The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-03-28 AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1995, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 14, 1995, REGULAR MEETING AND THE MARCH 21, 1995, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. CASE//95-08: JONATHAN & JUSTINE GOODE, 5116 EDGEWATER DRIVE, L.P. CREVIERS .... , LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PID//13-117-24 42 0002. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR SECOND STORY ADDITION. CASE//95-10: TOM & KATHY LATCHAM, 4711 ISLAND VIEW DR., LOT 3, BLOCK 7, DEVON, PID #30-117-23 22 0051. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK & PORCH. 5. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. APPOINTMENTS TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERMS ON MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA). RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE ON COMMONS DOCKS. UPDATE ON LOST LAKE DREDGING PROJECT - BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR PG. 968-985 PG. 986-998 PG. 999-1017 PG. 1018 PG. 1019-1020 966 10. 11. 12. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMITS: A. //41110, RAY SALAZAR: REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION B. //43520, DONALD AND GERALDINE SWENSON: REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN EASEMENTS RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF PARKING LOT LANDS (DAKOTA RAIL) WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER SERVICES. PAYMENT OF BILLS INFORMATIONAL/MISCELLANEOUS February 1995 Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of March 9, 1995. C. LMCD Mailings. REMINDER: Interview with Donna Christensen HRA Candidate, Tuesday, March 28, 1995, 7:15 PM, City Hall, prior to regular meeting. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 1995. PG. 1021-1033 PO. 1034-1044 PG. 1045-1055 PG. 1056-1064 PG. 1065-1066 PG. 1067-1073 PG. 1074-1108 PG. 1109-1112 PG. 1113-1125 967 March 14, 1995 Mound city council MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 14, 1995 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 14, 1995, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, and Liz 3ensen. Councilmember Phyllis 3essen was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, 3r., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official 3on Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Lance Anderson, 3eanne Stortz, Marilyn Brynes, Sue Cathers, Roland Herbst, Mr. & Mrs. Rodney Beystrom. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES_ MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Minutes of the February 28, 1995, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 CASE 6'95-04: LANCE B. ANDERSON 5220 LYN~OOD BLVD. P/LOTS 1 & 2 BLOCK 2 & P/LOTS 3 & 4 BLOCK 1 REARR. BLOCK 10 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK PID //13-117-24 31 0070 VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH. The City Manager explained that staff has prepared a proposed resolution of approval as the Council instructed at the last meeting. Councilmember Hanus proposed the following changes in the proposed resolution: 1. The street frontage variance in both the tables should be corrected to read 40' not 60'. 2. The fourth Whereas be deleted because it is incorrect. 3. The seventh Whereas should read as follows: "WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended denial, however, the applicant has since modified his request by reducing the size of the porch to minimize the variance to the lake." 4. He suggested the following Whereas be added to the resolution in response to the DNR's comments: "WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is sufficient screening to satisfy the code requirements." There was discussion on the Planning Commission recommendation to deny versus the Council's direction at the last meeting to prepare a resolution of approval. The City Attorney stated, "This 1 Mound City Council March 14, 1995 is a procedural problem because the Planning Commission made a recommendation and somewhere between that time and this Council Meeting, the Planning Staff said we'll make some changes and then we'll give it to the Council with a recommendation of approval. Basically the Staff has overridden the recommendation of the Planning Commission." Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//95-29 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH AT 5220 LYNWOOD BLVD., THAT PART OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 2, AND LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 1, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 10, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID//13-117-24 31 0070, P & Z CASE g95-04 Councilmember Sensen stated that she does not support this resolution because a hardship has not been identified in the resolution. She asked what makes this case unique. Councilmember Hanus stated that some of the things that were discussed at the last meeting were: street frontage which is an existing situation; odd shaped lot; and the home has two lakeshore frontages with 50 foot setbacks. Councilmember Sensen stated she could support this if the porch were put on the channel side of the home instead of the main lakeside. She also questioned whether there was ever a variance granted for the deck. The Building Official stated that the deck was on the original building plan when the home was built. Councilmember Hanus suggested the following additional language be put in the proposed resolution: "WHEREAS, the hardship is that this property is faced with two lakeshore setback requirements." Councilmember Ahrens asked that the question be called. The vote on calling the question was 3 in favor with Councilmember Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. The vote on the resolution was 3 in favor with Councilmember Jensen voting nay. Motion Mound City council March 14, 1995 RES LUTION TO SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT//277 AND~ COMMUNITY CENTER FOR THE WESTONKA AREA ~ ASSIST IN FUN~ING A CO~Y SURVEY NOT TO EXCEED 1500. The City Manager explained that this item was tabled at the last meeting until Councilmember Jensen was in attendance. He then reiterated the background. Councilmember Hanus asked who the other entities were that may be contributing to this survey? The City Manager listed the following entities: City of Mound, City of Minnetrista, City of Spring Park, 2 hockey associations and the school district. The following persons spoke in favor of doing the survey: Jeanne Stortz, 3770 Enchanted Lane, Minnetrista. Marilyn Brynes, Mound Park Commission and Community Center Task Force. Sue Cathers, 3008 Highview Lane, Mound. Councilmember Jensen stated that the survey would be a way to get a statistically accurate feel of where this community is coming from. She further stated that other than changing a couple of items in the resolution, she is in favor of the survey. Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels everyone would like to see something like a new community center, but he is skeptical about whether there is community support. He stated he could probably support the resolution with some conditions and stipulations in that resolution, i.e. before the funds for the survey are released all other entities mentioned above commit to funding the survey. Councilmember Jensen stated that she is not interested in putting that condition in the resolution because even if one of the entities was not willing to spend the $1500, she would still be interested in obtaining the information gleaned from the survey on community interest. Councilmember Ahrens agreed with Councilmember Hanus on the condition for the survey. Councilmember Jensen stated she feels this survey would be market research. Asking what people would want in a community center and how much are they willing to pay for it is essential before even considering anything further. The Council then discussed how a community center could be financed. The City Manager explained that the Task Force has already discussed scaling back the center to less than the $13.5 million that was originally discussed. He further stated that this facility cannot be done if it is completely on the backs of the citizens of Mound. The financing option that has been discussed is a lease/revenue bond. Every entity that would participate would have to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement and pay for a lease on an annual basis. They would have to budget for it Mound City Council in each of their communities. facility. March 14, 1995 Plus, there would be fees collected from the people using the Mayor Polston stated he agreed with Hanus and Ahrens about adding the condition that if the other cities do not participate in the survey, Mound would not either. Councflmember Jensen stated she would like the fourth WHEREAS in the resolution amended as follows: WHEREAS, the facility could serve both ..... ". She further stated that the NOW, THEREFORE part of the resolution needs to have something in there that assures the Council that the survey includes "what do you want and how much are you willing to spend". Also that all the entities have input in the survey development. the following resolution: Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded RESOLUTION//95-30 RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT //277 AND OTHERS IN AN EFFORT TO STUDY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CO~TY CENTER FOR THE WESTONKA AREA AND ASSIST IN FUNDING A COMMUNITY SURVEY NOT TO EXCEED $1500 Councilmember Hanus stated he is moving this with the following amendments to the resolution to be incorporated in the NOW, THEREFORE portion: 1. The Mound City Council will have the opportunity to be involved in the development of the questions (this would include participation in formulating the questions). 2. No funds are to be released until, Minnetrista and Spring Park have agreed to support this survey. In the 4th WHEREAS," ..... the facility .could ....... " The seconder agreed with the amendments. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ~S AND S GGESTI NS FROM CITIZENS p ENT. Jeanne Stortz invited the Council to the next meeting of the Search Institute Task Force on March 28. The Council informed Ms. Stortz that is a regular City Council Meeting night. She encouraged collaboration between the communities. She thanked the Council for their action on the survey for the community center. 4 March 14, 1995 Mound city council The Mayor stated that several Councilmembers have asked that item 9 be addressed before item 6. DISCUSSION: POSSIBLE MORATORIUM ON THE AD PTION OF ANY NEW 1.3 POLICIES OR PROCEDURF~ RELATING TO THE COMMONS OR DOCK PROGRAM. The City Manager explained that at the COW Meeting on February 21, the City Council was presented with a review of the Commons/Public Lands Permit process. Presented was information on the authority and responsibility the City has as it relates to regulating Commons and public lands, structures on public lands, and how they regulate them through the permit process. Following that, the discussion focused on calling a moratorium on these issues dealing with public lands and permits and then forming a task force on public lands and Commons to look at the whole program. The task force item was continued to the March 21 COW Meeting. Councilmember Hanus has suggested the following in a memo dated February 7, 1995' 1. Place a moratorium on the adoption of any new polices or procedures relating to the commons or dock program until the Council can determine if it wishes to apply current polices or adopt changes. Also, a moratorium on the current proactive commons inventory activities by staff would be in order until the Council determines if the current method is desired. Councilmember Hanus: "The reasoning behind the proposal was that over the past four years the legal budget of the city has quintupled, which is part of the problem. The opinion of many, many people not only within the City but outside the City, is quite negative at it relates to the Commons program. I hear this quite often and the efforts that were utilized over the past 20 years, were quite extensive and there was a lot of work that was done. They took a stab at establishing a program that they wanted to try and see it work. Some of the things did and some of things did not work to well. Now the City is starting to flex their muscle, per se, we're finding ourselves deeper and deeper all the time in legal f'~ghts and legal bills. The direction that the City is going in is not the way I would like to continue. I do not have the answers, but think there are better ways to go to try to create a more harmonious system, and less regulation. Those people who receive mailings every year for their dock applications understand how negative it appears. They receive many, many pages of don't do this and don't do that. The intent is to inform the people of the rules, but the feel of this is overwhelming and negative. I am also concerned about how the people in town perceive the system. I am also concerned about how the people outside the town perceive the system." He stated that, "many of the people who have lived on commons and move away have commented that they would not buy on that kind of property again because they don't feel the system works. It is a confusing program, so much so, that several years ago the Council felt they had to adopt a policy manual just to help staff deal with how to address all the different issues they have to deal with. These are the kinds of things that have brought this original proposal on and as far as the moratorium is concerned, I would just like to see us stop in our tracks. We probably should continue the Mound City Council March 14, 1995 existing policies, until it is decided where this Council really wants to go. There has been somewhat of a change in opinion which has become apparent, but we don't know to what degree yet and we need to find out what that is. I would like to get some extensive public input, but not necessarily what has been done in the past. There have been some very restrictive guidelines put on the task forces as to what they are to look at and I would like to have this much more opened ended for some more widely encompassing ideas to come forward. Just to kick out some new ideas. We have been working with this same system, massaging it a little and adjusting it back and forth, and I would like to see some larger possibilities come up and be discussed. I do not want to see anyone take anything from anyone that has something today. I do not necessarily want to see the number of dock spaces reduced. I would just like a more harmonious system that people who use it can work with a little better so that is really where this is coming from." The Mayor stated he would support the moratorium, but would like to see it limited to some period of time to give the Council time to give the staff some direction so the staff can deal with what it is the Council is trying to accomplish. As he understands it, it would be to establish a moratorium on the removal of items from public property that is in the inventory. He stated this needs to limited to some specific period of time and then give the staff some direction on what we would like to see them do and what kind of deadlines the Council would like to set up for development of a task force and what their task would be. Councilmember Hanus stated that one of things discussed at the COW meeting was the possibility of continuing the process, but taking the position that if we ran into a property owner who did not agree with the action, that would be held until we made further determinations as to where we wanted to go. The inventory could possibly be continued, but actions on those would only be taken by those who did not disagree with the City's request to remove items, whatever they may be. The Mayor asked if Councilmember Hanus would like to make a motion. Councilmember Hanus asked for the City Attorney's help in wording that motion. The City Attorney commented on Councilmember Hanus' memo as follows: "The memo indicates placing a moratorium on the adoption of any new policies or procedures relating to the commons or dock programs until the Council can determine if it wishes to apply current policies or adopt changes." The City Attorney stated, "There is no real legal significance to that statement because what it says is that you are not going to adopt new policies or procedures. The City does have ordinances which are on the books and unfortunately those ordinances were not properly administered for a period of years. The prior Council and the Park Commission, at the present time, have determined as a result of some of the problems that Mr. Hanus' made reference to, to basically do what the ordinance requires which has not been done and that is to inventory, issue maintenance permits, etc. So unless you are going to change the ordinance, I do not understand what can be done." March 14, 1995 Mound City council The Attorney further stated that second part says, ".. a moratorium on the current proactive commons inventory by staff would be in order until the council determines if the current method is desired." The City Attorney stated that as he understands it, the staff is basically through a good share of the inventory and that does go both to the Park Commission and the City Council to make decisions on recommendations for the removal or how those things are maintained or in what status they are held. Those recommendations can be acted upon by the Council when they come forward, just like the ones that are before you tonight. The City Attorney stated, "The word moratorium doesn't mean very much. You're not changing any ordinances. Unless you're telling the staff not to enforce the ordinances and I don't think you're doing that. The Council does have the power, as does the Park Commission, to make recommendations to you to handle these on an individual basis within the terms of the existing ordinances. If you want to change the ordinances, you can do so." He stated that he could not help Councilmember Hanus in putting together a motion because the ordinances are still on the books and are applicable to all the parties. The City Attorney then reminded the Council that the City will be trying the case as it relates to Wawanossa Commons. This will be before the Examiner of Titles next week. The Mayor stated that when he was on the Council before, they put a moratorium on multiple dwellings for a number of months until the ordinances were redone. He asked the City Attorney how this would be different. The City Attorney stated there is a specific section in the Planning Statute that indicates how you go about enacting a moratorium on some part of the zoning code. The City Attorney stated that the point is that as long as you have a law on the books, the Council had to apply it equally to everybody in the community and as has been done in the first 3 batches and now batch 4 is here this evening. The Building Official stated there are 12 batches total. The Mayor stated he does not understand why a moratorium can't be enacted. He stated, "That is why I wanted this item moved up to this part of the agenda, because on this Council I would like to see us, if we are going to enact a moratorium, not treat people in a certain way, but that we treat everyone fair and equitably. So if we are going to enact a moratorium, I want everyone, including this batch, to have it applied to them as well as all the other people insofar as them removing items from public land. The reason for this is that there are going to be people, when you start looking at the things they are going to have to pay for removing, there is going to be one beck of a legal battle over whether or not it's going to be removed." The City Attorney advised that there is a provision in the ordinance that allows people to apply for a maintenance permit and that's what many of these items are. If that procedure is followed and it comes before the Council and they do not want to order them off, the Council does not have to order them off. They can grant them a maintenance permit and they will continue to exist for the 3 or 5 years, whatever the flow chart or whatever the Council says. Or the Council could grant it for a year, while this is studied. 7 Mound City Council March 14, 1995 The Mayor asked if what the Attorney was suggesting is that they could grant everyone a year while this is studied? The City Attorney said no that is not what he was saying. City Attorney: "What I am saying is that if it is deemed that that is what the Council wants to do, you can do so, but I am not in a position to address this from the standpoint of not knowing what the safety considerations are. The Building Official has made an issue out of unsafe stairs, electrical outlets, etc. I feel what is confusing this issue is that if there is something there, how does it get removed and who pays for it? That is a discussion that has not been held in any depth because it is something that needs to be worked out in a very practical manner and I agree with Mayor Polston and Councilmember Hanus, that there may be situations and maybe in a lot of situations, where it's in the best interest of the City to go in and take these things out at general expense. It may be better to do that then to end up in fights about it and again, nobody has asked what legal right do we have to tell somebody who abuts public land, who claims to have had no participation or reference to putting the thing there, to order them to take it out. We have had that problem before and the Council has agreed to spend the money to take it out because it is the most practical thing to do." He pointed out that what is being done and considered proactive is merely following the ordinances as they currently exist. Councilmember Ahrens asked if the attorney was recommending that rather than placing a moratorium on, that on each individual case if the Council were in disagreement with what the staff is doing or recommending, that the Council could just vote otherwise? The City Attorney stated that he believed that would be a fair characterization if there is a rationale or reason, that the Council certainly does not have to follow what the staff or the Park Commission is recommending. Councilmember Hanus asked if that is any better than what has been suggested because then you are not following the flow chart that's in the ordinance? The City Attorney stated that the flow chart is not a part of the ordinance. The flow chart is a policy and it's a method of assisting the staff to carry out what is in the ordinance. The Building Official stated that the previous Council has acted on some cases for stairways and issued permits and some of those cases are not wrapped up so staff would like to be able to proceed with those, in the event of a moratorium, just to clean up the previous actions of the Council where the staff is working on existing stairways to complete their inspections, etc. The City Attorney stated that there is no perfect answer to this because if you do this and you have a stairway that is a dangerous thing and all of a sudden you don't issue permits and you don't administer the ordinance and somebody injures themself, then the City has a problem because it is on City land. City Attorney: "That is a very real potential just as there is if there was a crack in the sidewalk in front of your house and the City knows about and it doesn't go out and fix it." "But the problem is," the Mayor stated, "we do not go and tell the person living in the house to go out and fix the sidewalk, the City goes out and takes care of the problem." The City March 14, 1995 Mound city council Attorney stated, "These items need to be approached on a case by case basis, which is what the ordinance envisioned and there was a reason for that. If a person is applying to use a stairway from their property to the Commons, they are the ones coming in here. If the City were to do it and just went out and tore out all the stairways, then you would have a big problem." "But," the Mayor stated, "the problem is that most of the people living on the property had nothing to do with putting the thing on public land to start with, nor do they necessarily want it there, but they are being told they have to pay to remove it and therein lies the legal dilemma that is going to cause a real problem for the City." The City Attorney suggested that the Council take these permits on a case by case basis and make decisions. If a majority of the Council believes that it is in the best interest of the City, for the City to go out and take these things out, they can do so. The Mayor asked how you can do these on a case by case basis and be fair and equitable under the law. The City Attorney stated, "This can be done because you do what the ordinance says and what the staff is currently doing which is to bring each one before the Council to take it through the Park Commission to make recommendations and then whatever the encroachment may be, if it is going to remain there, the people get a maintenance permit. Under that permit, they have responsibilities. They transfer the responsibilities from the City to the property owner because they want the encroachment. If they don't want the encroachment there and say take it out, now you have a different question. Who's going to pay for it? That is the question where the I agree, and think the City should seriously consider the removal of some of these encroachments. It may be in the City's best interest to do so." Rollie Herbst, Bedford Road, spoke in favor of a moratorium on the adoption of any new policies or procedures relating to the commons or dock program. The Mayor stated, "This is a real dilemma and has to be addressed because it has the potential of being extremely costly to the City. I understand that the staff has a job to do and under the current ordinances and policies they have to carry it out and in doing so it has some serious legal implications on the City. I think there is a whole different way to handle it by going through a procedure where some of the ordinances are changed and the heavy-handedness of the ordinance is changed to work with people. Nobody likes being dictated to or hit over the head with a two-by-four and most people are willing to cooperate if you don't haul them into court or threaten to haul them into court at the drop of a hat. I have talked to enough people to know that is what's going on. I don't know if it is over zealous staff people or they are just carrying out their job, some people interpret it different ways. It is an issue that hoa~,? be dealt with, whether we have a moratorium or how we do it, it's got to be taken care Councilmember Hanus stated, "If the primary problem with the moratorium is the safety issue, why couldn't we continue the inventory process, but only bring forward unsafe or dangerous cases?" The City Attorney pointed out two things: "1) the City has brought action against people, he stated that to his recollection there have been 3 cases that have been related to Mound City Council March 14, 1995 commons and in none of those cases has the City been the party that started the action. The action has been started by the property owner for one reason or another. That is the case that will be tried next week, which was brought by the property owner. 2) As a result of some of the cases that have come up, it became obvious that there had been a lack of administration and follow through on some of these things." The ordinance has been on the books for many years and he didn't think there had been a review process since the early 1980's. The City Attorney then quoted Section 320:00, Subd. 2, "All stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work, concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit." Section 320:00 Subd. 3. "Public 1.and Maintenance Permits. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving therefor a special maintenance permit from the City ..... "The City Attorney pointed out that basically if someone does not have a permit and they have a stairway there right now, they are in violation of the ordinance and that's because the City has not done what it should have done over these past few years. The Mayor stated that he still does not see the rationale or the need to get extraordinarily tough on people who have bought properties and have moved there and didn't have any understanding of why an encroachment might be there because the City at some point in time neglected or didn't do their job carrying out the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that the most disconcerting thing that has happened over the years has been the lack of understanding or knowledge on the part of people who have bought on commons as to what they were getting. He stated, "I think it has been commonly understood that realtors have sold much of it like private lakeshore and these people have gone into shock when they come in and find out that is not correct. So there have been misunderstandings as it relates to that and what these people can do, but as far as public commons as such, it is the same as public park land. It is held in trust for all the people and the Council couldn't, if it wanted to, sell it or give it away. You don't have the authority to do it because the City is the trustee." Councilmember Hanus asked how the Council could go about slowing down or stopping the enforcement of certain aspects of an ordinance except where there is a safety problem. He stated the ordinance is on the books and he understands that, but we don't necessarily agree with them, but at this stage of the game we're not ready to go in and wipe them out either. He stated he is not sure what they want done until they have some input on this. He then asked again how the Cotincil could go about slowing down or stopping the enforcement of certain aspects of an ordinance except where there is a safety problem. The City Attorney asked what was meant by, "to stop the enforcement process"? He further stated that the City administration and staff are basically administering this ordinance in telling people that they are supposed to get a public lands maintenance permit, under Section 320:00, Subd. 3 of the City Code. So they are sending out these applicantions for permits. From that point on, it is up to the Council to determine how they are going to enforce it and how they are 10 ¢77 Mound City Council March 14, 1995 going to do it. Councilmember I-Ianus stated that we have an ordinance and a flow chart to follow. He then asked how the Council can vary from what's on the books. The City Attorney stated that the Council can change the procedure if it is something the Council does not feel is correct. Councilmember Hanus asked how this can be done today? Councilmember Hanus stated he is hopeful that it would only be a short period of time before a task force is formed and their findings can be brought back through the proper channels, ie. Park Commission and then to the Council. He asked how we can deal with this in the meantime? The City Attorney stated, "That to answer that question would be to simplify something that is not that simple. It is something that has been a dilemma in this City for as long as I have been here. Problems have been created, but those problems cannot be solved on the basis of we're going to stop doing what the code says. The Council has the responsibility to take into account the safety items that relate to those things; how you enforce it; and whether you do it on an individual basis." The attorney explained that the Flow Chart is a way of trying to indicate where you are trying to get rid of things and where you are going to let them remain for a period of time. It is part of the procedures so there is some uniformity in how things are handled. The Building Official stated that the Park Commission has adopted guidelines for lighting on commons that was adopted by the City Council. The City Attorney stated, "The City Council could change those tonight, and instead of a moratorium, they could say they are not going to follow those guidelines, they're retracted, and they are going to do it on a case by case basis." The City Attorney cautioned that to do nothing would be to ignore the ordinances and possibly leave the Council open to some other problems. The Mayor stated he is inclined to grant, on a case by case basis, maintenance permits, except where there is a threat to health, safety or welfare. Then he stated he would like to form a task force. Councilmember Hanus agreed. Councilmember Ahrens asked if the Council could change the length of time for which a permit is given. The City Attorney stated yes. He further stated that the ordinance also stated that the Council can impose any reasonable conditions, it may deem advisable, to protect the public's use of the shoreline. The Mayor asked if the Council could pass on all the batches (12) at this time. The Building Official stated they are not all ready at this time. The Mayor asked if any of the Public Lands Permits in Batch 4 were a threat to health, safety of welfare? The Building Official responded, no. Councilmember Hanus asked that his permit be acted on separately so that he could step down 11 Mound at that City Council March 14, 1995 point. The Council agreed. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRI~ATE S'i'RUCTURF~- ON PUBLIC LAND KNOWN AS SIRATFORD LANE. "BATCH #4" DOCK .SITES 32670, 33407, 33487, 33525. The Council removed dock site 33525 (Mark Hanus) to be dealt with separately. Dock sites 32670 and 33487 have agreed to remove the encroachments. Rodney Beystrom, dock site//33407 stated he does not agree with the staff recommendation to relocate his light onto private property. The Council agreed to exclude dock site #33407 for the proposed resolution and act on it separately. Polston moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-31 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND KNOWN AS STRATFORD LANE. DOCK SITE 33407, 5 YEAR PERMIT FOR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND OUTLET The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.~1,, Hanus moved and Polston seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//95-32 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND KNOWN AS STRATFORD LANE. "BATCH #4" DOCK SITES 32670, 33487, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Hanus removed himself from the Council. 1.3,, Ahrens moved Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g95-33 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND KNOWN AS STRATFORD LANE, DOCK SITE 33525 The vote was 3 in favor, with Hanus not present. Motion carried. 12 Dock sites 32670 and 33487 have agreed to remove the encroachments. Rodney Beystrom, dock site//33407 stated he does not agree with the staff recommendation to relocate his light onto private property. The Council agreed to exclude dock site/133407 for the proposed resolution and act on it separately. Polston moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//95-31 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND KNOWN AS STRATFORD LANE. DOCK SITE 33407, 5 YEAR PERMIT FOR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND OUTLET The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.5 Hanus moved and Polston seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-32 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENCATION OF THE PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FOR DOCK SITES 32670 AND 33487 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Hanus removed himself from the Council. 1.6 Ahrens moved Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//95-33 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FOR DOCK SITE 33525 ALSO KNOWN AS STRAFORD LANE The vote was 3 in favor, with Hanus not present. Motion carded. 1.7 APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST FOR 1994 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - RICE LAKE CONTRACTING - $26,501.30. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a f'mal payment request for the 1994 Lift Station Improvement Project, by Rice Lake Contracting in the amount of $26,501.30. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Pad 133 Mound City council 1. March 14, 1995 APPROVAL OF FiNAL PAYMENT REQU-F_~T FOR 1994 IJFF STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - RICE LAKE CONTRACTING - $26,501.30. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a f'mal payment request for the 1994 Lift Station Improvement Project, by Rice Lake Contracting in the _n_mount of $26,501.30. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. .~ HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF A 1 SET PUBLIC ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF_ ADDITIONAL MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS KNOWN AS GLASS PLUS A .. 5533 SHORELINE DRIVE (ARCO AUTO & MARINE) LOCATED IN THE B-1. CENTIC~L BUSINESS DISTRICT, (SUGGESTED DATE - APRIL 11, 1995~ MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to consider the modification of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an additional minor auto repair business known as Glass Plus at 5533 Shoreline Drive (Arco Auto & Marine) located in the B-1 Central business district, for April 11, 1995. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.~ POSTPONENIENT OF DISCUSSION RE: PEDFSTRIAN CROSSWALKS ON SHORELINE DRIVE (HOUSE OF MOY) AND COMMERCE BLVD. (POND ARENA), (SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 25, 1995) The Mayor asked that this item be on the April 25, 1995, Agenda. 1 SET BID OPENING FOR 1995 SEAL COAT PROJECT. (SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 13, 1995, 11:OO A.M.) MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to set the bid opening for the 1995 Seal Coat Program for April 13, 1995, at 11:00 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPROVAL MISCELLANEOUS LICENSES & PERMITS MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahreus to the following, contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 13 Mound City Council SET-UP PERMIT A1 & Alma's Supper Club HA WKER Blue Bell Ice Cream 1.1~" PAYMENT OF BILLS March 14, 1995 TREE REMOVAL LICENSE Aaspen Tree Service Emery's Tree Service Four Seasons Tree Randy's Tree Service Shorewood Tree Service The Tree Stump Company Woodsman Tree Service MOTION made by Poiston, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $227,238.32, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATIONAL/MISCELLANEOUS Department Head Monthly Reports for February 1995. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for February 1995. LMCD Mailings. Letter from Shirley Hills Primary School RE: School of Excellence Celebration, Wednesday, May 24, 1995, at Mound Westonka High School. Invitation indicates that School Officials would like Mayor Polston to attend the picnic and speak at the program to follow. Information RE: 1995 League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Annual Legislative Conference in St. Paul, Thursday, March 30, 1995. Please contact Fran, ASAP, if you wish to attend. COW Meeting is Tuesday, March 21, 1995, 7:30 P.M. The City Manager gave a brief report about his trip to Washington, D.C. to the National League of Cities Conference. 14 March 14, 1995 Mound City Council EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council went into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation at 9:30 P.M. The City Attorney reported that the Council discussed the Flack Case which is scheduled for trial next week. Several other matters that are currently pending were discussed and some direction from the Council was solicited regarding those matters. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward I. Shulde, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 15 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - MARCH 21, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmember Liz Jensen, Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus. Phyllis Jessen was absent and excused. Also present: City Manager Ed Shukle, LMCD Representative Tom Reese, Rita Peterson, Jim Baer. City Manager Ed Shukle introduced the topic of HRA vacancies. He indicated that there were currently two vacancies on the HRA board. He introduced Jim Baer who has applied for one of the vacancies. The City Council interviewed Mr. Baer. Following the interview, the Council thanked Mr. Baer for his interest in the City of Mound and indicated that the City Council will be appointing representatives to the HRA at its next regular meeting. The City Manager indicated that the other candidate, Donna Chr~istensen, could not attend the Committee of the Whole meeting. It was suggested that an interview with Mrs. Christensen be held at 7:15 PM, Tuesday, March 28th, prior to the regular City Council meeting. Tom Reese, LMCD Representative, was present to update the Council on activities of the LMCD. He pointed out that the current executive director, Gene Strommen, has resigned to become the administrator of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He asked the Council for input on the type of qualifications that the new executive director position should include. He also indicated that the advertisement had been put together late that day and had already been advertised in the metropolitan newspapers. It was also to be advertised in other publications. The City Manager asked if the LMCD Board had considered utilizing an executive recruitment firm. Reese indicated that this idea had not been talked about. Also discussed was the proposed lake walk in Wayzata that is currently undergoing consideration by the LMCD Board. Discussion then focused on a proposed public lands/commons task force. The City Manager had indicated that at the last COW meeting, Councilmember Hanus had suggested that a task force be put together to look at the overall public lands/commons program. Hanus stated specifically that he would like to have a task force look at ideas or suggestions regarding shoreline commons usage and dock program usage. Hanus suggested that a program be created so that it is more harmonious with less regulation. Discussion focused on what the problems are with the commons program. Hanus suggested that there were problems from City residents and non-residents. He would like suggestions on how to ease the frustration of those who use and fund the program. In essence, people are not happy with the program. It was suggested that if a task force was formed, that it look at the commons that are applied to the docks program, focusing on what is irritating to the users of the program. Discussion then focused on the number of persons that could serve on the task force, the number suggested was twelve, with five abutters that have shared docks, three abutters who do not share docks, three non abutters and MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MARCH 21, 1995 one person at large. The charge of the task force is as follows: To discuss the level of frustration with the dock program and look at the impact of this frustration and make suggestions on how the program could be improved. It was suggested that an article be placed in the Laker for the April 3rd issue advertising that the City is creating a task force for the purpose stated above and that interviews would be held on May 2, 1995, 7:30 PM, at Mound City Hall, with official appointments to be made at the May 9, 1995 regular Council meeting. It is the intent to have the task force meet over a six month period with recommendations made back to the City Council by 12-31- 95. The task force will be staffed by City Staff for the purpose of minute taking and answering questions about the existing program and the ordinances that govern the program. This matter will be placed on the regular meeting of March 28th with an official resolution for establishment of a task force. John Cameron, City Engineer, was present to review the proposed preliminary alignment of the new Auditor's Road under the proposed Auditor's Road Improvement project. He reviewed the right-of-way and potential acquisition of properties along that right-of-way. Questions focused on what is the limit on what the City can bond for under MSA beyond what is already allocated within the MSA fund. Also discussed was Hennepin County's reaction to the relocation of Hennepin County Road 15 and the desire for having this improvement included within the County's Capital Improvement program. The direction was to have the City Engineer check on the bonding issue with the State Municipal Aid office and have the City Manager contact Hennepin County regarding assurance on getting this proposed relocation of County Road 15 on the County's Capital Improvement program. It is intended that this matter will come before the City Council at its meeting on April 11, 1995, with a proposed right-of-way plan which can be approved by the City Council and submitted to the State Municipal Aid office. The City Manager outlined some concerns with regard to the compost site. The existing compost site had been located at the Public Works storage area behind the Minnetrista City Hall for a number of years. With the combination of the City of Mound and City of Minnetrista on public works storage at the site and the shrinking of the site, due to material that needs to be stored there as well as a buffer between the storage area and the southerly properties, there is not enough room to use this site for compost as it had been in the past. The City Manager asked the City Council if they still felt the obligation to provide the citizens of Mound with a compost site. The consensus was that the City Council believed that this was an important service and suggested other alternatives be looked at. The City Manager indicated that alternatives had been explored and that one alternative would be to have the private garbage haulers who currently take leaves and yard waste continue to do this and MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MARCH 21, 1995 charge residents directly for this service. Another idea, which seemed to be more acceptable to the City Council, was to have the leaves in the spring and fall dropped at the Lost Lake Site where there will be a brush drop off and to have these leaves and yard waste tub grinded and then have the material hauled to the Minnetrista site and/or the cemetery. As long as the grinder will be there to grind up brush, it could be used for leaves as well. This could be done in May and in October, which would require residents to have their materials dropped at this site during those two months only. Another suggestion the City Manager made was that the recycling coordinator had been in contact with Hennepin County Parks who suggested that perhaps materials could be dropped at the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. The City Manager indicated that staff was following up on this idea, which might be an even better suggestion versus the tub grinding. The City Council also discussed the idea of charging non residents and thought this was a good idea. Also the City Manager recommended that the lawn services and other haulers not be allowed to drop leaves and yard waste at the Lost Lake site during the months that it would be open for this purpose should that be the alternative selected. The City Council agreed with this idea. The matter will be pursued and the Council will be kept informed. Goal setting was continued until the next meeting. Since there was no further business to be discussed, it was noted that the next meeting of the Committee of the Whole is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, 1995, 7:30 PM, Mound City Hall. Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, City Manager ES:Is 3 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 5116 EDGEWATER DRIVE LOT 2, BLOCK 1, "L.P. CREVlER'S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 36, LAFAYETTE PARK," AND THAT PART OF VACATED LAKE BOULEVARD, PID 13-117-24 42 0002 P&Z CASE//95-08 WHEREAS, the owners, Jonathan and Justine Goode, have applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks as listed below, to construct a 24' x 32' second floor addition that will follow the existing footprint and a 4' x 8' deck EXISTING or REQUIRED VARIANCE PROPOSED Detached Garage 19.5' 20' .5' FRONT (S) House 3.2' (to deck) 6' 2.8' Side (E) and; WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-lA zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to the property line abutting Edgewater Drive, a setback of 6 feet to both side yards, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water of the lake, and; WHEREAS, hardcover is limited to 40% as a lot of record, and hardcover is conforming, and; WHEREAS, the second floor addition will enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status, and the foundation of the dwelling appears to be in good condition and it is unlikely that it can reasonably be brought into a conforming condition, and; WHEREAS, the detached garage was permitted to be constructed in it present location in 1984, and its encroachment is minimal, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the existing nonconforming setback, subject to water flowage from the roof shall be contained within the site. Proposed Resolut/on 95-8, Goode Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: o The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing and existing nonconforming side yard setback to the dwelling of 3.2 feet and an existing nonconforming front yard setback to the detached garage of 19.5 feet, to allow construction of a 24' x 32' second floor addition that will follow the existing footprint and a 4' x 8' deck. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 24' x 32' second floor addition and a 4' x 8' deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 2, Block 1, "L.P. Crevier's Subdivision of Part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park," and that part of vacated Lake Boulevard lying between the northerly extension to Lake Minnetonka of the East and West Lines of said Lot 2. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION March 13, 1995 CASE #95-08: JONATHAN & JUSTINE GOODE, 5116 EDGEWATER DRIVE, L.P.. CREVlER'S .... LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PID 13-117-24 42 0002. VARIANCE FOR SECOND.. STORY ADDITION. The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a 24' x 32' second floor addition that will follow the existing footprint of the main portion of the dwelling, not including the front porch area. The lakeside deck is to remain as is. A new 4' x 8' deck is also proposed off the second floor. This property is located in the R-lA zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to the property line abutting Edgewater Drive, a setback of 6 feet to both side yards, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water of the lake. Hardcover is limited to 40% as a lot of record. The existing dwelling and garage are nonconforming to setbacks as listed below. GARAGE EXISTING/PROPOSED REQUIRED VARIANCE FRONT (S) 19.5' 20' .5' HOUSE EXISTING/PROPOSED REQUIRED VARIANCE SIDE (E) 3.2' (to deck) 6' 2.8' None of the proposed improvements encroach further into the existing nonconforming setbacks, and hardcover is conforming. There are existing trees on the lakeside that adequately screen this site as viewed from the water. The second floor addition will enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status. The foundation on the dwelling appears to be in good condition and it is unlikely that it can reasonably be brought into a conforming condition, The garage was permitted to be constructed in it present location in 1984, and its encroachment is minimal. Staff Recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the existing nonconforming setback. Weiland does not agree with the statement within the staff report: "There are existing trees on the lakeside that adequately screen this site as viewed from the water." He questioned the location and ownership of the trees. The applicant's confirmed that a 10" elm tree was removed, and that the 14"+/- ash tree is on their property. Hanus questioned the need for screening since the existing and proposed construction meets the 50 foot lakeshore setback requirement. The Building Official noted that the statement addresses the DNR's concerns about screening. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the condition that water fiowage from the roof be contained within the site. Motion seconded by Weiland. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on March 28, 1995. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of March 13, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Jonathan and Justine Goode 95-08 5116 Edgewater Drive, Lot 2, Block 1, L.P. Lafayette Park, PID #13-117-2442 0002 R-lA Single Family Residential Crevier's Subd. of P/Lot 36, BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a 24' x 32' second floor addition that will follow the existing footprint of the main portion of the dwelling. This will not include the front porch area. The lakeside deck is to remain as is. A new 4' x 8' deck is also proposed off the second floor. This property is located in the R-lA zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to the property line abutting Edgewater Drive, a setback of 6 feet to both side yards, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water of the lake. Hardcover is limited to 40% as a lot of record. The existing dwelling and garage are nonconforming to setbacks as listed below. GARAGE EXISTING/PROPOSED REQUIRED VARIANCE FRONT (S) 19.5' 20' .5' HOUSE EXISTING/PROPOSED REQUIRED VARIANCE SIDE (E) 3.2' 6' 2.8' COMMENTS: None of the proposed improvements encroach further into the existing nonconforming setbacks, and hardcover is conforming. There are existing trees on the lakeside that adequately screen this site as viewed from the water. C~ ~lprmtedonrecycledpaper ~ Staff Report Goode - #95-0B Page 2 The second floor addition will enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status. The foundation on the dwelling appears to be in good condition and it is unlikely that it can reasonably be brought into a conforming condition. The garage was permitted to be constructed in it present location in 1 984, and its encroachment is minimal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the existing nonconforming setback. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 28, 1995. VARIANCE APPI,_ICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 FEB 2 3 1995 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: City Planner 2/~fl Public Works City Engineer ~.~/~ DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Please type or print the following information: .............................................................. Owner's Address ~//~ Applicant's Name (if other thaa owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~j no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of reso[dtions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 41 Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No 1~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): o SETBACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (q~)s E W) (~q s~w) (~SE®) w) (~SEW) - (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ,,~' ft. '~2. -'it. ~1. ft. ~, ft. ¢,¥, ~-/_ft. ,%,'*/_ft. ft. 10,%ft. ~' ft. ft. ~ ft. -- ft. ft. ft. ft- 4 © ft- ;~r--4c5 ft. ¢3_4,ft. ¢~ w-r~c3 sq ft~,,q¢O ..sq ~ ~ ~ sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow ( ) topography .(.)~ soil ?))too small ( ) drainage ~ exist~,g situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lan after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No .~. If yes, explain: o . / Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~0' If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. FROM : SCHDBDRGLANDSURUEYING BUII..D O PERM.IT SURVEY 10,7 --~ · DRAINAGE ~1 ' W(~OD STAKE PLAOED O · IRON MON. SET _ · ' IRON MON. INP_L~. C_E. ,~ ~SSU~ED DkTUM 1.t FLOOR EL~. , GAUGE FLOOR ELEV. ,,, BASEMENT E,~. _ -- TOP BLOCK ELEV.. (0 ~ E & P. EXIST. & PROP. ~.0 · EXIST. ELEV. ~. , PROPOSED ELEV, ODO.O hereby certify thlt thie plan, eu~ey or repo~ w~l, ~ duly Registered Lend Su~eyor under the rowe of the 5tete CiTY OF MOUND {IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE} LOT AREA__, , SO. FT. X 30% ~, (for elllots] .............. LoT ^~ '4'?~'~ SO. FT. X 40~ . ~f~, Lo~, of Roco,,.~ LOT AREA ....... - -- . ..... SQ. FT. X lS% = Ifor detached building~ only) ., eExiating Lots of Ra~orCl may have 40 percent, coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as or, tined in Zoning Ordinance Saotion 350:122~i,$ubd. 6. fl. 1. (sea back). A Dian must be submitted and at3proved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED ,(GARAGE~HED DECKS Open eleoks (lZa' min. ~o~ eo~flted ~ hardo~ver OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQFT X TOTAL HOUSE ......................... TOTAL DETACHED BLDG$ . o~v~w;~v, ~A~,~ ~ -7, ~_ X ___~.~___ ~ ~,~ AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ~~ X .... ETC. X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC /~ .... x - X TOTAL DECK .......................... ~X TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IUPERVIOU8 SURFACE I~~ O~R (~dicate diffmence) ,., ' ............................ ~..~~ CL. ,., '.) Z 1ll GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: I ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: SURYEY ON FILF-~~ NO ~_~-Js--q~ I LOT OF "ECO~:(/YE~"01: ~EQUIRED STRE~ FRONTAGE~IDTH: ~ / [ I EXIST.~LOT AREA: REOUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BJJILDING/ HOUSE FRONT: N~ W ~ ! FRONT: N --~ .E. W , SIDE: N S~E)..~. ~ /~ ~ REAR: N S E-W 15' LAKESHORE: ~ ("'-b~ ~¥neasured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ~ ~ 0 / ACCESSORY_~UILDING/G ARAG E/SHED. FRONT: N ~JE W :'~)("') / FRONT: N '~5-E W - - SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL ~I~.ILDING(HOUSE . _~/ FRONT: N(S~E W ~'~' '/-' FRONT: N"S .,F. W . ~ ~ , ,, ~, SIDE: N S~ ' ' REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: --~ ' '+/-- '~ H~¢~ ^CCESSOR'~U:LD:NG~GARAG~SHED \!e FRONT: N(~S~E W ~'~ ' 't'/_ ~ _ FRONT: N '-S ~.. W ' S~DE: N ,~EJ~ ~, ~ ' 'V- SIDE: N S'"l~(.~ }C' ' ~'/-- REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: -I TOP OF BLUFF: This General Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. O '13 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~0 . PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING DECK AND PORCH AT 4711 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DEVON, LOT 3, BLOCK 7, PID 30-117-23 22 0051 P&Z CASE #95-10 WHEREAS, the owners, Tom and Kathy Latcham, have applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming garage and hardcover, in order to construct a deck and three season porch that will conform to setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the detached garage encroaches over the west side property line by .6 feet, it needs minor maintenance, but appears otherwise in good condition, and; WHEREAS, the nonconforming hardcover is as listed below: Impervious Surface Allowed (7,500 SF) 40% 3,000 sq. ft. .Existinq & Proposed Impervious Surface .59% 4,411 sq. ft Variance 19% 1,411 sq. ft. The nonconforming hardcover will not be increased in this case, and there is substantial green space on the adjacent Devon Commons that reduces the negative impact of the excess impervious surface, and; WHEREAS, this area is a bluff, and the structure appears to be conforming to the bluff setback, and; WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-lA zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to the property line abutting Island View Drive, and a setback of 6 feet to both side yards for the dwelling, and hardcover is limited to 40% as a lot of record, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is conforming to setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the applicant received a building permit is 1989 to build essentially the same deck, but was unable to construct it due to financial reasons. The ordinance has changed with respect to hardcover. A variance is required due to staff's interpretation of the nonconforming use section of the ordinance. WHEREAS, there are mature trees on the lakeside that adequately screen this structure as viewed from the water, and; WHEREAS, there is a permanent easement on file for the garage encroachment, Document #604967, and the garage is in good condition and is unlikely to be removed at this time; Proposed Resolution 95-10, Latcharn Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance request to recognize the nonconforming detached garage and impervious surface, to allow construction of the deck as noted on the attached survey dated 5-23-89. The proposed construction is conforming to setbacks and will enhance the use and function of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming detached garage side yard encroachment of .6 feet and the existing nonconforming impervious surface coverage of 4,411 square feet to allow construction of a conforming deck and three season porch addition, subject to the following conditions: a. Submittal of a revised survey that details the location of the City utility easement. b. No construction of the proposed deck shall be permitted within the easement. c. Any new construction onto the principal building be conforming to the Building Code. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a deck and three season porch as shown on the attached Exhibit A. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 3, Block 7, Devon. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Resolution #95- Exhibit A /ool A_A~.I~-.M ETI~O LAND SURV~E. Y01~S 2340 Dar. els Streef tong Lakes MmnesotQ 55356 ~l~i~ ~lnb~nturt, ar, z, ,,~ ~,,~ t,,~ t~, ................... ~=~ .......................................... ~ ~ A~gus~ ............................ ~..~...., ~ a~ ~ ......~a~o...W.,..P~or~....on~...~!d~.d.?.~.o[~.~.' ~ Ch~le~ ~. Schneider and Agne~ L~ Bchn~t~ ....................... [ .......................... , .... ' ~[t~, . . z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ......... ~...... of ~ ~. ~ c~ el ............. ~~:_....~ ............................ ,8~ of ~, ~.: ............................................................................................ Lot fo~ (4)'in Block ~even (7) of ~von ooc~dlng to ~e plat thereof on f~e ~d of rec~ In the office o~ ~e Register o[ Ti2es in end f~ sold county.' ~ gran~ ~ th~ ~z~'.o/tt~ e ~t O/~ ~n t~ Coun~ of.....HO~OP~ .................. o/~tn~, ~.: ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 'Lot T~ee (3) in Block Seven (7) of Dean ~ccording to me plat thereof on f~le ~nd of rec~d in ~e office of the Register of T~es in and for said count. .: ...... :'~ ~' ~ ~ '. ~J: ~ , ~ , ......... outherl" 74 feet of the northerly d 21 on the easterly 1 zoo: o~'.u~. ~ ~ r ' 'Ov~er an P : · , ...... ~c ..... 17J oLDs~on~for the sole purpose of feet of ~LoLrou:_.L~-aA~w,~ -~ ........... 4~$ f--~e~-- - m~in~tning ~e g~age and a~eroom pre,enVy e~etmg upon Lot ~ee Sl~k ~n (7) in ~v~n e~ anco'aching onto said Lot Fo~ (4) Block Seven (7) in ~von to an'e~nt ~ot ~eed~ng ~a: p~on of eatd Lo: F0~ (4) Bl~k Seven (7) ~n D~on above described. S~d e~aement sh~l~ con,hue only ~o long as ~e ~eaen~Y e~at~ng g~rnge ~nd storeroom ~bove described e~stz ~ ~ o~e~se abandoned. an8 upon, that l~r~ of ~csl~ k~n& o/~ ~antor..~ ~arl~8 ~ foist: ................................................... The sou~erly 24 feet of ~e northerly 44 5 feet of Lot Fo~ (4) Bi~k Seven (7) In ~n. ;.~.L' ; ~tate DeeU Tax due fiureon $ /./.~ a~ ~tg~ aD long ~ ~ ~e~A~ ~$ng g~rage and ~t~eroom above descried C~;s'~ ~1 o~er~ae abandoned ................................................................................ ~'r'08732 ~P 95~ 1.10 ~ ~r~o~l~ap~r~ ~eor~e ~, ~ ~d ~lldre'd Plerce~ husband and wife / ',,.,,.~,'. ~'~. ,, ..: , ::~:....... . ~ ~ ~ ,~,' ~ ~;".,'..,. .', .. ~; , ', .. ,. !.::,..,:, .,:' ,,.-~- -:, . . '..~ . . ..,.~..,.,., , /oo5 .-i MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION March 13, 1995 CASE #95-10: TOM & KATHY LATCHAM, 4711 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DEVON, LOT 3, BLOCK 7, PID 30-117-23 22 0051. VARIANCE FOR DECK & PORCH... Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming garage and hardcover, in order to construct a deck that is conforming to setbacks. The proposed three season porch is · within the existing footprint, and can be constructed without a variance. This area is a bluff, and the structure appears to be conforming to the bluff setback. This property is located in the R-1A zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to the property line abutting Island View Drive, and a setback of 6 feet to both side yards for the dwelling. Hardcover is limited to 40% as a lot of record. The existing dwelling is conforming to setbacks. The detached garage encroaches over the west side property line by .6 feet, it needs minor maintenance, but appears otherwise in good condition. The applicant received a building permit is 1989 to build essentially the same deck, but was unable to construct it due to financial reasons. The ordinance has changed with respect to hardcover. A variance is required due to staff's interpretation of the nonconforming use section of the ordinance. The nonconforming hardcover will not be increased in this case, and there is substantial green space on the adjacent Devon Commons that reduces the negative impact of the excess impervious surface. There are mature trees on the lakeside that adequately screen this structure as viewed from the water. The Public Works Superintendent has noted there is a City utility easement that needs to be shown on the survey. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to recognize the nonconforming detached garage and impervious surface, in order to allow construction of the deck as noted on the attached survey dated 5-23-89. The existing garage is in good condition and is unlikely to be removed at this time. The proposed construction is conforming to setbacks and will enhance the use and function of the property. Approval is conditioned upon: 1. Submittal of a revised survey that details the location of the City utility easement. No construction of the proposed deck shall be permitted within the easement. MOTION made by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the following conditions: The City Attorney review the issue relating to the garage encroachment. .. Any new construction onto the principal building be conforming to the Building Code. MOTION seconded by Surko. Motion carried unanimously. The applicant noted that he has a permanent easement on file for the garage encroachment, and he will supply the City with a copy. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on March 28, 1995. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of March 13, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ,~:~~"~, Variance Request Tom and Kathy Latcham 95-10 4711 Island View Drive, Lot 3, Block 7, Devon, PID #30-117-23 22 0051 R-lA Single Family Residential .BACKGROUND. The applicant is seeking variance to recognize the existing nonconforming garage, and hardcover, in order to construct a deck that is conforming to setbacks, and will not increase the nonconforming hardcover. The proposed three season porch is within the existing footprint, and can be constructed without a variance. This area is a bluff and appears to be conforming. This property is located in the R-lA zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to the property line abutting Island View Drive, and a setback of 6 feet to both side yards for the dwelling. Hardcover is limited to 40% as a lot of record. The existing dwelling is conforming to setbacks. The existing garage is nonconforming to the west side yard by 4 feet as noted on the survey. This garage is actually encroaching on the adjacent property by .6 feet, it needs minor maintenance, but appears otherwise in good condition. printed on recycled paper Staff Report Latcham - #95-10 Page 2 COMMENTS: The applicant received a building permit is 1989 to build essentially the same deck, but was unable to construct it due to financial reasons. The ordinance has changed with respect to hardcover. A variance is required due to staff's interpretation of the nonconforming use section of the ordinance. The nonconforming hardcover will not be increased in this case, and there is a substantial green space on the adjacent Devon Commons that reduces the negative impact of the excess impervious surface. There are mature trees on the lakeside that adequately screen this structure as viewed from the water. The Public Works Superintendent has noted there is a City utility easement that needs to be shown on the survey. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to recognize the nonconforming detached garage and impervious surface, in order to allow construction of the deck as noted on the attached survey dated 5-23-89. The existing garage is in good condition and is unlikely to be removed at this time. The proposed construction is conforming to setbacks and will enhance the use and function of the property. This approval is conditioned upon: Submittal of a revised survey that details the location of the City utility easement. 2. No construction of the proposed deck shall be permitted within the easement. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 28, 1995. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 City Planner c~./'~l-"~ Public Works City Engineer ~ ']~'-/ DNR Other ~ ' Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property 4' ~7 / i Lot ~ Addition Zoning District Owner's Name_ Owner's Address Block '-7 PID No. ~ Use of Property:. zz oo 1 Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? 00 yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Case No. Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ((~, S E W ) ?~ © / ft. Q~. L./ ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S(~ W ) (~ r ft. '7. ~g ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E~,D~ ) ~. - ft. ¢~,,'~.¥~6,,"3e, ~'~ ft. ~>. C~ o~a, ft. Rear Yard: (NSEW) I~q- ft. -- c/7.~ _ft. ft. Lakeside: ( NS E W ) ~-0 ft. ~ & ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft- ft' ft. ft. ft. ft. 60~c9 sqft 73-~/) sqft ~ ~_~-~ sqft ~,q/t sqft Street Frontage: sq ft Lot Size: Hardcover: c~v oc 2. i~; t sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (K) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lan after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No 00- If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No 60. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: ~{1 C°'~57-rd~q','o,.'~ )'e~c.4~o$/-Pj t,~,}/ Cor~,p],v I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Date Applicant's Signature Date /oo --~---~-~.--'=~.~?'..:~;.;,~.. - __Q~RTIFICATE OF SURVEY ..,.-=~'ss~:~:~;y!~ Prepared 'for ' {li~:\~ \X}) K.\ i lt~ ; ', Il'ii \.~I : - ;;~,.:%.: ZSLA_ND VIeW DF{. ~-9. 76 -.. ; Screened porch to be under overhang, COMMON ..... -- 'S E N E RAL o Denotes iron mom,merit *.r' [~enolu$ cross cn:seled ~r, x ~9.7 Denotes e~,stm~ spot elevat~o:, Denotes surJoce droinoge Deshe~ confer I~e5 ~note5 proposed feo~re5 Sol~d contour Jtnes aenotes ex~stmg lectures NOTE Istend View Drive 3 0 < o 0 0 0 · D- O C 0 < 0 3 0 0 Is!,cind View ]3r'ive I nl-~p Pllnn~JrnnL,,n Island xTiew 49.76 N OT LINE . 13'N OF S.LINE 20' PERMANENT EASEMENT ,T,; 0 N K - NOTE' SEWER ~WATER ARE LAID IN SAME TREN(~H USED 8" ClP FOR SAN, SEWER G CIP. FOR WATERMAIN SEMENT- 6" L/16 BEND , '-- IO'E OF '"'"3' S. OF' S. LINE DEVON CONNECT TO EXISTING 6" ' ' "944'.{' ......... Island View Drive X N CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: tWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (lid," Tin, opening between boards) with a pervious surface under ars not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ~ x ?.22 = 1~¢ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. 7.5 x = X = TOTALDECK .......................... TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ......... ~.~. '3 d~'~4 PREPARED BY I I ~ k'm /__~-/---d-/l ~ ~ DATE 7 7. 2. PRINCIP BUILDING HOUSE__ FRONT.~N' S f..W S,DE: N q,'~..-' S,DE: N ~E~__.~._~ t.~ ' REAR: N~IE WL/15~'- LAKESHORE: .~ TOP OF BLUFF: --------- GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: ..... , REQ. LOT AREA' SQ FT ~..._.~ ~ ~': ~l_W,,=h_¢_~ · EXIST. LOT AREA: '-711 I I¢_xF' kJ ¢ O -DF' ___/,7( SURVEY ON FILE7 NO ~.~ . --' ' 'L--" / x.-~t.~ R...y Z./'~(.~(.~'/.QFT ,.._, ........ REOUIRE~D SETBACKS ~50' (measured from O.H.W.) ~ACCESSQB. y BUILDING/GAJ~AG E/SHED FRONT:(~.,,~ E W ~=:=,~'~ 7 - FRONT: ~ S,~ W - ~ SIDE: N S(,~,~-4~ or 6' SIDE: N.,,~ E '(W.~4, or 6' REAR: N~)E W 4 LAKESHORE: .~ 50' measured from O.H,W. TOP OF BLUFF~ EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: ~ BUILDING HOUSE I _"?°NE I ?_.-r~-~ sA w _------- _SIDE: N S~,~ ~.W~ _- SIDE: N S REAR: N S ILAKESHORE: ' TOP OF BLUFF' ' "1' · LAKESHORE: i ..... , '"T/__ ~ ' TOP OF BLUFF: ~CO~ER CONFORM,NG~ · es a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of~vlound Planning Department at 472-0600. GOVT LOT .... RESOLUTION 95 -__ RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint to the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority the following persons to fill two vacancies: ~--~ ~ ~,.~._~ , term to expire 8/96; and ~ ¢_~, , term to expire 8~97. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION 95 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE ON THE COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Mound .operates a municipal dock program known as the Commons Dock Program; and '~-~L'~-~~. ~,~ WHEREAS, there has been concern expressed by City Councilmembers and other individuals that the existing program requires improvement; and WHEREAS, the City Councilmembers and individuals have stated that the existing program causes frustration for those that use and fund the program; and WHEREAS, they have suggested that a task force be established to look at the Commons that are applied to the Docks Program to identify the frustrations and irritations that are being experienced by the users of the program; and WHEREAS, this task force would have the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for consideration on how the existing Dock Program could be improved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota that it hereby establishes a task force on the Commons Dock Program which will be made up of twelve citizens of the City of Mound: Five abutting dock holders with shared docks, three abutting dock holders who do not share docks, three non-abutting dock holders and one citizen at large, totaling twelve members. BE IT FURTH.ER RE. SOLVED, t_ha~ the directioJ~ of_the task force is to. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the term of the task force will be approximately six months with the recommendations being submitted to the City Council on or before December 31, 1995. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an article be placed in the legal newspaper soliciting interest in serving on the task force with interviews to be conducted by the City Council and subsequent appointments made by the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that City Staff will attend the task force meetings to provide and facilitate information, answer questions, take minutes of the meeting, etc. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Memorandurn March 15, 1995 City Council Parks Director, Jim Fackler l/~..,.'~ PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION #41110, RAY SALAZAR: REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION. The subject application was reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission on March 9, 1995. Unfortunately, I was not present at this meeting, but I have reviewed the minutes. Due to the additional information supplied by Mr. Salazar at the meeting, I feel a need to further explain staff's recommendation relating to trimming the top of the large tree. When I review requests of this kind, I first look at the condition of the tree. If there are no health problems evident, I then look at what is reasonable to trim while maintaining the natural shape and health of the tree. I have always considered the need for a view as second priority to the health and shape of the tree. The proposed method of trimming will improve the view of the lake, which is the applicant's primary intent, but it would also alter the appearance of the tree to an irregular shape. The topping of a tree is a short-term solution because the root system that is accustomed to a larger crown will provide for rapid growth, and then the tree will soon obstruct the view again resulting in another request for trimming of the crown. Eventually, the tree will grow a large trunk and will have a small crown which provides an unnatural look. The Shoreland Management Ordinance must also be applied when determining what trimming should be allowed and to ensure that the structure, as viewed from the lake, remains properly screened. Please note that this tree is all that remains from an unpermitted trimming that took place in 1994 by the applicant. Copies of photographs are attached for your review. In either event, Mound City Code Section 458:00 requires tree trimmers to be licensed with the City. JF:pj cc: Ray Salazar, Applicant printed On recycled paper PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRIMMING OF VEGETATION ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4559 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, DEVON PID #30-117-23 21 0008 DOCK SITE #41110 WHEREAS, Ray Salazar has applied for a Land Alteration Permit to allow trimming of Vegetation on Devon Commons, abutting the property known as 4559 Island View Drive, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Salazar has requested permission to' Trim top of large maple tree, approximately 6 to 8 feet off and trim and blend branches to create correct natural shape, using the method of "drop-crotching" which will reduce the crown of the tree. 2. Cut small tiny twigs at shoreline and clean-up brush. WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval, by a four-fifths vote, for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the. natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance allows limited clearing and trimming of vegetation on steep slopes to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site provided that screening of structures is not substantially reduced, and; WHEREAS, trees are allowed to be trimmed in a manner appropriate for removal of branches to benefit the trees. Healthy trees and plants with healthy root systems must remain intact to prevent erosion of the steep slope, and; WHEREAS, the Public Land Use Plan classifies this area of commons as Shoreline Type C, and as a resident fishing and permit docking area, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval, with conditions. Proposed Resolution Salazar Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a Special Land Alteration Permit on Devon Common abutting 4559 Island View Drive, Lot 5, Block 1, Devon, as follows: 1. The permit is a one-time permit. The crown of the maple tree in question shall be left to grow naturally with no trimming. Two of the lower branches on the maple tree, as specified by the Parks Director, may be removed with proper trimming procedures. The applicant must notify the Parks Director 48 hours prior to the trimming so staff can meet on-site with the applicant to mark what may be removed. All trimmed branches must be removed from Devon Commons at the applicants expense. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1995 PUBLIC LAND PERMITS REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION BY RAY SALAZAR, DOCK SITE #41110, DEVON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE 'C', ABUTTING 4559 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, PID 30-117-23 21 0008. The applicant was not present. Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed the request as follows: "1. To trim top of large maple tree, approximately 6 to 8 feet off and trim and blend branches to create correct natural shape." "2.. Request to cut small tiny twigs at shoreline and clean-up brush." Staff recommended approval of the Public Land Permit as listed below: 1. The permit is a one-time permit. 2. The crown of the maple tree in question shall be left to grow naturally with no trimming. 3. Two of the lower branches on the maple tree, as specified by the Parks Director, may be removed with proper trimming procedures. 4. The applicant must notify the Parks Director 48 hours prior to the trimming so staff can meet on-site with the applicant to mark what may be removed. 5. All trimmed branches must be removed from Devon Commons at the applicants expense. Photographs of the subject property were reviewed by the Commission. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of the Land Alteration Permit to allow the trimming of vegetation, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on March 28, 1995. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT: REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION BY RAY SALAZAR, DOCK SITE #41110, DEVON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE 'C', ABUTTING 4559 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, PID 30-117-2321 0008. This item was revisited because Ray Salazar, applicant, arrived during the previous agenda item. Chair Schmidt explained the Park and Open Space Commission's recommendation as approval of staff's recommendation. Mr. Salazar apologized for his tardiness, and expressed a wish to further explain his request. He stated that the procedure he proposes for trimming the large tree will not hurt the tree, the procedure is called drop-crotching which will reduce the crown of the tree. This procedure is done in nurseries all the time. A professional tree trimmer who was referred to him by Mayor Bob Polston, a Mr. Ken Berres, informed him that this procedure is common and he would be willing to do it for him, for a fee. Originally he planned on doing this work himself, but he does not want to hurt the tree, so he will hire Ken Berres. He just wants to improve the view that he is paying for. Ken Berres told him that using this procedure, the tree will grow back very well. Salazar has done the same to two other trees in his yard, and they are growing very well. The DNR says that this procedure is acceptable as long as it does not hurt the tree. The tree is very healthy. Chair Schmidt suggested that Mr. Salazar change the contractor's name on his application, and informed Mr. Salazar that his request will be reviewed by the City Council on March 28, 1995. Mr. Salazar requested to be placed towards the end of the agenda as it is difficult for him to get to the meeting by 7:30. 02-1G-1995 05:03PM RAY SRLRZ~R 1 Gl2 472 7383 P.01 ~ . . _ ,J-'" pUBLIC LAND PER/V/I APPLiCaTION ~ ~ $ DIRECTOR PARK MEETING DATE. --w---~~K CITY COUNCIL DATE tchec_k,o,~s) :CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC Zu%RD PERMIt'- new 'c0ns=ruc=ion. NOT~-: NO P~-P~IT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OT~R BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). ~ "~ PUBLIC LAND NAINTEN~NCE PERMIT - to allow repairs (Ci=y Code Sec=ion 320, Subd. 3). ' ~ COgitaTION OF STRUCT~ - =o allow an exis=ing ~p=ove~n= ~--~ an 'as is' con~ition (City Code section 320, Subd. 3). ~ ..... ~ "~~T~N ';' 'c~H~6 i~- Sh&r~irne, ' '~a~&;' ' Kl~=~'';'~'~~n'' ~ .... fill, e=c. (Ci=y Code Section 320, Subd. 4). in d~ck site hol~er. Abutting Address ~~ ~~q C~ ~, Legal Lot Block Description Subd. '" Address VALUATION/PROPOSeD COST O ROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERI~LS) :__~...~?_~~ ~ ~ .-....- ~ ~ ~_-~ ~__~ .~~ ....~ ...... - -, ~~. ~ ~ ~.,. ~t~a~ of Applicant Da~e - -' ........... [;ek~cl'~ ~'az.e or burv6y 'foF ..... Creative Developers, Inc. of Lot 5, Block 1, DEVON Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 5, Block 1, DEVON, the location of al! existing but]dings, if any, thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed building. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Scale' Date · 0 ' 1 inch : 30 feet September 8, 1986 Iron marker Spot elevation Proposed elevation COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. M'ark S. Gronberg MN. L/ic. No. 12755 Gordon R. Coffin MN. Lic. No. 6064 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: March 9, 1995 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission APPLICANT: Ray Salazar FROM: SUBJECT: Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~'-" Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector _O_C_K SITE #41110, DEVON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE 'C', BUTTING 4559 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, PID 30- 117-23 21 0008. REQUEST: LAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO TRIM VEGETATION Background/Comments Special permits are required for alteration of vegetation located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. The applicant has requested the following: "1. To trim top of large maple tree, approximately 6 to 8 feet off and trim and blend branches to create correct natural shape." "2. Request to cut small tiny twigs at shoreline and clean-up brush." Shoreland Management Ordinance, Section 350:1225, Subd. 4, allows certain vegetation alterations with restrictions (note your Procedure Manual, pages 54, 55, and 56. prtnte~t on recycled ~p~r Staff Report Salazar Page 2 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Public Land Permit as listed below: 1. The permit is a one-time permit. 2. The crown of the maple tree in question shall be left to grow naturally with no trimming. 3. Two of the lower branches on the maple tree, as specified by the Parks Director, may be removed with proper trimming procedures. 4. The applicant must notify the Parks Director 48 hours prior to the trimming so staff can meet on-site with the applicant to mark what may be removed. 5. All trimmed branches must be removed from Devon Commons at the applicants expense. Note: files and photographs are available at City Hall and will be on hand at the meeting. Please call Jon Sutherland or Jim Fackler if you have any questions. Please refer to the Flow Chart and Use Plan for discussion. The abutting owners and dock site holders have been notified. The recommendation from the Park and Open Space Commission will be heard by the City Council on March 28, 1995. lo:; ~ 455q CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 August 5, 1994 Mr. Ray Salazar 4559 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: VIOLATION OF CITY CODE SECTION 320, SUBD. 4, LAND ALTERATION Dear Mr. Salazar: Enclosed is a citation as we discussed on the phone, and a copy of the pertinent City Code. It is unfortunate we are all in this after-the-fact situation. I hope that in the future you will contact the Parks Director or City staff beforehand and avoid this trouble. It is the City's policy, after a long history of flagrant violations, that citations will be issued in all cases of trees being cut without City Council approval. Please contact myself or/ \Jim~r' if you have any questions or further comments. Jon SuthexJ~nd Building Official JS:pj CC: Jim Fackler, Parks Director Jim Larson, Assistant City Attorney Ed Shukle, City Manager PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRIMMING OF VEGETATION ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 14, DEVON PID #25-117-24 11 0038 DOCK SITE #43520 WHEREAS, Donald and Geraldine Swenson have applied for a Land Alteration Permit to allow trimming of vegetation on Devon Commons, abutting their property known as 4857 Island View Drive, and; WHEREAS, the applicant requested permit approval for the "cutting and removal of vines which are encroaching on trees." WHEREAS, there is an existing stairway on the commons used to access the applicant's dock site. It is procedure to update all existing encroachments on a site when a new Public Lands Permit is applied for, and; WHEREAS, the applicant states a handrail has been installed on the stairway, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval, by a four-fifths vote, for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance allows limited clearing and trimming of vegetation on steep slopes to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site provided that screening of structures is not substantially reduced, and; WHEREAS, trees are allowed to be trimmed in a manner appropriate for removal of branches to benefit the trees. Healthy trees and plants with healthy root systems must remain intact to prevent erosion of the steep slope, and; WHEREAS, the Public Land Use Plan classifies this area of commons as Shoreline Type C, and as a resident permit docking area, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval, with conditions and supervision by the Parks Director. Proposed Resolution Swenson Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve the following Public Land Permits for Donald and Geraldine Swenson, Dock Site #43520, Devon Common, abutting 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 5 & 6, Block 14, PID #25-117-24 11 0038: A Special Land Alteration Permit to allow the trimming of vegetation subject to the following conditions: a. The permit is a "one-time" permit. The applicant must notify the City 48 hours prior to the trimming so staff can meet on-site with the applicant to mark brush for removal. All brush/vines that are trimmed have to be removed from Devon Common at the owners expense. J Approval of a permit to allow the continuation of the stairway structure, subject to the following conditions: The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. Repairs, if needed, shall be done according to code and as approved by the Building Official. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of the date of City Council approval, the applicants dock license will not be issued until compliance is achieved. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1995 REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION BY DONALD & GERALDINE SWENSON, DOCK SITE #43520, DEVON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE 'C', ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 1~,, PID #25-117-2411 0038. The applicant requested permit approval for the "cutting and removal of vines which are encroaching on trees." Along with the need to remove the vines, there is also a need for removal of debris (i.e. concrete blocks, old dock sections) and other minor brush removal. The applicant stated that he is interested in seeking a permit for the additional trimming and would provide a general clean-up of the site. There is also an existing stairway on the commons used to access this dock site. It is procedure to update all existing encroachments on a site when a new Public Lands Permit is being applied for. This allows a concurrent expiration date for each abutting area to limit time spent for the abutting homeowner and City staff. Staff recommended the following: 1. Approval of a permit to allow trimming, subject to the following: a. The permit is a "one-time" permit. b. The applicant must notify the City 48 hours prior to the trimming so staff can meet on-site with the applicant to mark brush for removal. c. All brush/vines that are trimmed have to be removed from Devon Common at the owners expense. 2. Approval of a permit for the existing stairway subject to the following: a. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. b. Repairs, if needed, shall be done according to code and as approved by the Building Official. c. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of the date of City Council approval, the applicants dock license will not be issued until compliance is achieved. Photographs of the subject property were reviewed by the Commission. The applicant, Donald Swenson, explained his request and stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation. He explained that a handrail has now been installed on the stairway, and it is his understanding that this was the only repair needed in order to be in compliance. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer, to recommend approval of the Land Alteration Permit to allow the trimming of vegetation, and approve a permit for the stairway, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the Council on March 28, 1995. 2- STORY HOUSE '~'7.0 HOUSE J to be removedJ' ISLAND DEMARS - GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. VIEW ,~. DRIVE 80 r,~..~.~ _ __ F~.$$ - HOUSE \ \ : I COMMONS' ,,- mx~noarms of the above ~lescflbed ~ and of the location of al Ix~llngs. p if any. theremt, and al visible encroachments, if any. from or on Bald land. LAKE CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT,. 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: March 9, 1995 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting TO: Park and Open Space Commission APPLICANT: FROM: SUBJECT: Donald & Geraldine Swenson Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~Ot, L'¥ . Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~ Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspectbr - DOCK SITE #43520, DEVON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE 'C', ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 14, PID #25-117-24 11 0038. REQUEST: LAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO TRIM VEGETATION Background/Comments Special permits are required for alteration of vegetation located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. The applicant has requested the "cutting and removal of vines which are encroaching on trees." During an on-site inspection with the applicant, it was noted that along with the need to remove the vines, there is also a need for removal of debris (i.e. concrete blocks, old dock sections) and other minor brush removal. The applicant stated that he is interested in seeking a permit for the additional trimming and would provide a general clean-up of the site. Shoreland Management Ordinance, Section 350:1225, Subd. 4, allows certain vegetation alterations with restrictions (note your Procedure Manual, pages 54, 55, and 56). There is also an existing stairway on the commons used to access this dock site. It is procedure to update all existing encroachments on a site when a new Public Lands Permit is being applied for. This allows a concurrent expiration date for each abutting area to limit time spent for the abutting homeowner and City staff. prtnted on recycled paper /03 Staff Report Swertsott Page 2 .Recommendation Staff recommends the following: Approval of a permit to allow trimming, subject to the following: a. The permit is a "one-time" permit. bo The applicant must notify the City 48 hours prior to the trimming so staff can meet on-site with the applicant to mark brush for removal. All brush/vines that are trimmed have to be removed from Devon Common at the owners expense. Approval of a permit for the existing stairway subject to the following: a. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. b. Repairs, if needed, shall be done according to code and as approved by the Building Official. In the event compliance with these conditions is not acheived within one (1) year of the date of City Council approval, the applicants dock license will not be issued until compliance is achieved. Note: files and photographs are available at City Hall and will be on hand at the meeting. Please call Jon Sutherland or Jim Fackler if you have any questions. Please refer to the Flow Chart and Use Plan for discussion. The abutting owners and dock site holders have been notified. The recommendation from the Park and Open Space Commission will be heard by the City Council on March 28, 1995. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION. CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood_Ro~d~_~o~ MN Phone: 472-0500, Fax. 55364 ~ ~ .~UTION: D RECTOR ' DNR -MCWD DATE RECEIVED ~2<'~ PARK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE ~check~one) CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. ! I~1 I NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). !--! CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in ~ "'~ an "as is" condition (City Code .S~.c~i~n 320, Subd. 3). !_~.~ ! LAND ALTeRATiON - change in shorei~n'e, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, ~ ~ fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. Ail permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable, stairway construction must meet the State Building code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Applicant Name ~ O~ Q4_~ Address Phone (home) ~7~-- ~ ~ ~, ~ (work) ~ .., ro erW Owner Legal Lot Description Subd. Public Name ~f~ ~o~.v n~cv c~ ~ ~ Shoreline Type Contractor Name ~ -- Address Phone VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR a MATERIALS) DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: CUr~l~ % ~%O~A~ 0 ~ ~/.~S nature of Applicant Date Io4J CITY of \"IOUND 534 ' ,t~AYWOCE' lVlOIJND M]i',;rlE$OTA 553C',-: ,612,472-".600 FAX ~612~ September 10, 1993 Mr. Donald B. Swenson 19 Peninsula Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 certified mail RE: TREE TRIMMING VIOLATIONS TO CITY CODE SECTION 320 AND 350:1225 ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE Dear Mr. Swenson: On September 10, 1993, myself and Officer Dan Niccum conducted a site inspection on Devon Commons abutting your address at 4857 Island View Drive. We observed major trimming of trees and vegetation on the commons between your house and Lake Minnetonka. This trimming was obviously attributed to your abutting property and this is a violation of City Code Section 320, Subd. 4, and Shoreland Management Ordinances, Section 350:1225. Since the recent adoption of the Shoreland Management Ordinance it is staff's policy to issue a citation (enclosed) for this type of offense. I have also included a copy of the related code sections. If in the future you wish to trim vegetation on the City Commons area, you must apply for a permit through this office. Please contact me if you have any questions. Re~ctfu~ly, / J/m Fackler, ~/Parks Director pJ Enclosures CC: Jon Sutherland, Building Official Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector Dan Niccum, Police Department prinled on recycled paper Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMORANDUM March 28, 1995 To: From: Re: Mound City Council Bruce Chamberlain, Lost Lake Project Manager Progress report on the Lost Lake canal rehabilitation and Auditors Road realignment projects. The "information gathering" phase of the Lost Lake and Auditors Road projects has, for the most part, drawn to a close. What we have discovered will be the basis for preliminary construction plans and the preparation of environmental review documents and permits. The work which has been accomplished to date can be divided into a few general categories. 1. Understanding of permits and environmental reviews. The necessary permits required for the projects have been identifxed and the respective agencies have been contacted. An informational meeting was held for permitting agencies on March 16 at City Hall. There were seven agencies represented by more than 15 people. The meeting provided an introduction to the project and allowed the participants to ask questions and raise any concerns. The atmosphere was generally positive toward the project and there were some very good comments made, most of which will be addressed during creation of preliminary construction plans in the next couple of months. 2. Collection of site data. The site has been thoroughly surveyed for property data, wetIand delineation and topography. 3. Biological survey. An important component of environmental review and many of the permits is understanding what types of vegetation and animal life inhabit Lost Lake. The draft of the biological survey report has been submitted by Peterson Environmental. There were a couple of issues brought up at the permitting agency meeting we have not yet resolved which we want to address in the final report. 4. Pollution and geotechnical testing. Braun Intertec is in the process of completing the final report discussing these issues. The pollution tests have all been negative except for somewhat higher than average levels of lead and mercury in the wetland bottom material. This has been brought to the attention of the MPCA and they 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 · Fax:(612) 83%3160 Mound City Council March 28, 1995 Page 2 have indicated that the levels do not pose a problem to dredging or reuse of the dredged material. Geotechnical soil probes have been taken in the area of the transient docks to determine the best dock and sea wall construction techniques. 5. Auditors Road street alignment. A preliminary street aligment and property acquisition plan has been determined and will be presented to the City Council in the next couple of weeks for final approval. The next phase of work focusses on the preparation of preliminary construction plans, permits and environmental reviews as well as resolving property acquisition and business relocation issues. More detailed project plans will also be presented to the community during this time. MAMOUNIYO4-4OXCOUNCIL1.MEM u.I ::3 uJuj mm mm WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & ME:RTZ documents so he can triple check the easement descriptions before we send them back to the Met Council for recording. Sincerely, ~ Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney caP:Ih Enclosures cc: Mr. John Cameron dam noted above. By Robert Polston Its: Mnynr By Edward J. Shukle, Jr. It~ Ci~ M~r~g~r STATE OF MINN~OTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) On th~ _----- day of ,19~, before me a notary public within and for said County, l~rsonally appeared Robert Polston, Mayor and Edward I. Shukle, Ir., City Manager, respectively ~rned in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said City of Mound, a municipal corporation, by authority of its City Council and Robert Polston, Mayor and Edward ii. Shukle, Jr., City Manager acknowledged said instrument to be the fre~ act and deed of said Corporation. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: Jeanne K. Matross, Attorney License No. 68615 Metropolitan Council Me,ars Park Centre 230 ~ast Fifth Street $~ Paul, MN 55101 <6n) :Z2~-2~OS -2- THIS INSTKU'M~, made this _ day of _~ 19~, by and between th~ City of Moue, a municipal corporation, of the County of Henncpin, State of lviinnesota, Grantor, and the Metropolitan Council, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of lviinncsota, Grantee; WITlqBSSBTI'I, that Grantor, in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration to it in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, docs hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey to Grantee, its succes_~rs and assigns, the following described casement for sanitary sewer and utility purposes: SEE EASE.M[BNT DBSCKIPTION ON EXI-IIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. ye above d cri easement includes thc rights of Grantee, its contractors, agents and employees to do whatever is necessary for enjoyment of the rights granted herein including the right to enter the easement for purposes of constructing, operaSng, maintaining, altering, repairing, replacing, and/or removing said sewers and utilities. Grantor, its successors and assigns, will not erect, construct, or creat~ any building or structure of any kind, eiuher above or below the surface. The Grantee agrees that any rnaint~nan~, conslruction or repairs on the easement will be completed as expeditiously as possible to minimiz~ disruption of the Grantor's use of its property and, further, Grantee agrees to repair and replace any surface improvements to the property to its original condition or better. Notwithstanding the aforementioned provision, thc following improvements by Grantor, its successors, and assigns do not require Grantee's written approval: fences, parking lots, street and/or roadways, landscaping, bushes, shrubs. However, grantor hereby agrees that Grantee will not be responsible for and will not pay for the loss of or any damage to, or replace or restore the following items within the easement area: trees, shrubs, bushes or other plantings, other than grass or sod, fences. A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. JAMES E). LARSON, P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. CRAIG M. Iv~erTZ LAW OFfiCES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD ~ MERTZ A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDINg PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA, SUITE IlO0 120SOUTh SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS~ MINNESOTA 5540;~-I803 March 21,1995 TELEPHONE FAX NUMBER (6~2) 338-26~5 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re: RECEIVE[:) Mound / Metropolitan Council Easements Dear Ed: You will recall that at the time the City was negotiating to purchase the parking tot lands, we were also holding discussions with the Met Council. Mr. Mills was making claims against the Met Council and indicated he was going to try to force them to remove their sewer pipes from the easements. The Metro Waste Commission at that time did not feel they had any responsibility, but they were willing to work with the City of Mound in trying to acquire the properties so they could relieve themselves of any potential litigation. Appraisals and reviews were made in 1991 which resulted in an agreement that the City would authorize the use of the properties for the Metro Sewer Board which would contribute $45,000. There are basically two areas involved, i.e., the parking lot across from the House of Moy and the property southerly of the tracks and northerly of the law office, which is a driveway. The City did not feel there was any problem in the Metro Sewer Board having an easement in this area, since the properties are being designated for parking lot and driveway purposes. We have recently been negotiating the form and content of the easements, and we now believe they are in final form. I am enclosing herewith three easements and ask that you present this to the City Council for approval and execution at its meeting on March 28, 1995. We will then transmit those easements to the Met Council. You have a check for $5,000 which you are holding, and we will send the additional $40,000 when we receive it from the Met Council. I am copying John Cameron on these WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ documents so he can triple check the easement descriptions before we send them back to the Met Council for recording. Sin.c, erely, Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney CAP:Ih Enclosures cc: Mr. John Cameron EXHIBIT A That ~ of thc Southwest (~hmt't~r of thc Southw~t Qum~r of Section 13, Township 117, P, zngc 24, lying northerly of the northerly line of cOUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 68, easterly of the east line of the west 33.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quar~r, we~ of southerly extension of the west line of the east 17.40 feet of Lot 33, 'Koehlcr's Addition to Mound' ,- Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, said 17.40 feet being measured along the most southerly line of said Lot 33 and which lies southerly of the following descn'bed line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Qua~r; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the west line of said Southwest Queer of the Southwest Quar~r, 791.27 feet, to the point of beginning; thence North 84 degrees 42 minut~ 00 seconds East 203.87 feet; thence on abe. adng of South 6.53 feet; thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes 0 second~ East 596.08 feet to the intersection with the southerly extension of the west line of the east 17.40 feet of said Lot 33, said 17.40 feet being measured along the most southerly line of said Lot 33 and said line there terminating. Except the west 170.00 feet and except the east 60.00 feet thereof. A perma~nt easement for sanitary sewer utility purposes over, under, across and through thc south 40 feet of tt~ above described parcel. THIS INSTRUMENT, made this ... day of. ,19.. , by and between the City of Mound, a municipal corporation, of the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, Grantor, and the Metropolitan Council, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Mirmesota, Grantee; WITNF~SETH, that Grantor, in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration to it in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey to Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described easement for sanitary sewer and utility purposes: SEE EASEMENT DESCRIPTION ON EXI-IIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. within the easement area: The above described easement includes the rights of Grantee, its contractors, agents and employees to do whatever is necessary for enjoyment of the rights granted herein including the right to enter the easemem for purposes of consmacting, operating, maintaining, altering, repairing, replacing, and/or removing said sewers and utilities. Grantor, its successors and assigns, will not erect, construct, or create any building or structure of any kind, either above or below the surface. The Grantee agrees that any maintenance, construction or repairs on the easement will be completed as expeditiously as possible to minimize disruption of the Grantor's use of its property and, further, Grantee agrees to repair and replace any surface improvements to the property to its original condition or better. Notwithstanding the aforementioned provision, the fonowing improvements by Grantor, its successors, and assigns do not require Grantee's written approval: fences, parking lots, street and/or roadways, landscaping, bushes, shrubs. However, grantor hereby agrees that Grantee will not be responsible for and will not pay for the loss of or any damage to, or replace or restore the following items trees, shrubs, bushes or other plantings, other than grass or sod, fences. Cn'antor covcnan~ that it is the Owner and is in possession of the above described premises and lawful right and authori~ to convey and grant the easement de, scribed herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, thc said Grantor has caused this Easement to be cx~cuted as of thc dam noted above. Rober~ Polston Its:~ M~ynr By Edward I. Shukl¢, Jr. STATE OF MINNF~OTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) On thc _----- day of ,19 ., before me a not~-D' public within and for said County, personally appe,~eA Robert Polston, Mayor and Edv~rd J. Shukl¢, Jr., City Mamger, respectively ~med in the foregoing insu-umcnt, and that said instnm~¢nt was signed on behalf of said City of Mound, a municipal corporation, by authority of its City Council ~d Robert Polston, Mayor and Edward I. Shukle, Jr., City Mamger acknowledged said instrument to bc the flee act and deed of said Corporation. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: Jeanne K. Mmtross, Attorney Li~nse No. 68615 Metropolitan Council Me~s p~rk Cen~e 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 229-210S -2- EXHXB1T A That part of Government Lot 8, Section 14, Township 117, Range 24 lying west of the west line of the east 33.00 feet of said Government Lot, north of the north line of Lot $3, *LYNWOLD PARK*, LAKE MINNETONKA and Lot 1, KENNEDY'S SUBDM$ION OF LOT//6, LYNWOLD PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA, according to the recorded phts thereof, easterly of the northerly extension of the west linc of thc east 30.00 feet of said Lot 1, said 30.00 feet being ~ along the north line of said Lot 1 and which lles southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Government Lot 8; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the east lien of said Government Lot, 784.7//feet to the point of beginning; thence South 84 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds West 263.47 feet to the intersection with the northerly extension of the west lien of the east 30.00 feet of said Lot 1 said 30.00 feet being measured along the north lien of said Lot 1 and said line there termirmfin~. A permanent easement for sanitary sewer and utility purposes over, under, and across the north 2~ feet of the above parcel. BILLS- ........ March 28, 1995 Batch 5032 Total Bills $162,601.24 $162,601.24 o§ Iiiiiiiiiii Z ' ~ II / III IIIIIII I1! III IIII i _J Z 0 w z Z f/ CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Feb. 1995 16.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments Feb. 1995 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,254,200 0 0 9,800 608 1,092 66,000 3,190 8,001 888,590 26,171 26,171 47,850 917 1,659 60,000 6,066 6,066 81,900 (85) (60) 0 980 1,845 (1,254,200) 0.00% (8,708) 11.14% (57,999) 12.12% (862,419) 2.95% (46,191) 3.47% (53,934) 10.11% (81,960) -0.07% 1,845 ERR TOTAL REVENUE 2~408~340 37.847 44~774 ~2.363.566) 1.86% FIRE FUND 325,785 53,042 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 150,000 8,123 RECYCLING FUND 88,320 5,105 LIQUOR FU ND 1,400,000 85,294 WATER FUND 400,000 21,165 SEWER FU ND 730,000 54,097 CEMETERY FUND 5,650 0 DOCKS FUND 70,800 38,112 65,239 (260,546) 20.03% 8,123 (141,877) 5.42% 10,230 (78,090) 11.58% 177,425 (1,222,575) 12.67% 50,087 (349,913) 12.52% 113,977 (616,023) 15.61% 0 (5,650) 0.00% 50,923 (19,877) 71.93% 03/11/95 rev95 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Feb. 1995 16.67% Feb. 1995 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 69,330 3,765 27,760 41,570 40.04% Promotions 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00% Cable TV 1,380 0 0 1,380 0.00% City Manager/Clerk 184,000 14,223 22,820 161,180 12.40% Elections 2,670 19 1,71 8 952 64.34% Assessing 51,700 121 138 51,562 0.27% Finance 1 55,920 11,537 19,458 136,462 12.48% Computer 24,800 1,447 7,660 17,1 40 30.89% Legal 1 03,520 8,267 11,821 91,699 11.42% Police 833,350 61,567 116,868 716,482 14.02% Civil Defense 4,610 205 556 4,054 12.06% Planning/Inspections 162,280 10,921 18,951 143,329 11.68% Streets 400,860 33,451 56,731 344,129 14.15% City Property 101,160 7,901 13,050 88,110 12.90% Parks 133,530 7,249 12,797 1 20,733 9.58% Summer Recreation 28,960 0 0 28,960 0.00% Contingencies 1 5,000 800 800 14,200 5.33% Transfers 140,960. 10,587 21,174 119,786 15.02% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2w418.030 172w060. 332~302, 2 085 728 13.74%r Area Fire Service Fund 285,330 19,652 40,723 244,607 14.27% Recycling Fund 118,590 8,908 19,079 99,511 16.09% Liquor Fund 197,410 21,294 33,033 164,377 16.73% Water Fund 371,690 22,549 50,076 321,61 4 13.47% Sewer Fund 1,019,480 68,119 192,163 827,317 18.85% Cemetery Fund 5,840 0 39 5,801 0.67% Docks Fund 78,700 1,029 1,995 76,705 2.53% exp95 03/11/95 G.B. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1995 Present were: Chair Carolyn Schmidt, Peter Meyer, David Steinbring, Janis Geffre, and Mary Goode, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were: Tom Casey, Marilyn Byrnes, and Bill Darling. The following persons were also in attendance: Donald Swenson, Geraldine Swenson, Phillip Klein, Tom Aune, Ron Gavin, and Ray Salazar. MINUTES MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Meyer to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of February 9, 1995 as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGER Chair Schmidt added 6.A. to the agenda, "Questions for Skating Rink Survey." PUBLIC LAND PERMITS REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION BY RAY SALAZAR, DOCK SITE #41110, DEVON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE 'C', ABUTTING 4559 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 1 PID 30-117-23 21 0008. · The applicant was not present. Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed the request as follows: To trim top of large maple tree, approximately 6 to 8 feet off and trim and blend branches to create correct natural shape." "2. Request to cut small tiny twigs at shoreline and clean-up brush." Staff recommended approval of the Public Land Permit as listed below: 1. The permit is a one-time permit. The crown of the maple tree in question shall be left to grow naturally with no trimming. Two of the lower branches on the maple tree, as specified by the Parks Director, may be removed with proper trimming procedures. The applicant must notify the Parks Director 48 hours prior to the trimming so staff can meet on-site with the applicant to mark what may be removed. All trimmed branches must be removed from Devon Commons at the applicants expense. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes March 9, 1995 Photographs of the subject property were reviewed by the Commission. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of the Land Alteration Permit to allow the trimming of vegetation, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on March 28, 1995. REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION BY DONALD & GERALDINE SWENSON, DOCK SITE #43520, DEVON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE 'C', ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 14, PID #25-117-2411 0038. The applicant requested permit approval for the "cutting and removal of vines which are encroaching on trees." Along with the need to remove the vines, there is also a need for removal of debris (i.e. concrete blocks, old dock sections) and other minor brush removal. The applicant stated that he is interested in seeking a permit for the additional trimming and would provide a general clean-up of the site. There is also an existing stairway on the commons used to access this dock site. It is procedure to update all existing encroachments on a site when a new Public Lands Permit is being applied for. This allows a concurrent expiration date for each abutting area to limit time spent for the abutting homeowner and City staff. Staff recommended the following: 1. Approval of a permit to allow trimming, subject to the following: The permit is a "one-time" permit. The applicant must notify the City 48 hours prior to the trimming so staff can meet on-site with the applicant to mark brush for removal. Co All brush/vines that are trimmed have to be removed from Devon Common at the owners expense. Approval of a permit for the existing stairway subject to the following: a. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. b. Repairs, if needed, shall be done according to code and as approved by the Building Official. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of the date of City Council approval, the applicants dock license will not be issued until compliance is achieved. 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes March 9, 1995 Photographs of the subject property were reviewed by the Commission. The applicant, Donald Swenson, explained his request and stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation. He explained that a handrail has now been installed on the stairway, and it is his understanding that this was the only repair needed in order to be in compliance. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer, to recommend approval of the Land Alteration Permit to allow the trimming of vegetation, and approve a permit for the stairway, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the Council on March 28, 1995. REQUEST TO RELEASE NATURE CONSERVATION AREA LOCATED AT ENCHANTED ,~- HERON LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0064. A request was received from Phillip A. Klein to release the subject NCA for sale to the adjoining lot owners, as noted in his letter to the City Manager dated January 27, 1995. Mr. Klein owns the adjoining property to the south, 5010 Woodland Road. The Park and Open Space Commission previously recommended this parcel be retained as a NCA, and on October 26, 1993the City Council approved Resolution #93-144authorizing the conveyance of this property for conservation purposes. If drainage and conservation easements were to be established, this would not guarantee that future owners of Phil Klein's property will have knowledge of the easements or its conditions. Staff recommended that the ownership of this parcel remain with the City in order to ensure conservation protection of this parcel. A copy of a memorandum from Thomas Aune, 5011 Enchanted Road, was distributed to the Commission. Mr. Aune verbally summarized the memorandum and explained that the subject property lies directly east of his property, and he is against the release of the property, but if it is released, he would like to be offered the first opportunity to purchase it due to its relationship to his property. He has been maintaining this property for the last eight years. In 1992 he inquired about purchasing the property, but he did not see a need to do so at that time, and then in 1993 the status of the property was changed by the City, and he was not notified. He would like the property to remain as an open area. Ahrens stated that this property was not formally designated as a Nature Conservation Area. The Secretary confirmed that Resolution #93-144 states that the property was retained for conservation purposes. Ahrens commented that this means the property is under our jurisdiction, but it was not specifically designated as a "Nature Conservation Area" by the Council. Ron Gavin, who resides across the street from the subject property, explained the history of this property and that there use to be cattails on the property, it was a holding pond for drainage, but now the drainage goes directly into the storm sewer and then into the lake. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes March 9, 1995 Phil Klein, applicant, stated that he agrees this property is not a NCA. He would like to make improvements to the lot so that it is not such an eyesore, but if he is going to invest in it, he wants to own it. He does not want to have to get permission from the City every time he wants to do something to it. He feels the City could control the property through easements. He has a lot of landscaping to do to his new house and would like to incorporate some of his landscaping onto this lot. Schmidt questioned the appropriateness of the City holding onto some of these parcels. She recalled from a tour taken by the Commission that some of these parcels were identifiable only by the "no dumping" signs. The City will not generate sizeable funds from selling these properties, and the amount of funds that could be generated by taxes are consequential. There may be a perceived care for these parcels if they are not held by the City and maybe this is a way to begin setting a precedence. Meyer commented that the neighbors concerns and the City's concerns are basically the same, and the City's concern is that the conservation easement and buffer zones remain intact. Part of the NCA plan is to get neighborhoods to adopt these areas and take care of these properties. It is his opinion that the City should retain the property for the seventh generation. Ahrens commented that she has been an advocate of the fact that ownership breeds pride in what property looks like, and when people own property, "no dumping" signs don't need to be erected. All properties need maintenance.This property was available for sale at one time, and maybe there was some wisdom then. The City can't keep and maintain all parcels. There was discussion whether easements could work. Mr. Aune stated that if he had been notified of the City's action in 1993 to change the status of this property, he would have purchased it at that time, but he was not notified. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Schmidt, to get some legal council on conservation easements and drainage easements. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Schmidt clarified that discussion will take place at the May 11th Park and Open Space Commission meeting on the issue of the pros and cons of creating conservation and drainage easements on private property versus the City retaining the property as a Nature Conservation Area. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT: REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION BY RAY SALAZAR, DOCK SITE #41110, DEVON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE 'C', ABIJTTING 4559 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE~ LOT 5, BLOCK 1, PID 30-117-2321 0008. This item was revisited because Ray Salazar, applicant, arrived during the previous agenda item. Chair Schmidt explained the Park and Open Space Commission's recommendation as approval of staff's recommendation. 4 IO'-'lc Park and Open Space Commission Minutes March 9,, 1995 Mr. Salazar apologized for his tardiness, and expressed a wish to further explain his request. He stated that the procedure he proposes for trimming the large tree will not hurt the tree, the procedure is called drop-crotching which will reduce the crown of the tree. This procedure is done in nurseries all the time. A professional tree trimmer who was referred to him by Mayor Bob Polston, a Mr. Ken Berres, informed him that this procedure is common and he would be willing to do it for him, for a fee. Originally he planned on doing this work himself, but he does not want to hurt the tree, so he will hire Ken Berres. He just wants to improve the view that he is paying for. Ken Berres told him that using this procedure, the tree will grow back very well. Salazar has done the same to two other trees in his yard, and they are growing very well. The DNR says that this procedure is acceptable as long as it does not hurt the tree. The tree is very healthy. Chair Schmidt suggested that Mr. Salazar change the contractor's name on his application, and informed Mr. Salazar that his request will be reviewed by the City Council on March 25, 1995. Mr. Salazar requested to be placed towards the end of the agenda as it is difficult for him to get to the meeting by 7:30. DISCUSSION: 1996 PARK IMPROVEMENTS / BUDGET REQUES~ Chair Schmidt handed out a copy of the minutes from the work study session of February 16, 1995. Schmidt reviewed the ranking of budget suggestions, which included: - skating rink - Balboa/Welsh property - Swenson Park improvements Summer Parks program trailway property inventory NCA's It was determined that these items needed to be placed in order of importance, and presented to the Parks Director at the May meeting with more details in order to get costs. A workshop was scheduled for March 21, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Information needed at the workshop was reviewed, as follows: Skating Rinks: Inventory of available equipment at the City in order to maintain an ice rink. Brainstorm on possible ice rink site locations. Staff will supply a City Map indicating park locations. Ahrens will check with the City Manager if someone representing the City is watching the Balboa/Welsh property for possible purchase. Survey of Swenson Park. /( 771 5 March 9, 1995 'park and Open Space Cornrn~ssion Minutes contact Tim Piepkorn to receive tentative schedule and/or outline of 1995 _ Staff should NCA' s. parks program activities- Schmidt will bring her lists of NCA'S/pUbliC property to review potential "neW" need to cheCk on the , arks D~rectOr w~.ll_ _,,~ b invited: City - ~-m. Th~P . _thefOllow~ng ~ .... e · the tour was set at_b!uu.~',,,n~ested t~at CommissiOn' · van. 5chm~U~ °~=~Development The t~m.e, for cheer'S be willing to work on availabibt¥ of the ~ommissiOn, and Economic CounCil, planning Mary Goode noted that the Historical Society and some students may cleaning-Up the indian Mound properW. Sites to visit on the tour was discussed, and some sites were added- The list includes: Nature ConservatiOn Areas a. Diamond Lane - acroSS street from philbrOOk park. Drummond Road - first NCA. b. Enchanted 8~ Heron - Three points c. Rustic place - north of Bartlett Blvd., end of Rusticwood Road. d. indian Mound Property ' north and east of Westedge e. Lost Lake / Balboa property next to S.A. 2. 3. swenson park 4. Riprap: red rock vs. fie~d stone. peter Meyer noted that on MaY 20th at 2:00 p.m. the City of oronO wilt be holding a grand opening for the new FrenCh Creek preserve which is a passive use park similar to our NCA'S. The property is about 7 acres in size and contains wetlands and woods. mine development of an the publiC'S interest in the outdoor recreational skating rink, the City Manager, Ed Shukle, requested a list of questions which may be published in the City's quarterly newsletter' Schmidt asked the Commission for their input. Following are the quesf~ons which were drafted: 1. Would you suPP°rt a skating rink: a) Recreational b) Recreationai/h°ckeY c) Hockey 6 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes Preferred site for Skating rink: a) Mound Bay Park b) By Pond Arena Grandview Middle SChool d) Other 3. What facilities are important: a) Warming house b) Wind Shelter b) Vending COncessions How important is Young adult SUpervision of the rink and facilities? a) Not important b) Important c) Very ImPortant WOuld You be Willing to Contribute a nominal Users fee for the rink a) Yes b) no . How important is daily maintenance (quality) of the/ce rink? a) Not important b) Important Very Important 7. When WOuld You utilize the rink? b) Weekdays weekday evenings c) Weekends Weekend evenings $' COmments/suggestions It Was SUggested that people should be able to fax the SUrvey to the City offices. Tom McCaffrey brief dock. ly reported that there are ;34 new applicants on the waiting list for a 1995 MOTION made by Schmidt, Seconded by Geffre, to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 9:22 P.m. Motion cart/ed Unanimously. 7 March 9, 1995 RECE~'~ ~'~ 2 0 1995 CoNSERVATIO~ DISTRICT MiNNETONKA committee LAKE Administrative Agenda , March 22, 1995 6_~ ~ %~ edneS~ 1 council chambers Tonka BaY City ' Review of 2/22/95 meeting report; L._ing proposal to E¥~ .__~, nMCD publl._ =~ m~sk~rce (meet quarterlY; ellmln=~? i ~=+er Mil~o~ '-mmittee (meet as needed) > Euras%an - ,ake Advisory 9°- ~, ~nd wednesday save the ~ board meeting ~ Add on? ~M?~ ~sta~f report) Of each monu~. - committee report to invite 3. Executive DirectOr Searchand timetable, per position candidateS, detailing plan position Announcement; 4 endations for a program.or activity · Recomm utive director upon hxs departure the exeC 5. Minnetrista representative update; to recognize from the LMCD; Additional businesS; 7. Adjournment LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Co~nittee Meeting Report 6:30 Pm, Wednesday, February 22, 1995 TOnka Bay City Rall Council chambers PRESENT: Chair ~ill 3ohnstone, Vice Chair 3oe Zwak, ?reasurer ~ob Rascop, Jim Grathwol, ROss MCGlasson, Craig HO/let, Tom Reese, Admn. Technician Greg Nybeck, EXecutive Director Gene Strommen 1. Meeting report of 1/25/95 approved as presente to his ~S~N?A ~. d; uerstands ~_ z POWers =~ _ f_~ ~..e guest/on ~-~u a~thoritv "~ moard membe~ -..u now t e -~u~ested that th an Atto--- ~. zr th~ ~ "~ reack.= .,,=ccer to matte~ i~? General,s ~=U~es not re --=u_on the lea r..~ - -ztn the ..... ~mznlon wo.~ $olv= the . .... ~. 1 ---.~u. To dar _~u~u being sh~_~'~ me sough Salazar on ho: ~u response h=j'Cu equally ~.t~j.. he prefers to'° meen receive~ ~e city and 3. ~s e~d 5i tr~h proceed. ~ 'rom Mayor R~COGNITiON DINNER. ~oard members Were the program and food Service at Lord Fletchers. Attendance Was light at 60 persons cOmpared to an average 90 in Past Years. Winter vacations may have been a factor. Future attendance Promotion would appear to be necessary. ~UARTERL~MA~O~s REPORT. Member cities represented by mayors were Minnetonka, Minnetrista, Minnetonka Beach, and Tonka Bay. Council members Orono. Seven board attended for ~oodland and members Were in attendance. The Boat Density Study attracted interest. ~he PUD ordinance Was questioned thoroughly. 3ohns~one reviewed priorities. ADDItiONAL BUSINESS. a. Burnett Realty p. ~dVer~is~ .... ~sh ~OUse _ w~'~ questione~ ~ ~"~ ~ish h .... B~. The ..~n DNR as ~ ~ ~, nu~ Conc~,,~_~e gust o~ -- ~any ~ ~ ~ ~zsh ho,, .... -~u~u the .... . ~ an ~ _--~ hOUses c~_~T= made it a .__~eg~Stration ~ ~Ome CO~erci ~?a~n Vgrious ~unr~rming Use. a~ zdenti~icatio~Orts ~f messages C~arter Boat ~raffic in C . , discussions ~n Connectix_arson s Ba~ Club new uoc~ ~___ ~u With the M~n zn response to Carsons Bay '~=ense Concerning bo=~ ~etonka Yacht · the Lake Use Co~ittee was requested look into the matter. ~= uensity in ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT, 2/22/95, P. 2 ¢. Multiple Docks with o~ensive Lighting. It was recommended that this issue be addressed as part o~ the multiple dock renewals. Staf~ will prepare a memo ~or review by Water Structures Co~unittee to encourage voluntary compliance o~ all multiple dock licensees. d. Deicing Fence Problem. Sta~ pointed out that a number o~ ~acilities which are deicing are having problems keeping their ~ences intact and upright. Due to the unsafe ice in the ~ence vicinity, LMCD is in no position to order ~ences be re-set, some o~ which are frozen flat in the ice which ~ollowed a thaw. Use o~ "thin ice" signs every 25' in lieu o~ upright ~ence at this time o~ year was agreed to be a temporary safety ~actor. Strommen recommended a workshop be held with organizations deicing in ~uture years to discuss the problems, reach a way to prevent the collapse of fences which likely are due to improper installation in the ~irst place. The con~nittee agreed. e. Compensation Adjustment, Clerk. Part-time clerk Jan Briner, whose anniversary is this month, was recommended ~or a pay adjustment ~rom $7.45/hour to $8.00 hour, the increase re~lecting ass%uning greater responsibilities during the interim while a temporary secretary is on sta~ requiring training. Briner is also undertaking a range o~ new responsibilities- Grathwol moved, Reese seconded to approve the increase as recommended e~fective 2/21/95. Administrative Technician Progress. The executive director commended Greg Nybeck for the independent handling of priorities and meeting preparations during his vacation absence Feb. 2-17. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 pm. Respectfully submitted, Executive Director ~L TO OItD~R EECEIVED 2 0 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ?:30 pm, Wednesday, March 22, 1995 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd C~AZRANNOUNc~HENTB, Chair Johnstone P~Z~G OP MINUTZB - 2/22/95 Board Meeting PUBLIC ~OMMENTB _ Persons in attendance, subjects not o ~NB~AG~A - _ . n agenda aPProved ~n o~- -u~gsen= ~genda items i enti ' .. (5 a~v 4~__ ~,= mo=ion un,es .... d fled b- ,,.,, ~.=~ which case the item w~-~ =_~er re~ests a dis- .... ~-- - ~- ~T-- -~ ~ me r~oved from co---~~aon ~' ~P rov · ~ --~ _ ~ ~uu~ ~aDcoc - P a~ ~ m~nu~es, 3/11/95 me~tina ~' ~rlson ~--- - - . ---~a ss~m~e Co. applicant appeal to Board 1/25/95 regarding variance a acti north dock s~- ...... Pproval of ~, -~. . on of ~1 ...... --i, m=r unuc~ Dado, ~,,,.i~. ~1~ Sizes at eto~m ~a=~ C~, reco~endin a~ amended, sub . g ado ti field an~ __:~ect. to adding refer P on. of ~e findin s D. ~ata ~mch* ---~ -~"~Y S~udy reference; ~ ~orlng ll~ens, agplZc;~.rt~en~lng renewal of m,,'-, ---M-~n poles; -z~ ~y cna of season, inc~u~cc= ~' ~ce~s~or Park Pmvil~on, reco . as amended per cop · ~end~ng approval of ~- HoWards Point brine, re~o~ending approval to all' to c?nstruct gas dock 20 . ~o direct ~C - ........ extension bev ,~ ,.. _ ow a~plicant zor sites ~, -..:_~ ~w=n~zon of aas d~-u--- .y.~u=lon 2.01 -" =~xs=ence on 8/30/7~. ~ zacllltles beyond amendin re~ne Retirements r ~ an orainance .... g ~CD Code Section 9 -~ f~ Docks and Moo ' ~=~lrement for .... ~ - --vz, Su~. 1. ~ ..~ . _rings · H. Seton View Assocfatfon, rec · multiple dock lzcense w~~endln~ approval of re , -~- manor c n~.. newal .f 199~ Multiple ~=k L~=mnses, reco~ending approval o multiple dock license a -- -, ~nu approval of ~e * A. staff Dock Lighting Compliance Memo as amended. j. Additional Business L~KE USE ~%ND RECREATION, chair Bert Foster Approval of minutes, meeting of 3/14/95 meeting; 1994 Boat Density survey, recommending staff prepare a news release in cooperation with MN DNR announcing results; C. Queen of Excelsior an4 Queen of Exaelsior II, recommending approval of liquor licenses subject to investigation by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol and the South Lake Police Department; Direating staff to prepare m mem~ on voluntary restrictions on charter boats operating in bays with critical boat density, including Carsons Bay; Directing staff to prepare m mem~ recommending a permit deposit on all ice fishing houses on Lake Minnetonka to pay for litter cleanup; * D. * E. F. Additional Business; S~F~ THE L~KE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Craig Mollet , ~. Approval of minutes, meeting of 3/2/95 (handout); B. Informational report of 3/2/95 meeting; (verbal) C. Additional business ~DMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, chair Bill Johnstone * A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 2/22/95; B. Report of 3/22/95 meeting held prior to board meeting with recommendations on: 1) Evaluation of Committee Restructuring proposal to eliminate LMCD committees except: a) Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force (quarterly) b) Save the Lake Advisory Committee (as needed) c) Add one board meeting 2nd Wednesday of each month. d) Include board workshop prior to one board meeting as determined by executive committee (board officers); e) Conduct public hearings prior to board meeting; 2) Executive Director Search Committee Report; 3) Recommendations for a program to recognize departing Executive Director; C. Additional business E~I~NNATE~ MILFOIL T~K FORCE, Chair Herb Suerth A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 3/10/95 (handout); director, - ~ ~vL -a~ves=er paadlewheel conversion; (handout) C. Proposal to employ p.roject manag.er to continue 1995 milfoil ~h~a~r~e,st p_larming beginning immediately (handout) D. ~uu~lonal business S- IPZ~/L~CT. AL ~BPO~t?8, ~'easu~er Bob Rascop ~A. .Feb_.r?ar~_ financial summary and balance sheet D. AUal= Of v.oucher? for payment (handout C. Annual audit review ) Be Bxea~tive Director ~eport, Gene Strommen A. Overview of priorities - B. April meeting schedul? contingent upon adoption of board and committee reorganization proposal per agenda item 4,b.1; JFL*WBUSXJFB88 REC, EIVEEI HAR 2. 0 REGUI.J~ BO~i~:~,D O~ DTRECTORS ME~.TTNG Tonka Bay City .a11, 4,901 Manttou Road DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Chair Johnstone called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL C~LL Members Present: Wm Johnstone, Minnetonka; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, spring Park; Ross McGlasson, Tonka Bay; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director; Gregory Nybeck, Administrative Technician. Members ~bsent: Duane Markus, Wayzata. Orono has no appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Johnstone There were no chair announcements. RF2%DING OF THE MINUTES Zwak moved, Reese seconded to approve the minutes of the 1/25/95 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGE1TDA Babcock moved, Partyka seconded , to approve the consent agenda items identified by an "*" on the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock B. Excelsior Park Pavilion, new multiple dock license application to add a 100' pier to accommodate two charter boats and to widen the dock from 6' to 8'. Babcock outlined that a public hearing was held at the 2/11/95 Water Structures Committee meeting for Special Density License (SDL) and Variance applications submitted by the Excelsior Park Pavilion. Babcock explained the committee recommended waiving the public hearing required for the new multiple dock license since the committee felt public notice was served for the new multiple dock license. LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 2 MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded approval of the multiple -dock license subject to not requiring additional public hearings DISCUSSION: Strommen commented on the public hearing held for the Excelsior Park Pavilion SDL and Variance applications. advised the public hearin .... : ..... Strommen ~ nv~ce was complete, including the new multiple dock license application. Strommen identified the problem was staff neglected to provide the application and ~~d_~n~o~r~.atio~_~t ~he committee level. LeFevere nuurreu =ha= =ne public nearing notice was complete VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. ~xcelslor Park Pavilion, recommending approval of the special density license application to install a 100' pier to store two charter boats, in exchange for two 10' X 30' transient slips to be taken out of order, with public amenities to be provided in exchange for the additional density; conditioned upon the Minnesota Transportation Museum (MTM) being added as a joint applicant to all applications and subject to review of the cross covenants by the executive director and LMCD counsel. MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded to a roy tlo~.as submitted conditioned ..... ~- Pp._.e t~e. SDL applica- · ~m~ ~n~ amenltl . as listed in the staff memo, es being provided . conditioned upon the review of the ease agreement and acceptance by LMCD staff and counsel, and to prepare findings for consideration of a roval o application. PP f the ~ISCUSS~ON: Babcock mentioned the applicant was willing initially .~o_gra~ an. easement.to the MTM for this project at the 2/11/95 water structure committee meeting. Since the Wate Committee, High Wire Crui-~- : ........ r Structures . o=~ xn~en~s tO control the whole agreed this sim- ~ f_ ? ~entl~g the applicant. Babco · ~l~es the u llca' . ck ownership remains with one p~ty. tlon for the LMCD since Grathwol provided a friendly amendment to the motion, subject to review of the lease between High Wire Cruises and MTM by LMCD staff and legal counsel. Grathwol expressed a con · provisions of the le~-~ :~ ~ . - cern with ~?= ~ ~ is terminated and ho ' LMCD llecensing of this site. w this affects Johnstone asked for clarification on Grathwol,s amendment. He asked Grathwol if the amendment is requiring terms of the lease "~that are satisfactory to the LMCD~ Grathwol and the board felt this should be required. LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 3 McGlasson asked Board members if there were provisions of the lease that board members are concerned with? McGlasson recommended negotiating these provisions at this meeting. Partyka had continued questions relating to ownership of the dock. Zwak felt the point of ownership was mute. He felt that no matter the duration of the lease, the property owner will eventually have the right to claim the dock. Zwak asked to see the lease once staff receives it. Zwak asked about the origin of the second charter boat. Bruntjen explained the second charter boat to be stored at this pier will be transferred from the Excelsior Park Tavern docks. MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. D. Excelsior Park Pavilion, recommending approval of the variance application to extend dock width from six feet to eight feet to provide better handicap accessibility and safety to the charter boats serviced on the 100' pier. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded to approve the variance application as recommended by the committee. DISCUSSION: Grathwol was convinced that safety is not.served on a six foot dock when there are large numbers of people involved in loading and unloading. Grathwol felt it is clearly justified to allow for the eight foot dock in this application. Bloom explained the proposed eight foot dock greatly exceeds the four foot width required by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) for handicap purposes. Grathwol recommended approving the variance for the eight feet dock width because of the anticipated large numbers of people on the dock. Grathwol felt a six foot wide dock would not be adequate for those loading and unloading on the dock. McGlasson supported the variance application because of the increased stability an eight foot wide dock would add to the 100' pier. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Excelsior Park Pavilion, recommending denial of request from Fred Meloche, MN Transportation Museum/ Minnehaha Steamboat project, to waive $2,900 of LMCD application fees; $2,400 for the SDL application and $500 for the variance application. LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 4 MOTION= Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded to deny the request from DISCUSSION= Babcock felt this request may not be appropriate since the MTM agreement with the applicant has changed from an easement agreement to a lease. Babcock entertained discussion from other board members. Grathwol expressed support for the project, but felt this issue may be more appropriately addressed at the "Save the Lake" committee. McGlasson would like to see this request resolved. He asked what recourse the MTM would have if this request is denied by the board. Johnstone reminded the board to make a decision based on its merits. He indicated what the "Save the Lake" committee decides should not affect the decision-making of the board. VOTE= Ayes (11) Nayes (1, McGlasson); Motion carried. Minneto~ka Yacht.~lub~ recommending approval of dock license memorandum regarulng denial o~ new dock license to change dock configuration, subject to review by staff and LMCD counsel. MOTION= Babcock moved, Partyka seconded to approve dock license memorandum regarding denial of new dock license to change dock configuration at the Minnetonka Yacht Club (MYC). DISCUSSION= Rascop asked for clarification of the motion from Babcock. Babcock explained the motion is to approve findings which state related factors in the denial of the MYC application. Foster asked for the condition of the special density license at the MYC? Babcock indicated it was concluded by LMCD staff and legal counsel there is not a SDL for all three MYC sites. Staff concluded, and Babcock concurred, that a SDL applies only to Lighthouse Island site. the Foster_was troubled that the MYC has been treated as one site over :ne years assuming the SDL applied to all three sites. Strommen indicated the MYC is treated as one application, however, there are three separate sites at the MYC. Strommen · explained the SDL granted only applies to the Lighthouse Island LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 5 site. Foster pointed out that the LMCD allowed the transfer of amenities from the Lighthouse Site (#3) to the Carson Bay site (~1) (Telephone, Portable Toilet, Dumpster). LeFevere indicated on the SDL license application in 1989, the Lighthouse Island site was listed as the site, not the Carson Bay site. Babcock indicated he had some of the same recollections that . ster had. However, after discussions with Strommen and review Fo Babcock was convinced the SDL of the letter from LeFevere, granted to the MYC is for the Lighthouse Island site only. Foster asked for an explanation from the board by its allowing the MYC to add a slip, from Lighthouse Island site 3 to Carsons Bay Site 1 on 4/22/92, if Carson's Bay is a grandfathered site. Babcock recommended this should be sent back to the Water Structures Committee to resolve SDL and other issues related to the MYC. Johnstone felt the findings raised some questions to their appropriateness, however, in his mind the decisions to deny the application were based on the critical density criteria. Johnstone felt the board denied the application based on the these criteria. Zwak was concerned on denying the MYC application using these 1973 critical density criteria. He was concerned with treating applications individually rather than on a lakewide basis. He felt the nature of several bays on the lake is for harboring, with movement out to the main part of the lake. Zwak felt these boats should not be considered as adding to critical density of that bay. Foster agreed with Zwak that there have been inconsistencies over the years with the granting of license applications. He cited an example in St. Louis Bay where the board granted eight additional docks for the City of Deephaven, and the board did not consider the critical density criteria that were applied in this application. Bloom concurred with Foster and Zwak. He was troubled with the board conclusions summarized in the findings on the denial of the MYC request. Bloom felt there was a lack of factual information to make the conclusions the LMCD Board made. He was concerned that until LMCD code restricts the size of boats, the denial is not justified since the application is requesting to trade a boat for a boat. LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 6 Reese indicated he is concerned with the increased size of the boats if the MYC is allowed to transfer slides to slips. His sole concern was that the boats in the slides will not be the same size as the boats in the slips. Bloom expressed concerns with the consistency of applying LMCD code. Johnstone reminded the board that lengthy discussions have taken place at board and committee meetings relating to the MYC application. Johnstone disagreed with Bloom and felt the decision made by the board can be based on a rational finding. Johnstone expressed some concerns of the findings and felt further review could be done at committee level. Babcock reminded the board the motion is whether to approve the -findings of the MYC. Counsel has prepared two findings, one with the 1973 findings and one without them. Babcock explained a decision needs to be made by the board on whether to accept one of these findings or whether further review, to refer it back to committee for Reese was leaning towards accepting the findings without the 1973 critical density criteria. Reese felt these criteria were superseded in the Management Plan. Babcock felt this was the first case that the critical density ~riteria has been used. Babcock was concerned that it is inappropriate to apply it to the MYC application. LeFevere reminded the board that this is only one of eleven review criteria. He felt other criteria could be used in evaluating this application. He reminded this is the boards decision on whether they want to use these criteria. LeFevere reminded other changes made to the original findings. These changes were outlined in the staff memo. Jack Strothman was introduced representing the MYC. Strothman expressed he was surprised with the outcome of the 1/25/95 board meeting and the Findings. He agreed with feedback from Foster, Zwak, and Bloom. Strothman felt there was a misconception with what the MYC is applying for. Strothman explained a meeting was scheduled with Strommen and Babcock on 1/4/95 relating to the MYC application. Strothman mentioned he left this meeting with the impression a SDL was granted at the Carson Bay site. He reviewed a letter sent to the LMCD office on 1/12/95, which expressed if further licenses are needed for approval of this application, to contact the MYC so -they could be applied for. Strothman said he was given the impression that a SDL already existed for this site and it was a non-issue. LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 7 Strothman mentioned the real issue is whether the current 36 BSU's can be reconfigured- The MYC feels this will benefit the bay. He felt the neighbors concerns relating to increased density in the bay is not an issue and should not considered in this application. Strothman felt the Findings.ha? no legal.or ~actual basis. He reviewed the 7-5 vote ~o re]ec= the application and commented that Babcock, who was favorable towards granting the application, was absent that evening. Strothman felt the LMCD had no basis for the denial. Strothman suggested this decision needs additional review and should be referred back to committee. Babcock asked LMCD counsel on the number of votes required to rescinding the decision denying the MYC application for reconfiguring? 2/3 vote of those present, or eight votes, LeFevere.indicated a are required to rescind previous board actions. MOTION= Bloom moved, Foster seconded to rescind prior board actions which denied the MYC application to reconfigure- DISCUSSION: Johnstone indicated he would oppose the motion to rescind, but would not oppose referring the findings back to committee. Reese indicated he would also oppose the motion. ROLL C~LL VOTE: Ayes (6) Nayes (6, Grathwol, Johnstone, Partyka, Reese, Rascop, McGlasson); Motion failed. MOTION: Foster moved, Bloom seconded to table the findings and refer them back to the Water Structures Committee. VOTE: Ayes (10) Nayes (2, Rascop, Partyka); Motion carried. G. Draft ordinance, to establish a special rule for continuous shoreline of dock use areas in close proximity; recommending approval of third reading with the amended change ,,without restriction as to material rights". MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded to approve the third and final reading of an Ordinance Relating to Shoreline Requirements and Calculation of Boat Storage Density on Lake Minnetonka, amending LMCD code Section 2.02 by adding subd. 5, Special Rule for non-Continuous Shoreline of Dock Use Areas in Close Proximity, to include a committee recommended change to subd. 5, f) i) to read "the transferor sites and the transferee site must LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 8 be in common ownership and without restriction as to material ~iparian rights-, and to prepare the ordinance for publication. VOTE~ Motion carried unanimously. H. RDP Partners, recommending renewal of multiple dock license on the conditions that the docks are constructed by 6/1/95, the amenities are provided by the end of the boating season, and staff has confirmed SDL amenity requirements are being met. If these conditions are met, the SDL shall be deemed not abandoned or revoked under Section 2.05, Subd. 8. MOTION: Babcock moved, McGlasson seconded to approve renewal of the multiple dock license under the conditions recommended by the committee. -~Reese expressed a concern with granting approval of this application. Reese felt approving this license renewal will add to the inconsistencies of this board in applying LMCD code. Reese believes Spring Park Bay is more crowded than Carson,s Bay, and the adding of 31 more slips will add to an already.crowded situation. Reese felt the amenities provided are trlvl recommended reviewin- the .... ~=' . _ . ' al and - _ ~ amenities requlre~ in the Code. He no=es handicap accessible docks are required by law and should no longer being an amenity. Foster had further questions relating to amenities that he felt need to be resolved. Zwak felt this again showed inconsistencies on how the LMCD Code is being applied. Babcock reminded the board this is not a new application, but is a renewal. --Rascop believes this application was approved with the understanding that this would replace a non-configuring site in Shorewood. Babcock,s main issue is that the multiple dock license requires a SDL which is set to expire 3/10/95. Without the SDL, the multiple dock license cannot be renewed. Babcock asked LeFevere on whether the 3/10/95 deadline for construction of the docks can be extended. LeFevere understood the initial Board intentions in the "must build- clause is that after two years the sunset clause would kick in and the SDL would expire. The code does allow an extension if the docks are partially constructed and the amenities are provided by the end of the year. LeFevere felt Babcock was right that something had to take place by the 3/10/95 deadline. LeFevere felt the Board needs to decide what is -partial construction. 10 7 LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 9 Babcock recalled the partial construction clause was cre~ted,to 'cants from building what the docks they need aha prevent ~l~est for a later date. Babcock felt RDP's banking application was not appropriate for partial construction since uld be banking slips for later this year. Babcock they wo ....... ~n- the anplication and requiring them to apply ~°~'~e~D~ ~ultipl~ dock license. Johnstone stated that since the applicant has a binding contract to install the docks and the building is under construction, the applicant should be allowed to extend the 3/10/95 deadline to allow them to build the docks as long as they were constructed before 6/1/95 and the amenities are provided during that year. Johnstone thought this was what the committee agreed on. He believes it makes no sense to make RDP re-apply for a SDL and new multiple dock license. Babcock wanted to make sure that the LMCD is on solid legal grounds to allow an extension of the SDL under the partial construction clause. Reese reminded the board the failure to construct clause has been actually six years for RDP. Reese was concerned that sufficient amenities would not be provided to allow the board to renew the multiple dock license. McGlasson stated the applicant far exceeds the required amenities. VOTE: Ayes (8) Nayes (3, Zwak, Babcock, Reese) Abstain (1, Rascop); Motion carried. I. ~d~itional Business, Babcock advised to the board that the Hennepin County Regional Park design changes, per Don Deveau's letter of 1/16/95, to the launch ramp involving runoff controls. The boat launch ramp and roadway servicing the ramp will drain to a detention pond and then flow to the lake after settlement occurs. A ramp license can now be issued. 2. L~KE USE ~%ND RECRF~TION~L, chair Foster ~. Foster announced the meeting of 2/13/95 was canceled due to agenda items being rescheduled to March. B. Ad4itional business, There was no additional business. 3. B~VE THE LAKE ~DVISORY COMMITTEE, chair Mollet B. Informational report per 1/5/95 minutes. There was no further discussion. C. Inflatable Rescue Boat, recommendation to authorize up to LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 10 $2,000 for the purchase of a Mercury 25 h.p. short shaft ~ motor, conditional that staff review inventory of motors at the Water patrol with Capt. Peterson MOTION= Mullet moved, Rascop seconded to authorize the purchase of the Mercury 25 h.p. motor as recommended by the committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Additional business, Mullet reported · =~=~u~ zor new ~ro.o~_ Y_L ~=u repor=ea that ~1~ ~m~uYu~ rot expenditur-- ~ ...... - .... wuuxu require board ~e~inite bud-et ~ ..... ~o_~um =hi? amount until a mo = ~ ~,=w proposals is adopted., re MOTION: Mullet moved, Johnstone seconded "Save the ~ake ,, budget with approval of the 1995 the $18,200 in new proposal funds requiring board approval for expenditures. DISCUSSION: Babcock asked Mullet if the 25 h.p. motor will be appropriated from the $5,000 budgeted for new equipment for the Water Patrol in 1995. Mullet indicated that it would be taken from the $5,000. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously 4. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone B. Report of 2/22/95 meeting, with re~ommendations to the Boar~ >Update on Minnetrista Representative. j ~oard ~h~t a letter, copied to th- ~___~hns~oQ,. updated the . ~ ~=~u, naa. Peen sent to ~ayor Salazar and the City of M~nnetrista ~utl~ning ~ LMCD's position and ~resen~- . the . ~ u~ng procedures ~n resolving the situation. Johnstone reported he had talked Mayor Salazar and was awaiting a response. Advice from the Attorney General has not been requested at this time. >Save the Lake Reoognition Dinner- Johnstone reminded the board of the 2/23/95 dinner at Lord Flet all to attend, chers and encouraged >Ma~or"s Quarterl~ Report- Johnstone reminded board members of the meeting at 7:30 am on Friday, 2/24, at the Norwest Bank building, in Wayzata. Johnstone encouraged board members to contact their cities to encourage attendance. C. Additional Business- >Other items suggested to be referred to appropriate committee and reviewed- * Restricting charter boats in specific bays with density LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 11 problems (Lake Use and Recreation Committee) · Voluntary conformance lighting program (Water structures Committee) ~dJust~ent for Clerk position- Johnstone ~Comp.ns,tion ~ra~~ outlined the committee's recommendation Jan Briner's hourly pay from $7.45 to $8.00 MOTION= Zwak moved, Rascop seconded to adjust Jan BrinerTM hourly pay from $7.45 to $8.00 per hour. VOTE= Motion carried unanimously. $. EURASIAN NATER MILFOIL T~K FORCE, chair Suerth ~. Suerth announced the 2/10/95 meeting was not scheduled. B. a~ditional business- There was no additional business. 6. FINaNCIaL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop B. ~udit of Vouchers for pa2ment MOTION= Rascop moved, Zwak seconded to accept the report as submitted, approving checks 210085 thru 10108 totally $10,706.10, and payroll checks ~1329 thru ~1334 totaling $5,107.91. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously ~. January financial statement and balance sheet Rascop noted there were problems with the January financial statement. Deferred revenue had not been entered to 1995 income. The executive director advised that two financial statements will be presented at the March board meeting. 7. Executive Director Report, Gene Strommen ~. Personnel Progress Strommen briefly commented that the LMCD staff kept day to day priorities current and commended the staff for its work while he was on vacation. B. March Meeting Schedule The Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting was rescheduled for Tuesday, March 14 to accommodate Tim Kelly, MN DNR Planner, to discuss the Boat Density Study. LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, February 22, 1995, Page 12 8. NBWBUSIN~BBANDAD~O~ H~WBUSZb'BBB- ~here ~as no ney business MOTION~ Rascop moved, Reese seconded to adjourn the board of directors meeting into executive session for an update on the LMCD v. Zwak litigation. VOTI~ Motion carried unanimously. Chair Johnstone declared the meeting adjourned at 9:15 William Johnstone, Chair Joseph Zwak, Secretary Action Report: Meeting: Water Structures Committee 7:35 am, Saturday, March 11, 1995 Room 135, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata M~ers Present: Doug Babcock, spring Park, Chair; William Johnstone, Minnetonka; Jim Grathwol, Excelsior; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Ross McGlasson, Tonka Bay; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Gene Strommen, Executive Director; Greg Nybeck, Administrative Technician 1. Minnetonk& Y&=ht Club- review of findings recommending denial of new dock license. Babcock pointed out the committee purpose is to consider the finding of facts for content relating to the board's vote to deny the new multiple dock license application as referred by the board to committee at its 2/22/95 Board meeting. Johnstone recommended the existence of the district mooring area (DMA) and the relationship to the dock structure, which was discussed, should be included in the findings. This discussion considered whether the DMA facility is compatible to adjacent development. Johnstone did not believe it was necessary that the 1974 Boat Density Policy Statement be included in the findings. Foster noted a typo on page 1. The slips are "14' x 35'" rather than "14 x 5'". Grathwol said he would support the findings without the reference to the Boat Density Policy Statement. Zwak felt the 1974 Boat Density Policy Statement needs to be included in the findings. Zwak believes it is a key element in denying the MYC application. Johnstone said he would have come to the same conclusions, whether the Boat Density Policy Statement was brought up in the discussions. Strommen reminded the committee the boat density classification criteria is only one of eleven criteria used to review multiple dock license applications. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Grathwol seconded to adopt the findings, without reference to the 1974 Boat Density Policy Statement and to include the reference to the district mooring area as part of the boat storage at the site, directing LMCD counsel to draft these changes. VOTE: Ayes (6), Nayes (2, Babcock, Zwak); Motion carried. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 3/11/95, PAGE 2 2. Wayzata Yaoht Club Site I and Site 2- Multiple dock license annual renewal without change application indicating "dolphin,, "' poles as part of the dock structure not on the site plans. Babcock reviewed the Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC) use of dolphin poles that are not identified on their approved site plans. He explained that site plans for both Sites I and 2 do not identify dolphin poles. He asked the committee to consider how the addition of dolphin poles has changed the site plans.. Strommen briefed the committee on enlarged site plans handed out which more accurately show the dolphin pole locations as a result of a physical inspection and measurement conducted by Nybeck with applicant Rich Anderson. Babcock agreed the dolphin poles need to reviewed per current Code requirements. He believes the issue the committee needs to consider is whether the slips sizes have been expanded by the addition of the dolphin poles. Strommen stated that he finds the issue to be the change of the dock structure itself through the addit' whic~ are not included in the -~ .... ion of.the dolphin poles · . .. °~= P~ags- ~oae SUbd. 2.03, Subd 7 requires a new license if any change in slip size, ownership, length, width, height or ~ ~ a ~ .or launching ramp requires a license under this-~ection: It is his conclusion that the dolphin poles represent the ad ' the facility, dltlon of a structure to Richard Anderson, WYC dock manager, * The vast ma4orit,, on ~ ..... addressed com?ittee concern · · ~ z ~ ~ue uoa nin o _ . s. prior to 1987 when h ...... ~ -. p les were in existence = a~umeu hiS current · ' WYC. (The license was a- ...... = ....... position at the ~-~=u w~=nou~ t~e inclusion of dolphin poles as part of the site plan in 1983). * The dolphin poles have always extended o licensed 24' SliDs. ut beyond the * T ° - he dolphin poles are not used to increase size of the sli ~t ~re u~ed for boat tie-on ps, * a s~ne plan for Site $1 does n ~,,=~ une ~ocKage. ot exist Identifying dolphin poles, however, one does exist for Site $2. Strommen explained an amendment to Site $2 docks in 1992 did not include dolphin poles. He said there is a site plan' for 1986 that identified dolphin poles, however, a revised p%an approved later in.1986 did not include the dolphin ole which, has been used since 198= ~- -~___ ~' This. is the site lan · ~ ~ua =nnual renewals without change or subsequent minor changes. Anderson pointed out that LMCD inspectors were aware of the dolphin poles during annual inspections. He was not aware that site plans were required to identify locations of the dolphin poles. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 3/11/95, PAGE 3 . 1eves the use of dolphin poles is appropriate for some Foster bel' . ...... ~ ~a-,zata Bay is an example n Lake Minne~onKa. me auu~u ~,,a~ -- z . ~,°aol~hin D s can be beneficial on double wide slips to ......... =-- ole protect the boats. ncerned on the apparent oversight of the dolphin Babcock was co ....... ~A~ +w,e --r'al photos from · ec~lons, n~ nuu=~ ~,- ..... 1 _ oles by past LMCD ~nsp _. C site ~1. He P 'n oles existed at the WY . 1983 show that dolpn~, p ....... :~A-~,,4n- the dolphln recommended updating Do~ sl~e p~an~ ~u=~,~z~ ~ poles. ..... = .... erns if the WYC was using ~olphin poles to s~one e resseu oonn xp ....... ~oned re~,ir~ng the wyC to expand slips sizes. ~owever, ne remove the dolphin poles with the long history of dolphin poles being at their docks. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded to recommend renewal of the multiple dock license applications, without change, at Wayzata Yacht Club sites i and 2, subject to submittal of as-built surveys for both site i and 2 by the end of the boating season. VOTE: Ayes (6), Nayes (1, Markus), Abstain (1, Foster); Motion carried. Johnstone recommended that dolphin poles need to be addressed as part of the envelope concept report. ~. ~xcelsior Park Pavilion- Findings and Order for Variance, Special Density License, and new multiple dock license, to include a certified as-built survey within 90 days of completion of the new docks. MOTION: Grathwol moved, McGlasson seconded to recommend of the findings. Discussion. The following amendments were recommended approval by the committee: 1) Page 1, para. 3. add after 1st sentence "40 of which are transient, no o~ernight storage, two for storage." 3) Page 2, amenity section, item 1, be amended to read "Free charter boat excursion trips for the handicapped or the S. '! underprivileged fo__r~ minimum of 100. P_Pr~_~_~9~21 Johnstone recommended page 3, para 1 be amended to read "The licenses are conditioned upon us~ o~ h~doc~ facilities bv the MTM and review and approval ~y the LMCD ~lega~-~ounsel of the lease between Hlghwire Cruises, Inc. and the Minnesota Transportation Museum, Johnstone questioned the status of the multiple dock license if the MTM decides not to use this site. He believes the license change is conditioned upon MTM using this pier. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 3/11/95, PAGE 4 ~Babcock expressed his understanding los? five amenity points related to that the application wn,,~ -~pro]ect if it were terminated, he Mlnnehaha Steamboat However, the Excelsior Park Pavilion would be able to utilize the , · charter boat in the location ..... ~ .... ~0~ pier. to ~tore another steamboat. ~=v~ou~y aesigna=ed rot the A discussion took place relating to the whether the Minnehaha Steamboat project will ~ctually utilize the pier. Highlights of the discussion included. · Grathwol indicated the Minnesota Transportation Museum (MTM) is concerned with the lease agreement. . · Babcock fe~t the lease agreement is in t . CD since o ership and cont - -- best Interest to ~ ~ une proper=y would remain with the Excelsior Park Pavilion. . · McGlasson was concerned the lease agreement is not in the , ~ ~u ancrease~ storage f~r charter boats. Zwak added it is hard to make a decision o agreement until the LMCD rev~ ......... n a lease · · ,, the LMCD reviews _ g . he l~cense unti · Zw~ ~ - ~ - the lease agreement. 1 ....... ~onns=one concurred that it is no responsibility of the *---- ~ ....... t.the of the lease. .~-'~- uu 9er lnvolve~ in the negotiation · McGlasson felt a 8' wide pier is appropriate for storage of all charter boats because of the need for increased dock stability and strength. VOTe: Motion carried unanimously. · - Ad~itional Business- The committee moved an additional business item up on the agenda since the applicant, Howard's Point Marina, was present. The committee discussed a proposed change to the gas dock at Howard,s Point Marina, approved at the 12/7/95 Board meeting. ~abcock briefed the committee on the rD o ~ndicated staff brou,ht -t~ ~ ..... P p.~ed gas_dock chan e. H in conflict with LMCD Code ~ .... ~n =ne ~as ~ock was approved ~,.u was no= considered. Section 2.01 Subd. 2 a) does not allow for the e ansio ~ore than 100, from ' xp . _n.of gas docks that · . · nu une applican= was approved for a 20' expansion of their gas dock from 40' to 60'. Babcock outlined four possible alternatives of resolving this application. They included: 1) Declare the license to expand the as doc · . 2) A~low construction of the ~-- ~ .... g - k ~s Illegal. .~ uuc~ un,er ex"=enuating circumstances, with a limit of years on the use of the dock. 3) Draft a code change to allow e a 100' XP nsions of gas docks beyond that stay within side setback requirements and extend no further lakeward than they currently ex~st. ES CO]~ITTEE' ]~INUTES' 3/11/95 hip un'igu this qa~ doc~- ~ .... ~ ~CD ~w _ ~ allOW ~==_~ 2.01 Suni_ ~lloW ~ =:on cart ' the mulS%~eGcati°n ~ro-- --creed chang~.~'with by chang~,'~ --~oned the prop_~ it _ ~+~o~e~ ~en~_~ the dock anu balance ~" . ~v~me~tS. ~enewalS without ohange'DoC~ L ~ -- ' .-- the ap~ ~.., from ca~_..~iple BabcOck --s =nd t - --- wet= -- =-~ on ---t~ O~e: ~-ce t~er= --~-ned the _-~ewal~ - - ~ocm ~ ianCe memo ~ =-~*_in~ compl.~ _~r" in the B=bcOCk~ ~., staI:. _~nce 4, ~u~..~n~ ,,lowerxng ~ __~eatiOnS . ntence o. _ ~cense aPP~--~ was w~ xn se .-- three ~- ~ memoran~ _~ ~fu~u), .... ended m°vx~--de since ~'t'~ *o $318.~ ~- NvbeCk r~9~entS were~ina (Sub~eo~ - to~a, Co~end aPPr°~al ~ They were p~ and ~rly's M~nneto~a Marina' M~nne d to re . change, ~ntalS of ~_.~. seconde .... w~thout _. ~-~nstone mY-__.~ reneWa~ -~= te cries ~ and B, a~ MoTIOn. ~'e dock lxCe~=~ o in ca g lighting the multXP~ - --afl mere , ._~in~ to - - +~e 2/28/99_ su_~ff memo rex~ outlined on ~,- wal of tne_~.d changeS- .' ~sc~sszo~: .._~ z, ~Z~Zs cO th~ __~nnSton~ . _ ~uggest~ _ --~ 6 ~'~ ~PPlic ~ ~elt t ~ i~ co~tac~_~ . _ ants i~ i~ .h__ WOuld .... '~g the · . ~ an~e ~ __ ~ enewal. ~. 02 . '?Vus rot Do,k_--_ ~u[nance . ~a~ ' ~- 1, 3, &~ an~ Nooring~e~g to Shot--. Preve,~ 2"uzCated ~= - ~ ~==u COde - . M~I~..' ~ltles re~_~ POses t~- t~- ~' JOhnst~._ ~CZng to th_~e amen~ _ "~ a~ended ~_*~?~ ~OVed. m .... "= ~wo and f~t~ to _ ~ul~a~ce ai ~rCyka Seco-~ - ... ~ZB~BBZON. . ~ Presented. ,~ue~ to recom,~_~ CWo an f-- ' rOSter _ .... ~=~u ~iDa~;._uur boat .~es=lO~ed ~__~ ~. '~ of _ ', ... . ~?ck outline~ ~ through a~ o,,~n~= have ~;.~fe?= ~e 1) A hou~ f~ur boat i'~, ~hanges dra-~-~ - ~ an easement~ ~) One hou~ ~ . u riparian ~;_~lalnedr WOuld affe~. OUtlo~ a?Uses th.2- coats. ~ co a ripar~.- sh~--t,w°uld be -~= are dire,+~. '"~ OUtlot ~ a~ded that existi e~ 50 feet 8a~°ck asked ng sites Will be ~'-"urather da+~°rded for ~i ~ers if ~=~ "' as a ~ how ~e V~: No ;~_ hole and w ~CD wants _ t~,~ carried ~.=_ hat ~hould the :aUCock disc- ~ers, 3/7/95 ~uUres, Stand- ~tentio- __USsed the ~,~ SUbco~itte ~ds and · , a= this ~=_ ~/' SUbco~,~ e review. ~ea Mark,,.. zzanges to ~- ~za the ~us Was - - -'-~ :or ~e City of -- --'= ufa ft. ',nance. ~: certain o- -~_ "ayzata,s Pos' · tina ~_ ~.felt th~.~' =ne citv~ .... . ~. -- sOr~we.~ _ , ~uu ~ad h~-_ '~cts .~_l -'~zClals -- .=ne last ~...ikaSSociat~ i'=~z estab~;_C!'?ar Lakew.~C ~-z ~or the --~'~g there ~__=~so said ~ -es, th~ tamaler WATER STRUCTURES cOMMITTEE, MINUTES, 3/11/95, PAGE 7 or the business community which would directly benefit. He does not believe the city has B/N Railroad authorization for the crossing at Broadway St. (by Sunsets Restaurant-) · ad talked with Wayzata city Administrator Strommen mentioned he h_ ' s enerally in favo~ of the A10rsen. Orsen reported the city i_=~_A ~--lude long-term · ncerns. -~-n~= ~..~ . --Uewalk but it has some co . - .... arkin" be impacted ~=~ who the users will be, now w~ w ~ Boat maintenance, · ate conflict among the different users. _ for the and will it cre .... ~_.~e~ as a revenue sourc~ storage fees are under =on~---On Lakewalk. · 'tree views putting restrictions on the PUD Babcock said the ~gmmI ~ .... or use and charging user fees. rocess which woul~.pron~_~d~_..~e have the proper MarKus a~eu u~= ~2f._~_~%. ~orthern Rallroa~. authorization zrom ~urx~,.~ ...... Johnstone noted there has been no communication from Wayzata's elected officials. He recommended.discussions with city officials soon while the ordinance is still in its draft form. Babcock felt it would be in the LMCD's best interest to draft a pUD ordinance but not adopt it until a project is before the LMCD. Partyka recommended concentrating on drafting ordinance changes to the process portion of the PUD draft. The committee concurred. Johnstone directed staff to write a letter to the city of Wayzata encouraging a joint meeting in the near future to discuss the PUD ordinance. S. ]~44itional Business- Minnetonka Boat Works 1995 Lioense Renewal &n~ Pen~ing License Conditions- Strommen reported that Minnetonka Boat Works (MBW) staff advised their Orono dock facility is to have the beaded polystyrene foam dock flotation material completed by 4/30/95. The LMCD ordinance deadline is 4/15/95. He also pointed out that the Wayzata facility is still assessing their 1995 amenities to prepare acceptable replacements for the meeting room and restaurant, Sasha's closing in 1994. MBW staff is not sure on how they will be handling the removal of the nine temporary low water variance slips out beyond 200' which were to be removed by a further one-year extension in 1994 due to a financial hardship. The committee remphasized these slips need to be removed as directed in spring, 1995. The committee directed LMCD counsel to write a strong letter to the MBW outlining the conditions of their multiple dock renewal emphasizing the removal of these nine slips. C&rlson Real Bstate Co. ~&rian~e Or,er. Foster called attention to the 3/8/95 letter sent to all board members from Chuck Dayton, Carlson Real Estate Co., appealing the Board's decision to WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 3/11/95, PAGE 8 included: -' ~ ~-uo ewtena 200, from sho~e. Co~t~'c~zanc- * The basis ~ ..... - ents ~ approving 24~ sl' due to the ove~ ~ .... }ps rather than 3 ~ ' - members ~o~-*~"t~ ~o=~ sgruc=ure size. Sore ~ s}~ps was * a~ ~ ..... = *~=~ uut that boat ~ = .... e committee , ~j__~" nas_re.be conducted. -*~ ~- =nat bay was an iss ~uy=on analysis f~- = ...... ue. ~ justifying 32~ sllps at the north Uock site draws upon examples which are not relevant to this Site. Dayton,s letter requested their concerns be presented to the board in March. Method of Measuring Shoreline Frontage for Boat Storage. Future property developments around the lake prompted a discussion ~n how. shoreline frontage should be counted. Lagoons and can -in certain properties could subject the lake to extra . als boat density potential as such re e ' ' -ordlna asked to locate the ~ ........ ~ P tries re-develo . ~ ~m~ea options for -~ ..... ~__ ~- S~aff was presented by LeFevere around 1989 for re-evaluation. --~ng s~oreline ADJOUP~~ Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 am. FOR THE COMMITTEE Douglas E. Babcock Chair Gregory S. Nybeck Administrative Tech~ician ITEM RECEWEO Z t) lg95 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting: 5:30 P.M., Tuesday, March 14, 1995 Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Tom Reese, Mound; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; 3De Zwak, Greenwood; Gene partyka, Minnetrista; EuGene Strommen, Executive Director; Gregory Nybeck, Administrative Technician 1. 1994 Boat Density Survey review with MN DNR Senior Planner Tim Kelly. Chair Foster introduced Tim Kelly, DNR Senior Planner, to discuss the 1994 8oat Density Survey- Foster encouraged committee members to participate in this discussion. Kelly identified the methodoloGY used in this survey. He reported 13 aerial observations were performed on weekends from 5/30 to 8/21. The 42 bays of Lake Minnetonka were divided into three geographic areas. Flight times were approximately 2 1/2 hours long between the times of 13:40 and 16:15 on these 13 dates. Counts of the boats were performed by both a pilot and an observer using hand-held tally counters. Dave Dotzenroth and Bob Meentz, who were the pilot and the observer in these flights, estimated the accuracy of the boat counts to within 99 ~. The boats counted ranged from wake boats to non-wake boats to fishing boats to Personal Watercrafts (pWC). Kelly added that three off-peak hour flight were conducted as part of the methodology. Discussion took olace between the committee and Kelly, Dotzenroth, and Meentz. Among the topics discussed were: 1) Effectiveness of the methodology used. 2) Historical Comparison of Number of Boats ranging from 1984 to 1994. 3) Reviewed the sources of boats. 4> Discussed the effect PWC's have on the density of the lake. 5) public accesses being provided on private properties. Kelly, Dotzenroth, and Meentz concluded that: 1) There has not been a significant increase of boat usage and size from 1984 to 1994. 2) A maximum 36~ of the boats on Lake Minnetonka are from rioarian owners. 3) The methodology used was the best yet for this study. 4) The lake is currently 10 acres / boat. Dotzenroth added that actual boat density has increased in some popularly-used lake areas over the years. He added while the number of boats has not increased over the years, the presence of Eurasian Water Milfoil in Lake Minnetonka has actually decreased the total number of useable acres of water on Lake Minnetonka. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, 3/14/9S, p. 2 The committee was complimentary of the 1994 Boat Density Survey. Reese recommended staff Prepare a synopsis of the results of this report to be published in the local papers. MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded to recommend that staff, with the assistance of the DNR, write a synopsis of the 1994 Boat Density Survey emphasizing the boat density of the lake to be published in the local papers. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Additional Business. John Lambdin, owner of Queen Excelsior and Queen Excelsior II, requested approval regarding liquor licenses for the Queen Excelsior and Queen Excelsior II. Strommen recommended approval of both licenses, subject to investigation for any liquor related violations of the applicants by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol and the South Lake Police Department. MOTION: Reese moved, Bloom seconded to recommend approval of the liquor licenses for Queen of Excelsior and Queen of Excelsior II, subject to investigation by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol and the South Lake Police Department. VOTE: Ayes (5), Abstain (1, Grathwol); Motion carried. 2. Consideration of restrictions on charter boats in bays with critical density problems, including Carsons Bay. Foster outlined the staff memo regarding restrictions on charter boats in bays with critical density problems. He encouraged feedback from committee members. Bloom suggested no formal action on restricting charter boats in bays with critical density problems. He encouraged writing a Positive letter to all charter boat owners encouraging them to cooperatively comply with issues outlined in the 3/6/95 staff memo Presented to the committee. Grathwol concurred with Bloom that an informal letter encouraging charter boats owners to cooperate with these restrictions would be most effective method of addressing this issue. The committee directed staff to write an informal letter to charter boat owners encouraging them to comply with the restrictions outlined in the staff memo. 3. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol: a. Significant Activity Report- the February report was accepted by the committee. /101 LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, 3/14/95, P. 3 b. Additional Business- there was no additional business. 4. ~dditional Business Dotzenroth expressed a concern with the committee regarding garbage and litter buildup during the ice fishing season. He commented he has picked up garbage and litter several times over the years. He suggested the LMCD needs to address this. The committee acknowledged there is a problem and discussed possible ways to address it. The committee discussed how the DNR regulates ice fishing house permits on Lake Minnetonka. The committee suggested addressing the litter and garbage problem by requiring a deposit paid by the applicants to pay for the cleanup. The committee directed staff to contact the DNR to explore whether a deposit agreement would be feasible to assist in the cleanup of Lake Minnetonka. Staff was to report on this at the next meeting. 5. Ad3ournment. The meeting was ad3ourned at 6:45 P.M. FOR THE COMMITTEE Albert O. (Bert) Foster Chair Gregory S. Nybeck Administrative Technician IIo - SURVEY FOR: Mr. Bill Niccum SITE PLAN AND DOCK LOCATION DESCRIPTION: SETON VlEV, City of Mound Hennepin County, Minnesota o Denotes Iron Monuments Found I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date~_~zi~ llth day~uly, 1991. M/~e)ota Licens,~o. ~2~7 JAN 1 11995 .t (612) 421-9126 RECEIVED MAR 0 1995 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Save the Lake Advisory Con~nittee Minutes 5:00 pm, Thursday, March 2, 1995 LMCD Conference Rm 160, Norwest Bank Bldg. PRESENT: Co-Chair Bob Pillsbury, Alice Bronstad, Len Kopp, Frank Mixa, Executive Director Gene Strommen MINUTES REVIEW. Minutes of the meeting of 2/2/95 were accepted as presented. DRAFT BUDGET. Strommen reported the LMCD board's adoption of the preliminary budget which reported $33,500 in revenue, of which $27,000 is projected from mail contributions, $4,500 interest and $2,000 other. Expenses were projected at: Administrative Public Safety Public Service Education/Public Info. $3,500 8,000 1,000 21,000. $33,500 The Education/Public Information section contains $18,200 for Reserve for New Proposals. Funds spent from this section must receive prior board approval since the items are not designated at this time. The New Projects Provision of Public Safety totaling $3,000 is also subject to prior board approval. The committee was encouraged to have a head start on the 1995 budget. CIVIC ORGANiZATIONS/BUSINESS ROSTERS. Alice Bronstad submitted an updated list of Lake Minnetonka area civic clubs and organizations which might be attracted to undertake Save the Lake action programs. Business lists were included from chamber of commerce membership rosters for Excelsior, Wayzata and Westonka conmmunities. ACTION GROUP PROGRAM PROGRESS: a. Divers Lake Bottom Clean Up. Bob Pillsbury will co-chair this program with Frank Mixa. The Excelsior Park Tavern will be the headquarters site again. LMCD staff will reserve the space for Sunday, June 11, a week earlier than 1994 avoiding a Father's Day. conflict. b. Restaurant Place Mat. A contact with one printer resulted in their finding this not an attractive program to sell place mats for restaurants for Save the Lake. In their experience, this would require a person SAVE THE LAKE, MINUTES, 3/2/95, p. 2 willing to sell the lake environment and benefits of helping to improve it. Most restaurants are locked in to their own printers and buy little printing as a rule. A message needs to be developed with accompanying art and then a group enlisted to undertake this promotion if it is to be developed. Water Clarity Lake Monitoring. Contact with LMLOA was initiated by phone to their president, Marcia Michalik, according to Strommen, but no reply has been received. this program is due to start in May. Further contact is needed. Lake Ice Clean-Up. Stuart Frick offered a plan for he and interest fishing friends to clean-up litter left on the ice from ice fishing activity. Wayzata, Grays and parts of Browns Bay would be tried this year, weather permitting. Frick has incentive support from his employer, Norwest Bank Wayzata. He requested public identification as a result of the effort The committee was in full support. · LMCD SLIDE PROGRAM. Alice suggested she may be able to interest a college graduate student to consider this. The sample program shown by the MCWD in February was a good starting example. FUND RAISING PREPARATIONS. A review of the 1994 contributors is needed to eliminate non-contributors, Strommen reported. New names will be needed to supplant those dropped due to no response for the past three to five years. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 pm. ' Respectfully submitted, Executive Director ETONKA coNSERVAT~O~ DISTR~CT RECTORS MEETING C~~ ~00~hnstone cm%%ed the ~eeting to order at 7: O0 A.M- a, ja~eS Gra~hWOl, chair u ..... rista; Tom ..~netO~ ' ~innet _~.~ ?ar~; ~nLL C~ ----t: ~' ~'~--nwOOd; Gen~_~. Doug ~a~ ~lSO ~i~r: joe ~i_i-& BascoP,_ ~ suerth, "~,~o~en; Bees~L~asson, 'ru~'CD Counsel, - ~ charles , . _ nici~n- Minneto~m _ =_~stat~We Tech -. Mike Blo~, OrOnO has ----~ers ~se-~_--let, Victoria, .__ &~. craig ~o~__. ~_, pos~tXo?._ ~irector Bea~, ~-~-d me~ . _ ~nm~-~ ~cuti~ ,~ro~en e __u waterSh. _~fortS an .... to fill_ ~{nne~an~. _~ Rtro~''.. ~ ~ a u---. _~_a him w~- ' johnStO~e.~vo~en' s u~- - --~th OOSltl~ _ ..ears · -= he leaves .~on for n~na1 staz~=t~ aoal ~ his new puSltl0~ . _- ~ovea th~S ch plans. ~ a searu- -- a nde item nextL_- H · electing a n=w _x this age .... ~ o~ess -~ ~ serving o~ encouraged any board me. er interested in co~ittee to contact him after this board meeeting. ' . r him to assist in the _ :~ 4e iS possible f~ .... ~ chosen? . asked ~tro~en_l~ *-.v. ~irector w~n. Ul~_~_in~ the new training ~ ~"~ ---e time couxu ~ -i _~. interfere ~".~"i. stro~en aq~ee~ =~'as lon~ as it ~0e~ ~--?z.d there is nerfo~ance of.hl~_ -.--~ck and =o a~-~- - ~O update and train -x~ ' ' es. ~rior~t~ - -~---tor, te~s- .. __ = _ ._~-.4~ executive ~A~ =-~-~m exeCu~xw~ ..... t O~ Xnu~A-- -- --~ of the ~-- - .... ~ ~DDOX~ ~ ~e anDOiB=~enu _ . ~.4~v. ohnstone e~lal __ .~fectlve 4.30 P- __ ~. interim exe johnstone lnw%u=~-= director appolBt~enu. --'"~' 3/10/95, ~. 2 S~O~en ~ec°gnized a ' . havin? a so ned gras atlve e~=uuclve dir~_~a'' ~cO~ed t~ -- ector. · ~uor effe . ~ ~oint ~ZBCUBBzON= .. ctlve 4:30 ~ _ Grego~ S. ~estion i~ ~Glasso~ e~- .... ~'~- on 4/7/95. 9 ~a~-tlme' ~ l~ea of the exec . ~bCock SUDD ~ ~_ Utlve di=ector recent =w___~ =o~e~ted h~.~=i~."yuec~ as , O assls ~e su Y ck in S _ t NYbeck in *~=- ggested hiri.- - trO~en~s ~wak su~por+ .... ~,~s pos/t/on. "~ ~ COnsultan -*"= Ulrector. - - *'~a'=l~e ra~er than a Dart-t/me ~tr°~en agreed w' ~ believes ~ ~th MCGlasso~ ~ .... ~assures. --= =ae rasponsibi~as do occ~. ~ee~e asked about Fra~ Mixa~s · s assast ~Ybeck. ~ ava~ ~=Y to ad~es inter~. _. eu the 9oin~ ~ .- . the WOrkl~ r · ' =xecutive dire~~ mYneck,s combe- - =or. w nsa=ion in _ ~tr?~e~ rec ~ .... the rol= as period =omn~=u?ed that the aDpointme_~~==e With 5 1~2 ___~u~ COnsider N ~ _ ~""~a~lit~e~ ._== nsat~on ad4,,_~_ ~ at the 4/7/-- .v~=_ . - ~,,u extende~ .... ~umen~ be ma~_ i meet' ~ ~wuse~ mak' . __ lng and dis ..... lng the a= the 3/22;o= ~S}ng =ompensa ~m ~PPolntment . Mc ''"-oara meeting. ~Zs:djustments ,n~p1. board Glasson and ~ - One asked Str~-- n~r iSSues on an ' ~esse e r ~en,s · __ ~nterim b~-=- ~ essed co .... advice. ~xecutive ~_ ~As.and the .~_-~rns in ,..~ or ls a~pointed this would hav~beck~s ~ay eck Welc-- - when a new ector, ume~ the challenge of serving as interim executive TE= Ayes (7), Nayes (2, MCGlasson, Reese); MOtion carried. TAMES HENRY BAER PROFILE Extensive sales and management experience with demonstrated ability to develop new accounts and maintain ex/sting customers. Key areas of responsibility include budget development and administration, prepar/ng/presenting bids and specifications, and personnel management. Results-oriented, consistently meets personal and corporate objectives. EXPERIENCE SUMMARY MANAGED SERVICES, INC. 1984 to Present Vice President of Marketing - In charge of sales, marketing and advertising for start-up division. -Develop leads for HVAC and water treatment; prepare bids for window, Janitorial, and special services contracts; present bids to property management companies and building owners. - Hire and train managers. - Purchase vehicles and manage maintenance program. PROFESSIONAL WINDOW AND HOUSE CLEANING 1979 to 1984 Vice President - Prepared and presented bids for large-scale commercial and office building Janitorial, window and specialty contracts. - Developed detailed specifications and procedures for personnel and equipment. - Obtained contracts on 20 U.S. government office buildings in 11 states; generated btl]~ngs of $3 mlll~on in one year. - Developed and administered annual budgets. CHARLES HALL AND ASSOCIATES 1975 to 1979 Operations Manager - Managed 860,000 sq. ft. of commercial space in downtown Minneapolis.. - Negotiated subcontracting of HVAC, Janitorial, exterminating, snow removal and major repairs. - Hired, trained and supervised maintenance crew. - Directed installation of electronic energy conservation systems. - Participated in budget preparation. ]tAMES HENRY BAER PAGE TWO IDS CENTER 1970 to 1975 Building Superintendent - Responsible for supervising, training and conducting staff evaluations; managed 4 supervisors and more than I00 janitorial and maintenance employees. - Liaison between building owners and tenants regarding maintenance and HVAC problems. EDUCATION ST. THOMAS COLLEGE - St. Paul, Minnesota Business Courses - 2 years UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA- Minneapolis, Minnesota Extension Division Real Estate Law and Real Estate Management Sales Motivation Course - A.C. Carlson MrLFFARY U.S. ARMY. Honorable Discharge with rank of Specialist 4. ASSOCIATIONS Association of Minnesota Contract Cleaners REFERENCES Available upon request. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION March 13, 1995 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, and Ed Surko, City Council Representative Mark Hanus, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. The following Commissioners were absent and excused: Bill Voss, Lisa Crum, Becky Glister, and Jerry Clapsaddle. The following people were also in attendance: Ken and Sally Custer, Steve Bedell, Tom Latcham, and Jon and Justine Goode. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 1995 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 1995 with the amendment that Frank Weiland's absence should be listed as excused. Motion carried unanimously. CASE #95-07: KEN & SALLY CUSTER FOR GLASS PLUS, 5533 SHORELINF DRIVE, AUD. SUBD. #170, LOT 5 & P/6, PID 13-117-24 33 0076. CONDITIONAl USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING City Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed his Planning Report. The applicants are proposing to acquire the building and land now housing Arco Auto and Marine and operate a glass service and replacement business. According to information supplied by the applicant, they will lease space to Arco for the next 6 to 12 months. At the conclusion of the lease, the auto and boat repair business will relocate outside of the City of Mound. Arco is currently operating under a number of conditional use permits that date back to 1978. Minor auto repair businesses are allowed in the B-1 zone through the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Glass Plus is classified as a minor auto repair facility since they will provide on-site repair and replacement service for vehicle glass as well as other glass products. I!1. Planning Commission Minutes March I3, I995 Initially, Glass Plus is proposing to occupy approximately 38% of the interior building area and approximately 65% of the exterior area. It is their intent to clean up the building and property by removing existing trash and debris from the west lot. Future improvements may include remodeling of the front of the building, removal of portions of the existing fencing, and creating an expanded customer parking area. The scope of the future improvements is linked to the implementation of the Mound Vision plan which may result in the acquisition of all or a portion of the property. Presently, Glass Plus has three employees. They do on-site and off-site vehicle glass replacements as well as residential and commercial glazing for houses, apartments, offices and shopping centers. During the winter months, most of the vehicle replacement work will be completed inside the building rather than at the customer's location. The retail component of their business includes the sales of mirrors, shower doors, and custom ordered glass. The proposal by Glass Plus to occupy the Arco building should improve the appearance of the overall area. In structuring a new Conditional Use Permit for the property, the permit language needs to include the establishment of the Glass Plus operation and the phasing out of Arco Auto and Marine. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Glass Plus contingent on the following conditions: Permit conditions pertaining to Glass Plus and Arco shall be applicable to the respective interior and exterior areas as shown on Exhibits A and B. All previously allowed uses and conditions of approval for Arco Auto and Marine including but not limited to those identified in Resolutions 89-42, 89-1, and 78-488 shall remain in effect but shall apply only to the area occupied by the Arco business as shown on Exhibits A and B. o All previously allowed uses and conditions resulting from prior City Council resolutions and/or "grandparent" rights for Arco Auto and Marine shall become null and void, one year after the date of City Council adoption of the resolution approving the conditional use permit for Glass Plus. At that time, the allowable uses and conditions identified in the Conditional Use Permit for Glass Plus will apply to the entire property. 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 4. All signage for Glass Plus shall conform to the Mound Sign Ordinance. Prior to initiating any improvements to the property, the Glass Plus owners shall prepare a detailed improvement plan identifying removals of fencing and other items and clearly denoting all proposed improvements. The improvement plan shall be approved by City staff prior to implementation. All proposed interior and exterior building improvements shall comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. The Glass Plus owner shall keep the Building Official apprised as to the status of site contamination and required clean-up efforts. Overnight parking for Glass Plus company vehicles shall be within the building or fenced areas. 9. All service work performed by Glass Plus shall occur within the building. 10. Outside storage for Glass Plus shall be expressly prohibited. All trash and recycling containers shall be in conformance with City ordinance requirements. Mueller addressed the issue of signage, and Koegler confirmed that the building could have signage facing both Commerce Blvd. and Auditor's Road. Koegler noted that this site is probably close to 100% impervious right now, and it is highly unlikely that any change they would promote would have any impact on that, or that there would be any shoreland variance required. The DNR's position and the City's are the same in that if a property is currently at 100% hardcover, and they are proposing to do something that does not change hardcover, we do not require a variance. A number of the conditions were reviewed, and the intent was clarified by staff. Mueller confirmed with staff that Condition #9 could be amended to allow service work within a screened area (i.e. replacement of automobile windshields). Weiland is in favor of a sunset date for the previously allowed uses, as outlined in Condition #3, however expressed a concern about enforcement. 3 Planning Commission Minutes March I3, 1995 Koegler addressed how this property may be affected by the Mound Vision plan. He noted that the right-of-way plan for Auditor's Road shows acquisition of at least most of this property, if that happens, this particular business will be compensated in accordance with all of the rights and laws of the relocation requirements. There may be some potential that it might only be a partial taking and possibly a portion of the building may remain, but this remains to be seen. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being no°one present to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Applicant, Ken Custer, explained that the reason they do not have a specific site plan is in part due to the unknown locations of the monitoring wells which will be placed to test the contaminated soil. Relating to signage, the Mr. Custer explained that Arco will have a 4' x 6' sign and Glass Plus will have a 4' x 8' sign which, to the best of his knowledge, will conform to the code. Mr. Custer proceeded to explain the issue of the contaminated soils and the cost and methods for monitoring the soils. Mr. Custer confirmed that Mr. Cossette is okay with the conditions within the Planning Report. The applicant explained that they will need to install a drop box which is used for night deliveries of windshields, etc. The City Planner confirmed that the proposed lock box, as described is unobtrusive. The applicant offered information relating to the financing and purchasing of the building. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by staff, including all conditions, with the exception of the following amendments to those conditions: "4. All signage for Glass Plus shall conform to the Mound Sign Ordinance, taking into consideration that there are two street frontages for this buildina. 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 "5. Prior to initiating any improvements to the property, the Glass Plus owners shall prepare a detailed _site improvement plan . . . The site improvement plan shall be approved by City Staff prior to implementation." "7. The Glass Plus owner shall keep the Building official apprised as to the status of site contamination and required monitoring and clean-up efforts." "9. All service work performed by Glass Plus shall occur within the building or within screened areas" Outside storage for Glass Plus shall be expressly prohibited, unless properly screened. All trash and recycling containers shall be in conformance with City ordinance requirements." MOTION seconded by Weiland. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council at a Public Hearing on April 11, 1995. CASE #95-08: JONATHAN & JUSTINE GOODE, 5116 EDGEWATER DRIVE, L.P. CREVlER'S . .., LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PID 13-117-2442 0002. VARIANCE FOR SECONO STORY ADDITION. The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a 24' x 32' second floor addition that will follow the existing footprint of the main portion of the dwelling, not including the front porch area. The lakeside deck is to remain as is. A new 4' x 8' deck is also proposed off the second floor. This property is located in the R-lA zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to the property line abutting Edgewater Drive, a setback of 6 feet to both side yards, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water of the lake. Hardcover is limited to 40% as a lot of record. The existing dwelling and garage are nonconforming to setbacks as listed below. GARAGE EXISTING/PROPOSED REQUIRED VARIANCE FRONT (S) 19.5' 20' .5' HOUSE EXISTING/PROPOSED REQUIRED VARIANCE SIDE (E) 3.2' (to deck) 6' 2.8' 5 Planning Commission Minutes March I3, 1995 None of the proposed improvements encroach further into the existing nonconforming setbacks, and hardcover is conforming. There are existing trees on the lakeside that adequately screen this site as viewed from the water. The second floor addition will enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status. The foundation on the dwelling appears to be in good condition and it is unlikely that it can reasonably be brought into a conforming condition. The garage was permitted to be constructed in it present location in 1984, and its encroachment is minimal. Staff Recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the existing nonconforming setback. Weiland does not agree with the statement within the staff report: "There are existing trees on the lakeside that adequately screen this site as viewed from the water." He questioned the location and ownership of the trees. The applicant's confirmed that a 10" elm tree was removed, and that the 14" +/- ash tree is on their property. Hanus questioned the need for screening since the existing and proposed construction meets the 50 foot lakeshore setback requirement. The Building Official noted that the statement addresses the DNR's concerns about screening. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the condition that water fiowage from the roof be contained within the site. Motion seconded by Weiland. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on March 28, 1995. CASE #95-09: STEVEN BEDELL, 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE, SKARP'S EAST LAWN. LOTS 1, 2, & 3, PID 13-117-24 ~.~. 0052. VARIANCE FOR SNACK SHOP TRAILER, City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his Planning Report. In June of 1994, the applicant submitted a variance request to establish a seasonal snack shop on the subject property. The information contained in the current application dated February 23, 1995 is the same information that was contained in the previous application dated June 24, 1994. In conversations with the owner of the property prior to the submission of the current variance application, Mr. Bedell was encouraged to include 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 any new information regarding the request or items that had changed since the previous review. Since no new information is included, it is assumed that the current request is identical to the 1994 proposal. The snack shop received a thorough review in 1994 by the City of Mound. That review included reports by the City Planner and City Attorney, and formal action by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The result of that review was a recommendation of denial by staff and a unanimous recommendation of denial by the City Council through the adoption of Resolution #94-109. Consistent with the actions taken by the City of Mound on this request in 1994, staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed variance consistent with the statement of facts and findings that were adopted within Resolution #94-109. Hanus questioned why a hawkers license is not valid for this situation? Koegler was unable to answer, however, recalled that it was deemed to be unapplicable. Hanus questioned, with respect to the two uses, the second use could potentially be a conforming use, where the existing use is nonconforming. There are many areas were two uses are allowed on the same property. He also referred to the fact that all residences are allowed a home occupation. Koegler noted that home occupations are not allowed to show visible signs of a business on the property. There are some provisions which allow two uses on a property and then there are some grandparented uses throughout the City. Koegler added that the snack shop is considered a new use, and direction from the City Council has not been received by staff to investigate how we can make this use work. If that is the case, staff would have to work with the attorneys to see how it can be done. Hanus asked about Netka's building which had an existing nonconforming rental unit upstairs when the new use for the arcade was approved. Koegler stated that he does not know why it was allowed to happen. Hanus doubted if a variance is the proper procedure to use, but recognizes there are nonconforming setbacks, etc. on the property. 7 Planning CommL~sion Minutes March 13, 1995 Applicant, Steve Bedell, indicated that someone within the City is going to have to take some initiative in order to approve his proposal. He does not feel his proposal is any different than other businesses existing within the City, such as Al & Alma's, Netka's building, Minnetonka Boat Rental who has a rental unit plus a retail business, and Chapman Place that has commercial docks. He will go through any process the City deems to be proper in order to get approval. None of the other B-2 zoned properties are conforming. Koegler clarified that the City Attorney's office has qualified that the snack shop is a "commercial use" which involves retail sales, therefore, the setbacks will apply as if this use were a structure. The DNR does not support the proposed setback, and asked that they at least honor 50 percent of the shore setback. Koegler continued to explain, the long term intent of the ordinance is to get these nonconforming properties to conform. Zoning is not an overnight proposition. Realistically, properties like this will continue to be as they are, in this case you have a home that appears to be in reasonable condition, but at some point it will deteriorate, and it will be necessary to do something else with the property, they will not be allowed to build another residential structure there. The most logical scenario is that if this piece is ever redeveloped to be conforming, it would have to be in concert with a larger redevelopment with that entire area. There are a lot of properties in this area that do not comply to the code, but that is why the code is here, it will try to bring all these areas into compliance, and it may take a larger scale comprehensive action for that to happen. Steve Bedell stated that this snack shop would be his introduction of a commercial use to this property. He is in the process of purchasing this property. Ideally, if this business is successful, the house would then come down, and he could see the demolition of other adjacent properties which his father owns and see a restaurant, townhomes, or something like that. He questioned why he is now required to comply with things such as hardcover and setbacks when none of the other businesses in the B-2 zone comply. Mueller explained that the "use" of the property is proposed to be changed, and because of the request to change the use, the nonconforming issues of this property need to be addressed, such as hardcover and setbacks. He commented that he may look at this request more favorably if a lake setback of 30 feet would be proposed for the snack shop and if some of the hardcover was reduced. He has no problem recognizing the nonconforming setbacks to the existing dwelling. He may be in favor of this application for the use of this facility, as a conforming use, if the variances are dealt with. 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Mueller noted that the property does not have direct access to an improved right-of- way, and questioned if this would require a variance. It was clarified that there is frontage on an improved right-of-way, however the access crosses over adjacent private property. It was questioned if there is an easement on file to allow for this access. Sutherland noted that the application of the Building Code would differ if there were employees for the snack shop. Steve noted that he is aware of the requirement that if there is an employee he needs to provide handicap access, however, the State has agreed to waive this requirement if he receives approval from the City of Mound. He noted that a precedence has been set by other similar types of businesses, like the snack trailer in Wayzata located in front of the old theater, and the ones used in the commons area in Excelsior. Mueller does not know of any other businesses in Mound which their only access is over a separate property. Mueller confirmed that the use of Retail Sales in the B-2 zone is a permitted use, but questioned what the requirements are for a retail site, such as, parking. Koegler confirmed that the required parking for a retail site is 1 space for 150 square feet of retail space, therefore, one parking stall would be required for this business. Mueller noted that the Planning Commission's action on the original request was to send it to the Attorney for an interpretation. The case, however, was never returned to the Planning Commission, it was sent directly on to the Council, and then denied. Mueller questioned if there are grade provisions for access drives, and questioned if this would be a requirement for a retail business. If the existing dwelling was converted to a retail use, what would the requirements be? Mueller referred to the letter dated July 21, 1994 from Craig Mertz, with the City Attorney's office, which refers to Section 350:420, Subd. 1. Mueller noted that this Section does not say that you cannot grant a variance to the use. Hanus also referred to Section 350:420, which states," ... therefore, nonconforming uses are not allowed to be expanded or intensified without the issuance of a variance." It is his interpretation that the nonconforming residential use is not being expanded, but the use which is being expanded is a "retail use" which is conforming and permitted in the B-2 zone. 9 Planning Commission Minutes March I3, I995 Koegler noted that his argument on the case, in the context of zoning, would be that you are introducing a second use which changes the use of the property and therefore is an intensification, and this was also the attorney's reaction and the Council's through passage of the resolution. The intensification is constituted by the second use, just as doubling the size of the home would be an intensification. Mueller would be in favor of this proposal if a timeline was developed to show that this property will eventually be converted to a conforming commercial use, and if criteria relating to a retail use is complied with, including setbacks, proper screening, driveway grade, proper curb cuts, driveway access, commercial parking lot requirements, etc. The Building Official confirmed that he had met with the applicant and owner of the property and suggested that they review the ordinance and the issues and areas they were nonconforming to and to try and figure out how they could make their proposal more conforming. Surko asked if the applicant would be willing to compromise to show a proactive effort in working towards creating more compliance. Mueller explained to the applicant that the City has required other applicants, in the past, to adhere to certain conditions in order to receive approval of their request, such as reverting hardcover back to green space, correct drainage issues, etc. It would help his vote if there is some type of compromise that would bring the property more in-line with respect to the change. It was Mueller's opinion that leaning toward a commercial use in a commercial zone is a good, and maybe sunset provisions will be necessary. MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Michael to recommend denial of the application as recommended by staff, consistent with the statement of facts and findings that were adopted within Resolution #94-109. Koegler confirmed that if the existing dwelling was converted to a retail use, it would be subject to all retail provisions of the code, but variances would apply. Mueller feels the variances should be addressed specifically, and is not in favor of the motion on the floor. Hanus agreed, and feels there are a number of variances that have not yet been identified or discussed, and the application has not been looked at completely. Weiland would concur, but wants to see new information submitted by the applicant. It was noted that maybe the applicant is not aware of all the variances needed, and maybe the request should be tabled instead of denied. Koegler stated that his original report targeted the main issues, however, got hung up on the uses. 10 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Sutherland noted that he suggested to the applicant to give some concessions to hardcover, the shoreland management ordinance, screening, and setbacks. He had also suggested that someone with some planning experience help them present their case. Hanus implied that the applicant may not have been informed of all the variances they have to deal with. What would be involved in order to allow this use? Koegler referred to a question on the variance application form as submitted by the applicant which specifically asks them to specify each nonconforming use and to describe. The information supplied by the applicant is not complete, and it is the same information as supplied in the original application. Koegler commented that his recommendation resulted from the strength of denial to the original request and the fact that nothing had changed. The applicant pleaded for direction. MOTION to deny was withdrawn by Surko and Michael. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Surko to table the request to allow the applicant time to work with staff on identifying the necessary variances in order to help alleviate nonconformities. Motion carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were: Surko, Weiland, Hanus, and Mueller. Michael was opposed. CASE #95-10: TOM & KATHY LATCHAM, 4711 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DEVON. LOT 3, BLOCK 7, PID 30-117-23 22 0051. VARIANCE FOR DECK & PORCH Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming garage and hardcover, in order to construct a deck that is conforming to setbacks. The proposed three season porch is within the existing footprint, and can be constructed without a variance. This area is a bluff, and the structure appears to be conforming to the bluff setback. This property is located in the R-lA zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to the property line abutting Island View Drive, and a setback of 6 feet to both side yards for the dwelling. Hardcover is limited to 40% as a lot of record. The existing dwelling is conforming to setbacks. The detached garage encroaches over the west side property line by .6 feet, it needs minor maintenance, but appears otherwise in good condition. 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 The applicant received a building permit is 1989 to build essentially the same deck, but was unable to construct it due to financial reasons. The ordinance has changed with respect to hardcover. A variance is required due to staff's interpretation of the nonconforming use section of the ordinance. The nonconforming hardcover will not be increased in this case, and there is substantial green space on the adjacent Devon Commons that reduces the negative impact of the excess impervious surface. There are mature trees on the lakeside that adequately screen this structure as viewed from the water. The Public Works Superintendent has noted there is a City utility easement that needs to be shown on the survey. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to recognize the nonconforming detached garage and impervious surface, in order to allow construction of the deck as noted on the attached survey dated 5-23-89. The existing garage is in good condition and is unlikely to be removed at this time. The proposed construction is conforming to setbacks and will enhance the use and function of the property. Approval is conditioned upon: Submittal of a revised survey that details the location of the City utility easement. No construction of the proposed deck shall be permitted within the easement. MOTION made by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the following conditions: The City Attorney review the issue relating to the garage encroachment. Any new construction onto the principal building be conforming to the Building Code. MOTION seconded by Surko. Motion carried unanimously. The applicant noted that he has a permanent easement on file for the garage encroachment, and he will supply the City with a copy. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on March 28, 1995. 12 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 13