The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-11-24CITY OF MOUND MIF, SION STATEMENT: 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. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIl, - REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 10, 1992 REGULAR MEETING CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATIONS AND PROPOSED SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE ~92-066: APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A WHOLESALE AND ASSEMBLY OPERATION IN THE I-1 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT CONSISTING OF DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING OF ARTWEAR AND JEWELRY BY P. HECK DESIGN AT 5571 LYNWOOD BLVD. ~S t /Q/ PG. 3926-3936 PG. 3937-4017 PG. 4018-4030 CASE #92-053: REQUEST FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION, MAXINE BEISSEL, 1720 DOVE LANE, LOT 7-9, BLOCK 12, PID $13-117-24 13 0006. PG. 4031-4051 CASE #92-067: REQUEST FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION RONALD NERAASEN OF 4725 BEDFORD ROAD AND ROBERTA J. NELSON OF 4739 BEDFORD ROAD, WYCHWOOD, BLOCK 13, LOTS 5-8 AND 24-28, PID $19-117-23 32 0143 ~ 1044. 09_i¥1- PG. 4052-4064 CASE NO. 92-068: VARIANCE REQUEST, MIKE GILBERTSON 4350 WILSHIRE BLVD., FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION, LOTS 79 & 79, PID $19 117-2313 0010. ~2-1 ~ PG. 4065-4088 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. APPROVAL OF 1993 DOCK FORMS. PG. 4089-5023 3924 13. APPROVAL OF 1993 DOCK LOCATION MAP. APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS FOR ROGER STEPHANSON, AT 4601 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 1, LOT 7, DEVON, FOR MASONRY RETAINING WALL. ~_[~ ~ RESOLUTION TO CANVASS THE RECOUNT OF THE MAYORAL RACE FROM THE NOVEMBER 3, 1992 GENERAL ELECTION PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 5024-5025 PG. 5026-5036 PG. 5037-5039 PG. 5040-5050 14. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS ae REMINDER: THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26TH AND FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH, CITY HALL WILL BE CLOSED. REMINDER: 1993 BUDGET HEARINGS ARE SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1992 AND WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1992, AT 7:30 PM, MOUND CITY HALL. Ce REMINDER: ANNUAL CITY OF MOUND CHRISTMAS PARTY IS SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1992, MOUND AMERICAN LEGION. De LETTER FROM DNR RE: EXTENSION OF SHORELAND ADOPTION GRANT AGREEMENT PG. 5051 E. LMCD MAILINGS PG. 5052-5054 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 1992. PG. 5055-5068 Ge PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1992. PG. 5069-5074 3925 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 10, 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, regular session on Tuesday, November 10, 1992, in the Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. met in Council 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, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Jim Hupp, Howard Barrett, Jim Bedell, Bill & Dorothy Netka, Nelson Stanley, Gene Hannigrets, John Edward, Rick Jostrom, Tom Reese, and Mr. & Mrs. Keven Hening. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the October 27, 1992, Regular Meeting and the November 4, 1992, Canvassing Board Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor, with Smith abstaining. Motion carried. 1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATIONS AND PROPOSED SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE The City Planner highlighted the proposed Zoning Code modifications as outlined in his memo dated September 1, 1992. He suggested that the Council continue this hearing after tonight to November 24th because there was not time at the Planning Commission Meeting last evening to address the Council's concerns from the September 8th public hearing. The Planning Commission will be talking about the following Council concerns at their November 23rd meeting: ae the issue of lot size - Should all newly created lots have a minimum size of 10,000 square feet or should minor subdivisions within existing R-2 or R-3 zones use a 6,000 square foot lot minimum which may be more consistent with surrounding existing lots? the issue of the location of sheds, particularly for lakeshore properties. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Jim Bedell, 2625 Wilshire Blvd., asked if these ordinance changes would create more nonconforming properties. The City Planner stated that every attempt was made in looking at these to avoid nonconformities and to avoid creating additional ones. He stated that he could not tell Mr. Bedell that in every case it would not create some because in some cases it might. The Planning Commission was very sensitive to this. The intent was to minimize this as much as possible. Mr. Bedell then questioned Section 23.403 (3), asking if this related to percentage of ground cover or in conjunction with setbacks. The City Planner stated that this section relates to setbacks. Most of that language is in the existing code. The areas that are highlighted are the changes and the strikeouts are the ones that have been removed. The intent there was that if you have a fireplace or a central air conditioner that is not counted as a setback from the property line. Mr. Bedell then questioned 23.604.4 #4 which reads "One lodging room per single-family dwelling." The Planner stated that is not a change. current code. That is in the Mr. Bedell then questioned 23.705.2 which relates to minimum number of trees, A. Commercial, Industrial and Institutional sites. To read that requires one tree per one thousand feet of gross building floor area, how could this implemented in the downtown area? Would that make current property nonconforming? The Planner stated no this section is more for new construction. It may not fit one isolated building, because you may have 60 feet of frontage and it would be tough to get 7 trees in that 60 feet of frontage. Mr. Bedell then questioned 23.740.2 1). The Planner stated the intent on this item was to try to keep things within a reasonable perspective of normality in order to protect certain values, not to build a house that looks like a flying saucer on stilts next to a two bedroom colonial or whatever. Mr. Bedell then questioned 23.740.2 2) B. The Planner stated this is attempting to vary roof pitch of structures. This was a provision that is trying to avoid building the identical floor plan right next to one another. This language is used in a number of other communities also. Mr. Bedell then asked about 23.740.4 Pole Buildings. He asked if this would then make existing pole building nonconforming level (OHW) of some water body and hence is subject to the State Shoreland Rules. The Planner reviewed the major provisions of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Planner stated that every community around the Lake is seeking some type of flexibility issue from the State Shoreland Rules. Mound will be seeking flexibility in lot size to be able to use the lot sizes that have been used in Mound versus the larger size lots required by the State Shoreland Rules. That has been generally accepted by the DNR. The State Rules on impervious cover are 25%, Mound is seeking 30%. That is another item that we need concurrence from the DNR that they will accept this as a flexibility provision. The only other item is in the land uses in the chart shown. There are a few of those that may be required to be conditional by the DNR. We may list them as permitted and again Mound will be seeking flexibility to allow our existing zoning code to function as it does right now as much as possible. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Jim Bedell, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. question (98A) in the definitions. Shore Impact Zone. The Planner responded that this relates to provisions that require nothing to happen in the Shore Impact Zone, which in Mound's case is the first 25 feet. Exceptions to that would be the water and accessory structures that are allowed to be within 10 feet of the OHL. Mr. Bedell asked if any of the information from the LMCD study, done by Arndorfer & Associates, was included in this. The Mayor stated that he spent more that a year working with other Mayors around the Lake trying to get a consensus on what the long range plan would be. Appendix C that was received from Arndorfer & Associates, which had a shoreland management plan that would have basically worked for any community around the Lake. The Mayors could never come to a consensus until that Appendix C was removed. Mayor Johnson stated he was not in favor of doing that because he thought it worked quite well. The DNR had given a tacit approval to what was in Appendix C. The Planner then stated that if that process had been followed, you would not have 14 cities now dealing individually with the DNR, you would have a mass of 14 communities dealing with the DNR. Councilmember Ahrens asked about the City granting variances to the Shore Impact Zone. The Planner stated that the way the ordinances are structured, is that notifications have to be sent to the DNR now for any shoreland properties when there are variances, conditional use permits, or subdivision approvals so that they will get a request and nine times out of ten, they will not act on them because they don't have any interest in them. He stated that he thinks they may have an interest if we have to grant a variance to be any closer than 50 feet to the OHWM, if we got closer than 25 feet, it may be of interest to the DNR. That is not to say the City could not do it, the City still has the ability to do that but we may get a comment from the DNR that they don't think it is a good idea. The Planner stated the rules that we're working within are designed to cover every lake in the State of Minnesota, which makes it difficult to compare a lake in the northern part of the state to Lake Minnetonka and that's why flexibility occurs and that's why some of these things fit reasonably well but maybe not exactly because there is a lot of intent that the State is trying to accomplish. The City Attorney asked that a summary of these ordinances be prepared for publishing, to be presented at the November 24th Meeting. The Council agreed. The Planner stated that the Planning Commission will be looking at lot size and storage shed placement, which is part of the zoning code changes, at their next meeting, November 23. Also to be looked at are certain provisions in the fence code. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to continue the public hearings to November 24, 1992. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.Z CASE ~92-371: APPLICATION FOR AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR DROP SHIP EXPRESS, AT 5308 SHORELINE DRIVE The Planner explained that Drop Ship Express is requesting an Operations Permit. The proposed business occupies approximately 70,000 square feet. The peak season for the business occurs from November to January. The business will have three loading docks on the north side of the building. Additionally, they are proposing to have six trailers stored on the site adjacent to the recently approve Toro heater testing building. The Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval under the following conditions: Prior to December 1, 1992, Drop Ship Express shall prepare and submit to the City of Mound, a site plan at a suitable scale showing the parking area for six trailers including a concrete pad for trailer dollies and a wooden fence adjacent to the parking lot along Lynwood Blvd. to match the existing fence at the west end of the site. The fence and concrete pads shall be installed by June 1, 1993. Trailers and trucks within the identified parking area shall be directly involved with the business activities of Drop Ship Express. No trailers shall be allowed to remain parked on the site for longer than 30 days. Trailers shall be parked in the areas shown on the approved site plan or at the loading docks involved in Drop Ship Express business operations. 5. No outside storage is permitted except by operations permit. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-145 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR DROP SHIP EXPRESS, AT 5308 SHORELINE BLVD. AS PROPOSED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 CASE ~92-057: REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR TORO MANUFACTURING The Planner stated that since there has been a building location change, the landscaping plan that was submitted by Toro is no longer valid. They will be resubmitting a new landscaping plan. He suggested this item be deferred until that time. The Council agreed. 1.4 CASE ~92-065: TOM REESE, 5641 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 1, BLOCK 23t SECTION 23, PID ~23-117-24 14 0003t VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF a CONFORMING DECK The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. The Planning Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-146 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 5641 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID #23-117-24 14 0003, P & Z CASE #92-065 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.5 REOUEST TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING PROGRAMt THOMAS B. CARLt MOUND POST OFFICE PROPERTY The City Manager reported that he contacted the Postmaster and they have done surveys to determine how many persons utilize the Post Office on a daily basis. This was done to determine the principal use of the property. The last survey was done in April and May of 1990 on a Monday thru Friday basis. The average number of persons per day was 375. They then calculated the number of box customers at 150 per day. This is a total of 525 persons per day. These figures reflect more of a retail space situation than an office space. Thus, to meet the requirement for parking, the facility would have to have one space per 150 square feet of retail space. Since the building is 4534 square feet, dividing that by 150, equals 30.2 parking spaces. Hence, the Post Office property does not meet the zoning requirements and he recommends denial of the request to be removed from the CBD Parking Maintenance Program. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to deny a request by Thomas B. Carl to have the Post Office property removed from the CBD Parking Program, based on the present use as retail space, and not providing the required parking spaces. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 RESOLUTION SETTLING DISTRICT COURT CASE ~MC91-001353 RELATIN~ TO CBD PARKING ACQUISITION ASSESSMENT AND PROVIDING FOR T~E DISMISSAL OF AN ASSESSMENT APPEAL The City Manager explained the Mr. Johnson had objected to the assessment for the CBD Parking Lot Acquisition. Between Mr. Johnson's attorney and the City Prosecuting Attorney, Jim Larson, they have resolved the problem by adjusting the employee parking space requirement from 7.5 to 4. This reduces Mr. Johnson assessment $729.36. A resolution settling this dispute was presented for consideration. Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-147 RESOLUTION SETTLING DISTRICT COURT CASE #MC 91-001353 RELATING TO CBD PARKING ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISMISSAL OF AN ASSESSMENT APPEAL The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 REOUEST FROM RESIDENTS ON BEACHWOOD ROAD FOR A STREET LIGHT The City Manager stated that the Police Department has reviewed this request and recommended approval. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #94-148 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET LIGHT REQUEST TO BE LOCATED ON THE POWER POLE NEAR 5891 BEACHWOOD ROAD The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437:00 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SUBD. 5 AND AMENDING SECTION 437:05, SUBD. 2 BY ADDING SUBSECTION f RELATING TO REMOVAL OF LICENSED DOCKS The City Manager stated that the Dock Inspector has recommended that this amendment be approved. It relates to removal of docks at the expiration of a dock license. The Park & Open Space Commission has recommended approval. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following: ORDINANCE #60-1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437:00 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SUBD. 5 AND AMENDING SECTION 437:05, SUBD. 2 BY ADDING SUBSECTION f. RELATING TO REMOVAL OF LICENSED DOCKS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF MOUND'S ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO REFLECT CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY The City Manager summarized the amendments that are proposed for the City's Administrative Code. Councilmember Jensen stated that she does not agree that employees should be guaranteed a pay increase, because of pay equity, even if the employee is not performing satisfactorily. She stated she would like to see a merit pay plan. The Council discussed this and stated they would like to get the pay equity plan back out and review it for discussion at a future date. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-149 RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ADOPTED JUNE 10, 1984, WITH AMENDMENTS DATED 12-11-84, 7- 9-85v 5-21-87 AND 4-5-88 AS RECOMMENDED AND SHOWN BELOW EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1993 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 RESOLUTION CONCERNING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A NEW PROPERTY TAXPAYER'S TRUST FUND IN MINNESOTA The City Manager presented a resolution calling for the Legislature to support a constitutional amendment dedicating the funding for the Local Government Trust Fund and requesting the League of Minnesota Cities to make such an amendment one of their priorities for 1993. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-150 RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A NEW PROPERTY TAXPAYERS' TRUST FUND IN MINNESOTA The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $355,449.66, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADD-ONS 1.12 ELECTION RECOUNT - MAYOR'S RAC~ The City Clerk explained that she has received a request from candidate Bob Polston who ran for Mayor in the November 3rd General Election for a recount. Mr. Polston lost to Mr. Johnson by 19 votes. The recount will be Monday, November 16, 1992, at 1:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. The City Clerk asked the Council to appoint her Recount Official and to authorize the City Attorney to attend the recount in case legal advice is needed. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to appoint Francene C. Clark as the Recount Official for the recount of the Mayor's race to be held Monday, November 16, 1992, at 1:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. The City Attorney is also authorized to attend the recount. The vote was unanimously in favor with Mayor Johnson abstaining. Motion carried. The City Clerk also explained that she has just been served with a Notice of Election Contest by attorney's from Mr. Polston. The City Attorney stated that this is basically between Mr. Polston and Mr. Johnson. The City will have to defend the election process. 1.13 APPROVAL OF NEW POOL TABLE LICENSE MOTION by Johnson, seconded by Smith to approval a license for Z pool tables for Independent School Dist. #2?7, 5600 Lynwood Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 MUNSON CASE The City Manager updated the Council on the Munson Case. Ms. Munson was granted a maintenance permit in August to upgrade a boathouse at 4729 Island View Drive. The Permit was given with the intent that the repairs be made on or before November 1, 1992. Ms. Munson and her attorney were sent copies of the resolution on August 26, 1992. Among the items required in the resolution was that Ms. Munson was to provide a Certificate of Insurance in an amount of not less than $600,000. To date the Building Official has not received a certificate and the building permit application that she has made is incomplete so a building permit cannot be issued. The Building official advised the City Manager of this last week and a letter was sent to Ms. Munson indicating that he was advising the City Manager and the City Attorney and that the City Manager would be advising the Council and recommending that action be taken. The city Manager explained that it is his intent to tack this item on to the lawsuit with Ms. Munson per the Council's earlier direction by ordering demolition. The Building official reported that Ms. Munson has indicated to him that she can only provide a $300,000 Certificate of Insurance. Also the Building official has not been able to complete the plan review of the plans for the minimal repair to the boathouse. He stated he spoke with the Ms. Munson's engineer and he was hesitant at this point to approve the plans that had been provided thus far. The engineer wanted to elaborate on those to insure that any repairs that he would be responsible for would stand. The engineer wanted to give direction and possibly even that he would have to visit the site again. In other words, the Building official stated he has not received an acceptable set of plans. The Building Official also stated that the engineer told him on the phone that if the Building official proceeded on the basis of what he has, it would be the Building official's responsibility, the engineer would not accept any responsibility. The City Manager recommended that an order for demolition of the boathouse be added to the current lawsuit with Ms. Munson on the deck removal. The City Council did not take any action to the contrary. Thus, the city Manager will proceed in directing the City Attorney to add this item to the current lawsuit. The City Attorney reported that in the criminal lawsuit, they are undergoing some discovery. On the civil lawsuit, the complaint was served and they have served an answer and a counterclaim against the City. The City will now respond to the counterclaim, based on the direction that the City Manager and the Building official gave them today and which has been reported to you tonight. The document will be amended to include the problems with the boathouse. This will expand the civil lawsuit to some extent. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for October 1992. Be LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for October 1992. LMCD Lake Minnetonka Public Access Task Force Meeting Report. De Ge Letter from Gene Strommen, LMCD, to Tom Reese thanking him for his service as Vice Chair in 1992. The annual League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Policy Adoption Conference will be held Thursday, November 19, 1992, at the Decathlon Club, 7800 Cedar Ave. South, Bloomington from 9:30 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Enclosed is an Agenda and the proposed policies as recommended by LMC Committees. If you are interested in attending, please let Fran know by Friday, November 13, 1992. I contacted the LMCD following the last City Council Meeting regarding the multiple dock license issue. I indicated to Gene Strommen, your concerns about paying a fee to LMCD (dock holder actually pays fee) for work that we do through our dock inspection program. I expressed the concern that multiple docks (city owned/operated) should be treated differently. He took concerns to the LMCD Board and the Board took them under advisement. The Board established a committee for joint review of the program which will have membership on it from multiple dock license holders. Fees will be studied, cost accounting system will be implemented to track costs. In addition, the Board "rolled back" the fee from the proposed $15 per Water Storage Unit (WSU) to $10 per WSU. This will cause some budgetary problems because the additional monies necessary to cover costs will not be available from fees. Thus, approximately $40,000 will come from budget reserves to make up the difference. Multiple dock license fees for 1993, at the $10 rate, will be partially (20%) due on 12/1/92 and the remaining 80% will be due on 4/1/93. Enclosed is a letter from the LMCD explaining this further. REMINDER: No COW meeting on November 17, 1992. REMINDER: City Hall will be closed Wednesday, November 11, 1992, in observance of Veteran's Day. REMINDER: Thanksgiving holiday, Thursday, November 26 and Friday, November 27, City Hall will be closed. REMINDER: 1993 Budget Hearings are scheduled for Wednesday, December 9, 1992, and Wednesday, December 16, 1992, at 7:30 P.M., Mound City Hall. REMINDER: Annual City of Mound Christmas Party is scheduled for Friday, December 18, 1992, Mound American Legion. I have completed the recruitment process for filling the Finance Director position. We had 70+ applications and I narrowed the list to 9 for interviews. I then narrowed the Me list to two and selected Gino Businaro, currently employed at Minneapolis Public Schools, Special Education Department as Finance Manager. Previous to this position, Gino was Chief Accountant for Carver COunty' He also has worked for the State Auditor's Office as a Principal Auditor/Analyst Supervisor. Gino is married with two children. He and his family live in Chaska. He also serves on the Chaska School Board. Gino will begin work with the City of Mound on November 23. I will have him come to the city Council Meeting after he begins work so you can meet him. Or, if you're in City Hall around his start date, I will introduce you to him. I believe he will be a fine addition to our staff. LMCD meeting schedule for November and December 1992. Notice of Public Hearings for Minnegasco rate increase. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 9:35 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: November 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Modifications At the public hearing on September 8, 1992, the City Coundl discussed a number of items pertaining to the proposed Zoning Code modifications. Specifically, they are interested in obtaining additional input from the Planning Commission on the issue of lot size. Should all newly created lots have a minimum size of 10,000 square feet or should minor subdivisions within existing R-2 or R-3 zones use a 6,000 square foot lot minimum which may be more consistent with surrounding existing lots? The City Council also requested additional input on the issue of the location of sheds, particularly for lakeshore properties. If the Planning Commission has any additional input on either of these two topics, it will be conveyed to the City Council at the hearing scheduled for November 10, 1992. The hearing on the 10th is scheduled to be continued until November 24, 1992 in order to prepare any modifications or changes that are deemed necessary due to public input received. ~nd Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER a, 1992 1.2 ~BLIC ~BARIN~ IONIN~ ~OD~ ~OD~FICATXO~ The City Planner highlighted his memo to the Council, dated September 1, 1992, on the proposed changes for the Zoning Code. He explained that at a recent Committee of Whole Meeting, the Council expressed the desire to delay final action on adoption of the modifications until the shoreland management ordinance is completed. The shoreland management draft is due to come before the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 29, 1992, coming back on October agendas as needed and then the public hearing on November 10th and 24th. He therefore, suggested that the Council continue this hearing until November 10, 1992, when the shoreland provisions are scheduled for a hearing. The Mayor opened the public hearing. MIKE MUELLER, 5910 Ridgewood Road - stated that he did not agree with the 10,000 square foot lot requirement in areas that have already been developed into a majority of 6,000 square foot lots. He felt in these areas, 6,000 square feet was more conducive to the neighborhoods. There was discussion about the following: a. There has to be some differentiation between splitting raw land and splitting and combining lots of record. b. The need to put some major and minor subdivision language into this ordinance so there is a differentiation between the two. c. Also discussed was the fact that at the present time the minor subdivision language does not allow for variances. d. The way the ordinance is proposed the requirement is 10,000 square feet for subdivision in any case. The only way that you can build on under 10,000 square feet is on a lot of record. The intent is good but there is a point that this does not take in the whole city and could cause problems. The Planner suggested he take these items to the Planning Commission and check on the subdivision section (the minor versus major) and how that can be tied into this ordinance. Councilmember Jensen suggested that before the November 10th hearing the Council think about the following: a. Locations of sheds on lots (lakeshore or non lakeshore lots). b. If the language in section 23.506.2 subd. (5) conveys that if a variance is not used within one year only 1 extension of that variance will be allowed and then a new variance would have to be applied for. Counctlmember Smith asked the Building Official at what height of a retaining wall do you need a railing? The Building Official stated that it depends on what the area around the retaining wall is used for. If it is general landscaping of a yard and not used for picnicking then a guard rail would not be required at all whatever height (could be 6, 8 or 10 feet and no guard rail would be required). If the area was to be used as a patio area, for instance, at the point of 30 inches, a guard rail would be required (anything over 30 inches, Just like a deck). He commented that in Section 23.302, subd. (106), (5), he and the City Planner plan on changing the wording to read as follows: (5) retaining walls not having or requiring a railing and not exceeding height. The Council asked that the PlA (Planned Industrial Area) be clarified a little better. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to continue this public hearing until November 10, 199~, at which time the Council will also be discussing the ahoreland management ordinance. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Mound City Council and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Modifications On September 8, 1992, the Mound City Council will hold a public hearing on proposed modifications to Mound's Zoning Ordinance. At a recent Committee of the Whole meeting, the Council expressed the desire to delay final action on adoption of the modifications until the shoreland management ordinance is completed. Therefore, it will be necessary to defer action on the ordinance change and continue the public hearing until November 10, 1992. November 10, 1992 is the scheduled hearing date for the shoreland provisions. The proposed changes will modify a number of sections of the existing Zoning Code. The following is a brief summary of some of the highlights: The names of the residential districts will be changed to reflect the nomenclature commonly used by other municipalities. These changes include: Old New R-1 will remain R-1 R-2 will become R-lA R-3 will become R-2 R4 will become R-3 Permitted, conditional and accessory uses will be presented in chart form rather than in narrative form. 3. Changes and additions are proposed for the definitions section. New accessory building provisions have been added. They relate to the number of allowed structures, floor area and the relationship between the structure the lot. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Zoning Code Modifications Memorandum September 1, 1992 Page Two o o ge o Sheds and storage buildings less than 120 square feet in area will be required to be placed in the rear yard area. All newly created lots are to have a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. Lots of record in certain districts are required to maintain a minimum of 6,000 square feet. Maximum building coverage on residential lots is limited to 30% of the total lot area. Note: The shoreland ordinance will expand this provision to include all impervious cover. New landscaping provisions have been added for multi-family residential, commercial and industrial developments. A new section on acceptable building materials has been added. It contains the following: Residential - encourages a variety of roof styles, roof pitches, exterior surface materials, etc. to promote housing style diversity. Commercial - prohibits unadorned, prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and sheet metal. Pole buildings are prohibited. -3 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSH)ER MODIFICATIONS OF THF~ MOUND ZONING CODE Mound City Code, Appendix B NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 8, 1992 to solicit the public's input relating to proposed modifications of the Mound Zoning Code. The proposed modifications include, but are not limited to, changes to Section 4. General Provisions, Section 6. District Provisions and Section 7. Performance Standards. Included in the changes are provisions impacting lot size, building setbacks and acceptable building materials. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. ark~ City Clerk Published in "The Laker" August 17 and 24, 1992. NINUTES - HOUND CITY COUNCIL I~Y 26, 1992 1.14 SET PUBLIC ~EARING FOR $ONING CODE MODIFICATION SUGGESTED D~TE~ SEPTEMBER 8~ 1992 MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to set September 8, 1992, at ?:$0 P.M. for a public hearing to consider Zoning Code Modifications. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE · MOUND~DVISOR¥ PLM~ING COHHISSION FEBRUARY 10~ 1992 PROPOSED ZONING CODE NODIFICATIONS~ PUBLIC HEARING~ The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed a summary of proposed revisions to the Zoning Code, as follows: 1. Changes in Residential District names: 014 New R-1 to R-1 R-2 to R-lA R-3 to R-2 R-4 to R-3 Permitted, conditional and accessory uses presented in chart form rather than narrative form. 3. Definition changes / additions. Accessory Buildings - New provisions pertaining to number, floor area and relationship to lot area. Sheds and Storage Buildings (less than 120 square feet required to be in the rear yard area)· Ail newly created lots are to have a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. Lots of record in certain districts are required to have a minimum of 6,000 square feet. Maximum building coverage on residential lots - 30% of the total lot area. New landscaping provisions for multi-family residential, commercial and industrial developments. 9. New Acceptable Building Materials Section: Residential - encourages variety of roof styles, roof pitches, exterior surface materials, etc. to promote housing style diversity. Planning Commission )41nuto8 February 10, 1992 Commercial - Prohibits unadorned, prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and sheet metal. Prohibits pole buildings. In addition to these items, there are a lot of housekeeping items, such as correcting grammatical errors. Clapsaddle questioned if Section 23.740.4 relating to Pole Buildings covers what the Planning Commission intended it to prohibit? Is Pole Building the proper term? The City Planner commented that those materials prohibited in 23.740.3 should eliminate any concerns. Weiland commented that 23.740.6 provides for an appeals process. It was determined to leave the section as proposed, at this time. Chairman Bill Meyer opened the public hearing. There being no citizens present to speak on the issue, Meyer closed the public hearing. Mueller confirmed with the City Planner that the residential and commercial driveway access width was addressed. Mueller referred to Section 23.610.4 1.C. "The total number of accessory buildings for lots measuring 10,000 square feet or less shall be two (2). On lots exceeding 10,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall be limited to a total of three (3)." The City Planner confirmed that this provision applies to all Residential districts; all lots exceeding 10,000 square feet are allowed three (3) accessory buildings. Mueller referred to Section 23.506.2 (5) relating to variance extensions, as follows: "The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance or appeal. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council for a decision." The intention of the Planning Commission for variance extensions was clarified that only one extension would be allowed and then a full variance application would be required thereafter for the same request. Hanus referred to Section 23.407 (7) relating to sheds and storage buildings less than 120 square feet in floor area, he believes they should be allowed to be located in the front yard for lakeshore and through lots. It was suggested that sheds be allowed to be placed in the front yard if only behind an accessory building and between this accessory building and the house so it is hidden. It was questioned if aesthetics should be controlled with the zoning code. The City Planner reviewed the Zoning Ordinance's Planning Commission #inures Intent and Purpose Section, and two of these promoting orderly development, and conserving scenic beauty and attractiveness of the city. listed include the natural and Some Commissioners contemplated leaving the section as proposed, implying that it is better to have more enforcement available than not enough. Johnson suggested that if sheds are allowed to be placed in the front yard, performance criteria could apply, i.e. require the siding, roofing, and color match the principal dwelling and it should be constructed with quality materials. Since a consensus relating to sheds was objectionable, the commission moved forward with review of the balance of the zoning code modifications. Jensen questioned what type of structures are included in the maximum lot area coverage of 30%. The City Planner referred to the definition of "Structure - Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires more or less permanent location on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, except the following: (1) on-grade stairways and steps not exceeding 6 feet in width and landings connected to such stairways or steps not exceeding 6 feet in width and 6 feet in length; (2) boardwalks not exceeding 6 feet in width; (3) driveways not exceeding 20 feet in width; (4) sidewalks not exceeding 6 feet in width; and (5) retaining walls not having or requiring a railing and not exceeding 3-1/2 feet in height." The Building Official confirmed that he would consider a deck a structure. The City Planner stated that the State Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for only 25% of lot area to be covered, and this includes impervious surfaces, so what is now proposed is considered lenient. Within one year this section of the zoning ordinance may need to be revised to comply with the Shoreland Regulations, however, at this time, these proposed requirements should be sufficient. Chair Meyer reviewed the outstanding issues which include 1) Sheds and other buildings less than 120 square feet in area, and 2) Lot coverage requirements. Meyer suggested that the ordinance be moved forward to the Council stating these outstanding concerns. Johnson questioned if Planning Commission will have the chance to review the modification of language relating to variance extensions. MOriON made by Mueller, seconded by Woos to recommend approval of the Boning code modifications with the exception that the language in Section 23.$06.2 (S) relating to variance extensions be revised as discussed by the Planning comnission. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were8 Weiland, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Meyer, Voss, Michael, and Jensen. Hanus opposed. Manus stated that he opposed due to the requirements for sheds. The zoning code modifications will be forwarded to the City Council for review. A public hearing date has not been set yet. CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF AN INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE Mound City Code, Appendix B NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 10, 1992 to solicit the public's input relating to proposed modifications of the Mound Zoning Code. The proposed modifications include, but are not limited to, changes to Section 4. General Provisions, Section 6. District Provisions and Section 7. Performance Standards. Included in the changes are provisions impacting lot size, building setbacks and acceptable building materials. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City-Cl'erk Published in "The Laker" January 27, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TO: Mound Planning Commission Mark Koegler, City Planner February 5, 1992 Public Hearing - Zoning Code Modifications On February 10, 1992, the Mound Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on proposed modifications to Ordinance #422 which is commonly known as Mound's Zoning Ordinance. The attached information includes all modifications that have been proposed to date. Further modifications of the Ordinance are possible depending on the testimony received during the public hearing process. After conclusion of the Planning Commission public hearing and further deliberation on the issue, the proposed modifications will be reviewed by the Mound City Council who will hold another public hearing prior to formal adoption of any changes. -,~n~ ~,4e~'o Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis. MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 FORMAT CHANGE Chart C (Uses - Residential Zones) and Chart D (Uses - Business and Industrial Zones) are to be inserted in lieu of the verbal descriptions of permitted, conditional and accessory uses. This change will impact the following sections of the Mound Zoning Code: 23 604.2 23 604 3 23 604 4 23 605 2 23 605 3 23 605 4 23 610 2 23 610 3 23 610 4 23 620 2 23 620 3 23 620 4 23 625 2 23 625 3 23 625 4 23 630 2 23 630 3 23 630.4 23 635 2 23 635 3 23 635 4 23 640 2 23 640 3 23 640 4 23 650 5 USE TABLE C USES - RESIDENTIAL ZONES Single-Family Detached Residences Two-Family Residences Twin Homes Townhouses Lodging Room (1 per single-family unit) Multiple Dwelling Unit Structure (3-6 units) Multiple Dwelling Unit Structure (over 6 units) Garages Accessory Buildings Accessory Grocery Store Cemeteries Churches Commercial Recreation Community Residential Facilities (16 or less) Community Residential Facilities (6 or less) Fences Gardening and Horticulture Uses Home Occupations Licensed Daycare (12 or less) Licensed Daycare (13 or more) Local Government Buildings R-1 (R-2) R1-A (R-3) R-2 P P P P C C A A A A A A A C C P A A P P C C P A A P P C C P A A P P C C (R-4) R-3 P P C P A P C A A C C C C P P A A P C USE (R-2) (R-3) (R-4) R-1 R1-A R-2 R-3 Nursery Schools Nursing Homes Offices (limited) Off-Street Parking Docks Public and Private Schools Public Park and Recreation Recreational Equipment Swimming Pools C C C C C C A A A A A A A A C C C C P P P P A A A A A A A A l'~ Changes/Clarifications Key: P Permitted Use C Conditional Use A Accessory Use - Not Allowed Note: Information includes proposed Zoning Code modifications. TABLE D USES - BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES USE Accessory Structures other than Garages Animal Hospital~3 Assembly/Storage (limited) Auction Hall Auto, Bus and Truck Maintenance Garages Banks Barber and Beauty Shops Boat and Marine Sales Buildings over 35 feet in height Business or Trade School Bus Terminal and Taxi Stands Car Wash Churches Commercial Parking Lots (limited) Commercial Recreation Community Residential Facilities (16 or less) Community Residential Facilities (6 or less) Consignment Shops Construction and Special Trade Contractor Cultural and Fraternal Institutions ccorative ........ v,~ Feature Delicatessen and Dairy Store Drive-In Retailing Establishments Drug Store B-1 B-2 B-3 I-1 PlA C P P P P C C P C P C C C P C P P C C P C C C P P P C C C C C C C P P C C P C C P C C C P C C USE B-1 B-2 B-3 I-1 PlA Grocery Store p Health Club. Fitness Center and Dance Studios P Home Occupations Hospitals and Clinics p Household Goods Warehousing and Storage Incidental Repair or Processing (limited) A Institutions and Non-profit Corporations (limited) P Laundry and Dry Cleaning p Licensed Day Care FacilitiesE2 or le~)"I J'~ Liquor 'Stores p Major Auto Repair, Tire, Battery Stores Medical and Dental Clinics p Minor Auto Repair, Tire, Battery Stores C Motel and Motor Hotels I~ Motor Fuel Station C Motor Fuel Station. Convenience Store C Multiple Dwelling Structure C Newspaper Printing or Publishing Shops C Offices p Open Sales Lots - Private Lodges and Clubs P Private Garages, Off-street Parking A Public and Private Utility Uses Public Buildings p Public Park and Recreation p Eublic and Private Schools_-'i i~l P C p - P P A P P C C P C C C C C P C P A P P C C C P P C P P P P C P C P C C C C C C P C P P P P P P P 2 USE B-1 B-2 B-3 I- 1 PIA Refrigerated Warehousing Research Laboratories r~Rc~i~cn:ial Accessory,] Restaurants (Class I) Restaurants (Class II) Restaurants (Class III) Restaurants (Class IV) Retail Businesses Retail and Mail Order Businesses Service Shops Single-Family Detached Residences Tavern Television and Radio Stations Temporary Construction Buildings Theaters Townhouses Twin Homes Two-Family Dwellings Warehousing and Wholesaling (limited) Wholesale and Assembly Operations U Changes/Clarifications - p - p P P C C C C C C C - C C C C C P P P C p P P P C C C C C A A P P P C - p C - C Key: P Permitted Use C Conditional Use A Accessory Use - Not Allowed Note: 1. Information includes proposed Zoning Code modifications. 2. See Zoning Code for complete list of PIA uses allowed by Operations Permit. P printed 4/20/92 23.302 DEFINITIONS The following are additions and modifications to the definition statements now found in the zoning ordinance. (1) (4) Accessory Building - An accessory building shall be considered to be an integral part of a principal structure unless it is five (5) feet or more from the Alley - A public right-of-way which affords a secondary means of access to abutting property. ~i~iii!i~iiii!iii~i (106) Structure - Anything constructed ~i:i~ii!~:~i~i~, the use of which requires more or less perm~"~'~'~f-'l~'6'ation on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, ............................................................................. printed 4/20/92 23.404 NON-CONFORMING USES Based upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, the following change is recommended: 23. 404 (8) Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units ~ w~--~'- ~-~ ~-~..~ ~,,~,~"~: .... with the recommendation and · approval of the City Council. 23.407 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS The following changes are proposed for this section: 23.407 (3) In Residential Districts, 23.408 REQUIRED YARDS AND OPEN SPACE 23.408 Required Yards and Open Space printed 4/20/92 (1) No yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimensiOn so as to make such yard or other open space less than the minimum required by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. (2) (3) No required yard or other open space allocated to a building or dwelling group shall be used to satisfy yard, other open space, or minimum lot area requirements for any other building. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements. ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters, and the 1 ike, provided they do not extend more than two (2) be ~ Steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar ~~ structures, which do not extend i~'"'""~'i'~"ion above the height of the ground floor elevation of the principal building and do not extend to a distance of less than two (2) feet from any lot line. Decks, balconies, and the like, attached to the principal building which extend in elevation above the height of the ground floor rear lot line or extend beyond side yard and front yard accessory buildin~ setbacks. 3 printed 4/20/92 (4) (5) (6) ~:. ~::~~d~: ..................... ~, ........... ~ ........................................................ ~ ~ ~:..::! .................................... ...... ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~'~a~;~i~;~:~:~i~i~i~ ~!?~~ ~i .............................................................................................. ' ...................... Buildings may be excluded from side yard requirements if party walls are utilized or if the adjacent buildings are planned to be constructed as an integral structure and a conditional use permit is secured. Lots which abut on more than one street shall provide the required front yards along every street except for lots of record which shall provide a side yard setback abutting the street based on the lot width as follows: Lot Width Minimum Side Yard Setback On Corner Lots 40-50 feet 51-80 feet 81 feet or more l0 feet 20 feet 30 feet Where adjoining structures existing on the effective date of this Ordinance have a shorter setback from that required, the front setback of a 4 printed 4/20/92 new structure shall conform to the average of the setback obserVed bY'~the adjoining houses on either side, but not closer than twenty (20) feet. (7) In all districts, --:--:~ structures shall be fifty (50) feet or more from the mea~~ high water line when the property abuts ....... a ...... Iake or stream. No structure, except piers and docks, shall be placed at an elevation such that the lowest floor, including basement floors, is less than three feet above the highest known water level. (s) No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicatedliiiiii?i~~~ public street. 23.409 ACCESS DRIVES AND ACCESS The number and types of access drives onto major streets may be controlled and limited in the interests of public safety and efficient traffic flow. Access drives onto county roads shall require a review by the County Engineer. The County Engineer shall determine the appropriate location, size, and design of such access drives and may limit the number of access drives in the interest of public safety and efficient traffic flow. Access drives to principal structures which traverse wooded, steep, or open field areas shall be constructed and maintained to a width and base material depth sufficient to support access by emergency vehicles. The Administrator B~i~i~i~i~h~ ~ffli~!~i~i~ shall review all access drives (driveway§) for ¢0mpli~nce with accepted community access drive standards. 5 printed 4/20/92 A!.~_.driveways shall have a minimum width of ~ i(i~ig!~ili feet with a pavement strength capable of supporting emergency vehicles. Ail lots or parcels shall have direct adequate physical access for emergency vehicles along the frontage of the lot or parcel from an existing dedicated ~i~~~ public roadway. 23.412.2 STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREAS The last paragraph of this section is changed as noted: The City Manager or Clerk shall itemize all services and materials billed to any Developer's Escrow Account. The applicant, owner or developer making the deposit(s) in the Developer's Escrow Account shall ~iiiiii~i~!~i~i be furnished a copy of said itemized charges and~:~¥~h~'~emaining in the account upon completing the project shall be returned to the depositor by the Clerk after all claims and charges thereto have been paid. 23.505.3 PROCEDURE The last paragraph of this section, item #11 is changed as noted: The City Engineer and City Attorney shall itemize all services and materials billed to any Developer's Escrow Account. The applicant, owner or developer making the d~p~9.~.t(s) in the Developer,s Escrow Account shall ~~i~i be furnished a copy of said itemized charges ~'~ remaining in the account upon completing the project shall be returned to the depositor by the Clerk after all claims and charges thereto have been paid. 23.506.2 PROCEDURE Item #5 of this section is changed as noted: printed 4/20/92 SECTION 6. DISTRICT PROVISIONS 23.601 Zoninq Districts For the purpose of this Section, the City is hereby divided into the following use districts: R-1 Single Family Residential 23.602 R 3 TWO ~-"~" ~^-~"3^-~:~i ~:.i:.i:':i~%.:i:ii?.i:i:M~'~i~:i:.i:ii ~':':~: i'~:i::i:iiiiii~:~ ~d~:i B-1 Central Business B-2 General Business B-3 Neighborhood Business I-1 Light Industrial Zoninq Map 7 printed 4/20/92 The Zoning Map of the City, marked Exhibit A and attached hereto, is hereby adopted by reference. ...... d~t~is,~-4-~,,. The boundaries of the Districts are hereby established as shown on said Map. A revised, updated copy of said map shall be kept on file in the office of the City Manager, or Manager's designate for reference as the Official Zoning Map. 23.603 23.604 23.604.1 23. 604.2 District Boundaries District boundary lines as indicated on ~ ~ iZ~i~!i?~ follow lot lines, the center line of stree~:~::~~:~ ~:~:~:~'~:~lines of streets projected, the center line of railroad right-of-way, the center of water courses or the corporate limits lines, as they exist, upon the effective date of this Section. Single Family Residential (R-l) Purpose The ~ purpose of this district is to allow the continuation of existing residential development and ~ ~ ~ ~ · · ~ ~ ~ ================================ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......... ~ ~i~i~iiii!ii~i~i~! of existing lots in ~4%~---mewe~ residential ....... ~'~'~'~'~ ......... 6:f the City where services are available. Permitted Uses Within the R-1 District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: Single-family detached residences, limited to one dwelling per lot. A State Licensed Community Residential Facility servicing six (6) or fewer mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons. 8 printed 4/20/92 4. Home occupations 23.604.3 Conditional Uses Within the R-1 District, no structure or land shall be used for the following %~ses except by conditional use permit: 1. Local government buildings 2. Churches 3. Cemeteries 23.604.4 Permitted Accessory Uses Within any R-1 District the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: 2. Fences 3. Gardening and other horticultural uses where no 9 printed 4/20/92 sale of products is conducted on the site. One lodging room per single-family dwelling. Equipment Docks in accordance with Minnetonka Conservation District the Lake ~ swimming pools having a water depth of two (2) feet or more which are operated for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents'of the principal use and their guests provided that the following conditions are met: Be 10 printed 4/20/92 Ce The swimming ~o01 shall be entirely enclosed by a protectlTM fence or other permanent structure not less than five (5) feet nor more than six (6) feet in height. Such protective enclosures shall be maintained by locked gates or entrances when the pool is not tended by a qualified and responsible person. 23. 604.5 Lot Area, Height, Lot Width, Yard and:?.:~:L6~?::.::~~!~e Requirements No building hereafter erected shall exceed two and one-half (2½) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height. The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in other sections of this Ordinance. Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Minimum Lot Depth 10,000 sq.ft. 60 feet 30 feet 10 feet 15 feet 80 feet The following minimum setback requirements shall be observed for Lots of Record. Side Yard Requirements The required side yard setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet. Lot Width Minimum Setback on One Side Yard 11 printed 4/20/92 ~40,~79 feet 80-100 feet ~101 feet 6 feet 8 feet 10 feet Front Yard Except as regulated in Section 23.408(6), the front yard setback shall be based on the lot depth as follows: Lot Depth Minimum Front Yard Setback ~60 feet 20 feet 61-80 feet 24 feet ~81 feet 30 feet 23.605.1 Purpose 23.605.2 Permitted Uses 12 printed 4/20/92 .............. 23.605.3 23.605.4 Conditional Uses .., .......... ~.................................................................._ ~.............~........,.~ _~ l~?~?:.~a~t~?::~?:~:::~;?.~::~a~~ :.::~[~:~:~:~:~::i: ................. Permitted Accessory Uses 13 printed 4/20/92 Fences Gardening or other horticultural, uses where no sale of products is conducted on the site. One lodging room per single family dwelling· Recreational Equipment Lot Area, Heiqht, Lot Width, Yard and Requirements .................................. ::/:~:~}:::::~6~:~:~ ~~g~ i:~ ~ ~ ~i~: ............... ] ================================================================================================================================================= :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....... : ::................... ...... Minim~ lot 14 printed 4/20/92 ::::: :: :i::::::!::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::i: :!:i:::!:i:!:!:i:i:i:!:i:i:i::::: :i: :i:::: :!:!:!:::::::::::::::::::::::i:i:::::::iS!Si:::i:i i:::i:i:i:: i::~iiii::::::! !::! i:i! i:. ::i i:::: :::::::::::: :: :::.::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::::: :: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::: ::::::: :::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :2.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 23. 610.1 Purpose The R--~ ~ District is intended to provide a district 15 printed 4/20/92 which will allow two-family residential dwellings and twin homes ~-~ -~ ~---:~.- ....... z t .... h ..... upon review. 23.610.2 Permitted Uses Within any Two-family Residential District, no structures or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: 23.610.3 Conditional Uses Within the R-~ R~21iiii!District, no structure or land shall be used for the'f~i'lowing uses except by conditional use permit: printed 4/20/92 Two-family dwellings and twin homes may be divided into single parcels of record with the party wall acting as the dividing lot line and subject to the following conditions: Each of the lots created in subdividing lands on which a two-family structure is located shall be equal in area or as near equal as is reasonably possible. Each lot so created shall contain no less than ½ the minimum land area requirement for a two family dwelling, and shall be shown on a registered survey. Except for setbacks along the common property line, all other setback and yard requirements shall be met. Separate services shall be provided to each residential unit for sanitary sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, telephone and other utilities. Se The two-family units, either existing or proposed, must be constructed in a side-by- side manner. To protect the safety and property of the owner and occupants of each individual unit, no existing a~ ~f~i~ structure may be split into two sep~~6~'~ships unless and until the common party wall fire rating is brought up to new construction standards contained in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). ~"~- ~z-~-~" .~.~' Party walls must provide sound transmission control ratings as per ~ .... ~ 35 ~ the UBC The owner of property to be subdivided shall execute and record at their expense a 17 $ printed 4/20/92 "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions,, as approved by the City Attorney. Said document is necessary to protect the rights of the individual owners sharing a single structure and the public as it relates to but not limited to such things as maintenance, repair and construction in case of damage to the original structure and sanitation. The declarations, covenants, conditions and restrictions shall provide protection to the property owners and the City on the following subjects: A. Building and use restrictions. B. Party walls. Ce Relationships among owners of adjoining living units and arbitration of disputes. The intent of these regulations is to promote harmony between the neighbors sharing a single structure and to protect the City and neighborhood from improper maintenance and/or disputes such as the following examples: one living unit being painted one color and the other unit having a different color or one side of the structure having one roof color and type of roof and the other side being of a different type and color. The city is concerned that all such disputes be avoided and that the regulations contained herein are designed to establish the rights of the parties prior to their entering into joint ownership of one structure. The City shall be a beneficiary of these declarations, covenants, conditions and restrictions. The authority to divide a single structure containing two dwelling units shall be subject to Section 22 of the City Code relating to park dedication and other subdivision requirements and the City Council may impose other reasonable conditions. 23.610.4 Permitted Accessory Uses Within any R 3 R~i~~ district, the following uses shall be 18 printed 4/20/92 permitted accessory uses: U~ldi~s: Sba!!/.: not. exceed: a :~o~ai gr~ss:: ftoor Fences Gardening and other horticultural uses where no sale of products is conducted on the site. 4. One lodging room per single-family dwelling. 5. Recreational Equipment Docks in accordance with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ~iiiiiiiiiii!ii!iiii!ii!ii:ii~ ~::~iii~i:~:ii??i !?: :~i i~ ~:~ Swimming pools and hot tubs subject to Section 23.604.4 (7). 19 printed 4/20/92 2O printed 4/20/92 .:.:.:. :::.:::.:: =================================== ........................ ................ . ....... ~n~ ~ ~ ~ov~.~,:::~?~?~ ::::::::::::::. :: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.::. Ail Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements for Two Family homes shall apply to twin homes unless separate requirements are specifically provided. 21 printed 4/20/92 ......................................................................................... : .............................................................. . ~'"'J~[[~i~!~i ~]~ii '"':~ "[Wi ~:5:~:['~:[?"[:~::':':::' :'::::: :: ::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.: :.:.:.:.......:.:.:..:, ...... . ........ ................ ..................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .... - ....... - .... RESIDENTIAL (R 4) 23. 620.1 ,Purpose The ~.........,,....R::.:.:~ multiple-family district is intended to provide a .......... district which will allow multiple-family dwellings where proper relationships to other land uses and adequate transportation services exist. 23. 620.2 Permitted Uses Within any R-~ ~ District, no structure cr land shall Multiple dwelling structure (3-6 units) 8~e ~i~ngi~f~!ilyldet~che~ and two family dwell~':hg~ 22 printed 4/20/92 3. Townhouses ?( ~.~?.i ~h~ ~ park ::~and ::recreation [ , ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Community Residential Facilities subject to the following conditions: It shall not be located in a two-family dwelling. Be No more than 16 community residential facility residents may be housed in excess of the persons allowed by the definition of "family", except for structures designed or newly built specifically for such use may allow a greater number provided that all other conditions of the Conditional Use Permit are met. Ce The minimum lot size is that prescribed A minimum distance of 300 feet will be required between lots used as Community Residential Facilities. 23.620.3 Conditional Uses Within the Multi-Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by Conditional Use Permit: Multiple dwelling unit structures (over 6 units), according to Section 23.7D0 ~::!~i~ 2. Nursing Homes 3. Nursery Schools 4. Churches 5. Commercial Recreation 6. Cemeteries 23 printed 4/20/92 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Schools Local Government Buildings Accessory grocery store in apartment complex containing 100 or more units, provided it serves the principal structure and is smaller than 400 square feet. Offices of persons engaged in the engineering, medical, dental, accounting or legal profession or for religious or philanthropic organizations, subject to m~a~mperformance standards Twin Home dwellings which shall be subject to the requirements of Sections 23 610 3, ....... 23.620.4 Permitted Accessory Uses Within any R-~ ~i~ District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: ........................................................................................................................... 3. Fences 4. Gardeninq and o~her horticultural uses ~here no sale of p~oduc~s is conducted on ~he si~e. 24 printed 4/20/92 5. One lodging room per single-family dwelling 6. Recreational Equipment 7. Docks in accordance with the Lake Conservation District Minnetonka Swimming pools and hot tubs subject to Section 23.604.4 (7). 23.620.5 Performance Requirements for Townhouses Height limit: Two and one-half 2(½) stories or thirty-five (35) feet. 2. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: ae Minimum Lot Area 3 unit structure - 5,000 sq.ft./unit 4 unit structure - 4,500 sq.ft./unit 5 unit structure - 4,000 sq.ft./unit 6 unit structure - 4,000 sq.ft./unit Be Minimum Setbacks Front - 30 feet Side - 20 feet Rear - 20 feet C. Off-street parking requirements: Two per unit, at least one of which shall be indoors. If the indoor parking is a part of the main structure and is set back at least 25 feet, and has an individual driveway for each unit, one off-street parking space may be credited for the portion of the driveway which shall be set back at least five feet from the public right-of-way. Any off-street parking located other than within the front yard area described above and serving more than one dwelling unit shall not be located closer than 10 feet from the principal structure. De No more than one townhouse shall be located on any one platted lot, if more than one platted lot is used for said construction, the owner shall be required to replat said lots in accordance with Chapter 22 of the City Code. The Council may waive said platting requirements upon recommendation of the 25 printed 4/20/92 Planning Commission and upon receipt of a signed statement from the owners combining said lots into one buildable parcel, said combination to be filed with the County Auditor and taxed as one parcel. Individual townhouse units may be conveyed or ownership transferred if copies of articles of incorporation, association bylaws, or other covenants are presented to the Council and said documents setting forth conditions for transfer are approved by the Council. Such approval shall not be given until the aforesaid documents shall be filed with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles and all future owners of townhouses or units in the individual townhouse shall be bound by the conditions and covenants set forth in said documents. A certified copy of the documents filed with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles shall be filed with the City Clerk. 23.620.6 Lot Area, Height, Lot Width, Yard, and ~i!iiiiliiii~~ Requirements other than Multi-family Dwelli~h~ ....................................................... (Section 23.620.7 remains unchanged) 23.625.2 PERMITTED USES (B-l) 26 printed 4/20/92 Under Section 23.625.2, remove the listing "Physical culture and dance studios" and replace it with "Health Club, Fitness Center and Dance Studios". 23.701 SECTION 7. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PURPOSE The performance standards established in this section are designed to encourage a high standard of development by provldlng ..... ~~!~i~ii~~~i~ neighboring land uses ........... ~ ....... The performance standards are designed to prevent and eliminate those conditions meet these standards. The standards shall also apply to existing development where so stated. The City Manager shall be responsible for enforcing the standards. Before any building permit is approved, the Zoning Administrator shall determine whether the proposed use will conform to the performance standards. The t~-~,~ or land o~n~rs ~P~iii~h~ shall supply ~i~i~ data necessary to demonstratesuch 23.702 EXTERIOR STORAGE (No Modification Proposed) 23.702 REFUSE (No Modification Proposed) 23.704 SCREENING AND BUFFERING Screening shall be required in all residential zones where (a) any off-street parking area contains more than four (4) parking spaces and is within thirty (30) feet of an adjoining residential zone, and (b) where the driveway to a parking area of more than six (6) parking spaces is within fifteen (15) feet of an adjoining residential use or zone. Where any business (structure, parking or storage) is 27 printed 4/20/92 adjacent to property zoned or developed for any residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along ........... z ~ i~t~'i ~~ii~h the residential property. Screening where a business, parking lot, or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not on that side of a business or industry considered to be the front (as determined by the ~'--' ~n~'~ ~ ..... Ail exterior storage in commercial districts shall be screened. The exceptions are: (1) merchandise being displayed for sale; (2) materials and equipment presently being used for construction on the premises; and (3) merchandise located on service station pump islands. All exterior storage in commercial districts shall not impede traffic control and must follow Section 23.714 of this Ordinance. 23.705 28 printed 4/20/92 v~ ~ ..................... Ith v~ safe condltlons. 29 printed 4/20/92 ...................................~:~ ~::-::::.~ ~:.:::.::.~:: ::: :0~ ~:~~:"~:/'}? ':'~'~'~'}'~'~'~:':':'~: .............. z~'+:':~:'":':~'~'~'~'}?:'~':':':':~:~ ................................................................................................................. ":7~}~}~::' ?' :':": ': :':':': ?':"-:-:':-~:: ~::':-:-:::-:-::~'+':?:: ...... ~':~:':': :': ::::: :::::::::::::::::::::~ ::':':':::': ................ ............ "::::::::::::::::::::::: ........... :::::: :~0~~::: :: :::::': ............. :':::':::::':-:?::: ............................. ' .......... ~' ....... The following restrictions shall apply ~o all developmen~ occurring in wooded areas: 1) S:ruc~ures shall be located fn such a manner ~ha~ ~he maxfmum number of ~rees shall be preserved. 3O printed 4/20/92 2) 3) 4) 5) Prior to the granting of a building permit, it shall be the duty of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site. Forestation, reforestation or landscaping shall utilize a variety of tree species and shall not utilize any species presently under disease epidemic. Species planted shall be hardy under local conditions and compatible with the local landscape. Development including grading and contouring shall take place in such a manner that the root zone aeration stability of existing trees shall not be affected and shall provide existing trees with a watering equal to one- half the crown area. Notwithstanding the above, the removal of trees serious!y__damaged by storms, ~ acts ~f Cod, ~iiiiiiiiii~h~iiiii~~iiiii~i~i~ii shall not be prohibit~dl 23. 706 GL~E (No Modification Proposed) 23.707 BULK STORAGE (No Modification Proposed) 23.708 NUISANCES (No Modification Proposed) 23.711 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL Proposed) (No Modification 23.713 TREE AND WOODLAND PRESERVATION This section has been relocated and integrated into 23.705.7(C). 23.714 TRAFFIC CONTROL (No Modification Proposed) 23.716 PARKING (No modification except as noted below) 31 printed 4/20/92 23.716.3 Desiqn and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Area:; 1) Parking areas shall be designed so as to provide adequate means of access to a public alley or street. Such driveway access shall not exceed twenty two (22) ~~f~?ii!(iZ!~i)i feet in width and shall be so i~6~'~ ......... ~'~ ............. ~'~ .............. Cause the least interference with traffic movement. Curbing ............ ~..~ ..... ~ .... ff ~t~t along the property .... c shall provide - = ...... curb "~ ............. ~ ................ d~ roper ~ ..... "~ ~-~ ~-~- th- -:~ property line 23.717 OFF-STREET LOADING AND Modification Proposed) UNLOADING AREAS (No 23.718 AUTO SERVICE STATIONS (No Modification Proposed) 23.719 DRIVE-IN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Modification Proposed) (No 23.730 OFFICES IN MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT Modification Proposed) (R-4) (No 23.731 CAR WASHES (No Modification Proposed) 32 printed 4/20/92 ............................................................................................................... C) ~[ [M~re :thah: half of the : ~t 33 printed 4/20/92 34 SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE City of Mound Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 The following definitions are added to Section 23.302 of the Mound Zoning Code: (7A) Bluff - Topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having all of the following characteristics: A. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; Co The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and D. The slope must drain toward the waterbody. An area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance of 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of a bluff. (8) Bluff Impact Zone - An area including a bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff. (12) Building Line - A line parallel to the street right-of-way ~iiii~!iii~~ ~iii?i~iiiii~! at any story level of a building and representing the minimum distance which all or any part of the building is set back from said right-of-way line ~ii~~iiii~!~ili~iiii!~. (23A) Commercial Use - The principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental or trade of products, goods and services. (27A) Conditional Use - A use under the Mound Code of Ordinances requiring the approval and issuance of a conditional use permit. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 1 (48A) (52A) (55B) (55C) (75A) (89A) (98A) Forest Land Conversion - Clear cutting of forested lands to prepare for a new land use other than the re-establishment of a subsequent forest stand. Hardship - Hardship as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by any landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the ordinance. Industrial Use - The use of land or buildings manufacture, warehousing, storage or transfer commodities, or other wholesale items. for the production, of goods, products, Intensive Vegetation Clearing - The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row or block. Nonconformity - Any legal use, structure or parcel of land already in existence, recorded, or authorized before the adoption of official controls or amendments thereto that would not have been permitted to become established under the terms of the official controls as now written, if the official controls had been in effect prior to the date it was established, recorded or authorized. ~iii~~~~ii~iii~ Public Waters - Waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.37, Subdivisions 14 and 15. Lakes, ponds or towage of less than 10 acres shall not be considered public waters. Shore Impact Zone - Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. Mound Shore. land Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 (98B) (99A) (108A) 008B) (108C) (l16A) Shoreland - Land located within 1000 feet of the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond or flowage. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Steep Slope - Lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs. Surface Water-Oriented Commerdal Use - The use of land for commercial purposes, where access to and use of a surface water feature is an integral part of the normal conductance of business. Examples include marinas and restaurants with transient docking fadlities. Toe of the Bluff - The lower point of a 50 foot segment of a bluff with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. Top of the Bluff - The higher point of a 50 foot segment of a bluff with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. Water-Oriented Accessory Structure or Facility - An at-grade deck or lock box that reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Stairways, fences, docks and retaining walls are not considered water-oriented accessory structures or facilities. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 3 SECTION 1200 - SHORELAND MANAGEMENT Section 1200:00. AUTHORIZATION AND POLICY Subd. 1. Authority. This shoreland ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization and polities contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. Subd. 2. Purpose. The uncontrolled use of the shorelands of the City of Mound affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The Legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. This responsibility is hereby recognized by the City of Mound. Section 1200:05. GENERAL PROVISIONS Subd. 1. Jurisdiction. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the shorelands of the public water bodies as classified in Section 1200:15 of this ordinance. Pursuant to Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, no lake, pond, or flowage less than 10 acres in size need be regulated in a local government's shoreland regulations. A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous shoreland may, at the discretion of the City of Mound, be exempt from this ordinance. Subd. 2. Compliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the use, size, type and location of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water supply and waste treatment systems, the grading and filling of any shoreland area; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 Section 1200:10. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NOTIFICATIONS Subd. 1. Hearing Notices. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls must be sent to the commissioner or the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked at least ten days before the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed subdivisions/plats must include copies of the subdivision/plat. Subd. 2. Final Decisions. A copy of approved amendments and subdivisions/plats, and final derisions granting variances or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls must be sent to the commissioner or the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked within ten days of final action. When a variance is approved after the Department of Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification of the approved variance shall also include the Board of Adjustment's summary of the public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the issuance of the variance. Section 1200:15 SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND LAND USE DIS!'RIC'I~ Subd. 1. Shoreland Classification System. The public waters of the City of Mound have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Hennepin County, Minnesota. The shoreland area for the waterbodies listed in Section 1200:15, Subd. I(B) shall be as defined in Section 23.302 (98B) and as shown on the Offidal Zoning Map. Be Lakes Recreational Development Lakes Dutch Lake Lake Langdon Protected Waters Inventory I.D.# 27-181P 27-182P General Development Lakes Protected Waters Inventory I.D.# Lake Minnetonka Lost Lake 27-133P 27-180 Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 5 Natural Environment Lakes Saunders Lake (Minnetrista) Protected Waters .Inventory I.D.// 27- Subd. 2..Land Use District Descriptions. Within the shoreland area, land use districts and allowable land uses therein shall be as identified in Section 23... (The charts entitled "Uses - Residential Zones" and "Uses - Business and Industrial Zones will be incorporated into the appropriate location in the Mound Zoning Code and identified as Section 23. .) Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 Mound Shoreland Ordinance Dra/t 5 - October 21, 1992 '7 Mound ~areland Ordinance Dr~ 5 - October 21, 1992 OOo~ oooo ~Z Mound Shore]and Ordinm~e Draft 5 - October 21,1992 Mound Shore. land Ordinanoe Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 lO Mound Shoreland Ordlnan~ Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 11 Mound E~oretand Ordinance Draft $ - Octo~ 21, 1992 12 Section 1200:20 ZONING Subd. 1. Lot Area and Width Standards. The lot area and width standards for residential, commercial and industrial lots within the shoreland area shall be as found in Section 23.__ of the Mound Zoning Code. (Section 23.__ will reference the sections of the Zoning Code that contain lot standards for all land uses. The standards will be the same for riparian and non-riparian properties.) Subd. 2. Additional Special Provisions. Subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in Section 23..__ can only be allowed if designed and approved as Planned Development Areas (PDA) or Planned Industrial Areas (PLA) under Sections 23.412 or 23.650 of this ordinance. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters can be used to meet lot area standards. Subd. 3. Placement, Design, and Height of Structures. Placement of Structures on Lots. When more than one setback applies to a parcel, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone. Structures shall be located as follows: 1. Structure Setbacks from Ordinary High Water Level* Lake Classification Required Setback* Natural Environment 50 feet Recreational Development 50 feet General Development 50 feet * One. Water-oriented accessory structures designed in accordance with Section 1200:20, Subd. 3 (B) of this ordinance may be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the ordinary high water level. Mound Shore. land Ordinance Draft 5 - Oc~bex 21, 1992 13 Additional Structure Setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody: Setback From: Setback Top of Bluff 30 feet Unplatted Cemetery 50 feet Right-of-way line of federal, state or county highway or local street 20 feet Bo 3. Bluff Impact Zones. em..... ...... a ......... t,..~.. ....... . ~si~ Criteda For S~u~res. 1. ~--~it~r Elevafiom. S~es m~t ~ ~th fl~pla~ re~lafio~ applicable to ~e site. /~. Water-odented Ac~sm~ S~u~res. ,,' w~er~fient~ acce~ry s~e not meeting ~e no~ s~u~re ~tvack ~ ~cflon 1200:20, Su~. 3(A)l of ~is ord~ce wate[~rient~ accessory s~e ~mplies wi~ ~e follo~g prov~lom: Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 The setback of water-oriented accessory structures from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten feet. 14 dj treated to reduce visibility as viewed fi.om public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Stairways, Lifts, and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet all of the following design requirements: ae Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties, and planned development areas. be Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties, and planned development areas. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. de Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical. Fadlities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that they comply with the dimensional and performance standards of subitems (a) to (e) in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340. Significant Historic Sites. No structure may be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been ~~ rcmovcd and documented in a public repository. ~~ii~.~ Mound Shore. land Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 15 Steep Slopes. The Building Offidal and/or City Engineer will evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions will be attached to permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. Height of Structures .............. . ............................ ~ ................................ ':.:...~:~?~::iii~:~:i::.:.:~ii?iiii:~:?~.,,~.,~i:?~,~,}!i::i ! :+:7:':':~ =================================== '::::::' ::.:.:: :: ~-.:.:.:::: ,:.:.:.:.:~;::.: .:.,, ....... .,.............. -.. ........................... churches must not exceed 35 feet in height. Subd. 4. Shoreland Alterations. Alterations of vegetation and topography will be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. A. Vegetation Alterations. "~"^"""' ~"~'~""" R~6~iT~f::iii~g~'ti~ necessary for the construction of structures and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by Section !2~:15 ~.20, Subd. 5 of this ordinance is exempt from the vegetation alte~'ii'~i:i'standards that follow. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses as regulated in Sections 1200:20, Subd. 7 (B) and (C), is allowed subject to the following standards: Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and 16 Bo trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or fadlities, provided that:. The screening of structures, vehicles, or other fadlities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. Public roads and parking areas are regulated by Section 1200:20, Subd.5 of this ordinance. o Notwithstanding Items 1 and 2 above, a grading and filling permit will be required for: ao The ~ movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material on steep slopes or within shore or bluff impact zones; and bo The ~i~ movement of more than 50 cubic yards of material outside of steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones. The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 17 do ae Grading or filling in any type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity wOuld affect the following functional qualifies of the wetland: 1. Sediment and pollutant trapping and retention. Storage of surface runoff to prevent,,. .... .,~,.'~'""',,.,. flood damage. 3. Fish and wildlife habitat. 4. Recreational use. 5. Shoreline or bank stabilization. Noteworthiness, including spedal qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for 'endangered plants and animals, or others. Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 18 q-OO~ Subd. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must f'u'st be authorized by the Commissioner of Natural Resources under Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.42. je Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties. ko Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. Connections to Public Waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors are subject to the requirements of this ordinance. Permission for excavations may be given only after the City of Mound has received notification that the Commissioner of Natural Resources has approved the proposed connection to public waters. 5. Placement and Design of Roads, Driveways, and Parking Areas. Public and private roads and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. Documentation must be provided identifying that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the standards and regulations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District or other applicable agencies. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks. Such facilities shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 19 Co Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this subpart are "'"" 1"'"'"""'" "-'"-~'~'..'".-,..'. ,--.',- ~-,--..~,,-.~, ..~.,,.. ......~ 1,........,....,,...,,,o ..,.. Subd. 6. Stormwater Management. The following general and specific standards shall apply: A. General Standards: When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter, and retain stormwater runoff before discharge to public waters. Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not suffident to adequately handle stormwater runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Specific Standards: Impervious surface coverage of lots in residential zones shall not Impervious surface coverage in lots in the business and industrial zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. In business and industrial zones that are included within areas covered by an approved stormwater management plan, impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 75 percent of the total lot area. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 20 When constructed facilities are used for stormwater management, documentation must be provided by a qualified individual that they are designed and installed consistent with the standards and regulations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. New stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. Subd. 7. Spedal Provisions for Commerdal, Industrial., Public/Semipublic, Agricultural, Forestry and Extractive Uses and Mining of Metallic Minerals and peat. go Standards for Commerdal, Industrial, Public, and Semipublic Uses. Surface water-oriented and non-surface water oriented commerdal uses ahd industrial, public, or semipublic uses may be located on parcels or lots with frontage on public waters. Such uses must meet the following standards: In addition to meeting impervious coverage limits, setbacks, and other zoning standards in this ordinance, the uses must be designed to incorporate topographic and vegetative screening of parking areas and structures. Uses that require short-term watercraft mooring for patrons must centralize these facilities and design them to avoid obstructions of navigation and to be the minimum size necessary to meet the need. Uses that depend on patrons arriving by watercraft may use signs and lighting to convey needed information to the public, subject to the following general standards: ae No advertising signs or supporting fadlities for signs may be placed in or upon public waters. Signs conveying information or safety messages may be placed in or on public waters by a public authority or under a permit issued by the county sheriff. Signs may be placed, when necessary, within the shore impact zone if they are designed and sized to be the minimum necessary to convey needed information. They must only convey the location and name of the establishment and the general types of goods or services available. The signs must not contain other detailed information such as Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 21 n product brands and prices, must not be located higher than ten feet above the ground, and must not exceed 32 square feet in size. If illuminated by artifidal lights, the lights must be Shielded or directed to prevent illumination out across public waters. Co Other outside lighting may be located within the shore impact zone or over public waters if it is used primarily to illuminate potential safety hazards and is shielded or otherwise directed to prevent direct illumination out across public waters. This does not preclude use of navigational lights. Agriculture Use Standards. General cultivation farming, grazing, nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting are permitted uses if steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones are maintained in permanent vegetation or operated under an approved conservation plan (Resource Management Systems) consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts or the United States Soil Conservation Service, as provided by a qualified individual or agency. The shore impact zone for parcels with permitted agricultural land uses is equal to a line parallel to and 50 feet from the ordinary high water level. Forest Management Standards. The harvesting of timber and associated reforestation must be conducted consistent with the provisions of the Minnesota Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment-Forestry and the provisions of Water Quality in Forest Management "Best Management Practices in Minnesota." Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - Oclnber 21, 1992 22 Section 1200:30 NONCONFORMITIES AND CONDITIONAL USES Subd.1. Nonconformities. All nonconforming uses and structures legally established as of December ._, 1992 shall be subject to the provisions of Section Subd.2. Conditional Uses. Conditional uses allowable within shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and approval procedures, and criteria and conditions for review of conditional uses established in Section 23.505. The following additional evaluation criteria and conditions apply within shoreland areas.' go Evaluation criteria. A thorough evaluation of the waterbody and the topographic, vegetation, and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure: The prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction. The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited. The site is adequate for water supply and on $:.',c P~!!~ sewage treatment. Mound Shore. land Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 23 The types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. Conditions attached to conditional use permits. The City of Mound, upon consideration of the criteria listed above and the purposes of this ordinance, shall attach such conditions to the issuance of the conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Increased setbacks from the ordinary high water level. Limitations on the natural vegetation to be removed or the requirement that additional vegetation be planted. o Special provisions for the location, design, and use of structures, ........... .~ o,,.~, watercraft launching and docking areas, and vehicle parking areas. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 24 Section 1200:40 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PDA) Subd.1. Planned Development Areas (PDA). Planned Development Areas are allowed in shoreland areas subject to the provisions of Section 23.412 and subject to the additional provisions contained within Section 1200:40. Subd.2. Site "Suitable Area" Evaluation. Proposed new or expansions to existing planned development areas must be evaluated using the following procedures and standards to determine the suitable area for the dwelling unit density evaluation in Section 1200:40, Subd.3. The project parcel must be divided into tiers by locating one or more lines approximately parallel to a line that identifies the ordinary high water level at the following intervals, proceeding landward: Shoreland Tier Dimensions (feet) General development lakes first tier 200 General development lakes second and additional tiers 267 Recreational development lakes 267 Natural environment lakes 320 The suitable area within each tier is next calculated by excluding from the tier area all wetlands, bluffs, or land below the ordinary high water level of public waters. This suitable area and the proposed project are then subjected to either the residential or commercial planned unit development density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of dwelling units or sites. Subd.3. Residential PDA Density Evaluation. The procedures for determining the "base" density of a PDA and density increase multipliers are as follows. Allowable densities may be transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the waterbody, but must not be transferred to any other tier closer. The suitable area within each tier is divided by the single residential lot size standard (10,000 sq. ft.). Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the residential planned development areas are then compared with the tier, density, and suitability analyses herein and the design criteria in Section 1200:40, Subd.4. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 25 Subd.4. Density Increase Multipliers. The following density increase multipliers shall apply. Ao Increases to the dwelling unit base densities previously determined are allowable if the dimensional standards in Section 1200:20 are met or exceeded and the design criteria in Section 1200:40, Subd.5 are satisfied. The allowable density increases in Item B. below will only be allowed if structure setbacks from the ordinary high water level are increased to at least 50 percent greater than the minimum setback, or the impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or additional means acceptable to the local unit of government and the setback is at least 25 percent greater than the minimum setback. Allowable Dwelling Unit Increases for Residential Planned Development Areas: Density evaluation tiers Maximum density increase within each tier (percent) First 50 Second 100 Third 200 Fourth 200 Fifth 200 Subd.5. Maintenance and Design Criteria. A. Maintenance and Administration Requirements. Before final approval of a planned development area, adequate provisions must be developed for preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open spaces and for the continued existence and functioning of the development. Open Space Preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long-term preservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include all of the following protections: a. Commerdal uses are prohibited. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - Octobez 21, 1992 26 Bo be Vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance are prohibited. Ce Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials is prohibited. d. Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft is prohibited. Development Organization and Function. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework is established, all residential planned development areas must use an owners association with the following features: ao Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive purchasers. bo Each member must pay a pro rata share of the assodation's expenses, and unpaid assessments can become liens on units. Ce Assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions. The assodation must be responsible for insurance, taxes, and maintenance of all commonly owned property and fadlities. Open Space Requirements. Planned unit developments must contain open space meeting all of the following criteria: o 0 o At least 50 percent of the total project area must be preserved as open space. Dwelling units, road rights-of-way, or land covered by road surfaces, parking areas, or other structures, are developed areas and shall not be included in the computation of minimum open space. Open space must include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries. Open space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by owners of dwelling units or sites, by guests, and by the general public. Mound Shore. land Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 2'/ The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation, and allowable uses, must be preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means. The shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks, must be included as open space. For residential PDA's, at least 70 percent of the shore impact zone area must be preserved in its natural or existing state. Erosion Control and Stormwater Management. Erosion control and stormwater management plans must be developed and the PDA must: Be designed, and the construction managed, to minimize the likelihood of serious erosion occurring either during or after construction. This must be accomplished by limiting the amount and length of time of bare ground exposure. Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips, or other appropriate techniques must be used to minimize erosion impacts on surface water features. Erosion control plans approved by a soil and water conservation district may be required if project size and site physical characteristics warrant. Be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonably expected quantities and qualities of stormwater runoff. Impervious surface coverage within the first tier must not exceed 30 percent of the tier area and the impervious surface coverage of the entire PDA must not exceed 30 percent. Centralization and Design of Facilities. Centralization and design of facilities and structures must be done according to the following standards: Dwelling units must be dustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of the development. They must be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional standards for the relevant shoreland classification: setback from the ordinary high water level, elevation above the surface water features, and maximum height. Setbacks from the ordinary high water level must be increased in accordance with Section 1200:40, Subd.4 of this ordinance for developments with density increases. Mound Shore. land Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas, must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Evaluation of suitability must 28 e include consideration of land slope, water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors. Structures, parking areas, and other facilities must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening must be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided. Accessory structures and facilities, except water oriented accessory structures, must meet the required principal structure setback and must be centralized. Water-oriented accessory structures and facilities may be allowed if they meet or exceed design standards contained in Section 1200:20, Subd.3 of this ordinance and are centralized. Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft 5 - October 21, 1992 29 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE ASSEMBLY/STORAGE OF GLASS AND POTTERY FOR P. HECK DESIGNS AT 5571 LYNWOOD BLVD., KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID #13-117-24 33 0073, P&Z CASE #92-066 WHEREAS, An application for Conditional Use Permit has been received from P. Heck Designs to allow the design and manufacturing of artwear (jewelry) at 5571 Lynwood Blvd. (Mueller-Lansing Properties), and; WHEREAS, The manufacturing process involves the shaping of porcelain clay which is then air dried and fired in a kiln. Upon assembly, the products are packaged and shipped via UPS, and; WHEREAS, The subject property is located in the I-1 zoning district, and; WHEREAS, The proposed operation is not expected to generate any significant noise or odors that would negatively impact either other businesses within the Mueller-Lansing building or adjacent land uses. Adequate parking and open space areas exist at the rear of the structure to accommodate employee parking, customer parking and deliveries, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the application and unanimously recommended approval as the proposed use is consistent with the mound Zoning Code and is not expected to negatively impact any surrounding businesses or land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit for P. Heck Designs to allow the assembly/storage of glass and pottery to manufacture and design jewelry at 5571 Lynwood Blvd. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property: Koehler's Addition to Mound. That part of the North 40 feet of Lot 40 and that part of Lots 41 through 46 inclusive lying Southerly of the following described line commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 40 thence South along the East line of said Lot 40 a distance of 10 feet to the point of beginning thence South 89 degrees 28 minutes 45 seconds West 55.08 feet thence Southwesterly 287.22 feet along a tangential curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of 1,056.48 feet and a central PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 92-066 PAGE 2 angle of 15 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds thence South 73 degrees 54 minutes 10 seconds West 17.77 feet thence Southwesterly 77.47 feet along a tangential curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of 669.17 feet and a central angle of 6 degrees 38 minutes to the West line of said Lot 45 and there terminating including adjacent part of vacated alley. This Conditional Use Permit 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 NOVEMBER 9, 1992 CABS ~92-066: P. HECK DESIGNB, 5571 LYI~OOD BLVD. t KOEHLER'~ ADDITION TO MOOED, PID #13-117-24 33 00730 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to operate a business involving the design and manufacturing of artwear (jewelry) which is then sold by various retail outlets. According to the Zoning Code, businesses involving the assembly/storage of glass and pottery items are allowed in the zone as conditional uses. The proposed use is consistent with the Mound Zoning Code and is not expected to negatively impact any surrounding businesses or land uses. Staff recommended approval' of the request. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak on the issue, Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by staff. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, ross and Jensen. Mueller abstained. This case will be heard by the City Council on November 24, 1992. CITY of MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-066 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A WHOLESALE AND ASSEMBLY OPERATION IN THE I-1 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT CONSISTING OF DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING OF ARTWEAR ~ JEWELRY BY P. HECK DESIGNS AT 5571 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, MOUND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 24, 1992 to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for P. Heck Designs to operate a Wholesale and Assembly Operation designing and manufacturing artwear and jewelry at 5571 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound (behind Brickley's Market) in Koehler's Addition to Mound, PID #13-117-24 33 0073. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in "The Laker" 11-9-92, and mailed to property owners within 350' by 11-11-92. printed on recycled paper Ho/s/ngton Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: November 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Wholesale and Assembly Operation APPLICANT: P. Heck Designs, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 92-066 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37n LOCATION: 5571 Lynwood Boulevard (Mueller-Lansing Properties) EXISTING ZONING: Industrial (I-1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commerdal BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval to operate a business involving the design and manufacturing of artwear (jewelry) which is then sold by various retail outlets. The business which will have a small, on-site showroom is to be located at the rear of the Mueller-Lansing building. The manufacturing process involves the shaping of porcelain clay which is then air dried and fired in a kiln. The kilns are standard electric units. Upon assembly, the products are packaged and shipped via UPS. COMMENT: The Mueller-Lansing building is actually located in the I-1 zone. The parking lot in front of the structure is located in the B-1 zone. According to the Zoning Code, businesses involving the assembly/storage of glass and pottery items are allowed in the zone as conditional uses. Land Use / Environmental ' Planning / Design 7300 bletro Boulevard/Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 4ozz. P. Heck Designs Planning Report November 4, 1992 Page Two The proposed operation is not expected to generate any significant noise or odors that would negatively impact either other businesses within the Mueller-Lansing building or adjacent land uses. Adequate parking and open space areas exist at the rear of the structure to accommodate employee parking, customer parking and deliveries. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed use is consistent with the Mound Zoning Code and is not expected to negatively impact any surrounding businesses or land uses. Approval of the requested conditional use permit is recommended. revised 5/5/92 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT city of gound 5341 Ha~,vood Road, Mound, ~q 55364 Phone: 472-0600~ Fax~ 472-0620 OCT 211992 Conditional Use Permit Fee: $200.00 · -on£ng Sheet Completed: Copy tO City Engineer:~ Copy to Public Works: Other: Please type or print the following lnfor~ation~ Address of Subject Pro~rty ~ner' s N~e Muel!or - ~ner'eAddress ~8~0 County Road 44, ~[ound, Hn ~64 Applicant's Name (if other than owner) _.,.. Heck Designs, Address 730 Game Farm Road NQ., M~Dle Plain 55359 Name of Surveyor: ~n~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: ~ot ~r-~ d- 40 -4¢ Zonin~i.trict ~Ii- ~ EXiSt lng Use of Pro~rty= vacant Inc. Day Phone 479-1297 Day Phone Block -- Name of Proposed Use as Listed in the Zoning Code: ~hO[F-~3~ DeecriptionofProposedUse: Des~qn and manufacturinq of artwear (mainly porcelain jeuelry). Showroom for same. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. No n~ative imoact anticiDate5 - see attached ~?scription of If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ONLY: Number Of Structures: Number of Dwelling Units Per Structure: Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: sq ft Total Lot Area: sq ft Bas an application eve~ Dean made £OL zoning, variance, cono~txo0al use perm,=, or o=ner zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Io -.z~-'7 a_ Date 612-479-1297 730 Game Farm Rd. Minnetrista, Minnesota 55359 P. Heck Designs, Inc., is in the business of designing and manufacturing of artwear which is sold wholesale nationwide to galleries, department stores and boutiques through representatives and wholesale shows. Accounts include Nordstrom, Kohler Gallery, Artspace and Personal Art and Interiors. Process of manufacturing is as follows:Pieces are designed by Peggy Heck. Porcelain clay is rolled out to a thin sheet on a manual slab roller, cut or shaped according to the design, air dried, and then fired in a kiln. The pieces are then assembled and backings are affixed, they are packaged and shipped via UPS. No negative impacts are anticipated. The materials and equipment used in the manufacture of the pieces are the same as would be found in any high school art room. The electric kilns used are commercially made by Skutt and are UL listed (see attached information). I have attached a copy of the projected layout of the work space. INTENT: I am very excited to be moving to Mound with my art studio. This move will enable me to increase my production, add employees, conduct studio tours and have a showroom space for my art. I would love to see other artists and crafts people move to Mound and establish an artist quarter. I think it would be a wonderful draw for the City. Thank you for your consideration. October 20, 1992 I,l,J t I 4 _ _1 43 I 42 I I I iSUPER I I I I I VALU BURLINGTON 41 6 ,,X IST lNG NORTHERN_~ 39 O00~SSVg MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSIO NOVEMBER 9, 1992 C~SE f92-053: MAXIME BEISSBL~ 1720 DOVE LANE~ LOTS 7 - PID ~13-117-24 13 0006. MINOR SUBDIVISION, Michael Mueller commented that he has a financial interest in the subject property and therefore stepped down from the Commission. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the revised plan to subdivide the subject property. Previously the Planning Commission unanimously denied a request to subdivide this property, and the City Council tabled the request with the suggestion that the lots be split in some other way to make a better lot configuration. The Planning commission's consensus was that the lot configuration created a "stacking" of houses that was undesirable, and the proposal over utilizes the property, creates a situation where there are no backyards and Parcel A will accommodate only a very narrow home. The only change recognized by the revised proposal is the addition of the amount of Commons frontage owned by Parcel A, it does nothing to change the location of the two home sites or their relationship to one another. Staff recommended that the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the subject request since the modified plan does not substantially address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. Meyer expressed a concern that the lot will still only accommodate a 20' wide house. Clapsaddle commented that none of the real issues have been address. Hanus stated he is in favor of the subdivision as it does not require any variances and the proposal meets city code. Jensen is concerned about the layout for proposed Parcel B; the house is shown to be setback further from the lake than the neighboring houses and she believes that approving a plan that limits the house to only 20' wide will eventually result in a variance request. Johnson added that a 20' wide house is not good as it is hard to place furniture in long narrow rooms. Voss suggested that the proposed dividing line running west to east from the street towards the east be angled rather than jogged. He also commented that it is good to increase tax role to have two homes rather than one. Michael Mueller gave a presentation emphasizing that if this subdivision is approved the lot sizes will still be larger than the average within the Dreamwood addition. Me stated that there is an "L" shaped lot adjacent to this property. Both of the proposed parcels will be conforming and they can accommodate conforming structures. Mueller emphasized the amount of open space adjacent to this property as a result of the commons and touched on the fact that the property owners will be required to maintain this area. The proposal meets the criteria and all the requirements for a legal minor subdivision with no variances required. Mueller also commented that the City Council suggested the property line at the commons be changed in case a future owner of proposed Parcel A would ever want to install a fence. Plann£n9 Co--£ss£on N£nutes November 9, 1992 MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the applicant,s revised proposal for subdivision as it is a legal minor subdivision, upon the following conditions: Prior to the time this item appears before the City Council, the applicant shall file a variance application with the City of Mound including all applicable fees. Parcels A and B are under common ownership, a building permit for construction on Parcel & shall not be issued until the existing house on Parcel B has bean removed and properly backfilled. Removal of the house will alleviate the nonconforming status of Parcel B and will negate the continued necessity for the variance· All conditions in the City Engineer's report dated September 8, 1992, as follows: be Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as required by the City Engineer. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to recording of the subdivision approval or soma type of guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. Ce Pay deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90. de A cash deposit in the a~ount of $500 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required by Mound City Code Section 330:145, Subdivision 2. MOTION failed 3 to 4. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, and Voss. Those opposed were: Johnson, Jansen, Meyer and Michael. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on November 24, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: November 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision Request APPLICANT: Maxine D. Beissel CASE NUMBER: 92-053 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37d LOCATION: 1720 Dove Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a subdivision request for this property on September 14, 1992 and September 28, 1992 respectively (see Exhibit A). The Planning Commission unanimously denied the request and the subdivision was tabled at the City Council meeting with the suggestion that the "lots be split in some other way to make a better lot configuration." Prior to the tabling motion being offered, the Council made a motion denying the request. The applicant has submited a revised subdivision proposal (Exhibit B) in response to the City Council's tabling action. COMMENT: The revised plan includes modified lot lines along Dove Lane in front of Parcel A and along the Commons frontage of Parcel A. Approximately 400 sqare feet of land has been removed from the front of Parcel A and relocated along the Commons frontage. Since the removal of land from the front of Parcel A occurs between the property line and the building setback line, Parcel A maintains a minimum lot width that conforms to the Zoning Code. Land Use/Environmental · Planning / Design '7'300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 M. D. Beissel Planning Report November 4, 1992 Page Two When this case was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission, the consensus was that the lot configuration created a "stacking" of houses that was undesirable. Furthermore, Commission members commented that the proposal over utilizes the property, creates a situation where there are no backyards and Parcel A will accommodate only a very narrow home. One Commissioner suggested that the property should be split down the middle creating a more useable and practical plan. In considering the revised proposal, the key question is whether or not the new plan addresses the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed shift of approximatley 400 square feet of property does nothing to change the location of the two home sites or their relationship to one another. The only thing that the change addresses is the addition of the amount of Commons frontage owned by Parcel A. RECOMMENDATION: Since the modified plan does not substantially to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council, staff is unable to recommend approval of the plan. Therefore, it is suggested that the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the subject request. RECEIVED ,t~JG 2 1 1~2 MOU~D PLA,~NI~!G r PROPOSED PROPERTY DIVISION I~OR MAXINE BEISSEL IN LOTS 7. 8. & 9, BLOCK 12, DREAMWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA / I I I I z dke /~nnetonk~ Exhibit A Exhibit B RECEIVED 1992 1.~ot,s I , _0705! RECEIVED 0CT '0 1992 ~OUN'~ p~NNiNG & INSt. ¢o¥1 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - BEPTEIiBER 22, 1992 1.8 CASB t92-053[ ~AXII~ BEISSEL, 1720 IX)Vlll LANE, LOTS 7-9, ~LOCK 12t PID ~15-117-24 13 ~006t MINOR The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended denial based on the following: the subdivision does not constitute an ideal lot arrangement due to the stacking of the proposed homes on the parcels; over utilization of the property. Realtor, Mike Mueller, was present and stated that the proposal meets the criteria and all the requirements for a legal minor subdivision, with no variances required. The Council discussed the proposed subdivision taking special note of the configuration of the proposed lots. They suggested that the lots be split some other way to make a better lot configuration. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. The Council asked if the applicant would like to have this item tabled so that they can try to come up with another plan. The applicant stated that she would rather have it tabled than denied. Councilmembers Jessen and Smith withdrew there seconded and motion. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Johnson to table this item. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 194 MINUTF_3 OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMlVflSSION " SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 CASE #92-053: MAXINE BEISSEL, 1720 DOVE LANE, REQUEST FOR MINO~ SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK 1~ LOTS 7-9, DREAMWOOD, PID ~3-117-24 ~? 0006, Planning Commissioner Michael Mueller stepped down from the Commission as he has a conflict of interest with the application. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two lots. Each proposed parcel will meet the minimum 6,000 square foot requirement as follows: Parcel A = 7,280 square feet and Parcel B = 6,046 square feet. The existing house on Parcel B will require a 7' rear yard setback variance until the house can be removed which is the intent of the applicant. Both parcels, as proposed, can accommodate conforming houses. Regarding adverse effect on remaining property, if any adverse effect is caused by the proposal, it occurs between Parcels A and B. The proposed subdivision does not constitute an ideal lot arrangement due to the stacking of the proposed homes on Parcels A and E. The proposal is, however, generally consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and therefore, is eligible for approval by the City. If the Planning Commission approves the subdivision request including the issuance of a variance for Parcel B, .it is suggested that the following conditions be included: 1. Prior to the time this item appears before the City Council, the applicant shall file a variance application with the City of Mound including all applicable fees. 2. Parcels A and B are under common ownership. A building permit for construction on Parcel A shall not be issued until the existing house on Parcel B has been removed and properly backfilled. Removal of the house will alleviate the nonconforming status of Parcel B and will negate the continued necessity for the variance. 3. Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as required by the City Engineer and shown on Exhibit A. 4. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to recording of the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. 5. Pay deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90. A cash deposit in the amount of $500 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required by Mound City Code Section 330:145, Subdivision 2. The Commission questioned if there is a minimum amount of frontage required on common property to be considered an abutting property. Staff confirmed that there is not. Jensen commented that the subdivision as proposed is a poor layout and it does not consider use by future owners. Clapsaddle commented that this proposal over utilizes the property, there are no back yards and one house is very narrow. He commented that a duplex would be an ideal use for this property. Michael questioned that even though the proposal may not be desirable, does it not meet the intent of the code? Hanus commented that if the property was split down the middle with a straight line it would be a better use for the property as it would be conforming and more useable and practical. MOTION made by Clepsaddle, seconded by Michael to deny the subdivision request. Notion to deny carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22 1992. ................ SEP ! 6 t992 Planning Commission Date: City Counci! Date= Site Visit Scheduled= yARIANCE APPI,ICATIO CITY OF MOUND S341 Maywood Road~ Mound, MR 55364 Phone: 472-0500, Fax: 472-0620 Case No. q~o~3'3 Zoning Sheet Completed: ..... Copy to City Planner= copy to Public Works= Copy to City Engineer: L _ ~ .... Please t~pe or prin~ the following ~nformat~on: Owner's Name '7~'/~ ....... ,~'~,~_(.A~.7/~t]_ . . _ Day Phone ..... Applicant's Name (if other than Address ~g( LEGAL DESCRIPTION= Addition Zoning District._ use Has an application ever been permit, or other zoning procedure yes, list date(s) of application, provide copies of resolutions. owner) . . ~ , Phone ~.~ ~/~- ~ ~"& made for zoning, variance, conditional use for thi~. property? (.) yes, (>0 no... If action taken, resolution numbe~(s) and Detailed de$cripton of proposed con.~truction or a. ltera~ion (size, number of stories, type o£ use, etc.) :_. _- -. .... ~~,,. - '~ reviged 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No..,~-~f~ reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS ~o7- B ~> required requested Front Yard: (N'S"]~ Side Yard~ ( N S E W ) ' '/~ ft. a~ ft. DO the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which ~t is located? Yes (X), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe ~ ft. ._~~~ sq ft _ ft. Side Yardt ( N S E W ) Lot $ize~ Street Frontage Does the present use zoning district in which it is located? specifyeach non-conforminguse: VARIANCE. "', ..... 7 -~ ft. ft. of the property conform to all regulations for the 'xes (Yg, No (). z~ no, Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? Please ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (X; other: specify · ' ' ' ,x-=f._"'-- 5. 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 ]~es, explain ___ Variance Application Page 3 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 C)~', 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. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision Request APPLICANT: Maxine D. Beissel CASE NUMBER: 92-053 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37d LOCATION: 1720 Dove Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two lots. According to the Mound Code, minor subdivisions must conform to the following: They must have frontage on a public road. Both proposed lots fulfill this requirement. They must not require construction of any new public facilities or public improvements. The new lot will require utility connections but will not require any public facilities or improvements. o There will be no adverse effect on remaining or adjoining property. This requirement will be addressed later in this report. ° There is to be no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance or Official Map. The proposal is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the Official Map. Comments on the proposal's conformity with the Zoning Ordinance appear later in this report. Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design '300 Metro Boulevard /Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, bfinnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Beissel Minor Subdivision Planning Report September 8, 1992 Page Two COMMENT: The proposed subdivision calls for the establishment of two new lots identified as Parcels A and B. Parcel A which has a lot area of 7,280 square feet is an "L" shaped parcel with 40 feet of frontage on Dove Lane and approximately 15 feet of frontage on the Common. Parcel B is an irregular shaped parcel having approximately 80 feet of frontage on Dove Lane and a total lot area of 6,046 square feet. All existing structures identified on the survey have been noted as "to be removed". The proposed structures on Parcels A and B conform to all setback requirements. The existing house on Parcel B will be nonconforming upon approval of the subdivision since the rear yard setback will be approximately 8 feet which is 7 feet short of the required 15 foot setback. The applicant has indicated that it is her intent to remove the existing house prior to construction of the new home on Parcel A. When removal of the existing house occurs, a variance will no longer apply. Until that time, technically, Parcel B will require a rear setback variance. Item //4 in the list of requirements for minor subdivisions addresses conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. The existing house will require a variance and therefore, is not in compliance with the setback provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Once the existing home is removed, however, a new home can be built if full compliance with the Code. Since the property can accommodate a conforming house, staff is of the opinion that the proposal is not in conflict with the Zoning Code. Item//3 in the list of requirements for minor subdivisions addresses adverse effects on remaining or adjoining properties. The shape of the proposed parcels is not without precedent in the immediate area. The property directly east of the proposed subdivision is an "L" shaped lot consisting of two 40 x 80 foot parcels. Regarding adverse effect on remaining property, if any adverse effect is caused by the proposal, it occurs between Parcels A and B which are the subject of the subdivision rather than involving neighboring parcels. Therefore, staff is unable to definitively state that the subdivision is in conflict with the adverse effect provision. Due to this fact and the status of the Zoning Ordinance compliance in the above paragraph, staff has concluded that the subdivision is appropriate for processing as a minor subdivision rather than a major subdivision. The utility superintendent had reviewed the proposed subdivision and has identified that the locations of the proposed driveways may need to be adjusted to avoid an existing water shut-off. Additionally, new service taps will be required for the proposed home on Parcel A. Beissel Minor Subdivision Planning Report September 8, 1992 Page Three RECOMMENDATION: The proposed subdivision does not constitute an ideal lot arrangement due to the stacking of the proposed homes on Parcels A and B. The proposal is, however, generally consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and therefore, is eligible for approval by the City. If the Planning Commission approves the subdivision request including the issuance of a variance for Parcel B, it is suggested that the following conditions be included: Prior to the time this item appears before the City Council, the applicant shall file a variance application with the City of Mound including all applicable fees. Parcels A and B are under common ownership. A building permit for construction on Parcel A shall not be issued until the existing house on Parcel B has been removed and properly backfilled. Removal of the house will alleviate the nonconforming status of Parcel B and will negate the continued necessity for the variance. Additional conditions are found in the City Engineer's report dated September 8, 1992. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North. Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX September 8, 1992 Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 5536q SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Beissel Minor Subdivision Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 12, Dreamwood Case #92-053 Mb-'~ #10135 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the plans for the above mentioned minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: Grading and Drainage The survey shows runoff from the northerly portion of Parcel A directed towards the lake along the dividing line between the two parcels and also along the east side of Parcel A. We would like to see drainage easements included in this subdivision. Enclosed is a copy of the survey with said easements indicated. Utilities There are no existing sewer or water services available at the mains in Dove Lane to serve Parcel A. These will need to be installed at the Developer's expense. If the services are not installed prior to recording of the subdivision, some type of guarantee should be provided. Streets This parcel was charged for one unit when the streets were improved in 1978. Policy has been to charge for one additional unit when subdividing, which in this case would amount to $1,170.90. In conclusion, we are recommending that the following conditions become a part of the subdivision approval: Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as required by the City Engineer and shown on Exhibit A. An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Jon Sutherland September 8, 1992 Page Two US. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to r~cording of the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. 3. Pay deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90. JC:pr¥ Enclosures A cash deposit in the amount of $500.00 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required by Mound City Code Section 330:145, Subdivision 2. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron Application for .,MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound 5341 Ma~wood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Al J6 2~ 1997 City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Ot her: .............................. VARIANCE R~QUI~D:~qO Please type or print the followlug information= Address of Subj ec, Property__~ Owner'sN~e ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ R (~ ~O~ Day Phone Applicant's N~e (if other thrower) Address /-//~/ Name of Surveyor: Name of Engineer: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Addition DayPhone Day Phone Day Phone Block Zoning District ~ ~ ~ Use of Property: R ~ g / ~ ~ 7-//~6 /-' )~ - ~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, b~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, given why this is not the case. of FOwner " Date or an explanation~ Signature of Owner Date RECEIVED f.. ~;,'~ 2 MOUND PLA,.N: ~u & INSP. PROPOSED PROPERTY DIVISION F:OFi MAXlNE B£1S$£L IN LOTS 7, 8, & 9, BLOCK 12, DREAMWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ZdRe N/~nefonk~ C 0 ~co ESOLUT O #92- ! 49' RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOTS 5, 28 AND 27, BLOCK 13 #YCHWOOD, LOTS 6, 7, 8, 24, 25,~D~26, BLOCK 13, ~fCI~OOD, 19-117-23 32 0143 &!' 0~4~ 4725 ~ND 4739 BEDFORD ROAD, P&Z CASE #92-067 WHEREAS, Ronald Neraasen has submitted an application for a minor subdivision 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, the request is to modify a lot line to remove an existing jog that occurs between the two properties. The lot line modification as proposed is not in conflict with any of the provisions of the Mound Zoning Code, and; WHEREAS, the existing house on Parcel B substantially encroaches onto Lot 9 which is not part of Parcel B. There is an easement for the encroachment, however, according to the survey the extreme northwest corner of the house is located outside the existing easement. This encroachment is a private matter that is not directly connected to the relocation of the lot line. It will be necessary for the owner to eventually resolve this issue since it creates a major title problem. It is not necessary that it be resolved as part of the requested minor subdivision, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, both parcels are proposed to exceed the minimum lot area required, as follows: Parcel 'A' = 10,438 square feet, and Parcel 'B' = 17,717 square feet, 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 public welfare or injurious to the other property owners, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval with the condition that disclaimer language be drafted by the City Attorney relating to the encroachment problem on Parcel B. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE #92-067 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFOREv BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 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 currently described as follows: Lots 5, 28 and 27, Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And, Lots 6, 7, 8, 24, 25, and 26, Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per the following descriptions: Parcel A: Lots 5 and 28, Block 13 also the East Half of Lots 6 and 27, Block 13 also the North Half of vacated Brunswick Road lying between the Southerly projection of the East line of said Lot 28 and Southerly projection of the Westerly line of the said East Half of Lot 27, all in Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel B: Lots 7, 8, 24, 25, and 26, Block 13, also the West Half of Lots 6 and 27, Block 13, also the North Half of vacated Brunswick Road lying between the Southerly projection of the Westerly line of said Lot 24 and Southerly projection of the Easterly line of the West Half of said Lot 27, all in Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Approval of this subdivision is subject to the following understanding and agreement by the parties. The City Attorney advises all owners or parties with any interest in Parcel A and Parcel B that these properties may have a major title defect which will affect future sales or transfers. Each party is advised to obtain legal advice to determine their rights on how this lot line adjustment may affect the marketability of their titles. The City has become aware that a structure on Parcel B encroaches on property not in this subdivision and that future surveys and/or title examinations will undoubtedly catch this problem. The City disclaims any and all liability or responsibility for this encroachment or any title defects created by the encroachment or by this subdivision. The City Attorney wishes to make it clear that the City has pointed out this problem to the property owners and reluctantly approves this subdivision with the full and free understanding and agreement by the parties releasing the City of any liability or any claims resulting from the encroachment or the subdivision. Parcel B is a non-conforming parcel, and the City does not authorize or approve Construction over lot lines with or without easements. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 3 CASE #92-067 The owners of Parcel A and Parcel B shall sign a copy of this resolution acknowledging they have been informed by the City of Mound of this serious problem and releasing the City of any liability or responsibility for the problem. Acknowledgment: Ronald D. Neraasen 4725 Bedford Road Parcel A Roberta Jean Nelson 4739 Bedford Road Parcel B 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. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1992 CASE #92-067: RONALD NERAASEN OF 4725 BEDFORD ROADa AND ROBERTA J. NELSON OF 4739 BEDFORD ROADt WYCHWOODa BLOCK 13~ LOT8 5 - 8 AND 24 - 28, PID #19-117-23 32 0143 & 1044. MINOR SUBDIVISION. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to modify a lot line. The new line will remove an existing jog that occurs between the two property ownerships. The lot line modification is not in conflict with any of the provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. There is a problem on Parcel B due to the existing house that substantially encroaches onto Lot 9 which is not part of Parcel B. There is an easement for the encroachment, however, according to the survey the extreme northwest corner of the house is located outside the existing easement. The encroachment is a private matter that is not directly connected to the relocation of the lot line. It will be necessary for the owner to eventually resolve this issue since it creates a major title problem. It is not necessary that it be resolved as part of the requested minor subdivision. Staff recommended approval. Koegler noted that the City Attorney could develop disclaimer language until the problem with the encroachment is resolved. MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff and that the City Attorney develop the proper disclaimer language to address the problem due to the encroachment caused by the structure on Parcel B. Motion carried unanimously. This item will be reviewed by the City Council on November 24, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. []]In PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: November 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: Ronald Neraasen CASE NUMBER: 92-067 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-370 LOCATION: 4725 Bedford Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision to modify a lot line between the subject parcel and the residential property lying immediately to the east. The new line will remove an existing jog that occurs between the two property ownerships. Parcel A contains 10,438 square feet and Parcel B has a total area of 17,717 square feet. COMMENT: The lot line modification as proposed is not in conflict with any of the provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. A problem does occur, however, on the west side of the existing home on Parcel B. The existing house has a garage that substantially encroaches on what is shown as Lot 9 which is not part of Parcel B. Therefore, over one half of the garage is actually located on the neighboring property. The applicant has indicated that most of the garage encroachment falls within an easement that allows it to exist in its present location. According to the survey, the extreme northwest comer of the garage is located outside of the existing easement. Land Use/Environmental ' Planning /Design "300 Metro Boulevard , Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax:(612)83%3160 R. Neraasen Planning Report November 4, 1992 Page Two The garage encroachment is a private matter that is not directly connected to the relocation of the lot line. It will be necessary for the owner to eventually resolve this issue since it creates a major title problem. It is not necessary that it be resolved as part of the requested minor subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: The requested minor subdivision to modify the lot line common to Parcels A and B is consistent with the Mound Zoning Code. Approval by the Planning Commission is recommended. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 October 30, 1992 Telephone 612/476-60t 0 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Ma~ood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Minor Subdivision Lots 5 - 8 & 25 - 28, Block 13 Wynchwood Case #92-067 MFRA #8902 RECEIVED NOV 2 1992 Dear Jon: As requested, I have reviewed the subject request for a minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: From an engineering perspective, the proposed new division line looks fine. From the sanitary sewer as-builts, it appears the service for proposed Parcel A is actually 4'+ into Lot 6. This division would result in a correction of that p~oblem. Another existing problem is the encroachment of the existing house on proposed Parcel B into the adjacent property to the west. I am assuming this will be addressed by the Planning Department. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK BOOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmk An Equal Opportunity Employer Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound 5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound, HN 55364 Phona: 472-0500, Fax: 472-0620 Site Visit Scheduled: Case No. ~Z-'0 ~ Application Fee: $50.00 Escrow Deposit: Zoning Sheet Completed: 10--Z~-~ Deficient Unit Charges? Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Delinquent Taxes? Copy to City Engineer: Other: VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information~ Address of Subject Property 4725 Bedford Rd Mound. Mn 55364 Voice Pager Owner'sName Ronald D. B. Neraasen DayPhone 64R-6166 Owner'&ddress 4725 Bedford Rd Mound, Mn 55364 Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Name of Surveyor: Schoborg Land Surveying, Inc Name of Engineer: Day Phone Day Phone Day Phone 972-3221 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Six Block 1.3 Addition Wychwood PIDNo. 19-117-23 32 0144 Zoning District Use of Property: ~o~ bo~t.~al 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. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Signa;ure of Owner Date Date CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' .: ~~.~ .,, . ~ ,~/~ ~v/~, ,~ ~, ~ q REOEIVED OCT 2 9 1992 ~~1;~ dc~ 2~ ~~ ,,,.~ I hereby certify that this plan, survey or ~OB report was prepared by me or under my direct ~ SCHOBORG supervision and that I am a duly Registered ~kND SURVEYING Lend Surveyor under the laws o¢ the State of Oa~e: ~~0,/~ Registration NO. ]~700 97~.322 I PARCEL A PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 5 and 28, Block 13 also the East Half of Lots 6 and 27, Block 13 also the North Half of vacated Brunswick Road lying between the Southerly projection of the East line of said Lot 28 and Southerly projection of the Westerly line of the said East Half of Lot 27, all in Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Containing 10,438 square feet. PARCEL B PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 7, 8, 24, 25, and 26, Block 13, also the West Half of Lots 6 and 27, Block 13, also the North Half of vacated Brunswick Road lying between the Southerly projection of the Westerly line of said Lot 24 and Southerly projection of the Easterly line of the West Half of said Lot 27, all in Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Containing 17,717 square feet. RON NERAASON EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 5, 28 and 27, Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ROBERTA NELSON EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 6, 7, 8, 24, 25, and 26, Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Sheet 2 of 2 ................. JgD.9 ............................ ,1977.. , bF and beew,..e,. Phillip L, Carter .and.. Lg.~.O.n..9 ......... Carter, husband and wife ~...~.s aa~ Roberta J. Nelson ~......, grantor~ are /s ............. Henne~i.n ...................................... , Sta~ of Jf~n~sota, vi:.: That part of Government lot 4 corresponding to lot 9, Wychwood, now vacated, Section 19, Township 117, Range 23 and saJ. d grantee ia the owner of fha t tract Stat~ of J~nne~ota, ~.: ...... of land in the County of Hennepin .... That part of Government lot 4 corresponding to lot 8, Wychwood, now vacated, Section 19, Township 117, Range 23 wh~h adjoi~ sa~ ~nd o! u~.d $ran~ on t~ east ; and said ~rantorS. and $ra~tee . ha~ a~r~d upo~ the e, aserne~t her¢ina/ter ~cribe~: ~om, ~r~f0re, r~ said ~rantor s, in consi~rat~n o/ One dollar...~nd, other va~uab~e..~gn.$.~d~ati0n ........ ($1.,00~--rr ..... ~ ...... them ................ i~ ~ ~i~ by said ?ant~ r~ipt of wh~h is ~r~y ~wled~, a~ other ~ a~ val~ ~ns~ration, l~reby ~rant ~ sa~ grant~, hev ............. ~rs and ~sig~, t~ ea~nt o/ That part of Government lot 4 corresponding to that part of lot 9, Wychwood, now vacated, Sections 19, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning on the ~ corner of lot 9, Wychwood thence southerly along the east line of lot 9 54 ft. to point of beginning; thence Westerly 6it; thence southwesterly to a point on the south line of lot 9 13 ft. w of the SE corner of lot 9; thence easterly 13 ft. to the SE corner of said lot 9; thence northerly 26 f~ to point of beginning. For the purpose of maintaining a garage. TO HJFE dJv'D TO HOLD S/IID E/ISEJIE.~'T unto sa~ grantee , ..... he~ ........................... ~[rt a~ ~i~ as appur~t ~ said ~, In ~[mtzz ~erNf, S~d granto~~ ~ Ye ~reunto set . their ..... ~ t~ day a~ R~r first a~ve writ~n. . ' ~ Husband and ~ifo this.. 14 . ,lu,d o1' June .,...r~.~:.:. MYRA B[RG[ · g My Comm,$$ma [xptre$ lp+'~128. 1811 ~: THIS INS?RUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY Edward Ga lbraith · .__ (Name) , 900 B u · £ 0 e]L~_~.~9?oh a n q e PROPOSED RESOLUTI'ON #92- RESOLUTION APPROVING V~RIOUS SETBACK VARI~d~CES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A G~I~GE ADDITION~'D A DECK ~ APPROVING A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 4350 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, LOTS 78 AND 79, THE FIRST RE-ARRANGEMENT OF PHELP'S ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION PID #19-117-23 13 0010, P&S CASE NUMBER 92-068 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mike Gilbertson, has requested approval of a front yard setback variance and a lake side setback variance to construct a 2-1/2 story garage/bedroom addition and a various decks, and; WHEREAS, the applicant also requested a fence height variance to allow a 5 foot high privacy fence in the front yard, and; WHEREAS, the garage/bedroom addition was originally proposed to be setback 2.7' from the front property line, however, the applicant revised his plan requesting a 7.5' setback from the front property line which will be 22.5' from the curb of Wilshire Blvd., and; WHEREAS, the decks are proposed to be 17.3' at the closest point from the ordinary high water elevation, the house is currently setback 20', and; WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, there is an existing fence and accessory building which lies within the public right-of-way (Wilshire Blvd./County Road 125), and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval upon the condition that the shed and fence be moved off the public right-of-way by July 30, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a the following variances to allow construction of a garage addition, a deck and a fence at 4350 Wilshire Blvd. as shown on the revised plan received r 9, 1992: · A 22.5' front yard setback variance. fence height variance of 1' and 2' as needed to allow 5' high fence along the front property and within 50' the shoreline. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 / / 3. A 32.7' lake side / proposed deck· P&Z CASE NO. 92-068 setback variance measured to the R~cognition of the existing nonconforming 9.4' side yard setback resulting in a .6' variance. These variances are approved upon the condition that the shed and fence be moved off the public right-of-way (Wilshire Boulevard) by July 30, 1993. 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: Construction of a 2-1/2 story garage/bedroom addition, decks at the lakeshore side of the house both at the lower level and upper level as shown on the plans, and a 5' high privacy fence along the front property line. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 78 and 79, The First Re-arrangement of Phelp's Island Park 1st Division. 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 TIlE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1992 CASE ~92-068~ MIKE GILBERTBON~ 4350 NILBHIRE BLVD., FIRST RE EN HELPS S D PARX ST V SION eTS 9 9- 1 -2 1 O0 V City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to allow expansion of the existing home. The existing home lies approximately 20 feet from the ordinary high water line of Lake Minnetonka. The existing structure has a 16.2 foot setback off of Wllshire Blvd. The proposed expansion calls for a deck on the lake side that would decrease the lakeshore setback to 17.3 feet and decrease the setback from Wilshire Blvd. to 2.7 feet. According to information supplied by the applicant, approximately 22 feet exists from the wall of the proposed garage to the curb line of the existing street. Staff has a significant concern that the proposed building is simply too much mass for the size of the existing lot. Accordingly, it is suggested that the Planning Commission consider tabling the subject request with specific direction being provided to the applicant to reduce the size of the proposed addition and its encroachment into the setback required along Wilshire Blvd. If the Planning Commission finds that sufficient hardship or practical difficulty exists to approve the request as submitted, it is suggested that such approval include the requirement that the existing fence and accessory building which lies within the public right-of-way be relocated onto private land. The applicant, Mike Gilbertson, presented a modified proposal to the Commission which reflects a reduced garage size. The length of the east bay of the garage is now proposed to be 21' versus the original 26'8. which will increase the proposed setback to the front property line to 7'6, and 22'6" to the curb. Gilbertson also addressed hardcover and commented that a hardcover area greater than 30% is not unique in this area. In regards to the fence which currently encroaches on the right-of- way 100%, Gilbertson proposed building a fence along the property line parallel to County Road 125, however, requested a variance to allow a 5' high privacy fence. City Code limits fences to 4' high in the front yard and to 3' high within 50' of the ordinary high water elevation. Gllbertson also requested that the shed be allowed to remain until the proposed addition is completed so it may be used for storage. Me stated that he has been in contact with Mr. Karl Holtz at Mennepin County and he has indicated no immediate concern with respect to the shed or fence. Gilbertson agreed to remove the shed before July 30, 1993, assuming other arrangements cannot be made. Hanus commented that he likes the new plan. Jansen remarked that due to the odd shape of this lot she is in favor of granting a variance for a 5' fence in the front yard. MOTION made by Eanus, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the following variances~ 1. A 22.5' front yard setback variance. 2. A fence height variance of 1' and 2' as needed to allow a 5' high fence along front property line. 3. & 32.7' lake side setback variance measured to the proposed deck. These variances are recommended for approval to allow construction of a garage addition and deck as shown on the revised plans received November 9, 1992 upon the condition that the shed and fence be moved off the public right-of-way (Wilshire Blvd.) by July 30, 1993. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on November 24, 1992. tall fence, we would like the commission to consider a variance to allow a 1 foot extension on top of the fence. (See attached sketch). CR 125 is elevated above the average elevation of our yard by from one to two feet. A 4' fence with a 1 foot extension would give a small amount of privacy and security in our yard without affecting anyones views. The existing fence would be removed upon completion of this fence. Our neighbor has a 6' tall front and sideyard fence which increases both their privacy and ours. EXISTING SHED With respect to our storage shed, which was accidently built on the right-of-way for CR 125, we would ask the commission to allow us to keep the shed as is until the proposed addition is completed so we have room for storing the contents. The shed was built two years ago and we have had no complaints (in fact, we've had several positive comments) to date. We have been in contact with Mr. Karl Holtz at the County and he has indicated no immediate concern with respect to the shed or fence. Assuming we cannot make other arrangements, we will remove the shed before July 30, 199~r,..g, We hope the commission will make a reasonable assessment of our proposed project and recommend its approval to the City council. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mike and Cindy Gilbertson From: Da~: Re: Mound Planning Commission Mike and Cindy Gilbertson November 9, 1992 RECEIVED NOV 9 q92 Variance request for garage and bedroom addition to home at 4350 Wilshire Blvd SETBACK Based on comments presented by Mr. Mark Koegler in his report to the commission (dated November 4, 1992) we have modified the proposed project to maximi:,¢ the setback distance between thc nearest comer of thc garage and thc property line while retaining a minimum size garage. We have reduced the length of the cast bay of the garage from 26' 8" in the original plan to 21' 0". (See attached drawing). This change increases the setback of the southeast comer of the garag~ fr6m the property line to 7' 6" and the setback from the road to 22' 6". Due to the triangular shape of the lot, the setback increases to 17' from' the property, line and 30' from the road respectively for the southwest comer of the garage.(In comparison, the closest comer of our neighbors garage is about 24' from the road. An attached garage at 4313 Wilshire - which was added on relatively recently - is only about 22' from the road.) This revised plan would add 5' more space in front of the garage to create additional room for parking. The proposed addition does not effect normal visibility along CR 125. HARDCOVER Another concern noted in the planners report was the issue of hardcover area. According to the report, the completed project will have a hardcover area of 36%. We realize that our lot is relatively small and we tried to design the addition to minimize the impact on the neighbors and area as much as possible. The reduced size addition proposed above will not result in a smaller hardcover area since the driveway will need to be extended to the new garage front. A hardcover area greater than 30% is not unique in this area. Several neighbors to our west have hardcover areas greater than 30% including our closest neighbor where about 43% of the lot is hardcover. Other homes towards the east also exceed 30% including the Lakewinds development and a relatively new home at 4337 Wilshire Blvd. We believe that since the new hardcover area rules are not in effect, the commission should use the existing "neighborhood standards" rule as a guideline. We believe the proposed changes significantly enhance the existing house and the neighborhood without creating abnormal or special conditions. The benefits of a garage including increased security and safety, reduced "clutter", and increased value would seem to outweigh a subjective guideline concerning hardcover which is not yet in effect. All of the neighbors in the area currently have two car garages. PROPOSED FENCE As noted in the planners report, CR 125 is a busy road. Given the orientation of our lot (all sideyard and no backyard) we have no privacy from passing traffic. We are also concerned about security and safety since our girls enjoy playing outside. We have proposed building a fence along the property line parallel to CR 125. Although the building code allows a 4' Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. mH PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: November 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Mike Gilbertson CASE NUMBER: 92-068 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37p LOCATION: 4350 Wilshire Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking front yard and lakeshore setback variances for the purpose of expanding an existing home. The subject lot is a triangular shaped piece of property with lakeshore along one side and Wilshire Boulevard (Co. Rd. 125) along one of the other sides. The third side of the lot borders another single family home. At the present time, the existing home lies approximately 20 feet from the ordinary high water line of Lake Minnetonka. The existing structure has a 16.2 foot setback off of Wilshire Boulevard. The proposed expansion calls for a deck on the lake side that would decrease the lakeshore setback to 17.3 feet and decrease the setback from Wilshire Boulevard to 2.7 feet. According to information supplied by the applicant, approximately 22 feet exists from the wall of the proposed garage to the curb line of the existing street. Land Use / Environmental · Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard I Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 M. Gilbertson Planning Report November 4, 1992 Page Two COMMENT: In the case of all variances, a finding of hardship or practical difficulty needs to be determined. Lot shape is one possible consideration in rendering such a finding. The existing configuration of the lot combined with lakeshore and front setback requirements results in a very limited building area. Although lot shape may be a criteria for the granting of a variance, it is not a compelling argument for total disregard of all setback requirements. Wilshire Boulevard (County Road 125) carries a significant volume of traffic as a major connection between the Island and County Road 15. The volume of traffic along this route places an emphasis on setbacks as a safety issue. Impervious cover is an additional consideration. According to the Mound Shoreland Management Ordinance that is scheduled to be adopted on November 24, 1992, properties in the shoreland district are limited to no more than 30% impervious cover. At the present time, the property contains approximately 27% impervious cover. If the proposed addition is approved, the amount of impervious cover will be approximately 36%. In order to afford the owner reasonable use of the property, it may be necessary to grant a variance for an addition. The key question becomes how much of a variance is actually necessary? The Zoning Codes states that variances must represent the minimum variation required to alleviate the identified hardship. In this case, is building within 2.7 feet of the property line along a busy street a minimum situation or could the proposal be scaled back to observe a larger setback area? RECOMMENDATION: Staff has a significant concern that the proposed building is simply too much mass for the size of the existing lot. Accordingly, it is suggested that the Planning Commission consider tabling the subject request with specific direction being provided to the applicant to reduce the size of the proposed addition and its encroachment into the setback required along Wilshire Boulevard. If the Planning Commission finds that sufficient hardship or practical difficulty exists to approve the request as submitted, it is suggested that such approval include the requirement that the existing fence and accessory building which lies within the public right-of-way be relocated onto private land. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 534~ Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 LOT 2 2 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: $50.00 Case eeeleeeeeeeeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeleeleeeeleeeeeeeeeeleleleeeeeeeeeeee Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property' ~O ~tt-~ ~1~--~ Owner's Name ~ ~ ~-~ ~ I t~'~-~O ~ Day Phone Owner's Address 4---3_50 V, JIUSHI~'_6.. i:::~L-UIp, MOL)lqD )licant's Name (if other than owner) Jress ~ Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7 ~ ~ ~ 9 Addition Block ~A /9-1l"1--z,'~ I~ aolo Zoning District Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this proDert¥? ( ) yes, (~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.) :T~c pfO~O~(~d ~dd~+~ m¢lud ts c= revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (>c). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.)-~hq ~)<($+;~%~ SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N.~ E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lak~ Front: (~S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ~-O ft. ~- ~' ft. / 7 ~' ft. ft. ft. ft. ~O ft. , ~' ft. 55' ft. ft. ft. 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:~_~_ lo+ i~ ~ ~co~ ~~ +~ C~Fe~+ 5. 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 revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. ~ ~0~ 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? 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 uired by law. 0 II .7. . 2 TO .~McCombs Frank RoDs Associates, Inc. Twin Cities St. Cloud Engineers, Planners, Surveyors ]5050 23rd Ave. N,, Plymouth, MN 55447 612/476-6010 WE ARE SENDING YOU >Attached [] Under separate cover via r-] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] , the following items: [] Samples [] Specifications COPI ES DATE NO. DESCRI PTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval [] Approved as submitted [] Resubmit /~For your use [] Approved as noted [] Submit [] As requested [] Returned for corrections [] Return. [] For review and comment [] copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints rt FOR BIDS DUE 19__ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS (~"~Z5-1_.._ , cOPY TO. If enclosures are not es noted, kindly notify us et once. $" 'C_.CO -" ~ I 0 ~.~ ~ 0 ~-' ~ O~ ~ ~ O ¢-N 0 ~ o-' 0 Isu,BJECT > MINUTES OF A MEEI~G OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION OCTOBER8,1992 //~present were: Lyndelle Skoglund, Brian Asleson, Tom Case¥, Shirley Andersen, Marllyn Byrnes, Mo Mueller, and Carolyn Schmidt, City Manager Ed Shukle, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Peggy James. Mo Mueller and Shirley Andersen were absent and excused. REVIEW REVISED ~993 DOCK FORMS; Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, informed the Park Commission that all the forms are basically the same, they have only been cleaned up a bit and they are now on the Secretary's new computer. The following forms were reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission and the noted changes were made: 1. DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION. The last three words within the first paragraph should read, "by March 31." 2. DOCK PROGRAM INFORMATION. No changes. 3. LETTER TO DOCK LICENSE APPLICANT. Change the date in the ~ first paragraph to February 28, 1993. On page two, number 3, ~ remove "tires." 4. NOTICE. The Dock Inspector noted that a copy of City Code Section 320 has been added as page two of the Notice. 5. MOORING BUOY LICENSE APPLICATION. No changes. 6. COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION. No changes. 7.. MEMORANDUM TO DOCK LICENSE HOLDER. Casey suggested the ~ following change within the 4th paragraph, "The area must be ~ free of litter, debris and aquatic vegetation t-he-water, which has accumulated on the shoreland. -LThe issue of winter dock storage was raised, and it was questioned if people are required to remove their docks from the water. Staff commented that there are only a few areas where people are required to remove their docks, such as areas used for snowmobile access and sliding areas. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Schmidt to have staff create & list where docks can be safely left in for the winter. Motion carried unanimously. Jim Fackler commented that the water patrol does have some regulations relating to docks remaining in the lake through the winter season; he will check this out and bring a list hack as requested. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Asleson, to recommend that the dock applications forms bm approved as amended. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission questioned what happens when someone leaves their dock in and does not renew their dock license. Who's responsibility is it to remove the dock, and does the City have control to ensure that it be removed. Could the city remove the dock assess and the cost for removal to the property of the previous dock license holder? Casey suggested collecting a damage deposit. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Byrnes, to recommend to the City Council that a change be made to the ordinance to give the Dock Inspector the power to enforce that docks are removed and disposed of after a dock license has expired or is not renewed. Motion carried $ to i. Those in favor were: Asleson, Byrnes, Casey, Schmidt and Skoglund. Ahrmns was opposed. (Dock.App 11/4/92) 1993 DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 NAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364 MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return BY FEBRUARY 28, 1993, (must be postmarked by February 28). Applications received on March 1 and before April 1 are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and placed in the 3rd priority category. Application renewals for non-abutting residents not received BY MARCH 31st will not retain a second priority status, and will be placed in a third priorty category. Residents abutting the commons who have not submitted their renewal application BY FEBRUARY 28th will be subject to a minimu~ late fee of $20.00 and will be placed in a third priority category if fee is not paid by March 31. To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 fee. Also note the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. See information on back for senior citizen rates. All information pertaining to you must be completed or the application will be denied. APPLICANT'S NAME MOUND STREET ADDRESS ! I I RENEWAL: 1992 Dock Site ~ , J NEW APPLICATION: Indicate preferred area: Permanent Resident (owner) ,.,' Owner (paying fee for renter) I *SUMMER RESIDENT'S MAILING ADDRESS: *Summer Resident Renter & R E NAME OF PERSON SHARING DOCK: MOUND STREET ADDRESS: HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE: CHECK ONE: I ~ Permanent Resident (Owner) I I Summer Resident I ~ Renter List ALL watercraft to be kept at this dock. Furnish MN Watercraft License Number, make and size of boat. (This includes the boats of a shared dock holder.) Add the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee to the Permit Fee for all boats, based upon the formula below. NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION and a photocopy of all watercraft licenses: BOAT OWNER'S NAME MN LICENSE # MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FEE ! 2 3 4 Boats up to 20' long = $10.00 over 32' and up to 40' long = $25.00 over 20' and up to 24' long = $15.00 over 40' and up to 48' long = $30.00 over 24' and up to 32' long = $20.00 over 48' feet long = $40.00 e furnished if requested. Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance 437 shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. (Dock.App 11/4/92) This is an application only. No dock can be installed until a location is granted. TYPE OF DOCK BASIC FEE '--' Straight Dock $150.00 '--' L or T Dock $200.00 I__--~ U or H Dock (not available in all areas) ........ $235.00 straight dock 'L' Dock 'T' Dock 'U' or 'H' Dock FEE AND LEGALITY OF DOCK WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DOCK INSPECTOR OR PARK COMMISSION. SENIOR CITIZENS (65 years or older at time of application) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $75.00, $100.00 or $117.50. Senior citizens sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $37.50, $50.00 or $58.75. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/4 the base permit fee, i.e. $112.50, $150.00 or $176.25, plus $30.00 share fee. SENIOR CITIZEN NAME BIRTH DATE BASIC FEE: 81-3260 $ SHARED DOCK $30.00:81-3260 $ L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: 81-3200 $ LIGHT FEE: 81-3260 $ LATE PENALTIES: 81-3260 $ TOTAL DUE: XX-XXXX $ (MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: CITY OF MOUND) LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: I (We) acknowledge that the City of Mound is not responsible for any injury occurring on this dock which is private property. According to the City of Mound Code of Ordinances Sections 437 Subd. 5 and 437:05, Subd. 2 f., if this license is not renewed at expiration (February 28, 1993), the licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and appurtenance from the water and public land. If the dock is not removed, the City is authorized to have the dock removed and the applicant agrees to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City in removin9 the dock. Also, if the City removes the dock, the City is authorized to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any right or claim to the materials left on the dock site. DATE Signature DATE Signature (shared dock holder) RETURN THIS A~PLICATION WITH APPLICABLE FEE AND COPY OF MN LICENSE TO THE CITY OF MOUND BY FEBRUARY 28TH. Ordinance No. An Ordinance Amending Section 437:00 of the City Code By Adding Subd. 5 and Amending Section 437:05, Subd. 2 By Adding Subsection f. Relating to Removal of Licensed Docks The City of Mound Does Ordain~ Section 437:00 of the City Code is amended by adding Subd. 5 which shall read as follows: Subd. 5. Removal of Docks. Upon expiration of a dock license, the licensee must dompletely remove the licensed dock and appurtenances from public land. Any dock or portion thereof not removed by the licensee will be removed by the City or a designated contractor and all costs of removal will be the responsibility of the last licensee for that dock site. Section 437:05, Subd. 2 of the City Code is amended by adding Subsection f. which shall read as follows: 437:05, Subd. 2 The applicant for a license shall sign as a part of the application an agreement which shall guarantee that the applicant will remove the dock and all appurtenances at the expiration of the license. The applicant shall agree that if they do not remove the dock, the City is authorized to have the dock removed and the applicant agrees to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City in removing the dock. The applicant also shall agree that if the City removes the dock, the City is authorized to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any right or claim to the materials left on the dock site. Attest: City Clerk Passed by City Council Published in Official Newspaper 1992 DOCK PERMIT AF:~:~LIC.~TION CITY OF HOUND' 5341 HAYWOOD ROAD, HOUND, MN 55364 DEAR MOUNO RESIDENT: Please complete and return BEFORE MARCH I, 1992t (must be postmarked before March !). Applications received on March ! and before April ! are subject to a late Fee of $20.00 and placed In the 3rd priority category. Applica- tion renewals For non-abutting residents not received BEFORE APRIL IST, will not retain a second priority status, and will be placed In a third priorty category. Residents abutting the co~ons who have not submitted their renewal application BEFOI~ MARCH Ist will be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and will be placed in a third priority category IF fee is not paid before April I. To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 Fee. Also note the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. See information on back For senior citizen rates. All InFormation pertain- ing to you must be completed or the application will be denied. NAME HOME PHONE I~UND ADDRESS WORK PHONE 1991 Permit # if new application, Indicate preferred area: CHECK ONE: , ~ Permanent Resident (owner) ,_ .I Owner (paying Fee for renter) 'HAILING ADDRESS (If Sunnier Resident) Renewal New Application ' 'Summer Resident $, I ' Renter S ! am sharing a dock with H You may SHAna clock with a HOUND RESIDENT ONLY A R Your Mound E Address CHECK ONE: I__I Permanent Resident (Owner) (see statement on fee above) Hc~ne Phone Work Phone ,__,' ' Sum~er Resident ' ' Renter List ALL watercraft to be kept at this dock. Furnish MN Watercraft Number, make and size of boat. (This Includes the boats of a shared dock holder.) Add the L.M.C.O. Boat Fee to the Permit Fee For all boats, based upon the Formula below. NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITltOUT lltiS INFORMATIOM and a photo--of all watercraft licenses: Owner MN Watercraft No. Make Length LMCD Fee Boat i Boat 2 Boat 3 Boat 4 Water Sled (Jet Ski ) L.M.C.O. BOAT FEES: Boats up to 20 feet long $12.00 over 32 to 40 feet long over 20 to 24 Feet long $18.00 over 40 to 47 Feet long over 24 to 32 Feet long $24.00 over 48 feet long $30.00 $36.00 $48.OO Permits will not be Issued to any non-resident of Hound. Proof of residency or proof of boat ownership must be Furnished if requested. Any False Information given or violations of Dock Ordinancp 43? shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit~ This is an application only. No dock can be instal led until a location is granted. PAYMENT OF ALL FEES HUST ACCOltPANY APPLICATION OLb TYPE OF DOCK BASIC FEF ,__,' ' Straight Dock ' ' L or T Dock I U Dock (not available in all areas) $150.00 $200.00 $235.00 straight clock 'L' Dock 'T' Dock 'U' Dock I I I ! ! ! I I I I I .... I I--I I I I I I I I I I I T'~'------1--1--~l I [ I l I I I I I I l I I I I I I l I I I I : : l ' I I I I I I I I ' ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I l., FEE AND LEGALITY OF ~ WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DOCK INSPECTOR OR PARK COMMISSION SENIOR ClTIZE~ (65 years or older at time of application) pay I/2 the base permit Fee For the type oF clock they desire, I.e. $75.00, $100.00 or $117.50. ~enlor citizens shartng a dock with a non-senior pay I/4 the base permit fee For the ~ype oF clock they desire, i.e. $37.50, $50.00 or $58.75. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/4 the base permit Fee, I.e. $112.50, $150.00 or $176.25, plus S30.00 share fee. SENIOR CITIZEN NAME BIRTH DATE 81-3260 $ 81-3260 $ 81-3200 llml 81-3260 $ 81-3260 $ BASIC FEE ADD FOR SHARED DOCK $30.00 L.M.C.0. BOAT FEES LIGHT FEE LATE PENALTIES TOTAL DUE (MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: CITY OF MOUND LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: ! (We) acknowledge that the City of Mound is not responsible For any injury occurring on this dock which is private property. DATE Signature )ATE Signature (shared dock holder) RETURN THIS APPLICATION WITH APPLICABLE FEE TO THE CITY OF HOUND BEFORE MARCH I. INFO 00/1/92) CITY OF MOUND DOCK PROGRAM INFORMATION The City of Mound is licensed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) to operate approximately 400 multiple docks. To be eligible to lease one of these sites, you must be a permanent or summer resident of Mound. Applications are available at City Hall on the first working day of the year for new applicants, and are mailed to licensee's from prior year during December each year. See dock application for current fees. These fees are due with the completed application by February 28th. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock licenses per the Mound City Code. aa. Last Priority. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. a. First Priority. An abutting owner has first priority for a City designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location map. b. Second Priority. A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new dock license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application for the preceding year, has second priority when applying for a dock permit for the same location held by the licensee the immediately preceding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect. c. Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority where the first and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. d. Administration of Priority. The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and Council approval. All applications received after February 28th shall be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00, and will be placed in a third priority category. There will be no late fee charged to new residents who apply after February 28th of the calendar year in which the resident moves to the City. Residents of the City of Mound, 65 years of age or older, shall pay 50% of the required license fee for a dock. RULES AND REGULATIONS (PORTION OF CITY CODE SECTION 437) Subd. 1. Dock Location Map Definition. There shall be on file in the City Hall a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shoreland under the control of the City. Subd. 2. Annual Review of Map. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between September I and December 31 before each new boating season so their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Maps shall contain all approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector, reviewed by the Park Commission and Approved by the City Council. Sub~. 3. Dock Inspector to Review Application. The Dock Inspector shall determine and approve the location of each permit according to the specifications of the approved dock location map. Sub~. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenance. Licensed docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability for same. Subd. 5. Suspension of Eliqible Location. The City Council may suspend a dock location where it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a hardship on property owners abutting on public streets or public commons. Subd. 6. One Dock Per Family; Apartment Buildinq. No more that one dock shall be permitted for each resident family. An apartment building or multiple dwelling owner shall not apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled to apply for an individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the City. INFO (10/1/92) Su~. 7. Construction Materials; Use of Car Tires All private docks shall be constructed of materials specified by the Building Inspector and the Dock Inspector and in accordance with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health, safety, and general welfare and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved licensed private h 1 1 ck being located on public lands which are unsightly, unsafe or t u ui c o tire or tires shall be hung or attached on dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on o= abutting public shoreland under the control of the City. (ORD. #40-1990, 1-29-90) Subd. 8. Inspections - Notice of Non-Compliance - License Revocation. The Dock Inspector or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council, may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons, and if it shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or the area surrounding the dock site is not being maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the plans or location approved by the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by him, shall forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor shall be revoked by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer designated by him or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her consideration. Subd. 9. Notice of Revocation. All notices herein required shall be in writing by certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Sub~. 10. Dock Storaqe. No person shall store, leave or abandon any dock, dock section, dock poles or dock hardware on any public road, street, park or Commons except for winter storage in approved areas. subd. Il. Removal Deadline. All private docks abutting any public road, street, park, or ommons must be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other navigable waters no later December 31 of the license year unless it is a winter approved dock location as shown the master dock map. Subd. 12. pockinq of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee is not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours. Section 437:15. Maximum Dimensions, Prohibited Design of Docks. Docks for which a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property and shall not infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a minimum water depth of 36", using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.49 feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more that 72" in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. All docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the topographical conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June 1, 1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code when expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. $38-1989 - 1-2-90) Section 437:20. Penalties. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected without a license as required by this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for ~he present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set forth this Section 437. NOTE~ The use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides is not recommended on city property. INFORMATION: CITY OF HOUND COHHONS 0OCK PROGRAM (revised 12/12/91) ~ The City of Hound is licensed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation 01strict (LMCD) to operate ap- proximately 400 multiple docks. To be eligible to lease one of these sites, you must be a per- manent or summer resident of Mound. Applications are available at City Hall From danuary 23r' through February 28th this year for new applicants, and are mailed to licensee's from prior ye, during December each year. See dock application For current dock site and sailboat buoy Fees. These fees are due with the completed application by February 28th. The Following priority govern the issuance of dock licenses ad sailboat buoys per the Hound City Code. be Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake Frontage shall have the last priority each year For a dock on public lands. First Priority. An abutting owner has first priority For a City designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in accord- ance with the dock location map. Secor~l Priority. A licensee or, if licensee has not applied For a new dock license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application For the preceding year, has second priority when applying For a dock permit For the same location held by the licensee the immediately preceding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect. Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant after the First and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority where the First and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private iakeshore within the City which has dockable lake Frontage shall have the last priority each year For a dock on public lands. Administration of Priorit~. The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the ap- plicants upon con~liance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and Council approval. All applications received after February 28th shall be subject to a late fee of $20.00, and will be placed in a third priority category. There will be no late Fee charged to new residents ~ apply after February 28th of the calendar year in which the resident moves to the City. Resi- dents of the City of Mound, 65 years of age or older, shall pay 50% of the required license Fee for a straight dock. RULES AND REGULATIONS (PORTION OF ORDINANCE #437) Subd. I. Dock Location Map Definition. There shall be on file In the City Hall a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. Subd. 2. Annual Review of Map. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Con,mission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between September ! an~ December 31 before each new boating season so their recon~aended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Maps shall contain all approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recon~nendation of the Oock Inspector and Park Advisory Co~nission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Oock Inspector, reviewed by the Park Com- mission and Approved by the City Council. Subcl. 3. Dock Inspector to Review Application. The Dock Inspector shall determine and approve the location of each permit according to the specifications of the approved dock location map. Subd. 4. Costs of Erection and MaintenancP. Licensed docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability For same. S~3d. 5. ~uspenslon of Eligible Location. The City Council may suspend a dock location where it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably interferes with the use of public waters or Imposes a hardship on property owners abutting on public streets c public con~xDns. Subcl. 6. One Dock Per Family; Apartment Bulldinq. No more that one dock shall be permitted For each resident Family. An apartment building or multiple dwelling owner shall not apply For dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she Is entitled to apply for an Individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the City. OLD Sulod. ?. Construction Materialsl Use of Car Tire~. Ail private clocks shall be constructed of m~terials specified by the Building Inspector and the Dock Inspector and in accordance with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health, safety, and general welfare neither the m~terials or the workmanship for an approved licensed private dock shall result being located on public lands which are unsightly, unsafe or create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall be hung or attached on dock posts, ~k poles, or on dockhardware of any dock on or ~ti~ p~lic shorel~s ~r t~ control of the City. (ORD. #40-1990, 1-Z9-90) 5ubd. 8. Inspections - Notice of Non-Con~31iance - License Revocation. The Bock Inspector or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council, may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons, and if it shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or the area surrounding the dock site is not being maintained in ac- cordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the plans or location approved by the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a condition that no longer com- plies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by him, shall Forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same com43)y with the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor shall be revoked by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer designated by him or her. Any appeal will be ~ade in writing and submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager For his or her consideration. ~. 9. Notice of Revocation. All notices herein required shall be in writing by certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Su~3(~. !0. Dock Storage. No person shall store, leave or abandon any dock, dock section, dock ~s or dock hardware on any public road, street, park or Con~aons. il. Removal Beadline. All private docks abutting any public road, street, park, or com- mons must be removed From the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other navigable waters no later that Dece~aer 31 of the license year unless it is a winter approved dock location as shown on the master dock map. 5~3(I. 12. Oocking of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee is not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours. Section 437:!5. Maximum Dimensions~ Prohibited Design of Docks. Docks for which a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of I0 Feet From private property and shall not in- fringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where neces- sary to reach a minimum water depth of 36", using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.49 Feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more that 72" in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. AIl docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the topographical conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June 1, 1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Ccx~e when expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. #38-1989 - 1-2-90) Section 437:20. Penalties. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or 'quirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, in addition to any criminal ~lties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected a license as required by this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this 5ectton 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which Fall to comply with ,the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee, No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks wlll be Issued a dock license for the present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set Forth in this Section 437. ~{:~ NOTE: The use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides is not recommended on city property. LTRTOAP (11/4/92) CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55,36,.t 168- (612~ 472-363C FAX 1612~ 472-0620 December 28, 1992 Dear Dock License Applicant: Enclosed is your 1993 Dock License Application Form. If you wish to retain your existing dock location and avoid a minimum $20.00 late fee, your application must be returned by February 28, 1993. The dock fees for 1993 have remained the same as 1992. There is a $30.00 fee to share a dock with another Mound resident. Also, note the "boat fee" imposed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). This fee is based on the length of EACH watercraft to be kept at your dock. Fees are listed on the Dock License Application. It is very important that all the information asked for on the application be completed, including information on a shared dock partner. Copies of all watercraft licenses and ALL fees required must be enclosed with your application or it will be returned to you. If your application is received incomplete, this will delay granting of your permit. Please feel free to call or write the Parks Department at City Hall with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Tom McCaffrey Dock Inspector pJ Enclosures printed on recycled paper LTRTOAP (11/4/92) YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOCK LICENSE HOLDER Put in your own dock that meets City specifications for safety, size and materials. Maintain the cleanliness of the area by your site, including grass cutting and weed trimming. Aquatic plants that are protected by law require permits prior to removal. Remove Eurasian Water Milfoil from the shoreline around your dock. Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other materials cannot be stored on public land during the boating season, and must be removed by June 1. Winter storage is allowed in most areas, if neat and orderly, not obstructing area or creating a hazard. Response to request to correct infractions must be made during the time stated or dock permit will be in jeopardy. Submit with your application photocopies of all valid Minnesota Watercraft Licenses for each boat to be kept at your dock site, this must be done each year or a license will not be issued. 7. The use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is not recommended to be used on public property. Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 13. Licenses and permits are Non-Transferable. Dock licenses issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their households. No dock licensed by the City or located on public streets, roads, parks, or public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges or receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall be revoked. A copy of your Minnesota Watercraft License for each boat must accompany your application. SAMPLE OF WATERCRAFT LICENSE: 123~ Htghla~d Blvd Wound, MN'55364 CITY ()f MOUND £'2 -'-£ December 28, 1991 Dear Dock Permit Applicant: Enclosed Is your 199~Dock Permit Application Form. IF you wish to retain your existing dock location and avoid a minimum $20.00 late fee, your appltcation~ must be returned by February 29, 199~. The dock Fees For 199~ have remained the same as the 199~ Fees. There is a $30.00 fee to share a dock with another Mound rest- dent. Also, note the "boat Fee" Imposed by the Lake Hinnetonk~ Conservation District (LMCD). This fee is based on the length of EACH watercraft to be kept at your dock. Fees are listed on the Dock Permit Application. it Is very important that all the Information asked For on the application be completed, including Information on a shared dock partner. Copies of all watercraft licenses and ALL Fees require~ must be enclosed with your application or it will be returned to you. IF your application Is received incomplete, this will delay granting of your permit. Please Feel Free to call or write the Parks Department at City Hall with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Tom McCafl~e~r Dock Inspector pJ Enclosures 001 printed on recycled paper Letter to Dock Permit Applicant December 28, 1991 Page 2 YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOCK PERHIT HOLDER: Put in your own dock that meets City specifications For safety, size and materials. Maintain the cleanliness oF the Commons area by your site, including grass cutting and weed trimming. Aquatic plants that are protected by law require permits prior to ren~gval. Remove Eurasion Water Hilfoil from the shoreline around your dock, Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, tires and other materials cannot be stored on Commons during boating season· They must be removed Frcxn Con~T~ns property by dune I. Winter storage is allowed in most areas, iF neat and or- derly, not obstructing area or creating a hazard. Response to request to correct infractions must be made during the time stated or dock permit will be In Jeopardy· Attach photocopies oF all valid watercraft licenses (boats) to be kept at this dock site, this must be done each y~ear. IF not attached, permit will not be issued· " The use oF Fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is not recommended on city property. Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 13. Licenses Non- TransFerable· Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members oF their households. No dock licensed by the City or located on publ lc streets, roads, parks, or public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. IF a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges or receives consideration For the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall be revoked. SAMPLE OF LICENSE: CITY of MOUND c'Ax,6'2 4-~ ~.'~ NOTICE Ail dock site holders, abutting and nonabutting, are required to pay their dock fees by March 31, or their site will be made available to new dock applicants per City Code Section 437:05, Subdivisions 8 and 9 relating to priorities. If the dock fees are not paid by February 28, the nOrmal late fees will apply. REMINDER... Construction of any kind on any public lands, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public lands, is UNLAWFUL unless a special Construction on Public Land Permit is issued by the City Council. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving a special Maintenance Permit from the City, in accordance with Section 320 of the City Code. Applications for remodeling, maintaining or repairing existing boathouses, retaining walls, stonework, decks, landscaping, trimming of trees or brush, or other types of improvements on public lands may be obtained from the Building Department. QUESTIONS ? ? ? CALL 472-0600 printed on recycled paper ~und City Code gectton 320:O0 Section 320 - Private Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lands Section 320:00. Special Permits for Certain Structures on Public Land. Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Permit. Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued by the City Council. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members. Subd. 2. Types of Construction Retuirin~ a Special Construction on Public Land Permit. Ail stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work, concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit. No special construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City.. Subd. 3. Public Land Maintenance Permits. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure om public lands without first receiving therefor a special maintenance permit from the City in accordance with this subdivision. Applications for maintaining existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Inspector at the C~ty offices. All applications for special maintenance permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintenance permit shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Special permits are required for any maintenance such as maintaining retaining walls, stonework, concrete or other types of improvements on public lands. The Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the public shoreline. 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. Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the removal or placement of any fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are non-conforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-1155 FAX (612) 472-0620 NOTICE All dock site holders, abutting and nonabutting, are required to pay their dock Fees by ~) · or their site will be made avail- able to new dock applicants per City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 8 & 9 relating to priorities. If the dock Fees are not paid by I~, the normal late Fees will apply. REMINDER . . . Construction oF any kind on any public lands, or the alteration oF the natural contour oF any public lands, Is UNLAWFUL unless a special Construction on Public Land Permit ts Issued by the City Council. No person shall maintain any boathodse or other structure on public lands without First receiving a special Maintenance Permit From the City, In accordance with Section 320 oF the City Code. Applications For remodeling, maintaining or repairing existing boathouses, retaining wails, stonework, decks, landscaping, trim- ming oF trees or brush, or other types of improvements on public lands may be obtained From the Building Department. QUESTIONS ? ? ? CALL 472-0600 printed on recycled paper J99! H(X)RI~ BUOY APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND, 5346 HAYWOOD ROAD, HOUND, HN 55364 Dear Mound Resident: Please complete and return by February 28. Applications received after this date are subject to a late fee of $20.00 and placed in the 3rd priority category. Renewals not received by April l, NO PERMIT will be issued for this year. All information pertaining to you must be Filled in or permit will be delayed. NAME DAY PHONE ADDRESS HOME PHONE 'MAILING ADDRESS (if Summer Resident) 1990 Buoy Permit # I.. I Renewal I__I New Application CHECK ONE: Peri,anent Resident (owner) 'Sun, her Resident __Owner (paying fee for renter) Renter REQUIRED INFORMATION: List owner, watercraft license number, type of watercraft, length of watercraft, and L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. No permit will be issued without a photocopy of your DNR watercraft license. L.H.C.O. BOAT FEES: Boats up to 20 feet long over 20 to 24 feet long over 24 to 32 feet long over 32 to 40 feet long over 40 feet long $10.00 $15.00 $2O.00 $25.00 $30.00 1991 permit fee For a sailboat mooring buoy site will be $150.00 plus the cor- rect L.H.C.D. boat fee for the season. DESCRIBE LOCATION OF BUOY SITE: Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance, City Code Section 437, shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. I understand if I allow boats not registered to permit holder to be moored at my site, I violate City Code Section 437. This is an application only. No buoy can be installed until a location is granted by the Dock Inspector. SIGNATURE FEE PAID $. DATE PENALTY $. 1993 MOORING BUOY LICENSE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364 DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return by February 28. Applications received after this date are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and placed in the 3rd priority category. Renewals not received by April 1, NO PERMIT will be issued for this year. All information pertaining to you must be filled in or permit will be delayed. APPLICANT'S NAME MOUND STREET ADDRESS 1992 BUOY LICENSE Permanent Resident (owner) Owner (paying fee for renter) *SUMMER RESIDENT'SMAILINGADDRESS: HOME PHONE WORK PHONE ! ].. I *Summer Resident ' Renter ! ! REQUIRED INFORMATION: List owner, watercraft license number, type of watercraft, length of watercraft, and L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. No permit will be issued without a photocopy of your DNR watercraft license. OWNER'S NAME WATERCRAI:T LICENSE # MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FEE L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: Boats up to 20' long over 20' and up to 24' long over 24' and up to 32' long = $12.00 = $18.00 = $24.00 over 32' and up to 40' long = $30.00 over 40' and up to 47' long = $36.00 over 48' feet long = $48.00 1993 License Fee for a sailboat mooring buoy site will be $150.00 plus the correct L.M.C.D. boat fee for the season. DESCRIBE LOCATION OF BUOY SITE: Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance, City Code Section 437, shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. I understand if I allow boats not registered to permit holder to be moored at my site, I violate City Code Section 437. This is an application only. No buoy can be installed until a location is granted by the Dock Inspector. SIGNATURE DATE FEE PAID $ PENALTY $ (COMM.AP 10/2/92) 1993 COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND, §341 MAYNOOD ROAD, HOUND, MN 5§364 PHONE: 472-0600 NAME OF APPLICANT: ADDRESS: BUSINESS NA/4E: BUSINESS ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT BLOCK ADDITION PLEASE ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION: 1. A scaled drawing showing the size, shape, and type of dock proposed, and the location and type of buoy(s) to be used. 2. A scaled drawing showing off-street parking provided for each three rental boat stalls, buoys or slips. 3. A statement outlining the manner, extent and degree of use contemplated for the dock proposed. Payment of permit fee must be included with this application. All applications received on or after March 1 shall be subject to a late fee of $20. NEW APPLICANT FEE .............. $200.00 BASIC RENEWAL FEE .............. $150.00 NUMBER OF SLIPS IN WATER X $5.00 = . NUMBER OF BOATS STORED ON LAN-----~ X $2.60 = BUSINESS NAME DATE APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE AND TITLE CIT! OF MOUND COMMERICAL DOCK APPLICATION/RENEW.__ /'' EXACT LOCATION OF BUSINESS STREET ADDRESS S~/'-~ ~"~¥~' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT PLEASE ENCLOSE THE F' FITH APPLICATION: 1. A drawing proposed, 'pe, size and shape of the dock type of buoy(s) to be used. 2. A draw. three of off-street parking provided for each boat ;ails, buoys or slips. 3. A statement Ir the manner, extent and degree of use co~emplated ~ ~dock proposed. · ii Pyiyment~ of ,permit fee must be included with this 5 /~All a~plicat~ons received ~ o~a~>t~e~r .arch 1 shall be ~b~ct to, late fee~ $~ ~ ~ Ne~Appl~eant F~ ~ ,200.00 ' ~~ Fee R enewa~ ~' 150.00 Number of Slips in Water ~ ~ Number t~ ~:~s Stored ~2.00 = - TOTAL ,~~~,~, Nam i r ....... ~' ' ~nature' ~n~ 'Title 6oo~ CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 5:,564 ',68-' FAX t6~2, 472 0623 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May , 1993 Dock License Holder Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector 1993 Dock Site # Boating season is upon us once again! The dock site number listed above has been assigned to you for the 1993 season. If you need help locating your site, please call me and I will assist you. Your dock license plate is not enclosed, I will personally attach your license plate to the dock after I have inspected it to ensure it conforms to City Code requirements relating to construction and placement. If your dock does not pass inspection, I will issue a notice listing the deficiency and you will have ten (10) days to correct it. If you neglect to do so, you could lose your dock license. This year, special attention will be placed on appearance. Docks must be securely installed and built of safe, sound materials. Boats, dock sections, pipes and other materials cannot be stored on the public shoreline during the boating season. Tires are not allowed. Each individual dock license holder must maintain the cleanliness of their dock site area. The area must be free of litter, debris and aquatic vegetation which has accumulated on the shoreland. The grass at the shoreline must be maintained and trimmed. Please be aware of the information on the back of this letter regarding your responsibilities as a dock holder and Mound City Code Section 437 relating to Dock Licenses. Thank you for your cooperation in making the public lands safe and attractive to help everyone have an enjoyable boating season. printed on recycled paper DOCK1 (11/4/92) YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOCK LICENSE HOLDER Install your own dock that meets Mound's specifications for safety, size and materials. Maintain the cleanliness of the area by your site, including grass cutting and weed trimming. Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other material cannot be stored on the public shoreline during the boating season. They must be in the water or removed from the public property by June 1. No tires will be allowed on docks.. Response to correction notices must be made within the time specified or your dock license will be in jeopardy. Only boats registered to your dock license may be moored there. Other boats are in danger of being impounded. MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 437:10, SUBD. 13. "Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their household. No dock licensed by the City of Mound located on public streets, roads, parks or public commons may be rented, leased or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If the licensee or permit holder rents, leases or sublets or in any manner charges or receives consideration for the use of the dock, the license shall be revoked. CITY of XlOUND MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May _, , 199~ Dock License Holder Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector 1992 Dock Site t Boating season is upon us once again! The dock site number listed above has been assigned to you for the 1992 season. If you need help locating your site, please call me and I will assist you. Your dock license plate is not enclosed, I will personally attach your license to the dock after I have inspected it to ensure it conforms to City Code requirements relating to construction and placement. If your dock does not pass inspection, I will issue a notice listing the deficiency and you will have ten (10) days to correct it. If you neglect to do so, you could lose your dock license. This year, special attention will be placed on appearance. Docks must be securely installed and built of safe, sound materials. Boats, dock sections, pipes and other materials cannot be stored on the public shoreline during the boating season. Tires are not allowed. Each individual dock license holder must maintain the cleanliness of their dock site area. The area must be free of litter, debris and aquatic vegetation retrieved from the water. The grass at the shoreline must be maintained and trimmed. Please be aware of the information on the back of this letter regarding your responsibilities as a dock holder and Mound City Code Section 1437 relating to Docks Licenses. Thank you for your cooperation in making the public commons safe and attractive to help everyone have an enjoyable boating season. printed on recycled paper YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES A8 A DOCK LICENSE HOLDER e Install your own dock that meets Mound's specifications for safety, size and materials. Maintain the cleanliness of the area by your site, including grass cutting and weed trimming. Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other material cannot be stored on the public shoreline during the boating season. They must be in the water or removed from the public property by June 1. No tires will be allowed on docks. Response to correction notices must be made during within the time specified or your dock license will be in Jeopardy. Only boats registered to your dock license may be moored there. Other boats are in danger of being impounded. MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 437510, SUBD. 13. "Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or member~ of their household. No dock licensed by the City of Mound located=On public streets, roads, parks or public commons may be rented, Uleased or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If the licensee or permit holder rents, leases or sublets or in any manner charges or receives consideration for the use of the dock, the license shall be revoked. Mound City Code Section 437:00 Section 43? - Dock Licenses Section 437:00. Licenses, Docks. Subd. 1. Docks Defined. For purposes of this Section 437, the term "dock" means any wharf, pier, boat ramp, boat slip, mooring buoy, or other structure constructed or maintained in, upon, or into the water of a lake from publicly owned shoreland. Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall erect, keep, or maintain a dock on or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons without first securing a license therefor from the City in accordance with the provisions of this Section 437. Subd. 3. License Plate Locatiog. One license plate shall be securely fixed to a licensed dock. The license shall be on the shoreland end of the dock. License plates shall be issued by the Dock Inspector after approval of the license application, shall be maintained by the licensee in its original color, and shall remain the property of the City of Mound. Subd. 4. Transfers. Dock licenses are not transferable between licensees. All licenses shall be issued by the City to a new licensee in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Section 437~05. Applications for and Issuance of Doc~ Licenses. Subd. 1. Separate License Required for Each DocK. Each dock constructed and abutting a public park, commons, or street shall require a license from the City and a license plate to be issued by the Dock Inspector, who shall be appointed by the City Manager. No person shall be issued more than one license in any one calendar year. Subd. 2. License Application Required. License applications shall be obtained at the City offices. Such applications shall state completely, the following information and such other information as is deemed necessary by the City Manager or the Dock Inspector: a® Ce Full name of the applicant; Address - applicant must present proof of residency showing he or she is a permanent or summer resident of the City of Mound; Preferred location of dock on the dock location map of the City; 2-25-91 Mound City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 2, d. Boat license number and copy of watercraft license for each boat to be moored at said dock; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Such other information as may be required on the application form. Subd. 3. Two Residents may Share a Dock Subject to the Conditions Contained Herein. Where dock permits are shared and issued to two residents entitled to permits of the first and second priority, then the following conditions shall apply: a® That duplicate information (including boat licenses) for each of the licensees be included on the license application; be That each of the licensees retain priority rights to individual dock permits as vacation occurs in the immediate subdivision shoreline; That the fee for each licensee shall be one-half the fee plus a shared dock fee as set by the Council in Section 510:00. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 4. Application Filing. Applications for licenses shall be filed with the Dock Inspector at the City offices and he shall recommend to the City Council that the license be approved or denied. No license will be recommended or authorized until the Dock Inspector determines that the proposed dock complies substantially with the term of all City ordinances. Subd. 5. Dock Location. No license shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector until he or she shall have first determined that the proposed dock is suitable for the specific dock location as identified on the official dock location map. Subd. 6. Denial of Application. If the applicant has not maintained a previously licensed dock, the Dock Inspector may recommend to the City Council that any existing license be revoked, and the applicant's priorities under this Section 437 be forfeited for the current year and for the next boating season. Subd. 7. License Priorities. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock licenses and other dock locations: 2-25-91 Mound City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 7, aa. aa. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) ae be First Priority. An abutting owner has first priority for a city designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location map. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Second Priority. A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new dock license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application for the preceding year, has second priority when applying for a dock permit for the same location held by the licensee the immediately preceding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect. c. Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority where the first and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. d. Administration of Priority. The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and Council approval. Subd. 8. Application Deadlines_. Applications for dock licenses shall be made between January i and the last day of February of each year. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 9. .Late Application~. All applications received on or after March 1 shall be subject to additional late fees as set by the Council in Section 510:00 and will be placed in a third priority category. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) (ORD. f53-1991 - 12-23-91) 12-23-91 Mound city Code Section 437:05, Subd. 10 Subd. 10. New Residents. There will be no late fee charged to new residents who apply after the last day of February of the calendar year in which the resident moves to the City. The regular license fee will be charged and no penalty will attach during that year. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Section 437:10. Rules and Regulations. Subd. 1. Dock Location Map Definition. There shall be on file in the City Hall a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. Such master plan shall contain the following information: ae ~Lineal footage for purposes of establishing dock locations; (ORD. 45-1990- 12-29-90) 0 Indication of approved dock location scaled to proximity within the property markers; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Ce Shoreline Classifications and any restrictions applicable to said locations; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29- 9O) Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be shown by the dock location numbering system; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) e® Dock location number shall be keyed to listing of licensees and addresses, and the same number shall apply to the same location each year as far as possible; f® Access points, and other relevant information as is necessary to review dock locations and to allow the City Council and the Dock Inspector to protect the public lands and public waters; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29- 9O) Shoreline areas designated for no winter dock storage. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) h. Repealed (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) 2-25-91 Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 2 Subd. 2. Annual Review of Map. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between September 1 and December 31 before each new boating season so their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Maps shall contain all approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of private dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector, reviewed by the Park Commission and approved by the City Council. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 3. Dock Inspector to Review Application. The Dock Inspector shall determine and approve the location of each permit according to the specifications of the approved dock location map. Subd. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenance. Licensed docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability for same. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 5. Suspension of Eligible Location. The City Council may suspend a dock location where it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a hardship on property owners abutting on public streets or public commons. Subd. 6. One Dock Per Family; Apartment Building. No more that one dock shall be permitted for each resident family. An apartment building or multiple dwelling owner shall not apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled to apply for an individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the City. Subd. 7. Construction Materials; Use of Car Tire~. Ail private docks shall be constructed of materials specified by the Building Inspector and the Dock Inspector and in accordance with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health, safety, and general welfare and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved licensed private dock shall result in docks being located on public lands which are unsightly, unsafe or create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall be hung or attached on 2-25-91 Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 8 dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. (ORD. ~40-1990, 1-29-90) Subd. 8. Inspections - Notice of Non-Compliance - License Revocation. The Dock Inspector or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council, may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons, and if it shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or properly maintained or the area surrounding the dock site is not being maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the plans or location approved by the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by the City Manager, shall forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor shall be revoke4 by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer designated by him or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her consideration. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 9. ~otice of Revocation. Ail notices herein required shall be in writing by certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Subd. 10. Winter Dock Storage. permit holders: Winter dock storage by a® Docks may be left in the water during the winter months providing the following conditions are met: The required dock license for the following year must be applied for and paid by the tenth day of January. 2-25-91 Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. lO,a.,2 Docks may be partially removed, provided that those sections left in public waters are complete. No poles, posts, stanchions or supports standing alone shall remain in public waters. Docks must be brought up to the construction standards outlined in this Section 437 within 4 weeks after the ice goes out in the spring of the year (approximately May 15). If the dock does not meet construction standards, the procedures as specified in Subd. 8 of this Section 437 will apply· (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Docks may not be left in the water or on public land if they conflict with the following uses as shown on the dock location map: Slide area SnoWmobile crossings Skating rinks Trails Road access Other conditions or circumstances which are determined by the Council to have an adverse affect on adjacent properties. be Docks may be stored on commons during the winter months providing the conditions set forth in a.4 above are met along with the following conditions: 1. Repealed. (ORD 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Docks may not be stored on commons shown on the dock location map as having topographical conditions which are too steep, or have fragile flora or where tree damage may occur due to tree density or where there is unstable ground. Docks may be stored only in areas designated for dock permits and as shown on the dock location map. Ail storage shall be done in an orderly, compact, and unobtrusive manner. ® Docks and associated hardware must be removed from the commons and/or public lands between June 1st and September 1st of each year. 2-25-91 Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 10,b.,6 6. Storage shall be restricted to dock materials, dismantled docks, and dismantled boat lifts. The Park Commission, City Dock Inspector, and City Council shall review the dock location map each year and designate areas not available for winter storage because of the conditions heretofore stated. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 11. ~emoval Deadline. All private docks abutting any public road, street, park, or commons must be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other navigable waters no later that December 31 of the license year unless it is a winter approved dock location as shown on the master dock map. Subd. 12. Docking of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee is not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours. The City may check with the State of Minnesota to determine if the boat docked at the licensed dock is owned by the licensee and/or a member of the same household as the licensee. Any boat registered to someone not a member of the licensee's household shall not be docked in excess of 48 hours unless a Temporary Visiting Dockage Permit has been obtained from the City and the fee established by the City Council in Section 510:35 has been paid. No more than one Temporary Visiting Dockage Permit may be issued in any calendar year to an individual dock licensee or visitor. All Temporary Visiting Dockage Permits shall contain the State registration number of the boat and shall be limited to 21 days. Any violation of this Section 437 by the dock licensee shall result in the loss or revocation of the dock license unless the City Council shall determine upon evidence submitted by the licensee that there were mitigating circumstances. The City Council may determine that revocation is too severe a penalty and may then condition said license so that any future violation will result in automatic revocation. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23- 91) Subd. 13. Licenses Non-Transferable. Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their households. No dock licensed by the City or located on public streets, roads, parks, or public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges of receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall be revoked. 12-23-91 Mound City Code Section 437:15 Section 437:~5, Haximum Dimensions, Prohibited Desiqn of Dock~. Docks for which a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" Wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property and shall not infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a minimum water depth of 36", using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.40 feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more than 72" in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. All docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June l, 1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code when expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. #38-1989 - 1-2-90) (ORD. 45- 1990 - 12-29-90) Section 437:20. Penalties. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected without a license a required by this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for the present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set forth in this Section 437. Subd. 437~25. License Feg. The annual license fee shall be as set by the Council in Section 510:00. Residents of the City of Mound 65 years of age or older shall pay 50% of the required license fee for a dock. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23-91) 12-23-91 Mound city Code Section 510:00 CHAPTER V FEES~ CHARGES AND RATES SECTION 510 - FEES, BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS Section 510:00. December 31st Expirations. Subd. Code No. Sectio~ Type of License Conditions and Terms Amoun~ i 437:25 Late Dock License Application On or After March 1st $20.00 ** **Add an additional $10 to late dock license applications received on or after April 1, and add an additional $10 per month for each consecutive month thereafter. 2 437:25 Straight Docks L, T Docks U, or Special Size Docks Sail Boat Mooring Annual $150.00 Annual $200.00 Annual $235.00 Annual $150.00 (Temporary Boat Docking Fee - See Section 510:35) Application for shared dockage will have $30.00 added to the regular fee charged, to cover the additional administrative work. me Senior citizens (65 or order) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $75.00, $100.00, or $117.50. Senior citizens (65 or older) sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $37.50, $50.00, or $58.75. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/4 of the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $112.50, $150.00, or $176.25. 3. Any additional charges made by the L.M.C.D. (Lake Minnetonka Conservation District) will be added to the regular dock fees. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23-91) 3 405:00 Arcades Annual $100.00 12-23-91 MINUT~ OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 1992 REVIEW 1993 DOCK LOCATION MAP - PUBLIC HEARING. The Dock Inspector informed the Commission that no changes have been proposed from the 1992 Dock Location Map. Chair Skoglund opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak on the issue, Chair Skoglund closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Mueller, the recommend approval of the 1993 Dock Location Map which is unchanged from 1992. Motion carried unanimously. The Dock Location Map will be presented to the City Council for approval on November 24, 1992. ! I I I ! ! DOCK CITY OF HOUND MINNESOTA LOCATION ! ! MAP I I ILi A IK !E ! ! ! I ~ [I iN ti iN ][ T / / PROPOSED RESOLU?~O~ #92- RESOLUTION TO ~PPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L/%NDS PERMIT FOR $ YEARS RENEWABLE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4601 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 1, LOT ?, DEVON, DOCK SITE #41170 WHEREAS, Roger Stephanson has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a keystone retaining wall on Devon Commons abutting his property, and: WHEREAS, on May 26, 1992 Resolution #92-62 was approved to allow construction of a stairway, and while constructing this stairway a small portion of the hillside was cut to install a landing at the bottom of the hill resulting in a need for a retaining wall, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval as recommended by staff with the exception that the due date for both the stairway and retaining was be concurrent and expire within 5 years of the approval of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City of Mound does hereby approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a 3 foot high keystone retaining wall on Devon Commons abutting 4601 Island View Drive, Block 1, Lot 7, Dock Site #41170 for Roger Stephanson, subject to the following conditions: This permit is approved for five (5) years from the date of City Council approval, at which time an application may be made to renew the permit. be The expiration of the permit for the stairway approved by Resolution #92-62 will be concurrent with this resolution. The retaining wall shall manufacturers specifications. be installed per the de The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. eo Application for renewal must be made with change in home ownership. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 1992 CONSTRUCTION ON pUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION BY ROGER STEPHANSONm 4601 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE~ BLOCK lm LOT 7~ DEVON~ FOR ~ MASONRY RETAININg WALL. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to construct a retaining wall on Devon Commons. This request is actually a modification to Resolution $92-62 which approved construction of a stairway on May 26, 1992. A small portion of the hillside was cut to install a landing at the bottom of the hill and this area needs to be retained with the proposed wall. Staff recommended approval of the requested Construction on Public Lands Permit to construct a retaining wall as proposed, upon the following conditions: Expiration date of this permit be concurrent with the existing permit due to expire five (5) years from May 26, 1992. The retaining wall shall be installed per the manufacturers specifications. e The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. Application for renewal must be made with change in home ownership. Mueller expressed a concern that this situation happened because of poor planning and hoped there will not be a lot of these types of requests. Ahrens questioned if the existing permit expiration date could not be altered to meet an expiration date five years from the approval of this request. Fackler commented that the intent is to have the expiration dates of all permits concurrent for each property so all application renewals can be reviewed at the same time. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of the requested Construction on Public Lands Permit for a retaining wall at 4601 Island View Drive as recommended by staff with the exception that condition $1 be changed so that Resolution $92-62 and this request have the same expiration date which will be five years from approval of this request by the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Mueller questioned if the existing stairs have been removed yet. Fackler commented that the Building Official has not yet been requested to do a final inspection· This request will be reviewed by the City Council on November 24, 1992. ( l FX, ,X IOUNI) . .... ":'.:' - ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: APPLICANT: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: November 12, 1992 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applican~ Jon Sutherland, Building Official~'~/~7L Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~ ~/J /! 4601 Island View Drive, Block 1, Lot 7, D~on Roger Stephanson Devon 41170 C Public Lands Permit Application for Construction on Public Lands Backqround: This is a minor modification to an existing permit for a stairway approved by Resolution #92-62 on May 26, 1992. A small portion of the hillside was cut to install a landing at the bottom of the hill and this area needs to be retained with the proposed wall. The proposed masonry product is durable and engineering is supplied by the manufacturer to insure stability. The wall would need to be installed per manufacturers specifications. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested Construction on Public Lands Permit to construct a retaining wall as proposed, upon the following conditions: Expiration date of this permit be concurrent with the existing permit due to expire five (5) years from May 26, 1992. The retaining wall shall be installed per the manufacturers specifications. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. JS:pj prtnted on recycled paper Application for PUBLIC LANDS pERMIT CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 NEW CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT (to continue use or maintain existing) LAND ALTERATION RECEIVED Date Receive~0iJI(DF~' .... Park Meeting Date: city council Date: Copy to Building official: ADDRESSOF ABUTTING PROPERTY ~'J~~ LEGAL DESORTPTION OF ABUTPING PROPERTY: DDITION Oe vo,J OF PUbLiC OWNER' S PHONE BLOCK DOCKSITE# ~// ? ~ SHORELANDCLASSIFICATION APPLICANT'S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) DESCRIBE REQUEST: REPAIR EXISTING STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENT REQUEST NEW CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEMENT TREE/BRUSH TRIMMING CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF VEGETATION APPLICANT MUST 'F0~NIsH THE FOLLOWING: ' 'cate of Survey showing existing and proposed improve.ments-.W~'J~'y~' 3. [ro~osed cost.'>Oc' -- . ........ ~ ~ -- ho ographs of the existing structure or a~mectea are~. ~ 5. Statement of purpose for ~ ~ ~~ ~~c/~ ,,,. 0 ! / / / "t .I I May 26, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-62 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4601 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 1, LOT 7, DEVON, DOCK SITE #41170 WHEREAS, Roger Stephanson has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway on Devon Commons abutting 4601 Island View Drive, Block 1, Lot 7, Devon, Dock Site #41170; 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 had a tie vote so there was no recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City of Mound does hereby approve a Construction on Public Land Permit to allow construction of a stairway on Devon Commons abutting the property at 4601 Island View Drive, Block 1, Lot 7, Devon, Dock Site #41170 for Roger Stephanson subject to the following conditions: aJ The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time the application shall be made for a Public Land Maintenance Permit. b. The stairway must comply with current building code. Ce The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The applicant shall remove existing stairway, regrade, and replant, etc., to prevent erosion. ee The applicant shall remove and/or maintain the existing walkway. fe The applicant to provide erosion control measures under new stairway. ge The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change in ownership of property (4601 Island View Drive). 101 so 5 May 26, 1992 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: Jessen. Attest: di~y Clerk ss/Skip Johnson Mayor 102 ~ob ~ Nov_~mher 24, 1992 RBBOLU~XON NO. 92- RESOLUTION TO C~r'A~8 THE RECOUNT OF THE ~YOI~L I~tCE FROM THE NOVEMBER 3~ 1992, OENEI~L ELECTTON WHEREAS, the City of Mound held its municipal election on November 3, 1992; and WHEREA~, the results of the Mayoral Race for the City of Mound was as follows: MAYOR Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. i 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL Overvote 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Undervote 52 63 141 104 108 63 531 Jon Herrmann 28 39 146 67 76 45 401 Skip Johnson 251 192 696 371 439 269 2,218 Bob Polston 228 223 644 343 396 365 2,199 Write-Ins 4 I 9 12 7 8 41 WHEREAS, on November 9, 1992, the City received a letter from Mr. Bob Polston asking for a recount as per Minnesota Statutes 204C.36, subdivision I (d); and WHEREAS, the recount was held on November 16, 1992, at 1:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, and WHEREAS, one vote was challenged by Candidate Skip Johnson and is being presented to the Canvassing Board tonight for their determination; and WHEREAS, four other vote were not counted by the vote tabulator because they were not property marking in the read path, but were clear as to the intent of the voter as to who they were voting for and the votes were given to the candidates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby certify the results of the Recount of the Mayoral Race conducted on November 16, 1992, as follows: MAYOR Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. I 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL Overvote 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Undervote 52 62 142 103 106 62 527 Jon Herrmann 28 39 146 67 76 45 401 Skip Johnson 251 193 696 372 439 269 2,220 Bob Polston 228 223 645 343 397 365 2,201 Write-Ins 5 i 9 12 7 8 42 The Canvassing Board hereby certifies that election to a two year Mayoral term is Skip Johnson. NOVEMBER 16, 1992 ELECTION RECOUNT MAYOR - CITY OF MOUND I DUP. PROM JON SKIP BOB PaCK HERRMANN JOHNSON POLSTON SEaL # PRECINCT #1 4434019 28 251 228 PRECINCT #2 4434230 39 193 223 PRECINCT #3 4434679 146 696 645 PRECINCT #4 4434022 67 372 343 PRECINCT #5 4434032 76 439 397 PRECINCT #6 4434039 45 269 365 I TOTAL VOTES 401 2220 2201 We, the undersigned members of the City of Mound Canvassing Board, do hereby certify that on November 16, 1992, the votes cast on Optical Scan Vote Tabulators were recounted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 204C.35, subd. 2, and the Rules of the Secretary of State. The votes cast and recounted for the Office of Mayor of the City of Mound, are duly recorded above and are a true determination of the votes cast in the official recount as prescribed by law. Witness our official signature at Mound in Hennepin County this 24th day of November, 1992. Councilmember Ahrens Councilmember Jensen Councilmember Jessen Councilmember Smith Attest: City Clerk BILLS November 24, 1992 BATCH 2112 $143,716.01 TOTAL BILLS $143,716.01 ,'-~Z I ~' uJ O0 C~ I o 0 ~4 I% I tut,,) o? cD o /ii o0oo c o oo ~-4 ~ ! I I I I I ! I go ~ o Oo I o oo ~0~1 O~ ,-~ [ad I! ~oog~oo~ o Z 0 Z 0 oooo ooo '' ·444 Oo I 0."~ o Ooooo~o ooooo~ o~oo~o ~Z ~Z~l o Oo I 0 n,'h- ,0,0 Z oo o o oo ~d ! o oo ! o 0 ! ~4 O. ! 0 ! IAJ I Z I fl~.,j °° 0000~"4 ! ! ! I I 0o00 0 0 O0 O0 ! 0 C~ Z ! ! k- O0 '~' 0 000 I ! c~oO O0 .4' O0 L~ 000 0o0 ~'~ O~ ~0 I I I 000 41,1 · DSTATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATERS, 1200 WARNER RD., ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHON£ NO. (612) 772-7916 F~L5 NO. NOV ] 9 November 17, 1992 The Honorable Skip Johnson Mayor, City of Mound 3018 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 RE: EXTENSION OF SHORELAND ADOPTION GRANT AGREEMENT Dear Mayor Johnson: Your city is one of fourteen cities with Lake Minnetonka shoreland enacting shoreland management controls that comply with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) statewide shoreland management standards. Each of you has been receiving letters asking your city to review and comment on your neighboring city's proposed flexibility from those standards. This process, although lengthy since 45 days are allowed for each city to comment on its neighbor's proposed relief from the statewide standards, is necessary to comply with the review and approval process required in the rules. In light of the time allowed for reviewing each city's flexibility request plus the time it will take for DNR to complete the approval process and process the final payment(s) for each city, the deadline for completing all tasks in the adoption grant agreement will need to be extended. I am extending your contract an additional 6 months which means it will expire on May 10, 1993 instead of the current date of December 10, 1992. You and your city administrator or clerk will be. contacted by a representativ~ of DNR regarding this in late November or early December,'in order to get your signatures on the extension document before the December 10 completion date. If there are any questions or concerns about this, please contact me. S inertly, . Shoreland Hydrologist cc: Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist John Linc Stine, Regional Hydrologist Pam Albrecht, Division Accountant Ogbazghi Sium, Supervisor, Land Use Management Unit Gene Strommen, LMCD Executive Director ~.~ty Administrator/Clerk AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER BOARD MEMBERS David H Cochran. Chair Greenwood Tom Penn. Vice Chair Tonka Bay Do :gias E, Babcock. Secretary Spring Park Scott Carlson. Treasurer Minnetnsta M~e Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deepnaven James N, Grathwol Excelsior JoEiler~ L. Hurr Orono Wt!i~am A. ,Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen V~ctoria Ro~erl Rascop Shorewood Tom Reese Mound tooen E. SIocum Wood',and LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612 473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PLEA SE COME TO AN OPE,W HOUSE TO H.O.~OR JOAN ME~$K £MCD ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY JOAN IS RETIRING AFTER 18 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WE ARE HAVING AN OPEN HOUSE IN HER HONOR 3:00 PM TO 5:30 PM TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1992 AT THE LMCD OFFICE 900 E WAYZATA BLVD SUITE 160 WAYZATA MN 55391 REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Monday, November 23, 1992, 4:30 PM Norwest Bank Building 900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Room 135 (Elevator access for Handicapped; use west entrance on Wayzata Blvd.) Subcommittee on Decibel Levels; A. Report of meeting on 10/26/92 B. Brian Timerson, PCA Noise Control Engineer Draft Ordinance establishing a Quiet Waters Area in part of Halsted's Bay, amending Code Sect. 3.02 Special Events A. List of 1992 special events for discussion of Water Patrol being responsible agency for issuing Special Event licenses B. Deposit Refunds @ $100 each 1) Excelsior Chamber of Commerce 4th of July Fireworks, 7/4/92 2) Consolidated Race Schedule, 5/5/92 - 10/24/92 3) Lake Masters Swim Club, 5-Mile Swim, 7/25/92 Boat & Water Safety Education Program draft of brochure for approval Water Patrol Report A. Monthly Activity Report 6. Additional business 11/16/92 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Access Committee AGENDA 6:00 pm, Monday, November 23, 1992 Norwest Bank Bldg. Conference Room 135 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata Review Lake Access Objectives and Policies as detailed in the Management Plan for Lake Minneton~a, Page~ 41-44. a~ mailed with meeting agenda {please bring enclosed sets to meeting, and Management Plan}. e Discuss the relationship of the LMCD Lake Committee with the multi-agency Lake Access Task Force; e Review draft Procedure for Handling Offers and Inquiries Concerning Potential Public Access Site~ on Lake Minnetonka (per advance copy of draft mailed with this meeting agenda). 4. Additional business recommended by the committee. 5. Review of next meeting date and adjournment. NOTICE REGARDING MATERIALS FOR REFERENCE AT THIS MEETING: ao Please bring packet of material provided at the 10/28 Board meeting which included: * Report of the Oct. 21 Lake Access Task Force meetir~g * Chronology of the lake access study developme~ts since 11/91 * DNR letters of 10/7/92 from MN DNR regarding Mai Tai and Howards Point Marina sites for possible access consideration Also please bring Lake Access Task Force Steering Committee report of 9/18/92 sent out with meeting material for the 10/21/92 Lake Access Task Force meeting ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND ENCLOSURES: a. LMCD Chair's Committee Structure Recommendatio~s of 1/16/92 as adopted by the Board 1/22/92 b. Board minutes excerpt of 1/22/92 establi~hi~g the l~e access study effort c. DNR letters of 1/9 and 1/16/92 proposing a study group for public access on Lake Minnetonka MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1992 Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Sewer & Water Superintendent Greg Skinner, and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also in attendance: Harvey Berquist, Edward Peterson, Thomas R. Albert, Jennifer Adams, Kay Cunningham, Paul Henry, Phil Shepherd, Jean Robinson, Sara Biermann, Todd and Tammy Rask, Harold Meeker, Nancy Clough, Alice Rogers, Laurene Edwaard, John Edwaard, James Brunzell, Reuben Hartman, Maxine Beissel, Neil Weber, Diana Sharp, Peggy Heck, Ron DeVinney, Mike Gilbertson, Tom Sachariason, Mark Lilledahl, and Julie Lilledahl. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1992 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Hanus to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1992 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE #92-053: MAXINE BEISSEL, 1720 DOVE LANE, LOTS 7 - 9, BLOCK 12, PID ~13-117-24 13 0006. MINOR SUBDIVISION. Michael Mueller commented that he has a financial interest in the subject property and therefore stepped down from the Commission. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the revised plan to subdivide the subject property. Previously the Planning Commission unanimously denied a request to subdivide this property, and the City Council tabled the request with the suggestion that the lots be split in some other way to make a better lot configuration. The Planning commission's consensus was that the lot configuration created a "stacking" of houses that was undesirable, and the proposal over utilizes the property, creates a situation where there are no backyards and Parcel A will accommodate only a very narrow home. The only change recognized by the revised proposal is the addition of the amount of Commons frontage owned by Parcel A, it does nothing to change the location of the two home sites or their relationship to one another. Planning ~o--ission Minutes November 9, 1992 Staff recommended that the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the subject request since the modified plan does not substantially address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. Meyer expressed a concern that the lot will still only accommodate a 20' wide house. Clapsaddle commented that none of the real issues have been address. Hanus stated he is in favor of the subdivision as it does not require any variances and the proposal meets city code. Jensen is concerned about the layout for proposed Parcel B; the house is shown to be setback further from the lake than the neighboring houses and she believes that approving a plan that limits the house to only 20' wide will eventually result in a variance request. Johnson added that a 20' wide house is not good as it is hard to place furniture in long narrow rooms. Voss suggested that the proposed dividing line running west to east from the street towards the east be angled rather than jogged. He also commented that it is good to increase tax role to have two homes rather than one. Michael Mueller gave a presentation emphasizing that if this subdivision is approved the lot sizes will still be larger than the average within the Dreamwood addition. He stated that there is an "L" shaped lot adjacent to this property. Both of the proposed parcels will be conforming and they can accommodate conforming structures. Mueller emphasized the amount of open space adjacent to this property as a result of the commons and touched on the fact that the property owners will be required to maintain this area. The proposal meets the criteria and all the requirements for a legal minor subdivision with no variances required. Mueller also commented that the City Council suggested the property line at the commons be changed in case a future owner of proposed Parcel A would ever want to install a fence. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the applicant's revised proposal for subdivision as it is a legal minor subdivision, upon the following conditions: Prior to the time this item appears before the City Council, the applicant shall file a variance application with the City of Mound including all applicable fees. 2 Planning Co~mission Minutes November 9, 1992 Parcels A and B are under common ownership, a building permit for construction on Parcel & shall not be issued until the existing house on Parcel B has been removed and properly backfilled. Removal of the house will alleviate the nonconforming status of Parcel B and will negate the continued necessity for the variance. All conditions in the City Engineer's report dated September 8, 1992, as follows: Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as required by the City Engineer. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to recording of the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond· Pay deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90. de A cash deposit in the amount of $500 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required by Mound City Code Section 330:145, Subdivision 2. MOTION failed 3 to 4. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, and Voss. Those opposed were: Johnson, Jensen, Meyer and Michael. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on November 24, 1992. CASE ~92-060, 061, 062, & 063: NEIL WEBER FOR TE~L POINTE DEVELOPMENT CO.m NHIPPLE IN BLOCKS 10, 11, 15 & 16, PID's 25-117-24 12 0225, 0118, 0119, & 0120. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PL]~NNED DEVELOPMENT AREA, STREET VACATIONS, AND VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING. City Planner's Report. The City Planner reviewed his report on the proposed development to be named Teal Pointe. This single family development will create a total of 9 lots, 6 lots off of an extension of Windsor Road and 3 lots off the end of Drummond Road. In order to develop the subdivision as proposed, a number of approvals are being required, they include approval of a Conditional Use permit to allow the subdivision to be processed as a Planned Development Area (PDA), Preliminary Plat and a Street Plann£n9 Comm£ssion ~inutes November 9, 1992 Vacation request. The proposed plan will also require the approval of variances from the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance in the following areas: Section 330:95 Subd. 1 requires that street rights-of-way must be 50 feet in width. The proposed plan calls for streets to be located within privately owned outlots. Outlot A is only 24 feet in width. Outlot B at its narrowest portion has a width of approximately 34 feet. Section 330:95 Subd. 8 limits cul-de-sacs to a total length of 500 feet and requires a cul-de-sac radius of 50 feet. The proposed private street results in a cul-de-sac with a total length of 830 feet and an improved surface diameter of 70 feet. Section 330:95 Subd 11 states, "Private streets shall not be permitted nor shall public improvements be approved for any new private street unless approved by the City Council as part of a conditional use permit for an overall development plan." Park dedication requirements will be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission on November 12, 1992. In general, the proposed development represents a positive addition to the City of Mound. The City Planner recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit to establish Teal Point· as a Planned Development Area, approval of the Preliminary Plat, approval of all applicable variances and approval of the street vacation subject to the following conditions as well as the conditions found in the City Engineer's report dated November 4, 1992. The wetland area identified on the preliminary plat shall be designated as Outlot C and shall be deeded to the City of Mound. Dedication of the wetland area shall not be counted as a credit against park dedication requirements as specified in the Mound Code of Ordinances. Approvals by the City of Mound shall be conditioned on the applicant securing all required permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and all other applicable agencies. Ail lots shall be required to observe the front, side and rear yard structural setbacks as shown on the approved preliminary plat. 4 Pl&nn~n9 Comm£ss~on N£nutes November 9, 1992 Park dedication requirements shall be in conformance with the recommendations of the Mound Park Commission. If the Planning Commission concurs with Staff's recommendations, it is further suggested that the following finding of fact be adopted. "The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Teal Pointe development represents a desirable addition to the development of the City of Mound. Due to the unique natural characteristics of the site including steep slope areas, mature tree cover and a significant wetland area, approval of the identified variances is warranted and it is appropriate to approve a conditional use permit to establish the project as a Planned Development Area." City Engineer's Report. John Cameron reviewed his report on the Teal Pointe development proposal from an engineering perspective. The City Engineer's conclusions and recommendations are as follows: The proposed preliminary plat is seen as a very desirable use of this vacant property. The only major obstacle we see that needs to be worked out is the question of private street and utilities versus public. From a maintenance perspective, it appears that public ownership makes more sense, because the City is already in that business. The major problems we see are snow plowing and maintenance of the streets and storm sewer system. It may be possible, even though we have not seen this done, to have everything public except the sanitary sewer. We are recommending approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: Preliminary Plat: Revise preliminary plat to show outlot for wetlands and correct boundary to exclude the Drummond Road right-of-way. Grading and Drainage: Furnish documentation allowing fill to be placed on adjacent private property. 2. Adjust slope in fill area to maximum slope of 2-1/2:1. 3. Provide housing type for lots exceeding 10% slope. Streets: Construct Windsor Road (Outlot B) as a public street to City standards. If constructed as a public road, variances will be required for right-of-way width, right-of-way cul-de-sac Planning Comission Minutes Noveeber 9, 1992 diameter, and improved/paved portion of cul-de-sac diameter (proposed to be 70' diameter). Allow private driveway in Outlot A to be constructed to 22 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. Utilities: 1. Public 6" watermain. Sanitary Sewer and lift station in Windsor Road to be public, with design of lift station to meet City requirements. Homes on Lots 1, 2, and 3 to be serviced by private individual lift pumps. If the street improvements in Windsor Road are public, then all storm sewer shall also be public. More detailed plans of the entire system to be furnished at final plat submission. 4. Review by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Street Vacation: 1. Recommend street vacation except for Drummond Road. Vacate full 30 foot right-of-way, retaining 20 foot drainage and utility easements. 3. Delay recording of street vacations until final plat is filed. In addition, the Sewer and Water Superintendent also recommended that the road and utilities be public not private. Applicant's presentation to Planninq Commission. Neil Weber agreed that Outlot B, the extension of Windsor Road, could be public. Weber stated that the proposed right-of-way width for Outlot B is 40' which is only 10' less than what is required for a public road, and is wider than the existing portion of Windsor Road. He stated that there will be no problem meeting the grade at Outlot A for snowplowing. Weber commented that he is taking a difficult project and coming up with a creative solution. Weber reviewed the intent of the development and the type of houses planned to be constructed. Planning Co~mission Minutes November 9, 1992 Planning Commission Discussion. Mueller confirmed with the City Planner that Outlots A and B cannot be used for park dedication. It was noted that Sinclair Road and Grove Lane cul-de-sacs also received variances to allow a 70 degree radius. Hanus questioned staff if they would prefer the proposed lift stations for lots 1, 2, and 3 to be private or public. Cameron commented that it would be better for the City if they were private and then have one force main line under Outlot A. Greg Skinner noted that there are approximately 16 private lift stations in the city of Mound. Mueller questioned if lot 3 would still meet the zoning requirements and be buildable if Drummond Road is not vacated as proposed. Weber and Koegler both agreed that some lot lines will need to be reconfigured to correct this situation. Mueller questioned how the Shoreland Management Ordinance will affect this application. He expressed a concern about lots 1, 2, and 3 having bluff's and if these lots would need variances from the Shoreland Management Ordinance to be buildable. Koegler commented that there may be some impact as steep slopes and bluff areas may not account for lot area. Weber confirmed that docks are not being planned for this development. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in opposition to the proposed development: Harold Meeker, Alice Rogers, Phil Shepherd, Ron DeVinney, Nancy Clough, Ed Peterson, Tom Albert, John Edwaard, Harvey Berquist, and Paul Henry. Some of the comments made in the negative are as follows: Concerns were expressed about increased traffic and safety for children in the area. Traffic on Tuxedo is already too fast and too much. There is only one point of egress, Tuxedo Blvd. It was questioned what the long term plan is for the Island. Density should be addressed. When is it enough? 3. Increased run-off. Planning Co~isslon Minutes November 9, 1992 What will the development do to surrounding property owner's taxes and value of homes? 5. Loss of view. 6. Negative impact on wildlife. Mark and Julie Lilledahl both spoke in favor of the development, commenting that the proposed development appears to be well thought out and would be an improvement to the area. They feel this will be the best development opportunity for this site as the property will be developed sooner or later and nine lots are better than twelve or more. Reuben Hartman also spoke in favor of the development. Neil Weber commented that he is concerned about the community and the environment and this project should improve the wetlands. He also noted that he had two other plans, one for 16 lots and one for 13 lots, however, he did not think they were good plans for this property. Chair Meyer closed the public hearinq. The concerns relating to increased traffic were discussed by the Commission. Mueller commented that the Planning Commission should be able to review the ramifications the Shoreland Management Ordinance will have on the proposed development before it goes to the City Council. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to table the request until the City Planner can report how the Shoreland Management Ordinance will affect the proposed preliminary plat and to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the reconfiguration of lots 1, 2, and 3. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were Jensen, Johnson, Hanus, Clapsaddle and Mueller. Meyer, Voss and Michael opposed. VOSS commented that he feels the case should be moved along and that the City Planner could work out the kinks. Meyer and Michael agreed that any concerns could have been made as conditions upon approval. Koegler informed Chair Meyer that City Code Section 330:35 Subd. $ states, "The Planning Commission shall, within thirty (30) days of the closing of the hearing, recommend approval, modify and 8 Plann[n9 Commission M£nutes November 9, 1992 recommend approval or recommend disapproval of the preliminary plat or waiver of platting and submit to the City Council their findings and recommendations. Failure to act within thirty (30) days of the closing of the hearing shall be deemed as an approval of the preliminary plat by the Planning Commission." Koegler will have to consult with the City Attorney to see if the Shoreland Management Ordinance will apply to this application or the Final Plat application. MOTION made by Voss to consider the previous motion to table this matter, Hanus seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Voss, Hanus, Jensen, Meyer and Michael. Mueller, Clapsaddle and Johnson opposed. It was suggested that the Planning Commission forward the preliminary plat to the City Council with a condition that the reconfiguration of the lot lines be reviewed by the Planning Commission at Final Plat application. Mueller commented that he would like the Planning Commission to understand the impacts of the Shoreland Management Ordinance to this application. Koegler confirmed that when a preliminary plat is approved you then have an agreement and if the application for Final Plat meets the requirements in the agreement the City will approve it. Koegler stated that lots 1, 2, and 3 may be severely impacted by the Shoreland Management Ordinance. MOTION made by Voss to recommend approval of the conditional use permit as recommended by staff based upon the following findings of fact: "The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Teal Pointe development represents a desirable addition to the development of the City of Mound. Due to the unique natural characteristics of the site including steep slope areas, mature tree cover and a significant wetland area, approval of the identified variances is warranted and it is appropriate to approve a conditional use permit to establish the project as a Planned Development Area." Approval is recommended subject to the concerns expressed by the city Planner, the City Engineer, Public Works Department and the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Mueller for discussion. Mueller commented that he is in favor of the motion if it includes all his concerns relating to the streets shown as Outlots A and B cannot be used for park dedication, it addresses the issue of 9 Planning Commission Ninutes November 9, 1992 reconfiguring lots 1, 2, and 3, and it addresses the concerns about how the Shoreland Management Ordinance applies to the development. Concern was expressed by other commissioners that the motion was too vague. MOTION failed 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Mueller. Those opposed were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, and Jensen. Voss and Michael, MOTION made by Hanus to recommend approval of the Planned Development Area for Teal Point as recommended by staff and including the following conditions: All the conditions as listed in the City Engineer and City Planner's recommendations. An agreement needs to be established with the property owners of the lots adjacent to the street extension off of Drummond Road as it was noted by the City Engineer that fill will be required to meet the required grade for Outlot &. 3. Drummond Road not be vacated. As a result of not vacating Drummond Road, lots 1, 2, and 3 will need to be reconfigured. Due to the steep slopes and bluffs on lots 1, 2, and 3, it should be verified that these lots as proposed will be buildable. Delay recording of street vacations until final plat is filed. e The concerns expressed by the public due to traffic issues be addressed. 0 The application of the Shot.land Management Ordinance be addressed; does it apply or not? Motion seconded by Michael. Motion carried unanimously. This item will appear before the City Council on December 8, 1992. 10 Plannin9 Couission Minutes Nove~er 9, 1992 CASE ~92-065: TOM REESE, 5641 BARTLETT BLVD., SECTION 23, LOT 1, PID ~23-117-24 14 0003. VARIANCE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming accessory structure to allow construction of a conforming 6' x 12' deck. Staff recommended approval of the variance. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance as requested. Motion carried unanimously. Voss and Mueller were absent for the vote. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on November 10, 1992. CASE ~92-066: P. HECK DESIGNS, 5571 LYI~OOD BLVD., KOE~LER'~ ADDITION TO NOUND, PID ~13-117-24 33 0073. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to operate a business involving the design and manufacturing of artwear (jewelry) which is then sold by various retail outlets. According to the Zoning Code, businesses involving the assembly/storage of glass and pottery items are allowed in the zone as conditional uses. The proposed use is consistent with the Mound Zoning Code and is not expected to negatively impact any surrounding businesses or land uses. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak on the issue, Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Ranus, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by staff. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Voss and Jensen. Mueller abstained. This case will be heard by the City Council on November 24, 1992. 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1992 CASE ~92-067~ RONALD NERAASEN OF 4725 BEDFORD ROAD, AND ROBERTA J. ~LSON OF 4739 BEDFORD ROAD, WYCHWOODm BLOCK 13m LOTS 5 - 8 AND 2' - 28~ PID ~19-117-23 32 0143 & 1044. MINOR SUBDIVISION. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to modify a lot line. The new line will remove an existing jog that occurs between the two property ownerships. The lot line modification is not in conflict with any of the provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. There is a problem on Parcel B due to the existing house that substantially encroaches onto Lot 9 which is not part of Parcel B. There is an easement for the encroachment, however, according to the survey the extreme northwest corner of the house is located outside the existing easement. The encroachment is a private matter that is not directly connected to the relocation of the lot line. It will be necessary for the owner to eventually resolve this issue since it creates a major title problem. It is not necessary that it be resolved as part of the requested minor subdivision. Staff recommended approval. Koegler noted that the City Attorney could develop disclaimer language until the problem with the encroachment is resolved. MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff and that the City Attorney develop the proper disclaimer language to address the problem due to the encroachment caused by the structure on Parcel B. Motion carried unanimously. This item will be reviewed by the City Council on November 24, 1992. WAIVER TO WORK RULES: Due to the late hour, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to complete Case #92-068, and the remaining discussion items would be placed on the November 23, 1992 agenda. The Discussion items to be postponed include: Proposed Fence Ordinance Revisions, Zoning Code Modifications, Shoreland Ordinance - Draft 5, and Toro Landscaping Plan. 12 Planning Comisslon Minutes November 9, 1992 CASE i~92-068: NIKE GILBERTSONm 4350 WlLSHIRE BLVD. m FIRST RE- ARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION~ LOTS 78 & 79, PID ~19-117-23 13 0010. VARIANCE. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow expansion of the existing home. The existing home lies approximately 20 feet from the ordinary high water line of Lake Minnetonka. The existing structure has a 16.2 foot setback off of Wilshire Blvd. The proposed expansion calls for a deck on the lake side that would decrease the lakeshore setback to 17.3 feet and decrease the setback from Wilshire Blvd. to 2.7 feet. According to information supplied by the applicant, approximately 22 feet exists from the wall of the proposed garage to the curb line of the existing street. Staff has a significant concern that the proposed building is simply too much mass for the size of the existing lot. Accordingly, it is suggested that the Planning Commission consider tabling the subject request with specific direction being provided to the applicant to reduce the size of the proposed addition and its encroachment into the setback required along Wilshire Blvd. If the Planning Commission finds that sufficient hardship or practical difficulty exists to approve the request as submitted, it is suggested that such approval include the requirement that the existing fence and accessory building which lies within the public right-of-way be relocated onto private land. The applicant, Mike Gilbertson, presented a modified proposal to the Commission which reflects a reduced garage size. The length of the east bay of the garage is now proposed to be 21' versus the original 26'8" which will increase the proposed setback to the front property line to 7'6" and 22'6" to the curb. Gilbertson also addressed hardcover and commented that a hardcover area greater than 30% is not unique in this area. In regards to the fence which currently encroaches on the right-of- way 100%, Gilbertson proposed building a fence along the property line parallel to County Road 125, however, requested a variance to allow a 5' high privacy fence. City Code limits fences to 4' high in the front yard and to 3' high within 50' of the ordinary high water elevation. Gilbertson also requested that the shed be allowed to remain until the proposed addition is completed so it may be used for storage. He stated that he has been in contact with Mr. Karl Holtz at Hennepin County and he has indicated no immediate concern with respect to the shed or fence. Gilbertson agreed to remove the shed 13 q Planning Coaission #inures November 9, 1992 before July 30, 1993, assuming other arrangements cannot be made. Hanus commented that he likes the new plan. Jensen remarked that due to the odd shape of this lot she is in favor of granting a variance for a 5' fence in the front yard. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the following variances: 1. A 22.5' front yard setback variance. A fence height variance of 1' and 2' as needed to allow a 5' high fence along front property line. A 32.7' lake side setback variance measured to the proposed deck. These variances are recommended for approval to allow construction of a garage addition and deck as shown on the revised plans received November 9, 1992 upon the condition that the shed and fence be moved off the public right-of-way (Wilshire Blvd.) by July 30, 1993. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on November 24, 1992. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: 14 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 1992 Present were: Commissioners Lyndelle Skoglund, Brian Asleson, Shirley Andersen, Marilyn Byrnes, and Mo Mueller, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, City Manager Ed Shukle, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioners Tom Casey and Carolyn Schmidt were absent and excused. MINUTES MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Byrnes to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of October 8, 1992 as written. Motion carried unanimously. DEMONSTRATION FOR A NEW LIGHT SUGGESTED TO BE TESTED AT HIGHLANI~ END PARK BY RECOMMENDATION OF LMCD REPRESENTATIVE, TOM REESE. Tom Reese, Mound's LMCD Representative explained to the Park and Open Space Commission that the LMCD has addressed the issue of offensive lighting on the shoreland of Lake Minnetonka. Offensive lighting is lights that make night navigation difficult due to glare which creates safety hazards. A Technical Review Committee created language that was presented to the City's on Lake Minnetonka for adoption. In this language, a type of fixture was suggested, and now they are proposing to test this type of lighting at Highland End Park. Tom Reese introduced Ray Mlazgar, a representative for Hubbell Lighting. Mr. Mlazgar distributed copies of a brochure and displayed the light fixture. The fixture supplied for a sample is a 250 watt. Reese commented that there are at least a dozen locations of the lake that have offensive lighting. If the Park Commission approves, Highland End Park will be used to sample the 250 watt light for the LMCD. There will be no cost for the light unless it is determined that the City wants to keep the light. The City will have to pay for installation and use. Mr. Mlazgar stated the cost of the light fixture is $203. The cost of the bulbs are about $40 each. It is suggested that a 30' high pole be used for a 400 watt light. Fackler projected on the overhead a survey of Highland End Park and it was noted that the existing light consists of one pole approximately 200' from the shoreline and it has two security lights mounted on it. The height of the pole is not known. Fackler commented that he will need to check with NSP to see if the existing pole can accommodate the sample light and what the cost of installation would be. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes November 12~ 1~2 Concern was expressed by the Commission that the sample light will not provide enough light for the docks and sliding hill at Highland End Park. Mr. Mlazgar commented that a few lights may be needed. The Park Commission concurred to have Jim investigate NSP fees for installation and the issue will be discussed again at the December 10th meeting. REVIEW 1993 DOCK LOCATION MAP - PUBLIC HEARING. The Dock Inspector informed the Commission that no changes have been proposed from the 1992 Dock Location Map. Chair Skoglund opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak on the issue, Chair Skoglund closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Mueller, the recommend approval of the 1993 Dock Location Map which is unchanged from 1992. Motion carried unanimously. The Dock Location Map will be presented to the City Council for approval on November 24, 1992. PRESENTATION BY BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN - MOUND VISIONS: "Review of the Mound Environmental & Appearance Model and Mound Promotional Packet." Bruce Chamberlain of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. presented the Mound Visions plan. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION BY ROGER STEPHANSON~ 4601 ISLAND VIEW DRIVEr BLOCK 1~ LOT 7~ DEVONr FOR A MASONRY RETAINING WALL. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to construct a retaining wall on Devon Commons. This request is actually a modification to Resolution #92-62 which approved construction of a stairway on May 26, 1992. A small portion of the hillside was cut to install a landing at the bottom of the hill and this area needs to be retained with the proposed wall. Staff recommended approval of the requested Construction on Public Lands Permit to construct a retaining wall as proposed, upon the following conditions: Expiration date of this permit be concurrent with the existing permit due to expire five (5) years from May 26, 1992. The retaining wall shall be installed per the manufacturers specifications. 2 Park and Open Space Couission M£nu%es November 12, 1992 The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. Application for renewal must be made with change in home ownership. Mueller expressed a concern that this situation happened because of poor planning and hoped there will not be a lot of these types of requests. Ahrens questioned if the existing permit expiration date could not be altered to meet an expiration date five years from the approval of this request. Fackler commented that the intent is to have the expiration dates of all permits concurrent for each property so all application renewals can be reviewed at the same time. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of the requested Construction on Public Lands Permit for a retaining wall at 4601 Island View Drive as recommended by staff with the exception that condition #1 be changed so that Resolution #92-62 and this request have the same expiration date which will be five years from approval of this request by the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Mueller questioned if the existing stairs have been removed yet. Fackler commented that the Building Official has not yet been requested to do a final inspection. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on November 24, 1992. General Discussion. Commissioner Anderson commented that the same type of keystone retaining wall proposed to be used by Mr. Stephanson is the same type of materials she saw used for landscaping in another community's downtown area. She suggested this type of landscaping be used along the sidewalk in front of the Coast to Coast parking lot. She suggested the keystone retaining wall material be lined up with a bench area molded into it with plantings and mushroom lighting. Fackler commented that he will have to investigate who owns the property, it is either Hennepin County right-of-way or privately owned property. Fackler will get prices if it is a potential project. Park and Open Space Commission Minutea November 12, 1992 PARK DEDICATION DETERMINATION FOR PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT FO~ "'TEAL POINTE." The Park Director reported that an application for a preliminary plat has been received for a development to be named Teal Pointe. The Park and Open Space Commission needs to make a recommendation for park dedication requirements for this development. The City Planner's report explains that the proposed plat shows Outlots A & B which are proposed to be owned by a homeowners association and contain the streets and shall not be considered for park dedication. It has been recommended that the surrounding wetlands area be designated as Outlot C. The developer intends to convey Outlot C to the City of Mound. The City Planner also recommended that Outlot C not be counted as a credit against park dedication. Park dedication requirements are identified in City Code Section 330:120. Land dedication of 10% is required, or at the option of the City, the developer shall contribute a "a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total fair market value of the land being divided. In no case shall the dedication in cash be less than $500 for each lot being created." It is staff's recommendation that the park dedication requirement be $500 for each of the proposed 9 single family lots to be created for a total of $4,500. The balance in the park dedication fund is approximately $15,700. The Commission questioned if it was the intent of the developer to convey the wetlands area (Outlot C) in lieu of a park dedication fee. Mueller questioned if Outlot C was retained for park dedication if the City as a whole would benefit from the wetlands. It was questioned if the DNR will actually control the wetlands. The Parks Director also suggested that it would be beneficial for the City to retain an access to the proposed Outlot C. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council that $500 per lot be obtained for Park Dedication for the Teal Pointe development. Motion carried unanimously. This item will be reviewed by the City Council on December 8, 1992. WINTER DOCK STORAGE ON PUBLIC LAND AND IN WATER. The Park Commission, at its October meeting, requested the Dock Inspector to provide them with a listing of areas that are protected and that docks may be left in the water during the winter without being damaged by ice or weather. The Dock Inspector's 4 Park and Open Space Cou£ssion N£nutes Nove~er 12, 1992 report was reviewed by the Commission. The Commission has a concern that when docks are left in the water through the winter and they are damaged by ice or other natural causes, the docks then float away or sink to the bottom and pollute the lake. It was also discussed that docks and dock poles that are left in the water through the winter can be hazardous for snowmobilers. It was noted that City Code does not allow only poles to be left in the ice without the dock section. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Dock Inspector check his list of protected areas this winter and next spring to see if these areas are safe to have docks left in the water during with winter. Mueller suggested that Emerald Channel be taken off the list as it is used by snowmobilers. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION WORK RULES. The memorandum received from Tom Casey regarding additional thoughts on the proposed work rules was reviewed by the Commission. The following comments were expressed: a,3o Correction made. The Commission agreed to amend the third sentence to read, "Any business unfinished at the scheduled closing time shall be taken up as old business at the next regular meeting." B.10. Correction made. B.17. Casey suggested the following language: "When a proposed action of the commission concerns an individual property owner, each member of the commission shall state, before a vote is taken, whether he/she made a site visit to the property." It was the consensus of the Commission that this language was too strong. Asleson commented that it may be perceived that if the site was not visited by a Commission member that they do not care about the application or that they are not making a good decision. B.25. Casey suggested removing from line 4: "remove himself/herself from the discussion" The City Manager commented that this language is necessary and that if a Commissioner has a conflict of interest with an issue they should physically step down from the table and not be part of the discussion. Skoglund questioned what happened to the suggested language "I move that." The question of time for adjournment was also questioned, should it be 10:00 or 11:007 It was suggested that the work rules be placed on the December agenda. Park and Open Space Co~ission Minutes November 12, 1992 COMMONS TASK FORCE UPDATE. Mo Mueller reported on the first Commons Task Force meeting and stated that it was a very positive group. The Task Force plans to video tape the commons shoreline this winter. UPDATE ON NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS PLAN. The City Planner reported that material relative to the Nature Conservation Areas Plan will be presented at the Park Commission meeting on December 10, 1992. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT. Andrea Ahrens briefly reviewed the public hearing held by the City Council on November 10, 1992 relating to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT. Ed Shukle reported that there is only one vacancy on the Park and Open Space Commission due to the resignation of Joy Eischeid. The opening has been published in the paper, applications are due December 1, and interviews will be scheduled for December 10, 1992. A Christmas Party is scheduled for December 18, 1992 at the American Legion. Dinner will be served and there will be entertainment. PARK DIRECTOR'S REPORT. Jim Fackler reported that in October 14 trees were planted in various parks. Six barrel holders have been received which will be installed in Mound Bay Park and five park benches have been received. In January, after the budget is approved, the Park Commission will review improvements to Three Points Park. Fackler touched on the issue of the American Disabilities Act and how it affects requirements for parks and equipment installed in parks. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 10:07 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL ADD ON: ANNOUNCE RIGHT AFTER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECYCLO~O WINNER FROM NOVEMBER 10, 1992: DUANE WERNER, 2888 HIGHLAND BLVD $150 WESTONKA DOLLARS ALSO: MRS. METZER, 2470 FAIR VIEW LANE $50 WESTONKA DOLLARS ON NOVEMBER 16TH NO WINNER WEEK OF NOVEMBER 24TH