HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketCITY OF ORONO, MnVESOTA
Land Use Application '
LOCIVPION OF PROPOSAL (or property)
Address
7IT.J371a
Legal DescriptionZ07/35%14i7&e6 l- . 8004;71_
APPLICANT Name. �L ZC l Tel # e, B
Mailing
Address a77 Ch co /p/7 f.O ldr7YZi9'Ti9
J3 /
OWNER Name ._ 5171% - Tel
Mailing
Address
Present Zoning
TYPE OF REQUEST
Subdivision $151)+$5/1ot ,
_Conditional Use $50
_U,::f Variance $50
Rezoning $250
Present Use
Riiprap $15 ($65)
FEE 1�/60. 00 44 61
Date Rec'd ,/O _
By
3/. �••//oa
Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request 3L. 7.S 3
Specify Ordinance Requirements
Explain your request and reasons for same
VARIANCE required - extent of nonconformity
Lot Area Setback Front_ Side Rear _
Width other, explain
Specify hardships to property isiv - -- 1 r-'M�7IiJ)
kttt
SUBDIVISION appli_cat'_on Residential other, explain
VARIANCE required - extent of nonconformity
_ Lot Area Setback Front_ Side Rear _
Width Cther, explain
Specify hardships to property
n-I'l. Q r�.o or 1`!tlf]s�� tit;
�l Ila�r..ce for 14C - a.to .".
SUBDIVISION application _ Residential other, explain
No. of Lots
CONDITIONAL USE AND OTHER
- explain
proposed
use of property in detail
yI,r /' rr n ar i.A
AAz-. J
fa Nr
F9 u7f1 P /0 ,d'
MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION
(Must be submitted 10 days prior to Plarning Commission meeting)
1. Application completed 5. .:ertified Property Owner's list of
2. Plat map section owners within (300') (150')- fro$
3. Certificate of survey of property Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance
sketch location and setbacks of A-603 Government Center
proposal 6. Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#10),
4. Construction plans, if applicable pre -addressed to each of the names'
on the above list.
�J 0 _ ,, /'4 .1.
DATE /� _- /7 �r7 Applicant's Signature i7_[u�7 /!'
Owner's Signature ZJ
Applicant hereby agrees to ?rovide all informatics required or reqdested by
the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission
and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay
fM$ as established by ordinance. --�
't)l!j 1h..� t .at IM M1cts rpeen[N
Mrflxcote ere an--:nte DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
%nd true np awotauo i i ",:mo- A-603 GOVERNMENT C TER
ltoneenfthe Hem. a.., -.-tax MINNEAPOLIS, MN 7fw0A
c Wv-- to of the Hem. Co. Finance
wWg
OM., to the peel of my knowWCBo
a PR ERTY OWNER T
c1 IIM111. a, DMWon
6
IcaF1�_
WO
T
Ali ,� ... _ • •
■
3C
hLAnl LDO3,S .
DATE TIME
CITY OF ORONO-CALLED-IN
INSPECTION NOTICE SCHEDULED
PERMIT NO. COMPLETED / - -_
ADDRESS 2671 (2A SCc Ism 'c TZd
OWNER CONTR.
❑ FOOTING
❑ FiAMING
❑ IASVLATION
❑ WALL BD.
❑ FINAL
❑ PROGRESS
❑ DEMOL.
❑ FIRE PREV.
COMMENTS:
❑
❑
O
❑
❑
❑
❑
O
PLUMBING RI
MECHANICAL
WATER HOOKUP
METER SET/TURN ON
SEWER HOOKUP
SEPTIC INSTALL.
SEPTIC MAINT.
WELL TEST PUMP
SITE INSPECTION
O EXCA JORADING/FILLING
O LAKESHORE/WETLANDS
❑ LICENSING
❑ COMPLAINT
O FOLLOW-UP
O
�c
UL,ALL
L/Ilec
Ala
or� < Gbl
❑ WORK SATISFACTORY. PROCEED ❑PHOTO TAKEN
❑ CORRECT WORKS PROCEED
❑ CORRECT WOhw. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
A�jTOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR.
❑ INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
Phan call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance
Owner/Contr. on
White Copy/Intpmtm't Fda / Gaid CWV/611e Notice
GRATHWOL, PLOETZ, OBERHAUSER B'. THOMPSON / �6
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
14RI 0. W ZAL pOYI[V1RD-9Y1'IC
t o
ow ei
•
WAYZATA. M$NNESQTA
ee301
October 19, 1978
City of Orono
P.O. Boa 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: Louie R. Snarling
Our File 5092-1
1ei21 av5 ZeO,
PUPS
OCT 24 leis
CM OF, ORONO
Please be advised that our office represents Mr. and Mrs. Louie Smerling with
reference to the entrenchment of their property rights by the property owner
immediately to their North.
It is the position of Mr. and Mrs. Smerling that a fence is a structure by
definition that has similar appearance from both sides. A retaining wall
does not meet the definition of a fence since it is designed for thr purpose
of supporting the lateral force of fill material placed behind the wal::.
Therefore a retaining wall has the characteristics of a structure and when
it is being placed on the property to allow for the filling of the land area
behind the wall should be subject to the 10 foot side yard set bark require-
ments. It is the position of Mr. and Mrs. Smerling that Mr. Holzer is violating
the City Ordinances both with reference to a set back in view of the fact that
a retaining wall is in fact a structure and not a fence, and secondly he is
violating the City Ordinance in view of the fact that his proposed structure,
even if classified as a fence, will be in excess of 6 feet in height end therefore
would be an encroachment under the terms of the non -encroachment provisions of
your ordinances.
Also under Mr. Holzer's present plan, there will be a considerable amount of
fill placed behind the retaining wall. This is going to alter the natural
drainage and without an in depth preliminary topog map, a final grade tnpog
map and a review of the final drainage plan by a qualified drainage engineer,
the results of the alteration of the natural drainage would not be understood
until after the fact. It would appear to a lay person that the water which
City of Orono
October 19, 1978
Page 2
will pond on Mr. Holzer's property will either cascade over the front of the
lot or on to Mrs. Smerling's property cuasing considerable damage.
It is our understanding that a stop work order has been issued by the City
and that the Holzers can do nothing more on the retaining wall without obtaining
a variance from the City. When the City Council or the Planning Commission has
this matter on its agenda, would you please notify both myself and the Smerlings
of the meeting and of the issue to be discussed.
Thank you very much
Sincerely,
LOUIS B. OBERHAUSER
LBO:vl
cc: Mr. Louis R. Smerling
axdg � ss
...hire
paourk street
excelsior,
miasaesotn
S S 3 3 1
Mr. and Mrs. Louis R. Smerling
2552 West Lake of the Isles Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota
55405
Dear Mr. and MrS. Smerling
i
/ a
am OF, ORONO
October 18,1978
I have the following observations and comments to make regarding the damage to
your Casco Point Road property on Lake Minnetonka. My Information is based on
a visit to the site this afternoon with you.
The construction project in the neighboring yard to the north apparently has resulted
in direct damage to your property and may have an influence on the value of your site
and building.
The direct damage which I feel can be attributed to the neighbors actions is as
follows:
1. Compaction and wearing of the grass surface because of its consistent
use as a construction access. This area of lawn should be replaced.
2. Destruction and removal of plant material.
a) 5 large lilacs. These have been obviously cut off by a machine
or axe in the process of excavation. The plants which were
quite mature will be difficult to replace because of their
size and age.
b) Removal of small trees in the area of the lilacs.
c) Damage to the trunks of the trees west of the garage should be
repaired by a tree surgeon.
d) Fill and construction debris should be removed from the root
root zone of the remaining plants back down to the level of
theoriginal grade. Failure to do this could result in loss
of vigor in the trees in particular.
e) All the plants have suffered a shock to the root system which
should be corrected with a feeding program and pruning by a
tree surgeon.
f) Severely damaged trees and shrubs should be replaced.
Mr. and Mrs. Smerling Page 2
October 18. 1978
3) There is some fill or distunbed soil along the construction
area on your property. If the fill is returned to the natural
grade it appears that the block structure will be even higher
than it is now.
4) The garage, which was recently repaired, appears to have been
pushed from the north causing a substantial deflection in the
base of the wall.
The value of the repair of these damages will vary depending on availability of
replacement plants, the cost of labor and the extent of damage to t;e garage.
I feel that $1500.00 would be a minimum cost to start with and variations from
that figure would become apparent once the repairs are begun.
The extent of the devaluation of your property will be more difficult to determine
and should be considered by a real estate appraiser. I do feel, however, that the
age of the house which places it in the category of historic structure, the design
of the building in the style of the Lake Minnetonka summer house and the marvelous
vistas of the lake all combine to create a special feeling of age and quality.
'his is a quality similar to the current renovations in the urban areas of the
Twin Cities as well as other areas of the lake. Homes and sites such as yours
have a value, I feel, based on their history and age. The loss of the plant material
on the north edge and the impostion of the construction in the adjacent yard may
have a significant effect on the value of the property because of the major change
in character.
Finally. I would question the legitimacy of the strucure being built next door.
The concrete block construction is essentially a properly footed, continuous
building wall and has gone well beyond the realm of "fence". I suggest that a
check into the approvals in the city be made with the city inspections department.
If you would like additional information I can be reached at 4/4-8948. 1 am forward-
ing a copy of this letter to your attorneys and am available to meet with them if
they feel that will aid them.
Sincerely,
Jesin
cc: Louis Oberhauser, Atty
Harold Field, Atty
James
nri
rcadiste$i 2 3 4 2 0
park street
excelsior,
minnesota
5 5 3 3 1
GRATHWOL, PLOETZ, OBERHAUSER By THOMPSON 4
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
MZI c..ArZA.A SOUEEvwwo-SUITE Zio
WAYZATA. MINNESOTA SSa YI
......,............XT 25 1978
October 24, 1978
CITY. OF ORONO
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: Louie R. Smerling
Our File 5092-1
Attention: Mr. Tom Jacobs
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
It is my understanding that a atop work order has been issued with reference
to the Holzer property as it relates to any further construction on the
fence or retaining wall or the filling of the front yard until Mr. Holzer has
mad^ application for and obtained a variance from the City of Orono.
Mr, and Mrs. Smerling appreciates the activities of the City in dealing with
this matter.
Carol Fornander from our office has requested that you forward notices of
any request for a variance to Mr. and Mrs. Smerling at 2552 W. Lake of Isles,
Minneapolis 55405, which is their permanent home address, and also mail a
notice to my office so that we may be advised of any upcoming variance hearing.
Hopefully, this I. per can be resolved in such a way that the construction or
contemplated conol;-. on the adjacent property will not unduly interfere
with the value of n6 Mrs. Smerling's property.
Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
LOUISB. OBERHAUSER
LBO:vl
CITY40 ORONO
INSPECTION NOTICE
PERMIT NO.
DATE
CALLED -IN
SCHEDULED
COMPLETED lO-/rl'7P
TIME
2:_'Sn f
ADDRESS,2G r7 7 CA-� C_ a Pt Tc%
OWNER CONTR.
TELEPHONE NO. I
O FOOTING O PLUMBING RI 0 SITE INS►ECTION
O FRAMING p MECHANICAL O E%CAV./GRADING/FILLING
O INSULATION O WATER HOOKUP O LAKESHOREIWETLANDS
O WALL BD. O METER SET/TURN ON O LICENSING
W O FINAL O SEWER HOOKUP p COMPLAINT
O PROGRESS O SEPTIC INSTALL. O FOLLOW-UP r
O DEMOL O SEPTIC MAINT. O SEPTIC FINAL
C1 O FIRE PREV. ❑ WELL TEST PUMP O
2
Q COMMENTS:
ti . E%I-v, I, o -I 14 u CT
z Mu �I m
0
to
mue;x_ —LSE_ tj 20=k ISc/
C-icy1n
Llt ata 11CN -/a :.LL ma's IiSJE�
o T
w
W
R
Q
w
j
0
W
R
C O WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED O PHOTO TAKEN
O fjpRRECT WORK & PROCEED
RRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING
O CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS, INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
13 STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR.
❑ INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
call for the next inspection 24 Faun in advance.
Owns►/Contr. on
Inspector
473-7357
Whim CopyllnwectM't Fib
Goa Copy/Sim Notice
CITY OF ORONO �'1�iLED DATE TIME
-IN
'INSPECTION NOTICE SCHEDULED
PERMIT NO. COMPLETED !� �c 1� pc
ADDRESS ,?(,, 7 7 T--�
OWNER _.__ CONTR.
TELEPHONE NO.
❑
FOOTING
❑
PLUMBING RI ❑
SITE INSPECTION
❑
FRAMING
❑
MECHANICAL ❑
ExCAV./GRADING/FILLING
❑
INSULATION
❑
WATER HOOKUP ❑
LAK ESHOR E/WET LANDS
❑
WALL BD.
❑
METER SET/TURN ON ❑
LICENSING
f]
FINAL
❑
SEWER HOOKUP ❑
COMPLAINT
❑
PROGRESS
❑
SEPTIC INSTALL. ❑
FOLLOW-UP
❑
DEMOL.
❑
SEPTIC MAINT. ❑
SEPTIC FINAL
❑
FIRE PREY.
❑
WELLTESTPUMP ❑
��7���� ✓
COMMENTS:
C—R��--
��1
NLU
AIffwORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED ❑ PHOTO TAKEN
❑ CORRECT WORK a PROCEED
❑ CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
❑ STOP ORDER POSTED CALL INSPECTOR.
❑ INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance.
Inspector
473-7357
White Cody/Inepww's File I Gold Copy/Sin Notice
GORDON N. COFFIN
LXND luNvlv.. 6N0 e11 MICA
)Oil W1T1N'OWN 11D1D
LONO L6X9. MIN N. 111N
# 4 3
XTl /111
10-31-78
Mrs. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, Hine. 55391
Dear Mrs. Holzer&
I have ahovn on the drawing the approximate previous
contours and the proposed contours which now exist as a
result of partial construction of a retaining wall. I have
looked at your property and the adjoining property, and in
n<V opinion this grading would greatly reduce the chance
for erosion of the top of the bank as has happened adjoin-
ing your property. Seeding or sodding of the disturbed
areas would also be necessary to prevent erosion of the
soil.
Sincerely,
Mark S. Gronberg,
11SG
autrs" ma
In, / / 4 A
..uruw Holt Ta% -u�
0
5KETCH S0OWING
NOLTZER T"n' 12TY
2d4IN6 CODE PFFWITioIJS
F YARDS PECoIITTEA FENCE +��Ic.#rTs
fhLt 10.n"m
Scala$ 1k30 A/
ORON
TV
O
O
November 5, 1978
city of ORONO
ral omo. st. xe . cn•1.1 a.r, w/..•.w asset • wr,alela.l om...
On the North Short o/ Lake Minnetonka
Police Department
:MS . Min —I, Kund
( ANN
rYvCJ M.Y. Mlnnu" .r R.d
M. M. KILe0
(1KW m Fd4
Mr. Lou Smerling
2683 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Dear Mr. Smerling,
After you visited me I inspected your property and I have Qv�er-
mined that your problems with Mr. Holzer regarding his fens oon-
structlon and subsequent damage to your property are civil in,
nature and would beat be addressed by your adorn�y�,.; Iti 1prtit
to breakins to your boathouse, they are burglarI and'wS bA'.
investigated by our department when we are made awsns of, .,�„
we must, however, reosive calla from neighbors who either p�itdefaa
-- the breakin or find it after the fact. The Orono Police Dlphrtst
went in not sufficiently manned to be able to provide an inspao-
tion service to your boat house which Is not visible from the
squadcar, in fact, it is approximately 200 feet from the roadway
• and hidden 20 feet from level lard on the lake shore.
My suggestion to you is to Beck a oiy�l Injunctlaq against,Mr,'
Holzer's encroachmen't'onto your property am thief injunction Mould
be a continuing one rather than the criminal sanctions which must
be accomplished on an individual case basis.
Sincerely,
Melvin Kilbo,.Chief of Police
Orono Pnliee Department
MK/pf
f
TO: Planning Commission and Council
FROM: Alan P. Olson, Village Planner
Jeanne Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator
DATE: November 3, 1978 l Alov $3 1P ova V -¢-
SUBJECT: Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit 6 Variance
This is a request to approve work already substantially completed.
There is a stop order on the project pending the outcome of this
application.
The work done includes the following:
1. Erection of concrete block walls along both side property
lines: zero setback on the north; two feet setback on the
south. Walls 12' thick varying in height from 3 ft. to 4 ft.
plus with regularly spaced concrete block pillars 12" sq. and
up to 8' plus in height. We have been told that glass, plastic
or wood fillers are planned to fit between the pillars.
2. Erection of concrete block retaining wall across the lake side
of the property, approximately 3ft. to 4ft. high plus underground
buttressing; location approximately 60 ft. from the lakeshore.
3. Filling of 6" to 3' of dirt behind the retaining wall and side
line ells and filling of an undetermined amount of dirt down
the natural embankment to the lake. The latter filling was
over the natural vegetation within 20' of the shoreline and is
at a 50% slope.
4. Construction of a new garage pursuant to a variance issued
September 13, 1978, Application No, 417.
The neighbor to the south, Smerling, has registered complaints regarding
the above work. The staff has the following comments:
1. The side yard walls can be interpreted to be walls ur fences
according to
31.433 and 31.434
which allow fences and walls
up
to 6' high
in side or rear
(street side) yards and fences
nro.ru7< y
93
walla up to
3-1/2' high in
the front (lakeside) yard.
No
in
setback is
which case
required unless
the minimum (10
the fence or wall exceeds 6'
ft.) setback is
required.
November 3, 1978
,A,, 0Alexander Holzer # t"`1
2677 Casco Point Road 'm
36
Conditional Use Permit 6 Variance
Page 2
The side walls should come no closer than 10 ft. to the street
line in front of the garage for visibility reasons. The side
walls should not encroach the 75 ft. lakeshore setbac:: as a
violation of 34.202 prohibiting structures in the protected
area. (I would argue that a 3-1/2 ft. high wood or chain link
fence could be built within the 75 ft. setback as such a fence
does not involve excavation or hardcover.)
This work appears to be an ordinance violation requiring
correction, removal or variance as follows:
a) all work within 75 £t. of the shoreline
b) all work exceeding 3-1/2 ft. high between the lakeside
of the Holtzer house and the 75 ft. line
c) all work exceeding 6 ft. high along the remaining
side line.
The Planning Commission should make a policy recommendation
regarding the height of spaced pillars. Should these or
s'iculd pillars in general tot be required to be within the
6 ft. height limitation.
The retaining wall is totally within the 75 ft. setback area
requiring removal or a variance to 34.202. The applicant
argues that this wall is necessary for erosion control. If
this were the case, the wall would be at the base of the slope,
not at the top. Holtzers have advised staff that the wall was
constructed tc permit leveling of the upper area for construction
of a patio and swimming pool. It should be noted that the
existing hardcover between 75 ft. and 250 ft. already exceeds
the 25% allowable thereby prohibiting further hardcover without
an additional variance.
3. The filling -equires a conditional use permit according to
31.700 and a variance to 31.830. Of particula.- concern is the
dirt that has been dw.:ped over the edge of the lakeshore bluff.
:'here has been no evidence of hardship requiring this work.
There has been no stated intention to do any additional work
to stabilize the bank such as plantings or additional retaining
walls.
November 3, H1978
olzer
#436
Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit & Variance
Page 3
4. There is a atop order on the garage because of several
building code violations including control of roof water
runoff. These can and will be corrected by staff action
and do not require Council review. Assuming code compliance,
there should be no reason to prohibit further work on the
garage as tLis was already reviewed and approved aL the time
of the variance.
Summary of Requests:
Conditional Use Permit for Grading and Filling 31.700
Variance for retaining wall construction 31.830 & 34.202
Variance for side fence or wall height 31.433
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning Commission moat determine whether or not the work
done is reasonable and whether or not permits or variances should be
granted. To grant variances, specific hardships moat be shown including
specific findings based on the variance section of 31.830. If the
variances and or permits are to be denied, early action is requested
to facilitate removal prior to hard frost.
Hardcover Estimation - 75' to 250'
y allowed: 2025 s.f. - 25%
existing: 2347.5 s.f.
variance: 322.5 s.f. - 15%
Hardcover Estimation with retaining wall
allowed: 2025 s.f, v 25%
proposed: 2509.5 s.f.
variance: 484.5 s.f. - 23%
November 3, 1978
Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit 6 Variance
Page 4
PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING - NOVEMBER 13, 1978
#4136
The Planning Commission decided that the object of this meeting
would be to "sort out" and "clearly define" the violations and
the specific requests in the Holzer application. Staff was
requested to seek professional determinations of both the City
attorney and the City engineer. Such request must be approved
by the City Council, which request will be presented at the
November 28, 1978 Council meerinp.
Please review the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
November 13, 1978.
Planning Commission's request of the City attorney:
1. Front yard determination based on recent Supreme Court
decisions.
2. Does 31.433 apply to retaining walls in front yards, if
not does it become an accessory structure and assume the
required setback.
3. If 31.434 applies to retaining walls in side and rear yards,
is the height determination made from top of pillar or top
of the wall.
4. Reasoning behind height limitations for front, rear and side
yard walls for lakeshore properties.
Planning Commission's request of the City engineer:
1. Amount of fill involved.
2. Original grade of the Holzer property.
3. Evaluation mf method used to solve erosion problem
4. Review potential drainage problems for neighboring properties
with new grade.
November 3, 1978
Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit 6 Variance
Page 5
COUN^.IL MEETING - NOVEMBER 28, 1978
#436
Council reviewed two procedural questions, declining to reopen the
variance on the garage and declining to authorize unusual engineering
expenses. See my letter to Mr. Holzer dated November 30, 1978.
The Council will take action on substantive issues only after review
and recommendation by tb2 Planning Commission. The applicant's
attorney, in a letter dated November 28, 1978, offers additional
engineering reports and possible accommodation with the Smerlings.
Planning Commission action should await these developments.
The Planning Commission should review all facts and make any inter-
pretations or polic recommendations deemed necessary to affect the
intent of the code- For instance, the grading within 75 ft. of the
lake must be determined to be reasonable (and therefore to remain
with or without additional conditions being imposed) or to be
unjustifiable (and therefore to be removed and/or corrected with
whatever conditions are appropriate); likewise, the side yard wall
must be determined to be reasonable or unreasonable as above.
Arguments about semantics and definitions only cloud the facts and
make judgment difficr.l:.
As to the questions of legal interpretation, the City Attorney advises
as follows:
1. The "front yard" as now written in our code refers to the street
side, hence all front yard requirements are street side requirements.
Since this code was drafted, the Minnesota Supreme Court has determined
that the lake side is "front yard", hence all front yard requirements
are also lake side requirements where they refer to open space, etc.
The "front yard" extends from the building line to the lake or to the
street.
2. The front yard Cection 31.433 is primarily concerned with view
and height. No setbacks are required. Fences and walls are both
"structures" as defined in the code. Differences exist in terms of
hardcover (area) and construction method which shift regulation of
walls to the lakeshore setback Section 34.200 and grading Section 31.700.
November 3,
1978
Alexander Holzer
{
2677 Casco Point Road ••
Conditional Use Permit & Variance
Page 6
COUNCIL NEETING - NOVEMBER 28, 1978 (Cent.)
A. The height limitation is imposed for construction and open
space purposes. Therefore, height requirements should be measured
from the ordinary (original) ground level to the top of the structure.
4. The purpose of the height limitations anywhere are as stated in
#3 above. Open space, view and esthecically/environmentally "natural"
landscapes are prime concerns on all lakeshore property.
117f
January 16, 1979
Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Variance/Conditional Use Permit
Page 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 22, 1979
43E
The Chairman announced that he was contacted by Mr. Smerling
who asked that all discussion and action be postponed for a
future Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hassel agreed to the
request and advised the Commission that the Holzer application
would be scheduled for the Planning Commission's first meeting
in March. Commission members took the opportunity to counsel
both Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Nekich that it would be advantageous
for both parties if an agreement or a narrowing of issues could
be reached before the scheduled meeting. The attorneys agreed
to meet within the next two weeks.
STAFF NOTE - JANUARY 23, 1979
Village Planner called both attorneys to reaffirm the Planning
:ommission's counseling and was advised by both that they plan
to begin negotiations within days.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 12, 1979
Mr. Mitchell, attorney for the Holzers, contends the main purpose
for erecting the retaining wall was to prevent erosion and that new
drainage plans improve old drainage patterns. Planning Commission
req^estad that the Cite Engineer work with the applizant's engineer
to evaluate the structure and consider the following points:
1. Determine original ground level - "previous condition of site".
2. Maximum (or minimum) height wall must be to function as an erosion
control device.
3. Depth of original footing? Are they deep enough to be effective
in erosion control.
4. Extent of original land alteration - where excavated material was
placed on the lot.
5. Hardcover violation within 75' lakeshore setback:
A) Integrity of structure destroyed by removing wall above ground
level within restricted area.
B) Value of retaining footings in this area.
January 16, 1979
Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco &,int Road
Variance/Conditional Use Permit
Page A
STAFF NOTE - JUNE 5, 1979
t_ 4F
It has become more and more apparent as we draw closer to decision
time that staff and private consultants are not going to make a
determination for i.e. Findings and recommendations will be our
responsibility. Staff has drafted a recommendation which you may
approve, amend or better yet, make your own. We hope all of you
get out on the site. Review the new enclosures and call the office
if you have any questions.
The building inspector and I again visited the Holzer site. We
reviewed the implications of staff memos, recent reports, pertinent
sections of the Zoning and Building Code. Photographs have been
taken and are available for review at the City offices before the
meeting night. We have marked the outside of the wall on the south
side to designate original grade. The photographs will document
original grade on west and north side of wall.
We submit the following recommendation for your review:
PART ONE - Variance
To deny variance for 15' encroachment into 75' lakeshore setback.
Ka ,, 1f
To deny variance for of wall within the 75' lakeshore
setback and front line of house and from front lin, of house
along the side yards.
The retaining wall within the 75' lakeshore setback moat be
removed and the original grade restored. The original footings,
foundation and wall up to level of blocks touched by restored
grade are to remain serving as additional support for earth
behind. The proposed grading and landscaping will cover the
remains of the structure. The applicant does not plan to
construct a wall at the 75' lakeshore setback line. The Zoning
Code would allow a wall to be constructed at the 75' setback
line.
The original grade is to be restored along the south side of wall.
All pillars or columns are to be removed - applicant has already
decided to remove them. If the wall is found to be 30 inches
above grade then a 36" railing must be installed. The applicant
suggests a black wrought iron fence would be constructed if
necessary. The allowed height of wall along the sides varies
January 16, 1979
Alexander Holzer
,ari nce/e idint Road
,ariance�.: iditional '.!se Permit
Page 9 # 4.
from 3�I' to 61. It appears the applicant will seek a lower and
more uniform height for the blocks and go with a railing concept.
The building inspector will supervise this phase of the recon-
struction very closely.
PART TWO - Conditional Use Permit
To approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow the removal of
excess fill and necessary grading to permit the desired drainage
and erosion control.
Grading - original grading to be restored along edges of existing
wall and area within wall to be graded for purposes of drainage
and erosion control.
Removal of Fill - the excess fill from the previous construction
must be removed from site. Additic.al black soil will be brought
in for planting and seeding.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 11 1979
Mr. Mitchell, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the Holzer's
plan for modifying the entire project. The plans are reviewed for
you in Mr. Mitchell's letter of June 6, 1979 (enclosed).
Mr. Singer, attorney for the Smerlings, took the position that all
work done without the required City permits should be restored to
the original state and all structures removed. The applicant could
at that point apply for a variance only. Mr. Orr, engineer for the
Smerlings, contends the wall is not designed for the purpose of
erosion control and that the real issue to be considered is the wall's
height, location and obstruction of view.
Glenn Cook agrees with Mr. Orr that the wall could not have been
constructed for the purpose of erosion control. He did add that
any portion of the wall al.owed to remain would serve as a means
of support for the bank. If the problem is one of slippage, which
is difficult to support without a soil scientist's evaluation of
specific borings, then the drainage plans laid out by the applicant's
engineer are adequate.
January 16 1979
Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Variance/Conditional Use Permit
Page 10
#436
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 11, 1979 (Cont.)
The Planning Commission made the following recommendation to approve
a conditional use permit for the construction of a wall, height to
be determined by staff but not to exceed 30" from originsi grade.
Applicant is to submit a landscaping plan and a performance bond to
cover coat of construction with a completion date of November 1, 1979.
In conjunction, they recommend approval of a hardcover variance based
on possible slippage problem contingent on a satisfactory treatment
system for storm water runoff to be approved by the City Engineer.
The m,nority opinion of 2 felt the applicant had not demonstrated
a hardship and contend the method chosen by the applicant to control
drainage and erosion is not effective.
0 PRITZ PLOWMAN'S
LATTERNER EXCAVATING
P.O. BOX 474
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 553K
474-6930
November 7, _ 78
To Whom It )lay Concern:
Be it known by this letter that there was no
materials hauled in other than the 4 yards
of fill sand, which was used under the con-
crete slab in the garage for leveling purposes
only.
At the time of wrecking existing garage,
there was 20 to 25 yards of fill removed by
our equiptment and loaded into dumpsters
belonging to Village Sanitation Co., they
then hauled them away.
Sincerely,
F�� l2n, O
LATTERNER Mr-AVATSNG
FP/dj
SMERIING ASSOCIATES, INC.
i 4455 West 77th Street
�( Edina. Minnesota 55435
612-831-5844
November 8, 1978
Mr. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Dear Mr. Holzer:
436
s
Please be advised that my wife and I do not want you or
any member of your family (or any of the people you hire
for whatever reason) to trespass upon our property. We
are sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Melvin Kilbo,
the Police Chief of Orono, to notify him of this statement.
Promising to repair the damage done by trespassing,on
someone else's property, does not condone the trespass.
The datn,4e done to shrubbery, trees, bushes and grass on
the north side of our property has been noted, as well as
the road made on our grass by your wheelbarrel carrying
cement. All this was done without a request to us for
permission.
Very truly yours
Louis R. Smerling
LRS: em
cc: Chief Melvin Kilbo/Oraw
Mr. Oberhauser
LAW O.IICL[ -4
AMOL b OL. NANO
M [LVIM M. [Ii0 [L
:'ON[Y LON[Lw
ILOM^..I.I
I.[ O. I..[IN [[w0
MOwwIL .........
N..M
O LONO[ wi1LLY
M IC MA[L A.LW,w NOII
wVID M. coa
[T[IwLN A..ILAVM
XA wilt A. MAY[
0
AM CY C. Ow[M[w
LOW[LL J. NOTLLOOM
O iOOOL r. M0"OL �i.TTJw.
NwI[ T N.
[VLN O. O.wuVT[w
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
It00 NwTIONAL CITT OAXN [w LOINO
LIO N1NO U[1TL AVtNV[
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNcc OTA 64402
TL LLIN OX[ iO�tl if[-It00
CA[L[ ADOw O[t'LLONO'
November 10, 1978
William B. Van Nest
Mayer of City of Orono
3295 Carmen Road
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
OTLwN [n J. Oww.[on
VIO C.
NAIa
[OWAwO YOLN[I[LD[L
1
[.LwwOw[
wLAN
M[wV
1. WR[.L..
MTw.0 . [CNAIwiw
MA[L A. MLNICN
Ow[OOwV 4 DAxI
O LO Nt [.L[O .A.D U[n-n[q
ANTMVw 4M. tTwt[T II[T-O41
[txmlm Dunce Uu[-u[M
NEE
V` V V IF D LIA �,ILf `.[DTT
NOV 13 IM
CITY OF ORONO
Re: Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Louis R. Smerling, I am writing
to inform you of the Smerlings' opposition to the grant of any
further permits or variances for the Holzer property. I also want
to take this opportunity to comment on Alan Olson's memorandum of
November 3, 1978 to the Planning Commission and Council on this
subject.
Mr. Olson's description of the work that Mr. Holzer has
done thusfar on his property is substantially correct. A concrete
block retaining wall has been erected, without first obtaining any
permits or variances and in spite of the objections of neighboring
landowners. Furthermore, filling has been done to various depths
over virtually the entire area of the lot, altering the natural
grade of land. Such filling is not only violative of the City's
ordinances in itself (§31.700), but it must also be taken into
account when considering the concrete block wail. The wall is
probably one foot or more taller than the dimensions given by
Mr. Olson if we measure from the natural grade instead of from
the new level which resulted from the filling done.
I would disagree with the characterization of the earlier
variance as being one for the construction of a new garage. It
was actually for the reconstructct o�—o-F —an old garage and may have
been violated, rendering it voi . However, we do appreciate the
efforts of the City in requiring th.:t the garage eaves be removed
and gutters be installed, directing the run-off from the roof
onto the Holzer property.
Mayor Van Nest
November 10, 1978
Page 2 i.
In Comment No. 1 which begins at the bottom of the first
page of Mr. Olson's memorandum, an error is made in the interpre-
tation of 1§31.433 and 31.434 of the Orono Zoning Code. Section
31.434 does appear to permit "fences and walls", in side or rear
yards only, not to exceed a height of six feet aboveove grin
contrast, Section 41.433 deals only with "fences" and permits
fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height. The fact that
these two subsections are part of the same section of the Code and
are located one directly after the other implies that the termin-
ology is not inadvertent, but rather that a careful distinction
�! was made Te—tween "fences" and "walls". The result here is that
\"walls" are covered only by 631.434 and are permitted in side or
rear }ards only. That means that the entire concrete obi�IT
ot� h , the front and on the sides, must be totally removed back
to the front of the house. I am attaching a copy of a drawing
which was included in the memorandum you received from Alan Olson
and on which I have outlined in red the portion which must be
completely removed.
Any portion of the wall whicn is allowed to remain should
be calculated in height from the natural grade, not the artificial
i level created by Mr. Holzer's filling. All filling should also
be removed.
We would agree with Comment Nos. 2 and 3 in Mr. Olson's
memorandum. The wall is not necessary for erosion control; the
hardcover limit has already been exceeded; and there is no evidence
of any hardship requiring this work. In fact, the only _ardships
which have ever existed have been totally of Mr. Holzer's making.
It is not reasonable to allow a person to repeatedly and inten-
tionally place himself in positions of so-called "hardship" and
then permit him to benefit from such actions. He has already
received a garage variance in that manner gnd there must be a
limit to how much of that may be.d9ne, especip•Ily on a lot of
limited size.
If any variances or permits are granted to Mr. Holzer, they
should be conditioned on %is restoring the adjoining portions of
the Smerling property to their state prior to the damage inflicted
by the repeated, intentional trespasses of Mr. Holzer's workmen.
Mayor Van Nest
November 10, 1978 ;.
Page 3
Some notion of this damage can be gathered from the letter of
James Robin, landscape architect, which is attached to this letter.
In conclusion, let me say that, in support of my client's
position, we will present photographs of the properties at the
Planning Commission and Council meetings and will elaborate on the
situation generally, as well as specifically, on further ordinance
violations.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this entire
situation.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STRFET AND DEINARD
By
Michael A. Nekich
MAN:cb
Enclosures
cc: Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq.
Louis G. Oberhauser, Esq.
Mary C. Butler
Walter B. Massengale
Norman W. Paurus
C. Paul Pesek
Tom Frahm
John Hammerel '
Gregg Hannah
Richard Hassel
Jo Ellen Hurr
Gloria M�Donald
C. Steven Wilson
ur+::,.ie:c rra 135. Al:.11:.i:D:�t HCt.�: z, #436
0
Date t 10. 31-78
Scale: l"='Cl N
jan:- T1!Ca0
arch tect
2 3 4 2 0
parts street
excelsior,
m insiesota
5 5 3 3 1 October 18,1978
Mr. and Mrs. Louis R. Smerling
2552 West Lake of the Isles Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota
55405
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smerling
I have the following observations and comments to make regarding the damage to
your Casco Point Road property on Lake Minnetonka. My Information is based on
a visit to the site this afternoon with you.
The construction project in the neighboring yard to the north apparently has resulted
in direct damage to your property and may have an influence on the value of your site
and building.
The direct damage which I feel can be attributed to the neighbors actions is as
follows:
1. Compaction and wearing of the grass surface because of its consistent
use as a construction access. This area of lawn should be replaced.
2. Destruction and removal of plant material.
a) 5 large lilacs. These have been obviously cut off by a machine
or axe in the process of excavation. The plants which were
quite mature will be difficult to replace because of their
s;ze and age.
b) Removal of small trees in the area of the lilacs.
C) Damage to the trunks of the trees west of the garage should be
repaired by a tree surgeon.
d) Fill and construction debris should be removed from the root
root zone of the remaining plants back down to the level of
theoriginal grade. Failure to do this could result in loss
of vigor in the trees in particular.
el All the plants have suffered a shock to the root system which
should be corrected with a feeding program and pruning by a
tree surgeon.
f) Severely damaged trees and shrubs should be replaced.
.f
Mr,. and Mrs. Suierling Page 2
C October 16, 1978
3) There is some fill or
area on your property
grade it appears that
than it is now.
4) The garage, which was
pushed from the north
base of the wall.
disturbed soil along the construction
If the fill is returned to the natural
the block structure will be even higher
recently repaired, appears to have been
causing a substantial deflection in the
The value of the repair of these damages will vary depending on availability of
replacement plants, the cost of labor and the extent of damage to the garage.
I feel that $1500.00 would be a minimum cost to start with and variations from
that figure would become apparent once the repairs are beguo.
The extent of the devaluation of your property will be more difficult to determine
and should b: considered by a real estate appraiser. I do feel, however, that the
age of the house which places it in the category of historic structure, the design
of the building in the style of the Lake Minnetonka summer house and the marvelous
vistas of the lake all combine to create a special feeling of age and quality.
This is a quality similar to the current renovations in the urban areas of the
Twin Cities as well as other areas of the lake. Homes and sites such as yours
have a value, I feel, based on their history and age. The loss of the plant material
on tF.: north edge and the impostion of the construction in the adjacent yard may
have a significant effect on the value of the property because of the major change
in character. ' .
Finally, I would question the legitimacy of the strucure being b301 t next door. };
The concrete block construction is essentially a properly footed, continuous
building wall and has gone well beyond the realm of "fence.' - I suggest that a
check into the approvals in the city be made with the city inspections department.
If you would like additional information I can be reached at 474-8948. 1 am forward-
ing a ropy of this letter to your attorneys and am available to meet with them if
they feel that will aid them.
Sincerely,
of
James Robin
cc: Louis Oberhauser, Atty
Harold Field, Atty
'
LAw OrrIC[.
LEONARD. STREET AND DEINARD
1800 NATIONAL CITr LANX .UILOINO
p[.X LM J. OwV10.ON
w NO. L D[Ix.00
.I[O[L
tl0 N/.NOV LTT[ ILV[NVL
LT[.X{M N. LrT NFN
n [LVIN X.
O,.VID C. LwLF
Y ON Lr LO....
MIM M tAPO LI\. MIMM tt OTA 564 d
[OwlwO N, n0[N[r[LO tw
u DMb LwNwOw[
wO a wT L[wI. ONwOwi
D D. r1[LO. Jw.
T[iV XON[ IL UI li.-um I
/.YN J IL[N[Fr
[F.
[LDOM Jw[a NCL w. IN.
tIN....
C^UL[ ADOwtA."L[ON C'
MwrN wwD
N O[wl. n .Mf.A N/.M
y�wwwu tcnwrr[N
o[owaL n[nL•
Nw[L w.
......L /.. [wrN xorr
A.L
o.[.owr L.. DwNL
DwvrD x.
November 11, 1978
—
[a0 iat ..uON UO U.n-I.Nr
DNuu. w. Nwr.
IOWLLNOr O...LTCO
1\J1111(I1�
I J. NGT[.aDN
I1�r{r�i ury
.aN[.I[T
D LDND[. N.DU NNID LL.JN.
I�L
D
D.wU•T[[
NOV I :1 1978
William B. Van Nest CITY OF ORONO
Mayor of City of Orono
3295 Carmen Road
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
Re: Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
After re -reading my letter of yesterday to you on the
above matter, I realized that there might be some confusion as
to one point which was made. Hence, I am writing now to clarify
that point.
on page 2 of my previous letter, I discussed the implications
of SS31.433 and 31.434 of the Municipal Code of Orono. That point
which I had hoped to convey is that neither of those subsections
permifc-e-rwei4•-to_be erected on any portion of the front yard.
The 4ttached diagr m with the outline in red was intended to illus-
trate operation of those subsections. By my comments and
the use of that diagram, I did not intend to imply that the remainder
of the wall constructed by Mr. Holzer is permitted by the ordinances.
Tn fart, there are several grounds upon which my clients oppose the
entire wall.
First, the entire wall constructed by Mr. Holzer is a
retaining wall behind which and underneath which a great deal of
illegal filling and grading has occurred. Second, the retaining
wall is anchored to the property by concrete footings. These walls
are more than simple walls which are used to separate properties
ur preserve privacy. They are intstead intended to support the
lateral force of the filling which has occurred.
Mayor Van Nest
November 11, 1978
Page 2
NA
The effect of the retaining walls, as constructed, is
that they constitute a "5 uQ e" within the meaning of that term
as it is used in the Code. 530.040. Therefore, since the retaining
walls constitute "accessory structures", under 531.436, they must be
no closer than 10 feet from any side lot line.
Also, with respect to the construction of these retaining
walls and the illegal alteration of the natural grade, it should
be pointed out that no study has been made of the effects upon the
drainage onto aurzounding properties. The Holzar property has been
made substantially higher than the adjacent properties and since
the fill is apparently intended to reach the top of the main portion
of the retaining walls, run-off may spill over destructively onto
nearby land.
Furthermore, when considering the effects of such a wall
upon property values (as required by 532.340) and upon aesthetics,
it must be recognized that while the Holzers will not have to view
any of this wall, the Smerlings will be faced with a harsh and
imposing concrete structure along virtually the entire side lot line.
Finally, I would note that the concrete block pillars must
be considered as part of the wall for purposes of height restrictions
under the Code. To do otherwise would be to engage in an ad hoc
revision of the Code and would result in a situation where there
would effectively be no restrictions on the height of such pillars
or their proximity to one another.
Thank you once again for your consideration of my comments.
L look forward to discussing this situation with both the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
Very truly yours,
LEONAND, STREET. AND DEINARD
By
Michael A. Nekich
MAN:cb
cc: Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. John Hammerel
Louis G. Oberhauser, Esq. Gregg Hannah
Mary C. Butler Richard Hassel
Walter B. Massengale Jo Ellen Hurr
Norman W. Paurus Gloria McDonald
C. Paul Pesek C. Steven Wilson
.Im Frahm Alan P. Olson
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 13,1978
Page 3
It was noted that due to many trees in the area
RICHARD PERRY
the garage would not cause any sight problems
4AO Willow Drive So.
to the neighbors.
Variance &
Cond. Use Permit
Wilson moved to approve the variance of the side
#435 (Cont.)
yard setback due to the narrow width and extreme
grade of the lot as well as the difficulty of
entering the new garage. Motion seconded by Hurt.
Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously.
/
Mabusth explained the request. Due to the complexity
�'ALEXANDER HOLZER
of tie application, the Planning Commission decided
2677 Casco Point Rd.
that the purpose of this meeting would be to sort
Variance &
out and clearly define the violations and the
Cond. Use Permit
requests of this application.
#436
The violations are
1. Hardcover #436
0-75' of Lakeshore75-250' of lakest:ore
2. Fence helghL over 6' in side and rear
The requests are
1. Variance for hardcover from 75'-250'.
2. Variance for fence height on side and
rear wall.
3. Conditional Use Permit for grading and
filling.
Comments were heard from Mr. Holzer, _Mr. Gronberg
(civil engineer working for Holzer), Mr. Smerling,
Mr. Nekich (Smerling's attorney), and Mr. Downey
(a neighbor on the other side of Holz2rs). Although
Lire. Holzer, Mrs. Smerling, Mr. Oberhauser (Smerling's
attorney) and several neighbors were present no
comments were made by them at this meeting.
The Planning Commission felt the following issues must
be addressed before they could make any recommendations:
1. Written determinatiin of front yard by the
City attorney.
2. Reasoning behind the height restrictions.
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 13, 1978
Page 4
3. Some d+--ction or determination of the
wall/fence/structure definition. Also
which section rules - fences or fences -
walls?
4. Are the pillars a part of the wall or
are they ornamental?
ALEYANDER HOL.ZER
2677 Casco Point Rd.
Var'_ance 6
Cord. Use Permit
4..36
5. Engineer must determAne the actual grade
of Holzer's property and the adjoining
properties as well as the erosion pro8l
6. Amount of fill must be determined. ,` . '
Mr. Smerling strongly opposed the construction a VVV{
concrete "wall" within 2' of their property. He
felt the wall "destroyed the ambiance of his retreat".
Mr. Nekich stressed the fact that no wall would be
permitted in the front yard by Orono's code.
Mr. Srerling stated that he would have appeared before
the Commission during the variance for the garage to
express his oposition to that, but was out of town
during that period of time. Mr. Holzer, when questioned
regarding the reason for the wall, stated that it was
for erosion purposes and to beautify his property.
Mr. Downey statel that when the Holzers first purchased
this land it was a shambles and to this polmt everything
they have done has only added to the value of his
property. He has no objection to the wall except if .
blocks his view of the lake.
Wilson moved to table this item pending receipt of the
information needed to answer the many issues. Motion
seconded by Hammerel. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0).
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Bloemendahl, DNR, presented the plan. Due to the
fact that no motorized vehicles are allowed in this
area, the Planning Commission requested the deletion
of snowmobiles from the plan. When questioned rbout
the parking, Mr. Bloemendahl stated that Council had
requested that no parking area be provided during
the previous review of this plan. If was definitely
stated that no camping, or overnight uses were to
be allowed.
JAMES BLOEMENDABI.
DNR - APPEARANCE
Wakefield -Corry Rest
Area, Willow Drive
Hassel moved to approve the plan, with the deletion
of snowmobiles, with the stipulation that the park would
not be used for camping, parking, or any overnight uses,
that the rules, restrictions and hone of use vould be
posted .t the entrance and that the DNR is responsible
for policing the park. Motion seconded by Frahm.
Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously.
le&
o.sez
ORA7-HWOL, PLOETZ, OBERHAUSER & THOMPSON
1,36
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
Mn e. wA.znrA wuuevuo-ewrr uo
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA ee3e1
City of Orono
P.O. Boa 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Gentlemen:
rot el ♦Ts-e.oi
November 14, 1978 ME G E R f[1 D
D
NOV 16M
Re: Louie R. Smerling
Our File: SM-1
GTY OF ORONO
Based upon the information that was developed at the Planning Commission
meeting and a review of the ordinances and building code it would appear
chat the Planning Commission should make the following findings of facts
for the purpose of applying and enforcing their ordinances.
The first finding of fact should be that the retaining wall which was
constructed by Mr. Holzer is a structure. The retaining wall and tha
method of construction is covered by the building code and the retaining
wall has more characteristics of a structure than a fence or wall. In
the fence ordinances when a fence or wall is mentioned they generally are
talking about an item that has similar appearances from both sides and 1s
not designed to hold any laccral load force.
The second finding of fact should be that the lake side yard is the
front yard and that front yard standards should be applies. Recent
cases have held that on lakeshore property the area between the house
and the lake 1s the front yard and the courts have been consistent in
protecting this area from undue interference. It would appear that it
is in the nest interest of the City of Orono to apply front yard stand-
ards to the lake aide of lakeshore property.
The third finding of fact is that the garage which was constructed put
suant to a variance granted by the City of Orono was not constructed
in accordance with the variance and that the structure is therefor a
non -conforming use.
I have a substantial interest in how the Planning Commission and the council
will handle this matter both as an attorney of Mr. Smerling and
as a resident of the community. There is a tendency to look at what
City of Orono
Louie B. Oberhauser, Esq.
Our Pile: 5092-1
Page 2
has been completed in violation of the ordinances and to allow the
DS condition to remain where if anititial application had been made the
f variances would not have bee,, granted. To a certain extent Orono has
that reputation. Mr. Holzer is an intelligent and successful business-
man and it is hard to believe that lie did not have knowledge of what
variances he needed to construct or to reconstruct his yard. In decid-
ing this matter it would be preferable to require Mr. Holzer to remove
all of the construction that he has done without obtaining the necessary
variance and then to consider the variance as being an initial application.
If the construction Is not removed before a variance application is con-
dfact
t Mr. Holzer
houldoperateto hisdisadvantage pr
oceeded
without hisadvantage.Iauthority It has
always been my viewpoint that the citizen who goes through the adminis-
trative process should be treated at least equal if not more favorably
than the citizen who approaches the Planning Commission and council with
unclean hands.
Three years ago I suggested to the City of Orono that they should look
at their fencing ordinances as it applies to lakeehore property. I read
those fencing ordinances on behalf of Mr. Smarling and was informed at
that time that Mr. Holzer could build a fence of three and half feet
in the front yard.
As a owner of a lakeehore lot, I would hate to see the day when all the
lakeehore esners began constructing three and half foot fences between
every house. Each of us, when sitting in our yard, would feel like we
were in the chute waiting for the race to start. One of the ci:arms of
�Iq Lake Minnetonka to the openness of the land surrounding the lake. One
of the major goals of the City of Orono has been to preserve the natural
and open character of the lakeehore. There is no way that I can think
of th-t would be more damnging to this goal than the construction of
a multiple number of fences and/or walls within the seventy-five foot
setback and the construction of fences in excess of three feet in height
withia the front yard of any of the lakeehore properties.
We also, through our experience, know that when humanbeings begin tinker-
ing with the contours of the land and the natural drainage of the land by
building retaining walls or filling in swamps that the variation in the
City of Orono
Louie R. Oberhauser,
Our File: 5092-1
Page 3
L
runoff creates flooding and erosin problems.
I therefore feel that from the standpoint of my client's property and
also from the standpoint of all of the lakeshore property wsers that
the city should restrict construction of any structure within seventy-
five feet of the lakeehore, whether it be a fence or a retaining wall,
without the granting of a variance and that no fence or wall can be
constructed in the front yard or lake side of Lakeshore property that
is In excess of three feet in height without a variance, and that re-
taining walla cannot be constructed without a variance and be classified
as a structure.
The reason for the first two requirements are obvious. The reason that
retaining walls should require conditional variances is that it is im-
portant for the city to have the ability to understand what changes in
the contour and the drainage is going to be caused by the construction
of a retaining wall. If the retaining wall is being built for the
purpose of stabilizing an adjacent piece of property that is one con-
��,'' X, sideratlonAere retaining wall 1e being built for the purpose of al-
pJS•�, loving additional fill to be placed against it for the purpose of rais-
�' ing or leveling an existing piece of property the drainage problem be-
�IK ing created by this type of conduct, together with the possibility of
damage to adjacent property owner is present. It is for these purposes
that we have ordinances.
I feel that a person should have the right to do on his property as he
chooses unless it is an overriding public reason for restricting the
activity for the overall public good. With regards to the front yards
of lakeehore property owners, I would venture to say that there are very
few lakeehore property owners who would like to see the type of activity
being carried on adjacent to their property, that is being carried on
, by Mr. Holzer adjacent to the Smerling property. Variances in these
cases should only be granted in cases of extreme hardship and the hard-
ship should not be a hardship that has been created by the unauthorized
City of Orono
Louie B. OMrhauser, Esq.
Rai Our Pile: 5092-1
Page 4
conduct of the applicant.
Very tru re,,
L AS EERNA.�n.'--
LBOrf
c.c. Mr, and Mrs. Smerling
Michael A. Nekich
Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq.
Mary C. Butler
Walter B. Massxngale
Norman W. Paurus
C. Paul Pesek
Tom Frahm
John Hammerel
Gregg Hannah
Richard Hassell
Jo Ellen Hurt
Gloria McDonald
C. Steven Wilson
40
GRATHWOL, PLOETZ, OBERHAUHER a THOMPSON F3;L
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
IIYI L. wSTSAL BOYICVA BO-BVIT[ MO
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
r. (Blfl os-[MOI
o... ,.....�... VELuHv��
November 9, 1978 NOV 16 IN
CITY, OF, ORONO
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: Louie R. Smerling
Our File 5092-1
Gentlemen:
I have reviewed the premises adjacent to Smerling property with reference to
possible violations of the City Ordinance regarding construction within the
10 ft. set back line. My observations and questions are as follows:
1. It would appear that the retaining wall because of the fact that
footings are required for the construction of same would be a structure and
therefore not a permitted encroachment. The construction of the retaining
wall is in fact a permitted encroachment, with the subsequent filling of the
area behind the retaining wall is an alteration of the contour of theyu land
which should not be permitted without the consent of the adjacent property
owner and without a detailed engineering study to make sure that the alterations
of the contours of the drainage area does not adversely ect any of the adjacent
property owners or the lake.
2. That the adjacent property owner in the course of constructing the
retaining wall had his workers go on to the Smerling property cutting bruab,
bushes and Small trees and otherwise destroying the surface vegetation. Should
they now be required to replace the destroyed vegatatfon and to replace the
Smerling property in its condition prior _o the -.onstruction of the retaining
wall?
3. A garage is a single story structure with no more than an 8 ft. aide
wall and a 24 ft. length. The structure that iv being co..structed by the
adjacent property owner is a utility building or an accessory building which
is not a garage and is not in keeping with the request for the variance.
4. The variance was 8.5 ft. It is my understanding that the variance
is to the save line and not to the foundation. The eaves of the proposed garage
_. __ _ .. awes. Last tau retaining wall because of the fact that
footings are required for the construction of saws would be a structure and
therefore not a permitted encroaehwat. The construction of the retaining
:all is in fact a permitted ancroachwsnt, with the subsequent filling of the
area bahind the retaining wall is an alteration of the contour of the land
which should not be persittud without the consent of the adjacent property
owner and without a dat&:lad engineering study to make au" that the alterations
of the contours of the drainage area does not adversely affect any of the a#Jacent
property owners or the lake.
2. That the adjacent property owner in the course of constructing the
retaining wall had his workers go on to the S erling property tatting brush,
bushes and small trews and otherwise deatto)ing the surf*" vegetation. Should
they now be required to replace the destroyed vegetation and to replace the
Swsrling property in its condition prior to the construction of the retaining
wall?
5. ♦ garage is a single story structure with no more than an 8 ft. side
well and a 24 ft. length. The structure ahat is being constructed by the
adjacent property owner is a utility building or an accessory building which
is not a gauge •^d is not in keeping with the ruquast for the variance.
6. The variance was 8.5 ft. It is n understaudin8 that the variants
is to the aew atna and not to the foundation. The eaves of the proposed garage
,
City of Orono
November 9, 1978
Page 2
are almost on the property line and all of the run off from the roof will be
u� on to Mr. and Mrs. Snarling's property. The structure should therefore be
moved so that the save line is 1.5 ft. from the property ..ine and that the
foundation is approximately 3 ft. from the property line.
5. That any structure allowed within the 10 ft. set back pursuant to
NQ�"0. the variance granted by the City should not have a aide wall height in excess
Pp` of 8 ft.
6. That any roof water should be diverted in such a fashion as to
not create any undue hardship on the Smerling property.
The type of buildings and structures constructed by the property owner within
the area of his property reduced by the set back requi. ement is discretionary
with the property owner subject to being in conformu ce with code requirements.
Structures built within the 10 ft. set back area should be constructed in
accordance with a design which results in minimal.
Sincerely,
LOUIS B. OBERHAUSER
LBO:vl
cc: Mr. Louie B. Smerling
AYa! [ Du n.Lwe
N iLVIN M. il[Otl
KIDNEY LO R[[w
•lex er WAwwow!
AweLe D. nuD.Jw.
�uLN 1. WAsxs
xoxu o. rn NSLRo
Yew wl[ Y. ILL'
w' Ywx
a[owo NO
Y 1<xA[A. AW1NMOtI
[T[wMLN w. NwL.LVY
CNML[L N. YNW
M.LM CY C. DRLNLw
LOW ELL J. NJTL[OON
O. ONO[ L Nos[.0.11 NIOLL.JR.
r xeeww f. xu.n
LTLVLM D. OLwV rfiw
aww 01F.Cas
LEONARD. STREET AND DEINARD
voe xATIex.LL CITY WANK [UILOINo
L10 YA[OULTT[ AVLNU[
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA D6402
rs ttwxox[ wm ais-leoo
uuL AOWAu[�'Lsox D'
W:Iliam B. Van Nest,
City of Orono
3295 Carmen Road
Excelsior, Minnesota
November 20, 1978
v[wN ex J. e.vloioN
I tLFM LN w. LIt Y.N
DAV10 C.LALR
LowAwe Y. Yo[wv ito LR
wosswr Liwn WAK+nw!
AYN J WIL[M!x•
400M J.1xLNC[R. Jx.
MVOM M. NATN ARO
w... L.. ..... iw
N ICMALL .L. N[FICM
O wLOORY 4OANL
o{owo{ N.1,..1... osn-Bell
I.A.. Lof-�eul
L{x[01Cr 0[1M.wD 111N •1![M
RECLERLEM—
KIWI 11:8,
NOV 21 1=
Mayor CM OF. ORONO
55331
Re: Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
As I explained in my previous letters to you on this
matter, we are attorneys for Mr, and Mrs. Louis Smerling who own
the property at 2683 Casco Point Road. The Smerlings oppose the
granting of any permits or variances requested by Mr. Holzer, their
next -door neighbor.
The purpose of this letter is to notify the Planning
Commission and City Council of our desire to place the garage
variance granted to Mr. Holzer back in issue as part of these
proceedings on the ground that the variance granted is now
terminated.
On August 16, 1978, an application for a variance was
e.Ae,uLeu iy MX. Holzer. in COILjultution wi Lh LI'LaL application, a
plat of survey and construction plans were submitted. Approval of
the variance was recommended by the Planning Commission at its
meeting of August 28, 1978. City Council approval occurred on
September 13, 1978.
Subsequent to the granting of the variance for construction
of a garage, construction was commenced on the Holzer property.
In the course of that construction, the conditions of the variance
were violated in at least three respects.
First, the variance was requested and granted for "reconstruc-
tion" of the then existing garage. Instead, the previous structure
William B. Van Nest, Mayor
November 20, 1978
Page 2
lately razed and a totally new structure was erected. The
ion between new "construction" and "reconstruction" is
tant element in ruling on a request for a variance. Con -
of a non -conforming use is more compelling where the struc-
to be simply remodeled than where it is to be completely
wn. Where it is to be completely razed, there is less
ty to the owner in requiring any garage to be located in
nce with the setback requirements or at least to be located
than 1.2 feet from the neighboring lot.
Second, it was astutely pointed out by one of the Planning
Commission members at the last meeting that the garage which was
actually built deviates substantially from the construction plans
submitted. The plans show a height of 13 feet, whereas the actual
slants toward the Smerling property. As another member of the
Planning Commission noted, that roof design might not have been
approved had the greater height been before them at that time.
Third, the design of the eaves violated the Building Code
and was the reason fox a stop order being placed on the project.
However, that violation was apparently remedied and the atop order
lifted.
Section 32.370 of the Orono Zoning Code states: "A violation
of any condition set forth in granting a variance shall be a violation
of the Zoning Code and automatically terminates the variance." An
implicit condition in granting of a variance is that the work will
conform to the plans which were submitted and upon which the Planning
Commission and City Council based their decisions. Mr. Holzer
violated not only that implicit condition, but also the explicit
condition that the prior structure was to be 'reconstructed". by
Since the previous garage variance is now terminated and of
no effect, the existing structure is in violation of the Code. In
the absence of a new granting of a variance, the structure must be
removed.
In ruling on any new garage variance, the Planning Comm-
ission and City Council should not reward Mr. Holzer for his behavior
in ignoring the terms of the previous variance. Mr. Holzer should
be required either to relocate the garage in conformity with the
setback requirements or, at the very least, to cut it back down
to the originally proposed 13 foot level.
William B. Van Nest, Mayor
November 20, 1978
Page 3
Thank you once again for your consideration of the
Smerlings' position in this matter.
MAN:cb
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Louis Smerling
Mary C. Butler
Walter B. Massengale
Norman W. Paurus
C. Paul Pesek
Tom Frahm
John Hammerel
Greg Hannah
very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
A
Michael A. Nekich
Richard Hassel
Jo Ellen Hurr
Gloria McDonald
C. Steven Wilson
Bruce D. Malkerson
Alan P. Olson
Esq.
LIP -111
• • "W erne[[
LEONARD, STREET AND DWINARD
\ \........ use NwnoxwL cm uN[ ... LDIx0
Mi WIN L u[ou ue Y.weu[ne wV[Nu[ ¢V VXLN w. uTY.N
i owir �Owwiw[ MIMNBIMOL4,. MINNESOTA U/O[ sowiwe n�roLav uo[w
O O. nLL O. Jw. 00...I w.wu.....
V"O
w LL[N , (p\ T[K.XOYL 1\�aI a[-1(00 wLwN J. IG[N\C
TM4... ..... .. ew[u weew([.1%...o (LOOM J. [....... Jx.
MOw wi[ N. [M[N YI1N NL'.M M. N.YMwwO
o[Ow0( wLIL LT M. Ngl[I/. [OX.II[w
."tD L .. [WIwMOI1 Xw(L w. M[x10M
DwwD N. co\ e�wowr L. D.NL
.T(wX[N w..Y�YY November 21, 1978
enwuu .
wxm' e. Dsd sw N. nw[[e lun•u\e
LowuL J. noT[\ooN \aw[m0V DUN.we I�u\-V\q
O [O NOL L Y.OVx NIO IL.Jw.
LT[V(X D. DLwVVT(x 1 ✓J 1. � 1� � V V �,1 IOw(NJL[COTT
W NOY 22 1M tlJe
Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. erry OF ORONO
IDS Center, Suite 4344
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Dear Bruce:
Since the Orono Planning Commission has apparently referred
to you certain aspects of the above -captioned matter, I am writing
on behalf of Louis Smerling who has appeared in opposition to
Mr. Holzer's application for a conditional use permit and variance.
Certain legal issues were raised by my client and by members of the
Planning Commission at the last meeting. Those questions must be
resolved before the Planning Commission can make its recommendation
on this matter.
You should have received copies of my letters of November
loth, llth, and 20th which werc addressed to Mayor Van Neet, with
copies to all members of the Planning Coc®ission and City Council.
Those letters state my client's position on several matters relevant
to your inquiry. To the extent possible, I will try to avoid simply
restating those prior comments.
')ne area of controversy in this matter revolves around the
legal nature of the wall which Mr. Holzer is constnicting around
his property and how the characterization of that wall affects the
ordinances which apply to that land. Th. Orono Zoning Code uses
the terms "fences," "walls," and "structure." Only the term
"structure" is actually defined in the Zoning Code. 530.040.
Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq.
November «, 1978
Page 2
It is my client's position that the retaining wall constructed
by Mr. Holzer is a "structure" within the meaning of that term as
it is defined in 530.040. Thie subject is more.fully discussed in
my letter of November llth and in Louis Oberhauser's letters of
October 19th and November 14th t: the City of Orono. The bottom
line is that, as a "structure", the retaining wall is subject to the
10-foot setback requirement imposed on "accessory structures" by
§31.436. The entire wall (on allsides of the lot) is, therefore,
in violation of the non -encroachment provisions of the Zoning Code
and must be completely removed.
If the retaining wall to not determined to be a "structure"
within the meaning of the ordinances, then the next question is
whether it constitutes a "fence" or a "wall". As I mentioned on
Page 2 of -my letter of November loth, §§31.433 and 31.434 of the
Zoning Code distinguish between "fences" and "walls" for purposes
of permissible locations and heights. That distinction is not
inadvertent, but rather is based on a rational distinction between
the nature of a "fence" and that of a "wall".
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines a "fence" as
"a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to make a
boundary; esp.:such a barrier made of posts and wire or boards."
A "wall' is defined to be "a masonry Jence-around a garden, park,
or estate" or "a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as
of water or sliding earth)." It is, of course, possible to argue
that a wall is simply a type of fence and, as such, is subject to
the same restrictions. However, the Zoning Code should ba construed,
wherever possible, so as to give meaning to the distinctions in
terms made therein. The only logical interpretation is that by a
"fence" is meant a wire or board structure and -that by a "wall" is
meant a masonry structure or a structure supporting earth or water.
She structure Li issue her., sa ..ar, be dibeeraed from Alan Olson's
memorandum of November 3, 1978 to the Planning Commission and City
Council, is not only a very substantial masonry structure, but is
also a retaining wall behind which grading and filling has occurred.
Another rule to be applied in construing zoning provisions
in Orono is that where two provisions conflict, the stricter one
is to be given force. 1=1.020.
The result to be reached through the above discussion is
that as between 5531.433 and 31.434 of the Zoning Code, §31.434
would apply on the facts of this case and would require removal of
the entire wall as it surrounds the front yard of the Holzer
property and limitation of the remainder to a height of six feet
as calculated from the natural grade.
Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq,
November 21, 1978
Page 3
If §31.434 is to be applied to require complete removal
of the wall from the front yard, it is necessary to determine which
yard is the "front yard" for purposes of applying zoning restrictions
(i.e., the lake side or the street side of the lot,.
The definition of "front yard" in the Zoning Code, 530.040,
might lead one to believe that the street side of a lot is always
the front yard. However, the Code definition fails to distinguish
between lakeshore lots and other lots. It also fails to address
the way in which the lakeshore lots have been used. On Casco Point
Road generally, and on the Holzer property specifically, the lake
side of the lot has been and is currently used as the front yard.
As you are aware, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that
front and rear yard requirements of zoning ordinances must be
applied to lakeshore property in a manner designed to recognize
the use of the property and avoid absurd results. Cirvan v. Count
of LeSueur, 305 Minn. 175, 232 N.W.2d 888 (1975); State v. a k- er,
Win: 451, 197 N.W.2d 216 (1972). It would in ee F� r-tea- i
interpret 531.434 to permit any lakeshore property owner to er at
a six-foot wall all around the lake side of hip, lot. Imagine ;ne
resulting damage to the character of the nei-liborhood if subst..-cial
numbers of owner^ choose to erect such walls, cutting off thei
neighbors' views of the lake. Such a result could not conceivably
be within the policies and intent of Orono's comprehensive zoning
code. $§30.020 and 30.030.
Another area of controversy involves the garage which has
been built on the Holzer property. My client's position on that
subject is laid out in my letter of November 20, 1978 which discusses
Mr. Holzer's violations of the conditions of the variance which he
had previously been granted. These violations are not de minimis,
but rather are substantial erough to autccatically terminate the
-iance under Zoning Code §32.370. Mr. Holzer obtained no approval
,rom the Planning Commission or the City Council for the changes
made and now is in violation of the ordinances. Therefore, those
two municipal bodies must now reconsider the request for a variance
on the garage.
I hope this letter will be of some assistance in forming
your legal opinion on the issues currently before the Planning
Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq.
November 21, 1978
Page 4
Commission. If you have any questions as to my client's position
on any subject, please feel free to call me.
MAN:cb
CC: Mayor William B. Van Nest
Mary C. Butler
Walter B. Massengale
Norma.. W. Paurus
C. Pau? Pesek
Tom Frahm
John Hammerel
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STRFFT AND DEINARD
By
Michael A. Nekich
Greg Hannah
Richard Hassel
Jo Ellen Hurr
Gloria McDonald
C. Steven Wilson
Al:n P. Olson
Telephone 4737367
CITY of ORONO
Poet Omn Boa 66•CryeW Ba;; Minnesota 562Me Municipal Omos
On the North Sham of Lake Minnetonka
November 22, 1978 .4 X
Mr. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
Dear Mr. Holzer:
Your application (U436) for a variance and conditional use permit
will not be considered at the Planning Commission meeting of
November 27, 1978. The specific items 4esignated by the Planning
Commission for in-depth study have not been completed.
You will be notified when the application is rescheduled.
Sincerely,
Jeshne Mebuysytlh'k�
Assistant Zoning Administrator
JAM:kh
cc: Mr. Smerl'_ng
Mr. Oberhauser
Mr. Nekich
KELLEY & KELLEY, Inc. Long Lake, Minn.55356
Kd
NURSERY AND LANOSCPPING sworv[ 11a-i)9v .n[. ere
November 22, 1978
Leonard, Street & Deinard
1200 National City Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Attention: Mike Nekich
Re: Louis R. Smorling Residence
2683 Casco Point Road
Gentlemen:
The Smerline property is lower that the adjoining
property to the north. There was a good hedge cover along
the East - Nest line, preventing erosion. Even after ..a
very wet season of 1977 - 1978, them was no sign of
erosion on the Snarling lend.
The high bank that eroded this summer was due to
excessive rainfall, which saturated the ground. The trees
and shrubs had been trimmed too close to the ground so that
they were inadequate in holding the ground on the bank.
Cordially,
y J
Lester S. Kelley, President
LSK: bhn
Tdshona 4W7667
CITY,
OF
ORONO
Mr. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
CITY of ORONO
Pent Onim Boa 669QysW Pay, Minnmota 6IM-Munidpd Owes
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka 4�
November 24, 1978
Re: #436 Conditional Use Permit 6 Variance
#417 Garage Variance
Dear Mr. Holzer:
Two items=nneerning your application will be informally discussed
by the City Council at their November 28, 1978 meeting:
1. The City Council will be asked to authorize extra
expense by the City attorney ani the City engineer to
undertake studies requested by the Planning Cotmaission.
According to Ordinance, the Council may direct that such
charges be paid by you as the applicant.
2, The City Council will be asked whether or not they
should reopen the variance case concerning your garage.
The Smerlings have charged that the variance is violated
because of an increase in the height from 13ft. as proposed
to 18ft. as built. Copies of letters from their attorney
are attached. Because of this issue, I advise you to stop
work on the garage until the Council's decision. I will
not issue an official stop order unless so directed by the
Council.
No substantive issues will be discussed or
until after the staff research and Planning
If you have any questions or objections to
I get a written copy before the meeting.
decided by the Council `
Commission's recemmenda t ions.
the above, please see that
Sincerely,
Ala P. Olson
Yilg_e Planner cc: Mr. Lou Smerling
- -- Mr. Mite Nekich
I / - Mr. Louis Oberhauser
Mr. arms& NalkAw"a
a
T�
ism....
LINDQUIST 6 V E N N U M
.........
e.vlp J. o.Ytw.ent
...... L...WNAu
w..R .. J......
Y... Y. ACNYdN
ILIC M11Y0 .. RiY V iM
x....
4Y00 105 CGNTCY . SO SOUTH SOP STREET
JLIINLr PLCN Yipi
e L[xNYx
NN1 N1x[ J
IYOTMr v. LYTL[n
t Y0[N[ X x^*, NNO
.....e1. .AIN.w
NIN NCA PO LIS. NIN N[/OTA /[YOU
xOLLM .wrt4M[L L. A.
JAYo I. N uY
L p.or
NANp J. nim u4Lp
x OOLT uv
..IL.. J.
T[LCPNON[1/IEI O]I'YYII
�.L[N
W.CLAV x.MI..
...Ii
[OWMO J. NPN[P
[.YCL A..
JONN A.10 [LT
CABLE AD DI1[86: LIN LAW
n00[LT J....
..
X [. IOx
Je[t.N 4. xOxL[N
J[L[OLp F. .[PO L\LN
W.I.A. T. OOMx
M LLIAN C. MORT{Mf iM
JOMN ..TPOTxYAN
WAY CALL OII10[
A
......LIAOx YLTI. .\.
LA
AI.O..
.O.[LT V. AIM O[[
S.T
IRA A. . .11B
N.LTSATR. YIM MLLOTA [.).1
JONM ...I...'
.. YNI
..Y... ITCX
TMON.t M.O.N11 [TT R
O.LLTtt 4 V.NOII
TXOX.. YINNYM
V AVM{ \..IV[xiLOM
p[N xl. Y. Y1TX1[{x
November 28, 1978
Mr. Alan P. Olson,
Village Planner
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Dear Al:
G�E0EoV
NOV 28 IM
317T OF. OHONO
Pursuant to my visit to your office [ November 27, 1978,
I hereby confirm that we have just been retained by the
Holzers to represent them in this matter. As you know, it
has gotten sufficiently complicated that it is best that
they have someone on their side who understand3 these matters
better than the average layman does.
With respect to your letter of November 24, 1978, I have now
talked to you about the actions proposed for the council
meeting on November 28, 1978 and in addition, I have talked
to Mike Nekich, one of the Smerlings' attorneys. I have put
in a call to Lou Oberhauser, but I have not yet heard back from
him. My concern about the council meeting of November 28, 1978
is that I am not sufficiently apprised of the situation to make
a meaningful presentation, not to mention the fact that I have
another planning commission to go to or November 28, 1978 and
therefore cannot attend. By this letter it is my intention to
ask for a postponement of any decisive action by the Orono City
Council until I can apprise myself of the facts, attempt to
reach an accommodation with the Smerlings, and provide data now
in our hands to the City of Orono before it commences its own
independent review.
Specifically, I would ask you to hold off directing having work
done by the city attorney or the city engineer which would be
LIKDOUIST 6 V E N N U M
Mr. Alan P. Olson,
Village Planner
November 28, 1978
Page 2
billed to my clients until we can present to you the informa-
tion already in our hands. I have talked to Mr. N�kich and
have told him that we have engineering data already done,though
not in presentable form, and we will present this to the City
on or before Monday, December 4, 1978 which should give your
enginoer time to critique our engineer's data and to inspect the
site. I have agreed to provide this same data to Mr. Nekich
so that the Smerlings might have the apportunity to do the
same. With respect to the garage variance question, I believe
that Mr. Nekich and I are in agreement that since the garage is
substantially built, there would be no prejudice to anyone at
this point in putting off any decision on this matter for twc
weeks. I would, therefore, ask that you delay consideration of
this matter for that two week period.
In sum, it is my intention to now become fully involved in the
matter and to explore the resolutions of the numerous intertwined
issues with an attempt to resolve as many of them as 1 can
between the Holzerc and the Smerlings, and the Holzers and the
City of Orono and then making an appearance first before the
Planning Commission on December 11, 1978, and then before the
Council on December 12, 1978 with an eye toward having only a
few issues remaining which need formal action at the Council level.
In view of the fact that I cannot attend your meeting on November
28, 1978, I would hope that the proposals set forth in this letter
are satisfactory and fair to you. I am having the letter hand
delivered to both of the Smerlings' attorneys ; noon of today,
November 28, 1978, so that they will be appri d . my position on
the matter. Unless I hear from you to the contrary, I will take
it that these proposals are satisfactory and that no actions will
be taken on November 28, 1978 which would be prejudicial to my
clients.
Thank you for your time today.
Very truly yours,
LINDQUUII)ST & VENNUM
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RGM:mes
CC: Mayor William B. Van Nest Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq.
Richard Hassel, Esq. Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Holzer
Louis B. Oberhauser, Esq.
Michael A. Nekich, Esq.
x;,
• 1 �lri�_
Jw�..�
Wboic"oprigting &'(vqw, Go.:1r.
BBBB BROOKLYN BLVD.—BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. E6170
TELEPHONE (61Z 661i170 Ee MIshed 196/
REGU1,AR NETTING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 28, 1978
Planning Commission Meeting - Novenber 13, 1978
Planning Commission moved for preliminary approval
of the Burt Corwin plat. Commission members felt
it was not necessary to remove the unsafe shed on
the 19-plus acre lot. There are no setback problems
for the existing buildings. Park dedication fee to
be determined by staff and applicant to select
method of wetlands designation.
Page 3
SUBDIVISION
1125 Bunter Drive
(Continued) _
Council Meeting - November 28, 1978
Mr. Corwin and Mr. Robert C: Scott, real est.# •/V`
broker, were present.
Mayor Van Nest moved, Pesek seconder'., to give
preliminary approval for the subdivision request
of Burt Corwin, 1125 Hunter Drive, subject to
two acres dry buildable land, not to include road
right of way or wetlands, park dedication fee being
paid, dedicated right of way for Hunter Drive, and
conservation and flowage easement. Motion, Ayes (4)
Nays (0).
Mr. James Bloemendahl, Department of Natural LUCE LINE TRAIL
:'.esourc_s, presented plans for a rest area at Rest Area
Willow Drive and the Luce Line Trail, Niforopulos Willow Drive
property. He stated that there would be no snow-
mobile trails, no camping nor over -night camping,
and no off-street parking. It would consist of
trails, picnic area, and general rest area.
Mayor Van Hest requested thatconcerned citizens
in the area: Donald Scott, Judd Ringer, and Mr.
Dickey be informed of the plans that will be
presented again at the next Council meeting.
Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, stated that the
Planning Commission is in the process of review-
ing an application by Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco
Point Road. The application is for a variance and
conditional use permit to approve work which is
already su`^stantially completed. Involved is a
concrete wall, a retaining wall and scme filling
and grading.
The Council is asked to give staff direction
concerning two procedural issues. The Council is
not asked to review any substantive issues until
the Planning Commission has completed their
review and made their recommendation.
s
/ COtIDITIONAL USE PERRI�
v VARIANCE
2677 Casco Point Road
i436
Alexander Holzer
(Continued)
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 28, 1978 Page 4
a. The City is asked to authorise extra expense by CONDITIONAL USE PQRM.
the City Attorney and the City Engineer to under- VARIANCE
take studies requested by the Planning Commission. 2677 Casco Point Roar
According to ordinance, the Council may direct (Continued)
that such charges be paid by the applicant.
The attorney has already answered the Planning
Commission's questions. The applicant's
attorney has requested time to submit his own
additional engineering before the City undertak# 4 3
a special study. The staff recommends that no
unusual engineering studies be undertaken but
that the City Engineer should review the -applicant's
submittals according to normal procedures.
The City Council is asked whether or not to reopen
variance case 4417 concerning a garage on the
property. A complaining neighbor has charged
violation of the variance and has requested re -
review along with the other matters. Staff recom-
mends that the variance was properly reviewed,
proper Pere'
ts were subsequently issued, and the
building is being built within the code and
variance requirements. We recommend not reopening
the case at this time.
Mr. Mitchell, the applicant's attorney, requested
by letter that no work be ordered which would be
chargeable to his client and t.,at he be allowed
time to respond to all matters. Mr. Nekich, by
telephone, agreed to the delay but did restate
his request for an independent City engineering
review.
Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to deny authority
for unusual City engineering expenses, limiting
engineering costs to the normal review procedures;
to decline to reopen variance case 4417 according
to staff recommendations and to defer all substantive
review of the issues until after the Planning
Commission makes a study of the facts and presents
recommendations to the Council. Motion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0).
James
r®baax
arc sictect
2 3 4 2 0
park street
excelsior,
minnesota
5 5 3 3 1
Mr. and Mrs. Louis R. Smerling
2552 West Lake of the Isles Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405
Re: Casco Point Road Home
Orono, Minnesota
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smerling:
November 29, 1978
You indicated in our recent telephone conversation that your Casco Point Road
neighbor, Mr. Holzer, has said that he constructed the retaining wall along the
line between your properties to control erosion. I feel that there are some
points which should be made in response to that rationale.
I was not aware through our meetings earlier this fall that Mr. Holzer had an
erosion problem prior to his building of the wall. The first recommendation I
would make for controlling erosion on his site would be to not disturb the site
in the first place since that is often the event preceding the beginning of
erosion. If he did have a problem, the two courses of action available would
be (a) to minimize the velocity and concentration of runoff water, and (b) to
establish and maintain a healthy vegetative cover. Generally, the vegetative
cover will provide the necessary controls and is often far less disruptive and
less costly than other techniques.
A vegetative cover which approximates the native forest typical to this area
would be the preferred measure of erosion control because the combinations of
plants create continuous cover for the soil both holding the soil mass with the
roots as well as retarding water movement a.ross the surface. There are alter-
native plant combinations which will perform somewhat the same functions;
however, most of these horticultural approaches require more effort to maintain
their viability.
The role of retaining walls in an erosion control program is primarily to
reduce the velocity of water by lessening the slopes it traverses. This is
only one aspect of an effective control program, however, and in some instances
can cause additional problems. In the case of Mr. Holzer, reducing the velocity
of the water above the wall in his yard may have caused that water to be absorbed
into the soil behind the wall 'which could result in structural H-obiems) as well
as problems with the dispersal of water immediately behind the wall. If he is
planning to divert water from running into your yard, whe,-e is that water going
and how will it be handled?
Mr. and Mrs. Smerling - 2 - November 29, 1978
My conclusion is that the erosion problems Mr. Holzer may have had or could have
antitipated could have been resolved more simply, far less disruptively and
significantly cheaper with a program of planting.
The importance of healthy vegetative cover should be obvious to you after your
recent washouts on the lakeside ilope of your property. I feel that the cause
of this slope failure can be laid in great part on the mismanagement of 6.e
plantings which had been there for years. The repair of your slope should
involve a two-part program: (a) Filling and grading along with a system of
subsurface structure for initial re-establishment of the slope; (b) Replanting
to provide the proper cover to the soil.
If you have any questions or would like me to elaborate, please feel free to
call.
Sincerely,
Jam s Dn
JR/mr
cc: Mike Nekich
Lenard, Street and Uinard
Telephone /78.7667
CITY of ORONO
Pon OBI. Boa 66eCryaW Bay, Minnewla %M-Monidpsl OMew
On the North Shore of Lake Minutonka
November 30, 1978
Mr. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
Re: A436 Conditional Use Permit 6 Variance
Dear Mr. Holzer:
On November 28, 1978, this matter was before the City Council for
determination of two procedural questions per my letter of
November 24, 1978. No substantive facts were discussed.
The Council declined to authorize any unusual work by the City
engineer, confining his work to review of data submitted by you.
The additional studies mentioned by Mr. Mitchell must be provided
for review by the engineer prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
This means that I must have any new information at least ten days
prior to a meeting with de— dlines being December 1, 1978 for the
December 11, 1978 meeting and December 29, 1978 for the January 8, 1979
meeting.
The City attorney has advised staff of his interpretations of the
zoning code where such questions were raised by the Planning Commission.
The Council declined to reopen variance case ($417) on your garage.
The Council feels strongly that much of the controversy can be resolved
by agreement between yourself and Mr. Smerling. They encouraged
negotiations through your respective attorneys. Failure to resolve
the matter between yourselves wall result in the City having to act
most likely in a manner which will satisfy neither party.
Sincerely,
41anlson
Village Planner
cc: Mr. Robert Mitchell
Mr. Mike Nekich
Mr. Louis Oberhauser
Mr. Lou Smerling
AFO:kh
wxo[ •. ouxwwo
x [LVIx x. LIWtL
LIDNp LORLLR
•I O'N 2r • Row•
uDLD D rlLto.�R.
[N ca
TM O4w[ Ow a b N[[RO
NORRI[N [R NwN
O Lowe[ I�[.LIL Lr
...... w. [wunorr
DwVIo n.c^ w
[TLPM LN ..IMYN
C N4RLtl 6. RML
NAncr a. Dw[nLw
aDwLLL J. xD.[.DDN
LD RDL r. N.DYxI.ID Lt.JR.
IR[O RIC 1. RO[[NL L.LrT
[TLV[N O. DaRVrTM
LEONARD. STREET AND DEINARD
NOO N.LTIO NwL CMr [1NN LUIt DING
•10 NwNOV[TT[ WLN UL
N IN N CAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SSROL
m LRx o x[ yul ........
December 1, 1978
OEC
rt swn[n .,. DAxIDmn
i t[wn Ln L. LIT4wM
wV10 C. Lw IL
iO W.LRO N.NO[RLI[LDiw
LRT L[WIL LwwwowL
ALA W 1:[N[[r
N UOM N N
L[X.Lrr[R
8CHAF
M..I
A
xwll x N[[I[N
........ DANL
worn
w.D[ax ^D
u[L[ ii6D'
William B. Van Nest, Mayor C1TY OF. OftONO
City of Orono
3295 Carmen Road
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
Re: Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
I received today a copy of Alan Olson's letter of
November 30, 1978 to Alexander Holzer informing him of the
actions of the City Council at its November 28th meeting.
Certain wording in that letter troubles me and I would like
to clarify for the Council the agreement I had reached with
Robert Mitchell, attorney for Mr. Holzer.
Mr. Mitchell contacted me earlier this week to ask me
whether I would be willing to agree to having the Council defer
making its decisions on the matter listed in Alan Olson's letter
of November 24, 1978 until he had the opportunity to acquaint
>imeetf ...irh the c,ee and submit certain engineerirg a_tx I
consented on the following express conditions: (1) that the
decisions would only be deferred for two weeks; (2) that I would
receive copies of the engineering data submitted to the City by
December 4th; (3) that my client was not waiving any rights to
raise any issues; and (4) that my client could still request
further independent analysis by the City Engineer and City Attorney
if suclL proved necessary after reviewing the data submitted by
Mr. Mitchell. That understanding was conveyed to Alan Olson in
our telephone conversation on Tuesday prior to the meeting and
it was on that basis that I agreed not to appear at the Council
meeting.
William B. Van Nest, Mayor
December 1, 1978
Page 2
It is with that background and in reliance on Mr. Olson's
representation that no "substantive" issues would be decided that
I now address certain statements in Mr. Olson's letter of November
30th. When it is said that "[T]he Council declined to authorize
^ry nnneual work by the Cite Engineer., confining his work to
review of data submitted by you...," I am assuming that it is
simply meant that no additional work will be done by the City
Enggineer until he has reviewed the Holzer data and that we may
still request further independent analysis by the City Engineer
if that proves necessary.
By Mr. Olson's statement, "The Council_ declined to reopen
variance case (p417) on your garage...", I am assuming that it is
simoly meant that the decision on whether or not to declare the
garage variance automatically terminated has been deferred for
later consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council
and that said issue remains before those bodies.
This morning I spoke to Alan Olson regarding his letter
and he once again assured me that no "substantive" issues had
been decided and that I would be free to argur before the
Planning Commission and City Council all issues we have heretofore
raised in this matter. Unless I hear to the contrary from the
City, I am assuming that to be true.
Let me conclude by saying that I hope some compromise
will be worked out between the Holzers and the Smerlings. However,
if that is not possible, I intend to pursue all issues which have
t tea„ d ... ::hatevar way .., necea.. ry.
Thank you very much.
MAN:cb
CC: Mr. & Mrs. Louis Smerlinp.
Mary C. Butler
Walter B. Massengale
Nor ... an W. Paurus
C. Paul Pesek
Tom Frahm
John Hammerel
Greg Hannah
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET & DEINARD
By
r:ichael A. Nekich
Richer Hassel
Jo Ellen Hurr
Gloria McDonald
C. Steven Wilson
Bruce D. Malkerson,
Alan P. Olson
Robert G. Mitchell,
Esq
Jr., Esq.
LSO.... L LINOOOI.i LINDQUIST 6 V E N N U M
No.NA. L LL
%u..AA Y. A..ISA.
O[RALD cMAGNUSON
4200 IDS CENTER SO SOUTH SW STREET
ARO N. OL[xx9N
.[L.�N I.OR[NOLix
tuORN[N. Y[ATNO
MIHN[APOLIL. MIHN[LOTA SLJIO[
P. TIM[AV
RICHARO J..IGrI
RICN.T[O[Rrt0
NINPJ.ORTNVx
TELEPHONE IelEl ]ll][II
.AOLA1 B. MISS
[DWM J. NR.LR
JONN/.. .ORR[LT
CABLE ADDRESS: LINLAW
WILLIAN 4!O%
JL R[ROrALM
T.
WILLILLOOLAN
WILLM...
IAN CT.01.[N.[TI
JONN
WAY[A{A OfI1C[
0..TROTMM.N
WMALL
o.......1
."11 ..On[LNL[.
T40 EA.. LA.[
.0.TI.
V.aYOR[
TA ...
WM]AT....... \O.A L[]LI
JOHN ..w
IA.. .LDOCS
THOMAS['%
n m
DARYLt L ..orr+T
w..xR .. u.[noox
..,
December 4, 1978
Mr. Alan Olson
City of Orono
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: Alexander and Gitta Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Dear Al:
Enclosed is the engineer's report as promised.
Very truly yours,
LINDQUIST 6 VENNUM
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr./,m
RGM:mes
Enc.
or co.RLu
.A...[ ...A.'
O�unJ M+...AT.'...9426
�C0L!INl1�f1.
uu uu DEC 7 1978 '
CITY, OF ORONO
GORDON R. COFFIN
LAN..J.v.I.. AN. RLAN..R
1.se N/A1.R..WN R.A.
L.N. LARD MINNO!]e!
AO1.441
Mrs. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, Mien. 55391
Dear Mrs. Holzerl
4.36
12-4-78
The following comments are intended to expand upon the brief statements
made in the letter to you dated October 31, 1978.
Nature is constantly at work trying to reduce steep slopes to a flatter
grade. Remedial works are carried out with the object of stabilizing the por-
tions of the slope where slips have occurred or where they are likely to occur.
This can be achieved by the following measures:
(1) by providing some external support;
(2) by removing some of the weight tending to cause slipping;
(3) by increasing the strength of the soil within which the slip
surface occurs.
Not all of these measures are required in every situation. The met ex-
pensive and safe measure would be to construct a retaining wall at the bottom
of the slope. In order to be sufficient, however, the wall would have to be
fairly high compared with the height of the slope in question. When the
height of the wall represents only a small proportion of the height of the
embankment, little support can be expected, and elides at the top could still
occur. The foundations for the well would also have to extend below the slip
surface in order not to be undermined. I feel this would be too costly a
measure for your situation.
Another measure available would be to remove some of the weight of the soil
at the top which could cause slippage. This could be accomplished by construct-
ing one or more berme to reduce the weight in the upper portion of the bank.
Small retaining wells would be needed to hold back the stoup elopes between the
flat berms. The retaining well that you have partially constructed, and the
removal of some of the material at the top of the bank, as evidenced by the
flat berm, have helped in this respect. I feel a series of berme and retaining
walla would be safer but probably more costly for your situation than required.
Most slips occur in cohesive material and take place because the soil has
become weakened by an increase in moisture content. This is what appears to
have happened on your neigbbur's property- to the south, and considering the
similar soil conditions, elope of land, and vegetation present, a siml'.ar
result could occur on your property unless remedial steps are taken.
The measures needed to remody this situation are pr,viding surface drains
to direct the water in a desired manner, and establishing ground cover to bind
the soil and provide transpiration and shedding of moisture.
Mrs. Alexander Holzer - 2 - 12-4-78
Your property is higher in elevation than the surrounding property to the
north and south, and therefore runoff from your property has been flowing
onto the neighbors' land. Thus, retaining walls on the sides of your property
with some type of gutter or surface drain system would be necessary to direct
the runoff from entering adjoining property and also to prevent erosion of the
small banks on the aides of your property. If just a fence were constructed
on the aide lot lines, the water would flow onto the adjoining property as
before.
Seeding or sodding of all disturbed areas should be undertaken to prevent
imfiltration and weakening of the soil. In addition, vegetative cover should
be established along the steep bank to th3 lake to prevent erosion and weaken-
ing of the soil there. The planting of shrubs or bushes would also serve a
useful purpose.
Some type of remedial work is necessary to prevent erosion and slippage
similar to that which has occurred on adjoining property. I feel that of the
above described measures, the use of the retaining wall along with a properly
constructed series of awales, catch basins, vegetative cover, and drainage pipe
to divert water from the top of the bank would result in the required protec-
tion at the least cost. This will also prevent runoff from entering the
neighbors' property, which would exist if the ground remained in its natural
state. Should any additional information be needed, please notify me.
/Sincerely, /'y
Mark S. Gr,onberg,"
MSG:grc
ccs Robert G. Mitchell
TAephone 473 7357
CITY of ORONO
2 P..t Office B.. 66-Cry,W Ray. Minnesota 55373.M.nidpal Office
'yl On the North Shore o/ Lake Minnetonka
-_. December 13, 1978
Mr. Glenn Cook
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc.
2335 West Trunk Highway 36
Saint Paul,
Minnesota 55113
Re: #436 Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit
Dear Glenn:
Please review and comment on the attached letter from Mr. Holtzer's
engineer. You should already have a file on the matter. A site
visit may be appropriate. Please contact me to arrange a review
as soon as possible.
If we need more input from the applicant, we should know in
time to allow response before the first meeting in January
(Deadline 12-29-78).
Sincerely,
Alan P. Olson
Village Planner
APO:kh
Enc
I ...... .. LINpoNI.+ LINDWUIST 6 \/ENNUM .... J.... .... I
I....N L x...A. A'..
px[.a . x�c.uo ...x�N m.
•Lp C M.pNY.ax e200 105 CENTER - 80 SOUTH B•e STREET J[„x[• II aCx Nip+
x NON xRl [iIN[ J
pi O....[MST[iN ,NO TxV N
... ROE[R :O . ix
M INXE.ROL15. MIN XC90TIa SSwOE
I1R1ri ��(��j�✓�I1(S' 1n1I1IIp1 S
xwtLwr. F... TELEPHONE 10121 J'/I-3EI1 ` OFF IT V IL_ ep O[a[N
[pww.p J.: n.[ p �[ ...r.�
Jxp MM .. aOY[[•w qR` wN
LL..N L,O[ CABLE 1.O DRES S: LIN LAW... l[
cwR:;p •DOLAA!IIIIINItx
:1..... �-o.....[. JAN 1979
J..N N WAYZATA OiFIC[
wwvs . . a..o ..n LAx..1...
uT •....o a r ww.: u.. MlNxoo•. seen �.�E.
... .Loot" w1 ` OF omm
r. m
.—E... W..T.o. December 29,//, 1978A �E^n oL�: :.�.A'.....
Ms. Jean Mabuath W '"
City of Orono Z _v
Crystal Bay, MN
Re: Mr. a Mrs. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Jean:
Per our conversation of December 29, 1978, about the above
matter, you have not yet heard from your engineer as to
his thoughts about our engineer's report and recommendations
with respect to the Holzer's Casco Point Road property. As
a result, you have not been able to schedule the Holzer matter
as yet. On our side, I have been extremely busy with year-
end matters but intend to get you some more materials which
would be pertinent for the planning staff to review before
the matter came before the planning commission.
As a result of the foregoing, you and I discussed getting
'-.s matter on before the planning commission on January 22,
79, hopefully thus allowing plenty of time between now
then to get the matter fully explored. I also explained
I would be on vacation, happily, from February 8, 1979,
through March 3, 1979. Because of the scheduling of the
council meetings the only one that I could thus appear at
would be the meeting of January 23, 1979. I realize that
that puts the planning commission and council appearances
immediately one after the other, but considering that this
matter has been before the city before and considering that
the staff will now have had hopefull} ample opportunity to
delve into the matter, perhaps this would be possible.
My understanding then is that nothing more need be done from
our side to be on the planning commission meeting L.! January 22,
1979, and I loot forward to seeinq you then. thank you.
Very truly yours,
RGM:crg Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
x: Mr. S Mrs. Holzer
IM to. %04 me a. a_eaa r+. air. sear ri
It Assist ANusWb M08 AM sr...... r+. asu a mad,ri
sees C. aaasi l+. Asub L arW. l+.
awalaa A. lWe P ri
PS.
/air y PA
asses a n !+.aar W. wr, sI.
lYra a. tYF. It bYe a aa�lb R.
C. ors P.M. IIwY L. pa ri
a o.r C. .sr r+.
crr �. ear.
January 12, 1979 r
awr r. aa.
City of Orono
Box 66 4 3 6 Mum%
Crystal Bay, Mo. 55323 JAN 15 10
Attn: Mr. Alan Olson
Re: File No. 139-436 41TY OF ORONO
Halzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Dear Alan,
We have reviewed the wall construct n on the Halzer property relative to
drainage and potential erosion problems. The construction of the wall
will retain precipitation on the Halzer property and generally drain vest
to the lake. This will not cause any hardship on adjacent property owners.
The construction of the wall will create erosion problems as all water
from the lot will now be directed towards the lake over the recently dis-
turbed soils.
We would recommend that the excavated material below the wall be pulled
back to support the wall and the ground cover established as soon as possible
in the spring.
The disposal of the storm water from the lot should be addressed by the home
owner but we would recoessend some type of coarse rock filtration percolation
system adjacent the retaining wall with excess water from heavy rainfalls
being allowed to spill over the length of the wall.
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
V4, Zl�
Glenn R. Cook
GRC:li
49
g # 4- qn 6
T0: Planning Commission and Council
FkCM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator
DATE: January 16, 1979
SUBJECT: #436 Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I. Tentative Schedule for the Holzer Application
We have scheduled the Holzer application as an action item for the
Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 1979, for staff has received
the City Engineer's letter reviewing Mark Gronberg's report on need
for construction of wall and accompanying land alteration. Robert
Mitchell, applicant's attorney, has stated in a letter that he would
be on vacation from February 8, 1979 through March 3, 1979 and asked
that any action to be taken by Planning Commission or Council be
postponed until his return. (See letter dated December 29, 1978)
We have tentatively scheduled the application for Council's agenda
at their first meeting on March 13, 1979. Michael Nekich, attorney
for the Smerlings, called the Village Planner to ask for a postponement
if the Holzer application was to be scheduled for the Planning Commission
meeting of January 22, 1979 because the Smerlings would be vacationing.
He was advised to write a letter requesting postponement but this office
has received no written communication as of January 15, 1979.
II. Review of Application Since Planning Commission Meeting of
November 13, 1978
A. Letters listed in chronological order - if you have not
received copies of the letters listed below, please contact
the City office.
1. Letter to Mayor Van Nest from Michael Nekich - 11-20-78
2. Letter to Bruce Malkerson from Michael Nekich - 11-21-78
3. Letter to Alexander Holzer from ilan Olson - 11-24-78
4. Letter to Alan Olson from Robert Mitchell - 11-28-78
S. Letter to Alexarder Holzer from Alan Olson - 11-30-78
6. Letter to Mayrr 'Jan Nest from Michael Nekich - 12-1-78
7. Letter to Alexander Holzer from Mark Gronberg - 12-4-78
8. Letter to Jeanne Mabusth from Bob Mitchell - 12-29-78
9. Letter to Alan Olson from Glenn Cook - 1-12-79
Letters #345 and #749 have been included with the agenda
packets.
January 16, 1979
Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Variance/Conditional Use Permit
Page 2
#436
Response to Planning Commission's Questions Concerning
Legal Interpretation
The "front yard" as now written in our code refers
to the street side, hence all front yard requirements
are street side requirements. Since this code was
drafted, the Minnesota Supreme Co•has determined
that the lake aide is "front yar ice all front
yard requirements are also lake _equirements
where they refer to open space, etc. The "front yard"
extends from the building line to the lake or to the
street.
The front yard (Section 31.433) is primarily concerned
with view and height. No setbacks are required. Fences
and walla are both "structures" as defined in the code.
Differences exist in terms of hardcover (a -ea) and
construction method which shift regulation cF walls to
the lakeshore setback (Section 34.200) and grading
(Section 31.700).
The height limitation is imposed for construction and
open apace purposes. Therefore, height requirements
should be measured from the ordinary (original) ground
level to the top of the structure.
The purpose of the height limitations anywhere are as
stated in #3 above. Open space, view and esthetically/
environmentally "natural" landscapes are prime concerns
on all Lakeshore property.
C. Summary of City Engineer's Letter (dated January 14, 1
City Engineer states new drainage pattern will not "cause
any hardship on adjacent property owners", in fact, it will
improve drainage situation for neighbors to south and north.
The wall will create greater erosion problems to the west
because all drainage will be funneled in the direction of the
lake, engineer recommends all excavated material be placed
against west wall and ground cover established as soon as
possible. The applicant's plans for storm water disposal
moat be reviewed by City Engineer before installation of
any system.
January 16, 1979
#436
Alexander Holzerlzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Variance/Conditional Use Permit
Page 3
III. Alternative Actions Open to Planning Commission
A. Retaining Wall Within 0-75' of lAkeshore
1. Reasonable - Variance granted (Ordinance 34.202).
a) Hardship - extreme slope causing erosion -
need for wall within 75' setback.
b) Corrective measures:
1. None
2. Excavated material along slope to lakeshore
be placed against the outside of existing
west wall to equalize pressure.
2. Unreasonable - Variance denied.
a) Corrective measure
1. Existing wall removed within 75' setback,
and new west wall to begin at 75' setback
mark - all excavated material deposited
along slope to be placed against the outside
of new west wall.
B. Reasonable Height for Side and Front Yard Walla
1. Determination of Height
a) Low Point
1. Original grade - attorney & engineer
recommend original
2. New grade
b) High Point
1. Top of main structure
2. Top of pillars or columns
January 16, 1979
Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Variance/Conditional Use Permit
Page 4
#436
2. Reasonable Height for Front Yard Wall or Fence
a) 3-1/2' Maximum Height allowed by Ordinance 31.433
1. Corrective action - reduce height of wall in
front yard to 3-1/2' where
ever a deviation in height
exists.
b) Less than 3-1/2' - Lakeshore property requires greater
height limitation - concern with esthetics and natural
environment, open space, view, etc.
1. Corrective action - reduce height of wall to
(Recommendation
of Planning Commission).
3. Reasonable Height for Side Yard Wall or Fence
a) 6' Maximum Height allowed by Ordinance 31.434
1. Corrective action - reduce height of wall to
6' where ever a deviation
in height exists.
b) Less than 6' - Would a wall less than 6' have less
impact on neighbor's property - esthetics, financial,
etc...
1. Corrective action - reduce height of wall to
(Recommendation
of Planning Commission)
. #43 6
LEONARD. S TREET AND DEINARD
I.. ".'mvAL o'V 4"" OUILD,"D
r+n• t. Dn vwao am N wov vr[ A".." fr[ry [N J. .ov
vry v vvN[v A. uI.A..
•rDNO tOw[[wL MINNG eO LI p. MIN NLpp.OL OwvrO C.i.Lw
•ID M [r a wwOWf [O WAILO Y MO[Nff[LO[•
MAwOIO O'Ir[L .Jw. .[L VVON[ aii, :OTf A
LL[N L 4["f D LA ..L.
r[.t"rw"
rMO Ywt D..[rNt["O C.B.[ ADOwCff L[OMO XUON M
Yowra N. tN[wvwN •+[w
o w wD[ A. W. MAR .. w ws ...
M r ONA[L..awiw NO.e Ow ..0 L
COF .Y[f V
STERNER,"."'L^„Y January 11, 1979 "D•`"'
N..L[f .
N.Ncr c. on�w iw o un[.mu
LowuL J "oruooY ' un+ufn
O10r10[ I. NCOV VNrO L[.+N. Xw"O Y[O rf 01
•IL[O.. . . UIT [LA" 1Ir '.��'lI I1/I1jIY��I[�4r M,1
..[V[N D. D."1Ir'["�[CrD
WJAN 17 LM
Mr. Alan P. Olson, City Planner
City of Orono CITYOEOROAO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Dear Alan:
As we discussed in our telephone conversation of yesterday,
I am writing to request that the above matter be postponed from
the January 22nd meeting date before the Planning Commission to
the next meeting date. My clients will be on vacation in California
during that period and it would be very inconvenient and expensive
for them to return for that meeting.
My clients share the City's concern that this matter be
resolved as soon as possible. We have been prepared and willing
to proceed for the past two months and had hoped to be on the
agenda at the last meeting. This is the first postponement that
we have been forced to request.
Another two weeks' delay will be of no detriment to either
party because any work which is ordered probably could r.nt c,mence
for two or three months anyway.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
LEO'NAARRRDDD,, STREET AND DEINARD
By M. hae kich
MAN:cb HHii
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Louis R. Smerling Gregg Hannah
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr., Esq. Richard Hassel
William B. Van Nest Jo Ellen Hr-r
Tom Frahm Gloria McDonald
John Hammerel C. Steven Wilson
wwoL {. ou xwwo
N [LVIY X LRO[L
•ION [r . Ltw
n IN [r .0 wow{
NAwe.o o. nnLJw.
wuLN lnwu•
TXOYwL O. ILIN L[w0
M ONwIL Y. LM [N Y.LN
0 [ONOL XxLI A. N IC M W.wNO!!
e1V10 N. L
{tV :: YwVL
XLM L.w/LAUY
C NwwLU w.
wxer I.LN[w
LOW [LL J. MOTLL OON
O Lo wOL r. N.oUNN OIL[.Jw.
!w[Owm Lw+r
Lr[VLN ...... rt[w
LAW e{{1[9{
LEONARD. •TRRCT AND DlINARD 4
2 6
Il00 Nwn ON.L 01rr u.L ........
LIO MAOOU[T[ wV LNUL
MINNESOTA 68409
i u[lNON[ luul {{nuoo
LwLI[ AOONLLL YLONW
January 17, 1979
MECEOVEM
JAN 18 IM
Mayor Williom R Van Nest CITY OF CRONO
3295 Carmen Road
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
{Tvnen J. OwVIO{On
RVM{M x. LIT Y/.N
wV10 4 ywLX
{O.NIL N{ILLO{w
weOL ZAT wr uwu uwwowL
w llLxL n.
N VON Y wYN wxO
[eNwrr[w
ZIRAT
Nw[L IA.N[NICN
O w[O Owr L Owxl
wwY [L V.LY OTN
o[twT .e.YAr
ILOLOL L.......I IUSF IL N,
N Yw 4......T..... L[II
e[IYwwO IIN.{-IHq
m
�w iNL LIOT
Re: Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Application for Variance
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
Today I was Informed in a telephone conversation with
Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator, that the above
matter has been placed on the agenda for the Planning Commission
meeting of January 22nd, despite the fact that I had requested
a two -week postponement on behalf of my clients, Mr. and Mrs.
Louis Smerling. My request was initially made by telephone to
Alan Olson on January llth and was followed by my letter of that
same date (a copy of which is enclosed). Apparently problems
with the mails resulted in Mr. Olson not receiving my letter
until the 17th. However, I am assuming that copies were received
last week by the members of the Planning Commission.
Perhaps the Planning Commission has already decided to
grant my request for a two -week postponement. In that event,
th'3 letter in probzbiy ,.ancceccary. Nowsver, b?n O,Jpr WP —
on the agenda and I am unsure whether the matter will be considered
at that time it is necessary that I renew my request for post-
ponement. We have gone out of our way to accommodate the Holzers
and their attorney when they have requested postponements and now
simply ask that we be treated the same.
Ms. Mabusth also informed me that the City Engineer's
report on this matter has been completed. She has promised to
send me a copy of that report, as well as a copy of a letter
in which Robert Mitchell, attorney for the Holzers, apparently
requests another postponement, this time for the entire month
Mayor William B. Van Nest
January 17, 1979
Page 2
of February. Although Mr. Mitchell
he would be on vacation that month,
formal request for postponement had
receive a copy of his letter.
had mentioned to me that
I was not aware that a
been made since I did not
I will, of course, appear at the Planning Commission
meeting of January 22nd, since I have no other choice at this
late date. However, my clients will not be there. Their plans
were made three months ago when they believed that this matter
would be concluded by the end of 1978 and they have leased a
vacation residence in California for which they have already
paid.
I am still trusting that the Planning Commission will
see fit at.that time to grant our request for a two -week post-
ponement.. It would indeed be unfortunate if, after all the time
and expense put into this matter by the City and the parties,
the decision did not result from a thorough discussion of the
merits by everybody affected.
Thank you for your cooperation. I am sure that my clients
can trust in the good faith of the members of the Orono Planning
Commission and City Council now that they are all informed of
my client's predicament.
MAN:cb
Enclosure
cc: Mary C. Butler
Walter B. Massengale
Norman W. Paurus
C. Paul Pesek
Tom Frahm
John Hammerel
Gregg Hannah
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Bye*/ �ila.�*.l
Michael A. Nekich l(
Richard Hassel
Jo Ellen Hurr
Gloria McDonald
C. Steven Wilson
Alan P. Olson--'
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr., Esquire
Mr. 6 Mrs. Louis Smerling
L[.......u.DDmn
L I N D Q U I S T 6 V E N N U
M
.YIDJ o.Y..... I
....A. 11
.R. w JOM N[ON
B IWAL...
+200 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH pTn STREET
l[
I.
.NI.TF[+
Aww01IC.1.M[.1RmwIO
LNOL...D.
..LY.. OwIMR[Ix
LCNI.TCOCDTMRMT UYO
TIMOTHY[YDN
O
MINNE.POLIp. MINN[SOT. pp.0!
[IYLwO
LJR
I.Y[R.
NJ
S.11[.Y
C M.. LD
x COLttO
OHIR YN
TELEPHONE IpIPI DI ]PII
IROLL[N
N.CL.I w
r C.00 T.
A.
[owuo J. �cw[u
II
[x.uo
LTo�sI[ir
JONN.. ID ..81
CABLE ADDRESS: •.INL+w
a
.o«Uiw
.oF
JD.ox a
I.OLD I .... nL.
WILLIA+
C *.......
N
wAYZATA OrFICE
nwm o. esw .0
A. Dw.[NL[r
)+O [..T L..[ .TRm
OO. PI V vm[
w.r[+T........o a ..].I
Jox.. .ION
.+N cI
Iw... A. - IIA"Ws o m
I.o rr
I.D.A. Yl..U.
w.I.L +. uvutw.
o[N.IS .. Y.Iw...
January 19, 1979
Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth,
Rest. Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: No. 436
Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Dear Jeanne:
I have your memorandum to the Planning commission and
Council dated January 16, 1979. While I have not had a
chance to talk to my clients before sending you this note,
I am certain I speak for them in settling some of the out-
standing issues. The Holzers' plan to plant some new bushes
on the south side of their property facing the Smerlings'
property, and to sod or seed that area to restore it to good
residential landscaped condition.
They also plan to fully landscape their entire yard and to
plant additional bushes and ground cover not only for appearance,
but also for soil retentive purposes on their down slope to the
lake.
I enclose herewith Mr. Holzer's drainage plan which is a very
comprehensive system of pipes, catch basins, drains, and the
like. Naturally we understand that the installation of this
dr!inaae su iec to approval of your enginee--do,
however, want you to know that Mr. Holzer was always going to install
a comprehensive drainage system and that, as I have represented
LINDQUIST 6 V E N N U M
Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth
January 19, 1979
Page 2
before,one of the principal reasons the Holzers undertook this
work was to avoid problems with the neighbors as to water
flowing down off of the Holzers' higher ground onto the neighbor's
lower ground, and specifically flowing off their higher ground
into the neighbors' basements. As I believe you know, Mr. Downey
has had this occurence.
Secondly, the Holzers were much frightened by the earth slide
at the Smerlings' last summer and the other earth slide at the
Curt Carlsons', also I believe within the last year. These slides
occu*red on banks similar to theirs and they intend to take all
reasonable actions necessary to prevent such a slide from occurring
on their property. As one can see from their site plan, they
have very little space in their front yard which is at all level
and therefore they are most desirous not to lose any of it into
the lake via a slide. I have checked with Mr. Gronberg about the
efficacy of their efforts to prevent slides and I believe his
letter supports the reasonableness of the solution to the slide
problem which the Holzers have begun to make. The Holzers are
agreeable to making any other improvements to the premises which
would prevent slides, which would prevent pollution of the lake by
run-off, and which by means of plantings or otherwise would further
stabilize their hill.
The situation with regard to the fences is complicated, but
naturally we will rely upon your professional advice to the
Planning Commission and would hope that the Planning Commission
could recommend s-ch variances, if any, as may be necessary to
reasonably resolve the existing situation.
I will talk to the Holzers this weekend and we will specifically
respond to any questions the Planning Commission may have on
Monday, January 22, 197S. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
LI,�NDQQUUjISTT �& VEN/N)U/MJ/-�� f y
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RGM:mes
Encls.
CC: Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Holzer
LINDQUIST V E N N U M
LLoxuoLuxoam\l
6
O.vmJ owsxrowl
I... L.N{WxuL
JONNLex
¢ .0 NNAN
Y.M
OCOAL
0 [w.W [. .a NNY[ON
4200 .00 CENf[R t• p0 90U1N pSTREET
A. \cx X101
wx{
OL[NMON
J )rNOM
^N
N[LVIx �
Orxv M rl[w
[VO[N[ x M1ON
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA p[IO[
wOp[..XICM
N[\ n uVU
u...........
•O.Ov
1[
J O..xYx
TCL[PMONL Ipli) )il- )[II
\q0\\tM
J ONN :.00ttf
w.q
NYCt •. tNL..O
JDxxoP.rD•w[Er
CA[LC ADDRESS;IIMLAW
wOwUtJ-MNwrN.N
IOII
JO E[IN O. xONLtw
Wt•01•Lx
O DI.x
�OMw w. Arnor...x{N
WAYZATA Orrlc[
.Vint .�a
..O u\r LA[[ [v[[t
no[e R• V..
NA'.... MlxNuolA .....
JO NN •. w .�.o.{
I.
uw.xc{
t wow•• x. o.wn nr m
eovx\{L
wv L[ L.VINO11
tx OY A\ Y[NNVY
w.rx[ .. LlvL wlEOx
O{x MIL W YATMIE [N
January 22, 1979
nrono Planning commission
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: Holzer - 2677 Casco Point Road
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have spoken with the Holzers and gone over with them Jeanne
Mabusth's memorandum of January 16, 1919. They have endorsed
the statements I made to Jeanne in my letter dated January 19,
1979.
From Jeanne's letter, and from my conversation with her, I
understand that one of the principal issues is the original
configuration of the Holzer land before *hey commenced making
the recent improvements. The Holzers' land is the highest portion
of this particular part of the hill or embankment with the Downey
house to one side, and the Smerling house to the other side, both
being several feet lo,tr than the Holzers' house. In addition,
and this is most important, the lake side of the Holzers' slopes
down moderately to what was the edge of their lawn and then drops
down rather sharply 8 or 9 feet to an area, naturally level, which
area was and is about 20 feet deep. After the second level area
the bank drops off very steeply to Lake Minnetonka. I understand
that this has not been clearly understood and I attach some state-
ments from neighbors and some diagrams as proof.
From the submitted photographs, one can see the similarity between
the Holzers' hill, the Smerlings' hill, Curt Carlson's hill, and
the hill belonging to the neighbors of the Carlsons. In all of the
hillsides, excelt the Holzers', there has been a slide of earth with
varying degrees of severity and destruction. It is the prevention
L I N D Q U I S T 6 V E N N U M
Orono Planning Commission
January 22, 1979
Page 2
of this destruction which caused the Holzers to want to make
the improvements they are now hoping to make. We have had our
engineer, Mr. Gronberg, go over the placement of the wall and he
has approved this placement as a reasonable, practical way
to do the job desired. It is Mr. Holzer's intention to landscape
the lake side so it will be handsome. The placement of the
wall at the drop-off point is intended to stabilize the upper
slope of the Holzers' property which contains their lawn and house.
The Holzers are also willing to make other improvements to further
stabilize the entire hillside if you deem them advisable. They
plan to maintain the existing planting on their embankment and
will augment it where it seems necessary. Therefore, we respectfully
request that you allow the wall to be placed 15 feet inside the
75 foot lake set -back otherwise required.
With respect to the wall, we understand it can be built on the
property line. The fence on the Downey side is on the property
line and augments the existing fence there and is very much in
accord with what Mr. Downey wants to prevent any run-off from the
higher Holzer property from flowing onto the Downey property. We
have submitted a comprehensive drainage plan to the City Engineer
and we will work with him to perfect it.
On the Smerling side, the wall is actually two feet back from the
property line because at that point it better lined up with the
garage, preserving the original alignment of the lot. The only
bushes removed in this area were bushes on the Holzers' side of the
property line.
With respect to the height of the wall, apparently there is no
question that the fence along either side of the house can be as
much as 6 feet tall. We concur that height measurements should be
from the original grade. In no instance is there any problem about
the height of the wall along side the house. The wall is one to two
blocks or 8" to 16" in this area.
(,
a
With respect to the columns: the columns are intended to be decora-
tion and not a part of the wall. It is now intended that the columns
be four blocks high, or 32" high, above the existing wall. With
the columns being four blocks high, the wall rises to a total height
of about 48" at the columns. It is our request that you consider
the columns as decorative and, therefore, not count them in the
height of the wall. There is no problem alongside the house, but it
does get to be a complication when we get to the lake side of the
house.
LINDQUIST 6 V E N N U M
Orono Planning Commission
January 22, 1979
Page 3
With respect to your interpretation that a lot such as the
Holzers' has two front yards, I take it that it follows that
the height of the wall on the lake side should be limited to
3 1/2 feet. Assuming this is the case, there is no problem with
the wall as planned not counting the columns. The wall has
been placed at a point on the slope where at no time is the wall
more than 3 feet tall. On the Smerlings' side of the wall, the
height ranges from about 3 feet to about 5 feet, but this does
not take into account the dirt forming the slope which was removed
to make way for the footing for the wall. It would be possible
for the Holzers to put back the dirt on the Smerlings' side of the
wall thus restoring the grade of the land to its original. This
seems to us rather unnecessary to demonstrate the original level
of the ground, but it can be done. As the logical alternative
via-b-vis restoring the site to good condition, the Holzers' were
going to plant new bushes on the Smerlings' side of their wall,
on their own property, thus restoring this portion of the property
to the appearance as it was before this construction. It should
be noted that the considerable amount of bushes both on the
Smerling property and on the Holzer property, the Smerlings never
&'4 have a view across the Holzers' lawn so the bushes should
restore the status quo ante.
On the Downey side, there doesn't seem to be any controversy about
the wall, but again the dirt could be put back to where it was such
that one could see that the wall at no point exceeds 3 1/2 feet
in height, and is more like 3 feet all alongs its extremity.
Along the lake side, the wall is placed at a point where if one
restored the slope of the dirt to its original configuration, one
would find that the wall only sticks up about 3 feet from the
original grade. Again, we would prefer to plant this area rather
than to restore the dirt, but it can be done.
In sum, the variance which the Holzers would like to have is the
variance from Ordinance Section 34.202 such that they may have this
wall 15 feet inside the otherwise 75 foot set -back requirement
because of the extreme danger of slide resulting from the steepness
of the slope. Besides stabilizing the bank, the wall with its
drainage system will better control water run-off on both sides of
the Holzer property as well as to the front.
With respect to the height of the walls, •,e request that you not
count the columns as part of the walls. If you do count the
columns as part of the walls, on the sides the height of the wall
with the columns will no where exceed appro.,imately 4811, well within
what is permitted.
LINDQUIST 6 VENNUM
Orono Planning commission
January 22, 1979
Page 4
As to the height of the wall on the lake side, we feel no
variance is required because we have determined that the original
ground level places the wall being constructed no more than 3 1/2
feet above the original grade, and at most places the wall is
actually only about 2 feet above the original grade. we request
that you not consider the columns to be part of the wall, and
therefore, permit them to be four blocks above the level of the
wall itself. We do concede that if you consider the columns as
part of the wall, thosa four blocks would rise above 3 1/2 feet.
To permit the columns, we would require a variance of about 1 1/2
feet.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
LINDQUIST & VENNUM
6 �
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RGM.-mes
Encls.
s
wr/srort. 63COd eF /ee�a.<a
1
i
a:,,:,
le. F sn.P...
_ ^w' d,'
,cL;z,f-
7/3Y1
W /Grt C i4. PPq
ft
1
V sa tIef;I - 1LF
�9/rr a/
5 wale
-I >
Acre i-y like
bead' /io'se
r I
IJ
l
Ne{ � a�• �l��l �.n•_
ice" tc1N+ W dad
{� S' r )
Acbef-
a••p Tizn h i
yy /e<C Sc_f PPH
CSNLF
RECO✓•=R �.
.5,2r- tf tiC •7 tZJn f4C
$gall-wr a•ia•yr�
r�l �
aj
SI-JLIrC--
W
r
a'-Q t) SL S 2 P -LP, 4-a9-y„` , a.Q.,, T
«�,a , Yvt� .
A
l
r-
R
,`a ,, I /.
I
A
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 22, 1979
Page 4
Mr. and Mrs. Holzer, Mr. Robert Mitchell (their
attorney) and Mr. Nekich (Smerling's attorney)
were present. Hassel informed those present that
he had talked to Mr. Smerling and took the liberty
to agree that no action would be taken until the
first meeting in March since they were out of town
and could not attend the meeting. Mr. Mitchell
submitted further information for the Commission
to review before the next meeting on this
application. After a brief discussion, the Planning
Commission again requested that both parties and
their legal counsels try to resolve the differences
or at the very least narrow the issues. McDonald
moved to table this item until the first meeting
in March. Motion seconded by Hurr. Vote: Ayes (5),
Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW -Mr. Adair represented Mr. Ingham.
Mabusth stated that the property is asr,essed two
sewer units. Applicant was informed of the wetland
and lakeshore setbacks. The applicant was also
advised to contact Hennepin County Highway Department
about the access (a suggestion was made to the
possibility of a combined driveway). Planning
Commission conceptually approved the plat with the
following requirements:
Plan must designate lot dimensions, area of
designated wetlands and dry -buildable land.
2. obtain permit from Hennepin County Highway
Department for access.
WORK SESSION - Mr. Freeborn represented the
applicant. Mabusth explained the request and
noted that there was a wetland created by local
drainageways in Spring Park and Orono draining
into the lowland area to the north of the lot,
however, due to the season, it is impossible to
make an accurate determination of the wetland acreage.
Mr. Freeborn announced that due to additional
construction costs, Mr. Ortenblad had decided that
the only way they would continue with the proposal
was if they would be permitted to use one of the
duplex units as a temporary office.
ALEXANDER HOLZER
2677 Casco Point Rd.
VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
(#436)
A. D. INGHAM
640 Tonkawa Road
SUBDIVISION
(#451)
WARREN ORTENBIAD
3870 Shoreline Drive
CONDITIONAL USE PERM]
(#452)
LINDQUIST 6 VENNU M
e.v{Nww.
ONNSON
V wf .........
NBC N.ROJA. AIM YTM
O [wwm a u.ONusex
.L200 IOp CENTER 00 pOUTN p¢' STREET
[Owwwo n NNOn
•,[t Ni J TwON
u P[n[rOn
».ST...I
•fnrix0
NIN NC.LRO LI I. NIN NFIOT. IpOOA
tLLJR
h.[L
W [.0
. ...
O
rt0
O n.N1. O
•
CO \ft[r
Ob NUN{w
TLLLNN ONL IplLl 111-p Lll
n.O: x'[ [AO!\fx
f ea. n0 J. w .n[n
An0
n wf \r
CM L[ ADDR[!p: U
eN^J. A.I.A.N
e.oA�swP.N
\tANL4w
m» o. xo»uw
L.
DOL.N
C
,GN7 » rwo�e ��xix
.Ar.CAST.l.LANE tl[F
Ovo..[.».LL
vw0
03[RNr
ww1.0
YACNOw{
w+[61.. MIM49. On1.c" n
JONN 3.waxA
LAURA Nft R AL
.NO NA\ W. wt ETTrr ZE
m
O/.R.0 U.N L wNO.f
w.+Nt ..munoN
o.. a N.N.rx .. [n
January 23, 1979
Michael Nekich, Esq.
Leonard, Street 6 Deinard
1200 National City Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: Holzer/Smerling
Dear Mike:
r1r 91v'� F ,A
UU J)
JAN 24 10
CITY, OB MKS
Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Jeanne Mabusth of
January 19, 1979 which was delivered to her as our response
to the staff memorandum of January 16, 1979.
As was suggested by the Planning Commission last night, and
as you and 1 concurred, do let's get together when the Smerlings
are in town to see if we can't either resolve this matter
entirely or at least narrow the grounds of difference between
US. I believe that my letter to the Planning Commission sets
forth all of the things that we are willing to do and we did
intend, and I do intend, that the Smerlings accept these offers
as part of the Holzers' good faith showing of ameliorating the
situation as best as possible. As I believe I mentioned to you,
I will be leaving on vacation on February 8, 1979 and therefore,
it would be most expeditious if we could get together sometime
before then. I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
LINDQUIST 6 VENNUM
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RGM:mes
Enc.
CCe I}+r. and Mrs. Alexander Holzer
Jeanne Mabusth
Telephone 473 7357
CITY of ORONO
Poet Oface Boe eae C,yml Be,. Minnnote 55313•Moni.pel Umes
a On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
January 26, 1979
Mr. Glenn Cook
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates
2335 Highway 36
Saint Paul,
Minnesota 55113
Dear Glenn:
7. have enclosed the drainage plans for the retaining wall at the
Alexander Holzer ($436) residence. If additional information is
regurr-ed, p ease let me know.
I am also enclosing engineering plans for the extension of an
.xisting culvert at the Wyatt Moe (Y454) residence. Check with
Jim Olson, I think he was out at the site last September. A
site inspection at this time of year may prove difficult but
necessary. I will need your report by February 3, 1979 to make the
Planning Commission agenda for their February 12, 1979 meeting.
As for the Holzer application, it has been tabled unt-1 March, 1979.
Sincerely,
G . /7)
Jeanne A. Mabusth
Asst. Zoning Administrator
JAM:kh
Encs. S
�L I N D Q U I S T 6 V E N N U M
NU Nopw[T IS..... t / p.Nlp J........
L.uw ufv Cf N.x ...
.A.OJ. wNfpx
O[wa0 [ Y ONV[ .}OO 105 CENTER SO OUT. .- STREET Jillwir w. TIE MIOr
..RA..M. OLLMMOM • . Owyi [twOY
M WIN �[.n MON OTNV ILTI..
[^M[N[ X. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA .5403 ..[RT O. MIT .N[LI.1..
R ICX.NO J. IITi Ot11.L0 NiRC fTL[Y
INILII J' O TEL[PMON[ I6I21 37I-3311 N.OIxE Il tTOflix
Y.CL.r w. nrOtN
;Ow. w�D ,. I.wx[w JOXC C:OOtT[
OxN Owwili [ .[Nf TAp
WILUA. C IRS CABLE ADOR[S S: LiN LAW O[i wT J. WwTM nM
Jt... L. I. ![wOI.1. JOOVx O. NOYLiw
LLIAM T. OOL.N
M <. MOwt[Nt[M
JOxx X. t)wOTNY.x W6Y[ATA OFFICE
I.
...I.
A. i.LARS.OSC*i v .WVZAM. MINNEEOTA S53
YI
I...
..V wALE ... aDOCx
rl[[l O.0 ....
t,A [ TxOY.t ViNNYx
rx .. .1
O[x xlt N, v.TX1![N
January 31, 1979
Michael Nekich, Esq. VoUNI DD
Leonard, Street s Deinard
1200 National City Bank Building FEB I lgf9
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: Holzer/Smerling OJTy, OE, ORONO
Dear Mike:
In preparing for our meeting next week, I have asked the
Holzers to get the details about the plantings they propose
to make adjacent to the Smerling property line. As mentioned
in my previous correspondence to you, it is our intention to
replant the grass in this area and to plant bushes. Mrs.
Holzer has checked with a reliable nursery, and it is proposed
that the Holzers will plant, at their expense, lilac bushes
just TI�Ce �F�e bushes remove sing some w its, some Light purple,
and others deep purple in a four foot high size. These bushes
would be planted five to six feet apart and should grow to a
height of seven to eight feet by the end of the summer of 1980.
The planting of the bushes would commence immediately after the
stucco on the wall was finished and of course when the ground
unfroze. Please be advised that the stucco is color impregnated
and is just like the stucco on the existing wall on the driveway
side of the Holzers' property. With the severity of this winter,
it is not possible to know exactly when the planting can take
place, but at this point it is estimated to be the last week of
April or the first week of May, 1979. I hope you will pass this
information along to the Smerlings and we can then have it as a
matter to be discussed next week.
I look forward to getting together with you.
Very truly yours,
LINDQUIS 6 VENNUM
Rober! G. Mitchell, Jr.
CC: Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Holzer
Alan Olson
.E..... ..LI...... I LINDQU1ST 6 VENNUM
N O R YIN L. N[wx.LL
[[) Y. L.A.A.
`tMW L YAO MY[OM
4[00 .03 CENTER •O SOLT. 01 STREET
owwne.L..x.IN
...... ,[IN
....
...... [M .N. ww 'MHO
YINN[APO 113. Y1M N[30TA S040[
uu
nmxuo J. r1 T[o[w.Lc
e[N
TELEPHONE ISIEI ]TI-uu
,MAJw.n
Eo«A.o JQ.ARn[R
to u[ wOORu.: uNLAw
[riinenLn
u.o1o1.
Y T.
[N [[N
TN.T....
WAYZATA OFFICE
•Yo O....xALl
11 A. en[w LET
I.. EAST L.n[ sTRaaI
Au
O [seT AT a A
w.T[ATA. MINNESOTA 8E3E1
LA...o x<tI. OC.M
APPET
( LN PNO F
w.TN[ A... IIIAT...
February 7, 1979
Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth,
Asst. Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal. Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: Holzer/Smerling
Dear Jeanne:
T..... V... V Y
...... .... I.,...
OLE 11\1 TM
EB 12 1M
C11- OF. ORONO
I tried to get a hold of Mr. Nekich to meet with him and
the Smerlings before leaving on vacation, but they have
not responded to my letters and have not returned my calls.
I do not know if the Smerlings are out of town or what is
wrong. In any case, I feel I have done my beat to get together
with them and I just wanted to apprise you of developments
before I left. I will contact you as soon as I get back on
March 5, 1979 and we can pursue the matter at that time.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
LINDQUIST 6 VENNUM
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
I,GM:mes
CC: Michael A. Nekich, Esq.
Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Holzer
LXw OIIILgs
LEONARD. STREET AND DEINARD
uoo w.n owXL c ♦ F [w \DiwO
AYDL L. Dn x.wo
Xux J.wnen.FY
MiLV �x M. [I[O LL
alo wu ou[SlL wV[Nu[
[T[INL. J. N
iDN [v OX[[w
MINN[ILYOLI[. MINN[OOTA 66402
LTwx LN. ITYAx
LIT...
LION [T .AwNOWa
ID 4 LLX
nwwotD a �u[, ., w.
TuvxoN[ wm aan-no0
eewwwD N. YoswLluou
X LL[n XL
wOLtM L[wlL pMOwL
TNOY.[ O. ILIM L[XO
C1LL[ .DONE[[ 1[ON D-
XYNXwD
MOLRIL Y.
pLi LCMAII[w
.
...... wbILI LP
WCNALL A. X. N[M LM
NA t\ A NOII
O.LML
„N
February 14, 1'!79
.:LAYN
A.
:o;;.'�Xp;:XY
ARw A A..
N.NDY C. OXtX[N
OXD[ [. \[ONMO qL1[-V iM
LOW[K J. NOTL[OOM
MTx N.Lq[tl VL1f-�Nq
O[OXO[ I. VNftLATT Jw.
Dw '.
L[N[ iC OOxAXO ULO-�Ytl
Iw[O.. T. ftQ
..UTT.LXTT
•T[VLx D.DY VYi[X
N[[L
�w[Ni [COtT
Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth ME
p1ynD�Assistant Zoning Administrator D E V
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66 FEB Jr, 1919
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: Hoer/Smerling en OF ONOW
Dear Ms. Mabusth:
I received on Friday, a copy of Robert Mitchell's letter
to you o: February 7th. I am simply writing to respond to Mr.
Mitchell's statements about our lack of response.
I spoke to Mr. Mitchell a week or two ago and informed
him chat my clients would not be back in town until about Feb-
ruary 3rd or 4th, but that we could try to arrange a conference
for sometime on the 5th, 6th or 7th. Mr. Mitchell, himself,
was to become unavailable after that time.
Since it is Mr. Mitchell who has had trouble in the
past working out a time for such a meetin, T assumed he would
call to set up a time on one of those three 11. He did call
about 4:15 p.m, on the 6th when I was out of office. I
returned his call at about 5:15 p.m, that day, tie had left.
It would have been too short notice on which set up
a meeting on the 7th if I had spoken to Mr. Mitchell th.- morning,
so I did not try. I had to assume then, as now, that at, settle-
ment conferences will have to wait until after Mr. Mitche_1 returns.
Me. Jeanne A. Mabusth
February 14, 1979
Page 2
My clients continue to be willing to discuss this matter
and expect that when Mr. Mitchell is back, we will do 9o.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET & DEINARD
By
Mic ael A. Nekich
MAN:cb
cc: Robert G. Mitchell, Jr., Esq.
MECERVE[D
MEMORANDUM MAR 12 Wo
DATE: March 9, 1979
TO: Planning Cnmmission and Council - City of Orono
FROM: Bob Mitchell and Mike Nekich
SUBJECT: 1436 Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Variance/Conditional Use Permit
At the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1979, the
Planning Commission asked us to outline the issues in dispute
between the Holzers and the Smerlings, and to indicate which
issues had been successfully resolved by the parties. The issues
as we see them, and the status of them as between the parties, is
as follows:
1. Landscaping - The Holzer's have offered to install new land-
scaping at their expense consisting of a tight hedge on the
south side of the fence/wall adjacent to the Smerling property.
The hedge will be catoniaster or dwarf honeysuckle or othe
plants as the parties may agree and the plants will be planted
approximately 3 feet apart and will be approximately 2 1/2 to
3 feet from the fence/wall. In addition, sod and grass will be
planted as appropriate. The w rk is to be done by Anthony's
Floral and Greenhouses of Mot. :id, and it is to be checked by
James Robins, landscape architect, to verify for the Smerlings
that the hedge is of reasonable quality. See Exhibit 1 attached.
2. Code violations - There has been no resolution of this issue.
3. Garage variance - There has been no resolution of this issue.
4. Fence/Wall - There has been no resolution of this issue.
In sum, the parties have only been able to make progress about the
restoration of the landscaping issue and all of the other issues
are still in dispute.
Resppeecctfu�lly ssubmitted,
`�
�YJ / �- _, a ,[/'
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. for Alexander Holzer
Michael'Nekich for Louis Smerling
wowYnY L. wtW..0
LMIw OD Y. .<.Y.N
O[Y\O 0. YNNYLOv
IDW p 1. D. ......
Y pV......
WQY{ Y .LATIwt
.Y[D N Y IYL.Y
rus J rnaoawwe
�.n.• J. wrxuw
YAtuY .. Nlpt
[p WYO J. tiI,n C1
1. rywll\.l
Y 4. Iot
\Y 1. ..,A.Y
YO.TLu ttN
JOxx C II OTx Y.N
.11. ...'..A..
w0.[wl V.gY00t
Y .. MY NOY
FC. R. W\pO pl
TxON.. N. O.wRtll E
a A..IYonox
March 9, 1979
Exhibit 1 (Page 1 of 2)
LINDQUIST 6 V ENNUM
•, N.p w,
+oxw,DY
•[00 IOp cCNTCR BO SOVLN D•� SLR EEi
IOt. L\CNIVOI
•pTiY[ J. LT•OY
V TLO
N INN[A.OLIp�Nlw NE50Ln 55r 02
wT p~MITCx[N.Ja
Y IC NwtL Ob.
.Ji. aYIY co.+u.
T a [.NON[ Isl.l a>I-Yzl�
,xa .000 tw
+o.x
c. Rova
CABLE ADDRESS; LIN LAW
JOLVN....
WAYZATA Orrl[[
i.0 EAST LA.[ .1.[[1
WAI[ATA. NI .... OTA .....
Michael A. Rakich, Esq.
Leonard, Street 6 Deinard
1200 NationalCityBank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: Holzer/Smerling
Dear Mike:
Au a result of our discussion on March 6, 1979. and our
telephone conversations of March 7 and 8, 1979, the Holzers
have authorized me to make the following offer with respect t•�
the landscaping between the Holzers and the Smerlings. The
Holzers will at their expense install on the Smerling side of
the existing fence/wall catoniasters, dwarf honeysickle or other
plants as the parties and their landscape consultants may agree,
intending there be a tight hedge all the way along this east/west
property line from the drop—off point to the lake back to the
garages. Anthony's'Floral and Creenhouses in Mound, Minnesota will
do the -work for the Holzers and I understand that you will have
James Robins supervise the work from the Smerlings' point of view.
It is intended that James Robins will indidicate to you that the
work has been done in accordance with this letter and in a manner
satisfactory to the Smerlings. It is p.coposed that the tight
hedge be planted such that the plants are initially placed three
feet apart and approximately 2 1/2 to 3 feet from the wall.
In addition to the above described bushes, the Holzers will also
install sod adjacent to the bushes on the Smerling si4e to restore
the area to its condition before work was commenced on their fence/
wall. in the satisfactory nature of this work will be judged
by James .obins on behalf of the Smerlings.
4 Exhibit 1 (Page 2 of 2)
LINDQUIST G VEN14UM
Michael A. Nekich, Esq.
March 9, 1979
Page Two
I trust this will be staisfactory.
very truly yours,
LINDQUIST S VENNUM
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RGM/lmb
Enclosure
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Holzer
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 12, 1979
Page 2
Mr. Plank was present. Mabusth stated that all
requirements have been met. Hammerel moved to
approve the subdivision in accordance with the
Resolution submitted by staff (see Page 2A).
Motion seconded by Frahm. Vote: Ayes (5),
Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously.
The following people were present:
Mr. & Mrs. Holzer
Mr. Robert Mitchell, Holzer's attorney
Mr. Anthony Van der Steeg, Holzer's landscaper
Mr. & Mrs. Smerling
Mr. Mike Nekich, Smerling's attorney
Comments were also heard from two neighbors:
Mr. Downev and Mr. Ortenblad.
MICHAEL PLANK
41&5 Watertown Road
FINAL SUBDIVISION
N399
"ALEXANDER HOLIER
2677 Casco Point Rd.
COND. USE PERMIT
#436
Mr. Mitchell stated the wall would be designed as
follows:
1. It will be a couple of blocks high and will not
exceed 3-1/2' above ground.
2. Stuccoed a light cream color.
3. The Holzers are proposing pillars with low -wattage
lights as a decorative touch. -
4. Wall presently encroaches 75' Lakeshore setback by
15'.
Mr. Mitchell further stated it was unintentional that a
building permit was not taken out. The Holzers thought
their contractor had obtained the necessary permits. He
did not feel the landscaping should be a problem as the
Holzers have already agreed to replace the landscaping.
Mr. Mitchell entered into the record his letter of
?anuary 22, 1979 and also two letters from Mr, and
Mrs. Phillip Schneider (2665 Casco Point Road) and
Mrs. Alexander Scheven (2649 Casca Point Road)
inoi.ating that the level aree below has always been
there.
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MFETING HELD ON MARCH 12, 1979
Page 3
Mabusth etated a 23% hardcover variance would be
required (15% variance previously exists) and a
conditional use permit for construction of the wall.
Mr. Mitchell also entered into the record two letters
from Joseph E. Braun (3020 Casco Point Road) and
Warren Ortenblad (2779 Casco Point Road) both
approving of the Holzer's development of their
property.
Mr. Mitchell again stated that the main reason for the
work was the danger of a slide. A drainage plan has
beer. submitted.
Mr. Nekich again showed pictures of the two properties.
He felt the violations are as follows:
1. Garage - Although he again brought up this issue,
the Planning Commission refused any discussion
as Council declined to reopen the variance case
(l)417) on November 28, 1978.
2. Grading, Excavating 6 Filling - "A great deal of
land alteration has been done."
3. The violations on the will are:
a), Exceeds hardcover.
b) Encroaches 75' Lakeshore setback.
c) He stated that even if the wall was interpreted
to come within the definition of fences in the
code (their contention is that it does not),
they can only be 42" high. He feels a lot of
the dispute centers around the wall height; it
is their contention that :'ie main structure of
the wall is 4' high and the pillars are 7'-8'
high.
d) "There comes a time when a wall of any nature
has become so substantial that it becomes a
structure within the meaning of the Code.
Therefore it becomes subject to the 10' setback
requirement. He feels this wall has reached
that point.
ALEXANDER HOLZER
2677 Casco Point Rd.
COND. USE PERMIT
#436 (Cont.)
MINUTES OF A k:.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 12, 1979
Page 4
Mr. Nekich stated that he was not familiar with
any provision in our code preventing the lights,
however, the Smerling's property would also be
illuminated and he did not see how "that sort of
illumination can be condoned on a lakeshore
property".
Mr. Nekich stated the reason the damage (landslide)
occurred on the Smerling's property was:
1. Vegetation was trimmed too close.
2. Unusually heavy rains which will probably
not occur again for many years.
ALEXANDER HOLZER
2677 Casco Point 1W
COND. USE PERMIT i
He felt this position was supported by letters from
James Robin, Landscape Architect, and Lester Kelley,
Kelley 6 Kelley, Inc. He felt as Mr. Robin's letter
suggests the situation could be solved by a subsurface
structure - "certainly a project of much less magnitude
would have accomplished the same task".
#436 (Cont.)
Glenn Cook stated that the "idea" is good but he would
need a profile view to analyze it. He stated that he
is referring to just the piping that he is going to use
to get the water from the top of the hill to the bottom
and discharging it out at the bottom in such a way not
to horm the lake. He has not taken the wall into account
as part of the drainage plan. The only significance of
the wall in as far as the drainage plan is concerned is
that it will allow the water to get back into the catch
basin. The drainage system would work over 70% of the
area without the wall. He stated that without knowine
the design of the wall (footing depthTrt is impossible
to d mine if the wall is effective erosion control.
It was his op n ontriar naving the structure within the
75' setback does not gain anything. On the oti.er hand,
he did not see a great advantage to taking the wall down.
If the Planning Commission feeling is that the wall should
not be at that point, it should probably be lowered to
ground level and then used as a retainer with the new wall
being built complyinE with the 75' setback.
MINUTES OF A PLANNING -COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 12, 1979
Page 5
Hurt was concerned about the possibility of the
drainage system malfunctioning. Cook stated that
if that did happen the run-off would go into the
lake. McDonald suggested that possibly some type of
maintenance agreement between the City and the owner
would have to be worked out. Both Hurr and McDonald
stated they had trouble relating to this as a wall
or fence and felt it should be considered as a
structure.
Wilson stated he had no problems with the fence being
3-1/2' high, but he did not feel the pillars should
be allowed. He felt that the conditional use permit
should only be for fill behind the wall which would
be irportant to the drainage. He also felt the wall
should not be permitted within the 75' setback.
John Hammerel stated: "I think in view of the fact
that obviously the Planning Commission is wrestling
with this and really getting no place and with six
weeks probably before any more building can be done,
I move to table thg application as our engineer ought
o e�f tie for us in some way where ground level is
and what height of wall will be necessary for erosion
control so we can make further study of this prior to
giving an opinion. Motion seconded by Hurr although
she objected to the City paying the engineering costs.
Mabusth stated that the engineering costs would be
charged to the owner. Mitchell stated that this
infonnation was already in the hands of the Holzer's
engineer and could be submitted to the City engineer
for his review.
ALEXANDER HOLZER
2677 Casco Point Rd.
COND. IiSE PERMIT
#436 (Cont.)
Frahm felt that it should be evaluated only as to the
erosion control. The engineer should determine the
height necessary to function as effective erosion
control and the Planning Commission could go from there.
Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (2) Frahm .i Wilson Opposed
Frahm - Not sure that our engineer should design the
system or do the study.
Wilson - does not feel our engineer should do the,
work and the applicant should be given the
opportunity to submit the data.
812-M/-0877
WARREN A. ORTENBLAD, Inc.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Commemial—indusfrial—Residential
55 Sth Avenue N.E. — Post Office Box 220
FOREST LAKE, MINNESOTA 55025
Mmrpb 12, 1979
Orono Planning Commission
orom City Ball
1335 Brown load South
Orono, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
RE: Holzer Property
Being a resident on Casco Point and observing the Holzer upgrading
of their property, I feel elated and I am delighted to saw such a
marked improvement on this piece of property.
Having gone through similar problems with sty house at 2799 Casco Point
Road, I understand the Holzer's frustration with non-resident ownars.
I really do not understand nan-residents having such a large voice in
how w live. It appears to ma the Bolters have only tried to upgrade
the property and ooeplisent the total community.
I personally, as a neighbor, feal the property is turning out beautifully.
Very truly yours,A
MArrsa A. Orteabiad
INO fYD IM! IWi 1M1L1A WNIOOf1 Ii�l
CRUISERS — RUNABOUTS — SAILBOATS a NEW — USED — BROKERA:E
Uonka (-Pay yachts
A MAIIHNF SALO, WC.
AT TONKA BAY ON TONKA BAY ROAD
440 Tonka Bay Road a Excelsior, Minn. 55331
Telephone 161 Z) 474-5411
e OF ORo�1a .
Z /save Gyve D ,)r :?-T aZ
G/}Sco �oiNr/i'.efit0 Fo�P The_ >°.�fi aaYc�-k5.
L/ve TAVec /Iov.(e-i Ft'mM /,ilex }�cLxe�y D
%o Ale/}yo Ali F�hia y
SuR,Qou�U:.�G herjes Gor>s lOr�13L�, Bf foieer
�2e ate DL e0 %die/, &NP_ TWO
S Tp ,a y /Ge7j`/ G e . r e i h Ave A0A)1-
f1 a D Ti799k iH �i/ %M��a yP b S/ �r v0
G
o /Ie / S fti✓D i9-,Uf 7` 7-1 .
T, 7h ��K *tiE'y S�iouLo 13e �irJMP.t�DeD �iQ
GORDON R. COFFIN
LAND au REEVOO AND PLANNER
]we ww.[RTOWN RDwo
Bona LARD. •inn. eaaRR
y-20-79
Mr. Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
coo Lindquist & Vemum
'//,0 East Iske Street
Wayzata, Minn.
Daar Mr. Mitchell,
#436
In response to your requests in a previoie letter to met I nave
shove these Stems on the attached draving.
'.he original contours ware determined from spot elevations taken
in the field of undisturbed ground on the Holier property and on
the adjoining properties. Some of the proposed contours are already
constructed.
The top of the footiug is visible in aom pleees and the dlmen-
e ne were g ven to m by the contractor Vao constructed it. The
top of the ve11 is shown at Its final proposed height. It is not
fully constructed to this height at this tim.
The proposed drainage system is more than adequate to carry the
runoff eater. Mr. Holzer has available the 8-inch steel pipe, so
this will be used instead of a seller dlamter pipe. The purpose
of this pipe is to prevent smaim of the hillside and to divert
eater from running on the adjoining properties.
The cross-section details of the proposed drainage system, the
footings and well, and original and proposed contours ars show on
�je drawing. If any additional information is needed, please
notify M.
Sincerely,
Mark
roLbergg,
MSG/gre
Enclosure
NLE nflv LEM
APR 28 1979
CITY OF ORONO
I..NARD[. MNRDIYn L; N D Q U 1ST 6 V E N N U M oA.1 J. DAvtxroRT
NDNWLN L.N[NX.IL MAIIN N. JON N LON
YVNUL V,.C,IMAN .IN,YVTIt
p[N.LLD[. NwONYLOx 4200 iO3 CENTER . •O SOUTH SW STREET JLI I11Lr D. L C x Y1DT
roMAND Y. OL[NNON w,LT Nt J
N LLVIN ,. ON[N L)LIN INOTNY n. NR[N
Ell O[N[ x.A ATINO MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 .O.(NT p. w,icx[LL JN
JM[p I. MA.TNIK. M/.[L OwOT
w ICNARO Nue x COnur
PH.VP J. ONTM ORTHUN YM TELEPHONE I0I21 271- LII [ L1N0(L[N
N.LC 4r R. NTD[ Jp n[x A.
IC.A S
T
NA.
JONNA. M1. FOX CABLE ACIDNESS: LIN LAW AD ART J. xA.L..
w WROL [. FOX JO([1x O. M1ON L[N
J [wNOLO I. L[ROIALN
WI LLIALI C. YORT[Nt[N
JowN N. ATNOTXYAN Lr 2r.Tw Dr)IC[
DAVID p. wL Nxwu , ua, LAN[ (T R[[T
NYNT,( A. Ow{{ML[r
NOL[RT V. ATYVR[ .1. A. Y1N N(SOTA (LOSI
JOMN (. w,NLTON
LLYNANC[ R. wALDOCX
TNOYAL N. OARN[TT ED
pARTLL 1.VIMOII TNOYAS V[NNVN
wL1Nt A. LIVEN NON OtNxp Y. Al.....
April 23, 1979
M. .Tnse,nu n r2.1,,.arti_ II L' OLE" M
Asst. zoning Administrator APR 23 1979
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 CITY. OF. ORONO
Re: Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Dear Jeanne:
After the Planning Commission meeting on N ,.h 12, 1979
the Holzers were requested tv prepare cert- .: engineering
data for the Village Engineer to review. The understanding
was that the engineering data was to be by a registered
professional engineer and we have used Mark S. Gronberg,
registration number 12755. I understand that Orono will be
using ia`- ----' as its consulting engineer. I further
GADK understand that we war, to provide an enlarged plan of the
site showing the locat In of the house, the wall, the drain
pipes, and the plan being R Topographic survey. That is on the
upper portion of the sheet enclosed. In addition, we were
to do a section through the hill showing the original grade,
the gra.1,2 as the Holzers would like it to be, the location of
the wall, the lake, and the drain pipes. In addition, we have
a brief letter from Mark Gronberg dated April 20, 1979. In
addition, I attach some of Mr. Gronberg's previols letters for
your engineer's reference.
Basically three questions were asked by the Planning Commission.
First, what was the original grade and what is the proposed
new grade. That is clearly set forth on the section attachL.d.
Note that the section is through the soutF-esterly side of the
property where the drain goes down to the like, so that the section
L I N D Q U I S T & V E N N U M
Ms. .7ean�- ,. Mabusth
April 20, 1979
Page 2
is taken at a point very close to the southwest property
line with the Smerlings. From the previous testimony and
with this diagram, I believe it should be clearly demonstrated
that there was a flat area where the foot of the wall is and
that there were two drop off points, one drop off from the
lawn to the flat area, and the second drop off from the flat
area down to the lake. There had been some belief on behalf of
the staff that there had been no such drop off, but that is
not supported by the engineering data. With the or,ginal grade
being clearly shown, one can see that the height of the wall
proposed above the grade is not more than the allowable 3 1/2
feet.
Second, the engineer was asl -d what the minimum and maximum
height of the wall could or shoulA Vie. From our point of view,
3 1/2 feet is adequate to control the "ruinage and otherwise
make a nice appearing wall. Please no_a that the northeasterly
southwesterly drainage pipe is set bacc, that is southeasterly
from the wall,and it is desirable t'at the ground level slope to
the southeast from the wall such that storm water run off from
the house and terrace area does not pool against the wall itself,
but rather pools in the swail where the drains are.
Third, the question was asked whether the wall could be moved
back 15 feet and still d, the job. From our point of view
anyth'.ng can be done, but the real question is what's the practical
way to solve the problem. We feel that putting the wall where
it is at the natural drop off point was the preferred method
of adding support to the hillside benarae the ground was left
largely undisturbed which is generally more conducive to cohesive
strength of the soil, and in addition advantage was taken of
the natural drop off such that there was not a large amount of
grading necessary.
Finally, with the placement of the natural drop off where it is,
that is the point at which support is needed, not a point artifi-
cially further to the southeast. That is to say in our engineer's
opinion, from his previous letters, the place to buttress the
hillside is at the natural drop off, not at a different place.
r1ease note that the contractor who did the work is:
Gerald L. Welsh16223
ve
Minnetonka, MN 55343 ❑❑ I` I\�PIr II CU L (I�I�
Telephone: 938-6855 I nl U
lJ • i 1979
CITY OF ORONO
LINDQUIST & VENNUM
Me. Jeanne A. Mabusth
April 23, 1979
Page 3
and the man who did the excavating was:
Fritz Plowman
Latterner Excavating
P. O. Box 474
Excelsior, MN 55331
Telephone: 474-6930
I trust that the engineering drawings done by Mark S.
Gronberg will be adequate for your engineer to review the
project and as good building weather has arrived, we would
naturally like to have the matter before the Planning Commission
as soon as possible. Possibly the matter could be ready to
be put on for the meeting of May 1., 1979. Please let us know.
Thanks.
Very truly yours,
LINDQUIST & VENNUMM
/�/.��zr
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RGM:mes
Encls.
CC: Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Holzer
IF OLE IV IF
APR 29 1979
CITY OF ORONO
SMERLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
4455 West 77th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55435
617-871-5844
APR 30 �19
April 25, 1979
C1Ty, OF ORONO
Ms. Jean Mabusth
Orono City Hall
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 #436
Dear Ms. Mabusth:
With the snow gone, the structure between the Smerling and Holzer
property is clearly visible. In places, the cement blocks are
seven high or 411 feet. When I sit on my front porch or back
porch, to the north, all I see is a wall. Since Mr. Holzer claims
there has been no backfill, I wonder why only two blocks show on
his side of the structure.
To really know what has happened to a beautiful area, one must see
it. While I am most reluctant to impinge upon your free time, I do
hope that in the interest of fairness, you will find a moment to
look at this structure from my property side.
Recently I had an appraisal made and the appraiser who knows every
inch of Lake Minnetonka was appalled that this wall was in existence.
He tells me he has never seen such a wall built between properties
or such a garage anywhere along the lake.
May I add a salient fact or two? There has never been any erosion
of my property due to water from the Holzer property. I feel, and
hope you agree, that a "fait accompli" that was built without a
permit is illegal on the face of it. I do intend to discuss the
garage with the City Council now that I have seen what that great
sloping roof has gone to my garage with all the snow falling between
the garages.
Pease try to "see" what we have been talking about. I believe that
tFe-Gest place to adjudicate such problems is before commissions such
as vours and not in the courts. Please ask yourself what you would
d, 'f my property was yours Is there anything more I can do to
correct this intolerable situation? If so, I'd be most pleased to
hear from you. /1_
V /sincerely yours ���VK/�l(//�,,�,�
Lou Smerling
LRS:em
Telephone 4737967
CITY of ORONO
i• �. .. Post Omtt Bo: 66•CrYetal Bay. Minnewla 55323•Maniopd Omen
• On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
April 26, 1979
Mr. Michael Nekich
Leonard, Street & Deinard
1200 National City Bank Building
510 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402
Dear Michael:
I have enclosed the engineering plans of Mark Gronberg, the Holzer's
engineer, for the retaining wall including the structural and
drainage specifications. Please call if additi,nal information is
required. _
S(inncc�eerr�eellyy,,-�
Je nali a A. Mabusth
Zoning Administrator
JAM:kh
Enc
Lou Smerling's engineer: James R. Orr
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
50 Ninth Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
u.. orncNN
MESHBESHER, SINGER d SPENCE. LTD
lele ... Nvaaua
alN1H2H wHaWueN MINNe�Ll6, MIFR660TA OOYOO
OHIYIN \. uDtTt.
HmiY ,. aNauva
L. Nw�HVN
NHao.N w. Nama ieu, my-N:v,
GNvoL DVNwz
HOtp Ll M. NAND)
raO l.lY iiaa
JYIHN t. Ol YNii
LCtYD L. D1NMI0
JOa I. OLIrrOHO
Ot YLO J. NYHHi
eCm} .,. HiDNa
tYCT llett00 •HIC{s
May 22, 1979
Ms. Jeanne Mabusth
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: Smerling V. Holzer
Our File No. 16679-79GMS
Dear Ms. Mabusth:
It was a pleasure meeting you when Mr. Smerling and I stopped by
the city office today. I am writing this letter to inform you
that from now on this firm will be representing the Smerlings
in this matter and would request that you direct all further
correspondence and notices, including if you would, the city
engineer's report, to my attention.
If you need any further information from my clients, please feel
free to give me a call.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
MESHBESHE , S]�6 SPENCE, LTD.
ames H. Gilbert
JHG/dl
cc: Client
MAX 19�9
CITY OF ORONO
Y OP REle
MESHBESHER. SINGER a: SPENCE, LTD.
mle PJ.vv waxun
lml}{ rleullvu
rnaxxalvoase, naxxaeov eeroo
Dewwu 1. mveol
aoltu Lxleveuve
L. nuoew
OIYLD M. n11011
lelnl OOY-Dlnl
Etnp1 O
aOn1n1L x. ePIIGI
PpD {. Pwiiela
J1 Mle Y.Y}
pC1YO L. C1W10
E..
JO YD P. PIOIO
Melt
,Y. ewe{l
}yE} lIq{00-aO:U
May 22, 1979
The Honorable William B. Van Nest
Mayor of the City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: Smerling v. Holzer
Our File No. 16679-19GMS
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
I am writing this letter to inform you that this law firm has
recently been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Louis Smerling in regard
to the Alexander Holzer property dispute.
Gerald M. Singer and myself will be representing the Smerlings
on this matter and will be at the planning commission and the city
council meeting when this matter is to be determined.
Very truly yours,
ME.:HBESHERf/gyp SINGER 5 SPENCE, LTD.
ames If. Gilbert
JHG/dl
C1TY of aaoNo
B.-wt+.a, R...o* Aa &dA &
4"OVA14d 90a..
C-P"M {
Tddd V. 7ammi eil'inay d6
one o. ImoOw. u.
l..,O.. A r labs I.I.
ftM W.lbw.rx.
GI A.0 PA
tea. .wA\la/IIi/ ddlld
I .F c. Anbla. ll.
m A. Ow , PA
4�Ne,A A. LSN,e 11. T. I. Ns P.M.
n!--�
/�
A , D. Flsm . P.M.
.I W. I.. Pi.
ANAWA I. Tw.PA.
Xe O. Itla,tll. ea.
I— C. 04 . PA.
Y� L. Jxw4 PS.
DwwY C. Pa.
aAnY A. Y,IW,. u.
C1rie A. IrYYw
Ln Y. fmWl
May 25, 1979
City of Orono
Bo: 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5,323
Attn: Jun Makusth
Re: File No. 139-436 Holtzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Dear Jean:
#436
The plan submitted by the Holzer Engineer provides the original ground eleva-
tions and the proposed design elevations as requested. The plan indicates that
the original elevation of the South property line of the Holtzer property was
between 958 and 960. The design elevation for top of wall is at 963.00 with
the proposed grading elevation on the Holtzer property being somewhat lower.
The storm drainage system as designed will adequately serve the property and
with proper grading prevent water from running onto adjacent property. The
details of the Settling Manhole should be provided and rip rap should be plate -
ad to the Me.
We would recommend that the drainage plan be approved, provided the discussed
items are provided for.
If you have any questions please contact this office.
very truly yours,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIR 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
K 6-C
Glenn R. Cook
GRC/Jo
C M
r i
i979
CITY OF ORONO
HOLZER PROPERTY
' .•' cgrrgE
We
IAC
HOLZER PROPERTY
.w
r,Y't�Y
0
N �'• / ?
will I'•eu' aw c,
•.,9• aAYF2E V .
]�,E •-20--9 �+
GONDOI/ A COFFIN CO,/AC.
LONG LAKE, NINACSOM _ _
urx�e+
950a''wno�n
. Es�Ew+�
sv..aa.a ararfva
,^t.aa
_
960
f `TTn[r•R— �" n
i sYi"r%�'Re R— n a y .
ae4— J;
�.. - 940
950
_
0 10 20
D °
J s0 ° 20
fD ®
70 [ d0
970
ST.JRY 9La d
960
iLP Of Nfiuv 'a'T �� HMEEn;
" =v
se PyOT yE-1
M�GMa� �:VSLE�
i
apg-Lf _�✓
950
:'JPM d'Ni
940
rt,f
930
SIEUME
TR W WSY
u •.;P s..rn
Y
�
m
o
W kUAM 0. SCHOELL
CARLISLE NNOSON
UACK T. VOCiLER
JANES R. ORR
INRDID E. OAHLIN
LARRY L. WASON
RAYMONO J. JACKSON
WELAMJ. SREZI:.'KY
JACK E. Gal
ROONEY S. GORDON
THEOOORE O. KEMNA
JOHN W. SI
KENNETH E. AOOLF
WaLb1M R. ENGELHAROT
BRUCE n. SUNOING
R. SCOTT HARRI
OF:NNIS W. SAARI
GERALO L. SACKMAN
#436
BGHOELL 8 MADBON,)NC.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
87501 • SO NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOACNS. MINNESOTA aa4:3
OFFICES AT HURON. SOUTH OAKOTA ANO DEN`T�ON TEXAS
May 25, 1979 L[ 6 II U IL M
U MAY 29 1979
C .ty of Orono
c/o Ms. Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator CIV OF ORONO
1335 Brow Road South
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55'�-13
Subject: Snarling vs. Holzer Property at
2683 Casco Point Road.
Sear Ms. Mabusth:
Pursuant to a request from Mr. James Gilbert, Attorney for the Snerling'a,
we herein wish to indicate our opinion related to the need for a retaining wall
on the Holzer Property.
After having viewed the site, it is our opinion that the wall constructed
on the Holzer site is not need,,d for erosion control. The Holzer site is at
the crest of a hill and drainage ru-s in all directions. If it was the inten-
tion to retain drainage from the Holzer front yard (lakeside), and pipe this
drainage directly to the lake, it could have been done much less ffensively
than building a large retaining wali. Simple site grading on the yard and
construction of a sump to collect drainage would accomplish the same result
as relates to drainage. The sump woui.: have a pipe discharging down to the
lake.
Very little, if any, drainage ran off of the Holzer front yard to the
Snarling Property. That is obvious by examining the site. We understand
that the conflict relates to the wall, its height, placement and ibstruction
of the view. In our engineering opinion the final determination=oncerning
the wall ought to be based on that, and not the erosion issue since the drair-;e
could be accomplished without a 56 inch high wall.
Please advise as to any questions.
Very truly yours,
SQHOSLL a MADSON, INC.
�\
JROrz:bk
cc: Mr. s Mrs. Smerling
Mr. Jim Gilbert, Attorney
Yashbesher, Singer a STine, Ltd.
uoxAwe [. uxeeun.
LAV a[O V. Ad WN
O [aALe 6 NAO N Va Ow
[owAae n. u[wwox
N[wIx La A..".x
[voe
�wa x x
�wt.v
rt Otw µO
coWAui,o A. I .. A ..
IS
NR A. IO aa[[r
n [.,o[
v[Eaoae[[aer4u
w�uuN +. eeux
wl
n. orao+nxAN
0
.v10 a. x[wNAu
+oxx o. w.xvox
uV1AN
+NO NASN
GAFFAS0
IO.ar L[ IWNOr,
LIN D O U I S T & V E N N U M
4200 $05 CENTER . •O SOUTH " STREET
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNEEOTA 56408
TELVNONE 1612) 31P0211
CABLE ADDRESS, LINLAw
wAYZATA am cE
TKO EAST uxE Sra[ty
w.Lrz ArA.MI..LSO a . . A
June 6, 1979
Orono Planning Commission
City of Orono
1335 Brown Road South
Orono, Minnesota 55323
T.
36
NO N 191111
O[wxq M. uAT xl[[N
S
1919
Re: Alexander Holzer ORONO
2677 Casco Point Road CITY. OF
File No. 139-436
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have reviewed the engineering data submitted by our engineer
and your engineer; I have gone to the site and inspected it
with the HOlzera; and I have discussed settlement of the matter
wi'-h the Smerlings' new attorney, Jim Gilbert.
Based upon the foregoing, the Holzers have agreed to modify
their plans and would a.,k for approval of the project as follows:
(1 That the location of all the underground footings, etc.,
is satisfactory.
prc�2 That the columns come down all the way around the
e;y.
3. That behind the 75-foot line from the lake, the wall
remain the height it is now, which is approximately two blocks
above the ground, or 18-24 inches above the ground.
4. That from the 75-foot line westward toward the lake,
the wall be reduced in height by three courses of block or
approximately a reduction of 24-48 inches in height.
5.) That grading and filling be done on both sides of the
walk to level the ground up to the wall on the house side,
creating a swale such that the property would drain through
LINDOUIST & V E N N U M
Orono Planning Commission
June 6, 1979
Page two
the presently proposed drainage system, and that fill be
added on the lake side or outside of the wall such that the
grade would be restored to some extent such that the wall
would show fewer blocks above ground than it does now show.
/6./ That on the Smerlings' side of the wall, the sub-
stan�jjl bushes as well as grass would be planted, as has
alread been agreed.
7. That on the lake side of the wall,• substantial bushes
s' la to but perhaps larger, if necessary, be planted such
tha a wall will be hidden from the lake side. It would be
the Holzers' intention, therefore, to put a hedge along the
westerly side of the wall so that it could remain in substance
to do the erosion control work they designed it to do and
yet not be unsightly from the lake side.
In view of the uncontroverted evidence of the serious land-
slides in this neighborhood, and in view of the uncontroverted
evidence that this wall is effective and not over -large for
the job that it is being asked to do, we would hope that the
Planning Commission could see its way clear to approve in the
necessary variances based upon the foregoing. We think that
reducing the wall by three courses makes a very substantial
difference in its height when viewed from the Smerling side,
and we would think that it would go a great deal of the way
towards satisfying them that the wall is not coo high. They
have argued strongly that a tremendous amount of bushes were
removed, which we have agreed is true, but our assertion is
that those bushes were on the Holzers' property. In all
events, the net result of that is that in the summer time
when the Smerlings might be on the west side of their house,
they never did have a view northwestward across the Holzer
property because of the bushes. Now the wall will be down,
so that if they could see through the bushes northwestward
they will still be able to do so, and in addition, we will
plant all the bushes they would ask for.
With regard to the city's concern, we think that the wall at
the height proposed above, being lower by three courses of
block will create an effective protection to the Holzers'
property and at the same time with the wall being lower and
with the landscaping on the lake side or the west side of the
wall that there will be no unsightliness, which would be a
detriment to the community.
• LINDO'JIST & VENNUM
Orono Planning Commission
June 6, 1979
Page three
We look forward to
have an opportunity
meeting to apprise
situation with the
Thank you.
RM: jmt
meeting you Monday and hope that you will
to look at the site before Mondays
yourselves of the improvement in the
wall lowered by three courses of block.
Yours very truly,
LINDOUIST 6 VENNUM
By
Robert G. Mitchell Tr.
MINUTES OF A PIANNIN.. rN-PASSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 11, 1979
PAGE 3
✓ALEXANDER
Present were: Mr. and Mrs. Holzer, Mr. Robert
HOLZER
Mitchell (Holzer's attorney), Mr. Gerald Welsh
2677 Casco Point Road
(Holzer's contractor), Mr. and Mrs. Smerling,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMI7
Mr. Gerald Singer and Mr. .Tames Gilbert (Smerling's
(#436)
attorneys), and Mr. James Orr (Smerling's engineer).
Commission member Hannah vacated his seat for this
application due to conflict of interest.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the Holzers and Smerlings
have previously agreed verbally on the replacement of
plantings and grass. He did not feel the height of
the wall was a problem. Ile stated that the grade
would be returned to what was existing prior to the
wall construction. There are no plans for a
swimming pool and it has been decided by the Holzers
to remove the pillars completely. He also stated
that the portion of the wall within 75' of the lake
has been reduced by three courses of block.
Mr. Mitchell felt the issues remaining were:
1. Conditional Use Permit - grading and filling.
2. Variance for work within 75' lakeshore setback.
3. Variance for exceeding hardcover both in the
0-75' and 75-250' area of the lake.
He stated that his comments Supplemented his letter
of June 6, 1979.
Mr, Singer felt there was no basis for justifying
any structure within the 75' lakeshore setback.
He also felt beyond the 75' setback there was still
some question whether a structure should be permitted,
and if permitted, what height or where should it start?
It was their ,conLention that studies and a permit
should have been done prior to any commmencemant of
work, therefore, all structures built without prior
City approval should be removed: property should be
restored to condition existing prior to that time
and at that; point, if there is evidence to sustain
a granting of a variance, that would be the appropriate
time to consider such a request.
MINUTE3 OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 11, 1979
PAGE 4
Mr. Orr, Schoell Madson, as stated in his letter of
ALEXANDER HOLZER
May 25, 1979. again expressed his opinion that the
2677 Casco Point Road
wall is not needed for erosion control. He feels
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
the final determination regarding the wall should
Cont. (4436)
not be based on the erosion issue, but rather on
the conflict of the wall's height, placement and
its obstruction of view.
Mr. Smerling stated that there has never been any
erosion of his property due to water from the
Holzer property.
Mr. Welsh stated he was not aware of a need for a
building permit. Mabusth stated that we would
not have required a building permit for the
retaining wall; however, we would require a
Conditional Use Permit for land alteration.
Mr. Cook stated that he had no background information
to support the contention of a slippage problem.
He did not see the need for removing the footings
that are inplace as they apparently add something to
the integrity of the bank. He felt that if there
indeed is a slippage problem the system laid out
by the Holzers is okay and one method of solving the
problem. The only way to determine if there is a
slippage problem is by soil borings and an opinion
from a soils rxpert.
After further discussion of these issues particularly
the height of the wall, Adams moved to recommend
approval of a conditional use permit for the
construction of a wall, height to be determined by
staff but not to exceed 30" from original grade,
contingent on submittal of a landscaping plan
approved by staff and bonded for performanice with
completion by November 1, 1979. In conjunction,
recommend approval of a hardcover variance based on
possible slippage problem contingent on a satisfactory
treatment system for storm water approved by the
City Engineer. Motion seconded by Wilson.
Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (2) Jabbour and McDonald,
Vacated (1) Hannah McDonald and Jabbour felt the
hardship had not been shown, the method chosen by
applicant to control drainage and erosion had not
been proven effective, and still had some questions
regarding the height of the wall necessary for this
purpose.
TO: Council
FROM:
Alan
P.
Olson,
Village Planner
DATE:
June
21,
1979
SUBJECT: #436 Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit 6 Variance
Briefly, the application concerns a retaining wall, filling and
drainage system constructed by the Holzers prior to receipt of
permits. The neighbor to the south, Smerling, has objected to
much of this work and also to the new garage .,instructed under
Building Permit No. 3867 after approval of front and side yard
setback variances (case #417 approved September 13, 1978).
Conditional Use Permit: 31.700 grading and filling for retaining
walls and for drainage system installation.
Variances: 34.202 and 31.830 for construction within 75 ft.
lakeshore protected area.
I concur with the Planning Commission and recommend approvals per
their action or. June 11, 1979; i.e. Approve variance and conditional
use permit for grading and reta g wall provided that the wall is
not to exceed 30" height above - made at any point, subject to
staff approval o£ a andscaping pan, c� engineer approval of final
drainage plan details (see May 25, 1979 letter from Glenn Cook), and
to Holzer's providing a performance bond or letter of credit to assure
completion before November 1, 1979,
Council approval to include conditions 1,2, 5, 6 and 7 of Robert
Mitchell's letter to the Planning Commission, and modification of
conditions 3 and 4 to the 30" height as above.
Note that the drainage plans require a MCWD permit.
I suggest a resolution -be called for to incorporate the above points.
Regarding the garage construction, I submit that the garage height
and roof slope are within building and zoning code requirements
and that the terms of the setback variances have been met. The
garage is substantially completed.
cc: Mr. S Mrs. Holzer
Mr. Robert Mitchell
Mr. 6 Mrs. Smerling
Mr. James Gilbert
Planning Commission
jaxneS
roba3M
a rc �iittl3t
2 3 4 2 0
park street
excelsior,
mannesota
5 5 3 3 1
Mr. and Mrs. Louis R. Smerling
2552 Hest Lake of the Isles Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405
Re: Casco Point Road Home
Orono, Minnesota
Dear Mr, and Mrs. Smerling
July 8, 1979
I would like to summarize the recommendations which I have discussed with you
regarding the remedial work necessitated by the wall construction on the Holzer
property.
1. All walls should be removed from tre Holzer site between their
house and the lake. The walls should be dismantled down to the grade
which existed prior to the construction activity.
2. The top two courses of concrete block and all piers should be
removed from the remaining wall which will extend from the lake side
of the Holzer house to their garage. The top course which will remain
should be modified or rebuilt as a solid cap.
3. The concrete block wall which is to remain should be finished with
a stucco material to match the other walls on the Holzer property.
This material should extend down to grade on the Smerling side of the
wall.
4. All earth fill and concrete debris should be removed from your
site. The disturbed areas should be regraded to produce a smooth
uniform surface. Topsoil should be added to a depth of 4" where required
to produce the finish gradients.
5. A hedge should be planted along the c,:tire boundary between your
site and the Holzer property from the 75' setback Line to their qarage.
The hedge should be planted 12" inside your property to insure adequate
s space between the wall and they.7ants for growth. The hedge should be
comprised of 24"diameter Globe Arborvitae planted 3' center to center.
The plants should be installed after wall rebuilding and regrading but
not later than September 1st of this year. The plants should be planted
with a minimum of 6" of topsoil under and around the rootballs and a 4"
layer of woodchips above the planting hole. The plants should be
guaranteed for one year, with replacement of unsuccessful plants with
material of the same size and specie.
Smerling Page Two July 6, 1979
6. Grading and restoration of the Holzer property should proceed
as rapidly as possible, and should retirn the disturbed portions of their
yard to an elevation comparaLoe to that which existed prior to the
construction. The disturbed areas should be revegetated to turfgrass
or other vegetation to minimze exposed soil conditions- In Oder to
receive full benefit of the fall growing season, all revegetation should
be complete by September 1. All regrading on the Holzer site should be
done so as to minimize the storm water which would run onto your site.
7. The damage to your garage which was apparently caused by the adjacent
construction should be remedied.
8. Storm water from Mr. Holzers garage should be diverted from your
site via a system of gutters and downspouts to the street if that is
permissable.
If you have any questions regarding these recommendations please feel free to call.
W
1...AA. {. a A.DuuI
owN.x t. x[wNAu
uun A v.......
DswuD t. n.[nuaox
[DwwD N. Du..,A
N {..A IN.N IAl A.
[YY[xt .N{.IINO
{f .. NANLN[wV
IC MwND J.In[O[nN"
O N1nYx
N AC YI w 111t
tDWM A.
J..N..I
[q[x
JOM MNM.[111DT", N
DAnO O. N{AN µL
.A'N[..0 AOx
June 26, 1979
LINDQUIST & VENNUM
4E00 IDS CENTER 90 90VTN 01 STREET
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA E9402
TELCPMONC 161E1 311-3216
CAf LC AODRESS: LINLAW
WAYZATA OFFICE
)AO EAST L.A. fTR[ET
w.1Z.TA.MmNUOTA SSZ aI
Orono City Council
City of Orono
1335 Brown Road South
Orono, Minnesota 55323
Re: Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
File No. 139-436
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Holzers ask for approval of the project as follows:
1. That the location of all the underground footings,
etc. is satisfactory.
2. That the columns come down all the way around the
property.
3. That behind the 75 foot line from the le'-.e, the wall
remain the height it is now, which is approximately two
blocks above the ground, or 18-24 inches above the ground,
not to exceed 30" height above finish grade at any
point.
4. That from the 75 foot line westward tuward the lake, the
wall be reduced in height by three courses of block or
approximately a r,,duction of 24-48 inches in height, not
to exceed 30" height above finish grade at any point.
5. That grading and filling be done on both sides of the
wall to level the ground up to the wall on the house aide,
creating a bwale such that the property would drain through
the presently proposed drainagF --stem, and that fill be
L,INDQUIST & VENNUM
Orono City Council
June 26, 1979
Page -2-
added on the lake side or outside of the wall such
that the grade would be restored to some extent such
that the wall would show fewer blocks above ground than
it does now show.
6. That on the Smerlings' side of the wall, the substantial
biishes as well as grass would be planted, as has already
been agreed.
7. That on the lake side of the wall, substantial bushes
similar to but perhaps larger, if necessary, be planted such
that the wall will be hidden from the lake side. It would
be the Holzers' intention, therefore, to put a hedge along
the westerly side of the wall so that it could remain in
substance to do the erosion control work they designed it
to do and yet not be unsightly from the lake side.
Action requeste,.:
Conditional Use Permit: 31.700 grading and filling for
reta n ng walls and for drainage system installation.
variances: 34.202 and 31.830 for construction within 75 feet
a1Tces:� protected area and hard cover variances 0-75 feet and
and 75-250 feet.
Conditions:
1. Stipulations 1 through 7 above; and
2. Landscaping plan; and
3. City Engineer approval of final drainage pJ an details (see
May 25, 1979 letter from Glenn Cook); and
4. Holzers providing a performance bond or letter of credit
to assure completion before November 1, 1979.
Thank you.
very truly yours,
IS NDQU�IST) 6 VENNUM v� l
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RGM:mes
7`10
AOIJ
FO INWIr�i 0+�91C,t. r FL
N
A,� ,
�
wA
wta � �o
jtf
O�4M 6 &unu . rY v
rr ++ o L AApp
AEGULOR tEE^a ING OF THE OAO11O COUtICIL, SLILY 10, 1979
Page 2
Massengale moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the
Minutes of the Regular Mating of June 26, 1979.
Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0).
Massengale moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the
Minutes of the Rescheduled Meting of June 27,
1979. fiction Ayes (3) - trays (0).
Massengale moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the
Minutes of the Bond Sale of June 27, 1979. Motion,
Ayes (3) - Nays (0).
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1980
budget was discussed, The City.Council was
concerned over the lowering of legal services for
the District for 1980.
Mayor Van Nest moved, Massengale seconded, to request
Dick Benson, City Administrator, to write a letter
to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to
inquire into the reasons why the District is lowering
the budgeted amount for legai services during 1980.
Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0).
Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the
record the conditional use permit and variance
request of Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road,
dated June 21, 1979, which states:
Briefly, the application concerns a retaining wall,
filling and drainage system constructed by the
Holzers prior to receipt of permits. Theneighbor
to the south, Smerling, has objected to much of
this work and also to the new garage constructed
under Building Permit No. 3867 after approval of
front and side yard setback variances (case i417
approved September 13, 1978).
Conditional Use Permit: 31.700 grading and filling
for retaining walls and for drainage system
installation.
Variances: 34.202 and 31.830 for construction within
75 ft. lakeshore protected area.
MINUTES
June 26, 1979
MINUTES*
June 27, 1979
ttTNUTES*
June 27, 1979
LMCD 1980 BUDGET
CONDITIONAL USE PERM
VARIAN_E
2677 Casco Point Road
#436
Alexander Holzer
I concur with the Planning Commission and reco miend
approvals per their action on June 11, 1979; i.e.
Approve variance and conditional use permit for
grading and retaining wall provided that the wall
is not to exceed 30" height above original grade at
any point, subject to staff approval of a landscaping
plan, City Engineer approval of find drainage plan
(Con C.nucd)
.OLAR IIEETIIIG OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JUL3 10, 1979
Page 3
and to Ifolzern providing a performance bond or
letter of credit to assure completion before
November 1, 1979.
Council approval to include conditions 1, 2, 5, 6,
and 7 of Robert Mitchell's letter to the Planning
Commission dated June 6, 1979, and modification of
conditions 3 and 4 to the 30" height as above.
Note that the drainage plane require a MCMD permit.
I suggest a resolution be called for to incorporate
the above points.
Regarding the garage construction, I submit that the
garage height and roof slope are within building
and zoning code requirements and that the terms of
the setback variances have been met. The garage is
substantially completed.
Council I7eeting - July 10, 1979
Mr. Robert Mitchell, attorney for Mr. Holzer,
was present and presented the City Council with
a revised letter of conditions dated June 26, 1979.
Letter - Pages 4 i 5
CO'IDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2677 Casco Point Road
(Continued)
Mr. Mitchell explained to the City Council his
letter of June 26, 1979, which he had just presented
to the City Council, and also stated that the
Holzers acted in good faith not realizing permits /
were required or that work done was in violation /\
of City codes, that building permits had been
secured
for other work done on the property.
Mr. James Gilbert, att:yrnsy for Mr. Smerling.
delivered another litter fr,rr a landscape architect
and explained his clients position in the matte. -
stating that they do not approve of the we A I ne
or the engineer's drainage plans.
Councilmember Hurr inquired of Mr. Holzer cr.,
reason for placing fill close to the garage
door. '
Mr. Holzer stated that he wanted a ramp to drive
his boat up into the yard for storage. He also
stated that he wanted to blacktop the ramp.
Councilmember Hurr reminded him of the excessive
hardcover on the lot.
The City Council discussed the work, the plans and
changes offered by Mr. Mitchell. Informal discussions
revealed hat none of the Councilmembsrs would vote
to approve the plan as presented. Suggestions were
given to Mr. Holzer on possible changes that would
be acceptable to the Council. (Continued, page 6)
Page 4
...... ..\....... .
L I N D O U I S T & V E N N U M
...r.....[.....
..., ..Y[.N..
JOw.f.w
,[uuf.owYf.Y
u00.41l LI..*.
.Ieo 106 uw.0 ee wurll iv nw[[•
Y•••, •. N,rww
•{..a... f....f.'
Y.t.. Yuv.4Y
MIMO[.WU[. YIOM [i0f1 it.01
IffNaa. Ja
Kw [ a N..
IY141 l.,bYYY
lt\[.wOw[ NIII )fl•)III
JN. f.,Nt1
..sa ..[Y.1..
u,N a.Ib
NB[ .00wii4 LIw L.M
..
,r.w
.µ\.f.YNt[YNf
��
YrwYtA\A pII.Ct
W,OM .
N.[..
Y. ..Y.N
1.0 [.ff \.wt 11.191
M.N1. J. YVII4,
Mff.O. YIYY[.Of...)il
Illw .Ytt C,. Ma,.C.
Colo..
w.11
N
=q•a=4V
.,�q x x.upax
June 26, 1979
Orono City Council
City of Orono
1335 Brown Road South
Orono, Minnesota 55323
Re: Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
File No. 139-436
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Holzers ask for approval of the project as follows:
1. That the location of all the underground footings,
etc. is satisfactory.
2. That the columns come down all- the way around the
property.
3. That behind the 75 foot line from the lake, the wall
remain the height it is now, which is approximately two
blocks above the ground, or 18-24 inches above the gromd,
not to exceed 300 height above finish grade at any
point. I
4. That from the 75 foot line westward toward the lake, the
wall be reduced in height by three courses of block or
approximately a reduction of 24-48 inches in height, not
to exceed 30" height above finish qrade at any point.
S. That grading and filling be done on both sides of the
wall to level the ground up to the wall on the house side,
creating a awale such that the property would drain through
the presently proposed drainage system, and thwt fill be
J O U 15 7 G V E N N U M
Pa:,e 5
Orono City Council
June 26, 1979
Page -2-
added on the lake side or outside of the wall such
that the grade would be restored to some extent such
that the wall would show fewer blocks above ground than
it does now shah.
6. That on the Smerlings' side of the wall, the substantial
bushes as well as grass would be planted, as has already
been agreed.
7. That on the lake side of the wall, substantial bushes
similar to but perhaps larger, if necessary, be planted such
that the wall will be hidden from the lake side. It would
be the Holzers' intention, therefore, to put a hedge along
the westerly side of the wall so that it could remain in
substance to do the erosion control work they designed it
to do and yet not be unsightly from the lake side.
Action reonested:
Conditional use Permit: 31.700 grading and filling for
retaining walls and for drainage system installation.
Variances: 34.202 and 31.830 for construction within 75 feet
al keshore protected area and hard cover variances 0-75 feet and
and 75-250 feet.
Conditions:
1. Stipulations 1 through 7 above; and
2. Landscaping plan; and
3. City Engineer approval of final drainage plan details (see
may 25, 1979 letter 'rom Glenn Cook); and
4. Holzers providing a performance bond or letter of credit
to assure completion before November 1, 1979.
, 1
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
LINDQUIS'OeSTT ,& VENNUMM
` `
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RGM:mes
T'NG OF TH:. )RONO COUNCIL, JOLY 10, 1979 Page 6
Diac(u Eton fol_ w• oncerni„r regrading to follow CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'
the naa•rcl di nat nor � and south but not to 2677 Casco Point Road
t` __ke. Two lorka t( m removed from the retain- (Continued)
my wall and ending at the front of Holzer's house,
and bathes b+ing replaced.
Massengale move., ..urr seconded, to table the
application of ..lsxander Holzer, 2677 Casco
Point Road, until fir. Holzer presents additional
plans showing landscaping, proper drainage to the
no.r`.h and South with terracing or berms and no
h:.rc.cover within 75' of the lake. Motion, Aves (3) -
flays (0).
fir. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record
SUBDIVISION
the request of Larry Osgood, 365 Willow Drive North,
365 Willow Drive Nort
for a subdivision, dated November 3, 1978, which states:
#437
Larry Osgood
fir. Osgood proposes dividing 9.? acres into a four
lot subdivision. All lots meet the zoning require-
ments for the district (RR-ls). The existing building
meets all setback requiremen'cs from newly created
division lines. Mr. Osgood has furnished a septic
report for Lot B, but we will require testing for
Lots C 6 D, the septic inspector will inspect the
existing system on Lot A.
The access road serving plat is located at the edge
of a designated wetland along southern property line.
The preliminary plans should . -designate distance
from road to wetland. A northern access would be out
of the question be-:ause of the bridge approach and
factor of zero visibility to north.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 13, 1978
fir. Osgood was advised to consult with staff concern-
ing the eligibility of the property for a metes and
bounds division. '
Staff Notes - November 16, 1976
fir. Osgood was advised that to qualify for a metes
and bounds division he would have to divide the
property into two lots of five acres. He informed
staff that he planned an deeding his son a two acre
parcel only. Mr. Osgood will proceed with his
original plan of platting a four lot division.
Staff Note - May 15, 1979
i
Mr. Osgood will continue with a three lot division
because of poor septic test results for original
Lot 4. He will ccmbine Lola 3 c 4. Lot 2 will
use a temporary ace;ess through Lot 1.
(Continued)
CITY of ORONO Control No. 496
a Omn sue M.Cryswl Bay. Minnesota 553t3• Municipal Omcee Tdeohone 473-7357 Variance
Mr. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision, Prelim.
_ Subdivision, Final
Date of Meeting: July 10. 1979
Votes: 3 For 0 Against Abstention
Date of Notice __ 9
Action: __ Approval: As submitted subject to applicable ordinance requirements
Approval: Subject to conditions noted
-K- Deferral: Pending receipt of information noted
Referral: Review by others, as noted
Denial: For reasons noted
NOTES & SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Council tabled application reauesting �`S_=at rho_
applicant submit a revised plan for special consideration at the Joint
Planning Commission/Council meeting on July 17 1979 including changes
discussed at the July 10 1979 meeting i.e, no drainage piping, reduction
of wall height, no wall above grade within 75 ft. setback, landscaping plan.
etc. Special Meeting 7:30 P.M. July 17 1979.
Deadlines:_ Variance approval expires one year after the meeting date.
Contact building inspector for required permits.
_ Conditional Use Approval Must be renewed annually.
_Expires on
_Must be renewed upon change in
ownership or use.
_ Preliminary Subdivision approval expa.res after one year of
meeting date.
Contact Zoning Administration for final plat requirements.
_ Final Subdivision approval expires 6 months after meeting date.
Contact Zoning Administration for filing requirements and
document approval.
JDC Deferred items may be declared formally withdrawn if applicant
fails to provide information within one month of meeting
date, or by date specified by Council.
If you desire certified copies of the official City Council Minutes, they
are available from the Deputy City Clerk upon review and approval by the
Council.
cc: Mr. Robert Mitchell
Mr. Smerling
Mr. Gilbert
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JULY 24, 1979 Page 8
Mr. Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road, was (/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
not present concerning his conditional use permit. 2677 Casco Point Road
1436
Mayor Van Nest moved, .Massengale seconded, to table Alexander Holzer
the request of Mr. Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco
Point Road, for a conditional use permit until the
next regular Council meeting. Motion, Ayes (4) -
flays (0).
Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the SUBDIVISION/P.R.D.
record the request of Hussman Investment Company 3660 Shoreline Drive
for a I.R.D. at 3660 Shoreline Drive, gated 4447
April 3, 1979, which states: Hussman Investment Co.
The applicant presents a P.A.D. proposal of 28
units following the standards for the existing
zoning district (LR-lC-1). The plat road will
service 24 units and four single family units will
be served by Blaine Avenue. The developer feels
this corridor of single family lots will be an
excellent buffer for neighborhood to the east.
We have asked for an additional 15' right-of-way
for Blaine Avenue. The access road is 60' wide
at entrance but becomes 50' in approximately 50'.
All structures appear to meet the requirements of
the zoning district. Surveyor has not designated
setbacks for structures. Lot 14 may have a rear
yard setback problem. The four single dwelling
lots (detached dwellings) are not allowed under
this application.
The Park Commission will be asked to review this
project for a possible park site. The Navarre
Theatre has surplus playground equipment that
could possibly be utilized by the City either in
a park for this development or in a nearby park
site. The playground equipment could be considered
part of a park dedication fee.
Access Road
We will recommend that the plat road be considered
a public road because of its location within the
urban service area. City Engineer will determine
specifications for public road. Staff recommends
a 50' easement instead of usual 60' because of
its limited use (railroad to north, wetlands to
west). The City does not plan an extensive network
of City roads in this area.
Pond
The proposed pond will require a conditional use
permit. There exists an extensive natural drainage
system right to the west and south of the property.
(Continued)
Telephone e737357
CITY of ORONO
Poet Orcre Box Me Cryetel Buy, Minnew4 WD aMunidpel Oafae
On the lorth Shore of Lake Minnetonka
July 26, 1979
Mr. Alexander Rolzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
Re: #436 Conditional One Permit
Dear Mr. Holeer:
This item wss tabled by the Council on July 24, 1979, because no
revised plans had been submitted and no representation was present
at the meeting.
The Council is concerned that the matter not be delayed further.
They directed me to advise you that action will be taken at the
August 14, 1979 meeting. Any new information you wish to have
considered must be provided to my office no later than August 8, 1979.
In addition, the Council ¢ambers visited the site in the last week
and were very concerned by evidence of new grading work underway.
You are herrrby notified that the STOP WORK ORDER is still in effect
regarding grading and new construction. You are permitted to
remove portions of the wall as already directed by the Culmcil.
I am hopeful that you can provide a plan based upon the statements
of Mr. Mitchell and the guidelines noted by the Council at the
July 10, 1979 meeting.
Sincerely,
1 n P. Olso/
V'..11age Planner
APO:kh
cc: Mr. Robert Mitchell, Lindquist & Vennum
#436
TO: Council
FROM: Alan P. Olson, Village Planner
DATE: July 30, 1979
SUBJUM #436 Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Whether or not a revised plan is submitted for the August 14, 1979
meeting, I strongly recommend that the Council take action at that
time to permit final construction/reconstruction to occur.
I have again inspected the property and am prepared to give detailed
recommendations about final wall height, etc. Briefly, my opinions
are as follows:
1) Area between Holzer and Smerling house - natural drainage
was toward Smerling house; wall as built directs drainage
toward lake; removal of one block could be done without
change in drainage; removal of two or more blocks increases
likelihood of again directing runoff toward Smerling house.
2) Area between front of Holzer house any 75' line - several
blocks could be removed without affecting drainage in steps
with approximately 16" - 24" remaining exposed on Smerling
side.
3) Area in front of 75' line on south side - all but one block
could be removed and that could be buried with drainage
being directed parallel to lake as naturally occurred.
4) Area across front of Holzer lot - wall could be removed down
to level where plastic appears in joints (4-5 blocks) with
remaining wall buried and ground sloped to meet edge of bank;
drainage would be toward lake as naturally occurred.
5) Area between Holzer and Downey houses - well could remain as
is; directs water toward lake.
6) Area in front of Holzer snd Downey houses to approximate
area where steps are built - wall should remain high enough
to direct and keep water on Holzer property to avoid damage
to Downey boathouse: can be stepped down to match buried
wall along front.
These descriptions are hard to draw on a plan but they could easily
be marked in the field to accomplish these results. The basic intent
would be to protect adjacent properties from direct runoff but to
return to natural drainage patterns in the lakeshore area avoiding
the terracing effec� of the walls.
LAN
MESHDESIIER, SINGER & SPENCE, LTD.
I41E a.E. Av er On
•tMYLi.....Ohre
OO4 L0 M Y
MYttLLL M t. YOt•
IANUS II. OIYtTTt
JOY !. CYEIOIIO
July 27, 1979
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 00404
The Honorable William B. Van Nest
Mayor of the City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: Smerling V. Holzer
Our File No. 16679-79GMS/JHG
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
Ov1}LY Y JO.t.Y
vA�ilY L. AAD\!
WOL OY1i
EtIO 1. lt,lttt�
tLOIYO L. W WIO
OI MLD J. !!W L
1w. Wt•
1. twtaY-ncu
Recently my clients called me concerning the new proposals the
Holzers are working on on their property. They expressed a
d-ep concern about having a very detailed plan to be presented
-..o the City Council which would in essence be very specific in
outlining what exactly Mr. Holzer would have to do in implementing
the plan. Because of the past independence that Mr. Holzer has
demonstrated, my clients do feel it is very important that these
guidelines be set as such so there will be no further difficulties
or questions on either the city's part, the Holzer's part or my
client's part.
Additionally, my clients have brought to my attention again the
land elevation of Mr. Holzer's property, and they feel that in
some places over three feet of fill have been added to raise *'is
Holzer property. They would request that the original landscaping
and contour be restored to Mr. Holzer's property to avoid any
potential future drainage problems on their property.
As I understand it now, we are again set on for hearing on Tuesday,
August 14, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. and we will Ulan on being there.
Hopefully this matter may be resolved at that time.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
MESHBESHER, SINGER 6 SPENCE, LTD.
James H. Gilbert
JAG/dl BIBTATED BUT NOT BEAD
cc: Client
Robert G. Mitchell
x... e. uxeovr.. LINDOUIST & V t7-N N U M
I....n icw.iw .1.... Joxxaox
0[ A,. O.ulow u0 LrY u•w
e:{w.ox •.00 ioe ccn)a. eo Bourn em er.cn •�.{) lcw n o•
rain
o" uow. w tmw
. «inn c..o ue. «innesore ee•ot
c...0.1�no{Wlo
,oux
Ya,.a TELEPHONE rlrYl Dl-iYrr e+o.Or.lr.{muxvxrt•x.euec.eo..enI,.ce
w.
au.Ja
MNerw .wt. 10a.• Jtw,.M1
':c«.w c.s.«ewla.w
CABLE •oo.ce s un{ww e,e
r'irc.uo e...xm
IIX c. e�.«.«ax
.vro ..n w.,u w.rz.r. or ncc
.o.u,o J..'*R w,rz.n..r..{eor. ee.ei
«ci
MMI.I m
August 6, 1979
Orono City Council
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The summary of the reasons the Holzers would like to have
you grant them any necessary conditional use permits or variances
is as follows:
1. There is a clear and present danger of earth slippage from
the hill on which they live down into Lake Minnetonka as
evidenced by the 1978 landslide on the adjacent Smerling property
and at two other places on Casco Point in 1978.
2. There is a drainage storm water run-off problem with respect
to:
a. The Downey property to the north which has a basement
to which Holzer run-off water flows; and
b. Toward Lake Minnetonka which aggravates the earth slippage
danger identified above because the storm water seeps into
the steep hill and makes it more prone to slippage; and
c. A potential problem on the Smerlings' property to the
south if the property had a basement and because the Smerlings
are worried about water run-off; or
d. To prevent further water run-off onto the Smerling side
which is a possible aggravating cause of the earth slide
which occurred in the summer of 1978 on the Smerling
property.
LINDOUIST 6 VENNUM
Orono City Council
August 6, 1979
Page -2-
The benefits which would be caused by this fence or wall are:
1. Earth slippage would be prevented per engineer Mark S.
Gronberg's report;
2. The drainage problems identified above would be controlled;
3. The water still soaks into the grass, only the overflow runs
off, and it is the greatest part of what needs to be controlled;
4. Another small, old and formerly dilapidated Orono dwelling
would be upgraded so that it would be an asset to the owners,
to the neighborhood, and to the City as a whole.
While the vast majority of the neighborhood is in favor of the
Holzers' improvements, including the neighbor on the north side
(the Downeys), the Holzers realize that the neighbor on the south
side (the Smerlings) oppose parts of the improvements and, realizing
further that the City of Orono has some legitimate interest in the
improvements, the Holzers state the following:
1. That the Smerlings never had a view across the Holzer property
towards Lake Minnetonka because of the dense bushes at that
location, which bushes were almost entirely on the Holzer
property;
2. With the Holzers having already agreed to putting new bushes
and grass on the Smerlings' side of the wall, the Smerling view
will be exactly as it has been in the past namely being a view
of the bushes. .n addition, the Holzers still intend to stucco
the fence/wall and so its appearance, if there be any through the
bushes, will be a pleasing appearance exactly like the appearance
which the fence/wall has presently on the street side of the
Holzer property.
3. As for the City's interest in the fence/wall, it should be
noted that at no point is it higher than is permitted for a
fence in this location, and therefore the only issue really is
appearance.
4. The Holzers assert that the wall is a fence, is not therefore
a structure, can legally be -here it is, and at the height if
not exceeding 42". The Holzers point out that there are numerous
other walla in and around the Casco Point neighborhood; some
of the fences or walls are the property lines; some go all the
way down to the lake.
LINDOUIST & VENNUM
Orono City Council
August 6, 1979
Page -3-
5. Al Olson has said that the Holzers could have a fence in the
place this fence/wall is in up to 42" high without variance
and w+th+5 ' of the lakeshore; Glen Cook has said that the
pro�ainage system is a useful component to the fence/wall
the Holzers want to have and will appropriately carry off
excess storm water (i.e. that which does not soak into the
grass);
6. No precedent would be set by allowing the Holzers to have
this fence/wall in this location because:
a. The wall is simply a fence like other fences in the
neighborhood and can be on the property line and within 75'
of the lake (it's not a structure); or
b. Even if on.: finds it is different from a fence, it is still
not a precedent setting because:
i. it is within the 42" height limit; and
ii. it's on an extremely steep hill and designed to
prohibit demonstrated earth slippage in the area,
and to prevent storm water run-off damage (both to
neighbors and vis-a-vis earth slides)
and therefore necessity calls for this fence on these
grounds and the steepness of the hill, the nearness of the
hill to Lake Minnetonka, and the absence of space are
unique properties of this site found on few other sites.
7. The risk of real damage to the Holzers' lot and even to the
house is very great because of the foregoing factors and supports
the necessity for the fence/wall.
Finally, the Holzers offer to do the following to compromise the
matter:
1. From the front edge of the Smer'-ling bathroom inland and the
Downey side from drop off point inland, the wall will be as is
but with no pillars.
2. From the edge of the Smerling bathroom lakeward, the wall will
come down two blocks in height all across the front and around
to the Downey side.
3. The wall will be filled on both sides.
LINDOUIST & VENNUM
Orono City Councii
August 6, 1979
Page -4-
4. On the outside of the wall on the Smerling side from the
bathroom forward, and on the lakeside, a dense hedge of arbor
vitae 36" tall, 40" on centers, will be planted to conceal
the wall from the Smerlings' property and from Lake Minnetonka.
5. The drainage system as originally planned will be installed
subject to a Minnehaha watershed District permit for the
catch basins.
6. The landscape plan would be subject to City staff approval.
7. The drainage plan would be subject to Glen Cook's approval
and to a M.C.W.D. permit.
8. The Holzers would agree to finish the work no later than
November 1, 1979 if approval to work is obtained by August 21,
1979 from the City.
Our interpretation of the Code is that:
1. SS31.433 and 31.434 allow fences up to 42" tall.
2. No setback from the property line is necessary, though the
fence is set back 2' on the Smerling side.
3. A fence is not a structure within 534.202 and therefore the
0' to 75' and 75' to 250' hardcover rules don't apply.
4. No fill has been brought onto the site, but if it is we
concede that 531.700 requires a permit. No dirt has been dumped
ever the embarkment intentionally; all dirt is needed on the
uphill side. We don't agree that 531.830 prohibits the fill
around tnis fence.
Nevertheless the Holzers wish to cooperate with the City and compromise
and settle the outstanding matters and so offer to apply for and
get the permits and variances necessary to complete the work as
outlined above.
The Holzers believe this whole matter has been blown out of proportion.
The fence is 99% beneficial to them; both neighbors for earth slippage
and run-off control reasons; the City because the property is being
made more valuable and secure; and Lake Minnetonka because this
landowner is willing to spend a lot of money to make certain the Lake
LINDQUIST & VENNUM
Orono City Council
August 6, 1979
Page -5-
won't be polluted by an earth slide. In addition, all are
benefited by a beautiful and expensive arbor vitae hedge which
will conceal the fence from the Smerling side anl. from Lake
Minnetonka.
With all the work which has been done to date, what purpose
would be served by tearing down this fence of masonary if a wooden
fence of like dimensions could be put up by the Smerlings or their
successors, or the Downeys or by the Holzers. We urge the
Council to accept the foregoing as a beneficial solution to the
present impass.
Respectfully submitted,
LINDQUIST s VENNUM
4G )&d ll
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. A/
RGM:mes
CC: Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Holzer
William B. Van Nest, Mayor
Ms. Mary C. Butler
Ms. Jo Ellen Hurr
Mr. Walter B. Massengale
Mr. Norman W. Paurus
Mr. Alan P. Olson, Village Planner
Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator
Mr. Glenn R. Cook, Engineer
Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq.
Senator George S. Pillsbury
Rep. Robert L. Searles
Mr. Mark S. Gronberg, P.E.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUGUST 14, 1979
Council Meeting - August 14, 1979
Mr. i Mrs. Rolzer and their attorney, Mr. Robert
Mitchell, were present. Mr. Mitchell reviewed
his letter of August 6, 1979 with the City Council.
Letter - Pages 4-6
Mayor Van Nest informed Mr. Mitchell that he was
presenting the same plan as before whereas the City
Council had requested a new grading plan to be
presented at this meetingto include the guidelines
that the Council recommended at the July 10, 1979
Council meeting.
Councilmember Butler reviewed Alan Olson's memo
dated July 30, 1979, stating that she had viewed
the property that morning and that she noted the
number of blocks to be removed in order to.maintain
the integrity of the runoff.
Mayor Van Nest requested of Mr. Mitchell to prepare
new drainage Dlans with no exposed retaining wall
for the next meeting.
fir. Mitchell stated that he will prepare plans to
bring to the next Council meeting which will include
drawings and photographs.
Massengale moved, Paurus seconded, to note for the
record that the City Council received Mr. Mitchell's
letter dated August 6, 1979, but that it does not
contain an acceptable plan. Motion, Ayes (5) -
Nays (0).
Page 3
CONDITIONAL :)BE PERMIT
2677 Casco Point Road
(Continued)
:l
Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record SUBDIVISION/PRD
information sent to Mr. George Hussman, Hussman 3660 Shoreline Drive
Investment Company, concerning a subdivision/PRD #447
proposal at 3660 Shoreline Drive dated July 26, 1979 Hussman Investment Co.
which states:
"Your proposal was tabled at the July 24, 1979 Council
meetin_ to allow you time to revise certain details
discussed at that meeting. I should have a revised
plan in uy office no later than August 8, 1979 for
the next regular meeting to be held on August 14, 1979.
The major changes requested were as follows:
1. Maximum 24 units arranged as 12 twinhomes
2. All units to be served internally by the new
street with no frontage on Blaine Avenue
3. Creation of a walkway between Blaine and the new
road: dedicated public or private outlot
(Continued, Page 7)
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUGUST 14, 1979
/ Page 2
I
Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the
CONDITIONAL USE PERMT
record the following dated Julv 30, 1979, which
2677 Casco Point Rd.
states:
#436
Alexander Holzer
Whether or not a revised plan is submitted for the
j
August 24, 1979 Council meeting, I strongly recom-
mend that the Council take action at that time to
permit final construction/reconstruction to occur.
I have again inspected the property and am pftpared
to give detailed recommendatiuns about final wall
height, etc. Briefly, my opinions are as follows:
1. Area between Holzer and Smerling house - natural
drainage was toward Smerling house; wall as
built directs drainage toward lake; removal of
one block could be done without change in drain-
age; removal of two or more blocks increases
likelihood of again directing runoff toward
Smerling house.
-
2. Area between front of Holzer house and 75' line -
several blocks could be removed without affecting
drainage in steps with approximately 16" - 24"
remaining exposed -n Smerling side.
3. Area in front of 75' line on south side - all
but one block could be removed and that could
be buried with drainage being directed parallel
to lake as naturally occurred.
4. lrea across front of Holzer lot - wall could
be removed down to level where plastic appears
in joints (4-5 blocks) with remaining wall
buried and ground sloped to meet edge of bank;
drainage would be toward lake as naturally
occurred.
5. Area between Holzer and Downey houses - wall
ould remain as is; directs water toward lake.
6. Area in front of Holzer and Downey houses to
approximate area where steps are built - wall
should remain high enough to direct and keep
water on Holzer property to avoid damage to
Downey boathouse; can be stepped dorm to match
buried wall along front.
These descriptions are hard to draw on a plan but
they could easily be marked in the field to accomplish
i
these results. The basic intent would be to protect
adjacent properties from direct runoff but to return
to natural drainage patterns in t:,e lakeshore area
avoiding the terracing effect of the walls.
j
(Continued)
t...n ..16.•.....
Page 4
August 6, 1979
IEVEREm
Grona fty Council U U " 9 as
poet f
ou cn Mot ct
Crystal Bay. 1M 55)3)
\ I.: Al au poor xolre CITY OF (RCNO 4
tell Casco Point lied
Lou Lodi.. and Continue -
The summery of the reasons the xolters would I1[e to nave
you grant thb any netesu rY cond..lonal use Panetta or vrtaneu
I. as fedlpc
1. Thou I. z .lair and pruent danger or ea rtA allppaoe free
the h111 on vetch they live down Into It. ninvtonts As
evidenced Ey the 1918 LMal!de on the off .... t Mae sling Pan operty
ona at two ..... piece. on Cairn Point in 1976.
1. Thera 1.. duin.9. store water run-off problea with rapt[
to.
a. The Caney property to the north which has . beeewsnr
to wOi.h xm zer ran -off w.t.r flown and
u. Tnw:rd mate Minnetonka which aggravate. the ..'to ."PP'
9e
danger iaenllfled shove bec.u.. the core wa sepa Into
the at..p nut .nd ...a it .or. prone tT lippog.; and
c A Potential prohlse onthe Mearlln9e' property to the
L u if t➢e property had a beaarnt .M hec...e the Ya[lln9a
are worried about ..,or run -orb or
it. To prevent further water run-off onto the Smarting side
which 1* a possible Aggravating cause
of the oal f th tos
whirh Occurred In the .earner of 1179on the Sterling
property,
4 TO. heneflu MTcn would he [aa.ed br thin fend or all at.,
1. Carte allppge would the prevented "r engineer Mart S.
Grenber9'. .eprt,
1. Th. dt.lns9e p..bl—. identified .Pow. would be controlled,
1. The water still .oaks into in& gross: only the overflow runs
off, and it za the greatest Part of what needs to be controlle'.
a. another a.a)1, old and forwarly dilapidated Crano duelling
would b upod.d in that 1t would for an o the —net.,
to the nel9nln.nood• and to the City as . Mole
.Mlle the vast majority Of the n.i,hb.zhpd 1. 1. bvo. Or the
'Molter✓you lrvowen, including the neighbor on the north aide
Ithe Lavery.), the no ire is is.I l is the[ the ne lghbor On the .outh
olde (the Sterling.) arpeea parts of the Lprov.eanu and, realizing
further that the City of Orono has sqy legitimate interest In the
improvements, the Moltere state the following:
I. That the Sererlin9s never had a view across the Holier property
aide late Minnetonka hecau of the dense bushes nr that
l a[ulon, which bushes were alisat entirely an the Holzer
P, party,
1. with the Holier. Msvtng air ... y ,-ad to Putting new Cusco.
and gr... no the 9ma[lfng.' aid. al the ..It. the Mma.11n9 view
.111 be .r a ely as 1t he. I.. to the P.at nit-1, being . Na
of the bo.n.a. In addition. the .else.. .mail intend t stucco
the [cote/w [l -M a. it. I.,
1f "are be ..I t ou9h the
bush.., will bat . pI...leg .,,—an.. a ct1Y lib the aPporsnd
which the 1e ,Iall he. pi...OUT on th. street aide of the
xolanr property.
]. As for the City's Interest in
the ranee/wall, It should he
red that a o pint 1. it high.- then I. prwttId for
f.nce r tnb low[ion. end therefore the only issue really le
appee: once.
a. TM. Holier. . art coat the wall is . fan—. 1. no, therefore
ucture. c n b9elly >e when It 1 '' at the height 1f
—ailing tY. TM Xnl q[e' pin[ W that the[. a roue
.0.1 It. t .nd a and the Co. point t ne ighi—hond,ra
of the reply. a ..It. are the property Il... : a— go .1. Ina
way down 1. In. r l.a..
( Page 5
S. Al Olson has said that the Hollers could have a fence In the
PI.c. this faze/wall li In up to 41• high without variance
and within 75' of the l.k..henl Wen Cook he. aid .hot the
PmPos.d drainage System Is + useful eweonent to the fence/wall
the Ilolsers want to have and will appropriately carry off
go— w.br It... that which ties. net ...e into the
9 r•..11
6. No precedent would be cat by allowing the Hollers to have
this forma/vall in this location bec.uses
a. Th..12 1. .imply . farce lie. that fence. in in.
neighbornood and can be on the property line and within 75'
of the lake Ill's not . t..cm,m), or
b. Sven if one find. It I. different trw . fee... it 1. .till
not . rFec.d.ne ..III" nee....:
4
I. 1t is wlttlh the u' neigh, limit, and
If. it's o ertremely steep hill and designed to
prohibitdemonstratedearth slippage In the area,
and to prevent atom water run-off damage (both to
neighbors and rl era-vls earth all".)
and k.,.for. n en city calls fthis fence an Noe
ground. and Na .prm of the hill, the n of the
hill to Lake Minnetonka,sand the absence of .pace
....we properties of this .it. found on few mtN., .lee..
g. The risk of real d..ge to In. xoltev• lot and .... to the
race.. I. wary great M.... e of Ne fmregoing factor. and support.
in. net ss.It, for In. fence/va 11.
Finally, the Mol real offer to do N. following to cwprwl.. the
eutt.r:
1. Icw N.- front edge of the Sverige, ba Ntoo. inland and N.
Downey side from drop off point inland, the wall will M as it
but with em Fillers.
]. From the "go of the SnerliN bathroom IeNword. Na wall will
todome two block. n fn height all across the front and around
the flovn.y aid..
I. Th. ..It will be filled on both aid...
y
t. On the o ,aide of the wall
Inenl.k"Id- line.... badge of argon'
be tnrnoeut`. +[d. +n o
vices lS' 1l, to' el censor•, will bsea IF—
to conw+l
the wall from the Swellings' pmpe rtY and from 4ke Mlnm tomb.
5. Flo ..,j ctlnage to . MSnnene5u watershed OI.grill permit -Yet" as originally P"� in'fors the
catch catch banns.
b. The landscape Plan would be .ub)ect to City left upp[Ov+l.
1. The dreinal. plan —old be .wh5m, to Glen Ceok'. aMF... I
and to . M. C.V.D, "—it.
S. The Hobert would three to finish N. were no late[ than
MoraWr 1. 1511 if Approval to work 1• obtained by Aug..' ll.
I SIy from Ne City.
Our inte:p.etAtlun of the Ced. I. Nn:
1. 1531.431 and n.-J• +caw fence• up to tl' cell.
fence2. o a.tback on setback
free th
he property
Sterling ng me ...I- tbngn N.
1. fence
1and • not
l5'• to 150-ewithinhardenv.,l[ulo 6.n therefore the
V tol5
5. He fill be. ban brought onto In. .It., but if 1t I. we
d. that 531.700 require• A permit. m0 dirt her been duped
.....r the mab+nkmant in entf...11,; .11 dirt 1. .—tied on the
uphill AI.. me don't .,to. at 131. Slo prohibits to- fill
.round this fence.
Nevertheless III Hollers wish t enurr:u "In the City and eo•prwl••
little the eununding m. and flat to .pity for And
M gel s.I. and v.ri—cm. necessary to cler• N. —[a as
outlined she".
mg
Tne Mahe twisrve Ni. whole vtt s bean blwn cut of propertioe.
The fence I. 5,% Wn.fici.1 to In—; .nth nellebrts fee earth n.pPAa^
ty
ers I.
.ad.r— oev+leAGLland s I MI Yte•Minnetonks beuu.e thI�1N
landowner I. vi111N In spend •plot of money to ere. certain rite [at.
Page 6
LINDOUISl 66 VCNNUM
Orono City Lbgncil
AOOVat 6. IS"
Pepe -5-
won't he polluted by an arth slide. In Addition, all
Mnetl led try • hesntl tul end sepenalw ArMr of r.e kedgervhicM
v111 conseal the Ienee frme the $.1111p s10e and frme lab
Minnetonka.
With all the work which has Men done to date, what purpose
vould M • re" by tearing 4. this lance of mesenal)' it A wooden
is.s of like dimensions could M Put up by the 6rrlines or their
successor., or the Ibwneys or by the MOLert. we urge the
Connell to accept the foregoing as a beneficial solution to the
Present Sapass.
Mawctfully sabaitted.
LIMGOIIi St a VEMM
Ibbert G. Mitchell, Jr..4.I
.GM:Mt
Ce: W. aM We. AlseaMer "less
Milllan M. tan Mart. Meyer
Me. Me" C. MRlsr
bed. is Slide beer.
Mr. alter M. Massengale
Mr. Mermen W. aaONa
�r. Ala P. Olson, Village Planner
Me. Jean. A. IYMAN, "at. Sen ln9 M.—tut..
Mr. Glenn M. foot. Engineer
Arse. o. ASIAerann, Eeq.
Senator Geoga S. Plllabury
ASP- eobert L. Searles
Mr. Mart S. Grnnberg, I.e.
CITY of ORONO Control No. 436
q Oflitt Bei 66•Crynrl Bey, Minnmw Sn23.Menidpel O/fim leleohune 1737351 Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision. Prelim.
Mr. Alexander Holzer _ Subdivision, Final
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date of Meeting: August 14, 1979
Date of Notice 6-16-79
Votes: 5 For 0 Against Abstention
Action: _ Approval: As submitted subject to applicable ordinance requirements
Approval: Subject to conditions noted
X Deferral: Pending receipt of information noted
_ Referral: Review by others, as noted
Denial: For reasons noted
NOTES 6 SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Council again tabled Stem awaiting receipt
of revised plan per action of July 10, 1979 meeting - see attached
notice.
Deadlines:_ Variance approval expires one year after the meeting date.
Contact building inspector for required permits.
_ Conditional Use Approval _Must be renewed annually.
_Expires on
Must be renewed upon change in
ownership or use.
_ Preliminary Subdivision approval expires after one year of
meeting date.
Contact Zoning Administration for final plat requirements.
_ Final Subdivision approval expires 6 months after meeting date.
Contact Zoning Administration for filing requirements and
document approval.
XX Deferred items may be declared formally withdrawn if applicant
fails to provide information within one month of meeting
date, or by date specified by Council.
If you desire certified copies of the official City Council Minutes, they
are available from the Deputy City Clerk upon review and approval by the
Council.
cc: Mr. Robert Mitchell
+1.LMM...A.
- YYw[{DY..
Otw1L0 ..........
.ONVOOM
9.1 I...
..... ........I[A
[VO[Yt Y a1TIN
Ye{ • .Yt.0
cF.!. 111.0..L.
U1N
�cJ.OwTF V 4
uT 1. NTa[
O J.I
JONY .. IO....1{O.
Y {. M1..OLO I. R401Y.
OOYM
YIHIM O. Y01 ...
JONM N. R10TMY.Y
Dwlo
.owm .... ulauT
1{4T ....Nowt
xoouo J...YIIY.w
nN04
UWANCE OOCN
TxOY.O Y ww[t. Cl
L. V.MOII
LPVM[ .. [Iv{wTDON
LINDOUIST 6 VESVNUM
YMN D. JM[[M
4*00 100 C[NT[11 . 00 SCOUT' 00 gNt[T
JV {1 A.
O. �ONn�♦
110TJ,
11NT.1 w [.11 TLu
NIMM[00011 [. NIMM[00100010w
10[a11T O. Y�Kw{LLla
YWx.n sMT
T[L[FNON[ 10.91 371-18II
JOMF,c.00tKn
F... L MDT..
YO[M. J. YMTYY
C.[lL .DON[[[: LIN4LW
JOIIIM a. aOMLl1
.... .NOW
..MwO D. WYtIL
WAYZATA orFICC
740 CAST LAAC OT[s[t
.1..' .YINN[wK uan
August 23, 1979
Orono City Council
City of Orono
1335 Brown Road South
Orono, Minnesota 55323
#436`"
RE GREM
AUG 23 1979
Re: Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Ajad CITY. OF. ORONO
File No. 139-436
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The new plan for the project according to the map and photo-
graphs enclosed is as follows:
1. On the Smerling aide, from the garage to the front
edge of the Holzer house, the wall would come down one block.
2. From the front edge of the Holzer house to the back
part of the Smerling porch, the wall would come down two
blocks.
3. From the back wall of the Smerlings' porch forward
to the 75' line the wall would come down three blocks.
4. From the 75' line forward toward the lake and across
the lake side back to the 75' line, the wc11 would come down
all the way to the plastic or four blocks removed per the
photo.
S. Then, on the Uowney side from the 75' line back to
where the ground starts to slope up the wall would be dawn
LI'NDQUIST & VENNUM
Orono city Council
August 23, 1979
-Page 2-
three blocks, then two blocks, then one block at the point
indicated on the diagram, and from just behind that the wall
will remain as is along the Downey side.
6. The columns would come down all the way around.
7. Grading and filling would be done on both sides of
the wall to bury it as much as possible, though some portions
of the wall would remain above ground.
S. Along the Smerling side a swale would be placed so
that the water would be directed forward toward the lake
rather than toward the Smerling property; a small amount of
water would be caught in a basin in front of the garage and
directed out to the street. The water in the front yard on
the lake side would be directed north and south or parallel
to the lake as has been the case in the past via swales.
Terracing will gently carry the water down and then north and
south where it will filt,r through the grass Dn the Smerling
property and on the Downey property before it goes into the
lake. In this way an entirely natural drainage system will
be maintained.
9. On the Smerling side grass and bushes will be planted
to restore the area between the Holzer and the Smerling
property to a condition similar to what it was before the
construction was started. The lawn on the Holzer property
will be restored.
Very truly yours,
LINDQUIST S VENNUM
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RGM:cap
1
SCALE 1`=20' PL4N ,{N
1 =10' PROF/LE ,
�74TE q ZO-79
SEACHM49K A?S.4FL4K£1.r,KA EN
rti, 1
i
1
b,y
�-.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUGUST 20, 1979 1'a" 4
3: Existing house on lakeshore lot to be removed SUBDIVISION
before building permit is issued for new hams. 2695 Shadywood Road
Council should consider a request for temporary (Continued)
occupancy of house until new one is available.
4. Nest lot only, to have riparian rights.
5. No setback variances to be granted for construction.
Council Meeting - August 28, 1979
Hurr moved, Butler seconded, to approve the preliminary
subdivision request of Ken Chapman, 2695 Shadywood
Road, per the Planning Commission recommendations of
August 13, 1979, subject to removing existing house
before building permit is issued. Motion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0). �//
Mrs. Holzer, her attorney Robert Mitchell, and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mr. Downey were present concerning the conditional 2677 Casco Point Road
use permit application of Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco i436
Point Road. Alexander Holzer
Mr. Mitchell reviewed his letter of August 23, 1979
explaining his revised plan with pictures and a diagram.
He stated that there would not be anv underground
pipes and that the installed ones would be removed.
Discussion included the ground elevations and drainage.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the elevation is eight inches
higher than Mr. Smerling's yard. Mr. Downey stated
that no fill has been brought into the Holzer property
whereas, Mrs. Holzer stated that dirt from the foundation
was spread over the yard when it was installed.
Mayor Van Nest directed Mr. Nit,-iell to present to the
City Council a topo showing fir .shed elevations and
drainage plan.
Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Smerling's attorney, stated that
Mr. Mitchell has presented the same plan as previously
presented and does not feel that the Holzer's have
complied with Council direction. .
Massengale moved, Butler seconded, not to accept the
plan as presented in Mr. Mitchell's letter of
August 23, 1979. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nava (0).
Mayor van Nest moved, Massengale seconded, to direct
Mr. Mitchell to present a plan showing elevations
of Holzer's house, yard and adjacent yards; that no
blocks be exposed at the front of Holzer house on
the south side and all around to a point where the
present wall intersects the 75' line on the Downey
side; that the wall on the Downey side, behind the
75' line, be stepped up to the height of the wall
between the two houses; that the wall he removed
two blocks from the front of Holzer house back to (Continued)
aULAR MEETIHr OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUr,UST 28, 1979 Page 5
,� the -garage; and to see the ramp, that is to be CONDITIONAL f..' PERMIT
constructed, and able to understand the swales and 2677 Casco Point Road
how storm water plan will be drafted; drainage to (Continued)
be natural over the grass, not any artifical
structures, •,uch as blacktop, swales, pipes or
concrete, but before being directed to the
lake, running north and south; and any excess fill
to be removed for the finished plan. Motion,
Ayes (4) - N&ys (0).
Mr. Alan Olson, Citv Planner, entered into the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
record the request of Richard Proudfit for a 3220 Navarre Lane
conditional use permit for 3220 Navarre Lane, t459
dated August 22, 1979, which states: Richard Proudfit
The attached covenants were drafted and sent to
Mr. Ruello, attornev for Mr. Proudfit. They
require signatures by Mr.Proudfit and by Mr. Natschke.
As of today, we have not received a signed copy.
For August 28, 1979 meeting, I recommend the following
action: If the covenants are signed: a motion to
deny the conditional use permit application as an
illegal non -conforming use, instructing staff to
record the covenants and to enforce the termination
of such use after Julv 1, 1980.
If the covenants are not signed: a motion instructing
staff to draft a resolution, similar to the convenants
but calling for immediate enforcement to terminate
the illegal non -conforming use.
Council Meeting - August 28, 1979
Mr. Olson informed the City Council that neither
Mr. Proudfit nor Mr. Natschke have signed the covenants;
also that a letter was received from Mr. 4uello, dated
August 20, 1979, which included a signed statement
from Mr. Proudfit terminating his non -conforming use
at 3220 Navarre Lane as of July 15, 1980.
Letter - August 20, 1979 - Pages 6-6
Mayor Van Nest moved, Hurr seconded, to direct staff to
retract the original agreement and draft a resolution
to immediately enforce the zoning code to terminate
-he non -conforming use as of August 280'1-979, but that
;until might reconsider if covenant is signed. Motion,
-yes (4) - Nays 0).
#436 T.YpMw"e7S7]E7
CITY of ORONO
Pw, offn li.% W.cryM l B.Y. Mooned. 56TLi. M.ni,ip., Oeis
On the North Shore of Lahr Minnetonka
August 29, 1979
Mr. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
Re: #436 Variance t Conditional Use Permit Application
Council Direction at August 28, 1979 Meeting
Dear Mr. Holzer:
Council adopted two motions: 1) to "not accept" plan as presented
with August 23, 1979 letter from Mitchell; and 2) to table matter
for submittal of a complete final grading plan.
A status report -preliminary plan is requested by Wednesday,
September 6, 1979, for the September 11, 1979 Council meeting with
a final plan to be ready by Wednesday, September 20, 1979 for the
September 25, 1979 Council meeting.
The final plan is to contain the following:
A. Be based upon the certificate of survey, drawn to scale.
2. Show existing elevations and contours:
✓ay Holzer, Smerling, Downey house floor elevations
✓LJ. Holzer garage floor elevation
✓cJ, Existing top of wall elevations at various points,
Existing topography - spot elevations and contours of
Holzer, Smerling, Downey lakeside yards
3. Show proposed drainage plan:
✓a) Pr+ used topography - spot elevations and contours of
Holzer, Smerling, Downey lakeside yards and yards between
houses
) Pr(,,ased areas of cut and/or fill
�) Pro!.jsed top of wall elevations at various points where
exposed
14 Extent of wall to be buried
,tee) Location of drainage swales, and drainage flow direction
indications
,/f) Proposed extent, slope and surfacing of ramp by garage
august 29, 1979
Mr. Alexandet Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
0436
Page 2
Council direction included the following:
✓1. Wall is to be lowered at least two blocks between Holzer gauge
and lakeside front of Holzer hours.
/. Wall is to be lowered and buried between south lakeside front
of Holzer house, around lakeside all the way to 75' setback
line on north (Downey) side, then may be exposed and/or stepped
up to meet existing wall between Holzer and Downey houses.
3. Drainage to be natural sheet flow over grass (no hard surface
Swale or pipe) and to be directed parallel to lake rather than
down face of slono, '
4. Any excess fill occasioned by above plan is to be rss�oved from
the site.
Sincerel
P. Olson
Village Planner
APO:kh
cc: Mr. Robert Mitchell
Mr. Louia Smerling
Mr. James Gilbert
�E 0E1'1
IXooulaT L I N O O U I$ T Si V E N N
LO[NAN L.NCWN.LL ,J wea wJO
w Vwiaa Y. 1CNN.N Q�p .j1 VTx
a[w.l. [J.o.VwN 4200 IDS CENTER • 00 SOUTH SW STREET L]LL" '/[I atxw OT
*. ��. ��. ��1444 [[[ ...11l aTwpY
Y[LW x I. l
Ow[x b [ix L[w
..Y[a P...Lw n r'xp MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA EE402 /LC� wL'Jw
RICHARD J. Sau p
x Lw.IMILMA Vw TELEPHONE I6I2I 37Ig211 iNLq Nw
.wp a. PA.N[w l
JONN A. FC.R[tl
sw r
EARL[ ADDRESS: LINLAWOLO
w lw,� M 'A LN Nic n.No p
PM1LIAY T. ooun
WuuwN c.XowTaxux
.ANR x, NW.1116 N WAYSATA OFFICE
:AVID o. NEWNALL
A.:w[axl[r axo awar LAN[ AT :.:I
o2awT Y. ATX:R[
wA.zwrA. Y1NNrooTAwa aTei
LR.. w... N � NL..
THO A S .
TMOWC x.:YN[ a Y
TNCNA[ ..
wN N[ A. alY[wT)ON p[NNq Y.. XgxiG [M
September 4, 1979 #436
Mr. Alan P. OlsonCity of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Dear Alan:
I have your letter of August 29, 1979. The Holzers have
retained Mark S. Gronberg, engineer and Gordon Coffin to
do the work requested by the Council at their meeting on
August 23, 1979. This letter constitutes our "status
report" for presentation to the City Council at its meeting
of September 11, 1979. Mr. Gronberg was just hired last
week and the field work necessary for the final plan is
not yet done. I have sent your letter of August 29, 1979
on to Mark S. Gronberg and I feel certain that we will have
a plan per the Council's instructions for their meeting of
September 25, 1979. Mark S. Gronberg will be talking to
your engineer, Glen Cook, in the matter of making certain
that the plan he prepares is adequate for engineering purposes.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Thanks.
Very truly yours,
LINDQUIST 6 VE14NUM
Robert G. Mitchell, Sr.
RGM:cap
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Holzer
TO: Council #436
FROM: Alan P. Olson, V111-.3e Planner
DATE: September 20, 1979
SUBJECT: i436 Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
As of today, we have received revised drainage and retaining ws.11
plans a- requested. See attached plans and my August 29, 1979
letter listing inclusions.
The areas of cut and fill are shown in color on my original file
copy, cuts being generally shallow drainage swales following the
arrows inside the wall, fill being over the buried portions of
the wall. Read the key for existing/proposed elevation and contour
symbols.
Drainage is sheet flow and is retained on this lot, being directed
away from the Downey boathouse and the Smerling hillside.
All surfaces should be seeded or sodded, with extra vegetation
required for stabilization of the embankment.
If this plan is agreeable to the Council, a motion to approve the
conditional use permit will allow restoration to proceed quickly
before the weather turns bad.
cc: Mr. Alexander Holzer
Mr. Robert Mitchell
Mr. Louis Smerling
�FtwY [ ,.00JH.
O[w.[O [ vYLOv
seu.e .
[tl+IF4
..A
wICxOO J. II+fO[u.0
J.OL.MVY
x.e[
N A 1.
J....[.0+
ew�1..uLe [J.r.\.
W.
IL�
wY,e .{.x.\L.x
wn� weuv\{.
L.Vwwxt MlAwwp
l. •..11 I
O,..0 OOl
1.
F•.x [ VIxOIr
[ A. t1V[.T)Ox
LINDQUIST 6 V[ N N U M
.[oe lus c[.T[N • so soul. sv STREET
NINNL1L.0LIw. NINN[wOiA 60A00
September 25, 1979
i CL[INON[ 1a1[) ]II is'.
CARLE .oOwcs L: LINL.w
City of Orono
Orono, Minnesota 55323
VMV[.TN ornc[
•.e L.LT LAKE STREET
N.VLII..YI.NLLO+. 16.30.
Re: Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
..... J. er4Y ,
... L INIYNy
LKwMw..HNNNw
NIIL[. R. NNYyf
.MLNwt AJ. &FIRMS
NIL« MON
Tl
NHL.L. WNIIILWA
.1
aws.
,.,Oxw[\
.
. LVN LH\Lt.
LY.L[..LHM
.HLs. J, x.ar.uw
JHSI. s. wa
J.e. ....sows
s.YNLN
�u..w0
wc rHL
Alec _
+wOY.L VLYYVY
OLY.I. A1.
Our presentation on September 25, 1979, consists of a newly
drawn two -page plan by Gordon R. Coffin Company; Alan P. Olson's
memo to you of September 20, 1979; and this letter.
This letter is to state on behalf of the Holzers that they agree
to seed or sod all the bare earth areas on their property and
also agree to seed onto the Smerling property on the southerly
side where dirt has been unintentionally put onto the Smerling
property.
The Holzers havefurther agreed to install extra vegatation along
the western embankment so as to further stablize the earth there
against slippage. They always did mean to do this and the offer
of the grass above and this offer regarding the vegetation has
been an ongoing one since the very beginning of this matter.
With regard to the slope from the garage up to the side of the
house, that slope area will be kept natural -iith grass.
//A
�(NDO UIST 6 VENNUM
City of Orono -2- September 25, 1979
Regarding the drainage, we believe that the plan attached is
the best one that can be achieved on this property considering
the problems of the neighbors. The drainage plan does the
utmost to direct the water north and south on the Holzer
property'as the water flows generally to the westward. It is
most desirable to keep the water from going down into the
Downey residence, or into the Downey patio, or into the Downey
boathouse. Similarly, it is desirable to avoid casting the
water onto the Smerling residence, the Smerling patio, or dmnn
the Smerling embankment which had a landslide in 1978. There-
fore the best use has been made of gentle terracing to the west
to slow the flow of the water and spread it north and south,
but only on the Holzer property, as it makes its way westward.
This is a complete alteration from the rirst plan which proposed
a pipe system which directed the water directly to the west and
directly down the hill.
While the plan more or less speaks for itself, we do state that
in all respects it does contain all of the elements of Mr. Olson's
letter to Mr. Holzer of August 29, 1979, except those items
detailed above.
We would be happy to answer any quentions.
We respectfully request that based on the plan, the memo, and
this letter, that appropriate conditional use permits and
variances be granted to the Holzers to complete this project.
Rest assured that if these approvals are forthcoming that the
Holzers will do their utmost to finish the project as soon as
they possibly can, but would appreciate understanding from the
Council with respect to the lateness in year when it comes to
the landscape work and other detail work required.
Respectfully submitted,
LINDQUIST
S
VENNUM
�)
, /7/ .'t-/�
Robert G.
Mitchell, Jr.
RFMI jw
Enclosure
,
REb-,:R .MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 25,
41an Olson, City Planner, entered into the record
the request for a conditional use permit of
Alexander Holzer, 2677 Caaco Point Road, dated
September 20, 1979, which states:
As of today, we have received revised drainage
and retaining wall plans as requested. The areas
of cut and fill are shown in color on my original
file copy, cuts being generally shallow drainage
swales following the arrows inside the wall, fill
being over the buried portions of the wall. Read
the key for existing/proposed elevation and contour
symbols.
Drainage is sheet flow and is retained cn this lot,
being directed away from the Downey boathouse
and the Smerling hillside.
All surfaces should be seeded or sodded, with
extra vegetation required for stabilization of
the enbankment.
If this plan is agreeable to the Council, a motion
to approve the conditional use permit will allow
restoration to proceed quickly before the weather
turns bad,
Council Meeting - September 25, 1979
Mr. Robert Mitchell, attorney for ;llexander Holzer,
submitted the attached letter dated September 25,
1979, at the meeting this evening.
Letter - Pages 3 S 4
Mr. Mitchell also submitted revised plans for the
Holzer property.
Mr. James Orr, Scboell 6 Madsen engineer, submitted
revisions proposed by Mr. 6 Mrs. Snarling.
Mr. Glenn Cook, City Engineer, stated that the plan
as submitted is a workable plan.
Alan Olson: Holzer proposal meets requirements.
1.97799 Page 2
`� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2677 Casco Point Road
#436
Alexander F.olzer
Butler moved, Massengale seconded, to approve the
wall as indicated in red to meet elevation 958.33
at top of block, plus 2" top soil; grading to be
approved by staff; permit to be issued upon request;
plan approved as shown. Motion, Aves (4) - Nava (0).
;•.,INDOUIST 5 VENNUM
Page 4
City of Orono -2- September 25, 1979
Regarding the drainage, we believe that the plan attached is
the best one that can be achieved on this property considering
the problems of the neighbors. The drainage plan does the
utmost to direct the water north and south on the Holzer
property as the 4ater flows generally to the westward. It is
most desirable to keep the water from going down into the
Downey residence, or into the Downey patio, or into the Downey
boathouse. Similarly, it is desirable to avoid casting the
water onto the Smerling residence, the Smerling patio, or down
the Smerling embankment which had a landslide in 1978. There-
fore the best use has been made of gentle terracing to the west
to slow the flow of the water and spread it north and south,
but only on the Holzer property, as it makes its way westward.
This is a complete alteration from the first plan which proposed
a pipe system which directed the water directly to the west and
directly down the hill.
While the plan more or less speaks for itself, we do state that
in all respects it does contain all of the elements of Mr. Olson
letter to Mr. Holzer of August 29, 1979, except those items
detailed above.
We would be happy to answer any questions.
we respectfully request that based on the plan, the memo, and
this letter, that appropriate conditional use permits and
variances be granted to the Holzers to complete this project.
Rest assured that if these approvals are forthcoming that the
Holzers will do their utmost to finish the project as soon as
they possibly can, but would appreciate understanding from the
Council with respect to the lateness in year when it comes to
the landscape work and other detail work required.
Respectfully submitted,
LINDQUIST s VENNUM
/i
/c�C 6 iil C-
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RFM: jw
Enclosure
I CITYof ORONO
I.i Oinw Boa 66-Crystal B.Y. Mln.mW 55323•Menidp l Omas
Telephone e737357
TO: Mr. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
Control No. _ 436
Meeting Date 9-25-79 _
Notice Date 9-28-79
x Variance
x Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision, Preliminary
Subdivision, Final
Copies to: Mr. Robert Mitchell
Mr. Lc%is Smerling/Mr. James Gilbert
001F'CIL ACTION Vote: 4 For 0 Against Abstention.
MOTION Council approved issuance of varian•es and nonAitional ijg& p_ 3t to.
grade property and reconstruct retaining wall per -ordon Coffin drawing
dated September 18, 1979 ex:ept that buried portion of wall to be no higher
than 958.33 - top of wall- with approximately 2" topsoil cover - this is a
reduction of 5 blocks instead of 4 as shown. City staff to aoorove final
grading on site. We will document the final wall height prior to work and
covering. Work should begin/be completed as soon as pos,.ible. You will
receive a resolution to be signed and returned before the. 10-16-79 meeting.
DEADLINE DATE October 9, 1979 for signature of resolution
_ for submittal of new information (application may be considered
formally withdrawn if information or explanation is nut provided).
_ for Work Permit Por work to begin _ for work to be
application completed
_ WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED - contact Building Inspector before begim:i 3
work.
_ VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans.
Do not change plans.
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use,
or on deadline date specified above.
_ PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must provide all information
and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning
Administrator.
_ FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must have drawings, resolution
and all other required documents recorded, with certification of such
recording returned to the City by deadline date.
Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtained by
contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date.
L a "`W/
MESHBESHER, SINGER B SPENCE, LTD.
•Iwe sr)1 �w,m :.
MIwwLPoLIe� MINMIWL 1140�
e
wu• my-v.n
September 27, 1979
':'the Honorable Will um B. Van Nest
nayor of the City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minn+.sota 55323
Gear Mayor Van Nest:
aevu .. uoesew
Mum ,.. ay.nse
u.os o,.un
rva e. ssnsve
uoeur .. wsu,o
SEP 90, lYT9 -
CITY OF OROMO
Re: Smerlingg v. Holzer
Our File: 16679
I am writing this letter to you to inform you my clients are
somewhat upset at the recent action taken by the City Council
on September 25, 1979. First of all, this office did not
receive any notice of that meeting, nor did Mr. Mitchell see
fit to supply us with a copy of Mr. Holzer's new proposal, as
mandated by the City Council previously. Accordingly, my
clients are not represented by counsel at that meeting, and
their counter -proposal was submitted under duress.
It has also come to light that if the City Council allows Mr.
Holzer to 1!iilement his plan, which in effect allows him to
extend his property forward towp-'L the Minnetonka shoreline
and also allows elevation of his .ind, a new precedent may be
established in Orono which may cause future problems for the
CS'y and other lakeshcre residents.
At this time, my clients have askei me to request of you
copies of any final staff approval of Holzer's additional work,
and would fu ther request the City to monitor Mr. Holzer this
time, so we a not again presented with an accomplished fait,
whf.;h the City emu,-c11 may again be reluctant to change.
If you have any questions regarding this, or if you have any
difficulty in furnishing those things we have requested, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
JHG:ak V!i
fly
. Gig
Alan P. Olson, Village Planr, r
The Orono City Council
Mr. A Mrs. Louis Smerling
CITY OF ORONO
Building Permit No, 8z 43G
Building Insp.
1, Fooling
2. Framing
3. Insulation
4. lathing _
5. Final
Plumbing Insp.
Sewage Insp.
Electric Insp.
Special
I RATION 2 67 7 C45co Pomrr Zc&z>
ISSUED SFF—f 26- 1979
TO 4LE1; 1AIDT_c
i
12ETbtu1� u.'aLr_ �
Cf>N7tron)AL /�SE �E2UlT - rRAo1NG
NOTE —All inspections must be called 24 hours in advance. This card must be
posted in a conspicuous place on the premises on which the work is to be done.
Work must not proc.-ed until required inspections have been made.
Destruction of this notice or your failure to comply with the Ordinances makes
you liable to the penalties as p 'ded Cierein.
Building Inspector
TELEPHONE: 473-7357
Telephone 4737357
CITY of ORONO
Yom Office H.. 66- CryeW B., Minneuole 5 2.3• Munidpd Ompe
• On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
s's�s
J September 26, 1979
Mr. James Gilbert
Meshbesher, Singer fi Spence, L'.-d.
1616 Park Avenue
Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55404
Re: i436 Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road
Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
Let me respond to your letter of September 27, 1979 to Mayor Van Most.
Both you and your client received a copy of my August 29, 1979 letter
to Mr. Holzer requesting revised plans and setting deadlines and notices
of the September llth and September 25th Council meetings as attached.
Thus you had one month's notice of the meeting.
Your client received from me a copy of the agenda for the September 25th
meeting, r copy of my memo to the City Council and a copy of Mr. Holzer's
latest revised plan as presented for that meeting. This was sent on
Friday, September 21, 1979 at exactly the same time as the City Council
was sent the same _nformation. This type of documentation is not normally
sent to neighbors, although agendas are sent if requested and the
information is always available for inspection in our office.
I also understand from Mr. Mitchell that your client picked up an
additional copy of the revised plan from him on Friday evening
(Sept. 21, 1979) even before he could have received my notice. I am
surprised if they did not contact you regarding attendance at the meeting.
Your clients were represented by an engineer at the September 25, 1979
Council meeting who presented their "counter proposal" complete with
engineering explanations. This counter proposal and its purposes were
reviewed by the Council, the City Engineer and myself during the meeting.
The City Council fully took this proposal into consideration and in fact
did amend the Holzer propoP' toward a compromise between their plan
and yours.
You discuss in your letter factual questions regarding the intent of the
plan which have been raised at many meetings this past year of the
Planning Commission and Council as well as with the City staff. I am
confident that the City Council fully understands your client's opinions
and arguments and took these positions into account in heir delit,erations.
_September 28, 1979
Mr. James Gilbert
Page 2
Indeed, if your client's positions had not been so clearly outlined,
the application would most likely have been reviewed in mutt: less time
than the eleven months devoted to it.
Your request that the City monitor the work to be done is exactly what
the City Council direction included. Of course even without this
specific direction, the normal function and duty of the staff is to
assure construction in accordance with approved plans and/or ordinance
requirements.
My notice of the Ccuncil action to Mr. Holzer is being completed and
your client was already included in its distribution. Your name has
been added. If you wish official copes of the Council minutes, they
are available from the City Clerk after Council approval (as stated
on the bottom of my standard notice form).
The next Council meeting of October 16, 1979 will L.e review of a
resolution regarding formal approval. You will be sent a copy when
it is ready.
The position of the City is to fairly interpret and implement the intent
of the City's ordinances, to protect your client's property and values,
that of the applicant and of any other affected property owners. All
issues were raised and farts obtained. The length and detail of their
concern is well documented in my files and the minutes of many meetings.
The result may not please your clients, and obviously does not please
the applicant, nor the City for that matter. The Council decision was,
I believe, their best effort to reach a reasonable decision.
I will advise you that, pursuant to the council's action, a permit has
been issued for the Ho,..ers to begin restoration and lot grading according
to the approved plan.
At this point, I firmly believe that it is in everyone's best interest
to have the work completed as quickly as possible to prevent any
further erosion danger or unsightly appearance.
S in`�jere
e' ' :-
Olson
illage Planner
APO:kh
Enc.
cc: Mr. Alexander Holzer
Mr. Robert Mitchell
Mr. Louis Smerling
Mayor Van Nest
City Council Members
Mr. Walter Benson
Mr. Bruce Malkerson
uw oencee
MESHHESHER, SINGER & SPENCE, LTD.
,.I.... A'...
x......... MINNeA„OLI6. MINNESOT'A 6e900
wov.an I. M\evvuvew
O\YL➢ !,. \1w Jiw IC IGI iT9 -Yle,
w0\\vLL M. \A„pe
JYIt\ e. OlLli wi
Jo.a e. cueroan Uetober 16, 1979
The Honorable William B. Van Nest
Mayor of the City of c:rono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: Smerling/Holzer Matter
Our Pile: 16679
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
Mr. and Mrs. Smerling, Jim Gilbert and myself wish to express
our heartfelt thanks and appreciation of the efforts on your
behalf, and that of the remaining members of the council, in
our attempts to resolve the above matter. We all certainly
appreciate not only the amount of council time involved, but
the time dedicated by yourselves outside of council meetings in
order to resolve the problem.
Insofar as the matter on the council agenda for October 16th
appears to be a consent matter for approval of the formal
resolution, we see no reason for attendance or for taking any
further council time.
It would appear that the only item remaining is chat from time
to time your staff will be reviewing and approving final
grading. We will be contacting Alan Olson with our thoughts on
the matter, primarily through the services of Jim Orr. We
would hope that the grading could be done in such a manner as
to minimize to the least extent possible any obstruction of
view.
We also presume from the resolution that the blocks will be
removed in accordance witn the action taken on September 25,
1979, wI,ich is, in one portion, the remove]. of five hlocks
instead of four, as shown on the Coffin drawing. The action
was specifically taken at that meeting, although not specl£i-
cally Included within the resolution. (I assume that this is
what Is meant by the council "affirming the conceptual approval
of September 25, 197911.)
MESHBESHER. BJNOER a SPENCE. LTD.
Mayor William B. Van Nest October 16 19T9
Mayor of the City of Orouo
Crystal Bay, Minnesota Page Two
Once again, we wish to express our appreciation for the many
hours that have been dedicated to this matter.
Very tr ours,
erald M. Singer
OMS:kak
cc: Mr. 6 Mrs. Smerling
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 16, 1979 Page 3
The plat contains eleven lots plus a private road; SUBDIVISION*
Outlot A is deeded and dedicated to the City as 4605 Watertown Road
public land in lieu of any park dedication fee (Continued)
and is being ued as riqht of way for the ring
route road.
The City of Independence has already approved and
signed off on the plat.
Council Meeting - October 16, 1979
Butler moved, Massengale seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION 01078*
Resolution 11078, A Resolution Approving The Plat Mccullev Fare
Of McCulley Farm. Motion, Ayes (4) - Have (0),
Alan Olso:., City Planner, entered into the record VdIDNLITIONAL USE PERMIT*
the following concerning a variance and conditional co Point Road
use permit for Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point i436
Road, dated September 25, 1979, which states: xander Holzer
Council approved issuance of variances and conditional
use permit to grade property and reconstruct retain-
ing wall per Gordon Coffin drawing dated .Sentember 18,
1979 except that buried portion of wall to be no
higher than 958.33 - top of wall - with approximately
2" topsoil cover - this is a reduction of five blocks
instead of four as shown. City staff to approve
final grading on site. We will document the final
wall height prior to work and covering. Work
should begin and be completed as soon as possible.
You will receive a resolution to be signed and
returned before the October 16, 1979 meeting.
Council Meeting - October 16, 1979
Butler moved, Massengale seconded, to adopt Resolution RF..SOLUTION i1079*
11079, A Resolution Approving A Conditional Use Pemit Alexander Holzer
And Variance For.Alexander Holzer. Motion, Aves (4) -
Siays (0).
Mr. Leo Duehn, 1140 North Arm Drive, appeared and
requested an extension of time because of lack of
legal counsel..
Mayor Van Nest moved, Hurr seconded, to table the
application of Leo Duehn and KK i Kompany, 1140 North
Arm Drive, until the next Council meeting. Motion,
Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
CONDITIONAL USE PERtf
1140 North Arm Drive
$489
KK L Kompany
Control No. A]6
CITY of ORONO
Nrl lxaa Box GGOCrynlnl any. MinnwM 5M23•MnnioMl Ofiar
TO: Mr. Altaander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
Meeting Date
Notice Dace 10- 10-
Variance
x Conditional Use Permit
Subdivisior, Preliminary
Subdivision, Final
Copies to: Mr. Robert Mitchell
Mr. Louis Smerling
COUNCIL ACTION Vote: 4 For 0 Against _ Abstention
MOTION Council adopted Resolution No. 1079 as per the draft that ygaian..t_
Your signed copy is attached.
T.kph. 473.7357
Jean
Mabusth
and Alan
Olson
will arrange a meeting with you on the site thta
week
to vsrify
the required
work.
kirk***************Ak*************irk********************************************#***i
DEADLINE DATE December 1, 1979 per Resolution Condition 46
_ for submittal of new information (application may be considered
formally withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided).
for Work Permit for work to begin _ for work to be
application completed
WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED - contact Building Inspector befor: beginning
work.
VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans.
Do not change plans.
xx CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use,
or on deadline date specified above.
PRFLIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must provide all information
and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning
Administrator.
FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must have drawings, resolution
and all other required documents recorded, with certification of such
recording returned to the City by deadline date. i
Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtained by
contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date.
E
Q4
N
2
CITY OF ORONO
INSPECTION NOTICE
PERMIT NO.
109a—a
SCHEDULED
DATE T"
ADDRESS
OINNER
VTR.
TELEPHONE
O FOOTING
O
PLUMBING RI
- J�
�Ci1TE NN/ECTION
O FRAMING
O
MECHANICAL
O EXDAVJG 1ZfPILLNIG
O INSULATION
CI
WATER HOOKUP
O LAKNIIDREIWETLANDS
O WALL BD.
O
METER SET/TURN ON
O LICENSING
C FINAL
O
SEWER HOOKUP
p COMPLAINT
O PROGRESS
D
SEPTIC INSTALL
��C3fOdLTlOWi1P
O DEMOL
O
SEPTIC MAII f UM►
IC FINAL
O FIRE PREV.
O
WELL
-'
O WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED O PHOTO TAKEN
O CORRECT WORK E PROCEED
O CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
7 STO►ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR.
INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
call for the next inmocrtion 24 h.TME in advance.
OMM/CC
Whim C4py1Inpcta'. File GoM Commis 1W,1100
RESOLUTION NO. 1079
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCE FOR ALEXANDER HOLZER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Council have reviewed
at length an application by Alexander Holzer to install certain
retaining walls and accomplish certain grading on his property located
at 2677 Casco Point Road; and
WHEREAS, said proposal entails grade changes and site
alteration on an embankment within 75 ft. of Lake Minnetonka, which
work requires a variance to Section 31.830 at. seq. of the Flood
Plain management Section of the Orono Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, said proposal entails general site grading and
retaining wall construction not a part of a normal building permit,
which work requires a conditiunal use permit pursuant to Section
31.700 of the Orono Municipal Code; and
WHLREAS, some of the alove work was uniertaken prior to
application for the required permit and/or variance and has been
suspended pending the outcome of this application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon Planning
Commission and City Staff research and the information supplied by
the applicant, the City Council hereby makes the following findings
of fact:
1. Certain portions of the work are necessary to prevent
undue erosion and/or water drainage to the neighboring
properties, specifically damage to the boathouse on the
property to the north and possible erosion damage to the
embankment on the property to the south.
2. Certain amounts of the existing retaining walls located
underground are beneficial in preventing possible erosion
or slippage of the applicant's embankment.
3. Certain amounts of site grading are desirable to slow
and/or direct the flow of surface waters for erosion control.
4. Certain other amounts of site grading and especially
wall construction above the ground are not required for
drainage or erosion control purposes and may affect the
lakeshore visibility from adjoining properties.
S. Certain amounts of the wall construction are contrary to
Sections 34.201 and 34.202 of the municipal code which
prohibit the construction of buildings or hard^.over within
75 ft. of the lakeshore or ahead of the average setback of
lakeshore residences.
Resolution No. 1079
Page 2
6. Some work is req,,ired to be accomplished as soon as
possible to restore vegetation to the land, correct
improper portions of the work already accomplished, and
to prevent undue erosion over the winter.
7. Special conditions applying to the land in question
are peculiar to this property and immediately surrounding
property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which said land is located.
8. The granting of portions of the application is necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant.
9. The granting of permit:, including a variance to allow.
a certain extent of the work to be completed will not in
any way impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals
or general welfare, nor the value or security of adjoining
properties.
10. The granting of the permits for some of the work will
not be contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan or the Zoning Code.
11. The granting of the necessary variance will not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary
to alleviate demonstrated hardships or difficulties to
allow correction c the existing problems and to secure the
interests of abu• ; property owners in maintaining the
value and securi •f their property.
FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the foregoing
findings the City Council hereby affirms the conceptual approval
for such work as granted at the September 25, 1979 Council meeting
according to the following conditions:
1. Work shall be done essentially as proposed on the drawing
made by Gordon Coffin Company, dated September 18, 1979, as
clarified by the letter of Robert Mitchell, dat.d
September 25, 1979, except that the top of the buried portion
of the wall acre=- the front of the property shall be at
elevation 958.31 :t.
2. Final grading shall be reviewed and approved by the
City staff.
3. Drainage patterns shall be essentially as shown, with
no piped drainage to Lake Minnetonka.
4. All exposed earth shall be satisfactorily sodded or
seeded to control and prevent •rosion, with steeper portions
of the embankment to receive additional vegetation having
deep root systems.
Resolution No. 1079
Page 3
5. Any work required to correct and restore areas on
neighbor's properties shall be negotiated -nd/or resolved
between the parties as a private matter and is not a
part of these conditions.
6. Work shall be completed this fall, preferrably as
soon as possible, but in no case .xter than December 1, 1979,
except that portion c° the work requiring planting or
vegetation may be deterred and/or completed next spring,
the intention being to fully protect from runoff and erosion
damage over the winter and during spring r :off.
7. Failure to satisfactorily complete the work shall be
considered a violation of the zoning code punishable as
a misdemeanor a3 provided therein.
6. The applicant shall sign this resolution as an agreement
to complete the work according to these conditions.
Alex r Holzer Date
Gie a Holzer Date
ATTEST: Robert Mitchjr1i Date
Adopted by the City Council of the City of C-?no o the
16 day of October 1979.
%N
William B. an Nest, Mayor
ATTEST:
Wa1Ter R. enson, Cle k/Administrator
Control No. 436
CITY of ORONO
I'on, Omae Hux 66 • C,,.Wl B.Y. Mmne..w .55 Zl • M.nk,pnl Omen
Telephone 473-7357
TO: Mr. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
Meeting Date 10-16-79
Notice Date 10-17-79
X Variance
x Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision, Preliminary
Subdivision, Final
Copies to: Mr. Robert Mitchell
Mr. Louis Smerling
COUNCIL ACTION Vote: 4 For 0 Against Abstention
MOTION Council adopted Resolution No. 1079 as per the draft that you signed_
Your signed copy is attached.
Jean Mabusth and Alan Olson will arrange a meeting with You on the site this
week to verify the required work.
DEADLTNE DATE _December 1, 1979 per Resolution Condition N6
for submittal of new information (application may be considered
formally withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided).
for Work Permit for -ork to begin _ for work to be
application completed
WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED - contact Building Inspector before beginning
work.
VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans.
Do not change -'ans.
XX CONDIT.ONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use,
or on deadline date specified above.
'RELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must provide all information
and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning
Administrator.
FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must have drawings, resolution
and all other required documents recorded, with certification of such
recording returned to the City by deadline date.
Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtained by
contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date.
J
T*6*• 4M7J17
CITY of ORONO
w� onk. r.4e•c.rw� rs. ri....0 aws•r..wrr ate..
r;
� On the North Shoe o/ Lake Muu7ebw4s
November 20, 1979
Mr. Alexander Holzer 1
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
RE: ►436 CONDITIONAL USE PERR.iT
Dear Mr. Holzer:
This letter is to remind you that you signed Resolution 1079 and therein
promised to do the required wall corrections no later than Decesiber 1, 1979,
now only 2 weeks away. As of our last visit to the site, you have not
yet started removal of any blocks. The weather is perfect. I do hope
you get the work done so tags will not have to be issued.
Sinc e y
Olson
C ty Planner
APO:dj
Enclosure
cc: City council -
Gitta Holzer
t 2677 Casco Point Road
a- l
�' Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
January , 1980 MEDuum
,'^-N 16 1%0
City of Orono �r;Y VF ORONO
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Attn: Jeanne Mabusth
Re: Orono Conditional Use Permit, Etc.
Dear Jeanne:
I talked to you several times in the fall of 1979 explaining
that it was going to be very difficult for us to complete all
of the work which the City Council wanted us to do by December
1, 1979. The problems were that we were obligated to pay
off our attorneys' bills before we could hire a contractor and
we were temporarily quite short of money. Nevertheless we did
the beat we could to move the concrete blocks and to get the
reconstruction underway in accord with the Council's desires.
Then winter came rather sooner than we had anticipated and in
essence all work has stopped.
We do wish to have our permits extended for an additional period
of time and in anticipation of the spring building season, I
want to make certain that everything is set for us to go ahead
as soon as weather permits. At this time consider+ng the weather
and our finances, we would like to have until July 1, 1980 to
complete the work specified by the City Council. As you know, much
of the work is cement work entirely outside which requires a
degree of cooperation with the weather; in addition, the wall
itself is being stuccoed and that requires good weather to do;
and finally, the plantings cannot be done until after all the frost
is out of the ground. Therefore, we think that July 1, 1980 is
a reasonaLle completion date.
We would hope that the renewal of
place without our having to come
necessary of course I will come.
aay problems. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
I741, i/elf
.Mrs. Girta Holf:r
our existing permits could take
to the Council, but if it is
Please call me if you anticipate
#436
TO: council
FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator
DATE: January 18, 1980
SUBJECT: #436 Request to extend completion date for all phases
of the restoration at 2677 Casco Point Road
Previous Completion Date: December 1, 1979
Requested Date: July 1, 1980
Mrs. Holzer has requested an extension of the deadline date
for the completion of all phases of restoration as specified
in Resolution No. 1079. The work to be completed will now
include the required seeding and plantings. The new date as
requested is July 1, 1980 per Mrs. Holzer's letter of
January, 1980 (received in this office on January 18, 1980).
Staff agrees with the applicants that this is a "reasonable"
request. Please review the enclosed letter from Gitta Holzer.
'fRLGClld+l. MI-JTING OF' THL OI^". COUNCIL, JANUAP7 30, 1980
Aran Olson, City Pl:mner, ptcsentcd the City
Council with a memo conccrninq a Capital Improve-
ment Plan Review for the W,tyzatd 8,•hnol District
M284, dated January 22, 1980, which states:
The District 284 Plan lists no anticipated capital
expenditures at least through 1990. 'rhe District
is split between rural farming areas "north of
Highway 55" and "developed or developinq....
suburban housing" south of Highway 55. The develop-
ment occurring in Plymouth is expected to keep
enrollments stable with a slight upward trend
in the next ten years which is expected to allow
good utilization of existing facilities without
requiring expansion. There are no plans for
closing any building.
The plan takes note of Minneapolis' 400 acres of
workhouse property which has been the subject of
some housing development speculation. If this
development were to occur, the District may have
to add facilities.
The District has one high school, ont� junior hiqh,
six elementary schools and one admini�trdtiOn
building. Since no facility is in uroro, there is
no direct impact on Orono Public facilitit,
There is no discussion about District trau.r,ortation.
The financial section of the plan is limited to the
bonded indebtedness.
It is interesting to note that Wayzata has stable
or increasing enrollment with no plans for facility
expansion while Orono and WL',tOnka expr-ct slight
enrollment declines but also desire facility
expansion for certain special programs.
Council Meeting - January 30, 1980
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the
Capital Improvement Pla❑ Review for th, Wayzata
School District #284. Motion, Ave, (1) - Nays (0).
No comments from the public.
Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Adnonr,lratnr, pn...c rated
the City Council with the lollowiu•t menu runcern-
ing the Alexander Ilolzor property at '2'677 Casco
Point Road dated January 18, 1980, which states:
Page 2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PL
Wayzata School Distric
#284*
PUBLIC COMMENTS
EXTEND DEADLINE DATE'
2677 Casco Point Road
M43o
Alexander Holzer
(Continued)
„HEG-JLAR MEETING OF' Till: ORONO COUNCIL, JANUARY 30, 1980
n
Mrs. Holzer has requested an extension of the
deadline date for the completion of all phases of
restoration as specified in Resolution M1079. ,
The work to be completed will now include the
required seeding and plantings. The new date as
requested is July 1, 1980 per Mrs. Holzer's
letter of January, 1980 (received in this office
January 18, 1980).
Staff agrees with the applicants that this is a
"reasonable” request.
Council Meeting - January 30, 1980
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the
extension date to JOy 1, 1980, to complete the
restoration for Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco
Point Road. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0).
Page 3
EXTEND DEADLINE DATE*
2677 Casco Point Road
(Continued)
Mayor Van Nest moved, Butler
seconded,
to table
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
the request of KK s Kompany,
1140 North
Arm Drive,
1140 North Arm Drive
for a conditional use permit
until Mr.
Leo Duehn
4489
is available to appear at the
meeting.
Motion,
XK s Kompany - Leo Due
Ayes (3) - Nays (0).
Mr. Timothy Petersen, 280 Orono Orchard Road, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
was present concerning his conditional use permit. 280 Orcnc Orchard Road
He informeu the City Council that he wants it to 4500
be on the record that his tower will be coming Timothy Petersen
down on Friday of this week and that he will be
moving out of Orono June 1, 1980.
Mr. Petersen stated that he had asked for a
representative from the contracting company that
had put up the tower to be available this evening,
but that it was impossible due to the fact that
ne is in Atlanta, Georgia on vacation. He stated
that the contractor would write a letter to
Mr.Olson requesting whatever is necessary on
formalities with a target date for this Friday
for removal of the tower.
Mr. Petersen also stared that interference is not
an issue but apparently was at the last meeting.
He had contacted an engineer for the FCC who has
been out there and made an inspection of the
facilities and will do whatever is necessary to
correct the problem.
Mayor Van Nest: The FCC?
Mr. Petersen: Yes, we want to cooperate and make
sure it is done rig:,t and .u: suun as they can get
a crew, it will disappear. I think you should
rescind allthe necessary paper work.
(Continued)
CITY of ORONO Control No. 436
1'hrf offs, au. 64.c".. i H., M'E.... L.Mald•M..m".1 Offw
Meeting Date 1-30-80
Td.shun. 473-7357 Notice Date 7-n7-Rn
T0:
Mr. Alexander Holzer _ Variance
2677 Casco Point Road xX Conditional Use Permit
Wayzata, Subdivision, Preliminary
Minnesota 55391 Subdivision, Final
Copies to: _
COUNCIL ACTION Vote: 3 For 0 Against _ Abstention
MOTION to approve your request to extend the deadline date for all work
to include all plantings and seeding from December 1, 1979 to
July 1, 1980. Please call the Zoning Office for a site inspection
when the work is complete.
DEADLINE DATE July 1, 1980
_ for submittal of new information (application may be considered
formally withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided).
for Work Permit _ for work to begin xx for work to be
application completed
WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED - contact Building Inspecto- before beginning
work.
VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans.
Do nor change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval.
x CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use,
or on deadline date specified above.
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant =at provide all information
and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning
Administrator.
FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must have drawings, resolution
and all other required documents recorded, with certification of such
recording returned to the City by deadline date.
Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtaine y
contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date.
CITY of ORONO Control No. 436
1'hrf offs, au. 64.c".. i H., M'E.... L.Mald•M..m".1 Offw
Meeting Date 1-30-80
Td.shun. 473-7357 Notice Date 7-n7-Rn
T0:
Mr. Alexander Holzer _ Variance
2677 Casco Point Road xX Conditional Use Permit
Wayzata, Subdivision, Preliminary
Minnesota 55391 Subdivision, Final
Copies to: _
COUNCIL ACTION Vote: 3 For 0 Against _ Abstention
MOTION to approve your request to extend the deadline date for all work
to include all plantings and seeding from December 1, 1979 to
July 1, 1980. Please call the Zoning Office for a site inspection
when the work is complete.
DEADLINE DATE July 1, 1980
_ for submittal of new information (application may be considered
formally withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided).
for Work Permit _ for work to begin xx for work to be
application completed
WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED - contact Building Inspecto- before beginning
work.
VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans.
Do nor change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval.
x CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use,
or on deadline date specified above.
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant =at provide all information
and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning
Administrator.
FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must have drawings, resolution
and all other required documents recorded, with certification of such
recording returned to the City by deadline date.
Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtaine y
contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date.
Tr'cphane 47-7357
r"• CITY of ORONO
Pawl Oftle, Boa 66•Cryelel Bey, Minnincw 55323• Municipal Offiaw
• On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
March 28, 1980
Mr. Louis Smerling
4455 West 77th Street
Edina,
Minnesota 55435
Re:( 143� Holzer - Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Smerling:
This letter is in response to your call to Mr. Dick Benson regarding
the status of Holzer's project next to your Casco Point property.
The Holzer work was not completed by December first and the early
frost has prevented resumption of grading to date. Upon their
request, the City Council has extends,? their deadline for completion
until July 1, 1980. work done to dat,. has been inspected by my
department staff.
As a separate matter, I do not have a record of any permit or inspection
calls for the proposed underground retaining wall per your application
(4492). I would assume that both your project and the Holzer's project
will be completed according to plan as soon this spring as weather permits.
S incere�y,
" Z
A�an P.
Village P.
APO:kh
T,drnhnnr 47:17.r,7
:
CITY of ORONO
V-1 Off".. nn 1ui•f'rYxml HeY, Minnrxnln SSI31•Munirinol Df6r,+.
A., On thr North Share of Lake Minnetonka
.... ..:, April 7, 1990
Mr. Louis Smerling
2552 West Lake of the Isles Boulevard
Minneapolis,
Minnes 55405
Re: 436) Holzer - Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Smerling:
This letter is in response to your call to Dick Benson regarding J
the status of Holzer's project next to your Casco Point property.
The Holzer work was not completed by Do •tuber first and the early
frost has prevented resumption of grading to date. Upon their
request, the City Council has extended their deadline for completion
until July 1, 1980. Work done to date has been inspected by my
department staff.
As a separate matter, I do not have a record of any per -nit or inspection
calls for the proposed underground retaining wall per your application
(1492). I would assume that both your project and the Holzer's project
will be completed according to plan as soon this spring as weather permits.
S ince re��y,
n P. Olson
V llage Planner
APO:kh
Ll
TO: Walter R. Benson, City Admiristrator
FROM: Alan P. Olson, Village Planner
DATE: May 15, 1980
SUBJECT: Holzer & Smerling - Status Report
File #436 Holzer
10-31-78
Application Date
6-11-79
Planning Commission Approval
10-16-79
Council Approval Resolution No. 1079; deadline 12-1-79
1-30-80
Council Approval to extend deadline to 7-1-80
5-06-80
Site Inspection by Tom Jacobs -removal work in progress
no unusual conditions.
5-15-80
Site Inspection by Jacobs & Olson - some blocks
removed per plan, especially on south (Smerling)
side. Others not yet removed.
STOP WORK posted account wall on lake side relocated
and rebuilt to previous height with fill behind.
Additional walls and steps constructed below main
retaining wall; wood post retaining wall installed
on northwest side within 75 ft. line. Work done does
not conform to approved plans.
Comments: It would be possible to complete all work
according to approved plans before July 1, 1980, but
only if a contractor were hired and brought in with
enough equipment and manpower. Landscaping and
finish grading could easily be done in two weeks,
but the problem is correcting the rebuilt walls.
A new review of the appropriateness of these walls
would likely take until August or later.
File #492 Smerlin
7-02-79 Application Date
7-23-79 Planning Commission Approval
8-14-79 Council Approval of completely submerged soil
retention system.
3-28-80 APO letter to Smerling regarding Holzer inquiry also
"no record of any permit or inspection ^alls for your
wall".
5-15-80 Site inspection by Jacobs & Olson - 1 stone plus
2 wood retaining walls inplace, apparently last fall.
No permit ever issued.
STOP WORK posted along with inspection notice. Work
done d—oes not conform to approved plans.
may 15, 1980
Holzer/Smerling - Status Report
Page 2
File #492 Smerling (Cont.)
Comments. It appears as if the work is intended to
be completed as grass is growing. We do not know
the structural design of the walls although we note
they are leaning (by design or frost?). They are in
two tiers and each is exposed 24-30 inches with up to
4 ft. high poles above the ground. There is no ground
cover or shrubs apparent except for grass. A new
review of the appropriateness of walls would
likely t;'•e until August or late
FINAL COMMENTS
The Holzer job is obviously more extensive than the Smerling job.
There are code violations on both properties because of work without
permits and work not in conformance with approved plans. Neither
work is obviously unsound nor does either pose an obvious environmental
or erosion problem. The issue in both cases is one of appearance
and conformance to Council approval.
Y
y
i
/
11
I
s
1�
1•
'
` F
�
y
p
1
� \ ^� � r I N l~�•
\ y I'•
\ \ ao .Y
e
ayi
CITY OF . RONO
INSPECTION NO fICE
PERMIT NO. _
ADDRESS
OWNER _
❑ FOOTING
❑ FRAMING
❑ INSULATION
❑ WALL BD
W ❑ fo AL
W OGRESS
y� ❑ DEMOL.
Q ❑ FIRE PREV
2
i
ti
J
W
i
J
2
O
Q
W
J
O
n
O
W
R
¢
W
W
At& AOL,
CI
O
W
R
W
COMMENTS:
DATE TIME
CALLED -IN
SCHEDULED —�,—�-
- ^ COMPLETE&`_�
❑
PLUMBING RI
❑
MECHANICAL
❑
WATER HOOK
❑
METER SET/TI
❑
SEWER HOOKI
❑
SEPTIC INSTAi
❑
SEPTIC MAINT
❑
WELL TEST PL
CONTR.
l
i ,e7C INSPECTION
CESHOFI AOING/FfLLING
610S
LAENSING E/WETLANDS
ON ❑ LICENSING
❑ COMPLAINT
❑ FOLLOW-UP
Q ❑ WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED Li PHOTO TAKEN
O ❑ CORRECT WORK a PROCEED
U ❑ CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERI�41'
ORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS INSPECTOR WILL RE;_+w
STOP ORDER POSTED, CALL INSPECTOR.
❑`INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
Please call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance.
Owner/Contron sit
Inspector_ 473-73 7
Whin Copy/lnrpeno•'i Fde Gold Copy/Sne Nome e77
'REGULAR hF,ETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 16, 1979 Pace 3
The plat contains eleven lots plus a private road; SUBDIVISION*
Outlot A is deeded and dedicated to the City as 4605 Watertown Load
public land in lieu of any park dedication fee •(Continued)
and is being used as right of way for the ring
route road.
The City of Independence has already approved and
signed off on the plat.
Council fleeting - October 16, 1979
Butler moved, !fassennale seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION 41078*
Resolution #1078, A Resolution Approving The Plat McCullev ram
Of McCulley Farm. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
Alan Olson, City Planner, entered inti the record OHDITIONAL USE PERMIT*
the following concerninc, a variance and conditional 2697-Casco Point. Road
use permit for Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point � #436 i
Road, dated September 25, 1979, which states: C-!-;1 xander Holzer
Council approved issuance of variances and conditional
use permit to grade property and reconstruct retain-
ing wall per Gordon Coffin drawing dated Sentember 18,
1979 except that buried portion of wall to be no
higher than 958.33 - top of wall - with approximately
2" topsoil cover - this is a reduction of five blocks
instead of four as shown. City staff to approve
final grading on site. We will document the final
wall height prior to work and covering. Work
should begin and be completed as soon as possible.
You will receive a resolution to be signed and
re urned before the October 16, 1979 meeting.
Council Meeting - October 16, 1979
Butler moved, Massengale seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTION j1079*
#1079, A Resolution Approving A Conditional Use Permit Alexander Holzer
And Variance For.Alexander Holzer. Motion, Aves (4) -
tiays (0).
Mr. Leo Duehn, 1140 North Arm Drive, appeared and
requested an extension of time because of lack of
legal counsel.
Mayor Van Nest moved, Hurr seconded, to table the
application of Leo Duehn and KK 6 Rompany, 1140 North
Arm Drive, until the next Council meeting. Motion,
Ayes (4) - !lays (0).
CONDITIONAL USE PER!
114n North Arm Driv,
#487
Kill 6 Kompany
RESOLUTION NO. 1079
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCE FOR ALEXANDER HOLZER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Council have reviewed
at length an application by Alexander Holzer to install certain
retaining walls and accomplish certain grading on his property located
at 2677 Casco Point Road; and
WHEREAS, said proposal entails grade changes and site
alteration on an embankment within 75 ft. of Lake Minnetonka, which
work requires a variance to Section 31.830 et. seq. of the Flood
Plain Management Section of the Orono Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, said proposal entails general site grading and
retaining wall construction not a part of a normal building permit,
which work requires a conditional use permit pursuant to Section
31.700 of the Orono Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, some of the above work was undertaken prior to
application for the required permit and/or variance and has been
suspended pending the outcome of this application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon Planning
Commission and City Staff research and the information supplied by
the applicant, the City Council hereby makes the following findings
of face:
1. Certain portions of the work are necessary to prevent
undue erosion and/or water arainage to the neighboring
properties, speci.ically damage to the boathouse on the
property to the north and possible erosion damage to the
embankment on the property to the south.
2. Certain amounts of the existing retaining walls located
underground are beneficial in preve;.ting possible erosion
or slippage of the applicant's embankment.
3. Certain amounts of site grading are desirable to slow
and/or direct the flow of surface waters for erosion control.
4. Certain other amounts of site grading and especially
wall construction above the ground are not required for
drainage or erosion control purposes and may affect the
lakeshore visibility from adjoining properties.
5. Certain amounts of the wall construction are contrary to
Sections 34.201 and 34.202 of the municipal code which
prohibit the construction of ouildings or hardcover within
75 ft. of the lakeshore or ahead of the average setback of
Lakeshore residences.
Resolution No. 1079-
Page 2
6. Some work is required to be accomplished as soon as
possible to restore vegetation to the land, correct
improper portions of the work already accomplished, and
to prevent undue erosion over the winter.
7. Special conditions applying to the land in question
are per,;jiar to this property and immediately surrounding
property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which said land is located.
S. The granting of portions of the application is necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant.
9. The granting of permits including a variance to allow
a certain extent of the work to be completed will not in
any way impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals
or general welfare, nor the value or security of adjoining
properties.
10. The granting of the permits for some of the work will
not be contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan or the Zoning Code.
11. The granting of the necessary variance will not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary
to alleviate demonstrated hardships or difficulties to
allow correction of the existing problems and to secure the
interests of abutting property owners in maintaining the
value and security of their property.
FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the foregoing
findings the City Council hereby affirms the conceptual approval
for such work as granted at the September 25, 1979 Council meeting
according to the following conditions:
1. Work shall be done essentially as proposed on the drawing
made by Gordon Coffin Company, dated September 18, 1979, as
clarified by the letter of Robert Mitchell, dated
September 25, 1979, except that the top of the buried portion
of the wall across the front of the property shall be at
elevation 958.33 ft.
2. Final grading shall be reviewed and approved by the
City staff.
3. Drainage patterns shall be essentially as shown, with
no piped drainage to Lake Minnetonka.
4. All exposed earth shall be satisfactorily sodded or
seeded to control and prevent erosion, with steeper portions
of the embankment to receive additional vegetation having
deep root systems.
Resolution No. 1079
Page 3
5. Any work required to correct and restore areas on
neighbor's properties shall be negotiated and/or resolved
between the parties as a private matter and is not a
part of these conditions.
6. Work shall be completed this fall, preferrably as
soon as possible, but in no case later than December 1, 1979,
except that portion of the work requiring planting or
vegetation may be deferred and/or completed next spring,
the intention being to filly protect from runoff and erosion
damage over the winter and during spring runoff.
7. Failure to satisfactorily complete the work shall be
considered a violation of the zoning code punishable as
a misdemeanor as provided therein.
8. The applicant shall sign this resolution as an agreement
to complete the work according to these conditions.
✓�-7`7
Alexander, Holzer Date
Seta Holzer Date
i0-5
ATTEST: Robert obert Mitch— eZ1 Date
Adopted by the City Council of the "eia
�6__ day of October 1979.
J
W1 liam B.
ATTEST:
Walte;/pl Benson, Clerk Administrator
REGULAR MEETING Ol THL ORONo COUNCIL, JANUARY 30, 1980
Page 2
.Alan Olson, City Planner, presented the City
Council with a memo ccncerning a Capital Improve-
ment Plan Review for the Wayzata School District
4284, dated January 22, 1980, which states:
The District 284 Plan lists no anticipated capital
expenditures at least through 1990. The District
is split between rural farming areas "north of
Highway 55" and "developed or developing....
suburban housing" south of Highway 55. The develop-
ment occurring in Plymouth is expected to keep
enrollments stable with a slight upward trend
in the next ten years which is expected to allow
good utilization of existing facilities without
requiring expansion. There are no plans for
closing any building.
The plan takes note of Minneapolis' 400 acres of
workhouse property which has been the subject of
some housing development speculation. If this
development were to occur, the District may have
to add facilities.
The District has one high school, one junior high,
six elementary schools and one administration
building. Since no facility is in Orono, there is
no direct impact on Orono public facilities.
There is no discussion about District transportation.
The financial section of the plan is limited to the
bonded indebtedness.
It is interesting to note that Wayzata has stable
or increasing enrollment with no plans for facility
expansion while Orono and Westonka expect slight
enrollment declines but also desire facility
expansion for certain special programs.
Council Meeting - January 30, 1980
Butler moved, Hurt seconded, to approve the
Capital Tmr:ovement Plan Review for the Wayzata
School District #284. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0).
No comments from the public.
Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator, presented
the City Council with the following memo concern-
ing the Alexander Holzer property at 2677 Casco
Point Road dated January 18, 1980, which states:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PL1
Wayzata School District
#284"
PUBLIC COMMENTS
EXTEND DEADLINE DATE"
2677 Casco Point Road
#436
Alexander Holzer
(Continued)
HSGIILAR MEETING OF TPE ORONO COUNCIL, JANUARY 30, 1980
Page 3
Mrs. Holzer has requested an extension of the
deadline date for the completion of all phases of
restoration as specified in Resolution 43079.
The work to be completed will naw include the
required seeding and plantings. The new date as
requested is July 1, 1980 per- Mrs. Holzer's
letter of January, 1980 (received in this office
January 18, 1980).
Staff agrees with the applicants that this is a
"reasonable" request.
Council Meeting - January 30, 1980
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the
extension date to July 1, 1980, to complete the
restoration for Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco
Point Road. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0).
EXTEND DEADLINE DATE*
2677 Casco Point Road
(Continued)
Mayor Van Nest moved, Butler
seconded,
to table
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
the request of KK 6 Kompany,
1140 North
Arm Drive,
1140 North Arm Drive
for a conditional use permit
until Mr.
Leo Duehn
4489
is available to appear at the
meeting.
Motion,
KK S Kompany - Leo Due:
Ayes (3) - Nays (0).
Mr. Timothy Petersen, 280 Orono Orchard Road, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
was present concerning his conditional use permit. 280 Orono Orchard Road
He informed the City Council that he wants it to 4500
be on the record that his tower will be coming Timothy Petersen
down on Friday of this week and that he will be
moving out of Orono June 1, 1980.
Mr. Petersen stated that he had asked for a
representative from the contracting company that
had put up the tower to be available this evening,
but that it was impossible due to the fact that
he is in Atlanta, Georgia on vacation. He stated
that the contractor would write a letter to
Mr.Olson requesting whatever is necessary on
formalities with a target date for this Friday
for removal of the tower.
Mr. Petersen also stated that interference is not
an issue but apparently was at the last meeting.
He had contacted an engineer for the FCC who has
been out there and made an inspection of the
facilities and will do whatever is necessary to
correct the problem.
Mayor Van Nest: The FCC?
Mr. Petersen: Yes. We want to cooperate and make
sure it is done right and as soon as they can get
a crew, it will disappear. I think you should
rescind allthe necessary paper work.
(Continued)
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI14G HELD ON JULY 23, 1979
PAGE 2
The general consensus, of the Planning Commission was
that the boat repair was the same type of use as
the auto L ly and was a cleaner, better operation.
Mr. Jeff Johnson, 1145 Loma Linda, was present.
He had no objection to the operation; his only
request was that a fence be placed between his
and Mr. Duehn's property to definitely separate
them. Planning Corcnission felt the number and
size of the boats being stored should be specified.
Wilson moved to recommend approval of the Conditional
Use Permit subject to the following conditions:
1) Fence to be constructed along rear lot line
(east line of property).
2) Boat storage, other than that serviced by the
garage, will be limited to no more than 20
boats on the property at one time.
3) No boats to be stored higher than bank on north
side of property.
4) Car repair permitted during winter months
(Oct. 1 through March 31). Repair to be carried
on inside the facility - no car permitted to be
parked outside, and
5) Subject to yearly review upon complaints by neighbors
or at staff request.
Motion seconded by Adams. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0).
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. and Mrs. Smerling were present. Mabusth entered
into the record that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District will not require a permit for the
construction of the wall provided that: 1) the
construction is above the 931.5 contour line,
2) wetlands are not involved, and 3) there are
no changes in the shoreline. No public comments
were heard.
KK 6 ROMPANY
1140 North Arm Drive
r,OND. USE PERMIT
0489) Cont.
LOUIS SMERLING
2683 Casco Point Roai
COND. USE PERMIT
(11492)
Frahm moved to recommend approval of the Conditional
Use Permit for the retaining wall and refilling a
portion of the bank in accordance with plans
submitted contingent on completion by September 15, 1979.
Motion seconded by Hammerel. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0).
Motion passed unanimously.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUGUST 14, 1979 Page 12
City Planner Alan Olson's letter of July 26, 1979 BUILDING PLAN REVIE!J
to Mr. Robert Pope regarding the First National 2465 Shadywood Road
Bank of Navarre was reviewed by the City.Council. 4491
Navarre Bank
Nobody was present to represent the First National
Bank of Navarre. Discussion included the encroach-
ment into the LR-lA residential zone of approximately
50' on the site plan for the parking lot instead of
the approved 10' variance. It was also noted that
the conceptually approved plan contained 9,600 sq. ft.
for the new bank and not including the dotted line
"alternate building" addition. Staff was also directed
to contact the Bank to pursue a drivewav connection
between this property and Super Valu.
Mayor Van Nest moved, Massengale seconded, to
clarify the conceptual approval of a 10' variance
rather than a 50' variance, as in letter, for the
parking area for the First National Bank of Navarre.
Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0).
Mayor Van Nest moved, Hurr seconded, to table for
two weeks the approval of building plans for the
First National Bank of Navarre in order to notify_
the applicants and request changes in parking
locations and/or building size so that all develop-
ment occurs in the B-4 71ne. Motion, Aves (5) -
Na_ys (0).
Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the
record the conditional use permit request of
Louis Smerling, 2683 Casco Point Road, dated
July 16, 1979, which states:
Purpose - restore lakeshore slopes to original
grade and to control erosion.
The applicant has held up his conditional use
application until the Alexander Holzer permit was
completed. The long delays involved with his -
neighbor's application and the heavy rains of this
season have created a greater potential for additional
erosion of the steep banks of his lakeshore property.
Staff has called for action on the application for
the July 23, 1979 neeting.
The enclosed I-tters have been sent to both the
City Engineer and 11C1iD for review. The project
involves a 32' long area along the bank. The
supporting timber structure or "retaining wall" will
be subsurface with the necessary plantings above.
I have only one question that I will direct to the
City Engineer involving the temporary step after
seeding or covering the bank with a plastic and fiber
mulch. The rest of the project appears to meet code.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2683 Casco Point Road
9492
Louis Smerling
(Continued)
,REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUGUST 14, 1979
Staff Update - Alan Olson - July 30, 1979
On July 26, 1979, Alan Olson and Glenn Cook met with
Jim Orr, Mr. Smerling's engineer, on the site to
review this proposal. The bank has slipped with
the remaining soil on about a 600 angle which
definitely needs some stabilization.
Mr. Kelley's letter suggests one "retaining wall";
however, Mr. Orr notes that two or more subsurface
stabilization walls may be necessary. The purpose
of these buried "walls" is to contain new fill so
that vegetation can be reestablished. The vegetation
will eventually do as much or more to limit future
slipage than will the wall.
Staff expects a sketch plan and section of the
proposal before the Council meeting so that the
project can be visualized. We also recommend
approval of the proposal without further delay.
The original slipage occurred last summer and
should be repaired before another winter freeze.
Staff also recommends that Council consider an
amendment to the zoning code to permit staff review
and issuance of permits for similar corrective work.
This will serve to permit quick response to emergency
shoreline protection. Particularly where the work
involves no permanent exposed structure, staff
should be allowed to permit necessary grading and/or
filling to stabilize eroding bluffs in the same
way that we now issue routine riprap permits.
Council Meeting - August 14, 1979
Mr. 6 Mrs. Smerling were present.
Page 13
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2683 Casco Poin-. Road
(Continued)
Massengale moved, Paurus seconded, to accept the
plan as presented by Louis Smerling, 2683 Casco
Point Road, for a conditional use permit to restore
his lakeshore slope to original grade and to control
erosion, subject to no guarantee on the part of the
City that it is a workable plan. Motion, Ayes (5) -
Nays (0).
Butler roved, Massengale seconded, to direct staff to EROSION CONTROL
prepare an amendment to the zoning code to permit
staff review and issuance of permits to residents for
the control of the erosion of their shorelines.
Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0).
RL�.1 MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JUNE 2, 1980 Page 12
Alan Olson, City Planner, antered into the record ALEXANDER HOLEER
the following letter to Alexander Holzer, 2677 2677 Casco Point Road
Casco Point Road, dated May 19, 1980, concerning
his conditional use permit and variance application.
Letter - Page 13
Council Meeting - June 2, 1980
Alan Olson informed the City Council that two tags
were issued to Mr. Holzer, 2672 Casco Point Road,
this morning, June 2, 1980.
Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record, JOHN D. HANNAH
the following concerning the Building Code Beard 2607 W. Lafayette Rd
of Appeals regarding the John Hannah, 2607 West
Lafayette Road, matter.
Let'sr - Pages 14 & 15
The following letter concerning right of entry RIGHT OF ENTRY
agreement for Timothy Sweezo, 4480 Watertown AGREEMENT
Road, was presented to :he City Council by Timothy Sweezo
Bruce Malkerson, City Attorney, dated May 22,
1980.
Letter - Pages 16-19
Council Meeting - June 2, 1980
Mayor Van Nest moved, Hurr seconded, to approve
the payment of $8,000 to Timothy Sweezo, 4480
Wate--town Road, regarding his right of entry
agreement. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
Tom Knehn, Finance Director, and Glenn Cook, City SEWER 6 WATER RATES
Engineer, presented the memo prepared by Tom Kuehn
to the City Council regarding proposed sewer and
water utility rates dated May 30, 1980.
Sewer 6 Water Rates - Pages 20-22
Council Meeting - June 2, 1980
Butler moved, Paurus seconded, to defer until the
Council meeting of June 30, 1980 to allow staff to
develop data comparing the present and proposed
formula for sewer and water rates with current and
projected income. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
Mayor Van Nest moved, Paurus seconded, to request
staff to review and submit a report to the City
Council on the condition of the Navarre Water Retire-
ment Debt Fund. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
a
Page 13
CITYof ORONO
1'ust (IR,r Rm t,r.r,,,t.1 Bep. Minnernta 56323. Muni,i,d U!f„n
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
May 19, 1980
Mr. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
Re: f436 Conditional Use Permit 6 Variance
Dear Mr. Holzer:
An inspection was made of your work progress on Thursday, May 15, 1980.
A Stop Work and Correction Notice was posted because you have done work
that was not shown on the approved plans. You have not removed all blocks
as marked. You have installed new, unapproved block walls. You have
installed new, unapproved wood retaining walls.
All work not authorized by Resolution No. 1079 must be completely
removed before June 2, 1980. All work must be completed according to
the approved plans before July 1, 1980. There can be no further time
extension.
Violation tags will be issued every day if you fail to meet these
deadlines. Each day of violation is subject to a $500.00 fine and/or
ninety (90) days in jail.
Sincerely, '
Alan P/
Village
son
inner
APO: kh
Cc: Mr. Walter R. Benson
Mr. Thomas J. Jacobs
TATE & MI NESOTA MISDLMEANDH-vLIIT MI
NENN/EPIN GOUNYY CITATION
ADDRESS ^ " 7'7 ( a C G, ��I �`(1��9
CITY
JUV
HT. WT
OPER:
LIC. NO.--_
VIOL
OESC
Ll1cl
ENDANGER
LIFE OR
ACCIDENT❑
PROPERTY u
VEHICLE
MUnIV 1�AL �.w
No.33 SSIS06 5
LIC. NO. YR. ST.�
MAKE_ MODEL _COLOR
Q�
DATE: Mo._ 7 DAY_.(QQy YR.- Sli-TIME:
PLACE )_G77 4 i%G P� P n'l
UNSAFE
IN SAFE 5� ACTIVITY .:Aff
nuRT DI
METER
4
.3 to NO.
gs84
1;
44
ISSUED FOR NOT RESPONDING TO THIS CITAI ION WITHIN 7 DAYS AT
rTHE VIOLATIONS BUREAU LISTED ON THE REVEPSE SIDE.
SIGNATURE_
ST .....:.:-
STATE OF 1'.INNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
��.I,LLl,EAN0R-PL 0 • .'EAbu,
CITATION No.33 551505 `f
_-�'-----
NAME_.�.Ll� J r
ADDRESS —7 `ICA
CITY ST. A( AL_ zl'
JUV AL—
_
D.O.B. HT. WT. SE%_
OPER
LIC NO
VIOL. DESC AJ
! L. l
.IPE OR IL,—JI
f POPERTY
VEr CLE
LIC. NO
V R - __S1
MAKE MODEL COLOR
DATE MO DAY A�-YR TIME:_
PLACIF
ST AT. p fGC qqL�y
l _ 1
I.1[TER
NO
UNSAFE
ACCIDENT SA 4 _ I —
CONDITION� I -,E �r^�
ACTIVITY �'Ol'9T '?IC!! i_ • IE C I% _
'IN:) AN—..r - •a -� _
,SSUEO FO''VC'G12''SC'�'-
TOE VIOLAT.O' ' O
p:GNATURP.—__.--_
74TE O' t.ANNESOTA tRSC�LCEArOi.-PETTY M15DEKtFa OR NUM1i�.... - ��•
HEI.NEPIN COUNTY CITATION N o.3 3 5 5 l 5 0 4 3
NAME /��L-*./,r,•�Er -In Lz-ag
ADDRESS 126,17 ( A,:,( - Lit
CITY ST ZIP 553'//
:UV
D.0.8 HT
OPER:
LIC. NO
ENDANGER J I UNSAFE
LIFE LIFE OR ACCIDENT
PROPERTY
VEHICLE
LOC. NO.
YR._ _.ST._..- _I —
MAKE / MODEL —COLOR ��J
DATE: MO. _6-�f DAY ,Z� YR/.��TI/ME /—I
PLACE 2C I / ���C:U 6^+ ,F iC ,{'
METER
N0
ACTIVIrr__LCOUPi D1VICdON COMM. 'ODE I PA^IiE NJ
PENAL.,L'; WILL BE ASSESSED AND AN AHRL.:,A-;,Atil I. B�
ISSLED FOR NOT RESPONDIN3 TO THIS CITAT;C. :'PTwN 7 DAI a AT
THC VIOLATIONS BUREAU LISTED ON THE REVLPS= SIP:
SIGNATURE
N0.33 551502
LIC NO
A A•`, ^ ._` _�_7n./-. MAKEy.__MODEL.- ...._ _COr_Cq__
i'/7♦i 11 111.�1 .l _} �t�/t :ATE MO _ _DAY_
4 1 ,� %
_.SEX Pt ACE ig-g q
_.. .. .. _
1 IcCa''i�r. C_ �'r,,L:Drf�c SJ �, /� p _
3
1
DATE TIME
CITY OF ORONO CALLED -IN
INSPECTION NOTICE SCHEDULED
PERMIT NO. COMPLETED/C
ADDRESS
c d'�7;7
/L/�
OWNER—
41-4,-
CONTR.
❑
FOOTING
--�❑
PLUkXING RI
-SITE INSPECTION
❑
FRAMING
❑
MECHANICAL
❑ CAV./GRAOIND/FILLING
❑
INSULATION
O
WATER HOOKUP
❑ LAKESHORE/WETLANDS
❑
WALL BD.
U
METER SET/TURN ON
❑ LICENSING
❑
FINAL
❑
SEWER HOOKUP
MPLAINT
O
PROGRESS
O
SEPTIC INSTALL.
LLOW-UP
❑
DEMOL
O
SEPTIC MAINT.
❑
FIRE PREV.
❑
WELL TEST PUMP
❑
❑ WORK SATISFACTORY PROCEED ❑ PHOTO TAKEN
❑ CORRECT WORK a PROCEED
O CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
❑ STOP ORDER POSTED, CALL INSPECTOR.
❑ INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
Pteass cell for the next inspection 24 hours in advance.
Owner/Conti. on
Inspector ���— 00"m 4M7W
Whim Copy/Inww,w', Fdm Gold Cop',/Sow Non"
DATE TIME
CITY OF ORONO
CALLED -IN
INSPECTION NOTICE
SCHEDULED
PERMIT NO.
COMPLETED
ADDRESS 2610-7
Goa
t
OWNER
CONTR.
TELEPHONE NO.
❑ FOOTING
❑
PLUMBING RI
NUSITE INSPECTION
❑ FRAMING
❑
MECHANICAL
EXCAVJGRADING;F I L LING
❑ INSULATION
❑
WATER HOOKUP
❑
L AK ESHOR EIWET LANDS
❑ WALL BD.
❑
METER SETrrURN ON
❑
LICENSING
❑ FINAL
❑
SEWER HOOKUP
❑
COMPLAINT
❑ PROGRESS
❑
SEPTIC INSTALL.
❑
FOLLOW-UP
❑ DEMOL
❑
SEPTIC MAINT.
SEPTIC FINAL
❑ FIRE PREY.
❑
WELL TEST PUMP
O❑
-
COMMENTS:
❑ WORK SATISFACTORY. PROCEED ❑ PHOTO TAKEN
❑ CORRECT WORK & PROCEED
❑ CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
❑ STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR.
❑ INSPECTION REQUIRED CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
call for the next inspection 24 hours in
Owner/Contr. on
Inspector _may
White Copy/Inspector'% File /� Gold Copy/Stu Notice
DATE TIME
CITY OF ORONO
CALLED -IN
INSPECTION NOTICE
SCHEDULED
PERMIT NO.
COMPLETED
ADDRESS IL 77
Pt
p
�a
OWNER
CONTR.
TELEPHONE NO.
❑ FOOTING
❑ FRAMING
❑ INSULATION
❑ WALL BD.
❑ FINAL
❑ PROGRESS
❑ DEMOL
❑ FIRE PREV.
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
%
❑
PLUMBING RI
MECHANICAL
WATER HOOKUP
METER SET/TURN ON
SEWER HOOKUP
SEPTIC INSTALL.
SEPTIC MAINT.
:YELL TEST PUMP
SITE
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
L]
❑
INSPECTION
EXCAV./GRADING/FILLING
LAKESHORE/WETLANDS
LICENSING
COMPLAINT
FOLLOW-UP
SEPTIC FINAL
COMMENTS:
i I
�z
yn��nl /
%SA Y O.
❑ WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED ❑ PHOTO TAKEN
❑ CORRECT WORK a PROCEED
❑ CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL. RETURN.
❑ STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR.
❑INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
cell for the n At inspection 24 he urs in advance.
Ownx/Contr. o 'to _ —
Inspecto K 473-7357
White Copy/Inspector's File Gold Copy/Site Notice
CITY OF ORONO
INSPECTION NOTICE
PERMIT NO.
ADDRESS c2(o
OWNER _&Le
TELEPHONE NC
❑
FOOTING
❑
FRAMING
❑
INSULATION
❑
WALL BD.
❑
FINAL
❑
PROGRESS
❑
DEMOL.
❑
FIRE PREV.
COMMENTS:
DATE TIME
CALLED -IN
SCHEDULED
COMPLETED
❑
PLUMBING RI
❑
MECHANI; AL
❑
WATER HOOKUP
❑
METER SET/TURN ON
❑
SEWER HOOKUP
❑
SEPTIC INSTALL.
❑
SEPTIC MAINT.
❑
WFLL TEST PUMP
CONTR.
eFITE INSPECTION
%CAV./GRADING/FILLING
O LAKESHORE/WETLANDS
❑ LICENSING
❑ COMPLAINT
❑ FOLLOW-UP
❑❑ SEPTIC FINAL
7Aerr_ IA< NC C-1 Aot,� Aiy WAr&
S�ms.�� r►,t � Tt �� ! '�`r.L is
❑ WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED ❑ PHOTO TAKEN
❑ CORRECT WORK a PROCEED
❑ CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
❑ STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INS'ECTOR.
❑ INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance
Owner/Contr. on
473-7357
White Copy/Inspector's Fds Gold COP, ;,to Notice
DATE TIM,`
CITY OF ORONO
CALLED -IN
INSPECTION NOTICE
SCHEDULED
PERMIT NO.
COMPLETED
1637
ADDRESS -26 7
7
CASO �7�
p
/—
OWNER
CONTR.
TELEPHONE NO.
❑ FOOTING
❑
PLUMBING RI
XSITF- INSPECTION
❑ FRAMING
❑
MECHANICAL
❑
EXCAV./GRADING/FILLING
❑ INSULATION
❑
WATER HOOKUP
❑
LAKESHORE/WETLANDS
❑ WALL 80.
❑
METER SET/TURN ON
❑
LICENSING
❑ FINAL
Cl
SEWER HOOKUP
❑
COMPLAINT
❑ PROGRESS
❑
SEPTIC INSTALL.
❑
FOLLOW-UP
❑ DEMOL
❑
SEPTIC MAINT.
❑
SEPTIC FINAL
❑ FIRE PREV.
❑
WELL TEST PUMP
❑
❑ WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED ❑PHOTO TAKEN
❑ CORRECT WORK a PROCEED
❑ CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
❑ STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR.
❑ INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance.
Owner/Contr. on site
47e3-7357
White CopYtlmpetior'f File / / Gold COPY/Stu Notlt
DATE TIME
CITY OF ORONO
CALLED -IN
INSPECTION NOTICE
SCHEDULED
�•'1-flG'
PERMIT NO.
COMPLETED
gfzr�
ADDRESS _
"7 / -/�✓�
OWNER 44
-CONTR.
❑ FOOTING
❑
PLUMBING RI
SITE INSPECTION
❑ FRAMING
❑
MECHANICAL
EXCAV./GHAITING/FILLING
❑ INSULATION
❑
WATER HOOKUP
❑- LAKESHOREIWETLANOS
❑ WALL SD.
❑
METER SEIlTURN ON
❑ LICENSING
❑ FINAL
❑
SEWER HOOKUP
COMPLAINT
❑ PROGRESS
❑
SEPTIC INSTALL
FOLLOW UP
XI
❑ DEMOL.
❑
SEPTIC MAINT.
❑ FIRE PREV.
❑
WELL TEST PUMP
❑
ee
❑ WORK SATIi'FACTORY: PROCEED PHOTO TAKEN
❑ CORRECT WORK is PROCEED
❑ CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECT ION BEFORE COVERING
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
❑ STOPORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR.
❑ INSPECT ION REOUIRED CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS
Please call for the next inspection 24 hours in advanc,.
Owner/Contr. on site _ '
/
Inspector .— 47.1 '157
While Copy/Impeclo"s File Gold Copy/Site Notice
STATE OF MINNESOTA ��°R=rertY rlsuErEANDx ruNN:NEr ewRi
E HENNEPIN COUNTY CITATION No.33552449 2\,
I
/// VEHICLE
NAMES //Jn�N�J/t i. 0/(I //v i f/�1LIC.NO.�rR�6T.
AD0.'IE%.I��L��L' 7z •'/�CO /L1�/i�i���/C/1�/fa�L'j �%%_ YANf: YODEL �`�COLOR ///
CITY_y_�y((.^.ZL
_8T.ZIP1.l.CJ.L DATE:CNO.S—O�A1Y�/Y�R..f/1=TIY
OPEN:
UC. N
❑ IACCIDENT
C; 1
METER I.. 1 � I
NO. I
IEBUED FOR NOT RESPONDING TO THIS CITATION WITHIN ] DAYS AT
THE VIOLATIONS BUREAU LISTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE.
SIGNATURE _
STATE III MINNESOTA MISDEMETDW EANOR—PTY MISEANOR II111=11 J. COURT-1
HENNEPIN COUNTY CITATION No.33 552448 P\
VEHICLE
NAME
�fy1'M'I �jJ�'/r/�� ,T`2Ja� /J LIC. NO.
ADORES$ .24 %7 • A� l..O Az— � A' uso/' p' MARE MODEL —COLOR
CITY //�{�,J(,/. ST. IPA DATE:MO.�DAY—yYRkO THI 99s
JUV �I A
M77 A/ —
'VIOL
ACCIDENT❑
®'
ISSUED FOR NOT REST nDING TO THIS CITATION WITHIN T DAYS AT, Kz
THE VIOLATIONS BUREAU LISTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE. Is
SIGNATURE
CITY OF ORONO
INSPECTION NOTICE
PERMIT NO.
ADDRESS
OWNER
CALLED -IN
SCHEDULED
COMPLETED
❑
FOOTING
p
PLUMBING RI
❑
FRAMING
❑
MECHANICAL
❑
INSULATION
❑
WATER HOOKUP
❑
WAL-,BD.
❑
METER SET/TUR!
❑�
FyIIt4
[I
SEWER HOOKUP
FY►ROGRESS ❑SEPTIC INSTALL.
CC77 DEMOL. ❑ SEPTICMAINT.
Cl FIRE PREV ❑ WELL TEST PUMP
DATE TIME
IAM
ILLING
W
u/oti �S v7 iw A..e�
W ❑ WORK SATISFACTLRV PROCEED ❑7peH TO TAKEN
Q ORRECT WORK a PROCEED
U ORRECT WORK CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING
f,ORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN
'JWOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR.
p NSPECTION REOi:1RED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS
Pleeas call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance.
Owner/Contr. on III
Inspector _ st4M�Qf +".'W
While COPYIIOSPr vw I Fdo GPW COPY/Siu Nome
Telephone 4737357
CITY of ORONO
Pom Office Rua 66•Cryalal Be,. Minneema 55323•Moni6pal ORda
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
4 • a
May 19, 1980
Mr. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391
Re: 1436 Conditional Use Permit a Variance
Dear Mr. Holzer:
An inspection was made of your work progress on Thursday, May 15, 1980.
A Stop Work and Correction Notice was posted because you have done cork
that was not shown on the approved plans. You have not removed all blocks
as marked. You have installed new, unapproved block walls. You have
installed new, unapproved wood retaining walls.
All work not authorized by Resolution No. 1079 must be completely
removed before June 2, 1980. All work must be completed according to
the approved plans bemire July 1, 1980. There can be no further time
extension.
Violation tags will be issued every day if you fail to meet these
deadlines. Each day of violation is subject to a $500.00 fine and/or
ninety (90) days in jail.
Sincerely,
A4an P / Olson
Villaeje Planner
APO:kh
cc: Mr. Walter R. Benson
Mr. Thomas J. Jacobs
GORDON R. COFFIN
LAND 1UaVP'0a AND .. a
aoaa wwrza.owN aowo
LEND LAKE MINN saris
10.7-80
IUI`1�U{I OCT b L9W
Mrs. Alexander Holzer
2677 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, Minn. 55391
Dear ]Ras. Holzer:
Attached is part of a drawing I had made on Septem-
ber 18, 1979, which is basically what I believe was
approved for the yard on the lake aide of your house;
with some small berms shown and the wall almost com-
pletely covered.
The proposed plan at that time was to provide better
drainage flow away from the neighboring properties and
to provide more stabilization for the bank than existed
prior to any grad+ng on the property.
On October 2, 1980, I observed whet has been con-
structed on the site. Another smaller wall has been built
toward the lake from the original wall, and a level area
has been created below this Wall rather than a elope to
the bank as was shown in the original drawing.
While I felt that the original plan along with estab-
lishing a grass corer would prevent erosion of the bank,
the present construction is at least as good from an
engineering standpoint and perhaps a little better since
the more walls that are constructed on the bank to the
lake the more stable the slope will be. The work performed
is necessary to protect the top of the bank.
Sincerely,
Mark S. Gronberg, P.E.
cc: Arlo Vande Vegte
MSG/grc
y
i
.
;
_.........._
w
F..�....
M
..
..
.......... ......n
....�[:�
.......�........
..�
..r
�.........�...
......
..............
_ .
..
.._
...� .{
_
i.
_..
•F•F..
...q44
.•.�
..
j
k
4n
•r•pF
.. .....
TO: File
FROM: Alan P. Olson, Village Planner
DATE: October 14, 1980
SUBJECT: Site Inspection. - 2677 Casco Point Road (i436)
Alan Olson and Glenn Cook met on the Holzer site with Mark Gronberg,
the Holzer's engineer, to review his letter of October 7, 1980. Arlo
VandeVegte, their attorney, also was present.
Olson and Coo:- reviewed our technical questions and concerns with
Holzer's representatives:
1. Identified walls inplace un original plan from Council Meeting
of September 25, 1979.
2. Identified red marks of appru.�d wall location per Council
recommendation.
3. Identified new walls and steps added in Spring of 1980.
4. Noted that no walls are reinforced and no retaining wall design
calcs have ever been submitted and no inspections ever made for
frost footings.
5. New 1980 work is not mortared and steps have already sagged.
6. Noted the overturning concern with retaining walls in general
and fact that if wall is earth supported on both sides, wall will
not have a surcharge, will not overturn and does not need special
structural d:_rsiyn - therefore our report to Council was that
bury4n7 walls was necessary in lieu of no structural design.
7. Noted that some new work appears not to have any footings or
foundation at all, including the stairs; setback upper wall;
and curved lower wall in southeast corner.
Olson restated that City wants matter resolved as soon as possible,
whether that means administratively at Council level or in court,
but that burden is on Holzer to show that he does have a structurally
sound design and that the walls are necessary for drainage and erosion
control.
VandeVegte was to write a letter formally requesting City to reconsider
application l436 to allow, I presume, the work that has been done.
This will include Gronberg's engineering data. Cook will review data
from a technical, engineering standpoint. Deadline: Wednesday,
October 22, 1980 for Council Meeting October 27, 1980.
I also requested that they identify all additional work desired to be
completed so we do not again find more work done than plans indicate.
VandeVegte said "he better not do anything else".
cc: Mr. Bruce Malkerson
Mr. Walter Benson
Mr. Glenn Cook
/U-,o'?- i�D 93OIVX4
Ad*c T /r�& ' �3 .1
i-r''� i t � lv�iL�, 0. _Hcrl1//� -i %V 6? SO . _ j_• �.
n
!y`a`�'f'��✓/CP�ce7���cc� s�`uceo ua�-CGP.
IT
CDi'v�.iscG'1 v. ,G �Z,j'�G :=G ���� !n�'r t.•
it �a t.AC�! /� � S✓//M-'. �'- t c �co � .�-�c'c..P+�
S•v/ N'it /(.� V•1 .� ,•r� 4�A.fe i n ARI u�rP) f0
T 6 pl 4737W7
CITY of ORONO
Y,r, UR.a so. aaY. Mi." E69S1•101wegal OIM1er
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
November 5, 1980
Mr. Arlo VandeVegte
P.O. Box 39
Long Lake,
Minnesota 55356
Re: 4936 Alexander Holzer
Dear Mr. VandeVegte:
On October 14, 1980, Mr. Cook and myself met with you and Mr. Gronberg
on Mr. Holzer's property. Our understanding of that meeting was that
you would by letter request formal City Council reconsideration of
the prior variance and conditional use permit approval as given by
Resolution #1079. This would be for purposes of requesting
authorisation for some or all of the additional work undertaken
this spring, and it would be based upon a structural review and
engineering calculations by Mr. Gronberg.
I have not yet received a response from you, although I understand
that Mr. Gronberg has done his technical investigation. He has
stated to me thatthe long wall across the property has footings
located at grade level, which will require at least 42" of fill
being placed for frost protection, and that he has not yet found
any reinforcing or tie -backs as may be required to comply with
structural requirements. In addition, as we saw on site, the
new steps and walls are not mortared and apparently have no footing
at all.
This matter is brought to my immediate attention because last week
a contractor visited my office requesting a permit for installation
of a wooden roof -like structure on top of walls on the property.
He was told that the s��tto__pp workorder stood and that no permit related
to the walls could be-ssuad as long as the matter was in litigation.
He was told that I was awaiting your reply as above, and that this
should be expedited if there were some urgency in Coing additional work.
Y
November 5, 1980
% Mr. Arlo Vandevegte
#426 Alexander Holzer
Page 2
As I have said to you in the past, the City and I would like to see
this matter resolved as soon as possible, either administrativc..y
by City council reconsideration, or through court action. It is our
firm position, howver, that Mr. Holzer must provide satisfactory
engineering proof that the work done does in fact conform to building
code requirements and to good engineering practices as regards over-
turning loads, reinforcement,'frost footing protection and drainage
ur erosion control. This information was requested by the City
throughout the original review, but has still not been provided.
Until this is provided and the matter is resolved, there is no way
that my department can consider permitting additional work that
would affect these walla.
Please feel free tc call and discuss this with me at any time
Sincerely,
'IIIn/�
I)lari s.'Olson
VViage Planner
APO:kh
cc: Mr. Bruce Malkerson
Mr. Glenn Cook
Mr. Walter Benson
CITY OF ORONO
INSPECTION NOTICE
PERMIT NO.
ADDRESS
OWNER
TELE iONE NO.
DATE TUBE
CALLE�1 w
SCHEDULED
COMPLETED
Isioll lip
❑ FOOTING ❑ PLUMBING RI SITE INSPECTION
❑ FRAMING ❑ MECHANICAL p EXCAV./GRADING/FILLING
p INSULATION ❑ WATER HOOKUP p LAKESHOREANETLANDa
❑ WALL BO. ❑ METER SET/TURH ON ❑ LICENSING
❑ FINAL ❑ SEWER HOOKUP p M►LAINT
❑ PROGRESS ❑ SEPTIC INSTALL. OLLOW-UP
❑ DEMOL p SEPTIC MAINT. O SEPTIC FINAL
❑ FIRE PI.SV. V WELL TEST PUMP ❑
p WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED ❑ PHOTO TAKEN
❑ CORRECT WORK a PROCEED
❑ CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
❑ STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR.
p INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
call for the next inspection 24 horns in advance.
Owner/Contr. on sit
Inspector. 1
WhiN t; /InW.cw.. F4m Gob CoPrfSlle Noi1
DATE TIME
CITY OF ORONO
INSPECTION NO;Wr
PERMIT NO. /!�/ _
ADCRESS _
OWNER-
0
FOOT:o-IG
❑
FRAMING
❑
INSULATION
❑
WALL BD.
❑
FINAL
❑
PROGRESS
❑
DEMOL.
❑
FIRE PREY.
COMMENTS:
CALLED -IN
SCHEDULED
COMPLETED
YLa
l<Tv�L
CONTR.
❑
PLUMBING RI
❑ SITE INSPECTION
❑
MECHANICAL
❑ EXCAVJGRADINGIFILLING
❑
WATER HOOKUP
❑ LAKESHOR EIWET LANDS
❑
METER SET/TURN ON
❑ LICENSING
❑
SEWER HOOKUP
❑ OMPLAINT
❑
SEPTIC INSTA.. L.
FOLLOW-UP
❑
SEPTIC MAIL
��/�� SEPTIC FINAL
❑
WELL TEST PUMP
❑
❑ WORK SATISFACTORYPROCEED KPHOTO TAKEN
❑ CORRECT WORK a PROCEED
[:)CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE G
❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN.
❑ STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR.
❑ INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS.
call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance.
Owner/Contr.
Inspector
473-7357
Whne Copy/In ,to,'t Fil✓��=�'�%�` Z ^opy/Site Notice
POPHAM, HAIH,SCHNOBRICH,
KAUFMAN
6 DOTY, LTD.
W
4344 105 CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS.
MINN[BOTA 55402
T LLI IMOMt
eq-aaa -R/oo
WArNL O. MRMAM
D. WILL LLM N.LV IM AX
T4[CORIiR
ROOLN W. [CNNO[NIGM
..... O. IS... AN
e12-3M-000J
OAPO L.XA[NMALL
RATXL[[N A./YTa
A.I.L. .G.a
O LNVtR RAVIMAM
IO
H„11...
HL[[N M.NAMIN
p
DAVIO/....
.. U.LA
GL'Ap UIY
J... CCNILO/
J. MICHAEL/CHISA"S
ROL[RT A. NINI/N
LA R'RV U. [[R[L
OOUOLA[M1RAl..
L.NAr[Y.O/LONN[
NOLIL A.WONOLN
JAXI[ ROM
pAO ANXOUIT TOWM
I... A.[.OANN[[
......SUIT.
O. MARC WNIT[N[AO
THOMAS J. LA,+[TT
{N LT. I[T[N pR{[T
..... .... I.I.T[R[
IRANCI[ J. CG.Y.Ll
LSUC[O.Wgll[
JANLL A. M>NL
SAINT MUL, MINNESOTA{e102
O Mr O. L I... IOILO
/NVC[N. LITTLE
IRE O[RICN a.RIC.....
.... A.JO...
TtL.INON[......... [
•COLT ...... I"
NARK I."INA
0.ROL['0 JONN[ON
I.........I
UI1.....
OR[OO Rr L. wILMU
..S*
..*ELL [. pMtLLA
OAR, R.NACOHeLR
.1.1. IRLCON
-.GO .L..T[iMTN LTR{iI
I..'I IN/TROTH
L..."W9RD
RO...I S. LVRK
IATR.C.. A. J[N/LN
O[NV[IL. COLORAOU 50202
... {MITN
DAVIO N.TpCN R
HUGH V.{LUNNi>T.M
LLLLI[ OILL[TT[
i[L tIXON[ 303•[N•....
A[[iX.11. MI/DN
Ow[N i. NI*.. AOT
IRtOLRICF 0. • x
DW
MICHALL T. NIYN
1[L[COII[R 30)-/.a-[ILA
...1. J. H II[YNO
YAT1 N[W ....0.
TNO... ......
RO[[RT N. LT..
..... .. T[R[ON
JAMte R. TI.L..
T..... N.[I
SUIT30C SOUTH
.
O..... ALIIGT[R
LLOCNHART
MAS C.N
ISO.
....H N JONN.0.
ALLL.
THOA.I .=....
WASHINGTON. O. C. Moo..
arRVCN
<JgOROM[
1...AJ J.SAO..
Tt,.,.........{L-tl00
JUL[ ALW[ITLLR
IR[04MOR RILON
T[l[COII[R...-q[-....
NgMy C. MI[L[NHµll [N
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
344-0653
October 23, 1986
OCi 2 4 1986
No. Jeanne Mabusth L
Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
P. 0. Bo.. #66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
RE: City of Orono V. Alexander Holzer
Our Pile No. 6096-020
Dear Ms. Mabusth:
In connection with the I -ono vs. Holzer matter, I find that
I need the following docume, which are not in of files:
1) The application submitted by Mr. Holzer on October 31,
1978;
2) The Minutes of the Planning Commission and City
Council when they reviewed that initial application
during the month of November 1978;
3) The plans submitted by Mr. Holzer or his aLto:ney on
September 20, 1979; and
4) The letter of attorney of Robert Mitchell, Jr.,
Mr. Holzer's attorney, dated September 25, 1979.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could locate and
transmit these documents tc , at your earliest convenience. If
there are any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
Ms. Jeanne Mabusth
October 23, 1986
Page 2
call me. I will be sending you the Memorandum and Affidavit of
Alan P Olson in Support of our Notion for Summary Judgment,
which is currently scheduled for November 7, 1986 at 2:30 P.M.
Very truly yours
Thomas J. dio
TJR/rs/1398O