The URL can be used to link to this page

Correspondence - 2406 Black Lake Road - 5/28/2021Ow Lake /(/1 ##etoAa Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam (952) 471-9515 Council June 5, 2006 Joanna E. Widmer (952) 471-9429 Bruce Williamson (952) 471-1029 Mr. Ken Adolf Schoell & Madson Sarah Reinhardt 105050 23rd Avenue North (952) 471-0767 Plymouth, MN 55447 Gary Hughes (952) 471-7867 RE: 2406 Black Lake Road, Spring Park, MN Administration Dear Ken: Sarah Friesen Administrator Enclosed you will find the following documents as they pertain to D.J. Goman the above referenced property. Utility Superintendent Sharon Cori 1. Certificate of Survey Deputy Clerk 2. Soil Borings Report Wendy Lewin 3. Drawings stamped "Site Copy" Office Assistant 4. Resolution Lyle Oman, building inspector, has approved these plans after requesting and receiving a change to the grade so the proposed house is considered to have a basement rather than a third floor. We would request your review of the survey and written opinion regarding drainage towards the neighboring properties. Sincerely, Wendy Lewin Office Assistant /wl enclosures Gify of c5prihy Park 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-971 1 - (952) 471-9051 - Fax: (952) 471-9160 Email: CityofSpringPark@mchsi.com Poor Quality Document Disclaimer The original or copy of a document or page of a document presented at the time of digital scanning contained within this digital file may be of substandard quality for viewing, printing or faxing needs. yk i Desc. 6 Owner Pattee's Hillcrest Lot 6 C.H. Schliep Lot 7 L.A. Kamrath Lot 8 R.D. Dickson Lot 9 R.D. Hardina o Lot 10 Edmund H. Reiter R.L.S. No. 109, Files of Registrar of Titles Hennepin Counts Minn. • -, �; Tracts A 6 B Advance Machine Co. Jyc6 R.L.S. No. 126, Files of Registrar of Titles Hennepin County. Minn. r Tract A �co Lillian S. Wendt Footage Unit Res. ._ M.D. Comm. Ind. Trunk 50 1 479.70 50 1 479.70 52.64 1 479.70 60.5 1 479.70 58.8 2 959.40 447 20 99594.00 45 1 479.70 Sewer Assessment Lateral Service Total 432.55 54.22 966.47 432.55 54.22 966.47 455.39 54.22 989.31 523.39 54.22 10057.31 508.68 54.22 19522.30 41833.75 116.00 140543.75 N 389.30 0 869.0 Tract B 60.49 1 479.70 523.30 0 19003.00 H.C. Parkhurst Tract C 60 1 479.70 519.06 54.22 10052.98 R.G. Chambers k Tract D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Village of Spring Park 97o, 59 -21- fI 1 r M-M MM Dose. & Owner Footage unit hater Assessment Rea. M.De Comm, Ind. Trunk Lateral Service Total ao'' .L,S, No. 126v File® of Registrar of Titles Tract A 45 i 68e69 143033 Lillian S. Wendt Tract -B 60.49 o K . C, Parkhurst Tract C 60 R. G. Chambers Tract D 0 Village of Spring Pke g Tract E 267.2 B. E. Harris I• `1 ()�R L.S. No. 977, File's of Registrar of Titles HennegIn County. Minn. is Tract A 40.3 T . E. Margeson Tract B 70 Gaav Anna B. Crain Tract C 40 %'GGv K. I. Blichfeldt 1 68,69 192067 1 68.69 191.11 0 0 0 4 274.76 851.09 0 212,02 0 261.36 54 ,31 314 ai 0 . 0. 108.62 19234.47 1 68.69 128a36 54.31 1 68.69 222.96 54.31 1 68.69 127.41 54.31 21 — W 251.36 345.96 250.41 -Y 869G9 DOUGLAS M. HEAD IEROME TRUHN WALTER H. ROCKENSTEIN II )AMES S. LANE III THOMAS V. SEIFERT NICK HAY BARBARA A. BASTIAN HEAD 8 TRUHN ATTORNEYS AT LAW O� 1601 SOO LINE BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 M Ms. Patricia Osmonson City Administrator/Clerk-Treasurer City of Spring Park Spring Park, Minnesota Dear Ms. Osmonson: April 14, 1978 APR 1978 VIL IGE at SMIG P11n:( SPRIN PARR MIN& By letter dated March 23, 1978, you state the following facts: FACTS TELEPHONE (612) 339-1601 Certain real estate in the City of Spring Park consists of an unimproved lot containing approximately 7,150 square feet of land. The property was assessed for water and sewer trunk lines and laterals, as was all real estate in the City. Service was never extended to the property and no assessment was made for a service line to the property. QUESTION May the owner obtain a building permit to erect a structure on the property? DISCUSSION Ordinance 35:22, enacted on December 12, 1977, is the current zoning provision of the City of Spring Park. That ordinance provides that only building permits for residential property may issue for one year following enactment of the ordinance. The zoning requirements for the issuance of a building permit for a residential lot include the following: (1) The lot must be at least 10,000 square feet in area (2) Any building on the lot must be set back thirty feet from a city street, fifty feet from a county road, ten feet from the side boundary and ten feet from the rear boundary. If the property borders on a lake, the structure must be seventy-five feet from the lakeshore. The property owner has not submitted any plans or surveys suggesting the character and placement of the dwelling he intends to build. Thus we cannot know if the dwelling would meet the setback requirements described in paragraph (2) above. But the lot, regardless of any planned building, does not meet the 10,000 minimum square footage requirement. A building permit cannot be issued because any proposed structure will not comply with city zoning requirements. The property owner's recourse is to appear before the planning commission and city council acting as a board of appeals and adjustments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357 and request a variance from the requirements of Ordinance 35:22. !LV- ,A Ms. Patricia Osmonson April 14, 1978 Page Two 0 Whether or not the Council and planning commission ought to grant a variance in this instance is an issue for the Council to decide. At this point we have no surveys, plans or other information about the proposed building, and no information concerning the neighborhood surrounding the lot. The property owner cannot expect the Council to make a decision without this information. The procedures for securing a variance have been set up to elicit this information, and should be followed in this instance. In general, to grant a variance the Council must find that the owner's situation is unique; that because of a condition he himself did not bring about his land cannot be used at all or cannot be used effectively because the zoning ordinance has a disproportionale impact on the owner's land that is different from the impact it has on his neighbors. For instance, if the owner of a residential lot wanted to open a restaurant in his house, a variance would not be appropriate because all the other inhabitants are prohibited from opening commercial establishments in their houses too. The hardship on the person seeking the variance is neither unique or great. But if a zoning ordinance required every lot to have a driveway fifteen feet wide and the distance from the wall of a house to the property line was twelve feet, a variance could be granted because the circumstances were unique. In his letter, the property owner suggests that the City reimburse him for his "investment back plus interest, plus sewer and water assessments and interest, plus a return on my money." Again, the sewer and water assessments were for the laterals and trunk lines; no service is connected to the property. The property owner's request for compensation is not only premature, since he has not as yet requested and been denied a variance, but also incorrect. In a few instances, where the municipality enforced arbitrary and capricious zoning ordinances which achieved no public purpose but denied the owner the use of his land, the courts have held that the municipality, in effect, took the land away from the owner, and therefore should pay him its fair value. But any compensation for loss of the use of land is based on its fair market value, and is not in any sense a refund of taxes and assessments already paid. RECOMMENDATION The owner should be informed that his recourse is to seek a variance from the area requirement; that in seeking a variance he must provide information con- cerning the proposed building and the neighbprfiood:1 Whether or not a variance should be granted is a question for tfie". aincil to decide in that proceeding. yo rs, Do as M. Head DMH/clf 4 71- 9051 ai#g of Opritto Park V. (0. V a x 452 Opring Park, AN 55384 March 23, 1978 Mr. Douglas Head Head & Truhn 1601 Soo Line Bldg. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Doug: Enclosed is a copy of a letter received from Bob Burak regarding a lot he owns in Spring Park. We have researched this lot and find that (1) said lot contains approximately 7150 square feet. (Spring Park Ordinance requires 10,000 square feet for a buildable site). (2) This property was assessed for water and sewer trunk lines and laterals, as was every property in Spring Park, however, there was no assessment made for any service line to the property. Would you please prepare a reply to Mr. Burak on this letter and also advise the Council of the liability, if any, they would have regarding this property. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, wt Patricia Osmonson Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer PO/ph En c . Jve- 471- 91a55 - 78 SPR, �spj � Ng PAR1� M/ry� _c TV r c) d"ram 104 �.F� /✓72GL�n(J ..�� .� �u+ uJ C� Z`6u,o ..Gd� C� 5bl C�,- Hello, As I won't be able to attend the Wednesday meeting, I'd like to offer these comments: Re: New development: As I've reviewed the plans for the new development on Shoreline, I have found that the plan is outstandingly thoughtful and respectful of Spring Park requirements. The only issue that I see relates to circulation. Whereas the Fire Department has OK'd access and turning radius, I'm concerned that moving vans, delivery trucks and other large vehicles will be able to access the buildings without shutting down access to others. Please discuss this in the upcoming meeting. Re: Black Lake Road I visited the site and spoke to the owners of the vacant lot on Black Lake Road that is applying for several variances. Given the width of the lot, and the width of the utility easement across this lot, it appears to me that unless we can be creative, the lot is essentially unbuildable. I would support careful consideration of the variances requested, or asking the City to purchase the property for green space. Jean Mork Bredeson -----Original Message----- March 5, 2006 To: Spring Park Planning Commission and City Council I apologize in advance for my absence from the March 8 public hearings for Brandis Meyer and Providence on Lake Minnetonka, but I am traveling on business. I have reviewed the information packet for both applicants and would like comment for the record in my absence. I met with Brandis Meyer and Paris Alves on Saturday, March 4, to survey the lot and review their proposal. This is a small odd -shaped lot that would be difficult to develop, notwithstanding the unique utility easement constraints imposed by the city. 1. Lot Area and Width: To not grant this variance would render this lot undevelopable. 2. Side Yard Setback: This setback variance is necessary due to the city's utility easement that exists on the opposite side of the property. 3. Side Yard Setback abutting a ROW: Requiring a 30' setback from a utility ROW is not, in my estimation, the intent of that ordinance which pertains more to streets. To not grant this variance would also render this lot undevelopable. 4. Impervious Surface: Due to the lot's configuration, the only place a home could be constructed on the property is in the rear, increasing the length of the driveway and thus the impervious surface, which is still below the technical limits of 3000 sq. ft. 5. Building Height: It is important to recognize that this is only an issue based on the technical definition of a `story' in our ordinance. The total height of the proposed structure is still below the height limit of 35', which I believe is the more important standard. I believe the applicant's proposal is as reasonable as we could hope for given the unique constraints imposed upon this property. If we were not to grant these variances, the city would be deeming this property undevelopable. In lieu of not granting these variances, I would suggest the only alternative is for the city to purchase this property since the utility easement is imposing this hardship. I also surveyed the lot with regards to Bev Crawford's letter. The proposed structure is well to the north of her home. As long as the sun continues to set in the west, I do not believe this structure will obstruct her light. Obstructing her view is not a criteria for consideration relating to `findings of fact'. I whole-heartedly recommend granting these variances. As for Providence on Lake Minnetonka, I have been impressed that their proposed development complies with virtually all city ordinances. In addition, they have been responsive to all concerns raised by the city, county, planners, engineers, and fire department. If I were able to attend, I would recommend approval of their plat as well. As far as the exterior colors, I prefer those in the perspective drawings to those in the elevation drawings. One last request: If they could make the water in Black Lake look like it does in their drawings, that would be great! I appreciate the opportunity to be heard, and again I apologize for my inability to participate. Sincerely, Doug Sippel Page 1 of 1 Bill Weeks From: 'Bev Crawford" <oriole383@msn.com> To: <billweeks@mchsi.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:26 AM Subject: Proposed building at 2406 Black Lake Road To the Spring Park Planning Commission and the Spring Park Council: I received notice that there has been a request for numerous variances for a building project at 2406 Black Lake Road. The one set -back adjacent to me is not among those requested, however, all the others will impact me and the enjoyment of my property adversely. To put a building on this site that is larger than codes allow, will completely close off my view and considerable sunlight from that direction. I am especially concerned about the building height variance requested and the right of way easement variance. In speaking with the previous owner who sold to this person, I learned that the purchaser was informed of the size of a possible building on this site, so, there is certainly no hardship in this case. A buyer bought the property with clear information of the footprint of what could be built and now comes to the city for variances that will impact all the surrounding properties. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this. I would hope that the planning commission would consider the impact on surrounding property owners and their enjoyment of their property without having opinions or objections expressed. This request goes beyond us as individuals who would have to look at or live adjacent to this planned structure. It is of practical and aesthetic concern for the community in general. I urge you to hold to the codes that have been set. Thank you for your consideration. BJC Bev Crawford 4317 Rose Hill Lane 3/2/2006 William D. Weeks Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer City of Spring Park Dear Mr. Weeks: We are writing in response to your Notice of Public Hearing for the Planning Commission to consider a variance application for the property at 2406 Black Lake Road. Since neither one of us will be able to attend the hearing, we are providing these written comments. In the 30 years we have lived in this house, we have never opposed a requested variance. We ourselves have needed variances to develop our property as desired and are generally very sympathetic to others who face that situation. However, after reviewing the survey sheet you supplied, we do not believe that the property in question is a lot on which a house should be built. The size and configuration of the lot are simply not suitable. The list of requested variances is in itself testimony to this. With some regret, we ask that the Planning Commission deny the application. Lawr nce & Andrea Schussler C. 49, C�4, 0 4 /� " 1 Will "A�04 2425 Black Lake Road Spring Park Apr 28 2006 10:03AM SCHOELL MADSON (763) 746-1699 p.2 Schoell Madson Planning Engineering Surveying April 28, 2006 Mr. Bill Weeks City Administrator City of Spring Park 4349 Warren Avenue Spring Park, MN 55384 Subject: 2406 Black Lake Road Dear Bill: 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55447 T 763-746-1600 f 763-746-1699 www.schoelimadson.com As requested, I have reviewed the report for the two soil borings taken at the northeast and northwest corners of the proposed house. These show about 1.5 feet of topsoil at the surface and firm brown sandy clay below the topsoil. The report states the soil is suitable for the support of the house. The clay soil would typically allow trench excavation with a 1 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) side slope. This would, therefore, typically allow excavation to the existing watermain after the house is constructed with the trench contained within the existing easement. Actual soil conditions found during excavation could vary from that shown in the two borings, which may require special construction methods to contain the trench within the easement and to protect the house foundation. Please contact me with any questions. Very truly yours ;;P<ts*U�(l Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj F:1EWI0008\generaNCORRESUeeks, Bill (2406 Black Lake Rd) 4-28-06.doc Received Time Apr-28. 10:01AM Schoell Madson Planning Engineering Surveying April 28, 2006 Mr. Bill Weeks City Administrator City of Spring Park 4349 Warren Avenue Spring Park, MN 55384 Subject: 2406 Black Lake Road Dear Bill: se� / 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55447 T 763-746-1600 F 763-746-1699 www.schoolimadson.com As requested, I have reviewed the report for the two soil borings taken at the northeast and northwest comers of the proposed house. These show about 1.5 feet of topsoil at the surface and firm brown sandy day below the topsoil. The report states the soil is suitable for the support of the house. The clay soil would typically allow trench excavation with a 1 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) side slope. This would, therefore, typically allow excavation to the existing watermain after the house is constructed with the trench contained within the existing easement. Actual soil conditions found during excavation could vary from that shown in the two borings, which may require special construction methods to contain the trench within the easement and to protect the house foundation. Please contact me with any questions. Very /truly yours n L,4� J0110-1 Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj F:1ENG1100081generallCORRES\Weeks, Bill (2406 Black Lake Rd) 4-28-06.doc 0# Lake NW##etoakA October 2, 2006 Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam (952) 471-9515 Clark Kent Homes 1665 Bluebird Lane Council Mound, MN 55364 Joanna E. Widmer (952) 471-9429 RE: 2406 Black Lake Road Bruce Williamson (952) 471-1029 Dear Mr. Clark: Sarah Reinhardt It has been brought to the City's attention that erosion control at the (952) 471-0767 above referenced job site is not being maintained. There is Gary Hughes concern about runoff of silt and mud flowing westerly into Black (952) 471-7867 Lake Cove. This silt and mud deposit into the lake has been observed to be coming from your specific job site. Administration Sarah Friesen Administrator As per the letter dated August 16, 2006 sent to you from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, you are required to maintain D.J. Goman the silt fence, to clean sediment from the streets, to install gravel in Utility Superintendent your driveway and to install inlet protection at the street inlet directly Sharon Cori in front of the building site. Deputy Clerk Wendy Lewin Please be advised at this time the City is requesting immediate Office Assistant repair of your erosion control at the job site. It has been suggested that hay or straw bales could be used to contain the runoff. Also, please be advised that your certificate of occupancy will be withheld until there has been further analysis of responsibility and removal of sedimentary deposits to Black Lake Cove. Sincerely, Sarah Friesen City Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer Enclosure Cc: Charly Wojtysiak, Compliance Officer MCWD city of cgplq Park 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-971 1 - (952) 471-9051 - Fax: (952) 471-9160 Email: CityofSpringPark@mchsi.com AUG-16-2006 15:38 M C W D 952 471 0682 P.02i02 Mlnnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life FatabMed in 1967 August 16, 2006 The Minnehaha Creek James W Clark Inc 1665 Blue Bird Lane Watershed District is Mound MN 55365 committed to a RE: 2406 Black Lake Road, Spring Park leadership role in During routine inspections by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) staff on August protecting improving, 16, 2006, at the above mentioned location the following violations were observed and recorded: and managing the . Working without a MCWD Rule B, Erosion Control permit surface waters and Silt Fence missing or in disrepair over entire site. No gravel in drive. affiliated groundwater There is high amounts of sediment tracking in the street. resources within the • Street inlet directly in front of the property is not protected. nistricr, including their To avoid formal enforcement action, please complete the actions required below by Noon, Wednesday August 23, 2006: relationships to the e Send or deliver a completed Combined Joint Nofifcadon permit application with original ecosysremsofwhich they signatures on both pages. It may be downloaded from www.minnehahacreek.Org. are an integral part, • Include site plans showing contour elevations of each site and adjacent sites e Indicate on each site plan where soil is disturbed and where you propose to put silt fence and a through regularion, temporary rock/gravel entry to the site • Silt fence is required in front of the each site, along the road, and on the bottom of steep slopes capital projects, on your site. Silt fence must be trenched in six inches and installed according to instructions. education, cooperative • Indicate the permanent stabilization plan on the site plan which must include installation of 4" of topsoil and plan for establishing permanent vegetation. endeavors and other e A $10.00 application fee is required for each permit application. • A $100.00 After -the -fact fee is required for each project started without a MCWD permit. prograrns based on sound science, On Site: • Effectively Install and maintain silt fence to be effective according to the erosion control plan innovative thinking an you submit. Sift fence must be trenched in six inches. e Clean sediment from streets. informed and engaged a Install gravel in drive. constituency, and the a Install'inlet protection at street inlet directly in front of site. We would recommend a rock log or mulch log as these methods will allow water to drain while preventing some of the sediment in cost effective use of public the water from reaching the inlet. funds. Formal enforcement action to which a permMee may be subject for permit violations includes issuance of a stop work order, criminal misdemeanor prosecution, and fees for additional inspections and legal costs_ Working without a permit where one is required is in violation of MCWD Rules and is a misdemeanor subject to penalty by law. Work must stop until a permit is issued you. To access MCWD Rules, please go to our web site at www.minnehahacreek_ora. If you have additional questions please call me at (952) 471-0590 x210. Sincerely, Jessica McGeehan District Representative Cc: Bill Weeks, City of Spring Park 187np Minnatnnka Rnnlmara neenhavPn Minnernra 55391 • Phone: 952-471-0590 • Fax 952.471-0682 a www.minnehahocreek.org Received Time Aug•16. 3:34PM TOTAL P.02 Facsimile Transmittal: X LF ul-DI-NR 9 H 6 FA R K 0# Lake ,,Wwje ohka Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam (952) 471-9515 Councilmembers Joanna E. Widmer (952)471-9429 Bruce Williamson (952) 471-1029 Sarah Reinhardt (952)471-0767 Gary Hughes (952)471-7867 Administration Sarah Friesen Administrator D.J. Goman Utility Superintendent Sharon Cori Deputy Clerk Date: To: Fax: From: # of Pages Comments: September 29, 2006 Charly Wojtysiak, Minnehaha Creek Watershed 952-471-0682 Sarah Friesen 3 Ci� of'. KnJc ?Park 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384- 9711 (952) 471-9051 FAX (952) 471-9160