Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-1982 Planning PacketI AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 1982 Council Representative - Mayor William B. Van Nest Call to Order 1.Call to order/roll • Appearance 2.7:30 - 8:00 Michael P. Gaffron to review mound installations in the City. Action Items 3.#588 Llndgren Properties, 4505 West Branch Road Final Subdivision 4.#615 Judd Ringer, 2280 Wayzata Boulevard Preliminary Subdivision 5.#645 Dorothy Forcier, 4780 North Arm Drive Variance 6.#661 Paul Fahlin, 1960 Shoreline Drive Conditional Use Permit 7.#665 Richard Speeter, 659 Minnetonka Highlands Conditional Use Permit 8.#668 Michael Smith, 525 Park Lane Variance 9.#670 Clifford Otten, 3740 Wayzata Boulevard Variance*' Sketch Plan Review 10.#669 Tonka Properties, 1340 Baldur Park Subdivision Work Session 11. §672 New Life Bible Church, 830 Old Crystal Bay Road Conditional Use Permit Information Items 12. Planning Commission member, Edward Callahan, to attend Council meeting of February 8, 1982. 13. Planning Commission meeting of February 15, 1982, to be held February 1, 1982. ' 14. Joint Planning Commission and Council meeting scheduled for January 23,1982, 8:30 AM at the Lafayette Country Club. Please note the 1982 calendar of regularly scheduled meetings. Approval of Minutes 16. Approval of Planning Commission minutes of December 7, 1981. ETING 5 PM )82 ^an Nest u-njoj^fHO HI ^ CXI CD o K «-m OJ (3)m ”^cucu ^ ^ N ■g ^ ni m a K <d cucu CDON ^CUCVJ 03 10 ^ cu ^ r- 00 ‘"'^t-CUCU Ml »» m CD O fv g “-“^r-OJCU 0) »“in2!2fS ^ ooin t- r- cu O ^ r- ^ r- CU CD ^ 5c\^ mUDCUOD ” t- CUCU w^::S2S- Z -OiO,®Sg ■g > ™^CUCUu 8 ^^cucug JS 5 ^oPIoiKifi O ^ vSla|cui^l»- (13 in cu CD CO ■'«“ cu 1 iew mound septic i^anch Road ird rive ighlands svard Btal Bay Road ‘an, to attend Council 5, 1982, to be held ting scheduled for Country Club. / scheduled meetings. It m CU OP CO ^ T- CU «-cDin «“ ^cu cu CD0 ' ^ vu IV1 rv^r ® ^ cucu S u.in®®® ISnONg g *^t-CUCU 8 “-X®5ag{ <-?5S t ^ CO WON5 > “'r-CUCU e ^T-^cu w°^>5 0 o <1 C/3 m O N Tt ^”r-ir-CUW •^t-CUCU f3® orv ^t-CUCU mM ^CD in ^t-T-CU coin®®® s Z 5~®#f38 I -<®!28ia S N “ “>28£5 u. IV 00 M S'- ®2S{3S ws-sgs <n |:S wBQX 0) cuto J^v “®5Sw| S ‘‘-wS'Sgpg ■ XS«|f "latS fatfWWIo)' H iC jiii •^t-cucv (ocuojwrao CU U.r-0D®®S? 0 ^ cu CU » I- rv5f r-OD f "^^-CUCU <fcf2 icucu CD CO CU cd °D^<r- • u-coOJiS01 ^ ^ wu I-~«ssgI S •- ^?5g Zi*0S\ (ID ® ^ ‘■'i LPecember 7. igg^ I I ■y AGE OF OEONO •y........— 11 >1® . — - tA. \ ..I' ......^ «• %m .••I €^- "I fuu . I,Lz/i ■t 7^- ^'L •— V U y . / >«. ««. • . - •• ••« 1 aOLLt TO:Planning Commission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:January 11» 1982 SUBJECT: #588 Lindgren Properties, 4505 West Branch Road Final Subdivision The applicant has fulfilled all conditions setforth at preliminary approval to permit final plat approval per the enclosed staff resolution. ^ \W a * i c i -i. t t ■ -H'- .-s: ■ city of OROISrO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO ________________ ORONO A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF GARY LINDGREN ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State ^f Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat by Ray J. Hilbauer, Lorna Milbauer, David J. Dalbec, Jr. and Gary M. Lindgren, the subdividers, and WHEREAS, the sxibdivision has been approved as meeting all standards of the RR-IB zoning district finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family rosid6nc6 to b© locatsd without th© n©©d of any s©tback vari©nc©s? ©nd WHEREAS, the rural subdivision has been reviewed by the Orono City Council, the Planning Commission and City staff finding there are no existing or future lake access rights to this property; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1) Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 2) Dedication on the plat of right of way for a public road shown as County Road No. 151. 3) Dedication to tie City of a Flowage and Conservation Easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands and/or drainageways described therein and shown on the plat as "drainage easements". 4) Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee in the €unount of $150.00. 5) Payment to the City for legal review and a filing fee in the amount of $75.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of GARY LINDGREN ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota; subject to the following conditions: A m City of ORONO CITY 1 ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ i Lot 1 shall be served by the existing access. The location of the new access to Lot 2 must be approved by.the City, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Hennepin County DOT prior to the construction of the driveway. The aforesaid plat shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office by the City of Orono together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and a copy of an executed Flowage and Conservation easement as noted above. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1982. H William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST:L Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk ■SSl*' mi J M d I 4 if mmiem GARY LIND6REN ADDITION uic. RT DOC m. ores MON MOMMCNT \ immTY mmt t«M« «ws r - t ••• / V 6 . VV“- ^- /' I • mm mm imm^rn m mm m vm m\m I—n»f tf —iWiw . M .. IR ««M» tMtM 1 * .M . mtiiMtflMtfififUi «i M MMP MMM • HMHt ------ ir.. tMli^ lMllM«aiMlMlA< •m •c V^'w A. L ‘j \* ■ •••? . r «•sr.y7!1.TOi '%----------^^,-1 •! *.;r.*-*U-'T.TnT- r-.~T •Mii IM. Jr, UHPMRimt «( m SIT.— ‘1 ■■ 1 >m\mm irnmmmmw •r> .»t Ir..* Ji i. I ' * * * 1 ’4. STAtCrWIMSGA egwrvopM_. %Gw|ii apM. un •laMtf Ml ftomn MAtiaiMMfaiiii tlWU»URi»WKINW —WiM tMWl______ iiMMtfifiviFJirto. ____W-.______________I«*IW% Li iMN||C^MItMM»«ii«MfM|r«li%tMfM«lWlfM|l tMY UtM* ittJTW^ i *** * * ”*Lr ** ***r?i?niTJ Smma *** i4 MtMk iwi MMiVtIVfItOI IL till «ai«f son CMr«it«tiw l»i m .l«WMl4MAUi m Oimmmm Hm illllMl AMITIM mMIv RK-. MiMltflrS*. CMiSi i%< immi ill piR^CH%lfc— MUl iMV iisrjs cm IMK « OMl MIlMtOIA ■Mr 1 > • w>.' ►WP U ■ \ TO:Planning Commission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE: SUBJECT: January 14, 1982 #615 Judd Ringer, 2280 Wayzata Boulevard Preliminary Subdivision Revised Application - Total 15 lot residential plat List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Gaffron memo M.C.W.D. permit Section of grading and drainage plans Preliminary plan Current Status of the Application The applicant has provided the total drainage and grading plans and road plans as required. The M.C.W.D. is in the process of reviewing all these plans. The plat now consists of 15 lots. The remaining six lots meet all the required lot standards except for Lot 4, Block 1 that does not meet the required frontage of 200'abutring the road but does meet the 200' at the building line (note it is the largest lot of the plat). Lots 2, 3 and 4 are riparian to Dickey Lake. All riparian lots are subject to the 75' setback from lakeshore 985.5'. The plat road shall be public based on the number of residential units served by the road. This means the road must have a traveled width of 26' and be paved. The City assumes all main­ tenance and repair responsibilities. Review Exhibit C, the natural drainageway has been redirected through Lots 3 and 4 to the lake. A flowage easement will be taken over the retention pond; the remainder of the flowage or drainageway is located within the dedicated drainage easements. The City Engineer's report will be presented at the meeting, staff suggests the following recommendation of preliminary stibdivision approval: To recommend preliminary subdivision approval of the 15 lot plat of Judd Ringer based on the following findings: 1 - All lots meet the standards of the RR-IB zoning district. 2 - All lots meet the standards of the Orono septic code approving mound systems for 13 lots and shallow trench systems for alternate sites for 2 lots with existing residences. 3 - Preliminary approval of the appropriate reviewing agencies. 1 > atw iiai r*4615 Judd Ringer S|Libdivision Page 2 such approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 - Dedication on the plat of 33* of right of way for Willow Drive and additional right of way for Highway 12. 2 -Dedication on the plat of the road Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements Dedication on the plat of drainage easements. 3 -Conservation & Flowage easement over the designated wetland areas in Lot 2, Block 2, Outlet A, extensive marsh area abutting lake (area below the 936 contour line), retention pond on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1. 4 -Tested septic sites on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 staked and protected during the regrading process. 5 -Park fee per current fee schedule: 13 new lots @ $200.00 « $2,600.00 6 - Legal review and filing fees per current schedule ** $75.00. F'o f = - •‘ - * A i ' a." *. f ■ 1 '7- '^1 I EXI-ilSlT A u TO: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator FROM; Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector DATE: January S, 1982 SUBJECT: Ringer Subdivision, North Willow Drive #615 i \ Summary: All proposed lots were found to ^^^e high water table , necessitating the use of mound systems. Percolation ^ upper soil profile generally were suitable for mound . . with slower rates found in deeper test holes. Slopes on tho enti site are fairly level and suited for mound systems. how and why they work and their current and future use as part of Orono’s land use management plan. The Ringer perhaps the most extensive development in Orono to date that will require all mound systems. A. Ringer Subdivision A preliminary review of the Hennepin County Soil Survey indicated extensive areas of Cordova silty clay loam and Shorewood silty clay loam as well as Leseur loam would be found at this site. These soils all would be expected to have a seasonal water table or saturation zone between 1 and 3 feet below the surface. ILtfiifafPJK Department that mound systems would be appropriate for these soil types. These are much the same soils as found in the Medina- Ilorningside area, which experience conventional trench septic system failures due to the soil conditions. In general, tne loamy topsoil characteristics for the Ringer property are suitable for proper functioning of standard pressure-mound septic systems as per Orono's Code and Design Manual. For clarity's sake I have labeled the northern most tier cf seven Jots as Block 1, the western group of six lots as Block 2, and the two lots to the southeast as Block 3. Lot 1, Block 1 Peres PBll thru PB16. Borings BBli thru BB13. Average perc rates for both primary and alternate sites are acceptable. Slopes are quite level. Saturation indications (mottling) started at 1 7 to 2.5 feet. Actual water table at 5-7' depth. A mound system should be used due to the presence of shallow saturation zones. r Ringer Subdivision #615 Page 2 0 tr G •H .c H 01 4J ^ g SL m a " n e rH IV4 O u M 8.e 0) tj> 10 10 M M 0) > < 41 41 41 Ji Jl \ rH \ *0 *0 c cr4 •O *0c cri »-4 •0 TJc cri r4 f0 V G Gr1 r4 •0 *0 g § TJ *0 C Cri ri 03 TJ C G H H CO *0 *0c c c ^ O P »0 'O G a G GP P P P ££ P P ££ P P £££2 p p ££ P P £££££££ ■p -p m »w •p p «P 4-1 •p p 44 P J *P tp p p p p p p p p p p p p 2.7 f t . 2.2 f t . J 4J M-l «H m CM O in in 00 o r* o ^ in A ift in in A A cn o • •• t CM iH • • CM CM • • r-H iH • • CM CM f • CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM *o ^^ ^ ^ ro ro 1 1 O O en CM 1 1 o o VO »H 1 1 0* OQ 00 VP 1 CM ^ CM 1 CM en CM 1 CM CM CM CM t 1 1 O O O CM CM 1 1 O O ^ CM n CM n CM ^ CM m rH en CM CO iH CM 45ji rH 41 41 __ft • 41 41 ___1 4( - -j , j 41 41 •M# 41 •r4 *r4a a g B •H *Ha a e s •r40, a s e •H 6 S •H •Ha a E e •H *r4a a B E •rfa a 6 B a a a Egg a a g g CO CM <Ji <T>00 rH J ^ CM 00 ^ 00 01 o m fM 1^ mm rni en sf ^ in 00 en ^ VP doininr^ r>i (r-i ^ *H t J % M lA/ » r rH & >i«g 14 *0li M e Oi CO o H CQ a & M *S 10.s £ coo 0) CO M li 0< 01 w >1 •<< h >d t» a 5 8 14 « CU 01 >1 M >1 M *0 i §•a o Oi CO >1 M >1 10 U TJ 10 c e o •H U M 0) Oi CO >1 10 M 'G 10 C g O •H O V4 01 Oi CO O H CQ M D O CQ ■g O rH CQ X Uo rH CQ iS 5 CQ •g O •H CQ % CN % rn 4i Q 4ia a % VP % 4>a 4Ja 4Ja >1 >1 M U >t 10 m »4 TJ •o 10 c e e o o •Sou M 0) o CU 0) OI •go •H 0) % rH 4ia >1 14 >t 10 14 T) lo e E O uw o CU 01 o •H CQ 4Ja 0) 10 iH O O U 8. rH H (0 -Poc (0 0) •H -S 4J CO >1 (0 01 CO 10 •dc G • M U 0) 0) <P 03 ^ 10 _ •H Oi ^ ^ *0 *H ■U-r4 (0 (0 ^ « «« •C 43 S O s ■g •H Uo 0) •H O,c O 0) "S 0) -p A CO 0) *p rH 10co •H 4J •H T5 TJ 10 0 C O rC TJ 4J 00 0) rH ^ O 4J iH CO rH 10 0 0 • ^ >1 >10 H (0 CO 4-^ rH g 0 0 0,o 0 0 tP'd > 0 C 0 0 A tn c TJ 0 ^ d 33 0 CM O rC M 0 0 M 0 > oc G 4J 0 0 Co 0 0 rH 0 Cp-H 0 H TJ A 0 0 5 0u G 0 0 Si^ 0 •H 0 •«H 0 >H 0 0 0 0 X C 0 O G 0 0 4J 0 U G O •H ^ A O 4i 4J 0 U o 4Ju H .c «C Q 0 0 C: rH u o 0 c tJ1 0 0 M -P 0 0 > 0 < <M 0 dsrg s. TJ M 11 « o 0» TJ 2 8 0 > >1 O < A ♦ iH 41 y. »• #615 Ringer Subdivision Page 3 4J Coo 5 >1A Co •H A (d H •H B Ou Id 4J Id Q iH •H \ ♦ COe •8 C 0 M 4i TJ C C ££ »d »d c c *d TJ § § *d *0 §§ ££ » Co H rH IdA u in o (0 0) -gceu A •§E iH rH Id •C VI (A O ♦cn \ 9 21A G •H A A 44 44 A A 44 44 4-1 *P 44 44 A A 44 44 • A 44 4J 44 Oi -Pa g in O • • n CM o cn • • CM CM CM O • • »H CM in in • • rH CM O • in in •m 0 ^ 0 0 0 P 0 0 rH < ® 0 44 0 in CM 1 CM CM CM 1 1 O O CM CM 1 1 O O CM CM I 1 O O 00 1 10 00 1 VO cn CM 5^* #H n rH CM CM ^A >«u £?>1 V4 &a-^>1 10 M *0 1 P*H 0 l§g § •H Ci Is U 0 £ (A M 0 & in U 0 0« (A M « 0* (0 e )H 4J 0) Vi :d £ •8 5 CQ •8 (Q 0 rH A •8 5 0 O rHa o rH 0 %n a 4Ja 4Ja so 4Ja 4Ja Aa *p Q Id MH U Q> 5 O Q) A Id iH O O rH rH Id <b e ■8u 5* I p § CO 0) rH•s § HJ CO >1 CO *d •H a R> tJ § § •g •H i uo A •H CP ,C •iH o rHoA A CO ID A Id •§ eo CO o A 0) (0 Id sho 4H 0)a 03c Id (0 00 rH TJ 0 O rH rH Id •o V4 &41 *r4 ^H 41 •H 4I 4I •H *H CM > •r4 *H •H •H P CO P (U 10 CO H ^ ^ (0 (0 4)fi >1*0 >H0 s c (U 4)a Ot 0l 04 0« 0|6* S*&04 •rl B (0 P P a a E B S E a a B E p CO (0 •H 4)0 0 V4 V4 0 < O vO vO 00 CM cn rH c^ ^ O CM H rH o ^ (Ti n •H CM vO in •0 tP 3 <1> •0 (0 ^ > 10 P 0> (0 4) ,c:4) > P >1 rH rH Idaoc e M 0 CO Id c q Id 4J Jh »H c 0 co T3 0) CO Id 01ac 0.c Id 0 H 4J 0 rH 0 0 0 0 O •H O 0 •H 0 0 M % 0 rH•su 0 0 0 E 0 > 0A 0 CP • A -P A 4H 0 •H & • 0 CN 0 V4 0 0 •H'CJ ^ *35 0 0 M rH 0 I Co O 0 U A lo 4J 0 CPrC § 0 A A 0 O >1 G 0 0 0 CP TJ *0U 0 c c O 0 0 0 M :3o G ^ O H <4H > A 0 0 0 rH »H 0ga M O li 0 0 CP 0 0 Au0 o VI 0 A 0 rH 0 0 A _ < < M •H rH CM 1 J H #615 Ringer Subdivision Page 4 Lot 2, Block 1 Peres PB21 thru PB26. Borings BB21 thru BB23. for both primary and alternate sites are acceptable. Slopes are nearly level at the tested sites, ranging from 0 to 3%. Mottling indicated below 2', with actual water table at 3.2 to 4.2 . standard mound system should be used due to the presence of shall saturation zones. Lot 3, Block 1 Peres PB31 thru PB26. Borings BB31 thru indicate 1 to 2 ' of loamy topsoil over a 6" J®y®f ^ topsoil over a plastic sandy clay. Actual water table at the liay :hlt1s°pro;;bl”^;ted! "Se secondary Vi?®-® . mottled below 1.5 feet with an actua’ saturated zone at 1 Coupled with a slope of 10% the secondary site is marginal tor a mound system and would require at least 2' of sand base as part of the desian. I suggest that a standa.vdpressure mound system be required^?or bo?h sites with addea sand depth for the secondary system. Please note that this lot is the most tenuous in the subdivision in terms of slope and soils consideration for using a mound system. Should a proposed house location either of the tested sites, careful review and possible additional testina will be needed to ensure that a mound can still be used. Jhe site does not appear capable of supporting any kind of a trench system. Lot 4, Block 1 liiiiliiiilllf must be avoided during construction of the systems. I would recommend a standard pressure mound for both sites. Lot 5s Block 1 Peres PB51 thru PB56. Borings BB51 thru BB53. Slopes are 3% to^ 6% overall. Mottling at the primary site started at 2.7 to 3.5 with actual water table at 3.7 to 5.0*. This site is acceptable for a standard mound system. The alternate site has a perc rate considered too slow for any system by code. However, close scrutiny shows that the percs were taken at depth in the sandy clay subsoil, not in the topsoil. In general, throughout the entire subdivision the testing done at a depth of 12", in the topsoil, indicates acceptable percolation rates, with testing at 24" or more indicating slower, marginal perc rates. In my opinion, this site is no different than most of the others, and would have an acceptable perc rate if tested at the 12" depth in the sandy loam topsoil. No further testing should be required; a mound system is recommended. ^: Hi 11' #615 Ringer Subdivision Page 5 Lot 6, Block 1 Peres PB61 thru PB66. Borings BB61 thru BB63. Average perc rates at both sites are acceptable. Slopes range from 2 to 4%. Mottling started at a depth of approximately 2.4 feet, with actual water level at 2.5 to 4.4'. A standard mound system should be used at both sites. Lot 7, Block 1 Peres PB71 thru PB76. Borings BB71 thru BB73. Slopes average 2-3%. Perc rates were fairly slow, with the secondary site being somewhat slower than the limit (however, the justification for Lot 5, Block 1 also applies here). Actual water level ranged from 1.7 to 3.5' with mottling generally below 2.5'. A standard mound xs recommended for both sites. Lot 1, Block 2 P>.ccs PAll thru PA18. Borings BAll thru BA13. Slopes are very tjeit. Mottling was indicated below 2.2 ' with actual water eiiwvuntered below 2.0'. Two secondary sites were tested. All sites are acceptable for a standard mound system. Lot 2, Block 2 Peres PA21 thru PA26. Borings BA21 thru BA23. Very flat slopes. Mottling occurs at 2.0 to 2.4' with actual water encountered below 2.4'. Perc rates on both sites are acceptable. A mound system is recommended for both sites. Lot 3, Block 2 Peres PA31 thru PA36. Borings BA31 thru BA33. Slopes averaged 2 to 5%. Mottling starts at a depth of 2.0-3.5'. Actual water level was below 2.5'. Perc rates are acceptable. Mound systems are recommended for both sites. Lot 4, Block 2 Peres PA41 thru PA46. Borings BA41 thru BA43. Slopes are very flat. Mottling generally was found below 2.0', with actual water level at about 4.0'. Perc rate for primary site is acceptable; perc rate for secondary site is slightly slow but acceptable for a mound based on the justification referred to for Lot 5, Block 1. I recommend a mound system for both sites. Lot 5, Block 2 Peres PA51 thru PA56. Borings BA51 thru BA53. Slopes are very flat. Mottling occurred below 1.2 feet with actual water below 4.0 feet. Perc rates are acceptable for the primary site and slightly slow at the secondary site. (Refer to Lot Block 1) This lot has the overall worst set of percolation rates of the division. However, only two of the percs were taken in the topsoil, the others, two of which were very slow, were at depth. I recommend that a mound system be used on this site. If percs were re-taken in the topsoil, it is likely they would pass as did nearly all others done in this manner. * 8 ! #615 Ringer Subdivision Page 6 Lot 6, Block 2 Peres PA61 thru PA66. Borings BA61 thru BA63. Slopes are nearly level. Mottling occurred below 1.5', with actual water encountered below 5.7'. (Note that soil appears below 2.5') Perc rates were acceptable, although l ot b taxen at depth very very slow. Both primary and secondary sites shouia use mound systems. Lot 1. Block 3 Peres PCll thru PC14. Boring BCll and BC12. This lot contains an existing house, garage and barn. The existing septic system is unknown and was not located during my routine percolation rate is 21 minutes per inch; soil indicate soils suited for a shall « trench or mound system, with mottling beginning at a depth of ‘ . This is the highest in the entire subdivision and appears to be the only lot poss y suited for a shallow trench system. An attempt should be made to locate the existing system to ensure it is within the lot boundaries, although there is only a remote possibility that it isn't. Lot 2, Block 3 Peres PC21 thru PC24. Borings BC21 and BC22. This lot contains an existing house and small shed. The existing septic system is unknown ar.d was not located during my inspection last July. No evidence of system failure is noted. While the existing system that the replacement system, should it ever be necessary, wuld probably have to be a mound. Percolation rates averaged 56 mpi. It would aldo be advisable to locate the existing system to ensure it is within the new lot boundaries. B. Discussion of Mound Systems Since the proposed Ringer subdivision appears to need mound systems throughout, it might be worthwhile to review the conditions which favor use of mound systems over conventional trench systems. As you are aware, a biomat forms at the rock—soil interface in a standard trench system. This biomat acts as a "valve" to slow the downward percolation of septic tank effluent to a rate where the flow is unsaturated, i.e. air in the soil pores is in contact with the percolating effluent. Under these essential conditions, adeguate sewage treatment will occur. However, in many soils, either a seasonal saturated condition or^ extremely fine, impermeable soil texture (or both) tends to eliminate the air/effluent contact and also severely limits the soils capacity to absorb large amounts of effluent. To ensure that a standard trench system is not foxD Kinger Subdivision Page 7 installed in these limiting soils, a set of governing criteria have evolved over the last 50 years. Specifically, trench systems are not allowed: 1) where the percolation rate is slower than 60 minutes per inch of water level drop in a percolation test hole; and 2) where the highest known water table or indicated saturated ®oil layer is less than 3' below the bottom of the trench. In most cases, these same soils have a varying cunount of topsoil which IS usually "loamier" and will accept and treat a limited amount of effluent. The pressure—mound system is designed specifically to use this lo^y topsoil layer for effluent treatment and disposal. In brief, a 12-24" layer of sand (placed over the natural roughened topsoil) is fed effluent from a pressure distribution system in an overlying rock bed. The biomat "valve" forms at the rock/ sand interface which is 12-24" above the natural soil. Because of the pressure distribution, an unsaturated air/effluent contact is maintained as treatment occurs in the sand bed. This treated fluent is then dispersed into the topsoil and allowed to move laterally through the topsoil, possibly even past the boundaries of the mound system (yet still below the surface) until it eventually seeps downward or evaporates over a wide area. It would be poor planning for Orono to allow installation of standard trench drainfields in soils which have high-water table characteristics, since many systems likely would eventually fail, as was the case in Medina-Morningside. Since Orono has shown a strict desire to limit the extension of sanitary sewers, it appears reasonable to allow (and, in fact, promote) the use of alternate on-site sewage treatment methods where development pressures persist. Mound systems have been installed over the last 10 to 15 years around the country as an alternative to trenches. In Orono, pressure distribution mounds were first installed in 1978. To date, the City has 13 pressure mounds in service, with no recorded failures. In my opinion, under specified site conditions, mound systems ® safe, sanitary, reliable method of sewage treatment. •■LI m ■V s xiy MIIUIUEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayxala. Minnosota 55391 PERMIT NUMBER DATE RECEIVED AGENDA DATE APPUCABLE REGULATIONS 4 See revoTM skto for Inotructlons Do not write above this line 1. OWNER; 1? ‘ t • • 2. APPLICANT: ADDRESS: .^06 ___. ADDRESS: **-*9 CITY: Uigg. Law- zIP: CITY: ' PHONE;------------------------------- SIGNATURE: Oa>X PHONE* 3.0 Preliminary plat review E5 Grading/Dralnage Plan □ Bridge, culvert, or utilities □ Rood Plain Deveiopment □ Use and appropriation of Public Waters □ Shoreline Improvement or Rip-Rap □ ShoreUne Setback Variance for Property Improvement □ Rll or excavation □ Permit Extension □ Other ____________________ Describe work and objectives:__1 KA <» ^ g. 1 • e ----S ITfc Si_____L^n* 4. Project location: — |1o<i.tu ftg_____T.vt ti» \Un.J__TiR i 6. Current status with other applicable agencies: KVPLtct».-r. Fii_6.T-> t<s C.\TV ‘ _______;_______________________ E Body of water affected: -XaVc. U) UJi)£roj/kA Call 473-4224 for assistance in completing this form. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth January 11, 1982 #645 Dorothy Forcier, 4780 North Arm Drive West Variance Zoning District - RR-lB Area - .41 acres Application - Variance a) Lot Area Variance Required Existing Variance 2 acres .41 acres 1.59 or 75% b) Lot Width Variance Required » 200* Existing = 120' Variance » 80* or 40% c) Street Setback Required Existing Proposed Variance 105' 48.5' 1.5' List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Application Property Owners List Site Plan Plat Map Planning Commission minutes (8-17-81) Gaffron Memo Septic Site Plan Building Elevation - Building plans Brief Review of Application In March of 1981, Council approved a sideyard variance for construction of an additional garage stall to the existing garage on Mrs. Forcier's .41 acre lot. Her present application involves a lot area, lot width and street setback variance to permit construction of a new house. At their meeting of August 17, 1981, the Planning Commission moved to table the application pending receipt and review by staff of septic test information to assure a primary and alternate septic system site existed on the severely limited property. Commission members questioned the size of the proposed house on a lot of .4 acres located in a zoning district that requires 2 acre setback standards. In addition. Planning Commission questioned :__i-ssa r m 1645 Dorothy Forcier Variance a house with a potential four bedroom capacity ever being able to satisfy the area standards of the Orono septic code. The required septic test Information has been submitted. The size of the house has not been altered and the Planning Commission is asked once again to consider the orglnal site plan. Please review Gaffron's septic memo (Exhibit 6). He recommends approval with conditions of the variance application of Dorothy Forcier based on satisfactory septic test results that would permit a mound/berm/sand septic system for the primary and alternate site. Mote the septic design is based on a three bedroom home as opposed to the potential four bedroom house designated in the house plans. It would be my recommendation that if approved the house would have to be limited to three bedrooms because the area limitations of lot would prevent expansion of septic system to meet demands of additional bedroom. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - Staff recommendation to approve the street setback lot area and lot width variance application of Dorothy Forcier based on the following findings: Satisfactory septic test results confirming suitable on*-site septic sites for both primary and alternate systems. New plem shows less of an impact on setback standards in comparing location of existing structure. The proposed improvement will benefit the surrounding neighborhood. There has been an established residence on the site for over 40 years. such approval is based on the following conditions: 1 - City will grant no variances to the zoning or septic code for improvements proposed at a future date. The house must be limited to three bedroom design such notice should be filed against the title. Quit claim deed of 33' of right of way to the County for County Road No. 19. Quit claim deed of 33’ of right of way to the City for North Arm Drive. Relocation of well to the south side of the house. Primary and alternate mound sites staked prior to demolition of house - inspector to inspect site prior to demolition. Orono Code requires the following design change in mound design: 2 septic tanks plus a pump tank (or a baffled pump chamber in 2nd tank). 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 6 7 - . l< !■! fWT LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66» Crystal Bay, Hiimesots 55323 473-7357 uatA LiVl 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 29BS: Plosas first rsad tha attached InforsMtlofi Sheet. Cosiplete Ittoa 1-13 (Typa or Print). If needed, attach letter or other infonsation to better deeeribe your request. Inconplete applieetione will not be accepted. PROPERTY ADDRESS ^ ^9^0 A/H .A—" Ut*l d..erlptlo«i ah.ll b. ahcnm on atuehad Survay, biMhlt 3 APPLICANT p pa\jtJLiAj Phon# ^ ^ Mailing AMraa. A/ MJ9A/ U^JU^ It Applicant Irnot mmar, Mpl.ln LIST OF EXHIBITS Peecription Initial Application sniat include: 3. OWNER rban. ttolllag AMr... V /V QAytv — Date Property Acquired ^3- (»tenth/if»«rt I (do) not) also own other adjacent parcels of land ____ . p . y9? AGENT w— TtrmCy U'.nA**^ C«mx /-mc /<o rhen. V99-7SrC, ^ontf / Aoft/Pi vrsU Hilling AMr... CC> -?________. /Ymnrt oIk NOTICES U«eul4 b. amt to:Applicant PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT Chmer Agent 1 Application Form 2 Property Ouners List 3 Certificate of Surve y Pee Receipt " Date ^e^pd p ! Staff InforsMit ion A y_ flat Hap 5 ^ Invmtory • j/ Stiff Ort«r tnfomatim 7 JUG-liM PRESENT USE »iiWtntt.i (Other) TT7 Vacant land Vacant Building(s)Occupied Building(e) ^i DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ BBRsMieh nee use _ continue or expand existing use ^ build nev ^ add mi _ rew^t replace //’i /\ u*-^sP____j-t __tr1 fDescribe request In detail:1 o i • exhibit 1 yr S 4 LIST OF EXHIBITS ^ fiauieusn ^ AppUestlon rei« * ---- ^op*rtp Omen Lite; ^ C«rtlfte#e« of Surva- F*« Mealpe #>Tg) S*12*2r! * iC n*e itep I * Inamtery f landj • j/ Staff cb^e. gthw JU6.L&JSBL IDt QE nB< mm ipa «. r^tau ---------- WIXUI^U »»M not be eceepted. EXHIBIT 1^ 0 ^ ^ LIST OF EXHIBITS applicant £ W Applicnt le. «,t ovn.,. „pui„ ' ^ Application form * — Property Omere Llet ^ Cortlflcete of Su^e; O' OWNER Poo Receipt »>Ti^ gtffrinfot—t;|y^ * J^ Plat ttopT f®**'*i*’ed «*'P'aoX'-u^T^r —I Piet Hep ' >gP also OwiT Oth»f a/*e (Ho«th/reer) | S Iiwentor.. ^—*y©Ste^ 111 AA ^ ^ aiiH«g AMreae Ch) PO 'tf'.y ? 5. notices ^ ^ 6. present zoning use district /f„ 7. present USB M..*..u. ^tr >6^-4^ Agont ■WLJL&jsai 8* describe request - -----------_ «..,«. „ lZTlf° ‘=0“^«CTION COST 1 J-9 9- . Describe request 1„ detail; ‘ / , r**- —------ry/r^ *v\_ —« _r.,u.. 3l f^ A/i t» ’■ ''^'‘“““(S) REQUIRED ^< — MS nroa ,u.„ «k„, ^ '*"•«- Rear) Other________ 10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTV CONDITIONS - - - - - - - '/j 11. retulatlena „.;/_ ^ . "PIOOLTY ™.t.ta, *0 »y o**^ i:e_ atrlet anfoi o »y< j o Mlil^ “■ “®*=^ibe^cT ----------------------------~ “'"''— Uh-U^Jl Bf ^ (y. '\ B "•Ighboring pro|>ortia- . — ^'ci^wuL'Sf^J.eed the PROPERTY OWNER im ® Knowla<2gits ve//^5 /-L 4 ’^^”«e^.^ckno5u£® application, •no C^U -fnEa. P>0|»*rty vcrlficatton of thi. .IL?!*!?®*** ®l InvotiaatffM -•![*•^ ............. »' ‘"l* reqie.t7 '■ " ‘tgatlon and *« ^er's St^?5eul^‘ILe. ^ application DEADLINE TEN (10) davc f- 0^0 LIST OF EXHIBITS ^ *"'^1. Applteatlon Fera ^ — ^operty (M««r8 Utf: ^ Certlflcaea of Survr >«ealpe Jtoe. -j^-r-^/ * £. n«t Hap * Iiwanto-i.^ ®ndl • Staff Othar lafgf.pt JUS-LSJSBL Cl a OLHROI ^ r^ii i 1 f -m. raplaaa h.^*j i\ i/> <»■ Lot Wtftli nl«t Mq«tl It »f ' application, •ju “•: l>ate ^^^SSIOH MEETTMr* OCPMITMCNT op PINANCe A-OOS QOVERNMCNT CCNTCR MINNEAPOLIS MN 0S407 I CfRTIFV THAT THf MOTS aCMfSCNTCO ON TMI$ CINTIFICATf ANC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE RERRE- tENTATION OP INPORMATION At IT APPEAR* TNff CATE ON TNE RECORDS OP THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PINANCE DIVISION. TO THE RNOWLEI OWNER PAYER / M AILING ADDRPSs RROPj tmm Z3 ZMicejsms^ B£u ........... „ ■pAfiaGP Un<^(. „ ^ ^unyec:: So.‘^ s -J5TTT MAT TNf pacts RKPMSCNTCO ON THIS ANC AN ACCUNATC AND TRUC RCPRC- P INPONMATION AS IT APPf AM TNfV RtCOnOS OP TNC NCNNfPIN COUNTY ISION. TO TNC iCST OP MV RNOMLCI PINANCC OATC ^PERTV AO -//7- ^ PK t/ ^ /j/)firn^ ahhTW 1 Plat of Survey rop oaratl^y r. forclor In th. Northwest I/4 of Section 6-117-23 -X- •• ; s s I5Z.Z5 Tmm / A A I /dtApOM^ ISZ.ZS V4 Cor sec 6'U7-i3 ■fWAD Ccrtir*icat€ of Surrey: I hereby certify that thU is a true *n<# correct raorasen*.M«.. -r.‘?7n ?' ^ of ’x. >*>» »^.*s r«r,'r ci;r;:ru 2 of the Southwest quarfor of the fiarthuest quarter of Section ^ of all aa„tj«5 taildl.,. Ik.raoo. It d... „t „rpo,l Z .Tuooll T.. prnvnments or encroachments. co show other i» ’‘V •X 1* « 50* 4^13-77 Iron miflrar Cordon R. Coffin tpnd Surveyor And Pldnnor tontr Laka, HlmesoU No. ^0^4 iT> ,C iJ u ClTYlFoM V' NS'SBMuL"” ILIJ iS*«e La<ei7‘ey^ So.^ Uf 1 ■;J wV /// ___ •a» * - I exhibit hinotes of the planning commission meeting op august 17, 1981 page Applicant was. »avi.ea that the^existing^gara^^^^^^ be removed prior to iss that it would be in thethat the garage was 50 Tears old and that^it^^ ^ middle of the to keep the building, to ask for the building be kept for storage ‘pifpSfeS rusfuntt!\S*^ergarage is’completed. CURTISS (CONT.) 1 - Encrcaohment into 75 • lakeshore area would be , - teduluon of approximately 1700 sf of hardcover. 3 - Future proposed i™Provements would be located further from the lakeshore.rurrnei a.a.w.w w.— — 4 - Aesthetic improvements and would enhance the entire site. 5 - Hardship is the narrowness of the lot. and subject to the following conditions: 1 - That adequate turnaround be provi e 2 - sttff'to make recommendation as to the best time to remove existing garage. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (3), Nays (0). Dorothy Forcier and J,®fgte^Ut^of^septi^'testing would Mabusth stated determination could be made rnce^niS: Thf ^r^p^os^dTe: ^coS^ruction. DOROTHY FORCIER 4780 North Arm Di Variance 1645 I [ • i» A afmre lot in a 2 acre minimum Goetten noted that this is . zone. jabbour stated not only jou have^to relocate^the^^^ house but find »^'*‘-*’^®le'setback between well and seotic system, have to meet a 75 proposed construction was much - . A A ft _ __ Porcier asked if the new house would be 24’ x 28- would that be ok? "tJSrpSng^ecSp? “'r~mp?«t";i of iertlc“?es». Goetten seconded. Vote. Ayes (3), Nays (0). ----------------^--4 exhibit *) TO: FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector DATE: SUBJECT: January 5, 1982 Variance - Dorothy Forcier 1645 I have reviewed the submitted materials and wish to make the following comments: current application when Mrs. Forcier was planm^^ the existing house. I ‘5® It^the request of the configuration and his soil boring, that a mowa likelv be successful, indicating the two sit •a.v, o'I‘Ha •phA final renort by Rathbun indicates that both with the indicated percolation rates.^^Soil^mot^l^ lurface. J£?tunf iSdicatL She%os;ibility f which would inhibit the proper functioning of a stand trench system. ?he lot,^with the proposed new house to be located south of the existing house. .ay?44-4rm site evsluator's drawings) the edge of the ?^thn2d°«rt? a seiiack of ,^^is line to sand bed .i®-?tSuel'*’annhe«'tte Sst™ ^iU have 'nr»lSr:fll“%i%hrad1tieSf p«;^rties tL setback variance is justified. Based on the above, I recommend approval of the proposal with the following stipulations: 1 - 2 - 3 - (Pun aAnf'if' tanks dIus a pump tank (or a baffled pump Chamberlin 2nd tank) should be required as per Orono Code. Sirsther p«ts of tne proposed design appear to meet The^existinq well southwest of the house should be pJop^JiraSllnSoned, and a new well constructed south During d^litlon of the existing house, care »h°“W be taken so that the primary mound site is not disturbed comoacted so as to make it. unusable* I ^ *i r ■ \ r .•^i, ♦ •’ iM ■i.t V • •N. I ••.* • •x;-• • !-;-i^.V.i.:J •li' i'.T ■ !U:.^• f %-.v .. ’■• • • •• V. M ^ • v.s M > •• ji % ' ------ ’*'*’iil^’'*' i* ^•’S' H Irt—»^==^'^r-^ii;' I*' J *• ■•"— — S ‘ * \ ' '••■. ^ N:\ » r^V"inr* lO CO =fe i •! J . ' ----■*T1|HnrtTI * ««•» mmsmmm » X" "mob. EXHIBIT I, I Bmmrnmni lO CD i r u >*%• •• S-i'tL'.-.k.l __rva ’ . 1 it! ^ I t. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Conmiission Jeanne A. Mabusth January 13, 1982 #661 Paul Fahlin, 1960 Shoreline Drive Use Permit - Conditional List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Attorney’s Letter (12-2-81) Planning Commission Mxnutes(11-16 81) "for neetin, of (11-16-81)- ?rra2,“l“?r-%farco„«r^ subject property-a lot dimensions . ,p 1Q01 Paul Fahlin was issued a limited termporary On December 18, 1981, ...... v-v the City to permit the certificate of occupancy strict terms of ^^vnwrHari?et“ii«LgrarhHero™.r"Ld Reuti.an and Fahlin are "equitable owners". Reuti^n claims that f ?he sa?e'S^t^?or'°“subject to a conditional permit allowing tne s ^ fuels and accessory solcif? that a new ow.iwr of resolution. The resolution f®®S?tilnll uL permit - he need the property „f SciupancJ “lesl!ution 961, Tw) ?^“^5r4?i ’strtes""a “lr^?f shSu^L !ruI3ior^‘a1ai?!fullrSra^^-rt irrTpa?t!folar person or firm". The planner (See Exhibit B) contends the intent of although not „2rmK H ?o a«Sre -that thea new owner *oappy for such conditions" limiting new owner was fully The limited temporary occupancythe use of ‘Be s^ject property. ^The Ujited^^^^ ^ conditional use f “ctiin H of R«oluti^^ 961 and iSe‘»urrnt»t''of clu"n°c!f c™ing the need for a conditional use permit upon a change of ownership. T Awn ftei? riv #661 Paul Fahlin Conditional Use Permit Fage 2 Fahlin asked to be rescheduled at the January 18th ?ete w«"aSvtlS\o submit a written statenent^revxsan,^h^^ S?!«en°staSemenrairthe*revised ji“P-“rejiaSn r4nSarS^"l;tf^??J;*In'"^bro^rin!nir?SS Tuch a muiti-uss opsration Parking Requirements 1) (38.314, 38.315) stall O' X 20') 2) Service Station Use (only 3 because repair of cars - 3 not proposed) TOTAL H" Based on my revised sketch Pla" ‘«t°lhfp«k?nfd^ands permit review, P*?® ??Pj;'’°®5he appUoant has to contend with the SJdlSip S? f -Tatkfn^ ftails must be setback 10 off right of way. section IV of Resolution 961 sr: ss.sv“."S,a r. 2"su s:.:5cs:;"2r the above permittee uses. This really does not apply in this use is still the service fatxon and the bart f ^uler* irtSrs«i!Se^sJt!ru?l SSs^SoSnued and a neigh­ borhood bait shop proposed in "The application site. Disposal of Fish Tank Waters with non sewered proper^ The limitations on ®Pace ma^®® ®®P'i= ^^^^"^^“bSrifexisUnl “p?!c%sM“«uw“ieet the aMitional demands of expanded use of bait shop. s;k.“ 2s.:.r.r!S aisjs “5!T^!-eI?a;eirin«au‘nigrd&tin, the street address which has not been done. i ; _ t Awrn ffov m #661 Paul Fahlin Conditional Use Permit ■Page 3 PahUn »u.t also review his slgnage^lans |°yhejlte^^^Staff r.?rS«,ht‘«7;^sgi-s Within ihat rigne oi^P - causing interference wxth sighting cars ac sf-'' intersection. Staff Recommendation Fahlin Should be asked to °”««„hls^=omplete application because he has failed to meet Planning Commissionbased on his proposed level of operati^. ^xan^ council may offer to table the epplicatxon ^ refer to Section 32.4660with a recommendation of denial. If denied reter ro for your motion• ' 4 i • AMf\ ffnr* ^« • - * TeA^w»^ARy Certificate of Occupancy EXKiBlT A iKtf plrti>c Village of Orono, Minn Sit« Address PERMIT NUMBER DATE APPROVED fitJ Pk*4Zi DATE ISSUED N/A HateL ArmitSL i '/ OCCUPANCY _____________ lumidr Thii is to certify that I have inspected the premises at the abj« address and 5<at the building '“{"Sfe to tSn XrXn or repair has been substantiallycomplet^ since with i^^ upon vyhich the building permit required by ordinance was issued. o£ obvious^gu^l^fi^gCyde^ aJ^nSte^iPJl IncW^ Sr mS- ^ ing and are listed as exceptions to completion:mg ana arig ------- These must be correct or complete within—ffi_days. • Rc rtm &’»/.,.< fW Jffrrei wvi-AtrSu-dH \ i ZA' t. / j‘-^'S^mviioil OP ZONING AWO IWyiCTlOM7 ’ TAMn ttev nr EX!-!!R!T S'. wf CITY of ORONO INiiit iMlus* lUix •^•Ovftal Bay. MinnenuU 55Ji.i» Municipal i ffn * • •« V,% •*,%* • r -> *•On .V«»r/A Short' of Lake Minnetonka November 25, 1981 Mr. Paul Fahlin BOX 7 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: I960 Shoreline Drive Dear Mr. Fahlin: Yesterday you and Robert Jfei (continuing the motor your conditional use "sporting goods for sale plusfuel service station plus addition o£ p conditional use bait ana tackle"). Mr. Sf your plans to add peti.lt was required. sMvice station useaqe, even though “SS'SiS’u?Smc?Suy d?sc«sld this with City statf since early summer. Mr. Reutiman was told, as ’'?g.’’^®"bg*fenewed''upon change in eristln, ~"«*i°"!\“«/“SSjt?oSaruse pl^irap^lication had to ownership, ® "® _ .-here was a proposed change in use. Ifbe made if as xn this case itional use permit renewal would the use had remained unchanged, aesenrina that the new ownerSSve been Perfunctory for purposes of assurr^ ^ Si^'L«tnU'uSJer’?hr«MrSwier. the existing conditional use permit would still apply on September 23» 1981, Robert^ Reutiman Jr^^wrote^^^ sold^with a this property. i 1981 " In my September 28, 1981closing scheduled for Octobe notified the new owner ofiS. «!;S;ion“ use permit requirements before occupancy. He did not reply to my letter. . 1A01 ♦■hA citv inspector noticed that variousOn October 19, ^ Ja furnishing had been moved into the equipment, a^rd notice rlquiring a certificate of building. He P®®^®^ ®She building. Four days later you «Se”“S wU»SofShich shows Paul v. Fahlin as owner and applicant for the changed use. il’IilMNC# A iONlNii - 47MI57 • ASSkSSI.N4; AOMIMSTRATION a HNANa 4717 j$n • ri sue WORKS - 47 J 7 J59 I ■ h ANn ITCP BT hxmtTVir^ d / f I «.ovetnber 25» 1981 Page 2 NOW you ate requesting an occupancy ?? °f Sse ^^11°^^oi to City council review of your^condltxow^^^ applications You state a hard p j___ia.g months of notice fromfe/sr: ».sr. conditional use permit.i The City Council has TOncerning^the property, especiallymake promises and representations concern y_ jf when I revision is being requested for a^non^ indeed you have not yet closed, ye'jr P* applicant. !r™uTavrcl«:nSd“ou"arrtLoLer^^^ U "re^Ji^rill-r existing conditional use permit. Based upon your latest J®P^®®®”ncv^fo? ^°ntiAuLion ^of^^the^ prior"~ with the facts, terms and conditions belo Reutiman is still >=?? permit for rS^trr^Sfl^se?vlUit'a?2^i “°c=ord?r, ?o tbe terms «J°StJ«"operator may obtain^a cerj of occupancy under the J^^^ori y motor fuel stationconditional use pe^it to opera^ according to the strict t issued on a temporary This certificate of vd-ation for a change basis because of ^he p conflicting information in use, and because of ^h certificate of occupancy on property ownership. This certificate or S)^iplil'’chMge in ownership of the mnn°i?n?nrby"SedS«da!;! glcImLi’a, 1981, so ‘rSneSed^iSLrchai^eVth^^ P-^ review of your new *PP^j;'®|‘°J’: existing conditional ■” “‘’'’"o^if*SrupSn*c25ncil aSli”iSrsuant to. ;”r‘^S™tmbe? 2^! 1981 request to continue review , Thi2%«?I««ie'o“Jcupln^ is U b«“^“Preollne your agreement and intention ro op strict rd^Si!lnrSjne.S5"ut?r59ei With no other ThnsL.:: »elsf food!*^*"^?! IS^rie^f eU? and io 2pplIca?Ui 5o«s"of operation are limited to between 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM. u».e —r.n TAMn ITCP OTAmiTMr* ^ A Fahlin ^vember 25* 1981 ypage 3 6) issuance of this temporary does not imply change or renewal 4-- oermit without City Council action; in no way . SSy authority to do anything not bv Resolution #961; and in no way binds .gg. Council in their independent review of ^ ' including approval, partial approval or denia case 7, are whether temporary or permanent. It is an unusual step for the pending before occupancy f “ SSS^il siw^iin with conflicting the City Council. This is ^r^Sived the benfit of the doubt facts. I believe that you have receiv hr»ne vou will cooperate nus'SaTu^Mrsersns^ah, ^ rt“c!;%to2Ing\o “^J;S ’buildln, is proposed to be converted from repair shop purposes to retail purposes. Sincerely /Alan 5^. Olson City Planner cc: Robert Reutiman f V TANn !T5?P ptammtmo EXH’.u: n^ 6 —I mfo**' • — l^oLert 14/ l^eutiman, ^r, ATTORNEY AT LAW P lONE. (6121 473-7328 December 2, 1981 30S EAST RICE STREET POST OFFICE BOX 387 WAY2ATA. MINNESOTA SS391 OF COUNSEL GARY l_ PMI.EGER Uj li\l DEC - 4 1981 ‘i • % . VIMr. Alan P. Olson City Planner City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: 1960 Shoreline Drive Dear Mr. Olson: To clarify ownership of this property, please note the following; RcISiman who also owned the existing structure. 9 nrx AutniBt 1 1979. Robert W. Reutiman purchased the land, SSr^l to an opti“ in the lease, on a contract for deed. Thia^ontract is'^being paid on a timely manner, and the full balance is due on Aug^ust 1, 1984. _ _ r>1 ^ 1 Qfti Robert Reutiman sold his interest in ?Se°p«S;i«B’io ”lii With the final parent on this^second contract for deed due on October 1, 1986. Th original closing date for this sale was ,1 October 1, 1981. However, it was postponed but did close on the date indicated. WMeWiog “e5?^S? 5^S?SinnS%aSl MS are equitable owners. It la our position that the conditional use permit was Iss^diot SsSStlS^ SdSith the flSdinll of Rii5Iution No. 955 which p« ceded it? It cannot be otherwise. The resolution establishing ! ivn Iter? it- Mr. Alan P. Olson December 2, 1981 Page -2- the perait J^"32-4io^|^?he^Ototo“LSSg°to^ beproperty... Section ^.*»iuoitww the "... permit shall be A 2T fisn." In the various correspondence |°ti,J®yfne°of*the Issuance SS ?ratn«USM?taStl X'•oSns"*'the premises is going ?o hSftftpply fo? a conditional use permit. we support Mr. Fahlin in his efforts to «e "^e presses co«isMnt Sith tL purposes of his ?h^stle“f retail subject to a conditional use permit ® . . 5 Qeetlon II of theS?Jr f«ls and accessory «es as oumned^I^^ecti^ Il^f^t.^ resolution _j reeardless of the ultimatesiirsM ^““L??STe “ir “premises and use them consistent with the permit. Sincerely, Robert W. Reutiman, Jr. RWRtlJ cc Robert W. Reutiman Paul V. Fahlin ^ Amt\ • ——— exhibit hihutes op the planning commission meeting of "OVEMBER 16, 1981 Page 5 Srreron3flo^rhfw«nr„rthf reLaeSt is issued e ta,. done it anyway. fac?“ apSicat?onl'Sd sSggestId"tIg§!ng be done immediately. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (3). Minority Opinions: ^ conditional Roveqno - He in a designated wetlands use permits should be ®PP^ ^ mi-g city still could area regardless o^^^e easement. ^^he^Crty st^^ obtain the f^?"ted the^wetlands ordinance and that the denied they could conditionzoninq code. Even if they aeniea tney “isd r, SBSi.: ‘SL'8u>;::.«:r^s; the easement if denied. Callahan - He concurred with the others. S5!i-ssa;.%Ts;; .SS£ t.; n 8 a;; s m.j;;.?-' rasp^SSed'^: ??;:^I^Srt“"APp!i«nreiplained that he was^^out of town and that he did not know. S^pJIca??on! ‘He rtaled^hit'Se^lllfiar never looked better than it does now. (fMAXTER COWr.) * PAUL FAHLIN I960 Shoreline Dr Conditional Use Permit 1661 Applicant «ked the Plannin|tCo™^ i”eS SitHin lonfonnini uses the City has always required a conditional use permit for new ownership.\ii Hammerel explained the setback problem for the existing L.P. tanks. i TiKin IfOT? minutes of the planning commission meeting op NOVEMBER 16, 1981 Page 6 from 6:00 AM to 6:30 or 7:00 PM 7 days a weeK. (FAHLIN C0Wr.7-‘‘ MftSfsho;! s°t«ed SarhfSouW SirsaSe invS^oiy p?Ss gas and also cigarettes and soft drinkse Applicant stated that they had a < they could consequently operate a bait shop a. tw locations. Hammerel moved to table application until the neighbors are notified. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Posnik and Mann were present. Ma^usth additional 5' of right without a principal rt^uStSe! ThrerpIatnfd^^^SertLf this was in violation of the code. SCOTT MANN 1396 Baldur Park Variance «664 ; .• , : li i!“-^''“a3?ri^nri"?sf°srif ‘’S«g: tit ^e ‘sVg^tierdfcA the garage . to the road and moving back to meet cne He cautioned that the applicant had only 750 st or additional hardcover for a driveway. I >i Mabusth stated that the only «®P°"®® Ttwo'’®"* rt«u^r A^lfcaS? ?SltTt^SoS!d be a two story basement walkout. 't Mabusth explained that .«®Vl^‘®J® ‘J®iakeshore setback for the principal structures. in commonownership since January i, ii» following conditions: 1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 6 -• rftS« v«!arcereuf 5* additional right of way, quit claim deed SS dick until certificate principal structure must meet average lake setback of abutting lots. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). ffcr m .*•-• 4 XliVV EXHIBIT 'r.JC;*'- C^«r5rV.ir?* ••t.x » ’ , • *^ ---------------- yf‘ *.-. X » ^^’c» V.-- mors LANDINGS ,“cTvXb*a . .- . . -V s 4»-- - - -» • . <’•• • • • • 2,' — I'-Wx « Thank you for the opportunity for us |° our desires for the usage of the Service Station at 1960 Shoreline Drive, Crystal Bay, Minnesota. r4-r«e-i- 1-he ooerating hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 7;30%.m!*(7 days a week); servicing with motor fuels and car accessories. ■ •.We would like to close our Paul’s Landing bait* in the winter months; operating and installing six ba iSn^s 3^3 on the north wall of the garage. V The interior and exterior of the.building «ill b® repaiS?ed in the spring with no physical changes in the building. tJW r t • A Dlanting of sod, shrubs, and flowers will be Planted alons thffrSSt and aAd we will do our best to ^intain a Sl?*a^d cieaS garage and one we can be proud of. T will assure you we want the finest of relat with^our neighbors and community and will do our utmos to be an asset to all. Thank you for your help V® . .i- * . I taul V. 'FAhlin : 1'*. f % .n I <■« <\ i'i; %■ ■*• ^ ■ .•■T I t Sr • » ^4. 1. > V mi TANn nSF EXr»«3lT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth November 12, 1981 1661 Paul Fahlin, 1960 Shoreline Drive Use Permit - Conditional zoning District - LR-IA - rezoned from B-1 in 11-14-78 per ^ Ordinance 214 Area - .26 acres - required non-conforming use) Application - accessory uses to gasoline sales (principa ®orc “«erin orilinal conditional use pets.lt Resolution 961 ‘ana°J^inSn^Hli have been enclosed for your review. irmPertinent Ordinances - 31.10U The subject property was ril^fSho and part of th© Ian wunirUna Reutiitian sublsased his owned the service ;;9i^h’'?eas«"8 use ceased on interest to 9i°’iq78 To my knowledge there has been or about Septesi^r 2 , * .-atio' from Reutiman from 1978 only one group began seometime in the fall of il,ranrraS i °T“£^rhafai?lidy fh'e IIHIIZ rvTo?«trSf*S?iS?naf "fditioLl use permit - Resolution 961. sn u-i • nr-^rrinal owner of Ssilors World or Pauls Landing has oS«?4d I toit and fishing gear sales shop on the marina property for the past three years- It is his intention to »°ve that entire ra^rrel^hrslircf gasoline/ Pahll^ - f,- 'S, st^tSn“ ?Sresrsti4g;tanR is over 500 gallons in sire ^J^prr^i-^U-rard'LSlinS^^f tl^i‘=reL°4han 500 gallons would only require a 10' setback. Planning Commission should check the building that houses the^^^^ Pahlin shop^se. In the absence of three parking stalls for .,^^,,0 ar#» 4 to 5 stalls at the station a site plan, ^ oroposes extensive landscaping improvementsarea. The aPPl^^ant proposes exrensi review. It has on the site writing of this memo. If he submits rsitHlirirthe^eeLSg night, ?lanning Commission may still be able to act on the application. il "TnrmiWfiir lAWD list *4 Paul Fahlin «661 Page 2 issues for consideration with this review. .... . ' ■ ?UfflS%«MlS.^"°forihf‘uUy«ouS?erarea. _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ei.^^^4-•• K1 o ■ ■ i'Sa •_ _ja 1^.- O in original couuAv*.fcw*»v«* *r ^ Ko^n 3 - Have the improvements service stationrraurr:* rr^rCai: 00^., a„d SSSea^ S-aS’n M?hC) closing of rear sratiu« operation? 4 - What are the proposed hours o T I - What taprovements are proposed in connection with punp islands 4 building site?isianas, Duxxua.as-3 -- - - «oa»/q for site - may not exceed size of $ - Signage proposed for sire i previous sign. -Tn^-iTiiiriiTi ^£\'£C01^/ZS "<5 Q. r. fe: oa o 0 ..... * 111 r. t ^0 lAWn TTSF PTAMWTMr TO:Planning Commision FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:January 12, 1982 SUBJECT:#665 Richard Speeter, 659 Minnetonka Highlands Conditional Use Permit List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Zoning Administrator's memo (12-7-81) Planning Commission minutes (12-7-81) M.C.W.D. letter (1-5-82) Site Plan Action Meeting In review of Speeter*s current application the exact area of the proposed dredging within the lagoon has not been clearly stated. The previous DNR application shows the dredging extending beyond the Speeter lot into the Henninger property. The area to be dredged is described as "an area extending 25* feet lakeward from 200' of shoreline". Review enclosed site plan - Exhibit 4. Applicant must specify the exact area of the dreding corridor. Summary of the M.C.W.D. letter of January 5, 1982 1) The area to be dredged is not located within the area now used by applicant for riparian boat access - this will cause the reviewing board problems. 2) A permit would never be approved unless the erosion problem causing the siltation of the lagoon is cleared up. 3) Area for consideration - effects of dredging of the lake vs effects on water quality from deposition of sediments from concentrated stormwater runoff. 4) Benefit to applicant of more sheltered location away from main lake. A DNR representative called to state that they would have a written response to the City concerning Speeter's application. The following comments were made concerning the Speeter application: 1) A previous dredging of the subject area will have a bearing on their review. In response to the statement that a wetlands had existed in the area prior to previous dredging of 1967 - the representative stated that based on the previous dredging and current cortditions of the lagoon that a wetland would never return. TikMn TTCV DTAMMTM#^ a?' #665 Richard Speeter Conditional Use Permit Page 2 3) The DNR would respect a request by an applicant that sought a more protected area to locate a dock as opposed to the heavily "trafficked" area of the main lake. Hopefully a written response will be received by our meeting night. Points for consideration in making your recommendation. Please refer to the following item when formalizing that response. 1) Hanson letter - 11-17-81 2) Review memo from Zoning Administrator at work session meeting at 12-7-81 (Exhibit 1) a) Statement on alternation of lake beds in Comprehensive Plan. b) DNR rules 6 MCAR 1.5022 Is the application as proposed consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan? Is the application as proposed detrimental to the public health# safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vacinity? Does the proposed application comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Code? (Specifically sections 31.834, 31.835 a), b), c) d), and 31.837) !» J lAND USF PTANMTMC PVUTUW* t t ■ ♦- f TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth December 1, 1981 SUBJECT: #665 Richard Speecer, 659 Minnetonka Highlands Conditional Use Permit Zoning District - LR-IB Area - Approximately 1 acre Application - Conditional Use Permit - Dredging Ordinance 31.700 & Ordinance 31.832 (b> List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit 3 Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Application Property Owners List Speeter Letter - November 24» 1981 Addendum to land use application Plat Map DNR permit 1967 Photos of lagoon area Survey Hanson Letter - November 17, 1981 Surveys of lagoon area from previous application Mr. Specter's recent "after the fact" conditional use permit application for the flume (paved drainageway) along his lakeshore bank has not been acted on by the Council. The application is scheduled for action at the Council meeting of December 14, 1981. In review of Speeter's letter dated November 24, 1981, he asks that all action be delayed until the dredging application is acted on by Planning Commission so that Council may act on both applications at one meeting. Staff will ask Council to make that determination at their December 14, 1981 meeting. Speeter has filed a conditional use permit application with the City to permit the dredging of a 25* x 200' navigable channel of a lagoon area to permit boat access to his property via the lagoon shoreline. Speeter's present dock is located on the outer shoreline of the island area that must be accessed via his neighbor's property to the north. He proposes construction of a dock within the lagoon area and resioval of the existing dock. He proposes to rip rap the storm sewer run off area and allow for a more gradual dispersion of the storm water which he hopes will alleviate the problem of the lagoon mouth silting up. Review the following policy statement on the dredging of lake beds from the Comprehensive Plan: 1 lAND USF PUNNING #667 Richard Specter Conditional Use Permit Page 2 '''■ ■'Ml NW •• _ 10.LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGE BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TEWl EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new channels or iniecs will not be approved to provide riparian access where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited circumstances only where aboslutely necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner's desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds. In addition review the following DNR rules 6 MCAR 1.5022: 1.5022 Excavation of Public Waters A. 1) 2) 3) 4) Policy and general restrictions. It is the policy of the Department to discourage the excavation of materials “O™ the beds of public waters in order to preserve the natural character of public waters and their shorelands, and maintain suitable aquatic habitat for fish and wildlife. Excavation shall be permitted provided the conditions of 6 MCAR 1.5022 B., C., and D. are met. 1.Where it is intended to gain access to navigable water depths when such access can be reasonably attained by utilizing a temporary or permanent dock. 2.Where inlands excavation is intended solely to extend riparian rights to nonriparian lands, or to promote the subdivision and development of nonriparian lands. 3. Where the proposed excavation will be detrimental to significant fish and wildlife habitat^ or protected vegetation. Has Mr. Speeter lost riparian access to his property? How does the previous maintenance dredging of the channel area affect this application? Was there ever a natural navigable lagoon area to the site prior to the dredging of June 1967? At the time of Speeter’s purchasing of the property boat access was possible via the lagoon area. Has a dock ever been constructed within the lagoon are?.? Why was the dock not constructed at the time the house was constructed? I "r—LAND USE PLANNING Richard Specter Conditional Use Permit Page 3 EXHIBIT 1 A 55 The applicant has just completed the execution of a walkway easement and an open space easement with the City as a conditiona. of approving last year's "after the fact" conditional use permit for the excavation and dredging of a channel area at one end of the lagoon. Why does he now seek boat access via the lagoon area? 6) In its present state» does the lagoon area serve any environmental purpose? Filteration ability! - Storage of nutrients and acidic sediments! (Review Exhibit I). LAND USE PLANNING F.XMTWTT 1 « I> « 44 OF THE PLAMNING COMMISSION MEE' ING OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 f - Swanson noted that the Pf «.ve fc'inf bSch''?hl? iSilS iLe to ienove their remaining which ace not diseased elms. °IqSu2mtnfbyiejLl9ninr?he'ldditirind “eJL!« 3' into the sensitive setback area? Mr Nesset noted that if they were to leave off that extra r’thit it would cut off a corner of the dining room^_ _ _ Goetten asked the architect if there was no way that this could be accomplished. Kelley asked what type of patio they would be putting up? Applicants noted it would be a type of decking patio. Goetten asked if it was impervious to water? Nesset replied that it was half and half. s.rs;.r:::.5-s ‘"'“™ 1 - Odd shape of lot - pie shaped 2 - Existing trees 3 - Previous 50* setback line when house was built. 4 - No additional land available. 5 - 3.500 sf of existing hardcover is the shared driveway for abutting properties. 6 - Only feasible location for the addition • - to t e front lakeside of the house, such approval is subject to the following condition: 1 - Removal of brick patio. Kelley seconded. Vote: Ayes (6). Nays (0). Richard “e nl2®memb«rwSo'iare® background on his P P ^ _ y,^th access to the dock.SrrtSUd tiarhrb'u??rj%fx 87- cement ramp to hold erosion back from the lakeshore banks. Mabusth asked if the lagoon was navigable in 1972 when he purchased the property? specter, stated that when he ^ught f«„P-P|«y_,the lagoon (SWANSON CONT.l RICHARD SPEETER 659 Minnetonka Highlands Lane Conditional Use Permit #665 LAND USE PLANNING EXHIBIT 1 ^(jTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1981 Page 6 jcelley asked how often it would have to be dredged? Speeter replied approximrtely every 20 years and that he should have dredged it 5 to 6 years ago. He also noted that every summer he had to bring in black dirt to cover the eroded grounds. Hammerel noted for the record the November 3, 1980> Planning Commission minutes which stated that in their approval of the bridge that Speeter/Henninger were proposing to construct that the City forewarned him of the City's policy on dredging and told him that a dredging permit would more than likely be denied. Speeter noted that it was dredged before and that now the lagoon was reverting back to its original state that of a swamp. Mabusth noted that the walkway access was recently formalized at the Council meeting of November 23r 1981 Speeter noted that his erosion problems and the erosion from the lagoon area which was coming from the storm sewer which contributed to the filling of the lagoon area. Opheim stated that the City shouldn't tell him that he is going to have a swamp in his back yard. McDonald stated that if it was maintenance dredging then the City might approve it and that if he had lost any riparian rights then the City would consider it, but as it is she doesn't think any riparian rights have been lost.,. Goetten noted that he does have an opening to the lake now. Mabusth noted that the lagoon would never return to its original state because of the land alterations that opened the lagoon at the far end. Goetten asked the applicant if he had filed an application for a retaining wall? Speeter stated negative and asked if the City was going to penalize everyone else that built things? He noted that it wasn't even in the 75' setback. Hammerel then asked for an informal poll as to whether the Planning Commission was in favor of the application or not. Callahan stated negative. Goetten stated negative. Hammerel stated negative. McDonald stated negative. (SPBBTBR CONVvM I LAND USF PLANNING EXHIBIT 1 OTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 Page 7 Opheim had no comment. Kelley stated negative. William Mason, Mayona Sirpinski's lawyer, was present. Mr. Brokl was also present. There was no one present from the aadience. Mr. Mason gave the legal background for the Planning Commission. The fee owner is Mayona Sirpinski. Planning Commission stated that in the absence of the City Attorney' s opinion that they shouldn' t take any action until the legal ownership question is decided. Callahan noted that formal action could not be taken until the City's restraining order is satisfied. First of all what hasn't been discussed is the law suit that the City of Orono brought in which Vicki Wisegarver was restrained from carrying on the business, regardless of the ownership question. So until the City Attorney of Orono advises the Planning Conunission that they can proceed further, nothing should be done. He noted that a temporary restraining order and a law suit the City of Orono brought against the Wisegarvers prohibits the operation of that business or any habitational use until further order of the court or until various other things have been proven to the satisfaction of Orono. This doesn't have anything to do with whether Wisegarver owns it or whether Mr. Masons client owns it, but if your getting your business lease from Wisegarver their prohibited by law from giving one to Mr. Brokl. Habusth noted that the City Planner had been advised that the Planning Commission .could proceed with the review. She noted that the very'fact that the application was before them that the Planner must have contacted the City Attorney. Callahan noted that the Planning Commission should be advised by the City Attorney that the conditions of the restraining order are not being violated in this review. Mr. Brokl stated that let's assume that Vicki Wisegarver Has court clearance inact, if she has that ability then the merits of his application would determine whether or not he complies with the requirements of the City and the original conditional use permit. Applicant that until they proceed with this review he can not get a conditional use permit which would be required to satisfy the conditions of the restraining order. (SPEETER CONT.) VICKI WIf?GARVER 3800 Wayzata Blvd Conditional Use Permit #666 ■ XvT W^Vr UND USF PLANNING EXHIBIT 1 I 41 r \t S “^^FD 0^ II!kl| FViU\!ftifcH;\HA C'fiE'£K WATERSH5-n niSTFlfCT -■ “'X im MINHfTONIU / yf P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 WUO or M«IM>Ctn: Ofvid H. C«clirM. fr«t. • Alban L ItbmaM • Jamn S RmmII • lobn £. Ibomaa • Barbara Cadmundao’ 4 kOk.r^ » January 5, 1982 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 JW 9**® (.n * aI Re: Proposed Dredging In Lake Minnetonka 659 Minnetonka Highlands Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Dear Ms. Mabusth: Receipt is acknowledged for your Inqu .ry of December 30, 1981 regarding the above. Based on the Information submitted with your inquiry the following preliminary comments are offered: 1.A MCWD permit is required for the work and is subject to the conditions outlined in the MCWD Dredging Guideline. 2.The District has, in the past, issued permit approval for dredging in Lake Minnetonka when it can be shown that it is a maintenance operation necessary to allow boat access. In this case, where the existing access point is outside the area to be dredged, the District's position is not well established and it is unclear at this point whether the Board cf Managers would favor such a proposal. 3.In the event the property owner pursues this proposal it would be necessary to show that the erosion problems apparently causing the siltatlon problem have indeed been checked. Without this assurance it is doubtful that the permit application would be approved. 4.The proposed project appears to have both possible detrimental and beneficial effects on lake Minnetonka. The effects of dredging on water quality are unknown, vary from case to case and are usually assumed to be detrimental. It may be, however, that the deposition ol sediments from concentrated stormwater runoff has a greater effect. LAND USF PUNNING EXHIBIT 1 .4 n i. f 1 * *^0 0'^ WilWiyEH/.HA CREEK waT=^33H?r: niSTnsn P.O. Box 387, Wayzats, Minnesota 55391 •"■"16k. lAU MINNCrOHRA T 9 ■OOO or WUIAGCRt: OmM N. C«iifM. rrM. • Alb«rt t ItliiMii • Jantt S R usm II • J«M C. fHomM • BiUf Oii«fBii«raoa V f;: if January 5* 1982 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono Box 66 ,-,.^00Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5?323 Proposed Dredging in Lake Minnetonka 659 Minnetonka Highlands Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Re: 2. Dear Ms. Mabusth: »a/<aini- 1Arknowlediced for vour inquiry of December 30, 1981 1. A MCWD permit is required for the work and is subject to the conditions outlined in the MCWD Dredging Guideline. The District has, in the past, issued permit approval dredging in Lake Minnetonka when it can be shown that it is a maintenance operation necessary to allow boat access. In this case, where the existing access point is outside the area to be dredged, the District’s position is not well established and it is unclear at this point whether the Board of Managers would favor such a proposal. In the event the property owner pursues this proposal it would be necessary to show that the erosion problems apparently causing the slltatlon Problem have Indeed been checked. Without this assurance it is doubtful that the permit application would be approved. 3. 4.Thp DTODosed project appears to have both possible detrimental and beneficial effects on Lake Minnetonka. The effects of dredging on water quality are unknown, vary from case to case and are usually assumed to be detrimental. It may be, however, that the deposition of sediments from concentrated stormwater runoff has a greater effect. XT LAND USF PLANNING EXHIBIT 1 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Page Two January 5. 19B2 There also is an apparent beneficial effect associated with the relocation of the access point to a sheltered area out of view from the lake. Without more detailed information we decline to make further comments on the dredging proposal. It is hopeful that the above will in some way assist you in your review of the project. Very truly yours. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the District Cllfflord Reep H ft i I *'i i; j CERTIFICATE SURVEY #586 ^ ^o,:.//>ry s:^r,f^o0 X (9^^) £/fr0/.o0 ^ — De00t*s C>f0Cna^^ #i*/ /i9t‘T /#/^ ^ \ ,^y ^r.7 wrms-- A-O ^ ^ .c> 1 t> '■' /A C i, .0^" / 1.^ ' ^ "s ' /v;s C ^ \ \ V^x\ % /yi-/ ?s ./C«L\ver^ Jl, ■Rkclc 5., £iT4TE*C /^ Speei^ “^xp - R a .? KX IAKE Ml^f^^EONKA Sheet 1 of 2 VMbil^j:^^C0MBS-KNUTS0N ASSOCIATE^ J : .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................•"■___________________ SURVEY FOR; IJorP.an L. Nielsen li t VEY * 99^7 99.S / / 99T / 10^1 M*»sc \ if ‘BiccCc »?L.^ £iT47t#C } - Ra V - X X < Sheet 1 of 2 RVUy FOR: n L. Nielsen j-v i k :^1 N CITY OF ORONO — .............. „„3rr «*■ *»«**.^ „r,^.----- •^**e*ttoi»« win not hT . *® b*tt«r ' *• «ee*ptcd. 2. address *T f>*-Mi -wctiptiw, .hon II.r, p^ro -------------------------------- list of exh l>0»grtp>j JUc ^ /PPUcarion owner ~ - - ■- ^pplleont la „ot ownar' o«nar, explain ^ l^'-( '• o *^onf» 4. ha #. «"*‘**^ ^"'••« ^ -Ot£_27?o ------------ agent Jzr' ;reT;’of lan,| ----- Phon« * ®*t€ Pceclved / \, " *y ifiUm J^*Ut Nap - Inventory Plm Mittlng Mdreaa_____ “WICES ««„ ^ Tin*. — applicant ™«ENT ZONING DISTRICT - «kbnt ose ^..„... ^ Veeant Und describe request ““*"«<•) j/ Staff Ga^ant, Other Infor — Af«nt _______ Occupied Bulldl„,(„ ^ ‘■■-irzzr--— A on 4rapu,a ^^^ANCE(S) REQUIR^ ,.^ ------------------- -------««tbacli ( *A>t Vldtli e : *“• ^OPERTV CoIiTiCl"'’ ^ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------««^ “• ------------—— ____________ ^ical DIFTO ulit ......uH----------------- . _____ -------------------------- "■•*'*•* -'•ree*n, e,—' -— _______ **•■* «onlng -------------------------------------------------——_______ proposed woaZZZZZ7~------------ —■~orin* propertlaa and «, ------------------— ------- --------------------------- ^ *•*• "‘‘tlikortiood u --------^ --------------------------- *■ ••Mrolj •WUeetl. P*^oporty Olid SSS-SS^ » no, ^ P /y . IX exhibit 1 i list of exhibits « in^l •—• ^PPlleatJon Fot« * J^.frop,rty <kn,r» LI,» of Surv. Meoipe « //^ \ -/t -J? ^ ..t »»j //iv. 5fff * Hop ^ — ^nvoniorjf landj 6 j(/ 5,,„ gtiwr lof------ HC 1233 ~OR0hDCPARTMeNT OF FINANCE *-•0$ oovcrnmcnt cchter MINNEAPOLia^ IM S5467 ••'•T Size PEE OIWIER UVr^ncTr/Ile 11*4?^®^* "fMestiiTeo on this OaTC ON TMf ^WANi THIS WHANCt OIVISI oS®"to*tm« V.* HfNNCWN COUNTY MCNNtNlN CO, TINANCt diVISJON payer / mailing address OATZ. try Ai A-//7-Z^ -d/ '! // ^3 9 r/»tK T // P.r^ /f // ™i£g t-:y>ycg ^/yy. I ^ t( -y U // or — ////// 5£ I . ' Iu Jien?3io^ ^ not — •'Hr '7 ‘- •• opaS/JW ., ... •*y wfu, •t- rfi. #3^**i.«f»wl«rA, djt ____ ■; . V ^^^ESSMENTS ----------------------- ^-------- - • - ^ 7 ■ ^MEr^ni - PwAipoa for *W*t. *• ____ *»p»«r 0.,, I 5®***.®' ^*** COUMTY••• TO TNI OiST OF NY XNOWLCOOi '"®**?* /•''•von, niZmAjti. ,i \ty -4^/ 93 ^Ls’k aw; ^/^,/pg i ‘ ^'■'V--. As • • ■ oec23i9n SiVoFORONi f Coptlflcate of Survey :><• >tr 4 T.i 5 nirw* i: cie^'^f;, ^'?5 Tsc^At , ^s2icA«' >5*«'e 0')lLLj/'^ “ ! r ' ' A44^ i* ‘ «W A)‘ f \ '5 oth?r Se-tlc; A 1- =4C^ to ;ir-4-?i :Ir'^>r "•^rker t> ^‘■- .<<1 j ;. j r p i j.^^ 0-'.4 i ** '<ciancj«,. J«yiy >Su?“*"** >• ------------------ •«'-- tnm$ ; ■/.. /:' <■ii fwl P668 Kit fttrk /h0U<Lj t-9tl0n nf ;l ^n>i 2*j —r.'r th^f propt;r;'.;i to show oth^r ^ 9 ~ ^ ^ l*r!r» «-r k^‘ ■ ■ V I* * i (\^ ^ ^'1 •.' \*ado. ^ ' II-.' ti \Mk #,<6 6 A JLif ~\ itVI V’^XiV JLir.pg^__ \M w •• A •• JU' C'^) i*4 7^ J- »•1 V . - -V • 1 '5(,l0 '-(ji.)' Jir 10 I •K")i '5(10 Ilf \ . ^^te23BB| f -iuLoFORO] i\tS [I 6 T7?i (t) K. lCi)S .‘a^j.t:i ■iait. Mu’ 1 i\ V A'2 *' / /"<i ^“5 nii*^ ' \^%y^w •8 \ r j*' m ViTREET a • I W*| -21 $ I ,W t.«y X uil'OY •'‘- (0 vO^ , i“ x***' A V .. ; 'Tot ^V' "•>:.:a^ c>) I t \ \, \rrh^^ ) jJjWLl Uacy »««« .wu,^ m.; -xV i ;V % . f »»ot »iy wi( •• «*i»ii., *«■«... ^ot /TL!*** •»’«* soK*, •>111 ■taiidar^ ' ^■(^,. ^^XES assessments ••‘•tlj.. VAUit ***kataadaM K ' ■ i - ■ '• ••■ ■.:. ■ ■• , • '■ ■ ■■^ ■■. : .-1 '.‘: -7 ¥v 5 • • . ■ !» > •. . ■ ^ . ■' • :• V:i ’. •*.^ :V .*• . ^h£ fe:; •• ;-.■-.■•■ •'•-•••■. .'l' •'• PAW*aaa••■wita *«r ta« ^**>»aaa. '■.V. -•■.'-r. •'•tar •Mlta m ‘•‘•-'••raa *«aa ••••ata ^■66 *’V\. I. • i l»*J4 W -U**; >]b : '\k C>)2 w __J H io(l) im ii i ' .3*151 &M&, 13 / ^ S(»)i (*f)2 (*»}3 -l- (*r)s (MJ6 »•) • J4M> STBCE^ • : !!J —% IJ ' ■)] 'WoRv exhibit 5 ^ let iSSL-SicTjow ETBA CKS —— EUItt.»••* irtoiik) yiW 1 XV<^ ARDcovgp ^ •“ **'t. o< *• •- Wrt. o. »»- asort. ,5, ** *^ “ icoo rt. JJ, *«T AJU»TTBt HMU>CO vxj|®*STijSC haaocovoi ^"*»os® ’“^ocovm TOTAt ViAAlANC* wvisia,. “““* — -.—■•" -*^^***»_____ '*"“■“•1 lot Ahap, ' »••«__ •alatiM — ‘*®’®"»i»t#nt w7lr~ “""■“•J buliai ®®»»"*etod, —— l>rlv.». —• _ _ ^ ■— —"■•■tain "iwrui, city . -:5- ••‘«w ••P«ie ayat^ '•valJabl, ^ - -*J^^-tata S=4!»J»E ~ •ubataJS;7^'®"«*cto«‘•^Jaet let la «««•« uw ”»«««. f ««1„, prl«clp,i ^*«tr4cti ✓ -----------------------"*structures “•'lelaoajaa, - «ao ^mm -—.. C«7 “ rii»i *'* --------------------- (Ml Wtltb exhibit 5 ---- SSBL-USZlfflf total '^XANQK ^fiBtjugasr .If -«***«. MM. "’***•“- ' ^ ict«« Aon- «®Afoj i^-1 prepared FOR: BY: UNO USE PUNNING - • & **gCOW|ENDATioM.; <*t*«) ___ tttaffi 'pplicatiom reviewed ✓ ®«»y AttoriMy ®**y bigin«.r Zoning A«tai«i.tr.tor "•~*i»»g OB«»U.io„ '•rt ODlMis.io. - <^rdi„«or • Wr*ctor ■“»««g ln.p«,tor *«Ptlc ln,p.cto. I ‘Pecial comments taff ^COWME3yy04yjQ^ '/ Wlcio. ®«»nf •Pullcatioft , _______________' ----------------------.bov. WHIBIT 6 ^*age 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS i^nd use planning ■ & RECOMHENDATrnM, - ''•'»n®pin Cty. oor • 5tat« OOT ► Wnn. DNn MCWD LMC3> hr-- V^ ii •uLttantlii^ •PPHcatioii __________•' *- ■“—..... 4, ^ Sr-ntlii, Of th* o P»*»«rv.tion .«j „( !!!!.?!?'“*?• «>• propo-d ‘*>»• •r.ntlo. Of th. p,ooo«d ' *~****' " ••n.r.l PO*^ v..l.„o. iMy iop.*, ................"»• SMuiloo of tJi. * **^**^' ‘•o«fort. «or„, -r.r.i'f: ■“■ -*" «- .......... So 4. ■------ «•• 9r.«tio, o, th. o,ooo .d ^0-P^.h.n.iv. Und «« o, th. *o„lo, c£„r***^ ''•"*"*• »^ui4 b. eontr.or to th. |„*. . «». 9r.r»tln9 of .uch v.ri *^nd u.o»• •ll.vf.,; dL^^r.*!i*r* "ot oor.ly ,„v. .. 4 h.fdship. or difficult, on* to th. .pplicnt ^ ------ n.. .pp,|c.ot ho. ^ *‘ ®" Wllcnt. but i. ..rc.n.ry v.rl.„e. would .«,.,y ~ ^rcognirnt hord.hlp or dlffi^ , SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Page 2 * •Iructuftrt if) thv diBtfirt ‘ l^rculi.r to .ueh p,oKrty or * Mrueture. in tht in • Pte..rv.t ion ,„joy»*nt of . P»bUc ».„Uh, co,nfort. comfort. iwtaU •nt Of tho Coi»pr,s,„,i^, Und ®f th. Compre)„n.lv, l^nd " but 1. • therefor, the ,r.nt.n, of .uch I TO;Planning Commission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE; SUBJECT; January 14, 1982 5670 Clifford Otten, 3740 Wayzata Boulevard "After the Fact" Variance Zoning District - RR-lB Area - 20+ acres Variance - 31.330 Area Restrictions 31.340 Location a) 31.330 Area of Accessory Structure permitted = 1000 sf proposed = 21id.96 variance « 1118.96 sf or 112% b) 31.340 Location of Accessory Structure existing =» 65' principal structure proposed = 50' variance = 15' or 23% Otten placed an accessory structure of 2118.96 sf on his 20+ acre homestead. The structure is 32.4' x 65.4' with a maximum height of 11 feet. Otten stated that the plastic shell was used as a shelter for an outside pool. Originally, the applicant had hoped to use it as a greenhouse but found the dark green plastic covering would not permit the necessary degree of sunlight to penetrate. Now the building shall be used as a storage shed for his agricultural equipment. Otten's total plan is to plant a nursery of trees and shrubs in the area noted on the survey. The first pha*»e was planted some two to three years ago along the Highway 12 corridor. Otten not realizing the size limitations placed the structure 20' from the side propoerty line and 15' in front of the principal structures. Upon an inspection of the site the building does not appear to be in front of the principal structure because of the angle of the traveled road in relation to the road right of way. i i The Building Inspector advises that simple structural modifications would have to be made to bring the building up to code standards. Otten realizes that additional modifications could be made to the structure by dividing =.t in half creating 2 1000 sf buildings and placing them 10' apart. He felt this approach was "impractical for use and appearance" and noted that a barn of similar size had existed on that same location a few years ago. Otten contends the only other area available for locating the building is in a low area and not as functional in overall use. *670 Clifford Otten Varlanco Pago 2 In aaking your recomnendationf review sections 31.300 on accessory structures and 32.340 on necessary findings for variance denials or approvals. If denied Otten could indeed create two green plastic accessory structures. If approved the teng>orary nature of the structure stay suggest a tine period the building nay be used and places applicant on notice that a more permanent structure must meet all soning standards of the RR-IB zoning district. p ■ ■ ■ r ■ - i-.- ;t- it’-.--' iV- (a •. ; , '/ yy •. m 1.^ ■% ‘ i -'; < ■ ^ t ' f-2‘^ ■ ^vv<:v .^#.1 , r 's m 31*300 on ndings for m .'^y^rx h¥ l®*tic ncconsory ' structure ••d end places bure aiust meet e :Sfl' m •^1 " ..v'; s • . V :• ?;. .!.. * ^ ■:v--v/i. • His "••V' ••■■! : *--V •..••.• ••■.esi> x;-.- .:^-r •t^ V';. ly.," > I •J:ri IBZBSOflgj ---------------- .................................... ' " **«*r oi *ieiiutti t* better •scented. !• I^PpXY ADDRESS J><r^ list of exhibits 3* OWHBR **»«*«• Wtfreee jy^^r* •* ^Ueent !« ^ ®*^r, eepiatn 4. AGENT i*--------- p,rc«l. of i,„ J . ^tl»Aiont ‘ terlHia iSS'&agfaun fora * —-^'^wperty Omere Lie' ‘ * ■^^•rtlfie.t. oe Sen,. ftiff ‘ ---- Met Itop — Inventory ---- »**«OoniM«t. InfriTUBii ’tut 5. "wwas *«u« h *• «E oxsi^r ”" ••nsCNrBE lEQUESr *"**'*---- *«MM MuiaM Jf - -*««-------- ««a- « ^ «»Bt«UCTI0K a»T . ®ticrlbe reoue.#. e . -•• »~«ON COST $_____ <tot.ll: _2W^ 8. 9. neMetetf Ifciti, •14e MS>h 10. Describe UH0su«, PRopeim, —*“•-- *-o <*►., jg,.L^ ,,, ^ «Of«n CONDmONS »—.e, if . A. • *^“^*»^*Ht» a»ta, .> 1 - * ' 1 4^ 4.J ^ >•> WMtb // CWfWSSlON UUtiBlT 1 i*IST OF EXHIBITS * •i^*PPlt€»ttom Form W' . , * ^Jromtf <wwr. u.. ■ > -^^f^nmeoto ot Sunn '*• # // ff ftec«iv«4 y - JP- - ' <> MsMtt tU^rmtiM ‘ ---- Hi^ / T $ 1^7 VIM otnwnn -fiB!S!£P/f'OA/O ••'•T tilt, OWNER / rw2*iS:F”75s*?K^J2f.?*•" *^.55'5«-~SSS,*S~^, ^ «®- nNANet OtVltlON ' IM. PAYER/- -M4I.IWB 4D0Bcae 9»m ADDRESS m M !SSh W/i. u,. .. ~ i^iN « /*/ / i •plication. ’ 25TJU!,*S|! !?>*«“«< • A /$/v It® gglow WEETl«g ,, , r V ■i V > ^.;- 2.HENNCgi ,, r Or MrM //ir 3i.fm.Mn 1 N «r )t' 3ifw*ft TfiH r • fe-' I IL \ '^■.. %. I*' ; -.V U‘ Jeanne A. Mabusth and Planning O Alan P. Olson • )MUI ilssion January 13, 1982 SUBJECT: #669 Tonka Lake Properties - PRD Subdivision 1340 Baldur Park Road This is the second application by Gary Peterson for develop- ment of this property. The first, #466 received preliminary approval for 3 LR-IC single family residential lots on July 13, 1979. That application died without ever having documents returned for final approval. This is the sketch plan application wherein the developer seeks approval of the PRO concept, and the 5 unit density. PRO athere ever was a piece of property in the City that is appropriate for PRO development, the tip of Baldur Park must be it. There is an^le dry land area but it's build- ability is restricted by flood plain and lakeshore set­ backs. Clustering of the development with open spaces in the setback-flood plain area is a logical scheme to use. Note that building envelopes should still provide at least 20 feet between structures. At least two proposed setbacks are less requiring redesign or hardship docximentatlon. The only real issues to me are density and hardcover. The original scheme had 3 lots, each of which individually exceeded the >s acre lot area required. They were served by a private driveway off a new dedicated public cul de sac. That was consistent with CMP policies allowing private driveways to serve 1-3 units. OPEN SPACE This schetae clusters individual lots of varying sizes. There is no common open space except for the proposed private driveway. I iirould suggest requiring common open space below the 931.5 floodplain elevation with individual lots platted only above that elevation. yCESS ROAD RTOUIREMENTS 1 also note that our CMP policies would not allow a 16' wide private driveway to serve more than S imits. With this 5 unit density, a wider road (at least 24* paved) with turning facilities fox emergency equipment is required. This could be private in the PRO concept, but the physical improvements must be there to serve this number of units. .r*' ..- X. ; I 1 #669 Tonka Lake Properties 1340 Baldur Park Road January 13, 1982 page 2 - PRO Subdivision ■L-t* The driveways shown on the plan would not allow turning of delivery trucks or fire equipment. Extension of public Baldur Park Road to a new dedicated cul de sac was a requirement of approval for #466 and has again been proposed in this application. Such a public turn-around is necessary for this road, and is certainly required if new development occurs on the peninsula as proposed. Because of recalcitrant land owners, however, the City may have to participate in condemnation of some right of way. This was offered during the last application but the developer never requested such help. DENSITY ...fhe developer has planned 5 units based on % acre density and a 2.71 acre gross property size. If a 50* private road outlot were provided pursuant to CMP transportation policies, the net property area exclusive of right of way ffould allow at most 4 units, not 5. Planning Commission and/or Council should provide guidance as to whether gross oif net area is to be used for determining permitted density HARDCOVER fhe developer has indicated hardcover area, but has not provided flgtires to show % of coverage in the 75-250 foot zone. A hardcover variance is obviously necessary to allow construction of a road (within the 75 foot setback) between the cul de sac and the development. There is no structural hardcover (except existing) proposed within 75 feet. However, it appears very likely that the hardcover proposed grossly exceeds the 25% allowable in the 75'-250' zone. DOCKAGE There’Ts obviously enough shoreline to have all units riparian. The Planning Commission/Council should provide guidance as to whether they would prefer individual dockage on individual lots or outlets, or whether they would prefer one joint use dock within the common open space. Individual dockage would allow up to 4 watercraft per unit (20 boats), idiereas joint dockage may allow lesser limitations. SEWERAGE . ^ ^ ^ The existing house is one of a few remaining that has never been connected to sewer. A condition of approval of application #466 was Peterson's agreement to provide the connection before July 31, 1980. He didn't. On September 15, 1980, Mrs. Gladys Olson requested another ■ .( ■ • f -ZV' k:^wm. L- i • #669 Tonka Lake Properties 1340 Baldur Park Road January 13, 1982 page 3 - PRO Subdivision extension and provided a letter promising to connect the house before June 1, 1981. She was to provide a letter credit. She didn't,, and the connection hasn't beenmade. Citations were issued in October 1980, and a formal complaint signed in January 1981. Charges were later dropped because the property was in foreclosure and because ownership was uncertain. The house remains occuppied and unsewered Because promises %rere made and broken before, including promises by this same developer, I strongly recommend that * letter^of credit or other financial security be required ’ ‘ ‘‘.cation to guarranteeat the time of preliminary plat appli( connection oT~the nouse by a deadline. - - - - -certain, even if theapplication again expires without completion. If the development proceeds, the main sewer extension will solve the problem. If the development dies before final., the security will allow the City to have the single house connected. If the development dies without preliminary application, hazardous building actions will be commensed. INFORMATION NEEDED i. Proof of the developer's ownership or financial interest in the property. Gary Peterson said he was owner in application #466. Subsequent City review because of the sewer issue discovered that he had no recorded all. What is Gladys Olson's status and/or Richfield Bank & Trust? 2.Survey with 929.4 (shoreline), 931.5 (flood plain) and 932.5 (lowest construction elevation) noted. Area of gross land Area of proposed public cul de sac Area of proposed private road/driveway Area of land in 75-250' setback zone Area of each lot or outlot ion to connect the vide e letter « hasn't been ' ownership was s» including recommend that ^ty be required to quarrantee oven if the If the ®”will solve final, the ?le house ?*’®liminary be <^»«M-^nsed. [^cial interest as owner in because of recorded status and/or plain) noted. -'..■Jiiaj <* OROMO —I * "'■ s - jAddress i i Q^ore tW on^ -t>— ■ I Cftfl^ka. gg’^iy Telephone Property location hegal Description (PIO)aaiWEk ■ft existing und use "«wb« Of T« Parcel, sire -A7.Vt- rmi Present Vae (check) proposal Present Zoning oist. Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total j»ii »e»ld.ntui;oth.r? •other (specify) --- •“•’OlvUorjor^^l!'"*^ "“t^bulldlng eite^J ">«b« Of Ne««„, site. 1 Pxopoeed sroe, density minimum lot size.- proposed use: (check) i- Application Plannxng Commis. existing units aew units total units unit, per JJ •luare feet dry bulldeWe l.„d residential ^ other (specify) 3. k I 2. '“"plated a i"f“».tlo„ on u.t ot ^t*?-r -03’&" ««lope, (110) the above Jlst, names on co««l„ion »eetln9) »”*P 150.00 ------- i»t pen., p,„ ,50.00 lot prelim, plat onn «« (.k«cl, ,1,„ 300-OT - TiltT ‘"Ptov^n".’ * date ^ ____ a A applicants signature OWES’s SIGNATUREAppiicent herebTl- -- Owner’s signature agrees to pjJ; if % -m TO:. i Planning Comnission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:January 14, 1982 SUBJECT: #672 New Life Bible Church, 830 Old Crystal Bay Road Subdivision Zoning District RR-IB Area - 8.84 acres The Planning Commission should review sections 32.400-32.490, 32.022, 37.090, 37.100, 38.023, 38.243, 38.244, 38.305. The purpose of this work session shall be to specify for applicant all the physical improvements that must be designated on the site plan to complete the conditional use permit review. The church will be a two story structure 140* x 95' or 13,300 sf in area on the first or ground level and approximately 5635 sf in area on the second level. The preliminary floor plans have been enclosed for your review. The planner will be asked to address the question of potential sewer and water service to the property; his report will be ready for your action meeting of February 1, 1982. I do not want the Planning Commission to get into any discussion of sewer and water availability to the property until the action meeting when the facts are made available to the Planning Commission. We can advise the applicant that this point will be addressed at the February meeting. Information required of the applicant 1 -needs - how many seats proposed in main assembly hall - each stall to be designated at 9* x 20' a minimum of 20' required between parking aisles for backing out purposes. Surfacing proposed (38.244). Loading berth required (38.401) 12' x 25'. 2 " Landscaping - site plan must designate proposed landscaping refer to Section 37.100 3 - Signage - Refer to Section 38.023 4 - Access - Access to be reviewed by Public Works Director single access onto Old Crystal Bay only permitted. Proposed Expansion Plana and Use of the Structure How will it be used by the community? Will portions of building be rented out for private use? Is this church part of a larger Sunday school - Day care? etc. >04 • •« crry of cromo « miniiesota Land Use application CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION ‘l MATZOM of proposal (or property) AddreasBlQ Old Cental Bast Road----------- Legal Description Part of th* 4 nr 28-118-23 APPLZCAHT wa«— Ww Llfa Bitle Church Tel # 475-2290 P.O. Box 59 Long Lake, HW 55356 __________ ffipgB hmm Thles »4?3-3B52 Mailing Hoaastead Trail Loi« Uke. MH 55356 Address Ruth L. Phillips 5505 Joyce St. Maple Plain* MN 55359 Phonet- • ------ Pre $30.00 a) Res. Acc. Use .00 b) Institutional (Church* Sch. $755.00 c) iSuplex•lex Cr/Blq d) Land Alteration (grading, fil­ ling) $100.00 e) Com/lnd. Use PRD/PlD - See fee schedule Variance $50.00 Present Zoning RR-IB xesent Use tg9-ago» vaean$ Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request 3*/* P ^*2^ Specify Ordinance Requirements - Explain your request and reasons for same To buUd a ehuroh uhoae oumoae. 1^ represent Jesus (Birlst In the coanunlty* through a gathered group of Christian believe t:r -K In the areas of the Instruction of God's word, corporate public worshlo. feilOMahlo. and evangellsa. VARIAHCB required - extent of nonconformity • Lot Area Setback Front__ Width _ Side ^ Other* explain Specify hardships to property . „ j f i "5V.: . gpWPITIOWAL USE APPLICATrnu ----- $30.00 a) Rea. rcc. Use b) Institutional (Church, Sch. ---- $75.00 c) D^iex Cr/Blq d) Land Alteration (grading, fil­ ling) — $100.00 e) Con/Znd. Use — • See fee schedule _ Variance $50.00 * *i *:• .Church ^hwed group of Chrietian heH«w public ea yshlP. ........................................! f I s’Iv’M.' — 4 ntOPOtM, (or ittoporty) *M«44»83Q (O, n~... -“‘Ptloo ----------, ....................... Ma. Addr«sa J»0. Box 59 ^ ^PITIOWAL USE APPLICATTOM -— $30.00 a) Res. Acc. Use W Institutional (jt5S^ (Church, Sch. 5.00 cf'^pXex OMm R«m y. Ihlen H. 55.5, -------- reesent U m <«*»««. 8«^lo« Rotating to R«p..,t W. O ao^ Sp^ify Ordinance Raqulramenta $75.00 c]T^piex Cr/Blg d) Land Alteration (grading, fil­ ling) $100.00 e) Com/Ind. Use PBD/pid - See fee schedule Verianee $50.00 ^ „ —OM. tf th. l«tn»tl.n 6.,., . *na ovnogellwr ------—^ ^ VARZAVCI required - evfnnt #««---: »n*ron Width -------------------------------------- Sideother, explain _______ ^te mblie wogahin. f, Bpmeity hardehipa to proparty Ir'V sowmsio. .auction ___R..ltanti.l Other, expUin Wo* of Lota ®®WDlTX0WhL WBB — _ _ _ _ _ _ “• « Proporty 1„ d.t.ll (Must be Ir, JJpUction ceptatea ^ <^at map section ^5. c«rtified Property own*... ta Swtih^S!* ?' property within (3M*) -.tn^tion ptan.. iy on the above liat. Applicant's Signature <A«»er'8 Signature " sri; ^_ OOHDITIOWM. U8E APPLICATION —. 530,00 a) Res. Rce. .00 b) Znatltutional (Church, Sch.(i.nurci 5.00 cj O^iex•75.ug cj Duplex Cr/aiq <1) Land Alteration (grading, fil­ ling) — $100.00 e) Con/ind. Use — aM>/Plo - See fee schedule Variance 050.00 «« groupof eh,!,..., JiMle •VUtn >0* of lots porty in dstail tCMrzoii Ion MStiog) oporty Omer*. u.t o JfJ*’* »»«•>- *«•®opt« of Finanes ■ont Osntor •1 aiaM •av«lepM(»| tha bm» list. it'- *-*o« aovfmiucNT cKurn *UM)C«rOLI% MN SS4e7 r— I HOT OWNER Tax P ayer / ilAILiNG ADDRPj^g ccarT/icarc^M^E •*^af sintfo on this HCNNcaiH eo. SwaHCC oivisioa /?/^ f}ssi/:yFp tt tlMSSiiS^sLL ir II •’"OPERTy AOOHesS) ,I T*m)s ----------------------------------------I OH^MD/sr (UfO£>C Of S 'r /i/f) rv m-f ./n jlniBSS/Ct/f-p lc^£i r-/yff^s 7- / / OSc^gfi.'1& I W?A/<. —-~~W ( Oi££UUiiSLMLjJ ££mdi£SXjQUi^_ .a J *fl 0* %• »-• |i rPJ- C‘ •• ••S C ►- O’ . A .A. A . . ■ ^ 5- r- •1 f * C • D *o fl D». »•• p 1 C' « fr» f* tt. rt ••L»• i :^- ^ 2 r- <1. •• 1r* V.C ►-»• r* <♦ •• z-i f V *z c f & v» ^ If•• ** rr^. E •1 1 o c* •? ? o r* ri ^n t •. ^ •n r* «t^ •« ••• .1 n •f (I JT^^SP. ir&2 r :•• Sr • f. I* > f. r. ►-. f 3 O f: c IS X 9. :5• • C * V• • •• '• •> r ^ m 1 r r* C r» n ••. f* — f*o :• r c s |*''cI Ph r «i5 »*T c. r ":i;■jM iiv. JW I I mT] :i •;J H I.'^UF ORONO m *:_.j:. 30C fry W .i\ • ■.'••w Tk ,!?*T1 • 0 •’, . *5 l»Ji“ tiF '^ ’*. r» c* ‘|y1^'1% i ^«r ■•HU •■ 1 ^ » * r» l^ ;* a t' r* f*. •? M •* *Sr*, V <- (m• r. r* t ^ ^ :■S-^' ... 94 i iS O ^ ? I * II « ^ O K I X.^ I -6 •A \T> w\ ■U • ••idc t€ » •*.< I K Jf/,77- •■‘s ^ r ? V ir If r- ti »» A %* •• •'/ jT i’ ss) 'k. 5* ** '^' ^ \ \ ;t :* ti*) I.r ^h' 9•• • non A* n €♦ 11* r» A* ^ cr ftM- t i. H ■ ^ SI ir. ft 2T F c Mn* I i tv V' IP-^i ii^ '1 I '■•1 S' t . r ^3S^\. ■ *ir ^ilifrilnlft I r -ii‘Ara^" I I n>*i «11 # TLM_ : ir-' y h- I •}H I •j !’f.h I. > w< i .4-v -rrt s >>\.... r J?'. lb * I « I TO:Walter R. Benson FOR:Council ft Planning Commission FROM:Alan P. Olson DATE:January 4* 1982 SUBJECT: Status Report - Community Management Plan ft Conqprehensive Sewer Policy Plan All CMP/CSPP revisions have now been written and retyped. Several minor additions or corrections are being drafted on map originals. I plan to have the entire package of changes (about 75 pages and 8 maps) reprinted as soon as possible» presuBMbly this month. As soon as the printing is complete I will assemble and forward the CSPP to MWCC as %rell as completing updating of all CMP copies that are out. Before the revisions are sxibmitted for printing^ I would like your comments on the following sections: page 3-21 page 4-22 ft 6-40 ■page 6-9 ft 6-17 page 4-31 ft 4-22 Clarified policy or iredging. Revised paragraphs about MUSA/MSSR line. Revised paragraph and new policy about Maple Plain WWTP. Con^letely revised discussion adx>ut Lake Minnetonka Islands. a a- t- ‘ V •. p ^. • '/ !■ V -./I .V. . >»; ♦ < '• ; y S v ^ ix.- K>r : ’ir^A '-->4,,. •' i•All.-!’ J 41 ..«? J ■ ‘ . m ■ ■MmMmmmm §■■ / * ' V •• iWm;: mmBm mm3 w- i^wni I t*. BNVXROMHBIIT ItOVBNBIR# 19S1 10.DRB06XN6 OR OTBRR ALTERATION OP LAKE BEDS OR NETLANDS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OP ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AMD LONG-TERM EPPBCTS ON WATER QUALITY. Oradglng r«l«aa«s tha filtration capacity of loat vagatation, which togathar advaraaly aCfaota watar quality for long parioda of tina. Dradging of laka bada or watlanda will not ba parnittad unlaaa it ia elaarly danonatratad that tha dradging propoaal ia tha aininal inpaot aolution to a problaa of gonoral public concerna A. ^0 Opan-watar, laka bad dradging will ba parnittad only in linitad eirounataneaa, only whan abaolutaly nacaaaary to naintain oxiating natural riparian aecaaa parnanantly loat by aonathing bayond tha control of tha land«|>i>nar. and«of a longar dock* uaa of a joint dock* or uaa of another araa of tha ahoralina. Dradging of naw channala or inlata will not ba approved to provide navigable riparian aooaaa whara none axiatad naturally. Bxiating dredged channala are expected to ailt-in • naturally, kadradging ia aa anvironnantally diaruptiva aa naw dradging. Naintananca dradging will ba aubjaet to tha aana atandarda of review aa naw dradging* and will not uaually ba approved unlaaa a largo nuabor of ttsara are affected* auoh aa ia the public channala batwaaa baya. Periodic low watar coaditioaa or an owner*a daaira for daapar draft watercraft are not aufficiant raaaona for diarupting aaaaitiva laka bada. n a B.Dredging or filling of upland watlanda or ahoralina ■arahaa daatreya watlanda vegetation* ranoving nutrient aaainllativa oapacity and incraaaing tha velocity of atom watar diacharga to tha lakaa. Dradging* filling or other alteration of daaignatad watlanda will ba prohibited unlaaa an overriding hardahip ia danonatratad to juatify a variance froa thia policy. Tha creation of wildlife ponda or aternwatar retention ponda ia encouraged* but only if tha araa to ba altered ia not within a daaignatad wetland. All wildlife ponda ahall ba eenatructad to DNR atandarda* including upland diapoaal and aroaion control of apoila. isvj Mm. ■:n, - f-d CMP 3-21 r Orono*s NU8A and NStll lia« Ipeation as shown on Nap No. 6 has bean legally described and established by City Council Resolution No. 1135 adopted April 14* 19d0» as aoended by Resolution 1337 adopted Noueaber 23* 1981. Those Resolutions are included in the CMP Appendix. The detailed location of this line will net be changed without further official action of the City Council. Orono*s NORA and NIfR lino location as shown on Nap No. 6 is consistent with the broad-brush leeatien of the NUSA line as drawn by the Netropolitan Couneil. Orono*s N08A and NS8R line location is consistent with the N08A and M88R location and land use plans of adjoining nunicipalitias. Orono*s N08A and N88R line location directly affects the datailad Land Usa and Paeilitiea plans of the City. Orono considers that* bgtf thair approval of this Plan* the Netropolitan council has tFe4concurred with Orono*s detailed location of tho N08A/NS8R line within Orono. MAP NO. 7 XMDZCATB8 TBB OBTAZLBD LAND USB PLAN OP THE CITY* IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE LAND USES AND DENSITIES FOR BACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD. This land use pap will fern the basis for land use sening decisions. ). ■ HIIWIII r n-: F .Vi.;. : 'V . mmmMm ♦ V \ i ,V>. I - CSPP (0)\JUNE, 1981 REVISED NOVEMBER, 1981 ■r/ r* Ali MAP NO. 6 INDICATES THE LOCATION OP THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) AND THE METROPOLITAN SENER SERVICE REGION (MSSR) WITHIN ORONO. Ovtaraiaing and dafining tha axact location of tha MUSA and NS8R line in Orono has baan a basic objactiva of Orono's Conaittnity Planning affosts. Tha location shown on Map No. 6 is consistant with tha axisting boundary batwaan urban and rural parts of Orono. Sufficiant urban land is availabla to accoamodata all projactad urban growth as indicatad in tha tabla on paga 6-39. For this raason, Orono is cartain that this location of tha joint NU8T/MSSR lina can ba paraanantly maintained through inplanentation of tha policias and objactivas of this CMP. Tharafora, tha City of Orono and Orono citisans ara planning and making long tarsi invastaants basad on tha ooncapt that this existing urban/ rural land use pattern will ba paraanant. w: /.It Zn thair raviaw of this CMP and intarim CSPP, tha MWCC indicatad that t:hay agraa with Orono*s aappad location of tha MUSA lina, and the Metropolitan Council accepted Orono*s concaptwhan they approved this CMP without any required changes. It is Orono*s plan, and orono*s racoaaandation, that tha Metropolitan Council foraally aaand tha Metropolitan Devalopaant Guide so that thair broad-brush maps will agraa in detail with tha MUSA/M88R location shown on Orono*s Nap 6, and on all other Naps in this CSPP Chapter SENER FACILITIES PLANNING FOR URBAN ORONO IS BASED UPON INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE THIRTEEN AREAS CONTRIBUTING TO THE EXISTING MUNICIPAL SYSTEM. Tha inventory of tha axisting municipal sewer system capacity included analysis of expected urban development and increased sewage flows shown as reserve capacity in tha tables on Page 6-39 and in tha CSPP Appendix. For purposes of sawar facilities planning, this expected growth la divided into four categories. SEWER FACILITIES PLANNING FOR RURAL ORONO IS THE FUNCTION OP THE ON«SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. The Metropolitan Council’s Water Quality Management Policy 12 (Pg H12/79) states that ”THB PRBFBRRBO NBTHOD OF WASTEWATER DISPOSAL FOR MEW RURAL DBVBLOPMBMT IS TBB INDIVIDUAL OM-SZTB SYSTEM". Consistent with this philosophy, and with Orono*s commitment to maintenance of permanent rural areas in tha community, Orono has pioneered in tha establishment of a full-sarvioa On-Sita Management program designed to assure the continued performance of on-sita systems. I CMP 6-40 C8PP 1 JUNE, 1980 REVISED NOVEMBER, 1981 Rottsinf opportttniti«» h«v« rasalnad variad but with new amphasia on raoycllng of axiating atructuraa both along the lakeahora and in tha rural araas. Maw eonatruction ia haavily weightad toward individual scattarad sitaa with vary little development on tracts having more than three dwelling units._ _ Likewise, there have bean Major changes in metropolitan sawar facilities Where tan yaars ago tha MWCC thought that all of Orono was to be sewered and developed at an urban density, regional trends have caused tha Orono intareaptor to be ’•ads^i i.-ii>*vd, relocated and installed so as to serve ’only tha existing %*•* of the City and possibly certain other existing pockets or ;i'i-*’'*siopment along the lakeshore. The Metropolitan Council's 208 Water Duality Study investigated options for the Maple^ Plain WWTP. The 208 study recommended upgrading the existing plant ** with additional phosphorus removal equipment, and deferring any study on plant phase~out until at least 1986. This recommendation is supported by Orono and the MWCC, and was adopted by the Metropolitan Council on September 10, 1981, as part of their revised Water Quality Management policy Plan. This policy is consistent with Orono*s rural service area goals, and it confirms and supports the concept and design of the in-place Orono-Long Lake Interceptor, namely the ommission of future Maple Plain capacity^from the final interceptor sising. The remaining rural areas of Orono have therefore been recognised as being permanently rural and permanently self-sufficient as far as sanitation facilities are concerned. This on-site capability is also in tune with a realignment of national engineering and environmental philoeophies which now racognise the advantages of water resource recycling and the manageability of low density treatment and disposal systems as opposed to ground water depletion and the tremendous environmental problems of concentrated pollution overloading at central treatment plants. SEWAGE TREATMENT POLICY PLAN The following Goals and Policies comprise Orono's Comprehensive Sewage Treatment Policy Plan (CSPP). 8EI TREATMENT GOALS 1.TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE, SAFE LEVEL OF SEWAGE TREATMENT AMD HASTE WATER DISPOSAL FOR ALL RESIDENCES AND OTHER OCCUPIED PROPERTIES IN THE CITY. 2. 3. TO PROTECT LAKE MINNETONKA, OTHER LAKES AND STREAMS, SURFACE AND GROUND WATERS FROM SEWAGE EFFLUENT POLLUTION. TO ACHIEVE THE ABOVE GOALS WITHIN THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS WITHOUT BECOMING AN INTOLERABLE BURDEN ON THE LANDOWNERS OR TAXPAYERS. CMP 6-9 tr. '- •*- CSPP JUNE* 1980 REVISED NOVEMBER# 1981 COOPERATIVK 8EWEGE TREATMENT POLICIES 1. THE CITY OP ORONO MILL COOPERATE WITH ADJOINING MUNICIPALITIES. Lak« municipal boundaries do not always follow '»*J***J*'* 2. or historic development patterns; thus the sewage treatm needs of isolated neighborhoods often are best and economically served by cooperative agreements Orono expects to continue the agreements and working established with Minnetonka Beach. Wayzata, Long Lake, and Medina. THE CITY OP ORONO WILL COOPERATE WITH STATE AND REGIONAL IN THE SATISPACTORY ACHIEVEMENT OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING OBJECTIVE. for rational planning and efficient use of public urban in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The City of Orono supports the Metropolitan Haste Control Commission in their need to determine ultimate capacity of regional sewer service facilities. THE CITY OP ORONO FIRMLY OPPOSES ANY PLAN TO PHASE OUT THE MAPLE PLAIN WWTP VIA AN INTERCEPTOR THROUGH RURAL ORONO. such an interceptor would adversely affect Orono*s entire rural land use plan and would unduly impact Orono's rural landowners. The final Orono-Long Lake Interceptor design was sized^|W«riMr- and approved for flow from Orono, Minnetonka Beach, Long Lake and Medina-Morningside only. Orono, the 208 Study, revised Metropolitan Council Water Quality Management policy Plan all recommend upgrading the capacity and phosphorus removal equipment in the existing plant. This option is many expensive than interceptor construction and will meet all Lake Minnetonka discharge standards. Phosphorus concentrations reaching Jennings Bay will be further reduced upon completion of the MCWD Painter Creek Upper Watershed Retention project, inflow ano infiltration control in Maple Plain will further improve plint function and discharge standarde. Finally if necessary. Maple pl^ln WWTP discharge could be redirected to the Crow River vstershed where discharge standards are lower, and where most of the sewer flow originates in the first place. CMP 6-17 U I r- LAND USB JUNE, 1980 NOVEMBEB, 1991 i PRIVATE OPEN SPACE A significant amount of the recreation-open space in Orono is that controlled by private golf and country clubs. Large acreages are owned by the Waysata Country Club, Woodhill Country Club, and Lakeview Golf Course. While technically private, these areas provide open space benefits to all nearby residents plus active recreational facilities for many Orono and lake area citizens. LAKE MlWHETOMKA ISLAMD8 Included within Orono*s corporate limits and jurisdiction are three islands in the riddle of Lake Minnetonkat Big Island, Mahplyata Island and Oeering Island. Comprehensive planning for* these islands is especially difficult, and critical, because of distinct environmental concerns and unique logistical problems arising from their Isolated location. The Islands have historically been used for both public and private purposes. Deering Island and Mahplyata Island are each wholly owned by one party, and each has one dwelling or cabin. Much of Big Island was platted in 1880-1900 with many seasonal cottages developed on very small lots. A few homes on larger acreage are used year-round. The north end was originally developed by the Twin City Rapid Transit system as a popular amusement park, attracting thousands of visitors on hot summer days. Since World War I, it has been lightly used as a summer camp for service veterans. Two local yacht clubs use island property as quasi-public dockage/recreation areas. And in September 1981, the Hennepin Park Reserve District dedicated a 54 acre parcel as the Or. Arthur Allen Wildlife Refuge. The island's inaccessibility presents a paradox. Residents like thslr Independent life style, yet the City receives requests for public services that are impractical or economically infeasible to deliver. And because of the extremely limited public service capai^ility, the City must carefully regulate land usa to ensure continued protection of basic public health, safety and welfare. Transportation problems are difficult and dangerous, especially during the winter and when ice is forming or melting. Development requires lake access, yet many lots are landlocked except for trails through public rights of way that can never be publicly improved or maintained. Garbage collection is costly and inconvsnient, resulting in illegal dumping and burning. Municipal sower and water is not available, thereby limiting development types and densities. Health or pollution hazards must be abated on site, because providing municipal service would be astronomically expensive. CMP 4-n -vr*w»^ 5i(rv»«rr*^'^ ^3 nI XAMD USES \ NOVEMBER, 1981 1 .•1 4 ,:x h' Baargancy aarvlca lavals ara likawisa poor. Boutina pollca patrol is iapraotleal ao vandaliaa. burglary and boiataroua partias ara a problaa. Baargancy aadieal asslstanca is unavailable* or agonixingly slow in rasponsa. Pira protaetion is liaitad to portabla puaps and buckat IK^adas* rasulting in too-fraquant fira loasas and axpanaiva or unavailabla proparty insurance. I Because of these logistical problaas* it has long bean the policy of the City to liait private land use density* and to encourage eventual public ownership of the island^as recreational resources for general lake users. Orono supports the Rennepin park Reserve District as the appropriate agency to oversee public use of Lake Minnetonka islands. Orono*. does not support condeanation of land for park purposes* nor does it support active acquisition prograas. Instead* Orono encourages the park Rasarva District to acquire island property as it is made available by individual owners. This results in a slow* aethodlcal process-where low density private land use continues alongside increasing aaounts of public uso. Xn the foreseeable future* Orono will tharafora continue to allow private rural residential land use on the islands* subject to strict conformance with all performance standards* and to the explicit understanding thar the City will not be able to provide even basic public services as available on the mainland. This private use policy can continue only if net land use and population density is controlled within the City's limited ability to provide minimal outside services. In November 1981* a six-month development moratorium was called to study the balancing factors between public land use* private land use* and public service requirements. Public officials and island landowners will be brought together to discuss the unique needs* desires and circumstances of the islands. It is expected that a result of the study will be more pertinent soning regulations addressing lake access* on-site service requirements* development of public areas such as the Veteran's Camp and Park facilities* development of existing vacant or large-acreage properties* and continued use or conversion of seasonal properties. Current soning allows residential development on two acres of dry buildable land* identical to standards applied in rural mainland areas where public services are more readily available. This lot sise requirement will be reviewed«will likely be increased to at least 5* 10 or more aeres^er unit as appropriate to an overall density/publie service capi^ity plan. CMP 4-32 LtjJEdKj r^ i if TOt PRONt OATS: Orono City Council ir.R. Bensm, City Administrator January 1, 1982 8UBJBCT: Calendar 1982 The attach^ calfr***** outlines future council» planning coomissionr and park coondsaion awetings. The only change fron our regular schedule is; !• February Planning CoaoDission Meeting on the 1st instead of 3rd Monday. 2. First Council Meeting in October on October 12 Tuesday* due to Columbus Day. 3. Moveoiber Park Caaodssion moved from 1st tO'^lnd week to accosnodate election day. 4. Planning CosMission Meetings are continually scheduled as one meeting a month as they are now* until the activity increases. ‘4 •:< 'lii ’• ri’ • ‘ l Ub.*"' ' K?- ■"i r' * CITY OF ORONO PUBLIC NOTICE The following is the 1982 schedule of regular City meetings: JANUARY: FEBRUARY: MARCH: APRIL: m * MAY: JUNE: JULY: r . AUGUST: SEPTEMBER: OCTOBER: Monday,18th Planning Comnission 7:30 PM Monday,25 th City Council 7:00 PM Monday,1st Planning Commission 7:30 PM Tuesday,2nd Park Commission 7:00 PM Monday,8th City Council 7:00 PM Monday,22nd City Council 7:00 PM Tuesday,I 2nd Park Commission 7:00 PM Monday,8th City Council 7:00 PM Monday,15th Planning Commission 7:30 PM Monday,22nd City Council 7:00 PM Tuesday,6th Park Commission 7:00 PM Monday, 12th City Council 7:00 PM Monday,19th Planning Commi^ion 7:30 PM Monday, 26th City Council 7:00 PM Tuesday,4th Park Commission 7:00 PM Monday,10th City Council 7:00 PM Monday,17th Planning Commission 7:30 PM Monday,24th City Council 7:00 PM Tuesday 1st Park Commission 7:00 PM Monday,14th City Council 7:00 PM Monday, 21st Planning Commission 7:30 PM Monday, 28th City Council 7:00 PM Tuesday, 6th Park Commission 7:00 PM Monday,12th City Council 7:00 PM Monday,19th Planning Commission 7:30 PM Monday,26th City Council 7:00 PM Tuesday,3rd Park Commission 7:00 PM Monday,9th City Council 7:00 PM Monday,16th Planning Commission 7:30 PM Monday, 23rd City Council 7:00 PM Tuesday,7th Park Commission 7:00 PM Monday,13th City Council 7:00 PM Monday,20 th Planning Commission 7:30 PM Monday,27 th City Council 7:00 PM Tuesday,5th Park Commission 7:00 ?M Wednesday, 13 th City Council 7:00 PM Monday,18th Planning Commission 7:30 PM Monday,2Sth City Council 7:00 PM I i J NOVEMBER: DECEMBER: Monday, 8th Tuesday, 9th Monday, 15th Monday, 22nd City Council Park C<Mnmlssion Planning Commission City Council 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 7:00 PM Monday, 6th Tuesday, 7th Monday, 13th Planning Commission Park Commission City Council 7:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM Regular meetings may be rescheduled or special meetings called by action of each body. All meetings are open to the public. All meetings are held at the Council Chambers, 1275 Brown Road South (County Road 146). CITY OF ORONO By order of the City Council / V.* fetn#, ..llR ■ AhM.' ■ t/ J r '' :L '■■ ’m 11 . -#6- •••;•■■■» i. 3@9T-j»ywi' ^ iJ. ;>^»v ysssf. M'NNsi?t4KA n'^ :v eorssssesf PLANNtD (fSOdffUt. OEteUII’*^. ‘ f rr^tr^o K^ __^-p-A ^ Jt V'i .-, ^•1- rir ';'i :v%ii-