Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-1980 Planning PacketL • V. % # AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1980 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. / CALL TO ORDER Call to Order/Roll ACTION ITEMS #511 Fred Herfurth, 560 Old Long Lake Road - FINAL SUBDIVISION (Resolution) #582 H. R. Johnston, 925 Willow Drive South ~ PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 1586 Speeter/Henninger, 659 Minnetonka Highland Lane ~ CONDITIONAT. USE PEPvlIT WORK SESSION #545 Bruce Hepp, 2605 West Lafayette Road - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 4588 Lindgren Properties, 4505 West Branch Road - SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW '#585 George Hussman, 3660 Shore!*ne Drive - SUBDIVISION/PRD approval of minutes Meeting of October 20, 1980 (9.YChO n • • • * A — B City of Orono, Minnesota urtsr-^i- A =r Ps; 1 j4 4 ^ I TO; FROM: Planning Commission Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator . .1’ V «. ¥ the findings and conditions cited in staff resolution. h*_ _ mm -m. ^ rii/itoirti >iMWiillill DATE; October 29, 1980 SUBJECT; #511 Wakefield Farms, 560 Olu Long Lake Road - FINAL SUBDIVISION i [ • City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ----------------- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF WAKEFIELD FARMS WHEREAS the City of Otono is a municipal corporation organized and existi^-dei tile laJs of the State of Minnesota, and of land within the City# and corporation, the subdivider; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including.1 1. 2. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements.I Dedication on the plat of rights of way for public streets and roads, shovm is Old Long Lake Road. 3. 4. creation of a new private road shown on the plat as Outlet B. of all abutting and/or benefiting abutting maintain and pay the cost of maintenance tor P lnS%r IrainSeways described therein and shovm on the plat as "drainage easements" 5.Dedication to the City of an Ope" Space Easement (Ex^bit D) over Outlot A, a substandard acres dry buildablezoning district requiring a minimum of 2 acres ary area. 6.Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $100.00. Page 1 of 1 1-. f ■zm I • M 3- -z-.... .. I "^^CITY ; I OF ' 1 I ORON(^ City of ORQNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1 i ^ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Councxl of e City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Wakefield Farms, Hennepin County, Minnesota; subject to the following condition: 4 The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City . the Hennepin County Recorder's Office * I^S^hibitsoriginal copy of this Resolution and executed copies of Exhibits A, B, C, and D as noted above. day of Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the , 1980. William B. Van Nest. Mayor ATTEST: tfalter R. Benson, City Administrator Page 2 of 2 -A. . ... • f fy v,;^r' r • TO: FROM: Planning Convmission Jeanne Mabusth, Zonino Administrator DATE: SUBJECT: October 29, 1980 1582 H. R. Johnston, 925 Willow Drive South - The sole of the City owned 1.2 |ubd5viS!erbefore met>f;n9 of Noventet 10, 1980. f^aff will not bring the Council for preliminary approval until the sale agreement The On-Site Manager has approved the septic results re ?i:itaUons on'^bo^h\oLJ%"pPcr^ /*! o 4 Rlock 11 the recjuired two acres will severexy x , . -i • dUinatld area. Staff would not reoonmend realigning the lot line . Staff reconvnends preliminary approval of H.R. Johnston's 6 lot plat subjeot to the following findings: 1. 2. 3. citv has agreed to sell 1*2 acre site. . d^-nd ”eaiMif!^rrr:f bitJdabiracJel. ®“wt ris"und«“he |cres, but meets the 200* width at building site required by Council. and conditioned upon: 1. 2. 3. Paved driveway to be removed upon final plat approval. Septic area 1 niock 3 to be protected during this process. SeJfic a;efofLotr2 ^^3. Block 1, to be staked and Protected "dfsru?b:runtu S?r;jrs=^^r^rviewersrd=rp^r “rd.^““ " . S2r^rirth“?r^eirrah^r™Au:rtLn^\:?i"sS^irre%tid-nto ownership with respective residence lots: Outlet A • Lot 2 Outlot B - Lot 3 Outlet C - Lot 4 , , o Outlets E & F - Lot If Block 2 Outlot G - Lot If Block 1 -J u tuj October 29, 1980 #582 H.R. Johnston 925 Willow Drive South Page 2 /:rv 4. .5. 6. Underlying Road and Utility Easement over Outlot D and accompanying maintenance agreement. Plat road to remain private, road surface 20 to 22 feet, gravel base construction, must maintain 26* setback from wetland (wetland determined to exist below 930 elevation). Engineering plan for private road must be submitted for review by City Staff and City Engineer. Park dedication fee of $1,000.00 (5 lots at $200.00 each). mill r I • > L‘ j ■y V-. TO: FROM: Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator I" Michael Gaffron, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:October 30, 1980 SUBJECT:#582 H. R. Johnston, 925 Willow Drive South - SUBDIVISION On-Site Systems Review On October 28, 1980, I reviewed the five proposed new building sites for the above referenced subdivision as per the attached survey. Each lot {save Lot 4, Block 1 with existing house) appears to have 2.0 acres of dry buildable land. However, due to proximity to adjacent wetlands and the accompanying water table a portion of e^'^h lot is unsuitable for use as drainfield. All lots had areas touted which meet the requirements for standard trench drainfield systems. These designated tested drainfield areas on certain lots are the only available acceptable sites for drainfield. In every case, assuming a long term water table exists at approximately the 930* elevation, no drainfield trenches (2* depth standard) should be allowed below elevation 935* in order to ensure a 3* separation between trench bottoms and water table. In addition, where individual lot testing indicates a water table depth, the above 3* separation must be adhered to. Following is a detailed review of each lot. Lot 1, Block 1 Testing indicates soil and water table conditions are suitable for a standard trench drainfield system. This lot has some alternate house location possibilities. However, the tested site and in fact the entire lot should be left undisturbed until a final house location is determined. Lot 2, Block 1 As in Lot 1, testing found sandy soils suitable for a standard drainfield system. Various house locations may be possible. An excavation crossing the lot has not severely damaged drainfield areas, but no further excavation or disturbance should be allowed until final house location is determined. Lot 3, Block 1 This is probably the most critical lot of the subdivision in that a limited area is available for use as drainfield. The tested area is at the highest point of the lot due to extreme slopes. An excavation near the northwest corner of the lot may have affected the extent of the area available for drainfield. By creating an outlet for sidehill seepage from trenches above the excavation. However, due to the extremely fast percolation rates and sandy soils and the existence of untested but probably suitable area for drainfield to the east on the lot, the effect of this excavation is only slight. Mf Lrr :-<v )j October 30, 1980 #582 H.R. Johnston 925 Willow Drive South Page 2 Lot 3, Block 1 (Cont.) When this lot is developed, care must be taken to make sure the house location does not encroach on the area to be preserved for drainfield. I suggest that for this lot (and for all subdivisions in the City) that the tested drainfield sites be somehow entered on the title or deed for the property so that prospective buyers are made aware of the restrictions on the lot. Lot 4, Block 1 This lot contains the existing H.R. Johnston home. Although the lot as proposed contains only 1.64 acres, adequate area has been previously tested and exists for use as future drainfield. A relocation of the lot line between Lots 3 and 4 to give each property approximately 1.8 acres would serve no purpose as far as drainfield sites are concerned. Lot 1, Block 2 The soils on this lot are considerably different than those of the westerly lots. Loam and clay loam soils are indicated, and the percolation rates were understandably slower. This lot contains 2.4 acres and has a somewhat limited number of possible house locations which would allow a gravity-flow drainfield system. The lot is acceptable for a standard trench drainfield. Care must be taken during development of the lot that drainfield trenches are kept away from the pothole in the center of the lot. Lot 1, Block 3 m This lot has loamy soils with a fairly good percolation rate. The tested drainfield sites are to the immediate southwest of the existing paved driveway and due to slope conditions appear to be the only likely sites for use as drainfield. Again, care must be taken to preclude disruption of these sites prior to development. It appears that the suggested location of the house would be on the north end of the lot approximately on the existing driveway. Summary Each of the five proposed new lots should be acceptable for standard trench drainfield systems. Fortunately, this is one of the few areas of Orono having sandier soils. Certain lots as indicated may have limiting sites due to water table and slope constraints. As the engineer's report states, it is imperative that the tested sites not be disturbed by further excavation, grading or filling until permits are issued for specific house locations. I recommend approval of the subdivision as per preliminary plan with the above recommendations. to PLANT. MOOTY. MOOTY & BENNETT MAWOLO O. CANT HKNMY W. MAV *f»tTOC» li804-l9T7|LAW OFFICES PAANALIN D. 0»AV PRANA W. PLANT. UR JOHN W. MOOTV MCLVIN R. MOOTY RUftSCLL M. aCNNCTT CLINTON A. mCHROCOCR COWARD J. CALLAHAN. JR «<ARCS •. ttlMONSON MCMARO N. TLINT MICMACL R. SULLIVAN CURTIS O. rORSLUNO RICHARD A.ROWMAN ■ RUCC O. ORUSSfN:;; C. STCVCN WILSON JOHN S. CROUCH DAVID T. RCNNCTT COWIN C. CARPCNTCR LINOLCY S. ORANSON JOHN W. THICL NOCL P. MULLCR OANICL R. SHULMAN MICMACL R. CUNNINOHAM CUOCNC R. DALY ANORCW C.SCLOCN RICHARD A.MOORC.JR. JAMCS R.LANDS 300 ROANOKE 8U LOING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TCLCPHONC (ei2l 33«»-050l SUITE 012. FINANCIAL CENTER 3443 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE PHOENIX. ARIZONA 65012 TCLCPHONE 16021277-6961 October 28. 1980 RRUCC RRUOCR WILLIAM L.MILLION JOHN R, JAMCS CLIIABCTM W. NORTON JOHN O. MCSMANK pcpuY TO-----Minneapolis....._orncc SUSAN L LCNTZ DAVID R. ACLkV JOMN C BROWCR PAMELA N MCRA lC THOMAS OARLINO SHCLOON r rlCC a THOMAS J. PA TIN JAMCS A.VOSC OIANC mOLLCRN Thomas R. wilmC lmt DAVIO N. MOOTT CL'SABCTM M. SCHMIDT RICHARD A.HACACTT OCOROC W. SOULC HIlOY a. LINCHAN JANET C. HCUMAN WILLIAM O. ALCIN or eowNSCk ROBERT L. MCLLANO ROBERT A. STCIN AMitOHA ornc* BCRRiCN C. EATON • JCrrRCv R.BROOAC** or couAScc STCRHCN C. LCC • • • AOMITTSO 1*1 A«ltO«A mAOMITTCD iM AAlSONA AND MIN hi CSOTA ALL OYMCPA AOMlYYtO Dear Members of the Orono Planning Commission: You have before you for consideration the preliminary plat of Mr. H. R. Johnston which proposes to create six bulldable lots from the property presently owned by Hr. and Mrs. Johnston. The members of the Planning Commission have expressed concern in several previous meetings over the fact that one lot is less than two acres in area although three of the lots are well in excess of two acres. Several members at the last meeting expressed interest in review­ ing the possible building sites West of ^he smaller lot to see if it tfould be possible to shift lot lines to the West to make the smaller lot two acres even if it meant granting a side yard vari­ ance to one or more lots. You will find enclosed in your packet the surveyor's placement of possible building sites for you to determine whether or not such an approach is feasible. However. Mr. Johnston feels that he has during his extended dealings with the City of Orono been given assurances that a lot of less than two acres under the circumstances existing in this situation would be acceptable to the city and. based upon such assurances. Hr. Johnston has expended great ^unounts of time and money. Hr. Johnston feels that It would be most unfair at this point for the City to require substantial changes in his proposed plat, and he has asked me to outline to the members of the Planning Commis­ sion the events which previously transpired with respect to this property. Originally. Mr. Johnston owned the property on the preliminary plat which lies East o.^. the line drawn through the lot which is less than two acres and which includes the property labeled as "exception. lA- —1 Members of the Orono Plan­ ning Commission -2-October 23, 1980 Mr. Johnston lived in the "exception” property and desired to subdivide his property and build a new residence on what is now the small lot. He presented a simple three lot sxibdivision to the City which needed no variances. However, the City was con­ cerned that the property to the West tthe Hendel property) could not be safely served by the Hendel's 16 foot easement which ran across the Johnston's property if the Hendel property was de­ veloped (and there was a developer negotiating for its purchase). The City required that Mr. Johnston plat a fifty foot outlot which was to be used for street purposes for the Hendel property. At the same time the City required that the West line of the "exception" property be moved West to allow for an alternate drainfield for the "exception" property. The combination of two require­ ments reduced Mr. Johnston's building site to 1.5 acres. Mike Gaffron of the City proposed that the new West line of the "exception property be angled so that Mr. Johnston's lot would be 1.75 acres, but the City advised Mr. Johnston that it preferred the straight line boundary rather than the additional area. In order to start construction in the fall of 1979, Mr. Johnston uetermined to plat a two lot subdivison consisting of the "exception" property with the new West boundary and the balance of property in excess of seven acres. However, the City was aware that when a replat was done due to the development of the Hendel property, Mr. Johnston's new building lot would be cut on the North by the new street and that it would be less than two acres in area. The City Council gave preliminary approval to Mr. Johnston's plat of French Lake (Plan 4) on September 25, 1979, Including issuance of a building permit without final approval. The City Council minutes are three pages in length and the minutes make clear that the City Council knew and accepted the fact that they were approving a lot which would ultimately be less than two acres in size. The minutes also show that the City Council con­ templated a future sxibdivision of Mr. Johnston's property (Plan 3) which is the exact plan Mr. Johnston has presented. The Council minutes and Plans 3 and 4 are attached to this memorandum. You will note that Plan 4 shows a ~ontemplated 25 to 30 feet of ad­ ditional land being acquired by the small lot. The 25 to 30 feet figure was used, not to increase the size of the lot which it does, but to make the lot 200 feet wide at the building site which is another Orono platting requirement. Although it does not appear in any minutes, the City of Orono ultimately took the position with Mr. Johnston that it would not issue a building permit for his new home unless he acquired the 25 to 30 feet additional land from Mrs. Hendel to give him a building site width of 200 feet. I Members of the Orono Plan­ ning Commission -3-October 28/ 1980 Mr. Johnston reached agreement with the developer who was purchasing Mrs. Mendel's property to purchase the desired 25 to 30 feet that the City of Orono required for his building peimit. However/ the developer could not reach agreement with Mrs. Mendel Desperate to start construction of his house before winter/ Mr, Johnston reviewed the Mendel property and determined that there were two building sites (three with a City land exchange which the developer had discussed with the City) , and he then purchased Mrs. Mendel's property for its asking price so that he would have the 25 to 30 feet necessary to start construction of his house. It never occurred to Mr. Johnston that the City of Orono would require he add more than 25 to 30 feet to his building site because he acquired more than 25 to 30 feet. The economic loss which he would sustain if the Mendel property is not sold as two building sites (three with the City property) would be of a very large mag­ nitude. Mr. Johnston believes that the City Council committed for the City of Orono on September 25/ 1979/ to permit him to replat by adding 25 to 30 feet to his building site lot of 1.5 acres and it %rould be most unfair to change that commitment loecause Mr. Johnston purchased the Mendel property at great expense in reliance on the City's commitment. Sincerely/ C. Steven Wilson Attorney for Mr. M. R. Johnston/ Jr. .Co. C s CSW:1 jw Enclosures isutfie I RI:GULAR meeting of the ORONO council, SEPTEMBER 25, 197^ Page 6 the”suhrt?!l< Planner, entered into the record ^'’^BDIVISION 92S request of H. R. Johnston, 925 Willow Drive South which^^^°'*^ South, dated Septenber 13, 1979, #457 H.R, Johnston Mr. Johnston xs proposing a division of his Dronortv pxeces; one lot around the existing house * and^he remainder to be used for construction or his new home;. f The property is complicated by having only one narrow portion abutting Willow Drive and by intervening completely between Willow Drive and . a land locked parcel of land west of the Johnston property on the end of a peninsula, shown as "X" on the sketches. ^he first proposal was for a three lot division including a private driveway outlet. The existing driveway outlet onto Willow Drive was reviewed by the City Engineer with the recommendation that It be moved north for better safety and sight lines. The private road was also to be extended west to serve future development of parcel "X". Plan 2 These concerns caused consideration of a complete plat involving the whole peninsula including parcel "X" and the pieces between the road and this property. Lot 1 would expand westward to an existing fence line. Lot 2 would grow onto parcel "X", as new lot would be created along Willow Drive, See Plan 3. This is the ultimate plan of the developer, if all property could be obtained. $ the additional land acquisition could not be negotiated as quickly as desired. Mr. Johnston wishes to build his new home soon. The ultimate plan is to accomplish the addition, but of course, there is no guarantee of if or when this can occur. As a result, Mr. Johnston now proposes Plan 4, lot lines adjusted to accommodate the ultimate Plan 3. The new house sitp b;^g about ori Lot 2) allowing for ^ th^ existing driveway would be used with an easement to Lot 1. Lot 1 would also be land­ locked without the driveway outlot. (Continued) *Er,ULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 25, 1979 Page 7 Staff has several concerns:SUBDIVISION 925 Willow Drive South 1. The existing driveway location is not adequate (Continued) and should be relocated, especially if nore than 2 units are to use it. 2.Parcel "X" is a legal lo~, with an existing easement. If requested, a building permit would have to be issued. Therefore, three units would be using the existing driv^ 3.Even though the ultimate division is hoped for, there is no guarantee that it will occur. This proposal must stand on its own merits with all normal safeguards for access, wetlands and neighboring property protection. 4.The new house site on Lot 2, without future land from parcel "X'* is effectively only 1-1/2 acres even though the entire piece is 7-i- acres. Planning Commission recommended approval of Plan 4 with normal final platting requirements. This would include the park fee, a private easement for Lot 1 and no change in parcel "X's“ easement. This v/ould include a small variance for lot width at the proposed building site. Staff has spent a long time reviewing the many proposals and Hr. Johnston's objective of getting an ultimate subdivision design while assuring quick approval so he can start construction of his house. With Mr. Johnston's concurrence,-we recommend approval of Plan 5, a combination of the ultimate design including all of the P] *\nning Commission's reccxnmended features. 1.The proposed house site on Lot 2 is fixed and has approved septic designs. There is no practical reason to include more area to meet density as the entire proposal does average over two acres. In addition, the desired westward expansion is still possible in the future. 2.The lot line between Lots 1 and 2 is a practical location along an existing fence line and allows required additional drainfield area on Lot 1. This is better than the location shown on Plan 1 and accounts for the narrowness of Lot 2. (Continued) regular meeting of the orono council, SEP.E __ _>1 also has 3. 4 - -- - - - - „ i nallv proposed and also has t°p;rL:rsrpt!c"d^sUs/ south (Continued) 5. Outlot h «°ftots^l“c?idi““orcr^^^^^^ to serve all willow Drive,good access onto Hiliw used until a tttrrilute^S'Sum.'e^ther on l^t ;. or Parcel •*”. ,p„oval as follows: ,.e« recos^end ^ „.,,.„ds rnrcutlot B per Plan S d conservation Basements over «etlands 2. Flowage and Conserve outlets. construction S^.^rtrrd°un!eet?SefK ""or Parcel "X-. 5. Special^conslderation__to^^ before finll'piot approval. council Heetin, - Septeoher 2S, 1979 Jim Johnston discussed creatin, __-i _. Our concerns ar *=°“SutSrTremS?. ' ^ ,an outlot P approve Plan 4 Massengale moved, ®'*525*^Willo« Drive South, fon. R. siSdivision recognxtxng applicant to ^JJ^re subdivision, Nays (0). C^ 0{NJS\>nrs. : -L Qc\ \\^K-0- • I ■aII P=^■fi M-H II- . ::m. I.. J» s;:. ..V.:., ***• V9|^ ^ ■ t*\irtf .«•«? I I/s «r '.•M*ii*»i. r —IIV-.\‘I • \l1 fl ku* #l»* t ••0 -•#. <M.« ••«#<»# «• •• -» \* •— •• » • ••• ## •••# • w • • * • I •••.•»••••■#•• • I • • ___• • ‘ I 1 w- '■ > . If ••#«.# iff -N# I fk>«f« *f ••> f — • -f I #•.••*#—••#••/ 4-^ /# • -4 «f# /I I ! )••*. f•• •• •* •* f J>»* #*rf*^*« fff»f*/ /••* /^ >•• f- t.i et ' 0*0 I I I f #« Wf^W ,./ <I ^ * I !•••«# **t , • C^mrnpf >•. #.M»f i • I H //r / - 2XC / Lor^s. y4c±. ueott igordL APfjUlX hTAC FlA^ «< •I $ ^ § Osi X Tl Iv ; J • 1- t It li ’•(. k 1 k * I .9^...... TO; FROM; DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Jeanne Mabusth# Zoning Administrator October 30, 1980 #586 Speeter/Henninger, 659 Minnetonka Highland Lane - CUP Conclusions suggested from comments of District Limnortogist 1. There was no major impact of an'environmental nature to the main lake or the lagoon by the applicants removing the culvert and creating a 8’ to 10* wide channel. Although the applicants say there is a big difference, the limnologist states the effects are minimal. 2. At this point, it vrould be best for Lake Minnetonka to allow the channel to remain with rip rap along sides of bank. There would be greater harm to the lake if the City was to require the channel to be filled in and the culvert replaced. 3. Existing rip rap will prevent additional bank erosion. Siltation at the mouth of the lagoon is caused by drainage coming down the steep slope through tiling and washing out over 25* of unprotected soil. Rip rap should be placed along the 25* corridor to prevent erosion. 4. Presently, the lagoon is unnavigable. The original DNR permit allowed removal of some 740 cubic yards of muck and silt or 4* of the lagoon's bottom. The dredging area covered a 25* wide lagoon and 200 lineal feet of shoreline. The erosion of the banks since 1967 has caused the lagoon to increase to approximately a 50* width and siltation has made the lagoon unnavigable. If erosion and siltation is not corrected, dredging will continually be required to make lagoon navigable. Options open to Planning Commission: 1. To approvd of CUP to allow permanent bridge to be constructed across channel subject to the following conditions: a) Both applicants continue to maintain permanent dock on island. b) Speeter to acquire permanent access easement through Henninger property to reach dock. c) City will not approve of dredging the lagoon area. Lagoon to remain unnavigable and in its present state. d) City to require rip rap at mouth of culvert to prevent further erosion and siltation. (1 ; : * ; ♦ IT A r‘ October 30, 1980 Speeter/Henninqer 659 Minnetonka Highland Lane Page 2 #586 2. To give partial approval to the original CUP application denying request to build permanent bridge. That applicants should expand CUP to cover dredging of lagoon subject to following conditions: a) Dredging method subject to the approval of the City. Dredging may not exceed depth of 4* or below 925 elevation as is original DNR permit. b) Both applicants to construct permanent docks within lagoon area. c) City to require rip rap at mouth of culvert to prevent further erosion and siltation. d) City to acquire open space easement over island area. It I I UP application denying cants should expand CUP ng conditions: of the City. Dredging elevation as is docks within lagoon area, vert to prevent further r island area. f* • OePARTMCNT OF FINANCE A-60S GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 LIST site SenfTm I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ON THIS CERTIFICATE ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRE- SENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY net DIVISION. TO TNE SEST OF MY KNOWLEOCE JEUEF. •IN CO. FINANCE DIVISION FEE OWNER TAX PAYER/ MAILING ADDRESS y^-753T- "23JT. PROPERTY ADDRESS —- Sr»A/^ 'I /J. f/luj uj^ju/y Y Jit. Ro^avr U Ties ^C,UM.£. r&r SS^ &2. 7“ ~jr \c,c^y Li. £jj»f F rj r/ /jA \/C&/-/42^j. VF/-/V £^£z/1Zi^^44 dSdss^ 2ag<^ bo;^ ncS^ ^22 ^2^2S 02^/ t32^/ gt2d?3 ga?^ flags' "* • V TNC FACTS RCPRESCNTCO ON THIS AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REFRE- IFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS CORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY N, TO TNE REST OF MV KNOWLEOSE NANCE DIVISION PROPERTY ADDRESS /if S-//7‘^^^ 33 7 la. lO-eLM 9r: cool 22^ nryiS 020. nc£Z> co6o 2069 2303 coo4- OOPS ——i^________ .. o ___________ vMsr- » • • DCPARTMCNT of finance A-eOS GOVERNMENT CENTER ***NNEAP0LI8^ MN 55487 O I.IST SISB PEE OW^ER tax payer/ MAILING ADDRESS CtmrlllclrJTJm 1**' "CPRESENTED on thisCERTIFICATE ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRE- oV® T^ H wIe%“”o21ty Velibf '^'****'* ^*** ***^ rnonledce «0- finance division . PATeA>>^ ^ ^ PROPERTY ADDRESS V/jr/^ TT^/ligy^^ 4^ ^ /06-//7-33-^ '/.y/ I, #586 / boA'ib 1 '< « a October 23, 1980 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Jeanne: As you requested I have reviewed the conditional use per rolt application (#586) and have the following comments: 1. The channel replacing the culvert should have no adverse Impact on Lake Minnetonka. 2. The effect of the channel on the water quality of the lagoon will be small. 3. Slltatlon will continue to be a problem In the lagoon unless erosion Is controlled. 4. The rip-rap should prevent extensive bank erosion. ^ 5. Other types of erosion will also need to be controlled If they are contributing to the slltatlon problem In the lagoon. 6. Without effective erosion control measures repeated dredging will be required to main tain an adequate depth In the lagoon. conservation • DEVELOPMENT -SELP GOVERNMENT > • Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District 2S0NorthCentr«t Avenue, Suite 16 • Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 • Telephone (612) 473 0249 # 5S6 / «.W7 , Hcv. This work is mane, done — \ "v\? Vl. 11 !1 j LJlI3Liv.\i.iV-. j sJ ^ \ A "K ’ #5BY ?l«f: «arES®Tfl BS«®f 6®^32aiT.Vi8;lm tWUuOUU ......... ^ CON5^VAT10^iy L^aua u - exmM,ON DATE COMM,«,ONER OF CO.SF.VAt.ON J f OPERATIOMS ,0 BE POSTED .H A COBSP.CUOUS PLKE AT _ _ _ _ _ _ WX92-61 A ^ ^ ——— '■” i '•i I t OIVISI0M OF WATERS ‘in m of m application of 4: ^ - %t __ .n .............. Ar^nur r.. --------------- . rf,«n TO a,«.0H T„r, c<«st. «. p Hennepin County. PERMIT orth Arm, __ tx ier». ••r** •*'” DuanC e»> ----------------------- . ii efcreneo. ftRHlSSIO* IS HtRWt j ,„j other eo«.unicttion» l,„ p.r.ittee. ^XeOI^^ 1. -3«t to then., hy .rrtten not.e Rluueapui'is, Hinneoela !>>4U^ # I 1 from^the bed of AV "”IiSdln«’2S X«t lak«vard from i <4 rnoreim oeschiiied ..•■ SubdiTi8i®»^«|’°JJ®'5"°g,e ^Hennepin ,.. a. ..... .. i»prorir/navi'”tl.n.l facllltiaa ■ «>nr*^tAl D1 |l COUNTY ‘ ill , . for llie purpose ». ----a , ,k. W1..I.. critKAi. ..d SPECIAL pnovisions, Hi. p.i.it .. t.."..d J OtHEEAl PE0»ISI0»S 1. PROVISIOHS i-i*, nr obl5«*tion imposed by Hi. P...U I. p.-n- rlL“J i.............. he^X. -ill’O-t »:?!:rrf“:«v'rtcmro( -orU -“thorircJ hc-roo'lcr^^ .othorited con< 2. 3. the pcr< 4. i s. 6.l5Tk!rp.;li;':'.*.v."-.tLr.i'.. p::..d.d.. .t. ^p —' 1. J-o^i-oUtion oI .ny or the prob..ron, o November_30^J:^ Conetructio. •u ‘ho^f.;P-::/^}\f:rp-:r^rl:^ ^".::n\'h:;:rore. .n e,ten,Eo„ oC t- „.y he Xlired'T . . ............... .ocludc the redina.l or organ.c TO.ttcr II. Conitruciion ™? --c”'Co««isaioner by tb* rerm.w.*^. written request to t include the removal or organic matter oht.ined. - ...thorited herein shell not be construed r.stler ...................................... til. IV. V. VI. d...«. to ."V p.:«»"^.« llZn, Ltter the st.ti ‘‘rTt r,t;r .In, or It.t.r .ny Icfnl eonV.'‘®J?;.["'f “^^ti„„ Sf the sinte 'T'or nrplicnhle provisions "j , ^s specif..d herein.u-itithi 5-^U/u\il:Lrit;”i”h: p«Lrr .....J.i;.» f^o materiel excavated y waters ahich lie.^ b rV-rtlv all pertinent eleva- .L.n k. pl...d ." ■"> ”, ^.1, k, Ik. duty '';i':".9;k";fc"hl;di?tiirii'.k°. p.'-'. ___ „i,i, Si uirus ”.;d‘l:i.”s:::“t.5'."‘J...s. p..- \ iOMtr)/ ^ - SPCi'lU PROVISIOHS f n • . • W t t nf 1 lU.OO «, n^ymrni. (of----- C'****t VII. n....ri .* k.^1.. ..V.O.I.J..J .11 _ r » ______________ ^ _ * ::d:ri.:;!JA® a. ,.i. .c :.::i V.. »-•' <»'••■■' ■■"• «'••'■ •"•’ ................. ’■"■ 11 • • • : I V. f I,’ : * J Jt • I .... • • I,« • T. i* \. -• I • # t • A • ' • p rr ••j . - I .% . H *1 •• 7. lim'Xt lLU9X9JifX;iXXXXXXKt V '* • • .1. mi •! / « • *i DATED AT ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA, THIS 6th DAY OF ♦ #«r* T • 11^..r - r**- ^. #fc.J J K TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning coimnission Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator October 29, 1980 ,545 Bruce Hepp, 2605 Meet Latayette Road - SUBDIVISION / WORK SESSION . subject: Does lasoon area qualify for riparian creditCnbiect* UOes — - At our last meeting, the j°"„||'‘|een*'advisn that*'they have on the issue of l|90on. planning Commission may “hrSrde?e™i“t!orand recommend to the Council. . •_ _1. i 4-Vl make tne aeretiHii»«»*'*—- assist 1. tO»UUJ.S»oa.w—- - - - J • 4- f 1 ^ on th© basis each lot. rrord-e"-"rfatfdru£rtaid«rl^^^^ leparated by County road.separatea oy 4 Victoria Grain - approved in "i^'lhoreline was bordered by •i'^^tiruouf leUrnrt^rw^erianr The total shoreline averaged 200'+ £t>r each lot. if Planning Commission m^rs can r^^er ort^^ Similar riparian concerns, please co meeting night. .. .. ae»- 1 d #54 TO: FROM: Council Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator DATE: April 8, 1980 SUBJECT:1541 Ministers Life Development, 1484 Shoreline PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Subdivision Application - 6 lot pl^t loninc District - LR-IA 2 Acre Minimum The appi -cant proposes a the'^ma jestic"mood"and°charLter ot f!;°'’olf efta?e*“?i;f origiiai pLntings’have been saved whenever pMsible and tied into logioal ownership patterns. . Mifhael Gaffron's memo of Feb. 25, 1980. septic Testing - Htisfactory septic syster.s. He ^«rtrfctir-^ - all lots but Lot 2 will meet the Lot Requirements front line of the house. This required 200' of width ^''developer's attempt to keep specific ri!n?"in^1a*l?iro^ shJuis SdgtrSd into the ownership of the estate lot. TOC* in lakeshore frontage#Riparian outlets A and B sjeasure 125 of the setbacks ^Se Sirdil??iit."’'lhe.old caretakers house on bot 2 wall be removed when a new structure is built. Riparian Rights - Three of ®h® ^;J=„'’®”esi’'for i^ffand^rv ”' The proposed plan ^ ?.,je access provided although theSniths Bay outlets. f ® »SclsrbrcoLidered. His originalrlrn^rs^S“a^eTh?::^u^?^tl on Smiths Bay^ b^^^ ^ii!r?r/4acJ of the six lots. options for Lot 6 include the following: NO access at all (without a major plat rearrangement). Three outlets on Siniths Bay (Planning Commission recommended only one) creation of an outlet on Tanager Lake, probably between Lots - creation of a joint use outlet (ala ''i®‘°“^°i“pJ,obabl5”best b^ lots - maybe all - to use in common. This wouia pi. 1. 2. 3. 4. located on Tanager Lake. . -- - - --d * 1^ April 8, 1980 #541 Ministers Life Dev. Co 1484 Shoreline Drive Subdivision Page 2 #54 i /: council dealt with the sa.e , Palace) and Victoria Grain mad serving interior residentialriparian outlets .created hy the CynntY^roaa ser^^^^griparian- - -- —-—- lots and tne other involved the Because ras borderej intiquous Access Location - The Hennepin ,^198o!"'^They have^enclosed aSdit^inai^LfoJ^aJio^fif ^propoLd realign^^^^ of County Road 15 tfeas^the sharp curve at Bracketts Point Road. The developer discussed the situation «i«,«-rSa"or°?aS deSl«??on"''" developer originally provided a pi ^ealig^ent.^ Hennepin County (through Lot 6) to ^ a two lane, 35 MPH realignment. An has provided a rathe? than an immediate dedication. SrcSr^irpl^t^sho^s onir» buildin, setbacR line with no land set aside for roadway realignment. Your planner has three concerns: ll\lU ot -rers a? ^!;e%"xjrtin, driveway across the street 3. iHet^ol !c?esriespecially westbound left turns) onto Bracketts Point Road. a f!n*^9^ltl inT97^?^nf5^^^l.°^tl77^an^l9?fu9«ss'’««e"no^ provided by Hennepin County.) your planner’s position was T'’“jess°the^access**be improved (for increasin, the and after several site for safety. After review of oronosed (existing) access location inspections, it r adequate without any change in CR15. for this plat would ?????« did not eveJl address the access TSca^ISn!*" ?h«e?oie' ^ see no^eason to withhold plat approval or to require any road access changes. ir - ■KEGtJLAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNICL, APRIL 14, 1980 6. Page 13. If areas A & B are rezoned, the residential uses are non“ConforTning 7.If structures are moved,‘the lots will remain residential rezoning 1440 Shoreline Drive (Continued) 8.The lakeshore will never be used for dock purposes 9. Limit boat storage 10. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has to review dock layout 11. No dock uses in front of area C 12. 13. Designate parking areas in area B Tanager side of A, B, s C should regain residential. • Browns Bay side of A, B, ^ should remain commercial. M^rv Rivers read a letter as a second legal opinion comilienting that the LMCD has full control of the lake and its uses. Mavor Van Nest moved, Paurus seconded, to table the ?e^lning request of das,e= Rivers Wrndward Marrna, 1440 Shoreline Drive, until April 28, 1980 for further Council review. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). “nowinriegies/irSI^i ^^^^"Dlvellp^npor'’" 14 S^sifreUne Drive 1484 Shoreline Drive for a subdivision, dated Apri , ^ Life Develop. 1980, which states: Subdivision application - 6 lot plat Zoning District - LR-IA 2 acre minimum and tied into logical ownership patterns. Septic Testing - Please review Michael Gaffron's memo of February 25, 1980. He notes all six (Continued) 1 r. V.- - • ••J mrm V 1 K‘ - •. ibULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, APRIL 14, 1980*Page 14 Lot Requirements - It appears that all lots but Lot 2 will meet the required 200* of width along the front line of the house. This variance is a direct result 6f the developer's attempt to keep specific plantings (a line of shrubs or hedges) tied into the ownership of the estate lot. SUBDIVISION 1484 Shoreline Drive (Continued) Riparian Outlets A 6 B measure 125* and 130* in lakeshore frontage, not the required 200'. The existing structures meet all of the setbacks , for the zoning district. The old caretakers house on Lot 2- will be removed when a new structure is built. Ripsfrian Rights - Three of the six lots have direct lakeshore access. The proposed plan would provide riparian access for Lots 465 via Smiths Bay outlots. Lot 6 has no lake access provided although the developer has requested that such access be considered. His original plan was to have three outlets on Smiths Bay, but this was amended following Planning Commission discussion. The total lakeshore ^j^ontaqe in _f;)^lg__pl^t_is_l_£_4_20_^eet_of_2jj_;j_ft^_/each of the six lots^ Options for Lot 6 include = the following: 1.No access at all (without a major plat rearrange­ ment) 2. Three outlets on Smiths Bay (Planning Commission recommended only one) 3. Creation of an outlet on Tanager Lake, probably between Lots 162 Creation of a joint; use outlet (ala Victoria Grain) for two or more lots - maybe all- to use in common. -This would probably best be located on Tanager Lake Council dealt with the same situation in approving the Hartwood (Pink Palace) and Victoria Grain plats. One case involved substandard riparian outlets created by the County road serving interior residential lots and the other involved the creation of a joint use dock area because the extensive shoreline was bordered by a contiguous designated wetland. Access Location - The Hennepin County Highway Depart­ ment has approved the existing access per letter dated March 27, 1980. They have enclosed additional information for a proposed realignment of County Road 15 to ease the sharp curve at Bracketts Point Road. i r (Continued) he developer was xnto because o ave a major °"ess safety. os regarding pla Hennepin vhe situation 1484 Shoreline o nuedi ^7 I : ounty staff and . ^g^d dedicati Hennepin pl.t "U such . ^ two law. ot 6» to sugqested plan ?“ ested an■ounty has provided a lat sugg is mpH realignment. i^wdiate setback- ,utlot rather t^^ only a ^ux „ ^oalignment. jrnr«ltS no l«>a _ S • \ / Lnc wx«-“ — vt.fi three concerns. our planner __ a.« vhis pla safety of t? ^^®*?Vplat toad*”*’^ Icross ?he stref (U^^cUUy «ef t«ns) tU'^racketts Point Roa ’ rrtUtrrias^had n„n^/ -iSC-r eluding 10 1979 figures ware not ■t^^l^diri-y Hernepln county.) * . . • ■.* 9 0 C I .^vid;i by Hennepin ^ coition was originally our approved (for ^"®g®®be”improved for ,lat not be .P^ iggs the acces _x.atistics, and ,f dwellings) of n^^-s'^ it Is apparent ‘t!!?U,a«l site inspections, io«“°" ‘°"a ritt'worirSe'^onsidered^ad^^^^^^^^^ hinge in did not even *^^||son toSHu--,r.rs-u -.4....». - access changes. ^ a-.ve r i hat the and ^iU If ®^^pie living •iccidenjts m /hazards for the p F connover n the Drive called me earlie^ stated ,£ 1,89 Shorelin^^^^^^ Sitfpit'sible to irrairhten “the «ad »d^th« s^ ^„hlen,s. to Hennepin County (Continued) n d ■i JULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, APRIL 14, 1980 Page 16 Therefore, even if no chahgct in County Road 15 is necessary for tiis plat, the Council should consider some safety improvements to help the existing residents and road users. This may not necessarily be straightening of the highway as proposed. There may be other alternatives. The point is that the issue has been raised and it does deserve more study. To this end, the plat must be reviewed to include the possibility of some future realignment. SUBDIVISION 1484 Shoreline Drive (Continued) At the minimum, the suggested setback line should be mandated with either an open space easement or a hold harmless type clause to preclude any building construction near County Road 15, or if a building is built, to ensure that some future condemnation would not have to pay damages. We know that the road realignment.may be a possibility. At this time, we should preclude any unnecessary expense for the land owner or the City. Plat Road - The plat road will be realigned. The road will be private and designated as a 50* wide outlot with a 100' diameter cul-de-sac. The plans show a proposed 28* wide paved road. Lot 3 will be served by a private driveway easement through Lot 2. This will allow the use of an existing driveway serving the house on Lot 3. (This driveway is in excellent condition and surrounded by many mature plantings.) Planning Commission Recommendation - Please review the Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1980 and March 17, 1980 for background information and recommendation. CommissiprL_aBB£Qy.ed of only one single riparian outlAt on smit^hs Bay dhd notea it was noc within their authority fcn create subatflnd8r9_Jmiflrxan outlets or creatq Therefore, tney recommended approval of six lois, three directly riparian, one riparian via an outlot on Smiths .Bay and two non-riparian. Preliminary approval should contain the following points: 1.Septic requirements approved per On-Sitc- Manager's report noting specific concern that steps be taken by developer to protect drainfield area of Lot 1 during period of road construction. 2.Access road - existing access location with relocated interior road as proposed. Plat road to be designated as an outlot. City to acquire underlying easements for road and utility purposes Lot 2 to grant a private driveway easement in favor of Lot 3. Reconstruction subject to a • •• developers agreement.(Continued) I OCULAR meeting OFtHE ORONO COUNCIL, APRIL 14, 1980 3.Page',17' SUBDIVISION 1484 Shoreline Drive (Continued) County Road 15 - Council should reauire some asement or agreement to protect future* rmi- • to xmprove safety for Bra?Retts Po?nt”oa§M”.#545 Mayor Van Nest moved, .Butler seconfSo/i the% t Shoreu“e"?i«f%ubi:c?^tl%Nf“p?r^.^“ ‘recommendations exceot that- Commission lot4«illbeJlrIuSd ^Joarnfao residentialrr¥ riparian access to r.airo lakesnore wmrn e»vr^e>v>a.. -------------lots in the hfa-U%r...e.. lSt*4^is^4o‘hLf'® *’*''? ‘^rrect lakeshore access Bot 5 “ to Savl acSII S““°‘ ® SmitSniy Lot 6 is to have access via ^ Smiths BayLake. access via riparian outlet on Tanager All riparian outlets are to be restrif'toH k, space easement. Each outlet is k °P®" than one dock with no more that a tStll n? r""® boats per outlot at* ^ ^ total of two on land. ‘*'® “oorin, or stored buildii^^Une^of*150 • °setback‘^from*’th‘^restricted With open space easen,enftr^rfff” .!*’l.?°“"ry roadwith open space easement to County road for improvin, hiphway safety^t“ws focatLn""””"- Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). ^he*"re%S?S “?h%"'re%°u"i^? S?"iS^fn‘"r?^’ ^tertown Road, dated April 9, 19eo,“^i|“st”e^ do‘thrj:[foSln,?**’‘* " '“"■Srtional use permit to CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3925 Watertown Road #543 Loren Butterfield k ?ISs?ruc:"a”ef3S? st“°’ ^«-»ouse ^ to an existi"r9«en?ouL 3. Construct a new 60- x 190- greenhouse . (Continued) wdT.&aS *«» I- 1r>r* J--I REGULAR llEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JUllE 29, 1978 Page 7 Variarices; 34.452 side yard 7 ft. “ 70% 34.201 lakeshorc 5 ft. = 6.6% 34.202 hardcover 50 sq. ft. porch 288 so. ft. boat house VARIANCE 1170 Loma Linda Avenue (Continued) • 388 sq. ft. within 75 ft. of shore Planning Conunission Meeting - June 12, 1978 Mrs. Van Tassel was present. Discussion was that the existing hardcover was not being increased and that neighbor's views would not be affected. Planning Conimibsion moved to approve the variance contingent upon the neighbors being notified of the Council meeting. Council Meeting - June 29, 1978 Note; Neighbors not present. #54 Mu • Butler moved, Maseengale seconded, to approve the variance request of Robert Van Tassel, 1170 Loma Linda Avenue, per the Planning ^ Commission minutes of June 12, 1978. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). states: yiiPTaKirp ^ 2608 Mapleridge Roa^ The applicant proposes to construct a new house on a lot created by subdivision (Kern Hoppe, et.al.) last year. Normally, variances are nol^considejzfid new buiTSindg on newly created lots,_The - - - - - - - - - ‘ ' ' ' ^^^iitecthere arises oecause lann^ xnte:our setbackrequirements •erently I has designed a noroe Tt a "bay") projecting to V;ith a The^erms it a "oay-| projectj.«y 8 ft. from the property line. The original plan submitted for permit had several corners encroaching the side setbacks. The only current encroachment is the one comer noted. Variance 34.452 - 10 ft. required; 8 ft. actual - variance 2 ft. (20%) Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1978 Work Session - Mr. David Nitz, the owners ^ contractor, was present. Planning Commission wished to view the lot with the house location staked in place before acting on this request.■fContinued) ^_ _li j *1#* ^oULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JUNE 29, 1978 * 1978 Page 7 VARIANCE 1170 Loma Linda Avenue (Continued) • 3use 75 ft. of shore that and / 5 4 M iTRPT &TjrF. tah.2608 Mapleridge Roa^ it.al.) ^ered U/1L cr al - % •Planning Commission Meeting - June 12, 1978 Planning Commission approved variance for side yard setback finding a hardship caused by the narrowness of the lot and the location and design of the building. Planning_^Qnjin4^s_ion__also_, noted that work had been done within 75 ft, of the shor^ and requested_tlifi__sll&^j_^o Staff Note - June 21, 1978 Note that original subdivision #114 was approved by the Planning Commission on September 7, 1976 with lot width variance "subject to no other variances". Staff does note that this endroachment is minimal and occurs on the non-lakeshore side which is heavily wooded. Lakeshore Setback: There exists a stockpile of, excavated material ai^ brush witnin /S ft. of the lagoon^ The contractor has promised to remove safRe-^ssoon as the weather allows. The road itself is_approximately 50__ft. from the lagooiT, bufc so is tne'existing driveway easement which nroviaes the only access to this lot. Tnis easement was cidSFiy shown in this location during the subdivision review two years ago. It should have been addressed at that time but was not. Because of the earlier approval, staff believes that a variance for the driveway location is appropriate provided the driveway remains gravel and is not paved. Summary: Variance 34.452 sideyard - 2 ft. 34.201 lakeshore - 25 ft. Council Meeting - June 29, 1978 Mayor Van Nest moved, Butler seconded, to approve the request of John Hannah, 2608 Mapleridge Road, for a variance to side yard setback and 75' lake- shore setback, subject to: 1. Removal of excavated material and brush 2. Driveway remains gravel and wiU ; .e protected to prevent erosion 3. Driveway will follow existing iViMtament Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Page 8 VARIANCE 2608 Mapleridge Road (Continued) • tcontinued) i»m «4 ♦! , • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUGUST 15, 1978 Page 17 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Review types of services to be provided Review cotamercia'. use of this property as 1^ relates to sewer and other City services avail­ able Review expanded use of land and water Impact on traffic and residential land contiguous to this area .^ Compliance to Comprehensive Guide Plan STUBBS BAY MARINA (Continued) Mayor Veu» Nest moved, Butler seconded, to Instruct staff to prepare a resolution declaring building Ayes (4) - Nays (0). ^ax forfeit properties, which states. Staff recommends that the City retain the following parcels of tax forfeit property: 42310-4400; 42310-7400; 42420-4900; 42420-5100 for drainage purposes. 42420-0655; 42740-5100; 42740-5150; 42740-5200 for park purposes. 42340-1500 release for sale but retain street easement. 41317-1200; 42060-5000; 43120-4425 release for unconditional salo other lots released for sale with conditions as noted. easements to be entered in the chain of title. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). the ^#54:5 !II lii • ll . •ii if it I :? i \. I* r Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record the following conditional use . for dredging for West Shore Lafayette Bay Association dated August 9, 1978, which states: ^^ONDITION^ USE PERMIT r West Shore Lafayette Bay ' I #416 y icope of the previous permits.(Continued) .oULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUGUST 15, 1978 This extension is a proposal ‘to dredge the channel and l.agoon on the Morris, Hannah and Hepp properties. The method is to be the same as that used in the main channel with the suction dredge Used to remove muck dovm to elevation 924-t- 6". Surface area:approximately 10* X 90' channel approximately 75* X 100*.lagoon pond depth at completion; 4*-5' Estimated 400-600 cu. yards of spoils to be deposited in the FHBI spoils pond. There is an existing walk bridge over the channel which is to be removed and then replaced upon completion of the work. With this bridge inplace, there is no navigable access to the lagoon. To date, the City engineer and I have inspected the existing dredging operations several times and no adverse comments. We have not, however, received any of the monitor reports on water quality. Perhaps these should be required prior to expansion of the permit. Planning Commission Meeting - August 14, 1978 Work Session review. Dewey Lindsay (dredge operator) and John Hannah (property owner) present. Other owners Hepp and Morris have supplied written approval of the proposal. Page 18 4,i CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT j West Shore Lafayette Bay * (Continued) j f Mr. Lindsay noted that he does not intend to dredge the channel but only the lagoon itself. He said the DNR has tentatively approved expansion of the other (1319) permit to include this work and that the MCWD review the appli •nation on August 17-, 1978. They requested immediate action because approval would allow work to continue while the dredge is in the vicinity while delay would make the project unfeasible Proposal is for esthetic improvement only and not for riparian access. Mr. Hannah intends to keep bridge inplace and to place an aerator in the lagoon during the summer. Planning Commission was concerned with Hannah's house construction and tfl6 exeavateamarerial being iaaoon. Planning Commission was also concenied whether dredging for esthetic purposes was reasonable or not. They were concerned that FWBI had not supplied any test reports on the existing project. After lengthy discussion and several motions, Wilson moved and Hassel seconded to take action at work session and to pass on to the Council a recommendation for approval of the s (Continued) k L -- - - - .«.PTTMG OF THE OROMO COUHCIL, AU ,,ni(iDlTlONAL USE PERMIT I«CULA« ®ETI«G OF T .action .. "IJore W*ayette B, (Continued) '- t to dredge the lagoon Ulayette Bay \rtoe landowners existing was beneficial _„„£rero«nt j° (. fpr ««thetlci5:ss.“ss~i, ..tajafiS^anSl^ irs‘r.^l,fssia!‘^A|®3g?s-ss»f%,?»/s.un4r£:->s.s"Resolution detriroeutal to McDonald dredging g^d Wilson; Nays reports rafio? SS controlled. Staff Hote - hugest 15, 1»^8 Becelved oe»o from n®I progtaiBc '”7.- — “■ ”’• „„ Bay. we «®® natural_abilUy Mayor Van Hest^^ th^ wetlan ds, to ^eiugjtfi ■■— ------- ' ----------------..^1___- Mpidia . I I.L 1; iJ u 6 for their indulgen____ .-tor discussed Hr. 'ey Smy^f th??olice*iegotm^^^^ ^^”H?hefh“f so)iS"othrr cities ..““benefits roent—n^^e H will continue t6 fr^^a i««.- L,“tipasse oight be POLICE • .5GOTIAT1C r f. . .a» - ^ , #588 ' 1 TO;Planning Commission FROM:Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator DATE:October 29, 1980 /SUBJECT: 1588 Lindgren Properties, 4505 West Branch Road - SUBDIVISION Area - 20 Actes Subdivision - 2 lot plat Zoning District - RR-IB 2 Acre Minimum WORK SESSION The applicant proposes a division of two ten acre lots. Ten acres appears to be wetlands. Each lot contains the necessary two acres of dry contiguous land. The On-Site Manager recommends the usual septic testing even though the lots are over 5 acres each in area. Each lot satisfies the standards of the district. Access to the most eastern lot must be reviewed by Public Works Coordinator and City Engineer. The driveway serving the proposed house site must pass through a designated wetlands. Both, accesses must be reviewed by Hennepin County Wi^^way Dept. City will require a conservation and flowage easement ov<>« <i«*»tland8. Staff will schedule a Public Information Meeting for Dec<:> 1. 1980 as the applicant has already contracted for the septic testing. ■a a A «r 3t* s •• i # 588 nch Road - SUBDIVISION lots. Ten acres cessary two acres of nds the usual septic h in area. Each lot to the most eastern and City Engineer, pass through a designated epin Count'/ highway Dept, nent wetlands, for Dec«#>«*re i, 1980 eptic testing. 1 Land Use Application ^ UXaiTION OF PROPOSAL (or prop^jA^ Address 4/^^ /tUiTf Legal Description •i •. APPLICANT Name_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Tel #. Mailing Address f>e>rL 2.^^ ^ .*^37*/_____ OWNER Tel #_ _ _ _ Mailing Address 7,^^ (^t>Ce(LS .<S37/- - - - - Present Zoning ^ Present Use Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request —j7r ^ * type of application Sketch Plan Review $50 Subdivision P»30«®^ $150 + $10/Lot Conditional Use Permit _ _ $30.00 _ _ $50.00 Rezoning $250 Vacation $100 (Minimum) FEE . Date Rec*d '/C ^ By ^ - - -- -;- Specify Ordinance Requirements Explain your request and reasons for same "fo ^ /fcoTO /7?g/tg __:4:±—^ -----------------------------------------------— VARIANCE required _ _ lot Area Width extent of nonconformity Setback * Front_ _ Side Rear Other, explain Specify hardships to property SUBDIVISION application X? Residential Other, explain NO. of Lots CONDITIONAL USB AND OTHER - explain proposed use of property in detail ;d /re9i//>eArr^A^C__^---------------------------------------------------------- 4 • •» it* m MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPUITE APPLICATION (Most be submitted 10 days prior to Planning Commission meeting) Application c<»npleted Plat map section Certificate of survey of property sketch location and setbacks of proposal Construction plans, if applicable Certified Property Owner's list of owners within (300*) (J^^)** from | Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A-603 Government Center I Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#10)| pre-addressed to each of the names ! on the^aboi^e List. ^ > DATE DATE /§//y/i^ Applicant's Signatui^ Owner's Si>jnature Applicant hereby agrees to provide al^ informAioi^requirea or f!'eq.*«jSted by thq Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission end Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all fees as established Jay ordinance. c y*vo St-*- -- f '4. •> J « »""" 0mu 1 Sj sf «5 w 2«-----------f f P f •.■»»!' " ■ /« «i H W _ • £ • 40ft 1 • • t. I fes 5 '5* <» ' eZ> = . » / • I s t SI r >! t ^ t 3C\f t ^ & ! t --------l|______----------T L ;::«nt|Sg8S4iiii rmtijiiu ' -• s :*-i. r 1 ■i ]^: I g|E I ^ fSSd ! I 1 ra afe: %«»: «y i:^i*j i&U. STOSi^«a!i'^V. « I •m. R'V s ^1 • ^ 44: ^ ^ir Oi TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Conmission and Council Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator October 30, 1980 SUBJECT: #585 George Hussman, 3660 Shoreline Drive - SUBDIVISION/PRD Zoning District: LR-lC-1 Area: 9.2 acres Subdivision: PRD Plat (20 units) SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mr. Hussman is another of our developers from last year that found development costs too great and were forced to abandon his original project. The original PRD was for 24 units (12 duplex units). The new PRD application is for 20 units (4 single family and 8 duplex units). The access road has been shortened helping to reduce improvement costs. The new proposal will have no problem in meeting the 35% hardcover limitation. The mini par)c should be reviewed by the Park Commission. The original plat did not designate a park area. Access to mini park is via plat road and Blaine Avenue. Staff will determine what agencies must be renotified of the new subdivision proposal. Much of the original review information will still apply to the current application. Pertinent Ordinances 38.600 -38.640 PRD 34.621 - Additional Permitted Uses 37.015 - Density limitations. Variances 34.621 The detached four single family dwellings will require a variance. Density ratio:Total Area 400,752 s.f. or 9.2 acres Area required per unit 14,520 s.f. Area proposed per unit 20,037 s.f. Planning Commission should review Council- Minutes of August 14, 1979 and relate to the conditions of approval set forth by the Council. What about the requirement that all units must be served by internal plat road? I e " SUBDIVISION/PRD ear that found on his original ex units). The and 8 duplex units). iinproveinent costs. 35% hardcover limitation, ion. The original plat is via plat road and »d of the new subdivision iill still apply to the will require 3.2 acres s. f. s. f. August 14, 1979 and Council. What / internal plat road? ! ; CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Land Use Application • jj ^ LOCATION OF PROPOSAL (or Address C . V v- - -5.J Legal Description APPLICANT MdiesI ^ I f U ■. > T -( U>V^-^ OWNER Nas.e - - - Tel Mailing W V Address ^ ^ H TYPE OF application Sketch Plan Review $50 Subdivision $150 + $10/Lot conditional Use Permit _ _ $30.00 $50.00 Rezoning $250 vacation $100 (Minimum)vacdUJ.'-'A* ' — 9 ‘f‘/l_ Date r-'-^ /' --7 -‘f“- By V if /-yt- - - - - -- - Present Zoning PiCsent Use _ zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request Specify ordinance Requirements - - Explain your request and reasons for same • — lavtent: of nonconformityVARIANCE required exten _ _ _ Other, explain --- - - Rear Width specify hardships to property ■ Vi-SJ^ SUBDIVISION application ^'Residential Vl Other, explain No. of Lots CONDITIONAL USE AND OTHER - explain proposed use of property min detail npcfsSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION heTuS""ayfprior to Planning Cosmissiou meeting, Application completed Plat map section certificate of survey of property shetch location and setbacks of Snrtruction plans, if applicable DATE. 5 Certified Property CVner's list of owners within (300’) (150')- from Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A-603 Government Center ,411 o' 6. Stamped, legal sized pre-addressed to each of the^ nantes on the ^ove li^^ *^ Applicant's Signature -- - - - - - - - - -• ^de \\"'rn"ori&=WS^^ Applicant hereby agrees City ^torney. Planning Commission the zoning Administrator, City Eng ..^i^ion and further agrees to pay type of application ketch Plan Review $50 ubdivision $150 + $10/Lot londitional Use Permit $30.00 $50.00 ^zoning $250 acation $100 (Minimum) . oo -4^ ^ f ^;L— lec'd ~ . /I m.- - --- - - - Rear r, explain No. of Lots property in detail LIGATION sion meeting) Property Owner’s list of Hin (300') (150*)- from :o. Dept, of Finance ‘rnroent Center Legal sized envelopes(#10J 3sed to each of the^ nantes )ve list. i S* • 3 4 bL^ill .R23 X : I -• .-c*. • ^ Wv :l ' i 1:r •is i; 1. •• 1 V - . J - i!t - JT9 • i ^ ^ ^0 •"iv (LJ O' r-oi-11 r 'i • t «• t'TMS 'S A ___LX-’I--'-- » 'O !- ------'Str i - - i .» •= *.* s Jk------Ofti 1 -----(T3 »^ >'s.-s- •.-* m ^ -I ( - 'i.'..... SI .C^-V • n * I 'i f vL"^";* *■ . f ■i >Oli ■ • ' \ * ..--i .1, » I ' •X '5» i* . -iTS i oTTT* ‘1 ^ *v ’ll'j . -X 5—— ol%t m •» '12.0^ .tT» kAVANWt ► *:v > — ,1 £t - !«• ■ ^."1 :7* # M M . T •r> - s* * 7^ \ 1.' I *• • •' ►•ye rs \ *> ■V l^ .'idy v -.mS F E 1) c J w 'y T •'- w'liJr ■V.«ii ?n- •-L I S •- 5« \, ^ in 1^ y- LH • *.\ » m '*•/• Pi/\ / iKyy: X-' ‘'T' >♦ /- 'yM l •• V •• , -• •- ►»« j • . ♦I • * ■ • •• • I ^•*; “■* .% 1 . \I i • f* .f^' * .'/ ’“11 • • • * %’ I •'*.*.. • ' ^ I I - ■ 1 • •*. •» i* .• ■••* * 1W4 — .... V »;•**..'*• ' . * • ' * *^ ******^^^*^^^^ *...-•••*• * 1 • 1:® >(Aliil sii' ^ '4 i‘.-;v -.• •-. /^ - "'■•V-i- ' •• 4 r- ^ •/-* • V ‘ ••. : 'i'-.» ^. 1* < • , • *— . .• •- .• »—• V t' -. *. .% ..• % ’ w. • • •" .* • -... •. • • . • . • ■ •. V- .• • • . ■* ' • : ■ i ■- -V •.•r" w ’. -.V • > iV -* •. ' r ingf-v’y^ •• i ■ :•' "*’• : ir W•\ ‘ . » ». »•% ,M • • “ -------••- •:.»^ « •*y*.^ -* *«. .. ,‘W ' A- i; ••. V » • I. \ ^ *r- .•> , Vrv- , •* ' , - - ^ - 1 ' •'•• ‘17'f « • • ‘ V • ‘I ; . _. »• A J y -%r—^ . . -.Kv >j .. ■ ••'" • • ■ • ;• >■“•. .^V *•:•• W* '.. ■ -V > 4 .j -r ’• * « -4 -•.-%• / - • ^ •. . . , '• * • -• • O. * .* ' •> : . V ^ . '. . v -f * Z i^r , 1 \'V.- ^ ‘ •» : ^ -^ • 4 —*• *• " »• »*•• '.. .. ■■c^K V . » *I • . .» ' * •I Vi.^1^^ « -■ • ••>•I*. 9 ^ I * • ' .' * •• J J '■’/■ •;[ ■''• ‘ ■ ■^''. ♦ ' ♦ *..,• '*, •• - J • /.. Yi 4 .,V. ^.^r:•.•.;.' :k'\ i * i ■. ’ * : .’ • ^ S•.« • ‘ ; , 1 »* 4 ' •> • . c -V ^ * ■ f.% .».»■- 4 * . % .. ' ‘*1 • ...'. r • • •~. r* ' ‘ * M . Vv . ‘ v!' - i V-. ••. / •*' •.. V-i f.i V -.r-.- . .4 J _ •. 4 •. .0 ■\ • t •.. * I • t t/ # ♦ ^ •*; j \ \ 1 / : ' . • • .*• ' /i L - i- ‘i -• > *' I ‘ ! . «4 * . . • V f . .1 V I 1 ^ I • 4'1 ..• I ^ 'I .1, f • • ^ ’ • • • *^. •• • '» V "* •. ' REGULAR flEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUGUST 14, 1979 Page 3 Cogncil Meeting - August 14, 1979 Mr. & Mrs, Holzer and their attorney, Mr. Robert Mitchell, were present. Mr. Mitchell reviewed his letter of August 6, 1979 with the City Council. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI1 2677 Casco Point Road (Continued) Letter - Pages 4-6 aMayor Van Nest informed Mr. Mitchell that he wa&nfi^V ’ • presenting the same plan &s befc.'e \<;hereas the \ Council had requested a new grading plan to be § f presented at this meeting.to include the guidelines that the Council recommended at the July 10, 1979 Council meeting. ■ ‘ V CounciImember Butler reviewed Alan Olson's memo dated July 30, 1979, stating that she had viewed the property that morning and that she noted the number of blocks to be removed in order to maintain the integrity of the runoff.. Mayor Van Nest requested of Mr. Mitchell to prepare new drainage plans with no exposed retaining wall for the next meeting. ^ (Ir. Mitchell stated that he will prepare plans to j bring to the next Council meeting which will include , drawings and photographs. ' Massengale moved, Paurus seconded, to note for the record that the City Council received Mr. Mitchell's letter dated August 6, 1979, but that it does not contain an acceptable plan. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0), Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record information sent to Mr. George Hussman, Hussman Investment'Company, concerning a subdivision/PRD proposal at 3660 Shoreline Drive dated July 26, 1979 which states: SUBDIVISION/PRD 3660 Shoreline Drive #447 Hussman Investment Cc "Your proposal was tabled at the July 24, 1979 Council meeting to allow you time to revise certain details discussed at that meeting, I should have a revised plan in my office no later than August 8, 1979 for ^ the next regular meeting to be held on August 14, 1979 The major changes requested were as follows: 1. 2. 3. Maximum 24 units arranged as 12 twinhomes All units to be served internally by the new street with no frontage on Blaine Avenue Creation of a walkway between Blaine and the new road: dedicated public or private outlot (Continued, Page 7) m. R£GULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUGUST 14, 1979 Paae 7 Issues not totally resolved: 1. 2. 3. 4. Requirement or encouragement for a tot lot Ownership and maintenance of the pond - City or private? Dedication of additional (7') county road right of-way Dedication of additional (15*) Blaine Avenue right-of-way Other Probable Platting Requirements: 1.Dedication of new road as drawn - with revisions necessary as above; to be named by Council 2.. Construction or upgrading of shoulder for right- turn lane, per Hennepin County review Construction of Improvements at developer’s expense - subject to a development agreement and approved plans: 3. a. b. c. d. ; 4. t 5. * 6. 7. Street Sewer lateral Water main extension including two fire hydrants Storm sewer extension, catch basins, holding pond and control structure Dedication of drainage and utility easements Dedication of flowage easement over pond to 200 year storm elevation City approval of protective covenants for structure maintenance and appearance Payment of legal review fees, engineering review fees, street signage costs, and any increased sewer or water assessments above amounts already levied, park dedication fee." End of letter council Meeting - August 14, 1979 Discussion included the outlot for homeowners association whereby everybody owns it; a dedicated drainage easement to pond; that any lots sold be covered with a restrictive covenant in the chain of title to protect the types of hones to be built . there. SUBDIVlSION/PRD 3660 Shoreline Drive (Continued) , . I * Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to give preliminary approval to the subdivision, PRD proposal of Hussman Investment Company for 3660 Shoreline Drive, per the recommendations noted above and Alan Olson's letter of July 26, 1975. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) i 1 PEGULAR JIEETING OF THE OROIJO COUNCIL, JULY 24, 1979 Page 8 Mr. Alexander Holzer, 2677 Canco Point Road, was not present concerning his conditional use pornit. Mayor Van Nest moved, Massengale seconded, to table the request of Mr. Alexander Holzer, 2677 Casco Point Road, for a conditional use permit until the next regular Council meeting. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2677 Casco Point Road #436 Alexander Holzer Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record the request of Hussman Investjr.ent Company for a P.R.D. at 3660 Shoreline Drive, dated April 5, 1979, which states: \ySUBDIVISION/P.R.D. 3660 Shoreline Drive #447 Hussman Investment Co. The applicant presents a P.R.D. proposal of 28 units following the standards for the existing zoning district (LP.-lC-l) . The plat road will service 24 units and four single family units will be served by Blaine Avenue. The developer feels I ff |) this corridor of single family lots v;ill be an excellent buffer for neighborhood to the east. We have asked for an additional 15' right-of-way \*r for Blaine Avenue. The access road is 60* wide at entrance but becomes 50' in approximately 50*. All structures appear to meet the requirements of the zoning district. Surveyor has not designated setbacks for structures. Lot 14 may have a rear yard setback problem. The four single dwelling lots (detached dwellings) are not allowed under this application. The Park Commission will be asked to review this project for a possible park site. The Navarre Theatre has surplus playground equipment that could possibly be utilized by the City either in a park for this development or in a nearby park site. The playground equipment could be considered part of a park dedication fee. Access Road We will recommend that the plat road be considered a public road because of its location within the urban service area. City Engineer will determine specifications for public road. Staff recommends a 50* easement instead of usual 60* because of its limited use (railroad to north, wetlands to west). The City does not plan an extensive network of City roads in this area. Pond The proposed pond will require a conditional use permit. There exists an extensive natural drainage system right to the west and south of the property. (Continued) REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JULY 24, 1979 Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1979 ihe main concern of the public in attendance was the burden of additional traffic for a County road that has enough already. The Police Depart­ ment's comments had not been received as yet. The Hennepin County Highway Department's report was reviewed and the following points noted: 1. 2. 3. Western access acceptable as proposed If shoulder right-of-way is wide enough, then a right-turn lane is not necessary Additional 7' right-of-way for County Road 15. The City Engineer's comments were summarized as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Adequate sewer and water capacity for 27 unit P.R.D. Drainage and utility easements of 5' to be designated around each lot. Lot grading plans (to include pond) and storm water retention capacity Drainage easement to west property line is to be defined and designated for discharge to neighbor to west (Tonka Toys project). Tom Frahro noted that the subject property was located within 1,000 feet of the lakeshore at Carman Bay. He requests staff to direct Cit'^ Engineer to reyiew the entire drainage area and the affects this new development would have on the overburdened drainageway. $ 1,920 12,000 2,880 $16,800 Park Dedication Fee '4 single units 0 $4 80 each = 10 duplex units 0 $1,200 each 1 quad unit C $720 X 4 * s Total Fee Soils Report Office Soils are predominately Hayden Loam, a soil well- drained and never saturated. Soil strength is adequate. Erosion is a hazard if soil left exposed for extended periods. Recommendacion 1. Developer should specify provisions for runoff retention 2. City should require an erosion control plan Page 9 SUDDIVISICN/P.R.D. 3660 Shoreline Drive (Continued) (Continued) RLGUL7iR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JULY 24, 1979 •Staff Update - July 2, 1979 Page 10 preliminary approval of the 28 George Hussman based on the following conditions: ^asea on SUBDTVISIOK/P.R.d. 3660 Shoreline Drive (Continued) 1. 2. 3. cation fee of $16,800 to be oa'd to the City before final aoproval wrieir ■^-torminod upon preliminary for"ci’tv*Eno?^;L?”'’''°''“^' ^“‘-dividor tc provide th^ ?;i‘L!in,r ^ a) erosion and sedimentation plans D) lot grading plans c) storm water retention plan a) street plans and profile e) sewer and water construction plans 4. ?o??owi^"rpe™itrup:n"prl?im^^ b) Hl^^ep?n"coCntr^!ghw"y*^^^ 5.Final plans must designate the following: a) b)County Road 15 AvenSi right-of-way for Blaine or^??m? (60'width) as designated onpreliminary plans dated February 19 1979 approved by Hennepin County Highway’Department deafa MS® Utility easements io bidesignated around each lot. drainage easements to west property line for discharge to Tonka Toys prooerty plat road 50' right-of-waj and cul-L-sac to have 50' right-of-way Radius? 8 Approve extension of City services - sewer t wa‘er Plat road to be public Retention pond to be fenced. rlJilM ’’^"^ submitted for staff 10. Two hydrants as specified by Mound Fire Chief Council Meeting - July 24, 1979 The applicant was present to discuss his proposal. (Continued) 1^ -^ -ii?T I Tfc-tii REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JULY 24, 1979 Page 11 Mayor Van Nest cOiiunented that the City has several concerns that should be reviewed. These are; SUBDIVISION/P.R.D. 3C60 Shoreline Drive (Continued) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Flowage drainage easement Homeowners Association to protect watershed and pond Adherence to stormwater management plan Outlet management Move cul-de-sac to accommodate all units 24 units or 12 two-unit townhouses Each unit to have own yard All units to be served internally w’ith internal street 15* easement on Blaine Avenue All'utilities and pond to be installed by developer All assessments to be paid Are we clustering townhouses to preserve open space or wetlands area? Consider trail ownership and tot lot Mayor Van Nest moved, Hurr seconded, to table the subdivision/p.R.D. request of Hussman Investment Co., 3660 Shoreline Drive, until the regular meeting of August 14, 1979 to allow staff and applicant to consider these conditions. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record the request for a conditional use permit of Richard Proudfit for 3220 Navarre Lane, dated March 5, 1979, which states: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3220 Navarre Lane #459 Richard Proudfit Mr. Proudfit has asked to file an application seeking a conditional use permit for his light industrial use of the property located at 3220 Navarre Lane. He failed to do so in March, 1976, when he purchased the property and has been in violation of the Zoning Code for the past two years. The applicant states that he was not aware of the effects of the discontinuance in the original non-conforming use and has only recently been made aware of the zoning violation. He claims his operation has brought only good to the immediate neighborhood, but the developers of Lafayette Ridge contend to differ. Staff has explained that an industrial use of land is not permitted in a residential district and that once Mr. Watschke's auto repair business, a legal non-conforming use, ceased to exist, then that property could only be for residential use. Planning Commission Meeting - March 12, 1979 Planning Commission advised applicant that his application appears to be in violation of the Zoning Code. It was suggested that his application should be for rezoning. (Continued)