The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutProject PacketTelephone 4 73-7:357 CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka May 13, 1983 Mr. Roger J. Ramstad Ramstad, Theisen & Kennedy 3918 Beau-D-Rue Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Kane Property -2697 Casco Point Road -Lot 4, Aud. Subd. No. 265 Lorge Property -Lot 3, Aud. Subd. No. 265 Dear Mr. Ramstad: This letter is in response to your letter dated May 3, 1983 regarding future development on the Lorge property. As you and your clients are aware, the City has in settlement of litigation granted to Lorge lot area and lot width variances making Lot 3 buildable. Since your clients were not involved in the litigation, they were not involved in the settlement. Notice particularly, that no other variances were granted and, therefore, any future construction on the lot must fully conform to all building height, setback and hardcover provisions of the zoning district, and further, that as a part of this same settlement, Lorge has agreed to design his construction in a manner such that no aggravation of the existing drainage problems in the neighborhood shall occur. The City is well aware of the driveway and water line encroachments over Lot 3, and in fact, on November 24, 1980, the City Council adopted Resolution #1231 specifically approving the granting of driveway and utility easements over Lot 3 in favor of Lot 4. The City, at that time, understood that such easements were desired by your clients as a condition of their purchase of Lot 4. In any event, I would hope that such private easements were, in fact, executed and recorded in your clients' favor. The draft easement provided that the grantor (Lorge) could relocate the utility line and easement at his expense. Since these are private easements, the City has no record of their being recorded or in what form they may have been recorded, and the City is not in a position to administer or enforce the terms of such easements. That would be up to the benefiting grantee (your client). Mr. Roger Ramstad May 13, 1983 Page 2 As of this date, Mr. Lorge has not submitted any construction plans to the City. When he does so, those plans will become public records and your clients may review them in the City office during normal business hours. I have left a note in the Lorge file requesting that your client be notified if and when a permit application is received by the City. Please note that such notice to an abutting owner is highly unusual, is not required by any ordinance, and is not part of the Building Official's normal plan review routine. I understand your clients' real concerns with construction on Lot 3. I would not like them to miss an opportunity to look over the plans. But since we may not receive a permit application for some time, I cannot promise you a special notice which might be overlooked by someone unfamiliar with this case. Therefore, I suggest that your clients' retain the initiative by contacting Mr. Lorge directly and/or by watching for signs of activity on Lot 3. They may call the City anytime and as often as desired to check on the status of this lot, or just as a reminder to us that they are concerned. I suggest this not as a way to avoid notifying the Kanes but simply in recognition of the working limitations that exist in reality. Especially considering your clients' concern with the easements as well as with drainage and other matters, I think it especially important that they become directly involved with contacting Mr. Lorge and assi$ting him in working out these mutual design problems before the time he submits plans to the City. Finally as you requested, I am forwarding a copy of your letter to the City Attorney's office for his information. I trust the above has answered your questions about this property. Planner APO/ams Enclosure cc: Walter R. Benson, City Administrator Bruce D. Malkerson, City Attorney JeanneA. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Tom J. Jacobs, Building Official Richard Lorge, Property owner ROGER J. RAMSTAD JOEL A. THEISEN JEFFREY W. KENNEDY City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RAMSTAD, THEISEN & KENNEDY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3918 BEAU-D-RUE DRIVE CEDARVALE HIGHLANDS EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122 May 3, 1983 TELEPHONE (61 21 452-4252 Attention: City Council Member, and the Building and Zoning Department RE: Lots 3 and 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265, Hennepin County Minnesota, (Richard Lorge matter) Dear Sirs: Please be advised that Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Kane, have extreme and justified concern regarding Lot 3 in the above-referenced property. It is my understand ing that Lot 3 has been granted a variance to which the same may be buildable in the future. There is a present concern that the water servicing Lot 4, the Kane's Lot runs diagonally across Lot 3 to their home Lot 4. Therefore, prior to the time of granting any permits, which would involve putting hard cover over any of the pipes, I would request that notice be given both to this office, and to Mr. and Mrs. Kane. In addition, there is some concern that excavation and the pressure of any building over this water surface piping could possibly cause a fracturing of the same. Therefore, it would be requested that prior to the time of any building on Lot 3, that this water service be moved at the expense of the owner of Lot 3, so that it would have no ramification whatsoever on the Kane's property on Lot 4. If there was a problem with this, I would request and urge that you contact the undersigned. In addition to the above, I would formally request that prior to the granting of any building permits, that the Kane's and other interested parties have the opportunity to review any proposed building plans to see of the same may have an impact on their property, both environmentally or otherwise. In that a decision was made to grant this variance, after a point in time when the city council had indicated that no variance would be granted, and the same was granted without notice to my clients, I would appreciate your cooperation concerning all of the above. In addition, I would request that you forward a copy of this letter to the city attorney's office, so that he may call me for further discussions on this situation. If you have any questions of comments regarding any of the above, I would urge you to contact me at your earliest convenience. RJR: dmJ / ) / , RESOLUTION NO. 1231 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANTING OF A DRIVEWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT OVER LOT 3, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 265, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS~ Richard Lorge is the owner of property known as Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter Lot 3); and WHERI;:AS, Richard Lorge sold Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter Lot 4) to Jerome M. Reinan and Shar0n I. R~inan on May 29, 1980; and ffiiEREAs,· Reinan is now selling Lot 4 to Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Kane; and WHEREAS, Lorge has stated to the City Council that at the time of the sale of Lot 4 to Reinan, he promised that some time in the future a driveway and utilities easement would be granted to Lot 4 over Lot 3 out to Casco Point Road at a location where the present driveway exits over Lot 3; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Kane and Mr. Lorge and Mr. Reinan all individually and jointly desire to have the City approve of the granting of the easements, described further in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has previously reviewed a separate application by Mr. Lorge seeking several variances to allow Lot 3 to be a buildable lot; and WHEREAS, the City Council has indicated to Mr. Lorge at the City Council Meeting of November 10, 1980, that_the City Council does not at this time believe Lot 3 was buildable since it was in common ownership with Lot 4 and since the Orono zoning code specifically prohibited the building on a substandard lot when that substandard lot at one time was held in common ownership with an adjacent substandard lot as was the case with Lot 3 and 4 when they were in common ownership by Mr. Lorge and the City Council also expressed numerous other concerns about the buildability of Lot 3 and directed staff to investigate the facts further; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the City Council approves of the granting of the drivew~y and utility easemerits pursuant to the terms set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. ,✓ ) 2. That the City Council is approving those easements only because of the representations made by Mr. Lorge that he wants the City to approve those easements even though he understands that the granting of these easements will thereafter result in Lot 3's being used by the owners of Lot 4 for numerous purposes including driveway and utility access and he understands that the City Council has previously informed h'im that the possibility of having more than one home exiting out onto the dangerous curve on Casco Point Road from Lot 3 could be cause for a denial of any variance to the zoning code of the City of Orono to allow Lot 3 to be hereinafter buildable. 3. That the City Council finds that although this is a dangerous curve, that because this driveway over Lot 3 has historically serveo the house on Lot 4, that there is no new problem created by the approval of this easement since the traffic from Lot 4 should be similar to the traffic generated from Lot 4 in the past. 4. This resolution shall be effective upon signing thereof by Mr. and Mrs. Lorge. This resolution consitutes the formal approval of the creation of those easements and filing of them with the Hennepin County Recorders Office, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This resolution was adopted by the City Council on the 24th day of November, 1980, by a vote Attest: Alberta Strom City Clerk William B. I, Richard Lorge, agree that I have applied to the City of Orono for and join the application by the Kane's on file with the City of Orono for the approval of a driveway and utility easement as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. I understand that the .:1 j city Council has previously indicated that the creation on a permanent basis of such a driveway and utility easem_ent may constitute additional factors why the variances applied for Lot 3 could be denied by the City Council in the future. ~········~··~~, .....•..••..• '4 Tw7'7~VYVT •r.,,..T,.....,..,,,-·~.---.r-oo--...-·,.-"T,,-~ t .~~.. MARY A. ROBINSON li'J,, _!JA1' NOT ARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA ~ fl'Y WRIGHT COUNTY ····."'~.L-My Commission Expl•es Mar. 17, 1Q87 ..,...,...,...,...,,.,,...,,...,....,...>->~.,..,...,..,.~~~ Sworn to befor<nme this tJfL day of C?C'P--<'."L--,rJ~a 0. cfr~~ ;;;ublic Mr. Richard Lorge }")1 /2/J ' ~0~ Mrs. Richard~Lorge / \:'· \>,· \ • ~ 1 ,.,·, .. ~ . ·. ·'~-:-~--... -. ti ~it-I-fc, ' ',,:· •.: ··~:;', ·t: . _. ., ., ,:· .. ::) ,· .. { ... , ,, . ..:": ... . . A ;Jf'J"'' [ .. :,.' r,.UJ• L. . ·~.· --1}. '· · .. ·, r•L·· t "r ,. .. 1 •--.·r '1) , . • , .,. I ~ \ • I . . .. l'or J:i.,+·,rd J, i.01•f~e ·: 11 (i()';lllT.:'.l:J) \. 1,1,t /, J lice. tion ~!1•-ll 7-~.1 -. •.. DEED OF AJPURTEN~NT EASEMENT ., 00f'.. .. L / ,_, .,.,. f ,!_/., , ,. ~i" .:.L .1.:: C~ 1 J .• Reina~, husbana and wifs, 2~ joJ.nt tenants, grant0e~, ,., .r= ~-' ..! .. 1:C ti .:.1_ ·\·:. r~r.1.1:-t. c> :f.: 1~_;()'\lf~ rr11n,:.~rri:. L,{)T.:. l\ t s c:!c.~ t.ic:• r1 2 0 , ;_r:i:)1•rr1s }·Li. 1? .".i..1 7 T:;[{) 1~-t. i·1, l?t1.-: 11~Jr.~ 2 3 1·.:(·.: :~; L <) :f i.:l°J.(~ .1 ·.~:; t:}1. J?i:· i :nt:= j_ r-1::.tl i'-·°ic_:~1::-il.:tia.r1 1 ().~:,:_1t~.:;·\-~: f)Z11:· a.11 C: 1 ;;.-,::j_ t.I-1 t.1·1r·., :::;() 1:1 t. h·:.~-.:.'C: s ;::.c.~:c.1. ~{ 1 i:nc~ () :f T.:()t:. T. J .. ~ r ~; :p.1:· j_ }'"r l_3 r: -~--I~}:: ! tt Tl(:! c] i ;] :.~. ,'._) n t. '.J O :C e~c; t.. ;_), t. :r: :i_ ;JI}. t. Et 0~} 1 i::~ r:; r~ ( )1:. t:l i ~·· \•.7f~:::; t.c;1.:-.1 \.:-t.J.1.c: r·c?:LJ:·c1 rn r :_: h. !~ {: c:(-:; [2;(-:; t'tt:ti t.'::.r.::;.;::: t:c-~ ;:· i :l r:~r:11:.::.1.~~-· J .. f.'..!1 \\? i ·~~"i,1 ·1.-J1c~ sc~u. i_·.1·1\.·/C:.::.;t:c.::i:-.-J..\/ }.inc~ C· r ~:;;J if} :r.:::)t:. 1 ~.°):} t'.() >:h(.°'. ~-:'•!()'U.t~·:.~.-- .... .. . . f-; :c .L -~-./ . L .. L Tl C~ 0 l: :.•:.; u j_ cl r. ):t~·c, J:(-1 .?\·\r<~ rru.r.~ t.<) L:~·.: (:· r,:c) i r1 :: ci E ~-.-(·:~ t:: L' :i. ·-.,;; lir1i::.: \.•.1J.t:}1 t.J."~.~::: E.!c)·u.t:~·1(;::tr) i.:.(~.1=- ·i:· .i ( I l ·-1.-~ r·i •._i J. C· :_; r:c.1 i .. 1, t.:;.-1 ",d('. ::;; t. c:I~ .1 .. ·~v:-·t.: .nc:.J~' (~ { 1·~()fn; t: 1·1 E"~rl(': (': t<r.) ]:_ .. t 'h. - ··~-~.re.~ ::;·t: c.1~ .. .1 ~/ I/t.1:r· i~11.L ,~! J. '-"l J. t.1'1 f'·. ;-!(.": !:;,::) u. t.J."J\.\r(;r:_; ·~: e 1~ 1 J_r 1 i r1.c~ C) :f ~:-~,':\ .i,.:I ~~:o·;_:. ]. J 11-·:::i:.) ::; a :i.{} ~:_;h_C).i." c::; ::: .. i 1c'.r1c:.-·-·. ···T:) :r. .. ·trtf:::rts t.t::;~c:l. \..,. a.1(.J ·t1g· :-::: a. icl. ;:(hc:..-rc.-:: t.C) t.1".IC! r::c,.·i .. :e:t: ():.C 1~:(:.sr-.i..JLtLi.r:~c~ .::-t:l.} ac.·r.;t)j'_~(1:i.r;.q· -~.-:t) j_J(:! r.:1a. ·f·. C) f Spr: in <.J !? ri :c ii:. () j). r i .\. c· _-i_ [l t.-. ;.i c; () :f .L ~~-c:c: () r ! . J: ! ~ (~( 1 1.1:n 1::.\r -i -, . .1.anc1 j_:r: . [) ::'1 J~ ;J_ 1 :L ;:=;.1 \~Ti. t 11 t .. h (': ~_.; ::..-, ·i ·,_--.,..; c: s L c: 1~· 1 ~y· J .. ii:') c; C) :C T .1fJ ··;_:. J .. 3 1·: ~ .. :;r.;r·j .. J··1{J "f·la1:.~]( t1r\rJ. d.:i.1-:;·l_,:·:.11·1:. :_; __ ~;:~-~ .L .. (::c~t: :· .. :c:.~.1tl·it--1{:!r~t:1:?r·.i.\/ ,:;_·t: 1::·:i.(~1l·½\· . . /\ \lr:: n.1.1c~ t:c) t. 1·10~ r)r.> i r1 i: c~ :f i :nt:c: :r:· :-~~ r.::::(,; t:.~::_ c;:n. (.-:i :~:· 1:-. J:1c~ \.---,i c~ ~:; ·[:·~:::: ·t·: .I\•' ). :L r1 c: (; f! .::~;-:1. J. c'i. C):cci 1·H) J.\ '-.re: ntJ ci TVi L h ;::_ 1 :i.rtc~ <J:r:·-~:1 \•.iX1 fJZ'i.~c ,: , ~-t J.. r~1 -t:}1 t.·i:1c! ~:;,c,11.t~tn·/C:~-~~l~.f.::-:r: ·· .. L:tn.r~ ():L' ~::~,:-:}ir:1 L:C) L·. I.J:.1 1:.1.ril~. <:~i.~:~·:·:c\1·1t. · :: .. L D fr; (:t~ ::~ . .-;c; :.1 ·t: 1'1;.-•.JC: :.::: -t: c: 1~ J. .>,. ~::. -t: J:'." :L cr·1·1 t. ;) r1 SJ .L c~ s t:. l-:tf::~ x~(.:; f: ~C()Jn ~· ·c:. .. 1 r~ :nc: (:: ·rc.Lt:·t1'1\•.'c.::~:.~t.r:.7::c1y--t;~1.:! }if1 :--=~;_1.,:·;"l_ ~• .. ·· 1-1") t:I-,c: ;:-;c)1..1.tJ·n:1c::~::.:t.c~:r:J \~-.:.::_ne:~ ·,) ;~ :-;~! .1 t~ ! .. ,f·:t. J_J..-:. ·l'.~.t.) LJ.°1c~: ::.:;1 .. H.)J_ ... ,.:.~: (;::: :Ltt!':c~ f .. 'J.'.L.r1r1c-:;).:c~rd-::..:::;; X):i!l i.::_ ~~ . . , (..! I. .DC:C_J ~LT) :t·i. :1.:n~J t 1? t1 t~.1-1 e::1-c~J f a . ..i.1 -::1. c~c~•.::> :r:cJ:L n 1:J r~:~.) tl'1c; r?l t::! t: (:1 L {) .~. ·r f :.~.1 (~ (.) :c () :[: .r· C: c~ C) T.~ !~l :i .. r~. t.11 (:~ t} ~= :~: j_ C1 ··.:, -:.";; • ~:.J'; C~ T:c:9· i :~; tc: J.' () f })r::~ c:rJ S ir1 a"11cJ f:() ."C r-; .~J J.U. (~-:) ·u y·i ·• ·: .. :· ~· l1a.·t..re t:.tSJJ·:eeC{ Ul}C>n -tl1~::: ct1 ~:c:1nc:11t. l1erE~j_naf t.ei_ .. (.1c~sc:r.·:\.bc~c.1; On::~ Dcill;:-1r c1n.C:l C)t:.11(?1:'' c;c)o<:i r1..r1d. \iz·!11-1trl."Jl(~ C(.1r1sic1e:ra.t.io·n t.c) t:h(:rn J.I~ 1"1a.) -~) :·!()n--r·.:<:.·• 1 u~:: ~ '/C c1e E'-c~ .r i. ·.bc:-(:l /c.~Lt r-;c~n1C.:n. t~::-.1 ~ ci0scr~bcd ~s follows: t?ha. t: 1?El.1:'L: () :f C:~Ci 1-]C:1:·rnnc:r1 ·1~ J.°..:::.) t: /]_ >· :·3 ,--::c; t::i.r) r1 2 0 : t°J!()Vln s11.i p 11 "'i' J\i·, __ .. • .. : ... 1 .. 1. 1, 1.~i::t 11·-j t.:~ :2 ~; Y,•:f c:. ~:t c·, -~-:· 1:t1c: ~) -~:1-1 .i: .-i:~ :i. n.c~ i f)~1]_ r·J1.f~r.· ~.(1 i a.r1, c'.lc~:.:.: - c: t· if)i::::(l .:·~ ~:":'. :f:(J 1.1. c.).-.:./;;:~ : Bc:<Ji r1 n i r1J· tt t -i.:I1c~ _f:)C) .ix1 t. .:._1 f i:n t~1.;?.T: :..><-:~<::!t.ic, n (jJ.~ t1-1r:: ::·;}.·10:c·(: c)f: .1~1a.1-~.(.-:: I'1I.1.11:nc:tc.'lriJ(2l \\1 .i·{:J:-1 :-~t J_i11c. cJ..1:·171·~,v·.rt IJ,:;.ri:1].lr~l 'f,,\i'i t.11 ·c }·1 c~ f3()1J t:11~.-~lc~ F~ tc~r· J .. )l :i .. i. r1c; 0 :r I1C)t: 13 :':_. : f]I)J~· :i.:n.~-., r~a.x: .k-.' :::1r-:.,J ci i ::> Lit n.·t: 9 0 f E~C:!·1: .:-1 t:. ::~ .L !J[1 t. r.1.r1s11 (?. _::; !'.·.~c)1-1t.J·1i.,/t:; r;t~(:-t" 1 y ·tJ:').c.~:r~(-:::f r()rn r t .. 1-1 c~ ric: c~ ~~;c)1-1 ·t.l-1 etr :_.; i.:f:: :r: J. )/ r::·;-; :r.· a . .1.1 C:} T 1.~l i t.I·i t: ·~-1 (:.: ~-:;() ll -L:.1'1·•:.vc:: s ·~:.c~-;:.· J. ~-i :l. .i.1·1 c~ ;):t' ::_;~l:ic.1 I.:CJt: J 3 .. 1 t.r) -~:lJC'. ~ .. :-:()t1·t:}1\,l(:[;t~e::1 .. 1~:( ] . .-i.n.(~ r.):f ():CC):r;f.J )\.'t,.rf:~r11J.C~; tJ.-1er1 cc~ !:3c)1..1·ti1c~1:~1 _)7 !·_-t 1()tt 1.._1 t:J-1c! i~J(; s !: (:~:r J_ :~l J. i 1·1 c~ c, f ~;i:J i (i ())~() ric) J\·\-rc.:11 t: (:; t:-::J ·t: 1·1c: f)O i r1 t-. () .f i l-1 t:(·~1··s c~c~ t:.ic.)T'1 C) :1: :-.~<.1i .. (i t"-io ;_:; t:01:· }.}l' l. :i. n.<:! \,•Y:l.. ;: 1--: l:.J:ic.~ ~;()'l1 t.I'lC!(1 ~_;·t C• 1: .. ..L -~/ C}~t:c?rl f-:-~ it) n (i ~r ;1 l .i Yl(:: c]1:~ ;~1 \Vrl }.;)~).'.C tt1 .1 c~.t 't•l5.·i.::!·~ t-.hf:'. ·t~Jc)u.t:11\•lc~si.:c::c li .. r1c:: o:f ::)21:i_(:J. ~Le•::: 1.31{. a.1·1cJ C.-l.'J...~:1t·.E1rit. 150 feet at right anglr~ Southwesterly ther0from; t~enc~ ~; z-1 :.t ct ·i :() ·f·:. J ~·-:·~ .-1 t: C."J t·:; ;) J. d. ~~~ ; .. ; t ·J x>·: : t. J-1. c, n c~ c: t-Jc) 1: :~~ 1-1 c::~ a !:_; ·L (:. r :I. y· 2-1 :!. \") :n.•~J r.;t.: _j_C{ ~--·;"J:1CJ]~-(:~ ·l:~C) ~----~-~-C: r:c·,::;_-:--: :::. () ~ }')(:;iJid'.ilill~.~;, r·.:.lJ .. c1cc:,:).t:-.:Ji;:1t;J ·cc; ·t:t1e r:'.'.La. ••;_:. c-' f ~~~11J ..... L r.1g r:-n r. .. k: r:.! ~: ·:.:· j_ ). t.·.~ i.r1 t::-.11.{~: c.:i :f: f i c~(1 r) f ·t:·h-:.:~ (~:c;'Gi1 t:\r r.:.f.::c(; r ,:·tc! .r .ir1 ,-:) rH:: :;·::t:::r... ·t.-;' :":: :nrH:'!}) .L n. c:cj1.rn t. \r it J\.1 "i: ~11:t1e ~3()·f:;:·1 1 1 y··:J. !l~J ::!. -~---·L ·; •::~ {)C) i r:t -~:: r) _;} i r1 ·t.: c~ r .. ;_~ c~-:.: t: :L : .. > r~ <.) f-~::h (:_~ !'-JfJ r-t.:l-i., .. v·(:: st~ C! :L"' 1 y·· 1 :L 11 c: c1 :C L).J...OCJ J, C~ci~-;c~~·.) t:~:{)::_~j"t!.t~--~ r ,::~c~c;(J1:t:l:.i .. r1•J ·i.:.•.#l ·i·.i.1e r.~C:C():r·ci(~{.i }):Lz.1·t, -.:,_ • ._:5_ i:.!'1 t.1·1(; SC)t1t.}1(-;.:1 r~ ·tc;:r: .!. \' r:~:<t: 1-::n ;:; ilJ n. () f ::t 1 :L.r1c~ (i1:-t11:li .. 2 }~1a.:r .:111 c:~: 1 \·? I. ·t: ;·i i:-.t/i tJ J. .:) 0 :f: c: t.?.·f: f~c:, 1.:~ L: 1·1\·JC~ ~~; :.:c~ :1~ I::/·, rn1:.·:.~J-!:.-; 1-1.1:-(_:.:cl c:;. ·i:. :-r:.-:l. ~J l1 t: ar1 ·~J 1 c~ !:-; : _;_ ,:_ r •: ti t.11 c~ S() u t:.1Yt:·lC~ r; ·~:.c• X" 1 ~/-J. :; __ n (i () f ::;a . .i {l r.1ci ·\:. 13 i} ; -~:):1 c~:r1c~ '::?! 1--JS::'..i :i~--i: 11 ...... \·Ji~~= !:3 ·t:·(~1:· :.L ~i' Ct},() nsr :::.~(ti ;J (:•;:: ::·.t}1"~ !·; _I_ 0 r1 D. r1 Cl r:.ai {i. [>t:1:1:~E.;.].1 c·•.:L ]. i rl(~ a c.i.:i.r;t:ctr1c:c·: of 7·7 :fc~c:'f:. ;--... :) ·i•.-.J.;.c: T_)C>i11t. C:).f:' l)c·sJi1"111in~J <.):f:' t:J-1(:! ~t:Ln!.:~ ~~!n~oi~~~~~~:~1yttr~:0 0~ 0 ~!~~~!~~v=~3~~c~ltc2°~~~::rt~, r:i. n(t. ·f:.: I .tt:: .-ct::! (! 1.1(1 i 11 c_r .. North, Range 23 Wes~ c: J:-~i. t)l::!Ci ,j ~; f c) :L lo\•/;·~ ~.-r;(~(J :i.r1r1 :L n ~J a. t. t:1-i'-:.~ 1?c,i111: c, :f.:' i l.J.i:c:;.1:~ sc:c~t.: :i.on of the shore of Lake Minncit00ka with a line drawn parallel \.•::i i:"h ·Ll .. ,c; E:;01..'l t.l'l\r,H.~ ~~; t:.(~.1"~ l _>r./ .1 :i.i"-1('• () t' I,()t:. 13 13. f . !)~().C ir1r:r :i?Ltr:1( t (·~t 11C.l ·c .. ::1-::·-:r:t:: :_·~ S:.)Lt tl-i c:.:-.1 st.c·1~·.1. ·~/ r:i,:_:.! ·::· ti . ..1. J_ C! .i.. T•l:i.:t· r, ti·1 c: ::::c11.1t:.h\i11.::~t:: t.e:~2:-1 ~?' :t ~;-11 c~ 1:.? :C ::·;tt i ([ I.:<)t. 'L :_:; ,::i t.tJ t.h: t.;c~t11.:.:J-i.~\:c: E) -:.-~.c;:c 1 :/ .J. i rH:.~ () :f C)x·tJrirJ /\·\.tf..:~rrc-i.C~ ~ ... . . .J.:i.nc:. ()::. )\"\}'(:~'!~.1..li;.:~ t.C) tJ:.c: f)() j_ r1 ·t: (; .r .L ·n ·¼:.c~ r·r.-;r.::::; L:.i() r1 ( j :C ~:~,71 id t·r·.:. ;:~ ·t:r~:r.-i \:-' ,:, ·1_ ~--i (' with the SoutheasterJv ·xtension of~ li.ne Jrawn parallel ·v.r:I. t: }-;. t.J.'·1c·, :: .. :() 11·t:I-l\\rc; ~:·~ t:c~:r~· 1 j/ .·i. i 11 C::1 r) :f r;a. :.i_.j ·.Lot 13 -~ .::..: ":f{J <1:L ;;;t.a.ri i.: 15 0 :f (;(~ t 7.:1.t. .1:· :L !Jilt. E1I1 1::f J. (? r; ~:)()";_";_ t1.1 "vle::-; t.(:.1::.1 :/ t: 'h (':'.:rr:~:.[ ]~()![\; t. !·1t~l1C(~ 1:-'.!C) r:i:J-1- ~~-:•·c: ::~ t:eJ"~ :Ly r,,:·.i .. r a.J. 1 C! l. ,.,,r:L t:.11 ·l·:J-1.c; :3c;·u t~17.\V(:. s t:(:::r:-1 :·/' L ·i_ .!.~(.:-, () :[ ,:·_~D .. ::_(1 T .. c>·l: :! .. 3 4 t.() t:¥~.::1. :i. d. :::~: ·he.·~ r·1 ... ; t.·t~1 (~r1(1 c: i>Jo:c-t: ·h i'.?:a. s t:C!J~ 1 ~i· .:.1 J..ci n.<J sci i<] ;:'._; t1c ·: :;·; t:J·:; (; T)() :·;_ 11 -t. ,)f:!~J :t fl!.1 :L r.1 (Jr tJ.1.1 tic:(:() :r,~cj i i.1\J t:C} t:.1·1(': l:) Ia i:: ( c:c;1.J:n-L:.;;: T-:.c~c;c)1~C ]. ~/ j_ n ~J t~•Ji t.l·1i.n 1:· :.i :F c·:(.: •;,: ()l'"t c·~n.<:'t1. ::•~ ~L{I:::-::: C) :L" t.}1.,;:-~ :?t) 11 ()'~.>J:i. r\::j (:tc· ::;c::c :i. l'.1E.~,J c~ i::;r1 ·tr:~r J. i r C~c,;:rrr:H::-::n c: .:L r1~;r n. t: ·;~--·i·j (:·. JJ() .int:. 1~) _:: ~i .. n.t:(:·:r ::;ic_>-:.: t:.i ()T\ () .r 1.:}1.:::: t-:Jc) rtJ-1r.:l( .1.. :.i. :1 r::~ () :f }J] __ () ('.: :f.:~ C'.tt ~~; c:c) ff t:! .]_er}·/·: . .::: , 21. c~ c:c) :r: (] :L D.~; t:o t:110 1:c.:=C!() l i' 1 ti ~~~-, -~.~/ ,-_;,_ ·t: D ~.::. ·~:1 e r: () 11 t. 1:i r:·: i:J :=:~ t. {:~ 1'.' J. ~:/ c~.:r-: t: c: r1 s-.; i {) .r1 fJ f .::~ 1 i r1 0 cl 1:-D. r,_,,l r }?t't ·1:·;1:L]_;.:::::L \ .. :;j_ ·t.~· .. 1·1 ,::tr:tc1 1 :.:\o :.:.::(~(•.:i: :·3()1.1 L)'\':.1/r.::~si.:c:r:·lst r rneu~3llrec1 t=~ t: u.r-:1~-T:.Lc::; ;'" :f:t·r_;rn t.J-1c\ Sci-c1·{:h'<:.iC.:st:<.-::~r<L~{ J.iric: c,i· ~:;r..1i 1J I.1ot: 134; t !·· . .f{) I.' t.:!·:\·.7C~ t~; i::.c·~.1:--J. )1 a :LoI'l(:J ~3~·: ~L Cl c~>: t:.(~1·1 :.=: Lr.) i.1 ;;_1 n C. r-:c:-t j_ (~i }?,:1.r·c.111 c-~ 1 J .=~: rJ.i:-:;t:;:).:ric:c~ cJ:f ~.:~..-12 :Lc-:c:·t. t.o tl-1.f; J.)(.:;ir:i~: (:•:;·.: t:r).t~Jir111:Lr1<:J c):f t:} (~ C::r.·1 ""/::(:·:.:c ] .. =L l'l c:: .1".iC) :1. :r·; (_'! c7{ (:~ ~~;c~ l .... i. t.~(~(j ; i.: 'h ,:·:·:. r;,{~~ (?, (l (?; f: 1 c~c:: 1:: i!l sr :L."' :Lg 'rt t i: ::J:.:-·:·J :r::::.~c~ !·; ;-:; C:-.i i ~; t.tl r1c~ t.-.~ C) j: .1. .. t: .-.?:c~-i~. _; 'i::.i.·1 ;:•2:11 c:c; (1c; 1: 1 c:.c.~ t.ir1.~-1 :·c j_ q11 t d ;::;:.:11:c·~c~ :~.~ :1. cl is t.i:l :nc~ c·~ () :! .. '. HO J: c~c:.·t:; c.·h.r~:r1c~c~ cJc: .f }. <.::(~t.ir1~:; 1 c:·f t: ( l {:~!!~r }~t·~ :::~ r::; ;J_ {t :i. ~'.·.~ t·~t.t 1"! t.": c·~ () :[ 1:S H :f:' (:'.c~·L ; ·1:. }1c:11c: (! r:1.,::) .f J ec ·i.:. 5_r1 ~J ;:· :i.~-:; }'l t (ic~~JJ."(:;:(:~~3 t() t:!·1<.::~ J:~;~i!•:;t:c:'.°1:·1~-/ 11.r!(?. c1i:' ~::!r:i·:_n .:;tJ);.')\r~::~-•(1c·:sC!J:-i1)CfJ I nnu there ending. Grant~es or thc1.r heirs or ~s~igns shall maintair ir hci.rs or ossigns use saia CE at their .t-l, L .. J._ ·-· J-.. Richard ,T. Lorge ,Jc,a.n L. Lorqe S'I'Nf.'E DEED 'J,AX DUE HEREON: ST~TE OF MINNESOTA) --------------r 1980, l)f~~:::c)r:e me pcr~~or1a.J.ly Uf:)F,(~c-:i:rc:c1 1~:ichc.trc1 \.T. I,cJr~Je a:nd i:re,.111. L.. IJc)rSJt';'; r -~-n i:-)· r--.... 1••· ,., a r " n ·•-CY•-,~ c1 .,, , •. -. r i' }·),,.., ,·J · ·, ·n ,-.,. n. a'1 1,._t... .L ...:.. t .. iJ.t:.., .. :i -U..J. L.. ,, .L ,:-> -ti.:-..:.,\ .. ~ --1..::>.... -·-· .A. cxcicuted the foregoing inr;tr:ume11t:, f.tnd ackr).o·wledged tha.·1:: th,::y executed the same as their free act and deed. 'Th :i.s instrument was drafted by= }3E~S'I' F-t ~FTJ.i\I'·Tl\.G·l'1T-;J (l'<fVP) ,1 l)il U IDS CentC:!Y.' Mjnneapolis, MN 55402 Notary Public ~vho ) city Council has previously indicated that the creation on a permanent basis of such a driveway and utility easement may constitute additional factors why the variances applied for Lot 3 could be denied by the City Council in the future. Mr. Richard Lorge .~0&--, / Sworn to befor~me this qHL day of c?UP---c"L~J~BO. c?n~1ik}-ir--_, ~ublic CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5532:1 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka April 13, 1983 Mr. Jon P. Parrington Pustorino & Pederson 200 Cornelia Building 4005 West 55 Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Re: Lorge vs. City of Orono Dear Jon: Attached are four signed copies each of the Stipulation for Settlement and Contract for Indemnification for your distribution. We have retained one signed copy of each for our records. City Planner APO/ams Enclosures cc: Bruce D. Malkerson, City Attorney w/o enclosures BUILDING & ZONING -473-7357 ASSESSING • ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE -473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS -473-7359 ) .;.~. . :\ r 't,. \:- \~~~ 1 ;1• . ;.,.... ·.?,,: ·.·· .. · ... ::,t \1 , ..• : < . .4, . ... . ,, . ,.;• I ~t• • • . . ' . •·-~i ;• .. ~ !~ r·l t r ('. , · ,· _._~_. . ,' :·· • fl ,,1!.i (1.f .. l'nr J:frl,·:rd J, i,Ol'f~~ ·ln (io':u1•r.:-:,:nt. ,,11t /,1 /~cc. tion ::.1< ·-ll 7-~.1 ·•.· ·•. ! r FOO ~--~~-----------~-------~----------------~--------------~---~--- 'II • J. Lo • n , Pl"aintiffs , Orono, a Minneota y i y , Wi ll V. Ne , My o f o ono , Gregg an ah, Oron o Council pe rson, r y Butler , Or ono u ncilperaon, Jo 8 l n Rurr, Oron o Councilperson, an ormer ou ne lperso ns, Rob rt ar Le, Gary Wels h, and Paul Tesek , De f nd ant s. urt STI ND -----------------------------------------------~--------~--~------ WHERES , Richar J . Lo e J •• of the foll w d rel \)rope y Oro , en {hereinafter ) desire to difte.rences, IT rs HEREBY AGREED: 1. 'rhe Ci to t.o Lot. 3, i,mces as to width and area from oroi.nances o to 3. 6. in 7. with standard shall be t 3. -1 " ; Hay, 1910 • Dec. 30, 1920 Dec. 29, 1921 Feb., 1930 July, 1940 May, 1949 April, 1965 1966 9/5/67 1958 11/21/67 1970 1971 8/10/72 8/31/72 ) CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS Charles Bloomquist acquires lot 4 from Langum. Hazael Bloomquist acquires lot 3 from Hoy. Hazel Bloomquist acquires lot 4 from Charles Bloomquist. Both lots 3 & 4 now owned in common with separate Torrens Certificates. Lots 3 & 4 deeded to Charles & Maggie Bloomquist with separate cettificates. Both lots sold to Anderson combined as one certificate and one mort9age • .... Both lots sold to Woodards--one certificate--one mortgage. Both lots sold to Gronvolds--one certificate--one mortgage. Sewer project ordered for Casco Point area Sewe~ installed in front of 2697rlasco Point Road and ~n whole area. Only one stu rovided for the two lots. Only one unit charge ssessed. 1967 Zoning Code adopted effective 9/14/67. Zoned this area R-lD 1/2 acre single family residential (unsevered properties zoned 1, 1 1/2 or 2 acres pervn,t-) Sewer connected to -;}_697 Casco Point Road. Water project o~dered for Casco Point area. Water project installed. Only one stub provided for the two lots. Only one unit charge assessed. Lorge acquires lot 3 & 4 on one Certificate i480490j a.s,,,so-.~d G,,-ove,/d~ o~ ;1,c,,,tJa.3e-. Water connected to residence. 12/2/74 12/18/74 11/16/77 11/30/78 Winter, 1980 Comprehensive Guide Plan adopted. i,./,de,... City lfl:iae zoning amendments adopted effective 1/1/75. This area retains 1/2 acre zoning--no performance standard changes since 1967 except 75' lakeshore/hardcover requirements. Lot area, width, setbacks, common ownership requiremen~s all stayed the same. Lorge mortgages lots 3 & 4 together. Lorge adds second mortgage for combined lots. Inquiry from Mary Robinson, Burnet Realty, to Mabusth regarding buildability of lot 3. ~he was told variances would be required and tha+common ownershipF°sed difficulties. Lot 4 with house sold C-D (traded?) to Reinan thus breaking common ownership after 60 years. June-July, 1980 Inquiry to Mabusth from buildability of lot 3. been sold separate from survey was required. Charles Da Mart regarding He advised that lot 4 had lot 3. he was told a 6/23/80 July, 1980 8/11/80 8/12/80 8/13/80 8/80 9/2/80 Date of survey of lot 3. survey of lot 3 provided by realtor met 90% of lot area requirements. Mabusth says lot width not discussed. Hardcover variance discussed with Da Mart. Council meeting--Butler brings up lot & facts. Motionf calling lot unbuildable. WRB calls Lorge with news of Council action. APO letter to Lorge regarding lot width/common ownership information. Mabusth held two meetings with Lorge. Lorge fil~~ variance application 4~~1 including: -2- ' I f 9/15/80 9/22/80 10/16/80 10/20/80 10/21/80 11/3/80 11/10/80 11/12/80 11/17/80 a) Survey dated 3/28/74 of both lots coro~ined (dashed line divides lots; heavy solid border around both lots) b) Da Mart house plan. c) Affidavit of Richard & Jean Lorge and Kathleen Granvold. d) Tax statements from 1977 & 1978. e) Copy of C-D to Reinan for lot 4. Mabusth memo to PC including: a) Lorge application and information. b) Petition from neighbors opposing variance--received 9/9/80. c) Letter from Child 2715 Casco Point Road citing drainage, etc. d) Several supreme court cases regarding substandard lots. (Note: PC meeting notices were mailed 9/19/80) PC meeting--tabled for staff research. Mabusth memo to PC regarding similar application~. PC meeting--Frahm moved, Rovegno seconded to approve:vote; 5 aye, 1 nay (Jabbour). Notice of PC action. ~ W\2H.~ t-o-a-i. • Mabusth memo to Council regarding PC ~comodalion.'!. Council meeting including questioning of Lorge by BDM. Tabled for additional staff research. Notice of Council action. Burnet Realty letter requesting approval of an access easement over lot 3 to serve residence on lot 4 (driveway & curb are on lot 3) to facilitate sale of lot 4 from Reinan to Kane. -3- 11/20/80 11/24/80 ~ . 12/9/80 12/17/80 1/5/88 1/6/81 1/8/81 1/8/81 1/9/81 1/12/81 1/16/81 '1/19/81 1/23/81 Mabusth memo to C regarding access request. Council meeting--adopted Resolution 11231 approving access easement. Includes a statement signed by Richard & Mrs. Lorge on 12/9/80 that the granting of this easement may be an additional factor weighing against granting of the variance for lot 3. Lorge signature of Resolution il231. Council meeting--reaffirmed Resolution 41231. Variance review tabled without discussion for attorney's review. File copy received of 11/19/80 title~search. APO memo to Council regarding findings necessary to approve or deny variance. Included a draft resolution to deny. BDM draft memo to Council regarding title search, facts and legal opinions. •Minneapolis Star• published sale of lot 4 from Reinan to Kane for $125,000. BDM final memo to Council. Council meeting; Lorge and attorney Oberhauser present. Lorge presented a new site plan with relocated house. Tabled to allow Oberhauser time to prepare a written explanation of claimed hardships. Notice of Council action. Receipt of Oberhauser letter about hardships. APO comments to Council added on a copy. Call from Lorge to APO discussing options and his attempts to have neighbors buy lot 3. Said he has had Oberhauser's legal advise •since May•. Said he wants $30,000 for lot 3. I suggested he try to change neighbors minds about a relocated house as his best chance of changing the Council's mind. -4- 1/26/81 1/18/81 • 2/6/81 2/9/81 2/11/81 2/12/91 Council meeting--Lorge & Oberhauser present. Butler moved, paurus seconded to conceptually approve draft Reso1A9ion denying application. Staff to -reverse f 1nal language. r~ v, 5e,, Notice of Council action. BDM letter to Oberhauser with final draft resolution. Call from Grathwol to APO: wanted Lorge removed from agenda. APO stated that resolution expected to be approved and recommended that Lorge be present and represented. Council meeting. Butler moved, Van Nest seconded to adopt Resolution 41246. Notice of action plus signed resolution sent to Lorge ;cc Oberhauser. Kanes purchased lot 4 and residence (2697 Casco Point Road) April, 1981 10/6/81 10/16/81 Jean Lorge becomes sole owner of lot 3. Complaint about Lorge building a fence. Site inspection. No code violations on fence but new deck within 75' of lake found on Kane lot. Letter sent to Kane. t' ~ J 1 ~ · ;n .l/""';J o R ?ecat&<u. '½t'tsA7 Ci~~ Mr. & Mrs. Kane in to s APO about deck. They (P,///;,l!--n-w111'!.J... dock location is on or near lot 3 and does not meet 10' setback from lot 3. They will remove/correct deck by 6/1/82. No other contact with or from Lorge 2/81-~/82. :?/tg-7.. 3/3/82 3/8/82 3/22/82 0556j -Aal(l~-1? rew~J c::U ~ -k-rie. -NfCl~~J';-iJ ~'l',7 d/7. City served with Lorge lawsuit. Nabusth recap memo. APO chonological memo. See also APO comments on copy of suit. -5- p~ "''"()/;~ t!:/ /d-2d,ftt7 ,,.,,kr-e_ PC! ~t!n.r~1tcbd ~/'(XI~. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1246 A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES REQUESTED BY RICHARD LORGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATEC AT 2697 CASCO POINT ROAD \vHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Richard Lorge has applied for a lot width variance to permit construction of a new single family residence on Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by some future buyer of Lot 3; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; comments and petitions submitted by neighborhood citizens; and letters and comments made by the applicant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot width variance (Section 34.552) for Lot 3, and denies the other required variances for which no applications were made, which variances are lot width variance (Section 34.552) for Lots 3 and 4, lot area variance (Section 34.552) for Lot 4, side setback (Section 34.552) for Lot 4, and development of substandard lots of record-held in common owner ship (Section 31.202) for Lots 3 and 4, based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: 1. The property is located in the LR~lc Single Family Lakeshore Residential District which has the following minimum lot requirements: Section 34.552 Lot Area Lot Width Front Setback Lake Setback Side Setback 21,780 s.f. 100 ft. 30 ft. 75 ft. 10 ft. 2. Lot 3 is deficient in regards to lot area and lot width requirements as follows: Lot 3 actual area is 19,641 s.f. -short 2,139 s.f. (10%) Lot 3 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) Page l of 6 3. Lot 4 is also deficient in regards to lot area and Lot width requirements as follows: Lot 4 actual area is 20,202 s.f. -short 1,578 s.f. (7%) Lot 4 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) 4. Lot 4 contains a residence which is deficient in regards to required setbacks as follows: Actual lake setback 64 ft. -short 11 ft. (15%) North side setback 6 ft. -short 4 ft. (40%) 5. Lorge has failed to apply for a variance for side yard setback for the house of Lot 4. 6. Lorge has failed to apply for a variance from the lot area requirements of the zoning Code for Lots 3 and 4. 7. Lot 3 was owned in common with abutting Lot 4 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by applicant Lorge from 1972 until May, 1980, when Lorge sold Lot 4 and retained Lot 3. 8. Lot 3 had been owned in common with Lot 4 since 1920 by a succession of 5 different owners. 9. Lot 3 and Lot 4 had frequently been combined by prior owners on one Torrens Certificate and since 1940 Lot 3 and 4 have been combined on one Torrens Certificate. 10. Lots 3 and 4 have frequently been encumbered jointly by one or more mortgages since 1940, and during the time period when Lorge owned Lot 3 and 4. 11. Vacant Lot 3 has since 1920 been used as lawn area for the residence of Lot 4. With this use and with the lots in common ownership, the two lots combined met all the District zoning requirements, except lakeshore setback, as follows: Lot 3 & 4 combined lot area -39,843 s.f. Lot 3 and & combined lot width -120 ft. North side setback -66 ft. 12. The driveway access for the resiuence on Lot 4 crosses subject Lot 3 and enters the public street from Lot 3. Page 2 of 6 13. A steep hill on both lots precludes construction of separate driveways without major land alteration. 14. Access safety onto Casco Point Road at this location is a concern because of a curve in the public street and because the steep hill on these lots reduces exit visibility. Having two driveways or multiple use of one driveway at this location would increase the safety problems. 15. Only one water service stub and one sewer connection stub have been provided for both lots. Occupied Lot 4 has been connected to public sever and water service and has been assessed for one sewer connection unit and one water unit. Vacant Lot 3 has not been assessed unit charges for sewer or water. 16. Water service for the residence on Lot 4 was connected in 1972 via a pipe through Lot 3 to a service stub provided on Lot 3. 17. At the request of applicant Lorge, the City Council on November 24, 1980, adopted Resolution No. 1231 approving creation of private easements over Lot 3 in favor of Lot 4 to accommodate the existing driveway and utility services, with the agreed upon understanding of Lorge that such approval for combined use of the separate lots may be an additional factor in considering denial of the variance for which Lorge had applied. 18. Both lots have been zoned for a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre, 21, 780 s.f. since Ordinance No. 93 in 1967, at which time the two lots were held in common ownership by Kaare and Kathleen Granvold and which lots combined met the requirements of this zoning density. 19. Richard and Jean Lorge purchased both lots in 1972, with certificate of title document 480490 recorded August 10, 1972, at which time the lot in combination met the requirements of the 1967 zoning code, and at which time Lot 3 would not have been separately buildable without the same lot width variance applied for herein and a variance for lot area, for which Lorge still has not applied. 20. In comprehensive city wide rezoning in 1974, Ordinance No. 172 changed the District designation but did not change the minimum lot area, lot width or yard setback standards for this area as originally established in 1967. 21. Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, has stated in the record that in January or February, 1980, she received a call from a realtor representing Lorge asking about the buildability of Lot 3 if Lot 4 were sold to someone else, at which time the realtor was advised that vaiances would be required to build a house on Lot 3. Page 3 of 6 22. Lorge sold Lot 4, but not Lot 3, to Jerome Reinan on May 29, 1980, thereby separating the parcels for the first time since 1920 and thereby making both Lot 3 and Lot 4 substandard and deficient in regards to zoning requirements as enumerated above. 23. Lorge applied on August 29, 1980 for a lot width variance for Lot 3, but not for any other variances, stating as a hardship that there was ''no adjacent land available". 24. Prior to the Lorqe sale of Lot 4 on May 29, 1980, there was adjacent land available to Lot 3 in the form of Lot 4 which historically had been owned in common with Lot 3. 25. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Lot 3 has always had value and been used as required area and yard space for the residence on Lot 4. 26. Any hardship resulting from the separate ownership of Lot 3 has been caused by the applicant's sale of adjacent Lot 4 eight years after common ownership by the applicant of both lots and thirteen years after the adoption of the applicable minimum zoning requirements. 27. The development of Lot 3 for residential purposes ~s proposed by Lorge would add to the existing drainage problems for the properties in the area, including Lot 4, previously owned by Lorge. 28. The granting of the variances would be adverse to the state promulgated low density shorelands development policy, Minn. Stat. §105.485, Subd. 1, which calls for a minimum lot width of 75 feet on a General Development or Recreational Development Lake such as Lake Minnetonka. 29. Section 31.202 of the Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the lot of record meets 80% of the required lot width. Lot 3 does not conform to this Section because it is only 60% of the required lot width and because it was in common ownership with Lot 4 between 1967 and 1980. 30. The City Council has always required that when two or more lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. Page 4 of 6 31. The granting of the required variances would result in the following violations of Section 32.340 of the Zoning Code with which the applicant must first comply before the required variances can be granted: a. The variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined herein. b. The safety and welfare of the community would be adversely affected for the reasons outlined herein, especially increased traffic and drainage problems. c. The amount of liqht and air in the nei~hborhood would be diminished by adding a structure on the substandard lot. d. The values of surrounding properties will be adversely affected. e. There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. f. The condition of having a substandard lot or two adjacent substandard lots held in common applies generally in the lakeshore residential districts. g. The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. h. The granting of the variances will impair the health, safety, comfort and be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. i. The granting of the variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 32. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary to any of the above findings of fact. The applicant has claimed only that Lot 3 would be of greater value to him if he could sell Page 5 of 6 it to a third party with the variances necessary to-build a home upon it. 33. Now that Lot 3 and Lot 4 are no longer held in common ownership, the City Assessor is directed to review the estimated market value of Lot 3 to insure that the estimated market value reflects the fact that the lot is not buildable. 11 Aoopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the day of February , 1981. 11::a~ete~ ~ ATTEST: Walter R; ~enson, City Administrator Alberta Strom, City Clerk Page 6 of 6 TO: Walter R. Benson FROM: Alan P. Olson, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1982 SUBJECT: #581 Richard Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road - Zoning Variance Appeal On September 2, 1980, Mr. Lorge formally applied for a lot width variance to construct a single family residence on his property legally described as Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision #265. On February 11, 1981, Council adopted resolution #1246 denying the requested iot width variance and other variances not requested but determined by Council to be required in order to build a residence on Lot 3. On March 3, 1982, the City was served with a lawsuit by Mr. Lorge alleging various complaints. The matter is in litigation. As a part of that litigation, Mr. Lorge has been advised to address his adminstrative remedies which begin with a formal appeal of the variance. That appeal is the subject of this appearance before the City Council. Mr. Lorge has requested that this matter be heard at approximately 9:00 or 9:30 PM on July 26, 1982, during the regular Council meeting. July 7, 1982 Mr. Allen P. Olson City Planner City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: #581 Variance Application -2697 Casco Point Road Dear Mr. Olson: Enclosed is a drawing indicating the approximate placement of a home on the referenced property at the east end of the property as described in my letter of June 29, 1982. I assume you will send me a copy of the agenda for the scheduled Council meeting on Monday, July 26, 1982. Sincerely, Richard J. Lorge 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, MN 55315 RJL:mg Enclosure cc: Jon Parrington I I ::;; ...,; i i _, _, q_ .- ;,. ' -~. i f ';...1 _·i,,._, tu ' j : i ! I ~ ,:7/ I -/ i.,, ~ I ..... -.. :,~ I r---✓ _. : -J .· ,O:;,✓• : /' i .. ; \ ; . f I !~ .;r ., • I ' .'t •, __./ ' ! ! .,, ------_, ~ ...... . - er '-- ' -: ..... J --! I t,., .......... I- i I .~ 'I :,J.> -~ -· = = -,- ..., .ti ,_ :; . ., -::: .., -""' ,- ::: ;:: ::.. :: ;.- -,.--i - ---... ::: : .: :.. .. :::. ::.. ::: --~ --= ..: --=-.... :.. '--' ::, > -,.. ... _, . ::- .,,: ..., --. :.. 0 -' ~ -• ..,l c.:z:;; =~=---,,...,--> -t ..., ,,:; .- 0 _,;; :, - C :..;z.J<i:~-- -:.J --a ...... ::: ':, ~ ,., CJ ::.. ::, ,_ .:, , :: -:: -.,J ·--::: _, ..J :: : ,c - ._ ..... July 1, 1982 Richard J. Lorge 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, MN 55315 CITY of ORONO- Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5532:l•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka ~Variance Application -2697 Casco Point Road Dear Mr. Lorge: I am in receipt of your June 29, 1982 letter. This is to confirm that you will have a place on the City Council agenda for their meeting scheduled on· Monday, July 26, 1982, which begins at 7:00 PM. I had expected you to send a drawing or plan of your current request along with your letter. Such a plan will be necessary for the Council to understand the details of your request. The plan and/or anything else you wish the City Council to review should be received in my office not later than the Monday prior (July 19th) in order to be included in the Council's information packet. cc: Jon Parrington BUILDING & ZONING -473-7357 ASSESSl.'\G • ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE -473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS -473-7359 June 29, 1982 Mr. Alan P. Olson Village Planner P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota· 55323 Ref: Civ 4-82-139 Dear Mr. Olson JJ. 1932. :,;\:· t0 Ut,CI---TY~O F~O:.:::R~O NmO In a pre-trial conference before Judge Miles Lord in the referenced action, Judge Lord strongly urged that we bring the matter of this controversy before the Orono Village Council again. You, Mr. Parrington, and I agreed to this action. This letter formally requests a meeting before the Council and brings forth new or additional information for the Council to consider. 1. Financial difficulties have resulted in the loss of the farm in Carver County. We are now renters. This farm was acquired in trade for the house on Casco Point. Our loss is linked to the circumstances surrounding Lot 3 in Casco Point (Aud. Sub 265). 2. Because of the foregoing, we wish only to build a single family residence on Lot 3 for our home. 3. Specifically we propose: a. The home would be built toward the road and not between the existing homes. b. The driveway and parking area would be as close to street level as possible and provide entry to a two car garage at that level. c. Water from buildings (house and garage) would be directed to underground storage, which may also serve as a heat energy storage, and held depending on water level in the current drain system. A simple float switch would determine if water from the storage is released to the.drain. If the drain is full, no water is released. When the float goes down, the stored water is released. The tentative schedule for an informal meeting with the Council is Monday, July 26, 1982. It is my understanding that you will confirm this day and time. Sincerely, r/4/L<UuL 11. ;e,t j<-16/Jl) Richard J. ~e ~i 16750 Halsey Avenue cc: Carver, Minnesota 55315 Mr. Jon Parrington Pustorino & Pederson 200 Cornelia Bldg. 4005 West 65th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 PRON : RB: DA '?B : POPHAM . HAIK . SCHNO .. ,cM. Au, AN DOTY , TD. Lr 3643-078 Bruce D. Nalkeraon Appeara nce by Lor9e Before the City Council and Executive Se••ton July 27, 1982 At 8:05 p.m., Lorge waa preaent before tbe City Counci l to diacuaa his ideas concerning bow to settle the caae. BDM stated that thia 1• not a formal a pp lic a tion but ia instead an attempt by Lorge to persuade tb• City Council to reconsider it• prior action. BDM introduced Jon Parrington, the attorney for Lorge. . Lorge stated that Judge Lord auggeated that w t lt possible ways to settle the case. He atated •ay earcb the file• leaves me with a better .unde rataaa ding of · 11 tb work the Council must do.• Be stated th t be trad d Lot 4 downpayment on the far in carv e r count y but tb t d l 11 through nd th ey are renters now on ly nd be wou d lik to 11Y Casco Po int. There have be en two concer n: tho loc:at on o t houa • it r elate• to the neig bbora and tb• w ter rainav problem . He is willing to ove the houae clo er to tb road to accommodate the neighbora. In r gard to tb v tr dr 1 , wou l d c pture all the water comin g off tbe a truct ure or tb gr, and place it in the tank under the bou e and ua t • b ng tank. It wo uld diechar ge i nto the dr in•v• ayat • when fu ll. b preaent drainag ia plugged a t t he parking lot ar a and b would tie into it at that point and tben th• vat r voul a diach r in to tbe exiating atorm w ter drainfield which cro a v r 1 lo • It ia in need of repair. Th• ground i very cl like an it h ds water after the initial rain . Bi• bou would con ora vitb our zoning code. Th• alternat ive• vould be to build tb• bOlle , perh pa reaonin9, aell it to tb nelth bor , or continu n llti9atlo n. Ny objective ia only to build tbe hoao, not d ... g•. In re9ard to the joint ovner ahip laau•, und•r tb• typ cal e-tb l, . the tvo lota are in joint owner ahip and both are uniapr ov d, at leaat the owner can then decid where to put tbe houa. ln tbl~ ca•• there vaa already one houae on th l ot and tha t llaited tb cbo lcea to him•• to the buildablllty of th• aecond lot. • ••~~~ Po.-HAM. HAIK. ScHNOliUIUCH. KAU,.MAN ,. DOTY, LTD. July 27, 1982 Pav• 2 that we look at the r•aolution. B• did not apply for v&riancea for Lot 4 because he did not own ito H• baa apent a lot of bo~r• at the Minne•ota Law library and believe• gen•rally •• f~llova: •> The legality of th• ordinance itaelt. variouc atatut•• give you power•, but application of the ordinance ia iaportant. b} Unconstitutional vaguen••• of ordinance. sold the property, an attorney looked at statement to me that I could not do it. that further.) At the tiae: the aale, no (Inveoti9ate c) Key documents. The first tiae I knew about the problea was after the August 12, 1980, council meeting vben I received a letter from Olson. d) Principles of eminent douin, aubatantial diainution to the property. Lorge admitted there is some value to tbe property even without a building on it but not aa aucb. SDM asked what the n•i9bbor ■ nave aaid concerning thia aince be stated previouuly that be bad vorked on tbe probleae with the neighbor• even though their approval ia not neceaaary. Lorge atated he talked to Bob and Betty Bunt ~A~ aakGd tbea what conditiona they find acceptable. They have not r••pona•d• I have not talked to other nei9hbora. The Mayor aaid that it 1• hi• underatanding be ia looting now to build a boa• for his own occ~pancy and tb•t you will ayrH concernin9 storm vater drainav•• Lorge atated Y••• Th•r• baa been a concorn abo~t tb• cucv• of the road on the property. That ro.d can perbapa be straightened out. I will abare the aue curb cut vitb Lot• vbicb ia on Lot l. I will keep th• garage •••n with tbe roadvay to limit the visibility problem. Bob Bunt stated that hia nei9bbor, Cbarl••, aaked tbat yo~ look at hi• prior lotter and bia nel9bbor, &cbandler, aaid loot•~ hie letter. .... 1 . . Ji POftHAM, HAIK. SCHNO•fttCH. KAU,-MAN & 0oTY, LTD. · • July 21, 1982 Pa9• 3 lan• atated that h• waa tbe owner of Lot 4 ~nd tbat the v•t•r problea i• ■ore aeriou• than baa been atated. &ach on• toot of vater ia in bia baaeant. It ia very low back and it auat be kept for vater draina9e. council•aber Burr atated would you agrH that th• exiating drainfield i• no good. Kan• stated there ia no drainfield by bia bouae. That dratntield ia to the rear of the other bou••• Bunt atated that Mr. Charle•• driveway ia atartinq to collapae because of the drainage. It 9oe• into Cbarlea• p,operty. The system fails today. Lorge stated in 8 years there has been a continuoua proble■ and it has gotten worse and he would fix a portion of it on hia property. Bunt stated that the water goea onto Sh&ndler•a property vbi1:h is Lot 7. Lorge atatea that it croaaea tbre• lota. Kan• atated that tho drainage ayatea in ta. ~ck WOQla .o~ aolv• hie probl•••• Tb• Mayor. asked it there bad been•~ intereat 1a bll,YiDI tilit lot. Bunt atated that Mr. ~•n• and I have n•ver talked •bo~t it. Tb• Mayor atated tbia aatter ia in litiv•tion &ad it 1• aoaeti ■-a better to have tb• nei9bbora aolve it tb&D to b&ft tb• Court aolv• it. Lor9• ■aid he would tM villin9 to loot at a r••~ draina9e ayatea. a»M atated that if Lorge vanta to aate • foraal eppli®tioa for a variance vitb full pre••ntatioaa in front oft-• Pluatnv co-iaaion and council vitb public bearing• h• aQ do eo bQt be underatanda tbat tbia ia not auob an applioatioQ. Lorv• a;reed., The preaentation to th• Co~noil t•raiaated •t l&Jij p.a. 7 PO,.HAN. HAtK. SCMNO.lliCH, i<AUl'NAN • DOTY. i.T&;.. July 27• ltl2 ••9•. At 9:55 P••• th• Council vent into <lXecut1v• •••aior. • .Jo~ Pu:rin"ton, tile attorney froa th• int,H,u:11.;,e:e C~ii.i."'QY, w.:a z,.:.~.;.:,.;.t ai1d atat-4 that I •auapect thiilt if it umaine tJiQfor• J1,u:ige w,·c:ii, it vill be an uphill battle againat bia. '!i!ecbnically~ we ~~vw ar9u•d b• Mbould 90 into atat• diatriet court. lnatead be ~a• tak•n • aid• attack. I have talked to the Aoighbora an~ ta~y c:ertaia:aly bave atrong feelini• against tbia.111 autl•r .1tated that be owned lot• that were auoat.1u1arcl. Do•• not:/~bink n'ahould vary fro• it. Parrington at•t•d th&t he a9r...S tullY with our legal t•cbnical poaition but thought that Judg• LOrd would be more int~u:e«1ted in the fact that tbia lot i• aiailar in siae to others. The Mayor asked if he tbou9ht that tbe boiler plate ordinance was unconstitutional. Parrington stated no. Butler stated we talked a lot before about drainage, the neighbor ■ do not want their property ri~ u~ juat to fix bia drainage problem. The house haa to be built in the drain•9e aval• where the water ia now so tb•r• is no way they can aolve tb• problem. The Mayor stated that at leaat be baa now talked about• location of the houae at the back of tbe lot Vbicb vill ~lu.iute aome of th• concern• about ator• wat•r 6nd traffic. There followed a diacuaaion about a poaoibl• text mw&w.aeut to allow loi;■ in coaon ownerahip to bv incU.viduC1ll.Y b'1ilt ~~ •• long aa they each •••tao, of the reQuir••nta of tbe ooae a.iailar to the uv\ rul• in th• ■in9le ownerabip aituation. Upon further diaCt'.liilliOn tbtu:e waa II aotiOA to iDfor.a L.org~ aa follova: •aaaed upon tbe iau.oraation that LOrge baa ;iv~n t.o Ila at tb• Council aeetin9 of July 2b, l982, the City ae<ta nothing therein to warrant a change in tho aonin9 cod•• UOVQYor tbia vao not a foraal pr•••ntation for a varianc• an~ LOrgo ta fr• to llllke an application for• variance pur•~•nt to the :oning cocle. Al abould draft and ••nd • letter.• CpQU vote tbe aotioa Cfirrieci 5-0 and the exeutive ••••ion ter•inated ap~o•iaat•lY 10:SO p.a. coi Mayor and City Council Walter R. Ben ■on Alan P. O.'laon Jon Parrington . . UNIT&O ilTAZES DIS'J.'aiCT COURT STATS OP' MINNUOTA J'OUR'IB DISTalC!' lt.icbard J. Lorge and Jean L.. Lorge, Plaintiffs, City of Orono, a Ninneaota Statutory City, Nilliaa v. Van Nest, Mayor ot Orono, Gregg Hannah, Ou>uo councilperson, Maty Butler, Orono Councilperson, Jo Bllen Hurr, Orono Councilperson., and fornr councilpersons, Robert Searles, Gary Welsh, and Paul Tesek, Defendanta. Cfl MINOMNOON IN SUPPORT 01' PLAINTIFFS' CROSS MOTIOH POR SUNNARY JUDGMENT In thia motion, Plaintiff• contend tbat tbe &ctiona of tbe City of Orono in denying Plaintiff• area and width varianc.ar are arbitrary and unr•aaonable, have caua•d a devaataU.ni loaa of value to Plaintiffs, and aaount to an unconati'tut.ional tating of· plaintiff•' property in violation of 42 o.s.c. 11912. The faota aupportin1 tbia claia are ••t fortb tn tbe affidaYit of Riobard Lort• which aooolllPMi•• tbia aotion. Riobard and Jean Lott• purobaaed tb• lot■ in qQeatloa, .S.al9ute0 3 and ., ia 1972. .At that tt .. , .P•ltber. lot..~~" vltb oroeo• • 11,1 1on1n9 regulation. vbtob req\llr..S a l.00 ft. wt4tb . . and on•-h•lf aca:e of area per lot in tbia :onin,a diattict, but Plaltitifl• were inforaed that both lota had been "granaf.itber11a• in under that ordinance'• aaving• clau••• In 1975, bow•v•f', Orono •nacted OrcUnanee 172, whlcb · addr••••ci the OOllbination of auoatandard lota in comon ownerahip.1 Aa noted by defendant• in their ■eac>randua, the Lot in question, Lot 3, ia 2139 aquare f••t, or 10, shy of the ona•half acre area requireunt, ancl 60 feet wide, as opposed to tho 100 ft. wiatb requireaent required 1such "combination• ordinance• have been a courts in certain circu1111tancea.. See •• 9., Ded 239 N.N.2d 913 (Minn. 1976) (two undeveloped -~n!g9._ Board_ of , 387 H .. B.2d 170 (Naaa. 1 • var ianc•• are ten granted to a■eliorate th• barah effocta of such re9ulationa. See 387 A.2d 965 iP~. 1978); A. 1,J ,~ s,s!} 3,7 N.i.:.a:d 890 (19 193 N.tf .. ~d 4:7J"J (Iowi'il, 1972); App. 235, 1•16 S.,i..:2d 5 "'9 (1 9 A Jil.ft""' ,,.,,,V <c~ ., ... , ., c.rit• iJ.a. .,u 9lij, liS N. tnQir actiOft to ciaai,u1 •alt• little or no •ntion of o,ainarace 172 S3l.2u2, ,.a.a Plaintitfa are uncertain whether that ordin•~• ia roliQd upon. The language of! tbe ordinance is ubi9uoua in it• referonce to •more intenaely developed•, leavi~i th• r••~or uncertain w~othe: t11v ordinance intends to prohibit all d11velo;,.."i?nt: o., iii\icb lota ol record or to prohibit more iratense developijiient than tho single ta•ily detached dwelli referr•d to in th• orainan.c.. TH t~•t of th• ordinana• ia aa llowat 31.202. ~9 and lf l t lot of dat• of Oiatrict. of t~ia City of up to and including one acre, which lot ia ••r:•1c•d by p\lblic ••nitfir:t ••wr lii,,d which doea not Met the requitlililent.¥ of tbia loning Cod• &a to ar4l& or vidth Cf!IJJ,, A&Y bi& utilized t.or ■1n9le t.aaU.y dwt•ched dw~llir.g prupo••• without Council approval t~ th• ~~0a meaaur•aenta and vidth of tbat lot QtQ -~~h~n 80 pecoent of! th• require11tOnta of tbia ionin9 Code. lowever, the lot o, reoord aball not be ac,re int•naely develop.ad 11nl••• cOilbinwd vi th on• or 110re abutttnv lot.a or portiona thereof ■o •• to oreate a lot Metin9 the requir•Mnta of thla lontnv Code. 2 by tb• 11,1 aontnv ordinance. In ltlO, Plaintiff trad•d Lot 4, which at all ti ■ea UtQrial bwr•to baa been iaproved witb a raeiutnco. 6ubaequently, without notiCNt to or appearance by Plaintiff, Oil Au9uat ll, li80, the Orono City Council, acting at the bec;ueat of Council.Maber Nary/ Butler, • neighbor of Plaintiff, unaniaoualy declared Lot 3, located at 2697 Caaco Point Road, unbuildable b&aed upon tbe inforution submitted by Councilaeaber Butler. Plaintiff thereafter applied to th• city for variance. Tile variance was approved by a f 1 ve to one vote by the Planning co-iaeion of the City of Orono on October 20, 1980 baaed on the t<.•llowini findings contained in the c01111iaaion ainutea: l. Lot ia 901 of required ~r••• 2. Lota on both aid•• are oocu~ied~ J. It Lot 3 were built on, 1t vould be typical of neighborhood developaent. 4. When purch•••d, applicant vaa inforlltld i.ot 3 vea • ••P•r•t• lot -prio• waa baaed on that f~ct. 5. Property taxecS ••~rately ... n•v•r receiv-4 benefit of hoaeatead relief. ,. ••w bl.lildin9 aite will not create a n•w cu:b CQt. 7. A hou•• coaparabl• in 1i11 to tho•• in ••iating n11lgbborhood• could be located on Lot ... tini all &ot back and hard cover atandocoa • even if affitional f°"r f••t ia required on lot aide yard.· a. Of ■OM 24 lot ■ in the Caaco P'oint neiwhborbood, 19 are '' .,J CO. feet vide or l•••• . 8ub•equently,. on l'ebtuary · ll, l»al, the Orono Cicy Cowaoil J.aau•d tbe f1n4inga attached to the arun,er of defenaant•• liOQe of tile Pl anni119 Co•iaaion f indin9a were Mntioned by the City COUACil wbJob in ■tead ·••erted that, .. (T) h• applicant did r,ot introduce any ev !chance cont.uu:y to any of the above finding& of fact.• Thia litigation was aubaequently filed. Plaintiff waa urged by the court· to renew its variance application to addreaa drainage ia ■uea eapbaai1ed by the city. •pplioation (aahibit S to affidavit of Richard Lorv•> v,aa •ubaitted on or about Deoeaber 9, 1982. Plaintiff vaa aovia.a at that tiae that due to the holid•Y•, the utter would not oe hM«i until Monday, January 17, l983. on Pc iday, January 14, l:l8l Plaintiff w,ua adviaed that the matter bad be•n -.truck froa tbe Planninc., C01111iaaion agenda and r•acheduled for Prldii1, hb~uary 7, 1983. On February c, 1983, upon Cwllin9 io confira t,1~t tt\ta utter would be heard, Plaintiff vaa a.Svi111ed that upon e.aviet of counael, the matter again would not be beard. Al noted by th• Orono Ple.nnin9 COUiQalon and recited in Nr. Lor9•'• atf1davit, Lot l ia 901 of th• requh•d aru for, that .. aoning diatriot. Lota on bot:h aid•• of Lot l are iaprovod, and indeed Lot l ia the only undeveloped lot of ,o to the north and aoutb along tbe lak•ahore. Of th• 24 lot:a in th• C1taoo Point nei9hborhood, 19 are•• narrow or n&rrowor than Lot 3. Lot 3 ia [; r 1ar9• enough to aupport a aingl• faaily home of th• type typic•l of th• ne.igbborhood without violatir1ii lilOt bite~ and hQtd wver standarda. A buildin9 aite on Lot 3 •l~l ~ot t~tuit• • ~~w cw:~ out.. Tb• city ha• itaelf treated th• Lot as a aGli'iltiltQ ~•thor • tbaA ooabined entity, taxin9 tbe Lot aa a buildabl• entity ana aw a non ho .. atead property. On at least two occasiona, ai ■ilar variances have be•n granted according to qity minutes. A registered land aurvey on caaeo Circle was approved despite aubatandard lots vbicb could have been combined, and in another example (Wataon), a landowner was not obliged to combine substandard lota beoauae the lota bad been p,u:cbased · at a different: time. Coaaiaaion •••ting of October 20, 1980.) .. • ... .... IM 'l'BIS PAM'lCULAJl CASB, ORONO OR.DIN»~ il72 A~D TU UftJSAL OP ORONO ffl GJWiJT A VAiaMiel 'J.'HBRBTO, PIODUC1'8 AN AUI'l~l', Ot,~01ir\St.B AND CAPRICIOUS RESULT WHICH KOST 8& u"WUBO ilY ifJill COURT. Tbia o••• ta indiatinguiabable froa tbe recent caao of GibfB Y• V,ll!fHUt» o, W&llftttt• 97 Ill. App.3d 1033, 54 Ill. s,,, 425N.&.2d '634 (1981) (copy attached). Tb•r•, landowner• plaintiff had.purchaaed two adjoining.lota in li72 wbicb wre at that ti•• bu!ldabl• since th•y had been grandfathered into compliance with diatrict. zoning requireMnta. One waa improved with a resident and one was vacant and uaed •• a aide yard to the iaproved lot. In 1975, a new ordinance was enacted requitin,; the coabination of cOMOnly owned adjac•nt lot& to coaply with ~~~ Plaintiff landOVQQC aold c~• iaprov•d lot, but waa unable to ••ll the vacant lot. A va~i•I\Cft waa deni"°, enci the landowner w•• oblJ.1'.,g to brinv a"1it. Tb• oourt ruled the COilbination ordinance, a.a ap,)ltv.;;:t to bQ unr•••onabl.., arbitrary and therefor• unoonat1\;utional. ~'- court in doing 10 relied heavily on the followi~ foctora, 1. Th• lot in queation vaa tbe only V.CtU\t lot i~ th• nei9hborbood1 . 2. Moat of tbe lota in tb• nei9ubocbood w.r• tbe o~ at~• or ... 11er tban tbe lot i~ ~\leatioa, J. Th• forced oOllbinatlon of tbe lotc wo~l4 pro6~ on• of tb4t larg••t lota in tb• n~iihbor~ood, 4. &UI• yard r•quhe•nta vere aiiPl• to protwot. •Viiin•t any vn~•u•l lo•• of wider area, 5. Tb• plaintiff ■ bad ori9!nally purchas.a buildabi!g_;.o~, ·--,--_,. _,,,_ .. ,. NO evidence a1199•ated any aaterial ch•~i•• in tbo nel9bborbood vhicb would •~pport tbe' 1175 c~•at• r•D4•~ing tbe lot nonbuild.bl~. Tb• tnatance •••• ta practically identical Like ~, l. Lot 3 ta the only vacant lot in tb• C&aco Point for soJH distance along the lakeabore, 2. The vaat aajority of the lota in the Caaco Point neighborhood are the aame aiae or auller the lot 31 3. A forced combination of Lota 3 and 4 would prod-.ace on. ot the largest lot ■ in the neigbborbooclt c. Sid• yard requireaenta for Lot 3 arft •-.?lo to ~~o\!w.:~ againat any unuaual loaa of light or •ir; I 5. The Plaintiff ■ bad ori9inally purch.aiki bc.aild.bl~ lota,~ ,r ~----·-,--~---....--,.,--,-~----. .,,----" ,. The r.oord oontaina no Zinainga or ~uggeatioo• tb~~ &r.y ah•fli~• in the Caaoo itoint Mt.ic;;hwr,iOOC:i dict•t. rendering Lot 3 unbuildabl•• Tb••• oo..on fact• alon• juatify tb• d•terain•tiOil tbat Orono'• action• ba•• been arbitrary and 1anr41aaonabl• witb re;ard to Lot 3. In aeveral reapoota, however, the inatant c&&e 1a •••••', th.t la, tbe ••idenae of Orono•a u,u.a-,onablwii11aa .la owa 1110re ~llin9 than that •PiMl•rin9 in t~w Cl~on c•a•, 1.. Tb• record abowa that aiailar ••riill"JO~~ to th.t requeat-4 by Ne, t.orv• hav. iM•n 9r~nt4itd to·oth•r~, 7 2. Lot l baa beel\ tr• .. t•d 'riJ th-.; clty •• a wflc)6tr-~.- . parc•l, that ia, tax-4 a; ~i btd.l.::.olQ, -~ ~,:;,.~\i~ -~ th• nonboae•t••d rate; •bu••• not preaent in _ _.._ whicb aup~rt a fiadinv of atbitrarinaaa, ,,_, a. Th• Orono City Council, without atudy, without 1 Planning CoMiaaion input, and withc-~t notice to J. or an appearance by Plaifttiff decl•red Lot 3 unbuildable, b. Despite th• urging of tbia court, deaplt• tbo preparation by plaintiff of a 4etai1Qd tboii;~h wt itten pr•••ntation, and deapit4t t.biw ~.:t having granted a continw•M:• ao that tM city could act., the City of o,ono refu.ea to hHr Kit' .. Lorg••• uended vari&nc• applic.ition. Viewed •• a whole, the above•cit•d evidence of arbitarin••• and unreaaonableneaa it ia resp•ctfully aubaitt(td, CQSP(tla tbia court's concluaion that the actiona of Orono h•ve d•~riYQd plaintiff of thi ■ property, and that the order of thia court abould i ■uue undating the area and wi.Jth variance• ao~i;ftt by tbi• plaintiff. The gH:njfOQ analya1a, .oreover, 1• •ntirel.y cona1at•nt with ~ ~ and oaae la~ re9.rdin; tb• 9rantin; of variaac••• Hinn• llll• 14,2.357, aubd. 6(2) provid•• th.t board• of appeal ••id adjuatMnt ••Y, l. of shall not uae for this ordinance. a reasonable I.UHt , ;,.:,...:..' ''"-""~~;~~~~~~:.::},._.~~l,.;,;_~.,4·<~+-·s haedabip. ~l•tted •• • ••i•rate parcel oo th• ~o~nti•~ rGCorda. O~til l575 ./ \.UWec tb• City of .Orono'• a.o,,it.iij 0.1:cli:i~r,c@a ~,ie Lot. w ... ~"'~~J '/..> .inc• l.i70, the city itaelf baa t:.-.\:ed the Lot .i,a a .;.~~r•i:~ taxable entity which has been tax•d •~ • buildabl• p.rcol. Plaintiff took no action whataoev•c to alter the physical character iat io• ot Lots l and 4. Plaintiff I s only act waa1 to . ••ll Lot 4, an action which required no platting, no aubdiv1aioni approval, no city action, no variance, and no cbanv•• to tbe ------... , phyaical characteristics of the parcel. Aa argued atrenuoualy above, nothing in Plaintiff'• v&riil."'-~ api)lication tiu•aten• the esaentj 'l~ ch .. .:actet of th• C.ilico ?oint neighborhood. application ia diaoriminatory in that ?laintifl now ownw t~• 0Aly vacant lot in the Caaco Point n.ii,;ir.bod,~ .. Orono Pl•nning Couiiaaion, the propothuJ uae will be exactly that of the n•iihborhood and inde&d, Lot l itaulf ia at leaat •a large and wide aa a ~ajority of the other lots in th~t neighborb~. Finally, it 1• reapeetfully oubaitted that no viol•tion of the apirit or intent of the zonin9 codQ 000ura if Plaintiff ia to tnaYt~ reaidential aaenity in th• Caaco Point n•igh~rhood, Plaintiff• a application ia entirely conaiat•nt vith thii.t intent .. It, on tha other hand, the intent of thQ ordinance 1a exclusion, it ia aubaitted that thia CO\U:t. .al.lat Yi..C'J (t\)Q that Ca)i,it.. In • . -• .. :~ ;,:~?/\;{i?t~~---~~f,~\,--f'iiti -;~ ~ -, _,,~.,.;A,~•!~, ... ··~ ..... Wi'" .......... -a .................... lloi.i/ii,c· ___ '~~,~~~~~;;,~~.*;p,'>·~--:~-,H .. ~~~-,, • ll. :lf MPUSING TO GJtANT PL>.INTXPP A VllIANC&: n..::»1 ~ -rsaNS or o.RO~, c~IHA~a i)l,2, cfz;; CITY OP ORONO HAS Cuiwil~~,t~ h VIOU .. ~.u~ W 42 u.s.c. 11183 .. In thl• •ection, Plaintiff oont•n~. th•t tho City of Orono, through its arbitrary and unreaaonable actiona, haa coaaitted a violation of 42 u.s.c. 51983. Thia aection provide&: Ivery person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, or regulation, ouatoa or uaage of any atat• or territory, subjeeta, or c:uHuaea to be aubjected any citiaen ot the United State ■ or other person within the jur iadict:ion thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privilegea, or amenities ••cured by tbe ~onatitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit and equity, or oth•r pr~r proceedings for redr•••• Since c:it.i•• have been fully r•g•rd•d •• •peraona• for :,ur~•• of Sl9i3. Further since, ~~~.t...::.:..:i~...::i:...J.\.~~~~~"-~ s. ct. 2i79, 445 o.s. 621, 63 L.B.2d 67l (1980), it baa been clsar regulation, and since Plaintiff• er• oleArl.y citiaeGa ot otb~ta, th• eole 11983 inquiry that caft ~ ••riouul.y dia.,ut~ ia w•tb•r '!! th• action ■ of Orono aaount to• oonatl~utionol violation.~ Ti1v olaia of Plaintiff ia that t.he acti«.a of t~• Cit:; ot Ocono have effected • takini of Lot J !a Yiolatio.l o: ti'.1i ~ • .:t~ 301ven the city•a • ~,• ~nc:'l•r Sl9Cl Plaintiff baa no objetion to a dia■ia ■al of be indlvidual defendanta. 12 ', • Plaintiff aub11ita that the fact. oi~w~ 4l."°V• rogart.:ir,~ arbitrarJn••• and· unreaaonableneaa of. Orono in l~avin; Pl•i11t.i:;;.: witn no reaaonable uae vbataoever of Lot 3 er• aavl~ to »up;vrt a iindin9 that a taking baa occurr~d .. &~vane•• In aupport of hia contention that a takini baa occu:r&~, th• line ot authority which focuaea the t&king il.quiry on the queation whether government regulations have gone so far as to deprive a landowner of all reaaonable use of the land. Tb• se•inal case in this line is u.s. 393 {1922) where our Supreme Court overturned a atatut• which probibit•d mining wherever such aining would c:a1,uie t~fi rc.\lulation effvctively deatroyed the coal coapt1nY'li in\:vtvw1t ;.w the ■ineral right• underneat~ the surface, tbQ S~pr@M Co~rt concluded that tbat governaent regul~tion had ~imply voa• too f&l in d•atroying all u~• of th• property ovnwg bz thv co-l c~ny. Hore recent ca~•• derived from Pwnnsylv•~ia Coal tnclu~Q t»/1c; Yt Ne"<J Or lean=, 371 F. Supp. 65j, 662 Ot.r-. La. 1974), aff'a• Sl~ P.2d 1051, 1066, n.83 (5th Cira. 1975)1 PiW~nig v, (YJlegbv, ll, Aris. ,., 66, 535 P.2d 93., ar • .;.2d 800, CO2 (Ct. Ind. C\.?k,U•t9t, ,o Miah. App. 664, ,,,, all N.W.,o .u, 1»-20 (l~i:-): WvifiV¾WM Y, ~, 47 App. Div. 2d ;~e, l,6 N.v.s.,d 13 .. tn& action• of Orono, ia uael••• for -~Y rea~on~ble purpo~Qi .lit& indeed is no longer capable of being u••d for it• sole reasonable purpo•• consistent. with that of the neighborhood.. Whatever the facial oonatitutionality or general •vPlic«bility of Orono•a land use regulations lft&y be, in this particular case and on the fact• of +-tJla case, the obvious impact has been to depriv• Plaintiff• of their property wit.bout any coap•nsation wbataoever.. Tbia amount• to a plain violation of ~h• taking clauae wbicb tri99era the r•••die ■ available under 42 u.s.c. 51983 .. It ia reapectfully subi•itted, that on the materials ~ubmitted to t;1.i COg.:-t, finding that a violation of Sl983 haa oceurr~~, ~n~ that t~~ ~olQ isaue re•ainiruiJ before thia court ia th• aatter of dui.;;,;ea. Dated: February 9, 1983 14 BO~ ft QAAV~N -~int1ff ao~~::a iit ~~tr.iii/~ 470 1:llu~l~ c~"~e~ MinQOQ:l\,'JJd,o, lU~ftOiiOte ss,02 c 61:.i, 3:,a-~ • .-n , ••• a Minnesota ty, 11 v. of Orono, r.: .......... • .. " was tnfor ■ed that Lot l or jointly • Lot ' 3 Ill 1978 $23,500 . , , 1981 $24,000 Lot l and Lot 4 are water lines installed ior to Plaintifta. Since 1972, Lot 3 haa .. s, , , .. ' ... I • ' . '" .. • wblch wae taken up by tbe , • of tbe •• Exhibit 3. As abovn on eoru1iderationa recitod in to l .. .. .. •• " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • .. --------//' .. l :-. . ) • OAT£: t"iayor &nd City Cv1o1ncil City ot. Ocorio Status of Mattera in Litigation Januacy 24, 1183 For the benefit of the Mayor ~na City council, z oav~ summ~tized the status of pr•••nt and pot•ntial future civil litigation involving the City. I. Lorge v ."_ Cit of Orono et al Our FITe Num er: J A. a. Parties: Lorge and van Nest, Hannah, Paurea, Butl~r, iurr, Searles, Welsh, Pesek (present and former council~~~w~t• -n~ Mayo,: s) Nature of Claim City• s denial of v,u: iu1ca ior iiil.iuil.;undard lot "'"~ ..,;,:;.,".:,.;;:, .. -.i;.; provision can ■tituce~ • t~king oi pro~city. ~;~i~~-I: ~w~k~ to invalidate ordinunce provi~ivna, force City to buy lot for $60,800, punitiv~ dam&~•• in thw amo~nt of ~90,000. C. Status of case l. TenGeced delen~9 to in~~(~OCQ co•~•ny ~hich h~• ••~ign~d c••• to attor"-l• J. City is filing a1.u,· .. Y1ary juu~~:.-,nt 1notion to b~ htArd no l~ter than F-bruary 17, 1gaJ. t I vanukry i~, 1983 ~'t•is~ 2 BDrl'a assessm~nt: di~miased against ao, en~~~~~~~~ cu~o wi:l uti forr"e.: cour~cilit•(i~nbuio .&11\l 'i.~r.:J.;/Ol~. 701 chance that c~&e will~~ ~iumia~~ci ~g~1n~t ~~iar and councilmembera who ~~nl~ci v~ri•~ce. Punitive damages excluded if indivi,~als ei$mi~~~d. 501 chance that City will be diamiased ~itbaut tri~l. 6. If defendants are not dismiss~d, there ia a n€ed for discovery. D. Potential Future cost to City 1. Staff time to prepare for trial, respond to discovery, attend trial. 2. Time of Mayors and eouncil~embers to prepare for tri~l, reapond to diacovery, attend trial. 3. Insurance company will not pay punitive ~a••~w• 11 awarded. 4. Each individual may &e~k own couneol &nd a~~~~d Citi and/or insurance compu,:; pa'J for ~aria@. s. Involvement by City Attorn~y in ~o~itorin~ c~aQ, a ■si&tlng in ■uranc• compa~y .tto~n~y. E. Potential settlement If An t. 1. Buy lot, or 2. Pay damages (insurance company), or J. Grant va,iance. If City Council tnd Mayor du w~nt to qr•nt VQ~i~~cc ~o~ baaed on new application, p~oca~~ v~t~ ~otton~. 4~ C~ty lo&•5 motion, rwcon ■idcr v~,,~ncw ot proc~wd to tc~al. '. ~~d~~~y 2•, lYd~ l.' .. .,.. J ' ·.::lsh Vf:;. Cit. Our fil• NU >.. Parti•• welsh and City of Orono Natuic of Claim City wrongfully danie~ permit •~d vuria~ca to all~A Jl&ia:ty owner to dred9e a ch ■nn•l in wetlan6a a~d lakQ in tcc~t of lot: City has no jurisdiction ov~r aredging i~ pu~lic waters. Plaintiff 8~~k• invalidation of ~ctio~ ~«d ordinance, costs and attorney's fees, finding that City h•a violated constitutional rights of plaintiff. Date of Claim: 1981-1982 Lawsuit filed in August, 1982 c. Jtatus o! C&se ~. ~en~ered to insur~nc• co•~•~Y• Co~~~ny r~t~iDv~ Citi Attocney to d~i&nd. ., .J • Plaintiff 1 s aUo,.1Qy i;.,..;:...; ;?~{;.i~t.tL:1 W.:.i"at~ci i~:~1~c.L.:..at~ trial ahd trien ~id ao~t1n;. Pl~~~titt•~ ~ttct~oy l~st wee,, indico1te6 pl,,uo11;L.:.:: wo~ld :.:He 01.an~.1.u·~ j~•~S;o\11nt motion and that hycl,~ulic ~r•~~ing now av~ilQblQ. 4. I suggested that pl~intiii'~ ~~tota~y ~ond ~r~Zt o~ motion tom• io, review wi~~ ~ww cou~~:l- D. ?oteriti~l rut.ura Coot to Citv l. Time of ~t,1f f, M.:.yor u,J Cc1mcH:"~"1lJ(,,t5 t-:1 ;x"i,:ill:'ct '"'' trial, re ■pon6 to 6iacovwrJ ~n~ ~tt~~d tti~l. . . Casco Point 2745 Casco Connie Kane 2697 Casco Point Road 697 Casco Hunt 2691 Casco Point Road Bette Hunt 2691 Casco Point Road Dick Benson, Administrator -Orono Butler, Mayor City of Orono , Councilmeinber of Orono of : A. • " ,. bGuiu NDTIIIG OP TU OllONO COUNCIL, JULY 26, 1912 Page· 3 'fAIIUCI lPPIAL Htf ca ... hlat 141 1511 lleller• L .... • Hr. liehard Lora• vaa pr••••t. reaardlaa Illa v1u·1anoe ap,Uoa\loa •PP••l tor 269T Caaoo Pola, Ro11d. Mayor Yan leat. quea,ton•d tbe le1ollt1 or dlaou1111aln1 tbe Lora• aat.ter due ,o ,be taot. t.bat. t.bla •• ,, ... la lD llt.taat.toa. Cl t.y &t.t.orney Nalkeraon et.at.ed t.bet. t.ha Lora•• ••1 ••k• • preaeet.at.io~ ot t.beir taot.a tot.be Clty cou:11011 but no optaloaa are to Ile ••preaaod at. tbla ti••· Mr. Jon Parrtaat.oa, t.b• at.\orn•r tor tbo laauraaoe company,••• alao pre•••' and la baadllDI t.b• u t11auon or t.h• Lora• aat.,er and ia t.o be lnoluded int.be •taeuaal••• Nr. Lora• at.at.ed ,aaa, Ile••• bla vlf• •r• •• lo•;•r ownu•a of a tar ■ \Iler• pwroll•••• la Car••r co-aat.1 attu• tr11dt111 t.betr bo•• •• Caaoo Polat... ta•1 are now just rent.era a\ lae tar• ao 'b•J vlall ,o ••1ld • hoa• oa t.belr proper,, oa Caaoo Pota,. Mr. Lore• at.a,•• iba, \ber would pl•o-, •• hoao w1tbln the llal\a ot \be•••••••• ,o \ae •••t.•r• end ot the pro,ert.1 le alal ■ta• ••1 lat.ertel"e11•• to the proper\lea •• ,,. aor\b ••• •••'"• Nr .. Lora• dtaouoaed Illa ,,opoaal tor '"• va\er ruaott bJ 1torln1 it la 111 uafetaroua• \aat ,. ••r•• ca• heauna ,,.,,... Tile pr••••' •r•l•••• •r•'•• ~a• a plu11•d lateral la ib• ••••t•• lo\ ot Loi -•• \iut northeaac oorn••• N111or Yan •••t 1aqutr•• lt Nr .. Lora• v•• ~l•••t•a on b~lldina • ho•• tor bta ••• ••••a,a••r• •r . . Lorie a\a\ed •t••• a,aolu\el1.• ""• Bob ihnai lntor'l•• \lie c1,, C•u•oU. ,~., lie, \tut Soluu1dera • aad \h• Cbll•a Ila•• ao\ e!I••••• '"•U• oplnlon, •• reterred \o la••• Cllll••• l•\\er. Mr• lllftO I O\HUff or , ... --···· 011 '-•' 11, .,., •• , ... , ht reel1 \ha\ \be wa\er , ... ,1•• la ••r• ••rt•~• \baa Mr. Lora••'•'••• N~. Lera••'•'••,~.,~• 11,•••• \o r•v••• \II• •r•l•••• ,,.••l•• •• L•\• •, , •••••• dlYef\ a,,., ... l•-·· A\\orne1 Parrln1\•a r-e._uea\etl \• ~• ,r••••' •\ \h• tUUIIO~U .......... '"·' la Jl••··· to, laief' la \t'le ••enln&• I l l • ~ IID'i'lllG OP TU ORONO COUKCU., JULY a,, 1982 Page 4 PID Slai>IfiaIO ■ ~340 •••••r Para••• ,,,, fealra L•k• Pro .. rtl•a CitJ At.tore•, Nalkeraoa atat.•d th•t tbiQ diaouaaloa baa b••• • preaeotation by Nr. ~or~• repreaeat.lna blaeeu• re1arct11,1 a ■atter that ta la 11t1aattoa. ~r. Nalkaraoa tatoraed Nr. Lora• tlu11t tt be vtabea to aaic• • n•v aa)plioatioD for • variance or tor anJ,hiDi ela•• ~o auoai~ th••• plan• to abow • Dev looatton ot tb~ bou••~ 10 tbrou1h a publ1o -••riac betor~ the Pl•~•i•c Coaataa1on and the Cttr Counoil,. t.bea be baa •••r1 ri&bt to do so. but t.bia 18 not what Mr. Lori• wtabea to do at tbia poiat .. M•ror Van •••t ao~ed, lvtler aeoonded, to authorize th• CitJ Plaruuu• lo dratt II letter to Mr. Rioherd Lorie, 269T Caaoo Po~nt load~ tatorataa him that the Cl t.1 ot Orono 1• wtlU.n1 to have • eev propoaal brou1bt betor• ,-•• tbat aattatt•• tbe zon:ln1 oode, a1no• tbia 18 11 1u~ataaclard lot ••d not ln eintl• ae,arate ownerabip. Nottoa, AJe• (5) ... 1.,. (0). Th• ,IUUUH.tU. •• lHUIUtion ••d•d at approat••-•lr 10:53 P.H. Nr. Oary '•t•raoa waa preaeat to cliao~•• bl• PiO aubdiwia!on propoaal tor t3ij0 laldur Perk toad~ Pfr .. P•t•u•aon plaoed oa \be Cou1otl \abl• • aoci•l ot the l ■you, tor ht• ••••lo,-ea,. c1,, a\torae, Mllllk:ef'!IOft lator••cl ,._. Cl \y CounoU. • ••. II'. Peteraoa that. aay\bt•• pr••••t•c8 •t Couaotl 111utet1n1• ta \be pr-o,•r,:, ot tb• c1,,. ead, tberetor•• \be ■odel ot \h• -•••lopaeft, •~•' ,. dated, 1a1,1al•d• •ad let\ wt,_ \h• c1,,. Th• Cit, Council cUaou•••• \lie Pl~ ••• • a\aauer.a aubdl •1.llon \Ila\ bad• deaal\J ot ••lr ,au••• 11at\c on the proper\y,. TIie ca,, Cou11otl tel\ '"•' \ll• den1lt1 or t~• PID ••• \oo ar••' tor,-• area. Hurr ■o'fed e Ad••• •••o•••• • "o talrll• \b• re411••' cf' ronHa Latte Pror,ert.t•• tor a PRD S11bdt Ylatoa tor- 13-0 fh11ldiu• Par It •oad,. \o allow \lliHt tor ""• Potorau,a \o reoofta141el" tit.a ,reaea\ pl'o1t•••l,. Motton, Ar•• (S) • ••r• (0), FOR l .. HE Plaintiff~ v. Crc~o e ~innesota Statutory ~ity ·~~-o-.--~Nert, ~Pyor ~r Orone, Gress Eonn:->h, l(orman Paurus, Nr,ry · Butler, Jo Sllen Hurr,Orono Councilpersons, 5nc former Councilpersons,of 0rono1 RobPrt Searles, Gnry .'lelsh, and P~ul 1 eselt Def'endnnts To the aho,·e named Defendants : You are herebr 111ummonNI and required to ser,·e uron f:i chord J. 1,orse plaintiff's attorney , who._qe address Rt. 1 Box 170D Carver, MN. 55315 Phone: (612) 446-1 S1, Rl'.~t:\!ONS an amawer to the complaint which 1!1 herewith aerYed upon l'OU• within 20 d~·s afttr aen•iee of this 1ummonn upon you, exclush>e ot the day ot 11ervlce. It you tan to do ao. Judrment ~-dtfault wm be taken aarahu,t you f'or the reltef demandtd an the comrlalnt. [S.I of Court] UNITED STATlS DISTftlCT COURT STATE OF HJNNESOTA fOURTH DlVlSlON Richard J. Lorge and Jean~. Lorie Plaintiffs, vs. City of Orono, a Minnesota Statutory City, William B. Van Nest, Mayor of Orono, Gregg Hannah, Orono Councilperson, Norman Paurus, Orono Councilperson, Mary Butler, Orono Councilpersop, Jo ~lien Murr, Orono Councilperson and former Councilpersons, Robert Searles, Gary Welsh, and Paul Teuk Dehndanu Plaintiffs, for their Complaint against defendants. JURISDICTION This cause of action arises: COMPLAINT A. Under the Fifth and Fourteenth AmondMnt1 to the Constit~tton of the United State1. c. Under Tltle 42, United Statea Codi Section D. The Cc:uu1t Hutionand lava of the Sta"te of Minnuoua. Jurisdiction la conferred on thia Court by Tltl• le. United Stat•& Cod•, Stt1::Uc:nu1 Ull(a). 1343(3) 1/UU! U43(4) the amount in C:OfttfOVUI)' HUtic:ll ...... $10 exclu1ivr of coals and lntere1t. This CourL haR p~ndant Jurl1- dtctlon over claim1 that arise under the Constitution of the State of Hinne1ota. n. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge were the fee owners of the property lly de:.c:rlbrd on Exhibit A (hereinafter "property .. ) 111t times relevant to this action and Jean L. Lorge has been the fee owner since April 1981. 111. Defendant, City of Orono, is a statutory city organiied and operating under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 412, 462 •nd other applicable Minnesotd law. The n~~•d mayor and city councilpersons are or were the duly elected officials of the City of Orono ~nd are charaed with, among other things, the duty to enact ordinances ralatina to the u10 of land within the eity for residential. commercial and indu1trial purpo101 and to consider and act upon petitions to reaone, subdivide and tsauo various permit, in connection with proporti11 within the city. ~ IV. Property in question ii identified u Lot 3 of A1.ac:U.tor 1 1 S'ibdhhion 26$ located on Casco Point in the southern part of Orono. Th• lot la approxirut~11 one-half acre in 1iao with lakeahore front•a• on Spring Par~ la7 of Lake Minnetonka and has no 1tructur1 upon it. The leaal d11crlption ii atuched. v. Aud tor•s Subdivision 265 was set up on October 31. 1931. The property wu iu the early 1900's and 1ince that time the property hH been owned on various occasions singly or jointly with Lot 4 to the south. Lot 4 ts improved with a single family dwelling and modified in the i920 1 s and J9JO•s. Both Lot J and Lot 4 were owned by the Plaintiffs from August 1972 to Hay 1980. The previous owners also owned Lot 3 and Lot 4 from 1958 to August 1972. VI Th~ property and Lot 4 has carried scpara•e !dentification numbers and tax statements for over 20 y~ars. Although Lot J and Lot 4 were jointly owned in recent years. the taxes were recorded and paid separately for each lot. The property in que$tion was not homesteaded. The separation was maintained for over 20 years with the penalty of higher taxes paid on the property for the purposes of kenplng it a lot of ncord 111,u! separated for future buHding purposes. The pr,,perty h" been tauted aa a "buUdable" lot at all ti,nes relevant herein. vn The City of Orono in 1967 passed aontna and related 1tatute1 ehaft11ftl lot siae and lake frontage requirements primarily for ~ealth conald1ratton1 because the City lacked a sanitary sewer system. Shortly thereafter, the City of Orono inatalled a sanitary sewer 1y1tem 1111 part of Mtropolitan sewer The property in question ii 11rv1d by aald sanitary 11waa1 1y1tem which waa in place before the purchue by the Plalntlffa. VIll Thh property and Lot 4 were purcha1uu:l by th«: Plaint if h in Auaust 1972. the property was buildable for a single famlly dwell ~cause the property was platted before the therefore wu ngrandhthend 0 • As further evidence of the buUdabiUty of the property, a tax statement was shown indicatina that the property was separated from the adjacent lot and home, was not homesteaded and was taxed at a rate equivalent to a buildable lot. Subsequent to the purchase of the property other vacant lots in the area not meetina latest aonlna requirements were developed with new single family dwellina•• IX On or about September of 1973, the realtor, Hrs. McNamara, brought to the Plaintiff; an offer to purchase the pro~erty by a local building contractor who wished to build• house on 1ald property. the Plaintiff• declined to sell at that time. X .. In 1974. the City of Orono aaain revi11d the 1onin1 codes which 4- Xll any "coabintna" of the property and lot adjaeeftt. XUl On or about May 29, 1980, the property vu oUered for tale. Pdo:r contnctor, together with the reattor, a Mr. John Keen of Burnett Agency, went ti.' the Orono Village Hall to inquire about the "i:u.aUdabiUty" of the property. They were told that the property waa buildable by Hrs. Jeanne --- Mabusth, who is Zoning Administrator for the City of Orono. Then Hr. DeHart completed an agreement to pure.hate the property at • price of $60,800.00. XIV Plaintifft was traded as a dovn payment on a farm in Carver Count7. Plaintiffs retained legal counsel of the fim Crathwol and Oberhauaer of Wayzata to review both the trade of the lot and hou1e and the 1ale of th~ property. Hr. Oberhaustr is• former uyor of Orono. At no'tlM ••• taken to declare the property unbulldabla. The 'lete w.1 S fo~ and 0 •1•in1t. Th• Plaintiff• r•ceived no notice of the CouncllMetlng on th• 11, 19&0, do not reflect that the diacussion and vote on th• property was '*unoff i c ia 1°. XVI The Plaintiffs received a letter dated August 13, 1980 from Allen P. Olson, Village Planner of the City of Orono, which made no reference to the Council meetin~ of August 11, 1980, but in essence stated that no buildina permit would be issued for the property. Said letter stated, ----your two lots are legally considered to be one, and only one buildina aite--... This was the f!.!.!l time that Plaintiffs were noticed that the property was considered to be combined with Lot 4 to the south. XVII The Plaintiffs initiated a variance request on August 13. 1~80. The first action was attendance at the Orono Plannina Commission Net.in& on September 22, 1980. The Planning Commission had seven Mmbers tncludtna the chairman. The relevant point1 that caM up were: 1. Hr. George Rovegno questionetd, "U Council has •lready detcided property la not bulldable, why .. 4. Hu. Jean Habu1n:h told the Plannin; Comminion l'lli!Ullben that she-had told Hr. Charlu DeHnt that the property 5, Hr. Gabriel Jabbour stated that, "---people will go ahead if someone from City says OK--". Mr. Jabbour ackno\eledged that people have the right to act on the word of a city official. XVlll On Monday, October 20, 1980, Orono Planning Commission voted 6 to l in favor of granting Plaintiff's variance to build on property. The sole dessentor, Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, said he voted aaainst to get soM clarification of the "joint own•rship .. quu,tion. XIX On Monday, November 10, 1980, at the Orono Council meettna. Plaintiffs variance request was discussed. After some discussion, durtna ~hieh tiM joint ovnership question, the property would rec~lve a varlante ~1th little for the City Attorney to revlew the Clty•1 po1ltlon, Plalntlffa had ... , ... , ... xx .. u,aa• vtd, Nr. Lou OberhauHr of th• fi1'11 of Cratbvol and Oberbau1Hu,.. vhic~ tiM it b•tmH obvious that the poaltion tak•n by th• Council on th~ Auaust 11. 1990 meetifli va~ deerly intrenc:hed and un•••'iable.rurtber. the r~eOfflrHndationa of the Planning Commiaaion were ignored. The result••• a February 11, 1981. At no time during thEi Council meet1n11 nor in the resolution did the Council provide aubstamtive or-quantitative an1ver1 to the three basic criteria coverina 'aonina; health, aafety, or public: welf,in•, XXl StibHquent efforu by the Plaintiff& to r .. ohe the pr-open:, dtuauon have NH unaucceuf ul. The liu:k of "buUdablUt:,•• of th• property baa '-H• CAUSES or ACTION xxn incorporated in and aade put of Count One throuah Count IUM, H tf f•l lJ reatated ifl eaeh. XXUI -The a~tion1 of relevant ~ftnd•nta In adoptt .. OrdlftaMe lll wltho~t re~utred notice to Platntlfft d1,rtv1 ,1atn\tff1 •f proptrtJ vtt~eut dve . proc••• and •qui proteetlon, in vloletlon or th• rtfth and h~rt•••th . .... - .. XXlV th• •ctions of relevant D•f•ndanta in adopttna Ordinance 172 deprive Piatntlffa of property without due of proc~•• law and eon1titute • takina of the prlwt• property of the PliiintUh for • pubUc u111e without J11at ,<:,-?;> < ~-,;:-::,,, compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. XXV COUNT Ill The actions of relevant Defendants in adoptin& Ordinance 172 deprlw Plaintiffs of property without due process of law in violation of Artl~l• 11 Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Mtnn•eota reaulted in an unlawful takin1 of the private property of the Plaintiff• for publtc ••• without just compensation in violation of Art1cl• l, S•ction ll of the Constitution of the Stat• of Hlnneaote. UVI deprt••d Plaintiff• of property vtth du• proce11 of la• •~d tock prt'fllt• pr~P9rt7 or th• Plalnttff1 for a public uae vtthout the pay..ftt •f Jut coapenaatlon. tn violation of th• Fifth •nd Fourteenth AaiendMnta to tM -Constitution of the United Stet••• xxvn COUNT V by Ph1intHh Without dve procHa of lav ht violation y;f Arts.de 1, Section 7 of the Conatitution of the State of Minne1ot• •nd result~d in a takiq of Ph1tntlfh pc•t• ,roperty for public u.H vU.hout the payaent of juat compensation, in violation of Article 1, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. XXVlll COUNT Yl Defendants, and each of them acting under color of statute• ordinance regulation, custom or usage subjected Plaintiffs and caused tht• to be to them by the Constitution of the lavs of the United States in vlolat10ft of Title 42 or United States Code, Section 1983. XXIX COUNT VU The actions of relevant D•f•ndant1 in adopttna leaolutton 1246 including but not limited to the denial of Plaintiffs application for .. COUNT VlU Dlfendanta and each of th••• are a1 eatoppe~ by the equltl•• of thtt eireU1Ut•nee1 fr• applylftt th• pro¥t1ton1 of Ordtnanc• 112 aft41 ~••ol~tlH 1246 to Pl•i•tilf• property. XXXJ COUNT IX and their wrOflaful, enlavf11l and unconaUtuUonal UH of the aonina p~ir ulli Habl• to l>dtndaflts to,e~nHtory da9tatH in th• amount of $60.800.00 disbursements and fees incurred in the proaecution of these actions. PRAYER P'Ol RELIEF Wherefore, the Plaintiffl re1pectfully requ••t tht Court to: 1. Adjud1e and declare that Ord'~ance 172. •pecifically 31.202 is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff& pro1>9rt7. 2. Adjud1e and declare that the actton1 of the Defendants tn adoptina Ordinance 172 and in particular Section 31.202 haft ~iolated Plaintiff• civil and constitutional rlabta. - r•!Ueuln S•e~lon :u.202 ~ave vtolaud PlaintUh uvu and constitutional ri;hta. dlr1ctioa fr• furth•r vlolatlllil tM rtahta, prlvtl•a-• and t11111Unitie1 1ranted end a•raate•d to th• Platattffa vtth na•ri to thia property und•r th• bltsd State& Conattt~tioft• •· -H• J . . \, s. AdJUdt~ and declare t~•t Plaintlft1 be aranted the n•c•1aary vertaftcea and buildiftl peralta for bulldtna • atnal• la•lly chfelltna on Plainti£f• property vttbtn th• buildina code requtr•Nnta of tb~ City of Orono and further prohtbtt the City of Orono froe unreuo11abl• lnteriu·eudon of uld buUdt111 cod•• on th• PlatnUffl propert,1:•. Of' tn the. altetnatheit' 6. Require Defendants to purchase ••id property for a cost of $60,800.00 within 60 day,. 1. Grant punitive damages to Plaintiffs in the•• of $90,000.00. a. Grant such other relief•• the Court uy de•• just and prop1r. Carver. Jean L .. l.ora• Route l lo,r UOD •. carver. NlnM1ota SS31S Phon• (612) 44'-lSll -- -11- -1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DISTRICT ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge, Court File: 4-82-139 Praintiffs, vs. STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL City of Orono, a Minnesota Statutory City, William V. Van Nest, Mayor of Orono, Gregg Hannah, Orono Councilperson, Mary Butler, Orono Councilperson, Jo Ellen Hurr, Orono Councilperson, and former Councilpersons, Robert Searles, Gary Welsh, and Paul Tesek, Defendants. JqHEREAS, Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge are the fee owners of the following described real property located in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota: That part of Government Lot 4, Section 20, Township 117, North, Range ~3 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning on the shore of Lake Minnetonka at the point of intersection of said shore with a line drawn parallel with anrl 90 feet Southwesterly, measured at right angles, from the Southwesterly line of Lot 134, Spring Park, thence Southeasterly along said Southwesterly line of Casco Point Road to its point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 150 feet Southwesterly, measured at right angles, from the Southwesterly line of said Lot 134 and its Southeasterly extension; thence Northwesterly parallel with said Southwesterly line of Lot 134 and its Southeasterly extension to said shore; thence Northeasterly along said shore to the point of beginning. -1- and, •·7HEREAS, said property {hereinafter referred to as "Lot 3") has been the subject of the above-captioned litigation commenced by Richard ,J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge, said litigation commenced to resolve the buildability of this lakeshore lot; and WHEREAS, Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge, their successors and assigns {hereinafter "Lorge") and the City of Orono (hereinafter "City'') now desire to amicahly settle and resolve their differences; IT IS HEREBY AGREED: 1. The City hereby grants to Lorge, with regard to Lot 3, variances as to width and area from the terms of the zoning ordinances of th~ City in order to render Lot 3 buildable. It is expressly understood and agreed by Lorge and the City that no other variances are hereby granted as part of this agreement. All other requirements of the Orono Zoning Code shall be complied with by Lorge and/or future owners of Lot 3. 2. Lorge shall comply with all state and municipal building codes applicable to the develop~ent of Lot 3. 3. Lorge shall design a residential dwelling for Lot 3 in a manner such that no aggravation of existing drainage problems in the neighborhood shall occur. The City shall supply to Lorge and their designated engineer and architect on request all data of any kind maintained by the City regarding current drainage conditions in the area, and shall otherwise cooperate with Lorge, provided -2- there is no cost to the City, in efforts to alleviate any drainage problems in the area. 4. The City shall pass on any application for a dock permit without discrimination or preference and shall not consider in any such deliberations the width or area of Lot 3. 5. Lorge shall be permitted a curb cut for Lot 3 at their expense. 6. Lorge may be subject to new special assessments and/or connection charges for municipal water and sewer service to Lot 3 in accordance with standard procedures of the City. 7. Lorge shall be excused from the one-year time period in which to procure a building permit in the event that procurement of the building permit is delayed by litigation arising out of the development of Lot 3. 8. The parties hereto represent that the foregoing is entered into in good faith and that all reasonable cooperation shall be extended in fulfilling the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 9. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge hereby dismiss with prejudice and release the City, all other named defendants and its employees, officers and/or agents from any and all claims made or that could have been made in the Federal District Court action file 4-82-139 regarding the above-referenced property without costs, disbursements or attorneys fees to either party. 10. Lorge agree to enter into a Contract of Indemnification in favor of the City, all other named defendants and its employees, officers and/or agents, a copy of which is attached hereto and the -3- terms of which are incorporated herein by reference. tJ J ' 1 3 / 3oj f?) Richard J. Lor~ ¥ fb, <LL/ L 1"~,? ~ 3/31 ;o J n L. Lorge ~ { CITY OF ORONO Based upon the above Stipulation of the parties it is hereby agreed by the parties' respective undersigned attorneys that the above entitled action may be dismissed with prejuctice and on the merits but without costs, disbursements or attorneys fees to either party. ryt)EDER~ON cJ_j ~ \r.Q...r:r P. Parringt n Attorney for De_endants 4005 West 65th Street Suite 7-00 Edina, MN 55435 (617-) 925-3001 -4- HOLMES & GRAVEN, Chartered ,Jef fLe Attar e for Plaintiffs 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 338-1177 1)~LC-~ tJ/U)>,(:) 7?/ MA#~ [)/( &,<I (J 2'19/ t£A.r~o ~/P.f-/::bdP l,1 "' ( , -i"T/ --2,,,1b V WAYNE G . POPHAM RAYMOND A . HAIK ROGER W. SCHNOBRICH DEN V ER KAUFMAN DA V ID S . DOTY ROBERT A . MINISH ROLFE A . WORDEN G. MARC WHITEHEAD BRUCE D . WILLIS FREDER I CK S . RICHARDS G . ROBERT JOHNSON GAR Y R . MACOMBER ROBERTS . BURK HUGH V. PLUNKETT, m POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. 4344 IDS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 FREDERICK C. BROWN THOMAS K . BERG BRUCE D . MALKERSON JAMES R . STEILEN JAMES B . LOCKHART ALLEN W . HINDERAKER CLIFFORD M . GREENE D . WILLIAM KAUFMAN DESYL L . PETERSON MICHAEL 0. FREEMAN THOMAS C . D 'AQUILA LARRY D . ESPEL JANIE S . MAYERON DA V ID A . JONES TE:LEl='HONE ANO TELECOPIER 612-333-4800 LEE E. SHEEHY LESLIE GILLETTE MICHAEL T. NILAN ROBERT C . MOILANEN DAV ID J . EDQUIST CATHERINE A. POLASKY STEVEN G . HEIKENS THOMAS J . RADIO KATHLEEN M . MARTIN JOHN C. CHILDS THERESE AMBRUSKO DOUGLAS P. SEATON GARY D. BLACKFORD SCOTT E . RICHTER February 1, 1983 2660 PETRO-LEWIS TOWER 717 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE ANO TELECOPIER 303-B2S -2660 SUITE 802-2000 L STREET N . W . WASHINGTON, D . C . 20036 TELEPHONE ANO TELECOP I ER 202-BB7 -SIS4 Mayor and City Council City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Lorge v. City of Orono Dear Mayor and City Council: Enclosed find correspondence from Jeffrey Brauchle in regard to the above matter. BDM/jf Enclosure 1985j Very truly yours, Bruce D. I f 1 f:_1/. 1 _,,s '7r·'tc..i /<! e -·{-rZ_ ,:f-/C/ ,. L-t-r· (!..,(_.,,. 7 /1 / ' ' J Malker son ¼1/ / /? ✓--'-- ' l I ( ( ' I:-- I j/ - I' ' I ✓/ / -I / I ; I I tr :I / I ----- V LJ 1/" ?f· ._.,, CONTRACT OF 1NDEMNIFICATION WHEREAS, Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge and the City of Orono have entered into a compromise and settlement of that certain litigation identified as United States District Court File number 4-82-139, as more particularly set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal of that litigation; and WHEREAS, by the terms of that agreement Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge and their successors in interest are obliged to design a dwelling on Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265, located at 2697 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota, so that no aggravation or degradation of current drainage conditions in the neighborhood is caused by construction on such propertv. I~ IS HEREBY AGREED THAT: 1. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Orono, its employees, officers, councilmembers, agents and/or elected officials from any and all claims, demands, actions, and causes of action arising in whole or in part from any allegations that anv acts or omissions on the part of the City, its agents officers, employees, councilrnernbers and/or elected officials in any manner caused or contributed to the aggravation of the drainage conditions in the neighbor hood at or near Lot 3, Auditors Subdivision No. 265. 2. Following commencement of any such claim the City of Orono shall promptly tender the defense of such matter to Richard J. IDrge and Jean L. Lorge who shall select an attorney at their own expense to defend the City against such litigation. 3. In the event litigation is commenced the City shall cooperate with defense counsel appointed by Lorge and shall offer all possible aid and assistance to defense counsel in the conduct of such suit. 4. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge shall have exclusive and final control over the conduct of the defense of any such litigation and shall have exclusive conduct and control over the settlement of any such claims. CI'rY OF ORONO NOTICE The Orono City Council will hold an executive session on Saturday, March 19, 1983 at 9:00 A. M. in the Orono Council Chambers to discuss matters in litigation. Dated: March 17, 1983 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Mary C. Butler, Mayor Mrs. Jeane Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 January 26, 1983 Reference: Variance Application No. 721 Dear . Mrs. Mabusth: Would you kindly make this letter and the attachments hereto part of the record for the referenced Variance Application. Se6ondly, please note our change of address from Carver, Minnesota, to St. Bonifacius, Minnesota, effective immedi ately. The purpose of this letter and its attachments is three-fold; 1. To prevent a new proposal concerning the runoff water issue, .. , 2. To pro~ide answers to the questions from your Engineering Department presented to me on January 17, 1983, and to 3. Provide a brief summary of the key points of the refer enced Variance Application. If there are any questions, please contact me at my office at 446-1511 or at the new address. s;:::J°j~s4 Richard J. Lorge 8716 Park Avenue St. Bonifacius, Minnesota 55375 RJL:prn Enclosure January 26, 1983 ADDENDµM II TO VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 721 I. THE RUNOFF WATER ISSUE The issue is that when a home is built with the associated drive way and parking, the increased hardcover directly contributes to increased water runoff. It is the position, of the City of Orono that increased water runoff is directly related to the polluti~n:~f Lake Minnetonka~ The neighbors to the south (Lots 4, 5 and 6) are concerned for a similar reason in that increased water runoff would travel across their properties on the way to the lake. The solution to the runoff problem is to establish a perform ance requirement upon those who build new homes to provide a water control system which will limit the surface water run off to that which is equal to or less than runoff of the area in question before the additional hardcover has been established. In other words, the lake and/or the neighbors would see no addi tional runoff waters than existed before any improvements were made. Control of the issuance of building permits could be placed in the hands of:the City of Orono Engineering Department to insure that the system meets the Performance Requirements as set forth by an independent professional engineering organization under the direction of said engineering department. Possible steps could include: First, the hardcover area would be estab lished under the current:regulations and located on the plot to be improved. Second, an independent soils and engineering or ganization would make a minimum of two test borings in the pro jected hardcover area to determine other features relative to water absorption and runoff. Third, the engineering organization would calculate the water absorption and runoff as a function of the soil types, amount and rate of rainfall, slope of the land, etc. Fourth, a system for controlling the runoff waters set forth would be designed. And, finally, the entire process would be reviewed and approved by the City of Orono's Engineer ing Department. The drainage of runoff water of the neighborhood area could use some improvement. The approach to this problem is along the line suggested in Approach No. 1 in the originally submit ted documents. It is possible that the system described in Approach No. 1 could be applied to accomplish both objectives (the prevention of additional runoff from the added hardcover and the improvement of the drainage of runoff water already existing). The applicants are prepared to provide improve ments effecting Lots 3 and 4 in terms of surface water con trol as specified in Approach No. 1. -2- As set forth in our Addendum to the Application in the letter dated December 9, 1982, it would seem to be inappropriate to expend large sums of engineering dollars for detailed studies at this time. II. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ENGINEERIND DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ORONO On January 14, 1983, the applicants were info~med that their application was being withdrawn from the scheduled meeting with the Planning Commission set for Monday evening, January 17, 1983. The following is a list of the questions posed and answers thereto: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATING TO PROPOSAL NO. l -"NEW AND ADDED DRAIN" Question No. 1 -What is the profile of the existing system? Assuming that a "profile" is a cross section of the earth at a particular point showing elevation and other key items as a function of elevation, Figure 1 is an approximation of the existing system. Figure 2 is a topographical survey prepared by the engineering firm of Gordon Coffin Company which sets forth the elevation at key points. Figure 3 is a map of the local area showing lot location and relative sizes. Figure 3 was used to locate the approximate loca tion of the underground drain traveling from Lot 4 through Lot 5 and 6 and exiting into Lake Minnetonka. Question No. 2 -What is the profile of the new system and what values were used in calculations? Figure 4 is an approximation of the profile of the new system. Figures used in calculation are related only to the flow through the existing system and are as follows: A drop from the center line of the current system from the drain in Lot 4 to the center line of the pipe at the exit into Lkae Minnetonka is eight feet. The internal diameter of the pipe is five inches. The material to establish in ner surface conditions for type of flow is cement tile. The length of the system is 220 feet. These calculations were based upon water height of 12 inches above the center line of the inlet of the drainage system. The 12 inches repre sents approximately ground level at the point of the drain in Lot 4. Question No. 3 -What is the size of the settling tank? The size of the settling tank has yet to be determined be cause of the lack of specific performance requirements. PROFILE -EJ(lSTlNG UNDERGROUND DRAIN (AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 265) --z;( 1.m-.~ZJ~rzzzzz1u2rry1272~ ELEVATION 930 ' ELEVATION 938 \ ~~-Ui -+~-(.,1>1 -J,t-\4------flO\_____-v ~ t.of L{ ~. L.O't 5'-""\.e: -1.,.0-r 0 - l_A\-(-<...i. W'-~ 1-l,N <i. "\O 1-,1.\.1! (" FIGURE I NO SCALE Dimensions Approximate (Scaled From Figure 2 and 3 ---. ;I I ----. Swly 1111<' of -.___ Lo/ IJ4, J';,rlr1:J ?-vrk --✓ ---- 1'0,rt.i f'\r-11 Lo u f : ..... I I~-.. , t! y ..... I ·rr-""''~ in Cow)rrim,:int !,ot ~, .Sccti0n 20-ll7-2J I/ ~ \ l ~o {' 1;} \ ,4; t 'y ·~ L,i r,'t ti,, i:-r~ r G i fy · th'1 t '---'4 ,( -----=i:I~ ~ ' / ',11f"\tv ,:,111" , \fld\ I $~~ ,, tO ,• /~·· . ( I t I ( , 1•\l•;o ~J~f~c • < ' ~ ,✓, ,,., ~hl.:. ls 11 tru,'? •incl r.0rrdc: t r'l~~1rt'1!J(!nt'1tJ.1n ot r, :;',Jj"\111:.' 0/' U1e1 \.nuncl<irins o!' lh'.1t :Y.d·t of' r/'lvorn111::nt i ... ot I,, ·:or.t.1on 2(~, 701 . .:ni,idr 1L7 :iort1, 111.i:1_:11 2:-, 't,!~L ;Jt' th:: '.,'tll ~-i:; ', ,,. \ ':r . '"""'\ '\'' / ..... ~i( . \,\\,· ' ' I\ :}r:r.C'1;-11L /.',11r·Ldl.[lfl 1 rlu:;crLb1!cl ue '.'ulL::l\.:,_;; P1 1 /inri\n 1· n11 thn shrr,; 01 :,•i;:u :'.ir,n<-lsn;,:l, nt Uw 1x-1int of' .'.nt,,rJ,~•-li~n ,:1(' 1'l,j,'1 :il,c,ru 1-dl/1 o line• ,!1•1-J\.Jll ,... ,.,, '\') ),. II\ ('\ C) ~ \' -··~·· \ . C) J~o ~\;•~ \ .... ) . \\ ,.. t l_, ~ '\ C) !\ ):. ·. / ""' ' , .. VI., . • I ,•' 1\ • t !'-•11 ~ i\ • I~ I ·1 . ,.$ ·, ,· .; '·' -/0', :, ·'I ;v,r,,li.lll 1,,•~L.'7 nr:d 9/J r',)nl .'5outh\./':~.:il.O!'l.", rn1:!1s1.;r(1 :i ,,t ,,j~:1.r, 1,r:r;lni-;1 Il'C·1n t.hu .Soutr,\./O!Jtor]y ~'uw J'.' Lot l).'., Sprin{' Pitrk; U":11c1.i ,1our.i,,2 1.1!--'ttJrJ.:1 r)1!t'',l.lc!l \.Jltn scd~i :;ouLh'wosL,1r1.y lino 01' Lot 1:-,1~ und its Southenst- 1:rl:· cxr.ttn:,ion tJ the .Soulr1\..'o.:1t,~rl.1 line o!' ('.,1:.;co :'r:i!nt ;ioDcl (J'o,rrrot.J.y r1rr:inn .'\VfJl1UiJ); t11enr:e :iouthorly alone said '~n·.1~.r1·.;011lurl:: Unn o: C11;1e,) Poh,1. (1.0::<! to il:; cx:il:·1r ,,:·· Jr,.t,:rsurtiori wi1r1 n .llr,u dru1,,n p0r,"lL,il \./ith nnd 150 foet South ·,.-,!;'~··:--l:1, rnJn:Jur,~".I ril:. i·it:hL nrq•lc::,, f'ron1 U·,e ;;outti\..'(j~:1.,~r1." line or' 1;1-lid i..,ot lJ~ 1Jnd itn Sout.'rH:1,st.erl:: extonsion; then·co .·,,.,;•.:·,\..'usttJ:--l:,; ~1·11'•1ll.r::l \./.:.t,h c1t:1id .So11tl1wi~sterl:,r line or· j;: L)/, i:r,ci it:: Smithua~;tcrl.v <;;..:t€Jn:jo11 to s1.1id shoro; ther.cc '1;,".::•:11st,~rl.v nlon,u; srdii :'ll·.0r,! to U1c point. o:' b,1 11 Jr:rlr.1'., •.ind the loC'fttjon of r1ll bujUinc,s 1 if' any 1 therccn, and all ':'.;:~~,'Lri on~r01,~h,:,1~r.t:, J'1·nm or ori ::·JJd 11,nrl, l' (' ,, ; /I • J '•-' ---• ..,:.,J lt i; =J l ":.U,':}: 1 II ::-/,'JI r,-:'J-r~O lr'Jn 1n.-,r\<(!r 1'.'C\l'.)-1.(J2 1i '' I r,t G>V .-2 // ~ ,// /7 //" .--ao:~!2~"'/ fYJ-:__,t_v~A~-; , C.A••r''C'' ·~ Corrin '1 0 1 ' :,; b00 1 \J' ,I 'I I I' J. ~ -'~ L' .., I '-t f~ r,;; J,rq_: :=tffvcyor nnd Pl11nn0r :....nr:::i ~'..innesotu • l . \ v'. v' ! I . ) Zo --/ I 7 - / / ,: ~----- r ----T r------- 1 I PROFILE -CONCEPT OF ADDED DRAIN/RETENTION SYSTEM FROM ELEVATION 938 DRAIN -~. FROM HOUSE ~E TIED TO EXISTING SYSTEM TANK FIGURE 4 ELEVATION 9 30 LAKE MINNETONKA AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 265 NO SCALE ALL ON LOT 3 -3- , However, the key is to minimize the water running into Lake Minnetonka and/or its velocity, the tank may be designed with perforations in the structure to permit the water to drain into the ground at that point or possibly into a drain field. Another feature of the tank could be that the inlet to the tank could be at the bottom, while the exit {s near the top to hold or retain the water in the tank (or drain field) as long as possi ble. Question No. 4 -What is proposed concerning maintenance of the system? The responsibility for maintenance of the system should be that of the landowner for the system except in cases where neighbors are directly connecting to the system, in which case,the neighbor would have responsibility for maintaining a portion of the system that is on their land. The City of Orono may choose to have periodic inspections to insure that the required maintenance is being performed. QUESTIONS CONCERNING PROPOSAL NO. 2 -"RETAINED WATER SYSTEM" Question No. 1 -How would the City control the use of this system and who maintains it? Concerning the maintenance and control, the system would be available for periodic inspections by the City of Orono and would be similar to that set forth in the an swer to Question 4 above. A number of methods for city control of this type of system including, but not limit ed to, seals placed on:appropriate portions of the system which is broken for repair or adjustment require the ap proval of the City of Orono. Question No. 2 -What is the profile of the proposed system? Figure 5 is an approximate profile of this system based primarily on topographical survey noted in Figure 2 above. Question No. 3 -What is the size of the tank? The tank,as set forth on Page 5 of the report accompanying the Grants Application, is 17,154 gallons. Because of the new proposed approach to the runoff water quest ions set forth in I of this Addendum, the approaches suggested in this Variance Application should be considered as conceptual in nature and the more scientific way is to concentrate first on the establishment of the performance specifications. Once they are understood, the process of establishing concepts and develop ing detailed designs becomes more meaningful. ( IN L'2-, Pl'E'.Dvk\ IA 14"2 .. >0COVt?... / Ii".. , , ! / -,,77 J }!\\ e:t...\l..\L 14. -(~ ('.) t---..( NOC 1£s-r1,f:.U$dlcy' PROFILE -CONCEP'l' OF RETAINED WATER SYSTEM AND PORTION OF EXISTING SYSTEM ·•..C... _____________ _.. {...01 3 ·-r7 \fce:> '(' O ~:::i[O NO SCALE FIGURE 5 ELEVATION 938 Loi '-1 :,...,1 LOT 5"- E."' l s "T I !'-I. c..,. ➔ AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 265 III. -4- SUMMARY OF KEYPOINTS OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST A. RUNOFF WATER CONTROL The approach recommended is as stated in this Addendum II, to the Variance Application No. 721, which proposes to establish in a fundamental requirement that any addi tional building be conditional upon the satisfactory presentation of a water control system to keep the runoff water equal to or less than that of undeveloped property. The implementation of this requirement by the Engineer ing Department would seem most practical. Criteria for considerations of matters such as health (pollution), general welfare, and to some extent, safety are covered by the approach proposed herein for the surface water control. B. LOCATION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION At a significant disadvantage to the applicants, the pro posed home is located to the easterly portion of the lot to minimize interference with neighbors. For example, the proposed location puts the home approximately 100 feet from the neighbor to the north (Lot 2) and to the south (Lot 4). C. SAFETY One area in which the traffic safety should be improved is that the proposed location will require the removal of some brush and trees adjacent to Casco Point Road which will improve the visability at that point. D. GENERAL Beginning with a look at the community as a whole, its form of development, and actual status, if change is required, there should be some substantive reason why the change, particularly in zoning, is considered necessary. In this situation, the change was prompted by concern for pollu tion due to the lack of a sanitary sewer in the late 60's. The advent of a sanitary sewage system in the early 70's eliminated that fundamental argument. A fundamental prin cipal of common law is that zoning ordinances are not retroactive! The fact is that the property in question was platted long before the relevant zoning laws were pass ed. This particular Variance Application does not seek to change the zoning, nor does it intend to change the basic charac~er of the neighborhood considering the sizes of the lo ts and the homes built for the greater part of this area. It is not within the scope or spirit of the law to _5:... use this particular case as a test case for the question of "common ownership." The law indicates that variances are to be dealt with on a case by case basis, taking into account the unique circumstances of each situation. POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOT'(, LTD. WAYNE G . POPHAM RAYMOND A . HAIK ROGER W. SCHNOBRICH DENVER KAUFMAN DAVIDS. DOTY ROBERT A. MINISH ROLFE A . WORDEN G . MARC WHITEHEAD BRUCE D . WILLIS F'REDERICK S. RICHARDS G . ROBERT JOHNSON GARY R . MACOMBER ROBERTS . BURK HUGH V . PLUNKETT, m 4344 IDS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 FREDERICK C . BROWN THOMAS K . BERG BRUCE D . MALKERSON JAMES R. STEILEN JAMES B . LOCKHART ALLEN W . HINDERAKER CLIFFORD M. GREENE 0 . WILLIAM KAUFMAN DESYL L . PETERSON MICHAEL 0 . FREEMAN THOMAS C . O 'AOUILA LARRY D . ESPEL .JANIE S . MAYERON DAVI D A . JONES TELEPHONE ANO TEL.ECOPIER 612-333-4800 LEE E . SHEEHY LESLIE GILLETTE MICHAEL T. NILAN ROBERT C . MOIL.AN EN DAVID J . EDOUIST CATHER I NE A . POLASKY STEVEN G . HEIKENS THOMAS ..J . RADIO KATHLEEN M . MART I N JOHN C. CHILDS THERESE AMBRUSKO DOUGLAS P. SEATON GARY D . BLACKFORD SCOTT E . RICHTER February 24, Mayor and City Council City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Lorge v. City of Orono near Mayor and Councilmembers: 1983 ,-- 2660 F'ETRO-LEWIS TOWER 717 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 90202 TE L EPHONE AND TE L E.COP I ER 303-625-2660 SUITE 802-2000 L STREET N . W . WASHINGTON , D . C . 20036 TELEPHO N E A NO TE:L EC O~I ER 202-667-5 154 ,,,,~©@ OW~~~ 'U) I ~ \ FEB 2 5 1983 u~ ·~ CITY OF ORONO Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed Stipulation of settlement and Dismissal and Contract of Indemnification in regard to the above matter. BDM/j f Enclosure cc: Mr. Mr. 2099j Walter R. Benson Alan P. Olson Very truly yours, ~~~.;,??~, Bruce D. Malkerson {;,cj'../ .. ~ . CONTRACT OP INDEMNIFICATION WHEREAS, Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge and the City of Orono have entered into a compromise and settlement of that certain litigation identified as United States District Court File No. 4-82-139, as more particularly set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal of that litigation; and WHEREAS, by the terms of that agreement Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge and their successors in interest are obliged to design a dwelling on Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265, located at 2697 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota, so that no aggravation or degradation of current drainage conditions in the area is caused by the construction of such a building; IT IS HEREBY AGREED that: 1. In the event any litigation is commenced which names the City of Orono or any of its officers and officials acting in their official capacity as defendants and which alleges that due to any official acts or failures to act on the part of the city and/or its officials and officers have caused or contributed to the degradation or aggravation of drainage conditions in the area in and near Lot 3; Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Orono and/or its elected officials and officers against said claim. 1 2. On commencement of any such claim, the City of Orono shall promptly tender the defense of such litigation to Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge, who shall select an attorney at their own expense to defend the City against such litigation. 3. In the event such litigation is commenced, the City shall fully cooperate with defense counsel and shall offer all possible aid and assistance to defense counsel in the conduct of the suit. 4. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge shall have exclusive and final control over the conduct of the defense of any such litigation and shall have exclusive conduct and control over the settlement of any such claim. Richard J. Lorge Jean L. Lorge CITY OF ORONO By ______________ _ Mayor 2 ., By _________ ..--..,.... ____ _ City Council Chair By _____________ _ City Attorney HOLMES & GRAVEN, Chartered By _____________ _ Jeffrey R. Brauchle 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612)338-1177 --, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DISTRICT Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge, Plaintiffs, vs. City of Orono, a Minnesota Statutory City, William V. Van Nest, Mayor of Orono, Gregg Hannah, Orono Councilperson, Mary Butler, Orono Councilperson, Jo Ellen Hurr, Orono Councilperson, and former Councilpersons, Robert Searles, Gary Welsh, and Paul Tesek, Defendants. STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WHEREAS, Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge are the fee owners of the following described real property located in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota: That part of Government Lot 4, Section 20, Township 117, North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beg inning on the shore of Lake Minnetonka at the point of intersection of said shore with a line drawn parallel with and 90 feet Southwesterly, measured at right angles, from the Southwesterly line of Lot 134, Spring Park, thence Southeasterly along said Southwesterly line of Casco Point Road to its point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 150 feet Southwesterly, measured t right angles, from the Southwesterly line of said Lot 134 and its Southeasterly extension; thence Northwesterly parallel with said Southwesterly line of Lot 134 and its Southeasterly extension to said shore; thence Northeasterly along said shore to the point of beginning. 1 and, WHEREAS, said property (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 3") has been the subject of the above-captioned litigation commenced by Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge, said litigation commenced to resolve the buildability of this lakeshore lot; and WHEREAS, Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge and the City of Orono now desire to amicably settle and resolve their differences: IT IS HEREBY AGREED: 1. The City of Orono hereby grants to Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge, with regard to Lot 3, variances as to width and area from the terms of the zoning ordinances of the City of Orono in order to render Lot 3 buildable, provided, however, that no other variances are hereby granted as part of this agreement. Current setback requirements of the Orono Zoning Ordinance shall be complied with by the owner of Lot 3. 2. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge and their successors in interest shall comply with all building codes applicable to the development of Lot 3. 3. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge and their successors in interest shall design a residential dwelling for Lot 3 in a manner such that no aggravation of existing drainage problems in the immediate area shall occur. The City shall supply to Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge and their designated engineer and architect on request all data of any kind ma-intained by the City regarding current drainage conditions in the area, and shall 2 otherwise cooperate in efforts to alleviate any drainage problems in the area. 4. The City permit for Richard shall J. pass Lorge on any application for a dock and Jean L. Lorge, or other successors in interest, without discrimination or preference and shall not consider in any such deliberations the width or area of Lot 3. S. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge and their successors in interest shall be permitted a curb cut for Lot 3. 6. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge may be subject to new special assessments for municipal water and sewer service to Lot 3. 7. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge and their successors in interest shall be excused from the one-year time period in which to procure a building permit in the event that procurement of the building permit is delayed by 1 i tigation arising out of the development of Lot 3. 8. The City of Orono hereby represents that except as herein stated, no other restrictions, limitations, or approvals are necessary prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 3. 9. The parties hereto represent that the foregoing is entered into in good faith and that all reasonable cooperation shall be extended in fulfilling the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 3 • ' - 10. Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge hereby dismiss with prejudice all claims brought or that could have been brought in federal district court file 4-82-139 without costs, disbursements or attorneys fees to either party. 4 Richard J. Lorge Jean L. Lorge CITY OF ORONO By~-------------Mayor BY..,,,...,.-,--,,,,---=-=--,,,,-=--=------City Council Chair By-,-____________ _ City Attorney HOLMES & GRAVEN, Chartered By_-=-=------------Jeffrey R. Brauchle 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612)338-1177 REPORT CONCERNING VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2697 CASCO POINT ROAD Lot 3, Auditors Subdivision 265 I. SUMMARY: This report submitted by Richard and Jean Lorge, concerns the application.for variance for the lot located at 2697 Casco Road, Orono, Minnesota. The report will discuss the situation as it presently stands concerning the position of the parties. A proposal is presen·ted which addresses the surface water drainage questions with two separate approaches and provides a proposed single family dwelling, situated such on the property to minimize the effect on the adjacent neighbors, and environmental issues. The final portion of the report deals with a discussion on the issues presenting the arguments in favor of granting the variance. II. THE SITUATION: Richard and Jean Lorge, find themselves in a current situation of owning a parcel of land on Lake Minnetonka shoreline and are being denied an opportunity to build a home and lose substantial equity in favor of public benefit without compensation. The Orono Village Council and certain neighbors hold-the, position established by the council in the issuance of Resolution 1246, dated February 11, 1981 denying the variance at that time over the recommended approval by the Planning Commission. Three neighbors south of said lot object primarily on the basis of an increase of "flooding" due to the building of a additional home. The neighbor adjacent to said property on the north objects primarily on the basis of diminished property value. II I. PROPOSAL: A. OBJECTIVES: The following represents the objectives in planning and structuring this report and its proposals. 1. Limit the intrusion upon neighbor properties. 2. Reduce or resolve the surface water drainage problem. 3. Minimize enviromental impact. The proposals that follow reduce or eliminate the concerns of neighbors and hopefully the concerns of the Orone Village Council. Page 2 Arguments rebutting the village position on the legal or quasi-legal arguments are contained in Section IV of this report. B. SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE: 1.· Problem Definition: Figure 1 is an approximation of the water basin of concerned. Figure 1 also, illustrates the approximate location of the existing underground drain tiles and the openings to the underground tiles. The underground drain depicted runs roughly along the natural water surface run off area. Figure 2 is a cross sectional sketch of the drain tiles, drain openings and surface levels. In situations where the race of rainfall and runoff in the water basin exceeds the capacity of the underground drain, the depressions in the areas on lot 3, 4, and 5 fill with water to such an extent that additional water then runs off the basin approximately along the line of the underground drain. This situation is depicted in what is called Condition 1 of the sketch. As the water drains through the tile and/or soaks into the ground it reduces to the level depicted in Condition 2 in which the water is only removed by soaking into the grouno and/or evaporation. 2. hater Depth: During the time of the greatest rainfall which occurred in August of 1977 in a period from 1942 through and including 1981, was on che order of six inches. In other words, the depth of the water pool as depicted in Condition 1 before additional water ran off due to natural slopes was only about six inches deep. Figure 3 depicts the situation of "trapped" area in whi.ch the water is retained due to the deterioration of the existing underground drain. The problem with the existance of the "trapped" area is that the drainfield to the north and to rhe east of the current surface drain on lot 4 has lateral tiles which are blockeo thus preventing water entering the said underground drain f101,1 lot 3 and iilso the easterly portion of loL !c, The "trapped" area could be rc;,1eciied P.,ge 5 of the float valve the water in the drain would be high showing the drain operating at capacity. The float would shut off the control valve and prevent any water from exiting from the storage t;=ink. The "on" position indicates that the water level in the drain has decreased and that now the drain has a capacity to take on some water for drainage. Therefor the only time water from the prop~sed house coming from the roof and, blacktop areas would enter the drain is when the drain has a capacity to accept the water. The additional benefit here to lot 4 and lot 5 downstrcams in that the repair of the blocked lateral would permit water to drain from lots 3, 4, and 5 in the heavy rain times and from lots 3 and 4 when the water rate has subsided. Gesign considerations for the storage capacity of the tank are based upon the ~ maximum rate of water flowing off of the hardcover surfaces. This is based upon the study of the local Climatilogical data sheets presented in Tables 4 and Tables 5 which set forth the conditions in the time spand of 1942 through 1981 is August 3C, 1977 in which in a five hour period 7.28 inches of rain fell. Converting the 3,7b5 square feet of hardcover area water with the 7.2 inch rainfall figure coverts to a tank capacity requirement of 17,154 gallons C. THE HmlE: The proposed home in reference to houses on both adjacent lots is shewn on figure 8. The seperation between the houses on the adjacent lots and the proposed house is over 100 feet. The major concession is tc move the home away from the lakeshore however, this conc~ssion is valid for this prorosal only. Figure 9 illustrates the house location and dimensions. Figures 10 and 11 depict the proposed floor plans and elevations. The set back requlreo on the street side coupled with the proposed building wil, aLrually i:t1prcve safety because the. visibi1Ly \,_'ill be i1r1prc\:ed oue to the removal of brush and a few trees. Ko additional curb cut will be required. The i,,,pact of the prOj)CSed (.1r.1e on the: ''light" or sunshine on the adjacent pr0pert ies will show an irr,pro\'2rnent in the anwunt of light because of Page 6 IV. the removal of the few trees. A simple observation of the topography indicates that the early morning sun at present is blocked more by the hill and trees on the east side of Casco Point Road and the trees on lots 3 and lots 4 of Auditors Subdivision 265 than by the proposed home. Our basic argument is that although we have used reasonable care in the affairs of our property ownership in Orono, including the hiring of legal council at important times a process has been going on which is (a) denying us use of our property and/or (b) Laking value from us without corr.pensa t ion. The following is a point by point discussion and reputiation of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono r,umber 1246. ?.-'R/,C.RAPHS 1 , 2 3,4,5 6, 7, 8, COMMENTS Based upon 19o7 ordi~ance nc. 93 to which we claim exemption because of "grancifati1ered'' rights and the fact that variances are granted in similar cases subsequent to 1967. Eased upon 1967 crdinance no. 93 to which we claim exemption t•eca1-.2se of "gra.ndfathered'1 r1 ts and :he fact :hat variances are granted in similar cases subsequent to 19b7. At the time of the resolution lot L was not owned by Lorge which was recognized by paragraphs 7 and 22 in said resolution. Admitted to re}arive the lot 3 but 1 o t 4 \,' a s no t o ·•.ci ,2. d 2 t the time per ?arasra 22. 7 ano The corn1on o,,ne r ship 2 spec t is presented here as an attempt force or show that owners tiave ''.olread\' C()mbined" the Page 7 P ARAGRi\PHS cont. cont. property prior Lo Lhe adoption to 1he ordinance 172. The big issue that the land is platted and Lhe plats control the activities of goverment organization. The inference that common ownership of one or more platted parcels wipes out the individualality platted parcel is ridicules if carried beyond this issue. For example, What would be the effect of common ownership of four, five, ten or cwenty platted parcels? Under the theory proposed here the individual would then be required to combine all such platted parcels which would then lose identity. Our position here is that the ownership of each of the plattea parcels provides a given right which was in posicion prior to the passing of ordinance 172. If the intent of ordinance 172 was to force a combination of adjacent ''sub-standard" parcels into one parcel which no,,•.· :neer s the zc;-iing requi,ements, tnen at a ~inimum cert6in action should of been taken: 1. The taxing structure tied to the individual plattea parcels should have been adjusted to combine Lhe said properties, 2. The o~nership documents or deeas on the various properties should have been marked with a legend or restrictions preventing sales of separated p2rcels, 3, che effected owners of said parcels should have received specific notification by regiscered mail Lo the effect of such a ordinance. PARAGRAPHS cont. 9 10 11 COMMENTS cont. To the comments made on paragraphs 7 and 8 the combining of the ownership of property of one or more parcels of land on a single Torrens certificate does not eliminate the owners rights on the individual platted parcels. If this concept were pressed to the ultimate it would mean that the process of ownership through the Torrens technique would require a seperate Torrens certificate for each individual placted piece of property which makes little sense. This is another very weak and irrelevant argument because the manner in which funds are obtained for the purchase and o~nership of property has absolutely nothing to do with the basic ri ts and restrictions placed on a given platted parcel. The implication of financing of one or more parcels of land under a cc,r,,mon mortgage or loan is that they cannot be separated unless there are separate financing arrangements on each separat~ parcels which requires some changes in our banking industry ano is nonsense. Another argument based upon use of the property which states that certain uses of adjacent properties ccmbines the property and eliminates individual plats. The rights of the individual parcel in this case would not have b c en c }1 an 2 e d i f t he 1 2 hyn bad not been 1:,oh-ed, a fence installed separating-the properties, etc. PARAGRAPHS cont. 12 13 COHMENTS cont. The fundamental fact that the owners of the property over the last twenty years have kept a separation of the two platted parcels by having separate tax statements on each parcel and not combining them is the only argument that has any meaning relative to whether or not the parcels are combined. All of the co~nents relative to paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 apply in this case as well. Admitted to but the relevance is not apparent. The statement in this paragraph are highly subjeccive and not supported by any ~uantitative terms. In fact these statements are not true because an inspection of bo h lots 3 and 6 will show that driveway on lot 4 can be easily constructed with a minimum addition of soil at the eastern portion of the lot to minimize slope coming on/off the Casco Point Road. This can in no way be construed as "n;a_ior land alteratjons". Concerning lot 3 which also could be reactivated by removing some trees and providing some small amount of fill. The ,.,,ord ''sreep" is not quantified and as such is subjective. An examination of the steepness of the driveway on lot 2 compared to that on lnt 3/4 shows lot 2 to nave a r.ru c h s t e e p e r c r i \' c \,' o y a r_ , h e i n t l' r f :ci c: e \,'iLh the road. Page 10 P P.RAGRAPHS cont·. 14 15 16 1 7 COi·iivJENTS cont. The con;;·1;ents given on paragraph 13 apply in addition this visibility during exit is limited primarily by the existance of trees and bushes and possibly by the type of vehicle driven. This paragraph c i t es l }1 e "safety problems" with- out definition or explanation. The question of safety before :.2-iing any meaning must be quantified or defined and most often relates to accidents and the frequency of accidents or the severity accidents . The safety question is presented here on a subjective basis as an additional item for the aenial of the variance permit, but. ,.nere are many traffic safety uevices and controls that can be installed in the event there really becomes a traffic ?roblem such as a stop sign, speeo bumµs, etc. lJ_7t_ sta:.:.ernenL shou]o oe correcLed Le rc2d :nat :here are actually two water service stubs that are available L-:i n c: c.: n e s e \.: e r c rj e c t i o :n s L u D • l;, ;,,r;e en°nt lot 3 becc.:nes buildable 1 : ·.-.'Cu 1 c see;., t c, be a s i r:ip 1 e ~atter lO provide sewer cnC ¥,.,'ater cc:-1necLions and thf· ap~ropr1ate assesments at that t j file .. AccEpLed [uct. There is no disa~re~m~nt to cne facts of the matler. c,r not rnis p rticuJar it err, had anything to oo with the denial of the v:~riance~ A \·cry signjficnnL point 1s c.hat if t.he city c,,uncil at tnis t.ime belic\'ed thats ]ors 3 ,i n d ~ s h o u l d r. c1 v e ~, (:> en 1 l' g a l 1 y (c,::·1bined as :-;11~;arently 1.,::=.is the Page 11 PARAGRAPHS cont. 18, 19 20 21 COMMENTS cont. objective in Ordinance 172, they had an opportunity to disallow the easement in this case and force into the legal combination of lots 3 and 4. Either the council did not believe that the Ordinance 172 was valid or chose not to confront the issue at that time. In any event their action, if the situation prevails, could be considered as negligence in this macter. Previously discussed and commented under paragraphs 3 through 11 above. Apparently a statement of fact but did not discuss che aspect of requiring combination of ''substandard" lots under cc,c1;;ion o ,.me rs h i p . There is a ~uestion as to the accuracy of the statement because at the time stated (January or February 1980) we had not yet procurred che services of anv Realtor nor if anv Realtor did call he or she was not representing us at the time. It is interesting to note further that the comments dealing with the buildability of the lot 3 discuss that only variances were required and did not bring forth the apparent priffi~ry objection of building on lot 3 and that is that the cnsi c'c:~ed e,1 ;1 e ] o t II by \ · i rt u e o i: 0 rd i ~~an c e 1 72. Page 12 PARAGRAPHS cont. 22 23, 24 25 COMMENTS cont. Important and key comments concerning this item. First, we claim rights under the "grandfather" provisions relative to this issue. Second, at all times during this particular trade/sale the entire efforts were monitored by our attorneys. Third, Mr. Charles DaMart who was interested in purchasing lot 3 approached the zoning administrator in the village building with the Real Estate salesperson by the name of John Keen inquiring as to the buildability of lot 3. At that time they were instructed that lot 3 was buildable but would require a variance for the lot width. Again no mention of restrictions dealing with the requirements to cc,mbine "substandard" lots awned jointly were made. The first time in which the "joint ownership'' question came up was upon receipt fo the letter from the Orono Village on approximately August 12, 1980 and during the subsequent variance hearings. Twenty three is probably correct. However, the key words were at that time should have been no adjacent undevelooed land was available. One possible explanation for the failure of our attorneys to identify the "joint O\,:nership provisions" was that they are vague and unrecognizable in the presenc r rorm. This rart icclar parasr,3ph is perhaps the most untrue and self/ serving of all the paragraphs, in this particular resolution. The rarure of the assesment and Page 13 PARAGRAPHS cont. 27 29 COMMENTS cont. taxing for all times relevant here, is that lot 3 was taxed separately on the basis of it being "buildable" lot. As a buildable lot its market value as established by an offered purchase in 1980 was $60,800.00. Discussions with a professional Real Estate evaluator used at the relevant time indicate that if lot 3 were combined with lot 4 in a single purchase the value of lot 3 would be reduced substantially to about one half of its value as a buildable lot or approximately $30,000.00. The $30.000.00 is a "loss of substantial value". The present situation is ever more distastrous because the market value of the now useless lot cannot exceed $10,000.00 in a loss on the order of SS0,000.00. Arguments about using lot 3 as a "sicle yard" or any other th-t:sc by the council to combine the properties have been discussed previously. Since the onlv official documents received from the Village of Orono or other goverment agencies are the assessed valuations, tax statements, and the starements for water and sewer services, it would seem reasonable to assume those values except those statements or those values stated reflect the cities thinking and pasilion on the property. See Section III, B of this report dealing with drainage siru2tion. Our position is that our ri were grandfathered. The aspect of paragraph 29 is that it relates to the Ordinance 172 which provides for certain situations not requiring variances for building. All other aspects concerning changes Page 14 PARAGRAPHS cont. 30 31 COMMENTS cont. in zoning and c rn:1 bi n i n g adjacent platted land have been previously set forth above. No specifics are set forth as to what "always" means and µo ordinances are cited as to the basis for such a position. Since only Ordinance number 93 and Ordinance 172 have been discussed it must be assumed that Ordinance 172 is the only Ordinance that provides the statutory ability to require the action stated in paragraph 30. This paragraph with its nine subdivision is a classic of subjective positions in whjch the mere statement is expected cc have force without the specific statements being varified, subst;c.ntiated, or quantified to lend credibility. For example, of the prior thirty paragraphs only 3 (14, 27, 28,) could have any substantive connection with illustrating the "adverse effect upon the health, safety and ,,,elfare of rhe u,mmunity". In subsection~ dealing with safety and welrare we believe the increased traffic and drainage problems are discussed herein, Back to our answers on paragraphs 13, 14, c"nd 27 to refule the starerr1ents r:~aoe Concerning ~ub~eccion c concerning the "amount of light dnd air in the nei borhoud would be diminished by aoding a structure". i / -...... f { f --------- >l :..,J ; --•~J "' ---...__ ":;' ;I), .... , --.. ~:~----j ·-1 .,-_ .... -""~-:..:.~ ~ ,_. ! ; .. ,J { .-'•;;_-;, -~ ." .-·; ~fi-c-•,•r-;1-· ; ... ,,. r: • ·_,, -, ... 1 • •-..:r, ·.·' , .. ,_ r--:. -~ .,.. r . -(' ( . ,--:-.·•. t ·,.· r,·, :·:•, -r:: "T..,r.--·!·r•,·. f,~-Jti 1-.,cl 1 ;t; {.;c:!lc: l't,to (') (1 '""; -~ / l. '· . ' -.. -I • '~ \..· .< ... ~ (. \..,,l .. r. \ .: ,. l •1 == j:: l ~-:.,?-ll ( ~ ,,, I:"r,n 1;~s.rr.er i."c11nd <'/ ' \ - \ ·:": ..... , .... . '' , .. . .1 \' . __ .,..,_. ,\( . : .. I ., ' Figure 8 1'., ·, ., . /,;·;·_r_, .; I '1..• ·,' ·-·:.l.?-;~_l :./.: ·, ~{ r ( f "."• ,'" j ( "\ '.J .. -; ' l•; N t .2.335 'kl. "J.,_j, ell~ 36 St . p,...L, M~ 55113 Pt.a-: 61.2. -636-4600 MN'klatu l-800 -6.2..2.-6573 February 16, 1983 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 e~c~ ol Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139-721 Lorge Dear Jeanne, Otfo G. Bonestroo, P .E. Robert W. Rosene, P. £. Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Bradford A. lemberg, P.E . Richard£. Turner, P .£. James C. Olson, P. £. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Keith A . Gordon, P.E. Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Richard W. Fo ster, P.E. Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. Mar vin L . Sorvala , P .E. Donald C. Burgardt , P. E. Jerry A . Bo urdon, P.E. Mafk A . Han son, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.£. Robert R . Pfefferle, P.E. Charles A. E rickson Leo M . Powe/sky Harlan M. Olson 1D)§@§OW~n ~i FEB 2 2 1983 I Ll l CITY OF ORONO The information provided by Mr. Lorge in his January 26, 1983 letter does not provide the details for design as requested but provides adequate information to generally review the intent of his proposal. The recommended alternate would be as presented in Figure 4 with modifications to fit the design criteria established by the City. The concept as presented can be developed to provide water quality and runoff volume after development at or very near to that which exists today. The in formation provided by Mr. Lorge is adequate for submittal to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed for preliminary review, but it is anticipated that additional information will be required for final approval. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~LIZU Glenn R. Cook GRC: 1i 3759b r' .2.33 5 'W. 'J,,_j, .,JI~ 36 S t. Pru.1, M~ 55113 Pt.a-. 61.2. -636 -4 600 January 14, 1983 City of Orono Bo x 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Attn : Ms. Jeanne Mabusth e~t~ ◊1 Re : File No . 139-720 Lorge Dear Jeanne, Ouo G. Bonestroo, P.£. Rober! W. Rosene, P.E. Jo seph C. Anderlik, P.E. Bradford A. Lemberg, P.E. Richard E. Turner. P.E. James C. Olson, P.£. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Kei1h A. Gordon , P.E. Th omas £. Noyes, P.£. Richard W. Foster, P.E. Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. Marvin L. Sorvala, P, £. Donald C. B1J rgord1, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon. P.E. ,..fork A. H anson, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P. £. Rober/ R. Pfefferle, P.E. Charles A. Erickson Leo M. Pay.,elsky Harlan M. Otso11 We have made a preliminary review of the storm water runoff proposals made on the Lorge property . The preliminary information is adequate in concept but we feel further defini tion of the details desired by the City r elative to adjacent properties will have to be incorporaated into the plan . Either of the plans proposed by t h e property owner could be utilized but we feel the holding tank proposal seems to have the most merit . Yours very t r uly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC . ---4 ~ ~[,J_ Glenn R. Cook GRC: 1i 3394b A ) I ry ,, I ~ Cf \j) "';>, r <' • .l' ~· :, ");, HARDCOVER Lot Area Lake Setback r Balance 25% .:._'( -1 ~f 19641 r 1 /~r 1,\ <) o) = "'f) l °:~ l 1 4500 sg._f_t. 15141 3785 sq. ft. House 2800 Drive 585 Turn 400 Figure 9 {:/) ~cf(!~ "; '~ 4(, • I. I I. III. SUMMARY THE SITUATION PROPOSALS A. OBJECTIVES TABLE OF CONTENTS B. SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE 1. Problem definition 2. Approach 1: A<lded Drain/ Re tent ~on 3. Approach 2: Stored Water System C. THE HOME IV. ARGUMENTS APPENDIX A. Copies of Applications Documents System 0 n,000 l6 1 1)i.rO Figure -: ---J-_:;.;. I,. • r: v --=j 2 /-'· ~ '-:i C "1 (D 'i ---{\) 0 -.L_ \ ' \ ~ I -J ·; ,,--, ·-1' I {.,..,-/ (_) Figure 3 ' --·• .. • \ • ·•-•I ' .\, ·.•·>,. I ·_, \ ', ' ' \ r j I Page 3 ') "-. quickly and with little expense by repairing the blocked tiles and if necessary installing an appropriate surface drain and sump. Figure 4 illustrates the precipitation from the year 1942 through and including 1981 with several of the high precipitaion months circled. The highest value is noted on August in 1977. This table and the following table were obtained from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Table 5 illustrates the history of the weather in the month of August of 1977 on an hour by hour day by day basis with the maximum rainfall occurring on August 30th fro~ 8:00pm through and including 12:00 p.m .. Proposed House Hardcover would require less than three ~ercent or tne water basin involved. The current underground drain system capacity as calculated by a local soils testing and engineering firm at four hundred and sixteen gallons per minute based upon parameters of the amount of water in the basin, the head pressure (verticaldrop of the water from the entrance)dt the drains to the exit into the lake), the length of the tile or pipe to estaolish the drop per unit dimension, the inside diameter of the pipe, the interior surface roughness of the pipe and, type of changes in the direction of the drain tile. This drainage rate a55u:nes a non-blocKed passage through the drain tile. At the best condition the drain would provide for capacity of 24,960 gallons per hour. This capacity converted into rainfall per hour for the basin in question means that the rainfall cannot exceed .34 inches of rain per hour assuming tnat the ground is saturated. Figure 6 depicts~ alternate proposal for the nandling of the ~ater runoff problem by adding additional underground drain system coupled with a settling tank to provide additional t2ke-av.·cy c_,;:;;,ability of the tiortherly thira of the entire ~rain basin. Proposed that the said line □e inrergra:eo ~itn the existing line by connec[ing i~ ,c, :_he repair of c he cu r rent 1 y b 1 c, c: :-.:_ e d no r t tie r 1 y ~ a 1 e 1-a 1 f r or., l o t 4 . Th i s s y s t em -", o u ] d be de " i g)w d i n such 2 1,-a y to provide a large stora;e or settling tank from i I fwerage Temperature -y·,.-a~-1 Jan--.-feb ~-?ia,-:·Apr ~ ,.~--;)' 1 June:-j~j)' ,-Aug-·Sept 7 Oct ----__;. --__j____ __ ~ -_ _:_ ·-·-'--l ----_L_ ---- l9St J ', ~ 7 l 9 S ~ JJ<,:.><; 1•n,c l~bt. l'h7 :•,c,a ! ~ f, 1, 1,;i iO ,-.[.ti\' "" ,,, '. s ::-j ;;:~ 11.J 0, ~ ,. s ,.~ is.~ ".J I 1 :-.~ 2 l .s ... > Precipitation 11;..!' 7 4 • ~ 7',i. 7!.t, ~ S • 7: / 1::,.cl i "· 1! f';,1 !;.),('11 11.11 I 73.)• 51,1 t,;.e· bC.S: !;.7.3 t,3 ... s•;.: ! ,.:. 'I t,1,5 11,c.' s1.ol I ". '1 .. -..e1 ~ ... ~; lj(" ... Nov [·Pt :s:.t. , .. ~ • < ) 1 • ~ • f, • ' .l j • t l ~ , " 1 :n.o "[, t. ::-s ... ;.. nrual "l,f ~ , • f ..... , ""·' ...... .. f.,.11 "l•" .. ,.,1 ""'·' .. t,.9 "lo,) "!a.~ ..... ;, lo?,11 ...... .. ~ . ., 1o7.1 "~ . - ..... l "l,'.! lit.,."' ....... "" • E Yea0n. I Feb ~~~r A;:ir ; May I June) Julyj A.~-gj Sept j Oct] __ Nov !_-Dec ;~n~,ual ~ '" <' C. 1 S. 0, "~ ; ,; "! C, i 1· O. 51" l" .. " C,;,,.; l.l'J- !,;-"~ C,t,3 l.C4 1,:,1it ':J,~.J l. lS. 1,;,.., ! 0.11' c.2:i l,;q C,lS: 1.JT J,; «,;; I : .t S-•C. l 1t. 49SC l.;7· C,t,e, 1971 I I C."~ : .C!;,' c.~s ::.2S: 0 ... 1, c . .J :::: ... 1, I I C,9S l.~~ :Lc:5, ;.~.:; 0.11.'. o.d 2,CS: C.Hj C.111\ C. lb' :.22 i.;J :: • f... [)." Q C-~~ r.~ll C.17. l.Ob Z, 6~ G. 7::,c I C ,e1 C. SQ; C. t S C. 9 :S C. ~&: C, ;;'II 1.c:o;i l. }Q; C, 1,-lli C, t,1, ' C. :S □ :: , l ~ :.1 .. , c. 61 l./0 1.95 ... ,s. :.11s.1, C.H, ;. , f9 c. -.a 2. ~~- !.4J C.,; ~ c.,. E <;1 ... :r >'t:.:i;,:_ I ;,,q; E.CJ ;,£..,· :.•di :.9; ::: ..... :: •• e ~. b& ,_ • l,"b C.ll !.1 ... 1,98 .......:ii l. Z" -----, 3, l" ! . ~i' 7,18 !.!: :.1.a. :.u ;:;~5 :.ie l,t:' : . ~., l,:':f J.t>t-' 3 ..... ' ~ :'.Y"I !,l'-' ,.!,._ C.6~ C.£1 ,•,;J :.c-o,,i L_'i:• :c; t, --r·'-'f ~, ~lb: cl" 2. l l l.75' 3. f., ~ 2 • ~'1 ' [.":: ;,}f, : ... 1 ).'' ..... : :,J9 1.1c' ; ... e : • C': ; , 1:', : ... 11 0. ~ ..,, :, • l ~: ; • C ~ ::.:· : . t. ~ C,<,<; .: ...... l • t. ~ l.O'r :.:_,<. ::., .. :..:: ..... c :.:.-1) l. l J :: . ,, j ;,;;: : ..... , :.::1 : • ! s ;,f<; : ... ~ ~.f'- :.::t :) • ~ 1' : • l c. ;:; , ,; :1 ;,;:s: i.c:;; ;:.:c :.:. .. .:-• <; ' ;.r:- : . } ~, : . ~ : c.: '-" l. i'' ~ • l t' r . <:' l;, t l, ~ , ; I ! . (;;), Figure 4 },;s;I ,,.-;, ('.""' ::,:-1.. Heating Degree D;:.;ys l ·,' l -t -:t l' ~' ; '-~' l ,'" b 1 " ' : -l ~ ;> '!' ;i;: "' l l • :-1 , " 1 ~ !o " l l'>t~-b 11 l !? l<;! j'[~, ::"': l'.h J;:'>- 1''"-t'/ 1 t..1 7~'- 1 : 'l\ 1";il 1~:; l"f,b\ 1.,-!, 1 '• ! ._, -t., 3, ~ ... • ; 1 • -, ; "r 9) i • '.," r.,,-. ;:~~:~:, ~ II[; :~!,; ~1' ::;:, ::;:! ;~:~; ::~;, };.~~ l'>!.!-l~: lQ i•~ 11~1 ',]} l•et, 177) 1-1 .. , \}ti' l'•l~-7:1 l'l' 9]'! l'l(>! J611;;i l't.ll l'""/ 1-.n-111 ;r..L ... 1v ,,-:..,1 11o11-:i !@11' 1!'"1\' 11•c,\ l " 7 1 -7 ;"'i l ~ 2 7 lo l ~ 'f I ;, 1 l " ) ~ 1 0 ., "I J r. 1 b I l p l ,' J'w72-"1", !,; :H l,,• ;_1 ,..,.,: 1'1><1j lll')11! i'."l)I'.' Hl'. !Yl !-7111 ~ r<_, 91 '.,1 }"fl! \t..11i J ,._.,I l[';l2 1 J~'1 .. -1c.\ U :~", 11t,i'I 'd-'!l .. ~;>ll1':>ti111•nl1~:,11I JC'/'.,-H' 1~ 1\ <~Ii '6'7, fliJ l''-f-lt,~l, J;lll! IC.!1! i~;~:~:: ~ ~~ ;:~ ~=;.: ~~;:: ::~( ;~:;'. !~~f :~=~ :::::;:i " ,:; ,;;i :::; ::: :;t ;:::: ::::1 ::::: 1 ,F.n-tt d L2, l '·", t 11 E .. s, 1 •,;t 1 :-..,1,: tLo 1 t lil l "e 1 -6 '."; 1 I 1 l l , 7' ~ :-1 l "bf-I ! l I I I I I Cooling Degree Days "'.!{' ';,J•".:._1• ~ "II t.n~ 7! 4' '.,6i )31 1,;:,r-.\ H 1 l'ii1\J' ) I; 1 !, 7 ~ •~ \ I 11 ! 11 7C 11i Ht.t> o,tl t!,L: l ~ i flt.;..., , !, 11 < 11 .~ .. / I'-I 12 !i-~ • ! ___ Y_e_a_r __ ~_J_aO~j~~~J!~~-~Pi~!•~;_Y2~-~~_J~0~!~~i:si~~~!J_t1;~~~c_I!~-i!~ 1.... ~ c/ r: H nti: 79e' ni !7[ oj -ree (; -. c: 11 11:1 HJj 12!-i P>i s! c\ o: 9H' (,. 7" 7 IP! l Ii 11 It, e ! l :l t.' 3 i C. 0 t,1, ~! f'; 'i .. ! 10'-)111:: :'C&1 13 01 0 ';\ !ail! \. l~, !~~• ;~~\ ~;;\ ~!: ~: ~: 0, ;~:• f.,t, 1:.c: 371' 7ic;! it: a, ci ;/ e~:· " 1 c: G: 0 I 0 C' Snowfall ---------•-T• --------•-•~ Season Juiy: hug 51:'.p~ Oct : No,• --------------- ;<.•.;-u• : ~ .. ;' -~ .. I'-•"-"' l <:. 4 ~ -~ •. : '-~ ~ -,. ... 1,.,.,_.,. ! ,. .. ; -.. '; l "~ ,; -~ - 1 ,_ ~ t -t - JC(')<' JC:!-.'--t'-- 1'-c'--7- : • u C,,(' c. ·.; :.'."! ;: . [" :.:, --0 ~. r :...! ;:,:. l .:;:' 1,, i 11, l ;.\ r:.;1 l"," C.1 r • ~ ". ~ : .. • • .. • 3 Jl • ,. ~ ' ~. 1,t,: 1,9, :!. • .5 }.$ ll.t· :...~ 1 ;:., )!,' \j'.u' !,'-. Ll ""',<;, ll,l ;, • ,;-: : •,. ~. ?~ ... 1 ~ :, • l !:. • C, : ~... t..., r.r r,7 t • ~ ._, :Lt l,'" 1::-..1 ' I l 11. t " • t: :-• ,. : ! ~. (, ., • l 1; • <, ~ • ~ ,' 1 • C :,.; ; ... ;,;, '.'.\"' !.I e.; ! . ~ :' . ? l ~ • ; ; ~ • l :. • t. :.' 1 • !. ; ; • ~ ~.c· LE '.,.C \./ !Ll !,t.. 1,.,; l'--: [, t ' ... ~ ':. . ) l[..,t, :-1.t. ~ • t:. !. • ~ l L ~ l ~, 'w : ! . :' l ~ • ~ 1 ~ . : ,., J : , t l : • ! ;,:,, l'-•\, 1:. ... , , .. 1. 1 t, i ; "!, C 1.: 1.1 t;,,: H.! L,l C,:5' l,t, <.,! ;-.t :.1 ;,t J.t .. ~ I (,.[ ; ... L. ::- L. ~ _, ....... C. ~• l•. IJ .n c..: ,.- r . -, -,.- r.,: r.r- :::.-:- C., 1. t:. ~ ).: [,,Ii,' c.:.. .... ".: r.J .:..c l • ~. O. - 1 ... :..2 t." f,C LC: C.". t., , •..., ~. C C." (.C. C • t . . • r-. ~ l • " ~ • ... r • r ::: • ? :. •.. l , ~ .. , ., :: • C :..( .s. : i.c i - :-.,,[[5 .[ .• 09 :),._'lH. ";.1 CD !'- •'1t-. INC!- p, ,._Cl~; = L~""• ! "! ,SS • I r 0 a . 0 . , . ·:o· ,.;~• :.,. .,.;, f,:,• f' ! ... '.J.. i,,11", "'t' '••'1 '•Pl'i, ·~'I!. D• o· ~ • • "'r1 ; .. ,.,, •oc ) • " "-'! ~ ~' :"'" • l. I ~f, ( [ 1 t ~ ,.g I, . , .... ,, 7 o.,,•,1r,11,. I ~"0•1 ... -.,r I II 'l•:>1r,f,,;('J• -r -- "'A'{ a I "•NI "1,.f' "'" l) ::[ a . . > ' 0 • U',l{!,' f'I!\! r 0 . 0 < • 0 ~n fC,fl 1f '-'"!, a C I 7 )A 78 e I G {r il ii I -·-r~-- · j ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ! __ l_~ .!_9 20 ?I 27 J ,o JI l3 J< JS J6 l 7 : 8 :s ,c 2l 22 26 27 e I e• 77 a;, ,. 76 77 86 83 70 ,. ,, 87 7J ,. CQ 7S •• ,., " 77 77 7' ,, 7< 70 ee bO [Q 1;; 66 66 "'"= 03 E: 7,:; tl 7';_ •.,e E4 ~e . bt .;; E, l 60 0 S< -a se -6 !:,3 -l l r,~ 0 S2 -£ I .:,G -7 / "t8 -l ! 1~ ?S -41 s, -;2 -: 3 • ;.._ S:l ::''I »i. : .;i._: t ~ t;:;.r:. ow :;.:ittS. '"'l'-~• fe::;1 v:S!S:. I 1' ! j "-i.f !)It l :ss. D 0 0 a 0 a D ~! o' 0 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 3 r : ~ •• ,I?! '.:, f ::.'" i. ; '-: :' : "~ : . : J1'C ~ :.R [ 11 ,_! Cf :-t • ~,i:;! ! ~ C :: •.,: S: < ;;:,i" 'J:(..~ "<:'., l .... CO • :Q, r:. :_::;;,,: ii• r:.~. t c;i.c :~-::.. ,;.i;, p,:..5:: o .. -; 011 ,. • .. ; _____ .,.::.-;[!,. r;:.:;. A.__[ LE: ;;1 T c: -------------· ◄ J 3 7 l l 2 0 Q 7 0 I 0 7 0 0 0 < J 0 0 D 0 l 3 0 0 0 0 0 J 1"'1 l !3 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 D D 0 0 0 .22 T 0 . Q l T . lg ,?Q. 0 i 76 ;~1.~; ~~ ! ,)~ '.}:) I 1;; ;e ! ;3 I! 6 .?e. £.~ ;.,g. 29. l 7 :-09. J 7 ; Q. l 3 J~ i 9. 0 2S j S. ;; I ~ [ ~: : ~-! ~~ j 1 ~. ;.,g. l t. ~ 5 j 5. l ;?9.:J7 2J ;_g ;e.1,;7 JJ i.L ;,e_;7 CB 5.8 ;.,1,, ::::e 3S S. ;:; . ?J .:; . l ; I " ·~ : : ! ~ ~ Hµ 6 tl i ! J H:.i ! l ; 6 5[ !~. ~ ! ; : ~~ it e: ;5 !:-:.. fl 8: l 7 "'..I l,f)8 ( 7f., S36 I 6) LHf 77 i 76, ;,u .q-gJ ! 'iS 70 l I Bl b 1 l ! 70 784 Ql c• I J J -<-<;g ~2 JO g s 7 s JO e":,:> J(JO l 795 g:, ~ 1'-'\2 67 ◄ 7 l ◄ 8-G °" J .q.r, 17 lO 465 ss f:l 79e B5 j ~;,g E,~ ... S6~ E.8 7 ,n,6 J2 G :.-s1 01 6 ?9l J5 9 490 50 7lC i 67 '3 54 I 7 lO 3LJB i :-.e s ??~ J-4 g ,q: JO 2 3 e • t S 6 7 • 6 B g 6 JO l ll 3 ,, 6 l3 s ,. 9 15 7 J6 2 )7 ◄ JO b JG 0 ?O S 21 B 22 6 ;,:, .. ;,-. 9 2S 9 20 g 27 B ?B S ;,9 30 ------~~----.. ------, ,:; ' f " Q G E 5 1ns,,l ~;.)I.! : ~r:o1: :::es1~·~;;•,[)f1o.$ Pfll ::;i.• A~ 3-H~Jli ! .. 1 th'4[S. , ,:,5 1 t s • "I:. r H 1 .,[ $Pf! ::!: .:.~r ; -i!:,, s: :::E s.r i.. r c Cltf ·'" :I\L T[ t-l\ Ui $ 1< .. (:1< t ·~t: ·. '.'It~ Ul(f ;i,, 'Ht~ :f :t:.11us. ,,.,t I i.:;· .. ,,.,, :-,rt:'. :o"' ;,.:;:,:;,•rs Pf'-• c:.s· ;,Pf to. ~1<, [l•t·,p: ~: f[.;f( 1,.)~; !:.If :.:!lll,fC"l: c.,:_ '~~ ~-~-; _: -~T"~7~'{. :! ~ i r~~·;1": __ l, : C _;,:: -.. ~ Z' c. 1 • 1 lo i --' Vl · I ·-0 l: : ! [ ;~: [ i-C i ~-i~ ( i} ~; ~ : : ~ ! ~ ~ i : ... .:.i.:;.f ~ l" " ~o;;ai, ,:,;;;·i:a .. ;: • er -.. "''.l•:;tt: : "' •-,; ;..,.,~·"'-s:.. .. •ran . Cl i • : 1 . o;, . C; . [< I. , c:: .?s.c.1 ~e;~-e-□-1~?·:1~2~ei c~ ;.,s;;c ;7,,)':,S ec:c.:;2i12.01 Gt, e,;,. ::e ~ ssi Ber 7.~.22 1 .e 1 r,,,-;r;;, '.JS E,7 f,~' ~.,t, t.~ b.8 2"'! ;;;..1 1 : t~ g ;; ::~ H: ~Lff :J; ii}~ . 0~' T i' s IC , . " u~-:6 I: 7 , : e I'" C' l )2C : :~1<•;~1 •,_,i;:_• 1'":!-'.:, .__,, 211:: ><, F,,t'.;~;,•::1-. ::,!! '.-; '-o'..':'.'-.R, :''t.:.11,,· i....._: i;_• .. :::,<',-f'i''.: ;.:: .._.:.· :,:-..,.:i_ ~(.~A",:: o"1C i,,:::·J:1-.~. [,j!"i:11( :p,·1_11. ::.; ... ~,;~,[. ~:'Ii''-,i-W~_:-.r •• f!f'':!. /2,~ u?. 'JJ~~:/:J~,p a .,:.· .. _,~~, ... £~:, c::."";1-,;:_,•r,1.:.·:01-. : ... ~ ; "'.:'"' ~! ... q._ ::,c.. 1.:. Sf r;;,\ ~:[([:'OR • ._i'.P]J•.:AL (. ;"l~T!L l~""lfR Figure 5 ]) C 0 C (J) -i 3 z z f7l ]) cl Cl r (J) I (J) -i cl ]) C r 3 z z f7l (J) Cl -i ]) >' -= ·.o 7. [) -1 -:.._ ._) ...__- ',) • i r, • --. /-. ' ::: '.. 'r I .~_...::>- CJ C r, ·-1 j :::. 0 :1 () .) :-.. , :. ') :.t, 0 - .. _ ~- 5 ►-'• .... .::, -, - 0 '. ' -· C --\_• -, ,· c, . ·, r· ' C ., l--. ►-c >-. '-' ·-I.- 5 r· .- .... ., J-- :, ,· j' ": , < ---~) -:1 ; ..:., C ... ; ) :, -0 ~ ') -. ' .., C [. ,· , '. J-. ( :, (. C 'l r. (, r C, C, I , : ' , C r. ,· (. I , [· :, ( \ ( - 1 \.,' (. : \ C I (. ; \ .. :, ( ·1 ::1 • C -. "_J C, :., ·) c•· <"' _-., ::,; .. :J .-J . - .J --:...._~ --., :.1 ._ _..., ·:) ,-, :;) Q _..., C .,_. .. ..., r < C· r • C.. ·~' ·' . j • , .. 0 fl C> < [ I f) i ~- > ).) r:· \:~ ,,.·' .'_;'\ ___ ·! (. ,-. < r. ,. L'- l/·, ---........... . .,,_ .- \ . i , · \ \ \ \ \ I 1 I I' '· > r·--. I /. J·, '' .. , I , I I . "~-' \.'-.._._ \( l [. I' I - I I I ,- ! i I I \_ ·; ,_ -. ' / / /./ r • C.• I , • ..... C , ...... _, I I ;; '·i I I I Page 4 the westerly end of lot 3 to provide the proper baffles and level control to store a substantial amount of water, provide the maximum time for settling of materials out of the waler, and filtering to eliminate discharge of undesirable materials into the lake. Another design feature would be to decrease the influx rate of water during the high influx periods. That is, the water in this~t:a:n~k~~~------ significantly or actually stopped. are other benefits; 1. The "trapped" area as depicted in Figure 3 will be eliminated except for those occasions where the rainfall exceeded the capacity of this system of the surface to handle the water runoff. 2. The effect on the water runoff on lots 4, 5, and 6 would be lessened because of the additional capacity to handle the runoff water. 3. The structure on lot 4 could benefit from water runoff from the westerly end of the property causing basement flooding problems by tapping into said drain at the end or near the western end of property of lot 4. Such a system would be built under the guidance of the Village of Orono Engineering Department, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Department of Natural Resources. Discussions with individuals of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (Eugene Hickok and Associates) indicate that a primary concern is soil erosion during the construction of such a drain system. Second Proposal -Stored Water System The concept as depicted in Figure 7 is to catch all of [he water coming from the proposed new house - and blacktopped areas and holding it until an appropriate time for release. Refering to Figure 7 the water from the roof and blacktop areas would fall into• a common drain which in turn would flow into a storage tank. The movement of the water out of the storage tank would be controlled by a float switch in a sur1p connected to the current t:nde:rground drain systec:-,. (\ote: This 2ssumes that the currently blocked lateral comi:,g from the northerly edge of the drain i n ] C) t 4 \\. 0 L1 l C :J e r e F a 1 r e d . ) 1 n t h e ' ' o f f " p c s i t i c n 0 2: .. i ,., l ',,,~~;'._:;:~ I • \JI \\-c (/\ \~ • N' I ) I ~· 6 ,{' ( '/) (f ,} ,,. <>, '; ()' ,D, I,,,:·,,) ,. ,,.. I 1 I ·; I.· t1; 't. f' I 1 ,. r·) ,., ~'f'J·t•n,~,,!I • • t ., ,., l,l:•1 I. 1•:1 r· r ~ ( : r· t, I it lf I, ·, ,. I' '"''~ ~- i 1) \.«' ,·ri"lr .. ! i ("'I J t 1 1 ..... ·1 ' :·1 ♦ ., , • i, :: (' :· 1'_,'i' 1 ' 11 ♦ l1r• } ·, , r ~ J t l r · i I ' , • ''I ,,, l •··, id ''.IV' ( '• ~ ~l j ! \ , • r ~ , \ : • ) l f I t. I ,)' ;,- (' (:) "'' ..,.::_ ~-'1,J ·, l 1· Ii I 1·•,11 ., •·1,I (' 11r··•,1.• t i!11 ,1·1t 1 l·i ,·. I .• , :1•11 l, r1 1 • i ~ ; 1 , , • • , · \ l r ,. , r · 1 , : : , , '. r,,. 11' :1·1 ,,.'j 1_,j I ' ~, t.1 " f J1(' ')'"\',•:t, :.i'; l l ! \ ... t' ~' . If , •• 'If', t l I I I I j jl ! ,, , 'f't, ·, 1 I l ,11'. '1 :·,•j r~ t l r· l (. n ~-,' l . , ' l' / ~ i ' I I ' ~ ~ ' , I: ,"\ t -A ; \ \ ~.-. \'",.,,.,, ( --------' ·_;J'" '-, ... ", ,· ' ! I I 4.\'1 ,..,"fr,/ ;.,,. ,, ,.. t~ \ ,,n' ''::'r .I •1;1 \n '. ,r ;~ t• . I ,. .. .. ,. C• 1 C,. \'' !. v,,,,,,,, 7" · ., ; ,, ,, ~. , ''''\"'·'-\,,,,""""''"''· ·, i,.;::: .. "'', .. J .. _--...__ I ,, ! l'J t, . ' / . :_· ) l ~! I ,/\ !. l 1 /. f ':!TI fll'. : ·, f ,( l l1"t1•··· ~ ; ' i 11'lr:1 1 \1 ' 1 \,.' i 'l Ii\'(' l. \ nn 1 • ,. :,r, t i ~,. ': 1 H! \ 1 ·1t: t ,.,\•, • 1 ( 'r,1 r1< /\v1,r·••111: ! ! \ ' • I l .' \ ' ' l t ~ l . f' ~ I I ~: n , · l · , 11 \.: i L n 11 1 i. n 1 ' t"·;L11\.Jr':~~.f'lrl..\· l lr:1 ' !~i, i, ! :),·'tJ t 1!\..'n:; L•' I' i V n L,,n,· ,, 1 id n;•,·1 \n ''f 0 '1\,;; \\"\ I 'j i I, 1'1 :· '' j ( I ., \ ft'• ,i;. I, ! 1n tL, '. li 1 !' I' ,1,· ,, i, :11l t ;; Ir:, , '.'. \ 111 t, • I I '''" '1n:;: J,I' 1 , d, ) ~ /JI' j q·•; • ·t11d (~n ;1 r'.: •v, :"·d i.r·,, .. , 1,, In: 1 t · •· ' . ! . ' ~ \ \ ' ' I!) l ! I I , l er, .. ),,r•r111~,r1) t ~ ••tt l t°': L ,. .~. : ! , ... J w, tJ! I, .. )·\ •. )' H~I) () 1 rc·11 nn r I(" r HARDCOVER Lot Area Lake Setback Balance 25% 19641 4500 sg. ft. I514I 3785 sq. fL. t. " House 2800 Drive 585 Turn L~oo Figure 9 'I . ( ~ , l ;,1 1· I ("; ~-; ; \,.·1. /·1\I )"(I; '1 l, j · i-1 r· ' ~~ , . ' '' ,1'1 -·· . 1 •11 11 • j f'r•, 1,,1 ·'i '7"1 t ;._ ·.: ~ 1,,' ~ l 1 (' I ~ ) ' ) r • :., ; : ' ' ; \ ,-u*'' L ,/ it :ij ; l J) ~,~ f I• ;11·.,.. fl I r' r ; ·, '~ ) '' • "I : J ;· . ,': ,_ ~~dd//~ . . .. , . 1 i c7~ .. t' ! , [Ji\ .. I(' ; j, 1 ,.,~// :.··• r), ., r· 0 \; I 1 :',, ,;·1.·, l ., '\ 'I t11••',') t ·, ' ,, ., ,, ,, .:.,·, r ; ; i r-r < fT] r- '.. ~ r-"· G9 c >-j CT) 0 ~- \ ,,_,,._ s v,. ri -0 C f,. ~ -. €' __( 0, • ?---c' [ [J; -c;::l .. '. "'.i --·· .. -· .. -=-7 (./.' -;. ,. 15" IL ' ~~-:fl I F -c.- <;' -~,;.. J -n r· . V () G ;, -0 r fl 0 r·- .::: y )J )' €' /~ G" Cf' n -;:,. \ ft ::. k -O' C -1 ~ f (i1 < ..... .,;- --' 'J -:,. . -. . --· -; .c) \ I ~----~ r~--1 ----\- \ j \I' y v' ~ f.1 ' ~ < ;,. -', () 2 ')-.. .. f " I ~· LJ. 0 n _/ n r I I I i I I I i1 I: I Ii 1i ' : . __ J \ \ I I I --·~J _-......,. \' ;J\ ~ I / \ -[,• Ci_~~ r ~~} \ --..J -- - ' ,, -1 I.· -! 1 __ -)P. (,· I I r, • JI I I i I z: ! 0 i jQ I _j I I ::c I I (it i .r I I fl\ I < I l > .J -t I I -I 0 I 2 ·. ,_ ------... i. ------~ -- ..... ------,, -.. --~. / ...... ---------r·-:: I I / f ~-::.. ' ,_: '..J (.., I I :~ ~-_:_~ -~-:-~+1 I f ) r ···11 I fl) [ l V' I r ! r ·-·1 i 11\ i D -·-------I I [,\ -< [ _:;:, -t ,-· Q, J z ·, I POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. 43 44 I OS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 WAYNE G. POPHAM RAYMOND A. HAIK ROGER W. SCHNOBRICH DENVER KAUFMAN DAVIDS. DOTY ROBERT A. MINISH ROLFE A. WORDEN G. MARC WHITEHEAD BRUCE D. WILLIS FREDERICK S. RICHARDS G. ROBERTJOHNSON GARY R. MACOMBER ROBERT S. BURK HUGH V. PLUNKETT, m FREDERICK C. BROWN THOMAS K. BERG BRUCE D. MALKERSON JAMES R. STEILEN JAMES B. LOCKHART ALLEN W. HINDERAKER CLIFFORD M. GREENE 0. WILLIAM KAUFMAN OESYL L. PETERSON MICHAEL 0. FREEMAN THOMAS C. O'AQUILA LARRY O. ESPEL JANIE S. MAYERON DAVID A. JONES Mr. Jon P. Parrington 200 Cornelia Building 4005 west 55th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 TELEPHONE AND TE:LECOPIE.R 612-333-4800 LEE E. SHEEHY LESLIE GILLETTE MICHAEL T. NILAN ROBERT C. MOILANEN DAVID J. EOQUIST CATHERINE A. POLASKY STEVEN G. HEIKEN$ THOMAS J. RADIO KATHLEEN M. MARTIN JOHN C. CHILDS THERESE AMBRUSKO DOUGLAS P. SEATON GARY 0. BLACKFORD SCOTT E. RICHTER March a _, I 1983 Re: Lorge v. City of Orono our File No. 3643-078 Dear Jon: 2660 PETRO-LEWIS TOWER 717 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 90202 TELE.PHONE: A.NC TELE.COPIE:Ft 303-62S-2660 SUITE 602-2000 L STREET N, W. WASHINGTON, O. C. 20036 TE.LE.PHONE: ANO TE.LE.COPIER 202-887-S154 Please advise me concerning the status of the release. very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson BDM/jf_~ cc:~~-~alter R. Benson Mayor and City Council, City of Orono 216 5j PETER .J . PUST □RINO WILLIAM R . PEDERSON LOUIS R . TILTON .JON P , PARRINGTON HEATHER L . IANNAC □NE PUSTORIN □ & PE □ERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 CORNELIA BUILDING 400S WEST 65TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435 Januar y 12 , 1983 Mr. Richard J. Lorge 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, Minnesota 55315 RE: Lorge vs. City of Orono Our Fi 1 e : 5 7 9 8 Dear Mr. Lorge: TELEPHONE (612) 925 -3001 This will serve to briefly confirm our discussion of January 11, 1983. With respect to the items requested in your letter of November 23rd I have advised there is no comprehensive plan that was used for Ordinance 93 in 1967; a copy of the comprehensive plan used for Ordinance 172 in 1974 will be made available for y our inspec t ion at the cit y offices; copies of the minutes of the hearings in 1974 relative to Ordinance 172 will also be made available for your inspection at the cit y offices and the city does not h ave available to it in any form the names and addresses of all Orono property owners who owned two or more adjoining lake sho r e properties in the period Januar y , 1975 through March, 1980 . You advised you will be contacting Al Ol son of t he Orono city offices directly to make arrangements to review and copy the documents referred to. It is my understanding this brings the outstanding discovery matters current. JPP/kao bee: Mr. Al Olson ✓ Mr. Bruce Malkerson Mr. Craig Corah PETER J , PUSTORINO WILLIAM R. PEDERSON LOUIS R. TILTON JON P. PARRINGTON HEATHER L. IANNAC □NE Mr. Bruce Malkerson Attorney at Law 4344 IDS Center PUSTCJRINO & PEOERSCJN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2 □□ CORNELIA BUILDING 4005 WEST 65TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS , MINNESOTA 55435 November 23, 1982 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Mr. Alan P. Olson City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay , Minnesota 55323 RE: Lorge vs . City of Orono, et al. Our File: 5798 Gentlemen: TELEPHONE (6121 925-3001 I have recently been contacted by Judge Lord's Clerk who indicated to me that they are quite unhappy that this matter does not appear to be moving towards a resolution. They have therefore scheduled another "final Pre-Trial Conference" to be held in Minneapolis at 10 :00 a.m. on December 2, 1982. As I expect the discussion at this conference might be even a little bit more heated than at the previous conferences I think that you should both plan on attending . In fact, I think that perhaps we should get together for breakfast prior to the conference so that we can discuss what position we should take in the matter with Judge Lord. I would appreciate your confirming your availability. JPP/kao JP I I- PETER .J. P 'USTDRIND W ILLIAM R , PEDERSON LOUIS R . TILTON .JON P. PARRINGTON PUSTDFHND & PEDERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 CORNELIA BUILDING 4005 W EST 65TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS , MINNESOTA 55435 August 20, 1982 Mr. Alan P. Olson City Planner City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: Lorge vs. City of Orono Our File: 5798 Dear Mr. Olson: TELEPHONE (612) !325 -3001 I recently talked with Mr. Lorge regarding this matter and he advised that he intends to file another formal request for a zoning variance in this matter. He also indicated that he intends to meet with the neighbors to see if he can reduce the neighborhood opposition. We had no discussions whatsoever regarding how the City might rule on the variance and I made no representations to him whether he should with the variance or he should proceed otherwise. I will continue to keep you advised. JPP/kao cc: Mr. Bruce Malkerson CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices August 2, 1982 Mr. Richard J. Lorge 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, MN 55315 On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka Re: City Council Appearance on July 26, 1982 Dear Mr. Lorge: I am in receipt of your July 29, 1982, letter regarding the presentation you made to the City Council on July 26, 1982. After your presentation, the Council did discuss your situation in executive session. I have been asked to inform you that, based upon the information you provided to the Council on July 26, 1982, that the City Council sees nothing therein to warrant a change in the zoning code. However, this was not a formal presentation for a variance. You are free to make an application for a variance pursuant to the zoning code. I am enclosing a variance application forin for your use if you so desire. Sincerely, Planner cc: Mayor Van Nest & City Council Walter R. Benson, City Administrator Bruce D. Malkerson, City Attorney Jon Parrington, Attorney Enclosure BUILDING & ZONING 473-7357 ASSESSING • ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE 473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS -473-7359 July 29, 1982 Mr. Allen Olson City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mr. Olson: The following are relevant points concerning the proposal placed before the Orono Village Council on Monday, July 26th, 1982 and the subject litigation. 1. The proposal we presented concerning the placement of a home on the lot towards the east end of the property near the road and a proposal to deal with runoff water from the roof of the proposed structure is intended as a compromise to resolve the problem at this time, rather than to continue litigation. In the event said proposal, or something similar is not accepted within the next 30 days, the proposal is withdrawn. 2. After the discussion concerning our property at the Council meeting on Monday evening, July 26th, 1982, we met briefly with one of the concerned neighbors and discussed a meeting between the concerned neighbors and us r e lative to the situa tion. It is our intention to attempt to attend such a meeting within the next few weeks and seek an acceptable solution, if possible. Very truly yours, Jilol~df). ~cy-, Richard J. Lorge e:r 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, MN 55315 RJL:mg cc: Jon Parrington JEFFREY R. BRAUCHLE Attorney at Law January 28, 1983 Jon Parrington, Esq. Pustorino & Pederson 4005 w. 65th Street Minneapolis MN 55435 Bruce Malkerson, Esq. Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty Ltd. 4344 IDS Center Minneapolis MN 55402 RE: Lorge/City of Orono RECEIVED FEB -11983 Our File No. LRll0-001 Gentlemen: HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota SS402 Telephone 612/ 338-1177 As you know, the motion to dismiss set by Mr. Parrington before Judge Lord has been continued until February 17, 1983. I requested this continuance not only to permit our firm to acquaint ourselves with the matter, but also in hopes this matter can be somehow resolved. It has been communicated to me that the City of Orono's chief concern at this juncture is the consequences of drainage which might result from the construction of a residence on Mr. Lorge's lot. I have been informed that the City does not consider Mr. Lorge's current submission adequate enough to pass on the drain age quest ion and does not in tend to pass on the variance question until considerably more engineering material has been prepared. I enclose Mr. Lorge's January 26, 1983 letter to Jeane Mabusth which responds to this concern. Mr. Lorge, however, is naturally concerned that the heavy planning and engineering expenditures required by the City might· be wasted if his application for area and frontage variances are denied in other grounds currently the subject of the litigation. To break the current stalemate, we propose the following: 1. The City of Orono pass on Mr. Lorge's variance application without regard to drainage issues. Should the City approve the application, we suggest that the approval and subsequent issuance of a building permit be strictly conditioned upon Mr. Lorge's production of engineering plans and specifications which satisfy performance requirements which will preserve the current rates of water runnoff into the lake. Mr. Jon Parrington, Esq. Bruce Malkerson, Esq. January 28, 1983 Page 2 Lorge is of course willing to abide by engineering constraints as well in an effort disruption to neighbors or the environment. other reasonable to minimize any 2. Should the City grant such a conditional approval, Mr. Lorge will dismiss the federal court litigation and bear the burden of meeting the conditions suggested above. 3. Should the City deny the application on grounds other than the drainage issues Mr. Lorge will be obliged to test these reasons in court. Kindly communicate your thoughts regarding this proposal to the undersigned at your early convenience. Very truly yours, R. Brauchle JRB:kb I/. ) -; .. _._ .. -.. ,.-~:--,.--::::-:.. -~,.-. .-::-.· --.,=--. -----· .. -::.....,:: ___ ----·. -· ... -.·-------- I ' r-· ~- r-·--1 r----, -4- III. SUMMARY OF KEYPOINTS OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST A. RUNOFF WATER CONTROL The approach recommended is as stated in this Addendum II, to the Variance Application No. 721, which proposes to establish in a fundamental requirement that any addi tional building be conditional upon the satisfactory presentation of a water control system to keep the runoff water equal to or less than that of undeveloped property. The implementation of this requirement by the Engineer ing Department would seem most practical. Criteria for considerations of matters such as health (pollution), general welfare, and to some extent, safety are covered by the approach proposed herein for the surface water control. B. LOCATION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION At a significant disadvantage to the applicants, the pro posed home is located to the easterly portion of the lot to minimize interference with neighbors. For example, the proposed location puts the home approximately 100 feet from the neighbor to the north (Lot 2) and to the south (Lot 4). C. SAFETY One area in which the traffic safety should be improved is that the proposed location will require the removal of some brush and trees adjacent to Casco Point Road which will improve the visability at that point. D. GENERAL Beginning with a look at the community as a whole, its form of development, and actual status, if change is required, there should be some substantive reason why the change, particularly in zoning, is considered necessary. In this situation, the change was prompted by concern for pollu tion due to the lack of a sanitary sewer in the late 60's. The advent of a sanitary sewage system in the early 70's eliminated that fundamental argument. A fundamental prin cipal of common law is that zoning ordinances are not retroactive! The fact is that the property in question was platted long before the relevant zoning laws were pass ed. This particular Variance Application does not seek to change the zoning, nor does it intend to change the basic charac~er of the neighborhood considering the sizes of the lo ts and the homes built for the greater part of this area. It is not within the scope or spirit of the law to -5- use this particular case as a test case for the question of "common ownership." The law indicates that variances are to be dealt with on a case by case basis, taking into account the unique circumstances of each situation. Mrs. Jeane Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 January 26, 1983 Reference: Variance Application No. 721 Dear Mrs. Mabusth: Would you kindly make this letter and the attachments hereto part of the record for the referenced Variance Application. Secondly, please note our change of address from Carver, Minnesota, to St. Bonifacius, Minnesota, effective immedi ately. The purpose of this letter and its attachments is three-fold; 1. To prevent a new proposal concerning the runoff water issue, 2. To provide answers to the questions from your Engineering Department presented to me on January 17, 1983, and to 3. Provide a brief summary of the key points of the refer enced Variance Application. If there are any questions, please contact me at my office at 446-1511 or at the new address. ~;rs i;~ Richard J. Lorge 8716 Park Avenue St. Bonifacius, Minnesota 55375 RJL:prn Enclosure January 26, 1983 ADDENDUM II TO VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 721 I. THE RUNOFF WATER ISSUE The issue is that when a home is built with the associated drive way and parking, the increased hardcover directly contributes to increased water runoff. It is the position. ·.of the City of Orono that increased water runoff is directly related to the pollution:of Lake Minnetonka. The neighbors to the south (Lots 4, 5 and 6) are concerned for a similar reason in that increased water runoff would travel across their properties on the way to the lake. The solution to the runoff problem is to establish a perform ance requirement upon those who build new homes to provide a water control system which will limit the surface water run off to that which is equal to or less than runoff of the area in question before the additional hardcover has been established. In other words, the lake and/or the neighbors would see no addi tional runoff waters than existed before any improvements were made. Control of the issuance of building permits could be placed in the hands 6fthe City of Orono Engineering Department to insure that the system meets the Performance Requirements as set forth by an independent professional engineering organization under the direction of said engineering department. Possible steps could include: First, the hardcover area would be estab lished under the current;regulations and located on the plot to be improved. Second, an independent soils and engineering or ganization would make a minimum of two test borings in the pro jected hardcover area to determine other features relative to water absorption and runoff. Third, the engineering organization would calculate the water absorption and runoff as a function of the soil types, amount and rate of rainfall, slope of the land, etc. Fourth, a system for controlling the runoff waters set forth would be designed. And, finally, the entire process would be reviewed and approved by the City of Orono's Engineer ing Department. The drainage of runoff water of the neighborhood area could use some improvement. The approach to this problem is along the line suggested in Approach No. 1 in the originally submit ted documents. It is possible that the system described in Approach No. 1 could be applied to accomplish both objectives (the prevention of additional runoff from the added hardcover and the improvement of the drainage of runoff water already existing). The applicants are prepared to provide improve ments effecting Lots 3 and 4 in terms of surface water con trol as specified in Approach No. 1. -2- As set forth in our Addendum to the Application in the letter dated December 9, 1982, it would seem to be inappropriate to expend large sums of engineering dollars for detailed studies at this time. II. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ENGINEERIND DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ORONO On January 14, 1983, the applicants were info~med that their application was being withdrawn from the scheduled meeting with the Planning Commission set for Monday evening, January 17, 1983. The following is a list of the questions posed and answers thereto: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATING TO PROPOSAL NO. l -"NEW AND ADDED DRAIN" Question No. 1 -What is the profile of the existing system? Assuming that a "profile" is a cross section of the earth at a particular point showing elevation and other key items as a function of elevation, Figure 1 is an approximation of the existing system. Figure 2 is a topographical survey prepared by the engineering firm of Gordon Coffin Company which sets forth the elevation at key points. Figure 3 is a map of the local area showing lot location and relative sizes. Figure 3 was used to locate the approximate loca tion of the underground drain traveling from Lot 4 through Lot 5 and 6 and exiting into Lake Minnetonka. Question No. 2 -What is the profile of the new system and what values were used in calculations? Figure 4 is an approximation of the profile of the new system. Figures used in calculation are related only to the flow through the existing system and are as follows: A drop from the center line of the current system from the drain in Lot 4 to the center line of the pipe at the exit into Lkae Minnetonka is eight feet. The internal diameter of the pipe is five inches. The material to establish in ner surface conditions for type of flow is cement tile. The length of the system is 220 feet. These calculations were based upon water height of 12 inches above the center line of the inlet of the drainage system. The 12 inches repre sents approximately ground level at the point of the drain in Lot 4. Question No. 3 -What is the size of the settling tank? The size of the settling tank has yet to be determined be cause of the lack of specific performance requirements. -3- However, the key is to minimize the water running into Lake Minnetonka and/or its velocity, the tank may be designed with perforations in the structure to permit the water to drain into the ground at that point or possibly into a drain field. Another feature of the tank could be that the inlet to the tank could be at the bottom, while the exit is near t~e top to hold or retain the water in the tank (or drain field) as long as possi- ble. . Question No. 4 -What is proposed concerning maintenance of the system? The responsibility for maintenance of the system should be that of the landowner for the system except in cases where neighbors are directly connecting to the system, in which case,the neighbor would have responsibility for maintaining a portion of the system that is on their land. The City of Orono may choose to have periodic inspections to insure that the required maintenance is being performed. QUESTIONS CONCERNING PROPOSAL NO. 2 -"RETAINED WATER SYSTEM" Question No. 1 -How would the City control the use of this system and who maintains it? Concerning the maintenance and control, the system would be available for periodic inspections by the City of Orono and would be similar to that set forth in the an swer to Question 4 above. A number of methods for city control of this type of system including, but not limit ed to, seals placed on:appropriate portions of the system which is broken for repair or adjustment require the ap proval of the City of Orono. Question No. 2 -What is the profile of the proposed system? Figure 5 is an approximate profile of this system based primarily on topographical survey noted in Figure 2 above. Question No. 3 -What is the size of the tank? The tank,as set forth on Page 5 of the report accompanying the Grants Application, is 17,154 gallons. Because of the new proposed approach to the runoff water quest ions set forth in I of this Addendum, the approaches suggested in this Variance Application should be considered as conceptual in nature and the more scientific way is to concentrate first on the establishment of the performance specifications. Once they are understood, the process of establishing concepts and develop ing detailed designs becomes more meaningful. PROrlLE -EXISTING UNDERGROUND DRAIN (AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 265) ELEVATION 938 l'l.. .. =f_~:J3:•zza.72// /7~ l-- NO SCALE Dimensions Approximate (Scaled From Figure 2 and 3 Lor 5"" • .,., I / (0 -------< LOT b FIGURE I ELEVATION 930 l.AK.£ \'IA\ t-lN It To t,.Lt.c: I'" ---;I I ------sw1y Im<' of -:--r Lei IJ-.', Ji'nn:; f',,rk ·· --r•0.:-t.i /'I,..,, LI) or' :~1.:-.•,:y .... I .•,, ~ I ·r-r""'~ in Cov,~rr,m,~nt !,oL ~. Scct10n 20-ll7-2J ,, . ~, { 'v ~ , l }/::r/0/~i?· ~ ;_.:111 I. "o f ,/ '\ 'IH; \,~,'/,. ~' ~~ -'tJ ' I) o-, t •' ~ /fa, f 1~°'~ llt/'I i~·/ ) I I. t"' .) • -~ ~.,,\,-• \f'd ' I I \ 1r' I"- / •. ~1-•i"'~ . \ · i1•iritby i:-P.rL1fy th'lt :.h!~ 1~ ,1 tru•~ '1nr1 r.c,!·r•.!r.t 1"'l,~,:-~:;r:nt'1t!.,n 0:· Ii :,.:1'\'":-' :11' •~~,., rounchrt~s or Lh'.\ t '.vir·~ o:· 1;,,vorn1ll';nt 1..1,t I,, ~ q, .... ·:o~~lon 2(', 701,:n:;l,Jri ;_·,·., :;ort1, i(1.r:1:,.-! :?j 't,:"L .-Jf th~ '.,1h ~~-~ _··t, ' ,. ' I .... '.1( .. ,) •;','\ :'r:r.d:--.i:tl ,.:,tr'L,:ir,n, r,,_•(:r:r·~l.r!(i ,,~ '.0 1)1 L.')\,;s; P1!;:1n11!n,· 011 t.hn ~h0r,: nr '-' :::'r.e :•.ir,nc-V:n'.<:1 nt l11•· ;,/l~lt 0 1· .~nt,,r.1,~•·li~,1 ill,,,.~.:; :il,C•l'U 1.1U1 (J l\.n(• d1•>11Jll ,.. ##'"''. ,.,, ··':i ..... 1 N -~ Cl ,I,. · h ',j t,;:) .. f; • t ' .. ·. ·,, . ',, ·• . : 1{ . ·~ ;\•,r,,li.nl , ... ~l."l llr;d 9rJ 1·,~nL '.:iout.:11J'!:,trrl:·, rn,:'ISlj)'(':l rit d::1•1, 1,r.~~l0,;, rrc•rn I.ho Soutr,\.J(J1Jtorly ~·L1ir' o:· Lot lJ.'., Sorin1· h1rk; t\,.!11<:u .~our.r,,:•~~·tt,rl." '."!t'•,llr!l witn S(Jh ;;out.h~osL,1r;.y llnt) o:' Lot ljl .. und its Southeost- '!rl:· cxt,,n:don v, th,1 .So'J\.rt\.·o~t,,rl.1 l1n1~ o!' ;;;1:.;cr:1 :10:r:t :<noel (ro.rfl'or.J.:; rirrrnr, .'\VP.nuo); t,1cnr:1~ :-iouthorly alone said .<;n:i~.r,·.1,rnlurl:/ llJlf) of C11:-ir•,) Pojr,t :to;i1! to iL:; tx1J:-.r ,,:"' ;1;1•:rsurtl(Hi vitri a l1r.u dr1i1.11 :A.:r,ill,;l with and 150 feet South ·~·:1:;:.-•:-'i.~•, m.:!11:Jur~,1 r1t ,·ichl nr.,·l,;:,, fr,-:,n1 tr,1; ·.~ouU;1.:<!:1.,!r1." line or' 1;•1.!.ti Lot lJL. ~nd itn .Sout.r,1!1,sterl,'.' extons!on; thenco :.~:-·.'.:·.ii.:ster-l:,· ~,·.r·•,ll.-=l '..!.i.th ?njd ;,011tl1wt:sterl·1 lir,C> oi· ~,-J4:. L.)I. •:r,(i it:: Snut!v.it:.~terl,v r::;.:tt,n::.ion to s1.iid shoro; ther.ce 'r::s'.'.';•~11st~r1.v nlon~ sri~,: :Jl·,,.,ni tn I.lie point, o~· b,,11 lr::-lr.,'., •.1r.d th~ lorfltion of' nll buil:-iin(~:i, if nny, therccn, and nll ·:'.;:~:,"Lri orir.ro1,rhiiPr.t:1 :'r·nm or or, !:'Jh! 11111r1, t~ r ~ :_ C : :_:..,J ~!! i) )1 :.u~: l" :::-/,'J' r,_;,:,.r:O lr'Jn ,r~,r~cr t-:GV'.)-l<1?'1 I ..... I ~' 6VA:E 2 /k,,-b--/£~ ~-: CD:·•:cri :, • Cof'Cin ftol'., v,:. t>Oo4 !hr.~! J, n ,: ::: ll :.,:c;,,o r a n<l rt,innu r :....11 ~~, ~'.lnnesota '\' 'v', V PROFILE -CONCEPT OF ADDED DRAIN/RETENTION SYSTEM INPUTS FROM Baffles ELEVATION 938 __ _ DRAIN FROM HOUSE COULD BE TIED TO EXISTING SYSTEM TANK FIGURE 4 ELEVATION 930 LAKE MINNETONKA AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 265 NO SCALE ALL ON LOT 3 /NL~"'( f!~ IA 14..Z..'{)C.OVt. 4 ~--··· -- NO SCALE PROFTLE -CONCEPT OF RETAINED WATER SYSTEM AND PORTION OF EXISTING SYSTEM ELEVATION 938 { ( I fl~ [Z lll?IZLJ 17 ~ I ""fl! 1//f ///T) 10 1 .i.J:;>' ~ 1./1..1 ►I Loi 'i ~ --------------·· t...o, 3 Loi-5"'- f' \Ito (' O Sit 0 E'lt s,, NG, ~ AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 265 FIGURE 5 CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January 28, 1983 Mr. Glenn Cook Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates 2335 West Truck Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 Re: #721 Richard J. Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road -Variance Dear Glenn: I have enclosed the applicant's response to your letter of January 14, 1983. I have been advised by the secretary that it was delivered late Thursday afternoon, January 27, 1983. The Planning Commission meeting for the month of February is the first Monday this month, because of the holiday on the third Monday. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience as Planning Commission packets will be delivered the Thursday before the meeting,on February the 3rd. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~ Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator cc: Richard J. Lorge 8716 Park Avenue St. Bonifacius, MN 55375 BUILDING & ZONING -473-7357 • ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE -473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS -473-7359 s;, I //-c,i i-J r,, /~'1/l JC ,r -t;;- / fa 'V1 ;e. Q, v /N r / ) )Jv'O t.k ,J 2 :J December 9, 1982 Mrs. Jeanne Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Cryst a l Ba y , Min nesota 55323 Re: Addendum to Recent Variance Application Dear Mrs. Mabusth: ' .. l-.:; ~,·.: ""~ j-.· 't, .<~\ ·N"·~ ~· ;t,"'·" . ~ •~.rWF;_;,IJ;:·:~J' )f,._.,r.· 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, Minnesota 55315 \ :\S?-_-:, ·1 r . r~J ?& R OW[§ ~' ~~l DEC I Hl82 L:!) CITY OF ORONO The referenced Variance Application has a report which among other things has some engineering consideration. These are in the nature of preliminary designs and analyses. A costly detailed engineerin g study at this time is inappropriate. When an acceptable solution concept has been agreed upon by all parties, then a full engineering study and design can be initiated. Sincerely, ~~o~~~ RJL: jm tvOT£ TO 7S{J/Ll)/M6 t:TFF/C/4 (_ //LEIJb~ 7/l.Y Tt::7 N~/'°Y tflt/lll:Z/L CJF LoT 1 ~ ~17 C,4Su? ~/4/T /&140 td'{W /?Utff 7 //LE ,/C£CP/tY~ Fc/l $t../)'5 /Ja~a-;sso1'AYcr ROGER J. RAMSTAD JOEL A. THEISEN JEFFREY W. KENNEDY City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RAMSTAD, THEISEN & KENNEDY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3918 BEAU-D-RUE DRIVE CEDARVALE HIGHLANDS EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 May 3, 1983 TELEPHONE (61 2) 452-4252 Attention: City Council Member, and the Building and Zoning Department RE: Lots 3 and 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265, Hennepin County Minnesota, (Richard Lorge matter) Dear Sirs: Please be advised that Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Kane, have extreme and justified concern regarding Lot 3 in the above-referenced property. It is my understand ing that Lot 3 has been granted a variance to which the same may be buildable in the future. There is a present concern that the water servicing Lot 4, the Kane's Lot runs diagonally across Lot 3 to their home Lot 4. Therefore, prior to the time of granting any permits, which would involve putting hard cover over any of the pipes, I would request that notice be given both to this office, and to Mr. and Mrs. Kane. In addition, there is some concern that excavation and the pressure of any building over this water surface piping could possibly cause a fracturing of the same. Therefore, it would be requested that prior to the time of any building on Lot 3, that this water service be moved at the expense of the owner of Lot 3, so that it would have no ramification whatsoever on the Kane's property on Lot 4. If there was a problem with this, I would request and urge that you contact the undersigned. In addition to the above, I would formally request that prior to the granting of any building permits, that the Kane's and other interested parties have the opportunity to review any proposed building plans to see of the same may have an impact on their property, both environmentally or otherwise. In that a decision was made to grant this variance, after a point in time when the city council had indicated that no variance would be granted, and the same was granted without notice to my clients, I would appreciate your cooperation concerning all of the above. In addition, I would request that you forward a copy of this letter to the city attorney's office, so that he may call me for further discussions on this situation. If you have any questions of comments regarding any of the above, I would urge you to contact me at your earliest convenience. ,,,.-·. Yours very truly, //). ' ,----~{--. -~STAD,--THFI$EN & KENN.EDY /. Ul' /.,, 1· ' /'/ 1 ·\ /. ~ / . ) /. \ ,✓'}' f, . I / . / ' '-(,..r"--, , / I Rcige J. Ranfstacf-~-/ 17---,. RJR: dml c..ANNING . EXHIBIT 1 y ~0cllNG VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 473-7357 INSTRUCTIONS : I Ple.aae firat read the attached Info.rmation Sheet ,ete,, ;.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. (Type or Print). If needed, attach letter or other rma b er • LIST OF EXHIBITS deacribe your request. Incomplete application• w be acce ed. ' _ -~ , ~!1 ,~~fl :\! .. ,,_~ Description PROPERTY ADDRESS 2 69 7 Casco Po i nt Roa d, Oro n o , Minn esota Legal description ahall be •hown on attached Survey, Exhibit J . 5539 1 APPLICANT Name Ri chard & Jea n Lo r ge Phone 44 6 -1 5 11 -4 48 -6685 OWNER Ma 11 ing Addreaa __ 1_6.:....7_.;_5..:..0_.;_H_a_l...:s'-e'-'y'-'-A..:..v_.;_e .:...:n_u..c.e....,_,_· ...cC:....:a.:....r...cv_e.:....r::...,.., _;:_:M:....:i..:..n:..:.n.:...:e:..:.s:...o:...t:..· a=--- 55 3 l 5 If Applicant i• not owner, explain ______________ _ Name Jea n L . Lo rg e ) Phone 448 -6 6 85 1 6 7 50 Ha l sey Aven u e, Carver , Minn esota 5 5 3 1 5 Mailing Address -------=------------------- Date Property Acquired Augu s t 1 972 (Month/Year) I (d~ (do not) also own other adjacent parcels of land AGENT Name __ N_O_N_E ______________ Phone --------- Firm------------------------------- Mailing Addreaa _________________________ _ NOTICES Should be aent to: __ Applicant X Owner __ Agent PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT LR-l C 1 2 Initial Application must include: ✓ Application Form i/ Property Owners Liat .3 ~ Certificate of Survey J::.:, Fee Receipt 1/'3..i<, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Date Received / 1---·7_ J-l-- By ~ [.t \l\,y 0 Staff Information Plat Hap Inventory Staff Com:nents Other Information 7. PRESENT USE Residential __ (Other) ________________ _ Vacant Land _X __ Vacant Building(a) Occupied Building(a) __ 8. DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ l oo , ooo __ __,;;...... _____ _ _ establi•h new uae continue or expand existing uae ~build new add on remodel _ replace Describe request in detail: Re qu est i s for var i a n ce fo r l o t width . a n d l ot a r ea to buil d a s i ng l e f am il y r es id e nt son t h e easter n p ort i o n of pr o p e r ty. 9-VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED to do the requested Work: X Lot: Area X Lot Width Hardcaver __ Setback ( __ Front __ Side __ . Rear) Other ________________ _ 10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS preventing compliance with Zoning eode requirements: No vaca n t ad j acen t l a nd ava il a bl e . Lack of pr o p er n otice , l ac k o f r easses me n t of pr o perty a n d vagu e tess of-· Ordin a n ce 172 (e ff ect 1-1-75 ) a nd sa l e of adjace nt --- p ro p erty with l ega l co unc il res ult ed in t h e s u b j ect p ro p e rt y b e in g now d efin e d as "un- buil dab l e" Describe UNDUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY resulting from ,trict: enforcement of zoning 11. regulations inp rac t ica l diffi c ul ty in mee ti ng co d es i s t h at th ere i s n o v acan t ad j ace n t l a n d ava il a bl e an d the eve nt s ~n umerateij i n sect i o n 1 0 pr ev i o u s l y r es ult e d in a p arce l of l and , wh i c h esse nti a ll y h as n o 12. Describe EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK on neighboring properties •nd on the neighborhood in general: va l ue. Th e at t ached proposa l is des i g n e d t o mini mize a n y n eig hb o r hoo d i mpact by p l ac in g t h e h ome to t he eas t e nd of t h'e p r operty we ll away f ro m t he n e i g hb ors a nd so l ve th e water fl ow qu e stion 5 y bu1ld 1ng a n ew res id ents; The APPLICANT and the PROPERTY OWNER must sign and date this application. The APPLICANT hen;by agrees to pravide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees ,. to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifie s that the information supplied is true and corr e ct to the best of his knowledge : Applicant 1 sOs igna The CMNER hereby acknowledge9 and agrees to this application and further authori~es reasonable entry onto the property by City 1taff, consultants, agents, comnission members, and Counci l members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request: APPLICATION DEADLINE TEN (1_0) DAYS BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RUN DATE 10/28/82 BATCH 002 PROP ADOR Ov,NER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 20-117-23 23 0001 j 02683 CASCO POINT RO BEVERLY SMER LING BEVERLY SNERLING 2552 W LK OF THE ISLES BLVD MPLS MN 55405 38 20-117-23 23 0004 02697 CASCO POINT RD/ A & C KANE A LA~!RENCE KANE 2697 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0001 02684 CASCO POINT RD THEODORE C OANTIS DAVID RUNKLE 2684 CASCO POINT ROAD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0021 02710 CASCO POINT RO HOWARD T MARTIN ✓ MGMT SEARCH ~366 400 SHELARO PLAZAS MPLS MN 55426 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 23 0002 02691 CASCO POINT RD/ ROBERT K HUNT ETAL ✓ ROBERT K HUNT 2691 CASCO PT RO WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0005 02715 CASCO POINT RO ✓ CAROL J ASLESEN CAROL ASLESEN CHILO 2715 CASCO PT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0003 02672 CASCO POINT RD/ THEODORE C OANTIS DAVID RUNKLE 2684 CASCO PT RO SO WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0022 02700 CASCO POINT RD K & T ROLF / KEVIN E ROLF 2700 CASCO PT RO WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2 38 20-117-23 02697 CASCO JEAN L LORGE 23 0003 POINT R'!/ JEAN L LORGE 16750 HALSEY AVE CARVER MN 55315 38 20-117-23 23 0006 02745 CASCO POINT RD/ EA SCHANDER RAOUL E SCHANDER 2745 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0020 ✓ 02750 CASCO POINT RD DALE A CHRISTENSEN & WIFE DALE A CHRISTENSEN 2750 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 002 00011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ANO BELIEF. DATE // ,-j--ft .... --"BY ~~_/ == , --< ----- L 473-' -541/ J~ ~ ' ~ 'f ZS", 3dd t / ,~ f _ 5" z? z. ft 7-fe; AM :½ 1/6' ~ -.6"7,s )' .__ ~ WA111 ~ C. /j~ . /33/ 12~~---41 ~~ ~~ J-/4 . t.Jos; BJ/ft.-,,~ 33?yL- (1)-@-13) /74-?4fr3 -............, cf✓, 4 J ----... '/ u J dL-zt._£ (!, 4 ~ ~ // Zd~L-~ P . ;/(f~ Y-/a_,