.
Lindquist said he was uneasy with the proposal. The applicant was told that there would
be a time when the property did not serve Cloutier and his son. Lindquist noted that the
roadway by Paurus' lot 2 could serve both Paurus and lot 3.
Rowlette asked if Frederick Street was used on a daily basis. Cloutier said he used the
access from Casco. Rowlette noted that the Casco driveway was not well maintained.
The applicant said red rock had recently been brought in but said further destruction of the
driveway would occur during the construction process. Rowlette said she saw no reason
for the middle driveway to serve lots 3 and 4 when outlet 1 was already in place to serve
those lots.
8
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLA.i"'TT\TJNG COM:MISSION
.MEETING HELD ON SEPTHvIBER 18, 1995
(#3 -#2000 Cortlen Cloutier -Continued)
Smith opined that three drives for one house was unnecessary. Cloutier said he would be
willing to close off the driveway from Frederick Street. The issue of the 1/2 acre
contiguous would still be a problem.
Gaffron suggested moving the driveway to the northeast and refiguring if the 1/2 acre was
available. Lindquist said if the 1/2 acre was present, it was his opinion that the application
could be granted under the present code without coming back to the Planning
Commission. Gaffron said there would still be a subdivision needed to separate Lot 1
from lots 3 and 4.
Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2000 for subdivision subject
to Lot 1 meeting the zoning standards with the 1/2 acre of contiguous with respect to how
the driveway bisects the property. Applicant shall make payment to the City for a sewer
connection charge of$1,284.50 based on the current 1995 Fee Schedule plus the service
availability charge of $850. 00. Applicant is to provide an updated survey locating sewer
and water service at Frederick Street prior to scheduling the application before the
Council. Final resolve by the applicant is necessary concerning dedication of easement for
Frederick Street access drive that encroaches Lot 1. Applicant will sign off on a
resolution with the disclaimer drafted by City Attorney, and clarification will be made that
the property is one lot. Applicant will work with the City to clean up the property of
miscellaneous items.
Lindquist asked if the applicant would consider abandoning the driveway from Frederick
Street due to the number of driveways. The applicant said he would prefer not to but
would do so if that is the desire of the Planning Commissioners. The applicant was told
that an easement from the road to the west for Lot 2 cannot be vacated as it is a private
easement.
Schroeder said another alternative would be to dedicate some land for the roadway. The
applicant made a suggestion of ta.king a portion of lot 1 to lot 3 and remove the
boathouse. The 150% lot area requirement for a back lot on 3 was noted. This
suggestion was not to be considered at this time.
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Rowlette, who noted ifFrederick Street access is not in use, it
should be closed.
9
3 _
TO: Chairman Peterson and Orono Planning Commission
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
DATE: September 12, 1995
SUBJECT: #2000 Cortlen G . Cloutier. 2480 Casco Point Road -Subdivision, Class 1 -
Continuation of Public Hearing
Zoning Dis trict -LR-lC
Pertinent Ordinances
Section 11.03, Definition 66(A-2) -Division of properties previously combined for tax purposes.
Section 10.22, Subd . 2 Review of Hardcover
Lot 1
Total area = 34,212 square feet
75-250' setback area = 4,375 square feet -no hardcover recorded
250-500' setback area = 29,840 square feet
Existing = 2 ,227 square feet or 7.4%
Proposed = 4,165 square feet or 13.9% (allowed = 30%)
Lots 3 and 4 (remaining homestead parcel)
Total area = 54, 182 square feet
0-7 5' setback area = 14, 23 8 square feet
Allowed= 0
Existing = 1 ,122 sq• !are feet or 7 . 8 %
75-250 ' setback area = 31,6S5 square feet
Existing = 3,547 square feet or 11.1 % ( allowed 25 % )
1
Zoning File #2000
September 12, 1995
250-500' setback area -8,259 square feet
Existing = 2,019 square feet or 24%
Allowed = 30 %
Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) Lot standards for the LR-lC zoning district
Review of Lat 1
A. Area required = 21,780 square feet
Existing = 34,215 square feet
B. Lot width required = 100 feet
Existing = 200 feet
C. Setbacks -Proposed residence meets all required setbacks 30' front and rear, 10' side
Review of Homestead Parcel (Lots 3 and 4)
A. Required = 21,780 square feet
Existing = 54, 182 square feet
B. Lot width required = 100 feet
Existing = 182.65'
Section 10.03 Subd 6B-Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited.
B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No platted road
or road easement, which results in any segment thereof being less than the
minimum acreage required for that zoning district, shall be allowed to be
2
Zoning File #2000
September 12, 1995
combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes
of qualifying under the minimum acreage, open space, required yard,
setback or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building or
density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any
provisions of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually
conform to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction
of improvements thereon.
Pertinent exhibits from original agenda packet.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
-Application
-Plat map
-Certificate of mailing, property list, second notice
Exhibit E 1-2 -Sewer and water as-builts
Exhibit K
Current Exhibits
Exhibit L
Exhibit M
-Original plat of Tillson's Villa Carman Addition filed 12/62
-Topographic map of property -location of existing access drives
-Survey
-Planning Commission minutes of March 20, 1995
-Planning Commission action notice 3/28/95
3
Zoning File #2000
September 12, 1995
Exhibit N
Exhibit 0
Exhibit P
Exhibit Q
Exhibit R
Exhibit S
-Cloutier to Barrett letter April 12, 1995
-Barrett to Cloutier letter April 20, 1995
-Cloutier to Barrett letter June 27, 1995
-Barrett to Cloutier letter June 28, 1995
-Cloutier to Orono staff letter August 28, 1995
-Original staff memo for March 20, 1995 meeting of the Planning
Commission
Status of Application
At the March 20th meeting of the Planning Commission, applicant asked to table all review of
the simple division application to allow applicant additional time to review other issues raised
with the possible subdivision of Lot 3 from the original homestead parcel, Lot 4. It is also the
obligation of the city to advise the applicant of all code issues that may impact this property with
the division of one of the three lots now legally combined as one.
Many of the issues raised by both staff and Planning Commission members with the future
division of Lot 3 are no longer a concern for applicant as he will remain the owner of Lots 3
and 4 and his son will own Lot 1. If Lot 3 is to be divided at some future date, based on the
standards of the code at that time, the applicant's son may be asked to join in that subdivision
if needed.
Exhibits N through R, the letters between the City Attorney and applicant have been enclosed
for your information. The concern of the applicant was the issue of legal combination of the
4
Zoning File #2000
September 12, 1995
properties completed sometime in 1972. Applicant has no record of asking for this legal
combination and claims no benefit. He notes now all the problems created for him with the
legal combination for Lot 1 as an independent lot satisfies all current code standards.
Applicant had advised his main goal is to obtain a building permit for his son's new residence.
The ownership of the property will remain in the family and if the properties are to be further
divided in the future, the applicant has been made fully aware that a future subdivision will be
subject to the code standards in effect at that time.
Review Exhibit R, -the applicant has asked the city to reschedule the original simple subdivision
application before the city's Planning Commission. Members may wish to review Exhibit S,
the original staff memo that provides the background on this property and code issues.
The total property was assessed two water units and the homestead parcel one sewer unit. A
new sewer connection charge will be required for the new residence. The rate per the 1995 Fee
Schedule is $1,284.50 plus a service availability charge of $850.00.
Access to Lot 1 will continue to be provided via the existing drive at Casco Point Road which
currently serves the principal structure on combined Lots 3 and 4. The current plan shows the
southeastern portion of the drive being removed. Applicant in recent discussions asked if
roadway could remain in place and continue to serve his residence on Lots 3 and 4. An access
5
Zoning File #2000
September 12, 1995
easement in that location would divide Lot 1 in half. The code would require a contiguous 1/2
acre for the building envelope, the code would ask that the area of the driveway easement be
excluded from the lot area and the easement would divide the required 1 /2 acre building
envelope.
The access at Frederick Street that serves the existing homestead encroaches slightly within Lot
1. If the drive is not relocated, an easement should be taken over that portion of Lot 1 and be
granted in favor of Lots 3 and 4. The location of this easement would not impact Lot 1 's
building envelope nor lot area. (Total lot area 34,212 square feet)
Applicant also advised the Planning Commission at the March meeting that sewer and water
service to the homestead residence is served via Frederick Street. The staff asks that this be
shown on the survey to be presented to Council for their final action.
Issues that remain for simple division for Lot 1
1. Access -Applicant should advise if current drive that serves homestead on Lots 3 and
5~c;_.,\l
4 is to be removed or ~ an easement w be created over the portion that encroaches
Lot 1.
2. If there is a disclaimer in the resolution approving the division that states an access
6
Zoning File #2000
September 12, 1995
easement could never be created over the driveway that currently serves both Lot 1 and
the homestead parcel in favor of Lots 3 and 4, would Planning Commission members
approve the informal use of this driveway while both father and son own the properties.
Planning Commission should provide direction for applicant on this issue.
3. Park Fee -In discussions with the City Attorney he advises that in dealing with lots of
record that unless there is an amendment of the park fee ordinance that the city can not
ask for a park fee or land dedication. The city has no legal right under the current code
to ask for park dedications with lot area variances for undeveloped lots of record. The
city had collected such fees until advised by City Attorney that the code did not authorize
this action.
4. In light of the dispute between the city and the applicant with respect to the status of the
land he seeks to subdivide, staff has asked the City Attorney to provide language that will
memorialize or set the record straight as to both applicant and the city regarding this
simple division. The division that will divide Lot 1 from Lots 3 and 4, Tillsons Villa
Carman. The following language shall be incorporated in the subdivision resolution that
will be signed by both the city and Mr. Cloutier, as applicant:
In the course of this subdivision application, it became apparent that Mr. Cloutier
and the city disagree about the status of the land which is being subdivided
7
Zoning File #2000
September 12, 1995
herein. The city takes the position that the land being subdivided by this
application had been combined into a single lot. Mr. Cloutier takes the position
that the land combination was not authorized by him, that the land has never been
legally combined, and that the lots created by the subdivision previous to the
combination are still in existence. The city has made clear to Mr. Cloutier its
view that this and any future subdivisions need to be made consistent with the
zoning regulations in place at the time of the subdivision application, and that it
will not recognize the lots as they existed previous to the combination. Mr.
Cloutier disagrees, but has determined to proceed with this subdivision,
recognizing that the lots created hereby are not, in the city's view, subject to
further division without a subsequent approved subdivision application.
5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission or any neighbors notified of this second
review.
Staff Recommendation
To approve the simple subdivision application of Cortlen Cloutier that seeks to divide Lot 1 from
Lots 3, 4 and the Outlot 1 of Tillson's Villa Carman finding all current standards of the LR-lC
zoning district have been met and all pertinent standards of the subdivision regulations for a
Class 1 subdivision. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
8
Zoning File #2000
September 12, 1995
1. Upon application for a building permit for new residence on Lot 1, applicant shall
make payment to the city for a sewer connection charge of $1,284.50 based on
current 1995 Fee Schedule plus the service availability charge of $850.00.
2. Prior to scheduling the application before the Council, applicant is asked to
provide an updated survey locating sewer and water service at Frederick Street.
3. Final resolve by applicant concerning dedication of easement for Frederick Street
access drive that encroaches Lot 1.
4. Planning Commission's final resolve concerning the access drive that serves
future residence on Lot 1 and its extension into Lot 3 and 4. Will it be allowed
to remain as long as father and son own property and it is made clear in the
resolution that an access easement may never be created or granted in favor of
Lots 3 and 4.
5. Applicant understands that he will be asked to sign off on a resolution with the
disclaimer drafted by City Attorney as set forth in Issue 4 above.
6. Others recommended by Planning Commission.
9
\
\
\
\
\
\
.... -,, : :-.: ·:' .. .,,;_. ~ ' ..
I.•
\
\
\
\
. . ..... ~
" -,~~· . ··,.~
<
\
' .\
\
... )-· ... •'.'.~:•r:'"'~,'./ ..
-~·· . ·,
\
\
\
'\
.'\\
'.'
' ' \
l
TO: Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
DATE: March 16, 1995
SUBJECT: #2000 Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road -Subdivision, Class I -Public
Hearing
Zoning District: LR-lC
Pertinent Ordinances
Section 11.03, Definition 66 A-2 -Division of properties previously combined for tax purposes.
Section 10.22, Subd. 2 -Review of hardcover.
Lot 1, total area = 34,215 s.f.
75-250' setback area = 4,375 s.f.
No hardcover recorded
250-500' setback area = 29,840 s.f.
Existing = 2,227 s.f. or 7.4%
Proposed = 4,165 s.f. or 13.9% (allowed 30%)
Lots 3 and 4, total area = 54,182 s.f.
0-75' setback area = 14,238 s.f.
Allowed= 0
Existing = 1,122 s.f. or 7.8%
75-250' setback area = 31,685 s.f.
Existing= 3,547 s.f. or 11.1% (allowed 25%)
250-500' setback area = 8,259 s.f.
Existing = 2,019 s.f. or 24% (allowed 30%)
Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B) -Lot standards for the LR-lC Zoning District
1. Lot 1
A. Area
Required = 21,780 s.f.
Existing = 34,215 s.f.
Zoning Memo #2000
March 16, 1995
Page 2
B. Lot width
Required = 100'
Existing = 200' +
C. Setbacks
Proposed residence meets all required setbacks, 30' front and rear, 10' side
2. Lots 3 and 4
A. Area
Required 21,780 s.f.
Existing = 54,182 s.f.
B. Lot width
Required = 100'
List of Exhibits
Access at Casco Point Road measured at the 30' street setback is
approximately 60'
Frederick Street -Total lineal footage along Frederick Street is a 137'.
Lot width measured at the 30' setback from the 104' street line is a
100' +. The property can also achieve access via a 20' outlot located at
Casco Point Road.
It should be noted for the record that Lot 3 no longer meets the required
lot area of the zoning district at 19,338 s.f. nor does Lot 4 meet the
required lot width of 100' measured in a straight line at the shoreline per
10.02, Definition 43 B.
A -Application
B -Plat Map
C -Property Owner's List
D -Gaffron Letter 1/19/95
El-2 -Sewer/Water As Builts
F -Original Plat of Tillson's Villa Carman Addition Filed 12/62
G -Council Minutes 10/9/61
H -Planning Commission Minutes 10/26/61
I -Council Minutes 11/ 13 / 61
J -Topographic Map of Property
K -Survey
Zoning Memo #2000
March 16, 1995
Page 3
Description of Request
Applicant proposes the division of Lot 1 from legally combined Lots 3, 4 and Outlot 1 for the
purpose of allowing the lot to be developed as a single residential unit. As noted above, the lot
meets the area and width standards and the proposed house meets the required setback standards
of the LR-1 C District. The total property was assessed two water units. There will be a sewer
connection charge for the new residence. The rate per the 1995 fee schedule is at $1,284.50
(plus SAC charge of $850). Applicant proposes the use of an existing drive at Casco Point Road
that currently serves the principal structure on combined Lots 3 and 4. The improvement plan
shows southerly portions of that drive being removed so as to no longer serve the existing
residence. The residence will continue to achieve its principal access off of Frederick Street.
Note encroachment of that driveway within Lot 1. Applicant has the option to either relocate
drive within homestead parcel or obtain an access easement over Lot 1 which will have no
impact on the area of Lot 1 at 34,215 s.f.
Background on Tillson's Villa Carman Addition
Review Exhibits F, G, H and I, there is little information as to the intent of the subdivision
which was reviewed by the City in 1961 and filled by the applicant in December 1962. Lot 2
of Tillson's Villa Carman (2500 Casco Point Road) achieves access via the 20' outlot and Lot
5 (3585 Frederick Street) achieves direct access off of Frederick Street. Lot 2 has an access
easement over a portion of the outlot used to service their residence. The driveway within the
outlot does not extend to the principal residence. The principal residence is served by both the
drives at Frederick and the one that intersects Lot 1.
Sewer /Water Service
The City has no confirmation as to where the existing residence on combined Lots 3 and 4 is
connected to both water and sewer. Review Exhibits El and E2. We are certain that the sewer
connection comes from Casco Point Road and possibly water from Frederick Street. Note the
encroachment of a municipal sewer line through the northeast corner of Lot 4. If the existing
residence is connected to sewer at Casco Point Road, a utility easement would have to be
granted in favor of applicant's property over Lot 1. Applicant does have the option to reconnect
to the sewer line that intersects his property and to allow the residence on Lot 1 to connect to
either of the two stubs at Casco Point Road. A water stub is available for the new residence at
Casco Point Road. Applicant must confirm the location of the hookups of both services to the
existing residence. In fact, this information should have been provided on survey.
Major concern for this current review is the issue of access. Review Exhibit J, based on the
topographic information the access from Casco Point would provide little impact to existing
development. Topographies are steeper along the south and east sides and there appears to be
Zoning Memo #2000
March 16, 1995
Page 4
a low wet area at the west side. Driveway curb cut could be created but would involve major
land alterations and tree removal which now provide natural screening for surrounding
properties. The 20' outlot would not meet the required width of 30' for private driveway outlot
for a backlot configuration subdivision.
In reviewing the minutes of the Planning Commission and Council in 1961, there is little
direction. We are unable to determine the true intent of the driveway outlot --how many lots
were to be served? We must deal with the current pattern of development and the directives of
the current code. Applicant should advise if he proposes to divide combined Parcels 3 and 4
some time in the future. If this is the case, then we must address the need for a conforming
road outlot now with this subdivision. Based on current code standards, the applicant should
be advised that two riparian lots would not be approved but it may be possible with a replat to
create a non riparian lot. If it is not the intent of the applicant to subdivide the remaining larger
parcel, then the current layout with individual accesses (accesses that already exist) serving the
three residential sites may be acceptable to the City. Planning Commission should be prepared
to make a recommendation on the issue of access.
Issues for Consideration
1. If the applicant advises that he proposes to divide combined Lots 3 and 4 in the future,
will you require platting of a private road with this subdivision?
2. If there is no intention of applicant to further subdivide combine Lots 3 and 4, will you
allow access to Lot 1 via an existing curb cut at Casco Point Road or will you require
access via the 20' driveway outlot.
3. Should special consideration be given for lots previously approved by City in an earlier
subdivision review where lots meet current minimum lot standards?
4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Options of Action
To either approve or deny the current proposal; or
Table providing applicant additional time to address the need for an internal road providing
access to Lots 1, 2, and combined Lots 3 and 4 and eventually a fourth lot in the future.
Zoning Memo #2000
March 16, 1995
Page 5
Any recommendation of approval must include the following conditions:
1. If access drive to combined Lots 3 and 4 at Frederick Street remains as is,
applicant shall create easement over portion of driveway that intersects Lot 1 in
favor of combined Lots 3 and 4.
2. Applicant depending upon the resolve of location of existing services to the
existing residence, applicant shall either agree to reconnect for new sewer and
water service to the existing residence or create utility easements over Lot 1. The
City would encourage the applicant to consider reconnecting so as not to further
encumber Lot 1 with easements.
3. Applicant to grant an easement over the municipal sewer line in the northeast
corner of combined Lots 3 and 4.
4. Resolve of access to Lot 1 either to approve the existing curb cut at Casco Point
Road or to require connection to 20' wide driveway outlot.
5. Upon application for building permit, future owner shall make payment for a
sewer connection charge based on the 1995 fee schedule of $1,284.50 plus a SAC
charge of $850. A water unit has already been paid against the property.
6. The subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee based on 8% of the fair market
value of the property.
Staff would ask the applicant what his intentions are concerning resolve of the various questions
surrounding the boathouse structure in the lakeshore yard. Applicant's contractor had completed
an expansion of an upper level without the benefit of building permits in the 1970s. During an
after-the-fact review of the violations, the applicant was directed to remove the upper level and
to top the boathouse with an upper level deck. The matter still remains unresolved.
ch
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 #2000, was mailed to the attached
list of property owners .
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal
this 7th day of September, 1995.
Jamir,~
CITY OF ORONO NOTICE
P.O. Box 66
2780 Kelley Parkway
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Phone 473-7357 Fax 473-0510
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #2000
COURTLAND G. CLOUTIER, 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD
The applicant ha3 asked the City to reschedule his Class I subdivision application before the
Planning Commission at their September 18, 1995 meeting. The application involves the
division of a previously platted . 7 acre parcel from applicant's adjacent homestead parcel
originally combined for tax purposes. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this
meeting. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available for review although there is no
change from the original request submitted by applicant at the March 20, 1995 meeting of the
Planning Commission.
CITY OF ORONO
Q_,am J C~_,,,j.,., .,-L;.L
cJ~ A. Mabusth -/l,~1-r;{ ,
Building & Zoning Administrator -· tJ
CITY of ORONO
January 19, 1995
Brandl Anderson Homes, Inc.
1602 East Cliff Road
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
ATTN: Dave Anderson
Street Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Municipal Offices
Re: Proposed Residence, Lot 1, Block 1, Tillson's Villa Carman
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-C066
Your application for a permit to construct a new single family residence on the above described
property was received in our office January 18th. The building permit for subject property
cannot be issued until Lot 1 has been legally separated from Lots 3, 4 and Outlot 1 via Class
I Subdivision review process per the Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes.
Lots 1, 3, 4 and Outlot 1 currently exist as a single tax parcel, having been combined for tax
purposes some time prior to 1974. The Orono Subdivision Code, Chapter 11, defines "the
division of property previously combined for tax purposes" as a Class I Subdivision, exempt
from platting but permitted to be subdivided by metes and bounds description per the standard
subdivision procedure, which includes review by the Planning Commission at a public hearing,
and subsequent action by the City Council.
An attorney representing Mr. Cloutier was advised of this requirement some time ago by Zoning
Administrator Jeanne Mabusth. Apparently Mr. Cloutier has since filed a deed with the County
transferring ownership of Lot 1, and the County has duly assigned a separate PID number
pending completion of their review process. Part of the County's process is confirmation of
City approval of the division. The City cannot and will not grant approval for the completion
of that division until said property has been formally subdivided by the owner, Mr. Cloutier.
Enclosed is a subdivision application for your use. Technically, the application should be made
by Mr. Cloutier. In addition to the required submittals noted, the survey provided must show
Lots 1, 3, 4 and Outlot 1, and must show all existing improvements and hardcover on the entire
property, as well as indicating the proposed subdivision.
Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473--0510
Brandl Anderson Homes, Inc.
January 19, 1995
Page 2
The application deadline date is noon on January 27th for the February 22nd Planning
Commission meeting. If the application receives a recommendation for approval by the Planning
Commission on February 22nd, the earliest date it could be scheduled before the City Council
would be Monday, March 13th.
Preliminary staff review indicates that while Lot 1 meets the area and width standards of the LR-
1 C Zoning District, there may be some discussion as to whether a separate access to Casco Point
Road can be allowed or whether such access will be required to be onto Outlot 1. Mr. Cloutier
will have to show that his remaining parcel (Lots 3 and 4 and Outlot 1) also meets minimum
zoning requirements.
Please also be advised that although no address has been assigned to Lot 1, that address will be
on Casco Point Road rather than Blaine A venue as shown on your building permit application
and survey.
If you have questions on any of the above, please feel free to contact me or Zoning
Administrator Jeanne Mabusth at 473-7357.
Sincerely, ~;~
Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
MPG/ch
Enc. Subdivision Application
cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
r
f 7
• • : . ~ ! : ....•..... ••• :· ... : -.. ~ .. : . :: ~=--: ' ........... . , ... '
64.3
2100) (2200)
::,
055)
.... =·····. :.::• • •• :..,:. =~ ...
( 2150 )
N.W.B.
co .
1-S""BR
5
2
...... . . . : . . ,.,. ... I • • : ._._ I ••• t •• ._ .... ··-····· ... : .: ... .. ', ..
I~
SANITARY
.. •· .· -~7.3
;··· , .. -••• :1 < • • . .. :-.... :-..:·: \ .. ' .... " ..... ~-.. . .. .
-30.A Q-),--~-----~---{ 3055)
7 6
I
·.:::}, ~-;: -~ .. . ·--~~---,..._
IO" CIP
MB
L
I
I
Ii •. J
i ; i .. ~ . ..--' -~:..::..·~·:._:.:_::/ ~I -[.:..,_,.
I I I '· .··· I • • . -~ I I 8~5 76.4:···· -r-
,...... ...... _ f '\...---------~::
. .:-' · .. ..::::: ·. ..
"-(!) ·:· ••
f\J ~ ••• • •••
--I,. ... '1 ! .. :
a ....... ·•·
6.~ \
"' . : ;-•• . ,._
22
....... ··;..~
,)
?
I~ :---
i
I.
115 _3 '
0
0
(\J
--~ rr>io
r Mt<>
I ~n
I Q...J -,-
,-_
M.H. ·247
' ' f' Q
' '. \• ;
31.2·•:ro 25!5 TO
8" WILLOW s··w1u.™
0
lO
. C\J
-:-►.--·-_ 0 :.J . 0-.
,-0
18'.3' TO
. C\Jz Oll'l
+P +".?
-r<)..J:._ ..!2.. ..J
7"APPLE
· .. .'.~ -.
@;,-,
+ r<)
(\J .'.'.I --
22 .7' TO
.. . ... ::_
STONf PILLAR ,,.,,,,,,
:ci
·~ .:' ..
·;'-, -..... -.:.·::
NO
TrES
::\_'..~~:---
CARMAN ·-:~-VILLA -~:-
SEE
'l •i ... ~.
·-(EXIST) M.H. 64
SHEET f4 63T
... -... : ·-·--~~: ..
.::_;-~-
~ :;....:. ~----,.
.. --... -
,_ r-··· .. :;._ ..... _
-,, "'-~--
;_:--
--: ~ .. :_ . ..;_-... :,;.-:
''. .i£•;. ••r'.~_., ,:•;_· -.~-~-•.\••'.:•.~: ,:--:-:-.;.~ ;;~rl~/}_=:·-~--· __ --~~;
:t<-;-._--+--_'-'_.,_,.._-+-----'---lf-_-,..-----t----'---+----;:::~==~=:t:::t~i;:~~==~==~==t::::::::~~~=~:::c:t::~====~~t:::::~==~=~::::::1:::::~:::~::::::::1:::;:::;:~::::~:::t:::_;::_:::t:~;;;;::1:;:::::~;t:,_: __ ;~v;::.;: ; __ :~~:::::::::t:;:~:;:;~:;:~~-;_:;:;~~;;~~;~;~~~;;:~;;~~~~;~~;;~+=.=_:_;_..=_-~;.~;~~~-~-c~'. ~;;;;::.t:t:,;~~;,;;~ i~i~f~ :,i.f __ i_~_i
I · ~.,,-• --°'--:c; L -· -·-............. r"' .... .:.--~: .. ;~·---···:.-•• ·: •. -...... -._.;..... . : :.. ....... ~.--... :.-t:.--··1:· ... :• ¥. ...
i __ ,.,__ :.. . ·. .::, ,__ __ -., -· :::,,_ .:r.-.;-2 ·i ;? : ·. ;-,-._ -·~.,
··~ ·-: ~
.7''• ....... ·.;:-a., ...
-·4
"•
·:{t:.~·.:
--· . ·--·2 -~••-•-•:A •: ~ •-.:•. •,-
• .-.,_ :• ... • .:,;.~••
-,::,_:,
rr,o r,::c:.\ ,-,ac::a\ II .. _ ......
\ '
--,--
1----1{µ_.s.01:J .S \) l UA ~ -
1-----+---(9(L{_b 1P~ Pl'-~_J2--3l--~2..-__
------_,
-----, ------
___ _JwlJ~Si-ttP l,E_GA.1-A,,_!f_ Ct,~Np. ;_.s. ur~ /-~ 'i~~
o'V\.~k)r I ~ lt.Jj:12.t ~i,':f oa~~ ~s _of//(qoiZ...-V'o 1q 7':I
1-----4--------------~---------____ · 1"~ ~~~~ t,N
ltv f')_v._ e, _L (__Ho rAse ehll.I Li~ '3.)
___ ~-A-OJA.~ ~rv_ ur: t/ ~ ~.EtW~ _8y _a. ..JY?JJ!PW~ q?f-:::..OF-_
~~~L -~T , f @-~1 L N J,,,,o..,--_q ___ _
-------------s (/~ _ -'>~ 4--U-,ft) t tJ,bJ.~ wr tj__~IA.:_""""_i:. ___ _
-------,..---~~~~ ~ c;.er-. EM NecZex _~ . '
-----,-,..-.-=_foo~~~~-A)js j_~ 1/, ~ 1
1----------"-c ~ (!. r ~~)( :z.~_1
________ _
------,r::;...::.:......:...~ I J$ JY_~r:rr-~_[&J~~
---------
l.&r_ ~~ ~LB~~--
La~ U Aff:1<.R2'A~-----=--+--~""
------~~~
-~---.-~-----
1----.flk'!"ki LJ~ ~ ~f>~n'f')tts~ 2£)'wti:._ .----1 I~~ _& ~'I'.: 'Tl!> .S /!:fl.Ji[!-__/,prs, /-2;.-~ -4
--1-----------------~~~-==--
CITY OF ORONO -NOTICE
The Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing in the Council Chambers at
2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday , March 20 ,
1995 at 7 :00 p.m . on the matter of
Application #2000, Cortlen G . Clout1er's
application for a proposed residential division
of a . 7 acre parcel from adjacent property
previously combined for tax purposes . The
division involves the property located at 2480
Casco Point Road . .
All persons wishinlJ to be heard will
appear at this time . Writt~n comments are
solicited . Plans are available in the City
offices for review, by appointment.
City of Orono
By: Planning Commission
Jeanne M. Mabusth ,
Building & Zoning Administrator
(Published in The Laker and Pioneer March
6, 1995)
Affidavit of Publication
State 9f Minnesota, County of Hennepin .
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound,
. Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts
which are slated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A .07, and other applicable
laws , as amended.
8.) The printed _11ff1µ"'F-l'b,;,,!-t ac.,,.La/;;r'-'-'-a..,,....1_:.;lt_0=-'-'rJ=G::..:::.1q!-, -
//' 1 ' 7T rlmt.1tMJ
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once
each week for / successive weeks:
It was first published Monday,
the fo 11, day of • /J &r/2 f 19 'jj_ ,
and was thereafter prWd and published every
Monday, to and including Monday,
the __ day ~ :-:
I ' Authorized Agent
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
By:
Public
orma on
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users
for comparable space: $11.48 per inch .
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter : $11 .48.
(3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $6.47 per inch.
Each additional successive week: $4 .45 .
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
S_TATE 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 #2000, was mailed to the attached
list of property owners.
In Witness WherE:of, I have hereunto set my hand and seal
this 7th day of March, 1995.
/r'\j,~
l,, ~J)6-,:}-7 )L-&L-
Jamie;JBosma
CITY OF ORONO -NOTICE
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley
Parkway on Monday, March 20, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. on the matter of Application #2000, Cortlen
G. Cloutier's application for a proposed residential division of a . 7 acre parcel from adjacent
property previously combined for tax purposes. The division involves the property located at
2480 Casco Point Road.
All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. Plans
are available in the City offices for review, by appointment.
City of Orono
By: Planning Commission
anne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
To be published the week of March 6, 1995.
· ......
·'-.
\ ..
\,__ __ _
'-·
IUi ll.l.TE •z:111'i;'l5
B.t,TCII ~
-. · .-36 2•-317-23 Iz.• IJOIJ'J "°" .:WIMt CillJ!SS . · AOllltESS '.liASSJ.!j;l,ll:0 -
OM«R ~ -'l)A'lflv io -ii.17..at '
· TAXPA.ff:lt . ltA,Vll A BL;TLER
MUE/MICIR _-"415 Kl~'I' 12! -
-~ ~ 5-!illll,
· 58 : 20-ur-;;:1 l:1: aoiir
1>1.0P Almlt 02""3 · · ' C~ $T
1JIN:'ll NUii! ' . DI.\Nt · P1 FISCREJI. -.
. -T~Pl'l'E!l . ·o.tN'E FlsaiER -.
HANE,.AOIIR . 2~ CAllf9I ST
--AA'l'ZATA 1111 .555U
38 20-117-~3 ]:t 01)15
PIIDP AOOll -O~'f • ··(.AlltWI ST · -
. Olt«:* NAiiE :_ . p:J;< OF #u"'l:R!CA ~E,'E ·
. . _;··-rA)ll)A'fER '-· -lHONA$ J. Lll'i>
·-_ l__. _ ,. twlU-.f.lDil i«o70 CAlll9tf ST
· : W."tV.1'1. ~ 55$!1,
-I
"--:s& . 2ll-ii.1.7-i!3 -12 OOl'f .··
PRUP IJlllR -_-. iB.515(1 FIIEIJEIUC'-St"
· CH.ER· 1'411.HE -l 'I' NE1ffl)II ET Al. TRUSTED
,:'. ·...._. T,l:,alAYER l!IM:'E. a HElmJ'ol -
1U11E,'AOOA · -'.!5811 FRUE.IU~ Si' , · : . w.va,A f't.l · ·ss:in ·•
-··-
~ i.llDll
• Cll(Sl;t,lllllE-
-'5B 2.0-ll7-23 U oo:.z·
0242:ll CJ.SCO PO:i:HT · Ril
39JSl(;(]RQ -
STESO!W;N · .J · s ..rc.UI K sxoao
24Zll USCO PT f'.D
...... TAJGIAY~--
':(.
,,·: -
-.....
. \.....
' ... _ _,
-~-ll
,IW1E/IJ)OR
".l',1ZATJ!I ~ . SS'Hl.
3a Zll-117-8 12.IJ~
?P.01» AOIIR 110038 11.00RESS -Uill.SS11i,1IE.ll
CHIEJ1: Nlffi· : N,11.RO I[ 'EttWI.OS ET-IL ..
t.t.XP.t..TEll · · ·. _ 'RlCRIRO A ~, -
lil,lMl:/INR ' 2430 CoU!HAN $1" .-
--. --· -: • -~YZA.i'A ffi . .SS3'D.. ·
lle.tlt~H-CQUWlY -FaoPHO' INA:ll'l'Q.OQN SYSTEM
. --l'ROfllE.llTl 011'£11S ~s,:
38 · 20-111-Z'!I l2: OIJlQ -
·. OIJQ38-.IEORESS UWlS"IaEll
· WAVI.1>-A llll'C'U!R '
-Dll\'.:i:!1 A BUTLER -
. -· 447J. tl:lGfll.l.'t lZ -
CIIASKA 11K :55518
~ .:o,.u1-u it. 0014 -·
. 02:'"47" Cll.lltUH ST
·_ T I. ANOE~ & S L ,UlllER.SQl
. T."'~'f A I 5"11.'ltI L. IINlellSOtt
2:~'l" CAAl'.NI S'l' • -
· -05l,Qtl] ~ ss,;;91 .
3& io-111-z~ 12: 'lll-L7 _-
-.illSSS -. FREIISU,:J( Sf
'It F -& P If AlllUISEK
1([1.11,W' F '.uo:il:SS'i -
3.5!iS FREDERJl:K ST .
-Nl"'l'ZATA 111. ssn1.
-38 W•ll.7•:t!. 12: 01?.11
Q:?-.71+ · CASCO POJHT R9 -
LYLE A -11'-'EP.J.LE !oTA.L.
-LYLE I WEia.LE .
:Z.<ft74 CASCIJ. POINT RD
tur,Y,::AT.& I-ti . · 553'1. · -
_,3s· ~0-1:.-r-i,: n·,c-o:z!
~:NU& -CASCO PUffi, 11.U ·
T ll mcHAal a; ·c t. IGCIWJIJ
ffltHAS 11 r-.ICl-llaJll° •
CMIR!E L HICIUUO
.'. .. ~ CASCO PO!Mf 1'0 . -
. • l«\'Zli,TA I'll -S!:39l -
58 · U•ll?'·U l:Z. '1105'.
-Q%"J!i0 C.NlNAN SI" -
·P. C t.WC'lO & S e·P.J,L.E.IGII
. -lt c· f..l.NC:CG :. s ra RALE:tiill
t<\!iQ C,,RJ'Wt ST ; .
Hl.'lZ,UA !fl -SS31l.
..
:_,.
-1· ~-rtstt"'• e:rr::rz:rr-;: ·-·nrn sa • .. 'ti I $1 ll-
$1.El'OR.T "NO. Pl:43~01
3-1!1 • ?Q-U7-Z3 12 OOU
IJ24:U . -CAIUUII ST
PASE . Iii
.JI\HlfoR ~ AUi£ I MUE
JAt!W!:.-E _., GUIJ'\'3 V .M.JE.
24·n·c~ sr
l'IAYZATA l'N • ss:n1
.i :·
-;~<
la-2D-l17-l:3 12 OIJlS -
0245.5 CAIIM',NST
· . .J E Sfflll.L -& ·c; · -e-SNELL . ·
-:·.-. -~'./t~--: _:
JOON E ii ·c-uutA E SNEU:.
&'Ol. HOOSTE.R ST. . .
-i:oo, o-t ¥tt54. -·• ..
36 t0-1l7-%3 12 0016
0'55•S -:-FIIE'illE.UCI. 5T
JOIIH S H:U:.00 -.
JCIH S 11.:lECD ss,s flta)E!UC(· ST
. MA.YU.TA liN. ssn
l& ;!;[l,-11.7-t! U l'li.l
I ;:4.5<+· CJ.SCO 1'0Illt llO
· ·.J"C ~cRTS &-J f: IIOIIERTS
. · JQIIK C I. .Joll<[T f: . ~TS
· 2"1.5-. ~ FUIITT RD .
1ot1.Yz:AT" ft!& . ss:.n
~ · zo ... n7-Z3 l.Z ~ -.
IL<:35 FlttOElt:tc:,; ST
·.·JO Pl!Gl,t" & J .. .iOlfiSllN .,
.J It PO:l-1 I J A.~.-....
--u;BS FRa!EIUQ'. ST .
''4J..TU.T~ 191.. -,553:9].
'·34· · :Z.-0-117-2:5 U 1969
-· . • ~711 · Cl.lllfllK ST .
·Tl~OXUJ.111
i'HOlllliS A lrtm
_ ~ l'l-70 CAiltWI $T
. Hf,Yz:ATA. I'll'· $3t1
• -
·'-.
: .... _ ...
..__
,, -
--~
. I::•~ :~ ~1 _; ;.-~;•: . .; ·.
:'::-.·•·.
. -....... .. . -·-,.-.
_·. •.:· ..
·•:\_\·
::.=·_
••• -.>.
.•:. . .;; ~·
. "::: ..... : -:, ..... :.~-
:: .:.:
#rtrttt· 1 · :-:now fir•
~ -.-
);_.,i
:,1;
--·-·
. _..: .
a 1]
11)
IJ
~)
~
'-0
(JI
...
co
... ...
GI
GI
GI
GI
00
I!
It
l> .x
'(JI
7J
...
(JI
Ul
ID .,
,..,
ID
ifJ
. -(,J , ; ett:tsft
· -~RIM DAlE 02/16/95. HEtH:PIN CQUNTY PROPERTY lNFORHATICIII SYSTEN
SATCff SOC:
:i:.-~ : 38" . 20-117-6 21 0010 '
Pit(P· ADOR . . 02500: ··CASCO POlMT RD
. <MER NAN£. ·. NORMAN·N PAURVS ETAl
TAXPAYER · ·. ~ H I IRJA F PAURIJS · ·
.· l'W1E/ADDR.. . . 2500 CASCO POINT RO ' ' .
. JU.VZAT~ ~ , 55391
P.ROP ADOR
>._OtN:R: NAl'E.
· TAXPA'ffR .
_' IW£/ADOR
·. 38 20-111-~3 21 001~
·. Oc:530 . . CASCO POINT RD . ·
'· ·r CHAI.UPSl('f & ·O V CHALUPSllY .'.. .
T'CKALUPSKY' & I> Y i:HALUP.SKY ··: ...
25-30 CASCO POINT RD. . .. · '., ·
ClR()tfO tfi •. 553'4' ·. ·, · .. ,,
' .. 38' 20-1.17-2:3 21 0017: .. '·
PRO? ADOR -. 05ZD . · CASCO POINT· RO .
.~ ...
CffER HANE · lltOHAS ff FfWl1 · UAL · _;_.. ;-.
/\.!!JG)AYER. · .. :·.-TJ.~ ii .FRAWS. . ··--:~· ·. ·:,.-. __ :-.....
.-., · HAHE/ADOR. · 2.SlO CASCO .t>CllNT ROAD > . , · -· _,; ·
. . ,NAVZATA· tfi . 55391. . . .. .
. '. ~ ,-.-. . . .. . . ~ . . . -::.-
: .... 38 20-117-23 21 0028 ·
. : PROP ADOR ·. • 03605 · SHORELINI: mt ·.
<:JK'-ER NA.NE,, N N ~LL "TELEPl!OOE' CO
·.TAXPAYER-.· '•·us ~EST INC · .·
· . ...-· , ...
. NANl:(AODR · TAX OEPT ATTN KLAUS COX
6300 S SYRACUSE NAY.ST£ 700
ENGE_Ll«JOD CO · 80111
PROP ADDR
. otN:R NM£
. T£><PAYER . TOTAL 8ATCK soc: 00030
twtVAOOR ..
...
• :?
-~-
PROPERTY lH4ERS·LIST .
36 · 20-117-23 Zl 0012 ·
00038· AOORESS llassIG:rED
· MARIE· A S\IANG · .
HUIE 'A SVANG,
. 4140 -11TH AVf. S
HPtS ~ .SS41J7
38 . 20-117-23 21 0015 · .
. 02528 · CASCO POINT' RI> .
MARIE A SVANG . . . ··
MAIUE A :SY.ANG · · .
4-140 llTit AVE S
f:IPt.S (fl .55407
. 38 20--117-23 21 00~2 :-·.
. ' 0~038 . · ADDRESS 1.1-V.SSIGNED .
Vll OF OR:CNO ··
ClTY DI= OROHO· po BOX 6-6 -
CRYSTAL BAY tfl . SS~9 .
· · 38 W-117-23 · 21 oot,
· 03607 SffORElll6 OR
• F J HAGNER & H L HAGNER TRST-' . •
FRANK .J t(AQER . _ . .. ·,.
. 13~2 Rot10N'A U
80Ul.DER. cm· NV 89005
20-117-23-21-0036/0037
pending_
C9rtlen G Cloutier Jr
• Cortlen G Cloutiei:: Jr.
2480 Casco Point Rd
Wayzata·MN 55391
. . -· . .., .
.....
I
-.~ ··~
1 C''i·ill~\~!fr 1 :
!··. • ":,:· -·-·• _:: .• :-: .-•• : l >-r.-·. # h)
:0:;;o-1~~!~1~6ffl:n· :•--: :•: _'." '. ·;;<·:<?t. ~ · ,
MILDRED £ JIERHANSON .-.. _ ~
HILDRED E ffEltNANSON
.· 6120 Lm:IEN DRIVE
tFlS tti. SS417
33 2D-ll.7-23 ll 0016 '
· Oc:51& CASCO POINT RD . ·
ffUGH R HORfUS ETAt ' .
0 HOOH It" HORRIS .
25-10 · CASCO PT ~I> ·.
HA.\'~TA 1fl 55391-: :·,
38 20-117-?3 21. OOt.5 .
03745 SHOR£llNe DR . . :-"i .:
tit ENG LUTH SYNOO ·
-GOOD SHEPHERD LUTH.CHURCH
374S SHORELINE DRlVE•
MAYZATA tfl · 553'1'
36 c:0-117-23 2.1 0033 .
03701 '. SffORl:lnE OR..
CASCO RlJi LTD PTNRSHP ·
CASCO Rtfi l TD PTl'RSHP
· C.1O USABETK C CREAR
BOX 126'
Hl~TOMU BEACH. HN . !JS3n· .
_-_t·-·
·.·, ·.
·,,:
·.:'~·-:-
. ~-.. _-.. -.
---,?:_:
f ~~
'
. -::.~ .... ...
·:. ,,'{f . (0
.. ··._.,;.· ...
I\)
ill .... ill .. \,:-
.. ;·•;: ~
~· ~~-: . (J) . ·:t ::\ ~
~ r:
. ;-_,/
:~·/_\ .
11
I>
X
(JI ...
.. ,.;:-:. Ul
.. _.,·· ..... __
. , ...........
. ~.. :-.-
·.J.
:~;~.-!
-.. • -/-~---·· .
vi
Jij ,
....
I~
Jjl
';-... -~,. . . '
,,, ;J'i:if t\Jt({·:· , .......• ~·
·-:-<-· .-·
4 •~ f _r,.: •.:';.~'~ ~_. • _:.
+-~-
1J
.f:,
RU'f OATE 02/16/95
BATCH :502
-
-..
II.
I.
..
T.
JY
.'.'~~--.:...'
. HEl'H:PIN Crx.tn'Y PROPERTY INFORNATICN SYSITH . REPORT Ml. Pl43540t
p~ .. 10 ... ·
=._--_.·:· ~ :~·r{ ... ~~~:---: 11
ID . r_: ... '~_::.:; ·-_,, ... ·=
e '-,. IJ
, .·
,: . . MOPEllTY otlERS usr .
. ,
'
,,.:. .
I: CERTifY THAT THE FACTS REPR.ESeNTEO ARI: AN AC:~ATE ANO TRUE
. REPREstNTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON 'THE RECORDS
OF.ntE.HE~P-DI COtfflY OEPARTHENT OF -ERTYTl',_TO THE BEST,·
OF HY KNOHLED.GE . ANtl flcUEl". . · ' (> -. · . · .... •· · -·.
. ! ..• ·'-. ' ' . • .• ~AT~ ~. n. ?Say ~ . .·:~'
·'
-•• :_. -· 4_ ... ·-".: ~ ;.. .----. -.. -----r: :~ .. ,: -I
. t-·-N
N
·._.·.,
:· ....
·-!
. ' -
.·•::".,-. _j
, ..
'-0
(JI
._j ... . -.. co
...
.w ·-· ::._,,.··
0
0 . ,. 0
'/"·)~ 0
.--.,'.";-~
. ·;·. ~, : -'.;-~
\:.: .-.. ::-:·:.-.. :=
I.-.
·:,.·-
. ~: ;-.
.,·::::· _· ...... , ... _ . .J
-:-:_~-' .. · l.-~-
(.i)
1} z
11
I>
X -->·:~-\-~--.::;"-:.~-\;:: -
·;:~' If
-· .. · ...
; ~-~ . : :·_ ;'-.' .
.r<"'
.-.·.
_-.. ~--
; -~ -..
;-.
. -" .. : ~:;. · ...
;
~--' . -:-,;
,4,,.
_)
. ___ .-
___ ,:
(JI ...
UI
IJ\
I~ -,
....
ID
(ll
lJ
r.JI
ZONING CODE
OF
ORONO, MINNESOTA
1968
30'.030
MUNICIPAL . CODE OF ORONO
30.030. Intent and Purpose. The Zoning Code is adopted for the
purpose of:
Protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenienC!e
and general welfare.
. Dividing the Village into zones and · districts restricting and regu
lating therein the location, construction; · reconstruction, alteration, and
use of structures and land. ·
· Promoting orderly development of the residential, business; industri-
al, recreational and public areas. ·
Providing adequate light, air, and convenience of access to property.
Limiting congestion in the public right-of-way.
· Preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of struc
tures by regulating the use of the land and buildings and the bulk of
buildings in relation to the land and buildings surrounding them.
Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most
appropriate use of land throughout the Village.
Providing for a more orderly transition from a rural to suburban
environment. · ·
· 30.040 .. · Definitions. As used in the Zoning Code the ·· following
words and phrases shall mean:
✓Accessory Use or Structure. A use or structure subordinate to
and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and custo
marily incid~ntal thereto.
. .
.. ·. -Agricultµre. '. The utilization of land by raising plants, trees or
shrubs or the raising of domestic animals or fowl, or both, for the pur
pose of selling to secure a p_rofit.
Airport or Heliport. Any land, water, or structure which is used or
intended for use for the landing or take-off of aircraft, and any appurte
nant land or structure used or intended for use for port buildings. or
other port structures or right-of-way. ·
Alley. A public right-of-way which affords a secondary means of
access to abutting property.
Automobile Repair-Major. General repair, rebuilding · of trailers,
including body work, · framework and major painting service.
Automobile Repair-Minor. The replacement of any part or repair
of any part which does not require the removal of the engine head or pan,
engine, transmission or differential; incidental body and fender work,
16 1-1-68
..
t
T
_: -·..,-..
31.380
LAND USE
dential Developments as provided for hereinafter no more than one prin~
cipal building shall be located on a lot.
31.220. Lots to F.ace Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street
or appropriate private easement.
31.300. Accessory Buildings.
✓ 31.310. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure
shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the
principal building to which it is accessory.
31.320. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R" Dis
trict shall exceed the height of the principal building, except barns or
stables which shall be subject to the approval of the counsel.
31.330. Area Restrictions. In all ''R" Districts no accessory build
ing shall exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area except
barn, stable or greenhouse.
31.340 . Location. No detached garages or other accessory building
shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on
that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake.
31.350. Conditional Use Permit Required. All accessory buildings
on through lots located in "R" Districts shall require a conditional use
permit.
31.360. Dwelling Use Prohibited. No cellar, basement, tent, trailer,
or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied dwelling.
31.370. Crowding Principal Building. No accessory building or
structure , unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erect
ed, altered, or moved within 10 feet of the principal building.
31.380. Garages. Accessory buildings which are for the storage of
1-1-68 25 t
I
f
J
!
:/ ., ,,
~~.i.~ :
"':,,, •.• ,:·:
. •' ;···
'-'"'·\·
/,
,•·
/
. ''ll
/
-r:; ir .. ···
I
· ... ;.;·
,.
·' ' ;.
·,;
..• i \· r,
//
/''
//
/
/
./
/'
/
o"r--<v
~
' ' ' '
ii~,. ", ...
--✓
/,,.:'' \,\
L....
-'6'~-
,/. ·.tr
,/
"' ._.,
\
\
Survey for:
s ... cum e.t.s.~
l5 "' Et.ECUc l:!Vx
! • F['IC( COE!N!'~
6 .. ri...,qco r-..: s:-cw·•1 "' ~ .. .
-t'l ""t"YC~,'111'/'
:$ • 1.li:Hf FO .. E
..;..,. UTI?..IN PQ;,,E
Q • S,.1.N1U,R'f CR '..tCf.M \A,l,!;HQl(
1:) • T(•.~011C111£ BC)(
J
g FREDERICK STREET ?.
A
LL
I
,..,-
\
r.." \o;~..fJ .... --... ('\~► ·tt,;~· .,.,.>
(jl' ~ .,.,:.:..., ~
'\. ''-~---,.-,• / '\_ r:r.-"' ,...-,,x: · I
\L......_
\
__ ,,,,,
'-;
/
./
__ ,,. /\
1 -----T·--··7
' •, ~ _:, ' ·, ·>
1
sm: ,,:_·.·
\,.. . ....
.. ,, I '
I ' I . + ' J-··-·· -·--·-i
• I I
;•,,,'• I
(:··.• I ()·
...... .:_ ..
I _____ I ______ _
S[CnON 20. m-?. 1f7, RCC. 2J
LOCA170N MAP
\•Q$C,1l(
,,,.,,,,,,
/_,,,.,-/
.. ,,,,,.,.... . .,,.t•'"
,,,.,, ,,/
/ ,.. _,...,,/
,,,./\ ·,·'"/,,,, ,,,.. __ ,,,. IA ,
/ ef _; . ._, / -~(.,.i'/1 -~/:w 'h
!'?,J/1,>. /
.._) 't(;., ~--·-<.·.:·•'. /~, \ ,_.t-~ ,, ..._(\,
, ... ~ :\.~
\Ht,<!;)
'14,_1\~oC'-►'"
◄•'\'{",.\!-),:;, .. ,~ ,-,: .. -~'"'~
,~~':> ,,.
~ I . :'·I
\
o.~ 'b.
~
o,
1-w w
ct:
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
l
!.'
, ,<P .·:: .~""it· ..
\
\
.\
<
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ ,
\
\
\
\ ';\
\~:" \
' \
/
/
/
/
SCALE IN FEET -~ 'i i i T
1 IDch • 30 fl
/
/
/
/
/
/ ,,,,
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
\/
Survey for:
S1REET
ii -CATCH BASIN
fi5 • El.£CTIC BOX
o • FENCE CORNER
~ • FLARED ENO SECTION
~ • HltlRANT
• C LIGHT POLE
.J;-. UTILITY POLE
Q • SANITARY OR STORM MANHOU:
ill -11:l..EPHONE BOX
r-------r------,
I I I
I ~ t -~ I I ;:-... ",' I I , ' I 'IE: .<: I
I ~\"' I ~~ I
I T-,.. I ' I
: ------: -----i
I ~~ I ~~ I
I •' I r~-I IC,•' I -.r I
I I I
I I I L ______ ..J.. ______ J
SECTION 20, TIIP. 117, RGE. 2J
I.OIM111f .,,
NOSCALE
LOT 1 AREA = 34,215 S.F.
0.76 ACRES
DRIVEWAY EASEMENT-A AREA = 2,660 S.F.
0.06 ACRES
DRIVEWAY EASEMENT-B AREA = 526 S.F.
-0.01 ACRES
LOT , AREA -DRIVEWAY EASEMENTS: 5~.,r>~Jls
AREA Vt£ST OF W'L Y DRIVEWAY EASEMENT -22,216 S.F. = 0.51 ACRES
\
,~.,
I ,.,,
~ ~;¢> ~-I fllN DfSCRIPDQN
<l<'ji1F OUllOT 1, LOlS 1, J AND ♦, SLOO< 1, TILJ.SON"s VILLA CARMAN, ACCORDING
BRANDL ANDERSON HOMES
WT AREAS 51 ~~ LOT 1 LOT 3 +-LOT ♦ +-oun.0T 1
-~ LOT 1 LOT 3 LOT ♦ OU1I.DT,
Ii~ It:~: I 1-u. Ii=~: i~-ll.51lli 24.11lli
PROPOSED BARDCOVD ABBAS -~ LOT 1 I.OT 3 I.OT 4 OU1I.DT ,
Ii:: Ii~ 12.17" I 1--~-~~ I
PROPOSED INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT -A
A 15.00 foot wide perpetual easement far ingress and egress purposes lying
over, under and across port of Lot 1, Block 1, llLLSON'S VILLA CARMEN,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The
center line af said easement is described as follows:
Commencing at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1; thence on an
assumed bearing of South 51 degrees 22 minutes 15 seconds West, along
the northwesterly line of said Lat 1. a distance of 44.00 feet ta the
point af beginning of said center line; thence South 11 degrees 16
minutes 15 seconds West. a distance of 18.39 feet; thence southwesterly,
a distance of 26.21 feet, along a tangential cur;e, concave ta the
northwest, ha\llng a radius of 135.90 feet, and a central angle of 11
degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds; thence southwesterly, a distance of 36. 18
feet, along a reverse curve, concave to the southeast. having a radius
of 137.62 feet and a central angle of 15 degrees 03 minutes 46 seconds;
thence South 08 degrees 07 minutes 59 seconds West, tangent to
said curve, a distance af 15. 73 feet; thence southerly, a distance
of 5.52 feet, along a tangential curve, concave lo the east, ha\llng a
radius of 13.00 feet, and a central angle of 24 degrees 21 minutes 00
seconds; thence South 16 degrees 13 minutes 01 seconds East, tangent to
said curve, a distance of 48.89 feet; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes
06 seconds East, a distance of 25.61 feet to an easterly line of said
Lot 1 and there terminating.
The side lines of said easement shall be prolonged or shortened to terminate
on said northwesterly and easterly lines of said Lat 1.
PROPOSED INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT -B
An easement for Ingress and e?,ress purposes lyfng over, under and across that
part of Lot 1, Block 1, TILLSON S VILLA CARMAN, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the fallowing described
line:
Commencing at the most northerly comer of said Lot 1; thence on on
assumed bearing of South 23 degrees 36 minutes 40 seconds East, along a
northeasterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 71.31 feet to the point
of beginning of soid line; thence South 03 degrees 16 minutes 39 seconds
East, o distance of 55.93 feet to o southeasterly line of said Lot 1 and
there terminating. ~~~""'~ TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF. HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA.
..:\,~~--YE HERESY CERTIFY 10 BRANOL ANDERSON HOMES THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR REPORT WAS
.. ~~ PREPARED BY ME. OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND
,I! ,-. SURIIEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATED THIS 15111 DAY OF FEBRUARY, ._"4,..'\,, 1995.
\J"' SIGNED: ~~~• P.A. r;?_ ~ I.a,-,, l..m,d StlMlyor IA>•-l.lconN No. 19828
.... :11-'-
•••••
~°'=°'at'u,20 .............
:... ~II.£. -------
. I .
·:!
-i
·'
'
.. i •
. :;
'
; . .... ..
..
: ·/· ...
. . :; .
' .
: .; . ·.· ..... ~ . :·: . . •'
{)
,,,
,, ··•'~
l
I
\
_,,.
' • •
• • '
..
' .-' ~ .. : . _. .
. '' ' . .
·-. '.
•. ' ... ' . .
. -. '
j ' ••'
. .-... • •• i : . •. . '
-~·, ,,
,, .· ·{',.·
-1,·_ . :
; .. ) .
'.' -., _-
... · ... _ .. •-:
. : '. ~
·,'
'
I
t
•
' ' k
. . ' ~ . ~<·.
•(, .·.: .
',,
'',
,' , --, ~ ' _ _,,,/ 0
I ,
r • •'
• -• J • :: • ,.,~
·. ' '.
. -::... ~ ·---....:...__._ ~
·:·:-· : .
'·, ~----
. ', . , . , .-
. . ~ ' '
._. ·' .
. ' . . . . ' ·. . . :~ .
: . ··.'. ·. ,,._
--·~ "
. ·-..
!· ,, .
j •• ,. ...
:· .. · ·, . ,.
I .. :
! . : : ' :
! . -• .. '
'. '-!
t .... •' • :' ., ·-. : . . . . . .
; ,·: -'}.
! ,·.·
l ~ .. ; . : . -
---.' ··:,: .. '
----,,:,_: • i "7-:---.
'_ .. ' :· . -'. ~
,! ·. I'-'\ -~--...... :. :,::· .•·, ·,
. -·-. '
,....,,_J \1,. ,;--.....___~ ''
[ \" . ,'
'• i .
"J . I
:~· . . \ .
:;.t, : .\)_
/'! j
-\:,. '
l • l' ' i,