The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-18-1987 Planning PacketPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAT 18, 1987 7:30 P.M. 1275 BROUN ROAD SOOTH ~ CODNCIL CHAMBSUS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - James Grabek ATTENDANCE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:30 P.M. #1144 J. William Cragg, 735 Ferndale Road North Preliminary Subdivision 2. 7:45 P.M. #1146 Joan Sweetser, 845 Old Long Lake Road -* Preliminary Subdivision ACTION ITEMS 3. #1122 Big Island Veterans Camp - Board of Governors - Big Island Record Lot 1 ~ Conditional Use Permit Phase Three - Conceptual Review 4. #1128 Rainey Anderson, 780 Old Crystal Bay Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing 5. #1142 Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., 1955 Shoreline Drive Commercial Site Plan Review - Second Review 6. #1143 Donald Wildman, 745 Spring Hill Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 7. #1145 Scott it Liza Harvey, 1199 Elmwood Avenue - Variances - Public Hearing 8. #1147 George 6 Theresa Bloom, 1374 Rest Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing 9. #1149 Scott 6 Susan Vickerman, 2500 Sixth Avenue North Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing INFORMATION ITEMS 10. #1151 Ann Fisher, 774 Tonkawa Road - Renewal Variances - Council to Hold Public Hearing on 5/26/87 ADDITIONAL ITEMS 11. Planning Commission approval of May 4, 1987 minutes. 12. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the June 8th, 1987 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT If- It "1 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE S' ORONO fill out the information requested below for our cm RECORDS. (please print) m V v~> ;r»".--'.*«^ HM VI n, ▼%., T^T ^jTw-.Trii / To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Pr<Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 13, 1987 Subject: #1144 J.W. Cragg, "735" North Ferndale Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application - Divide vacant 7.47 acre parcel (4.28 acie dry) into 2 lots of 2.0 plus acres each. Zoning District - RR-lB, 2 acre rural residential, unsewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey - Proposed Division Survey - Staff Sketch of Alternate Recommended Configuration Composite Survey - Boyke/Cragg Properties Neighborhood Development Scheme Airphoto Pertinent Facts/Discussion - 1.This property is directly south ar.d adjacent to the Boyke property which received preliminary plat approval on April 27. 2.The Cragg subdivision application was received on April 23, at which time upon review of the Boyke and Cragg plat proposals, the staff recommendation was revised to move the cul-de-sac outlot (for future use) further west on the property. Boyke's subdivision was then preliminarily approved by Council per the outlet location shown on Exhibit F. This provides for a future cul-de-sac (private or public) in a location that is appropriate for the ultimate development of Lydiard Road. 3.Staff recommends approval of the Cragg plat be subject to dedication of the south half of that cul-de-sac outlet as shown in Exhibit E. 4 This still leaves 2.0-plus acres in each new lot. Primary and alternate septic sites have been tested and are suitable. 5.Staff recommends adoption of the setbacks as shown on Exhibit E. The 50' east lot line setback for Lot 2 is proposed in consideration of the property to the east (Ron MacLeod, 725 North Ferndale Road) which may eventually have road on 2 sides as a result of this division. While this 50' setback is not technically correct per the code definitions of front, rear, and side lot lines, the entire development of "Lydiard Road" has not occurred within contemporary subdivision guidelines. . . This 50' setback proposal is appropriate given the site considerations. 1 Zoning File #1144 May 13, 1987 Page 2 of 2 6. A Conservation & Flowage Easement should be required over the wetlands on the property. Staff Recomnendation - Staff recommends approval as follows: 1. Plat to be revised as shown in Exhibit "E". 2. Setbacks per Exhibit E. 3. Road & Utilities Easement to be granted over future private/public road Outlot A. 4. Conservation & Flowage Easement to be granted over wetlands on west half of property. 5. Standard drainage and utilities easements along property boundaries to be shown on the plat. 6. Payment of park fee of $400 ($200 for each new lot between 2.0 and 4.99 acres). 7. Granting of the appropriate standard variances for Lots 1 and 2 for: a) Lot width at 50' setback from cul-de-sac (200* required; Lot 1 has 125', Lot 2 has 75'). b) Lack of frontage on public roadway. Addendum - Planning Commission may wish to address the timing of future improvements to the outlot on the Boyke and Cragg plats. Consider that if the two plats had come to us as one application, we would likely have required development of the road and cul-de-sac, but given -he existing private development of "Lydiard Road" as a gravel road on a narrow private easement, when might it be appropriate to upgrade that road or portions of it? CITY OF ORONO u Jn*vi *1 a.. » '! 1• * 4? ^ / /. r) ’Date Rec' f < f x''. t Fee Rec'd SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM T^6Ai C>£^ APPLICANT Name J, ///Zc///^ r-PAr~Telephone c> /V •*£//£ Ct^Mailing Address /7'lO jC^f/yiey lA/'je /V//v^y<7// a"/ rrl.. v ________ PROPERTY Name OWNER Telephone Mailing Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (Attach list if more than one) PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address Property Identification No. (P.I.D.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Complete Legal Description to be attached to application EXISTING LAND USE /Number of Tax Parcels Development Size ■jn Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total,* all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District A • IG PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes # Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites; Q Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size: Units per 7- A7 Acres P /(/if Square Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use; (check)Residential Other (specify) (OVER) • I**-' . uI,-T--T’-’-W.*.': k minimum material necessary for complete preliminary application ^ 1. Application Completed 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350* (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form of security. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature__ _ ___ Date FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III)$150.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential ) $300.00 plus 20.00/lot tim Pinal Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00* Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information requi red or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agreeii to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature _ _ Date €7 D«te Applicant must havf» s’I submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Mi ating. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. T i- r ^ T f y % . i % Z 20il > )) Q (0^ » 30 O MH ^ M M O O 8 n § SiSs2 0 0 IZ -n H- m w m ^ » 2 ® Z ^ S * vn O H zVI > C. n O 04 W f p ► > 'O m > 2 C 3 3 m 30 oH O o c/i ► ^ g Es > ui%n Kfi iM VI c f 11 > ►r- r- m f- m u > > r-«so 09 I 3S X!! -o -l| 9-^ 3 T Z ^9* O Vi > r- *-■ m •-» ss X ^» It • ■AM i 1 3 :si rv VI I 9^ 0» Irv VI Vi o rj VI SS3 ixS 09 o MO O f •• •n fsj u X vn fN9 H VI f I VI m o VI a ►VI a <o a m •-« a H ..Ss 3|: M r- X m . M a r- _ o f- a o O O* sr^sQ vn n *5|*e: vn 11 VI a c ^ ^ — S >o a a «- O VI a o M O 9rn fv ri ^ VI r»11 SS5 f- ••• r- ^» 5« 0> r? { 2a VI a o a o o o 5«g*- ^ VI a 69 ?ixSn H o m > r- Si ..Ssi IV VI 3 fi > VI a Q S V4 O - nl 09I M Vi Vi os rv VI -< ^ VI VI e M -i H o 5 m fsi 3 fS 2 M H 3 X X VI Vi^i ss?? M M ^ >9a VI > n f- VI 55g: ? IO o O>nl VI a H H ^ O ni m rn 28SS oqS2 N.rv r>> O % mia m • aM 14 > •U^ f:: h M .Vi J* - tf \[*ii ;sj ?I1 8 o |ij •3ta li^:|l|j|l»:5«ji !i?5i»; y I »««lii .unn 'r- - ex-y. F \ l I,m II *itIII <ii ill .1V 1'1. |l!01 If^ iii Rll v^ i !H'.!t“lfiili' h::!lrssi:i !=I VMm To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Fr(Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adjninistrator Date: Subject: May 14, 1987 #1146 Joan Sweetser, 845 Old Long Lake Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing 7:45 P.M. Zoning District - RR-IB Total'Area » 9 acres Dry Area »» 7.5 acres Wetlands * 1.5 acres List o£ Exhibits • Application - Plat Map - Property Owners List - Applicant's Memo - Site Planning Sketch (Septic sites, house locations, existing improvements) Exhibit F - Preliminary Plan Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Mrs. Sweetser proposes a 3 lot division of her nine acre homestead located on the south side of Old Long Lake Road. Based on the f lot density, a private road must be provided to serve all three lots. The City Engineer confirms the new curb cut for the proposed road satisfies the sighting standard of 275 feet for a 30 mph road. Septic testing confirms adequate areas for on-site sewage disposal prove a little tight - 100 feet of width "i^hin the buxlding envelope. Planning Commission should consider an adjustment of the shared lot line 10 to 20 feet to the east in order to improve the building envelope. home in approximately four years. The lot is platted at 2 acres . never sup%rt the guest house use. The future ^ meet the required 10 feet setback from both side and rear lot line. ■ 4 Zoning File #1146 May 14, 1987 Page 2 of 3 proposed“an'\"dlmon hirresidence'’\"‘=®^/h" " ”®®' applicantStandard was k acre) located on a % acre l oi- / = yeaVa^ C^ity required units in additionyears and the rental use to cease fr»»-removal of one unit in 3 h"lu%\"-us°e?" -UKJ ‘>e‘’lorsrd"/a"d ’i‘rpo"t"in\%ri%"ie"st^ converted to «n°\"ccessiry*"s1;ructure^ *’®"tal unit was to be r^\d":nVitrrni?^--^^ -nsfs“i:riA-ur-a°c"rls-a^^d would suggest th2t^r®piS^)Tof^lLs ”ha’’n''^ v*^®' request, staffe structure is to cease beino useH ao y®^rs be approved. At the time all plumbing removed. ^ residence, the owner must have residence untYT’t^heiVieo''/ hlr'^pV^nert *‘'® existing drive serving her With’^thf'c request please tie^the^d‘ate"flr“thi"' accept Mrs.With the conversion of the rental unit. ' * removal of the drive improvements resulting from°sub(Uvis\on^V*"* required alterations or de^/,‘’■^“P^rties ^^^0 stla with^urtL^r^ vet « Applicant would have to exelnt. '' ® ’'"owledge before y deed restriction to be filed against tht chaln o? titlrfor Staff Recominendation - that prop*ires''the^" lo^ dl'^v'S <>PPl--tlon of Joan Sweetser Old Long Lake Road finding that all «tanH°'”f®^®?‘^ property located at 845 and on site septic code’ have been °J ‘*'® AA-IB tcning di"rictconditions: "®''® satisfied based on the following 1. Dedication of 33 feef of v^/^ks. cof right-of-way for Old Long Lake Road. .MS avaria„"cVVo°"thfreVlri::n\%hafafl"Lts°Vult'aTt'a%u^^^^^^^^ all benefiting properties. enance and upkeep of said road by «Pplican"s''Vur°v"eyo"/ t"designl?re!evatIo^ o?®weu"andT®'’ “®“®"''® ' II i Zoning File #1146 May 14, 1987 Page 3 of 3 f , yt V.; .S 5. In regard to Mrs. Sweetser's request for consideration on rental use of second residential unit and use of existing drive. Planning Commission may consider the following options: All habitation of second residence on Lot 1 to cease and inside plumbing to be removed in addition to the existing driveway being removed and access to private road being installed by: a) Final plat approval; L) Prior to final approval of all required road improvements (bituminous surfacing) approximate time 1 to 1% years from final approval; c) Two years from the date of final plat approval, applicant to file a deed restriction on property setting forth deadline date for required improvements on Lot 1. 6. Payment of Park fees in the amount of $200.00 per lot). $400.00 (2 acre lots @ ! ft I-I 1t .-j “f » J / • .....V\ ))0^fi ^//V6 ^ Date Rec 'd l/“^1 CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM S^i-hcf. 3 c' V 1 //>' Fee Rec’d 7/C'‘ '^/C. 7/ 0 ■ ^'-o APPLICANT Name Maili PROPERTY Name OWNER <CAJrCji, <L£i2£^0L2. Address ^ _ _ Telephone ^7 ¥■ ¥- 7 Telephone Mailing Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Attach list if more than one) PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address ^^ ^ Property Identification No. (P.I.D^O ^1/ <0 V (D A/ Complete Legal Description to be attached to application EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / 7* J2. /)9 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels A //» £» Present Use (checlc)Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use; (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per _ _ _Acres Square Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) (OVER) —. -- -- MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Application Completed 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form of security. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $150.00 $250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) $300.00 plus 20.00/lot Final Plat Review (Class III) •(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00* Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature _ _ A'r- ; V,L Date ^ ^ 0 / V 'Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. - woc^2ND £ ADOmON «» .."Jl TOs Orono Plsnniny Coniinission and Orono City Council FROM: Joan F. Sweetser, 845 Old Long LaKe Road., Wayzata TWO -nsldorations^on^ldnd-us^ „„ 2 - continued use oC present drive-way AS far as written lecord^ second entry on the Abstract of ^ftle If A^prtra! tsST^-there is no date recorded for the ffr"Lr:f7g'ar.fLfo?rthe “turn . of the century was a diary farm for the western landowners. The cottage in question was the creamery for that farm and is now a one bedroom house with out attic or basement. The present occupant has lived there for 15 years. I am requesting your consideration for temporary use of this historic site during my residency, to be phased out when the main house is sold. ^es?:rr"the cfeaLrf to“be used as an accessory structure i - V. Consideration by both committees to use of the existing drive way that leads to all three oi the existing structures. Time Framet Minimum of 2 years, maximum of 4 years or present home site is sold. ' - A 4-* ^ *S* ^ ^ 3-0 sU'err\ \ /i. 0 J J/i ni l?/iri: : 5-//-J7 SC'iie: /"-/oa ' (To^^ /^/<c. //^L € : /?- / Proposed Subdivision for Joan Sweet ser in the SE % of Section 35-118-23 Hennepin County, Minnesota S€C.3S-Ha-Z3 £ast lint ofS£l^ cfSec.35-tl8 2i Kf Wim-:- ''i I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the following described property: That part of tlie East half of the Southeast quarter of Sectiop 35, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 51li Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of County Highway No, 27 with the East line of Section 35, Township 118, Range 23 a distance of 502.5 feet n.ore or less South of the East quarter corner of ■-J.id Section; thence Northwesterly along said center line a distance of 330.3 feet to a point, said point being the true point of begirning of this description; thence turning left a deflection angle of 122 degrees 48 minutes a distance of 745 feet to a point; thence turning a right deflection angle of 77 degrees 35 minutes a distance of 401.3 feet more or less to a point, said point being 799.8 '•ec-t West of the East line of said Section 35; thence North and parallel with the aforesaid East line of Section 35 to a point on the center line of County Highway No. 27; thence Southeasterly along said center line to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government survey thereof, end of the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN a GR0N13ERG, INC. Scale Date 0 1 inch = 100 feet April 23, 1987, 4-»o-g7 Iron marker “"TyHark S. Gronberg MN. Lie. No. 12755 Gordon R. Coffin liN. Lie. No. 6064 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota YEAR WORK TO BE DONE 1st Phase I. Phase II. Pliase III. Part of Phase TV. 2nd Conplete Phase IV. 3rd Phase V. 4tk Start Phase W. 5 til Continue Phase VI. 6th Conplete Phase VI. 7th Phase VII. 8th Phase VIII. 9th Phase IX.• 10th Phase X. I Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning t Zoning Administrator Dat:0S May 14» 1987 subject: veterans Camp - Septic Design/Water Dse Rates The following are suggested guidelines for sewage treatment needs for various facets of the Veterans Camp proposal: I Day-Camp (no meals, i.e. bag Ibdch type of usage) Sys^Deiign Flow Rate: 16 gpd/person EXAMPLE: A day camp «here “Pg®syste’ro‘shou\ relate to and bag dinner, leave a cP'/.v-campers = 800 gpd system design number of n^rc rate» this would need a 1»760 s.f. S?a\^nfie\”l>”nrura'n‘’arraKSI sTxloO' (double this to provide for alternate site). II. Resort-Type Ose A Houselceeping cabin (with Icitchen/shower) Sy^erDesign Plow Rate: 50 gpd/person EXAMPLE: A system 3"|“|°SoO°gpd*!^^Under°*«-^ mpi perc 100'xl25'. t» Toflae (with in-lodge )citchen/shower facilities) iyltei Design Plo2 Rate: 74 gpd/person pri-te.Te^e^ds T/. drainfield using an area about 50 xlOO . ofsJgn^f^^Rate: 4 gallons/meal example: a dining hall f “"®®dl’e “7 5”o ‘'x%^ - ?rt^o^’ :t-lo ieia. taxing up an area about 100'xl75'. IV. Tent camping - presumes use of toilet/washroom/shower facility Design Flow Rate: 40 gpd/person 4,400 E.f. system taking up 100 xl25 . ' 1 Veterans Camp May 14, 1987 Page 2 of 2 :or V, Laundry Facility If people are at the island for 2 weeks, they will probably want to do laundry. . . Design Flow Rate is 690 gpd/machine which would, under a 45 — 60 mpi perc rate, need a 1,500 s.f, drainfield for one machine, using up an area about 40'xl00'. - - These are only basic guidelines for various uses. The Design Flow Rates are from the attached "MPCA estimates". I assumed that the soils are capable of handling standard trench systems, but relatively slow perc rates through the Hayden loam soils mapped on the island. Actual system design and area needs will be quite variable based on the types and intensity of use the island ultimately is subject to. Of course, we would expect full soil testing and system design work be done by the applicants for any new systems to be constructed. It remains to be determined whether existing system on the island are suitable for continued usage. . . et iper k need s.f* » 250 perc bout -v. fM- m 4 ^■4 1-3 •# 'ESTIMATES OF COMMERCICAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND RECREATIONAL WASTEWATER FLOWS Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Source of sewage Unit Gallons per day per unit Average _ _ _ Maximum Dwelling Units Hotels or luxury motels Motels Rooming house Add for non resident meals Commercial/Indus trial Retail stores Offices Medical offices Industrial buildings Construction ramp Visitor center Laundromat Barber shops Beauty shops Car washes Eating and Drinking Establishments Restaurant (does not include bar or lounge) Dining hall Each guest plus add for each employee or Square foot 0.26 Each guest plus add for each employee or Square foot Resident Meal 2.5 Square foot of sales area or Each customer plus each employee or Toilet room 0.1 0.15 Employee or Square foot Square foot Employee 15* •Does not include process water or cafeteria Employee Visitor Each machine or Each load or Square foot Chadr Station Inside square foot Meal 2.5 H.O or Each seat plus add for each employee Meal 2.5 mm Person 32 40 or Site 100 100 Site 50 75 Site w/hookup 13 16 Person 13 16 Person Ii2 50- #7 ft Person 53 iwr 1-5 /■ tt: ] 1 '• -tIS Source of sewage YMCA/'fWCA Country Clubs fjo meals Meals & Showers Parks/Swimming Pools Picnic Parks ^.tch toilet only Movie Theaters Drive-lu Theaters Unit McnibBt Metnber M^tr.bet Member in Residence Guest OaUons pet day por -it Av nrage _—.—i-—- 105 2.5 T)rive-lu inc»—- ..o Hall CustomerSkating Rink/Dance Hall Skacxn6 133 Bowling All®y Transp^^*~a^^*^^ Airport, Bus or Rail Depot Aoto service Station Passenger or Square Foot or .public Restroom each vehicle served plvs add for each employ or Inside Square Foot public Restrooms 500 630 Rclerencee: Disposal Systems Design ilanual. «• Onsite Wastewater Treatm Department o October I960. Requirements. Vols. 1 an f1ow ^nd Hoto on Water Use Data. , ^-ate an average jDe*”ciaxlmu“" c in the "average" coin- de” unit. Values a»‘"* Uptlc tank or tanks flow days ^ ...shraae ti-ow - --is"- “ ....... V rsr. s“ ■---E Industrial o -euage treatment y charged into the sew g Planning ^"Ifg^lo^ission^Meinbers ■«•• orono Pl?""i"?-torDernhardson:;ir:: r.«. -* UBt ^^A-H (Memo and Exhibits o£ 4/16/87 > S^hthit I - MCWD Letter of 4/15/87 ^ I - rnreft-uarumrate Development Scheme iKt L - Accesl Alternatrves , meeting pend^| K0.E: This item «- -il^^aVn^, \tp\lc jrecl^nra-"-°lorridor to his plat. P-1-® Discussion lots will require ^ cooi*tc Testinq , „ tsirsz-v 1 indica"ces hhat^ ^-i4.oi^nate sites. No^ri^nSnV.is «i/“‘/in': v.sn r.“s therefore# '^^v. +-^#»dinformation submitted. »• Accessjiioation the comments from Hennepin County_. 0^1^ Please refer to Exh^bxt th airections^;t^^hxs northerly ?t|ul rtmlnffor a 3 5^ j5.°“o m% at th i s s ‘ ^^^es"!romJarvie«. southbound traffic access be on between the ®xifting a recoininending t of any access likelY approve a sit old^hey would not approve Of y «ould Ir^f residence at 790 and the extentjnjf J property, next to the^^^^^ "c^^st%°rBay Road as being better t ^ ®nn?d?ngnues%rr B^o%t^^”Mo^ingJhe^acJeJS i "longrr"in!tla\ roadway construction. Zoning File #1128 May 14, 1987 Page 2 of 3 for the posted speed limit, sraii technically ramifications regardless f°' V®’action; ifapprove it and acceptable ® to^°^cessive speed and the City was aware of a there is an accident i<ahilitv'^ Staff suggests these concerns r?.s“Si i.r.Ei%*«p... approval. A third option to consider i=J°«Yirto‘’\urwi\rnot%h^^^^^^ ?he foft'afiSL‘roin?!"%\7s UK^^^thafa^^\°e a\“e%''ievelops, the County will eventually flatten the grade here. The City would be ^®gTo^ck^ 1^ necess^^rily because dedication along the supported the County'sthe county requested it (the City .^as historical requested 80' -°^o/ds'' as County Road 84 is designated in"scenic parkw..ys" or "collector ^oa6s as ^ the Community Management Plan), but to accoir.nioaa future grade lowering. C, Future Access to the North Dennis Kumlin, who is completing ® wiU proposed plat, has noted that a of his property as well have a highly detrimental effect is definitely opposed to as the value and security of ‘•''® he%e^ P^*"^ Ip;^ovanrrradyr^'’F\'^om“VUurtt"^^ a through road would allow for added police protection of the area. Staff sees two benefits to having the road connected: 1. Emergency response time frcm points -st could be reduced as much as 30-60 seconds; this seems to be a minor benefit. 2. If the City was to take onV “ througlT" roTd^*/a'ther thanbe more efficient to maintain them as one cnrougn two cul-de-sacs. Any dedication of >^i?ht-of-way from KumllnU plat “^Sn*^the*other %\\?ng"rn'enrir: 5^co%“r/do; from°”t 2,"VlocK 1, will leave it at or slightly below 4 dry acres, causing future subdivision problems. planning standpoint that an access lin's plat be dedicated on both plats, id will be constructed now, but if the he City would be in a better position s that a 25' outlet be taken from each be to take a little more from Rainey icquire a road easement of 15' (rather » m II* the concept of st^»ging of the road e only case where it's been a problem fic developer. Staff comments on road 16/87, still apply. lows: •live* Hi as proposed, subject to City Attorney jns of such approval prior to Council ing the road construction as described /87. low cul-de-sac Itrngth of 1,100', a the plat of a 25* (35*?) outlot for mlin plat road. cil to require a dedicavion of future alternate septic site for existing ary plat approval. Its to be dedicated over the two major long the northwest end of Lot 2, Block 3nt along northeast and east line of let line drainage easements to be 10' ble for sale only to 790 Old Crystal Lot 1, Block 2 (Planning Commission :ments, private road agreement, etc. s for staging of road construction to ^raa that creates 4 more ^t^^^ltaVf suggested and applicant potential ?Lt ^ leng^th^of private road ^^ccets^for development such timo future development occurs. ISSUES/CONCERNS/COMMENTS I. Road Access I-o=ation. The ^private ^road^is^pro^^^^^ Old Crystal Bay Road at th T^ar•4•m^»nt has not commented as of Th? Hennepin County Highway j,as commented that this this writing, but the ^ave the sight distance access location does county Road where Farviewrequired due to elevation °£ t».® fo" y „ ^e enters, just to the north. Tne “P^* ^ve the 2 acre minimumexisting roadway l°<=®tion both to pr buffer between area of Lot 1 Block 1 and to ">nt"tain a crystal Bay Road, their road and the Blair residen . . alternative might be city engineer Glenn County to lower the "hump" in ill *C^r?L'a“''Bay"°Ro%T perhaps with some sharing of the cost . . - II, Private Road. A.) Staging. ° ” strvrthi Ix^ road and cul-de-sac o" Vlock 1. Under the surveyor s residence and Lots ^1 and 2 ^ front on the cul-de-sac, proposal, only Lots 1 ^ share a private driveway vialeaving Lots 1 and 2 ^ to shajr^e a^P^ cul-de-sac Outlet B. Staff would prefer ^ east. We would abutting Lot 1 Block 2, moving 4-plus acre lots is recommend that if wo^ld have to be extended. I-further divided, the private road would^na^ the road would T.ot 2 Block 2 is developed into t Block 1 or Lot 1^fve tobe extended the entire length If ^ ^ ^ 2, Block 2 do a split to the ^ outlet B would be perhaps only a .. cul-de-sac. These temporary culappropriate with a temporary cu easements rather than p!;«cd cuf-de-sa«r and the entire road be platted as a sing outlot. 1 B.) Length. Note that at full developme^^ .iJ^ut^^lOO' more than rhe^tinTard mlxfm°um. However a review subdivisions in unsewered ateas indie td^^^^Y_ „hite Oak of that length have been ®PP^° 1600' ^Devin Lane -1250', French Circle - ,1""'’R°ad - ‘Tnke Road - 1350 , west kh«- a f#»w.jboA.c ui iTCin' t-o name but a rew.1500', Orono Oaks - 1750 to nane a corrrdo*r‘'f°oTf'f°uture^io’'nn^^^^^^^^^ Kumlin's plat of Foxwood should be at least considered. This could be accomplished by taking a 25' strip either side of the line between the two plats. This would not be a problem for Lot 2 Block 1 of Ranie Anderson plat, but would cause lot area problems for Kumlin, who is coming in for final plat approval shortly. III. Septic Concerns. We have not received septic testing reports for any of the properties. Lot 2 Block 1 was apparently tested last fall, given the teat hole locations shown on the survey. We will require testing on Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 and also for an alternate site for the existing house. Lot 2 Block 2 will nc^ require testing at this time because it exceeds 5 acres dry buildable and is likely to be further subdivided in the future. IV. Wetlands. Conservation and Flowage easements will be required over the two major wetlands on the property. We would also recommend consideration of requiring a Conservation and Flowage easement over the low area along the northwest end of Lot 2 Block 2. V. Drainage. The drainage easement shown in Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 is appropriate. The drainage and utility easement along the northeast and east line of Outlot C should be widened to 20' and 10' respectively. All outside permiter lot line drainage and utility easements should be expanded to 10' in width. VI. Outlot C. Must remain under ownership of the Homeowners Association as an unbuildable Outlot, may be sold only for combination with neighbor to the immediate south (740 Old Crystal Bay Road) or maybe should be made a part of Lot 1 Block 2. . . the point is to avoid it becoming somebody's idea of a building site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Issues needing more input before final decisions and recommendations can be made: 1. ) County Road access location 2. ) Septic testing B. Issues for Planning Commission to address on a conceptual basis for this proposal: 1. ) "Staging" of road development 2. ) Whether or not a corridor for future access to the north is appropriate 3. ) Consideration whether low land northeast of existing house should be a designated wetland to be consistent with other projects, given that it's a pothole (surveyor: which way does it flow? what are its boundaries?); also considering the north end of that ■ h rr*^ :TY of OBjJNp u « r i ’\;\ • !;■< .■,' v^.,,,v ,'■ ) <- ') * W ' V exi*A Date Rec*d 3' Z By Fee Rec SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM ■" -' >''<''/<^ r.cc^applicant Name Mailing Address — property Name -- --v OWNER ^ , TV/I y o Q sMailing Address Telephone 7 /^t Telephone (Attach list if more than one) property location street Address - /-rrz -c c cproperty Identification HO. (P. 1. D.) .4lZZil£-.2. Description to be attached_to_applicatron- - - - - Complete Legal existing land use Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) 9>/Z. Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Totalt all parcels Residential; of units Other (specify) - - Present Zoning District proposal *7v DivIsIo7for Tax Purposes only (no new building sites) YLot Line Rearrangement Only subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: pj^oposedi Gross Density Minimum Lot Sizes proposed Uses (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per Acres Square Feet Dry Buildable “ Land Residential Other (specify) (OVER) X f - —r #;■ IV'J?'*' !>/"' f. % « c; ; ' / ^ • *%V-• •• ,^' //*/jV s«......*'.'."II' f ''//' / CM * .. '* i»^ ~ « ^ • / _____ * - - ^ ^ ^ ' Vv; \K" *...........................*••-••'................r ........ ■> • ? '1 :. ^ j__ y __- * «— —^ o*j I p —^ '‘"'"i'................i % I — *■*- .■* i «• 1 is >'•'1 •^.- ' }p^ * ___ I/'* " 1**^i -:---*;'u</‘V <j.;^“ i \ */• !ti X * t* ^ If'’ ♦•*. I (*, y —J *'. *•- ^ ' '. ■< »• I •; ’: •. t-...., L. } VvV'i* i iE. f7 TT f> ; : Tt _ * . V ■' ^^«3ovoi*'''* Avei": • «; '*-'r»"!' *-S h' i ii‘ • •*i 5 h-1. ?-5 ‘ \ »l* \ - " I’ 1 i*'^ 1^ •!l 1} us'tjJl % •• ------u 1 C 4 \ : :v ;■••« .V ••: :. \-:'C:.^;/- -i:; ." •% ■*:■='; > v § ■ ^‘.Cv/.V V-;: iii i: mr- I -. aL.-. • 4 V :.r^ <n X f •• • *• ,y\ ;,:p' ....A- 1/ 397 on ^3t?,3C * 1 373.97 -.1"”,l *>* i ^ A• : :»^7/6 7 ^ pO-r >cjo- !}>j 01. f- I • . •■■■. I. -^ „ *•• '* Si.' * i5i9S7 ex^. 44. ^UikifA -A^C^tW- *-# I I It* \ s r »’ f.X \ UKC MINMITONICA r%ff- P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 t ' » ! I . ^ BOARD OF MARACeiM: David H. CocX'^n. Pres. • Albert L Lehman • John E. Thomas Camille 0. Andre • James R. Spensicy • Richard R Miller • Michael R Carroll ’•i , i I ■»«>rr sT Tr y!nar**j’ - -jr- April 15. 1987 Mr. Michael Gaffron City of Orono P. 0, Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Zoning Applications for #1135 Robert Hanning Jr. and #1128 Ranie Anderson Dear Mr. Gaffon: We have received the information forwarded concerning the above zoning appli cations. Both applicants will require review and approval by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Some of the District's concerns for the Robert Hanning project (#1135) include: 1. 2. 3. The alteration to the wetlara shall not adversely affect the ability of the wetland to act as a filter for the surface waters. The filling will not cause high water or aggravate flooding on other properties and will not restrict flood flows. The project complies with the municipal stormwater management plans. Some of the District's concerns for the Ranie Anderson project (#1128) include: 1. 2. 3. 4. The rate of stormwater runoff from the site shall not increase as a result of the proposed development. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with return frequencies from one to 100 years. The quality of stormwater runoff leaving the site after development shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with a return frequency of one year. Appropriate erosion control methods are in place to prevent the transport of sediments off site during and after construction. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area be completed with seed and mulch or sod. 1 i Mr, Michael Gaffron April 15. 1987 Page ?. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 472-4224. Sincerely, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES ’Engineers for the District cc; Board G. Macomber Julie Johnson, Engineer JJ/ts mm • t ; ^ . -.'.Vv■ tfw' - I \ I J . April 13, 1987 TO:Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Hennepin County Department of Transportation, Attn; Les Weigelt SUBJ: Zoning Applications filed with City of Orono #1135 Robert C. Hanning, Jr., 4220 Sixth Avenue North “ Requesting Conditional Use Permit and Variance to create a berm along County Road 6 and place fill in a designated wetland. #1128 Ranie Anderson, 780 S. Old Crystal Bay Road - 4-Lot Subdivision Please review the above referenced projects and submit your comments to me as soon as possible. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron ^ Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator em. HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 TTY 935-6433 May 8, 1987 . r /,Mr. Micheal Gaffron Assist. Planning and Zoning Administrator o, City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 % Dear Mr. Gaffron; l^iAy • / ^3 1387 RE: Proposed Plat - Ranie Anderson Plat CSAH 84 Opposite Farview Lane-south junction Section 4, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 1530 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, retire County review of proposed plats .butting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the fo.Tlowing comments: - For future improvements, the developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way along CSAH 84. - The proposed street access location meets the absolute minimum sight distance requirements for the posted speed limit. However, to provide a much safer location and to prevent a short offset distance between intersections Hennepin County recommends the proposed street be located directly opposite Farview Lane. - Any new access to a county road or any revision to an existing access requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before begiming any construction. Contact our Maintenance Division for entrance permit fo.ms. - All proposed construction within County right of way cfjuires an approved^ utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage euid utility construction, trail development, ^d landscaping. Contact our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. - The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely, ijaiu. David W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal opportunity employer i •>»jp f i wren*-m- '!'■ » c'Xo ^ e- " Vi r-i 36794 397.08 » 373.97 SOUTH .. %37J. Q> 233.83 7Vtt r %■ ^Id1 OUT*ia■, LOT ;u: >v«i |is J ^ -.• !3 3 u ! ,;^ ■'S \ • ,! 'rr'!i ♦- fW 7>y ^fin 21'ue f» t . «». ■ . ». 0m* B !09 --- n -•-^«#*o7i .'O'PT'/OS \ N. -St Ai-— /<^ ,Jr. j»» I I sN - ^3^^ 3 . .iv v^Vi()ifv >r#» f»« 2 R. v\ ^0*3C't¥ \M .0 : II «• 1 i*' I % V - • < • .............•-" ' ...........J\'.,-. .. - ! ....................... ■;•""•“.«* ****^».*» ' •• * . • ----------- ? \<\ '- -------------------- ^ ^ / -------------------------------------------:...................V—.......... —•- ,....• ............, .- - -— ■-..........................................-:;•... / • < *1 , M 5ill * » IW I I I ?Vlf' •ii'-, ' Ri Planning Commission Chairman Kellev Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & zoning Administrator May 14, 1987 ^1142 Smith Bav Marina n Var>K4- r»i w -r Variances & Conunercial Site Plan Review"^Second Review^"® ^ ' ' List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Memo, Submitted at the May 4, 19ff7 u Exhibi. n . " Yachrclub ' Exhibit C - Engineer^Report Applicant's Architect Exhibit P - Schematic Building Plans - Elevations Of boafsirp^clunt'wlthThe^LMCD^f^ ITJk P">’‘'i''9 resolve stall variance and receipt of mor^de^ai^ed^L.^^a'l'^^^^ required parking structure. The Planning Conunission approved alf Iffor the complete rehabilitation of otner variances required voiced no other concerns reqardina fho The Planning Commission for detailed building plans. ^ ^ conunercial site plar review e;.cept A. Continuation of Commercial Site Plan Review Review of Schematic Design Drawings that the structuf wll / htvf Ifirf sSpresslof ®deck can be approved. Once aaain th» ev*- • system (sprinkler), the roof but it appears to be wool - llpUolf s^oulf to be stained or painted (what‘sctlor?)? ^ confirm and advise if wood is roof deck mustf afe^flf exfts ff f tf o f 1"advised that theaddition, the water supplv lult h» atr bo used by the public. in lake is to be used, a fire be determinfo for sprinkler system, if building height is now raeasuled'lt"25 ffet!"*^ required. Note the parking areal ftaf/has enclosedfhe ">anu verabl llty of the responds to the adequacy of the proposed pirfig plf,f°“' B. Resolve of Boat Slip Count at 79 and tlfffaifrs “atuf -report fn "bo?t fenTtyf atf P'" TA 1*1. .4*^- roic«] Zoning File #1142 May 14, 1987 Page 3 of 4 Review of Neighbor's Concerns The neighbors in attendance through the public hearing were in support of the project. One property owner arrived after the review of the application was completed. He voiced major concerns with tne proposal for the Tonka Transmission property and cautioned that certain variances must be addressed with the review of the marina property. The chairman advised the applicant of the tabling and invited the neighbor to put his position in writing - as of today staff has received no written comments. Two concerns noted by the neighbor for the marina property were the issue of the average lakeshore setback line and fences within 75 feet of the lake. Staff has once again reviewed the B-2 district, there is nothing in the code that suggests a need to address an average setback line. If fences are to be constructed within the 75 feet setback area, variances would be required. Applicant should advise if new fencing is proposed - the site plan does not designate fencing along side lot lines merely landscaping. Recommendation Staff would refer back to the recommendation presented for your May 4th meeting (memo dated 5/1/87) amended per recent findings and findings cited in staff memo of 5/1/87. Staff Recommendtai To approve lakeshore setback, side setback, hardcover variances for a new marina structure, accessory structures and site improvements for the property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive based on the following hardships and findings: a)Hardships - 1. The lot is not deep or large enough to allow structures to meet required setbacks. 2. The majority of the property is located within the lakeshore protected area where no hardcover or structure is allowed. Findings “ 1. The property has beer, used as a commercial marina for over 40 years and was recently rezoned to B-2 in 1975. 2. The proposed improvements provide a reduction of 10% in overall hardcover in addition to improving quality of storm water runoff prior to entering lake. 3. The majority of improvements provide for a major reduction in hardcover immediately adjacent to shoreline. Zoning File #1142 May 14, 1987 Page 4 of 4 4. Access to site and parking areas have been greatly improved with proposed single structure making for a more efficient use of the severely limited land area. The following conditions apply to this approval: 1. Parking areas to be paved and stalls designated. 2. Drainage and storm water runoff treatment to be installed at time of the restoration of the eroding shoreline. 3. Existing dock section located above the 929.4 through 931 elevation to remain - owner to apply for building permit with penalty fee. 4. Applicant to execute a developer's agreement and post letter of credit to insure the following improvements are installed: a) Drainage/surface water treatment plan. b) Paving of parking area. c) Erosion control installation during construction phase. / i"m. r ii SBYC SMITH’S BAY MARINA & YACHT CLUB OVERVIEW; Smith’s Bay Marina and Yacht Club is designed to be a first rate marina operation that will meet the needs and demands of our members. The present site will be revamped to become a safe, attractive facility, which will be a complement to the community. By separating the retail operation (boat and boating supplies) from the marina, two primary goals will be achieved. 1. To move to a less intensive use of both 1955 and 1950 Shoreline Drive, creating a more restful, compatable setting for the Yacht Club. 2.Alleviating the parking and pedestrian crossover problems which have traditionally plagued this area. Ample parking is provided for the individual operations with each facility being self- contained, i.e. parking, rest rooms, offices, telephones etc. We view this project, as do the adjacent property owners we have spoken to, as an asset to the neighborhood, the City of Orono, and the Lake Minnetonkaarea. 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE; (Minnetonka Transmission) The current site of Minnetonka Transmission will be converted for use as a retail boat sales and nautical supply shop. As shown in the site plan, elevated landscaping will be used to preserve the set-back from County Road 15 and to allow ingress and egress from Spates Avenue and Grand Avenue. Pump islands, storage tanks, and existing road sign will be removed. The present sign on the building will be utilized. Exterior modification to structure will be minimal, involving cleaning, repair, painting as necessary. Interior use will involve sales office in present entry area, nautical supply store in one service bay area, and boat display in remaining bay. A total of 7 boats will be displayed - 4 against building, 3 toward road. Smith’s Bay Yacht Club 1955 Shoreline Drive Wayzata. MN 55391 612/474-2534 A Distinctine New Dimension To Sailing Facilities ■V _ A . -AiU..-" :..5- Page 2 1950 SHORELINE DRIVE; (Current site of duplex and cabins) Although not necessary for the project, this lot is to serve as marina vehicle and employee parking area with 27 spaces available. By having employee parking at this site, customer parking at the boat store and member parking at the marina, every possible convern of parking would be eliminated In the event of special events at either site, this lot would be used for overflow. It is our understanding that the City has encouraged use of its parking lot for this purpose in the past and would in the future. Consistent with the other 2 sites, landscaping will be used to blend this site into a residential area. Concerns of non-authorized use of this lot can be met by use of a gate, thus regulating times of use. In summary, this property use is designed to contribute to the general aesthetic appeal of the area and to permanently alleviate any and all concerns, which have existed in the past, regarding parking. 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE: (Marina/Club site) A total of 42 parking spaces will be available for member and guest usage. Member parking will be by permit sticker. With 30% of watercraft in use, (an industry standard of peak use) and 1.5 cars used as an extreme example, 36 parkings spots would be required in this 79 slip facility. Employee parking and all marina vechicles will be kept in the overflow lot on Grand Avenue. A setback variance to 50 ft. Is requested to allow green space next to waterfront. Proposed clubhouse will have three levels: LEVEL I - restrooms, courtesy phone and member area. LEVEL II - Marina office and member area. LEVEL III - Member use or future caretaker apartment. Building will be wood frame with wood or wood appearance exterior. Smith’s Bay Yacht Club 1955 Shoreline Drive Wayzata. MN 55391 612/474-2534 A Distinctive New Dimension To Sailing fhcilities 1 i: ! II SBYC Page 3 e Members will have access to restrooms and courtesy phone at all times by means of a coded lock. Balance of clubhouse area will be open from 8 AM to 10 PM Sunday through Thursday and 8 AM to midnight Friday and Saturday. Lighting will be of a type allowing minimum required for safety and security. Current signage will remain. Boat ramp is to be used for spring launch and fall retrieval of member’s boats. This is not a public ramp and will be gated to prevent public use. A significant decrease in hard cover will occur at this site, allowing for green areas, landscaping and gardens. Walkways to existing deck and docks will be 6 ft. wide to allow ingress and egress of boaters, guests and provisioning carts in a safe fashion. ■; 1 Smith’s Bay Yacht Club 1955 Shoreline Drive Wayzata. MN 55391 612/474-2534 A Distinctive New Dimension 7b Sailing Facilities ’ MEMO TO: BY: DATE: SUBJECT: Smith’s Bay Marina and Yacht Club File Rich McCarthy I May 1987 Meeting on 28 April 1987 with Woody Love, Vern Larson, Tom Downs Rich McCarthy to discuss the proposed project; subsequent meeting on 29 April 1987 with Jeanne Mabusth and Tom Jacobs of the City of Orono. At the 28 April meeting, the following items were discussed regarding the work to date and how Klein McCarthy Sc Co., Ltd., Architects, might assist in the project implementation. Please review the following and respond with any inconsistencies which might exist in our Anderstanding. 1. 2. Drawings of a proposed building of approximately 2645 square feet on three levels (1st, 2nd & 3rd floor plans) and East and North building elevations were reviewed. In addition a site plan by R. L. Wuornos & Associates, dated April 2, 1987, was provided to Klein McCarthy Sc Co., Ltd. The building drawings were accomplished by Tom Downs. The function of the proposed facility was discussed. Clientele age group range is 25 - 40 "yuppies". The Club does not promote racing, but is more orientated towaid "condominium" use, although some racing events are anticipated. Approximately ten (10) parties per year will be scheduled at the facility with limited numbers of formal events held elsewhere. 3. The building character was discussed and described as "high tech nautical". Finishes should be bright, colorful, durable and easily maintainable; however, cost must be carefully considered. 4. The first floor will contain: Men and women ’s toilet facilities with shower and dressing area for each. These will be available on a 24-hour, member-keyed basis with access to the remainder of the facility limited to staff, etc. (See plan diagram.) o A closet and stair to the loft is indicated. A multi-purpose room, lounge space is indicated and should include a self service bar/kitchenette with sink, microwave and limited counter and storage space. A "ship’s galley" fixture was discussed, which is available from a manufacturer. 0 An 800 square foot deck area is also included on the exterior. 0 An attached utility shed, possibly under the 2nd and 3rd floor access stair will be used for lawn care and related barbecue equipment, etc. (not sailing gear). IVou/d a boat shed be desirable? 5. The second floor will contain: o A lounge/lofc area with open rail to the upper lower level. o An inexpensive pre-fab fireplace would be desirable in this area, carpet and somewhat "cozier" finish than the first floor lounge. Kl*" *. V-'Afs’MV » 00 ARCHIffCTS HO 18.100‘.''Wf" TOr;K.\ nOWVfVAPa OFFPHAV'^N M’NNfTOT-l‘.‘i r.ti i'l I f. l-t -<> * -/^ ba.h. omce 6. located as to provide views of the dock facilities, o A large storage closet was shown accessible from the office. The third floor (optional) will contain: Wayata YaVh^Club S'">ilar to that of the 7. S^e'd^rncLTd «tHo;‘awri:ror^^^^^^^ »P-i»ns type sun screen or STor rX1l"(cr 8.The structure/building system discussed includes: 0 Grade beams and precast concrete plank on wood pilings. o The remainder of the structure will be standard wood frame construction. 0 sWn^eHn fre“x7erton “ =«Phal< Club members are in the bushieMMd marbe'^inrn^^^^ ''l^e'aub Vtaff ^yXirMc’^jt^T'cri^ rather than"competitW^"‘Jfd^^°™eh ^ if * -sotiated At .ne 29 April meeting with the City of Orono building officials, the following were discussed' I I __!________ COMMERCIArs°TE°PLA'N*i^%EW o''o'’'°™n* *’'*^°^* Commission is the mandatory, bu, wo^ld L'colSrs in^f^n”' "" ^ ”* Ip'provarto mvLfthe" 'Peking the Owner’s form and orientation regarding site olan woldd h"' adjustments in building during the building oermirRFV would be acceptable as 'furthei development- size) Ly norie Jncmased Aim tl sTfnn, , r'T' O-i'ding footprint may not be reduced ’ ' f'“"> ’5-foot pending) 12. Other site plan issues noted to be discussed at the site plan review were: be^accemed.’ - °PO" wood decks may 0 Emergency/fire access to the building appears acceptable (with driving lanes adjacent to the building). Fire lane signage may be required. Fire lane signage at the development across County Road 15 will probably be r6C|iiircQ« 13. Building issues included the following: cc: 0 0 Discussion to use the existing gas station/garage north of County Road 15 occurred. Change in use may require further consideration or approvals. The City has adopted the Appendix E of the 1985 UBC, which was adopted by the State Building Code. ^ A Significant requirement thus is the building must be protected by a sprinkler system. In addition, Tom Jacobs may require a hydrant be installed on the site City water is not available to supply the cprinklers. However, the lake water source and a fire pump was discussed as a potential solution. Cost of the pump and potential need for an emergency power generator is of concern. Other alternatives may be available and considered. The DNR must be approached for approval on using the lake water source. The building ’s second floor will probably require a second means of egress which would be available from the 3rd floor caretaker ’s apartment stair. Verify the two exits meet one-half the diagonal distance requirement. The building ’s 3^ floor residential occupancy (R) will need to be separated from the 1st and 2nd floor assembly occupancy (A). We do net believe the size of the space requires a second means of egress — Tom Jacobs >W// verify. A formal building code review should be accomplished before proceeding. We have been told that a 30-foot height restriction applies. We need interpretation on whether this implies maximum or average height of the roof or appendages. Woody Love Tom Downs Jeanne Mabusth Tom Jacobs hi lii. I rmrmmBBKrnms •*» BonesUoOf Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. 2335 IV. Trunk Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 612-636-4600 Engineers & Architects May 14, 1987 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN ()Hit G. honfsiroo, P E. Hubtrt H . Htnrnr, P.t. Juitph C. Andfrhk, P.t\ Brailjord A. I mi hr: P.E. Richard E. Turner, P.E. Jama C. Otion. P.E. 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139-1142 Smith Bay Marina Cfenn R. Cook. P.E. Krilh A. Gurihm. PE. thurnui E. Soyt%, P.E. Riihurd M'. EoMer, P.E. Robert C. Si huniihi, P.E. Marytrt L. Sorvaia, P.E. Donald C. Burgardt. P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon. P.E. Mark A. Hanwn, P.E. Tedk Ftetd. P.E. .Michael T. Ruuimann, P.E, Ruben R. PJeJJerte. P.E. David O. Luikota, P.E. Thomas »♦'. Peterson. P.E. Michael C. Lynch. P.E Karen 1. Wdtti, P.E. Jama R. Maland. P E. Kenneth P. Anderson. P.E, Keith A. Bachmann. P.E. Mark R. Rolfs. P.E. Robert C. Ruuek. A.LA. Thomas E. Angus. P.E, Sioit L. Young. P.E. Charta A. trukson Leo .M. Pawelsky Harlan M, Olson Susan M. Eberlm Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the site plan submitted on the Smith Bay area. The plan as submitted is acceptable with provisions added for controlling the site runoff. We have shown a preliminary layout for controlling the runoff with filter drain outlets into Lake Minnetonka. This is not the only option but an ex ample of what we would recommend. The developer should develop his own silta- tion basin and outlet dontrols along with hydraulic calculations. The plan should then be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed for approval. The parking lot layout will allow for adequate movement through the site. We have shown 25' turning radi on the plan which would be more than necessar/ for the average vehicle. We would expect that most boat launchings will occur at off peak hours and be completed by the operator. The parking area.i should be surfaced with materials other than lime rock. The rock surfacing creates a dust which silts up the grass ponding areas. The ^ parking lots shoulc’ be constructed with a porous paving block if hardcover is a concern. The parking lots should be paved with bituminous surfacing if the hardcover is not a problem. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC Glenn R. Cook GRC:li 3775e I ' o o vut'^l* i, txt •“•"I >r'^»*r / V / /Vv^PiK ^<>/ (.o^'.-rf^'j? yf>f*d Ti, <^An.N^ / /■^'>/ / ^ X. '' / / ■v^ D HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 TTV 935-6433 May 1.1987 Mr. Micheal Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: RE:Proposed Site Plan - Smith’s Bay Marina CSAH 15 Both sides - between Spates Ave. & Grand Ave. Section 10, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County No. 1525 Review and Recommendations We reviewed the above site plan and make the following comments: For future Improvements to this segment of CSAH 15 the developer should dedicate an add1t^?nal 7 feet of right of way along each side of CSAH 15 making the right of way 40 feet each way from the center of CSAH 15. The developer must submit a detailed grading and drainage plan showing how all on site storm drainage will be controlled. Contact 01m Ault, Hennepin County Hydraulics Engineer for details. The two proposed access points to CSAH 15 from the Clubhouse area are acceptable to Hennepin County. All access to the Boat Retail and Service Center must be via the existing municipal streets as shown. No direct access from this part of the site to CSAH 15 will be permitted by Hennepin County. Any revision to an existing access or a change in land use requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Maintenance Divisiun for entrance permit forms. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer : • •u M. Gaffron May 1, 1987 Page 2 -All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This Includes, but Is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. - The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. David W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning DWS/LDW:1w f cc R L. Wuornos & Associates 09 3 r I ' ! lU '• ■ i i ' I < .,i* ■ t ' To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 14, 1987 Subject: #1143 Donald Wildman, 745 Spring Hill Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Application - Conditional use permit for a detached combination guest house /find 4-stall garage, accessory structure floor area variance. Zoning District - RR-IB, 2-acre rural unsewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Application & Letter of Request Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Showing Proposed Structure Location Building Plans Pertinent Facts - Lot area ^ approximately 24 acres Proposed setback from house = 75* Proposed setback from Lydiard Lake = 80‘ Structure is behind the front line of the principal residence Garage floor area (footprint) * 1,435 s.f. Guest apartment floor area above garage * 1,000 s.f. +/- Discussion - This is a request for a variance and conditional use permit to construct a 4-car garage and caretaker apartment above, replacing an existing a 3-car garage to be removed. The principal residence has been recently remodeled and this new garage/apartment is designed to architecturally complement the house. The proposed structure meets the setback requirements: - 75*-plus from lakeshore - 60*-plus from main residence (so that it could be divided off and leave a 30* side setback) P i Zoning File #1143 May 14, 1987 Page 2 of 2 - Is behind front line of house, presuming west line of house is the front The lot area is such that the structure could be divided off with a 2- acre parcel, although that obviously is not applicant's intent. The structure appears to meet all the "regular lot requirements" as called for in Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G). The excess in floor area over 1,000 s.f. would not seem to be a problem given the intended use for vehicle storage and caretaker residence. This combination of uses is not unusual for the large estate properties in Orono. Is there a hardship shown? Would Planning Commission be more comfortable with such applications if the size of the structure is not a variance but controlled as a performance standard within the framework of an "oversize accessory structure conditional use"? Would Planning Commission support an amendment that makes accessory structures over 1,000 s.f. a conditional use rather than a variance, and relate the acceptable size of accessory structures to the lot area, setback, etc? This guest house will require a separate sewage system. Staff's review of the soils map indicates this will be feasible. Testing and system design will be required prior to building permit approval. Staff Rec<»nmendation - Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a guest house use, conditioned on the standard conditions that it may not become a rental unit but is for the use of the occupants of the principal residence and their non-paying guests or domestic employees. Staff finds no objection to granting of the accessory structure size variance, but questions whether there is a hardship to justify that variance. Staff further urges Planning Cononission to consider whether it would be appropriate to allow oversize accessory structures as a conditional use permit rather than a variance. i mm j:T '•i s * ./» '•s* !r . c'-- tV u. »• t v!// r > ?• . •-.t\ • yi a “:)^ exA<: /4 r*. - -■CITY dP ORONO GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address HMb Gpr irw^U.il Kcl Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) JC ~ /ff ~ <2^ 2 f ecy g Please check one - Is the property 'xf abstract or (for Conditional Use Applications only) torrens? .^Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name ~X)o r\ \ A \»\! > \ c\ \'y^ a Address < atj V\ . H fjc( OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) ^ ^ 6* ~ O 1 ^_ _ _ _Phone (work) 3 ~ / 4 G O . City Vv<^v|2crl Zip I Phone (home ) Name Phone Address City Zip Date Property Acquired /JL /(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS jg-aaccessory Use ^ $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f) Land Alteration Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd, or more Seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID — see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 $250,00 $150.00 $ 50.00 _ _ _ _ $250.00 $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning Appeals Other - see fee schedule i PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property //7 r1r ! a t •nr. V. a V • A- ; VM riJ-T.ta, \ V-- y •rtJ ■K _ _ Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: . Vd- ^lA.nr RTOOIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form jSC Li^t of owners within 350' (you can obtain 0 from Hennepin County Department of Finance A~603 Government Cernter 348-3271) Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address.. Certificate of survey. Construction plan, if applicable. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ Date ^ ‘I APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicar' must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council, and, if an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, to please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. m J A -I ^ r 1- ■ r • 2 V *^rl •;!» s /;-;i! VV !*•f :•! ■» •j ^^ • •• (?: -•••) ->i»f :-4 ,V vr;.-. ■' Cc’cZc/ceyi<: ^fiC c -I >ir . -ytc ^<:^'2Jt^y C. tJl^' .. ^Vc y‘^cc^<iyt' ^ 2y^yy :^) -yO-,cZyC^ xc . A:c^/oy<rtd.cy <-'2^t Uy^i^j,yfz:y:><. t • ^ ^y'/Ucxc y^dLyy y?c'C'iu<yf^' ^t a./: .y:>tt,' y . *’ . y ^ .yZ.yyc<.z^ yyiy^-zi^c^ yA^y.'y^'yy cj • -7 V I \ I Property Owners List for #1143 Donald Wildman 25-118-23 33 0003 Geo H. Partridge 625 Spring Hill Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 25-118-23 34 0006/04/05 John & Lois Nordstrom 541 North Stream Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 36-118-23 23 0001 Bruce Dayton 4122 IDS Center Mpls., MN 55402 36-118-23 13 0001 Norwest Bk Mpls Trustee 8th & Marquette Ave. Mpls., MN 55479 36-118-23 22 0002 Frederick Winston 765 Spring Hill Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 I i ml • » ^■' •% ^*^V• 'jy* ' ** % A r'i'*;i..» •'■ •-'s u . ^V- ‘.. *; V \ \ • IV o ,1 V ♦ *‘; Vfl k V? .•'. 1 .-.oOi ti * ^ :1 V UU i fl % . i\ <-3■■i Y U rf:,‘ .’T .'** \c V •M ^ ^ f?i > ” - v .“! J-i I lU \ ‘•J (V •- •)• -u .'i ^11 .2 • f f • « • r* ^ ^ •3 • 1 - • « 4 ♦ f—.-!•- 1 >’i S % 4 M '• s- • — -• vvr •if \ 4 V .J f V’’i>' ___! /_Y^;\ —■1. f*. - IV ^ rj^ ,~--Ntl ** r~;j ."7^ irrr;■■■'.'. " ia v -J i ;'.* ■ \ • ’ '■ 1' *‘ii_ui.. r\_J* . V- ; <; .-L ^■| Ti Ki -/"•JJ V ■f ' ft" i ’ -:—i U----A -4-'ll 'i. • V :r... -•i 1 •Xi ^ - * ^*. • 1 ■^‘‘' H -“ 1 •'■■ £ 7 « > / /:: a '“V'fU' < % Vi '■’ *'A j ' _ ; Uw«r-:'_________ .•*.•- '•], .-• • ^ . i ___U'i 1s II •Y. \ * \l ’. I » .V. \ i5 t ■M IM / - \ l-lt •J M . • il;' f I ^ ■% . I' •( ' 4* . Pile Vi I 4 3 :i /•'V 1... 1 ..i’ \ tVi •i J r‘” i- 1 ' «* . < * . yy.mu.. Z-jri ------y :?5 3 h*i^ V. *J t '4 •S •' • ( i 1 % / ! ■ --* ( >*v J f ■- » V \ /ff V ^ • • 4 r ».» 1 • \ > 4 -« -,....-• "'I'i I’Aljl’* t—v r ,T ? n.-^ V **- ■• ■ * i —4* •» . t .• .t ' — 4 ••••r • r — „>_______________________________________.---------------- .♦.I T .^•." •' » V \ A :i ■>*-.• ' ♦ r ■ • ’"^TWT L«rjr^- Mf- it' 4 ^,.M ■ t I f fvlf^ *ikw '*%■=5^• i ? ■ •i -i« »'4i 7r ,V *?-. %* «■<■; ■ ‘ ^ t. I ‘1 ^.'^f»r^i f- Cf /■ -4/' 4 • _ . V * ^ i T-' ■ — ■ * • 4 ’ - I. ‘j’avi.t • • \l. *^ • fr 1 « » 1 ! I ' * flS V I ? S i\ I \ t -<i- .»ah. r : ■ i . , ! ' 1 ! ' Hi-^ls'-'-" ' / i' —~^' ^ —J];— ” I -T y~'~:i-r-^-:i,r jjf|-,f .^i:; ^ 'li ■„!?.; '■•i-'.,--siir. 4U, ■ ,;:' «% Vi?t1 |K-|ie i^. ,.■"'■>•' I p’ rrzi~yj;r-fl *' i ? ^ i >ll;‘C- i:r>; ,' .^>-1 •i.' > ■^'}r':it^- 7-ri* ‘i^j^ s 3 -”fc “^7-^V • 'K I t -,vt ♦ . >»'i? \i I '\ ----------A«a f / v“ V- i; S —\- 1 I ?. •- '^J-. 4i'- %* i »• X. •I» - ah> 5“J I :)fl ,/n t \ -^4 \) 1 ii I i'.'»< /V -«r' -'vJ ;d vi ,r?S V **v‘ •7 ,-v. < * f; ^3 %.) .'?■•€ S' ^,'1 ,s i*l rvl Ji ry^4i‘ -"i U \ ::;v 'i ^4 H‘ ■: 1 - ---------\ / /■I / /// I ; i /! / . / »-•q. •r <$;<} n- . •■ % u\ •\ I :{'A V< Cln I fo! " •i5. ;v v> -4 .rji -7-. V> *"p^^-y -TY-7—r .•A' ! 1 M' i I I 'V ' ! , * ) < o •^9 vj '•j 4li r\-“r 8S \ ‘0v> \ »• “•i i ‘t .2..1: __________ ^T| -m • fv •• r ' ■ — i|i \ •V • t 'V—';.- \-----------i“-_'^/ v>X -------V i .» -V i ■I .».. r •V I I i I I -iTn^^i ✓ —^ ^ ... ..................^ y •J f J ' . r • • .i ; ♦ r. V7.\4 V. .;<• -< V > o O «« 2 f/l 8 C\ :/ 2 r' :‘,5 '.p I ( «^« (> - .inik. *' ’ ' • ^ ■ V ' • w 4 s Jt r % »; — \ N ;! -iO-x, V. f ■X , !• -. 1 I vT"*^jyO “X 4 \ r^-v- . ■*■>—« / I N -•’S. ■-1 / ^ f^’4 -' 1.. . '• ' / / (ivVV'aS- // l/J \> - z' - • -co-tf ^ I fvj ■ /// ' > / Exiif ft?ri:(i " « yu. / / ,.>■ Al " ^11:. F-AN i -rx^’-o’' tHifl-i-Tt? KV'lAjM M4U t'vW>Ciii TOfl- cuX^ CSX TV-;ii- p?K|<^ u.Uti . uU^-'T'J'X .1 .' « < 4 ^ i* • ^1 ■ /- A-Viu ilic-' CT*- CA^ A6<iit4^ &CrT b*^A l.y<j:T HC"u:£. <' * l) Wi(AtV ijiasr. z) ^ mjv£. ? ^VJICT99^ OM- 0U^C^ IK ftu. PL. & io '^. ? PR __________:; . NOT i^aSg.<fc. 1 i iy?i mmmk^ •%* 4 I ’s*Iv •}.. • .y ^' .-, % . -V ' • .'' »■ • -VT-:.'•■ •»- -. . .. .tut .y •y/4:. .; ^ ‘iV^ df- T ^ . gV; • *' f ’ ^ jr/- ^ ■ '«Mb > m P^i ,S ■V:-’ ‘r«^ •' <rA '•-i-' I i -I fi' ^ j» 0 . • 1 T ii\ f, 'i ,fj5 To: From: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 13, 1987 Subject: #1145 Scott & Liza Harvey, 1199 21mwood Road - Variance - Public Hearing Application - Lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, hardcover yariances to construct a 2-story porch addition. Zoning District - LR-IB, 1-acre sewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Survey With Staff Notes Applicant's Hardcover Worksheet Staff Hardcover Review Building Plans 1977 Variance Review Documents Pertinent Facts - Existing Proposed Required or Allowed Variant Hardcover 0-75'2.3 %3.2%0%3.2% 73-250'39.4%39.6%25%14.6% Lake Setback - House 79'68'75'7' - Deck 70'75’75'• Avg Lakeshore Setback Encroachment 30'36'O'36* Discussion - Applicants are proposing to construct a 12'x26' 2-story porch (3- season above, screened below) in place of their existing deck. The porch will extend about 2' closer to the lake than the deck does now. They will retain a 12'x 13' portion of deck but plans show a new stairway to serve it. Part of the new stairway and porch will be within the 0-75' zone, resulting in a hardcover increase and new enclosed structure where only a ?nd story deck exists now. The hardcover increase in the 75-250' zone is minimal, about 0.2%. Although the proposed addition creates an even greater encroachment into the average lakeshore setback, it will have virtually no effect on neighboring views of the lake. i I 1 M Zoning Pile #1145 May 13, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Note that the house was built pursuant to a lot area/width variance in 1977, and the plan approved at that time, including the deck, was over 30% hardcover, but hardcover was not addressed at that time. The rock beds were installed who-knows-when. The 1982 additions added about 2.2% new 75- 250' hardcover, with no formal hardcover calculation completed. The only hardship noted by applicant is that the existing house was placed to just meet the 35' street setback as required per the original variance approval in 1977. It also was built to meet the 75' setback requi'ted at that time. The house was constructed according to current setback regulations in contemporary times. Is there any hardship shown that justifies granting of the variances requested? Staff Recommendation - Staff finds it difficult to justify approval of variances for a house built to comtempory standards under current codes. Any recommendation by the Planning Commissicn to approve should find that a definite and unique hardship exists. - - I u•ff i ‘St-i - ?•*-. — ••• -• 7y ,/| Vl^ -'I Z' 4U^ 501 -ticiPorrr JTVU a*t^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Q ' Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address \\SS \^v>vv..-er;v Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) O'? -I ^2^'^ /V QOS'^ Please check one - Is the property _ _ _ abstract or x torrens? y Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. r APPLICANT Name Phone Mailing Address \boC %v^rv.(w:V.- OWNER Name *^ c-V\-*Vv VVr».<\ic^m Phone Mailing Address UH^v Vwo=£!L Date Property Acquired ^V^, VSas-If-(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property C Residential) Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Conctruction Cost $2^toe jjescribe request in detail: VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Front Hardcover i i Setback Variances (_ _ _ other _ _ _ _ _S> Side Rear) f •• •' d on :sa HARDSHIP C' Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; \k>^^^^Cs^.‘Hot.S>.Km-cV .v—- -- description op unusual property conditions Describe'unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED submittals 1. \ Completed Application Form 9' , Certified Property Owners List of owners within 1^0' (you can obtain tWs list from'^Henn^^ County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3') Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. •s '4T) Certificate-of survey including hardcover calculations as required. _y ) Plat Map. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this ?eLmblr th^t your va?ian« application is not complete if the above informrLion has xiot been included. __ _ _„ —__ •■■I mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm nmm mm mm mm mm mm mm t^m ^m APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE knowledge. m Applicant’s Signature iVii..Date - -- . - N / OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ac).owledges ?i^^;“s?aff? co"nsu\\a?ts! authorizes reasonable entry onto the P‘°P®^^y % ^ J; ^ invest.iga- agentSf Commission members, and Council member p P tion and verification of this request. ^ f . t,., ^ Date ^Owner's Signature^ _ _ _ _t- - - - ---- - - third Monday of each month. I -• ^ 'll q.aJ mu tz/!l L-] >) r--------- t i • ‘-C- A * UC2 1 crs " iiS7 2fl Z ‘■W$| T mt \.\— 9 m pm^mss. r— 22 (j.) nm irt»' (Ji) 35 ?!^)iir^^SBI!SSSSikrTJT|.> 1- lu____1 95^5 ^ -1 |^Q!P n:')""V, }} w '■ .<• '. -t. -I ;^‘.-• V i -v -V •is]-.., I£i»o (j->j ■t3l,-5C (fitt) iV* summit ML ii C.vO»' Vtv 8 ■uiv V. M*•if# f? —• *'i vS^VXT a %■ ^NQ, r%<22C) P0;jd-7 CJ2 Ac. (>)/ f/'c' 0 £ 4} (2.^ 4#^7.9 1^ i •■ 'JA'T ifO 11'* • ••' 1-- - ■ '► • i ■• ’ j •^ *‘A 1 1 'Iff’l I»SJ iU.S. iiil o')« ,4 ' ‘1 « > a 4- in M ff-X 5 UJa rD < O Z <a UJ q: o C3e; o UJ < >• \ < UJ Q. ro ;: X ^wa Sc <CL O H< Z oo oo Xu <CD gH Uf O Z UJ < >-a£5SIo = x H OCo 9N UJ h I*- c < / A 4t’ ‘ c- r ' '.♦ • •n \' L‘St J ]■; t;. t ■i /V I 1 4.*'iZ .iiAiii: ^•Vvni ZO* \ V •'*0.S® t^S Cerojricato ol ’ J^i:rv>?y for r>i;lund 6e 3vcdiia:d Cuotoir. iior.o L'uildors of Lotc llf and 13, Skarp ur.d uinoquiaL'i. rcr.vhlll Hennepin Coiinty, Minnesota I I I I • • • I \^*\Vyg. VX)Wv !(•% •^<•.5. < o llOA^ ^ r:rr I I * ^i. 1 ’ —^ i * I0^ • in «r> 1 / fM E.XI it %1 i ■2% 1 1 Hoojft • 1 ^ V ^ i 9 7 p» . -- 3fc S. 10:. ! N .• ?3 /5f put LT ^ ’it-' EdCjE Wood Ave.o fsl *— •■• -.i—*Tf - I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boiuidaries of Lots 12 and 13, Skarp and Lindquist's Fernhill, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other inprovenents or encroachrisnts^ but does indicate two proposed additions to an existing building. v' . -r . ; r * • r «..v Kr L- Scale: Date : o t 1« = 30' 3-3-82 iron Barker Gordon R. Coffin iveg. xvr Lund Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, Minnesota uj»'44 -t- [1 rr i' •- t-.I’/i w5,r. :‘> vt* »> j. - ti*I.i V''i■’,1'•'if M w. —-S-* ' . fc |■^III III I «»■»». MW I ■ t*.4 • r. # •< •.- f , m—■■• -« I ■ lOlfl ,-lt ..V-i rJji - / ; . • - • . - • • • f '^4, • ' « ^ ». • ...... <jr >* • V<^£>7/ \ \ ' 148 plocf -.-iT it Certificate of Sitrvey for ; ilund « Sweciiund Custoir. Hcrr.o Guilders of L/Ots < tind 13» Skarp and uindquisL'a Fcr.'.hill [ennopin County, KJ.rnosota exH. 34.7 z z i -----k_A ■ .••■V :V. I • I Tn f 5 O O r— Aj€4i^x^n ne>z- l?4bl ElruE Wood I hereby certify that this is a truo and correct representation of a siirvey of the boundaries of Lots 12 and 13» Skarp and Lindqui Fernhili, and the location of all existinc buildings thereon. I does not pxirport to show other inorovenents or encroachments, but does indicate two proposed additions to an oxistinn buildinn. Scale: Date : 1« = 30' 3-3-82 Iron marker Cordon R, Coffin Reg, ifej^ 60 64 Land Surveyor and Plarjier Long Lake, Minnesota THIS ITEM HAS MB MICROFILMED ^ * i . /- U ts3aw «o:os 2:o M < D U f-J 4Jo c<uu 0^a *0 o a > w o S ^ o u >-i rs O4 j C O ou 0)co N c •H Cn 0) c > •H O 4J O CO 'O •H X fO w jc: o Q) O O*' rH 10 *J Xcop < »-l •!• OJ CQ Q.'-' tr. a c > •H o 4J o CO •H X ro w x: oco N c H CJ^ fO C (D •H u 4J (d CO •H 4J X o W fH < ocoN c H wa:o tc COw u <m E->w CO w 2:c M -r O J /»• cN in CNI 0 cn in m 1 «\®i \0o\ «M) to U-( W «4^ (0 V) 0-w V CO n u-r CO 1^1 CO S' 4^ to CM CO CM (0 o Cm (0 CM CO m I o 0 in (N 1 in o 0 m 1 o cn CNI o o 0 rH 1 Oon toco •H 4Jo 0u •H Q 5 • ><*H 5 a Xi rd ^ c c o >,0 •H N rH -H to a-u •O -H *H •* ® 4J »aw «0 •X D njO -H E 00 T3 *D 0*0 Q)o > ® vy vjo* *p *0 *a O’ ^ ^ fd ro ^ ® ® ® ^■»J ^ tp,Q J- •H c 5 5 o > 5 5 *H (0 O ^ -P o 4J o o w ^ to > (/) £V«m ■*• ■ '• • V. •- X -H X p V i: i? w 5 wo w *0o *o CO (U P S <0 -H X (0P< O *0 0) j C O fH (U p -H ^ O <W «M A< < 4J 4^ O O <-* Ci W £m * ^ r? .. HARDCOVER REVIEW 1199 Elmwood Avenue - Zoning Pile #1145 Total Lot Area - 16,250 s.f. * 0.37 acre 0-75' Zone: Area =* 7,750 s.f. 0-75' Existing Hardcover - Portion of deck 5'x22'/2' - Wood steps to lake 4'x30' 55 s.f. 120 s.f. -0-75' Existing Hardcover Total 175 s.f. or 2.3% 0-75' Proposed Hardcover - Portion of enclosed porch 4'avg x 26' - Wood steps existing - Proposed new deck stair portion 104 s.f. 120 s.f. 24 s.f. 0-75' Proposed Hardcover Total 248 s.f. or 3.2% 75-250' Zone: Area = 8,500 s.f. 75-250' Existing Hardcover - House (36.5x26.2)+(8x24)+ (22.3x26.2)+12x20) - Driveway 18'x36' - Entryway 6'xl5' - Rock beds with plastic (5'x30')+(€'xl2')+30+30 - Deck portion (13x12)+ (26x10)-55 1,972 s.f. 648 s.f. 90 s.f. 282 s.f. => 361 s.f. 75-250' Existing Hardcover Total 3,353 s.f- or 39.4% 75-250' Proposed Hardcover House !=1,972 s. f Driveway S 648 s. f Entryway s 90 s.f Rock beds s 282 s.f Portion of Porch (12x26)-104)&=208 s. f Deck 13x12 ]=:156 s. f New deck stair portion 12 s.f 3,368 s.f [ rt' i • v'-;^ ' ■ ■ t ': . r-: " 'r '• • I *..* " * ■•*L-• .t . • ...j. ■ *f--’ V .• >0 ’• .■ ■ V: UA-;.• ••.:.■ : V •* •• .* *1 V. • • • •*- * *■ r*. •• '.V r-:: t. • .*>. ••%; L.* ■• > •• # • * * . • .• . ‘ ‘ ‘ ** > • t • \ *i . • rs . 4. .i ** ., • • i \ • » ' i I • * •«. i.• , i* . . p*,. •; • • • > *• •* 4 f % » • • •• ■ •'• • • • >’»■•• ••; ? •■*:. •’*■■■ If. •. ■ • .. ■ t . » ■.*' 't ' ■ 4 I • 0 • • - . .• • • • V.' • • • . m t # ' • ' ^ r ex//.//-3 • ; ft • ‘t. r • * •* • • I'**** V. • »*• « f • ' V ■ • ♦ . . S*-’ .* .• -• . • • 4 .* . ■ ■ « r • * •i r ' V. •, Lrr^ft'* I •' - • • V' ^STv* .'<rv»'ax ci*2 \A\'~\vr-....- - - N vr .!•V« 53'J QiKO ^2-Z f -• V , ♦. I fi ti-.r ri.vvru cfz ii I V P 1 LJ IT 1 al a j• • m II*i v.»; 1 ©<A>. //- V .* H* *•.................................... • . ^ . , ■ I . . . . 1 , . ••.■,».• ^ • 1 .“ 1- ■■■■■■,, :■..■■ ■■■;..--^f■.■■•-•;;■• * • • ••••••»*.•• . ^ ^ , • • ! ' . »•*••- - *• » *• • *1 * • . • * r *. »^ ■ f ,• **••'• •. • • *» ■• ♦/• • *. J i*.^ '* • • - ^ •- • . # • • ^ - -,•.•■ \s .* * * ■ • ‘ .. ' . ■.*'-•“. ' :* - •’ .*."-•••.*•■;: V • \* ‘- .ilk,-*. ,i . m . i*^*.^.* ••* '* .. . , , . • » ..... . .- •- . • . •• • ••* • — ^ - . . • • * . - ..... ■ • • • .. .. ... . -1^. ' V: ;^.•v.•• . . • . \ * *“ • * T7 't. •. . T *• .* • • ; f • i!••' ;n • » -.11 :rr.izn.“T L-A- •• X Trri * •. #. •. MVa CT-7IW ^‘CS rrt—Ii._St.ji.. ' **s ■ V ‘ 'Ti* '•■ ;v»V.:. •'> ■•■•'■>• V;::- •,v • • t -b-.t ,o . -:•/ yr^:. s r* % • i • • • i ' J ^ L» cr “ €X//. yV-S* *. • . * \ • .•:'•:••’•-?.• ■: •/■ ‘ V‘5 '.-.v *•••:•.•,•• ••• •• •“ • 1^--____-..• -V •'-7: r. - ^ -5 V‘:: vl •.•.■• ;::C:^;v:^: •■• ; .- “ ^V^o-vo... ^ . ' ■' • • • •'. .rv r^:.:- • ‘ ,-;T?• .v ;iv- A':.; • v-v.v, • i • ‘ ‘ ; '• f ■- * ■*• *. .N : •••,•/:* .♦ - - * _ • : ‘ c .r.' "' V*• '. r-r.*. V.V’**.'--'-..* . •.■ .•.• UvVji;. • Bin-Tiyi u i ' .. i*. * f ' ■ ■ • . ,*,W_ . ! ■• ■ •: V -r- . ■■ . ..• , '-4 . .. ... ''' ■ ■• ;• / ' ' X., . .-i. i' *** \ 5 •• •- - • * . ■ .« I ?»o «y-v-t^^frTw Xxo ce->«H ♦ t i ' • I •v^ 1 1 1 AEcy Ui » i 1' I 9 1 ; •;P S H -A»----!:-4_ u § r ' • _. *u>^ •nry^t 3 - —<r-“—•i Q 4 L f -3f .«2 ■ ■ ■ • aA♦ ■ — A - - -ro^nrr7-^;^. P'^f3r#v-2 ; i. ^T?TvaLL ’ V—r i; 10 j \1 ;•' f. ^ -jf- 'i 1 |l 10j:=3.1 J I 1 oj- r I :JV < r- • f » - • , * • ' V I . ' - . • ■ ■.! :.■•• ••• ;r ' ^ • ■ , i. •■• -•“i - \' .. ..... • • •- • ■4 ** . *N» •* J*T *•! f •• ‘ J ‘T-r ^ ; I .":, •. :li . •* • * • • • * T • • k - * ■ * ' •• « • ■ • • .*•• • •••;• • • • .• ' « ,• • ». ....> . .. ... • • ,*-y • t-KT ■^^2r^ - . ' - ' ' '• • *%* • • » “• . . * *. • . . '. . • . • • • •, • •.•• •'- •■ a:: : iv . ‘ . • *• * '•. • *1^ ••*“.. :• * - ■'“. ♦ *• •■ • ' .• V- • i’;*. V - -• • ' ^ r- ..••*:rr.. .o • . '» • * * ^ * ■. * • •. ^. *••»• *•** •* •• J ■ •■ '•* J-,* • •*»*'; • • • * «■ T • • i *.!}..* * .■ “.•■»'••. •• *<‘ . . « . . .• • *. ■ • *'*•.* *V' * .i -:•» iV.\. ‘ *•' . . . ' ‘ ’*• ' •*’' • ? ’• *i**r■'i r, ^ .r?*;vr*y ••’ v*" • -r... V. • . • !':•/ i; \ ■.!. ■::■ • •,--..T^ -, 4--- ;,** •• ‘ ■ 1 •*.• \’. -■ '•■* --'rr . ',. .* '-■*' '.*%' > - * * * - • I ' • • ^ .*V • ^ ''• ; -? • • • < •■:.v.::>- •f ‘ • ♦ ... . ■ ■' I • ■ • •■ .• ••••* - *t'- . *•• ' v*;^ • ** .,•■.*> • > . '.v T:! v ”V . ..i- . ■ • J • •. ' I , >r > * ■1 t>XH: « r-/r: .•«'w I • *». • I {; • • > I. ■ 'k i-->. V f.-'.v Did; Bcnscn, City /Vbinistrator llanl: Muhidi, Zoning: Adnvinistrator ^ ^ ■•*>•' Dcccri)cr 15, 1976 SUP a JIiCT; William Schultze - 1199 Elinwocxi Variance - Lot Art'ja and Ividth Hr. Schultze is requesting cp;iroval for tiio construction of a hoiLsc on this sub standard lot. Lot requirements in this district: 1. Lot Area - 1 Acre (45,500 sq. f*’.) • ’ 2. Lot ’^Uith - 140' 3. Rif/nt-of-v;ay Setback - 35' 4. Side Yard Setback - 10’ 5. Ld:csljorc Setback - 75' • The follo;.’inn non-confoming conditions c.xist with t?iis proposal: % • 1. Lot Area - 16,090 sq. ft. • 2. Lot V.idth - 100' , ■ 3. Ritht-of-bay Setback on l-xisting Garage - Partly Ov'cr Right-of-V/ay *• I ; Variances Required If .Approved: • •; 1. ’ot Area - 27,560 so. ft. .■ / • i . i 2. Lot V/idth - 40' \ . 3. Right-Of-Way Setback for Uxii;ting Garage ' .. Tius property lies between a lake access rigiit of way and tlic Garlock property so available for cxpansicn. Tlic tv.’o lots have cadi been assessed 1/2 u.nit sc.-.cr ciiarge for a total of one unit. TJic location of the j)roposed dwell ing would meet all setback requirenents. Conditions to be considered: • 1. Rcroval of existing non-conforming garage as plans for new house include garage. . , 2. Conlnnaticn of Lots 12 and 1.5. Tl’.e topog sketch of the property shexifs about a 10' drop in elev'ation from tJic g^tage floor. Mr. Schultze is tlicreforc requesting approval for tilling for tlie driveivay to eliminate a r.tocp hill from the garage to tlie street. piA‘wi.\G aMiissio:? ?5:i:ri:;G - ncccrfjcr 2o, 1976 r.cco.a.'iendcd approval of variances and fill nen'iit for driveway. Justifications: 1. .\’o othc: land available. 2. A.ssesscd for sca/er. Pn)pnscd Ifcat ion would .'■icct all sclbad le Miironents. '‘PP'rovc'd ns stern sIoik? from strert to earn-.* location nahes access difficult esprcinllv in t!;e winter. % Conflitions: 1. IfcnnvaJ of e.xisting non-conforming rarago b' lAr-- e ntstruction of new re::idcr.cc. -A V. r 4 . t T*; 4 . . V. . L i • . » .'*■ •» n^rjddi^^n'ibo^ Sfst^^'’"'■'<‘1 aro loSi^g Se "opp “’ Sil^; .^PPl^ant wa? n • I tliafthii'”"' '■'““"“H Country platted right of w.- \ .;: ' Property is a ^tz rjid hbodliili suggested tJiat Mr. ^ter a brief discus. * of way. to rcccrrarend approval o field seconded, increase in JiarWer arc is no distance from all lot'li^es n '^^ttion i • furthest •Ayes (6), iN'ays (o). •'Cshoro. /‘fotion - '^f ^‘pplicant wns presGnt Mv t ut addition ti his^exTstLr?'"n^-'‘^ approvalwaJition dees meet all hardcover J^roposed .vl.>Q meets all setback r<->en,; ^ ''C.tjacks from tliy laice lot line resulting from c-xcept for the south triangular shaped sliver in v;hich a •scuUi. ‘ ''■^s annexed to the lot to the J^nnai; moved. Hosficld ce^-ond-i i-r. tnat r.vo cC.'jcr land is awiilnMo' I “P.nrovc on tlic basi.s suojcct to v/ritten app-oval of ',V ^°P°Ctaphy of the land, ^‘‘Yos (6), Ways (0). ^ .of (leorgo Johnson, fbtion - GOroXlM RITZ nOAO *^I/\hCES K)R ADDITlQ'i TC N'^'J-ODNIORJU'/Y ^ ^ - SIDE ii‘\Rncovi:i-i win I IN 75* (i?2r)^' OP LAhnsnoRE GVJRIEL JAhbOUR 7b0 TON’KAI'.’A Tf)AD VARIANCE - Lor M'VA f SCTOACK^^ (ni5) u t h’lLLW.t SaVLTZE 1109 r.!j:;ooD VARrA»'CE - LOT ATiEA F • f ' 1 { • V r: hearing for Ju^wnry » at 7:30 p.m.IKs'UY SICARP ?<I« W. HilMiAlE ra,\J) Y^L piwwittL'Evr . f •i tf'\mW“ 1 tfcx. i_i' .. 4^1^ - f 8 if: OROriO COUI.’CIL UEETIIIG HELD JAMUARV 10, 1977^ Zoning Adminintrator, Av^mm’ Cchultze, 1199 Elrmrood of 1 requesting approval for the concjtructiol 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Lot area - l acre (43,5G0 sq. ft.) Lot width - 140' Right-of-way setback - 35» Side yard setback - 10* Laheshore Setback - 75' 1, Lot area - 16,000 sq. f:. 2, Ldt v/idth - 100' 3, Right-of-way setback on existing garaoe - partly over right-of-way. ^orianccs required if approved* 1. Lot area - 27,560 sq. ft. 2. Lot v;idth - 40* 3. Right-of-way setback for existing garago rcqS^cments^^^"^ wSSi^mocS^irseJbScf Coi'ditiono to bo co.isidered: existing non-conforming gcrago aa •'ouso include garage/*s «k>i t 4. tlvi w COuabination of Lota 12 fi 13, °''-“tch Of the property shewo about a 10* aoor 9«ago nr.n"oOal i®' requeeting a'eteon^hlll '^'^veway to oliminotoS-cep fiiii from the garage to the street. Manning Cormission Meeting - Decon-Jaer 20, 1976 of variances and fill parnit ..or driveway. Justifications: P-rnit 1. Ho Other land available. /iCGGSGGd foiT ."^OV/il2T* rcqS?rc^ita!“°" uarau2'''lf!.’^f°"'“‘’ "? “treot tojarago locution makes access difficult oopociaxly in tlio winter. M . U agciVARIATICE1199 Elmwood Avonuf $216 V7illlam Jchultze / (Continued) .'•A *» ♦ s- I - -.2 V.1;' <■’k* •s- ► • 1 u .i: :i.,i. r . r i* fA /-i ...J 1 CnOMO COUllCIL riKETIUG HELD JAnUAIlY 10, 1977 P^gQ 22Conditions:1, Ror.ioval of cxiotincj non-conforning garago before conj«*ruction of new rccidenco. VAnmrcD1199 Elrrr.-;ood Avenvo (Continued) Massengalo moved, Dutlcr ceconded, to approve tho variance request of William Schultze, 1199 Elmv;ood Avenue, par the Planning Commicsion Ilinutea of December 20, 1977. Motion, Ayco (4) - llaya (0) Ilanry Iluhich, Building fi Zoning Administrator, stated that Hr. Peterson, in behalf of the I.’avarre Congregation of Jehovah*o Witnesses, io requesting a temporary permit to park one i.'obilc homa unit for the visiting Hr. t r-lrs. Jansen for tl;a vcck of January lG-24, 1977. i! TRAILER PERMIT 3655 Togo Road !! butler moved, Paurus seconded, to approve the t-'i.porauy trailer permit at 3655 Togo Road, JcI:ovah*s Uitnasscs, for tho v/cc!; of January 16- January 24, 19/7. Motion, Ayco (4) - Hays (0)./ , * i I'r.nry Huhich, Building 6 Zoning Administrator, informed tho City Council that’the City is in receipt of a petition tliat states: To Whom It May Concern; PETITIONS Ducks -7 ♦* > 5 f V.’o, the conf-arned residents of the Morth Arm area of Lake Hinnetonka, in tho municipality of Orono, do hereby request of tho City of Orono, . tho Lake Hinnetonka Cansorvation Committee, and Un State of Hinnocota to refrain a Hr. Howard White of Cherry /ivenue in Orono to refrain from the raising and feeding of ducks and gecco ut all tir.'es, iJa fcal that thin is a hcaltli linaard in both the summer and tho v/inter. 7is thrs ^ feeding of birds is done adjoining to a public bathing bcc.ch, it has brought about very unsanitary sait.i.niug conditions, not to mention whet tliese })irds do v;ith their encrement on docks and lavms in the noighborinvj area. By maintaining open .^/atcr in tho \/intcr time, it creates fi dangerous area for young children playing end ckating on nearby ice. It also leaves open v;atct from the public access to the lake. V.';'• > . ;• •e'( • j * h V$. ,rt\ \ * V V' f» I *. u •• -r-.* ,f*. i I . h} ^ 4 % ir \ ^.V .*•.v: f* .» i k- '.f ^ t- ' * ^ r Ii' liri have no objection to a few birds, but birds s ; liiv.ber iu tha r.cny hundreds end V7G fcol that tn-u t '/c'.i Oi/ Lr.l:e Hinnetonka vaa not inten td to bo a game refuge. Immediate actiun on tnis situatisu is requested. (Continued) 4 T' w • •. tl • •••>•«. -• « # . • • .1. . «• ,• «# try « •• » ~t *■..»». . » * •» •» '• '• •> • V ^ » • I • , .» . • • • *; .♦ • r 7 V’ • • 4 / • ^ • •r * : • , ‘ * -*•• • S ••••.: ■i / *■* - • •'• *' •«- • * • * • M , * f. * • . >..C • » . i u :■-( k I 0 7 • I. » • r , I- M ii **! f • « N h III o" D (0 J ( t \ 00 j VM .1. I . I J i ii* ;: ,1..- ■k-‘. V •’■/'■■ •.? ' . •. *: ' • »- r- J f ■V K • .?• /. ♦r . * •V , ■m 4 • • . . • • • . % *, * • ' • * . V . r. • * . > V, •. •■ ' •* » * ^' -V- '•' ‘ ^ ^• . <» T •• » • • ^4 ■ • ... V r •. » * ■.- .. .,.■.■■■■■■•'. a wH • *, • .• •\; ■S- . »■ >•.■ ■' i'v ■ I ■ / 4,^'. ' . ■■-"'‘x/ . -I''- 4’. ' **• ■ * **" i. ki %■ I ■ • I-- • . • , • -•• • >f '■ ‘ i • ' ' ' • . •• » . . ... ■*■>:.■ 1 . ;. . . .. ' ?.f • ^ '% ■■M •. f • ; ^ 1 k.,: ■ .1 ' . : . A-*‘ :. I • * v:4*.V -f' *• •¥,. .* > ■ f u ^ f r'.v. ' . . . -Vjf » > \ • V -V."’ " V‘vl « • V . v| ;ii % ' -r ru~zi^Jj •'f ■ . ■■••• .- ■: ’•1• ^ * V * ‘ • * J' . • * r i —t .................... I * .»• • ' *■ J•> .A ^ ^ :** # % :^V;’.v^ 4' ■ • ‘ 0 -J. 4 .1-« • J * * ?* * rlMPUk JEi! '' - *f'•tt: *-•^ • •!i-ni I . ..!'L ' HUM I "1 It Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 14, 1987 Subject: #1147 George and Theresa Bloom, 1374 Rest Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing Application ~ Request for fence height variance (6* where 3*5' is allowed) along street lot line of lakeshore lot. Rest Point Road is not a *’ma3or thoroughfare". Zoning District - LR-lB, 1-acre List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Application & Letter of Request Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Surveyor's Notes Regarding Elevations Sketch With Staff Notes Pertinent Code Section - 10.03, Subdivision 15 1/28/85:(C) as amended by Ordinance 9, Second Series on Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: C. Fences which do not exceed 3 *5 feet in height, fences not over SIX feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfcire, if fill is required, the total combined height of both fencs and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crown of the road, unco ^ered porches, stoops or similar structures, wnicn do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than two feet from any lot line. Discussion ' n 4. appl^icants request to construct a privacy fence along the stioet lot iJ-ne. Their residence is located only about 15-20' from the actual traveled right-of-way. Vehicle and pedestrian traffic on the road looks right into their dining and kitchen areas during seasons that the lilac foliage is absent. Staff would suggest strongly that you view this site to get a feeling Pi‘ot)lem, and to determine wheither the hardship justifies a variance in this case. (Take the middle branch of the three Rest Point Zoning File #1147 May 14, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Public Works Coordinator John Gerhardson has reviewed the proposal as it relates to maintenance of the roadway. This is a critical area for snow plowing because the right-of-way is only 16’ and the pavement is about 12- 13'. The neighbors 6' fence on the north side of the road (right at the property line) causes severe drifting across the road; in the past, the City has had to hire a private contractor with special equipment to move the snow away. (Serhardson suggests that if a 6' fence is allowed, it should be at least 5' from the property line at the west end and could angle up to a point about 12' from the house corner (see Exhibit F). He also suggests it would be helpful if the applicants consider dedicating some additional right-of-way to the City in this critical area. He warns that at the west end of the property, any fence constructed at the lo'* line will have a severe impact on plowing operations, will restrict the area that snow can be pushed to, and would likely be damaged by plowing. We would certainly like a hold-harmless agreement for any fence near the right-of-way. Staff Recommendation - Please consider this proposal in relation to: 1. The applicants' needs and hardships. 2. The City's needs for road maintenance purposes. 3. The fact that if applicants put a 3*i' legal fence at the property line, it will have an even more severe effect on road maintenance than a higher fence located some distance back. 4. The aesthetics of driving down Rest Point Road between privacy fences. If you find that a 6' fence should be allowed, staff recommends: a) That it be no closer than 5' from the property corner at the west end, and no further than 12' from the house at the jog in the house, and then parallel to property line from that point east to the driveway. b) That a hold harmless agreement for the fence be granted to the City even though the fence is on private property. c) That the applicants be encouraged to consider dedication of additional right-of-way along the road. I ..odiAiiiitfm • i i%.< w *■ "I /. Mfi/§ ^ i' ir^J ri Uci ua i<e c • u_ VA^VV/f 7 d} /S0,7^^ ^---- j'z'rt^\~~~Z2kIl Initials.;i„ '~x I CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION V)^H . A. . J.UW I i ,.;r,Si;; .s.ssr-’ ( -dd property location 4 ! Please checR one - is the property ____ abstralfTAf^'^ to application if not included o applicant survey. Phone (home) V7^-?'T-7/ Phone (work) _ _ Zip; /'* * - ^ ^ ^ /d)f O C Address; /?7y/J .// /^/ •"/-—^ y/-i 11 /'' A* • I /''I'* /City; 0»NB» (if different than applicant) Name Address; Phone (home) Date Property Acquired Phone (work) City;Zip:_ I.1 -.y '*' —— _____\AllViyl. - - - - -®'33^=®nt parcels of land. (month/year) PRESENT USE CJ* PROPIS^JTY Present Zoning District Present Dse of Property /-(C.-IR Other (specify) JRes^entiai''^^ REQUEST Estimated Construction CosmTofTno Describe request in detail :_ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Let Width Front Hardcover Side - - ---4>.pprifiP^ property 1 ine. Regulation T-- » -a_ '±mi'!>- Tens? ‘ed survey. ■) HARDSHIP enforcement of zoning^regula^tTon^^^^ptar resulting from strict description op onosoal propertx conditions ?oirRe|uirement^?’^Ro''aTDU«ment^ Preventing compliance with Zoningplacement^ many, years ago, and the add ons to the hnmp ..ngg the late 1800 s has resulted in a conditio’, or direct visual viewing of the---- dining and kitch en areas of thp >-ome. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Applicatxon Form szri; ««»• 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. reLm^lr^that y%"ur information has not been included!^ ^ complete if the above Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application! Zoning Official's Signature is complete. Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE unusual expenses incurred in T-errio,., xu • fees and/or "-rTe °/nd^^^ Applicant's Signature h,Date /// 7/K 7 OWNERS SIGNATURE tl*^and^S^afU«ioro£"hrr.qo«^^ m."b.rs for porposos’ofTnvestig^- Owner's Signature ___________ Applicant must have all submittal s into the Citv "!fice! TlZVlll: IC” review meetinas present at all scheduled applicanris unable to attend- Council, and, if an ments to have an LtLrized ac-nt*^'tr ^o please make arrange- Building s zoning Office of thi^ change prio" "'to” the melting V 1 \\ Zoning home the btain Center f the sd. lease above te. id or id/or that »/her ther ants, :iga- nge- the 1 ' /• <• i i // i i / •' jL * / f/M A’ DESCRIPTION OF RE(3UEST Construct a six foot (b') privacy fence along approximately SCl^ of the property line along the street (Rest Point Road). See portion marked in red for proposed variance* Without such height of fence individuals walking or driving on the street look directly into the dining and kitchen area. The garage directly across from a significant portion of the fence will be removed with construction of a home this summer. The only other part of the road with a fence across from it is from the southwest corner of our property line for a distance of_ _ _feet* I I \ L> y y B //7 <m ^ —W| r tfSfd • loi Tonksvi* I \ . y* 1X exi^,c B taCT/’-rj !^S §kK ^ 3: CM M 0 s Is(D O o O:UJ _ i^.'h. "T lo P M c: -j > 2 w Q: -J M cy H U4 o j cn o «5 a.N U) ^ Be CO k-toI -I -J UJ ^ uj ao in c9 < X in ^ K) CQ U N S 2 •- tt ^O C C ii o K» m m o in oro q: o. vrm in in — -j tJ M < 1C O H^ a uj infn '■— WHO, N lU ^ a: i§! X q: MsesP3§< A K-"»g *» < tt W oD; y w <»• z o a ^ uj o ►- K> CM I I Htn UJa ingw -i!^2 JSSfeS lu in 2 Ki >r m IN» o in Kl OD (I n o tn < 8bliL (J < O i4 "sii < q: ft h-in UJ ft o fo nr LUft r D < aS £0 ft ft §LU ^ \ UJ<CL X < H ^ O g“ 0 ►- fO p K> CJ ►-1 tnN LU -4 a •J LU 5 M tn tn Hr o ft t ^2 n M in p mCL (J UI N O ^ >- >. 2 ft ft ^ ft ft CO •HI UJ LU n o H r- h-tn LU ft* o §si 4-v i>-- r -i SS33 CM ft oLU §lU ft oo - MN Q ft Oft ft •H o a Si SI < ^2*» S L- *® ^o ft o ^ 2 K ft Kl M o U o — 2: M LnV t; § s g “»N lu tn oc ft ft LU >- ^ fi 2• (5 2 UJ C o fn ^ fn ^ ft O O 2 Kl jn ft LU M in ^ ^ 2 2 o in 1 tn ft ft ft LJ CD CD»H ft 7 X 3 tn 2 J ft E^ ^ J- H ft 2 iS N X m *: _ K» LU ft N o£2 2 H m ftKl O ^ Q O o ft ft 15 p ft lu o 5: _ M 0 tn CO 32 ;; o o Kl 5m o ft ft !-4 £ mJ o *- LUft rO < §2 o *r £?S h ft Q ft O LU < > N<C LU ft r - ^ ft <ft UJ ft i<•4: o < o: p 2 UJ <9 ft <ft L'J ft o pr Xft 2 < ft O K C C-(1 1 ■■ .t MfMi I r // L y tf K- ri f V rA !2 \o Mrj Si '-■ 1/1 Ui <!» o s if v< vS .^* s V "4^4^ u % ^ ^ Qo N JTi i 5? ^ ^ ^ oc ^ tfc^ u • J'-.i s ■'^'' 03 --r ^ ............... iN^ r~ Tj-o • • •• ^ ^ i CNJ B \ r», .J? rn ^ * vT*/ ”‘\ 'ir r* ^ r......p • ■ 1 j') I i • / h 4- '••' «»V ^ »«4*«» ft« ..% c C n o' ^ r,E *r>4-« «„, ;o ‘ U) |v> #* '^4' _ 03 CO cJ 03 picr* L''' . U ’2:-. S’C •■' r*ro f>* ^ ^ ^ Ir^* •fj ■ 4-; -Y \r, v' V -» . . .i., » '«* c^- t •i (3 VL ilj J u5 • ^JJ y ■rr ••• cO • »• • ' ’; -r - ■ —i* •» * ^ J 4 ; t « ,*( » 1 -. t r- 0 1 N , t <t ^ t <c-{ i ^! . Q --J. i j*: ! I ly U 2 JA?..) 4 ■■^ i <C U • J > - '^'O .!4 r -i> ' o <.) ■ 'i3 t/'s Jnv .‘V? ■ X' -» S’ ':T - '-^ X V WN • •»• •' > i«. <*'^»»-«» — Q- t * • , «»o <<r 3 — >. }•:'. •> ~t- ’,• ^ « / V» •• . V/ fcQLi'. / • •• .♦• ^ 4 ? ^ r* Vj r. * •! •✓ J- r *..* ./ AriSkdiKib r/^/h.-^ f.J »/i • .v: : v.^TTfr-^^ 6;<«.e ♦ V • % ' »> , P ■i^V fl / J cx^. r t it t.\n li Z' r‘* . » t* * '' ^ * A V4# .*-*^'« I <K! ; v> ^ i ^ • K ^ ‘ ' -/b 5 £ ^i f Os ^ ^ ^ » -V : ^ » » ■ • —•r - .;.. . i I f 4—--4. 6)<»».E'I ‘ -- • ‘•••?— S .i r I « I •. ».. I 1 !• ti •■ ! r* :-.t ♦ • • ; •* ...f 1 I •• I • 1 *'’!■• 'T |V..yl ', •—i •••'.•• r*‘ L" ' _L ♦ * * ........... i • *1 • *• :. I » \<>- O i ! : ; ; , ^ ••■* • •V - « 4 *•• • *»y • - ».- I —' — - -4 {*•■‘ — £.2.0 ’:^ !^'T—!------------ - - —. i.>i ; ' •* si • «,, * »f •*•*-■• •. , - ->« ■..«.» •‘ «•»» • . •♦ . • • ? #— • - -i .'I L • U i .i«-A- iJ I . >■ *I '•| * * •» <1 f % t t i •'« -~^ •■’ MS ■ • • • » *». . • I ~,........ •• *• t- wi.... • ^ . .s ; i r~ -5 0 -r" i:!'^ J 1/'^ r! •:’ .0 *. ♦ ^ ^1-1 ■ M ® r“ ^ r" r' <5“ ■ . — — — ^0 *»A - mm-mm ••■•• • - •“ 4 *“*-t-* ♦ — > *1 I i r - (V r V ■ < >:i ♦1' ■I rAjnwn.tw«i.n-.cir»r%>.-v>^'>-^-^.-~- ~~.■ -..L> u I r—>* . -i.11 a To Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom; Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 13, 1987 Subject: #1149 Scott Vickerman, 2500 Sixth Avenue North Renewal of Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Background on Application — March meeting. Planning Commission approved the partial vacation of a conservation and flowage easement originalirgran^ed to thi investors. Company, to have the easement vacated prior to final lanning Commission recommendation agreed to a partial vacation of th»> proceedfell through and CMIC did not ffo« application beyond the Planning Commission review All fees have been paid by CMIC for the vacation application! All prope*?^vfiled by the new owner of the subject p operty. Mr. Vickerman wishes to proceed with the insta 1 lat-ion pond as approved by the City on October IS. 1984 The orfafn»i ?use permit expired on 10/15%5. original conaitional List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Application Plat Map Property Owners List Council Minutes of 10/15/84 Topography Survey Preliminary Sketch (Locating septic areas & other improvements) Section of Pond Hennepin Conservation District Report Resolution No. 1685 i Zoning File #1149 May 13, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Review of Original Proposal - Application 1846 - Approved 10/15/84 Review Exhibit E, the invert elevation to proposed pond is shown at 99‘ or 1 foot lower than outflow elevation of existing pond on Lot 2. Applicant should confirm the 1 foot drop in elevation can be Y the existing drainage tile (under shared drive) draining to east s^e of Lot 3. The overflow elevation from the proposed pond is also at the 9 9 elevation. The overflow drainage will be transmitted grassed swale area to the drainage ditch along County Road 6. llear’ from the approved plans of 1984 and existing =°"<*ttions in the field lust how drainage will entrance or leave the pond. ipplicanfs contractor should amend plans to include more detailed information for these specific functions at the time of filing for land alteration permit. The pond will be of the same design as the one <^ with a maximum depth of 5 feet and 4:1 side slopes provided on one side of the pond. The overflow (at the approved elevation of 1031') will not impact the septic systems on either property nor will it create problems surrounding properties. The resolution approving the original conditional I) is enclosed for your consideration. The findings can still be made and except for the granting of a conservation and flowage easement over the pond area, all other conditions remain appropriate. Staff Recommendation To approve the renewed conditional use permit application Scott Vic)ce?m?/subject to the findings and conditions requirement of a conservation and flowage easement) set forth in the resolution (No. 1685) approving the original oonditional use. a". 4 1, r i f— 44P AT i<f *'>'• J iir- “fci » i •cr 'Vft v< ».J r J CITY OP ORONO GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3500 fo- 1\v£. K>. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3^ I ^Sl3>~' ^ /~QQ‘^ Please check one - Is the property ____ (for Conditional Use Applications only) abstract or torrens? .^Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name SfO fV \) \ C kr flTV^ O Address r3^^300 (q~^ P\\/Y-^> fO Phone (home) ^73'"*7^/0 Phone (work ) 73 / 52 C'* City f7rr;>on zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ~ Phone (home) Phone Address City Zip Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES > CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • • 4 ♦ % _ _ _ _ $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) _ _ _ _ $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg Commercial/Industrial Use Land AlterationA $250.00 d) $200.00 f) y Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning $200.00 Appeals Other -see fee schedule »- .* 1 ‘V f ' PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property yC Residential /Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST O . i_ r> \ \ \ Describe request in detail: \ i I XI || IpClO -yV\n/o /T) fhri bcvCK REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. I 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain \his list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Cernter 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address.. 4. Certificate of survey. ■ • ; 5. Construction plan, if applicable. 6. Plat Map. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE . The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies ^hat the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. DateApplicant's signature/jV (X/X OWNERS SIGNATURE j ,r 4.w ^The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes or investigation and ve^ification ^^o^^tl^s request. Owner's signature\DcA[/Date —7 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings •‘X third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council, and, if an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, to please maKe arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 9 9 ' •* "•# Or rscr*- Nk o o .5 ro ipi m 5 C! N -< >gS5g 5 ^ ^W m liiaj CD COoo >7= 3 H S m i»4 O > or 5 oo m oooo 'O © O © 3 2 Simjj, |3f S ^ 3 Ou s so “O o7J • rs Hj I ||i m > xj \ -< > > ni X o g » P o g 3 93 » m g •U VO lu Ln O O o;o nm Z M Ul Ss>ro < *U (D ^ m m2-si X> X2 ro Q> I o S fM O Oo H CD cn 'XI o ►1 I (D S 3 o o 2 ^ m m so S3 Qi M M m rn tH^ W P) o» Ir\» VH ism o (/) I"*> o u0» > <ni 4> Og z o n > S3 S3o rv> 0» I Oi I fN> Oo o U1 01 04 ino» o o 0 01 H- 3 isil i" dio m M rn r- C r- m C ^S3 01 0» I r- ro o o o ro 0 1 s s 0> Iro 04 01 01 04 O S3 m o oo g r.|T,g _ ^ > n o 2 X -D S ^ W ^ o 01 «- ► n f- M 5 rn g ^ 2$ Z o ** O ^ . < ro > m o X Og sS3 O 0» Iro 04 01oi 04S! r- S3 “ HI im i •n ti S3 S3 m m o o m S3 S3 M M O m X r- m 0 o> ►- o ro 01 01 rv> 09 I p- •- O r- Z b Q ro r ►- M 0> r- • r- ro Q 04 if > ► O 04c: ° c>C3 >0 M M VI Z Z o rvo 09•n -n I 01 01 04 OIe* m f— S3 m S3 m m — w § m > o m 2 f- s-ooo ro Oi H Ol S3 04 > Oi M O f- ri ^ o •- Z X r- 0» M M o I mm ro 0) 03 g 04 ni -< ^ H 01 04 > > o r- r- o O ^ > •< S3 O ITrs\ to^pyrn ; f T iv /i:l ‘r/* ®(>o r? o T3|||i 03 2;s •< ^ g S3 iS o g 3 S3S3 |t| oo Of JS § a >H r* •- X X o 04 Q rn *^09X ,^> < R*C3 0l M ro ^ ^ ^ ^ 01 ro E S OB X ® ^ r- > pi ^ Q _ X M 09 2 X » M r- I o S3 O «? m04 m X 2 X |S ro 04 s I Mss o ooro ro.u Lno <Ts cn f? ro CO I I •? ro 04 Ln Ln LJ Ln G^ Z ooo 04 a S3mI H g? S3 M ^ OI2o *\) I MINUTES OF THE REGUIJUl COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 15, 1984. PAGE 3 1806 WILLOW PROPERTIES ciaXe^EEKLEY ’ S INC 2500 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #1685 Mayor Butler moved. CounciImember Adams seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision for Willow Properties for a three lot subdivision finding all standards of the RR-IB zoning district and platting code have been satisfied, subject, to the. following; 1. Dedication of right-of-way for Highway 12, Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive. 2. City to acquire underlying road and utility easements over Outlet A. 3. Payment of park fee for Lot 1 at $200. Park fees for Lot 2 and Outlet B are not waived but postponed for future development. 4. Plat road to be constructed per City specifications up to Library's private drive. 5. Wetlands within Lot 2 and Outlet B to be designated in future plattings. There are no designated wetlands in Lot 1. 6. Three sewer units are assessed against the entire property. Applicant to decide the three sewer units are to be reassessed amongst parcels. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Mr. Leekley was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that this is not a designated wetlands and will handle the overflow from the neighboring property. Mayor Butler stated that safety fencing might be considered around the pond after it is constructed. Butler suggested adding language from the Hennepin County Conservation District's report to assure safety and that the City will not be held liable. Councilmember Adams stated that the City should get some indemnification so that the City w’ill not be held liable. Councilmember Hammerel moved, Councilmember Adams seconded, to approve Resolution #1685, A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the excavation of a decorative wildlife pond subject to staff adding safety language to the resolution. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). ¥ ~ 1 I mjj. ■■’.M I ^ ^•*. . .«* OpMi»j4c.t\. l^■%/H* Tort. <:-oTS ^ 4 p>Lo cic. I or 6Jic.c«uO #0 (3b HoM^rt <'~C^ 1*»T FLkr. H. J ’"T Fuft . I© \oA I lO^T »o^ I 0/1 Ar \w '^"*9 N __________\ ^ ✓ - % ✓ \ ^ , /' / f I \ ^ ^ ^ OtCK I • • “n @ i lo4| I037 A \ • \ V \ P4-P5'?(t 0 -«01-0 1 1 V 1 1 1 \ 1 1.f 1 U X »1 l\xx-„ Pi -0 - f-xT -0 3 // / goA^ 4/ \ ^ X* “S' \ \ I I I t • • I • $ t ___________0 cyiST»»J<^ C»*iT«»» •» S AjflaO d*^T«u*«S L.^©iMLivV/'/'•' :j L-’, jji ' ‘' i 1:i Jli ••: 4 1984 [y r lippr" CITY OF OROMO ; . ,iJ 1 NATURAL GROUND ■*}«---- vories TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO scale Figure 4 & \ vw^; 'r':" ■ . ; ^ .n"*\\ . ' : '*; . •» 'V>V f .VA" i''’'}j| V'W0^w^. EXHIBIT W; FEASIBILITY OF POND EXCAVATION FOR LEEKLEY'S INC. 860 East Lake Street Wayzata, Minn. 55391 Prepared by HENNEPIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT 12450 Kayzata Blvd./ Suite 205 Minnetonka, Minn. 55343 August, 1984 /-*= r*'V;Mi\ r"'^.... maim GENERAL Leekley's Inc., of Wayzata is currently constructing two single family residences along C.S.A.H. 6 in Orono, The property is described as Lots 2 and 3/ Block 1, Willow Run Addition. This development is located in the southeast quarter of Section 28, Town ship 118 North, Range West. Leekley's has requested the City of Orono to authorize the construction of a shallow excavated pond on each of the two subject lots. Since the City of Orono has not officially adopted any guide lines or regulations pertaining to the construction of ponds. Leek- ley's was referred to the Hennepin Conservation District to conduct an analysis and provide recoinmendations for the requested ponds. The following presents those findings and recommendations made by the District. FINDINGS A site inspection conducted on Monday, July 30, 1984 revealed the lot size for Lots 2 and 3 to be approximately 3.65 acres each (see Figures lA and IB). The lots utilize a single access driveway from C.S.A.H. 6 along their common property line (see Figure 2). Both lots are generally open, with grass cover consisting primarily of bromegrass, reed canary grass, and bluegrass. According to the soil survey of Hennepin County, the lower elevations of the two subject lots contain Glencoe silty clay loam soils while the higher eleva tions consist of Le Sueur loamy soils. Glencoe soils have high avail able moisture capacity, very slow internal drainage, and moderate to moderately slow permeability. The water table is near the surface during wet seasons. Le Sueur soils have high available moisture capacity. They have moov-rate permeability and medium internal drain age. The water table is at a depth of 3 to 5 feet during wet seasons. The most recent inventory of DNR protected waters and wetlands for Hennepin County, released in July 1984, indicates this area is not within any protected water or wetland areas (see Figure 3), this. DNR authoriaztion to excavate or fill this site is not required. On Wednesday, August 1, 1984, soil borings were taken in the vicinity of the proposed pond locations as shown in Figure 2. These borings confirmed the existence of Glencoe soils in the low areas of both Lots 2 and 3. The water table was determined to be approximately at elevation 1030.5. This elevation is about 1.5 feet below the existing grade in the vicinity of the proposed pond on Lot 2, and 2.5 feet below the existing grade in the vicinity of the pro- posed pond on Lot 3. RE com IE N D AT I ON S It has been proposed that one pond be excavated on each lot (see the pond location plan Figure 2). The ponds will enhance the aesthetic value of the property; however the benefits for wildlife habitat is somewhat limited. Among the reasons for this is the close proximity of the ponds to the single family dwellings as well as the absence of proper vegetative cover for wildlife nesting and brooding areas surrounding the ponds. The ponds themselves should not exceed 8000 square feet in area at the top. A meandering shaped pond of approximately 50 to 60 feet wide and 100 to 120 feet in length is recommended. The min imum excavated depth should be approximately 3-1/2 feet and the max imum excavated depth should not exceed 5 feet. Assuming an average excavated area of 5000 square feet and an average depth of 4.5 feet amounts to nearly 835 cubic yards per pond. If the excavated soil is not utilized as fill material elsewhere, it should be !<; veled adjacent to the pond to a laximum depth of 2 feet. As discussed earlier, the excavated soil consists of silty clay. The characteristics of this soil is that it is very sticky and soft when wet, hard and difficult to mold when dry. It is a most difficult soil to handle by mechanical means, especially hand tools and small scale equipment. Due to the wet soil conditions and . I i 1. • the large amount to be excavated, it is suggested that the ponds be dug out with either a dragline or 2 to 3 yard backhoe on tracks. $ Generally, ponds are constructed to provide water for live stock, fish and wildlife, recreation, fire control, or aesthetic related uses. The unfortunate feature of a pond is that it is a body of water in which drowning can occur. Drownings are the outstanding non-motor-vehicle cause of accidential deaths among people in active age groups, especially children. Some Safety Recommendations Are; 1. Post warning signs near each pond. These signs should be adjacent to each pond telling all who come near what the extreme depth of the pond is. 2.The pond should be constructed with 4:1 side slopes on the uppermost portion of the pond, as illustrated on Fig ure 4. This flatter slope will reduce the chances of someone accidently slipping into the pond. 3.Since this is predominantly a residential area, it is suggested that a low fence be installed around each pond, thus reducing the chances of unsupervised toddlers from accidently wandering into the ponds. These recommendations may not completely satisfy the requir- ments of local laws. EVERY POND OWNER SHOULD CONSEL with an attorney to determine; - his liability in case of serious accident or death at his pond. - legal requirements pertaining to precautions and safety at ponds. The privilege of having a pond on his property give the owner additional responsibilities. POSTING THE POND AGAINST TRESPASSERS DOES NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER OF THESE RESPONSIBILITIES. Each pond owner has the MORAL obligation to his family, friends, and neighbors I I •r'—' i r . to make his pond SAFE by providing such safeguards as he can to prevent an iNC-dent on his pond from becoming an ACC-dent - or DEATH. SUMMARY The locations of the ponds shown on Figure 2 will adequately provide enough surface runoff and groundwater to maintain a suffic ient level of water. The ponds should be constructed by equipment large enough to reasonably excavate as much as 2,000 years of soil. Th& maximum depth of either pond should not exceed 5 feet. The max imum surface area should not exceed 8,000 square feet. Of utmost importance is the awareness of the potentially un safe conditions to those in the vicinity of the ponds. The property owner should be fully aware of his liabilities and responsibilities. i . r. City of OROIXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1685 m A I^SOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.03 SUBDIVISIONS 19, 20, AND 21 - PILE #846 •»of <-ho ' Leekley’s Inc. (hereafter "the applicant” ) is owner Lot 3, Block 1, Willow Run (hereafter "property"), and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono fora conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10 0*1 Subdivision 19, 20 and 21 to permit excavation of a decorative wildlife yards^^ amount of material to be excavated estimated at 835 cubic Minnesota;NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono FINDINGS ■ This apf.lication was reviewed as zoning file #846. Zoni^g^istrict^ located in the RR-IB Rural Residential 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 17, 1984, and recommended appro’^al of the fon°w!ng‘'?indiigsf pond will have no detrimental Grl8ct on the surrounding property* b) The improvement will enhance the aesthetic value of the property. c) The excavation will not impede the natural drainage of the area. ^ 4. The area to be excavated is not a designated wetlands and IS outside the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation area. page 1 of I i City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1685 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to the applicant for the construction of the wildlife pond would not be detrimental to the health, safecy or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the land alteration and the manner in which the excavation is to be carried out to be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code SEction 10.03 Subdivisions 19, 20, and 21 to Leekley' s Inc. to allow excavate on of a wildlife pond, subject to the following conditions: 1. The construction of the pond must follow the guidelines setforth in the recommendation of the Hennepin County Conservation District: a) 4:1 slopes at uppermost portion of pond. b) pond depth not to exceed 5 feet. c) maximum surface area not to exceed 8,000 sf 2. The pond must conform to pertinent standards set by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. The grassed swale outlet area must be maintained to provide assimilative capacity and may not be covered with impermeable surface materials. 4. A flowage and conservation easement shall be granted to the City over the proposed pond, drain pipe, and grassed swale. 5.. The applicant is advised of the homeowner's liability in case of serious accident or death at this pond. Some recommended safety measures are: a) Post warning signs b) Construct pond with 4:1 or flatter sideslopes c) A low fence is suggested to keep unsupervised children or toddlers from accidentally wandering into the pond. Posting the pond against trespassers docs not relieve the owner of the safety responsibility incurred. Pago 2 of 4 m -if' -^-TJIt;^- T-c---Kli— r > 5 ; W<iy ife City of ORONO wi€itySvi'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.1685 m.City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1685NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Oj? this 2S~ ^ day o£ _ _ _ _ _, 1984 , before me a No tary Public withfn and tor said County, personally appeared A!oigsf-7iT LiEZtcLL-^ t/’/f fs P,y.-<,/ibf--r^-7~ R /g LirtfUey's /aja. known to me to be the person (s)'descr ibed in and who exe'cuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. MICHAEL P. GAFr RON \ OTARY PUBLt"- HENNEPIN COHENNEPIN CO wN j My Comrniss rc: .1 // /U7 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) « ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this Public within day of and for said County , , 1984 , before me a Notary personally appeared _________________________________________________________ known to me to be the person (s) described Tn and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 i:3E "T fi %I' ' I- ! i Planning Commicsion Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 13, 1987 Subject #1151 Ann Fisher, 774 Tonkawa Road - Renewal Variance - Information Item (Public Hearing to be held at Council Meeting of May 26, 1987 per Jeanne A, Mabusth's memo of May 8, 1987, Council approval of May 11, 1987) List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Application Jeanne A, Mabusth's Memo of 5/8/87 Building Plans Council Minutes of 7/22/85 Planning Commission Minutes of 7/15/85 Memo & Exhibits of 7/16/85 Resolution #1812 Discussion - This is a renewal variance for side.setback encroachment of 2.5* to construct a room addition. The original approval also included an average setback variance for a screen porch, but that work is not proposed at this time. Staff Recommendation ~ Staff recommends approval of the renewal variance for Ann Fisher at 774 Tonkawa Road per the findings and conditions of Resolution No. 1812 approved by Council on July 22, 1985. r' u rf . . (;•■ '• T city W ORONb - VAiaANC Renewal <«0.00 pe property location y( Site Address Property Identification Number (P.j.p. •Please check one - is the property to application if applicant -- - --- - "®™e jAhh F/sJu>i^____ ____ftidress i_77 r X OWNER (if different thanT^^UoIntj Name Address: Date Property Acquired City; PRESENT DSB OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property X description op request other VARIANCES REQUIRED Estimated COi Describe request in S€/%a< ■4 Dot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front ^ SImSI i'lr'■ i BARPSQIP Describe undue hardship or practical di^ficult]^ resulting^rom^trict enforcement of zoning regulations; /^T/S CT^Uf SO ^ _ ___________, Xoffi 'f^f/At4/iKJ chaus-^7^^ //Ay ^ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual propert:^con<ytions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. The Applicant and Property Owner tnust sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Tne applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true an^ correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date W/7 OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby aclcowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council, and, if an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, to please malce arrange— to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. TO:Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: DATE: Jeanne A, Mabusth/ Zoning Administrator May 8, 1987 SUBJ:#1151 Ann Fisher, 774 Tonkawa Road - Renewal Variance - Request to waive formal review by the Planning Commission Se^ction 10.08 Subdivision 2(A) - The Council by unanimous action may waive reference to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments". Mrs. Fisher was granted a variance to a side setback and the lakeshore setback line on the 22nd of July 1985. The original application involved an addition to the lakeshore of the house of 8 feet with a deck and screened porch attachment (see Exhibit A). The applicant has amended her building plans so that the current proposal only involves the 8 feet principal structure addition and grade level deck (Exhibit B). She did not realize that variances would still be required and engaged a builder to start construction on June 1st. The fact that this application is a renewal variance in addition to reducing the scope of the improvement plan, the resident asks your consideration by waiving the required public hearing requirement before the Planning Commission. Staff would recommend scheduling the application as an information item at the Planning Commission meeting of Kay 18th the customary review packet for a recommenaation from the Planning Commission. The required public hearing for the renewal variance would be scheduled before the Council at their meeting of May 26, 1987. If Council deems it inappropriate to alter the established procedure, the applicant will be advised that a public hearing Ye \ rwS, before the Planning Commission at their June15, 1987 meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to approve the request of Ann Fisher to waive reference to the Planning Commission per Section 10.08 Subdivision 3(A) for the formal review of her amended renewal variance application and to direct schedule a public hearing before the Council on May 26, 1987 at 7:00 P.M. Ayes ^ Nays C‘ i ^ • / ■ of' \ / L w/fi^ ’^-grrsK ^ ?'aoiSS[ i? ir is S*5 i^'a.^^ 0 S C2: • ’ U ^i!«f N:: V ^ ^ > y 'C ^ I ^ X N ^ 2 5 ^ ^ ^ § ^ A i ^ ^ 5^1 ^ ^ ^ V s ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ N ^ N Sj 9 > 0 'I ^1 fusn^ ej . K LOv/cr< urjvju --------28'0~4% . ». • .• • f •~r “—r"- r-n 1 1 j ) ;!1 * » f I i ,J. L..L . ..i-.i.. i » . L «.< Lrni.fr/ 4 f I ! ’ RIPCG f‘ U 1 vvI * i - J : 22' i »; •! t UW/VC ffOOA**. : 1 ------ //\ovr^ Krrci sa • « t • V- Ift'o"V ;! cz:j * < /y\V' ni- i»n fWLAtrWIHDO, I» • ecAv-^- .......t. hr® ii ^hl cJ^Ttna aP€A - - ((M. •fci »‘ *'■ aaiiiiMSea !*• *'V:‘ 'X / »jdl' S •* 1^* T-. • h j» 0£ ,1 !ah«4" tK"A7/|Jf •-B- *•.. • ^ . j . . .. . ^. .1^ I » \ \ V- ^.mi..- f.A... 7 '&».* .%■ .4 . ki 4 ‘ ' 1 • • ! ^ flc -------- *•- . -V, •i [r r ! ! ■■ ■ , >eca|'<Or ^ ( >lv i ’*i .-s ;r A-;* If' MtM d mLL HI »-r ■ -M'tt O X r • *• i .• ♦ ,* . m ^ LOW^R ..:. v --------28'0- -T——r •* •I , j • ^ j / • V-----------------------4 T i/TiUty RllXZfS * : • t SwS. ’22' UytNG ROOA^. -4 « KmctetJ j > /asj‘_JJVtOV'r! } KV/AVC/J z:: * ' i :v,( «8^,- Hj! fCBPLAe i ^HPO, 'T. ‘ ——tH--' ........H......... ■ ! T y i*f/ Tr0 .v’' \U__ ,a.r -.i r. -^ cAjtnG AP€A ^ " J f : *yy ’■•■/ .'vv yi ■ x'dn j ? • ? • 1 .NJ.® , '•>>! :®ifu .• .-• !^f , ! .. •"i,- « - if': ■./{' '•'■ ■' ■ i. - fv--v Pf .:M ,i^.. _ <•>:!• ‘ i: ■ = '- i • • * i •J"" J ■: i. m V ■ ■-::^: - ::'r ',:; ‘y ‘ -. ■:.. 60 * - fr ApproMi )ec«y<Or 2i’6!h f ''I’tr'’ ‘t • I O! V *.-i 6-5!^ ;.':• -': Jv'', ; - :; m:\ W r .1- •• ■ -. f*> • / f...-le* ----------- . S.*l**?**.^OOD to EARTH SEPARATIOH S»» L-. - i minutes of the regular ORONO council meeting held JULY 22, 1985.PAGE 5 #934 ROBERT TSCHIDA* 1300 FOX STREET VARIANCE RESOLUTION #1810 It was moved by Mayor Butler, seconded by “f: r ;sr7..T,?o “strJ line within the 50' setback. Motion, Ayes (5), y #937 WHARTON SINKLER 2195 FRENCH LAKE ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #1811 Mr. Wharton Sinkler was present for this matter. zoning Administrator Mabusth “quested^ the ^resolution be ?"ge"nrgh?-£-way within the required 150' setback (instead of the 22' variance). prope?tfotne«^haye\e^^^^^^^ letter of approval. FISHER T74 TONKAWA road VARIANCE resolution #1812 It was moved by Councilmember Adams, seconded by Councilmember Hammerel, to aPProve Resolution #1811 amended. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). MS. Ann Fisher was present ofVdeck'^and s«eerporcr“l'^lrom thrsidc property^1^^^^^ Asst, zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that hardcover would be increased to 23%. It was moved by Councilmember Ha^erel s o"^^^^^^^ Butler, to approve Resolution #1812 granting t Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). #942 ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE ^4.*.^^ resolution #1813 ^ Finkelstein were present for this matter 5 n •• 4 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 15 #938 ROBERT NASH (#94qyANN C. FISHER TW^ONKAWA ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:04 - 10:15 PM f - Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Ann C. Fisher was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and affidavit of publication. There was no one present from the public for this application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to the average lakeshore setback in order to construct a deck and screen porch on the lakeside of the existing house. There is a steep bank from approximately the 75' line to the shoreline. There is some screening between houses to the south, and a small amount between subject property and the house to the north. The request is to exceed the average house setback by approximately 15' with the deck and screen porch. No neighbors have commented on the project. There is no hardcover problem on this property. Fisher stated that Gabriel Jabbour (neighbor) had talked to Zoning Administrator Mabusth and said everything looked fine. Lajoys also had no problems with the proposal. The hardships include the fact the lot is so narrow and the hill is very steep. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the existing houses on either side are set back more that 75'. Goetten moved, Taylor seconded to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback and side yard setback variances for Ann C. Fisher finding that: 1. The hardships to the property are locations of the neighboring residences, and the angle of the lakeshore in relation to the lot. 2. The neighbors lakeshore views will not be affected due to topography and existing natural screening. 3. The increase in hardcover is within the limits prescribed in the zoning code. A i I - MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 16 #940 ANN FISHER 4. The proposed addition will retain a 95’ setback from the lake. 5. The side setback encroachment of the new addi tion is less severe than the encroachment of the existing house. And subject to the following condition; r ^ .Ci 1. The applicant is put on notice that the present hardcover is 23% and any future plans may have limitations put on them within the 0-75' zone. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that in most cases where the building extention actually creeps farther away from the lot line, staff handled the application and if all other points were in order the building was permitted w’ithout a variance. Technically speaking, there may be some merit to bringing an application such as that in for a variance, an issue the Council will have to address. At this point, when you are 8' instead of 10' from the side lot line, should there be a side setback variance requested? In the past the policy has been to allow such an extention on an existing house even if the extention en croaches the setbacks. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that it improves a substandard setback. Fisher noted that an addition to the house is also being planned. The plans have been turned into the building offical. Could the footings be allowed to go in for the deck before the application goes to Council, for economical reasons? Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that this application could go the July 22nd Council meeting which would speed up the process. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). #941 PAUL R. NUTT 2739 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING . . 10:15 - 10:30 PM Paul R. Nutt was not present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and affidavit of publication. The following from the public were present: IL C ■ • C'' To Orono Council Members Prom: Date: Michael P, Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator July 16, 1985 Subject: #940 Ann C, Fisher, 774 Tonkawa Road - Variance Zoning District - LR-lB Application - setback for deck and screen porch List pf Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey With Staff Notations Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculations The applicant requests a variance to the average lakeshore setback in houre"%hTs"add^lof:l.r — - the llkesr^d: orthl'^x^sti^gnouse. This addition will encroach approximately 15' into the averaoe increase thr?5 2sn* \lakeshore. The addition will iimitr The sll»n h 1 1 I®* «ithin the allowableSteep hill to the south, the natural screenina of tref»<5 and will^not^affLt’’4e*Tak®‘^ lakeshore would make it appear that the addition Will not affect the lake view of the neighbors. Note that the addition will conform to the extended south line of the house, so that the existing side setback of about 7.5 feet at the easterlv Dorch^ existing house will increase to 10' at the edge of the screen porch. It is an issue whether a variance is required for this situation* less^thtn 10°%^om required for the constructioness tnan 10 from the side lot line, the general City policy in the oast allow, without a variance, such extentions of a building line If there is no greater encroachment. j-j-uing line __ _.Neither neighbor has presented an objection to the proposal. Plannino va?d seibLk®v»T^" approval of the average lakeshore setback and sidi yard setback variances, finding that: 3. The increase in hardcover is within the limits prescribed in the zoning coug. 4. The proposed addition will retain a 95' setback from the lake. side setback encroachment of the new addition is less severe the exiL!nr°house!"‘ existing house, and continues the line of ■'‘SI Zoning File #9^«0 July 16, 1985 Page 2 CONDITIONS OP APPROVAL: 1. Applicant is placed on notice that the 75-250' hardcover percentage will become 23% with these improvements, leaving little room for additional hardcover on the property. Staff would recommend approval per the attached resolution. ! I CITY OF ORONO -6>-!9-S< / ^ 1^0,00 Ocu^'’ Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional pi^^e??) After-the-Fact Fees PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ~77y Th/'jJrauJq /yc/. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 05'-/n~^^ ^ ^ CCC^ Please check one — Is the property X abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name j ’ _ / ■Ajyi ^Phone ^/7/ ^ 7/Si 3- ^ ^ ^ 7y \ • t - ----------------- ------- --------------------------— ...... — Mailing Address 77 V A'^A& //■//./Si> OWNER Name ............^ j____i hh /s Phone Maiilng Address I j \ f ^ Date Property Acquired /' (month/year) I 'Wo) %d.o notLalso own the adjacent parcels of land \) PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District ^_ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property ^Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request Estimated Construction Cost $___ _ _ _ _ _ squest in-detail: ^/io ^ __" ---- “--------r—.-------r--------------r»-----rr—-----rr — ' JJy wPTv <r:V-■ cT'c /^ro/JC C7 V VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback Variances ( Front Hardcoyer ^ Rear) Other (OVER)1 HARDSHIP v: Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict regulations: y,. 0<^''< DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Zoning CodeRequirements: CT>l J^/j?c c.-x<^ , , REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) ab^^rtist luh'ro'^ rX\'n°'’ala'ress’. ^he na.es on the 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Pleas^remember been ^ncluded^"^^ application is not complete if the above information has not APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowl^<?ge. —' >/ / Applicant's signature Date OVmERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, and vekllc™rirn°ofThi"req"u«t°“"°'" investigation Owner's signature / Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the anning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. i ! o •T in Kl M QL • Ul K Ui tt in <0 Ul H N> Ul O CQ So 2C ro < cn uj CMl I h« _ H *-« Ul I CO in ^» O o (D 3 >0 X h% Ko o in o QC O to to in in < tn uj ^ ^ O *-i < SS o t— Ul 3 § CM Ma CM M< < -< s •o o o o X Ui •-o o a to lO < ••5-1ro < g uj II v'CrS in O < O CM I f^ t- O ino s o 'Oin Kl in in o 3* < Ul 5^ in -> -J O M 0 3 3 CJD in X in o -S§3o o -J I >- >• in uj uj o o -i -J h- H a a cG o < < to O X X n o X H O d: -I ooo o a Xo in q:cr X ^ M3 inro in in z into CM Ir- •-• t-»-« «o i X ® o Z « X O O O “I o o in q: ncr < o: 3 o ^X z Ui 3 o S 9 <0 —* oo to to CM I Imo Xuo CL X U CO O M I -J >->• o t» C^ ro CO in in UJ > vi o 15 tsi in >- *-• ^ CM 3 oo <rro ro CM In* r ►H lU CO Kl ro Z o in >- X m M Ul Ui o o z 3 X .PM < < I ino <0ro V- t- q: q: Ul Ul CO O O O d: a o < X CO ino CM □:o M lO uluX Ul UilUg. O' o o o o o o H < CQ i—o «oo UJso o o Xu t- < CQ Ulce X oo S 9D Z UJ < 3 Ul <a UJ X |s55 K Q t- C ( Ui K QC X Oo ^ a o O 2 UJ < < V \ OC < Ul 0. Ul a X 182 = C € o Z < 3 CL UJ 3 :tc. o 3 o 3 O Ul ^ >- \ < Ul a X X < < 2 t- (( Ul 3 O § K O a S a r gs55a o H"I* c ((( % I: • '• i It 1 ( vll Eh U U Xcn ct:os 2o M Eh < iJ D O 2 O OJ o 0) <D CP rd "d <D 5 O O "O rH U r—l d < JC > 4J O C 0)uu 0)a H3 0) 0) o 0) >o o o 0) o CPrH rd axj o u M rd 04 x: 4J c 0)u V4 0)Qa'-" T3cucn o M CD >oo CL^o u rd 04 x: o N c •H u 0 0) 0 <M cr-'-t u O' (U (0c >■M X 0:•H 0 c CO 4J 0 (U >w 'O 0 < 0 •H U •!•u X tO 0 CQ 0 M x:a*^ 0:<—> <• X 0 u tr* oj c > •H o ^ o •H V4 >: rd CO x: 0c:o N c •H CP rd Q)u rd c -H 4J 0 •H 4J 0co N X o w ^c •H CO o:o X cn CO ^4 u < CQ CO ^ H :2; < CO c •O CO M (> c u \ to in CN 0 8o o m CNJ I in o m 0 f, o o in I o m CN N® inm 0^- 0 co oi (V. U) 1 iM 0 c.c r 0 \\ MH cn • \ 1 *4 1 • 0 cn rw (/) 1 U-l (/) Vi 55 >rn o sf*4-< 0 U) M-4 U) MH (/) MH 0 o o o rH I o o m 0) co •H 4J u 0u •H a 'Oc 0 rH 0 rH •Q I 0 Co rH 0 0 T3 •H (/) O O O O rH co tn •X 'M u 0 • >1 *H 0 iD rd C >1 O N rH -H a-u d *H *H 0 T3 H iH T3 d (de >1^0 0 0 in rH >10 ro 'H X r- O^d) I •»H ro 0 r- C ^ rd >oe 0 0 (0 rd 0uo c •H P O6 N 4J 4J 4J 0 c: ■H O 0 H3 a c TJ 0 0 c u 4J 0 0 c: c 0uu o c c •H 05 ^ 0) 05 0 jQ 0 3 T3 w a <|p e 0 CP r-H M-l 05 <1 0 0 P c c •H ox: M c CO 54 0 H 0 0 4J c a •H d 0 4J Xi -H ^ a. »—1 C >H p c 0 d 3 >1 Cn-H 5^ r-l 0 d 0 CO J-i C x; 05 05 x> »M 0 •o -H +J 0 E P CP H p • •U -H E to 3 0 C >1 iM tn 5 D 3 c U4 H <. - p 0 "H C iH C >1^3 d X w a 0 C l] 0 <H 0 CO 05 05 05 05 x; N r^ (0 CO CP 0 x: M PC d 0 0 05 «4-l 05 4-) 05 E 0 p a 0 4J 0 »w >>1 3 x: 0 0 0 0 54 >, 0 J3 ,H P C P c 0 05 3 XI 0 0 0 a *W O' W 'O Qlo p 0 0 05 C0| 54 0 P X5 0 4J CO d c c d *0 54 0 3 c x:•H *H p 0 ^ P 05 0 0 H C 0 0 0 3 IM -H O'P CO 0 c 0 c CT > 54 C 0 0 0 d T3 CO 0 54 0 -H X3 O' ‘H p >, 54 0 ^ 4J E 05'd p d d H 05 a e (0 3 p rH d x: e d 3 g 3 -H C C 3 > •U D’ H C X 00 r-4 0 0 CO 1 0 0 u x: d d 0 •U C 0 j: p CO c c 0 -H J3 0 p 0 CP 0 OJ 0 x; d 4J x:a 3 C -H -H x: x» 54 -P 0 0 -H P p 4J 0 ^3 0 >1 C -H d CO P 03 (0 •H x: -H 03 > CO 0 0 -H 0 > p «■ d *0 0 *0 x: > n3 •H (14 P d d T5 3 4J -H 3 *0 »P XI 3 rH 0 'O r-l •H c 0 0 •* rH 0 0 1 E x; 0 (J C *0 1 c 1 3 »*4 P c C -H c -H CO rH 0 0 •H d 0 0 CO 0 CO N I CP ^ 0 I 0c 0 'Oc o 0co CP 0 0 CP O N N c •Hc'd •H 0 O •H u 0 iw 0 »H 4J0 c > 0 0 o C<! a u 0 U QU 4J 0 c H C 4i 0 u u 0 04 c •H 0 0 0 x: •H o 0 V4 oo 0 > 0 0 >oo u 0 >oo a^d V4 TD ^ u 0 >oo TJ c 0 o u 0 0 04 AJ •H tn »H 0 *H CPX5 H 0 4J 0 e 0 >ou c 0ou 0 U) o 5-1 o >oo 0 •H UH •H o 0 04 0 w I"I7 r. p yj cu'a u 0) <T3ax; £ c v:; M-\ •P r O' u 5-1 p T]4J 0 ^ <d rd d P 03 iJ 0 X X •X d 0 cnx;cn U X 5 0) CT u CP >1 CP 03 0 03 0 aaC rd C 0 >0 03 .H 0 •H C •H 5 **H (/)0 CO 0 iH 0) 4-J *H POP 0 u 0 S d •H U) JZ U) > 0)aT5 a 0 T3 •H p •H -H -H 0 0 <H 0 X *H X 5^ X 5^rd p rH x:0 CiJ 5 Ci4 TJ w CI4 x:a 0"* »5>;'cm C. U 0x: Vi U-l O Oii); ^ a 3r. •-J 1 \L f A Q vn .. r ),«■ > . \ &030514 \. >/ |w } City of ORONO \ ■ vr •/ • ! RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.1812 ^ ■• •* %. «•DtPl 1 (i*- s' T'l^ V PI. iw pr^fir’Y 1 '‘•: J. ? i-Ci.:*- SEB 10 1335 HtNNEPiN OOUNT^iNN. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) AND SECTION 10.22^,<3UBDIVISI0N 1 ' FILE^94^ MHFREAS Ann C. Fisher (hereinafter "the applicant") is WHEREAS, Ann c. ris Tonkawa Road within the the owner of tv") and legally described asCity of Orono (hereinafter City ) ana legax^^f follows : westerly \®\n„^paraiierto ‘the Northwesterly Minnetonka, said l^^ie P ^ ^ 14 (hereinafterand Southwesterly lines of said Lor i** v* "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has aPPlie'3 ‘o ^he^cityjor a variance to the construction of a deck (B) and 10.22, Subd^“°J j 5 feir^rom the side property line and screen porch located 7.5 feet xr^^ encroeching 15 feet where a 10' _.,.h,-),^area where no encroachment isinto the average lakeshore setback area wnere normally allowed. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota* findings 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #940. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning Distric . 3. The Orono Planning Commission ^ f the ^proposed on July 15, 1985, and recommended ^PP^°^^ ^ variances based upon the following findi g A) The hardships to the Ye® oV’”^^neighboring residences, and the angle or in relation to the lot. Page 1 of 4 I •f-. m. Ir- f'\: -• .■. :r-’*....,Vv ■■ ; tr -hr : .. ';;;•. * i ,'*»• . ■^ ?•*;v. •r'iliirKVvv;-! City of OROIVO - •c7r ^SOLUTION OF THE CITY co V. ■ '.-rSJV^: NO. 1812 UNCIL Z\TXZll not .e tr\ mu ^sting natural The increase < „ ^ ^^^^eening.Drt»e <->..• u_ , . '=®i>e m ------ r\ mu ---.ujiy natural sryc.^ ■ «^^ected P'^escribed"i^®th® hardcover is • "" code^^ "" ""^hin the D) 'Pho _____D) Th from the ^lake!®®'’ ^'^'^ition win ^ E) mt,. -, , setbackE) Th • setback is less aete/e^\han’'t®h"°'^°®'='”"®st of ther^' ---- -^^il.e-orr City Council k sting house. dino th« ft.--.,. has coriRT/i____ .. saff»f-v effect of the comments bv +-k ^ ^-^anning y and welfare of '^^^iance ^on^^t ^PP^^cantc community. ® the health The ci t-tr ___ . _ 5. — --'ununity. ‘-^e health, this propertv^f^”'^'^^ ^^^ds that tK rhF- ■“ si£nS ‘“». s a demonstrable *i“t is serve as ®®tve a substantifi '•*’ -iifficultV '=° alleviate S" “ ''®^ng ti?S?h"'^^ ^i9ht o/,\2®«ssary to p?ef ^°"'^"®'’®nsive Plan%®/®/,i%74 -tent^o'’f -arc ^^iry. CONCbDSIONS, order aim Based CONDITIONS Ss-li-fi-B E£H*' “••s:r.sr.;T“ ■ •"SoKE,'% 'Er..ci“~'«"■'= 5«.";F;F encroachm£^ ® the averaoe ^ v ■’’“tmally reauirlS '’® conditions. ^ normallv a i i®?._/^’'®shore setback£r.f^'i.®'’'^ 3, subject to the elt®, "’’^te "O enTr"acl„^|„;*-t the\£era?e®'? ™l'l-; *-‘,ftom the conditions: normally alloled^sTb^^e'lt^Tth*' 1- Appiioant ... .. following incref^es^he ^Irdc®''®*' "°«ce that th llfi?would result in that anv .,,t°^^hle hardcover ic would be subject to exceeding the^^^i P^°P°sals which approved. a variance proeeXe “'"its °nd may not be ~5EaE »" ■ P^ge 2-of 4 it,- *f t i 'n t V rr ■h . \ V .i*'- •• • V '“ ■'••./• '>■- ' .‘r i .. . •• .W-* •' •t. ■ -‘l. V".1 ly-v-'C. - , --.J , i.H - !•'V-: . ^ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1812 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (July 22, 1986). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and here by agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopt^ed by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of July, 1?85., , attest : \f —'"- mV- othy M./Hifailin,'City Clerk Ox ,vk Or ■F Mary C. Butler, Mayor \ (1) Property Owner Page 3 of 4 Vf] M'm I r' City of ORONO U' ■•;; i-*-.cu^** RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1812 • •. - •' •■* •'• '• .■• J*. .•. •.* * - •'•■•*■■'••** • ** - • • • ’ -■••*••••■ • t»* STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 3^day of 1985 before me a No"^ry Public within and for said county, personally appeared /Iaj /J <C , /v*^//e^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. //. /9B7 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1985, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me ^o be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC M^ COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 • IIIIII !■ m'M ■ i ■ S' STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO I Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the ° ‘‘®®°l'^tion of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on uuj.y ^ 1^85 , and.that the same is a true.- - - - - - -T. . . ... . ... . . . wuc OdlUC a urue and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. / f y aaiu uxcy Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this day of July 85 r.. ‘ % A ■I %>T *■ I* '*' r % ’ ^ *♦ > * A l • *» - >'* • " (SEAL) r •: Thomas J. Radio, City Attornay State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exempt This instrument was drafted by: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 I-;.' I rT-K* ft ; - :* i ./ V ••*. • •• ♦• lA-^:. :-. • • •' 0- TO:Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members FROM Pati Peterson, City Recorder DATE: May 15, 1987 SOBJ: Approval of Minutes2>UIXI S - - - - ^ A 4.h= minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held PROPOSED 4^ 1987”* Planning Commission meeting Minutes of the May submitted. Ayes Nays -4^.. '1® rr*^' ■, v4kM.nr7ltir MdkTM MlMiMljl MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 4, 1987 #1112 SMITH BAY MARINA CONTINUED Chairman Kelley asked about the signage, lighting and the hours the center will be open. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the signage and plan has been submitted. Applicant plans to present sign on the building and remove the road sign. Lighting will be shivIded from residential lot lines as required by code. For more specific information regarding lighting, Mabusth referred to Mr. Love. Mr. Love stated that they plan minimal lighting to meeting the needs for safety and security. Hours of •'* operation are 9 A.M. - 5 P.M. Monday th'-ough Saturday, with a possible decrease in hours during the winter. Dan & Mary Crear, 1980 Spates Ave., were present and stated they had no problem with the lighting as long as the 6* privacy fence is retained. Their main concern is the hope that the property would be routinely maintained. They are in favor of the proposal. Mr. Toberman stated that cleaning up the property was their priority intent. Tn response to Chairman Kelley's question, Mr. Love stated they felt the proposed parking plan would be sufficient. Alan Nettles, 1940 Shoreline Drive, asked what was proposed to be planting within the curbing area along Shoreline Drive. He would like to see some landscaping to present a more rural residential look. Chairman Kelley stated that the type of landscaping is limited because of the sight distance for the Spates Ave. and Shoreline Drive intersection and also noted that certain types of landscaping could not tolerate the winter road salt. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Count/ will not allow any plantings within the right-of-way of County Rd. 15. The plan calls for a grass area with a nautical rope motif. Chairman Kelley asked about the height of the keel boats on trailers (excluding the mast) that will be stored for sale. Mr. Love stated that based on the parking plan for 7 stalls, stalls #1—4 maximum boat height would be 14', and stalls #5—7 maximum boat height would be 8'. Boats will be on display uncovered year around. <9m 1 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HEJJ) MAY 4, 1987 #1112 SMITH BAY MARINA CONTINUED Dan Crear stated that the proposed locations for boat would not be a problem. Mary Crear requested extended to connect with the fence alone the 1950 Shoreline Drive <3o not want the the fence along their lot line extended any further towards Spates currently exists because it would obstruct their view of the lake. There were no other comments from tb- public and the public hearing was closed. s was moved by Chairman Kelley, se^'cnded by Taylor, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit per staff recommendations and subject to: a) Fence being repaired b) Allowing a maximum of 4 boats 20'-25' to be stored on the property. The remaining 3 boats must be under 20' in length. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Abstention 1. Cohen abstained from comment and voting in this application because of his past dealings with Mr. Toberman, which was consistent with his action at the March 16, 1987 Johnson questioned the issue of the County requesting an additional 7' of right-of-way and how it would affect this proposal. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the City has consistently denied that request because it is at its maximum, as far as the City is concerned, for a scenic highway. Chairman Kelley explained that every time there is a subdiviGion/application for a property along County Rd. 15, the County request more right-of-way for the future possibility of expanding the road to which the Citv is opposed. ^ George Rovegno, 2010 Shoreline Drive, arrived after this public hearing was over. He wanted it noted that it appeared to him to be a use variance which is illegal according to code. Chairman Kelley advised Mr. Rovegro to attend the May Council meeting in which this application will again be discussed. S' o« MINOTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 4, 1987 #1142 SMITH BAY MARINA & YACHT CLUB 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 7:56-8:29 , . The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. i ' Present for this matter were Gerald Toberman and Woody Love. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed the major upgrading plan of the entire B-2 property. The proposal includes a single 30'x40‘ principal structure (club house) surrounded by a 10* deck area on the northeast and southeast sides, with a 6* walkway extending to docks on the northeast end and a 4* walkway extending to the docks on the southeast. She reviewed the variances required of which all were either no change or less intense that the existing conditions. In response to Chairman Kelley's question regarding the status of the docks permit with the LMCD - Mr. Love stated the only outstanding issue is the removal of bouys and conversion of slips being discussed with the City and the location of slips being negotiated with the LMCD. Chairman Kelley reviewed the following variances for Planning Commission conuuents: Lakeshore Setback - Principal structure « 50* - variance of 25* Deck structure = 15* - variance of 60* Side Setback to Residential Used Property - Principal structure = 40* - variance of 10* Hardcover - 0-75' « 15,862 s.f. variance of 63.4% (10% improvement in hardcover) 75-250* = 5,100 s.f. (no change from existing) IjOt Area = .71 Acre - variance of 1.3 acres Setback for Parking from Street Lot Line - Proposed 10* - variance of 20* Parking Requirements (6 stalls per 10 slips) - Based on 79 slips *= 48 stalls required Proposed = 42 stalls - variance of 6 stalls ♦Note; The City has always permitted this marina to use the municipal parking lot on weekends for overflow parking. Chairman Kelley stated that he felt comfortable with approving the variances. Taylor acreed with Chairman Kelley because in each instance they have either maintained the existing variance or improved vhe existing condition. n MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 4, 1987 #1142 SMITH BAY MARINA CONTINUED Bellows feels this is an appropriate use and finds no problems in terms of setback. She however, feels the parking is too tight for proper maneuverability. Additionally, she felt that the Planning Commission could not make a recommendation until a complete plan for the new club house is submitted. She suggested that the Planning Commission proceed with the other issues and conceptually approve the footprint. rr CounciImember Callahan stated that the Council will not review this application further until an enti -s commercial site plan has been submitted. In response to Chairman Kelley's question, Mr. Love stated the specific rip-rap plan to protect the shoreline is not available at this time. Chairman Kelley stated that plans pertaining to the shoreline should be submitted with the commercial site plan. Planning Commission discussed allowing a caretaker apartment above the club house. Planning Commission recommended that a caretaker be on site - possibly for the summer months only. Harriet Tourangeau, 2060 Spates Ave., asked about the status of an overflow parking lot on the 1950 Shoreline Drive residential property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the issue of permitting a parking lot on that property has been tabled by Council pending the commercial site plan. At this time, the overflow parking will be permitted in the m*.: icipal parking lot on weekends. Mr. Toberman stated that with the current proposal, an overflow parking area may never be needed. There were no other comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Taylor, to recommend conceptual approval of the variances required with exception of the variance to the required 48 parking stalls. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. Abstention 1. Cohen abstained. \ h I r * ‘ MINOTBS OF TBB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING EBLD MA¥ 4, 1987 11122 BIG ISLAND VETERAN'S CAMP - BOARD OP GOVERNORS BIG ISLAND P^ORD LOT 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PHASE III - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW Present for this matter were Alan Wisdorf, and Joe Backes. Larry Sharpe, Mr. Wisdorf explained that the final development plan is a combination of three studies to determine what could be done with the camp. He believes that the plan is very grand in scope. The Board of Governors would like to work with staff on a realistic and acceptable plan. The majority of the Planning Commission, of which three are new members, would like to tour the island before further review and recommendation. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that a Council/Planning Commission/staff tour is tentatively scheduled for May 15th. Bellows stated she was astounded with the proposed scope of the development plan, mainly because the Veteran's group has been struggling to accomplish the demolition and rehabilitation that currently exists. She is concerned about the economic viability of this development plan and felt that economic information should be submitted to support this plan. Mr. Wisdorl stated that he understands the concern of funding, however, he noted that the City has limited what they can do even if they have the means at this time to accomplish a particular goal (i.e. they currently have the funding and volunteers to paint but do not possess the necessary permit). Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that because all the buildings have been condemned, staff would like to convince them against this total development plan and work with them on a compromise of a summer camp and determine exactly what structures could remain. Mr. Wisdorf stated that they would like approval of some overnight camping for their work crews during the week in addition to weekends. Presently, they are restricted to only weekends. He stated they would like to start the permitting process for the work they intend to do next summer in order to avoid delays. Chairman Kelley suggested that they outline the steps they wish to take for next year's work. • 'j r (”*“ ■"' ■• »•> #1128 i»*Tm the nv' ®®conded ht |^S£S,%i^'25lU„ ."oa°o.'-«- .»<. S2”X*WiW^4®®®XVlSIo^ „ ' *^®s 6» appl/cVn"t*^^^°''Xng Sdn.- therefoj-o '^ot «?i,K^^^^®traf/%■■•" ™ tes.;f U^?~” ,...„ „ Wic?tYo?"" «-Xley ” 1AO °"' Ayes s t X’ayioj. ^j Nays 0. to 3830^1®^ hiker °**-XHOA«o » OP^^IJ for this^^^ matter. A.„. ^A^haaa, „ tAe addit^”^®trator « k ®"<=toaoh™eatraV «“rve^^“«tA w^afi J; ^O»>menf-o "*®x'' bharir ,, e,s noted. "“•«.. «cr«-. aL''^® moved k Public and th« uPFroval of X'ohen Public Ptcposed £ ‘be lot i', ®®<=onded h.^ • ®°tJon, £J^ne rear7a„^ ^ayio^ . gA« 6, Key/^o-J^ement s"£b‘d!v?'?»»'end ■^Sion as """*“ ... " ■"-..Assv>. ® Ptesenf f "^iXln^ '^b7oh®®‘"‘°^a)'‘'’J' *'*'"iuist ”^tter. teraldJi®"^Xy hts^subV ®b°°y «xpi • bo ziv: - -?aU^d°" °^"bbrbor°'’®"'^^ - oo-:c\°£\bri,- 4s?-t«oo r i■^ % MIIiUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 4, 1987 #1138 DEMSHAR CONTINUED along side of the house. He reviewed the variances involved as follows: Side Setbacks - 2nd story - right side 5.6* (same as exists) 2nd story - left side 3.4* (same as exists) Addition - right side 9.2* (9.8* exists) Average lakeshore setback encroachment - 18* (same as exists) Hardcover - 0-75* - 3.4% (same as exists) 75-250* 61.7% (52.9% currently exists) Gaffron noted that no comments have been received from the neighbors and staff does not feel that the 2nd ’ addition will hinder any of the neighbors view. Mr. Demshar noted that there are currently 50* pine trees on the neighbor's property which obstruct the view. Bellows asked applicant to explain his hardship for keeping the existing garage in addition to the new garage. Mr. Demshar stated that his basement is only 300 s.f., therefore the existing garage is need for additional storage and boat storage. Cohen stated he was uncomfortable with the additional hardcover and setting a precedent. He would consider recommending approval if the existing garage were removed. Chairman Kelley agreed with Cohen noting more storage room would be accomodated with the new 2nd story addition. Mr. Demshar asked if the Planning Commission would be amenable to allowing the existing garage to remain until the new construction is completed. Chairman Kelley felt that retaining the garage until construction was completed would not be a problem. He asked what the actual hardcover calculation would be if garage were removed. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that if garage were removed, the hardcover would increase by approximately 1.5% to total 54.4% 75-250* hardcover instead of the proposed 61.7%. 8 OtM MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 4, 1987 #1138 DEMSHAR CONTINUED Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the photos submitted by the applicant of the lakeshore which indicate an obvious need for some type of repair. He asked applicant what his intent was for lakeshore repair. Mr. Demshar stated he intends to eventually replace what exists. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted lakeshore repair work may or may not require a conditional use permit depending on exactly what changes applicant proposes. He noted that if a conditional use permit were required, it would involve a separate application. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval subject to: 1) 54.4% maximum approved hardcover in 75-250' 2) existing garage removed by May 1, 1988 3) no additional hardcover will be approved on this property Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. #1139 JIM & BONNIE LEAR 2525 DUNWOODY AVENUE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:07-9:21 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Jim Lear and his general contractor, Mike Schioeder, were present for this matter. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the request to construct an addition to an existing residence which would extend to within 4' of the existing garage. Because the code requires a 10' separation between a principal building and accessory structure, applicants propose to attach the two structures by constructing a roof between them. He reviewed the following variances and facts: Hardcover - 0-75' 2.42% - no change proposed 75-250' - 28.7% existing - proposal is for equal tradeoff (no net increase) 250-500'- 13.17% existing - no change proposed MIHOTBS of the PUVHNIHG COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAI 4. 1,87 #1139 LEAR CONTINUED Side Setback - Tichnioallv line!lecnnically, there is no change to existing structure or existing side setback, ^xceot th2? what was a ^tached garage will now be attached setlLck!”^^^^'^^^^^ required To* side Average Lakeshore Setback - insignificant siaie “a “^tt^arhrh “^^rvTere"|'^ h-.i'vEr~ area^as ^livfdoes not intend on using this Mike Schroeder reviewed the interior and exterior plans. pibUc hearing :as7lollT"^^ ‘^e iibllltTo?”^ Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval proplr?yfn^°"®l hardcover will be allowed on the garage and upper garage area wl 1 1 nnr k.. Plumbed nor be used arfulftiml ifvfng spLe. u 0 MIHOTBS OF THE PLMWIIEG COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 4. 1987 #1139 LEAR CONTINUED «i «=<-rator Gaffron stated he hadAssistant Zoning Admin future use of the garage concerns with main residence. He suggested once it is attached ^ ^ 41 variance between . ^ A ^ 4. ^v>Av wouXd b0 f3.voir of Mr. Schroeder that is what they ori\?na?iy inSd." Mr. Lear concurred. Bellows questioned the ^rel^roof^thuT^ firewalling the garage with a to avoid a fire hazard. She stated in the resolution precedent setting, is aranted only because of an Chairman Kelley withdrew his previous motion. It was moved by se^ck, ' and recommend, approval nroDosed, finding that side average setback varianc aranted only because garage -a ^aY as living quarters. Motion, Ayes y rr ■*L- i #1140 TOM BBRTHIAUME 3035 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE ,4 PUBLIC HEARING 9:33”9s34;he"’A££idavit o£ Publication and Certi£icate of Mailing was noted. Tom Berthiaume was present for this matter. Assistant Zoning Yrf/^s\^^r^l4dro^ bathroomrequest to construct f 2nd story addition over the there will be no view the side lot line ®^^^^^ition Staff recommendsencroachment from the addition. approval. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman j,, Nays 0.recommend approval as proposed. Motion, Ayes 11 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING C t IISSION MEETING HELD MAY 4, 1987 #1141 KARLTON GEMPLER/MARIA IVES 1955 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:34-9:57 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Main no was noted. ^ Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the request for hardcover, lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback variances to construct a tuckunder garage and ground level deck. He reviewed the followino facts: ^ Hardcover: 0-75' - 14.2% existing, 19.9% proposed ” 37.7% existing, 32.5% proposed (net decrease overall of 121 s.f. on propertv) Structure: a) Proposed 350 s.f. deck, ground level, all within 0-75' setback zone. b) Proposed 1-story plus tuckunder garage on street side of house. Proposal is to removal existing garage/shed/driveway and replace with new driveway. Karlton Gempler and Maria Ives were present for this matter. Mr. Gempler showed the proposed plans noting that initially they proposed a 2nd story addition in the application which they have now eliminated. Taylor questioned the afforded lake view from the proposed ground level deck due to the trees and shrubs. Gempler stated that one tree has to be removed because it has dutch elm and he plans to cut back the existing shrubs. Applicant was advised that a conditional use permit is required for any grading within the 0-75' and that any trees in excess of 6" may not be removed without a permit issued by City staff and must be replaced with like replacements (with exception of dead trees). Planning Commission discussed any alternatives of 350 s.f. deck in the 0-75' zone. Mr. Gempler suggested the use of sand or wood chips used under deck with no plastic allowed. Assistant Zoning Administratrator Gaffron noted that there were two instances on Eagerness Point in which this was approved, however. Council has consistently rejected this alternative in the past two years. #1141 61 MINUTES OF TBE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 4, 1987 CMPLEB/IVES CONTINUED Johnson felt applicant was entitled to have a deck to enjoy the lake and there is no other location for placement. Chairman Kelley felt the deck was excessive and suggested the alternative of allowing a widened stairway to be installed to alio use of the two proposed glass doors that exist from the lake side of the house a few feet above ground level. Bellows and Cohen concurred. Mr. Gempler stated that with no deck, entertaining would '*» have to be provided on the grass area, and after a time, no grass area would be left. Ta>lor suggested and compromise between the stairs and a 350 s.f. deck. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron adjusted the 0-75' hardcover calculation if deck were only 230 s.f.as follows: final 17.3% hardcover as opposed to the proposed 19.9%, based on the 23' distance between outside of proposed doors and a 10' width. John Waldron, 1951 Concordia St, adjacent property owner was present for this review, but made no comments. There were no other comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Taylor, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval subject to reducing the size of the ground level deck to 230 s.f. to be constructed with a sand base with ro plastic liner in order to maintain absorbtion capacity of ground below deck. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 3. Kelley, Bellows, and Cohen voted nay because no hardship was proven to justify the size of deck proposed, but they would be willing to allow the widened stairway as suggested. Motion resulted in a split vote. «11(S»9 CURTIS JOHNSON 2024 SHADYNOOD ROAD VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW Curtis Johnson and Pam Willette were present for this matter. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. Johnson requests Planning Commission give additional consideration to his proposed placement of a second story deck past the average house setback line because he feels there is a distinct hardship placed on his * I• I <4 5TTT mff M«l«l ^miT0 [•V«] r#M#i [•W •T«T«1 r«rcT«i MiX# wnruraixii r«iix»i [•lixtl MiXaX«| r«iiir*i r«XiK«l To: Prom: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Conutiission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 13, 1987 Subject: #1122 Board of Governors of Big Island Veterans Camp — Phase III — Conceptual Review of Final Development Plan - second Review List of Exhibits 1 Exhibit L - Capital Improvement and Revenue Plan - Enclosed (Originally included in your March packet) Exhibits G & H - Refer to Exhibits Included in March 16th Packet Exhibit K - Gaffron Memo Dated 5/14/87 Staff has asked the Chairman of the Planning Commission for his permission to reschedule the conceptual review of the final development plans for the Veteran's Camp facility at the May 18, 1987 meeting. It was apparent that the majority of the Planning Commission found it difficult, if not impossible, to deal with an assignment involving a recommendation of conceptual diiectives for the future use of the facility and the rehabilitation of specific structures never seen before. . . It is our hope that after your tour cf the faciltiy and you become more acquainted with the site and conditions of existing structures that we can once again proceed with our original task. The applicant would like the opportunity to address the issue raised at our last meeting regarding funding of the improvements. Staff has enclosed a capital improvement budget with estimated annual revenues to support their ten year improvement plan (Exhibit E). We would encourage any comments you may have regarding the method of funding or on any other aspect of the fiscal plan. has also been asked by the applicant for your reconsideration regarding the need to come before the City for each required variance when an existing cabin is scheduled for rehabilitation. It would be staff's intention once the final Rehabilitation/Development plans have been approved by Council to bring back a phased or specific area for the City to review probably on an annual basis based on the Board's funding capability and volunteer effort. Each review may consist of multiple variances but would be considered by the City under one application. In reviewing the staff memo of April 30, 1987, specifically the section on Page 3 that lists the issues for consideration in our phase III review and and in light of direction already received by the Planning Commission at your May 4th meeting, staff would suggest the following outline for discussion purposes: Zoning File #1122 May 13, 1987 Page 2 of 2 A.Review of Issues already addressed by the Planning Conunission: 1. Regarding the intent of the RS District and Comprehensive Plan, Planning Commission was against "year round" use and recommended seasonal summer use (May thru September) yes_ _, ?no 2. Regarding final plan for development. Planning Commission recommended against the clustering or motel type construction and opted for single cabin or tenting, yes ___, no___? B.Issues to be addressed: 1. How many structural (1 unit per acre) or tenting (2 units per acre) units are acceptable/feasible for the 57 acre camp site. Remember the other improvements proposed for the site by the Board: picnic areas, hilcing trails, outdoor play recreation areas, road systems, increased septic area (principal and alternate). The camp is to also serve as a day-use recreation area. How much area should be set aside for these types of improvements noted above? a) Day use recreation area per RS District requires a minimum of 5 acres in area. b) Is there a need to establish an area request for outdoor improvements (volleyball- baseball, trails, etc.)? c) Septic area needs? Applicant should be aware of septic needs for proposed uses, review Exhibit K. Based on area needs established above for specific uses or improvements, applicants final development plans for structural or tenting units must relate to RS density standards (1 structure unit requires 1 acre, 2 tenting units require 1 acre) per available area (exclusive of septic area needs, day use recreation area of 5 acres + area determined by City needed to support other recreational resources). 2.Emergency Preparedness/Life Safety a) Need for full time medical professional on island during operation? Yes___, no___. b) Helicopter pad designation - medical evacuation purposes? Yes___,no c) Shelter area in case of tornado or severe storms? Yes , no___. d) Year round security system (1. caretaker; or 2. electronic system)? Yes___, no___. 3. Applicant should be aslced if there are issues they wish to have addressed in preparation for the Phase II review. j-. r r BIG ISI^iiND VETERANS CAMP CAPITAL IMPKMMENrS PRELUCNARY BUDGET January 28, 1987 COSTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. YEAR V«3RK TO BE DO^ 1st Phase I. Phase II. Phase III. Part of Phase TV. 2nd Corplete Phase IV. 3rd Phase V. 4tfei Start Phase VI. 5th Continue Phase VI. 6th Conplete Phase VI. 7th Phase VII. 8th Phase VIII. 9th Phase IX. 10th Phase X. APPROXBATE COST 4.000 5.000 67,000 100,000 133.000 144.000 225.000 225,000 225.000 176.000 176.000 258.000 176.000 TOT/aL Average Annual Need = $1,914,000 $ 191,400 P-EVENUEi Estirrated average aruiual fundraising m^eded for Capital Incaroverients. Vetercins Organizations: 230,600 peirbers; American Legion: State Headquarters, 128,000 members 19 Individdcd posv.s at $2,000 each $ 20,000 38,000 Veterans of Foreign Wars 12 Individual posts at $2,000 each 24,000 Disabled 7jnerican Veterans State Headquarters, 17,000 members 8 Individual posts at $ 500 each 3,500 4,000 flilitary Order of the Purple Hear~t Private Charitable Foundations Private Individuals and Corporations United Way State Legislature 1,000 40.000 20.000 6,000 38,500 Federal Grants ANNUAL GOAL IS 20% OVER AVERAGE ANNUAL NEEDS: 20,000 $ 230,000 K To:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Frcm:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 14, 1987 Subject: Veterans Camp ~ Septic Design/Water Use Rates The following are suggested guidelines for sewage treatment needs for various facets of the Veterans Camp proposal: I. Day-Camp (no meals, i.e. bag lunch type of usage) System Design Plow Rate: 16 gpd/person EXAMPLE: A day camp where people show up at 9 a.m., eat a bag lunch and bag dinner, leave at 7 p.m. - septic system should relate to number of day-campers i.e. 50 day-campers = 800 gpd system design rate. Presuming 45-60 mpi perc rate, this would i ed a 1,760 s.f. drainfield using up an area about 50’xl00' (double thi? to provide for alternate site). II. Resort-Type Use A. Houselceeping cabin (with Jcitchen/shower) System Design Flow Rate: 50 gpd/person EXAMPLE: A system to serve 10 4-person houselceeping cabins should be capable of handling 10x4x50 gpd or 2,000 gpd. Under 45-60 mpi perc rate, would need 4,400 s.f. drainfield taking up an area of about 100'xl25’. B. Lodge (with in-lodge kitchen/shower facilities) System Design Flow Rate: 74 gpd/person EXAMPLE: A system to serve a lodge that houses 12 people would need to handle 12x74 - 890 gpd with a 45-60 perc rate, needs 1,960 s.f. drainfield using an area about 50'xl00'. Ill. Dining Hall Design Flow Rate: 4 gallons/meal EXAMPLE: A dining hall that serves 750 meals per day (3 meals to 250 people) would need a system to handle 750x4 = 3,000 gpd, or at a perc rate of 45-60 mpi, 6,600 s.f. of drainfield, taking up an area about 100’xl75'. IV. Tent Camping - presumes use of toilet/washroom/shower facility Design Flow Rate: 40 gpd/person EXAMPLE: A 20-site campground, presuming a maximum of 2\ people per site, would need 2»jx20x40 = 2,000 gpd system, or for 45-60 mpi, a 4,400 s.f. system taking up 100'xl25'. 4 Veterans Camp May 14, 1987 Page 2 of 2 V. Laundry Facility If people are at the island for 2 ;veeks, they will probably want to do laundry. . . Design Plow Rate is 690 gpd/machine which would, under a 45-60 mpi perc rate, need a 1,500 s.f, drainfield for one machine, using up an area about 40'xl00'. These are only basic guidelines for various uses. The Design Plow Rates are from the attached "MPCA estimates". I assumed that the soils are capable of handling standard trench systems, but relatively slow perc rates through the Hayden loam soils mapped on the island. Actual system design and area needs will be quite variable based on the types and intensity of use the island ultimately is subject to. Of course, we would expect full soil testing and system design work be done by the applicants for any new systems to be constructed. It remains to be determined whether existing system on the island are suitable for continued usage. . . '1 ( ESTIMATES OF COMMERCICAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND RECREATIONAL WASTEWATER FLOWS 1-3 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Source of sewage Unit Gallons per day per unit Average Maximum Dwelling Units Hotels or luxury motels Motels Rooming house Add for non resident meals Commercial/Industrial Retail stores Offices Medical offices Industrial buildings Construction ''.amp Visitor center Laundromat Barber shops Beauty shops Car washes Eating and Drinking Establishments Restaurant (does not Include bar or lounge) Dining hall Each guest plus add for each employee or Square foot 50 11 60 13 0.26 Each guest plus add for each employee or Square foot 30 11 0.3 40 13 Resident 0.22 40 Meal 2.5 0.46 50 4.0 Square foot of sales area or Each customer plus each employee or Toilet room 0.1 0.15 2.5 11 5 13 Employee or Square foot Square foot 530 15 630 18 0.1 0.6 Employee 15» •Does not include process water or cafeteria 0.25 1.6 20» Employee Visitor Each machine or Each load or Square foot Chair Station 15 5 580 20 10 690 Inside square foot 2.2 55 270 5 2.9 80 300 10 Meal 2.5 4.0 or Each seat plus add for each employee Meal 24 11 2.5 HU & I Source of sewage Unit Gallons Average I-H Ai- per day per unit Maximum Coffee shop Each customer plus 2.0 2.5 add for each employee 11 13 Cafeteria Each customer plus 2 2.5 add for each employee 11 13 Drive-in Car stall 110 145 Bar or lounge Each customer plus 2 5.5 add for each employee or 13 16 Institutional Seat 32 40 hospitals Each medical bed plus 175 250 add for each employee 10 16 Mental Each bed plus 105 175 add for each employee 10 16 Prison or Jail Each inmate plus 120 160 add for each employee 10 16 Nursing home Each resident plus 93 145 Schools and Churches School No gym, cafeteria or add for each employee • 10 16 shower Student ,10 17 Cafeteria only Cafeteria, gym Student 16 20 and showers Student 20 30 Boarding school Student 75 115 Churches Member 0.14 0.86 Add for kitchen Meal 1 1 Add for Sunday school Recreational Student 0.14 0.86 Campground w/hookups Person or 32 40 Site 100 100 With central bath Site 50 75 Add for dump station Site w/hookup 13 16 Day camp (no meeds) Resorts Person 13 16 Housekeeping cabin Person 42 50 Lodge Person 53 74 i ( C • t m • 4 I rV 1-5 Source of sewage Unit Gallons per day Average per unit Maximum YMCA/YWCA Member 33 33 Country Clubs No meals Member 22 22Meals & Showers Member 105 130ResidentMember in Residence 75 100 Parks/Swimroing Pools Guest 10 13 Picnic Parks with toilet only Guest 5 10 Movie Theaters Guest 2.5 4 <•'* Drive-In Theaters Space 3 5 Skating Rink/Dance Hall Customer 7 10 Bowling Alley Transportation Airport, Bus or Alley •• 133 200 Rail Depot Passenger or 2.5 4 Square Foot or 3.33 6.5 •Public Restroom 500 630 Auto Service Station Each vehicle served plus 11 13 add for each employee or 13 16 Inside Square Foot or 0.25 0.6 Public Restrooms 500 630 References: Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Design Manual, U. S. EPA, October 1980. Forecasting Municipal Water Requirements, Vols. I and II, U. S. Department of Commerce, September 1969. Note on Water Use Data: Figures in the "average" column designate an average daily sewage flow and can be used for sizing the soil treatment unit. Values in the "maximum" column are the average of peak flow rates and should be used for sizing the septic tank or tanks so that adequate detention volume is available on peak flow days. Remember that these figures are only estimates of average flow rates and that each facility Is different. While it is necessary to estimate the flow rate fora new facility, a water meter should always be Installed on any commercial, industrial or recreational facility to measure the actual sewage flow dis charged into the sewage treatment system.