The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-05-26CITY OFMOUNDMI~qSIONSTATEMENT~ The city of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. MOUND CITY COUNCIL LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW- RECONVENED 7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW Hennepin County Assessor Keith Rennerfeldt will be present. He will have recommendations regarding the taxable market values from the Board of Review of May 12, 1992. The Council will take action on the total assessment at this time. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FOLLOWING THE RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW, MAY 26, 1992 CITY COUNCHJ CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 1992 REGULAR MEETING AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES OF MAY 19, 1992 CASE #92-011: JACK & JOAN RONNING, 1717 FINCH LANE, LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 13, DREAMWOOD, PID ~13- 117-24-130048. VARIANCE - ADDITION CASE #92-013: PHILIP DAVIS, 1701 GULL LANE, LOTS 1, 2, & PART OF 3, BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117 24 13 0041· VARIANCE - RAISE SECOND STORY ROOF. CASE ~92-014: STEVEN & TAMARA HICKS, 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18- 117 23 31 0006· V]%RIANCE - ~DDITION PG. 1428-1434 PG. 1435-1451 PG. 1452-1465 PG. 1466-1487 1425 e CASE #92-015: JEFF McMURRAY, 5070 BAYPORT ROAD, PARTS OF LOTS 8 & 9~ BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY MILLS UNIT D, PID 24 117 24 12 0049. VARIANCE - DECK. PG. 1488-1500 CASE #92-016: DAVID WISNEWSKI, 1932 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 9 & PART OF 8, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 18-117-23 23 0069. VARIANCE - ADDITION & DECK PG. 1501-1519 CASE #92-017: JEFF VINT, 3367 WARNER LANE, LOT 64 IN WHIPPLE SHORES AND LOT 1, BLOCK 12 IN DOUGLAS, PID #25-117-24 24 0056· MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE PG. 1520-1542 CASE #92-018: MARK & LIZABETH BUSSEY, 3015 HIGHVIEW LANE, LOT 13, BLOCK 4, THE BLUFFS, PID #22-117-24 44 0035· VARIANCE - DECK & SCREEN PORCH. PG. 1543-1557 10. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 11. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS: REQUEST TO BUILD A STAIRWAY BY MIKE ROY, 4577 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. PG. 1558-1572 12. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS: REQUEST TO BUILD A STAIRWAY BY ROGER STEPHANSON, 4601 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. PG. 1573-1581 13. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS: REQUEST TO BUILD A STAIRWAY BY MARK GOLDBERG, 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. PG. 1582-1604 14. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS FROM DEAN HANUS, 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. PG. 1605-1627 15. REQUEST FOR A SECOND EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION #91-71, MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR FRANK DREY, WESTWOOD, BLOCK 2, LOT 3. PG. 1628-1637 16. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING CODE MODIFICATION SUGGESTED DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 17. APPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SIGN, AMERICAN LEGION, FOR MOUND CITY DAYS STEAK FRY PG. 1638 18. PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 1639-1647 19. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Financial Report for April 1992 as prepared by John Norman. PG. 1648-1649 B. Planning Commission minutes of May 11, 1992 PG. 1650-1659 1426 Ce Ee F® Park Commission minutes of May 14, 1992 PG. 1660-1670 Economic Development Commission Minutes of April 16, 1992. PG. 1671 Notice from Community Education and Services of the annual "Certificate of Compliance" meeting to be held Monday, June 8, 1992 at 7 PM, at the Westonka Community Center, 5600 Lynwood Blvd. (School Board Meeting Room) PG. 1672 LMCD mailings PG. 1673-1699 1427 May 12, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review convened in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City on May 12, 1992, at 7:00 PM. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, Hennepin County Assessor Keith Rennerfeldt and Hennepin County Appraiser Bill Davy. Mayor Johnson opened the Board of Review and explained that this meeting is to give property owners a chance to question the value placed on their property by the County Assessor as of January 2, 1992. He explained that each person would be heard and the Board of Review will reconvene Tuesday, May 26, 1992, at 7:00 PM and bring back their final decision on each property. The following persons responded to the call to be heard either in person, by calling and asking to have their name submitted, or by submitting their concerns in writing. They all asked to have the value of their property rechecked because they felt it was too high. 1. PID #24-117-24 11 0019 - RUTH SEGNER, 2541 WEXFORD LANE PID #13-117-24 34 0062 - HELEN L. WOLNER, (LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD) PID #24-117-24 43 0034 - MELVIN ZUCKMAN, 2909 BRYANT AVE. SO., MPLS., MN. 55408 (5012 TUXEDO BLVD.) PID #13-117-24 33 0082 - MASONIC LODGE P.O. BOX 232, MOUND, MN. 55364 (2372 COMMERCE BLVD.) VERN SCHWALBE 5. PID #14-117-24 31 0035 - PAUL BROWN, 6234 CLOVER CIRCLE 6. PID #13-117-24 34 0017 - ROBERT HORTSCH, 5226 LYNWOOD BLVD. PID #13-117-24 12 0023 - PAUL KASTER, 2600 CASCO PT. RD. (1672 EAGLE LANE) PID #24-117-24 44 0215 - PAUL KASTER, 2600 CASCO PT. RD. (4831 DALE ROAD) 69 e 10. 11. 12. PID #19-117-23 23 0123 PID #19-117-23 24 0069 PID #13-117-24 31 0073 PID #19-117-23 13 0025 0090 0129 #19-117-23 24 0060 May 12, 1992 - BOB NYGAARD, 4785 LAGOON DR. (LAKEWINDS CONDOS) - LOIS SIMMONS, 35 PLEASANT LANE E. TONKA BAY, MN. 55331 (4407 WILSHIRE BLVD., F203) - CLARK L. PETERS 2146 NOBLE LANE 13. PID #13-117-24 31 0075 - TED FOX - LAKEWINDS #Al09 1.0 - RONALD POTAS, 2128-2130 CEDAR LANE MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith, to reconvene the (Local Board of Review on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, at 7:00 PM, in the City Council chambers at 5341 Maywood Road. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL MAY 12, 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 12, 1992, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Building Official Jon Sutherland, Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, and the following interested citizens: Jim Kuehn, Mark Hanus, and Richard Olexa. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.1 MINUTES Councilmember Jensen asked that a correction be made on page 59, " . and put the new ~-~- line 5, ........... blocks up." MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve the minutes of the April 28, 1992, Regular Meeting, as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 70 May 12, 1992 1.2 CASE NO. 92-009 & 92-010: RICHARD OLEXA, 6607 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 9 & W 1/2 OF LOT 10, HALSTED HEIGHTS, PID ~22-117-24 43 0012, MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCES The Building Official explained that the utility easement for water have been obtained from Mr. Olexa. He further stated that the Council has'two options at this point with regard to the extension of Halsted Ave: Require and easement or right-of-way for Halsted Ave. and request the City Engineer to examine the area and formulate recommendations on the location and size of such easement. OR Affirm the original staff and Planning Commission recommendation which does not require the applicant to provide land for a future street at this time, however, it does stipulate that Mr. Olexa is required to demonstrate that sufficient land will be available to create conforming lots should the extension of Halsted Ave. occur in the future. The Building Official stated that the second option is covered in the proposed resolution. The Council agreed. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-51 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND A VARIANCE FOR A LOT WITH NO STREET FRONTAGE AT 6607 & 6609 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 9 AND W 1/2 OF LOT 10, HALSTED HEIGHTS, PID %22-117-24 43 0012, P. & Z CASE %'S 92-009 & 92-010 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.3 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $313,374.93, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADD-ON'S 71 1.4 PORTABLE SIGN APPLICATION May 12, 1992 The City Manager explained that people raising money for the Senior Class Party have requested a portable sign permit advertising a garage sale to help fund the senior class party. The sign would be at the Pond Arena from May 12-16, 1992. They are also requesting waiving the fee of $12.00. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to approve a Portable Sign Permit Application for Terry Wood, to raise money for the senior class party, at the Pond Arena, from May 12-16, 1992. The permit fee of $12.00 to be waived. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 OFF SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING APPLICATION The City Clerk explained that this is for the Northwest Tonka Lions to have an off site gambling permit for the Pond Arena in conjunction with Mound City Days, June 20, 1992. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-52 RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 PRESENTATION OF 1992 FINANCIAL AUDIT AS OF DECEMBER 31m 1991 - GARY GROEN, ABDO, ABDO & EICK The 1991 Audit was presented by Gary Groen of Abdo, Abdo & Eick and Finance Director John Norman. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-53 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT OF 1991 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS ae B. C. D. Department Head Monthly Reports for April 1992. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for April 1992. Planning Commission Minutes of April 27, 1992. LMCD mailings. 72 Fe He 1.7 May 12, 1992 1992 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) Annual Meeting, will be held Wednesday, May 20, 1992, Radisson Hotel, St. Paul. Per our settlement with Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS - Sergeants), we received a letter of resignation from Sergeant Brad Roy who has been with the City of Mound for 29 1/2 years. Letter from local residents to Jon Sutherland, Building Official, thanking him for his assistance during their recent variance request. REMINDER: Annual Parks Tour - Thursday, May 21, 1992. REMINDER: LMC Annual Conference is scheduled for June 9-12, 1992, Bloomington. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to adjourn into Executive Session at 9~10 P.M. to discuss a matter in litigation, Dakota Rail. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council returned at 9:20 P.M. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 9:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 73 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MAY 19, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen, Ken Smith. Also present: Mark Koegler, City Planner; Ed Shukle, City Manager and Jim Kuehn a local resident. Mark Koegler, City Planner, addressed the Council on the issue of accessory structures as they pertain to the shoreland management ordinance. The consensus of the Council was as follows with regard to this issue: Phyllis Jessen indicated that she did not wish to see boathouses on shoreland. Ken Smith said he was "torn" and doesn't know with regard to boathouses. Mayor Skip Johnson indicated that he did not want to see any boathouses or structures, that aesthetics were important, perhaps lock boxes could be placed on shoreland to contain articles for safe keeping. Andrea Ahrens said she is "not set" on this issue. She thinks gazebos, decks, patios, etc., should be permitted because we are a lake community. Liz Jensen indicated that she is not in favor of boathouses or structures on shoreland and possibly they could be set back from the shoreline. The general consensus was that decks should be built at grade, if they are built and could be allowed within a 50 foot setback. All other structures would not be permitted within the 50 feet and would have to be set back more than 50 feet. The city planner will bring this information back to the Planning Commission at its next work session. Skip Johnson requested that the Planning Commission take a look at the idea of driveway permits. Mark Koegler, City Planner, addressed the Council on the zoning modifications. The Council went through the minutes of the February 10th public hearing which indicated the major issues in the proposed zoning code amendments. More information was requested on lot sizes. This information will be brought back to the next Committee of the Whole meeting. The City Council agreed to establish the public hearing date on the zoning code amendments, that date is Tuesday, August 11, 1992 at 7:30 PM, Mound City Hall. "After the Fact" permits were discussed. The consensus was to have the building official present a complete summary of permit charges particularly as they pertain to "after the fact" situations. This information will be presented at the next Committee of the Whole meeting. The level of contribution to the Mound Volunteer Fire Relief Association Pension Program was discussed. More information will be discussed on this matter at the next Committee of the Whole meeting when the Council meets with the Fire Relief Pension Board. ASSESSOR A-2i03 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 May 26, 1992 Local Board of Review City of Mound Dear Board Members: As you requested, we have reviewed the 1992 Estimated Market Value on several properties in Mound. Those properties are listed below with their original 1992 EMV and a recommendation based on our review appraisal. Frank & Ruth Segner 2541 Wexford Lane 24-117-24-11-0019 Helen L. Wolner 13-117-24-34-0062 Melvin Zuckman 2909 Bryant Ave. S. 24-117-24-43-0034 Masonic Lodge P.O. Box 232 Mound MN 13-117-24-33-0082 Paul Brown 6134 Clover Circle 14-117-24-31-0035 Robert Hortsch 5226 Lynwood Blvd. Paul Kaster 1672 Eagle Lane 13-117-24-12-0023 Lois Simmons 35 Pleasant Lane E Tonak Bay MN 55331 19-117-23-24-0069 Original Local Board 1992 EMV Recommendation Action $71,500 $63,500 $72,000 $55,000 $138,000 $113,000 $155,000 $121,000 $106,900 No Change $110,000 No Change $30,400 $25,000 $34,400 No Change HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer Local Board of Review May 26, 1992 Page 2 Clark L. Peters 2146 Noble Lane 472-7440 13-117-24-31-0073 Ted Fox #A-lO9-Lakewinds 19-117-23-13-0025 -0090 -0129 19-117-23-24-0060 Ronald Potas 2128-30 Cedar Lane 13-117-24-31-0075 Original 1992 EMV $68,200 $33,500 $36,700 $42,900 $39,800 $99,400 Robert Nygaard #D-112 Lakewinds $31,500 Sincerely, --Keith M. Rennerfeldt Principal Appraiser KMR: bl Recommendation No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change $95,000 No Change Local Board Action MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MAY 19, 1992, CONT'D. The discussion on advisory commission appointments and reappointments was continued until the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Artwork for the City council chambers was continued until the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Discussion on the LMCD Lake Access Task Force was continued until the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Ed Shukle, City Manager, reported on the LMCD environment committee. Ed Shukle, City Manager, presented information with regard to a revised water shut off policy. He indicated that due to administrative costs in conducting the present water shut off program, it is necessary to take a look at changing how we deal with delinquent utility accounts. John Norman, Finance Director and Greg Skinner, Water and Sewer Superintendent, have recommended that the present system of turning water off when payment is not made should be eliminated and the City should go to an assessment program where assessments are made once a year on delinquent utility accounts. The Council consensus was to proceed with this policy. The city manager will present an amended ordinance and other information at a later date. The city manager reviewed with the Council the 1992 legislative session results. Upon motion by Smith, carried by Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. E~Sectfqlly submitted, City Manager ES:is RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION 1717 FINCH LANEt LOTS 7 & 8t BLOCK 13~ DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 13 0048 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-011 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 7.1' front yard setback and a .3' side yard setback to allow construction of a conforming addition; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the requested variance and unanimously recommended approval. The Planning Commission also adopted the following Finding of Fact: In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from the location of the existing structure over which the present owner of the property had no control and the proposed improvements will not intensify the existing nonconforming aspects 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 approve a variance recognizing a 7.1 foot front yard setback resulting in a 12.9 foot variance, and a .3 foot side yard setback resulting in a 5.7 foot variance to construct the proposed, conforming additions shown on the survey noted "Updated 4/21/92, J.A. Ronning, Owner, 1717 Finch Lane." 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code 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 23.404. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-011 · ivability of the residential It is dete~n~% t~ro~ ~y the auth°d~i~op°e~tvt~ property w~l ~__'~ = nonconforming use or ~= ~ ~ - following altera~un ~ ~ ~ ...... ~{ their lan~: ~ford the owners reasonaDl~ u== ~- Construction of a 16' x 24' second story addition on the west wing of the house and a 12' x 12' two story addition on the north side of the house. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 7 & 8, Block 13, Dreamwoo~, PID #13-117-24 L3 0048. 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. r shall have the responsibility of filing The property, ow~ ,~nneDin county and paying all costs for this resolution w~ ........ ~ 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 MEETINH OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION ~Y 11~ 1992 ~ASE ~91-011~ _~ACK & ~OAN RO! BLOCK 13 DRE_AMWOOD p _~_ING 1717 FINCH LAN ....... ~,a~WOOD PID 1~48. Y ..... E LOTB 7 & 8 Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to construct two additions to an existing home. The existing .... structure has nonco . single family ya~ variances involved inclu~1_ ~ning setback ~rxance and a 5.7, side "ards-~a ~2.9 foot front Staff z =umaCK variance. recommended approval of the front and side ard · the purpose of allowin- the --' - Y varlanc conformlna add~:___ ~ applicant to c---~ .... es for ? ~u~uns s~own on e s u-~uruc= the proposed J.A. Ronnln . th urve n ,, ~_~ .... g, Owner, 1717 Flnc~ -~-- ,, ~Y- oted Updated 4 2 -~,,u~ chat th ..... "~"~- If t~ ~ ..... / 1/92, ~ .... . = ~equest is in co ~ ~"= f~91ng Commissi une ~ou~ Co~e ~ ~_~__ _n .....,ance w~t ~ ........ on O. u~uznances an ~_~ ~_ ~ ~uz~n Z3.506.1 of location of the existing structure over which the present owner of d ~..~u une variances result from t~ the property has no control and the proposed improvements will not intensify the existing nonconforming aspects of the property. Mueller and Hanus noted that the amount of hardcover is close to the proposed 30 percent limit. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance as re e by staff. Motion carried una~n~m~oSutfld]~.and as recommended This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPOR'I~ TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 5, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Jack and Joan Ronning CASE NUMBER: 92-011 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1q OCATION: 1717 Finch Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct two additions to an existing single-family home. The existing structure has nonconforming setbacks on two sides. The new additions conform to all zoning setback requirements. The variances involved in this case include the following: Front Yard (East) Side Yard (South)* Variance 20' 12.9' 6' 5.7' According to the applicant, foot setback from Lake Minnetonka. * The side yard abuts commons property. the existing home has a 100 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 Ronning Variance Request Page 2 COMMENT: The only way to remove the existing nonconforming setbacks would be to either move or demolish the existing structure. The existing home is a substantial structure which is in good condition. Correspondingly, the existing nonconforming setbacks are likely to remain well into the future. Since the new additions conform to required setbacks, approval of the variances will not intensify the nonconforming aspects of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the front and side yard variances noted above for the purpose of allowing the applicant to construct the proposed, conforming additions shown on the survey noted "Updated 4/21/92, j. A. Ronning, Owner, 1717 Finch Lane." If the Planning Commission elects to approve the request, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from the location of the existing structure over which the present owner of the property had no control and the proposed improvements will not intensify the existing nonconforming aspects of the property. rev£sed 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Heywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, FaX: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: city Council Date: site Visit Scheduled: zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to city Planner: copy to Public Works: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. Engineer · ~ ' ~ copy to city - ,..' ~ ......... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee~eeee®eee®eeeeeee.e~ee ~'e · ~.~_~ eeeee~ Please t~pe or print the following information: Address of Subject Property_ Owner's Name J~clC A,~"~''Ns i'-~v'L'~-';'Pay Phone Owner's Address )licant's Name (if other than owner) Address ON /% Day Phone -~N A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot lock_ ,_ Addition g~S~ ~O~ PID No. ~,?'7"~l~,'Z~. I%-0~~ Zoning District_ ~-~ _ Use of Property: ~~-~(Qs~'A& Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (X) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, re~olution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ! revised 4/2/92 Variance ApPlication Page 2 Case SETBACKS: 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, ~pecify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, 1.e. setback, lot area, etc.) Front Yard: Rear Yard: Lake Front: (NSEC) (NS ) (N~EW) Side Yard: (~ E W ). Side Yard: ( S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. _sq ft ft. requested (or existing) ~.! ~~ ft. --9-7 ft. ' ~ ~ ~. ft. ft. ~'~¢~ - ft. VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. Jd~ F' ft. - 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 eachnon-conforminguse: , Which unique physical characteristics its reasonable use for any of the district? of the subject property prevent uses permitted in that zoning ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain ~ev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application 'e 3 e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: 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. consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application of Mound for the purpose of ivany authorized official of ~h? cit~ . ~sp~%ing, or of posting, maintaining ama removing such notices as may be equired by law. ~ · " Date Applicant's Signature Certificate oF Survey For Sharon Stephenson of Lots 5,6,7 & 8, Block 13, DREAMWOOD Hennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 5,6,7 & 8 Block DREAMWOOD ' PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS A. Lots 5 & 6, Block 13 DREAMWOOD ' Lots 7 &' 8, Block 13 DREAMWOOD ' ! hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super- vision and that ! am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Scale · 1 inch : 30 feet Date ' 10-26-89 o ' Iron marker COFFIN & G O.BERG, INc. rk S. ' Engineers, Land Surveyors and Planner. Long Lake, Minnesota 14.4,1 RESOLUTION #92- . RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING ExISTING~'NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ]t~LOW RE-CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOF AT 1701 GULL L~NE, LOTS 1, 2, & PART OF 3, BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD, PID ~13-117-24 13 0041 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-013 e a licant has applied for a variance to WHEREAS,. _.th --[~nenrm~-- setbacks including a _13~6 _foo? recognize existing nu~ .... J~?~- ~,~ and an 18 9 ~oot iron~ to Tnree ~o~u~ u~-~., ' front yard setb~c~ ..... ~ ....... construction of the roof; and yard setback to ~ull bane %u =x~ .... WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-3 single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to Three Points Blvd., a 20 foot front yard setback to Gull Lane, a 6 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, All other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, Resolution #91-115 was previously approved recognizing the same nonconforming setbacks to allow major structural repairs and a deck addition; and WHEREAS, The Planning commission reviewed the requested variance and unanimously recommended approval. The Planning commission also adopted the following Finding of Fact: In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the current variances are consistent with the variances that were granted to the property in 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby approve a variance recognizing a 13.6 foot front yard setback to Three Points Blvd. resulting in a 16.4 foot variance, and a 18.9 foot front yard setback to Gull Lane resulting in a 1.1 foot variance, to allow re- construction of the roof at 1701 Gull Lane. 2. The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the zoning Code 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 23.404. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-013 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: Re-construction of the roof and raising all second story roof lines. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots I and 2, Block 14, Dreamwood and that part of Lot 3 in said Block ~4 lying northerly f the southerly 2 3 feet thereof. PID #13-24 13 0041. ' 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 res ' ' ' thls resolution with Hennepin Court ,, =_~o_n~_~pllzt.y. of filing · tx ~,,u ~y~ng ail 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 /kDVTSORY PLANNING COHMISSTON l~Y LL~ 1992 3 BLOCK 14 DREAMWOOU ~u * second story roof~ City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a . ' the roof of an existing nonconforming structure. variance to modify ..... ~_~ ~ - 'rino recognition of a The existing nonconforming ~=~ma~ ~e~ul _ 16.4' front yard setback variance to Three Points Blvd., and a 1.1' front yard setback variance to Gull Lane. On August 27, 1991 a variance was approved for other modifications to the dwelling. Staff recommended approval of the variance for the purpose of modifying the existing roof. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: "In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound code of ordinances and that the current variances are consistent with the variances that were granted to the property in 1991. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the city Council on May 26, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 5, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Philip J. Davis CASE NUMBER: 92-015~ HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1r LOCATION: 1701 Gull Lane EXISTING ZONING: Two-Family Residential (R-3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to modify the roof of an existing nonconforming structure. The existing roof is in sound condition, however, by reconstructing the roof, additional ceiling height and closet space will be gained. The proposal involves the following variances: Front Yard (3 Pts) Front Yard (Gull) 13.6' 30' 16.4' 18.9' 20' 1.1' 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 Daxtis Variance Request Page 2 COMMENT: On August 27, 1992, the City Council approved a resolution granting the above referenced variances for the purpose of reconstructing a front porch, repairing portions of the foundation, and constructing a new conforming deck. The current variance request will not intensify any of the nonconforming setbacks and is generally consistent with the improvements that were approved in 1991. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the above referenced variances for the purpose of modifying the existing roof. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: "In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the current variances are consistent with the variances that were granted to the property in 1991. .VAR/ANCE APPI,!CATIOH CITY OF MOUND 5341 Ma~ood Road, Nound, NN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Co ission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Owner' s Address Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~ Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: -- Copy to City Engineer: ************************************************************************** Please t~pe or print the followinq information: Address of Subject Property__~_~_~ G~ k_~ Owner's Name.?~'~ ~. ~ ~;5 Day Phone Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning District ~ - 3 Use of Property: Has an application ever been. made for zoning, ~ianc~~) conditional use permit, or other zoning proceaure for this proper~ yes' ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. TYPE OF STRUCTURE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: ( ) Other Dwelling ( ) Garage Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~i~ ¢~|1 seco,~ $~.-y ~o~ {',~ Variance Application Page 2 Case No. qZ"O I~ . ® 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.) Front Yard: (~N~E W ) Rear Yard: ( E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) ~ Yard: ( N S ~Dw.~) Side Yard: ( N S Lot Size: required requested setback setback VARIANCE ft. I~,~ ft. ft. 30 - ft. iS' ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft %~ .q ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (X), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: e 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 ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (X) other: specify Please describe: S c o ~% -- o~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ ui-~"'~" Be Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~). If yes, explain Variance Application Page 3 Case No.~ ® Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as th~ relocation of a road? Yes (), No 00- If yes, explain e Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peCuliar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. 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. .,t. "/-j 2,ZO TRANSFER FENi'ERED bc,.P~. OF PROPERTY TAX & PUBLIC RECORDS FEB 1997. H~COUNTY MINN. 22O August 27, 1991 RESOLUTION %91-115 RESOLUTION TO APPROFB ]% VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW MAJOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS FOR LOTS 1, 2, & P/3~ BLOCK 14v DREW(WOODy PID %13-117-24 13 0041 Ga .L pE~ CASE NO. 91-038 WF.~_R~.~.a_, the a99!!¢ant ha~ applied for a variance to recognize =~n~ s~us~u~fuz'mlng ~etbacks to =he principal structure to allow reconstruction of a front porch roof, repairs to a portion of the porch foundation, and construction of a conforming deck; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-3 Single Family Zoning District and is a corner lot which according to the City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, 30 foot setback to Three Points Blvd., a 20 foot setback to Gull Lane, a 15 foot rear yard setback, and a 6 foot side yard setback; and, WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 13'6" from the north front property line facing Three Points Blvd. and 18'9" from the west front property line facing Gull, all other setbacks are conforming; and, WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that containing , alterations may be made to a building .a. lawful nonconforming residential property when the alterations will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval on an 8 to I vote· NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council o'f the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks resulting in a 16'6" variance to the north front property line and a 1'3" variance to the west front property line to allow structural repairs. The City Council approves the nonconforming status of the property and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and 221 Smith and restrictions of Section 23.404· 221 August 27, 1991 To afford the owners reasonable use of their land, it is determined that the livabiltty of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alterations to a nonconforming use: a) Reconstruction of a nonconforming front porch roof in order to increase the pitch and improve the roof drainage. b) Repair a portion of the foundation of the porch and replace the stair and landing· c) Construct a new 13' x 24'4" conforming deck at the east side of the dwelling· This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 1 and 2, Block 14, Dreamwood and in said Block 14 lying northerly of ~h~ part of Lot 3 feet thereof. PID ~13-117-24 13 0041. southerly 2.3 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)· mTahyiSb~h~sleld.be considered a restriction on how this property The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. Tn· building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk· The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jess·n, Johnson and Smith· The following Councilmembe none. Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO'I~PPRoVEA VARIANCE TO ALLOW REMODELING OF AN EXISTING HOME 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14~ BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT~ PID $18-117-23 31 0006, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-014 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to substantially remodel an existing home requiring the issuance of four variances: 1) an 11 foot lakeshore setback variance, 2) a 5,200 square foot lot area variance, 3) a .7 foot side yard setback variance for a proposed attached garage, and 4) a 1.5 foot side yard setback variance for an existing concrete slab; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-l, single Family Residential zoning District which according to code requires a 50 foot lakeshore setback, 10,000 square feet of lot area above the floodplain elevation, a 6 foot side yard setback for an attached garage and a two foot side yard setback for a concrete slab; and WHEREAS, the property has a total lot area of 19,300 square feet of which approximately 4,800 square feet lies above the floodplain elevation; and WHEREAS, all other setbacks are conforming and the property is surrounded by Lake Minnetonka on three sides; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the lakeshore, lot area, and side yard setback variances contingent upon the submittal of building plans that identify a minimum floor elevation of 933.5 feet with a vote of 6 in favor and 0 opposed. In rendering its opinion, the Planning Commission adopted the following Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds that the requested variances are in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound code of ordinances and that the variances are the direct result of the shape of the parcel over which the applicant has no control. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby approve an 11 foot lakeshore variance, a 5,200 square foot lot area variance, and side yard setback variances of .7 and 1.5 feet subject to the applicant submitting building plans that identify a minimum finished floor elevation of 933.5 feet. The variances are approved to allow the substantial remodeling of the existing residence. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-014 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code 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 23.404. 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: a. Reconstruction of the existing home and garage. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots ~3 and 14, Block 1, Shad~wood Point. 0006 PID #18-117-23 31 5. 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. 7. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building ermi construction shall no ~ ~ ...... ~.~ t for the subject t w~ -o~u~u unnll proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND AD¥ISORY PL]~N14ING COMHI85ION MAY 11v 1992 CASE ~92-014:. BTEVEN ~ T~MAI~A HICKBv 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, BHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 31 0006. VARIANCE .. addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a. variance to substantially remodel an existing home that abuts Lake Minnetonka on three sides of the lot. The total lot area is 19,300 square feet, however, a substantial portion of the lot appears to lie below the floodplain which according to the zoning Code, cannot be counted as lot area. The existing home has a nonconforming lakeshore setback and the existing detached garage has a nonconforming side yard setback. The new construction will improve the side yard setback, however, it will still require a variance since the new garage will be an attached structure. The variances being requested include an 11' lakeshore setback variance to the east, a .7' side yard setback variance, and a lot area variance of approximately 5,200 sq. ft. Staff recommended approval of the lakeshore, lot area and side yard variance as identified for the purpose of the substantial remodeling of the existing home. Approval is contingent upon the applicant submitting building plans that identify a minimum floor elevation of at least 933.5. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: In approving the variances subject to the stated conditions, the Planning Commission finds the request in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are the direct result of the shape of the parcel over which the applicant has no control.' The Commission questioned if the concrete slab to the north of the property line is required to meet a setback. It was noted that zoning Code Section 23.408 (3) b. requires that terraces meet a 2 foot setback and the definition for a terrace includes "patios." Koegler noted that the proposed modifications to the Zoning Code will not require that patios or slabs meet a 2 foot setback requirement. Mueller commented that a street frontage variance should also be recognized as the property is required to have 60 feet of frontage and only 25 feet exists. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variances as requested and as recommended by staff, including a 1.5 foot side yard setback variance for the concrete slab and a 35 foot street frontage variance. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 5, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Steven & Tamara Hicks CASE NUMBER: 92-014 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1t LOCATION: 2072 Shorewood Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-I) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants are proposing to substantially remodel an existing home that abuts Lake Minnetonka on three sides of the lot. The total lot area is 19,300 square feet, however, a substantial portion of the lot appears to lie below the floodplain which according to the Zoning Code, can not be counted as lot area. At the present time, the existing home has a nonconforming lakeshore setback and the existing detached garage has a nonconforming side yard setback. The new construction will improve the side yard setback, however, it will still require a variance since the new garage will be an attached structure. As proposed, the request involves the following variances: 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 Hicks Variance Request Page 2 Existing or. Proposed Variance Lakeshore (East) 3 9' 50' 1 1' Lot Area 4,800 sq ft* 10,000 sq ft 5,200 sq ft Side Yard 5.3' 6' 7' * Lot area is a staff estimate based on the survey and the proposed floor elevation of the remodeled structure. COMMENT: The proposed reconstruction of the home will not change the existing lakeshore setback. It will improve the side yard setback from 3.1 to 5.3 feet, however, when the garage is attached to the principal structure, the required setback changes from 4 to 6 feet. A substantial portion of the Hicks property lies within the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. As a part of the proposed improvements, the applicant has indicated that the minimum floor elevation of the structure will be raised to 934.0. The Mound Floodplain Ordinance requires an elevation of 933.5 for areas around Lake Minnetonka. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the lakeshore, lot area and side yard variance identified above for the purpose of the substantial remodeling of the existing home. The staff recommendation for approval is contingent upon the applicant submitting building plans that identify a minimum floor elevation of at least 933.5. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion' In approving the variances subject to the stated conditions, the Planning Commission finds the request in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are the direct result of the shape of the parcel over which the applicant has no control. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF ~OUND 5341 Ha~ood Road, Hound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: ~--]l-qZ Application Fee: $50.00 City Council Date: -~-Z~9~.7~ Case No.~.~.-0 Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: ~vZ~ .~Z~ Copy to City Planner: copy to Public Works: ~-~J'~, ~m~.+Z~ ~ Copy to City Engineer: ' Please t~e or print the following info~ation: Address of Subject Property~ Ow~er,s ~a.e~~ ~ T~A~ ~,%~S ~a~ P~o~e Owner's Address,.~ ~7~ ~ ~O~OO~ Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~t 15~1% Block Zoning District_ ~-% Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. TYPE OF STRUCTURE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: ( ) Other ('7--Dwelling ( ) Garage Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Uar lance Application Page 2 Case No. q~01~ 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 varxance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) required requested VARIANCE setback setback Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Lake Front: (~S~bW) ~' . ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Lot Size: sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ~' ' ft. i ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all ~egulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes 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 ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe:'~D~L.-~. topography ( ) 'soil drainage (0~) existing shape other: specify Se Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~<~. If yes, explain 1472. Variance Application Page 3 Case No.~_~~~_~ Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as th= relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain e Are the conditions of hardship for 'which you request a variance pecu ' r only to the property described in this netiti no, list some other properties which are ~imila~ a~eSct(e)d.~ No Comments:~_ff~_~_~_~%~ 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 post?ng, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. ,,, Signat~~ Applicant,s COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. ~BIJRVEYING, EN~'IlNEERINO AND LAND PLANNING 482-A TAMAI~CK AVENUE LONG LAKE, MINN. 65386 473-4141 April 22, 1992 Steve Hicks 2072 Shorewood Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Steve: We have reviewed the copy of the survey you provided for us on Lots ]3 and 14, Block 1, Shadywood Point dated 5-31-84. Because the shoreline for Lake Minnetonka shown on that drawing was at 927.7 feet and the OHW for Lake Minnetonka is 929.4 elevation, we interpolated the 929.4 contour and figured the area of the lot to that contour line to be approximately 19,300 square feet. Also, we computed that if you connected a proposed garage to the northwest corner of the existing house (excluding the 10 x 12.3 foot room) and extended the north line of the proposed garage parallel with the north house line for 40 feet it would inter- sect the westerly line of the existing garage. At this inter- section the proposed garage corner would be 5.3 feet from the north property line. Sincerely, COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg \ \ 40 ~'~1 $"F, /.tjy. ZS -E_'~ 0 0 ~o 14~9.o I I l Z ~ RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A 60' STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ~ CONFORMING DECK FOR LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, EXCEPT THE WEST 150 FEET OF SAID LOTS, PID #24-117-24 12 0049 (5070 BAYPORT ROAD) P&Z C~SE NUMBER 92-015 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming deck; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback, and 60 feet of frontage on a public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, all other setbacks and lot area are conforming; and WHEREAS, the subject Bayport Road is not improved abutting the applicant's property; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the variance and unanimously recommended approval. The Commission also adopted the following Finding of Fact: requested Planning In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that variance is not materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or to other properties in the same zone, particularly since they would not benefit from the improvement of Bayport Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a 60 foot street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming deck at 5070 Bayport Road. 2. The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code 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 23.404. 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 16' x 16' deck. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-015 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit D, except the West 150 feet of said Lots. PID #24-117-24 12 0049. 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 MAY 11v 1992 CASE ~92-015= JEFF McMURRAY~ 5070 BAYPORT ROAD~ PARTS OF LOTS 8 & 9~ BLOCK 1~ SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D~ PID ~24-117-24 12 0049. VARIANCE - deck. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for 60 foot street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming deck. The existing lot has full frontage on a public right-of-way, however, the right-of-way is unimproved so the property is accessed via a driveway rather than by a public street. Staff recommended approval of the 60 foot street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming deck. If the Planning Commission elects to approve the variance request, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: "In approving the variance, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance is not materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinances or to other properties in the same zone, particularly since they would not benefit from the improvement of Bayport Road. Hanus commented that vacation of Bayport Road is a possibility, however, it may not resolve the nonconforming status of this property. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as requested and as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. 14qo HQ[ Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 5, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Jeff McMurray CASE NUMBER: 92-015 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1u LOCATION: 5070 Bayport Road EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-I) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to construct a new deck. The existing lot has full frontage on a public right- of-way, however, the right-of-way is unimproved so the property is accessed via a driveway rather than by a public street. The variance involved in this case includes the following: Existing Required Variance Improved Street Frontage 0' 60' 60' COMMENT: Bayport Road is unimproved from the intersection of Avon Drive to Chateau Lane. With the exception of the McMurray property, all lots in the area have access to improved public streets. Hence, extension of Bayport Road as a fully improved street would only serve one lot and would not be of substantial benefit to any of the other abutting lots. 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 McMurray Variance Request Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance noted above to allow construction of a conforming deck. If the Planning Commission elects to approve the variance request, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: "In approving the variance, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance is not materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or to other properties in the same zone, particularly since they would not benefit from the improvement of Bayport Road. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION_ CITY OF MOUND 5341 Ma]U~rood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~~ Address of Subject Property ~f'O 70 &~c~/~¢,~ ~d. Owner's Name ~ Owner's Address 3~O Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration~ize, number of stories, type of use, etc.) :_ ~.,(,,\~ revised 4/2/92 Variance Application ,age 2 Case No.~~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setbac~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 VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft.. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ~O ft. O ft. ~0 ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~), No ( ). If specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) shape (~) other: specify Se Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (.~. If yes, explain rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 6o Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ~), No (). If yes, explain Vc oc(' Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. 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. Applicant's Signature / 14q~, for David W. Wllle%te in Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Shirley Hills ~l~ D : Hennepin County, ~nneso~a ~/~ 150.01 w I~0.01 9 7-30-70 ............ o ~ Iroa marker 1' '1 :j'.:, ,., Cer%i£te,:~o o£ Survey: '%.. - ~{, I hero. by certify that · is s %rue and corr.-,c: r~pre- senta%lon o£ a survey of · bo~n(lartos i fi~ The North 75 fee% of %he Wes% 150 feog of ~% 8, ~k 1, ~]ls ~lt D; ~ {B) ~%s 8 and 9, Block 1, ~tr!~y Hills ~i% D, except %ho Wes% 150 i'ee% ~,ld logs; ~r .(j~. The West 150 feo~ of ~,~ 8, except North 7~ feo~ ~h~reorI and ~he No~ }O fee~ ~11~ ~i~ D; {9)_ ~e W~s~ 150 fee~ of Lot 9, Bl~k 1, ~.irl,y ~lls ~1: D,' excep~ ~he Nor~ ~0 ~ee~ ~hsreof.~- I~ ~s no~ pd:'~or~ ~o sh~ Improvements or Land Surveyor sad Planner Long Lake, Mlr~esota RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 1932 SHOREWOOD LANE, PID #18-117-23 23 0069, PORTIONS OF LOT S AND LOT 9, BLOCK 2 SHADYWOOD POINT, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-016 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow construction of a three phase improvement project including the following: Phase One - Replacement of an existing deck and installation of a sidewalk connecting the house to the street. (1992) Phase Two - Construct an addition connecting the existing house and detached garage. (1993) Phase Three - Remodel the existing home including a new roof, siding repair and window repair. Reshingle and reside an existing boathouse. (1994) In order to accomplish the three phases of the work, requested variances include: a 6.5 foot front yard setback variance for the existing garage, a 4 foot side yard setback variance for the existing boathouse and a 4 foot lakeshore setback variance for the existing deck and principal structure; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to code requires a 30 foot front yard setback for attached garages, a four foot side yard setback for accessory structures (boathouse) and a 50 foot lakeshore setback for attached decks and principal structures; and WHEREAS, the lot area and all other setbacks are conforming; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the front yard setback variance and the lakeshore setback variance and denial of the side yard setback variance for the boat house with a vote of 6 in favor and 0 opposed. In rendering its opinion, the Planning Commission adopted the following Finding of Fact: Approval of the proposed variance for construction of the sidewalk and deck is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Replacement of the existing deck in its current location is permissible since it will align with the north wall of the existing home and shifting the deck to the south would represent a practical difficulty to the property owner. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 02-016 2. Approval of the proposed variance for construction of the addition connecting the existing home and eXisting garage does not intensify the nonconforming setbacks and is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. 3. Approval of the variance to improve the existing home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Approval of the boathouse which has a zero foot setback is inconsistent with the Mound Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby approve a 6.5 foot front yard setback variance for an existing garage (to be attached) and a 4 foot lakeshore setback variance for the existing principal structure and deck. These variances are approved to allow construction of the three phased improvement project referenced herein with the exception of the improvement of the boathouse. 2. The existing boathouse shall be brought into conformance or removed within two years of the date of City Council approval of this resolution. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Mound giving the City access to the property in order to remove the boathouse structure should the applicant fail to comply with moving or removal of the boathouse within the stipulated time period. If such removal is necessary by the City, the applicant shall be assessed for all related costs. 3. The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code 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 23.404. 4. 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: a. Replace existing deck and install a new sidewalk. b. Construct an entryway addition between the existing house and the detached garage. c. Remodel the existing house including a new roof, siding repair and window repair. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 3 CASE NO. 92-016 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 8 except the Northwesterly 15 feet thereof, and Lot 9, Block 2, Shadywood Point. PID #18-117-23 23 0069. 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. HINUTES OF ~ HEETING OF THE HOUND ~DVISOR¥ I~Y L~ ~99~ C~SE #92-016:. DAVID WISNEWSKI~ 1932 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 9 & PART OF 8, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~18-117-23 23 0069. V]~RI/~NCE - addition & deck. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for three variances in order to complete the phased improvement of an existing home, as follows: Phase I - 1992: replace existing deck and install sidewalk. new Phase II - 1993: Construct entry way addition between the existing house and detached garage. Phase III - 1994: Remodel house residing, and boat house. including landscaping and also re-shingle the existing The requested variances include a 6.5' front yard setback variance, a 4' side yard setback variance to the boat house, an a 4' lakeshore setback variance. Staff recommended approval of the front yard and lakeshore setback variance for the purpose of constructing the three phased improvement of the home and property located at 1932 Shorewood Lane. It is recommended that the requested variance to improve the existing boathouse be denied. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, the following Finding of Fact is suggested: "With regard to the requested variances, the Planning Commission finds the following: Approval of the proposed variance for construction f the sidewalk and deck is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Replacement of the existing deck in its current location is permissible since it will align with the north wall of the existing home and shifting the deck to the south would not significantly change the impact of the total encroachment and would represent a practical difficulty to the property owner. Approval of the proposed variance for the construction of the addition connecting the existing home and garage does not intensify the existing nonconforming setbacks and is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Approval of the variance to improve the existing home is consistent with Section 23. 506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Approval of a variance to upgrade the existin~ Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 boathouse is inconsistent with the criteria for approving variances and specifically would confer on the property owner the ability to maintain a nonsubstantial, nonconforming structure which is a privilege (that may not be) not available to other property owners within the same district." Mueller commented that regardless if the improvements are allowed to the boat house or not, the structure should be recognized as a nonconforming structure. Koegler commented that if the boat house is re-sided and re-roofed it is going to last longer, if the that aspect of the variance is not approved, the structure could continue just the way it is now. What is in question is if this use should be allowed or not. The applicant commented that the boat houses on the properties to each side of his property are in worse condition that his. Michael does not have a problem with allowing boat houses, but when it has a zero setback he has a problem with it. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as requested and as recommended by staff, including the denial of the variance to improve the existing boat house. Voss commented that the intent of the motion is to recognize the nonconforming boat house but not to allow the improvements. Koegler commented that the boat house is a nonconforming structure, and as such it is intended under any zoning code to be amortized over a period of years, however long the structure lasts it is allowed to remain there. The issue, however, is deeper than this due to the forthcoming shoreland ordinance, in that there is a debate whether boat houses are appropriate or not. If the applicant wants to make repairs to the boat house in the future, it is possible to apply after a policy for these structures has been adopted. Mueller questioned why the City should approve of a building to remain in its existing condition and not allow it to be improved; should these structures be allowed to deteriorate and look ugly? If the building is allowed to remain it should be allowed to be repaired. To allow buildings to deteriorate is wrong, the council should either allow it to be improved or require that it be removed. The prospect of allowing the boat house to be maintained if it is relocated, or require it to be removed was discussed. The applicant commented that if the boat house needs to be relocated he needs to consider a maple tree that is in the way. He Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 does not have a problem removing it, but if he cleans up the area, the neighbor's structures will still be there looking bad. Mueller questioned if the nonconforming structure needs to be recognized. Koegler commented that with this case we should recognize the existing nonconforming boat house' but do not authorize any further improvements to the structure. The applicant could still come in and apply for improvements to the boat house structure in the future. Meyer commented that in the past other accessory buildings have been required to be removed, why not require this nonconforming boat house to be removed? Michael confirmed that in other instances when structures have been on the lot line removal has been required. MOTION FAILED. Those voting in favor were: Weiland and Voss. Those voting in the negative were: Mueller, Meyer, Hanus and Michael. MOTION made by Voss to table the request until the next Planning Commission Meeting. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Michael commented that the boat house is on the lot line and it is his opinion that the Shoreland Ordinance will not allow a zero setback for these structures either, in his opinion the structure could be moved or removed. Hanus agreed with Michael's comments. Meyer and Mueller agreed that the boat house could be brought into conformance. Mueller commented that if the boat house is allowed to remain, it should be allowed to be improved. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of the variances as recommended by staff with the exception of item #3 in that the boat house either be brought into conformance or be removed within 2 years of Council approval. MOTION carried unanimously. The applicant stated that he was comfortable with the motion. The Building official clarified that the city Council may add a provision to the Resolution requiring an agreement be signed between the City and the applicant giving the City access to the property in order to remove the structure if the applicant does not comply with the condition. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. 7 HQ][ Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 5, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: David Wisnewski CASE NUMBER: 92-016 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1v LOCATION: 1932 Shorewood Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-I) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting three variances in order to complete the phased improvement of an existing home. Improvements in the first year (1992) include replacement of the existing deck and the installation of a new sidewalk. During the second year, the plan calls for the construction of an entry way addition between the existing house and garage and during the third year, the house will be remodeled including landscaping and residing and reshingling the exiting boathouse. In order to accomplish the proposed work, the following variances will need to be granted: Front Yard Setback Side Yard (Boathouse) Lakeshore Existing Required Variance 23.5' 30' 6.5' O' 4' 4' 46' 50' 4' 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 16o7 Wisnewski Variance Request Page 2 C O MMENT: The front yard and lakeshore variances result from the location of the existing garage and house. Both of these buildings are substantial structures and are not candidates for demolition. The amount of the variance in both cases is relatively minor ranging from 4 to 6.5 feet. The proposed deck will replace the existing deck which also encroaches into the required 50 foot lakeshore setback area. It is possible to reconstruct the deck 4 to 5 feet south of its present location creating a 50 foot lakeshore setback. In light of the fact that the north wall of the home would still encroach into the required setback area, the deck encroachment takes on less importance. The improvements identified as phase one which include the sidewalk and the deck do not significantly impact the existing nonconforming aspects of the property. The second phase which provides a connection between the house and garage has conforming setbacks and does not intensify any existing nonconformities. Phase three is, however, somewhat different. The improvement of the existing structure as a part of phase three does not impact the nonconforming aspects of the property. Phase three also includes replacing the exterior of the nonconforming boathouse which will extend the life of the structure. At the present time, the Planning Commission is assembling a new shoreland management ordinance which may place further restrictions on the location of boathouses or may totally exclude them within the 50 foot lakeshore setback. The existing structure does not comply with the current 4 foot setback requirement and although no elevations are provided, the floor elevation of the boathouse also does not appear to be in compliance with the City Code. Although the existing boathouse is in reasonable condition, it is not as substantial of a structure as is a house or detached garage. Therefore, allowing improvements to the nonconforming structure which will prolong its longevity is questionable. If the variance for the existing boathouse is denied, it could remain in its present condition until the structure deteriorates and has to be removed. As was indicated above, the issue of boathouses in Mound is unresolved at this time and is to be further addressed by the City Council later in May. If the boathouse is excluded from the variance approval at this time, the applicant would be free at some time in the future to reapply for a variance after the shoreland management ordinance is adopted. Wisnewski Variance Request Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the front yard and lakeshore variances for the purpose of constructing the three phased improvement of the home and property located at 1932 Shorewood Lane. It is recommended that the requested variance to improve the existing boathouse be denied. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, the following Finding of Fact is suggested: "With regard to the requested variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: 1) Approval of the proposed variance for construction of the sidewalk and deck is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Replacement of the existing deck in its current location is permissible since it will align with the north wall of the existing home and shifting the deck to the south would not significantly change the impact of the total encroachment and would represent a practical difficulty to the property owner. 2) Approval of the proposed variance for the construction of the addition connecting the existing home and garage does not intensify the existing nonconforming setbacks and is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. 3) Approval of the variance to improve the existing home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Approval of a variance to upgrade the existing boathouse is inconsistent with the criteria for approving variances and specifically would confer on the property owner, the ability to maintain a non-substantial, nonconforming structure which is a privilege not available to other property owners within the same district." VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone= 472-0600, Fax= 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: city Council Date: site visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: copy to city Planner: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.q~_--0 I~ Copy to Public Works: is' i~~D~7~ Copy to City Engineer: t ,~. Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property 1932 Shot.wood f~ne Owner ' s Name David Wisnewski Day Phone 623-8653 Owner's Address 1932 Shorewood f~ne Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 (except NW 15 feet thereof) and Lot 9 Block 2 Addition Shadywood Point PID No. 18-117-23-23-0069 Zoning District g-1 Use of Property: Residential Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (x) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. TYPE OF STRUCTURE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: ( ) Other (x) Dwelling ( ) Garage Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): See Cements - Variance Application Page 2 Case ® Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (x). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) Due to boathouse and setback to lake from house. required requested VARIANCE setback setback Front Yard: ( N S E W ) 30' ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Lake Front: ( N S E W ) 50' - ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) I8' ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ~0' +/- ft. Lot Size: _ 10,000 sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. 45' +/--- ft. 5' +/- ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. _12,060 +/-_sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (x) No ( ) If no specify eachnon-conforminguse: , · , Which unique physical characteristics its reasonable use for any of the district? of the subject property prevent uses permitted in that zoning ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (x) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (x). If Yes, explain 1511 ', Variance Application Page 3 Case No. ~Z'0~ Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (x). If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No P<). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: Improvements to the property will take place in three phases as described on Attachment "A". a. Demolition of the existing deck is required due to its unsafe condition (rotted material) which could result in injury if not corrected. Instml]ation of a 4'-0" sidewalk with steps from the street toward the house. Currently, there is no "walkable" surface from the street, garage or parking area. During the winter and after sumner rains, the "path" to the house is difficult to maintain and there is a possibility of injury from slipping. Phase II (1993) . a. Currently, the garage is detached from the house. An 11'-0" distance between the house and the garage will be connected by a main entry on the east side, steps to the garage and steps down to the basement and a den. Phase Iii (1994) a. Currently, the existing house is a collection of previous remodelings and additions. the roof and siding is in need of repair; as well as the windows. I propose to aesthetically consolidate all of the elements by installing a new roof~ extending the height of the north elevation to accomodate a two story space (see attachment B), installing new siding, interior remodeling to be determined, exterior landscaping and the reshingling and residing of the boathouse. 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 i equired bY law' Applicant's Signature CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DAVE WlSNEWSKI IN LOTS 8 and 9, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot R except the Northwesterly 15 feet thereof, and Lot 9, Block2, "Shadywood Point, Hennepin County Minn.". This survey shows the location of an existing house, ~ara~e and adjoining ~ouses in relationship to the abov~ described p~operty. It doesnot purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. L~EGEND: · : iron marker found All bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. 15/.5 I hereby certify that this sun,ev was prepared by me or under my direct Mark S. Cronberg Mnnn~-~,ta license Number 12755 SC-~L~ I' ,,, "DO ' NO. ~ o iI I I I I lU z .0 -,0 L I, LI I,LI I- 0 II RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MIN~R SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK FOR 3367 WARNER LANE, LOT 64; WHIPPLE SHORES; AND LOT 1, BLOCK 12, DOUGLAS, PID $25-117-24 24 0056 PaS CASE #92-017 WHEREAS, an application for a minor subdivision has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under city of Mound Code of Ordinances, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, a variance has been requested to recognize an existing nonconforming 4.7 foot side yard setback to the existing principal structure on proposed Parcel 'A'; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 30 foot front yard setback; and WHEREAS, Resolution #91-152 Approving a Minor Subdivision for this property was approved by the city Council on October 22, 1991, although, has not been certified for filing at the County. The current application is basically the same request, however the proposed dividing line has been slightly altered from the original request; and WHEREAS, Resolution #91-152 did not require payment of a Park Dedication fee; and WHEREAS, both parcels are proposed to exceed the minimum lot area required, as follows: Parcel 'A' = 20,100 square feet, and Parcel 'B' = 16,200 square feet; and WHEREAS, only the north 50 feet of the existing parcel is abutting City of Mound public right-of-way (Warner Lane), the balance of the right-of-way to the south is governed by the City of Minnetrista; and WHEREAS, there are no utilities currently available to the proposed Parcel 'B'; and PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 92-017 WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming side yard setback resulting in a 5.3 foot side yard setback variance to the existing dwelling on Parcel 'A'. The required Park Dedication fee is waived. The property in which the applicant has requested a waiver from the provisions of Section 330 of the City Code, which is less than five acres in area, is described as follows: Parcel 1. The Northerly half of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 1, which is also the point where the northerly line of the lot intersects the Westerly line of Warner Way. From this point in a Southwesterly direction following the Southeasterly line of Lot 1, 120 feet more or less, to a point in said Southeasterly line which is equally distant from the Northeasterly corner and the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a straight line to the shore of Lake Minnetonka to a point on said shore line which is equally distant from the Northwesterly corner and the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a Northeasterly direction along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to the Northwesterly corner of the lot, which is also the point where the Northerly line of said lot intersects the shore of Lake Minnetonka and from this point in an Easterly direction following the Northerly line of said Lot 1 to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 64, Whipple Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. PID #25-117-24 24 0056 (3367 Warner Lane). PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 92-017 It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per the following descriptions (see the attached Exhibit 'A'): Parcel A: That part of the following described parcels: Parcel 1: The Northerly half of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas, described as follows: Beginning at.the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 1, which is also the point where the northerly line of the lot intersects the Westerly line of Warner Way. From this point in a Southwesterly direction following the Southeasterly line of Lot 1, 120 feet more or less, to a point in said Southeasterly line which is equally distant from the Northeasterly corner and the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a straight line to the shore of Lake Minnetonka to a point on said shore line which is equally distant from the Northwesterly corner and the Southwesterly corner of said Lot Ii From this point in a Northeasterly direction along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to the Northwesterly corner of the lot, which is also the point where the Northerly line of said lot intersects the shore of Lake Minnetonka and from this point in an Easterly direction following the Northerly line of said Lot 1 to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 64, Whipple Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Which lie northerly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 64; thence on an assumed bearing of South 42 degrees 08 minutes 31 seconds West along the southeasterly lines of said Lot 64 and said Lot 1 a distance of 60.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence North 88 degrees West a distance of 93.00 feet; thence South 67 degrees 11 minutes of 25.00 feet; thence North 76 degrees 12 minutes West to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and said line there ending. Parcel B: That part of the following described parcels: Parcel 1. The Northerly half of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 1, which is also the point where the northerly line of the lot intersects the PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 92-017 Se Westerly line of Warner Way. From this point in a Southwesterly direction following the Southeasterly line of Lot 1, 120 feet more or less, to a point in said Southeasterly line which is equally distant from the Northeasterly corner and the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a straight line to the shore of Lake Minnetonka to a point on said shore line which is equally distant from the Northwesterly corner and the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a Northeasterly direction along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to the Northwesterly corner of the lot, which is also the point where the Northerly line of said lot intersects the shore of Lake Minnetonka and from this point in an Easterly direction following the Northerly line of said Lot 1 to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 64, Whipple Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. whiCh lie southerly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 64; thence on an assumed bearing of South 42 degrees 08 minutes 31 seconds West along the southeasterly lines of said Lot 64 and said Lot 1 a distance of 60.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence North 88 degrees West a distance of 93.00 feet; thence South 67 degrees 11 minutes West a distance of 73.93 feet; thence North 84 degrees West a distance of 25.00 feet; thence North 76 degrees 12 minutes West to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and said line there ending. Approval of this subdivision is subject to the following conditions: The existing accessory buildings on Parcel 'B' are proposed to be moved onto Parcel 'A'. The proposed location of these structures must be indicated on the survey to ensure that proper setbacks are maintained. The structures must be moved prior to certification of this resolution, or a bond or cash escrow must be provided to ensure the removal of these accessory structures from Parcel 'B'. The amount of the bond or cash escrow should cover the cost of moving these structures. 4 PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 92-017 e b. The applicant shall furnish all necessary approvals from the City of Minnetrista. c. Driveway access to both parcels shall be detailed on the survey with the applicant providing necessary approvals from the city of Minnetrista. d. Existing and proposed sewer and water services shall be shown on the applicant's survey. e. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed at the applicant's expense before any building permits are issued, or some type of guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. Easements may be required if the utility services cross, or are too close to Parcel 'A'. f. The applicant is to provide documentation that assures the future home will not adversely affect drainage of the existing house or adjacent property. g. Cash deposit in the amount of $500 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses. h. The deck on the existing dwelling on proposed Parcel 'A' shall be brought into conformance by removing the portion as indicated on the attached survey. i. No further variances will be allowed for Parcels A or B in the future. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The city Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant. The applicant shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility of paying all costs for such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. 5 HINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION ~Y ll~ ~992 CASE ~92-017[ JEF VINT 3367 WARNER LANE LOT 64 IN WHIPPLE ~IDOUGLAS PID 25-117-24 24 0056. MINOR SUBDIVISI~ City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a minor subdivision. This request is identical to a previous request for this property which was approved on October 22, 1991, with the exception of a minor change in the lot line separating Parcels A and B. The change in the lot lines results in Parcel A having an area of 20'100 square feet and Parcel B having an area of 16,200 square feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approved the minor subdivision as proposed subject to all of the terms and conditions outline in the following documents: 1. Staff report by Jon Sutherland dated "Planning Commission Agenda of October 14, 1991." 2. Staff report by John Cameron dated October 8, 1991. 3. Resolution ~91-152 as adopted October 22, 1991. In approving the minor subdivision as noted above, the Planning Commission may want to incorporate the following Finding of Fact into a motion: "In approving the minor subdivision and variance, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the proposal is virtually identical to the one approved by the City Council in October of 1991. Weiland clarified with staff that all assessments on the property have been paid. Weiland questioned if a park dedication fee is due; staff confirmed that the subdivision qualifies for payment due of $500 for one park dedication. The applicant commented that all the conditions required for approval are being taken care of. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff with the inclusion of requirinq payment of one park dedication fee. Mueller and ross commented that they are not in favor of charging the applicant a park dedication fee since it was missed the first time the application of approved and the applicant was not expecting the additional cost. Weiland, the maker of the MOTION, and Michael who seconded the motion, moved to amend the original motion to waive the park dedication fee because it was not included in the original resolution. MOTION carried 5 to 1. Those in favor were~ Weiland, Hanus, Mueller, Voss, and Michael. Meyer opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 11, 1992 CASE ~92-012: ..... ,~DAKOTA RAILt INC. m 2290 COMMERCE 24 33 0066. P~ELIMINARY PLAT "DAKOTA RAIL ~13-117- ADDITION" - PUBLIC City Planner, Mark Koegler, informed the 'ssion that Dakota Rall has submitted kn application for a ma' subdivision to create a new parcel around,\ ;the existing Norw~ ;t Bank Building at the corner of Shoreline'x, Blvd. and Comme Blvd. It has been determined by staff'x that information is needed pertaining to road y along 'ce Blvd. and pertaining easements. ~he public inform until let recommended that the ' g on the case and table is submitted. The public item is heard again by the to utility locations Planning Commission open action on the item until hearing should be con Planning Commission. Jack Bolke, representative for applicant stated that due to the delay he would like to the preliminary and final plat simultaneously. Staff stated this can be accomplished if the applicant modifies the appli and pay the fee to include for the final plat. / . Mueller expressed a con~rn ng the balance of property remaiging for the railroad righ ~ay for future mass transit us~; 1.e. what will the_/width be? ~ Welland noted a correction on the plan, t~%e owners as.noted for the adjacent property t~ the west, }ct? 5~ and 55 is listed as "Williams R. Metka"//~hould read "WllllamR~Netka." MOTION made b~ Hanus, seconded by Weila~d to table this request and /continue the public hearing until m?re information /is received from the appli~ant. Motion carried una~imousl~. ~ HG][ Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 5, 1992 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: Jeff Vint CASE NUMBER: 92-017 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1w LOCATION: 23,6q Warner Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The City Council approved a minor subdivision of this property on October 22, 199J[.t The current request is identical to the previous request with the exception of a minor change in the lot line separating Parcels A and B. The change in the lot lines results in Parcel A having an area of 20,100 square feet and Parcel B having an area of 16,200 square feet. COMMENT: Except as identified above, this request remains the same as the one approved in October of 1991. 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis. MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 mil Vint Subdivision Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the minor subdivision as proposed subject to all of the terms and conditions outlined in the following documents: Staff report by Son Sutherland dated "Planning Commission Agenda of October 14, 1992". 2. Staff report by John Cameron dated October 8, 1991. 3. Resolution //91-152 as adopted October 22, 1991. In approving the minor subdivision as noted above, the Planning Commission may want to incorporate the following Finding of Fact into a motion: In approving the minor subdivision and variance, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the proposal is virtually identical to the one approved by the City Council in October of 1991. Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND_ C~ty of Mound 5341 Naywood Road, Noundv MN 55364 Phone: 472-0500, Fax~ 472-0620 N]R ? 31992 35'8-7-7 Planning Co ission city Council Date:. Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed:_ Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Other: Application Fee:. $50.00 Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? ~--I -4~__ Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name ~-~ Owner'address Day Phone Applicant's Name (if other than owner) DayPhone Day Phone Day Phone // Address Name of Surveyor: Name of Engineer: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~ i~ z ¢ r i .¥ ~'z~',*/c I~ Block ~ Zoning District /~." / Use of Property: ~ ~/~6,'~7/~a Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. given why this is notre -owner This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation case. Date Signature of Owner Date revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION 5341 Maywood Road, Hound, ~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. (~Z--O[U Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name Day Phone Owner's Address plicant's Name dress (if other than owner) Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot [~/ \ ~ /~ f~'T (;~f~ff /2 Block Addition i:O/~/t,/~C j~/r~-_' ~'~v,,, 6' ,' ,: J PID No. Zoning District /~--/ Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) 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.): revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. ~Z'0~7 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: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: (~S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. /¢ ft, ~[ 7 ~,~J ft. ~.3 ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. ft. 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 ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (,~. If yes, explain =ev£eed 4/2/92 Variance Application e 3 Case No. q'~-'Ol~ e 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 (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: 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 by law. Applicant's signature Date .Z CITY of MOUND MEMORANDUM 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 553~4.'~- (612) 472-1155 FAX ,612i 472-062~ DATE: TO~ FROM: SUBJECT: February 25, 1992 John Cameron Jon Sutherland Peggy James ~ Minor Subdivisi%n 3367 Warner Lane for Jeff Vint Today I visited with Jeff Vint and Jeff Martineau regarding the conditions they must meet to finalize their subdivision as outlined in Resolution ~91-152. Following are questions they raised which needs your confirmation. me Item 4. c. & d. Can they draw the proposed driveway and sewer and water locations or does this need to be done by the surveyor? o Item 4. f. This refers to the assurance that the future home will not adversely affect drainage of the existing house or adjacent property. Does this documentation need to be submitted prior to certification of the resolution or only prior to building permit issuance? Item 4. g. Will time already incurred by the City Engineer be deducted from the cash deposit or is this specifically for future costs incurred? Is there a possibility of getting some of the $500 deposit returned? Item 4. h. Can the required alteration of the deck be included in the escrow as described in item 4.a.? This will give them a little time to remove the deck so it can be done the same time as the garage and shed relocation. Will a conditional use permit be required for the moving/re-locating of the garage? Jeff Martineau has kindly requested answers to these questions, we may contact him at one of the following numbers: car - 865-6224 bus - 473-3000, or res - 473-2628. ' ' · pJ Enclosures IS ~ ~ printed on recycled paper 297 297 October 22, 1991 RESOLUTION %91-152 RESOLUTION TO APPR0~ ]~ MINOR SUBDIVISION AND RECOGNISE ]% NONCONFORMING BETB]%CK FOR 3367 W]tRNER L~NE, ~OT 64~ WHIPPLE SHORES, ~%ND LOT Lv BLOCK 12, DOUGLASv PID %25-117-24 24 0056 P&Z C,~d~B ~91-051 RHERE]%S, an application for a minor subdivision has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under City of Mound ordinance Code, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, recognition of an existing nonconforming 4.7 foot side yard setback to the existing dwelling on Parcel 'A' has been requested, and; WHERE]%S, the subject property is located within the R-1 single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 30 foot front yard setback, and; WHEREAS, both parcels are proposed to exceed the minimum lot area requirement, as follows: Parcel 'A' = 20,300 square feet, and Parcel'B' = 15,900 square feet, and; WHERE]%S, only the north 50 feet of the existing parcel abuts City of Mound public right-of-way (Warner Lane), the balance of the right-of-way to the south is governed by the City of Minnetrista, and; WHEREAS, there are no utilities currently available to the proposed Parcel 'B', and; WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the 298 October 22, 1991 public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW~ THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. T~e City does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming sld? yard setback resulting in a 5.3 foot side yard setback variance to the existing dwelling on Parcel 'A'. 2.. The property in which the applicant has requested a waiver from the provisions of Section 330 of the City Code, which is less than five acres is area, is described as follows: Lot 1, ~lock 12, Douglas, and Lot 64, Whipple Shores. ~25-117 24 24 0056 (3367 Warner Lane). It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per following descriptions (see the attached Exhibit 'A'): ~ That part of the followin . Parcel 1: The northerl- ~-~ .... g described parcels: z ..-~ oz ~ot 1, Block 12, Douglas, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 1, which is also the point where the Northerly line of the lot intersects the Westerly line of Warner Way. From this point in a Southwesterly direction following the So?theasterly line of Lot 1, 120 feet mot ~olnt in said Southeasterl- -~ .... , ~ . e or less, to a z --,,= wnzcn ls equally distant zrom the Northeasterly corner and the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 1.. From this point in a str . shore of Lake Mlnneton ~ * .... , ~ . aight line to the is equally distant f;ko~ ~-~ p,.o_~n~ on.said shore line which ~-= -ornnwes=erly corner and the Southwesterly c.orner, of said Lot 1. From this p.o. int in a Northeasterly direction along the shore of Lake Mmnnetonka to. the Northwesterly corner of the lot, which is also the point where the. Northerly line of said lo shore of Lake M~nn~--~ ......... t intersects th ~u~,~ an~ zrom t~ls point in an Easterl~ di.rection follow, lng the Northerly line of s point of beginnln~_ acco,~ ...... aid Lot 1 to the and ~, ~u-,,~ uo ~ne recorded lat situate in Hennepin Coun. ty, Minnesota. P thereof, Parcel 2: Lot 64, Whipple Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Which lie northerly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the Northeast corner 64; thence on an assumed b--~- - of said Lot =ur~ng oz South 42 degrees 08 minutes 31 seconds West along the Southeas sa.id Lot 64 and said Lot - - ~-~ _ terly lines of point of beg[nnin- of the ~'-~--j_s~anc.e of _60.00 feet to the ~ne being aescribed; thence North 88 degrees West a distance of 93.00 feet; thence South 64 degrees West a distance of 75.00 feet; thence North 76 PID the 299 October 22, 1991 degrees West to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and said line there ending. parcel B~ That part of the following described parcels: Parcel 1: The Northerly half of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 1, which is also the point where the Northerly line of the lot intersects the Westerly line of Warner Way. From this point in a Southwesterly direction following the Southeasterly line of Lot 1, 120 feet, more or less, to a point in said Southeasterly line which is equally distant from the Northeasterly corner and the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a straight line to the shore of Lake Minnetonka to a point on said shore line which is equally distant from the Northwesterly corner and the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a Northeasterly direction along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to the Northwesterly corner of the lot, which is also 'the point where the Northerly line of said lot intersects the shore of Lake Minnnetonka and from this point in the Easterly direction following the Northerly line of said Lot 1 to a point of beginning according to the recroded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 2: Lot 64, Whipple Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Which lie southerly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 64; thence on an assumed bearing of South 42 degrees 08 minutes 31 seconds west along the Southeasterly lines of said Lot 64 and said Lot 1 a distance of 60.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence North 88 degrees West a distance of 93.00 feet; thence South 64 degrees West a distance of 75.00 feet; thence North 76 degrees west to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and said line there ending. The approval of this subdivision will be subject to the following conditions: The existing accessory buildings on Parcel 'B' are proposed to be moved, or removed. If these structures are to be moved onto Parcel 'A', the locations must be indicated on the survey to ensure that proper setbacks are maintained. A bond or cash escrow must be provided to ensure the removal of these accessory structures from Parcel 'B'. The amount of the bond or cash escrow should cover the cost of removal or moving of these structures. 300 October 22, 1991 The applicant shall furnish all necessary approvals from the City of Mlnnetrista. Co Driveway access to both parcels shall be detailed on the survey with the applicant providing necessary approvals from the City of Minnetrista. Existing and proposed sewer and water services shall be shown on the applicant's survey. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be inst~lled at.the applicants expense before any building permits are issued, or some type of guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. Easements may be required if the utility services cross, or are too close to Parcel 'A'. ge he The applicant is to provide documentation that assures the future home will not adversely affect drainage of the existing house or adjacent property. Cash deposit in the amount of $500 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses. The deck on the existing dwelling on proposed Parcel 'A' shall be brought into conformance by removing the portion as indicated on the attached survey. No further variances will be allowed for Parcel A or B in the future. Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Smith. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant. The applicant shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility of paying all costs for such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember 301 October 22, 1991 The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk gX~IB1T A - RESOLU%ION ~91-152 JEFF VlNT RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO &PPROVE A VARI~B~CE TO.LOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENED PORCH AT 3015 HIGHVIEW LANE. LOT 13. BLOCK 4. THE BLUFFS. PID #22-117-24 44 0025. P&S CASE NUNBER 92-018 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to add a deck and screened porch to an existing home and the request includes a 4 foot side yard setback variance; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to code requires a 6 foot side yard setback for decks on lots of record; and WHEREAS, the lot area and all other setbacks are conforming; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of a 4 foot side yard setback variance for construction of a 12 foot by 14 foot screened porch with attached decks conforming to the 6 foot setback requirement. The Commission further recommended denial of a 4 foot variance for a new deck. The Planning Commission vote was 4 in favor and 2 opposed. In rendering its opinion, the Planning Commission included the following Finding of Fact: The existing deck area which conforms to setback requirements provides reasonable outdoor living space for the home and since the deck is conforming, it can be replaced in its present location without variance approval. The proposed screened porch is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The variance for the porch is warranted due to practical difficulty because the location of the existing home on the lot and the interior floor plan of the home preclude alternative locations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 4 foot side yard setback variance to allow construction of a proposed screened porch measuring 12 feet by 14 feet at 3015 Highview Lane contingent upon the following: ae The screened porch shall remain as a screened/three season porch and it shall not be altered in the future to create a four season living space. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-018 The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code 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 23.404. 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: a. Construction of a screened porch measuring 12 feet by 14 feet. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 13, Block 4, The Bluffs. PID #22-117-24 44 0025 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. MINUTE8 OF A MEETINg OF THE MOUND ADVIBOR¥ PLANNING COMMISBION ~ L ZAB SS $ IGNV EW L L i~B S - ' V C - ec City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to construct an expanded deck and a screen porch on the south side of an existing home. The existing structure is conforming. The proposed porch and deck will require a 6' side yard setback variance It is difficult to find "hardship. in this case. If the Planning Commission finds that the requested variance is appropriate, it can only be granted under the practical difficulty provisions of the Zoning Code. In reviewing this request, staff was unable to define applicable hardship. Therefore, the City Planner presented to options: 1. Deny the requested variance based on the lack of hardship and specifically referencing that the property already has a nonconforming deck and that the existing two foot encroachment represents the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. 2. Approve the requested 6 foot side yard variance resulting in a 2 foot side yard setback based on a finding of practical difficulty. If this course is followed, the Planning Commission should identify the practical difficulty as it applies to this property. Mueller commented that he believes practical difficulty and reasonable use does exist due to the floor plan and design of the house relating to the location of the door. The Commission confirmed that the side yard setback for a deck is 6 feet, so if the deck is required to remain at 8 feet wide it will be conforming. The applicant informed the Commission that a variance was approved for one of their neighbors to allow construction of a nonconforming porch. Menus questioned the validity of the survey relating to the proposed setbacks as the existing house shown on the survey was drawn on by the applicant. Koegler commented that in order to avoid a delay for variance approval, the applicant could be required to verify the setback prior to the City Council meeting. MOTION Rads by MUellsr, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of & 4' side yard setback variance to allow construction of a 15' x 12' screened porch and a conforming 8' wide deck due to practical difficulty with respect to the design of the house and the location of the current residence, upon the condition that the setback to the subject side property line be verified. MOTION TIED 3 to 3. Those in favor were~ Mueller~ Hanus, and Voss. Those opposed were= Weiland, Meyer and Michael. Mueller moved and Hanus seconded · MOTION to amend the original motion. MOTION~ada by Muellsr, seconded by Weiland to include a condition to the original motion that the porch remain as · screened/three season porch and that it not be altered in the future into · four season porch. MOTION carried 4 to 2. Those in favor were~ Mueller, Hanus, Voss and Woiland. Meyer and Michael opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS pLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 5, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request ?PLICANT: Mark G. Bussey CASE NUMBER: 92-018 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1x LOCATION: 3015 Highview Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to construct an expanded deck on the south side of an existing home. At the present time, the home has an existing deck which will be replaced by the proposed deck and screened porch. The existing deck is 8 feet wide and the proposed deck has a width of 12 feet. The central portion of the proposed deck will include a new screened porch which will measure 12 feet by 14 feet. The R-1 zone requires an 8 foot sideyard setback for lots of record. Because of the size of the existing deck, the subject property presently has a 6 foot sideyard setback which is nonconforming. The encroachment of the proposed deck/porch 4 feet further into the sideyard results in a 2 foot setback to the property line. As proposed, the new deck will require a 6 foot variance. 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 Bussey Variance Request Page 2 COMMENT: In general, variances are reviewed in Mound on the basis of hardship and practical difficulty. Where feasible, these findings are used to allow reasonable use of property typically including items such as detached garages, decks and porches. In all variance cases, the Zoning Code specifically permits only the minimum encroachment necessary to facilitate reasonable use. It is difficult to find" ·" hardship in this case. The applicant presently has a deck that encroaches two feet into the required sideyard setback area. The existing deck has a width of 8 feet and while not necessarily ideal, an 8 foot wide deck does provide an outside gathering area for the home. It is understandable that the applicant is interested in having a larger deck and screened porch to take advantage of the views of Lake Minnetonka. The proposal from a hardship standpoint, however, does not represent a minimum variance situation. A comparison of the request to uses within the surrounding neighborhood is also not sympathetic to the granting of the variance based on hardship. The Bluffs neighborhood is one of Mound's newer areas and it is relatively free of the nonconforming situations that are prevalent in other areas of the community. If the Planning Commission finds that the requested variance is appropriate, it can only be granted under the practical difficulty provisions of the Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing this request, staff is unable to define applicable hardship. Therefore, the Planning Commission has two options: 1. Deny the requested variance based on the lack of hardship and specifically referencing that the property already has a nonconforming deck and that the existing two foot encroachment represents the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. 2. Approve the requested 6 foot sideyard variance resulting in a 2 foot sideyard setback based on a finding of practical difficulty. If this course is followed, the Planning Commission should identify the practical difficulty as it applies to this property. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOU~D 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~N 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site visit Scheduled: 5-11'~ Application Fee: $50.00 Zoning Sheet Completed: ~.~ Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: . ~._.~..~. ........ Please t~e or print the following information: Address of Subject Property owner' G, Owner's Address ~O~5 ~~8~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone GAL DESCRIPTION: .ot / Addition W'~¢ 7~L.~'~ Zoning District Block PID No. Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. TYPE OF STRUCTURE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: ( ) Other Dwelling ( ) Garage 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or a.lteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~D,~t,~ ~x~c~ ~ec~ ~JO~. ~ Variance Application 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 ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) required requested VARIANCE setback setback Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Lake Front: ( N S E W ) ft. Side Yard: ( N~E W ) - ~ -- ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) " ft. Lot Size: _/O.~OO _sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. _ ft. ft. ft. _ ~ ft. ft. -- ft. sq ft 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 ~><~ existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe:~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ 5. Was the hardship described above created by the action o property interests in the f anyone having land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain &~c-o~oSe o4 ~ ?(~'e-_ Variance Application Page 3 Case No.~~~_~_~ Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~0. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you ~equest a v~iance peculiar only to the property described, in this petition~. . . Yes -- .~' No (). 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 equired by law. Dear Sirs, I am applying for a variance for a screen porch addition to my deck. I would like to be able to enjoy the view of the lake from our deck without being annoyed by insects. I have talked with several builders concerning the size and position for the porch, and all have agreed that a screen porch located in front of our existing sliding door is the only practical place. There is no other access from our house that will work. The builders also believe that a porch smaller than twelve feet on each side would not allow reasonable use of the walk-way when patio furniture is allowed for. In order to build a porch and deck twelve feet wide, I need to be within two feet of the south side lot line. I am not trying to infringe on my neighbors privacy, and in fact the deck and porch face the rear of my neighbors garage. I need to replace the current deck which is only eight feet wide because of it's poor condition, and this would be the best time to include a screen porch. The proposed porch will not block anyone's view since it is on the side of my property. Thank you for considering my application for this variance. Sincerely Yours, J env,onmen!.al ~il exploration Oenole$ Iron Idonument 0 For HAL.%TE:AO- C RF-~T LOT 13, ~.OCK 4 I;~5 O0 We hereby certify Ihal this is a true and correct representation of · survey of the bounder,es of the land described above ,,,d of lbo location el all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any. from or on said land. thai thil lurvey [,.,pared by mo or under my direct supervis~)~and Ihal I am s du_.ly Registered Land Surveyor under tt!.e laws of the State of Minnesota. AS surveyed by me this . .. ~ _ _ day of ~.l[~,. I~E.~ ........ 10'74' '" ~tr"~ o. box I. osseo, minnesota 55369" (612) 425-2181 · .. 4lq~-5 ,,.^,'4C.02,..,.. 54 g enwronmenlal land surveying soil exploration HAt-%TEAD-C RE%T Oenole$ Iron Monumlnl O LOT 13, [~.OCK 4 T~F_.. J"JI[NNE. PlN COUNTy, J'V~tklNE,~:)TA We hereby certify lhal this is a Irue and correct represenlalion of a survey o! Ihe boundaries of the land described above ,i,.I of lho location ol all buildings thereon, and all visible oncroachments, d any, from or on sa~d land, that this survoy wa8 :..~,~pared by me or under my direct supervms~on and thal I am a d_uly Reg~slered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~s su~eyed by me th~s . . ~ .... day of ~,~:M.i~,fl ........ 197~ ... box I. osseo, minnesota 55369 '" [612) 425-2181 % .J'~..~'~/'flG',T) ,,,,,'4Gg- ,.,,,.. ,5,4 I I I I I Il II III II 1R ( ])IN[NG AREA ) ( KITCHEN ) EXISTING SLI])ING DOOR 6' ( PDRCH ) 15; H~ ~,,'J v(cuU L._A/,Jc- MINUTES OF ~ MEETIN~ OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MAY 14, 1992 PUBLIC L~NDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L~dTDS: RE UEST TO BUILD A STAIRWAY BY MIKE ROY 45?? ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. The applicant was not present. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new stairway on the commons abutting the subject property. The applicant's property at 4577 Island View Drive was recently a vacant lot adjoined to 4601 Island View Drive, but has since been separated and a new house is currently being constructed. Presently, there is one stairway between the applicants property and the neighbors property to the south (4601 Island View Drive) which is dilapidated and in need of replacement. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit request for a new stairway subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made to renew the permit. 2. The stairway must comply with current building code. 3. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 4. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change of ownership. Ahrens commented that she would like to see permits granted for a longer period of time than 5 years, emphasizing that people spend a lot of money on the construction and we don't want to encourage cheap construction. It was noted that the proposed cost for the subject stairway is $2,700. Casey commented that if the applicant wants the stairway to pass inspection in 5 years they will want to construct a quality stairway. CONTINUED . . · REQUEST FROM MIKE ROY - 4577 ISLAND VIE~ DRIVE. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 Casey expressed that he would rather see the existing shared stairway utilized rather than two new stairways as it would result in less of an impact on the shoreline. Considering the existing retaining wall and walkway, the location of the existing stairway appears to be a natural place to have a stairway. It is Casey's impression that the City is trying to preserve commons. Mueller agreed that one shared stairway would be more favorable.' It was noted that the walkway is in the middle of the property line between the commons and the rear property lines to the subject properties. Byrnes commented that if the two parties shared a stairway they may not be able to agree on costs involved to maintain the stairway. Eischeid stated that a joint stairway reduces the amount of privacy to the abutting owner. The Parks Director commented that the applicant, Mike Roy, expressed a concern regarding erosion and removal of the existing stairway. Fackler stated that we need to be concerned 'about erosion on ~he hillside. The Commission discussed concerns relating to =ne removal of the existing stairway and requiring that two parties jointly be responsible for the maintenance and/or removal of one stairway. Should the City get involved in agreements between abutting neighbors? MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Schmidt to recommend approval of a Construction on Public La~ds Permit for a new stairway as requested and as recommended by staff, including the addition of the following conditions: #4. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change of ownership. #6. The existing walkway shall be removed and/or maintained as required by City staff. The old stairway shall be removed and erosion control measures addressed and corrected, if needed, per City staff. MOTION FAILED 4 to 4. Those in favor were: Asleson, Ahrens, Byrnes and Eischeid. Those opposed were: Mueller, Casey, Schmidt and Skoglund. Eischeid commented that these people pay higher taxes to live on commons, they should be entitled to their own stairway. Ahrens was concerned about requiring maintenance of one stairway by two parties. 2 CITY of MOUND STi~FF REPORT 53:1 MAYWOOD ROAD MOULD MINNESOTA 55364 !687 ~612i ,472 1155 =AX ~612) 472 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: APPLICANT: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: May 14, 1992 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director 4577 Island View Drive, Block 1, Lot 6, Devon Mike Roy Devon 41140 C Public Lands Permit Application for Construction on Public Lands Backqround: The applicant's property and the adjacent property to the south currently share an existing dilapidated stairway in need of replacement. The applicant has not been able to settle an agreement with the neighbor for reconstruction of a joint or shared stairway and now wishes to build a new stairway for his own access to the lakeshore and his City dock site. Recommendation:.. Staff recommends approval of the Construction on Public Lands Permit request subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made to renew the permit. 2. The stairway must comply with current building code. 3. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. JS:pj printed on recycled paper D~vised 2/18/92 (Public.Ap) Application for PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Oistributio~: Buildinq Official~-Z~-~. ~ Watershed DNR LMCD TYPE OF APPLICATION (check .one): I I I_ ! RECEIVED 55364 APR 2 II lgg2 Date Received Park Meeting ~ate City Council Date CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction or improvement, NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND. PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to maintain or repair an existing structure LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage slope, trees, fill, etc. ' OWNER'SNAME ~' '~0~ ~ OWNER'SDAY PHONE# ~'~t._$'")8I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUSING PROPERTY: LOT(S) ~ BIDCK I NAME OF PUBLIC LAND DOCK SITE # SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION APPLICANT'S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) ~f~ CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK CONTRACTOR, S ADDRESS CONTRACTOR' S LICENSE ~ PHONE VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): ~ZT00 ~ igna ture~~oi~c~nt . - Da~tt .............................................................. Approved Den i ed DATE CITY COUNCIL Approved . Denied DATE RECEIVED APR 2 ~ 1992 MOUND PLA,~i~tNG & INSP. STICI<NEy & LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. hAND 8URVEYOR~q REGISTERED UNDER LAW8 OF STATE OF MINNF.$OTA '/S0! · '/3id A~'enue NoKh 6~0-3093 Minnelpol~, MjlmeaoLi 554,28 INVOICE NO .30837 F. B. NO. ~4~-46 ~CALE I' = o Oenole~ Iron Monument 13 Oonofes Wood Hub Set FOc Fxcavolion Only xO00.O Denotes Existing Elevation O Oenolel Proposed Elevotion ~ Oeflofes Surface Droinoga ______. Proposed Top of Block -- _ Proposed G~rege Floor ~ Proposed Lowest Floor Type. of Building o ,/ Benchmark: Spike ~? pow:r~[e_ Aberdeen & lslandview Note: l~isting lake el.~atio~ ts at 929.5 feet which is ordLnary h~gh water elevatL(m Lot 6, i~ock I, "D~von' Councilmember P61ston:' moved the followlng resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 80-244 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR 141TH THE REC0HHENDATION OF THE PARK COHHISSION TO APPRovE A PERHIT FOR A STAIRt4AY ON COHHONS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUND, HOUND, HINNESOTA: That CounCil concurs with the recommendation of the Park CommiSsion and does hereby approve' a maintenance permit for Kenneth Brooks of ~O1 Island View Orive to build a stairway on commons in front of his property, plans~, being checked by City Building Inspector. Further, that said maintenance permit for said stairway to be granted up to five years and to be renewable after that period of time. Said action in accordance with #7 of the Flow Chart for Park Commission. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council- member Ulrick and upon VOte being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof; Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Nlthhart, the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolutlon was declared passed and adopted, signed 'by the Hayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk; Attest: City,Clerk CHC Hayor I ~ ~~ce ~e~t for or other But.ld f~ug '(3) H~e: All perni~J sriated noa-trafloferable, and the structure ~ust ~st state building codo. Sep~r&te J (2&) Legal Revie~ the use as defined' the Plea, by Oene~tl' ~h o~ld the City build cT ~aintaim · (~ Should the City i% as defined by ~lan, hr the General Publio ' T~ega~ive ~o Impact . on roe Plaa ? (~) ~:) I ~equest ('7) ,,,, ' IiOr&nt develop Plan accord~r.g to priorities (16) rene-,,a'olo But ~a~s ' ' ~ p~perty tr~fer EeL 77-130 ch~seo ~is to: Eene~ble up to Cl~*s. use pl~. new ~ers may make pliCa~o~ for ~ce per.ts 16A ~ be c~ked. ~y ~6B ........ · _,' ...... 1 ch&njel tab to: Establishlnf m; ten&nce perrr~. for s~em o public 1~ up new~l, pe~t. 15 TUXEDO BLVD. ~ - HANOVER -.. ~ ~ O~OJX ¥'1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MAY 14, 1992 ~IC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS: DE UE~T TO BUILD A STAIRWAY BY ROGER STEPHANSON 4601 ISL DRIVE. AND VIEW Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant,s request to construct a new stairway on the commons abutting the subject property. The applicant,s property at 4601 Island View Drive was recently combined to the adjacent 4577 Island View Drive where a new house is presently being constructed. Currently, there is one stairway between the applicants property and the neighbors property to the north (4577 Island View Drive) which is dilapidated and in need of replacement. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit request for a new stairway subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made to renew the permit. The stairway must comply with current building code. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred including installation and alntenance. ' m ' The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change of ownership. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit for a new stairway as requested and as recommended by staff, includinq the addition of the following conditions= #6. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change of ownership. The existing walkway shall be removed and/or maintained as required by City staff. The old stairway shall be removed and erosion control measures addressed and corrected, if needed, per City staff. MOTION FAILED 4 to 4. Those in favor were= Asleson, Ahrens, Byrnes and Eischeid. Those opposed were: Mueller, Casey, Schmidt and Skoglund. This request will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534! MAYwOOD ROAD MOUND Mh*4NESOTA5536z-1687 ;612, 4-2 1155 ri'AX (6'2; ~72-0623 DATE: TO= FROM= ADDRESS: APPLICANT: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: May 14, 1992 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director 4601 Island View Drive, Block 1, Lot 7, Devon Roger Stephanson Devon 41170 C Public Lands Permit Application for Construction on Public Lands Back--nd: The applicant currently shares an existing dilapidated stairway with the neighbor and is seeking a new stair for the own access to the lakeshore and city dock site. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Construction on Public Lands Permit'request subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made to renew the permit. 2. The stairway must comply with current building code. 3. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. JS:pj printed on recycled paper PUBLIC LANDS PERI%flT CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 X NEW CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT. (to continue use or maintain existing) LAND ALTERATION Date Received: ~ °~q-9~ Park Meeting Date: city Council Date: Copy to Building Official: ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY ~/6(~/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: OWNER' S PHONE ADDITION DOCK SITE APPLICANT'S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) BLOCK SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIBE REQUEST: REPAIR EXISTING STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENT REQUEST NEW CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEMENT TREE/BRUSH TRIMMING CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF VEGETATION 1. Certificate of Survey showing existing and proposed Improvement 2. Scaled drawings' and specifications of proposed improvement. 3. Proposed cost. F~i~ ~ =w$~ ~ 4. Photographs of the existing structure or affected area.~c]~ 5. Statement of purpose for proposed change. ~ /~,~ ~c~ ~a LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. ,., ,o. ~;r-46 ._ LAND SU~V~.YO~.~ ~'~ ~ ~; ~o' ~EOI~RED ~DER ~WS OF ~ATE OF LI~N~A O ~otes W~ ~ Set ~o~ Bench~i~k: ,~oike in po~erpol~t~ R~. ET~. - 938.gS~.G.V.D, 29~1 ~ich is ordinary high water Lot 6, Block I. 'D~Yon" PUTMAN TUXEDO BLVD. zl~o l RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR RE-CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRW&Y ON DEVON COMMONS ~BUTTING 4853 ISL~/~D VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOT 4, DEVON, DOCK SITE #43450v WHEREAS, Mark and Stacey Goldberg have applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow re-construction of a stairway on Devon Commons abutting 4853 Island View Drive, Block 14, Lot 4, Devon, Dock Site #43450; and WHEREAS, city Code Section 320, Subd. 1. requires city Council approval by a four-fifths vote for a Construction on Public Land permit; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city of Mound does hereby approve a Construction on Public Land Permit to allow re-construction of a stairway on Devon Commons abutting the property at 4853 Island View Drive, Block 14, Lot 4, Devon, Sick Site #43450 for Mark and Stacey Goldberg, subject to the following conditions: a. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time the application shall be made ~,~l. b. The stairway must comply with current building code. c. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. d. New owner of property ~make application for Maintenance Permit. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MXy ~4~ 1~2 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDsL REOUEHT TO BUILD A STAIRWAY BY MARK GOLDBERGo 4853 DRZVB~ Building Official, Jori Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request to replace a stairway on Devon Commons abutting his property. The Building Official reviewed other building permits that ~ay be required for the applicant's property. The existing boat house received a maintenance permit in 1976, and was recognized in Resolutions 89-41 and 90-59 which granted variances for the subject property to allow reconstruction of the dwelling. Resolution #90-59 specifically states Ulf in the future the boat house ts damaged, it will be removed, not replaced on the public property (the Commons).. Staff recommended approval of the Construction on Public Lands Per, it for a stairway subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made to renew the permit, 2. The stairway must comply with current building code. 3. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 4. New owner of property may make application for Maintenance Permit. Staff noted that the boat house needs minor repair and is also serviced with electrical power. Considering the current application it now seems an appropriate time to address the continuation and eventual removal of the boat house as guided by the City Code, the Decision Flow Chart, and the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended to amortize the boathouse and set a date for eventual removal within a time schedule as directed by the City Council. The applicant shall supply documentation to the City Building Official that the electrical supply to the boat house on public land has been inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector as required by the State Electrical code. Ahrens commented that she conferred with the Mayor regarding this recommendation, and it is their opinion that findings during the Inventory, such as the boat house, are not to be addressed by staff until a policy on how to address these issues has been formulated. Sutherland commented that due to the current application the property was reviewed in a whole, and as a Building Official he is required to address any potential electrical hazards. He explained that he is required to verify that the electrical in the boat house meets code. The applicant clarified that the permit should not be classified as an "after-the-fact. since he had not actually started construction on the stairway. He commented that there are many hazardous stairways on public shoreland and he believes the reason for this Is that people are Intimidated by appearing before the Park Commission and City Council and they do not want to apply to improve their stairways. MOTION made byEischisd, seconded by Aeleson to recommend approval of the Construction on Public Lands peratt to allow reconstruction of & stairway as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. The issue relating to the boat house was further discussed. The Building Official.commented that the structure is in good condition and it does not appear that it will fall down in the near future, it is possible that this issue could be addressed after the Council has formulated a policy. Asleson questioned the need for a certificate of electrical inspection for the owner's protection. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Eischied to table any action relating to the boat house until the City Council formulates a policy on how to address these issues. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Eischied, Byrnes, Mueller, Schmidt and Skoglund. Casey end Asleson opposed. Asleson commented that he wants the electrical checked. Casey stated that he believes there should have been a time limit set on the motion. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534t MAYWOOD =OAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612i472-1'55 FAX ~6!2! 472 EE20 DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: APPLICANT: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: May 14, 1992 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director 4853 Island View Drive, Block 14, Lot 4, Devon Mark and Stacey Goldberg Devon 43450 C Public Lands Permit Application for Construction on Public Lands Background: It was discovered by staff during the inventory of Devon Commons that the applicant was in the process of installing a stairway on the commons property. The applicant was notified by the City Dock Inspector regarding the required permit. Additional building permits may be required for the landscaping and retaining walls already installed and apparently on the applicant's property. The Building permit for construction of the dwelling issued on April 26, 1989 has expired and additional permits may be required for other apparent work being done on the site. The applicant's have been before the Planning Commission and City Council on two prior occasions, Resolutions #90-59 and #89-33 are attached. Photographs of the existing and prior conditions are also on City file. The existing boat house apparently received a maintenance permit at the May 22, 1990 city Council meeting. printed on recycled paper Staff Report Mark and Stacey Goldberg May 14, 1992 Page Two Recommendation: Staff recommendation will first recognize the applicant,s request for the stair and recommend approval of the Construction on Public Lands Permit subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made to renew the permit. The stairway must comply with current building code. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. New owner of property may make application for Maintenance Permit. Staff's inventory and subsequent Public Lands Status Sheet details that the existing boat house needs minor repair and is also serviced with electrical power. With this current application before the Park Commission and City Council it now seems an appropriate time to address the continuation and eventual removal of the boat house as guided by the City Code, the Decision Flow Chart, and the City Comprehensive Plan. Secondly, staff recommendation is to amortize the boathouse and set a date for eventual removal within a time schedule as directed by the City Council. The applicant shall supply documentation to the City Building Official that the electrical supply to the boat house on public land has been inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector as required by the State Electrical code. Revised 2/18/92 (Public. Ap) Application for PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: Building Official Watershed DNR Date Received ~-Z~?_~V Park Meeting Date u City Council Date LMCD RECEIVED 553~4pR 2 9 1992 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction or improvement, NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR PUBLIC LAND MAINTEN~CE PERMIT - to maintain or repair an existing structure LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, fill, etc. ADDRESS OFABUTTING PROPERTY q &s3 INLAN b OWNER'S NAME/v;~ % _i'~,c~Y ~oLmStkd GAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: Cs) ~ ~ OWNER'S DAY PHONE # ~,~$-z. ov/ BLOCK ADDITION PID # NAME OF PUBLIC LAND ~E~'~ ~ ~.o .,-- .,x c,~'S DOCK SITE # SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION APPLICANT'S NAME &ADDRESS (if different) ~-CC):TTa~_.CT3~ PERFORMING WORK CONTRACTOR'S ADDRESS CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE# PHONE VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR &MATERIALS): DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: ~ignature of Applicant Dated PARK ....................................... COMMISSION Approved 'D'~;i';~ .... Bk~ ...................... CITY COUNCIL Approved Denied DATE lOLleD V ECV- D E VO tLI : %. -z~ , C O M M O kl S L~/KE M! K/ k/ -F_ TO KI I4~ 0 DENOTES IRON ~OBI~S ~e hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 4, Block 14, DEVON, aennepin County. And of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me or under my direct supervision this _12th _ dayof_ F,a~ ,19_~q McC_.omb~. F;rank Roos Associates, Inc. PAUL A. JO~ ·/~]'~___ o,=,,,,-,o,o '~-~"~;' ~ MARK' GOLDBERG .' ! CITY of MOUND 534~ MAvWOOD ROAD !JOdf~D M%NESOIA 5§3Cz ~'2 472 ~155 ~A× 6~2~472 0620 April 23, 1992 Mr. Mark Goldberg 4853 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Goldberg: I was by your dock site this week and noticed that you were beginning construction of a stairway to the shoreline. This construction is on public property known as Devon Commons and requires permit approval by the City Council. The enclosed Public Lands Permit application must be filled out and submitted with the appropriate plans to the City of Mound by the next application due date of April 30, 1992. Your application will be reviewed by the Parks and Open Space Commission on May 14, 1992, and subsequently reviewed for final action by the City Council on May 26, 1992. Please call me at 472-0613 or Peggy James at 472-0607 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely,' -~ TM' ~ Tom McCaffre~ Dock Inspector TM:pj Enclosures printed on recycled paper PUBLIC LANDS STATUS SHEET ADDRESS OF ABUTTING OWNER' S NAME Goldberg, Mark 4853 Island View Dr Mound MN 55364 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: LOT(S) ADDITION NAME OF PUBLIC LAND DOCK SITE, o. 43450 BLOCK PID ".2~'- I/7- ZJ-/l-oo~o SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION AUTHORIZED ENCROACHMENTS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE EXPIRATION DATE UNAUTHORIZED ENCROACHMENTS ~OMPLETED BY .'~..-/.4 85 May 22, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90-59 RESOLUTION AMENDINO RESOLUTION J89-41 FOR MARK & STACY ~OLDBERG, 48S3 IHLANDVIEW DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON, PID /25-117-24 11 0037, P & ~ CAGE J89-804 WHERE&S, at the April 24, 1990, Council Meeting the City Attorney explained that the Commons were surveyed in the 1970's and that is when encroachments were found on the Commons. Section 320, Subdivision 3 of the City Code states the following: "All structures, retaining walls, stonework, concrete, or other improvements on public lands are required to have a public land maintenance permit from and after April 1, 1976." and WHEREAS, the item was tabled at the meeting to enable the staff to check the history of this boathouse and see if it was ever granted a permit, and WHEREAS, the boathouse was granted a maintenance permit on April 22, 1976 for continuing the present use of a structure or improvement on public lands or commons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby amend Resolution #89-41 by deleting the following: The 6th paragraph under item #3 which reads as follows: "Relocate boathouse onto applicants property and grant a 3 foot side yard variance and a 4 foot rear yard variance." and In the title of the resolution the following is deleted, "...grant variances for the positioning of the boathouse off of public property and onto the applicants property..." Add the following language as #6, "If in the future the boathouse is damaged, it will be removed, not replaced on the public property (the Commons)." This resolution is considered a part of and incorporated into Resolution #89-41. The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Smith and seconded by Councilmember Johnson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. 86 May 22, 1990 The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Jessen was absent and excused. Ma~6r At(est: City Clerk 66 April 25, 1989 RESOLUTION 89-41 RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION %89-33 AND ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT ~ DRO~:RTY;:~T 4, B~CK 14, DEVON; PID %25-117-24-11-0037 (4853 IS~D VIEW DRIP) P & S CASE %89-804. WHEREAS, Resolution #89-33, adopted on March 28, 1989, granted several variances to allow additions and remodeling to the above described property; and WHEREAS, the applicant began removing walls, etc., without a permit; and WHEREAS, while demolishing some walls, the house caved in and it was discovered that the house did not have proper frost footings and the garage walls did not have any footings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby amend Resolution #89-33 to read as follows: WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming front and side yard set- backs and allow new construction of a structure in the same footprint as the old structure to include garage storage space, living space on three different levels and decks on two levels, collectively requiring the following variances: A variance from the requirements of Section 23.,404 (8) to allow new construction of the first floor level (basement) northward a distance of approximately 20 feet. This expansion will not change the old exterior dimensions of the structure. On the west side of the structure, new construction of the garage, living space on levels two and three, and a deck on level two, all within an approximate .5 foot setback requiring a 5.5 foot variance. New construction of the third level of the structure to the north within 18.4 feet of the property line requir- ing a 1.6 foot variance and the addition of a deck with an approximate size of 8 feet by 8 feet on the southwest corner of the structure. 67 April 25, 1989 4. Recognition of the existing front yard setback (attached garage with doors perpendicular to street) of 1.11 feet resulting in a 18.99 foot variance; and, WHEREAS, the property received a variance in 1979 (Resolution #79-484) to allow expansion of the garage on the property; and, IE 7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommends approval after finding that strict applica- tion of the Mound Zoning Code would preasent practical dif- ficulties to the property owner in the use of his land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City does hereby authorize the variances as noted in items 1 through 3 above at 4853 Island View Drive; PID #25-117-24-11-0037. 2. The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation identified in item 4 above and authorizes, the new construction of the structure pur- suant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and expressed understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provi- sions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 3. It is determined that the livability of'the residential unit will be improved by authorizing the following new ~?~~tion ~o_a.n~nc?nforming use property due to the ~rrowness and to~al size of the lot: - Replacement of the first level (basement) to the north within the footprint shown on Exhibit 1 & 2. - Replacement of the second level garage within the footprint shown on Exhibit i & 2. - Replacement of second level living area and a deck on the south end of the new construction with an approximate size of 8 feet by 8 feet within the footprint shown on Exhibit 1 & 2. - Replacement of the third level living areas within an envelope generally defined as being 18.4 feet from the north property line, .5 feet from the west property line extending approximately 44 feet from the north property line and over the existing 68 April 28, 1989 second level of the home with approximate dimen- sions of 20.4 feet by 36.5 feet. Additionally, a deck will. be constructed at the southwest corner of level 3 with an approximate dimension of 8 feet by 8 feet as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2. atae/botusa~ .1/c a n/s .~r~p_e/tY/ a~ /a _~ ~oo~ si~e y~at~d var~anc~ ama ~ ~o~ rear ~fa~d ~a~ia~ce~ ~ Upon further condition that the Registered Land Survey included by updated to include the staking of the utility easement. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 4, Block 14, Devon PID #25-117-24-11-0037 This variance shall be recorded with the county re- corder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on the use of this property. The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs'for, such recording. The Certificate 'of Oc- cupancy shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Mayor Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk April 25, 198~ ' VIEW . DR. ,,, L A K E ' Nt l id M E TO M K A · JOTE$ fROM MOUUMEUT SET VIEW LAKE' MI Id klETOklK. ,A £1JOTE$ Il%OM I ' . ..... April 25, i~LAAdD VIEW I JOT£$ IKOL! MO~IUI,4EIJT SF.T I k. ' VIEW DR. iSL,4~D £UO'/'E,.S IFOKI MOL/I. JM£LIT ,SET )SOR PLACE 14 ~ 15\ 16 x \ x LAKE 15- B"'... ,,. Mr. Ed Shukle City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 April 23, 1992 Dear Mr. Shukle, I would like to request an appearance before the Mound city council on either May 26 or June 9, 1992. The purpose is to review my maintenance permit application that you currently have on file. The council's decision of December 10, 1992 clearly indicates a need for more discussion about this. Interaction from area residents regarding my personal situation as well as all commons issues might be appropriate. I truly believe that council members are unaware of how unhappy the citizenry feels concerning the rules, regualations and administration of commons' programs. I realize that I must wait for public hearings before my agenda item can be heard, but I would like to be scheduled as early in the evening as possible. For this reason, I am willing to appear at your discretion, either May 26 or June 9, 1992. I am directing his request to you at Jim Fackler's recommendation. He informs me that this is all that's required, since you already have all of the necessary items on file. Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you. cc: Richard Saliterman Attorney at Law Sincerely,~ ()f , IOL'NI) December 17, 1991 Mr. Dean Hanus q737 Island View Drive Mound, MN 5536q Re: Council Action on Your Request for a Construction on Public Lands Permit Dear Mr. Hanus: At the City Council meeting of Tuesday, December 10, 1991, the Council voted to deny your application for a permit for Construction on Public Lands· The action taken was to deny a Construction on Public Lands Permit and approving the staff's recommendation as follows: The City Council recognizes that this public Commons area was dedicated by Tuxedo Park Company on September 12, 1911. Complete removal of the boathouse and deck. Regradtng and landscaping of th~ area according to specifications prepared by the Park Director and City Engineer. The cost of such removal, grading and landscaping be the responsibility of the applicant. 'The applicant and abutting owner may claim and remove any structure or portion thereof from the City Commons property and may remove it from Commons property after obtaining the required permit from the Building Official and at the applicant's own expense. Note: Removal of a structure or boathouse would require a Land Alteration Permit per City Code Section 320, Subdivision q. Please note that the permit fee for the Land Alteration~ Permit will be waived. The Council's action specifically stated that the boathouse and deck are to be removed within 6 months of the date of the City Council meeting, which will be June 10, 1992. ptinted on recycled paper Dean Hanua December 17, 1991 I would suggest that you come in and work with don Sutherland, Building Official and Jim Fackler, Parka Director to accomplish the above items that the building official had recommended to the City Council and the City Council adopted. Edward J';. Shuk[e, Jr City I~anager Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parka Director ES:la I o'1 1.10 I~PPLXC~TXOM FOI I*BIUiX? 10la T~ CONSTItUCTXOM ON PUBLX~ ~ The Building Official explained that the applicant is seekin~ an after-the-fact Construction on Public Lands Per, it to alloy the follovtr~ to remains a. Boathouse improvements, includ inq t siding, ret·of, wind·ye, new door, inside vail finish, counter top with sink, cabinets, and electrical wiring for fixtures and outlets. b. D~ck. c. Stairway to lake. d. Retaining walls. e. Shoreline riprap. The foil·wing were pre-existing structures that were recoqnized by the City in Resolution {76-372 baaed on a survey of the Commons = a. Boathouse b. Stairway c. Patio The Flow Chart action that vas 91Yen to these items was a 16A, .liaintenance Permit renewable up to { years contingent upon the city's uss plan. Ney o~qlers may make application for maintenance permits.' The City Attorney expIsined that when this survey of private structures on public land vas done it vas to discourage and terminate the practice at the earliest opportunity, i.e. that permanent structures, 'boathouses, living quarters, etc. should bm removed at the earliest time. lis also reminded the Council that city officials are .trustees for all the public and therefore private utiIization of public lands should be discouraged and terminated at the earliest opportunity. The Park Director explained that the construction of the deck and reeodelinq of the boathouse came to the City's attention from another individual who was denied an application for · deck on the Com~ona in front of hie home. liike liuellsr spoke statinq that if there was · Truth in liouainq Code in the City of liound, prospective buyers would be aware that they were buying property abutting Commons and that they need a liaintenance Permit for any encroachments that exist on Commons. liark lianue, 444*6 Denbigh Road, stated that he doss not feel the Naintenancs Permit system has worked. The Council pointed out that if Dean lianue had applied for a Building Permit which was required, the liaintenancs Permit system would have worked. The Building Official recommended= 1. The City Council recognizes that this public Co~mons was dedicated by Tuxedo Park Company on September 12, 1911o Complete removal of the boathouse and deck. Regradin9 and landscaping of the ara· according to specifications prepared by the Park Director and City Engineer. 4. The cost of ~uch removal, grading and Zand,captng responsibility of the applicant. 5. The ~pplican~ a~ abutting o~tr ~ay clai~ and re~ov~ st~cturt or portion thereof fro, th~ City Co~ons prop~ and say remove It fro~ Co,oas property after obtaining required per~lt fro~ the Building Official and ~t the applicant~s own expense. N~E= Re,oval of t st~cturt or boathous~ would re, ire L~nd liter·fiSh Per~lt p~r City Cod~ Section S~lvislon 4. Councilmembar Ahrens and Smith voiced opposition to the removal of the deck and boathouse, MOTIOM mede ,Tenoem~ mo·ended by ~·esen to deml · oonstruotion obJ publte lands porutt for 473T Zeland view Drive and 8pproving Otaff,o that ~ke.po~i~ fee for the ~nd ~teratiom ~t ..... DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICANT: iLOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBJECT: CITY of MOUND ~TAFF REPORT December 10, I991 City Council Meeting City Council, Applicant and Staff don Sutherland, Building Official Dean Hanus 4737 Island View Drive Lot 7, Block 7, Devon PlO #30-117-23 22 0055 Construction on Publtc Lands Permit MOO~,] M','.ESOT& BACKGROUND (Please note the application does not Include all Improvements noted by City Staff.) The applicant ts seeking an after-the-fact Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the improvements as listed below to remain. All Improvements have been completed without prior approval and in violation of City code Section 320, Uniform Building Code Sec- tion 301, and also the State Plumbing and Electrical Code permit requirements. When this property was first Inspected by City staff on August 7, 1991, the boathouse had been remodeled and it resembled a one room cabin with complete kitchen Facilities Including a counter top, sink, and cabinets, a bed was set up and the building ap- peared to be used for habitation. Also noted on the attached Inspection Notice a stop work order was issued for an B' x 10' addition to front of the principal dwelling. Improvements observed by staff at site Inspection: a. Boathouse Improvements, including: siding, retool, windows, new door, Inside wall finish, counter top with sink, cabinets, and electrical wiring for Fixtures and outlets. b. Deck. c. Stairway to lake. d. Retaining walls. e. Shoreline rtprap. printed on recycled paper StaFF Report Dean Hanus Page 2 Pre-existing structures recognized by City in Resolution #?8-3?2 (attached). a. Boathouse. b. Stairway. c. Patio. This case was before the Park Commission on November 14. The Park Director's recommendation was as stated in the attached minutes of the November 14 Park Commission Meeting. There was considerable discussion and two motions by the Park Commission, both of which Failed· Staff's recommendation was not supported by the Park Commission. COMMENTS This type of Issue has been before previous city councils, and our city attorney has given us comprehensive opinion letters on the private use of public lands. In part, he states that private use of public lands should be discouraged and terminated at the earliest opportunity· Also, that permanent structures, boathouses, living quarters, etc. should be removed at the ear- liest time. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Following: The City Council recognizes that this public commons area was dedicated by Tuxedo Park Company on the 12th day of Sep- tember I911. 2. Complete removal of the boathouse and deck· Re-grading and landscaping of the area according to specifications prepared by the Parks Director and City En- gineer. The Cost of such removal, grading, and landscaping be the responsibility of the applicant. StaFF Report Dean Hanus Page 3 The Applicant and abutting owner may claim and remove any structure or portion thereof From the City commons property and may remove it From commons property after obtaining the required permit From the Building OFFicial and at the applicant's own expense. Note: Removal of a structure or boathouse would require a Land Alteration Permit per City Code Section 320, Subdivi- sion 4. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Based on this case and analysis oF the original dedication of the commons areas, it is recommend that the City Council approve the Following ordinance modification to City Code Section 320:00: Subd. 4. Land Alteration and structure removal. (add "and Structure Removal" to heading) Add the Following as a second paragraph to Subd. "Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by the City Building ~icial under any code or law may proceed under the su- pervision and direction of the City Building O~Fictal · without the necessity For obtaining removal permits From the City Council." JS:pj I pll CITY OF MOUND INSPECTION NOTICE [] FOOTING Ii~ FRAMING ~ INSULATION [] WALL BD. [] FINAL ~ PROGRESS [3 DEMOL. [] FIRE PREY. PERMIT NO. TELEPHON 'O'. ' ' ' [] PLUMBING RI CALLED-IN SCHEDULED COMPLETED DI TIME ,CONTR.. SExlTEINSPECTION CAV.IGRADINGIFILLING [] MECHANICAL E3 WATER HOOKUP [] METER SET/TURN ON [] SEWER HOOKUP E} SEPTIC INSTALL. [] SEPTIC MAINT. E] PLUMBING FINAL [] LAKESHORE/WETLANOS [] COMPLAINT [] FOLLOW-UP [] SEPTIC FINAL R ~ ~[,~, ~ P~T~ _ CORRECT WORK & PROCEED CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERI~ ' QORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN, ~OP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR. ~SPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. Owner/Contr. on site .//./ - v ~'~".,,-~~--,--~ Inspector 472-1155 Gold Copy/Site Notice White Copyllnspector'$ File HO~I) ADVXSOR¥ PARK AlfD OPeN 8PACE ~OIO(ZBSlON HOVEHBER 14~ 1991 CONS?RUCTION ON PUBLIC LMm8 pERMi,J APPLICATION, BT: 4737 ISLAJ~ VIEW DRIV- Park D~rector, JLm Fackler, reviewed the history of this property. On August $, 1978, Resolution 75_37~ vas approved by the City Council approving a Natntenance Pe~[t renewable up to years for the subject property. This ~e~[t lnclud~ the tnq boathouse, stai~ay and patio. The following work has s[n~e Been completed on the subject property, without pe~t approval: the ~athouse vas resided and re-roof~, a n~w d~c~ was const~cted, and add~tional retaining walls were cons~c~e~. The a~plicant ~s seeking approval of an affter-the-fact Const~ct~on on ~bl~c ~nds Pe~t to allow these improvements to re~ain. Staff reco~ended the following: 1. Renevin~ the Haintenance Pe~[t for the boathouse, stai~ay, and patio for up to three years, u~n the condition that the use off the boathouse is restored to ~ts original use as boathouse~ the current use of se=i-habitable space is not allo~ed. This ~it allows these st~ctures to re=ain un- til three years of the date of City Council approval, at which time the Haintenance Pe~lt will ~ re~ired to be reviewed again. ~rinq this three year ~ri~, ~f the o~er wishes to [~prove these st~ctures, a serrate Naintenance Pe~it will ~ re~lred. - 2. ~e new deck ~ust be reaoved froa C~ty pro~y within 30 days of C~ty Council approval. Hr. ~an ~anus re~ested that the deck and all other l~provesents ~ allowed to remain. He e~lained that the isproveaents done due to the rain sto~ of 1987 which caused erosion. He su~ed that ~ost of the boathouse was on his property and was un- clear as to where the property line was. The ~at house was terrible disrepair with broken screens and rotti~ ~. boat house ~s not habitable as ~t does not have ~nside but it does have electricity, however, Hanus a~itted that he slept tn the boat house for about 1-1/2 ~onths this last smer. He stated their was evidence of a deck existing on the pro~rty before as there were posts and stringers tn the ground which looked like a suppo~ st~cture for a deck. The hillside ~as a dump with car parts, cans and chains. He emphasized that the area looks much better now. Fackler e~la[ned how this encroac~ent ca~e to the attention of the Parks ~part~ent, which was from another ind~vidual who was denied an application for a deck on the co~ons ~n front of his house. He also reviewed other similar cases involving deck encroac~ents onto public lands in which the encroachments ~ere required to be re~oved, such as the driveway on ~goon Park. Fackler emphasized that a precedent has been set. ~an Hanus consented that he feels these cases should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Hark Hanus ~estioned ~hy the other applica- ttons have been denied. Fackler su~arlzed that P~lic lands are to be protected for the use of the general public. Hark Hanus ~estlon~ why this land needs to be protected, as it is useable only by the abutting o~ers due to Inaccessibility. Casey referred to a letter written by the City Attorney dated January 1976 vhich states, "we as city officials are trustees for all the public and therefore private utilization of public lands shall bediscoutage~ and teruinated at the earliest opportunitY,u Case¥ also referenced the DNR's Shorline Management Plan which the intent is for the public to benefit from protecting the shoreline from excessive development relating to aesthetics. Casey commented that some people like to view natural shoreline versus excessive buildings and decks close to the shoreline. Mr. Indritz emphasized the inaccessibility to the subject commons property by the general public. Carols Munson, next door neigh- bet to Dean Hanus, questioned why we should protect property for the public which cannot be used by public? Resolution 77-130, 77-131, and 77-132 adopting the flow chart and implementing the processing of maintenance persits for construc- tion on co~nons was reviewed. Dean Hanus emphasized that he only re-built the deck as there was evidence of one their before. Fackler commented that their is a difference between a deck and a patio, as a 'Patio' was approved in 1978. Byrnes stated that since this property is not accessible to the general public, then why should the abutting owner not be allowed to use it. Munson read a letter to the Commission which she received from the Dock Inspector relating to the maintenance of weeds surround- ing her dock side. She stated that if a poll was taken of owners abuttin~ commons, we would probably find that few of them believe the City of Mound maintains their property. Fackler commented that a great amount of money has been spent on improving the connons by dredging, riprappinq and tree removals. If an abutting owner of couuons property has a concern about ero- sion and feels riprap is needed, or there is some other problem, the City will address the problem. There was some discussion by the Commission about reviewing the maintenance permit policies and procedures. Asleson commented that an after-theofact permit of new construction is difficult to evaluate. Me suggested that if the Commission is interested in making a wholesale revision of the past policy, maybe the request should be tabled. Ahrens commented that she is not sure all com- mons should be treated the same. NOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes to table the request until the Co-'Lesion can rs-examine the policy and procedures of processing maintenance permits. Mo- tion to table failed 4 to 3. Those in favor were~ tens, Byrnes, and Sch~ldt. Those opposed were= Casey, Asleeon, ~ndersen and Bailey. MOTION made by CaseT, seconded by Bailey to recommend approval of staff's recommendation. Casey referred to the City Attorney's letter again, and stated that he does not see anything in the law or facts to change what was written in 1976. He feels the Commission should look at 'what is a public use.' Allowing the extension of private property onto public lands would be setting a bad precedent. Ahrens referred to the Attorney's letter dated 1975, which states, 'The Planning Connisston, Park Commission, Council and citizens determine the desired use for commons.' Ahrens com- mented that the people on these commissions and the council are all different now from who was there in 1975, and what about the citizens? She believes the policy needs to be looked at. As- leson commented that this land will always be public land, the voice of the citizens should be heard. Chair Asleson called for the question: HOTZOM failed 3 to 4. Those in favor ware CaneT, Aoleson, and BaLleT. Those opposed wero~ lohuidt, ihrsns. B~rm.., and .d.r..n. This case will be heard by the City council on Deceub~r 10, .5LAND VI EW RECEIVED ~10¥ 13 I~ I I CITY of ,X'IOUNI) 554~ MA~.'.'OOD ~O,~D DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: APPLICANT: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Novc~nber 14, 1991 Park Commission Meeting Park Co~T~nission and Applicant~ Jim Fackler, Park Director 4737 Island View Drive (Lot 7, Block 7, Devon) Dean Hanus Devon #42351 C - non-traversible Construction on Public Lands (aFter-the-fact) Permit Application BACKGROUND On August 8, 1978, Resolution 78-372 was approved by the City Council approv- ing a Maintenance Permit renewable up to 3 years For the subject property. This permit included the existing boathouse, stairway and patio. Any repair, improvements or changes to this public land or the existing structures must comply with City Code Section 320:00, Improvements to Public Lands. The Following work has since been coe~leted on the subject property, without permit approval: the boathouse was resided and re-roofed, a new deck was con- structed, and additional retaining walls were constructed. The applicant ts seeking approval of an after-the-Fact Construction on Public Lands permit to allow these improvements to remain. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends renewing the Maintenance Permit For the boathouse, stairway, and patio For up to three years, upon the condition that the use of the boathouse ts restored to its original use as a boathouse; the current use of habitable space is not allowed. This permit allows these structures to remain until three years of the date of City Council approval, at which time the Maintenance Permit will be required to be reviewed again. During this three year period, IF the owner wishes to Improve these structures, a separate Maintenance Permit will be required. The new deck must be removed From City property within 30 days of City Council approval. ~J August 8, 1978 Councilmember Wlthhart moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION 78-372 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF HAINTENANCE PERHITS AS SUBHITTED BY THE DOCK INSPECTOR AND REVIEWED BY THE PARK COHHISSION WHEREAS, the Dock Inspector has submitted malntenance permlt requests for dlfferent types of structures and bulldings on the commons, and WHEREAS, the Park Commission has made recommendation with regard to repair, maintenance and the removal of certain structures, and WHEREAS, an Itemized listing of structures or buildings, street location and types of action recommended can be found in the Hound Advisory Park Commission minutes of 7-27-78. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUND, HOUND, NINNESOTA: ' That Council does hereby authorize and direct the approval and Issuance, of maintenance permits as submitted by the Dock In- spector and reviewed by the Park Co~nisslon. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilperson Fenstad, and upon vote belng taken thereon, the followlng voted in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swanson and Withhart, the follow- lng voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Hayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. st. City Clerk CITY OF MOUND Moun~, ~nnesota August 3, 1978 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78-255 FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Commons Maintenance Permits Attached is a list of maintenance permits on Commons recommended by the Park Commission. As you will note, some of the recommendations have stipulations. Suggested resolution: "Maintenance Permit Applicatio~ listed below are approved with stipulations as noted". (The additional comments on the Park list would be liste4 as stipulations.) PRES~T: Minutes of MOUND ADVISORY PARK C01'~,!ISSION July 27, !978 This meeting was a continuation of the 7/20/78 meeting. CO;.~.;ONS MAINTE,.'.[ANCE PEPJoIITS Address on Island View Dr. 4~547 4617 a. 625 .4645 _4649 _4665 z~711 Chairman Hal Larson, Pat Shay, Toni Case, Ca~hy Bailey, Jon Lynott, Dock Insp. Don Rother, Sec. Karene Uhe · ;.-'~-. .. "' ~., . .',.'"~.~. .... ..~ .... .. '-i-- :..,'~.~" Encroachment Followed t~u Additional on Come, ons to flow chart ~ Co~ents Retaining wall 16 : -- Iron Post 16A Chain on commons to'be-removed. Boat wench 16A - · . ' . . . '.-. . Stair~?ay ] 6A ..... '.' ~'" ........ '- Stairway 16A Needs r~ling~ on both sides "~"-- Stairway ] 6A ..... ~ :~'~'? ;' '~ :~':~' Playhouse ]6A To be ~inted earth~one color. Stairway 16A Needs r~ilings on both si~eS. Refining wall 16 Light ~st 16A (No permit was requested, however a shed does exist on commons and should be removed.) -. -.." Storage rack 16B Flower box 16B Lamp post 16A Concrete walkaway 16A Sidewalk 16A StairwG~ 16A Stairway 16A Retaining wall 16 · Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Retaining wall 16 Structure 16A Permit for up to 60 days Needs · · · ...... ~ raxl~ngs on bo~h sides.;.~ ' ' ' "~'cl.'.'.-3,~J':' Needs r~hngs on b~th sides, Needs railings on both sides. all the way to the ~ttom. To be painted earthtone color, ~717 Stairway 16A Guest house 2A Needs railings on both sides.' ~-. 9age 2 Park Minutes Deck J6A Pumphouse 16A Stairway 16A Playhouse 16A Boathouse Stairway Retaining wall 16 ':.' ~ :~;: To be painted earthtone color. Needs railings on both sides. To be painted earthtone color'_' To be painted earthtone color.. To be painted earthtone c°lor.;'~'~i' To be painted earthto,ne color.'.i~'.' Needs railings on beta sides. _4753 Boathouse 16A Stairway 16A Patio 16A Stairway '16A Stairway Stairway 16A Retaining wall 16 Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway Boathouse 16A Retaining wall Needs railings on both sides. ' ' ~:'.'".,~7~.. }leeds railings on both sides. · -'. -::<,'..- ~:" 'c'.:';.. Needs railings on both sideS. Needs railings on both sides..- - ~ _. ,?.?....,:%;' .' .....~-,.;~..,..,~.,. ·.. !,~ ::'.' '~,'-- ':i: '" -' Needs railings on both sides and break to allow passage through° To be painted earthtone color. Wall is in non-repairable conditi{ 4815 4817 484°_, Stairway 16A Needs railings on lower part on both sides. -.-'.-. 16A Needs railings on both sides." :"- (No permit request has been received. Reco~end action'<'<'.. by City Council to enforce Ordinance.) Stairway Stairway Walk Retaining wall Fish house Remove from commons. Stairway 16A Needs railings on both sides and repair work. Retaining wall 16 Needs repair work done. (General clean-up is recommended as soon as possible.) '.. Page 3 Park Minutes 7/27/78 _~877 Stairway 16A Shed 16A _4909 Stairway 16A :491 ~ S tair~ay 16A ~91 ~ Stairway 16A ~ Stairvzay 16A Retaining wall 16 o~ Stairway ] 6A Shed ~ Stairway 16A ~ Stairway !6A _4945 Stairway 16A Boathouse ] 6A 4949 Fence 16B 1~_95_7 Flag pole 16A To be painted an eartbtone c01o~.. To be painted an earthtone color,' Remove from commons, Needs railings on both sides', Needs railings on both sides,~. Needs railiugs on both sides Permit for up to one year only, **Larson moved that the above list be recommended to the City Couucil as listed for their action on the Maintenance Permits from Devon Cozmons, Shay seconded and vote was unaninous, 'Chart Action . . ' . '- ]6 Grant peruit up to 5 yrs, and rene.'.vable, - -~.~'- 16A Renewable u~ to 3 yrs, cont~n§ent u on the Git's o - ~" ' . - P y us~ pla ...... owners may make application for maintenance permits, %16B Establishing maintenance permits for structures on public landS'; - - ~ ~ ann_a~, , 2A up to 3 yrs, non renewable, Permit to be ch~cked Seperate 'legal revie~v, .·2. :~ ::..- · ..:!~.~..: CiTY OF HOUNDt 5341HAYWOOD R()ADt HOUNDt MN 55364 472-1155 Check One ' ~ CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION I · ,___~d, FqJI31_IC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT AM:q. ICATION ! CONTINUING THE PRESENT USE OF A STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS OR COMMON5 NAME OF COMMONS: ADDITION, DATE, DAY PHONE: ~J0 DOCKS i TE #: 7 DESCRIBE REQUEST, REPAIR EXISTING STRUCTURE OR IHPROVEMENT TREE TRIMMING REQUEST NEW CONSTRUCTION ~ II'&°ROVEMENT UNDER-BRUSH TRIMMING CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF VEGETATION APPLICANT MUST FURNISH THE FOLLOWING: I. One site plan drawn to scale showing dimensions and location of the ex- Isting or proposed structure/Improvement. 2. Type of chemical and method to be used. 3. Name, address, and phone number of contractor performing services. 4. One set of plans and specifications of sufficient clarity and detail to Indicate the nature and extent of the structure or Improvement. Photographs of the existing structure in need of repair, or of the af- fected area. S i gnature of Appl I cant Dated Mr. Jim Fackler PARKS DIRECTOR 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 October 28, 1991 RECEIVED OCT 3 1 1991 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Dear Mr. Fackler, Please find enclosed the documents you requested on October 21, 1991. I am mailinG these to comply with the November 1st deadline that you require, but the official copies of the survey may take a couple days longer to receive. The survey is scheduled for October 29. It always takes several more days to complete the drawings and mail to me. I will submit 2 copies to you the same day I receive them. (I would expect this to be very close to November 1). WORK COMPLETED * Boathouse was re-sided and new screens installed(1987) * Boathouse was re-roofed (1987) * Several sections of retaininG walls were installed (1987,1988) * Boathouse deck was rebuilt (1991) The survey should now be the only missing item. Thank you for your~ttention. S incerely,~~~~ Dean Hanus CITY ,\'IOUND October 21, 1991 Mr. Dean Ranus 4737 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 RE: Construction on Public Lands Dear Mr. Hanus: This letter is notification to you that your violations to City Code Section 330 relating to construction on public lands will be reviewed by the Parks and Open Space Commission at their regular meeting 'on November 14, 1991. Your cooperation on this matter would be greatly appreciated. A letter from Building Official, Jon Sutherland, dated August 20, 1991 was mailed to you requesting that the appropriate application to allow construction and maintenance of structures on public land be submitted to our office. Once again, we are requesting that this application be submitted, a form is enclosed. The following information is required to be submitted with the application: 1. A survey/site plan as required on the enclosed "green" information sheet. 2. A complete list of the work completed and proposed on public lands. 3. Plans/drawings as required on the enclosed "green" information sheet. This information must be submitted by November 1, 1991. If you have any questions, or need assistance with preparing for your application, please contact Jon Sutherland, Peggy James, or myself. Sincerely, ~/ Enclosures cc: Jori Sutherland, Building Official Ed Shukle, City Manager printed on recycled paper ,~E-i" ONK/~ GOVT LOT'I' .% ): ?/'~" 3/. · :3~) m ?3) ....;~3 /..'~"~ i~ : 4014O1 ~I w,tl':OvER RD 4737 Island View Dr Dean Hanus 9-24-85 £l OR Devon 37870 Lot 7 Block 7 30-117-23 22 0055 Survey no R-2 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 i612} 472-1155 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 26, 1992 city Council Meeting Mayor, city Council, and City Planne]~~ Jon Sutherland, Building official Second Extension of Resolution #91-71 Minor Subdivision for Frank Drey Westwood, Block 2, Lot 3 On January 14, 1992 the City Council approved Resolution #92-9 granting a 180 day extension for Resolution #91-71 for the subject minor subdivision. The applicant has again failed to file the resolution within this time period due to a delay caused by title work, and again is requesting an extension. This application for a minor subdivision was simple request and was approved unanimously by the City Council. Staff recommends that the extension be granted. DJ printed on recycled paper 10 January 14, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 92-9 RESOLUTION APPROVING A 180 DAY EXTENSION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-71~ MINOR SUBDIVIBION FOR FRANK DREYv LOT 3v BLOCK 2~ NESTWOOD WHEREAS, Resolution #91-71 was approved by the City Council on May 28, 1991; and WHEREAS, this resolution was not filed at Hennepin County within 180 days of its adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve a 180 day extension for Resolution #91-71 giving the applicant until March 28, 1992, to file this resolution with Hennepin County. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. absent and excused. ~ayor ~// A[test: City Clerk 122 May 28, 1991 RESOLUTION ~91-71 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOT 3~ BLOCK 2, WESTWOOD, PID J23-117-24 23 0014 (P&Z CASE ~91-010) WHEREAS, the minor subdivision of Lot 3, Block 2, Westwood, PID #23-117-24 23 0014 has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 330 of'the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The request of the applicant for a waiver from the provisions of Section 330 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as follows: Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 Westwood, PID J23-117-24 23 0013, 0014, & 0015. It ts hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per the following descriptions (see the attached Exhibit 'A'): ~_~ Lot 4 and the Southerly 50.00 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Westwood. ~ That part of LOt 3 which lies Northerly of the Southerly 50.00 feet thereof, and LOt 2, Block 2, Westwood. 123 May 28, 1991 It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties· Se The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant. The applicant shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility of paying all costs for such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk 124 28, t99t FOR FRANK N. LOTS 2-4, Block 2, westvood Hennep[n County, M~nne$ota RESOLUTION t91-71 .- / l [x:stlng Leqal Description, L~t 2, Block 2, #estvood. ~ot l, Block 2, Westvood. ~ot 4. Block 2, Westvcod. ~ro.oosed Legal Descriptlo~t ~ot 4 ang the Southerly 50.00 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Westvood. ?ha~ part of Lot I vh~ch !les Northerly of the Southerly 50.00 ~eet thereof, and Lot 2, Block 2, Westvood. ¢¢ Date : ?-30-90 Scale: 1' · $0' COFFIN & GRONB£RG0 INC. £ngzneers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, ~nnesota RECEIVED APR I HINUTES OF H HEETING OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION l~Y 15~ 1991 Westwood PID 23-117-24 23 0014. HINOR SUBDIVISION. Block 2 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicants request to subdivide a vacant parcel and combine it with both ad- joining conforming properties. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision request with the condition that an updated survey be required for each lot to include all structures on site. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by The1 to approve staff recommendation for approval with the condition that an updated survey be submitted for each lot includ- ing all structures on site. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1991. CITY of MOUND fll-OlO 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 (812) 472-1155 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBdECT: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of May 13, 199! Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff don 5utherland, Building OFFicial 9I-OlO Frank W. Drey Westedge Blvd. Lot 3, Block Z, Westwood PID #Z3-117-Z4 Z3 0014 Minor Subdivision R-I Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant requests to subdivide Lot 3, Block 2, Westwood and combine this lot with both adjoining properties as shown on the attached survey. Both existing Lots 4 and 2 exceed the 10,000 square Foot lot area requirement For the R-! zone. RECOMMENDATION StaFF recommends approval oF the subdivision request with the condition that an updated survey be required For each lot to in- clude all structures on site. NOTE This case will be heard by the City Council on May ZS, ]991. The abutting neighbors have been notified. WILLIAM A, CARLSON, PRES. 2324 WEST ! 10th STREET 888-2084 55431 URVEY FOR~ ESTWOOD HOMES. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Licensed, Insured & Bonded?~. :t 1-010 DESCRIPTION; LOT 2, DLOCK 2t WESTWOOD. WE HEREBY" CERTIFY THAT THIS I S A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESE:NTATI.ON OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF' THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OF THE LOCATION OF' ALL BUILDINGSt IF' ANY~ THEREON~ AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACH- MENTSi IF' ANYi, FROI'~ Of,' ON SAID LAND~ A~ SURVEYED BY US THIS 25TH DAY OF AP R I L ~ 1972. MINN, REG, NO. 5648 ./ CITY OF MOUND 472-1155 QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION PORTABLE SIGN APPLICATION Portable signs used For the purpose oF directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public Function. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event. A permit is required, however is exempt From all Fees. ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION BUILDING OWNER~ NAME OF APPLICANT ~C (IF other than owher) APPLICANT'S ADDRESS~'~? PLEASE INDICATE NUMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: PHONE PHONE DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (materials, ts it Illuminated, etc.): SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ~ high x ~ wide = ~-~-- sq. Ft. DESCRIBE REASON FOR REQUEST'. _ Date //////////////////////////////////////// Recon~endatton: APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON= BILLS ....... -Ha7 26, 1997 BATCH 2052 $ 128,814.98 TOTAL BILLS $ 128,814.98 Z~ LM ?; z~ z z ,~ I 3 CITY OF MOUND 1998 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES APRIL 1992 33.3% APRIL ~YTD PER CENT BUDGET EXF'ENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXF'ENDED GENERAL FUND Council 6?280 4155 24393 4888? 36.26% Cable TV 1380 0 ?80 600 56.58% City Manager/Clerk 166790 18492 55693 11109? 33.39% Elections 14800 1661 3489 11311 83.5?% Assessing 46860 64 196 46064 0.42% Finance 147090 14809 48995 104095 29.83% Computer 31000 1126 18355 18645 39.85% Legal 83950 68?4 15695 68855 18.70% Police ?44890 88585 851591 493899 33.78~ Civil Defense 3350 216 5?8 2??8 17.25% Planning/Inspections 127000 18408 41519 85481 38.69x Streets 402900 30139 128054 880846 Shop & Stores 80180 6?8 3985 16855 19.45% City Property 90150 5169 80013 70137 22.20% Parks 132990 10359 3025? 102733 28.75~ Summer Recreation 31610 0 0 31610 0.00% Contingencies 80000 1748 2402 17598 18.01~ Transfers 119730 939? 3?590 88140 31.40% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2251350 2052?4 665525 1585825 29.56% Area Fire Service Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Recycling Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund 221600 18878 58165 163435 86.25% 178980 19722 65083 11389? 36.34% 353060 88125 111046 242014' 31.45~ 971190 58955 828154 ?43036 83.49% 100900 9894 24073 76827 83.86~ 4230 111 948 3288 82.41Z 46850 1298 16626 30224 35.49% GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND DOCKS FUND RECYCLING FUND CEMETERY FUND BUDGET 1188250 820900 3260 69500 41250 75000 10000 51250 2259410 221600 1180000 350000 650000 ?1000 118730 3200 CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT APRIL 1998 APRIL YTD REVENUE 33.3% PER CENT REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 0 1859 1186391 0.16% 0 26367 794533 3.81~ 240 1899 1961 39.85% 7974 23062 46438 33.18~ 1564 5088 36228 18.19~ 5489 15174 59886 80.83% 1878 6009 3991 60.09~ 186 8298 48958 4.48% 16785 81096 2178314 3.59~ 35554 112809 108791 50.91~ 85816 317866 862134 26.94% 84905 101576 848484 29.08~ 50488 210543 439457 32.39% 1596 6?732 3268 95.40% 3832 13770 104960 11.60% 550 8550 650 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 11t 1992 Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Mark Hanus, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. Council Representative Liz Jensen and Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Brian Johnson were absent and excused. The following persons were also in attendance: Jack and Joan Ronning, Steven Hicks, Jeff McMurray and Deb Baker, Peter Jacobson, Mark Bussey, Jeff Vint, Dave Wisnewski, Jack Bolke, Janice Saunders, and Vicki Davis. MINUTES The April 27, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes were presented for changes and/or additions. Hanus requested a change on page three of the minutes in the second paragraph, 5th line, to delete "has" and replaced it with "created." MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voss, to approve the April 27, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~91-011: JACK & JOAN RONNING, 1717 FINCH LANE, LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 13t DR~J~WOODt PID ~13-117-24 13 0048. VARIANCE - addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct two additions to an existing single family home. The existing structure has nonconforming setbacks on two sides, the new additions conform to all zoning setback requirements. The variances involved include a 12.9 foot front yard setback variance and a 5.7' side yard setback variance. Staff recommended approval of the front and side yard variances for the purpose of allowing the applicant to construct the proposed conforming additions shown on the survey noted "Updated 4/21/92, J.A. Ronning, Owner, 1717 Finch Lane." If the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from the location of the existing structure over which the present owner of the property has no control and the proposed improvements will not intensify the existing nonconforming aspects of the property. Mueller and Hanus noted that the amount of hardcover is close to the proposed 30 percent limit. MOTION made by ross, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance as requested and as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 CASE ~92-012: 24 33 0066. ~ARING. DAKOTA RAIL, INC., 2290 COMN~CE BLVD., PID PRELIMINARY PLAT "DAKOTA RAIL 1ST aDDITION- - PUBLIC City Planner, Mark Koegler, informed the commission that Dakota Rail has submitted an application for a major subdivision to create a new parcel around ;the existing Norwest Bank Building at the corner of Shoreline Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. It has been determined by staff that additional information is needed pertaining to road right-of-way along Commerce Blvd. and pertaining to utility locations and easements. Koegler recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing on the case and table action on the item until the information is submitted. The public hearing should be continued until the item is heard again by the Planning Commission. Jack Bolke, representative for the applicant stated that due to the delay he would like to process the preliminary and final plat simultaneously. Staff stated that this can be accomplished if the applicant modifies the application and pay the fee to include for the final plat. Mueller expressed a concern regarding the balance of property remaining for the railroad right-of-way for future mass transit use; i.e. what will the width be? Weiland noted a correction on the plan, the owners as noted for the adjacent property to the west, lots 54 and 55 is listed as "Williams R. Metka" should read "William R. Netka." MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weiland to table this request and continue the publio hearing until more information is received from the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~92-013: PHILIP DAVIS, 1701 GULL LANE, LOTS 1, 2, & PART OF 3t BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD, PID ~13-117-Z4 13 0041. VARIANCE - raise second story roof. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to modify the roof of an existing nonconforming structure. The existing nonconforming setbacks requiring recognition of a 16.4' front yard setback variance to Three Points Blvd., and a 1.1' front yard setback variance to Gull Lane. On August 27, 1991 a variance was approved for other modifications to the dwelling. Staff recommended approval of the variance for the purpose of modifying the existing roof. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: "In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the current variances are consistent with the variances that were granted to the property in 1991. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. CASE ~92-014: STEVEN & T~MARA HICKS, 2072 SHOREWOOD L~NE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~18-117-23 31 0006. VARIANCE - addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to substantially remodel an existing home that abuts Lake Minnetonka on three sides of the lot. The total lot area is 19,300 square feet, however, a substantial portion of the lot appears to lie below the floodplain which according to the Zoning Code, cannot be counted as lot area. The existing home has a nonconforming lakeshore setback and the existing detached garage has a nonconforming side yard setback. The new construction will improve the side yard setback, however, it will still require a variance since the new garage will be an attached structure. The variances being requested include an 11' lakeshore setback variance to the east, a .7' side yard setback variance, and a lot area variance of approximately 5,200 sq. ft. Staff recommended approval of the lakeshore, lot area and side yard variance as identified for the purpose of the substantial remodeling of the existing home. Approval is contingent upon the applicant submitting building plans that identify a minimum floor elevation of at least 933.5. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: In approving the variances subject to the stated conditions, the Planning Commission finds the request in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are the direct result of the shape of the parcel over which the applicant has no control. The Commission questioned if the concrete slab to the north of the property line is required to meet a setback. It was noted that Zoning Code Section 23.408 (3) b. requires that terraces meet a 2 foot setback and the definition for a terrace includes "patios." Koegler noted that the proposed modifications to the Zoning Code Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 will not require that patios or slabs meet a 2 foot setback requirement. Mueller commented that a street frontage variance should also be recognized as the property is required to have 60 feet of frontage and only 25 feet exists. MOTION made By Mueller, seconded By Voss to recommend approval of the variances as requested and as recommended By staff, including a X.5 foot side yard setback variance for the concrete slab and a 35 foot street frontage variance. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. CASE ~92-0~5: ~EFF MCMURRAY, 5070 BAYPORT ROAD, PARTS OF LOTS .9, BLOCK Lt SHIRLEY ~LLS UNIT D, PID ~24-1~7-24 ~2 0049. VARIANC~ - deck. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for 60 foot street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming deck. The existing lot has full frontage on a public right-of-way, however, the right-of-way is unimproved so the property is accessed via a driveway rather than by a public street. Staff recommended approval of the 60 foot street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming deck. If the Planning Commission elects to approve the variance request, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: "In approving the variance, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance is not materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinances or to other properties in the same zone, particularly since they would not benefit from the improvement of Bayport Road. Hanus commented that vacation of Bayport Road is a possibility, however, it may not resolve the nonconforming status of this property. MOTION made By Mueller, seconded By Voss to recommend approval of the variance as requested and as recommended By staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 C~SE #92-016: D~VID WISNEWSKI, 1932 BHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 9 & P~RT OF 8, BLOCK 2, B~DYWOOD POINTr PID ~18-117-23 23 0069. V~RI~NCE - addition & deck. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for three variances in order to complete the phased improvement of an existing home, as follows: Phase I - 1992: replace existing deck and install new sidewalk. Phase II - 1993: Construct entry way addition between the existing house and detached garage. Phase III - 1994: Remodel house including landscaping and residing, and also re-shingle the existing boat house. The requested variances include a 6.5' front yard setback variance, a 4' side yard setback variance to the boat house, an a 4' lakeshore setback variance. Staff recommended approval of the front yard and lakeshore setback variance for the purpose of constructing the three phased improvement of the home and property located at 1932 Shorewood Lane. It is recommended that the requested variance to improve the existing boathouse be denied. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, the following Finding of Fact is suggested: "With regard to the requested variances, the Planning Commission finds the following: Approval of the proposed variance for construction f the sidewalk and deck is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Replacement of the existing deck in its current location is permissible since it will align with the north wall of the existing home and shifting the deck to the south would not significantly change the impact of the total encroachment and would represent a practical difficulty to the property owner. Approval of the proposed variance for the construction of the addition connecting the existing home and garage does not intensify the existing nonconforming setbacks and is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Approval of the variance to improve the existing home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Approval of a variance to upgrade the existing 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 boathouse is inconsistent with the criteria for approving variances and specifically would confer on the property owner the ability to maintain a nonsubstantial, nonconforming structure which is a privilege (that may not be) not available to other property owners within the same district.', Mueller commented that regardless if the improvements are allowed to the boat house or not, the structure should be recognized as a nonconforming structure. Koegler commented that if the boat house is re-sided and re-roofed it is going to last longer, if the that aspect of the variance is not approved, the structure could continue just the way it is now. What is in question is if this use should be allowed or not. The applicant commented that the boat houses on the properties to each side of his property are in worse condition that his. Michael does not have a problem with allowing boat houses, but when it has a zero setback he has a problem with it. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as requested and as recommended by staff, including the denial of the variance to improve the existing boat house. Voss commented that the intent of the motion is to recognize the nonconforming boat house but not to allow the improvements. Koegler commented that the boat house is a nonconforming structure, and as such it is intended under any zoning code to be amortized over a period of years, however long the structure lasts it is allowed to remain there. The issue, however, is deeper than this- due to the forthcoming shoreland ordinance, in that there is a debate whether boat houses are appropriate or not. If the applicant wants to make repairs to the boat house in the future, it is possible to apply after a policy for these structures has been adopted. Mueller questioned why the City should approve of a building to remain in its existing condition and not allow it to be improved; should these structures be allowed to deteriorate and look ugly? If the building is allowed to remain it should be allowed to be repaired. To allow buildings to deteriorate is wrong, the council should either allow it to be improved or require that it be removed. The prospect of allowing the boat house to be maintained if it is relocated, or require it to be removed was discussed. The applicant commented that if the boat house needs to be relocated he needs to consider a maple tree that is in the way. He 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 does not have a problem removing it, but if he cleans up the area, the neighbor's structures will still be there looking bad. Mueller questioned if the nonconforming structure needs to be recognized. Koegler commented that with this case we should recognize the existing nonconforming boat house but do not authorize any further improvements to the structure. The applicant could still come in and apply for improvements to the boat house structure in the future. Meyer commented that in the past other accessory buildings have been required to be removed, why not require this nonconforming boat house to be removed? Michael confirmed that in other instances when structures have been on the lot line removal has been required. MOTION FAILED. Those voting in favor were: Weiland and Voss. Those voting in the negative were: Mueller, Meyer, Hanus and Michael. MOTION made by Voss to table the request until the next Planning Commission Meeting. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Michael commented that the boat house is on the lot line and it is his opinion that the Shoreland Ordinance will not allow a zero setback for these structures either, in his opinion the structure could be moved or removed. Hanus agreed with Michael's comments. Meyer and Mueller agreed that the boat house could be brought into conformance. Mueller commented that if the boat house is allowed to remain, it should be allowed to be improved. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of the variances as recommended by staff with the exception of item #3 in that the boat house either be brought into conformance or be removed within Z years of Council approval. MOTION carried unanimously. The applicant stated that he was comfortable with the motion. The Building official clarified that the city Council may add a provision to the Resolution requiring an agreement be signed between the City and the applicant giving the City access to the property in order to remove the structure if the applicant does not comply with the condition. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 CASE ~92-017~ JEFF VINT, 3367 WARNER LANE, LOT 64 IN WHIPPL~ SHORES AND LOT 1~ BLOCK 12 IN DOUGLAS~ PID ~25-117-24 24 0056. MINOR ~OBD~VISION & VARIANCE. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor Subdivision. This request is identical to a previous request for this property which was approved on October 22, 1991, with the exception of a minor change in the lot line separating Parcels A and B. The change in the lot lines results in Parcel A having an area of 20,100 square feet and Parcel B having an area of 16,200 square feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approved the minor subdivision as proposed subject to all of the terms and conditions outline in the following documents: Staff report by Jon Sutherland dated "Planning Commission Agenda of October 14, 1991." 2. Staff report by John Cameron dated October 8, 1991. 3. Resolution #91-152 as adopted October 22, 1991. In approving the minor subdivision as noted above, the Planning Commission may want to incorporate the following Finding of Fact into a motion: "In approving the minor subdivision and variance, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the proposal is virtually identical to the one approved by the City Council in October of 1991. Weiland clarified with staff that all assessments on the property have been paid. Weiland questioned if a park dedication fee is due; staff confirmed that the subdivision qualifies for payment due of $500 for one park dedication. The applicant commented that all the conditions required for approval are being taken care of. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff with the inclusion of requiring payment of one park dedication fee. Mueller and Voss commented that they are not in favor of charging the applicant a park dedication fee since it was missed the first time the application of approved and the applicant was not expecting the additional cost. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 #eiland, the maker of the MOTION, and Michael who seconded the motion, moved to amend the original motion to waive the park dedication fee because it was not included in the original resolution. MOTION carried 5 to 1. Those in favor were: Weiland, Hanus, Mueller, ross, and Michael. Meyer opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. C~SE ~92-018: MARK & LISABETH BUSSEY, 3015 HIGHVIEW L~%NE, LOT 13, BLOCK 4, THE BLUFFS, PID ~22-117-24 44 0025. VARIANCE - deck & screen porch. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct an expanded deck and a screen porch on the south side of an existing home. The existing structure is conforming. The proposed porch and deck will require a 6' side yard setback variance It is difficult to find "hardship" in this case. If the Planning Commission finds that the requested variance is appropriate, it can only be granted under the practical difficulty provisions of the Zoning Code. In reviewing this request, staff was unable to define applicable hardship. Therefore, the city Planner presented to options: Deny the requested variance based on the lack of hardship and specifically referencing that the property already has a nonconforming deck and that the existing two foot encroachment represents the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. Approve the requested 6 foot side yard variance resulting in a 2 foot side yard setback based on a finding of practical difficulty. If this course is followed, the Planning Commission should identify the practical difficulty as it applies to this property. Mueller commented that he believes practical difficulty and reasonable use does exist due to the floor plan and design of the house relating to the location of the door. The Commission confirmed that the side yard setback for a deck is 6 feet, so if the deck is required to remain at 8 feet wide it will be conforming. The applicant informed the Commission that a variance was approved for one of their neighbors to allow construction of a nonconforming porch. Hanus questioned the validity of the survey relating to the Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 proposed setbacks as the existing house shown on the survey was drawn on by the applicant. Koegler commented that in order to avoid a delay for variance approval, the applicant could be required to verify the setback prior to the City Council meeting. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of a 4' side yard setback variance to allow construction of a 15' x lZ' screened porch and a conforming 8' wide deck due to practical difficulty with respect to the design of the house and the location of the current residence, upon the condition that the setback to the subject side property line be verified. MOTION TIED 3 to 3. Those in favor were: Mueller, Hanus, and ross. Those opposed were: Weiland, Meyer and Michael. Mueller moved and Hanus seconded a MOTION to amend the original motion. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to include a condition to the original motion that the porch remain as a screened/three season porch and that it not be altered in the future into a four season porch. MOTION carried 4 to 2. Those in favor were: Mueller, Hanus, ross and Weiland. Meyer and Michael opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 26, 1992. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by ross, to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: 10 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION NAY 14, 1992 Present were: Lyndelle Skoglund, Brian Asleson, Tom Casey, Joy Eischeid, Marilyn Byrnes, Mo Mueller, and Carolyn Schmidt, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, City Manager Ed Shukle, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. The following persons were also present: Mark and Stacey Goldberg, Mark Hanus, Dean Hanus, Frank Ahrens, and Steve Kirshbaum. MINUTES · MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Asleson, to approve the Park and Open Space commission Minutes of April 9, 1992 as written. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS: REQUEST TO BUILD A STAIRWAY BY MIKE ROY, 4577 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. The applicant was not present. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new stairway on the commons abutting the subject property. The applicant's property at 4577 Island View Drive was recently a vacant lot adjoined to 4601 Island View Drive, but has since been separated and a new house is currently being constructed. Presently, there is one stairway between the applicants property and the neighbors property to the south (4601 Island View Drive) which is dilapidated and in need of replacement. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit request for a new stairway subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made to renew the permit. 2. The stairway must comply with current building code. 3. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 4. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change of ownership. Ahrens commented that she would like to see permits granted for a longer period of time than 5 years, emphasizing that people spend a lot of money on the construction and we don't want to encourage cheap construction. It was noted that the proposed cost for the subject stairway is $2,700. Casey commented that if the applicant wants the stairway to pass inspection in 5 years they will want to construct a quality stairway. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 Casey expressed that he would rather see the existing shared stairway utilized rather than two new stairways as it would result in less of an impact on the shoreline. Considering the existing retaining wall and walkway, the location of the existing stairway appears to be a natural place to have a stairway. It is Casey's impression that the City is trying to preserve commons. Mueller agreed that one shared stairway would be more favorable. It was noted that the walkway is in the middle of the property line between the commons and the rear property lines to the subject properties. Byrnes commented that if the two parties shared a stairway they may not be able to agree on costs involved to maintain the stairway. Eischeid stated that a joint stairway reduces the amount of privacy to the abutting owner. The Parks Director commented that the applicant, Mike Roy, expressed a concern regarding erosion and removal of the existing stairway. Fackler stated that we need to be concerned about erosion on the hillside. The Commission discussed concerns relating to the removal of the existing stairway and requiring that two parties jointly be responsible for the maintenance and/or removal of one stairway. Should the City get involved in agreements between abutting neighbors? MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Schmidt to recommend approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit for a new stairway as requested and as recommended by staff, including the addition of the following conditions: The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change of ownership. The existing walkway shall be removed and/or maintained as required by City staff. The old stairway shall be removed and erosion control measures addressed and corrected, if needed, per City staff. MOTION FAILED 4 to 4. Those in favor were: Asleson, Ahrens, Byrnes and Eischeid. Those opposed were: Mueller, Casey, Schmidt and Skoglund. Eischeid commented that these people pay higher taxes to live on commons, they should be entitled to their own stairway. Ahrens was concerned about requiring maintenance of one stairway by two parties. 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FoR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS: REQUEST TO BUILD A STAIRWAY BY ROGER STEPHANSONt 4601 ISLAND V~w DRIVE. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new stairway on the commons abutting the subject property. The applicant's property at 4601 Island View Drive was recently combined to the adjacent 4577 Island View Drive where a new house is presently being constructed. Currently, there is one stairway between the applicants property and the neighbors property to the north (4577 Island View Drive) which is dilapidated and in need of replacement. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit request for a new stairway subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made to renew the permit. 2. The stairway must comply with current building code. 3. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 4. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change of ownership. MOTION made by &hrens, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit for a new stairway as requested and as recommended by staff, including the addition of the following conditions: The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change of ownership. The existing walkway shall be removed and/or maintained as required by City staff. The old stairway shall be removed and erosion control measures addressed and corrected, if needed, per City staff. MOTION FAILED 4 to 4. Those in favor were: Asleson, Ahrens, Byrnes and Eischeid. Those opposed were: Mueller, Casey, Schmidt and Skoglund. This request will be heard by the city Council on May 26, 1992. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS: REQUEST TO BUILD A STAIRWAY BY MARK GOLDBERG, 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRI¥~. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request to replace a stairway on Devon Commons abutting his property'. The Building Official reviewed other building permits that may be required for the applicant's property. The existing boat house received a maintenance permit in 1976, and was recognized in Resolutions 89-41 and 90-59 which granted variances for the subject property to allow reconstruction of the dwelling. Resolution #90-59 specifically states "If in the future the boat house is damaged, it will be removed, not replaced on the public property (the Commons)." Staff recommended approval of the Construction on Public Lands Permit for a stairway subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made to renew the permit. The stairway must comply with current building code. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. New owner of property may make application for Maintenance Permit. Staff noted that the boat house needs minor repair and is also serviced with electrical power. Considering the current application it now seems an appropriate time to address the continuation and eventual removal of the boat house as guided by the City Code, the Decision Flow Chart, and the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended to amortize the boathouse and set a date for eventual removal within a time schedule as directed by the City Council. The applicant shall supply documentation to the City Building Official that the electrical supply to the boat house on public land has been inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector as required by the State Electrical code. Ahrens commented that she conferred with the Mayor regarding this recommendation, and it is their opinion that findings during the inventory, such as the boat house, are not to be addressed by staff until a policy on how to address these issues has been formulated. Sutherland commented that due to the current application the property was reviewed in a whole, and as a Building Official he is required to address any potential electrical hazards. He explained Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 that he is required to verify that the electrical in the boat house meets code. The applicant clarified that the permit should not be classified as an ,,after-the-fact" since he had not actually started construction on the stairway. He commented that there are many hazardous stairways on public shoreland and he believes the reason for this is that people are intimidated by appearing before the Park Commission and City Council and they do not want to apply to improve their stairways. MOTION made by Eischied, seconded by Asleson to recommend approval of the Construction on Public Lands permit to allow reconstruction of a stairway as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. The issue relating to the boat house was further discussed. The Building official commented that the structure is in good condition and it does not appear that it will fall down in the near future, it is possible that this issue could be addressed after the Council has formulated a policy. Asleson questioned the need for a certificate of electrical inspection for the owner's protection. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Eischied to table any action relating to the boat house until the City Council formulates a policy on how to address these issues. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Eischied, Byrnes, Mueller, Schmidt and Skoglund. Casey and Asleson opposed. Asleson commented that he wants the electrical checked. Casey stated that he believes there should have been a time limit set on the motion. REVIEW CONCERNS BY MARK HANUS RELATING TO CITY CODE SECTION 437 - DOCK LICENSES. Mr. Hanus had written a letter to the city of Mound regarding concerns relating to the Dock Ordinance and the derivation of the fees applied to docks. The Parks Director wrote a letter to the Park and Open Space Commission in response to Mr. Hanus' concerns. Mr. Hanus reviewed the Park Director's response in detail and expressed his concerns. Hanus would like the City Code to include specific staff policies relating to the categorization of dock shapes. Staff stressed that flexibility is required in order to better serve the public. Adding the following statement to the Dock Application form versus Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 in the ordinance was discussed: "Applicants that configure a dock differently from one of the examples in this ordinance will be charged the fee applicable to the closest example herein as determined by the Dock Inspector.,, Hanus questioned how you place a value on different types of docks and if the dock program is a cost-based system. Fackler commented that the dock program is self supporting. The costs for the dock applications was established on a value system, previously the amount of the permit was based on the square footage of dock. This system was converted to the less complicated current fee structure. Fackler commented that he believes the cost for a U dock is more than that for a straight dock because it is larger, and originally the fee structure charged on the square footage of the dock. He also noted that private dock sites are based on the size of the slip. Asleson commented that an inspection of a U dock is more time consuming and involved than an inspection of a straight dock which may account for the larger fee. And, in his opinion, the intent to charge more for a T, L, and U dock may have been to discourage the use of these types of docks as they are larger and create more of an impact on the shoreline. It was noted that the dock fees will be reviewed by the Park Commission in June, and a public hearing will be held in July to hear concerns relating to the dock fees. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Ahrens to table discussion on this particular issue until the public hearing scheduled for July 9, 1992 on Dock License Fees. Motion carried unanimously. Public Meetinq Scheduled on Mound Docks Proqram. Chair Skoglund reviewed the meeting notice with the Park Commission and those present. The meeting is scheduled for Saturday, May 30th 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and will be held at Shirley Hills Gym. REQUEST FROM ANDREA AHRENS TO L~VE DOCK SITE ~41880 OPEN. Andrea and Frank Ahrens explained that originally they had requested to be placed on the Park Commission agenda to request that a vacant dock site located next to their dock site not be assigned. However, since their original request it has been brought to their attention that the dock holder from previous years for this site has withdrawn his application. 6 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 The Ahrens' have since located their property irons for other reasons and realized that the public access is very narrow and limited due to the growth of some trees. In their opinion, there ia not enough space for someone to carry dock sections down to their site without encroaching on their property. The Commission discussed the possibility of re-classifying the subject commons to be non-traversable. Providing sufficient access to the dock site was discussed. It was noted that the Dock Location map will be reviewed at a Public Hearing on October 8th and this issue should be discussed at that time. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Case¥ to table discussion of this issue until the October 8, 1992 Park Commission Meeting. Staff should investigate solutions to possible trespassing problems such as trimming of trees. The public hearing for the Dock Location Map is scheduled for November 12, 1992. Motion carried unanimously. PROPOSED PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR 1993 - COMMISSION TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF FUNDS TO BE ALLOCATED. The Parks Director reviewed the proposed costs for 1993 park improvements to Three Points Park and Philbrook Park, as follows: Three Points Park TIMBER RETAINING WALLS (2 approx. 4' x 75') TIMBER BERM FOR PLAY AREA CONCRETE REMOVAL NEW PLAY STRUCTURE SAND BLACK DIRT SEED STRAW PICNIC TABLES - 2 PLAYER BENCHES - 2 PARK BENCHES - 2 FLAG POLE (check w/American Legion for donation) TOTAL $ 2,250 450 1,000 13,000 300 5OO 100 5O 700 600 400 $16,650 Items to be removed from Three Points Park include: 2. 3. 4. Old concrete foundation. Old block retaining wall. Old flag pole. Old play equipment on the hill and next to tennis courts. 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 5. Fence around play area. Philbrook Park PICNIC TABLES - 2 TREE PLANTING - 6 TOTAL $ 700 900 $1,600 Fackler explained that he is only looking for the Park and Open Space Commission,s recommendation for the amount of funds to be asked for in the 1993 budget. The Commission agreed with the improvements and costs for Three Points Parks and commented on the large number of people who utilize that park. The Commission requested two more benches for Philbrook Park. The Parks director noted that each bench would cost approximately $200, therefore the total proposed cost for improvements at Philbrook Park would be $2,000. Casey requested the Park Director investigate a consultant fee for the NCA Study. The City Manager stated that the hourly rate for a consultant would be approximately $75 to $80 per hour, and he emphasized that a clear direction is required prior to requesting monies for a consultant. The Commission will discuss the possibility of this at a future meeting. Staff informed the Commission that a final number for the budget is not needed until the August 13th meeting. DISCUSSION: PROPOSED CANCELLATION POLICY'FOR DEPOT RENTAL. It has been suggested by City staff that a cancellation policy be established for rental of the depot. The following language is suggested: "The deposit will be refunded if the cancelled date is reserved by another party or a sixty (60) day cancellation notice is given." Staff also recommended that any reference to "Island Park Hall" be deleted from the application. It was suggested that a #3 be added under "IN USE SUPERVISION", as follows: "3. An adult supervisor must be on the premises at all times." The Commission questioned what age constitutes an "adult," is it 18 or 217 It was determined that the City Attorney will need to verify language. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 In addition, it was suggested that after FREE under the Rental Fees "commonly known" should be deleted. MOTION made By Eischeld, seconded By Ahrens to recommend approval of the referenced changes to the Depot application with the clarification on the age for an "adult." Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager commented that any change in fees can be discussed at the time of budget review. This will be reviewed by the City Council on June 9, 1992. SWIMMING RAFT POLICY The Parks Director asked the Commission what type of policy they would like to see on swimming rafts being moored off from public shoreline. He commented that it has been the City's policy to eventually eliminate buoys and they create an obstruction to the lakeshore, swimming raft regulations by other agencies was reviewed, it was noted that the Water Patrol requires they be licensed. The Park Commission determined that staff should check with the City Attorney to see if the City has any jurisdiction to regulate swimming rafts moored off public shoreline. Discussion should be placed on the Park Commission agenda for June. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FORM - REVISED. The Parks Director explained to the Commission that another "type of application" has been suggested to be added to the form, as follows: "CONTINUATION OF IMPROVEMENT - to allow an existing improvement to remain in an "as is" condition for a period of time as determined by the city Council." The intent of adding this item is for the easy requests, such as renewing a stairway, and that the applicant would not be required to attend the meetings. It was suggested that "CONTINUATION OF IMPROVEMENT" be changed to "CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE." It was also noted that "for a period of time as determined by the City Council" pertains to all the types of application, therefore, the statement should be moved to the top of the form. It was noted that the City Council still has to formulate a policy on this issue of public lands permits. 9 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Eischeid to table discussion relating to the Public Lands Permit form until the City Council has formulated a policy. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Casey, Eischeid, Mueller, Schmidt, Skoglund and Ahrens. &sleson abstained. NCA RECAP. Skoglund summarized suggestions and decisions made by the Park Commission during the two tours of the "NCA Hot Properties." She commented on the following properties: $24 property next to Swenson Park: it was suggested that a stairway be constructed on the hillside leading down to the park. #28 & $29 on Churchill: they would like to have this property retained as a NCA. It was determined that the Commission will have a NCA meeting on Thursday, May 28, 1992 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. At this meeting they are to define what they saw and discuss having another tour. In the meantime, Skoglund will verify with the City Clerk the cost to have the classification of a parcel changed and the current status of other certain parcels which the Commission is pursuing. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. Due to the late hour, Casey emphasized that the Commissioners read the information in the packet relating to Conservation Easements. City Council Representative's Report. Casey questioned Ahrens on the Council's comments relating to a Conflict of Interest Policy. The City Manager clarified that the Council determined it was not necessary as we have not had a problem with this issue; Commissioner's and Council members step down if there is a direct conflict. City Manager's Report. The City Manager had nothing to report. Park Director's Report. The Park Director updated the Commission on current Park Department activities. 10 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 M{nnesota Park & Recreation Association Update. Skoglund quickly reviewed upcoming events that all the Park Commissioners are welcome to attend: August 14th - September 15th - November 1st - luncheon/BBQ in Lakeville Seminar Conference in Rochester If you are interested, or want more information, please contact Lyndelle. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Schmidt to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 11:16 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 11 / 7o MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - APRIL 16, 1992 The meeting was called to order ~t 7 AM.. Members present: Paul Meisel, Jerry Longpre, Jerry Pletrows McMenamy-Cook, Mar~ ~_=_=_~ _ kl, Mark Brewer. Sh~-- present: LynDelleJsk%~%~zcn_s~_, Absent:_ Guttormson~ '~" ~eace Co_m~.ission; Bruce 6~;r~r~°~ ~f ~he Parks and Ope~ ~lnance Direct ~-~ ~ -= ..... t'J.' n~zslng=on Group; John No or ~..~ ~u onu~le, clty Manager. rman, Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Longpre, and carried unanimously, the minutes of the March 19, 1992 regular meeting were approved. Bruce Chamberlain_ Mou_~ ..~_. . update on the -ro~ct '~_ ~5%on~ ~]ect coordinator ave · . . ~ J · ne l~lc · . , g an a preliminary feasibilityre or a o 3333 f%rm was working on ~ u uuxcu~a=e whether or not the ~oncept as proposed previously could go forward based u on t ~nc~ement financing and other r .... P ax e~ateo financial resources. He 19dlcated that the feasibility re oft wo . City Council at its Co~-~ .... p~c_ -_ u}d be presented to the April 21, 1992 at 7 pM.'~"~-Y~_~n~e, w h_°_le me~ting on Tuesday, · xn~=~u =ne.EDC membership to attend that meeting. It was also discussed th proposed cannot -o ~ ......... at if the conce-~ :- still working on ~he~~u~i~?~s are the goptions for the ~ ~ would walt. until after the feasibi~gr~' Consensus was that we and deal with that issue at that time.y eport would be presented Other business discussed was the current vacancy on the commission. City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that Ben Marks ' the commission due to nersona~ ........... is resigning from be advertisin~ ,,=,=~' .... ,_~,%7~on~· ~.ln~lcated that he would = the .~,.u~ au~Xowlng =he Clty Council,s discussion on the process of appointment to commissions. Paul Meisel brought up the idea of having a Mound City days float. There wasn't any interest in doing this. The next meeting is scheduled for May 21, 1992 at 7 AM, at Mound City Hall. Bruce Chamberlain will bring the rolls. Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Longpre and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 AM. Ed Shukle City Manager ES:Is WE,. TO PUBLI $ HOOLS iNDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT HO. 277 5600 LYI'~VOOD BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINNESOTA $5,364 Michael G. Looby, Director of Community Services ' 472-0341 May 20, 1992 MAY 2 1 1992 TO: FROM: Westonka Board of Education District 277 Community Education and Services Advisory Council Westonka Area Mayors and City Council Members Westonka Area Legislators Hennepin County Commissioners Dr. James L. Smith, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools COMMUNITY EDUCATIQ/N AND SERVICES ANNUAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE MEETING Monday June 8, 1992 7:00 To 7:30 P.m. School Board Meeting Room Wes'tonka Community Center It is a pleasure to once again invite you to participate in the annual certificate of compliance meeting where our School Board brings together elected officials from the communities to discuss mutual areas of cooperation in the Community Education and Services Program. This year the meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 8th as described above. The Community Education and Services Department of our school district has had significant achievements this past year and are developing new goals and planning exciting initiatives for the future. This meeting will provide a lively forum for discussion between the School Board and many other governing bodies or individuals on the subject of Community Education and Services. Sue Peglow, School Board Chairperson, will introduce Cindy Alness and Mike Looby who will facilitate the half hour discussion prior to our regularly scheduled School Board meeting. I certainly hope you will be able to attend this short meeting and I can assure you that some genuine fun is being planned for the evening. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM - Public Hearing 7:30 PM - Regular meeting Wednesday, May 27, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Rd 19) 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARING Excelsior Park charter boat - New Wine and Beer License applications 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS: *Accept resignation of J.P. Boswinkel,'Treasurer, Minnetonka Beach *Presentation and induction of new appointee for City of Minnetonka Beach *Nomination for treasurer effective 6/1/92 READING OF MINUTES - 4/22/92 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance not on agenda CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items will be approved in one motion unless a Board member, citizen or the petitioner requests an individual discussion of any item. In that case the item will be removed from consent agenda and considered as a specific item. WATER'STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, Chair Babcock A. Deicing License Deposit Refunds @ $100 each: 1) Recommending approval of deposit refunds for 27 licensees per 5/9/92 minutes, with the addition of the City of Wayzata, Wayzata Bay (inadvertently omitted) 2) Recommending no refund to two licensees for non-compliance: *Eric Bodine, Harrisons Bay *Shoreline Marina & Yacht Club, Smith's Bay LAKE USE & RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Poster A. New On-Sale Wine and On-Sale Beer License applications for A1 & Alma's I charter boat, recommending acceptance of the public hearing report and recommending approval Board Agenda, 5/27/92, Page 2 B. Special Events: 1) New applleatlons with stipulations, recommending approval: a. Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, Fourth of July Fireworks, Sat., 7/4/92 subject to receipt of insurance certificate b. IN Bass Tournaments of MN, Bass Tournament, Sun., 9/20/92 2) Deposit Refund of $100, Northwest Tonka Lions Club, Winter Sports Fest, 2/1/92 & 2/2/92, recommending approval COMMITTEE REPORTS ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurt A. Committee Report B. Sub-committee appointment to monitor water quality C. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn D. Additional business WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of minutes, 5/9/92 meeting B. Multiple Dock License Renewals: 1) Bean's Greenwood Marina, Greenwood, St. Alban's Bay, regarding new site plan submitted 5/8/92, recommending: a) denial of variance for any changes beyond the 100" zone, b) approval of the 5/8/92 site plan as a renewal with slip #84 as a tie-on or relocated providing there is no further encroachment beyond the 100' zone with any dock structure 2) Forest Arms Improvement Assoc., Orono, Forest Lake, regarding application for change in configuration with new proposal to change all 14 slips to 10' x 28', recommending: a) denial of the change from the current licensed configuration to the new proposed configuration of 14 slips 10' x 28' b) approval of a renewal without change for 1992 3) Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Woodland, Wayzata Bay; recommending renewal without change for 1992 (holding application for changes transferring storage from the DMA to the dock until proposed ordinance amending Section 2.04 is adopted) C. Second reading of Ordinance Relating to District Mooring Areas: Amending LMCD Code Section 2.04; recommending approval as amended by committee, recommending waiving third reading, and adopting upon publication. D. Third reading of Ordinance Relatlng to Storage of Lake Maintenance Equipment; recommending approval and adoption upon publication. E. Second reading of Ordinance relating to Low Water Variances; Docks in Excess of 100 feet; Multiple and Commercial Dock Licenses; and Permanent Docks; Amending LMCD Code Sections 1.O7, 2.01, 2.03 and 2.06; recommending approval, waiving third reading and adoption upon publication. Board Agenda, 5/27/92, Page 3 Appointment of a Subcommittee to study whether to allow sales of on-fuel related items from gas docks, and to consider restricted vs non-restricted watercraft, slides, and off-lake storage, as recommended by committee G. Additional business recommended by the committee LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, 5/18/92 meeting B. Charter Boat Roster for 1992 C. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol report D. Additional business recommended by the committee LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Grathwol FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Boswinkel A. March and April Statement of Cash Transactions B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment C. 1991 Annual Audit Report and Management Letter D. Draft of 1993 LMCD Budget EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM., Wednesday, April 22, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Cochran at 7:30 PM ROLL CALL Members present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; William Johnstone, Minnetonka; Thomas Reese, Vice Chair, Mound; JoEllen Hurt, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Tom Penn, Tonka Bayl George Owen, Victoria; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFe- vere, Counsell Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Jan Boswinkel, Treasurer, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Parkl Duane Markus, Wayzata. READING OF MINUTES Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 3/25/92 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from persons in attend- ance who were not on the agenda and wish to be heard. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS: Cochran announced Executive Director Strom- men would not be present due to illness. CONSENT AGENDA Addition to Consent Agenda: Foster moved, Grathwol second- ed, to move Items B, C and D from the Lake Use and Recreation Committee agenda to the Consent Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Removal from 'the Consent Agenda: In accordance with the provisions of a Consent Agenda a Board member, citizen or the petitioner may request removal of any item from the Agenda. Hurt asked that Item B. Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc. be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered with the Water Structures Committee report. MOTION: Reese moved, Penn seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, Chair Babcock A. City of Tonka Bay. New Multiple Dock License; Approval of a new multiple dock license to add 10 slides to its 07 slip facility. Bo Deleted C. Ron Whinnery, Dock Length Variance, Carsons Bay; Approv- al of the Order for a length variance as drafted. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 22, 1992 D. Multiple Dock License Renewals: 1) Renewals Without Change, Approval with Orders and Stipulations. a) Baycliffe Property Owners Assn., Smithtown Bay b) Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 1 and 2, Wayzata Bay, subject to a valid Conditional Use Permit being in effect from the City of Wayzata. 2) Renewals With Change With Orders and Stipulations a) Sailor's World Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., Smith's Bay - Approval of new owner and new name, formerly Shoreline Marina & Yacht Club. b) Wayzata Yacht Club, District Mooring Area, Wayzata Bay - approval with minor change in layout of moorings as direct- ed by Wayzata City Council, July 1990. 3) Non-Renewing, Holding in Abeyance for $25 fee a) Presbyterian Homes on Lake Minnetonka, Spring Park Bay, new owner and new name, formerly Lakeshore Village Apts. b) Mai Tai Restaurant, Excelsior Bay E. Deicing License Applications: Approval of the follow- lng, new after-the-fact applications: , 1) Michael Kramer, $425 Timber Lane, Shorewood, Gide- on s Bay. 2) Ed Yaeger, $445 Timber Lane, Shorewood, Gideons Bay 3) Excelsior Bay Assoc., 603 Lake St., Excelsior, Excelsior Bay. F. Permanent Dock Application: Approval of Deposit Refund of $100 I) Ed Yaeger, Shorewood, Gideons Bay LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Foster Approval of:. A. New Special Event Applications, with stipulations as recommended by the Committee: 1) American Jail Association, Fishing Tournament, Tuesday, 5/26/92 2) IN Bass Tournaments of MN, Bass Tournament, Sunday, 6/28/92 3) MN Timberwolves Foundation, Jimmy Rodgers Celebrity Fishing Tournament, Tuesday, 6/9/92 B. Wine and Beer License Renewal Applications for Charter' Boats: 1) Al & Alma's II, III, VI, X, XI, XII 2) Paradise Princess C. Charter Boat Liquor License Renewal Application with On- Sale Sunday Option l) Queen of Excelsior VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. / 77 2 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 22, 1992 COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. ENVIRONMENT~ Chair Hurt A. Environment Committee Organizational Meeting. Hurt an- nounced the Environment Committee organizational meeting is planned for 8 AM, Tuesday~ May 5~ 1992. ' Agency members and cities have been invited to participate on the Environment Com- mittee to address Management Plan objectives as lead or cooperat- ing organizations. B. Hurr reported contact has been made with a consultant interested in conducting an independent evaluation of the EWM weed harvesting program. A resume and work details are being finalized. There is no other report at this time. C. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn Penn submitted the minutes of the Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force meeting of 4/17. SONAR TEST pROPOSAL. Penn reported Board members Cochran and Reese and the Executive Director met on 4/tl with sport fishing groups and some residents of St. Alban~s Bay. The pur- pose was to discuss the use of St. Alban's Bay as a test site for SONAR herbicide treatment of Eurasian Water Milfoil. The feed- back was positive in that the residents felt comfortable with the scientific pre- and post-treatment evaluation approach. The residents were asked to refrain from the use of chemicals this year in St. Alban~s Bay. Penn offered that LMCD would do exten- sive harvesting in the Bay in lieu of the chemical treatment. That offer was well received. On 4/21 Penn attended the Greenwood City Council meeting to explain the program and ask for the city's support. There were thirty or more residents present. The presentation was well accepted. The City Council approved support for the study phase. They are not ready to commit funds and did not call for a manda- tory ban on private chemical treatment in 1992. The DNR plans to do SONAR testing on some smaller lakes this summer. · Penn pointed out the importance of the 1992 study of St Alban's Bay, citing the problems of SONAR treatment in Libb~s Lake. In that instance there was not a thorough weed inventory of the lake before the SONAR treatment. As a result there is no real way to determine the actual effect. DNR REPORT. The DNR has made application to the LCMR for $1,000,000 with a $500,000 private match to study biological control of EWM and Purple Loosestrife. It is up for LCMR review in August. A copy of the application was submitted to the Board members. A $160~000 grant is being used for a biocontrol study involving a fungus control of EWM. That study will start in May of this year and continue through June 1993. DNR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR EXOTIC SPECIES is still under re- view. It is projected for completion in June or July. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 22, 1992 HENNEPIN PARKS. Hennepin Parks will provide their harvest- er, operator and computer assistance to the LMCD for the 1992 weed harvesting program. The bill introduced to the legislature by Senator Judy Traub to allow Hennepin County to participate in aquatic plant control programs did not get a hearing. The full minutes were referred to the Board for their infor- mation. Johnstone asked if the aquatic plant inventory study is confined to St. Alban's Bay. Penn responded that there is an intent to do some aquatic plant spot inventory in other Lake areas. Johnstone also asked about the funding to carry out the St. Alban's Bay project. Penn said, in his discussion with the St. Alban's Bay homeowners, he estimated it will cost $15,000 to $20,000 to treat the Bay. Part of the funds will come from the LMCD, hopefully part from the City and part will be from the homeowners. Other agency participation at this point is yet unknown. 2. WATER STRUCTURES, Grathwol for Chair Babcock A. Approval of Minutes. Slocum moved, Foster seconded, to approve the minutes of the 4/11/92 Water Structures Committee meeting. Motion carried unanimously. From the Consent Agenda. B. Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc. The committee recommended approval of the Order granting Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc. permission to move the 18 slip dock wing on Site Two from its current location, extending up to 128 feet from the shoreline, to a new location extending 153 feet into the Lake. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to approve the Order granting Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc. a length variance. VOTE:: Motion carried, Hurt voting nay. C. Multiple Dock License Renewals: 1) Renewals With Change, with Orders and Stipulations a) Curly's Minnetonka Marina, Inc., Lower Lake South MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, approval of the renewal of Curly's Minnetonka Marina, Inc., Multiple Dock License according to the survey submitted 4/2/92 with the stipulation that within five years, or sooner if maintenance is done, the dock section on the east side which extends beyond the 200' distance from the 929.4' line is to be removed. DISCUSSION: Penn and Hurr did not agree with the committee recommendation for approval. Hurr stated she believes approval will set a bad precedent. Penn stated his opinion that the dock section beyond 200' should be removed immediately. Rascop re- sponded the same time period was used as granted Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata, (involving a temporary low water variance using LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 22~ 1992 permanent piling). Thibault said the applicant advised the sec- tion beyond 200' is pile driven and an integral part of the entire dock structure. It was agreed the motion should, be clear as to the five year 'maximum time frame to remove the dock section beyond 200'. VOTE: Motion carried, Hurt and Penn voting nay. b) Minnetonka Yacht Club, Site 1, 2 and 3, Carson's and St. Louis Bays MOTION: Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to approve renewal of the Minnetonka Yacht Club Multiple Dock License with a change in configuration at Site 1, according to the Water Structures Committee recommendation of 4/11/92, as follows: The barge storage is to be changed from a tie-on to a 10' x 20' slip, #35, with dock on three sides, attached to the existing wood dock on the southeast, and service slip from Site 3 is to be transferred to a new 12' x 24' slip at Site 1, #36, on the southeast corner next to slip #35, with dock on three sides for storage of the service pontoon. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Ordinance Relating to District Mooring Areas. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to approve the first reading of an Ordinance Relating'to District Mooring Areas: Amending LMCD Code Section 2.04. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Second Reading of Ordinance Relating to Storage of Lake Maintenance Equipment. as amended by the Committee. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to approve the second reading of an Ordinance Relating to Storage of Lake Main- tenance Equipment, as amended by the Committee. DISCUSSION: LeFevere recommended an additional change to Subd. 8 d) 2). He said the original intent of the section was to prohibit storage of the equipment in the Lake, away from shore. The current reading of the section does not accomplish that purpose. He recommended the following wording for Sec. 8 d)2): Equipment must be stored within A Dock Use Area as defined in Section 1.02~ with .the consent of. the. owner o__[ th~. site o.~ in the setback area between two Dock Use Areas with the consent of the owners pf both affected areas. MOTION AS AMENDED: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to approve the second reading of An Ordinance Relating to the Stor- age of Lake Maintenance Equipment on Lake Minnetonka, Amending LMCD Code Section 2.03, Subdivision 8, amending Subd. 8 d) 2) as recommended by LeFevere. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. There will be a third reading of the Ordinance. 5 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 22, 1992 F. First Reading of an Amendment to LMCD Code Sections 1.07, 2.01, 2.03 and 2.06 MOTION: Hurt moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the first reading of An Ordinance Relating to Low Water Variances; Docks in Excess of 100 feet; Multiple and Commercial Dock License; and Permanent Docks; Amending LMCD Code Sections 1.07, 2.01, 2.03 and 2.06. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. G. Forest Arms Improvement Association, Orono, Forest Lake MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to approve the Forest Arms Improvement Association application for a change in configuration moving the four slips from the walkway to the main dock with no increase in slip sizes. DISCUSSION: Foster said it was his understanding the con- figuration was to be worked out with staff. He asked if the details have been worked out. Thibault responded that the appli- cant does not want to accept the committee recommendation, and there was no further allowance within the Code staff could offer to satisfy the applicant. Lynn Adams, President, Forest Arms Improvement Association, stated their attorney was not present and asked for a delay in the discussion until the attorney arrives. MOTION: 6rathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to table the motion until called for by the Chair. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Foster A. Approval of Minutes. Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the minutes of the Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting of 4/20/92 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Foster noted Items B, C, and D were added to the Consent Agenda. Foster requested input from the Board on a few items discussed by the Committee and detailed in their minutes. He mentioned in particular the committee attempt to streamline and clarify some of the procedures. He mentioned a desire to better define an event, to give the executive director authority to approve or disapprove some permits, to review the requirement for a 90 day lead time for filing applications for open water fishing tournaments. The committee has reviewed its goals and objectives from the Management Plan. Some items were added such as doing a wake study, looking at noise and lighting on the Lake, and defin- ing an event. Foster asked for input from the members if there are other suggestions. B. Water Patrol Report Sgt. Chandler said there are no changes in the report he submitted at the 4/20/92 committee meeting. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 22, 1992 Chandler said a number of charter boats do not have applica- tions for a Certificate of Registration on file with the LMCD. -The Water Patrol has started inspections and if an application is not on file the operators will be advised they are in violation and cannot charter. Chandler reported the new legislation on testing for water- craft noise will give the Water Patrol an opportunity to do the testing on the spot without setting out a course. Rascop asked about how the Water Patrol handles boats with a "cut-out" Chandler said they are ticketed on the spot. Gabriel Jabbour, Orono resident, asked what happens when an individual unknowingly purchases a boat with the cut-out. Chandler responded it is a violation and the cut-out has to be removed; Chandler added it is not illegal to purchase a boat with a cut-out or to install one but it is a violation to put the watercraft in the water with one. Rascop advised Jabbour his recourse would have to be a change in the law. The Board received excerpts from the Hennepin County sher- iff's Water Patrol 1991 Annual Report. Chandler welcomed any comments on the report. Foster commended the Water Patrol for the timeliness of the Annual Report. 4. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Grathwol Grathwol reported the Lake Access Task Force has been work- ing with the DNR and the LMCD staff. One of the first tasks was to conduct a review of the existing parking with city representa- tives. The review has been completed and is being made ready for publication. An attempt to over-fly the Lake during the Crappie Tournament April 18 was canceled due to unsafe weather condi- tions. A ground survey was done in its place. The material will be reported to the Task Force. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Chair Cochran for Treasurer Boswinkel A. March Transactions will be combined with the April repo'rt upon the return of the bookkeeper. B. MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to approve the payment of bills in the amount of $21,562.72, Checks No. 8449 through 8489. Motion carried unanimously. C. 1991 Audit Report The Board received the 1991 Audit Report.. No action was taken to allow time for review. Rascop said he does not believe an audit report is complete without a management letter. (The report contains auditor confirmation that all required financial procedures are being met.) Cochran announced the Treasurer will call a meeting, before the next Board meeting, of the officers and other Board members interested in discussing financial matters. LNCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT April 22, 1992 A. Board Workshop Agenda The agenda for the Board workshop on 4/25/92 was furnished to the Board. Thibault's request for a confirmat.ion of member attendance indicated 8 members among those present. Owen said that with staff participation he will place a reservation with the Lafayette Club for 14 participants. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Reese asked Thibault about the status of the discussion on the sunsetting of dock licenses which have not been constructed. He asked that it be placed on the next Water Structures Committee meeting. 2. G. Forest Arms Improvement Association, Orono Cochran ordered the application of Forest Arms Improvement Association removed from the table and opened for discussion. Lynn Adams, President, Forest Arms Improvement Association, spoke to the application. He said they are asking for a reduc- tion in over all size and environmental improvement. He distrib- uted material to the Board consisting of a 1984 joint use dock license renewal as presented to the City of Orono and copies of the LMCD dock permits for the last several years. He contends that, according to the material he submitted, the Association was licensed for more than what they now have. Hurt noted that the Association did not submit identical plans to the LMCD and City of Orono. Thibault reported that the Association had been licensed for ten 32' long slips and four 16' long. In 1987 the Association asked to reduce five slips from 32' long to 24', to reduce the Watercraft'Storage Unit charge. Greg Keller, Attorney for the Association, stated his famil- iarity and appreciation of the LMCD concerns about the density of boats on the Lake. He said the Association proposal will result in a narrowing of the slip sizes and limit expansion to wide bodied boats. He noted that when the association purchased the property from the City of Orono the 14 slips were part of the consideration paid. He does not believe they can be reduced to anything less than 14 slips. (There is no LMCD expectation that the applicant would have fewer than 14 slips.) Keller said in his study of the LMCD ordinances he does not find.a definition of slip size. He continued to state the impor- tance of using Watercraft Storage Units as a consideration in determining a renewal of the Multiple Dock License despite LMCD contention that WSUs are for billing purposes only. Grathwol said the main problem in granting the request of the Association is the grandfathered status of the Association with a 1:16' density. The Code states that if there is a sub- stantial change in the dock configuration, or in slip size or LMCD BOARD OF'DIRECTORS ^pril 22,.1992 number of slips, a new application must be submitted. However, a homeowner's association is not' eligible for boat density which provides for more boats than 1:50'. MOTION: Cochran moved, Reese seconded, to refer the appli- cation back to the Water Structures Committee. DISCUSSION: Cochran noted the applicant has not furnished a drawing which shows the 929.40HWL so there is no way of deter- mining how far into the lake the dock extends. VOTE: Motion carried, Slocum voting nay. Further Discussion: Cochran said it is necessary for the committee to sort out the statements made and to study the mate- rial furnished. Foster asked how the District can deal with a changed shore line when there has been fill from a storm drain Which alters the high water line. LeFevere said he would have to research that question. . LeFevere suggested the committee focus on the results the LMCD wants. He pointed out there is a difference between a person's entitlement on land and the public vs the private rights on the water. On-land entitlements can be grandfathered. Not so on water, as it is possible for the LMCD to 'develop ordinances that cut back rights, even after a facility is constructed. Adams asked for a ,definition of a slip size. Rascop said before the Board addresses slip sizes he would like to know if the Association has done anything about, the self imposed 10' width restriction of the slips. Adams resPonded they have decid- ed they want to maintain the existing licensed widths. Rascop asked how the four 16' slips were'used. Adams said the two boats were tied parallel to the shore to the parallel walkway of the main dock. LeFevere added that is not a legal tie on location. The authorized location for boat storage will have to be designated. NEW BUSINESS Gabriel Jabbour, Orono City Councilmember, reported the Orono Lake Use Committee, three members of the council, the LMCD representative and the Chair of the Orono Planning Commission have proposed adopting an Ordinance restricting the use of styro- foam in docks. Jabbour was asked to furnish a copy to the LMCD. ADJOURNMENT At 9:15 PM Foster moved, Hurr seconded, to continue the meeting to 4/25/92, 7:30 AM at the Lafayette Country Club. Motion carried unanimously. David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Public tlearing: 'Al & Alma's Charter Boat I New Wine and Beer License Applications Meeting: 7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 22, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall Nembers Present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; William Johnstone, Minnetonka; George Owen, Victoria; Thomas Reese, Vice Chair, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault; Administra- tive Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director· Thibault explained that Al & Alma's Supper Club, 5201 Piper Road, Mound, currently has wine and beer licenses for six other charter boats. At the 3/25/92 meeting the LMCD Board of Direc--.. tots approved waiving the applicant's investigation and investi- gation charge in light of the applicant's existing licenses for the other six charter boats. Thibault said a question was previ- ously raised about where the subject boat is berthed. According to the application it is berthed at the Jan and Keith Geyen Clark property, 3325 Warner Lane, Mound, on Cook's Bay, residentially zoned. Thibault said the applicant is also applying for a Consump- tion and Display permit from the State of Minnesota· Foster questioned charter boats docking at residentially zoned property. Merritt L. Geyen, President, A1 & Alma's Inc., responded the boat has been parked at the Clark property for six to eight years. There have been no complaints from the neighbors. There is no use of the charter boat at that location. It is not provi- sioned or fueled there. Cochran said there have been complaints from some cities regarding docking commercial charter boats at residentially zoned sites. There have been suggestions that the charter boats be. restricted to docking at marinas or properties zoned for commer- cial use. Cochran stated that this question will come up again for Board review. There were no other comments from the public. The public hearing was closed at 7:10 PM. Findings: 1. Merritt L. Geyen, President of A1 & Alma's Supper Club, 5201 Piper Road has applied for an on-sale wine license and an on-sale beer license for the charter boat A1 & Alma's I. A1 & Alma's Supper Club has six other charter boats that currently are licensed for on-sale wine and on-sale beer. A1 & Alma's I charter boat is berthed at the Jan and Keith Geyen Clark residence, 3325 Warner Lane, Mound, Cooks Bay. The Code does not prohibit storage of a commercial watercraft at a residential site if other requirements of the code are met. The charter boat is operated from A1 & Alma's Supper Club docks, not out of this location; A1 & Alma's Charter Boat I Public Hearing 4-22-92 Page 2 Recon=nendations At the 5-18-92 Lake Use Committee meeting, the committee received the public hearing report. Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend the Board approve the new on-. sale wine and on-sale beer licenses for A1 & Alma's I charter boat, noting the board has waived the applicant's investigation and investigation charge because of the applicant's existing licenses for six other charter boats. Motion carried unanimously. 1992 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures Committee Meeting: 7:30 AM Saturday, May 9, 1992 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; David Cochran, Greenwood; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shore- wood; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. 1. Multiple Dock Licenses. A. Renewals 1) Bean's Greenwood Marina, St. Alban's Bay, Greenwood Babcock reported he and Chair Cochran met with James Bean, Owner, on 5/8 to go over the marina site plans. Available for review was a 1983 aerial photo, the licensed dock plan from 1981- 1984 with dimensions, and the dock plan from 1985 which showed slip movement of #82 next to #81, and renumbering of slips #104 -T-102. Also available was the 1990 dock survey showing the additional dock section allowed under a Temporary Low Water Variance. Discrepancies between the 1984 survey and present dock dimensions were discussed. The purpose for meeting with Bean was to determine if there have been increases in slip sizes and for Bean to explain the differences. Babcock said there does not appear to be an increase in the number Of slips but there appear to be some slip size discrepancies. A solution was suggested, per site plan submitted by Bean, dated 5/8/92, bringing slips 81, 14 and 40 within the 100' zone. A tie-on for a charter boat would be allowed at #105. Slip #84 was suggested to be changed from tie on #T-111, to a slip with a canopy. This dock structure was not recommended by staff because of its location beyond the 100' zone. Cochran was satisfied with the recommendation with one exception. He supports #84 to be a tie-on with no canopy. Bean said he would like to retain #84 as a full dock structure with a canopy. The'executive director pointed out that there is no hardship for putting a dock structure beyond 100' In addition there have been concerns expressed by neighbors about the visual effect of a slip and canopy at that location. Hurr agreed that there is no hardship. She said the problem was self-imposed when Bean reconstructed the slips along the southwest side of his property. MOTION: Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend denial of the variance for any changes beyond the 100' zone, and to recommend approval of the new site plan dated 5-8-92 as a renewal with slip #84 as a tie-on or relocated providing there is no further en- croachment beyond the 100' zone with any dock structure. DISCUSSION: Slocum said he does not 'believe the District has to be so restrictive when dealing with the 100' zone. He believes a dock structure beyond the 200' zone would be a different matter. Rascop pointed out the Board made a decision to pull everything in to 100'. Being "soft" on docks beyond 100' is not in keeping with the current Code. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Water Structures Committee May 9, 1992 2) Forest Arms Improvement Association, Forest Lake The Board referred the request of the Forest Arms Improve- ment Association back to the committee to discuss the application to move four 16' slips on the walkway to the main dock structure and resize them to 24' slips. Tom Theisen, 4175 Forest Lake Drive, representing the Forest Arms Improvement Association, explained they wish to remove the slips along the walkway for safety purposes as the boats using them create a hazard at their beach. There is also a problem of a change in water depth created by a storm drain depositing silt near the site. They now propose to make all of the slips on the main dock the same size. Theisen said their current license approval calls for 5 ~ 13' x 32', 5 ~ 13'x 24' and 4 ~ 13' x 16'. Their request now is for 14 ~ 10' x 28'. Theisen questioned the wording of the Code which does not define the size of a slip in the definition of a Boat Storage Unit. Thibault explained Code Section 2.05 Subd. 9 regarding certain non-conforming structures applies to this applicant, grandfathering non-conforming density greater than 1:50', as long as there is no change in configuration resulting in an increase in slip size. Forest Arms Association is not eligible for a Special Density License because it does not serve the public. Theisen contended that while the drawing shows a 16' slip length parallel to the shore, the width is not defined and could extend the full length of the walkway in both directions. Theis- en also said that by reducing the width and length of 5 slips from 13' x 32' to 10' x 28' they are reducing the size of the boats on the lake. Babcock responded that the concern is about increasing the dimensions of the 4 16' slips when they are moved out. The 4 slips should be 16' whether on the inside or the outside of the dock. Slocum mentioned the possibility of considering the total square footage occupied by the slips. Babcock responded that the LMCD is consistent in measuring by individual slip size. The Code works very well in controlling expansion at grandfathered multiple docks. The applicant is able to enjoy a privilege that a homeowner's association, coming in now, would not have. In his judgment it would not be prudent to make a change in the way the Code is interpreted by considering on a square footage basis. Cochran was excused. Babcock asked Theisen how the Association would like to proceed, having heard the discussion. Theisen said their propos- al was to change the current 14 slip sizes to a uniform 10' x 28' moving the four inside slips to the outside of the main dock. MOTION: Rascop moved, Hurt seconded, to recommend denial of the Forest Arms Improvement Association application for a Multiple Dock License renewal with a change from the current licensed configuration to a new configuration of 14-10' x 28' slips. VOTE: Motion carried, three ayes, one nay. Slocum voting nay. - continued Water Structures Committee May 9, 1992 Slocum suggested a compromise might be reached, if evidence were provided, by working out a back licensing agreement to in- crease the 16' slips to reflect the size at which they had been used. Hurr suggested the applicant locate photographs showing earlier dock use. MOTION: Hurt moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend granting the 1992 Multiple Dock license renewal to Forest Arms Improvement Association without change. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Rascop said the applicant will have to provide a survey showing the Ordinary High Water Line if they come back with a new application. Theisen said he believes that is an unnecessary cost. Babcock responded that the District requires a survey with new applications. 3) Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Wayzata Bay MOTION: Hurt moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend approval of the Methodist Lakeside Assembly 1992 Multiple Dock License renew- al without change. VOTE: Motion cafried unanimously. Herb Suerth, 2850 West Road, Woodland, representing the applicant, asked about their status with respect to an applica- tion for changes from the District Mooring Area to the dock. Suerth was advised their watercraft should be located in conform- ance with the current license. Any changes should be delayed until the Board takes action on the proposed ordinance to allow transfer of storage from a District Mooring Area to a Multiple Dock license. B. Pending: 1) Shorewood Marina & Yacht Club, Gideon's Bay There was no action on the Shorewood Marina & Yacht Club renewal application pending payment of the late fee charge and receipt of the village certification. Thibault reported the applicant is attempting to work out something with his attorney regarding the late fee. C. No application received 1) Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay The executive director reported Lakeside Marina submit- ted fees, 5-8-92, for a Multiple Dock License renewal without change. The application is being held pending receipt of a signed application and an as-built survey. 2) North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay The executive director has had numerous conversations with the manager, Deb Breneman, who has not met the various commitments she has offered. 3) Roger Wikner, Wayzata Bay Thibault has left messages for Wikner, who may not be using over four boats this year. - continued Water Structures Committee May 9, 1992 Hurr asked for direction on action to take with marinas who have not submitted an application and are operating without a license. Rascop,questioned whether, if the application for renewal is received prior to the May 27 Board meeting, the Board could act without committee recommendation. Hurt asked for documentation from the attorney or staff as to how to proceed. Babcock said this subject should be placed on the Board agenda. Hurt added that any conversations with the applicants should be confirmed in writing. 2. Deicing Licenses A. Deposit Refunds MOTION: Hurr moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend approval of the refund of the full $100 deposit to the following, having met the license requirements with few or no deficiencies: Diane Benson, Forest Lake Dennis Carlson, St. Alban's Bay Crystal Bay Service, Crystal Bay Curly's Minnetonka Marina, Echo Bay Frank Elshaug, St. Alban's Bay Gayle's Marina, Maxwell Bay Gray's Bay Marina, Gray's Bay William Hansen, Jennings Bay Dan Hessberg, Priests Bay Howard's Point Marina, South Upper Lake Greg Malik, Jennings Bay Reid MacDonald, Lafayette Bay Leno Mikenas ,St. Alban's Bay Minnetonka Boat Works, Brown's Bay Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata Bay Minnetonka Yacht Club, Carson's Bay North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay Douglas Ramstad, Wayzata Bay Paul Resberg, Gray's Bay Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc., Coffee Cove Tonka Bay Marina, Lower Lake South Rodney Wallace, St. Alban's Bay Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 1 and 2, Wayzata Bay James Wyer, St. Louis Bay To recommend no deposit refund to the following for non- compliance with four or more inspections: Eric Bodine, Harrison's Bay Shoreline Marina & Yacht Club, Smith's Bay To recommend refund of the $100 deposit to the following who made application after the fact due to a misunderstanding as to when a license is required: Excelsior Bay Associates, Excelsior Bay Mike Kramer, Gideon's Bay Ed Yaeger, Gideon's Bay VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Water Structures Committee May 9, 1992 B. End of Season Deicing Permits The committee discussed whether or not a license should be required for deicing after March 15. Babcock suggested a permit after March 15 in lieu of a license. He said there would be a need for some precautionary lighting and signing along the shore. Rascop suggested signs on the dock structure warning of the deicing. The executive director mentioned that without the permit licensing process there i's difficulty in enforcing regula- tions. Rascop said there could be different requirements after 3/1, the date ice houses must be off the Lake. MOTION: Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to have staff return to the committee with a workable way to have a modified deicing permit with limited requirements for end of season deicing after a given March date. The staff report should include feedback from the Water Patrol, recommendations for signage, fencing, March 1'vs. March 15, and need for lights. Safety is the main concern. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. There was no discussion of allowing the executive director to issue deicing licenses. 3. Second Reading of Draft Ordinance to Allow Transfer of Stor- age From a District Mooring Area (DMA) License to a Multiple Dock License. MOTION: Rascop moved, Hurr seconded, to recommend approval of An Ordinance Relating to District Mooring Areas: Amending LMCD Code Section 2.04 with the addition of a reference that any new appli- cation to convert back to a DMA must meet the District Mooring Area Code in effect at that time, waiving the third reading, and adoption upon publication. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Third Reading of Draft Ordinance Relating to Storage of Lake Maintenance Equipment on Lake Minnetonka MOTION: Hurt moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval of An Ordinance Relating to the Storage of Lake Maintenance Equipment on Lake Minnetonka, Amending LMCD Code Section 2.03, Subdivision 8, and adoption upon publication. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Second Reading of Draft Code Amendments Recommended by Poli- cies and Procedures Subcommittee, Amending Section 1.07, 2.01, 2.03 and 2.06 MOTION: Hurt moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval of An Ordinance Relating to Low Water Variances; Docks in Excess of 100 Feet; Multiple and Commercial Dock License; and Permanent Docks; Amending LMCD Code Sections 1.07, 2.01, 2.03 and 2.06, waiving the third ieading and adoption upon publication. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5 Water Structures Committee ' May 9, 1992 8.* Expanded Sales at Dock Console Facility and Dock Width for Gas Docks. * Out of Agenda Order. The committee discussed a request from Minnetonka Boat Works for Code amendments to allow expanded sales at a dock console. Beth Whitaker, representing the Boat Works, said they propose selling items such as pop, life jackets, candy and other small items needed by boaters. It would not include any alcoholic beverages or tobacco. In their case it would require filling in a slip area larger than 6' wide to accommodate the console. This is not something they want to do now. If they are going to do it they want to do it right and to do it together with the LMCD and other marinas. This would be an additional amenity. Babcock said two things to be considered are the 6' limit on dock width and the service console limitations. The executive director said basically the only items allowed are fuel related services. Pop machines and ice machines are not allowed in the Code although they do appear on some marina docks. Rascop reminded the committee that the District already allowed an additional 25' extension for fuel service only for public safety. The purpose was to isolate the fuel service from the other activities. This proposal would move activity into that area. Any discussion should include the fire marshals. Hurt suggested inviting marina operators to make suggestions. Slocum said it has been a policy to limit the area to fuel dis- pensing and the ordinances should be enforced. MOTION: Babcock moved, Hurt seconded, to recommend the Board appoint a sub-committee to study the possibility of adding sales of items other than fuel from the gas docks at marinas. VOTE: Motion carried, Slocum voting nay. 6. Styrofoam Use in Dock Construction Whitaker stated the Minnetonka Boat Works is concerned about their use of styrofoam for dock construction, but it will be expensive to replace it. They are looking at contained flotation devices. Babcock suggested elimination of the current styrofoam docks over a period of two or three years. Hurt suggested coop- eration with the Environment Committee. Thibault reported the City of Orono has approved preparation of an ordinance regarding the use of styrofoam for dock construc- tion. There was no action taken until a copy of the Orono ordi- nance is available. This item will be placed on the July Water Structures Committee agenda. Babcock mentioned a requirement for clean up of the existing fragmentation. 7. Restricted vs. Non-restricted Watercraft The committee received a memo from the executive director and administrative technician recommending a subcommittee be formed to review the issues summarized in the 3/20/92 letter from Attorney LeFevere providing background and factors to consider. 6 Water Structures Committee May 9, 1992 MOTION: Rascop moved, Hurr seconded, to recommend appointment of a sub-committee to consider restricted vs non-restricted water- craft, slides, and off-lake storage. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 9. Licensed Multiple Docks Not Installed The committee discussed whether there should be a time limit placed on renewals of multiple dock licenses and special density licenses when the facility is not built. There is a provision to hold a license .in abeyance with a $25 fee charged, for non- renewal of facilities not built and facilities which have been built but not used for various reasons including low water. Babcock expressed concern that the non-renewal for a $25 fee could allow additional grandfathered situations. He suggested pursuing a time limit for new Special Density Licenses and New Multiple Dock Licenses. He also suggested having the $25 non- renewal fee apply only for years in which low water has been declared. MOTION: Babcock moved, Hurr seconded, to recommend pursuing adding a time limit on new multiple dock and special density licenses, but not for renewal applications, to include variances, directing staff to work with the attorney to draft an ordinance. VOTE: Motion carried. MOTION: Babcock moved, Hurt seconded, that the $25 fee for non- renewal of Multiple Dock licenses apply only in declared low water years. VOTE: There was no formal vote. MOTION: Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to table the discussion to the next committee meeting. VOTE: Motion carried. 10. Adjournment It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Slocum, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 AM FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair LAK~ MINN~TONKA CONSERVATIONDISTRICT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting: 4:30 p.m., Monday, May 18, 1992 Norwest Bank,'Wayzata, Community Room Members Present: Bert Foster, Deephaven, Chair; David Cochran, Greenwood; Thomas Reese, Mound; JoEllen Hurt, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood, Tom Penn, Tonka Bay. Also present: Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Chair Foster at 4:35 p.m. 1. Goals and Objectives. Discussion of the Lake Use and Recreation Committee Goals and Objectives was deferred to a later time. 2. On-Sale Wine and On-sale Beer License Application for A1 & Alma's I Charter Boat. The committee received the report of the Public Hearing, held on 4/22/92, to consider the applications for new on-sale wine and on-sale beer licenses for Al & Alma's I charter boat. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend the Board approve the new on-sale wine and on-sale beer licenses for Al & Alma's I charter boat, noting the Board has waived the appli- cant's investigation and investigation charge because of the applicant's existing licenses for six other charter boats. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Special Events A. New Applications, with Stipulations. 1) Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, Fourth of July Fireworks Display, July 4, 1992 DISCUSSION: Penn asked for information on any accidents or incidents in connection with the 1991 Excelsior Fourth of July fireworks display. Sgt. Chandler said there were no serious incidents last year. The plans are to bring in extra traffic control on shore and on the water. The Excelsior Fire Department and South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department have put in a lot of effort in the planning and are well organized. There will be extra deputies on duty and assistance from the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Penn asked what can be done to control the traffic leaving the area after the fireworks. Chandler said the smaller water · patrol boats will be in Excelsior Bay and the larger boats fur- ther out. The Patrol boats will have all of their hazard lights displayed. Hurt suggested a City of Mound squad car could be parked at the Narrows as a deterrent to speed. Chandler said some of the extra deputies could be stationed in the Narrows and at the Arcola Bridge. - continued 1 Lake Use and Recreation Committee May 18, 1992 Rascop queried the representatives of the Excelsior Chamber of Commerce who were present as to whether this fireworks display will be an ongoing program. Lee Hance and Beverly ~eakins, representing the Chamber, responded that it is their hope that it will continue to be held in the future. It is their intent to guard against becoming too big and to continue on a year to year basis. One problem they face is finding the volunteers to put the effort into the event. Financing has been a problem in the past, but they are getting more corporate sponsors. The executive director called attention to the stipulations prepared by the staff to accompany the application. Hance said there will be 560' between the barge from which the fireworks display is set off and the pro'tective fence on shore. The Cham- ber will be required to furnish 3 spotter boats. The Water Patrol will keep one or two small boats in the area. Chandler said the area will be buoyed off with Water Patrol assistance. The buoys, large cans in a bright color, will be placed early in the afternoon of the 4th. Hance said the spotter boats will be identified by a yellow "bubble" light. The Chamber will furnish the Water Patrol. with the information as to the type of boats being used and their identification. Hance said there will be a signed permit from the City of Excelsior. He supplied certified copies of the minutes of the Excelsior Council meeting at which the fireworks display was approved. The Chamber will furnish a copy of the insurance policy in which the L~CD and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol are named as additional insured. ~OTION: Cochran moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of the Excelsior Chamber of Commerce Fourth of July Fireworks Dis- play, July 4, 1992, including stipulations and subject to receipt of the insurance policy. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2) IN Bass Tournaments of MN, Bass Tournament, Sunday, September 20~ 1992 Thibault called attention to the stipulations staff recom- mends for open water fishing tournaments. Hurt and Cochran mentioned comments from the fishing commu- nity that bass should be released in the same area from which they are caught. Cochran said the most recent tournament had weigh-in boats with live wells to handle the release where the fish were caught. Rascop added there are reports that the fish do not grow as large when released in a different area. The executive director said the DNR has a method of tagging the fish to follow the growth pattern. MOTION: Hurr moved, Penn seconded, to recommend the Board ap- prove the IN Bass Tournaments of MN, Bass Tournament, Sunday, September 20, 1992. The staff is to contact the DNR and bass fishing people regarding the catch and release program as it affects on-the-spot release. - continued Lake Use and Recreation Committee 18, 1992 Robert Woodburn, LMLOA representative, asked what is being done about enforcing Zebra Mussel control.measures. The execu- tive director said there is no way of knowing where boats have been and the best way to control exotics is to be sure the event participants are aware of what prevention measures should be done. The recently adopted State legislation did not provide for 100% inspection at accesses. The legislators decided that notifi- cation and education are the most practical methods of control at this time. Thibault informed the committee that if an applicant for a fishing contest or tournament does not have the information on Zebra Mussel and Milfoil control in the tournament rules, a requirement is added to the license to have all participants sign and return a form indicating that they are aware of the rules. Cochran suggested the DNR make the exotic control information part of the boat licensing application. Rascop would like it to remain as part of the event permitting process. Hurr asked if the cities are notified when a tournament is being held within their boundary. Thibault said the cities are copied on the letter approving the event license. One of the license stipulations is that all requirements of the city/cities and Water Patrol must be met. Chandler said a letter of approval from the city is required before getting a Water Patrol event permit. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Deposit Refund MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of a deposit refund of $100 to the Northwest Tonka Lions Club for the Winter Sports Fest, 2/1/92 and 2/2/92. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Renewal Applications, For Information Only 1) MN/WI Pro Am Bass Tournament, 5/31/92 2) Lake Masters Swim Club, 5-Mile Swim, 7/25/92 3) Don Shelby U.S. Invitational Bass Tournament, 9/11/92, 9/12/92, 9/13/92 D. Definition of'Special Events The committee agreed to defer discussion of the definition of special events to a future meeting. 4. Charter Boat Certificate Issuance Update Thibault reported that to date there are 28 charter boats expected to operate on the lake for 1992. The.following have passed Water Patrol inspection and the LMCD certificate was issued: A1 & Alma's I, II, III, VI, X XI and XII Excelsior (Elizabeth Ann) Excelsior Park Lady of the Lake Paradise Princess Queen of Excelsior 3 Lake Use and Recreation Committee May 18, 1992 Godfather II, Godfather III, and Highwire have not submitted applications. Thibault submitted a list of the 28 charter boats on the Lake including information on the length, capacity, company ownership and addresses. Hurr asked for inclusion of the port of call and location of berthing. Thibault will furnish the addi- tional information. Cochran commented on loud music from some charter boats. Foster recommended a letter be sent to the charter boat operators suggesting they police themselves or it will be necessary to take other enforcement steps. Chandler said 911 can be used to report loud music, or other violations. $. "Boat Club" Concept The committee discussed the Boat Club concept which has come to Lake Minnetonka as a new type of commercial venture. A Boat Club offers membership in a club which has a variety of boats available for the use of the members with a yearly membership fee. Rascop believes the Boat' Club concept will affect the esti- mates of boat use as projected in the Management Plan. As an example, when a use of 25% of the boats docked on the lake is a part of the boat density figure, the boat club concept of multi- ple ownership or use changes that figure by as much as four times, assuming a boat is in full use by several club members on a given day. The executive director discussed the boat club concept with the LMCD attorney. The attorney suggested studying the effect of such boats on the over-all boat density on the Lake. Any meas- ures to control density should be lake-wide, rather than directed at a category of use.The executive director added there is a positive side in that there may be less pressure to expand mari- nas to accommodate increased individual boat ownership and there-. fore boat storage on the Lake. Hurr added that the LMCD has not been involved in boat ownership regulation. It has encouraged rental of boats. She does not believe this is something the LMCD has to control. Rascop said there are two benefits to this concept. One is that it may encourage weekday boating. The other benefit is clubs will require that the members are trained in operating the boats. Reese would like to watch the operation for a year before making any decision. The committee agreed to invite a representative from the Midwest Boat Club and any other club operators to the next meet- ing to discuss the concept. 6. High Water Levels The committee received a letter from Alan Upin, 740 Tonkawa Road, Long Lake, regarding the high water levels and high use of Stubbs Bay by boaters and water skiers. He is concerned about shoreline erosion and suggested controls for the bay. 4 Lake Use and Recreation Committee May 15~ 1992 Rascop commented that the water level is going down. Reese expressed concern that the Lake. level is going down too fast because of the release rate at the dam.. Cochran responded that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District monitors the release carefully based on historical evidence. The water level was 929.3' as of 5/18/92 and the Watershed District uses 928.6' as the level to be reached. He believes they may close the dam in June at about 929.0'. The staff was instructed to respond to Mr. Upin with infor- mation on water levels and how they are determined. The LMCD is reluctant to restrict activity on any bay. Water Patrol Report ~ Sgt. Chandler submitted a written report with detailed information on the following: * There have been 4 BWI's issued since the last B~ard meeting of 4/22/92 * There have been 2 property damage accidents and 1 proper- ty damage and personal injury accident. * There were 2 other capsizings with no injury and property damage less than $500. * All buoys were in position by 5/1/92 * Marine Safety. Broadcasting started for the season on $18182 * Charter and rental boat inspections are still underway. Preliminary inspections are to be completed by 5/22/92 * U S Marshals seized the charter boat "Small World" with a federal warrant on 5/1/92 * The Power Squadron will celebrate Safe Boating Week with activities at Excelsior Commons on 6/6. Chandler said the Water Patrol does not have funds to provide for handout of key ring whistles as they have in the past. He explained the whistles cost about 50 cents each and are intended to be fastened to the life jacket. Penn suggested trying to get corporate donations for the whistles or using Save the Lake funds. Staff was instructed to obtain cost figures and suggestions for presentation at the Board meeting. * Foster announced that committee members are encouraged to ride patrol service with the Water Patrol. Chandler said they would welcome them. Advance arrangements for one Board member per watercraft may be made through Sgt. Chandler, 471-8528. 8. Lights on Main Channels Penn asked about a previous discussion on putting lights on the main channels to make them more visible. Thibault said she will see Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvements, and will mention it to him. Rascop said he does not want any more lights on the Lake. Lake Use and Recreation Committee 9. Minnesota Transportation Museum May 18, 1992 Robert Woodburn, representing the Minnesota Transportation Museum, said they have the information that the LMCD is suppor- tive of the Museum and they are willing to help'in any manner. The Museum is planning a fund raiser on 7/20 at the Lafay~ ette Club. He asked if the Museum could have access to the LMCD mailing list to supplement their data base. Hurt and Rascop questioned the advisability of making it available as it was purchased from a private organization. 10. Adjournment Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair 6