Loading...
1994-05-24 MOUND ¢IT¥ CO CONT/ UNCIL .... , TUF~ ,u~ OF O~CIL CHa n~-24' 199~ 7:~ P.M. LOCAL BOA~ OF ~VIEw Hennepin Coun~ As~ . review~ the n~ ..... SSor ~e~th Rennerfeldt will be re ~'~es ~d will b~ng back _ p ~ent. ~e __ . ~e Council will ~e ac~on on the to~ r~°~nmendations ,~s~or ~as ~~G CO~ OF as~ssment at ,as m~ting. ~~S REGa ~._ at ~e end of this m~ng' · AGENDA *****CITy oF MO~ MO~ C~TV CO~c FOL~W~G ~E ' ~G~ ~ET~G C~ CO~c~ aO~ O~ ~V~W, CH~~ ~DAy, MA y 24, 1994 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 2. APPRovE THE MI~T~ OF THE MAy 10, 1994, BOA~ OF ~VIEw MEETING, ~ MA y 10, 1994, REGULAR MEETING, THE ~CO~E~D SPECIAL MEETING OF MA y 17, THE COMMi~EE OF ~E ~OLE MEETING OF MAy 17, 1994.  PG. 1817-1836 . 2~L & ALMA,s , PID ~24-11~ 24 34 ~6 ' ~IPPLE ' ~Q~Y: AME~M~ TO CO~T~ON~L US~ ~T. PG. 1837. 1875 1813 ~ JOE FLEISCHHACKER, 5601 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF GOVT. LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID #23-117-24 14 0001. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. 5. ~ LARRY & CHRISTINE HAUSKINS, 1749 [/d 'q[ BLVEBIRD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 24 0005. REQVEST: VAR/A~CE VOR VORCU & DECK. 6. CASE ~94.24: EDWA/m VANECEK, 2345 3/ ov 9, u oc c 3. t , rA Uv w tA . ~nax, v~t~ tt13~117-24 43 0084. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION. 7. y ~7~ .c.~_s~e ~4-2s: DAVID AW BETSY GOM LANE, PART OF LOTS 8 s,. n ..... AN, 2440 CHATEAU o~ :~, ~LOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, PID//24-11%24 12 0048. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION. 8. 4 CASE//94-27. MARK & DAWN BERG, 3355 WARNER LANE, ~Wfl/~ LOT 61, WHIPPLE, PID #25-117-24 21 0130. REQUF~T: VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONS. 9. ~ DONALD H. FULTON, 5952 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOTS 22, 23, 24 & E 10' OF 25, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID//23-117-24 42 0105. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING. 10. CASE//94-23: ROD LARSON & MYRNA NOYD, 2976 HIGHLANDPG' 1937 - 1953 BLVD., THAT PART OF BLOCKS 1 & 2, INCL. BUCKEE DR. NOW VACATED, "MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY,,, PID//23-117-24 41 0016. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. PG. 1954 - 1972 (NOTE: THIS CASE WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE MAY 22ND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. EXCERPTs FROM THE MINUTES OF THE P.C. MEETING WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TUESDAY EVENING.) PG. 1876 - 1879 PG. 1880 - 1882 PG. ~883 - 1898 PG. 1899 - 1913 PG. 1914 - 1936 1814 I I, 11. 12. 13. 14. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING CODE SECTION 350:310, TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR "VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER" AND TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING CODE SECTION 350:670 TO MODIFY THE TEST OF THE EXISTING CODE TO ADD "VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS" TO THE LISTING OF USES ALLOWABLE IN THE GENERAL BUSINESS (B-2) ZONING DISTRICTS BY ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 'd (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 14, 1994.) t~ SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE I A CONDITIONAL USE pr:t,u,,-o ..... ?~E/~E OF ~sxxvnl IU A A" OF DOMESTIC AlqtT,-,- ....... ~ A "VICTIMS BUSI'---- - --...om ~nLL~.~R'"WITHIN THE GE . I~S$ (B-2) ZONING DISTRICT AT 1730 COMME~RRcR~EL BLVD. (OLD FINASTATIoN SITE). (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 28, 1994) DISCUSSION: LMCD CAR/TRAILER PARKING AGREEMENT. LICENSES/PERMiTS _ MOUND CITY DAYS. PAYMENT REQUEST #1 - 1994 LIFT STATION IMP. $46,544.30, RICE LAKE CONTRACTING. AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS STORAGE SITE AT THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA. PAYMENT OF BILLS. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Financial Report for April 1994 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. L.M.C.D. Mailings. REMINDER: Ceremony at Westonka Senior Center for Senior Center Achievement Award for the State of Minnesota - first place & national - second place, Monday, May 23, 1994, 7:00 P.M. PG. 1973 PG. 1974 PG. 1975 - 2018 PG. 2019 PG. 2020 -2021 PG. 2022 - 2042 PG. 2043 - 2044 PG. 2045 - 2052 1815 II, Fishing Pier at Centerview Beach area will be installed the first week of June by the DN-R. REMINDER: Around Mound Run/Walk, Saturday, Jun 1 I, 1994, Mound Bay Park - See enclosed flyer. REMINDER. Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. Fish Fry, Saturday, June 11, 1994, 4-8 P.M., Fire Station. REMINDER: Mound City Days, June 17-19, 1994. Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1994. PG. 2053 - 2068 1816 I1,1 I I ' May 10, 1994 Mound City Council Minutes MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF RE¥IEW Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review convened in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City on May 10, 1994, at 7:00 PM. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz ;ensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, Hennepin County Assessor Keith Rennerfeldt and Hennepin County Appraiser Craig Paulson. Mayor Johnson opened the Board of Review and explained that this meeting is to give property owners a chance to question the value placed on their property by the County Assessor as of January 2, 1994. He explained that each person would be heard and the Board of Review will reconvene Tuesday, May 24, 1994, at 7:00 PM and bring back their final decision on each property. The following persons responded to the call to be heard either in person, by calling and asking to have their name submitted, or by submitting their concerns in writing. They all asked to have the value of their property rechecked because they felt it was too high. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. PID #23-117-24 34 0096 & PID//23-117-24 34 0097 PID//13-117-24 41 0005 PID//13-117-24 11 0117 PID//13-117-24 22 0119 PID//13-117-24 23 0038 PID//23-117-24 43 0020 PID//24-117-24 13 0001 PID #13-117-24 22 0267 PID//23-117-24 23 0057 PID//30-117-23 22 0008 PID//22-117-24 44 0003 PID//19-117-23 33 0057 PID//19-117-23 33 0058 PID//19-117-23 33 0061 PID//13-117-24 32 0142 VERNON SNODGRASS, 3025 LONGFELLOW CLIFFORD LARSON, 2051 ARBOR LANE DEWEY WHITE, 4929 - 3 PTS. BLVD. KELLOGG OLSON, 5410 - 3 PTS. BLVD. BARB SIDDERS, 5525 SHERWOOD DRIVE GUS KNOTY, 5937 RIDGEWOOD ROAD TERRENCE WULF, 2600 RUBY LANE THOMAS WILLIAMS, 5551 - 3 PTS. BLVD. SHIRLEY SPRAGUER, 2785 HALSTEAD LANE ANDREA AHRENS, 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE BOB FLOEDER, 3027 BLUFFS LANE VINCE FORYSTEK, 3109 INVERNESS VINCEFORYSTEK, INVERNESS (LAND ONLY) VINCE FORYSTEK, 3137 INVERNESS MIKE BARLOW, 2072 COMMERCE BLVD. Mound City Council Minutes .. May 10, 1994 14. PID #13-117-24 33 0006 - CURT L. JOHNSON, 5545 SHORELINE DR. 15. PID #22-117-24 44 0031 - MIKE MALASKE, 6557 BARTLETI' BLVD. 1.0 MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to reconvene the Local Board of Review on Tuesday, May 24 1994 at 7:00 PM, in the City Council chambers at 5341 Maywood Road. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 10, 1994 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 10, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jori Sutherland, Police Chief Len Harrell, and the following interested citizens: Richard Schieffer, Dewey White, Larry & Christine Hauskins, Sam & Virginia Snodgrass, Quirin & Maria Matthys, Phil & Betty Lansing, Richard & Pauline Garozzo, Bernard & Joann Boeser, Jim Walton, Craig & Carolee Goodrich, Robert Pierce, Steve Coleman, Gus Knott, Barb Sidders, Jim Regan, E. S. & Pat Goodfellow, Clifford & Shirley Larson, Lynne Confer, Tom & Sue Williams, Sandy & Steve Berkey, James Ventura, Jeff Skelton, Kellogg Olson, Chuck & Pam Auger, Brian & Sue Schebler, Patty Guttormson, Dan & Val Hessburg, Michael Tegeder, Joan Underwood, Rhonda Eurich, Peter & Jackie Meyer, Greg Sicheneder, George Gulso, Brad Rognrud, Deb Kramer, and Jay Petersen. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Councilmember Jessen stated that she had one correction to the April 26, 1994, Minutes, and it is on page 1546, Item 1.14, "An Operating Pe4iee Policy will be forwarded to the Council in the future." - MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Johnson to approve the MInutes of the April 21, 1994, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as presented and the April 26, 1994, Regular Meetings as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 L TI N RE NIZIN EDWARD LE The Mayor read a resolution recognizing Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager as the incoming President of the Minnesota City/County Management Association. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: May 10, 1994 Mound City Council Minutes RESOLUTION NO. 94-64 RECOGNIZING EDWARD J. SHUKLE, JR., CITY MANAGER AS THE INCOMING PRESIDENT OF THE MINNESOTA CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION AND COMMENDING HIM FOR THIS ACHIEVEMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.3 Motion carried. IN ./FINA IL HEMI AL COMPANY 17 MMERCE BLVD. PART The Mayor stated that since there are a number of people who wish to speak on this item, the Council would like to open the public hearing and then continue it to allow the Council to deal with Planning Items 4, 5, and 8. The Mayor opened the public hearing. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to continue this public hearing until Planning Items 4, 5 and 8 are handled. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 The Building Official explained that this case has been reviewed by the planning Commission twice. The original request was to replace a pre-existing 16' x 44' deck. The applicant has revised the request to a 14.5' x 44' deck. This results in the following: a variance of 2.7' to the south side of the existing building in front; a 4' variance to the ordinary high water (50 foot required setback); a 1750 square foot lot size variance; and a 17% hardcover variance. The Planning Commission recommended approving a reasonably sized deck of 10' x 44' which would be conforming to the lakeshore setback of 50 feet. There was considerable discussion at the Planning Commission. The applicant stated that the existing footings for the deck are 12 feet from the house and he intended on using them for the replacement deck. The final action of the Planning Commission (on a vote of 6 to 2) was a 10' x 44' deck, including a condition that 5 feet on each outer edge of the gravel driveway be altered to green space. The applicant was present and asked to comment. Mr. Walton stated that he does not think he needs a variance for anything. He stated that he needs to repile his rip-raP which has washed into the lake due to wave and ice action and he will meet the 50 foot setback to the lake. He submitted a letter from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District allowing him to do this without a permit. He further stated that the land in Mound is less permeable to water than his red rock driveway and the binder rock under his deck. He did not want to dig out the 5 feet on either side of his driveway. He stated his home has been located where it is for 26 years and the 7.3 feet on the sideyard should not be an issue. He stated he will be tapering his deck to stay at the 7.1' on the one side of his house. Mound City Council Minutes Ma), 10, 1994 The City Attorney explained that over the years there have been changes in both city and state legislation. One of these is the Shoreland Ordinance which the city has adopted and relates to how much hardcover you can have. There are differences now that when you previously came before the Council were not an issue. The purpose of the nonconforming use is to allow you to use your property in the manner in which it is until such time as you can come into conformance. Example, if your house burned down and you wanted to rebuild, you would have to meet all the setback requirements, you would have to bring it into conformance with existing ordinances. Thus, each time you come through and want to do something on your property which changes the existing condition, you have to come back to the City Council. Mr. Walton stated he understood and thinks it is outrageous. He stated he wants his permit and the variance without having to dig up his driveway and shortening his deck to 10 feet wide. He stated he does not agree with the recommendations and conditions of the Planning Commission that are in the proposed resolution. MOTION made by Johnson and seconded by Smith to table this request until such time as the applicant brings back a survey that shows that he does not need a setback variance from the lake. The Council explained that at this point all they have to go on is the survey that was submitted and shows the deck to be anywhere from 2 feet to 4 feet inside the 50 foot setback zone to the lake. The applicant reiterated his first comments on repiling his rip- rap and the hardcover comments relating to the driveway. The vote was 0 in favor with Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith against. Motion defeated. The Council asked the applicant if he wanted the variances granted. He stated he wants to rebuild his deck as requested and does not want to dig up 5 feet on each side of his driveway. Councilmember Ahrens asked what percentage was used in figuring the hardcover calculation. The Building Official stated according to the ordinance the existing hardcover calculations are 17% (1,404 square feet) over on this property. This is more than the 30% allowable. The Building Official explained that Mr. Walton may have lost some shoreline due to erosion and he has written approval from the Watershed District to repair his rip-rap, but no approval to fill below the elevation of 929.4. The Building Official's opinion was that this repair of the rip-rap will not give him a 4 foot gain in lakeshore for the setback. Councilmember Jensen stated that she did not vote in favor of the removal of 5 feet on each side of his driveway because the construction will be on the other side of the house. Councilmember Jensen stated that there was agreement at the Planning Commission that the deck should be 10 feet in width toward the lake. Councilmember Jensen reminded the Council that we grant variances for the minimum required to alleviate the hardship The Plannin C that a 14 6 foo · . · g ommission felt this site ' t deck is large and a 10 foot deck is very functional and would be conforming at Mound City Council Minutes May 10, 1994 MOTION made by ~mlth and seconded by Ahrens to table this request until such time as the applicant brings back a survey to the Council that shows that he does not need a setback variance from the lake. The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Johnson voting nay. Motion carried. 1.5 CASE//94-18: LARRY & CHRISTINE HAUSKINS, 1749 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 9, DREAM'WOOD, PID//13-117-24 24 0005, VARIANCE FOR PORCH & DECK The Building Official reviewed the request for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling and to allow the construction of a three season porch over a portion of the existing deck area. This property received a variance in 1990 allowing the existing conditions. The proposed porch will follow the same 9. ! foot setback to the rear lot line where a 15 foot setback is required, resulting in a 5.1 foot variance. A portion of the existing deck will be removed which will improve the impact to the rear by 3.1 feet. The applicant explored other options by placing the expansion in another area without encroaching, but due to the odd shape of the lot, the positioning of the house to gain lake views and the interior floor plan, they felt it was not possible. The Staff recommended approval. The Planning Commission recommended denial because they had trouble finding hardship. There was also concern that the proposed porch would obstruct the neighbors view of the lake. Mr. Hauskins has submitted letters from three of his neighbors stating they have no problem with the proposed porch. The Building Official pointed out that this is a rear lot line variance the applicant is requesting and in some ways it has the appearance of a side lot line also. The applicant was present. Mr. Dick Schieffer, representing the Hauskins, stated that the house is on the lot diagonally to take advantage of the view of the lake. This lot is on WIOTA Common, which gives it additional green space. The Council discussed the fact that where the rear lot line is could conceivably be a side yard lot line taking into consideration the way the house is positioned on the lot and that it is bordered on one side by Bluebird Lane and Wiota Common and the lake on another. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to direct staff to prepare the resolution of approval using the f'mding of facts as found tonight. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE ~93-049: JOE FLEISCHHACKER, 5601 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF GOVT, LOT 1, SECTION 29, P1D/f2~117-24 14 0001, VARIANCE FOR DECK The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission reviewed the case twice. This request has been reviewed by both the DNR because of the Shoreland Management Ordinance and the Indian Affairs Council because of the indian mound that is in the vicinity of the deck. The Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval with the conditions listed in the letter from the Indian Affairs Council. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to direct staff to prepare the resolution of approval as recommended with the conditions from the Indian Affairs Council and the Planning Commission. i t.x/ Mound City Council Minutes May 10,' 1994 Councilmember Jessen asked that the City get information from the Indian Affairs Council on where any known indian mounds are located in Mound. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.7 PI. IBLIC HEARING; CASE #94-21; WF_~TONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT. INC,/FINA OIL & CHEMICAL COMPANY, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD,, PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #1~-117-24 22 0025, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND MOVING BUILDING PERMIT The Mayor reopened the public hearing. The City Planner explained the requests. The Westonka Intervention Project is proposing to acquire the old Fina gas station site at the corner of Three Points Blvd. and County Road 110. The proposal involves relocating the convent building now located at Our Lady of the Lake Church to this site and converting it to a shelter for victims of domestic abuse that would serve Mound and the surrounding Westonka Area. The shelter will have a capacity of 15 people, a staff of 3 to 5, depending upon need. The purpose of the shelter is to provide short term housing. Initially it was indicated that typically victims would remain in the shelter for a relatively short period of time (one or two days), but subsequent testimony has revealed that it could be as long as 18 days or in some cases longer. The shelter is expected to have average occupancy at 70% to 75% after opening, with eventually 100%. The Fina site is in the B-2 Zone which does not currently allow the proposed use. Therefore, the applicant is seeldng a zoning amendment to place with type of use as a Conditional Use; seeking a Conditional Use Permit; and seeking a Moving Building Permit. There are 3 separate approvals needed. ZONING AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING NOTICES: The Planner stated that the application that was received and subsequently the public hearing notice that was sent out called this a conditional use permit modification for a Community Residential Facility which is allowed within the B-2 zone by CLIP. Lipon further investigation of this proposed use, the City learned that these uses are not licensed like other types of group homes so the shelter is not in the Community Residential Facility category as far as the definition goes. Therefore, the City should consider specifically identifying Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelters as a conditional use in the B-2 zone instead of a Community Residential Shelter which is what was advertised for these public hearings. He pointed out that the Planning Commission public heatings are only held on an advisory basis in order to obtain more information, but the official heating is at the City Council. It may be necessary to readvertise these public heatings (Zoning Amendment and the CLIP application) using Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelters. MOVING BUILDING PERMIT: The Planner pointed out that the ordinance requires that the building would have to be brought up to code and that there is a clause in the ordinance specifically stating that the building has to be of the same general character and appearance of other structures in the vicinity. This would be a finding that would have to be made. In general, the shelter raises a number of issues, many of which have been discussed over the course of 3 different Planning Commission Meetings. Some of the issues that the Commission have taken a look at and taken into account in their decision are as follows. 1. The zoning change itself. Mound City Council Minutes 2. May 10, 1994 e If the B-2 is modified to allow this use, it does displace property that otherwise might be available for a commercial purpose and although the B-2 zone does allow multi-family housing, again it is a business zone, so there is a trade off there. There are environmental concefi~S with this site because there was a ground contamination problem. There was some material that was removed in 1990 and there are monitoring wells on the site now. We did make an initial effort by contacting the MPCA. They have not cleared the site of contaminants, but they were very specific in stating that there was no reason that the City couldn't approve a building permit for this use or any other use on the site providing that they are kept informed if anything occurred during construction. If the monitoring wells needed to be moved to another location, they would need to be instrumental in determining where those locations would be. Building compatibility is an issue that was talked about. Specifically the appearance of the convent structure itself. This is one of the entry ways to the community and that places more importance and prominence on making sure that if the building is placed here it is a very attractive structure and it fits with the surroundings. Site plan information that is required as part of a conditional use permit was in more of a sketch or concept form than what the City would ultimately need. So that would need to be submitted as part of the final conditional use permit application that would need to be reviewed. Land compatibility was looked at from the perspective of a shelter at this location has some different issues than a multi-family residence, ie. security, etc. There was information collected from the Minnetonka Police Dept. on a similar facility that is operating there. This information has been supplemented with information on just about every facility of this kind operating within 20 miles. Some of this information was supplied by the residents of the 3 Points area. The Police Chief is present to answer any questions that might arise. The Planning Commission and the Council are faced with the 3 different issues that have been linked together, as far as the Planning Commission was concerned it was hard to separate one from the other. Moving the building will require permits and will require an architect to be involved. The Planning Commission could have found that the land use was inappropriate and could have recommended denial of the zoning code amendment in which case there would have been no way a CUP application to be considered. The other alternative would be to take a look at modifying the ordinance which is what the Planning Commission did. They approved a recommendation unanimously last night that the zoning ordinance be modified to accommodate this use as a conditional use and further recommended directing staff to begin drafting a conditional use permit that they could go through and review and make sure that it met all the criteria and all the concerns that they had noted and registered. At the second Planning Commission Meeting, a motion was approved and a recommendation sent to the City Council to allow the convent building to be moved from its present location, if need be, to the parking lot at Our Lady of the Lake Church. The Planner emphasized that the relocation of the building is not to the proposed site, but is a storage issue for the church so that they can begin construction of their addition. The reason it needs a permit is that the building has to go out onto a public street and then back onto the church property. The Planning Commission recommended a 6 month time limit for Mound City Council Minutes May 10, 1994 storage of the building at 2385 Commerce Blvd. The public hearing notice for this was also sent to the people 350 feet from the church property. There are other conditions in section 300:25 of the Code for moving a building that would have to be met. The Planner stated that more information was submitted by both the residents and the applicant at the Planning Commission Meeting May 9th. This has been copied and given to the Council this evening. The City Attorney stated that it is his understanding that the publication is inconsistent with what is being recommended. The Planner answered that this is true because after the notice was published, he learned through more investigation that these facilities are not licensed. The Planner stated he verified this with another city attorney that state statute does recognize licensed facilities and licensing is a key ingredient to be a Community Residential Facility. Thus this did not fit that mold and we had to look at where it would be classified and where it would potentially be classified as a Domestic Abuse Shelter. The City Attorney also pointed out that since the Planning Commission did not act on the CUP, there is no recommendation to present to the City Council. The Council therefore has only one issue to consider tonight, the zoning amendment and then the question becomes, does that accurately reflect what was published in the official notice. He recommended that the Council republish the zoning ordinance amendment public hearing notice using the correct language of 'Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelter" and set another date for this hearing. The Council discussed the options and decided to take testimony on the issue of the zoning amendment only. The Planner pointed out that this amendment would affect 3 areas in the city that are zoned B-2 (General Business Zone). The Council decided the City will have to republish the Zoning amendment and Conditional Use Permit public hearings with the proper language. Several of the persons attending asked if the other B-2 zones were notified of the proposed change. The City Attorney and the City Planner answered no, because if you are amending the text of the ordinance, it is a generalized amendment and it is published in the legal periodical, that is proper notice. If in contrast, your were changing a specific site's zoning (ie. B-2 to R- 3), then you would need to notify people within 350 feet of the site. This is a text amendment. The following people spoke against the zoning amendment: Richard Garozzo, 1772 Lafayette Lane Lyle Fuller, 1762 Commerce Blvd. Jeff Skelton, 1770 Lafayette Lane Craig & Carolee Goodrich, 1776 Lafayette Lane Steve & Sandy Berkey, 1768 Lafayette Lane Chuck Auger, 1769 Lafayette Lane James Ventura, Attorney representing Driftwood Shores Association JoAnn Boeser, 1735 Lafayette Lane Sue Schebler, 1735 Lafayette Lane Quirin & Mafia Matthys, 5525 Three Points Blvd. George Gulso, 1635 County Road 110 N., Minnetrista Steve Coleman, 5545 Three Points Blvd. Il ,I Il I · ,1~ i it Mound City Council Minutes The following were reasons given for not supporting the zoning amendment: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. May 10, 1994 Does not meet the criteria for granting a zoning amendment (Section 350:520, SUBD. 1 of the Zoning Code which reads in pan, ' ..... amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately, but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City." Do not agree that there is sufficient domestic abuse in Mound to justify this type of facility. Felt the application for this amendment should have come from the property owner, not Westonka Intervention. Need to be notified with the correct language of what is being proposed to be added to the B-2 Zone - "Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelter" vs "Community Residential Facility". Shelter would generate excess traffic and there are security and safety issues for the surrounding residential area. Other areas should be looked at for this type of facility. Against this location for the facility. Should be located closer to the Police Department. This type of use is not similar in character to the rest of the neighborhood. Lack of information from Westonka Intervention on their plans. Concerns about liability of the Driftwood Shores Association for their Outlot on Lake Minnetonka, i.e. docks, lake access, boats, etc. Fear of violence and the potential for it. Other shelters have numerous police calls. This type of shelter should not be in such a public area. This type of shelter would be allowed in an R-3 zone, therefore a zoning amendment would not be necessary. In the next 5 years there will probably be development of the acreage across the road and this type of facility would not be appropriate. Pictures were submitted of the shelter in Minnetonka which is run down after 5 years. Pictures were also submitted by the Driftwood Shores Homeowners Association of their outlot and the surrounding area. Opening up all three B-2 areas to this type of use. Mound City Council Minutes May 10, 1994 19. This property would be removed from the tax rolls. The following persons spoke in favor of the zoning amendment: Dan Hessburg, 3490 Lythrum Way, Minnetrista (representing Westonka Intervention) Father Mike Tegeder, Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church Jaclde Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Mound Jay Petersen, 2667 Halstead Lane, Mound The following are reasons given for supporting the zoning amendment: 3. 4. 5. Trying to solve some problems, not create them for the community. This is an opportunity to use the convent from the Church for a worthwhile purpose. Don't feel this use will be a problem in the B-2 zoning district. Don't feel the change in zoning will affect other properties around the area. There is a need for this type of facility in the community. The shelter needs to be in a public area. Information from other shelters does not substantiate that there are problems in the neighborhoods where these shelters are located. The MN. Dept of Corrections, MN. Coalition for Battered Women, Women Kind, Domestic Abuse Project, and other shelters do not feel a shelter is a dangerous thing to the residents or staff in a residential area. No matter where this shelter would be located, the neighbors will be against it. The location is good from the standpoint of it not being in the middle of a residential area. It has good access to public transportation. It is an ideal site. The B-2 zoning does lend itself to this type of use. This shelter would help the entire Westonka community. The City Attorney advised the Council that they will have to readvertise the public heatings for the Zoning Amendment and the Conditional Use Permit with the proper description Wictims of Domestic Abuse Shelter~. The Mayor closed this public heating. MOTION made by Smith seconded by Jessen to refer the matter back to the City Planner to redraft the proposed amendment, correcting the title and the section numbers for the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and defining "Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelters; and the Conditional Use Permit. The public hearing on the Zoning Amendment and definition to be scheduled for June 14th. The public hearing on Conditional Use Permit for June 28th, if the zoning amendment is adopted. The Council thanked the people for all their input. Mound City Council Minutes May 10, 1994 The Planner explained that the new hearing notices would have 3 components: 1. Establish a definition for "Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelters"; 2. Look at amending the listing of conditional uses in the B-2 Zone to accommodate that specific item; and 3. The actual conditional use permit itself for the facility. This would be 2 items, 1 and 2 together and 3 alone, on two separate dates. The Council discussed whether any of these items should go back to the Planning Commission. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 PUBLIC HEARING: MOVING BUILDING PERMIT The Mayor stated that this public heating is specifically to allow Our Lady of the Lake Church to move the convent building on their property at 2385 Commerce Blvd. off their property, into the street, and back onto their property at 2385 Commerce Blvd. The Mayor opened the public heating. Father Mike Tegeder, Our Lady of the Lake Church, stated they would like the building moved so that they can start construction of their new building addition. This is scheduled to begin around June 1 st. He suggested that the church can store the building on their property at 2385 Commerce Blvd. until a decision is reached. It will be necessary to move the building into the street and back onto the property. Sue Schebler, 1759 Lafayette Lane, asked about the requirements in the code relating to the 90 days from the date of the move that the building be brought up to code. The Council related that they are looking at this as being after the building in permanently set on a foundation. Dan Hessburg, 3490 Lythrum Way, Minnetrista, stated that they (Westonka Intervention) have been contacted by the Driftwood Shores Association about helping to find an alternate site for this shelter. He is looking forward to working with them in order to save this beautiful building from destruction. Lyle Fuller, 1762 Commerce Blvd., asked what kind of conditions will be put on this move and the storage of this building, i.e. time-line, etc. The Council stated that this was mentioned by the Planner in his initial comments. The Conditions are spelled out in the ordinance, i.e. permits, utilities, insurance, bond, fence or security so it is not an attractive nuisance, and length of time. Jim Ventura, representing Driftwood Shores Association, stated that Section 300:25 of the City Code requires that improvements must be made within 90 days even if the building is just moved onto the parking lot at Our Lady of the Lake Church. He asked if the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this Moving Building Permit. The Council stated yes. Mound City Council Minutes May 10, 1994 The City Attorney stated that he does not feel that the 90 days starts until the building is permanently located. Craig 1. Goodrich, 1776 Lafayette Lane, asked for clarification on the following: If there is a delay in the proposed use of the other land, and they come back and say they need to move it down the road for awhile, and there is a 90 days length of time, can they move this thing every couple of months until a final spot is found? The Council stated they have not even discussed a time-line, but the Planning Commission recommended 6 months. Mr. Goodrich stated that his concern is, what happens after 6 months and then if it is moved again, is it another 6 months? Will the City be responsible of any of the costs of this move? The Council answered no. Richard Garozzo, 1772 Lafayette Lane, questioned the applications that have been applied for, i.e. moving building permit application. The Planner stated that originally the application for moving the building was for a move to 1730 Commerce Blvd. but the hearing notice was subsequently revised to allow a move within the property at 2385 Commerce Blvd. (Our Lady of the Lake property). He advised that hearing notices were sent to all people within 350 feet of that property also. The notice was amended so that there was a backup plan for the building and it would not have to be destroyed. Mr. Garozzo asked if a fee was paid for the moving building permit application. The City Clerk stated that the fee was paid. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen directing the Building Department to prepare a permit for the moving of the convent building from 2385 Commerce Blvd. to a site on 2385 Commerce Blvd. in conformance with Section 300:25 of the City Code, i.e. insurance requirements, bonding requirements, etc., establishing conditions of where on Our Lady of the Lake property the building will be placed temporarily, how long it can stay there and what their alternatives are. The Planner stated that some of the conditions should be as follows: notification and approval from Hennepin County Public Works Department; notification and approval of all applicable utility companies, including the City of Mound; applicable permits to be obtained for disconnection of utilities; installation of a fence and/or other safety precautions as required by the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Police Chief and City Engineer; code compliance with applicable sections of the City Code, Section 300:25, Moving of Buildings, as required by the Building Official; and submission of a site plant identifying the building location for temporary storage to be approved by the City Planner. The Council agreed. Mound City Council Minutes May 10, 1994 The Council discussed how long this building should be allowed to remain at the Our Lady of the Lake site. Father Tegeder stated he would like to see at least 6 months. The Council asked what would happen if the building is not moved in 6 months. The City Attorney stated that the people could come in and ask for an extension. There should be something in the permit which w°uld be some form of penalty or some kind of surety or performance bond to see that the building is moved or disposed of. The Council discussed the timing and felt they will have to continue this meeting tonight to next Tuesday evening to allow time to prepare the permit and present it to the Council. The Council agreed on the 6 month time limit The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1VIM~T AND TI N FR M ITIZEN PRESENT There were none. 1.9 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT - TEAL POINTE The Planner reported that the proposed resolution is in conformance with the conditions that have been established to date and it has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office. lessen moved and lohnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-65 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR TEAL POINTE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.10 1.11 1.12 SET PUBLIC HEARINGS MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to set July 12, 1994, for a public hearing to consider the modification of Section 350:760, Subd. 4 of the Mound Zoning Ordinance which regulates truck parking in residential areas. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to set July 12, 1994, for a public hearing to consider the modification of Section 300:10 of the Mound City Code to add provisions requiring the completion of structures within a one year period of time. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RE~OLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF THE. ~;TATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: Mound City Council Minutes RESOLUTION ~4-66 May 10, 1994 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 LICENSE RENEWALS/PERMITS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to authorize the issuance of the following licenses contingent upon all insurance and other forms being executed and turned in: Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. - June 11, 1994 Public Dance Permit (fee waived) Set-Up Permit (fee waived) Temporary On-Sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor Permit Mound City Days - June 17, 18, 19, 1994 Carnival (fee waived) Concessions (fee waived) Craft Shows (fee waived) Entertainment (fee waived) Fireworks (fee waived) Merchant Sales (fee waived) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 DISCUSSION; ALLOCATION OF EXPENSF~q RELATING TO FLACK v, CITY MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to table discussion on this item at this time. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 PAYMENT OF BILIAq MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $85,238.20, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. -INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. A. Department Head Monthly Reports for April 1994. Bo L.M.C.D. Representative's Monthly Report for April 1994. L.M.C.D. Mailings. D. Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 1994. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) Elected Officials Survey. Mound City Council Minutes May 10, 1994 League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Mailings: Solicitation of volunteers to serve on LMC Intergovernmental Relations Policy Committees. Solicitation of suggestions for topics to be studied by LMC's Intergovernmental Relations Committees. Announcement of a special program preceding LMC Annual Conference entitled "Making Policy in a Fishbowl", Tuesday, June 7, 1994, Noon - 3:00 P.M., Radisson Hotel, St. Paul. Please advise Fran ASAP, if you wish to attend. LMC Annual Conference materials. LMC Conference begins Tuesday, June 7 and ends Friday, June 10, St. Paul Civic Center. Theme of the Conference is "Governing Your City: It's a Whole New Ballgame". Please let Fran know ASAP, if you wish to attend. Management letter on the 1993 Financial Audit which accompanies the Audit discussed at the April 26, 1994, Meeting. Invitation from Boyer Building Corporation RE: Meeting to discuss proposed project at Pelican Point. Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 12, 1994, 7:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M., at Lakewinds in the Party Room. A reminder to the Council that only two people can attend this meeting because of the open meeting law. Councilmember Ahrens and Jessen stated they would attend and report back to the Council. Announcement from AMM RE: Annual Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 25, 1994, Edinburgh USA Golf Course, Brooklyn Park. Please let Fran know ASAP, if you wish to attend. Report on Spring 1994 Recycling Days Project Tonnage, prepared by Joyce Nelson, Recycling Coordinator. REMINDER' Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, May 17, 1994, 7:30 P.M. The City Manager stated the Westonka Senior Center won first place in the Senior Center Achievement Award for the State of Minnesota and came in second place in the nationals. They received their national award in April and will be receiving their state award on Friday, May 20th at the Minnesota Board on Aging meeting in St. Paul. They will be having a brief ceremony at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, May 23rd at the Westonka Senior Center. The Council is invited. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 12:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to reconsider the last motion on adjournment. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound City Council Minutes May 10, 1994 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to continue this meeting to Tuesday, May 17, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk !1, ,I ii i · ,1~ i ~, Mound City Council Continued Meeting MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL o MAY 17, 1994 May 17, 1994 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, reconvened the regular session of Tuesday, May 10, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City, on Tuesday Mary 17, 1994 at 8:00 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, and Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Official Jori Suthefland, and the following interested citizens: Lyle Fuller, Sheila Scanlon, Becky Hunt, Joan Underwood, Valerie & Dan Hessburg, Jackie Meyer, Steven Berkey, Craig Goodrich, and Larry Stubbs. The Mayor reconvened the meeting of May 10, 1994, and welcomed the people in attendance. The Mayor stated that this meeting is only to consider the Moving Building Permit for Our Lady of the Lake Church to move the convent building from 2385 Commerce Blvd. off of that property and back onto the same property. The Building Official reviewed the proposed resolution which contains the following conditions: 1. Notification and approval from Hennepin County Public Works Department. Notification and approval of all applicable utility companies, including the city of Mound. 3. Applicable permits be obtained for disconnection of utilities. e Installation of a fence and other safety precautions as required by the Building Official, the Fire Marshall, the Police Chief, and the City Engineer. Full compliance with applicable sections of the City Code, including 300:25 "Moving of Buildings~ as required by the Building Official. 6. A site plan must be submitted and approved by the City Planner. The City Council hereby waives Section 300:25, Subd. 3, "Conformity of Building or Structure to Building Code Required~ until, or if the building is, permanently relocated on another site. 8. The maximum number of days the building shall be located on this site is 180. The Council asked that #8 be changed to read as follows: 8. The building may be located on this site until November 10, 1994. Mound City Council Continued Meeting Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: May 17, 1994 RESOLUTION//94-67 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MOVING BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH CONVENT BUILDING TO BE MOVED FROM AND TO 2385 COMMERCE BLVD. (TO BE MOVED INTO THE STREET, AND BACK ONTO THE CHURCH PROPERTY), LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 10, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION//167 AND LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, GUILFORD'S REARRANGEMENT OF MOUND BAY PARK The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 8:10 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MAY 17, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 8:30 P.M. Members present: Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen and Smith. Also present: Ed Shulde, City Manager. Section 350:310, Subd. 114, pertaining to 50% food to liquor ratio in relationship to on-sale liquor licenses was discussed. City Manager, Ed Shukle, pointed out that in the discussion with Mark Saliterman of Headliners Bar & Grill at the April 21, 1994, Committee of the Whole Meeting, the City Council had directed that further research be conducted into what other cities do with regard to on-sale liquor licenses and food to liquor ratios. The City Manager distributed material from the Cities of Wayzata, Shorewood and Spring Park. All three cities has at least 50%, if not more, food to liquor in their ordinances. It was the consensus of the City Council to leave the ordinance as is and have Mr. Saliterman provide a financial report on this manner on or about December 1, 1994, for the six month period beginning July 1, 1994. The 1994 Commercial Insurance Program deductible options were discussed. The consensus was to hold off on going forward with deductible options until next year. Also requested, was to get the total number of claims and to have the information in preparation for making a decision on the renewal at least thirty days in advance of the renewal date (January 1, 1995 for a renewal date of February 1, 1995). The City Manager updated the City Council on the following litigation: House of Moy vs. City of Mound; Dakota Rail vs. City of Mound; and Flacke vs. City of Mound. The LMCD car/trailer parking agreement and the LMCD Draft Report from the Lake Access Task Force dealing with this subject was briefly discussed. It was the consensus to place this matter on the next regular City Council Meeting Agenda. Goal setting was postponed until the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. Nature Conservation Areas (NCA's) were briefly discussed. This matter was continued until the next Committee of the Whole Meeting with the intent to have it before the City Council on June 28, 1994. The City Manager distributed the report prepared by Hoisington/Koegler Group sometime ago on the policy and definition of what Nature Conservation Areas are. City Manager, Ed Shulde, raised the question about Recycling Days for this Fall. Consensus was to have a Recycling Day on a Saturday in the Fall. Questions were raised as to where the Recycling Days activity would take place since the Lost Lake site should be vacated from use by the City of Mound for its outdoor storage site by this Fall. Some suggestions were, School District property near the transportation building out by the Mound Westonka High School, the Western Area Fire Training Academy (WAFTA) site, and the Hennepin County Garage in Spring Park. The City Manager will pursue these suggestions and report back at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. A discussion was held on continued membership in the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, now called the Suburban Alliance. The consensus of the Council was to contact WECAN to see if they are interested in attending the meetings and becoming a participant on behalf of the City. The costs associated with legal cases regarding private structures on public lands was briefly discussed. The consensus was to continue to vote on the bills as currently is done and should a bill be in question, that bill would be pulled from the regular bill list and voted on separately. The update on MTC route 75 in the Evergreen Road area was briefly discussed. The City Manager reported that the early morning route at 4:51 A.M. will be discontinued as of June 6,, 1994. The MTC is currently working on studying the ridership in the area and has been provided, by the City, with a copy of names, addresses and phone numbers of residences in that area who could be called in a telephone survey to determine ridership on the buses. Other business for the next meeting for discussion is sump pumps and how to enforce their disconnection from the sanitary sewer system. It was suggested that the Public Work Superintendent be present at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting regarding this matter. There being no other business, it was noted that the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 21, 1994, 7:30 P.M. Mound City Hall. Motion made by Smith, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, City Manager I ! ,Ii PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-_~ RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION #84-26 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT DOCKS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AT 5186 TUXEDO BLVD., LOTS 22 & 23, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID #24-117-2434 0006 FOR AL & ALMA'S, P&Z CASE #94-28 WHEREAS, the owners of Al & Alma's located at 5201 Piper Road, Merrill and Daryl Geyen, have applied for an amendment to the conditional use permit approved by Resolution 884-26 to allow the docking of a 63 foot boat in place of a 52 foot boat at lots 22 and 23. The change will not require any physical modification of the existing dock structure, and WHEREAS, Resolution #84°26 approved the construction of a dock in front of Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores, subiect to conditions, and; WHEREAS, Al & Alma's is proposing to acquire a new 63 foot boat which will accommodate handicapped patrons with a seating capacity of 68, and a total capacity of 80 to 90 people. Two of the 52 foot cruise boats have been sold, one of which was moored at an off-site location, and the other was docked at the subject property (Lots 22 & 23), and; WHEREAS, the two boats which have been sold had a total capacity of 102 patrons, and the new 63 foot boat has a capacity of 80 to 90 patrons. The net effect of the boat replacement is a slight reduction in passenger capacity, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1A Single Family Residential Zoning District, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to hereby approve an amendment to Resolution #84-26 -Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Construct Docks in a Residential ARea (Lots 22, 23, & 25, Whipple Shores, and Lot 1, Block 3, Whipple) to Serve Property Located in a Business District, and making Recommendations to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District", as follows: "2.c. Any lights constructed near the dock area on Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores, shall be in such a manner that there shall be no disturbance to neighboring properties· The criteria set forth in Section 2e~50~ 350:465 of the City's Zoning Ordinance shall apply to both docks. There shall be no transient parking on Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores, but these four boats may be ~ ~ for 24 hours each day. The maximum number of boats which may be ~ ~ in front of Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores shall be four, and the maximum length shall be 52 feet f~' cny ~c~t, =nd cn~y *,hc~c 5,cctc--my-be ~crcd c.'. th~= p:cpcr,*Y, forhr e b s and on boat at 63 feet docked lakeside_ · r " PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AL & ALMA'S NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound will hold a public hearing on May 24, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the City of Mound offices at 5341 Maywood Road to consider an amendment to a conditional use permit issued to Al & Alma's on February 28, 1984 (Resolution No. 84-26) for the property located at 5186 Tuxedo Blvd., legally described as Lots 22 & 23, Whipple Shores, PID #24-117-24 34 0006. The requested amendment is to modify the Resolution, as follows: "c .... The maximum number of boats which may be stored in front of Lots 22 and 23, Whipp. Shores shall be four, and the maximum length shall be 52 feet for e~w-bea~ ~hree of the boats~ 63 feet for one boat~ and only these boats may be stored on this property." All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Published in 'The Laker' May 9, 1994. Mailed to property owners within 350' by May 14, 1994. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1994 ~ p,L & ALMA'S, 5186 TUXEDO BLVD., LOTS 22 & 23, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID #24-117-24 34 0006. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT: pUBLIC HEARING, City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to modify their existing conditional use permit to allow the docking of a 63 foot boat in place of a 52 foot boat at lots 22 and 23. The change will not require any physical modification of the existing dock structure. Koeg~er reviewed the properties involved in the existing operation of Al & Alma's, and displayed a map on the overhead indicating the following areas: Area A Location of restaurant building a limited park. Area B The Geyen's home and location of licensed transient docks. Area C Lots 22 and 23 which accommodated the docking and boarding of four 52 foot dinner cruise boats. Area D Residential property with docks accommodating the mooring only of two 52 foot dinner cruise boats. No passenger loading or unloading occurs at these docks. Area E Off street parking lot. Area F The 6th area, which is not shown on the map, is a residential property that accommodates the mooring only of one 52 foot dinner cruise boat. 8 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 In 1993, Al & Alma's operated a total of seven 52 foot boats, each of which had e capacity of 51 plus crew members. The existing conditional use permit that was approved in 1984, Resolution #84-26, contained a number of restrictions, and among them, it limited the boats parked at the docks at Lots 22 and 23 to no more than four 52 foot boats. Al & Alma's is proposing to acquire a new 63 foot boat which will accommodate handicapped patrons with a seating capacity of 68, and a total capacity of 80 to 90 people. Two of the 52 foot cruise boats have been sold, one of which was moored at the off-site location, Area F, and the other was docked at Area C (Lots 22 & 23). The two boats which have been sold had a total capacity of 102 patrons, and the new 63 foot boat has a capacity of 80 to 90 patrons. The net effect of the boat replacement is a slight reduction in passenger capacity. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a new conditional use permit for Al & Alma's allowing docking and boarding of the 63 foot boat at Lots 22 and 23, and further encompassing all aspects of the restaurant and cruise boat operation. If the Planning Commission concurs with this recommendation, the following motion was suggested: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a new conditional use permit for Al and Alma's Supper Club which limits dinner cruise boat operations to a total of five 52 foot boats and one 63 foot boat. Conditions that are part of the permit should address all aspects of the restaurant and cruise boat operation including the transient docks, the fourth slips at Lots 22 and 23, and the two boats which are moored at docks located at Lot 21 ." Koegler clarified that the existing conditional use permit applies to only lots 22 and 23, and Koegler suggested that Planning Commission consider looking at the entire operation and that the City document what it there for operational purposes and for future purposes. The Planning Commission also has the option of taking into consideration to modify the permit for only lots 22 and 23 as it currently exists. Mueller clarified with staff that the people notified of this hearing included only those people within 350 feet of Lots 22 and 23. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. i,~{tYJ~L~L~E~ of 5246 Piper Road, which is four houses west of the docking facility, spoke in favor of the request and submitted a letter stating this. He stated that the difference in the boat length is insignificant. Shirley Gustafs0n of 5142 Tuxedo Blvd. is about six houses before you get to Al & Alma's. She is opposed to the change in the boat length. She complained about the amount of traffic, both on the road side and on the lake side, and noise late at night. She also expressed a concern about the tour buses and safety for children in the area. ~ of 5206 Drummond Road, does not object to the request. He has lived there for 13-1/2 years and does not have a problem with the business in this location. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 ~ of 5232 Seabury Road feels the business has outgrown the parking, but he is mainly concerned about the buses and service vehicles blocking the intersection at Tuxedo and Piper which could be a hazard if emergency vehicles are unable to pass. ~j[.~, owner of Al & Alma's, explained the style of boat being requested and emphasized that the boat will be handicap accessible which will be able to serve more people. They are not trying to expand their business, they are only changing the type and style of service. She is not in favor of combining all the permits, she is requesting only a simple change in the length of the boats required. She explained that when this conditional use permit was originally approved, the only reason the 52 foot boat length was chosen was because that was the length of their boats at that time. She explained about the other pick- up locations used by Al & Alma's. There being no other citizens wishing to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed the difference between combining all the conditional use permits for the property into one document versus approving the change in this conditional use permit only. It was questioned if the Planning Commission combined the permits if they would have the opportunity to review the proposed resolution prior to City Council review. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the amendment as recommended by staff, including the consolidation of the conditional use permits for Al & Alma's into one documents. It was further requested that the Planning Commission be given the opportunity to review the completed document prior to it being forwarded to the City Council. Michael commented that this is a simple request, why would the Commission need to review the revised permit before it goes to City Council? Koegler agreed, and clarified that the revised permit would essentially be the same as the 1984 permit, with the exception that it could refer to the other boats being moored at other properties, but that they are not loaded at these properties, and to reference the parking lot. Mueller feels that the conditional use permits will be changed for the other properties, and expressed e concern about the notification to abutting property owners. He also does not agree with the verbiage used in the existing conditional use permits when they refer to the boats being "stored," and "stored" is not the same as 'moored", or "docked". Mueller summarized that the applicatiOn applies to lots 22 and 23 only, and they are only requesting to change the length of one of the boats at this property. Staff noted that a public hearing notice has already been published for the Council the hear this request at their meeting on May 24, 1994. Clapsaddle withdrew his second. Weiland noted that he will not withdraw his motion because he is in favor of having everything under one permit instead of five individual permits. Due to lack of a second, the motion failed. Planning Commission Minute~ Koegler noted that the hearing notice did specifically state 'Lots 22 and 23'. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the Conditional Uae Permit Amendment, modifying Resolution #84-26, es follows: Where the language reads "storage" it should read "dockage". Item 2.c. ahall be amended aa followa: "Any lights .... Whipple Shorea shall be four, and the maximum length shall be 52 feet for three boats, and one boat et 63 feet docked lakeside at this orooertv fy . , ~cat, ccd c."2~- .-.. L~ :tc. rcd --- .s.t. Motion seconded by Voss. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. ~b February 28, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 8~1-26 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT DOCKS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA (LOTS 22, 23 & 25, WHIPPLE SHORES, AND LOT 1, BLOCK 3, WHIPPLE) TO SERVE PROPERT~ LOCATED IN A BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, A1 & Alma's is a restaurant located at 5201 Piper Road, and said restaurant is now owned and operated by Daryl C. and Herritt Geyen, and WHEREAS, the Geyens also have acquired and own Lots 22, 23 and 25 of Whipple Shores and Lot 1, Block 3, Whipple, and WHEREAS, the Geyens purchased A1 & Alma's from J. W. Nolan who previously operated the restaurant and a commercial dock which was located on Lot 25, Whipple Shores, and Lot 1, Block 3, Whipple, all of which was authorized by this Council in Resolution ~81-149,'and WHEREAS, A1 and Alma's also-owns and operates'a parking lot on Lots 22 and 23, Block 9, Whipple and said parking lot was constructed pursuant to Conditional Use Permits issued by this Council, and WHEREAS, the Geyens have now purchased Lots 22 and 23 of Whipple Shores and have applied to this Council for a dock to be constructed on these residential lots and to serve commercial property, all pursuant to Section 23.413 of the City Code, and- WHEREAS, neighboring property owners have expressed concerns about not expanding the commercial establishment into the residential areas through the ut. ilization of residential properties to serve A1 & Alma's Restaurant, and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 14, 1984, and listened to members of the public and to the applicants express their proposals, and ~-' WHEREAS, the City Council is willing t~ renew a conditional use permit for the Geyens along terms which are similar to those established by Resolution ~81-149 for Nolans, but has some reservations about authorizing the expansion of the commercial use by the construction of a commercial dock on Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores but is willing to authorize a permit for the storage of four excursion cruise boats owned by Daryl C. and Merritt Geyen at the docks on Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores and will also allow the loading and unloading of passengers from the area as shown on the submitted design plan (Exhibit A), but any permit on any of these lots must be subject to all of the safety conditions and to approval of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. February 28, 1984 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A commercial dock may be located on Lot 25, Whipple Shores, and Lot 1, Block 3, Whipple, pursuant to Section 23.413 of the City Code and consistent with the dock as it was construction in 1983 when owned by J. W. Nolan, and subject to the following conditions:  a. There shall be no further expansion of these docks over the plan approved and on file with the City. The permit shall run to Daryl C. and Merritt Geyen, owners of A1 and Alma's Restaurant at 5201 Piper Road. If the business is sold, this permit shall immediately terminate and any new owner will have to apply for a new conditional use permit. That the monuments constructed pursuant to Resolution ~81-1~9 be located and retained in place so that the dock wi}l be placed in the same location each year. The Council finds pursuant to the Ordinance that the residential property is within 300 feet of the commercial property line of A1 and Alma's Restaurant. No boats shall be moored at these transient docks for any period in excess of four hours. No gas, oil or other product may be sold from the dock and no servicing of-boats will be permitted. The gas tank for boat gas currently installed on Lot 1, Block 3, Whipple, shall either be removed and the landscape repaired or dealt with according to the Fire Code and approved by the Fire Chief. The owners may construct one atgn for identification, but it shall not exceed a total of six square feet in size· Ingress and egress from and over the residential properties shall be restricted to the properties owned by Daryl C. and Merritt Geyen, and adequate safeguards shall be provided so that persons docking their boats will not trespass on private property or on Chester Park or any other public property except for properly designated streets or sidewalks. 38 February 28, 1984 ke The owners shall be required to apply for a permit~ and comply with aIi standards and requirements of{ the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Untii~ said approval-is obtained and filed with the Clty~ of Mound, this permit shall not become effective. / Daryi C. and Merrltt Geyen shall be required to bring their parking lot into conformance with ail the provisions set forth in the previously issued conditional use permits which are attached hereto and made a part of this permit (Exhibits B, C, D, and E). 2. The City of Mound does approve the construction of a dock in front of Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores, which properties are owned by Daryl C. and Merritt Geyen, but said dock is subject to the following restrictions and conditions: The dock shall be an "h" shaped dock as shown on the submitted design attached hereto and marked Exhibit A. This dock shall be contructed for the sole purpose of docking four cruise boats owned by Daryl C. and Merrltt Geyen, and said cruise boats may be store in this area only if this permit is approved by the Lake Mlnnetonka Conservation District. The conditional use permit being granted to Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores shall be only for the excursion boats, whereas the conditional use permit granted in Section 1 of this Resolution shall in effect serve transient boaters utilizing the docks who come to A1 and Alma's for' restaurant service. be The loading and unloading of passengers from the docks located on Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores shall only be from the area shown on the submitted design plan. Daryl and Merritt Geyen shall be responsible for installing and maintaining a bituminous walkway to be constructed on private property (Lot 23) to allow access to the docks located on Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shares, The location of the bituminous walkway is shown on the attached Exhibit A. Any lights constructed near the dock area on Lots~ 22 and 23, Whipple Shames, shall be in such a / manner that there shall be no disturbance to ! neighboring properties. The criteria set forth in Section 23.505 of the City's zoning code shall \ apply to both docks. There shall be no transient parking on Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores, but these four boats may be stored for 24 hours each day. The maxmimum number of boats which may be / stored in front of Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores_v// February 28, 1984 shall be four, and the maximum length shall be feet for any boat, and only these boats my b stored on this property. A sign shall be placed on this dock indicating that no parking of boats is allowed except for the four designated cruise boats. 3. Permanent posts and barrels will be installed by the owner in such a manner as to prevent boats from entering the swimming area at Chester Park and fencing will be provided on both docks to prevent swimmers from climbing onto the docks or from diving or jumping from the docks. 4. No gas, oil or other products may be sold from either of the docks, and no servicing of any boats will be permitted. 5. The applicants shall maintain all beach areas in a neat and clean manner, and when A1 and Alma's Restaurant is open, dock hands shall be on the dock from 5:00 P.M. on weekdays until elosing~ and from 5:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays until closing to assist boat owners in landing and using the transient docks. It shall also be the responsibility of these dock hands to make sure that the transient boaters are not utilizing the docks in front of Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores, which as previously stated is for the 4 excursion boats. 6. The applicants shall file with the City Clerk a performance bond or cash deposit in the sum of $500.00 on or before April 1, 1984, and said bonds or funds shall be' held until the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has issued their approval and the docks have been inspected and approved by the City Dock Inspector at which time the funds shall be released to the Geyens. If the docks are not in compliance with this permit, the City may utilize said performance bond or funds to bring them into compliance or may immediately revoke the permit for these docks. The foregoing resolution was moved by Counpilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Charon. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk ~a~or · · ,m m mm, FROM THE DESK OF DENNIS P STEIN AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB ATTN: MERRITT GEYEN 5186 TUXEDO BLVD. MOUND, MN. 55364 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/5-9-94 MERRITT: Thanks for taking the time to meet with some of your neighbors Saturday to address the issues which concern all of us. I think we all came away from the meeting with a good feeling. We understand and feel comfortable with your plan to eliminate two of your '53 ft. boats and replace these with one '63 ft. boat. You have agreed to make sure that this and all of your boats do their best to keep from disturbing the adjacent neighbors making the arrivals and departures as perpendicular to the shoreline as possible [Weather permitting]. My wife and I both feel that you will do your best to work with this community to keep it something we can all be happy with. Consider this as our vote for your proposed conditional use permit as stated in the "Planning Report', dated 5/3/94, prepared by MARK KOEGLER, City Planner. DENNY & SHELLY STEIN Planning Commission City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 May 9, 1994 To the Commission: In the matter of the amendment to the conditional use permit for Al & Alma's restaurant, I would like to go on record in favor of the amendment allowing one of the boats to have a maximum length of 63 feet. The contributions Daryl and Men-it Geyen (owners and operators of Al & Alma's) have made to the Mound community make their enterprise a welcome one in our neighborhood. The difference in the boat length identified in the amendment is insignificant in the grander scheme of our area. Therefore, as a lakeshore owner 4 houses west of the docking facility for the Al & Alma's restaurant, I support the proposed amendment. I would recommend that the commission do the same. ..._David A. Bartels 5246 Piper Road Mound, MN 66354 472-4154 i, I Il I I ,i~ I it Holslngton Koegler Group Inc. Olin mH PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 3, 1994 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Al & Alma's Supper Club APPLICANTS: Daryl and Merritt Geyen CASE NUMBER: 94-22 HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5h LOCATION: 5186 Tuxedo Boulevard EXISTING ZONING:. B-3 - Restaurant and Limited Parking R1-A - Boat Docks, Boarding Area & Parking Lot COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial and Residential BACKGROUND: The Mound Zoning Code contains a provision that allows docks serving commercial property to be located adjacent to residentially zoned property through the issuance of a conditional use permit. Al & Alma's Supper Club, which has been at its present location for an extended period of time, received a conditional use permit in 1984 that allowed docks for their dinner cruise boats and included a number of other provisions. A1 & Alma's Supper Club which is owned and run by Daryl and Merritt Geyen is seeking approval to modify their existing conditional use permit. Prior to reviewing their proposal, it may be helpful to examine the existing operation. In 1993, A1 & Alma's business involved six separate sites, generally centered around the intersection of Tuxedo Boulevard and Piper Road. Exhibit 1 identifies five of these six areas. The following activities occurred on each of these areas in 1993: Area A Area B Area C Location of the restaurant building and limited parking The Geyen's home and location of licensed transient docks Lots 22 and 23 which accommodated the docking and boarding of four 52 foot dinner cruise boats. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 Al & Alma's Supper Club Conditional Use Permit May 3, 1994 Page Two Area D Area E Area F Residential property with docks accommodating the mooring only of two 52 foot dinner cruise boats. No passenger loading or unloading occurred at these docks. Off street parking lot The 6th area, which is not shown on the map, is a residential property that accommodated the mooring only of one 52 foot dinner cruise boat. In 1993, Al & Almas operated a total of seven 52 foot boats, each of which had a capacity of 51 plus crew members. Patrons either boarded at the restaurant (Lots 22 and 23) or they were picked up at docks in Excelsior, at the Wayzata Depot or at the Lafayette Club. Al & Alma's also picked up groups at private residential docks if water depths were adequate to accommodate their boats. The existing conditional use permit that was approved in 1984 (Resolution 84-26) contained a number of restrictions and among them, it limited the boats parked at the docks at Lots 22 and 23 to no more than four 52 foot boats. In order to better serve their clientele, Al & Almas is proposing to acquire a new 63 foot boat which will allow table seating and will accommodate handicapped patrons. It will have a seating capacity of 68 and a total capacity of approximately 80 to 90 people. The boat has not been completed and approved by the Coast Guard so the exact capacity is not yet known. At the end of the 1993 season, the Geyens sold two of the 52 foot cruise boats. One of the boats that was sold was moored at the off-site location (Area F) and the other was docked at Area C (Lots 22 & 23). Their proposed modification of the conditional use permit is to allow the docking of the 63 foot boat in place of the 52 foot boat which is currently allowed by their permit. The change will not require any physical modification of the existing dock structure. COMMENT: Al & Alma's Supper Club, like an number of businesses in Mound, has a long standing history of operating within a residential area. This creates a situation in which the City and the business owner strive to find a balance that allows the business to operate without creating any undue hardship on nearby residential properties. In the case of A1 & Almas, some of the measures that they employ to minimize activity and disruption include off site pick-ups as previously described, bus transportation to minimize the total number of cars, and parking directors to group cars within their parking lot consistent with various group cruises. When Al and Alma's season closed in 1993, they sold two boats with a total capacity of 102 patrons. They are now proposing to replace these two boats with one new 63 foot boat which has a capacity of 80 to 90. The net effect of the boat replacement is a slight reduction in passenger capacity. ii, I Il I · ,1~ I I~, Al & Alma's Supper Club Conditional Use Permit May 3, 1994 Page Three RECOMMENDATION: Since the proposed use represents a slight reduction in passenger capacity and therefore, in business activity as well, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a new conditional use permit for Al & Almas allowing docking and boarding of the 63 foot boat at Lots 22 and 23 and further encompassing all aspects of the restaurant and cruise boat operation. If the Planning Commission concurs with this recommendation, the following motion is suggested: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a new conditional use permit for Al and Alma's Supper Club which limits dinner cruise boat operations to a total of five 52 foot boats and one 63 foot boat. Conditions that are part of the permit should address all aspects of the restaurant and cruise boat operation including the transient docks, the four slips at Lots 22 and 23 and the two boats which are moored at docks located at Lot 21. r,~ ~,~ I0~ ~ TUXEuu ~,, PROPOSED LAKE MTK SWMWMIN6 AREA Liee of ~ef~ (CITY OF MOUND S H DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 1985(~w$~'o SCALE, I' - 20' \~% ~ ', DATUM MEAN SEA LEVEe ? I,I I ' -Io,.$q- - · UORTH .3..is zoned R-3, and the present structure does not meet required setbacks on the north and west sides; and VfIEREAS, the proposed building addition fits into the southwest corner of the building, taking wall alignments from the existing western and southern walls which results in the setbacks remaining the same as the existing; and VHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval. NOLO, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that the Conditional Use Perm;it is hereby .granted as aforementioned with the following conditions: · 1. The plans submitted for the PropOsed alteration be made part or the requested approval as Exhibit A, dated 11-20-8a. Januar~ 8, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-2 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 10.~I FOOT BY 27.8 FOOT ADDITION IN LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 8, WHIPPLE PID ~25-117-2~1 21 0016 & 0017 (5201 PIPER ROAD) WHEREAS, the City Council on January 8, 1985, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 23.505 of the Mound Code o~' Ordinances, to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for PID ~25-117-2q 21 0015 and 0017 at 5201 Piper Road, ~or the construction of a lO.a foot by 27.8 foot addition to the existing structure which would permit kitchen improvements that are necessary for improved operations and health; and ~rHEREA$, the expansion will not increase the seating' capacity of the restaurant nor the parking requirement; and ~HEREA$, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, businesses within the B-3 Neighborhood zone are .allowed through a eonditiona! use permit and the existing A1 and Alma's Supper Club is a nonconforming, grandfathered use; and I~HEREA$, the present Lots 1 and 2 are zoned B-3, and Lot Provide that the dumpster that presently sits in the vicinity of the addition be relocated to a suitable location on the property and screened with wooden fencing. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councllmember Paulsen and seconded by Councllmember Peterson. 0 BI, I Il I ~, January 8, 1985 The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston-and Smith. The following Councllmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk AGREEMENT This agreement entered into this ~day of/1~~5/ , 1981 between the City of Mound, hereinafter referred to as the City, and Bud Nolan, hereinafter referred to as Nolan: WHEREAS, the City licenses the issuance of commercial docks and Nolan applied for such a dock permit in 1981, and WHEREAS, the construction and installation of said dock infringed upon an area lying in front of a publicly dedicated alley and Lot 24 which is now called Chester Park, all of which are open to the public, and WI~REAS, a dispute has arisen concerning the construction of that dock and/or the removal of the easterly most section of said dock to bring it into compliance with the City's requirements, and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the City Manager to meet with Nolan to discuss and settle this matter so that in the future there will be no misunderstanding, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has met and discussed the problem with Nolan and they have arrived at the following agreement, which is being reconm~ended to the City Council: 1. The City will install permanent monuments along the westerly line of the alley which abuts Chester Park. Said permanent monuments will be posts or some other marker established along the property line and will provide a site line to the lake which can be followed in any dock installation. 2. The dock as it currently exists will be allowed to remain for the balance of the 1981 season, but Nolan agrees that for the 1982 season he will reapply for his dock license and permit and he will keep the dock on his property, and he further agrees that he will meet and abide by any and all conditions established by the City Council in the issuance of his 1982 pemit. 3. At the conclusion of the 1981 season the dock owned by Nolan will be removed frm the lake and will be stored on private property and not on the public alley or Chester Park. 4. Nolan agrees that no boats under his control will be allowed on the Chester Park beach side of Nolan's dock, that being the easterly side of the most easterly dock finger. 5. The area being used as a walkway to Nolan's dock is a publicly dedicated alley and he agrees to advise the City if he observes any problems on this walkway such as erosion or other things which would create any fora of hazard to the public. 6. Nolan agrees to help keep Chester Park free and clear of litter and debris and when he or his staff are in the area they agree to collect and dispose of trash and litter, some of which may be placed in the park by people using the comercial dock. 7. Nolan further agrees that this agreement and understanding may be used by the City to enjoin any further violation of dock pemit issued by or in force in the City. J. W. ~olan Approved by the City Council this ~'~day of~~~1981 · Mayc~ 168 April 28, 1981 Councilmember Ulrlck moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 81-150 RESOLUTION ALLOWING VARIANCE AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 5 - IN NOT MAINTAINING THE 10 FEET OUT AND PARALLEL TO THE LOT LINE WHEREAS, in Resolution 81-95 Council had approved the following: "That Council does hereby concur with the Park Commission recommendation with an additional stipulation regarding construction of a barrier four feet east of most easterly dock from ground level to four feet above water level, at time of construction. Be it further noted that there be no section of dock stored on the public property of beach but stored on owners own private property, and that dock be so constructed with a 10 ft. setback on the right side (swim beach side) with a barrier on the beach side of dock or pier, so that no boat could dock or disembark on the beach side. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council does hereby reconsider Res. 81-95 and does allow variance as shown in exhibit 5 - in not maintaining the 10 feet out and parallel to the lot line Let it be further noted, that al! stipulations and requirements as stated in Resolutlon 81-95 are to remain the same with the exception of not maintaining the 10 foot out and aarallel to the lot line. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Charon and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof; Charon, Lindlan, Polston, Swenson and Ulrick, the following voted against the s~me; none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the Acting City Clerk. Attest: Actiefg City Clerk LAKE MI Al NE TONKA 20 January 8, 1~80 Councilmember Swanson moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 80-20 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AL & ALMA'S TO HAVE A DOCK PERMIT & TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS WHEREAS, Mr. Nolan, the owner of Al and Alma's has appeared before this Council regarding a dock permit located in a residential neighborhood and ad- jacent to City Swimming Beach in Island Park, and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Park Advisory Commission and Mr, Nolan has asked for a variance to the recommendation to allow his two boats to dock in the restricted area when the swimming beach is closed and Mr. Nolan has assured this Council that if this creates any problem with this arrangement the Council can amend the permit to de- lete approval to dock boats in this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND MOUND MINNESOTA: ' ' Al and Alma's (Bud Nolan) is authorized to construct a dock on his land west of the City's swimming beach subject to the following conditions: 1. A! and Alma's dock extension shall have a sign on the end of the dock, the side of the sign seen from the lake shall read, ~'NO BOAT PARKING" and have an arrow pointing toward the City beach, the side of the si~n seen from shore shall read "NO SWIMMING FROM DOCK" 2. Al and Alma's shall construct, a line prohibiting access to the east fr~m his dock and r~nning~to the east to the east line of the City ' ~ swimmin~ beach and then southerly to the shoreline.The floatation ~e- vice shall be constructed pursuant to the Park'Advisory recommendation as set forth in Council Memo 80-14 dated 1-3-80. ~uo¥ lines and float- ~atlon devides shall be paid for by A1 and Alma's and constructed under direction of the City Staff. - The area described in paragraph 2 shall not be used for boat docking except under the following conditions: a After the swimming beach is closed. b. The floatation device shall contain a locking device which can be opened only by employees of Al and Alma's and shall be used only by the two cruise boats owned by A1 and Alma's. No other boats may be allowed in this restricted area under any conditions and violation of the provision will result in revocation of the right to use the restricted area. c. This permit shall be renewed annually. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council- member Polston//and upon vote being taken thereon; the roll,ring voted in favor there- of; Lovaasen~Polston, Swenson, Withhart and Ulrick, the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolutlon was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. _s/_.T. Jm lnynnc~n Mayor AttesF./? CMC- City Clerk July 17, 1979 Cou,~cil,nc,.~ber UIrick moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION riO. 79 - 290 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE YHE A~E~IOED PARKING L0Y PLAN FOR AL AND AL~A'S WHEREAS, Mr."Bud" Nolan, owner of business knowr, as Al and Al~:a's Restaurant, located at 5201 Piper Road, has pre~ented Council with plans for ex- pansion of parking area, and WHEREAS, said p]ans ha~ been amended and resubmitted to Council for approval. NOg, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COU~ICIL OF THE CITY OF BOUND, BOUND, BINNESOTA: ~hat Council do~s hereby authorize and approve the amended'par~ing lot plan as submitted for A1 and Alma~s- A motlon for the adoption of the'foregoing resolutionwas duly seconded by Councilmember Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon, the followlng voted in favor thereof; Lovaasen, Swenson and Ulrlck, the following voted against the same; none, with Poiston and Withhart being absent. Whereupon, said resolutlon was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Ray'or and his signature attested by the City Clerk. s/Tim Lovaasen Hayor ~ttest:~ C y HESOL~TION NO. 72-80 RES0L~TION DIRECTI~Q LAKE MINNET01~KA CONSERYATI(~ DISTRICT TO ISSUE C(~I~I~L DOCK PEP~IT (To A1 & Aim' e) WHERFAS, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation I)ietx-lot will not issue multiple' and oommeroi&l dock permits until they have the written &ppro~l of the ~untci~lity eithin which the dock is located, _W~S, by Resolution No. 72-79 A1 & Almate was ~ranted · dock permit to Be constructed in accordance with the ettpul·ttone noted therein, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED BY THE ¥ILLA6E COUECIB OF MOU~D, K~fl~IESOTA ~ That the Lake ltLm,~eto,4u~ ¢o~erv·t:Lo~ Dietrio% 'be ·d.vteecl. th·t A1 and, Alam,~e ha~e been 8'z~,ted. · d, ook permit in ·ooordano.e with ~eeolut:Lo~ go. ?2.?c). Adopted. by the Council this llth d~ of April, o 7~'-79 4-11-72 aESOt~rlO~ MO. 72-79 RE~OL~TION QRIh~INO SPECIAL USE PEPu~T (Lot 1, Blook }, Vhipple) by Resolution No. 72-99 adopted Ye~oh 14, 1972 & hearing tms set for April 11, 1972 to detersd~ whether or ~ot a speolal use per~it should be ~ranted to Al and il~.ts for · oo~merolal dook in residential zoning, and the hearing was held on April 4, 1972, NOYt TlaC~REt BE IT P~SOI,¥ED BI THE ¥ILLIQE COUI~CII~ OF NOUND~ NOU~ Tlmt a Special Use Per, it for Co~u~srotal Dock in Residential zoning be granted to A1 & AI~'s on Lot 1, Blook 3, ~hipple with the £ollovtng stipulations8 1. Comply with Ordinance No. 2. Install li~htin~ as aborn on scale drawing, inoludin~ · safeguard street, light on the shoreline. ~.. Install dooks as shorn on soale dr~win~. 4. lnst~ll reflective mtert~l on the end of tho dock. ~. ~e soale ~Lm~ln~ ia to be l~rt of the Adopted b~ the Oounotl this llth d~ of April, 1972. 70-206 8-11-70 RESOLUTION NO. 70-206 RESOLUTION AI~ENDING RESOLUTION NO. 70-189 TO INCLUDE A SWALE ACROBB ?AIIKING LOT TO TA~E. CALVE OF DRAINAGE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA8 That Resolution No. 70-189 adopted 7-14-70, "Grantin6 8peolal Use Permit for Parkin~ In A Residential Use Area - A1 & Alm~' be amended to inolude a swale morose the l~rkin6 lot to taka care of draina6'e. Adopted b~ the Counoil this llth day of August, 1970. II, ,i n I · ,i~ I I1, 70-187 ?-12-?0 RE,.~LUTION NO., 70-187 RESOLUTION 6%~NTINO SPECIAL USE PEltKET FOIl PAP~O. XN A RESID~NTIAI~ USE.ARFA (Al & Alma's) ~HEP~AS~ a public hearing ~ras held on July ih, 1970 at the Village Hall in Island Park to hear a proposal to establish off street parking as a use by speci'al permit on Lots 20~ 21~ 22~ 23, 2~, and .2.6~ Block 9~ ~tpple~ for A1 and Al~a' e~ NOW, THEPF, FOP~., BE IT I~F~OLVED BY THE VIT.TAGE CO~CIL OF K)t~D, I~3UND~ That A1 and Al~a's be authorized to use Lots 20,21,22,23,2.~; and 26, Block 9, ~hipple, zoned Re si d en ti aX A-2, as a pa~k~ng lot by special use per,it. BE IT FU~THE~ ~.,SOLV~): That Site Plan marked, "Exhibit An attached hereto and made a part hereof amended to allow a variance as to front yard setback, sa~d setback to 'be 1~; feet measured parallel to Tuxedo Mad, requiring all setback areas to be sodded and subject to all other provisions of Sec. 23oOll Subd. (d) Subsection ten (10) of the Zoning Ordinanoe~ be approved. Adopted by the Vi~[la~e Counoil thXe l~th daY of-July~ 1970. 70-189 7-1h-70 \ \. \ I · 0. O' - HANOVER BOAO nm I I1, ORDINANCE NO. Rg~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23.011, SUBDI¥ISION (d) OF TH~, ZONING CODE TO PERMIT OFF STRE~'~T PARKING AS A USE BY SPECIAL PERMIT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS The Village Council of the Village of Mound do ordains Section 2~.011, Subdivision d is amended to add subsection 10 which shall read as followss 10. Off Street Parki.ng. As a transitional uae to act as a buffer between Residential property and property in a different use district, off street Parking may be permitted upon securin~ a Special Use Permit from the Council after a public hearing and receipt of the recommendation of the Plannin~ Commission. Said public hearing shall be preceded by 10 days written notice mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of any lot line of the property to Be used for off street parkir~. The Appli- cation for a Special Permit shall contain the followin~ infor- mations a. A scale drawing of the property proposed for said use, ehowing~ 1. the dimensions of the premises, 2. an~ structures located within or without 50 feet of the boundary line of land under consideration, ). a detailed plan with parking s~aces shown in accordance with all of the standards established by $ection 2).)0, subd. (i) of this code. b. A landscape and site plan, which may be a part of the scale drawing required in the preceding subsection. Said plan 8hall shows 1. adequate means of access to a public alley or street, 2. lighting of said parking area which shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent land in residential use, 3. a six-foot closed fence of adequate design to be erected alon~ all residential property lines but not in the front yard 8etback, and subject to all provisions of Sec. ~5.17 (c) Mound Code of Ordinances, 4. setbacks shall be as followsl (a) front yard - same as required for construction of a structure in the same use district, (b) side yard and rear yard - 5 feet. c. Any special use permit shall be conditional to require the owner of said premises to maintain said area in a neat and clean manner and in accordance with the standards established in precedin~ Sections a and b. d. Off street Parkin~ in a Residential District shall not be Ordinance ~o. 2~.~ Pa~:e 2 allowed if said use will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the nei6hbor- hood or if said use will have an adverse effect upon traffic or traffic safety. Passed by the Village Council March 10f 1~70 ,.. Published in' the official newspaper_ March 19. 1970 . Survey on file? yes no Date of survey. . Lot of Record? yes no ? (frontage on an improved publLc street) Required hot Nidth: Existing Lot Nldth ., Depth ~$HOR~; $0' [measured EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDIN~ FRONTs FRONT z SIDer SIDE: LAF~SHOR~ FRONTI N S B W FRO14T; N S E W SLOE; N S E W SIDEz N S g U Z,.AK~SHOR~z IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORNING? YES NO. ? ACCESSORY BUILDING MILL TEE PROPOSED IHPROV~)~14TS CO14FORJ(? YES DAT~. / /. 140 - I GOVT LOT 4 757.76 ~5 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE TO AN INDIAN MOUND TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 5601 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID #23-117-24 14 0001, P&Z CASE #93-049 WHEREAS, the owner, Joe Fleischhacker, has applied for a 40 foot setback variance to allow construction of a deck within 10 feet of an Indian Mound, and; WHEREAS, this property received previous variance approval on August 11, 1992, Resolution #92-104, to recognize an existing nonconforming 7 foot side yard setback to the principal dwelling to allow construction of a conforming addition, and; WHEREAS, on March 15, 1993 the City of Mound adopted a Shoreland Management Ordinance, and City Code Section 350:1225, Subd. 3.A.2. requires structures to be setback 50 feet from an Unplatted Cemetery, and; WHEREAS, the existing house is setback approximately 22 feet from the Indian Mound, and; WHEREAS, approval from the State of Minnesota Indian Affairs Council was received on April 11, 1994 with conditions as listed in the attached letter (Exhibit A), 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, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval as request is a reasonable use of the property and every effort has been made to minimize the impact to the Indian mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 3 foot side yard setback to the house, and approve a 40 foot +/- setback variance from the deck to the Indian mound, subject to the conditions stated in the letter from the Indian Affairs Council dated April 11, 1994, The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to o Sm n, a a I · ,1~ I It, all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a deck (odd-shaped) at lake side of house. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: The East 100 feet of that parcel of land lying in Section 23, Township 117, Range 24, in the Village of Mound, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the south line of Chapman Avenue with the east line of Lake Avenue in the plat of Mound Bay Park; then southerly along Lake Avenue 260 feet; thence East parallel with the south line of Chapman Avenue 125 feet; thence South parallel with the east line of Lake Avenue to lake shore; thence easterly along lake shore to a point 20 feet west at right angles from the east line of said section; thence north parallel with the east line of said section to the south line of Chapman Avenue; thence westerly to beginning. 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. May 24, 1994 p. lof2 500 Rice Street St. Paul, Minne~ota 55103 Phone: (612) 296-3611 State of Minnesota INDIAN AFFAIRS COUNCIL Resolution #94-70 Exhibit A 1819 BemldJl Avenue BemidJl, Minnesota 56601 Phone: (218) 755-3825 April 11, 1994 Mr. Joseph Fieishhacker 5601 Bartlett Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Variance to ,normal 50 foot setback from cemetery APR 2 I) lgg Dear Mr. Fleishhacker: This letter is provided to you pursuant to our responsibilities under Minnesota Statute 307.08. It appears that mound number 15 of the Bartlett Mound Group (State Site Number 21-HE-65) is located on your property between a recent addition to your house and Lake Minnetonka. Your request for a variance from the normal 50 foot setback from the edge of a burial mound is granted due to the special hardship conditions existing at this location. This special variance is granted under the following conditions: 1. Deck footings may be placed under the proposed deck as indicated with a hand held machine or through hand excavation within 12 feet of the edge of the mound. Excavation shall be monitored by an archaeologist appointed by the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. A two week notice should previde ample time to schedule the monitoring. 2. We request that you encourage foot and other traffic around, rather than over, the mound. 3. We request that you encourage grass growth over the mound to reduce the potential for erosion. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER May 24, 1994 p. 2of2 1,, , I11 Resolution #94- 70 Exhibit A 4. We request that you do not place picnic tables, barbecue grills, play sets or the like on the mound. 5. No digging is permitted in or around the mound except as provided above. 6. Mowing of grass on the mound is permitted. We greatly appreciate your cooperation in protecting our sacred heritage. Your cooperation in the endeavor has been exemplary and we commend you for your efforts in assuring that no disturbance of the mound took place during your recent construction. If you have any questions regarding these provisions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND A VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AT 1749 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 24 0005, P&Z CASE #94-18 WHEREAS, the owners, Larry & Christine Hauskins, have applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling to allow construction of a three season porch. The porch is proposed to follow the same 9.1 foot setback to the rear lot line; a 15 foot setback is required, and; WHEREAS, the amount of impervious surface cover on the property is also nonconforming, and exceeds the minimum allowed by 517 square feet, or 6.7 percent, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the rear lot line on this property could conceivably be a side yard lot line taking into consideration the way the house is positioned on the lot and that it is bordered on one side by Bluebird Lane, and on the other side by Wiota Common. WHEREAS, the adjacent public land known as Wiota Common reduces the impact of the impervious cover, and; WHEREAS, the proposed three season porch, approximately 11' x 17.5', will be constructed over a portion of the existing deck area, and; WHEREAS, Resolution #90-50 was approved by the City Council on March 22, 1990 granting a variance for this property to allow construction of a second story addition, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: w The City does hereby grant a 5.9 foot rear yard setback variance and a variance to impervious surface cover of 6.7 percent, to allow construction of a three season porch. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution Hauskins, 94-18 5-24-94 P. 2 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 three season porch over a portion of the existing deck area, as shown on the attached site plan, Exhibit A. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 13 and 14, Block 9, Dreamwood. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. RESOLUTION #94-71 M-AY 24, 1994 Prepared for' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOtS 13 and 14, Bluck 9, DREAMWOOD, accord~Hg tu the recorded DJ. at thereof, tl~-nnep£I% COuDt¥, Minnesota° AREA - 7533 squa[e feet. GENERAL NOTES o Denotes ira5 monun-~,'.nt '~'" Denotes cross chiseled ir, concrete ~ 959.7 Oenole$ existing spot elevation [~ Denotes p~oposed spot elevation ~-~ DenoJes surface drainage D~hed contour II,es denoles proposed features Solid contour line~ denotes existing features ALL-METRO LA N SURV_EYOR. . Z~40 Ooni~l. Street Long Lake, Minnesota 553,56 Ph; 475-1433, Propo'~sd fop of foundalion elevation -' Proposed basemen! floor elevation = Propose(} gerog¢ froot o!evoHon ~ EII~NCHMAR K: OATE _. RF.G. NO. _ FILE 900 S II n il i · ,& I ii, PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-_~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE AND TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT AREA, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 2345 FAIRVIEW LANE LOT 9, BLOCK 3, L.P. CREVIER'S SUBD. OF PART OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117-24 43 0084 P&Z CASE #94-24 WHEREAS, the owner, Edward Vanecek, has applied for the following variances in order to construct a 24' x 24' two story addition with a tuckunder garage, Lot Area Side Yard Impervious Cover reauired 6,000 s.f. 6 feet 1,440 s.f. (30%) existing/ orooosed 4,500 s.f. 4.7 feet 2,965 s.f. (62%) variance 1,200 s.f. 1.3 feet 1,565 s.f. (32%) and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both Fairview Lane and Hiddenvale Lane, and 6 foot side yard setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the proposed addition will be conforming to setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with a condition to remove a portion of the existing impervious surface coverage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the following variance to allow construction of a two story addition with a tuckunder garage subject to the removal of the existing parking area, driveway, and access at the Fairview Lane side of the house. This area must be returned to green space or lawn area, thereby reducing the impervious cover variance by 420 square feet: Lot Area Side Yard Impervious Cover reauired 6,000 s.f. 6 feet 1,440 s.f. (30%) existing/ DrODOSed 4,500 s.f. 4.7 feet 2,545 s.f. (47%) vari6nce 1,200 s.f. 1.3 feet 2,125 s.f. (17%) Proposed Resolution Vanecek, #94-24 May 24, 1994 Page 2 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 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 24' x 24' two story addition with a tuckunder garage, and conforming to setbacks. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 9, Block 3, L.P. Crevier's Sub. of Park of Lot 36 Lafayette Park. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1994 .~ I~DWARD VANECEK, 2345 FAIRVIEW LANE, LOT 9, BLOCK 3. L.P. CREVIER'S SUBD. OF PART OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117-24 4~ 0084. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. This property is located in the R-2 single family residential zoning district that requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking variances to recognize a nonconforming side yard setback of 4.7 feet to the existing dwelling, and a lot area variance of 1,200 square feet, in order to construct a 24' x 24' two story addition with a tuckunder garage which will be conforming to setbacks. This property fronts on two streets and has a driveway and access off of each street. This results in impervious surface coverage greater than the maximum 30 percent allowable by the ordinance. The applicant shows a proposed reduction of the existing rock driveway on the east side, presumably to maintain the convenience of off-street parking in the front of the dwelling. This proposal results in total hardcover of 2,965 square feet, or a variance of 1,565 square feet (32% over, 62% total). Staff recognizes the need for the accessory building, however, the Planning Commission may wish to consider both the excess hardcover on this small lot and the aesthetic view point of eliminating the driveway and access on the east side and returning this area to green space. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances as noted, in order to allow construction of a 24' x 24' two story addition with a tuckunder garage, as shown on the survey dated April 14, 1994, upon the condition that the existing parking area, driveway, and access on Fairview lane be removed, and this area be returned to green space or lawn area, and thereby reducing the impervious cover variance by 420 square feet. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. M!NNESOTA 55364 168' (612) 472-0600 FAX [612, 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: Planning Commission Agenda of May 9, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Edward Vanecek CASE NO. 94-24 LOCATION: 2345 Fairview Lane, Lot 9, Block 3, L.P. Crevier's Subd. of Part of Lot 36 Lafayette Park, PID//13-117-2443 0084 ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND This property is located in the R-2 single family residential zoning district that requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking variances to recognize a nonconforming side yard setback of 4.7 feet to the existing dwelling, and a lot area variance of 1,200 square feet, in order to construct a 24' x 24' two story addition with a tuckunder garage which will be conforming to setbacks. This property fronts on two streets and has a driveway and access off of each street. This results in impervious surface coverage greater than the maximum 30 percent allowable by the ordinance. The applicant shows a proposed reduction of the existing rock driveway on the east side, presumably to maintain the convenience of off-street parking in the front of the dwelling. This proposal results in total hardcover of 2,965 square feet, or a variance of 1,565 square feet (32% over, 62% total). l, ,I J i I ,J '" UTION TO APPROVE AN IMPERVIOUS COVER ~NCE RESOL ......... '~"'"~- SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT AREA, AND TO RECOGNIZE A NUNL;Unmunm-,= TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 2345 FAIRVlEW LANE LOT 9, BLOCK 3, L.P. CREVIER'S SUBD. OF PART OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117-24 43 0084 P&Z CASE #94-24 WHEREAS, the owner, Edward Vanecek, has applied for the following variances in order to construct a 24' x 24' two story addition with a tuckunder garage, 6,000 s.f. 6 feet 1,440 s.f. (30%) Lot Area Side Yard Impervious Cover existing/ 4,800 s.f. 4.7 feet 2,965 s.f. (62%) 1,200 s.f. 1.3 feet 1,525 s.f. (32%) and; WHEREAS, the subiect property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both Fairview Lane and Hiddenvale Lane, and 6 foot side yard setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the proposed addition will be conforming to setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with a condition to remove a portion of the existing impervious surface coverage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the following variance to allow construction of a two story addition with a tuckunder garage subject to the removal of the existing parking area, driveway, and access at the Fairview Lane side of the house. This area must be returned to green space or lawn area, thereby reducing the impervious cover variance by 420 square feet: Lot Area Side Yard Impervious Cover 6,000 s.f. 6 feet 1,440 s.f. (30%) existing/ 4,800 s.f. 4.7 feet 2,545 s.f. (53%) 1,200 s.f. 1.3 feet 1,105 s.f. (23%) Proposed Resolution Vanecek, #94-24 May 2,1, 1994 Page 2 J The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of 24' x 24' two story addition with a tuckunder garage, and conforming to setbacks. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 9, Block 3, L.P. Crevier's Sub. of Park of Lot 36 Lafayette Park. 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. [, I I I I I~ I u Sta~ Report 94-24, Vanacelc May 9, 1994 Page 2 Staff recognizes the need for the accessory building, however, the Planning Commission may wish to consider both the excess hardcover on this small lot and the aesthetic view point of eliminating the driveway and access on the east side and returning this area to green space, RECOMMENOATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances as noted, in order to allow construction of a 24' x 24' two story addition with a tuckunder garage, as shown on the survey dated April 14, 1994, upon the condition that the existing parking area, driveway, and access on Fairview lane be removed, and this area be returned to green space or lawn area, and thereby reducing the impervious cover variance by 420 square feet. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the CiW Council on May 24, 1994. Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribu~igni  City Planner ~ City Engineer Other VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0~20 Public Works DNR Application Fee: $50.00 Case q4 Please type or print the following information: Owner's Address /tO Block ~ No. t3-11-7 24 Day Phone ff-/7~- Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): I ,I Variance Application (l 1/93) Page 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes,~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) Side Yard: ) fc ft. Side Yard: UNSEW) _ ~ _ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ,__~. ¢5 ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. · (NS~W) ft' Street Frontage: ,-/0 ft. Lot size: (,, cr~ _47Cv~' .sq ft Hardcover: sq ft VARIANCE 4,~ ' -ft- E.6'.~. ft. - ' ' -ft. C) _ft. ft. ft' ft ~/~sq fl 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 ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe:~ ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ('-0 existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Variance Application (11/93) P~ge 3 e Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lan, after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. ff yes, explain: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: e Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition.'? Yes 09, 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. Owner's $ignatu Date ~??, / /'~' Applicant's Signature Date I qo CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: LENGTH WIDTH x X X TOTAL HOUSE ******************* X -- TOTAL GARAGE * ~ t x -7 ~ x TOTAL DRIVEWAY DECK: X -- (if impervious X = surface under deck = 100~) TOTAL DECK ************* TOTAL DECK ~ 50%*************** OTHER: X = X = TOTAL OTHER TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** l I~"bg~'3 MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * YES___NO NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS SQ FT X 30% SQ FT X 15% i,:-/,-/0 I HOUSE: GARAGE: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100~) OTHER: LENGTH WIDTH ~.~;.~'- x /~. ~ = X __- X __- TOTAL HOUSE ******************* TOTAL GARAGE ****************** ~- x 2i = / o (7' z_ TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** TOTAL DECK ************* TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** X = TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSED UNDER ~ ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I 3/ YES__NO BY: DATE: I~qZ. II, I Il i · ,1~ I It iS12) 941-3031 Su~ey For Eden Praide, MN 55344 Certificate of SurVey ~.d V~necek Book _344. Page. 64 2345 Fairvi~.w Lane File 5862 APR ! 8 199% _J S~ale: t" = 20' Denotes Iron hon. Found 21,4 'Frank R. Cardarelle State Reg. No. 6508 (612) 941-3031 Lan(] burveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For Certificate of Survey Ed Venecek Book 344 Page. 64 2345 Fairvtew Lane File 5862 S,:ale: 1" = 20' o Denotes Iron Mon. Found Z _J Lot 9 Block 3 L.P.Cre4er's Su~b,~ of Part (612) 941-3031 Survey For Certificat of Survey , Il La.r~o ~urveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Ed Vanecek Book 344 Page. 64 2345 Fairview Lane File 5862 Se~ale: 1" = 20' o Denotes Iron }:on. Found ?4- ~'~ ~er'$ Sub. of P~rt of / !~,y~,,..,~,~,.~.,~.~~,~ Lot 9 Block 3 L.P.Crev s~~, ] 4th ~ Apr/! ,,_c UI'-,NLI~XI~ I~U,\LNU i,%t. UI~%LxrI'ION SIIEET Required Lot #idth:~-~/ .... Existing Lot ~tdth~ / (frontage on an ~mproved public Itrllt} EXX$?ING $~¢D/OR PROPOBED 8ETBACEB: PRINCIPAL BUILDING ,.o.,.,...~0~ ~-/- '" 'C 0 ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONT FRONT SlDS'~ Sll:)Et LA~SHO~ ~ WOODRIDGE ,D'"' · 0 0 0 ;,444. !1 ~ES C,("tVT Ir'bT 7 !, ,I II i · i~ I ii, PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-/~-~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE AT 2440 CHATEAU LANE PART OF LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, PID #24-117-24 12 0048 P&Z CASE #94-25 WHEREAS, the owners, David and Betty Goman, have applied for a variance to the existing impervious surface cover that is 512 square feet ( +/-) over the maximum 30 percent allowable. The applicant has proposed a 21' x 26' garage addition, which according to the site plan will not meet the required side yard setback of 6 feet. A 19 foot wide garage addition will conform to setbacks, 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, side yard setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the existing 22' x 24' detached garage is of minimal size and is located at the rear of the lot, thus requiring the long driveway and slight excess of impervious cover, and; WHEREAS, the additional garage space is a reasonable use of the property, and due to existing conditions does not significantly impact the impervious cover, and; WHEREAS, according to the applicant, the garage addition is intended to solve drainage problems on the lot, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with the condition that the hardcover calculations be clarified with staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a variance to impervious surface coverage as listed below, to allow construction of a 19' x 26' garage addition: Impervious Cover existing/ orooosed variance allowed _ 3,375 s.f. (30%) 4,222 s.f. (38%) 847 s.f. (8%) The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution Goman, #94-25 May 24, 1994 Page 2 e 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 19' wide by 26' deep garage addition with conforming setbacks. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: South 25 feet of West 150 feet of Lot 8 and the North 50 feet of West 150 feet of Lot 9, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit D. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1994 ~ DAVID AND BETTY GOMAN, 2440 CHATEAU LANE. PART OF ~,OTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, PID #24-117-24 12 0048. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance to the existing impervious surface cover that is 512 square feet over the maximum 30 percent allowable. The applicant has proposed a 21' x 26' garage addition, which according to the site plan submitted and my calculations, will not meet the required side yard setback of 6 feet. A 19 foot wide garage addition will conform to setbacks. The existing 22' x 24' detached garage is of minimal size and is located at the rear of the lot, thus requiring the long driveway and slight excess of impervious cover. The additional garage space is a reasonable use of the property. The proposal, due to the existing conditions, does not significantly impact the impervious cover, however, it is difficult to find hardship for any encroachment into the side yard. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to impervious cover of 520 square feet in order to construct a 19' x 26' garage addition that is conforming to the required north side yard setback of 6 feet. Mueller Commission questioned the accuracy of the hardcover calculations. Mueller also questioned if a four car garage is necessary on a lot this size. The applicant explained that the garage addition is intended to solve drainage problems on the lot. He would be happy to re-do the hardcover calculations. Jansen questioned if the amount of hardcover could be reduced if the existing driveway was also cut back to meet the 6 foot side yard setback. MOTION made by Voss, seconded Hanus to recommend approval of the Impervious cover vadance aa recommended by staff. The applicant shall cladfy Impervious cover calculations with ataff prior to the City Council meeting. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Bird, Weiland, Michael, Jansen, Voss, and Hanus. Mueller opposed. Mueller is not in favor of allowing a hardcover variance to allow a four-car garage on an 11,000 square foot lot. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. ~" x 4.5-. L~-'C Iv', ~;~ 3,4H0 CHR'TF.-h-~ L./tNC: L..c'~- '75-' b,/ I 5' 0 ' Sc~lc I.~-1: ~'-e" "'"'"'- bx4,5:. 3¢,+z II, ,I Il [ I ,i~ I ii, CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5344 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MiNNESOTA 55364-:687 ,6~2,472-0600 FAX ,6'2~ 4~2-0620 DATE: TO: Planning Commission Agenda of May 9, 1 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: David and Betty Goman CASE NO, 94-25 LOCATION: 2440 Chateau Lane, Part of Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit D, PID #24- 117-24 12 0048. ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet arid 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance to the existing impervious surface cover that is 512 square feet over the maximum 30 percent allowable. The applicant has proposed a 21' x 26' garage addition, which according to the site plan submitted and my calculations, will not meet the required side yard setback of 6 feet. A 19 foot wide garage addition will conform to setbacks. The existing 22' x 24' detached garage is of minimal size and is located at the rear of the lot, thus requiring the long driveway and slight excess of impervious cover. The additional garage space is a reasonable use of the property. The proposal, due to the existing conditions, does not significantly impact the impervious cover, however, it is difficult to find hardship for any encroachment into the side yard. printed on recycled paper St~ff Repon ~4-25, Goman RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to impervious cover of 520 square feet in order to construct a 19' x 26' garage addition that is conforming to the required north side yard setback of 6 feet. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. Planning Commission Dat~: City Council Dat~: City Planner City Engineer Other yARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUNB $341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $5364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 4724)620 Public Works DNR Application Fee: $50.00 l~ase t~t or print ~e following infonxmtlon: Address of Subject Property ~qq0 C-~41~T~'~L~ [-fiNe.- ~ ~aA, ot, ur~ ...... , ,~ofling District Use of Properly: Ownex's Address ~qc~o O---k~ t:~-e~,~-'.l- Lr,. nay Phone Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure ftr this property9. ( ) yes, (~ no. ff yes, list dam(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 0 Iq o5" Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonint district in which it is located? Yes ~)~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ((~S E W ) lo ft. ~ .. ft. ~, ,' _ ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: ~O,Ol:::~i~;;~i~l~ sq ft ~.L~~~ ~ o~sq ~ Hardcover: ~"/~ sq ft c~,q ~ _sq ~r"/~.~t~sq Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes 00, 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? Please describe: ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small (/) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape )soil ) existing situation ) other: specify . ~.. - , . ~_. ~' .~.~,~ ~.~ ii, ,n I Il Application (11/93) , Il Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interest~ in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ~, No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~x). 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? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA 1l"~,'5-0 SQFT X 30% - SQ FT' X 15% =, LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: 50 X ~"t - qzo . TOTAL HOUSE ******************* GARAGE: TOTAL GARAGE DRIVEWAY: TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: '~ .5 (if impervious ~ surface under deck = 100~1) TOTAL DECK TOTAL DECK OTHER: X - X = OTHER . ~J q q "[ TOTAL * ** ** * * ** ** * * * ** * ** ~-x o~/530 ~''~"~"~eED HARDCO~R * * * * * * *,* * ~ * * * ~* * *~* * ,' / I UNDER (OVER) ***************************** / O MEETS LOT CO'RAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .YES, NO BY: DATE: :1% St,r,..v~1 s__ 'r~ t::.,. ., · in Lot{ 8 and 9, Block 1~ Shirley Hill~ b~it D Hennepin County, ~tnneeot, . :, ...... ,,1' ' +ox,/ ' ' w ~?c o,' ' / C~rtiftcate of Survey. .... ~ ............. -,"-'-' ~ J I hereby certify that ti '¥" ~- / is a true and correct '~-{~' { / sentetion o£ a survey of the . boundaries of:  / (A) The North ?~ ?.et of the W.es~ ' 8 Bloc 1 Shir~e / 150 f,,t of Lot , k , ~ . / (B) Lots $ ~nd 9, Block 1, ~ ~-~ u<-~ / Hills Unit D, except the W~.st 1ZO feet ,~ / seid lots; ~ // (C) The West l~O feet of Lot 8, except the ~ / North 7~ feet thereof; and the ;:orth 50 feet of the West'l;O feet of Lot 9, Block 1, Shirley ~ille. Unit D; (~) TBs West 150 feet of Lot 9, Block 1, S~.irl~y lls ~nlt D, except the North. ~0 feet thereof. It does not purport to shov Xmpro~e~enta or encroecBm~nte. Dat~ ~ 7-30-70 o ~ Iron marker Ikirveyor and Planner Lake, ~nnesota I011o ! Required ~t Width: /~_ ~ / (frontage on an ~proved public Exietin9 L~t Width ~ ~ ! PRINCIPAL BUILDING FNONT ~ N f.,J~r~ S HOR~; · 50' Imeaoured from k¢C£SSORY BUZLDING FRONT: N $ E W FRONT: N S SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' P~AR: N S E W LJU<~SNORE: 50' ~measured from O,N.W.J EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS s PRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT t N S FRONT: N S B: W SIDE: N 5 E W SIDEr N S REAR: N S LAKESHORE: FRONT: FRONT: SIDE: SLOE: REAR: LAKESHORE: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORRING7 YES BYI ACCESSORY BUIL~IN~ NO, ?. WILL THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS CONFORR? YES DArE /.,, I . NO ID ',, ,: 9 t~ (~o) C47) 8,; :~'~ ~ (~O) ~ $ (,~4) ! 241 (,,. O~ ( 46) . 0 o PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-/~_? RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT WIDTH TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 3355 WARNER LANE, LOT 61 , WHIPPLE PID #25-117-2421 0130, P&Z CASE #94-27 WHEREAS, the owners, Mark and Dawn Berg, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming north side yard setback of 9.3 feet to the required 10 foot setback, and a nonconforming lot width of 50 feet, in order to construct the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. Garage addition 32' x 13' + 28' x 13'. Deck at lakeside 16' x 16'. 16' x 14' three season porch. Entry addition for airlock front door 6' x 8.5' at north side. Water-oriented Accessory Structure 4' x 5' x 4'. 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, side yard setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation, and; WHEREAS, all the proposed improvements are conforming to setbacks, impervious cover, and other provisions of the ordinance, with the exception that the footprints will follow the existing 9.3 foot nonconforming setback on the north side, and; WHEREAS, the 0.7 foot side yard encroachment is minimal and appears reasonable. It is practical from an architectural standpoint to follow the existing line of the building. The existing deck is dilapidated and needs to be replaced. Other needed improvements are planned to the exterior that tie into the garage and porch additions, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval as the proposal is substantially conforming, there is no further encroachment than the existing building, and the improvements are a reasonable use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming to recognize the existing nonconforming 9.3 foot side yard setback resulting in a 0.7' variance, and the nonconforming 50 foot lot width resulting in a 10 foot variance, to allow construction of the items listed below in item 3. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution Berg, #94-27 May 24, 1994 Page 2 o 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 the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. Garage addition 32' x 13' + 28' x 13'. Deck at lakeside 16' x 16'. 16' x 14' three season porch. Entry addition for airlock front door 6' x 8.5' at north side. Water-oriented Accessory Structure 4' x 5' x 4'. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 61, Whipple Shores. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1994 11. ~ MARK AND DAWN BERG, 3355 WARNER LANE. LOT 61, WHIPPLE~ PID ~25-117-2421 0130. VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONS. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation. The applicants are seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming north side yard setback of 9.3 feet to the required 10 foot setback, in order to construct the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. Garage addition 32' x 13' + 28' x 13'. Deck at lakeside 16' x 16'. 16' x 14' three season porch. Entry addition for airlock front door 6' x 8.5' at north side. Water-oriented Accessory Structure 4' x 5' x 4'. All the proposed improvements are conforming to setbacks, impervious cover, and other provisions of the ordinance, with the exception that the footprints will follow the existing 9.3 foot nonconforming setback on the north side. The 0.7 foot side yard encroachment is minimal and appears reasonable. It is practical from an architectural standpoint to follow the existing line of the building. The existing deck is dilapidated and needs to be replaced. Other needed improvements are planned to the exterior that tie into the garage and porch additions. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the nonconforming 9.3 foot side yard setback resulting in a 0.7' variance, and the nonconforming 50 foot lot width resulting in a 10 foot variance. The proposal is substantially conforming, there is no further encroachment than the existing building, and the improvements are a reasonable use of the property. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voas, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT ~3x~ MAYWOOD ROAD MOL',D M'.NNESOTA 55364 1687 612 4-2 0600 FAX 612, 4-2 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of May 9, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official .~~ ' Variance Request APPLICANT: Mark and Dawn Berg CASE NO. 94-27 LOCATION: ZONING: 3355 Warner Lane, Lot 61, Whipple, PID #25-117-2421 0130 R-1 Single Family Residential .BACKGROUND This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation. The applicants are seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming north side yard setback of 9.3 feet to the required 10 foot setback, in order to construct the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. Garage addition 32' x 13' + 28' x 13'. Deck at lakeside 16' x 16'. 16' x 14' three season porch. Entry addition for airlock front door 6' x 8.5' at north side. Water-oriented Accessory Structure 4' x 5' x 4'. All the proposed improvements are conforming to setbacks, impervious cover, and other provisions of the ordinance, with the exception that the footprints will follow the existing 9.3 foot nonconforming setback on the north side. The 0.7 foot side yard encroachment is minimal and appears reasonable. It is practical from an architectural standpoint to follow the existing line of the building. The existing deck is dilapidated and needs to be replaced. Other needed improvements are planned to the exterior that tie into the garage and porch additions. Staff Report 94-27, Berg May 9, 1994 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the nonconforming 9.3 foot side yard setback resulting in a 0.7' variance, and the nonconforming 50 foot lot width resulting in a 10 foot variance. The proposal is substantially conforming, there is no further encroachment than the existing building, and the improvements are a reasonable use of the property. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. tcx 4/93 Address ~ %%~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~1 .,,VARIANCE APPLICATION ~0 APR 2 119~ CZTY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ; Planning Commission Date: 5/?/~ City Council Date: 5/2~/~/.- Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: ~-Z.5~ copy to city Planner: 14 Copy to Public Works: ~, Copy to City ~~r: Please t~e or print the following information: Address of Subject Property. ~.55 Wg~E~ ~,e~ Owner's Name [~ j & D~QN ~. 5E~ Day Phone ~J~7'~' owner,s ~daress 3%5.5 %'Sa a~ 6~ C,q ~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ~' w ,'~C oay ~none 4'ZZ Application Fee: $50.00 Case Block Addition h/Hl¢~p~ PID No. ~5-11~-2~ 21 0'~0 Zoning District '~- I Use of Property: ~65< o~r¢~a_ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions· Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~ ~TT/~C~,,~I~'~'7- ,~'r~_6a '"?,~,'~t"~'_% ~ ~ / g..#;~" 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (mO. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) WE ~ ~CD' C~ SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E~W ) 30 ft. ~O ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E~) I ~ ft. I / ~ __ ft. Lake Front: ( N SED) ~-O ft. ,~ ~ ft. Side Yard: (~S E W ) ~ ~.~ ft. Side Yard: ( N~E W ) --~O ~ ft. Street Frontage: ~0 ft. _~3 . ft. Lot Size: I~~ sq ft ~OC~ sq ft Hardcover: ~ ~ 5~ sq ft 3~ sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (>~-3 too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: %q~ ~ ~ ~o' O~ Lr3T ( ) soil ( ) existing ( ) other: specify 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 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No._ (J~/--~ -',~ e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (>9. If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (~). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected~ Fo~ I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant,s Slgnature_~(2~/C ~. ~ %1. ATTACHMENT ANSWERS to #1 & #8 Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.) %8. Comments PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION a) addition of 28'/32' x 26'2" 1-story 2-car garage in front of existing 20' x 26'2" tuck-under 2-car garage (see attached): * existing garage too small (medium/large cars don't fit) * need to convert existing garage to heated storage etc. b) replacement of existing 8'2" x 26'2" deck with 16' x 16' deck and 16' out x 14' wide 3-season porch (see attached), with deck/porch 30' from nearest point of "top-of-bluff" line * existing deck rotten & unsafe- must be replaced anyway * want 3-season porch for a family area to enjoy lake view c) addition of ~135' fence on north property line starting kl0' from street (as needed for neighbor's line of sight to road) * need to define lot line and add privacy d) replacement of 3' wide sidewalk with new 4' wide sidewalk * existing sidewalk too narrow (parent + child won't fit) e) addition of ~6' x ~8.5' airlock on "front" door (on south side of house), plus ~6' roof/overhang over sidewalk * existing "front" door facing side is not obvious entry * need to block prevailing west wind during winter entry * need space to put boots to keep inside traffic area dry * gutters on house roof would be too high to clean f) widening of top ~56' of driveway to !22' wide, reducing in last kl0' to S16' wide * need to replace some parking space lost under new garage g) addition of 4' x 5' x 4' tall water accessory lock box kl0' from 929.4' high water mark * need to avoid carrying everything up (95 steps to water) PROPOSED AI,TERATIONS h) replacement of remainder of north timber retaining wall with boulder retaining wall, and installation of boulder retaining wall into south bank to allow room for longer sidewalk * bees made a home in rotting timbers; prefer boulders i) change existing windows/siding/soffits/shingles to match new, which includes replacement of 2nd floor west door and window with larger door and window * window and door leak badly; desire better lake view j) conversion of existing tuck-under garage to heated storage etc (see attached), and replacement of existing garage's south window with a door, and addition of 1 window on south side. * no basement in walk-out; need space for storage etc. HOUSE: EX~STING LOT AREA E~TING LOT AREA _ LENGTH '2.L,2_ _ x '* £~?- ¢ x sQFrx3o% = I .4¢¢2,¢ SQFrXI5% = _ WIDTH TOTAL EOUSl!~ . . . ..... · · · SQ FT GARAGE: _- .__' X -- TOTAL GkI~J~GE . . . ..... . · qz DECK: /~' x ~ . ¢7'&;t 4' x / ~,¢- = ?o?~ v~cK . . . ........ ?O?X~DEC~ ~ So% . . . . . . . . 42 TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCO%T_.R I ~7~ % I - / - ~ ~_ ~ DATE ¢- ]')- "4 FRANK R. CARDARELLE (612) 941-3031 -Survey For .... ~_~rl~e'~g'* I I I i ~, I I I I ~35~ Warner Lane Mound Fm. 55364 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Certificate of Survey .......... Book '3b-5 ' -Page_53 744 File 5368 Iron Monument Found · Denotes Gar. Floor Elev. 983.8 1st Floor Elev. 993.8 k ~-.~w--~ 16th .~,~ Aprl£ -"~9 ' - ~/ ' -Frank R. Cardarelle State Reg. No. 6508 ~O?O~,t D Gf~R/igE A,,DL)IT'/OH ~ 10' ~ 28' I0' ,f GARAGE AN~ ~ 6N~IA~C6 R~FL~N6 ~LL HEW ,.,.4LE : y~ : ,' 20' 0' "{" ~- 1 LAUNDRY- STORAGE 48' ~ 5'5 MUD I -'- ENTRY UTILITY ~ 28' GARAGE L_ I I1, -" DECK ,.LII LL_LL I ! i EXISTING KITCHEN & LIVING ROOM LIVING AREA 557 sq ff 35'8 -- PORCH DECK - 16'2 LIVINr \1 557 sq ! 19'8 EXISTING KITCHEN & LIVING ROOM AIRLOCK 8'7 m m a ~ m ,i~ [ ~ ADDRESS: - I ZONE: REOUZREO EX!STING ,j. ~ ~' } (s~. ~.) I (s~. ~.1 survey on rile? yes~ no Da~e of suFvey~--n~ ~, ~U o~ Record? yes ~ no ? SETBACKS RE(~UXRED Z , PRINCIPAl. BUILDING FRONT * N S "~ M _ FRONT{ N S E W BIDE, N S , # ~. /' ~'{ ~SHO~ ~ S0' {Naluted ACCESSORY BDILDING FRONT: N S E W 30/ FRONT: N S ' E W SIDE{ N S E W 4' 9[ ~' SIDE~ N S g # · ~' 97 §' I~AR: N S ~ W ~SHO~ 50' {~eegured ~r~ O,H.W.{ EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING .-<,¢, +i- BY t ~'J~ Y FRONT FRONT SIDKI SXDEI I~AR: ACCESSORY BUILDING It, ~70 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A 3 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 5952 IDLEWOOD ROAD LOTS 22, 23, 24, AND E. 10, OF 25, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-2442 0105 P&Z CASE #94-29 WHEREAS, the owner, Donald H. Fulton, has applied for a 3 foot front yard setback variance in order to construct a new dwelling, 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, the buildable footprint on this parcel is limited by the wetlands at the rear. Causing greater difficulty is the topography that slopes dramatically towards the wetland. The applicant has modified their house plans to some extent and is making an effort to reduce the impact to the wetland by maintaining the 15 foot plus setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the a minimum encroachment to the front is reasonable and balanced by the improved setback and impact to the wetland, and; WHEREAS, there is a boulevard that is approximately 12 feet in width between the front property line and the curb, reducing the visual impact, with a 39' setback to the street, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with the following findings: 1. Special conditions exist with this property due to topography and the wetlands that limit the buildable footprint. The applicant's proposal is sensitive to the wetlands with a 15 foot setback, and this causes a minor encroachment in the front yard. The minor encroachment into the front yard is minimized by the approximate 12 foot wide boulevard between the property line and the curb, this results in a total distance of 39 feet from the front line of the house to the curb. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 3 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of a new dwelling es-shew__n on thc ~urvc, y revise~-4--2-1~34~. Proposed Resolution Fulton, #94-29 May 24, 1994 Page 2 o The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livabilit¥ 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 new dwelling as shown on the survey with a revision date of 4-21-94. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 22, 23, 24 and the east 10.00 feet of Lot 25, Block 1, "The Highlands" 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. DON FULTON,& LAND T]T. LE. INSURANCE CO. H~N~IN "~,: MiNNE~YA ,~j / I // / LEUL DESChIPTION OF PR£NIS£S SUBYEY[~: Lots 22, 23 24 and the east 10. Lot 2S, Block 'The Highlands. [ O0 feet Of This survey Intends to shov the boundaries or the above described property. It does not purport to shov uny othur Inprovumeflts or encroachments. .... ~ Iron Barber Bearings Shorn ere bisnd upon in assumed durum. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1994 12. . · L LT4 ]:OR NEW DWELLING~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking a 3 foot front yard setback variance in order to construct a new dwelling. The buildable footprint on this parcel is limited by the wetlands at the rear. Causing greater difficulty is the topography that slopes dramatically towards the wetland. The applicant has modified their house plans to some extent and is making an effort to reduce the impact to the wetland by maintaining the 15 foot plus setback to the ordinary high water. In discussion with staff, it appears that a minimum encroachment to the front is reasonable and balanced by the improved setback end impact to the wetland. In addition, there is a boulevard that is approximately 12 feet in width between the front property line and the curb, reducing the visual impact, with a 39' setback to the street. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 3 foot front yard setback variance in order to construct a new single family dwelling as shown on the survey revised 4-21-94 with the following suggested Findings of Fact: 1. Special conditions exist with this property due to topography end the wetlands that limit the buildable footprint. 2. The applicant's proposal is sensitive to the wetlands with a 15 foot setback, and this causes a minor encroachment in the front yard. 3. The minor encroachment into the front yard is minimized by the approximate 12 foot wide boulevard between the property line and the curb, this results in a total distance of 39 feet from the front line of the house to the curb. Sutherland noted that he received confirmation from Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, that the lot area of this property above the ordinary high water elevation is 15,300 square feet. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carded unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. CITY of XlOUND STAFF REPORT 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 5536,' !687 6!2; 472-0600 FAX 612 472-0623 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of May 9, 1994 TO: FROM: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff, Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~~k~y~-~ ' SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Donald H. Fulton CASE NO. 94-29 LOCATION: 5952 Idlewood Road., Lot 22, 23, 24 & E. 10' of Lot 25, Block 1 The Highlands, PID #23-117-2442 0105 ' ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking a 3 foot front yard setback variance in order to construct a new dwelling. The buildable footprint on this parcel is limited by the wetlands at the rear. Causing greater difficulty is the topography that slopes dramatically towards the wetland. The applicant has modified their house plans to some extent and is making an effort to reduce the impact to the wetland by maintaining the 15 foot plus setback to the ordinary high water. In discussion with staff, it appears that a minimum encroachment to the front is reasonable and balanced by the improved setback and impact to the wetland. In addition, there is a boulevard that is approximately 12 feet in width between the front property line and the curb, reducing the visual impact, with a 39' setback to the street. printed on recycled paper Stair Report 94-29, Fulton May 9, 1994 Page 2 ~TAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 3 foot front yard setback variance in order to construct a new single family dwelling as shown on the survey revised 4-21-94 with the following suggested Findings of Fact: 1. Special conditions exist with this property due to topography and the wetlands that limit the buildable footprint. 2. The applicant's proposal is sensitive to the wetlands with a 1 5 foot setback, and this causes a minor encroachment in the front yard. 3. The minor encroachment into the front yard is minimized by the approximate 12 foot wide boulevard between the property line and the curb, this results in a total distance of 39 feet from the front line of the house to the curb. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. I I1 I yAR/AN~~CATION ~e~41 MI~ Rnad, Mouad, MN 5Z364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax~ 4T2-0620 APR i~z.~ 19°~ A~s Name I~y Phone :l~ ~m ~t?limfion er= been mnde ~or zonlag, v~ce, oc~d~o~ u~e permit, or otl~r axming procedure for ~s properS. ¢ ) yes, ~ no. If :yes, list da~(s) of application, ~'tion talam, ~olution mtmbev(s) and provi& ~pies of re.~uti~s. 2. Detailed desefitXon of proposed const~,eli~ or alteratian (size, numbex of slories, type o~ us~, ~c.): I q,~3 . .~. _ .~.~.~,~ comply with all at, a, _-..~ ~.t, ~n-conforming ~ (d~ ~ ~ ~ .~~_~ ~ ~ x ~ f~. ~ ~, ~ ~ ....... SBTI~ACKS: ft. ft, _qft _. _sqfl ~ Does the lxesent use of the propca*t~ .._~_ __m~.t to all regulntions for ~ zoning district in which it i$ located? Y~s M, lqO (). I~ nO, Speo. ty ~s.~, non-confortni~ ~ (~} mo shanow thc ~ orainncc was ~dopted (1982)? Y~s (), No (~. Ir yu, explain: e W~s th,,. lmdship czca{~ by ~y other man-m,~le change., such a.s thc re, loc~on of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: Ar~ ~e comlitiom of hardship for wMch you reque~ a ~ peculiar ooly ~o ~e properp~ 4escn'bed in ~s l~i~ion? Yes ~0', No (). If m, list some o~r I ce~dfy ll~t all of the. above statements and linc ~~ contained in an)' required ~ or plans Io be submitted lx:rewith arc true and accurate. I consent to th~ entry in or upon the l~'emises desc. n~l in this ~o~ by any authorized official of tt~ City of Mound far ~ purpo~ of i~~, or of prating, ~ and removing such notices as may be ~equired by hw. CITY OF MouHD HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ~I,va~TOTALHOUSE i · · - * t · z~ ~) x ~-~ : /(~ ' ' ' TOTAL ~E ' ' ' , . TOTAL DRIVEWAY · · * · · ' * * *'* * '* * * · *" -- DEGr~ . X - deck" t00~) TOTAL DEGK eeeim.~.weee o* TOTALO~R eee"~ee**e'aet''ie* I ! /,;/ ? / t / ~'tt /' / / Doubt41 20'0 ~' 20-0 Kitchen Foye, I I1 More for Less:" Big in function but small in footage, this two-story passive solar design puts every inch of space to valuable and efficient use. The house can be constructed either as a free-standing unit or as part of a condo development. The plan flows visually from its entry, through its high-ceilinged great room, 1o a brilliant south-facing sun room where solar heat is collected and stored in the ceramic.tiled floor. Thick insulation in exterior walls and ceilings · . mmmmizes heat loss during lhe cold season. In summer, air flow is created by convection while eave overhangs protect against over-exposure. The first floor, excluding sun room, provides 915 sq. fl. of living area, while the second floor adds 397 sq. ft., for a total of 1,312 sq. ft. Garage is 427 sq. ft.; optional basement is 915 sq. ~1. First floor; Second floor: t ~ sq. ft. 397 sq. ft. Total living area: Garage: 1,J~:bsq. ft. 427 sq. ft. Basement (Optional): J 0~5 sq. ft. (S/ab-on-grade option included.) x Greaf Rm 1~-0 x 20-0 (hi ceil'g) fhru ;lichen Fo TO ORDER THIS BLUEPRINT, CALL TOLL.FREE 1-80~547.5570 ;~04 (..phc_es and details on pp. ~2-~S.) Blueprint Price Code A Plan K-507-S L ._ ~-~' _.: ~_. above Master Bedrm 12'0x 16-0 hall ;; Double ~uroge ~ 20-Ox 20-0 GI~NEI~,',.L ZOXLNG LNI~OI~L%L"~TION 5111/ET " ' ' ~ ADDR£ss: Survey on file? yes no~ Date o~ s.~.~ey [~V ............ ' ' Required ~t Width: · ~ of Record? yes~ no ? (fr°ntege off eft ~proved ~blic street) rBA, _, Depth FRONT ~ {I · # FRONT: SZD~: N S ~ W ~ FRONT: ~s~o~ FRONT~ FRONT: REAR: LAJC~$HORZ~ l DL ~.'l;'OOO RD CITY of MOUND Memorandum 5341 MAYW $,~D ROAD M?j'JND f,,,,1 NNESZTA 55364-1687 ~6~2, 472:600 FAX 6!2 -'-2 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 19,1994 Planning Commission Jon Sutherland, Building Official RNA NOYD, 2976 HIGHLAND BLVD., .... ROD LARSON AND MY_~ .... ,-voc~ DR NOW VACATED, CASE ~94-2_3._ AND 2, INCL. u.u.~-~, ~A~ o 16 VARIANCE uF BLOCKS I , - /~-- .... 0 · THAT PART ...... ,~"MER ASSEMBLY ,PID #;z~ 1 - MINNESOTA BAPII~ =u~v, FOR GARAGE ADDITION. CLARIFICATION OF iMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS The applicant's contractor, Sawhorse Designers, has revised the calculations for impervious surface coverage for the subiect property. The calculations appear accurate, with the exception of the lot area. The surveyor has verified the lot area at 25,674 square feet, and this number is slightly larger than the lot area used by the contractor of 25,358.13. This difference results in a slight improvement to the impervious coverage calculations, and therefore, a variance to impervious cover of 12 square feet, or .045%, is being requested. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance to recognize the existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing nonconforming setback to the street side structure; and approval of a variance to impervious surface coverage of 12 square feet, or .045 percent, to allow construction of a 34' x 30' attached garage as shown on the survey revised 11-19-93 with the following conditions: 1. The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval for the addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by Mound City Code. The owners are advised that City staff and City Council will likely not allow any variances for the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with the current codes. 2. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel. JS:Pi This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 24, 1994. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SECOND DWELLING, NONCONFORMING SETBACKS, AND IMPERVIOUS COVER AT 2976 HIGHLAND BLVD., THAT PART OF BLOCKS I AND 2, INCL. BUCKBEE DR. NOW VACATED, 'MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY', PID #23-117-2441 0016, P&Z CASE #94-23 WHEREAS, the owners, Rod Larson and Myrna Noyd, have applied for variances to recognize an existing nonconforming second dwelling on the street side of the parcel, in order to construct a 34' x 30' garage addition onto the principal dwelling. WHEREAS, the street side dwelling is nonconforming as a second dwelling in the R-1 single family zoning district, and it is also nonconforming to the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. This building has a 3 foot overhang extending to within 6 feet +/- of the front property line resulting in a 21 foot setback variance request, and; WHEREAS, a minimum variance to impervious surface coverage is also being requested, as follows: Lot Area 25,674 x 30% 7,702 Total Proposed Coverage 7,714 Variance 12 sq ft (.045 percent). WHEREAS, the subject property is located in 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 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation. WHEREAS, staff was unable to find any permit history where the City approved the conversion of the garage into a residence, or subsequently into a rental unit. The rental unit is nonconforming to the existing Zoning Ordinance and its use should be discontinued at the earliest opportunity, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance to recognize the existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing nonconforming setback to the street side structure; and approval of a variance to impervious surface coverage of 12 square feet, or .045 percent, to allow construction of a 34' c 30' attached garage as shown on the survey revised 11-19-93 with the following conditions: The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval for the addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by Mound City Code. The owners are advised that City staff and City Council will likely not allow any variances for the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with the current codes. ~opo~ed Re~olution Ca~e ~94-23, P~ge 2 b. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 34' x 30' garage addition onto the principal dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Blocks 1 and 2, including Buckbee Drive now vacated, "Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly", lying North of the South 67.50 feet thereof and South of a line 22.0 feet North of an parallel with the North line of Block 2, said addition and extending from the West line of Block 1 to the shore of Lake Minnetonka. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 23, 1994 ~:~ R DLAR NANDMYRNAN YD 2 7 HI HLANDBLVD. THAT PART F L K 1 AND 2 IN L. B KBEE DR. N W VA ATED "MINNESOTA BAPTIST MMER A SEMBLY" PID#2 -117-2441 016. VARIAN EFOR ARAGEADDITI N. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 9, 1994, this request was tabled in order to clarify the hardcover calculations. The applicant's contractor, Sawhorse Designers, has revised the calculations for impervious surface coverage for the subject property. The calculations appear accurate, with the exception of the lot area. The surveyor has verified the lot area at 25,674 square feet, and this number is slightly larger than the lot area used by the contractor of 25,358.13. This difference results in a slight improvement to the impervious coverage calculations, and therefore, a variance to impervious cover of 12 square feet, or .045%, is being requested. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to recognize the existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing nonconforming setback to the street side structure; and approval of a variance to impervious surface coverage of 12 square feet, or .045 percent, to allow construction of a 34' x 30' attached garage as shown on the survey revised 11-19-93 with the following conditions: The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval for the addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by Mound City Code. The owners are advised that City staff and City Council will likely not allow any variances for the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with the current codes. 2. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel. Mueller clarified that now there is a variance to impervious cover being requested when there was none before. Mueller raised questions regarding the issue of two residences on one lot, how and when will this be changed? Since this use has been grandfathered and the two residences have existed prior to any zoning ordinance being adopted by the City, then why worry about having two addresses? He feels the residences should be allowed to have two different addresses. Clapsaddle added that the post office will probably not allow them to have only one address. Mueller further commented that considering the size of this lot, he does not understand why a variance to impervious cover would be needed. Jensen commented that when and if the second residence is removed, the hardcover will improve. Jensen is also okay with requiring one house number as this will encourage an ultimate change to the goal of having only one dwelling. Mueller requested an explanation from the City Attorney on why it is recommended that only one address be allowed for the two residences. MOTION made by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the deletion of item #2 which requires only one house number. Motion failed due to lack of a second. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Bird, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were Jensen, Bird, Michael, and Clapsaddle. Mueller opposed. Mueller opposed because he questions the method used to deal with lots with two dwellings. Clapsaddle commented that he believes the post office will ultimately over rule the City and require two addresses. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. 4740 4Znd Ave. N. Rol~itt.~lale, MN 55422 TO: Fax Number 4~"~-'" O~ZO ORIGINATOR FROM: ' ' SAWHORSE DESIGNERS & BUILDERS Phone - 555-0552 Fax No - 555-2668 I L Number of pages INCLL~IN~ this cover page is C 0 M M E N ............................ _:_' .... rev0828~i ........ L. CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVERCALCUU NAME: ADDRE~,~: EXISTING LOT AREA LOT AREA 8OFT SQ Fl* LENOTH WIDTH , DRIVEWAY: O~l'~tt~o ~.~: DECK: deck = IOOZ) OTHER:. TOTAL DECK TOTAL PROPOSED MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIFIEMENT8 · · · · ·, · · ·, · · ·, BY.' DATE: . MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1994 D LAR N R YD H LAN LV 7. ~ I . KB D ATED · I NE I T MM EMB · Pi #2 - 1 - 4 VARIA ~)R GARAGE ADDITION~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. The subject property is located in 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 e 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation. The applicant is seeking variances to recognize an existing nonconforming second dwelling on the street side of the parcel, in order to construct a 34' x 30' garage addition onto the principal dwelling as shown on the survey. This property and the street side dwelling is nonconforming as a second dwelling in the R-1 single family zone, it is also nonconforming to the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. This building has e 3 foot overhand extending to within 6 feet +1- of the front property line resulting in a 21 foot setback variance. All other issues are conforming, including hardcover, based on the applicant removing the existing wrap-around black top driveway as detailed on the survey. In tracking the building permit history, staff was unable to find a permit where the City approved the conversion of the garage into a residence, or subsequently into a rental unit. In any event, the rental unit is nonconforming to the existing Zoning Ordinance and its use should be discontinued at the earliest opportunity. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommended approval of a variance to recognize the existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing nonconforming setback to the street side structure in order to allow construction of a 34' x 30' attached garage es shown on the survey revised 11-19-93 with the following conditions: 1. The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval for the addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by Mound City Code. The owners are advised that City staff and City Council will likely not allow any variances for the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with the current codes. 2. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel. Mueller questioned the accuracy of the hardcover calculations, and noted that he calculated they were over the amount allowed by 400 square feet + I- (2%). Sutherland commented that even if the hardcover calculations exceed the minimum allowed by 2%, he feels this is reasonable, and suggested that the applicant could work with staff to address watershed issues. Mueller commented that to be over on hardcover for a lot of this size is excessive. The applicant noted that the proposed addition will help existing drainage problems on the property. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapssddle, to table the request until hardcover calculations can be confirmed by staff. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Mueller, Clapseddle, Hanue, Bird, end Voss. Those opposed were: Weiland, Jansen, end Michael. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534: MAYW©OD '~OAD L'* ~,,,~ N D MINNE$O-A FAX ,612~ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of May 9, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~,~ Variance Request APPLICANT: CASE NO. Rod Larson and Myrna Noyed 94-23 LOCATION: ZONING: 2976 Highland Blvd., That part of Blocks I and 2, including Buckbee Drive now vacated, "Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly", PID #23-117-2441 0016 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The subject property is located in 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 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation. The applicant is seeking variances to recognize an existing nonconforming second dwelling on the street side of the parcel, in order to construct a 34' x 30' garage addition onto the principal dwelling as shown on the attached survey. This property and the street side dwelling is nonconforming as a second dwelling in the R-1 single family zone, it is also nonconforming to the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. This building has a 3 foot overhand extending to within 6 feet +/- of the front property line resulting in a 21 foot setback variance. All other issues are conforming, including hardcover, based on the applicant removing the existing wrap-around black top driveway as detailed on the survey. In tracking the building permit history, staff was unable to find a permit where the City approved the conversion of the garage into a residence, or subsequently into a rental unit. In any event, the rental unit is nonconforming to the existing Zoning Ordinance and its use should be discontinued at the earliest opportunity. printed on recycled paper Staff Report 94-25, LarsonlNoyed May 9, 1994 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance to recognize the existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing nonconforming setback to the street side structure in order to allow construction of a 34' x 30' attached garage as shown on the survey revised 11-19-93 with the following conditions: The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval for the addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by Mound City Code. The owners are advised that City staff and City Council will likely not allow any variances for the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with the current codes. 2. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. ',.¥- N · // / / / / I,I II [ I ,i~ VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND 5341 Heywood Road, Hound, HN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commissi6n Date: * Application Fee: $50.00 City Council Date: -- --~r~",/-**-~ ! ~,q4 Case No. ~4-~©B Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property_ ~7~ ~I&~[-~'~~D~ Name~ oo~m~ q Owner' s I~ ~0~ Day Phone~o~ ~ ~ Owner's Address ~ ~%~L~Q~uWD, ~~9, ~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ~~~l~~u~. ,,LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~47 ~TD~ ~ ;f'Z~ /~/d~ ~u~-g~ ~ -, ,, Addition PIP No. Zoning District ~-{ Use of Property: ~?~6 ~a~c~ .as an application ever been made for zoning, variance, con~itiona~ use permit, or o~ner zonin~ procedure ~or ~nis ~ro~erty~ { } yes, yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed constr, uction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.) :. ~.~l×~ ~ ~ ~T~J4E(Q ~~ 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. · ' structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and 2 Do the existing. - .. · ..... :-e ~n whi it is located? Yes · . re ulatlons Ior the zoning ol~u£x~ ....... ch . s, et~bac~kO ,~% If ,o, specify each non-conforming u~descrlbe reason ~o~'vJia~e request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) ~ SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E~) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S~W ) side Yard: (~ S E W ) side Yard: ( N~ E W ) Street Frontage: Lot size: Hardcover: · ;~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~-~ ft. ft. ft. \ ~ ft. ft. ft. id> ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Z5,%5~ sq ft sq ft sq ft ~5~ sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), 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 ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage (~<) existing ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having land after the zoning ordinance was adopted property interests in/the (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. q~5 Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. 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, ~aintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date :ianuary ~5, CLAYTON L. LcFE:¥rR£ JO$~'PH £. HAMILTON CURTIS A. PE:ARSON JAMES H. SARGKNT JOYC£ A, HUOHES J, DENNIS O'SRII[N ' LAW OFFICES HOWARD, Lr'FEVERE, LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON ~aO0 FIRST NATIONAl SANK HI" N r'APOLIS. NINN£$OTA January 20, 1970 T£LtlIHON£ ~'~. Len Kopp, Village Manager Village of Mound 5545 Shoreline Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Northwestern Preparatory School - Campus Crusade Property Dear Len: I have reviewed your note of January 16, 1970, regarding the possibility of Northwestern Preparatory School buying and utilizing the Campus Crusade property. You indicate that the property is zoned Residential A-1. I have also reviewed the opinion which I rendered on October 15, 1967, and find that that opinion is still applicable. The Northwestern Pr.eparatory School would be a permitted use in the Residential A-1 district and, in my opinion, would not need a special permit. The land which they have used in the City of Minneapolis was subject to c~n exception by the City of Minneapolis to prohibit a private school in a residential neighborhood. I am enclosing a copy of the case of State v. Northwestern Preparatory School~ .Inc., 37 N.W. 2d 370. -I think a review of"'tDis d'eci'sion Will show that this particular party has already litigated this issue in ~{inneapolis and the Supreme Court has held that a zoning ordinance cannot permit public schools and prohibit private schools as the.equal protection clause of the Constitution requires equality in application of the laws. I hope that this answers your question and if I can be of further assistance, please call. CAP:Ih Enclosure Very truly yours~ Curtis A. Pearson, Village Attorney 1,1 was hi ~avo~ of pla~nt~ff~ ~n~ hc c~nnot ownc~ anti conducted hy ~ nonst~ck ~ Our conc;usi6~ is that plaintiff has no cause of action and that, because that is iruc, there shoukl be an afiirmancc. Affirmed. is 3..o_ t..r.a.in, young mca .................... c .... 'W': ';"'-'~'--:'~ ' duct__e.d__b¥ .t!~c ~.r.me.d..sc. rv~c~s o: Sta~cs and {or appointment to and stn'i:: i n-c'c ~:t~'i'~- b-i-ih-~'a-f~e-d-sTr vic e s, vi~l'a~t'i'o~" 6({~ie' equal' pr0t'ect'io'fCclius¢ STATF- v. NORTHV'/~-STE'~N pRF. PARA* TORY SCHOOL, Ino., et al. ~o, 34920, ~5ubre;ne Court et Minr~esota. April 29, 1949. I. Municlbal corporations ~601(~ , Ci~ zonln~ ordinances ofl~erwlse valid may be unconstitutional as ~ppiic~ to par- t~cular cascs. 2. Constlt~lional law ~209, 251 Thc Four,comb Amcadmcnt of the federal Consd~ution guarantees duc process ~nd equal .protection as separate rights. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. 3. Constltuiional law ~2tl " '., Thc.guaranty of equal protect!on of oq~,., "-w* and that aq s milady circum- ' ~ sta~e~ i'~g!~g~7~~~S'c'a' 4, Const;tuilonal law O=225(I) City zoning ordi,~aace permitting in a residential area public schools and churches . and schools accessory thereto, but prohibit- ing therein private schools, as applied to private schools, violated the equal pro- tccdon clause oi the federal Constitution. U.S.G.A.Const. Amend.' 14; Coast. Minn. Syl~us ~ the C~rt. wa;ca permits A zo:~h:g ordinance "' -:, -.:-' public sci;eels and. a re~,~e. .... area churches a::d schools accessory thereto and 2rohiblts tkcrcin private schools is uncon- -stitudonal as applied to a private school Appeal from Municipal Court of apolis; Theodore B. Knudson, Judge. The Northwestern Preparatory Sci:tx: Inc., and another were convlctcd oi vi~'.--:. lng a zoning ordinance, and they Judgment reversed with directions :: cater judgment acquitting dc/cndan:~ I~cn W. Pahner, oi ~inncapolis, for pcllants. John F. Bonnet, City Atty. and ~o ?. ~ci-Ialc, Asst. City Atty., both o[ apolis, for rcspondcn}. PETERSON, Justice. Defendants appeal from the judgg:: convicting thcs of violating a zoning o:~. nance of Minneapolis. The question for decision is whet~er zoning ordinanceI which permits residential area "Public Schools" "Churches and Schools accessory il;crc:( and prohibits therein private schools, unconstkutional as applied to a school, owned and conducted by a co:~. ration ~vhich has no capital stock aa~ not operated for profit, tl~e purpose xvhich is to train young men for examinations for entrance into sch~Is c;:.. ducked bY the armed services oi C:e Uai:c: Sta~es and ior ~ppointment to and scn'i;~ in certain oi the armed services, as in violation oi the duc process and .protection clauses of U.S,Cons= Amcai XIV, and oi Minn. Const. art. 1, ~ 2 an~ Thc facts have been sdpula;c~. Sec;i;. 3 oi the zoning' ordinance in question vldcs that in such an area there may L erected "Private" and "Two. f ami;y" lags,. "Public Schools," "Churchc$ iMiuucapoli~ Cit~' Charter & Ordi-'., unucos, 1li72--192,5, p. 5~ (Zoning Of . diuance".o/ tho. City of. M. iuuc~;~oli~, t 3), __SO' (me&.ured from EXZS'I'ZNG ~ OR PROPOSED 8t~TBACK8: ' ~CCESSORY BUILD ZN~ FRO~T: N S E l FRONT~ N S g ~ FRONT: SIDE: N S g ~ SIDE: N S I f~ DE: N S lyf ' *0 OV~ TS CONFO~? YES ~ · (,o~) J PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESO T,4 CASE NO. 94-21 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 350:310, TO ADD A OEFINITION FOR "VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS." 2. AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 350:670, TO MODIFY THE TEXT OF THE EXISTING CODE TO ADD "VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS" TO THE LISTING OF USES ALLOWABLE IN THE GENERAL BUSINESS (B-2) ZONING DISTRICTS BY ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound will hold a public hearing on June 14, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound offices at 5341 Maywood Road. The following will be considered: 1. Zonin~ Ordinance Amendment to Section 350:310 to add the following definition (or language of a similar nature) - "Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelter. Residential structures owned and operated by non-profit corporations that provide short-term housing for victims of domestic abuse." 2. Z(}ninq Ordinance Amendment to modify the text of the existing code to add "Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelter's" to the listing of uses allowable in the General Business (B-2) zoning districts by issuance of a conditional use permit. If approved, this change would apply to all land parcels within the City of Mound that are designated as General Business (B-2) on the zoning map. All 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 To be published in "The Laker" May 30, 1994. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 94-21 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A "VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER" WITHIN THE GENERAL BUSINESS (B-2) ZONING DISTRICT AT 1730 COMMERCE BOULEVARD (OLD RNA STATION SITE) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound will hold a public hearing on June 28, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound offices at 5341 Maywood Road. The following will be considered: Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a "Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelter" at 1730 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, located within the General Business (B-2) Zoning District. The proposed use will include the office of the Westonka Intervention Project as well as a temporary shelter for victims of domestic abuse. The subject property is legally described as follows: "That part of Lot 27 and that part of the adjoining County Road, all in "Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka," described as beginning at a point on the West line of Government Lot 4, Section 13, Township 117, Range 24 distant 1099.71 feet South from the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 4, thence North along said West line 251.11 feet; thence Easterly deflecting to the right 88 degrees 30 minutes, a distance of 275:09 feet to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 275 feet East measured at right angles from the West line of said Government Lot 4; thence South along said parallel line 258.3 feet to an intersection with a line drawn East at right angles to the West line of said Government Lot 4 from the point of beginning, thence West along the last described line 275 feet to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plat thereof except that part which lies West of a line drawn parallel with and distant 40 feet East of the West line of said Section 13." All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ~ncene C. Clark, City Clerk ' To be published in 'The Laker' June 13, 1994. To be mailed to property owners within 350 feet by June 17, 1994. I I n I I i~, ,ii i~,. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 April 8, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER LMCD PARKING AGREEMENT Sometime ago this matter was brought before the City Council at the request of the LMCD. As you recall the LMCD through a subcommittee has been working on developing parking agreements among the municipalities dealing with public access to the lake that are within cities to eventually arrive at the number of 700 car/trailer parking spaces within the Lake Minnetonka area. After working with LMCD staff and DNR personnel, we have now identified 32 parking spaces that are within 1500 feet of the Mound Bay Park access and 11 spaces which are within 2000 feet of the access giving a total of 43 spaces that can be identified for use as car/trailer parking. Attached is a proposed Lake Access Parking Agreement between the LMCD and the City of Mound as it relates to the Mound Bay Park access. I am recommending that the City Council approve this parking agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:Is printed on recycled paper LAKE ~INNETOHKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Like Access Perking Agreement Thio Agreement Xe nede bitumen the Like ~Xnnetonke Conservation Oletrxct (L~CD) end the ( City of Hound both publXo oorporitione organized end exte%Xng under the #HEREAS the L~CO end ¢ City of Mound ! ere Jointly =oncerned vith providing public boating access to Lake Hlnnetonka, meeting the Parking Standards for Leks ~tnnetonki, and WHEREAS the LHCD end ¢ City of Mound ! reoognize that a goal of 7e~ set/triller aploee viii be provided In the vicinity of present sad future access extel around the 1eke on aa equitable · basle es possible, NOW, TNEREFOR£, it La agreed by the LHCD And ( City of Mound ) that the oondXtione for car/triller perking for the public access Identified on the oheck/X'et identified ia ExhlbXt 'Ae end Parking Site P/an identified is Exhibit 'B' meet Pirk~ng Stinderds on the checklist ii lndtoeted. IN WITNESS YHEREOF, the LRCD end ( City of Mound ) have caused this Igre~mant to be duly execute~ this ~_ lStdey of _:_ May.: . 19_9~ LAKE ~ZNNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICTI AOENCY/CITYI[ City of Hound tXHZBIT & · Pub~o Aooell Car/TriLler PirkLng. Agreemen%a Mound Bay Park ~ 2. A~ceee C%ty ~1 City of Mound . Lake 2one No, Car/?ra%ler (C/T) Pat~ng by ~o~e~on~ t o~ C. ~ n..~enl~ed e~gned C/T only, count ~eeX of -0-. · Not eLgned, oount 75X oZ epiaee iVl~ll~t n-street, l,~el ~eet to 2, eec feet~. .- v .v.-u----~. _: ...... 141 bXe · '* · . u.~ a(aned, count 7~% oz Ipm~mm m~m~.-~-- ' * ..... '"- ' · - theee ooun~ up ~o VehLole Only P/rk~ng Sp/c~ _ _ 4. mber o~ C/T mpmcee on ~o~m I~X o~ total nu . a, . t9, -~- ~ i~lndlrd veh~o~l~ P .... ' --_":-- . _.:L.-~. Only IpiOel · · · ' Count tQte~ vehicle only IplGe~ ot le~ oz totll G/T pmrkSng epical ~n lore ~ ~ ~ Total, car/troller park%ng COOPERATXMO PROVXSIONSI 1, e accepted~ Acceee alta plan Llluetr/tXng e/ch C/T /pace and m/neuverLng vXth adequate Sngreae, egreeo, IplCe %l kept on f~le and cvrrent v~th L~CD. nm · rovXded at aoceae i~te ~e clear, $~g g -P ....... ''v- coneol~dated Zor aelthet~ca~Y I~ra~- ~ ally updating 'in cooperation ~ith LMCD. X · ncaa ire lVaillble on unreetrXcted, ~Xret- Al P . -~ ---4- ~rom ~emorXal Day to F$~ty peroen~ Gtenderde are available veekdaye. AI'I on-etreet p/rkXng lpaCel meet the ~ollov%ng itandirdlt e. ~lnLeum length o~ 5g ~eet per apace b. Adequate ehoulder vSdth to preclude door opeflXng ~nto tTBX~Xc Lane. Cheok~le% ~or £va~umt~ng'Leke ~lnnetonka Public Ac·em· Car/Trmlier Perking A~reement ~e~e pedeatrien route to ioQealpoSnt provided. On-·tree· car/triLler parking epical are Ileum·rated lad kep% carton%' on a plan by mtreot nlme on ~ile vi%h the LMCD. A temporary bolt ~ooring facility LI provided a~ the ramp late ~or I number o~ boat· equal to' LeX o£ the G/T parking epioea It %he 1Ate Zor ¢/T perking lpaCea be·vega ~,58~ ~eet tad 2, eeo eet. Agency/city reeervee the right to mike aha·gee Ln access alta plea off-etreet perking or on-etraet de.ignited or non-deli·noted FIrking a. publio policy prLorit~ea ney require, vLth a good ~aLth e~ort to repla=e loot ¢/? ap·cee at the ear,ieee poeaibXe date, notifying the ~MGD o~ in·ia/pa%ed aha·gel. City re·uLna approval privilege on any iot~ona. of in ego·ay re·vii·in· perking i~ovancel or roi·riG·lone on county or ltite h~ghvaya eZ~eoting C/T perking in the vicinity of in a~ceaa elto. _____ Age·ay/city agree%to enter into thee agreement ~or · period of _,~ _ yeere (f~ve years desired) .in recognit~ofl of the valuable recreatLofle~ opportunitiee o~ered on ~ake ~lnnotonka. II LANGDON II ', IOLI' 11/000 iI II II ,',,,, '":: inhlnnd 82500 ~T£ Z z 0 J 0 J r STATl. oo Mound Boy Park .,~ Boat Landing GOo~$ 6O Idlew0od Access Twin Park CITY OF MOUND, MOUND BAY PARK Car/Trailer Parking Inventory. Identified June, 1993 Amended 0ct, 1993 _ //~1~//5-.,'//~v? Z~,~4''~''''''~ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT April 18, 1994 RECEIVED 1 g Igg( TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Lake Access Task Force and Interested Parties Task Force Chair James N. Grathwol~~ Draft Report of the 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force At the last Lake Access Task*Force meeting May 12, 1993, the Task Force directed that a report be drafted. The LMCD Lake Access Committee, the MN DNR and LMCD staff have all contributed to this draft report. The draft report is ready at this time for comment of the current Lake Access Task Force spokespersons. Interested parties may also comment. A meeting for public review of the draft report is set for: 7:00 pm, Wednesday, May 11, 1994 Norwest Bank Building Conference Room 135 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata Handicapped entrance on Wayzata Blvd. west entrance Task Force member cities and participating agencies will have an opportunity following this meeting to offer additional comment. Following an appropriate comment period, to be determined by the Lake Access Task Force spokes persons, a meeting of the Task Force will be called to consider final report acceptance. I want to thank each of you for the many hours of work you have put into this project. Your contributions have made this report possible. ! believe we can take pride in the policy recommendations contained in the report. City and agency spokespersons are asked to please confirm their attendance by calling the LMCD, 473-7033, by May 9. Please brin~ the enclosed report for discussion purposes. I look forward to thanking you personally on May 11. Iq¥o DRAFT RECEIVED APR 1 § t.qg4 REPORT OF THE 1992 LAKE MINNETONKA LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE To The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District DRAFT COPY April 15,1994 DRAFT DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary and Conclusions .................................................................. 1 History and Background .................................................................... Introduction Task Force Goals Existing Access Goal of 700 Car/Trailer Parking Spaces ..................................................... 6 Elimination of Street Car/Trailer Parking .................................................... 7 Parking Standards for Car/Trailer Parking ................................................... 7 Parking Inventory ........................................................................... Parking Agreements and DNR Cost Sharing ' 9 New Access Sites Equitable Distribution ...................................................................... 10 Marina Potential for Lake Access Proceedings Summary ........................................................................................................ 11 Acknowledgments ......................................................................... 11 DRAFT DRAFT o SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Access to Lake Minnetonka via riparian homeowners, c. om~ marin~, yacht dubs, out lot docks, and municipal docks primarily for non-riparian property owners is significant in quantity and percent of overall access and generally of high quality. There is a lack of quality, free, reliable car/trailer parking for boats wanting to access Lake IVlinnetonka via boat launch ramps. There is not a lack of poor quality free car/trailer parking. Currently, there are over 700 spaces used on the busiest days. Poor quality parking results in residents complaining about boat.s intnisive behavior and excessive traffic congestion. It results in extreme fiustrafion by boaters over the lack ora decent place to park to go boating on Lake l~fmnetonka This generates tension between the local community interest and the car/trailer boater interest. If the car/trailers currently parked near the lake could be put in wen organized places with adequate, safe parking conditions with car/trailer tttrnarounds, the local communities would benefit from reduced congestion and less intrusion on their neighborhoods. The task force r~ed the conclusions of two prior studies that 700 high quality, free, reliable car/trailer parking spaces are fair and reasonable for Lake bfinnetonka and are achievable. The Task Force concluded that when qvality free reliable car/trailer parking spaces are provided in a zone, all other street ear/trailer parking ought to be dosed in that zone with enforced "no car trailer parking signs" Because over 700 car/trailer spots are used today, providing 700 quality fi'ee, reLiable, car/trailer spaces will not increase the number of boats on the lake but a~ create a modest reduction. Every other year, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District is to certify (LMCD) Coy count) and pubLish on a map showing the locations and the number of free, reliable, car/tzailer parking spaces that meet the standards established by this task force. Car/trailer parking meeting the physical standards noted elsewhere in this report will be certifiable by the LMCD as counting toward the 700 goal on the following basis. a. 100% of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count if: · There is a parking agreement OR · The street or remote parking is posted "car/trailer only"' b. 80% of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count if: · There are signs at the launch ramp showing where to park. · There are street signs pointing out the direction to the launch ramp · The ramp and parking location can be put on an access map. c. 60% of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count if: · none ofthe above conditions are met DRA Pase ] DRAFT d. The LMCD will work cooperatively with the cities, Hennepin County, and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to replace spaces should they be lost for car trailer parking. 10. Existing ramps without tumarounds that require backing car/trailers off.busy county ronds or city streets should be closed only after a quality facility meeting the standards has been completed to replace it. 11. To achieve the goal of 700 car/trailer parking spaces cooperation is needed a. Additional parking agreements are needed for as many existing sites as poss~le. This may include payments by the DNR under cooperative agreements. b. Some street and remote lots need "car/trailer only" signs. c. Signs need to be placed at launch ramps showing where to park. d. Street signs need to be installed showin8 direction to the ramps. e. The LMCD and the DNR need to negotiate with some commercial marinas to provide fi'ee car/trailer parking for the public that can be certified. Negotiations may include payments by the DNR and/or other incentives by the LIVlCD. f.. Make ready docks need to be installed at ramps where remote car/trailer parking is used. g. New access sites (launch ramps) need to be developed with the cooperation ofthe local cities, the LMCD, the DNR, sad with other agencies of'government. The majority of' funding ought to come fi.om regional and/or state sources. Cities are not usually expected to pay a significant portion of improved car/trailer parking even though their local community may benefit. The 1993 LMCD Cm'/Trailer Parkir Invent Tot~ In Use t~t ~t T~ 1992 To~ C~ent ~d To~ m u~ ~t ~liabffi~ Fu~ U~ ~d Potenh~ U~ or M~ ~e S~d & PI~ P~ P~g Spa~ ~ler Av~able Physi~ LMCD to ~ ~CD Catego~es Invento~ T~y S~d ~ Access Lots 3~ 259 239 239 124 363 In Remote lots 93 93 70 43 27 On the Street 282 215 114 97 17 83 G~ TOT~ 735 567 423 379 168 ~16 13. For the new public access at Maxwell Bay successful cooperation with Orono and additional regional or state funding will be required. 14. Car/trailer access must be distributed equitably around the lake. When a community can not provide access, that community needs to help fund accesses in neighboring communities. Communities without access may be asked to pay an equitable share for maintenance to communities with car/trailer parking. DRAFT Page 2 DRAFT I ,I Ii I I ,i~, 1992 LMCD l.~kc Minncton~ Ac,:_,~_s T&sk Fol~c Rcpofl Draft 4-1.$-1994 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Launch ramps and car-trailer parking at Lake IVlTmnetonka have been under discussion for many years. The Minnesota State Constitution states that the waters of the state will be free and open to the public. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in respOnse to the Outdoor Recreation Act 1975 ~esota Statue $6A.01-11) established a policy to "provide free and adequate public access to all of lVfinnesota's lakes consistent with demand and resource capabilities". This policy has been carried out throughout the state, usually with the cooperation of the local community which usually sees a launch ramp with free car/trailer parking as a benefit. To obtoin this free access, the DN-R set policies for what constitutes reliable, free car/trailer parking. The DNR attempts to utilize the following guiddines: 1. One car/tr~il~ parking space for every 20 acres of lake surface Lake MTmnetonka's 14,000 acres requires a minimum of 700 spaces. 2. Ramps with remotes lots must have signs showing where to park the car/trailer. 3. There must be street signs on major roads near the ramp showing the direction to the ramp. 4. Car/trailer parking spaces must be in sight and less than 1500 feet from the launch ramp. 5. Street or remote lot parking doesn't count. 6. Car/trailer parking spaces must be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 7. Car only spots for car-top boats don~t count. 8. Parking must be free except in parks where the same fee is charged all park users. Because the DNR. did not recognize existing car/trailer parking spaces that did not meet their standards they determined that there were only 143 car/trailer parking spaces on Lake lVfinnetonka. They published information and testified before various bodies that there were only 143 car/trailer parking spaces for Lake l~metonka when there should be 700 minimum according to their standard of one per twenty acres. People outside the lake area communities got the impression that the Lake area was trying to keep people off 'their lake" so they could keep it for themselves. The DNR continued to pursue a policy of trying to obtain launch ramps and car/trailer parking on Lake l~nnetonka. On the other hand, the local lake area communities believed counts showing 1,000 to 1,200 empty trailers attached to cars parked around the lake on the nice weekend days. They claimed there were substantially more than the 700 car/trailer parking spaces and the lake didn't need any more car/trailer parking. In fact, they claimed that the boats offthe trailers were the major cause ofthe increased crowding on the lake. What followed was more than a decade of struggles between the DNR and the local Lake Minnetonka communities over launch ramps and free car/trailer parking. In 1982, the DNR announced plans to purchase property at King's Point to devdop a launch ramp with free car/trailer parking that met their standards. The local communities claimed 1,200 car/trailer spaces existed and vigorously objected to the DNR plan. In 1983, an appeal to the governor resulted in the launch ramp project being canceled and a Governor's Access Study Commission being appointed to study access on Lake lVfmnetonka. (The King's Point launch ramp was built in 1987). The commission issued a report that: 1. Public parking availability is a crucial component of adequate boat launch facilities. 2. 700 car/trailer parking spaces is fair and reasonable for Lake lVfmnetonka. 3. Equitable distribution of car/trailer parking around the lake is desirable. 4. Parking standards for Lake Minnetonka may need to be adjusted. DRAFT Pase DRAFT After the report was issued, there was no rush to build the 700 car/trailer parking places by any body or agency. The lake area communities believed there were more than the 700 car/trailer parking spaces called for in the report and the lake didn't need another 700. They questioned why the local communities should pay to build car/trailer parking for people outside their area, even though community residents were also users. Because of the lack of action in providing for the needed car/trailer parking, the Metropolitan Council did another lake access study in 1986. It confirmed the 700 car/trailer parking space amount as being a fair and reasonable number. In 1987, as a result of no action in providing car/trailer parking spaces and no plans to build them, the Metropolitan Council told the LMCD that they would seek state legislative action for a regional or state agency to take over governing of Lake Minneto~a to be assured the car/trailer parking was provided, unless the LMCD prepared a formal plan showing how the car/trailer parking would be accomplished. The LMCD believed the car/trailer parking could not be considered without developing an overall long range management plan for the lake that would include adequate free car/trailer parking. The LMCD Management Plan was published at the end of 1990 and approved in December 1991. The LMCD Management Plan which the DNR, the Metropolitan Council, the cities and many others helped develop, reaffirmed the 700 car/trailer parking space goal as being fair and reasonable. Three additional fi~ndamental points were discussed: 1. For Lake lVfinnetonka 700 parking spaces would be both the minimum and the maximum. 2. Once the 700 car/trailer spaces are established, other street car/trailer parking ought to be eliminated. The cities and the county will be encouraged to erect and enforce 'no car/trailer parking' signs as long as the 700 goal continues to be met. 3. The LMCD, with assistance from the DNK should review the existing parking quality standards to determine if some adjustments could be made for the special situation on Lake Minnetonka. In the fall of 1991, the DNR took an option on property on Maxwell Bay with the intent of developing a launch ramp with free car/trailer parking. Objections surfaced in the city ofOrono. Orono tried to persuade the DNR not to exercise its option on the property until a plan for the entire lake was developed according to the LMCD management plan. At this time, the LMCD was just beginning to organize its Access Committee. When the DNR purchased the Maxwell Bay property, the DNR commissioner wrote a letter to both the LMCD and the city of Orono. The letter stated that the DNR would postpone development of the Maxwell Bay property until a task force appointed by the LMCD developed a detailed plan for car/trailer parking for all of Lake Minnetonka. DRAFT age 4 D1La, FT 1992 LMCD Lake Minn~took~ A¢¢-,~-'~ Tn.sk Force Report INTRODUCTION The Lake ~ Task Force was recommended by the commissioner of the DNR, and convened by a LMCD resolution in January, 1992. The purpose of this task force was to develop a detailed plan to meet the lake access objectives in the LMCD Management Plan for Lake lVfinnetonk~ The LMCD invited representatives from 1. Its member cities 2. Government agencies sharing responsibility for the management of Lake lVfLrmetonka, including; the DNR, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, Hennepin Parks, the l~mmehaha Creek Watershed District 0VICWD), and others. 3. Interested citizen's groups such as the lVfmnesota Sportfishing Congress (IV[SC), Fisherman Advocating Intelligent Regulation (FAIR), the Lake lVfmneto~ Lake, shore Owners Association (LMLOA), and others For a roster, see APPENDIX 1, page 12 Subcommittees of this group conducted detailed studies and submitted their reports to the task force. Meetings began in March of 1992 and continued through May of 1993. Staff from the LMCD and the DNR assisted. Participants gave generously oftheir time and support. The LMCD Lake Access Committee drafted this final report. Appendices to this report contain information to document: 1. Task Force spokespersons (ORIGINAL DESIGNEES) 2. Existing public access sites and commercial marinas (map 1) 3. Standards for car/trailer parking; 4. 1992 Current and Potential Car/Trailer Parking Inventory 5. Model Parking Agreement 6. DNR Landowner's Bill of Rights ?. DNR Acquistion Procedure 8. Access site criteria for evaluation 9. Lake Zone lViap 2 10. Proceedings summary TASK FORCE GOALS The goals adopted by the 1992 Task Force were to: 1. Review all types of existing boater access to Lake lVfmnetonka.* 2. Affu'm the prior goal of 700 certifiable car/trailer parking spaces for reliable free public access to Lake ]Vfmnetonka. 3. Alarm the Management Plan goal of closing street parking to car/trailers as the 700 car/trailer parking goal is reached. 4. Establish standards for certifying car/trailer parking that meet the special needs of Lake ]~m~netonka and the boating public. 5. Conduct a reliable, detailed inventory of existing car/trailer parking spaces. Count potential car/trailer parking spaces. 6. Develop a model car/tr~er parking agreement and obtain agreements where possible. ?. Explore prospective access sites and develop a list of sites for potential development. 8. Review the principle and define equitable dism'bution. 9. Examine the possibility for commercial marinas to provide some free public car/trailer parking. DRAFT DRAFT * The focus of this Task Force was on the free public access to the lake via car/trailer parking at boat launch ramps. In the process of this study, a review was made ofmany other kinds ofaccess. )see APPENDIX 2, page 13). EXISTING ACCESS The Task Force reviewed the studies done by the LMCD, DNR, task forces, 1991 and 1992 LMCD boat count, the 1992 I.,MLOA car/trailer count study, and the 1993 Jabbour aerial car/trailer survey. The following table categorizes access to Lake Minnetonka. Boat Storage Count and Nice Weekend In Use Boat Count by Origination 1992 Max Ave Percent Boats Percent of Boats Peak Peak of Stored Stored that are Count Use Boats at docks Active on the Water Count On the & Racks Water Where Boats Originate (4) (1) Max Peak Avs Peak (2)(5) (3)(5) (5) Riparian Residents & Out Lots 5,973 9% 6% 530 379 29 % Comm'! Marinas & Yacht Clubs 1,862 29°/0 21% 549 392 30 % Municipal docks 1,012 33% 23% 329 235 18 % Car/trailer launch ramp N/A 421 300 23 %~ TOTAL KEF 1,829 1,306 100 % 1. om 1992 LMCD Boat Count adjusted by estimating empty racks & unrented slips at Commercial Marinas, Yacht Clubs, and Municipal docks 2. Single Weekend Day Peak Use Study: 1984=1836, 1986=2142, 1987=2252, 1992=1829 3. Average Weekend Peak Use Study: 1984=1318, 1986=1453, 1987=1370, 1992=1306 4. Active maximum peak use count uses estimate assuming the average peak use proportions remain constant for the maximum peak use. 5. 1992 LMCD/DNR aerial count ofboats in use on nice Saturday and Sunday afternoons. GOAL OF 700 CAR/TRAILER PARKING SPACES The task force confirmed the goal of 700 reliable free car/trailer parking spaces and agreed with the goal of closing street parking to car/trailers as the 700 car/trailer parking goal becomes established. This agrees with the 1991 LMCD Management Plan. It is compatible with the policy of one parking place for every 20 acres of water surface. It is the minimum number of spaces required under the DNR public water access program in the metropolitan area. The goal of 700 was first established by the task forces of 1983 and confinned in the study of 1986. It is conservative, considering that the demand for boating recreation exceeds 1 parking space per 20 acres of water on most ofthe metropolitan area lakes. Compared to standards in other pans ofthe country, it is also conservative. Some states provide I parking space per 10 acres of water surface. (qf5 5 DRAFT Page 6 DRAFT · ,I la . ! I ,1~ 1~2 LM~ i..,~¢ tv~uctoar, a ~,c. cts.s l~ rotu: t~cport ,I Il l, , Ii The Task Force con-4dered lowering the goal. The Lake IVfmnetonka Lake Shore Owners Association (LMLOA) believes that 700 parking spacea would increa~ boat dt~ity aad r~u~ thc ~ajoymm of thc lake by lakeshorc users. Taking into consideration that there are over 700 car/trailer spaces used to access the lake now, and street parldn.q.~ will be eliminated when the 700 goal is reached, the net effect will be fewer boats on the lake and no increases in density. Thus, the 700 goal was reaffu'med. ELIMINATION OF STREET CAR/TRAILER PARKING There was consideration in the LMCD Management Plan whereby other street car/trailer parking would be eliminated as the goal of 700 was being established, and when the 700 goal was complete, all other street parking ought to be removed as a way of limiting crowding on the lake. Task Force data made clear that currently, on a good day many more than 700 car/trailers are parked mound the lake. Therefore, when the 700 goal is met and other street parking is abolished there will be a net decrease in boats on the lake from car/trailers. PARKING STANDARDS FOR CAR/TRAILER PARKING Earlier task force parking standards for quality, reliable free car/trailer parking for Lake bfinnetonka were reviewed. Access design, location of parking, security of personal property, and safety of boaters maneuvering their car/trailers, were among considerations discussed in reaching agreement on the physical standards. After much discussion the Task Force adopted the following physical standards: see APPENDIX 3,: pages 14 and 15: 1. 700 is a fair and reasonable number without increases in the future. 2. Car/u'ailer parking must be within 2000 feet of the ramp. 3. Street or remote lot car/trailer parkin8 over 1500 feet from a ramp must have a make ready dock.. 4. 350 of the 700 spaces must be available 7 days per week, 24 hours per day. 350 must be available on weekends, and 350 may have limited hours. 5. Up to 10% ofthe spaces at any one ramp location may be spaces for cars only (assumes canop boats). 6. Parking must be flee except in parks where the same fee is charsed all park users. 7. Ramps offbusy highways or streets must have a turnaround to prevent car/trailers from backing down fi'om busy roads. The Task Force agreed that every other year the LMCD should take a physical inventory ofthe actual car/trailer parking around the lake and certify the number that meet the above physical standards as well as reliability standards listed below.. Car/trailer parking space meeting the physical standards listed in APPENDIX 3 will be certifiable by the LMCD as counting toward the 700 goal on the following basis: t 100% ofthe street or remote lot parking spaces will count if: · There is a parking agreement OR · The street or remote parking is signed "car/trailer only" b. 80°,4 of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count if: · There are signs at the launch ramp showing where to park. · There are street signs pointing out the direction to the launch ramp. · The ramp and parking locations cam be put on an access map ¢. 60°,4 of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count fi.none of the above are met DRAFT Page 7 DRAFT The changes from prior standards allow the Task Force greater flexibility in certifying more car/trailer parking spaces. As can be seen in this report, the number increased from 143 to $16. PARKING INVENTORY To determine the number of existing and potential car/trailer parking spaces capable ofbeing certified to the newly adopted standards, data was gathered fi.om a variety of sources and in a number of ways. Site lists were provided by LMCD member cities. Site visits were made and aerial photographs were used. Spaces inventoried included: 1. Parking in on-site lots at existing lake access points 2. Available on-street parking within 2,000 feet 3. Off-site lots, public and private 4. Future additional committed spaces 5. Car/trailer parking spaces potentially available The total potential car/trailer parking spaces certifiable to the new physical standards was 735. (The original inventory is in APPENDIX. 4 page 16). Substantially higher numbers of car/trailers are being parked free at peak times in good weather than the inventory has identified. The 1993 LMCD Car/Trailer Parking Total In Use Total 1992 Total in that Meet the Additional Total in Current andTo~ Use that Reliability Future Use and Parking Space Potential In Use or Meets the Standard & Planned Planned Categories Car/TrailerAvailable Physical LMCD to b~ LMCD Inventory Today Standard Certified Certified Certified In Accoss Lots North Arm 65 80 80 80 0 80 Grays Bay Gsway 37 37 17 17 0 17 Grays Bay Dam 20 20 20 20 0 20 Spring Park 148 86 86 86 0 86 Kings Point 0 32 32 32 0 32, Phelps Bay ]0 4 4 4 0i 4 Henn. Reg. Park 80 0 0 0 48 48 Maxwell Bay N/A 0 0 0 ?6 ?6 SUBTOTAL 360 259 239 239 124 363 In Remote lots Carsons Bay 93 93 701 43 2? ?0 On the Street · North Arm 31 31 3 ] 3 ] 0 0 W'tlliams St. 40 40 40 40 0, 40~ Cooks Bay 1 ]0 43 43 26 ]7 43 Wayzata Bay ]0] ]0] 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 282 215 114 97 17 83 GRAND TOTAL 735 567 423 379 ]68 5]6 DRAFT Page s DRAFT I ,I I I I I~ Ii il, 1,, , ia The Task Force recosnizes there is additional car/trailer parking beyond 2000 feet that is available today and not part of the above count. It, also, r0colgaz thee arc ad Uoma tauach ram tn aad available today that are not in the above count. This report adopts a new and lower inventory in an effort to be very conservative after consultation with Hennepin Coun{'y and the cities. The revised total inventory of 516 car trailer spaces represents parking that is available now, or that can reasonably be made available on a stable long-term b~_6-~. There are approximately 379 car/trailer parking spaces currently available and that are being certified by the LMCD. Of'these, approximately 282 spaces are in public access lots. An additional 97 spaces are in on-street parking sites. Approximately 168 future spaces are either committed or negotiable. Note that when Maxwell Bay is completed, 31 on street spaces will be e 'lmfiaated. This results in a total of 516 potential car/trailer parking spaces that are now believed to be available or planned and which meet the new parking standards and that can be certified by the LMCD. Parking agreements need to be reached with communities, counties, agencies and private commercial marinas to convert some existing parking from uncertified to certified. PARKING AGREEMENTS AND DNR COST SHARING One result of the 1986 task force was the improvement in the process that secures parki_ 'ns spaces at or near existing public access sites that can be considered to be "reliable". To make new or existing parking reliable over the years a parking agreement can be secured with the property owner that requires the car/trailer parking to remain available in place unless canceled under the agreement. If the parking spaces are lost, a good faith effort will be made to replace them with other parking spaces somewhere else. The LMCD and the DNR will assist communities to relocate them. The Task Force continued this recommendation and developed a current model agreement. The Lake Access Parking Agreement form and checklist for evaluating public access parking agreements are provided in APPENDIX $, page 17-19. These agreements should be between the LMCD and the local unit of government or property owner. The DNR will assist with these agreements by providing funding where appropriate. The DNR can share cost with cities and/or agencies on access and parking facilities improvement, including land acquisition. The DNR by cooperative agreement can reimburse cities for dedicated to free car/trailer parking. The DNR Landowner's Bill of Rights describes the procedure used by the DNR in the purchase of potential access sites. The Lake 1MTtnnetonka acquisition process is the DNP, commitment to work cooperatively in this area. (see APPENDIX 6 and 7 pages 20-24) The first agreement was signed in May of 1993 with the City oflVfinnetrista. The agreement with that city was for a total of 44 parking spaces at the following sites: 1. Williams Street in Halsteds Bay: 40 car/trailer parking spaces 2. Tuxedo Boulevard in Phelps Bay: 4 car/trailer parking spaces Other sites also have a high potential for adding to reliable parking by agreement, namely: 1. Orono: a. Hermepin County North Arm ramp and on-site lot (80 spaces) b. County Road 51, serving Hennepin County North Arm ramp (31 spaces) 2. Spring Park Bay, Spring Park, with accompanying county maintenance yard nearby in Orono (86 spaces) 3. Deephaven: a. Carsons Bay, Minnetonka Blvd. ramp with city maintenance lot (30 spaces) DRAFT Page 9 DRAFT {qqf b. Carsons Bay, l~finnetonka Blvd. ramp with school lot on Vinehill Road (40 spaces) 4. Wayzata: Wayzata Bay County Road 16 ramp, County Road 16 (40 spaces) 5. Mound: Mound Park Bay ramp, Cooks Bay (43 spaces) NEW ACCESS SITES The Task Force recommends the following sites as having the potential for becoming lake access sites. The Site Evaluation Criteria are provided in APPENDIX 8 page 25. Potential Site~ 1. Tonka Bay City Dock, channel to Gideon's Bay 2. Timber Lane, C,-ideons Bay, Shorewood 3. Mai-Tai Restaurant Site, Excelsior Bay, Excelsior (property was sold) 4. 456 Arlington Ave., Wayzata Bay (private residence), Wayzata 5. Pelican Point, Spring Park Bay, Mound 6. Lost Lake, Cooks Bay, Mound 7. Advance Machine, West Arm, Spring Park Grays Bay Ctmsesvay The unimproved substandard public access on Trunk Highway 101 will not be redeveloped as planned. This represents a setback for public access development. The 32 spaces planned for the causeway had been considered committed. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has abandoned plans to improve the site. However, Wayzata and Minnetonka are continuing discussions about improvements at the site. Max~vell Bay Up to 76 additional car/trailer parking spaces may be provided when the launch ramp is in place at Maxwell Bay, Orono. This site continues to be examined. DNR Trails & Waterways and the City of Orono are negotiating to purchase alternate properties. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION Subcommittees discussed equitable distribution of car/trailer parking at Lake Minnetonka. The principle adopted in earlier task force reports of dividing the lake into zones with equitable distribution was endorsed. (see APPENDIX 9, page 26). Each city is encouraged to contribute to the overall goal. If it cannot contribute it may be asked to make voluntary payments for maintenance to those cities who do provide car/trailer access. MARINA POTENTIAL FOR LAKE ACCESS During the summer months most marinas have relatively empty boat storage lots that have the potential for parking car/trailers if'the marina has a launch ramp. Many now provide some fee based boat launching service. These marinas could possibly provide some free car/trailer parking and ramp use to the public. The operators or owners might expect some type of' reimbursement. The DN'R could possibly provide funding and the LMCD will cooperate. The Task Force identified six conditions and issues to be considered in determining the potential public access use of marinas: 1. Ability to extend existing capacity. DRAFT Page l0 DRAFT Ii I~, 1,, , Ii 2.. Extent to which a marina already serves the public through fee paid access. (Fee paid public access does not me~t the definition of fr~ a~d open public 3. Attitude ofnearby homeown~'rs toward public access use. 4. Duration of public use, conslderea for a trial basis only until proven fe~'ble. 5. Man~ement issues, such as reserving parking for public use, and compensation to the marina owner consistent with public access operations and public policy. 6. Possible DNR funding co~raints fiom annual operatiom budBets and overall cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS The Lake Access Task Force study is documented in a proceedings summary. This chronology highlights the various subcommittee, committee, and Task Force meetings which took place among city agency, and community organizations. These groups participated in the research, deliberations and consensus findings. See APPENDIX 10, pages 2'/-35. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study depended upon collaboration of community representatives, municipal, regional and state officials. Task force meetinss provided a public platform for full discussion of access to Lake IV~unnetonka. Subcommittee members invested extensive volunteer hours. All participants deserve recognition. The Task force thanks every individual and organization for their conm'butions. DRAFT Page DRAFT NAME 1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE DESIGNATED SPOKESPERSON (Original Appointees by Organizations) POSITION/TITLE ORGANIZATION Appendix 1 James N. Grathwol (Task Force Chair) Richard Engebretson Lucille Crow Alan M. Albrecht Ann Perry Tom Marklc Wally Clevenger Skip Johnson Gabriel Jabbour Kristy Stover Jerry Rockvam Veto Haug Jerry Schmieg Barry Petit Nick Duff Tad Jude Douglas Bryant Don Germanson Thomas S. Maple Gary Larson John F. Schneider Beverly Blomberg Board Member Mayor Mayor Mayor Planning Director City Council Mayor Mayor City Council City Council Mayor Mayor Mayor City Council Mayor Commissioner Superintendent President Manager Co-Chair President Orono Resident LMCD, City of Excelsior City of Deephaven City of Excelsior City of Greenwood City of Minnetonka City of Minnetonka City of Minnetrista City of Mound City of Orono City of Shorewood City of Spring Park City of Tonka Bay City of Victoria City of Wayzata City of Woodland Hennepin County Hennepin Parks Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Fisherman Advocating Intelligent Regulation MN Sportfishing Congress Maxwell Bay Residents Dennis Asmussen Mike Markell Gordon Kimball Martha Reger Larry Kiilien Donald W. Buckhout Eugene R. Strommen Rachel Thibault AGENCY STAFF Director Water Recreation Supervisor Regional Supervisor Area Supervisor Regional Supervisor ADR Coordinator Executive Director Adminis. Technician MN DNR Trails & Waterways MN DNR Trails & Waterways MN DNR Trails & Waterways MN DNR Trails & Waterways MN DNR Trails & Waterways State Office of Planning LMCD LMCD Page 12 I1,1 III a. 0 0 (.5 mmmmm X mmm LAKE MINNETO~ CONSERVATION DISTRICT Existing Public Access Sites and Commercial Marinas 1 2 2A 3 4 5 6 6A ? 9 10 11 12 12A 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20A 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Beans Greenwood Marina* Causeway - Hwy. 101 Chapman Place Marina Cochrane Boat Yards* Crystal Bay Service* Curlys Minnetonka Marina Deephaven, City of Dennis Boats* Gayle Marina Grays Bay Access (by Dam) Grays Bay Resort & Marina Halsted Drive Access Hendrickson Bridge Access Howards Point Marina Kreslins* Kings Point Access - DNR Lakeside Marina Minnetonka Boat Rental* Minnetonka Boat Works (W) & (O)* Mound, City of North Shore Drive Marina Rockvam Boatyards Sailors World Marina Schmins Marina* Shorewood Yacht Club & Marina* Spring Park Access Excel Marina Tonka Bay Marina Wayzata, City of Windward Marine* Tuxedo Road Access *No launching facilities 11/17/93 St Albans Bay Grays Bay Cooks Bay St Albans & Excelsior Crystal Bay Lower Lake South Carsons Bay Lower Lake South Maxwell Bay Grays Bay Grays Bay Halsted Bay North Arm South Upper Lake St Albans Bay Halsted Bay Maxwell Bay Harrisons Bay Wayzata,Tanager,Browns Bay Cooks Bay Maxwell Bay Coffee Cove Smiths Bay Excelsior Bay Gideons Bay Spring Park Bay St AIbans Bay Lower Lake South Wayzata Bay Browns Bay Phelps Bay PARKING STANDARDS LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC ACCESSES Appendix 3 Thc 1992 Lake Minnctonka Lake Access Task Force has adopted thc goal of 700 long-term r~liablc spaces for car/trailer parking in thc vicinity of present and future access sites at Lake Minnctonka. Thc Task Force further agrees that thc Lake Minnctonka Conservation District (LMCD) implement these standards for identifying and counting of car/trailer parking spaces and monitor progress toward the 700 goal on a continuing basis. The following set of standards has been adopted by the Task Force for application to Lake Minnetonka: 1. All spaces must be within 2,000' of a public access point. For car/trailers parked between 1,500' and 2,000', a temporary boat mooring facility at thc ramp site for a number of boats equal to 10% of the parking spaces must bc provided. 2. All parking locations away from the access site should be provided with a long=term agreement, three year minimum, with five years more desirable, on file with thc LMCD. Within that time availability, if any designated spaces need to be removed, they must be replaced with comparable spaces. 3. Thc location of parking spaces, either off-street or on-street away from the access site, must be identified by clear, aesthetically attractive, consolidated, capable of being inexpensively updated, signage. All off-street spaces must be illustrated on a plan on file with thc LMCD. The plan shall clearly indicate each car/trailer space and adequate ingress, egress and maneuvering space. Parking space minimum size standards (in feet): Vehicle only 9 X 19 (Handicapped 12 x 19) Car/trailer 10 X 40 Off-street designated trailer parking on grass is acceptable if vehicle is parked on graded/paved surface. All spaces must be available on an unrestricted, first-come-first-served basis, 700 reliable spaces will be available from Memorial Day to Labor Day from 5 pm on Fridays until midnight Sundays, and on holidays. Fifty per cent of reliable spaces will be available weekdays. Hours of availability will be determined by LMCD in cooperation with the DNR. Vehicle-only spaces (no trailer) on public access parking lots can be counted toward the total goal of 700 car/trailer spaces provided that the number of such spaces counted for any given lot does not exceed i 0% of the total number of spaces on that lot. (Example: Out of 50 total parking spaces on a lot, seven are for vehicle only. Only five of the seven may be counted toward the goal of 700 [i.e., 10% of 50=5].) Page 14 LMCD PARKING STANDARDS FOR. LAKE M/NNETONKA PUBLIC ACCESSES All on-street spaces should meet the following additional standards: 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Minimum length of 50 feet per space. Adequate shoulder width to preclude door opening into a traffic lane and to provide a safe route to thc access point. Of the total non-designated (non-signed) on-street parking spaces, only 80% are considered to be reliable in order to account for non-access related public parking. Designated and signed on-street car/trailer parking spaces will be counted 100% for car/trailer USe. On-street car/trailer parking spaces must be illustrated on a plan by street name on file with the LMCD. Page 15 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1993 Lake Access Model Parking Agreement This Agreement is made between the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and the ( ) both public corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the LMCD and ( ) are jointly concerned with providing public boating access to Lake Minnetonka, meeting the Parking Standards for Lake Minnetonka, and WHEREAS the LMCD and ( ) recognize that a goal of 700 car/trailer spaces will be provided in the vicinity of present and future access sites around the lake on as equitable a basis as possible, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by the LMCD and ( ) that the conditions for car/trailer parking for the public access identified on the checklist identified as Exhibit "A" and Parking Site Plan identified as Exhibit MB" meet Parking Standards on the checklist as indicated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the LMCD and ( agreement to be duly executed this day of ) have caused this , 19m. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT: AGENCY/CITY: By By. Page 17 Checklist for Evaluating Lake Minnctonka Public Access Carfrrailcr Parking Agreements !. Ac, ce.ss Name 2. Access City Lake Zone No. 3. Car/Trailer (C/T) Parking by Location: a. Off-street, on access site ................. (On-site designated trailer parking on grass is acceptable if vehicle is parked on graded or paved surface.) b. Off-street, remote from access site ........... * Distance in feet from access site . c. On-street, less than i,500 feet: * Designated signed C/l' only, count 100% of C/T parking spaces available ............ · Not signed, count ?5% of spaces available d. On-street, 1,501 feet to 2,000 feet: · Designated signed C/F only, count 100% of Cfr parking spaces available ............ · Not signed, count 75% of spaces available # of spaces 4. Vehicle Only Parking Spaces - these count up to 10% of total number of Cfr spaces on lot: # of standard vehicles spaces 9' x 19' # of handicapped vehicle spaces 12' x Ii)' Total # of vehicle only spaces Count total vehicle only spaces or 10% of total Cfr parking spaces in lots lvhichcver is less 5. Total, car/trailer parking spaces at site ............ COOPERATING PROVISIONS: Initial as accepted: I. Access site plan illustrating each C/I' space with adequate ingress, egress, and maneuvering space is kept on file and current with LMCD. Signage provided at access site is clear, aesthetically · attractive, consolidated for easy updating. Ali spaces are available on unrestricted, first- come, first-served basis, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, 5:00 pm Friday until midnight Sunday· Fifty percent (50%) of spaces meeting Parking Standards are available weekdays. Page 18 ~) ~, Checklist for Evaluating Lake Minnetonka Public Access Car/Trailer Parking Agreement All on-street parking spaces meet the following standards: a. Minimum length of 50 feet per space. b. Adequate shoulder width to preclude door opening into traffic lane. e. Safe pedestrian route to access point provided. d. On-street car/trailer parking spaces are illustrated and kept current on a plan by street name on file with the LMCD. A temporary boat mooring facility is provided at the ramp site for a number of boats equal to 10% of the C/T parking spaces at the site for C/I' parking spaces between 1,501 feet and 2,000 feet. New facilities must meet Federal A.D.A. requirements for handicapped persons. 6. Agency/city reserves the right to make changes in access site plan off-street parking or on-street designated or non-designated parking as public policy priorities may require, with a good faith effort to replace lost C/T spaces at the earliest possible date, notifying the LMCD of anticipated changes. LMCD and MN DNR agree to cooperate with city/agency in relocation of lost slips, including locations elsewhere in the lake, and at other access. 7. City retains approval privilege on any actions of an agency regulating parking allowances or restrictions on county or state highways affecting C/T parking in the vicinity of an access site. Agency/city agrees to enter into this agreement for a period of~ years (five years desired) in recognition of the valuable recreational opportunities offered on Lake Minnetonka. Page 19 I ,I Ii [ I i~ i ]t Appendix 6 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL LANDOWNER'S BILL OF RIGHTS State parks, water access sites, wildlife management areas, state forest, fisheries projects, recreational trails, canoe and boating routes, wild and scenic rivers, scientific and natural areas and the State water bank progrzm all provide recreational opportunities for the general public or protection of the State' natural resources. Each of thc~c programs authorizes either the purchase of the fcc title to land or the purchase of a lesser interest in land, such as an ~ent. Selling land to the Department of Natural Resources is in many ways similar to selling it to a private party, but in other ways is different from standard real estate transactions. Because of the many Federal and State laws that govern land acquisition, it often takes eight months to a year and a half to sell land to the Department of Natural Resources. These laws woe designed both to protect private landowners' rights and to assure that public money is well spent to serve the public interest. This letter describes the Depa~i~ent of Natural Resources' land acquisition procedure. Please keep it for future reference. l~and Identification The management programs select the tracts of land which they feel would most help them to carry out their programs. Once your land has been identified for purchase, you will be contacted by a Department of Natural Resources representative who will explain what your land would be used for if it is purchased and will also explain the land acquisition to you. You are free to decide whether or not to sell your land to the State. If you are willing to consider selling it, the State will have your land appraised and you will then decide if you want to sell it at the appraised value. If you do not want to sell your land to the State, you are under no obligation to do so. However, you may be contacted again in the future to see if you might have changed your mind. Appraisal Process The State will hire a qualified appraiser to determine the fair market value of your property. You will be invited to accompany the appraiser during his or her inspection of the property, if you so desire. You also have the right to hire and appraiser to provide an independent opinion of value for your property. You will be notified of the deadline for your appraisal to be submitted if you would like it to be reviewed along with the State's appraisal. After the appraisals are reviewed, a fair market value will be established as just compensation for your property. If your land is purchased by the State, you may be reimbursed up to $500 for the cost of your appraisal providing you submit a copy of that report and a paid receipt for it. It is not necessary for you to submit your appraisal for review in order to be reimbursed for it. Page 20 Neeotiation Process The State is not allowed to discuss the price until after thc appraisal is completed and will not discuss the price with anyone but the landowner or his agent. Documents regarding the purchase of your property will be public records once the purchase is completed. At the beginning of the negotiation period, you will be given a summary of the approved appraisal. This summary will include the final conclusion of value, the total number of acres and types of land appraised, the valuation of all buildings and improvements being purchased, and any special elements of value. The same person who appraised your property for the State will not act as a negotiator for its purchase. Purchase Procedure Thc Department of Natural Resources will acquire your property by means of an option, which is an offer from thc landowner to sell. Thc option, including all special provisions, legal descriptions and elements of execution, must be reviewed by the State as to its legality and acceptability. Thc State shall have 15 days after receiving an option to notify the landowner in writing if thc option is not approved and thc reasons therefore. If you arc not notified of an option's disapproval, you should assume it is approved. Unless you request otherwise in writing, the option period shall be no more than two months if no survey is required. If a survey is required, the option pexiod shall be no more than nine months. These time limits do not apply to wildlife management areas that require county board approval. The option period begins on the last date on which the option is signed by a landowner. Before the end of the option period, the State shall decide whether or not to purchase the land and shall notify the landowner of its decision by either a Notice of Election to Purchase or a letter explaining the reasons for not purchasing the property. If the State does not elect to purchase property on which it has approved and accepted an option, it will pay the landowner $500.00 after the option period expires. After signing the option, you have one month to mail or deliver an Abstract of Title to thc Department of Natural Resources. If your land title is registered, you should submit your Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title plus a Registered Property Abstract instead of an Abstract of Title. Thc State will have thc abstract brought up to date at its own expense. Within one month from the Notice of Election to Purchase or delivery of thc Abstract,whichever is later, the Attorney General will provide a title opinion which will identify any defects in your title to be cleared up before thc purchase can bc completed. You will then have 120 days to make your title marketable. Thc landowner is required to pay all taxes that arc due in the year in which the deed or easement is signed, including Green Acres deferred taxes. Once the taxes are paid and all title defects arc cured, the Attorney General will send you a Warranty Deed or other conveyance document to sign and return. Page 21 Dill OI Thc State pays thc abstracting and recording fees related to the sale. If your property is held ss security for a loan or advance of credit that requires or permits thc imposition of a pre- payment penalty, this penalty shall also be reimbursed by the State. The costs of clearing title defects, payment of taxes and related attorney's fees arc not reimbursable. Method of Payrnentt Payment for the land is mailed to thc landowner after the signed dexd or other conveyance document has been recorded and the abstract brought up to date. Depending on the County Recorder's workload, this may take anywhere from two to four weeks. Assoming your title is marketable and you act expeditiously to complete the transaction, payment must be made no later than 90 days after the Notice of Election to Purchase. You may choose to be paid in either a lump sum or in up to four separate payments. The State does not pay interest on monies held during an installment agreement. Voc~ting Your Property You have the fight to continue occupancy of your property until 90 days after the date of the deed. You may stay an addition 90 days by paying a fair market rent to the State, with the prior written approval of the management program for which your property is being purchased. If you do not vacate your property within 180 days of the date of the deed, you will automatically waive your fight to any relocation benefits to which you may otherwise be entitled. Relocation Benefits The State is obligated to pay relocation expense any time they displace owners or tenants from their residences, displace a business or cause a business to cease operating. Moving expenses are the most common relocation benefit. A relocation advisor is assigned to work with anyone who might be displaced by State land acquisition to guide them in locating a new home or business. You have the fight to accept or reject the State's offer for your property. If you accept thc offer, you may receive or waive any relocation assistance, services, payments and benefits. You also have the fight to accept the State's offer for the property and to contest the relocation benefits. You have the fight to seek the advice of any attorney regarding any aspect of your land sale. You also have the right to have the State acquire your land by condemnation at your written request and with the agreement of the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. The primary laws governing Department of Natural Resources land acquisition procedures are, Public Law 91-646 and Minnesota Statutes Section 84.0274. For further information, contact: Depa,u~ent of Natural Resources Bureau of Land Acquisition and Exchange Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 30 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4030 (612) 296-4097 Page 22 Appendix 7 LAKE MINNETONKA ACQUISITION PROCESS This document will describe the process the DNR will use to acquire land on Lake Minnetonka. BACKGROUND A Process to provide Public Water Access (PWA) in the metropolitan area was developed by the Metropolitan Council, The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), and the State Planning Agency under the direction of the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR). These agencies produced a document that outlined a Site Selection Criteria, a Lake Ranking system and an Access Priority List. The MNDNR and other public agencies use these procedures to develop accesses in the metropolitan area. This document is available from the Metropolitan Council. PROCESS On a priority bay or lake area, public property is investigated for access suitability. If none is available or useable, a search for suitable sites is begun. Often on heavily developed lakes or bays, the actual acquisition process begins with a pared of land becoming available that meets the criteria. The MNDNR purchases only fi'om willing sellers and the owner must be willing to sell the parcel for a public water access. When the landowner indicates a willingness to sell, the acquisition process and timeline are explained. If the landowner agrees to proceed, the Landowner Bill of Rights Letter is signed. This letter verifies that the landowner understands the process and has agreed to work with the MNDNR. If the site meets the criteria and the landowner agrees to proceed, the MNDNR will have the property appraised to determine its fair market value. After the appraisal has been approved, an offer to purchase can be made. If the landowner agrees with the value, then the MNDNR may take an option on the property. The option will indenfify such things as, the land to be purchased, the price, the length of time required to complete the negotiations. After the option is signed by the landowner, the MNDN1L within 5 working days, will notify the city and the LMCD, in writing, of its actions. Notification can not be made prior to the signing of the option due to confidentiality requirements. Page 23 J, ,! III ! J ,i~ I ia, Lake Minnetonka Acquisition Process PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The proposal will be discussed w~th the city, (citizens, council members, etc) and other interested members of the public. Assuming there are no valid reasons for reglecting the property or the project, the MNDNR will work and cooperate with the city and the LMCD to complete the acquisition and development.. The MNDNR will use various methods to inform and involve the public. The processes used will include: Formal Public Meetings, Informal Public Meetings, Open Houses, Question and Answer Sessions at City Council Meetings and Meetings with neighbors and concerned individuals. The MNDNR will continue to keep the city and the LMCD informed and involved in the design of the acces from the initial concept stage through final design. Examples of items that will be discussed are: traffic flow, parking lot layout, drainage and runoff, landscaping, signage. This cooperative process does not end with thc construction of thc access. After thc access is developed thc MNDNR will continue to work with the city and the residents on access maintenance and operations procedures. Page 24 Appendix LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE -.- _ ACCESS SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA., These evaluation criteria should be used in selecting potential new access sites for fishing craft and small recreation boats. The standard are not expected to be perfectly achieved. Each should be seriously considered and graded. Other evaluation criteria may be considered on a site-specific basis. Relationship to residential areas -- Positive and negative impacts of the site on adjacent residential areas, such as distance between a site and nearby homes, screening the site from homes, noise, traffic, etc. Accessibility to primary highways - Potential sites near major highways (State Highways 7 and 101, County Roads 19 and 1:5 are examples) to reduce traffic impact on residential streets. Safety on site, on water and egress to both. Public use precedent -- Sites which are already in public ownership or in commercial or industrial use, or isolated from other residential areas, and where public facilities or services have been provided and accepted, have the least neighborhood impact. Intensity of boating use near a potential access site -- Sections of the lake where there is intense boating, or crowding in channels, should be downgraded. Cost -- Property acquisition, development and maintenance costs. Physical development constraints - positive and negative features on land and in the water and changes possible to make the potential site usable. 7. Visual impacts -- Positive and negative visual impressions as seen from land and water. o Multiple use opportunities for the site -- Sites that provide shore fishing, pier fishing, picnic areas, toilets, etc., along with boat access are preferred. 9. Site size -- Larger sites with off-street parking are preferred. 10. Environmental considerations -- dredging, fill, run-off control, wetlands preservation, etc. Footnotes: 1. Sites shall not be excluded because there is limited access for large boats. 2. Sites will be preferred that provide equitable distribution. 3. Sellers must be willing, city must cooperate and other agencies must approve. Adopted: March 18, 1993 Page 25 ee · · · · · · · · · · · 0 J- c: C ::3 0 J~ ee Apendix 10 PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY 1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE STUDY FOR LAKE MINNETONKA TASK FORCE CHRONOLOGY The initial Task Force meeting was held 3/11/92. Its purpose goal and objectives were introduced as follows: PURPOSE - to establish a plan to meet the Management Plan lake access policies developed in the 1983 and 1986 Lake Minnetonka Task Force studies. GOAL - coordination of an immediate inter-agency inventory, study and assessment of the car/trailer (c/t) parking spaces at public access ramps to meet the 700 reliable e/t objective. OBJECTIVES: Establish criteria in the LMCD Code for acceptable year-round lake access, including access ramps, lakeside and remote c/t parking, handicapped access and signage. b. Conduct a joint study of all access ramps and associated cdt parking, identifying all existing ramps and associated lake parking. c. Develop a plan for and provide LMCD-approved boat access ramps with 700 reliable c/t parking spaces. d. Widen or otherwise improve efficiency of existing ramps for use by more than one c/t at a time. Resolve DNR's Maxwell Bay access proposal in accord with Management Plan policies and objectives and in accord with the 1983 and 1986 Task Force Study recommendations by: l) Activating the Lake Access Task Force, appointing representatives of affected communities, DNR, LMLOA and citizens to implement the public access siting process. 2) Facilitate a cooperative effort to address land use issues that are the basis for objections raised by the City of Orono. 3) Conduct a feasibility study of land purchase between Gayle's Marina and the DNR property. 4) City of Orono, LMCD and DNR cooperate in securing funding for the Maxwell Bay access properties. NOTE:After cooperation on obtaining funding through the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR), the Task Force and LMCD were asked by Orono officials to not further participate in Maxwell Bay negotiations between the DNR and the City of Orono. Page 27 I I I ! I ,i~ i Ii PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY. 1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE STUDY Thc Task Force formed three subcommittees, namely: Data Gathering Standards DATA GATHERING SUBCOMMITTEE Cfr PARKING INVENTORY DI!;¥EI.,OPIVI~NT A 4/15/92 inventory of existing or planned c/t parking spaces was conducted by LMCD and DNR staff from contacts made among city and county staff. That inventory was compared to the 1983 Task Force inventory for the five zones of the lake. The comparison of c/t parking spaces by zones was as follows: Zone Goal 1983 Total 1992 Total I North Arm 139 60 63 2 Grays Bay Hwy 101 Grays Bay Dam Wayzata Bay Hwy 16 Sub Total 144 24 37 19 19 46 81 3 Carsons Bay 155 0 40 4 Spring Park Bay Phelps Bay Sub Total 126 79 93 _fl. a 79 97 Halsted, Wms. St. Halsted, Kings Point Henn. Regional Park Cooks Bay, Mount Park Sub Total 136 0 30 '0 32 0 100 0 0 192 Grand Total 700 185 473 These counts were later revised based upon a more detailed inventory conducted in June by LMCD. staff of c/t street parking potentially available to 2,000' from the access, identified later in this report. Criteria were needed to identify reliable c/t parking spaces. The Standards Committee was asked to develop such criteria. Page 28 ~ (/ STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIONS FACILITATOR ENGAGED. Thc LMCD engaged a state facilitator to meet thc diverse 'interests involved in thc proceedings: 1. Decisions would result from a consensus. 2. Persons participating would only bc those holding designated membership in thc Task Force. 3. The Task Force would work in good faith. TASK ASSIGNMENTS: !. MN DNR staff examined cdt parking spaces in public access ramp lots. 2. LMCD staff counted street parking utilizing 1985 cdt parking criteria, adjusting criteria by extending distance fi'om access site from 1,500' to 2,000'. 3. Aerial photographs of public access sites taken. 4. DNR/LMCD staff drafted parking space standards from the 1986 standards previously considered. TASK ASSIGNMENT RESULTS: C/T PARKING INVENTORY OF 7/15/93. A street inventory of actual and potential cdt parking spaces up to 2,000' from accesses was conducted. Potential spaces included future public access sites, one private lot, public lots in other agency jurisdictions (school districts) and street locations subject to city/county approval. A surveyor wheel measurement device was used to calculate an accurate 50' cdt parking space and for determining accurate distance fi'om the launch ramp. Results of the inventory count of 7/15/92 were: C/T Parking Spaces at present or planned access ramps: North Arm Grays Bay 101 Causeway Grays Bay Dam Kings Point, DNR Spring Park Ramp Spring Park/Orono County Lot Hennepin Regional Park Sub Total 63 37 19 32 19 70 340 Potential CaT Parking Space Additions: Streets, city & county Off street, private & city Sub Total 82 168 Existing Street Availability: City/county (99 of the 337 at Williams Street, Halsted Bay access) 337 GRAND TOTAL 845 Page 29 I, ,I II I, I ,i~ I lit, DNR ANALYSIS OF cfr PAR,KIN(3 SPACES AT ACCESS LOTS: The edt parking space count at access on-site Iou differ only slightly from 1983 and 1986 counts. Some car-only parking spaces could be convened to edt parking spaces. AERIAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC ACCESS SITES Aerial photos of c/t parking conditions at public access sites on a high-use day illustrated crowded conditions. Opportunities for improvements or expansion of parking capacity either on or off-site were noted. RELIABLE C.;F PARKING SPACE STANDARDS Seven criteria and three supplemental recommendations applying to Parking Standards were prepared '//15/92 for Task Force approval. GRANT RECOMMENDATION FOR MAXWELL BAY LAND ACQUISITION A Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) grant recommendation for t;944,000 for land acquisition to develop a public access site on Iviaxwell bay, subject to Legislative approval, was announced. JOINT DATA GATHERING/STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIONS C/T PARKING INVENTORY REVIEW Subcommittee action of 8/12/92 amended the 7/15192 c/t Parking Inventory from 845 to 755 edt parking spaces. A reduction of 59 spaces from 99 to a net of 40 spaces at the Williams St. Halsted Bay access, and a reduction of 32 spaces from 100 to 68 spaces at the Hennepin Regional Park resulted in a 755 adjusted count. PARKING STANDARDS RECOMMENDATION: Starting with the seven criteria and three supplemental recommendations of 7/15/92, the joint subcommittee review recommended Parking Standards for Task Force consideration and adoption. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ACCESS SITES: Equitable distribution of parking sites throughout the five lake zones was identified as a priority. PARKING INVENTORY: With minor foomote adjustments, the Parking Inventory of 755 current and potential edt parking spaces was finalized and recommended for presentation to the Task Force. Page 30 ~-0(..~ STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMME~NDATIONS The recommendations of the Data Gathering and Standards Subcommittee meeting of 9/9/92 was confirmed. Additional issues were recommended for Task Force consideration: 1. ~. Coordinate site acquisition for Maxwell Bay 2. Coordinate access development of Grays Bay Hwy. 101 Causeway and subsequent closing of Grays Bay Dam access 3. Coordinate access development of Hennepin Regional Park LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE ACTIONS Lake Access Task Force actions taken 10/21/93: 1. Parking Standards were adopted. The Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Assn. (LMLOA) presented their board position calling for a reduction of the 700 cdt parking spaces goal. DN1L LMCD and sport fishing representatives supported the 700 cdt parking spaces goal. This goal originated in the 1983 Task Force Study. It is based upon Lake Minnetonka's 14,000 acre capacity to accommodate one boat per 20 acres of water surface. No consensus was reached on changing the goal. Consensus required substantially unanimous agreement. The LMCD Lake Access Committee, appointed January, 1992, was activated to: a. bo Coordinate related lake access objectives and policies with the Task Force. Carry out lake access objectives and policies in the Management Plan which will not be addressed by the Task Force. LMCD BOARD ACTION ON TASK FORCE PosmoNs Upon recommendation by the LMCD Lake Access Committee, the LMCD board on 10/28/92 approved Task Force positions on: Parking Standards for Lake Minnetonka Public Accesses Parking Inventory of 755 current and potential c/t parking spaces A draft model Parking Agreement for cities or agencies identifying c/t parking spaces which meet the Parking Standards. Parking Agreements to be secured by LMCD with cities or agencies. Page 31 I ,I la I I ,1~ i Id, TASK FORCE ACTIONS Lake Access Task Force actions ~en on 12/9/92: !. Approved Current and Potential O'I' Parking inventory total adjusted to 735 c/t parking spaces, subject to mccdng adopted Parking Standards, and subject to a~re~m~ts with cities or agencies within which the existing public accesses arc located. (The 8/12/92 Parking Inventory was adjusted from 755 to 735 as a result of the Hennepin Regional Park planned access count being adjusted to 80 upon agreement with the City of Minnctrista and Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District.) Goal of 700 c. fft parking spaces on which Task Forc~ consensus was not reached was referred to the LMCD board for a final decision. All cities encouraged to make a concertcd effort to provide their share of lake access cJt parking spaces. Cities were further encouraged to coordinate and cooperate to meet zone goals. LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE REPORT The Lake Access Committee actions taken on 3/16/93: 1. Committee chair outlined a policy to persuade cities or agencies to make decisions on public accesses in the best interest of the most public use of the lake. 2. Existing public access sites proposed for evaluation against a grading scale as to safety, quality, size. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE ACTIONS Lake Access Task Force Actions taken 3/18/93: I. Model Public Access C/T Parking Agreement approved incorporating adopted Parking Standards. 2. Access Site Evaluation Criteria ten point outline approved with recommended footnotes approved. 3. Aerial slide photo documentation of existing and potential access sites presented. Sites suggested from this aerial survey are to serve as a future guide for access site inquiries and proposals. Page 32 'ZO¢~ ACCESS SITING SUBCOMM]TFEE ACTIONS Access Siting Subcommittee Actions taken 4/6/93: !. MN DNR Landowner Bill of Rights was reviewed. The Bill of Rights was accepted for recommendation to the Task Force. The procedures detailed in the Bill of Rights WOuld remain in effect after the Task Force completes this study. Public review of a future access site negotiation brought forward by the DN-R was concluded to be the affected city's responsibility. 2. A list of some 40 potential access sites taken from the March aerial survey and a list developed by the 1983 Task Force Study was edited to review properties no longer available due to development or other current uses making the property unavailable. STEERING COMMrVI'EE ACTIONS Steering Committee actions taken 4/6/93: MN DOT position on its reduced Hwy. 101 causeway bridge and road rebuilding, excluding the causeway public access upgrading, was received. ACCESS SITING SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIONS Access Siting Subcommittee actions taken 4/14/93: 1. Potential public access sites were presented for review against the 1993 ten point Access Site Evaluation Criteria. All marina sites were removed for separate consideration. Eight other sites were removed as no longer available. ACCESS SITING SUBCOMMYFTEE ACTIONS Access Siting Subcommittee actions taken 5/4/93: !. Potential access sites reviewed per Access Site Evaluation Criteria, with added conditions: a. All sites must have willing sellers. b. City cooperation must be secured in advancing the access site. c. Agency cooperation must be secured in advance of a site being selected. Potential access sites remaining on the list as a result of comparison to the review criteria were: * Tonka Bay City Dock, channel to Gideons Bay * Timber Lane, Gideons Bay, Shorewood * Mai Tai, Excelsior Bay * 456 Arlington Ave, Wayzata Bay (private residence) * Pelican Point, Spring Park Bay, Mound * Lost Lake, Cooks Bay, Mound * Advance Machine, West Arm, Spring Park Page 33 · I II t I ,1~ ,! id, Marinas as potential access sit~ wcrc recommended to b~ examined for public access use under the following conditions: a. Potential use of extending existing capacity. b. Extent to which the marina already serves the public for fee paid access. c. Attitude of nearby homeowners for public access use. d. Considering any public access ug as a temporary trial. c. Management issues to be addressed such as how public parking/launch space would be reserved and accounted for in a mix of fee paid launch f. MN DN'R budget constraints in funding leased space LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE ACTION Lake Access Committee action taken 5/7/93: !. The Lake Access Parking Agreement with the City of' Minnctrista was accepted and recommended to the LMCD board for acceptance. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE MEETING ACTIONS Lake Access Task Force actions taken 5/12/93: I. The seven potential access sites were accepted as identified by the Access Siting Subcommittee 5/4/93. Marina sites having potential to accommodate public access through agreement with the DNR will be considered separately from the seven potential access sites accepted 5/4/93. The six conditions under which marina sites would be evaluated for public access as detailed by the Access Siting Committee 5/4/93 were also accepted. The Maxwell Bay access site is recognized as in negotiations between the City of Orono and MN DNR. LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE ACTIONS Lake Access Committee action of 6/15/93 approvcd tasks which thc LMCD committee intends to continue processing: I. Determine the equitable distribution of public access among existing and potential new access sites. Evaluate and negotiate with commercial marinas for their potential in providing c/t parking and launch service: a. Apply equitable distribution criteria. b. DNR to negotiate agreements for space/service provided. Page 34 PROCEEDIN~b 5UMMAK~, I~'~Z L,"O'~ ^~v.b~ t^~ r~ar,~ ~x uu x o Assess means by which existing public accesses may be upgraded for safety and greater user satisfaction. Board members to work with LMCD and DNR staff in finalizing c/t parking agreements with cities and agencies having existing public accesses. Access signage to be developed per agreement provisions, cities and agencies asked to assist. Page 35 FOR APPROVAL AT THE MAY 24, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETINC MOUND CITY DAYS -- JUNE 18 & 19, 1994 SET-UP PERMIT - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE TEMPORARY ON-SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR PERMIT JUNE 18, 1994 - POND ARENA JUNE 19, 1994- MOUND BAY PARK - ONLY TO BE SERVED IN TENT, NO ONE WILL BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE TENT IN THE PARK WITH BEER (THIS IS THE SAME AS LAST YEAR) THESE WILL BE ISSUED CONTINGENT UPON ALL INSURANCE AND OTHER FORMS BEING EXECUTED AND TURNED IN. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors May 19, 1994 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota 1994 Lift Station Improvements Payment Request No. 1 MFRA #10555 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Rice Lake Contracting's Payment Request No.1 for work completed through May 16, 1994, on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $46,544.30. We have reviewed this request, find that it is in order and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. JC:pry Enclosures An Equal Opportunity Employer $00~{ )tH~{3 $~HODDN Wd9T :TO t;6, OE BILLS .May 24, 1994 BATCH 4043 BATCH 4052 TOTAL BILLS $155,812.58 142,326.50 $298,139.08 n,a n I Id, 1,, ,ti --4 d' d' ~Z I I I II I I I IIIII I I II I I U I I I II I I I IIIII I I II I I 0 I,U I-- ! Z' CC o ~4 oe.4 0 ! 0 o I .-4 0 .4' 0 o ooo oo oo oo 0 0 IIIIIlllll 0 O0 0,-.4 ! ! 0 *-4 ooo ~-4 ~ ~.1 I I I I 0 P~ 0 ,-4 o0o $ I oo oo I I O0 I I oo · 0,. 0 ~ 0 ,.4'Z 0',, 0 UJ ,y 0 · 0 I --I Z Q~ 0 w~ 0 Z 0,. o ZZZZZZZZ ZZ~ZZZ~Z~ ZZZZZZ~Z~ lB I ii I I ,~ , ,Il I~, Z Z 0 oo ! ? 0 0 0 0 00000~0000000 0 O0 ~0 Illllllllllll I I I Z o o ~1~ 0 o uJ ,-4 ,..4 ~ oo oo Z o 0 ! o o o o o o 0 o · ,I II I I ,1~l I 0 o o 000000000000000000~ IlJllllJlJlJJlllJl 0 I .4' 0 oo 0,4 0 0 I o ,4' o I o o 00o ! ! I o00 I I I 000 ,q 0 u. JC~ h,..j 0 o ~0 ' .4 g IIIIIIIIIIII II I 0 0 0 oo 0 o I 0 0 I o 0 0oo oo OO Z ~J(aJ 0 0 · ~JL.~ /N0 ~1 ZZ ,,,( ,n, Z 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 f~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 '~ O0 O0 00 O0 O0 O0 O0 n, ,m m m Ii I~ II m~l ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = ~ ~ oo ~ oo oo o o oo oo oooo Z ~ O~ I ~ ' Z ~ ~ ~ ~ 000 I ::~ Uat~ t'~C~' ~, I ZZ o · I: (&. LaJ 0 I:L'~ ~. · I ! I I I I Z x Z I o ,-¢ ..4 Z ,.-4 · J J II Z Z o Oo 0 Z · 0 0 J cD Z 0 Z Z 0 Z 0 (3. 0 0 ..J 0 uJ lC I I I 00o ",4',,,.1'0 :2: 0 Z bJ ! 0 -4' .-4 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ oo oo oo oo oo oooo oo oo oo oo oooo I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _J Z Z Z V I ~.,~ UJ ,4' · ,I II i ii ,1~ i Id, ~ oo oooo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo ~ I III I I I I I I I I! ! ! ! ! ! I ! I ! IIIIIII II I IIIIIIII IIIIIIII 0 0 Z · I J t I ,1~ I Id, I I I I I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I Z ::3, 0 .,r ZZ Z .-4 ~J ~ O0 0 ~ O0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ o00 0 o0o o oo0 0 00o oo o oO o ooo 0 ~ ~4J ................................. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~oo ~ ~ ~ ooo o ooo ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ Ct-- o 0 · .-¢ .-¢ ~,. o ~ Z LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 PM, Wednesday, May 25, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL RECEIVED 2 $ lgg4 CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone READING OF MINUTES - 4/27/94 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda (5 minute limit) CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests an individual discussion of any item. In that case the item will be removed from consent agenda and considered as a specific item. COMMITTEE REPORTS WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of minutes, 5/14/94 meeting Michael G. Arvidson new multiple dock license application, Shorewood, Gideons Bay; Public hearing report with findings and recommending approval of a multiple dock license for 7 BSU at Lot 293, Auditors Subd. 135, with the stipulation that the granting of this license does not authorize anything prohibited by the City of Shorewood Ordinances. Minnetonka Boat Works, multiple dock license, special density license and length variance applications, 294 E. Grove Lane, Wayzata, Wayzata Bay; Public hearing report with findings and recommendations as follows: 1) recommending Findings and Order be drafted for denial of the variance application, 2) recommending extension of the temporary low water variance (for the nine slips extending to 238') for one year to 4/26/95, subject to execution of a cooperative agreement with the City of Wayzata for the use of the handicapped accessible slip, with nine inside slips being taken out of service, and 3) recommending the applications for a new multiple dock license and special density license be tabled * D. Carlson Dock Length Variance, 21650 Fairview Street, Greenwood, Lower Lake South; recommending approval of the draft Findings and Order granting approval of the dock length variance E® Sandy Beach Place, 3995 North Shore Drive, Orono, West Arm; new dock license to reduce the slips from six to five to comply with city of Orono requirements, eliminating slip 4, which is to be signed "no parking"; the City of Orono denied the request to keep the sixth slip for the owners use. LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 5/25/94, Page 2 * F. Ge * I. Bean's Greenwood Marina, 21945 Minnetonka Blvd., Greenwood, St. Albans Bay, new dock license for minor change in location of slips; recommending 1) approval of the relocation of slip #104 to the space next to slips #55-58 2) relocation of slip #110 next to Slip $7, 3) denial of the relocation of slips Tl12 and Tl13, and 4) that the dock ends next to slips $80 and #84 be signed "no boat docking" Lord Fletchers Apartments, 4400 West Arm Rd, Spring Park, West Arm, new dock license for reconfiguration of slips with no increase in slip size, and request for partial construction of dock; recommending approval of the revised site plan for relocation of slips with no increase in slip sizes, with a request for clarification of Ordinance 123 as it relates to this application for partial construction of a dock with a special density license City of Wayzata's Preliminary Plans for the Lakewalk on Wayzata Bay; recommending concept approval of the Lakewalk in Wayzata Deicing License Deposit Refunds @$100 each; recommending approval of deposit refunds per minutes J. Additional Business LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster * A. Approval of minutes, 5/16/94 meeting Draft Ordinance relating to Lighting on Docks, amending Sect· 2.03 and Sect. 2.12; recommending approval of the second reading as submitted Ce Draft Ordinance relating to Huntington Point Quiet waters Areas, Lower Lake North; recommending approval and adoption of the draft ordinance establishing two Quiet Waters Areas near Huntington Point, waiving second and third readings De Draft Ordinance relating to Special Event Permits being Issued by the Sheriff for the LMCD, amending Sect. 3.09; recommending the Board review the revised draft with changes recommended by the Water Patrol incorporated Draft Ordinance relating to Marine Toilets, amending Sect. 3.04, Subd. 7; recommending approval of the first reading as submitted * F. * G. Special Event Deposit Refund of $100; recommending approval of the deposit refund for the Holiday/Johnson Crappie Contest 4/23/94 Requests for Quiet waters Areas around Deering Island and Cedar Point; a lake tour will be scheduled to review these two sites for consideration of slow buoy placement (tour tentatively set for 7:30 PM, Tuesday, June 7) I I II I, I ,Itl i id, ~ .... ~CD Board of Directors Agenda, 5/25/94, Page 3 * H. Exoelsior Park Charter Boat Wine and Beer License applications; recommending approval subject to satisfactory background check by Sheriff *I. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report J. Additional business 3. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Mollet * A. Approval of minutes, 5/5/94 meeting B. Presentation of revised budget per Board's 3/23/94 recommendations, with request for reconsideration of lakeshore lighting allocation to general fund C. Policy on reserve level of Save the Lake fund requested 4. LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol A. Report of 5/11/94 Lake Access Task Force meeting B. Presentation of the Lake Access Task Force Report 5.EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn A. No meeting held in May B. Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee Report, 5/19/94 meeting 6. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone * A. Approval of minutes, 4/27/94 meeting B. Report of 5/25/94 meeting C. Additional business FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. March and April Financial Summaries B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment C. 1993 Audit Report D. Draft of 1995 Budget EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen A. (meeting handout) Personnel progress and commitment to expanding obligations BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 5/19/94 4- ii ,I II I, I ,i~ Il lit, RECEIVED, ,AY DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM., Wednesday, April 27, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Johnstone at 7:30 PM. ROLL CALL Members Present: William Johnstone, Chair, Minnetonka; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Jos. Zwak, Green- wood; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Treasurer, Shorewood; Duane Markus, Wayzata {arrived as noted). Also present: Charles LeFe- vere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Craig Moiler, Victoria; Herb Suerth, Woodland. INSTALLATION OF NEW BOARD MEMBER LeFevere administered the Oath of Office to Gene Partyka. Partyka was seated on the Board as the representative from Minnetrista. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements from the Chair. READING OF MINUTES Zwak moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 3/23/94 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments not on the agenda. from persons in attendance on subjects CONSENT AGENDA Grathwol moved, Bloom seconded, to approve the consent agenda items identified by "*" on the agenda with the following deletion and additions: (*) Delete 2.A. Approval of Minutes of the Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting of 4/18/94 *Add 5.A. Approval of Administrative Committee minutes of 3/23/94 * Add 6.A. Approval of Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force minutes of 3/25/94 and 4/15/94 Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Rascop for Chair Babcock C. Carlson Dock Length Variance, 21650 Fairview Street, Greenwood, Lower Lake South The Board received the committee recommendation that the Board approve a dock length variance of 12', and to have the attorney draft Findings and Order. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 27, 1994 Rascop said there were questions at the committee meeting as to water depth. He noted this is an inside corner dock length variance. MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded, to approve the application of Kent and Mary Carlson, 21650 Fairview Street, Greenwood, for a dock length variance to extend 12' beyond the Dock Use Area to reach 4' of water depth on the east side of their dock. The LMCD attorney is to draft the Findings of Fact and Order. DISCUSSION: Zwak expressed concern about the water depth. The reading was taken through the ice. He feels another reading should be taken when the dock is in. He suggested between June 1 and 15. Zwak said this is a situation where there are three property owners on an inside corner, with variances in process for the two outside properties and the third property, owned by David Walsh, is caught in the middle. Zwak thinks there may not be an actual need for a variance if the property owners would try to work to- gether to solve the problem. Carlson said he has tried, for some time, to work with all the neighbors on the inside curve. He has not been successful. He said when he bought the property the dock extended beyond the present location and had a greater impact on the neighbors. He has brought the dock in and narrowed it. In his conversations with Walsh he suggested a shared Dock Use Area. Walsh rejected it, stating he (Walsh) does not need a variance. Carlson said he has applied for a variance and requests it be granted without any further conditions. He stated he does not want anyone "out there measuring" again. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop and Zwak voting nay. Later in the meeting Carlson asked for the status of his application as approval of the Findings and Order are yet to be granted. He was informed by LeFevere that, as an administrative matter, no enforcement action will be taken between now and when the Findings and Order are drafted. He did note that the Board has a bare quorum present and there cannot be assurance that the whole Board might not vote differently. D. Pemtom Co./Blanmor Corp. New Multiple Dock License Application for Trillium Bay Subdivision, Minnetrista, Halsteds Bay The committee recommended approval of a new multiple dock license for the Trillium Bay Subdivision, subject to the under- standing that the LMCD makes no guarantees as to the usability of the proposed slips. DISCUSSION: Johnstone asked for an explanation of the qualifica- tion. Rascop said the committee wants to be sure that the appli- cant understands that the three inside slips (10 - 12) do not have 4' of water and cannot be extended. Foster added that the appli- cant is willing to accept the qualification in lieu of expanding the dock to the riiht and going through the Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process because the area would then exceed 20,000 square feet. Foster said the applicant does not anticipate need- ing the slips for sometime. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 27~ 1994 LeFevere explained that the purpose of the qualification is to put the applicant on notice of the situation surrounding the three slips. LeFevere said the approval could be subject to a written acknowledgment by the applicant that he understands there can be no expansion of slips 10 - 12. Zwak said the docks are seasonal and he does not believe a limitation is necessary because there is enough shoreline for a Dock Use Area expansion with an EAW. MOTION: Zwak moved, Foster seconded, to amend the committee recommendation by removing the qualification that approval of the new Multiple Dock License is subject to the understanding that the LMCD makes no guarantees as to the usability of the proposed slips. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop voting nay. MOTION: Zwak moved, Foster seconded, to approve a New Multiple Dock License for Trillium Bay Subdivision, Minnetrista according to the amended recommendation of the Water Structures Committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Sandy Beach Place~ 3995 North Shore Driver Orono~ West Arm MOTION: Zwak moved, Reese seconded, to approve a new dock license for Sandy Beach Place, reducing the slips from six to five to comply with the City of Orono requirements. The location of the eliminated slip to be signed "No Parking" DISCUSSION: Thibault reported the applicant is asking Orono officials to grant permission to keep the sixth slip for his own use. If not, applicant is to eliminate slip #4. The applicant has asked the LMCD to delay action until he has appeared before the Orono City Council. MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to table the new dock license application of Sandy Beach Place at the request of the applicant. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. F. Resolution Setting Application Fees for Multiple and Commer- cial Dock Licenses. The committee recommends 1) Approval of the Resolution as amended by the Board 3/23/94~ to not charge Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) for unrestricted watercraft stored on land at non- commercial sites, and at commercial sites where provided as an amenity for a Special Density License (SDL) and 2) Reconsideration of the Board action of 3/23/94 exempting amenities from WSU fees. Rascop reported that since the committee meeting there has been further discussion regarding the issue of Rockvam Boat Yards' boats under amenities. Rascop said there should be initial Board agreement as to whether the application fees should be discussed under the resolution procedure or through a change in the ordi- nance. He explained that an ordinance change would handle boats required as an amenity for a SDL. He does not believe the resolu- tion process has worked out so far because the ordinance requires LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 27~ 1994 counting the boats. LeFevere said the ordinance counts the boats for density purposes. The resolution establishes the fees based on the density and allows the District to do whatever it wants on the fees. He does not believe the ordinance has to be changed. Foster suggested the District not charge for any unrestricted watercraft. He believes the fee charged is not relative to the size and value of the boats. The unrestricted watercraft are used on the lake at times when the lake use density is light. MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to amend the proposed resolution by striking the following words from Section 1.d. "at sites with non-commercial docks or at commercial docks where the unrestricted watercraft are required amenities as a condition of a special density license" Johnstone asked about the financial impact. Thibault said if the consideration is only for boats stored on land and not slides she would estimate it would cost the District $600 in fees. MOTION: Bloom moved, Zwak seconded, to rescind the 3/23/94 Board approval of the Resolution Setting Application Fees for Multiple and Commercial Dock Licenses. VOTE: Motion carried, Reese voting nay. MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve Resolution No. 90~ Resolution Setting Application Fees for Licenses for Multiple Docks or Mooring Areas, Commercial Docks and Launching Ramps; for District Mooring Areas; for Deicing; for Special Densi- ty; for Variances; and for Permanent Docks, amended to have Sec- tion 1. d. first sentence read "Watercraft Storage Unit (WSU) refers to the space or facility available for mooring, docking or storing a boat or watercraft, including a mooring, boat or water- craft slip, space within a boat or watercraft slip or any other space provided for storage of boats or watercraft to be used on the lake, with the exception of unrestricted watercraft stored on land." DISCUSSION: Reese said Paul Pedersen, Grays Bay Marina~ has no objection to paying the fee. Pedersen thought it was unfair to exclude Rockvam Boats Yards. Rockvam could trade for a different amenity under the current ordinance. Reese does not believe the District should give up a fee that is fairly assessed. Jerry Rockvam, Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc., said the amenity to supply six fishing boats to the public was forced upon him at the time he was granted a SDL. He said since that time they have spent $175,000 putting in the boats and advertising them. Now he is told he can get rid of the amenity. He would if the District would compensate him for his costs. He would have no objection if everyone else is charged for unrestricted watercraft on land and he would not object to paying for unrestricted watercraft in excess of the six. VOTE: Motion carried, Reese voiing nay. L~CD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 27~ 1994 G. Resolution Setting New Fees for Multiple and Co~unercial Dock Licenses in 1995 MOTION: Zwak moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve Resolution No. 91, A Resolution Relating to License Fees for Commercial and Multiple Docks as revised by LeFevere per executive director's 4/22/94 letter to the Administrative Committee, with corrections. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION~ Chair Foster A. Minutes of 4/18/94 meeting Chair Foster asked for a delay of minutes approval for clari- fication of an action. F. Huntington Point Quiet Waters Areas MOTION: Foster moved, Bloom seconded, to approve the Huntington Point Quiet Waters Areas, with slow buoys per locations identified on the map - in the channel on the northeast side of Huntington Point and in the channel between Lower Lake North and Lafayette Bay at the southern tip of Huntington Point. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. & E. On-Sale Wine & Beer Licenses MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the following licenses: VOTE: A1 & Alma's Avant Garde charter boat, on-sale wine and beer licenses; subject to charter boat registration being issued, liquor liability insurance being current and the Conditional Use Permit amendment being approved by the City of Mound for storage of the 63' boat at A1 & Alma's docks, and waiving background investigation and fee. Renewals of on-sale wine and beer licenses; approval subject to charter boat registration being issued and liquor liabili- ty insurance being current for: 1) Al & Alma's II, VI, X, XI, XII, by Merritt Geyen, A1 & Alma's Supper Club. 2. Paradise Princess and Paradise Lady, by David Lawrance, Paradise Charter Cruises. Motion carried unanimously. B. & D. On-Sale Liquor Licenses MOTION: Foster moved, Bloom seconded, to approve the following: Queen of Excelsior II charter boat, on-sale liquor license with Sunday option; subject to charter boat registration being issued, liquor liability insurance being current. Queen of Excelsior charter boat, renewal of on-sale liquor license with Sunday option; subject to charter boat registration being issued. VOTE: Motion carried, Grathwol abstaining because of a potential conflict. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 27, 1994 G. Ordinance Relating to Lighting on Docks, Amending Sect. 2.03 and Sect. 2.12 MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve the first read- ing of An Ordinance Relating to Lighting on Docks as amended by the committee by changing Subd. 13 to Subd. 14 and with the fol- lowing addition to line 4 of Subd. 14 ..... fixtures "greater than 100 watts" shall ..... and changing the 100 foot distance in line 5 of Subd. 14 to 150 feet. DISCUSSION: Rascop asked if Northern States Power Company has been con- tacted. Foster replied that it has not as its involvement is with lights on land more than lights on docks. In response to a question from Rockvam, Reese said that if a fixture uses a bulb greater than 100 watts the light emitting portion of the fixture is not to be visible beyond 150 feet from the lake side end of the dock. Gabriel Sabbour, Orono City Council member, questioned how that would be determined. Jabbour said there was no identifica- tion of the voltage, a 100 Watt bulb does not mean anything, lle said there was no consultation with a certified ship's captain, the Corps of Engineers, or the Coast Guard to hear what they consider offensive lights that interfere with navigation. He believes the District should be looking at lumens and lux light- ing. Jabbour accused the District of using public funds which could better be used elsewhere. Reese responded that the Board conducted a Public Hearing and used the services of an electrical engineer for advice. As far as the use of public funds, nothing has been spent. Jabbour said staff time, city staff time and legal time has been used. Foster said there is a strong feeling on the lake that there is a problem with lights. Jabbour said he does not believe there was a public outcry on this issue. Foster said that, as this is the first reading, there is time to work on some of the issues mentioned. Jabbour said he believes this is the idea of two people on the Board. He feels he has brought good ideas to the Board and it is not listening. Zwak said he believes the Board gets too involved in too many things and too many regulations. He questioned who would drive around the lake looking for offensive lights. Rockvam asked where there are offensive lights off the docks. Reese responded with locations on Phelps Bay and Priests Bay along with a light at Lafayette Ridge. VOTE: Motion carried, Zwak voting nay. Rascop asked for information on wattage vs. voltage for the next reading. H. Draft Model City Ordinance for Lighting Near the Lake Foster asked that the draft ordinance be tabled back to the committee. Howard Bennis, Mayor, City of Deephaven, said the subject of a model city ordinance for lighting near the lake has been before LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 27, 1994 the Technical Review Committee. There never was any discussion at the Technical Review Committee. Bennis believes most of the cities have ordinances regarding offensive lighting. It is not an issue to them. He believes it would be a waste of time to take it to the cities. Markus arrived. There was no further discussion of the draft model city ordinances for lighting and the subject was referred to the Lake Use and Recreation Committee by consensus. I. 1994 Wake Brochure A type-set copy of the wake brochure and art illustrations were shown to the Board. MOTION: Foster moved, Johnstone seconded, to approve funding of the wake brochure from the Save the Lake Fund at an estimated cost of $1500. DISCUSSION: The executive director said this item will also appear under the Save the Lake Advisory Committee budget. He said there will be 10,000 brochures made up initially. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. J. Special Events MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to instruct LeFevere to draft the necessary ordinance changes to have the LMCD no longer issue special event permits. DISCUSSION: Foster explained that the LMCD, Sheriff's Water Patrol and cities, as well as the DNR in fishing contest cases, issue permits for special events. By considering the proposed change the LMCD will not lose control of special events because the Water Patrol issues its permits under the LMCD ordinances. All of the local law enforcement authorities think it is a good idea. The loss of the permit fee will impact the LMCD budget by about $3400. Foster said this responds to one of the criticisms of the LMCD that it is duplicating efforts of other agencies. This will make obtaining a permit more convenient for the public. Thibault said special event applications for the summer are coming in to the office. There also have been some permits issued during the winter. She asked if she should continue processing permits. Johnstone said the action is to draft an ordinance. It will still have to be acted upon. She should continue to process the applications. LeFevere asked for direction as to whether the special event section is to eliminated or the power delegated. He was advised to make the changes necessary to delegate the power. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. K. Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Meeting The Board received a report of the 4/13/94 meeting of the LMCD with Public Safety Law Enforcement officers in the area. Foster said the meeting was very positive. Another meeting is planned for Spring, 1995. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 27~ 1994 3. SAVE TItE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Executive Director Strommcn for Chair Mollet B. Draft Criteria for Funding Save the Lake Programs The executive director said at the 4/7/94 meeting of the committee, it recommended the criteria for use of the Save the Lake Funds be grouped under education, environment~ public safety and public service. Bloom and Zwak said they believe the criteria are too subjec- tive. Other Board members said the criteria need to be subjec- t ive. At the present time there are no criteria. Reese said the committee could try to broaden the criteria to reach more people. The executive director said the committee would prefer pro- viding start-up money or adding funds to a project rather than fund a project entirely. The committee would also look at whether the organization is capable of raising its own funds. As far as the Water Patrol is concerned, they are funded by Hennepin County but the committee recognizes it has additional needs. 6rathwol said he believes the criteria could be better stat- ed. The criteria are useful in determining which programs it wants to support and which ones it does not want to support. I~OTION: Johnstone moved, Reese seconded, to approve the Save the Lake Advisory Committee criteria for funding Save the Lake Projects. VOTE: Motion carried, Zwak voting nay. C. Save the Lake 1994 Budget The Board received a proposed $48,000 income and expense projection for the use of the Save the Lake Funds in 1994. Zwak said he believes there are items in the budget that do not belong there. One item he mentioned is $5000 for the lake- shore lighting. The executive director said that was recommended by the Board in November, 1993, to provide for consulting and legal fees. The executive director explained that the revenue of $48,000, is higher than the $25,610 raised in 1993~ is obtained through an annual mail appeal to approximately 2,000 people. Johnstone said there should be some assurance that the funds will be realized. The executive director will relay that informa- tion to the committee. Some of the proposed expenditures are committed at this time. Some could be held pending the raising of the funds. The executive director said there is a possibility the Environment item, EWM Operations, could be reviewed in light of the EWM Fund reserves. The District will also receive some public agency funding this year. Reese said it was the intent of Robert Pillsbury, former Board member who established the Fund, that eventually the fund would be endowed. An amount has not been determined. The execu- tive director said the $80,000 balance on hand serves as a reserve LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 27, 1994 in case of an emergency. This budget does have a potential of drawing down on the reserve even with the elimination of the EWM. There should not be a problem in raising $25,000. The fund rais- ing is being done by LMCD staff through the mail appeal. It will be as late as November before the results of the campaign are known. Foster suggested removing the EWM allocation, purchase of the inflatable boat and the contribution toward the Minnehaha Steam- boat generator at this time. If the funding is received those items can be put back in. Markus questioned the $2500 for the Tonka Bay fishing pier. He said the City of Wayzata will seek $10,000 from the Save the Lake Fund for the proposed Boardwalk. Grathwol commended the committee for coming up with the budget, but said he would like to approve the budget in concept subject to line item approval. Markus suggested cutting the budget in half. MOTION: Foster moved, Johnstone seconded, to approve a 1994 Save the Lake Fund Budget of $26,500, removing the EWM Operations ($10,000), inflatable boat ($4,500), Minnehaha Steamboat generator ($4,500) and Tonka Bay Fishing Pier ($2,5001 from the proposed $48,000 budget. DISCUSSION: Bloom said the budget should be done on an annual basis, after the fund raising is completed. Zwak believes the committee should create a budget based on saving the lake with things like the brochures and clean-up. Markus asked if the Coffee Cove Shore Fishing Grant coul'd be rescinded. LeFevere said it could be done, but would not be the political thing to do. VOTE: Motion carried, Bloom voting nay. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Foster seconded, to direct the Chair to write a letter to the Save the Lake Advisory Committee thanking it for the work it has done. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The executive director reported Robert Pillsbury has made arrangements, along with the DNR, for the Super Valu Stores to print a message about cleaning up the lake on its carry-out bags which is now being scheduled for 1995 due to prior commitments for public service messages. A copy of the message was circulated. 4. LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol The Board has been furnished with the draft report of the 1992 Lake Access Task Force study. Grathwol said the first two pages contain the summary and conclusions. He said the report says the 700 car-trailer parking spaces are reasonable and fair. Properly designed, funded and built they will minimize neighbor- hood intrusion. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 27, 1994 Grathwol recognized Martha Reger, Gordon Kimball, Mike Markell, and Larry Killien of the DNR, Bert Foster, David Cochran and Eugene Strommen of the LMCD and Gabriel Jabbour, Orono, for their assistance. Grathwol said the DNR is satisfied with the report. Comments will be solicitated from participating agencies and cities. Grathwol asked that the Task Force representatives meet with the city councils in discussing the report. He asked that other Board members, as they hear comments, let him or Foster know what is being said. Foster said he believes the report is a win-win situation. The report as drafted calls for LMCD to conduct a certified count of the car-trailer parking spaces every other year. The cities do not have to fund new accesses. Funding will come from state and regional sources. Foster said it is important to get the cities behind the report. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone C. Contract Renewal, Shoreland Consultant Steven J. Prestin The executive director reported the current contract with Steven J. Prestin for servicing the shoreland rules adoption for participating cities is needed to continue through 6/30/94. The contract is funded through a DNR grant which has already been advanced to LMCD. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Zwak seconded, to renew the contract with Steven J. Prestin, extending it from 7/1/93 to 6/30/94. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. League of MN cities Insurance Trust Excess Liability Coverage MOTION: Johnstone moved, Bloom seconded, to waive the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust Excess Liability monetary limits on tort liability. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 6. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Reese for Chair Penn B. Highlights of 4/15/94 meeting Reese reported the DNR has allocated $24,500 from the boat license surcharge to the District for EWM control work. The executive director reported the Hennepin Conservation District has approximately $25,000 left from last year's grant program. The District is applying for those funds. Any funds received from other agencies will assist in reducing the costs to the cities. Reese reported the Corp of Engineers has approved $200,000 of in-kind research on exotics control. A whole lake Sonar study will take place on Lake Zumbra and E. Parkers Lake this season. Reese called attention to the section of the minutes on Zebra Mussel spread prevention. The executive director reported two bids were received for hauling the cut milfoil. Minnetonka Portable Dredging and Ceres Company bid. Minnetonka Portable Dredging was the low bidder at $39.95 per hour per truck or $79.90 per hour for two trucks. Ilo · ,I II I I ,Ill Id Il, LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 27, 1994 MOTION: Reese moved, Rascop seconded, to award the contract for hauling EWM to Minnetonka Portable Dredging per its bid and ac- cording to the contract proposal. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Markus asked if there would be a saving if the cities sup- plied locations for the dumping. The executive director said some cities are doing that. All dump sites are kept within 10 [niles of the harvest off-load site. The executive director called attention to the addition of the Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee meeting to the May meeting schedule, 5/17 at 8:30 AM. {The meeting subsequently has been re-scheduled to 5/19.) This is a group with members from Seagrant, the DNR, Hennepin Parks, and LMLOA. The purpose is to start work on a Zebra Mussel control plan. Penn will represent the Board on the committee. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. Detailed Adjusted Administrative Levy Allocations For the information of the Board members, the 1994 budget as amended 3/23/94, adjusted levy allocations for the cities was distributed. B. March Financial Summary The executive director reported the March Financial Summary will follow as the LMCD bookkeeper has been away from work unex- pectedly for a period of time. C. Audit of Vouchers for Payment MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded to approve payment of bills in the amount of $24,694.44, Payroll checks 1195 - 1201 and pay- ables checks 9648 - 9677. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen The executive director called attention to the May meeting schedule. The Water Structures Committee will hold a Public Hearing on new dock license applications at its 5/14 meeting. The executive director asked Board members to contact their local mayors and city council members to attend the 5/4/94 Mayor/Council report meeting. In particular the new council members are to be urged to attend to hear about the LMCD. ADJOURNMENT Chair Johnstone declared the meeting adjourned at 9:55 PM William Johnstone, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 PM, Wednesday, April 27, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL INSTALLATION OF NEW BOARD MEMBER - Eugene Partyka, Minnetrista CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone READING OF MINUTES - 3/23/94 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda, 5 min. CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests an individual discussion of any item. In that case the item will be removed from consent agenda and considered as a specific item. ~ .... ~MITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock * A. Approval of minutes, 4/9/94 meeting * B. Colson Dock Length Variance, 3219 Lakeshore Blvd, Minnetonka, Libbs Lake; recommending approval of the draft findings and order for approval of a dock length variance for a 200' dock on the common lot line between Lots 5 and 6, 3219 Lakeshore Blvd, with changes as recommended by the committee. Ce Carlson Dock Length Variance, 21650 Fairview Street, Greenwood, Lower Lake South; recommending approval of a dock length variance of 12', and to have the attorney draft findings & order. De Ee Pemtom Co./Blanmor Corp. New Multiple Dock License Application for Trillium Bay Subdivision, Minnetrista, Halsteds Bay; recommending approval of a new multiple dock license for Trillium Bay Subdivision, subject to the understanding that the LMCD makes no guarantees as to the usability of the proposed slips. Sandy Beach Place, 3995 North Shore Drive, Orono, West Arm; recommending approval of a new dock license, reducing the slips from six to five to comply with City of Orono requirements, and location of the eliminated slip to be signed "no parking"; (applicant is asking Orono officials to allow permission to keep sixth slip for his own use. If not, applicant is to eliminate slip #4.) LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 4/27/94, Page 2 F. Resolution Setting Application Fees for Multiple and Commercial Dock Licenses; recommending: 1) approval of the resolution as amended by the Board 3/23/94, to not charge WSU fees for unrestricted watercraft stored on land at non-commercial sites, and at commercial sites where provided as an amenity for a special density license, and 2) reconsideration of the Board action of 3/23/94, exempting amenities from WSU fees. G. Resolution Setting New Fees for Multiple and commercial Dock Licenses in 1995; recommending resolution approval as drafted, with corrections per minutes, subject to Admn Com. review 4/27. * H. Shorewood Application to DNR for three dry hydrants, recommending an approval letter be sent to the city. I. Additional Business LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster * A. Approval of minutes, 4/18/94 meeting B. 9~ of Excelsior II charter boat, on-sale liquor license with Sunday option; recommending approval subject to charter boat registration being issued, liquor liability insurance being current. C. A1 ~ Alma's Avant Garde charter boat, on-sale wine and beer licenses; recommending approval subject to charter boat registration being issued, liquor liability insurance being current and the CUP amendment being approved by the City of Mound for storage of the 63' boat at A1 & Alma's docks (and waiving background investigation and fee). D. Oueen of Excelsior charter boat, renewal of on-sale liquor license with Sunday Option; recommending approval subject to charter boat registration being issued. E. Renewals of on-sale wine and beer licenses; recommending approval subject to charter boat registration being issued and liquor liability insurance being current for: 1) A1 ~ Alma'~ II,. VI, X_~ XI, XII, by Merritt Geyen, A1 & Alma's Supper Club 2) Paradise Princess and Paradise Lad_~ by Dave Lawrance, Paradise Charter Cruises F. Huntington Point Quiet waters Areas, Lower Lake North; recommending approval of the Huntington Point Quiet Waters Areas, with slow buoys per locations identified on map - in the channel on the northeast side of Huntington Point and in the channel between Lower Lake North and Lafayette Bay at the southern tip of Huntington Point. G. Ordinance Relating to Lighting on Docks, amending Sect. 2.03 and Sect. 2.12; recommending adoption of the Ordinance with changes to Section 2, per minutes. LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 4/27/94, Page 3 H. Draft Model City Ordinances for Lighting near the Lake; recommending draft ordinances be sent to the cities for comment with a letter inviting the cities to discuss the amendments with their LMCD Board member at a city council meeting. I. 1994 Wake Brochure; recommending approval to fund printing of the wake brochure from the Save the Lake Fund, estimate $1500. J. Special Events; recommending that the necessary ordinance changes be drafted to have the LMCD no longer issue special event permits. Report on the 4/13/94 Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Meeting Hennepln County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report Additional business 3. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Mollet * A. Approval of minutes, 4/7/94 meeting Be e Draft Criteria for Funding Save the Lake programs, recommended by the committee for board comment, approval. Save the Lake 1994 budget, recommending $48,000 income and expense projection as detailed for board comment, approval. LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol * A. Approval of minutes, 3/31/94 meeting Introduction to Lake Access Task Force meeting of 5/11/94 inviting public comment on draft 1992 LATF study. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone A. Approval of minutes, 3/23/94 meeting Reconsideration of Resolution Setting New Fees for Multiple and Commercial Dock Licenses per committee recommendation. Contract renewal, shoreland consultant Steven J. Prestin, to continue service on shoreland rules adoption for participating cities, extending contract from 7/1/93 to 6/30/94. De League of MN Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) Excess Liability Coverage, committee recommendation on waiving monetary limits on tort liability. 6. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn A. Approval of minutes, 3/25/94 and 4/15/94 meetings B. Informational report highlights of 4/15 meeting C. Additional business LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 4/27/94, Page 4 FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. Presentation of detailed adjusted administrative levy allocations for member cities based upon the $25,117 revised budget levy approved 3/23/94, recommending approval and adjustment based upon individual city levy payment status. B. March Financial Summary -- (meeting handout) C. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (meeting handout) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures Committee Meeting: 8 AM., Saturday, May 14, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Execu- tive Director. Chair Babcock convened the regular meeting of the Water Structures Committee at 9:49 AM. 1. Michael G. Arvidson, Shorewood, Gideons Bay, Multiple dock license application; Review findings from public hearing and make recommendation to board. All committee members present were in attendance at the Public Hearing. Thibault summarized her report of 5/4/94. She said the application is for seven boat storage units (BSU) on three docks. Dock 1 is 95' long with a tie-on for one 22' boat. Dock 2 is 62' long with a tie-on for a 26' boat on the west and tie-ons for 2 18' boats on the east. Dock 3 is approximately 61' long with a tie-on for a 30' boat on the west and tie-ons for a 16' boat and a 25' boat on the east. Thibault's report detailed the back- ground of the docks, the City of Shorewood zoning and site plans of the area. The City of Shorewood, in a letter dated 5/4/94, stated that the zoning for the property is non-conforming. The City requests that any multiple dock license issued by the LMCD contain a stipulation that the use of the docks must comply with Shorewood's zoning requirements. The letter states that if the docks are used to store boats other than those owned by Arvidson, his tenant at 5597 Timber Lane and Duane Bagdons, 5585 Timber Lane, the license should be revoked. Thibault said the multiple dock situation was discovered on a lake inspection. Arvidson was cooperative in making the appli- cation. Arvidson said he has three boats on his dock. They are a 16' fishing boat, a 25' sailboat and a 12' sailboat. As far as the tenant is concerned, he is also entitled to have three boats based on the 1:50' rule. Foster said there is a temptation to rent space when more slips are granted than are needed. Arvidson said this is private property and no different than any other property on Timber Lane. LeFevere said as long as Arvidson complies with the 1:50' rule there is compliance and there is nothing in LMCD Code to prevent him from renting space. The City of Shorewood Code prohibits the renting of spaces. LeFevere said there is a prob- lem when the LMCD takes on the enforcement of the Shorewood Code. Then there is the expectation that if there is a violation the LMCD will do something about it. There was a provision in the WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE May 14, 1994 LMCD Code at one time preventing renting. It was removed from the Code because of the enforcement problem. LeFevere said the Board is free to put in a condition of licensing that the appli- cant comply with the Shorewood Code but then the city will expect the LMCD to enforce it. LeFevere suggested leaving out this stipulation. Partyka said the foregoing discussion points out one of the problems in communicating with the cities. He believes that leaving the stipulation out would tell Shorewood the District is not in agreement with the City of Shorewood ordinance. He would like to leave the stipulation in any approval. Babcock said the District should not be in the position of enforcing someone else's Code. Suerth suggested some wording that the license is contingent upon compliance with the Shorewood Code. LeFevere suggested wording to the effect that LMCD recognizes the authori- ty of the City of Shorewood and the granting of this multiple dock license does not authorize anything prohibited by the city. Foster asked about back licensing. LeFevere said that back licensing is not necessary as this is not a grandfathered situa- tion. Arvidson said he has talked to the MnDNR and was advised he does not need a multiple dock license from the DNR. Babcock questioned whether the DNR knows the docks involve more than five boats. Thibault will check with the DNR. MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded, to recommend to the Board granting a Multiple Dock License to Michael G. Arvidson, 5595 Timber Lane, Shorewood, Gideons Bay for Lot 293, Auditors Subd. 135, per the application submitted. The granting of this license does not authorize anything prohibited by the City of Shorewood ordinances. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. Minnetonka Boat Works~ (MBW), Wayzata, Wayzata Bay, Multiple dock license, special density license and dock length variance applications. Review findings from the Public Hearing and make recommendation to the Board. All committee members present were in attendance at the Public Hearing. Thibault pointed out that this is an expansion of a facility greater than 20,000 square feet and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is required. LeFevere advised against making a final decision before the EAW is completed. Thibault said that the application is to add the nine slips granted under a tempo- rary low water variance (TLWV) as permanent slips. That addition will require a new special density license and because the slips are beyond the 100' line, it will require a variance. Babcock added that MBW had 76 storage slips and 6 transient slips all within 200' The TLWV moved nine slips beyond 200' and MBW was required to rope off nine slips within the 200' This situation was allowed to exist for five years because of the cost of con- struction in deeper water. When MBW was advised they would have to bring the nine slips back into conformance due to the -continued WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE May 14, 1994 TLWV expiring, the response was an application to increase from 80 slips to 89 slips in order to retain the 9 slips granted under the TLWV. There was a question as to the classification of the slips at the gas dock. As those slips are not used for overnight storage the new application should be for 81 storage slips and 8 transient slips (5 tie ons, 2 at the gas dock and the handicapped slip). Foster asked about the timing for this change. He noted that there are nine slips supposedly roped off and wondered if this application was for the 1995 season as there will be time spent on the EAW preparation. Beth Whittaker, ~BW, responded that the nine slips are roped off and not leased. They would like to lease them for 1994 if possible, even if late in the season. Babcock asked about the background of the 200' limit at grandfathered facilities, such as North Shore Drive Marina. LeFevere reviewed the history of Code changes over the years, reducing the dock lengths from 300' to 100' Some multiple docks were allowed to be maintained out to 200', with regulations re- quiring a variance for any change in the 100' to 200' area. In the case of the MBW, variances have been granted for docks out to 200' Babcock said it is important to determine what hardship exists to justify the variance. Same$ Farrell, Genmar, cited the section of the Code stating variances may be issued where neces- sary to provide access to the handicapped. Babcock asked why that objective couldn't be achieved within 200' Farrell said ~IBW is willing to enter into a cooperative agreement to bring the City of Wayzata and the LMCD into compliance with the American Disability Act (ADA) during the time period that the City of Wayzata is developing a new plan for its waterfront. LeFevere said a question for the Board is whether the one handicapped slip justifies the other eight slips on that pier. Foster said the handicapped space is a non-issue as the MBW representatives have stated they will comply with the ADA for their own purposes. Foster said he believes the issue is that MBW is willing to extend the extra liability to provide the handicapped access for the City of Wayzata in exchange for keep- ing the 9 slips. There was no representation present from the City to indi- cate it cannot provide the handicapped access without the use of the MBW dock. The 5/11/94 letter from the Mayor of Wayzata sug- gested a two year extension of the temporary low water variance. Julee Quarve-Peterson, jQp, Inc., said the City is working on a transitional plan. Babcock said his problem is with granting a permanent variance, although he could consider a reasonable extension of the temporary low water variance. He believes the burden is on the City of Wayzata to comply with the ADA. Farrell said there is also a burden on the LMCD for the cities to give handicapped access. Babcock said he does not see a specific hardship for a variance. There are other ways of providing the handicapped access nearer to shore. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE May 14, 1994 Foster said the ADA final documents for docks will not be available for some time. During that time the City of Wayzata may have an opportunity to finalize its lakefront program. Marshall Schwartz, Genmar, said the City has an immediate need to provide the same amenity to the handicapped that it provides to the general public. Currently it is not being done because the access to the Wayzata Depot dock is through a fourteen step stair. LeFevere posed the question of how this affects all other cities around the Lake. The possibility may exist that other marinas will ask for additional slips beyond 200' to accommodate the cities' ADA needs. Foster suggested the City of Wayzata prepare a request for proposal for submission to all other mari- nas in the area to accommodate its handicapped access needs. There are many other marinas in the Wayzata area and in the area of other cities with municipal docks which would be willing to furnish the handicapped access for an additional 9 slips beyond 200' Babcock said the L~ICD is a lake-wide body and it cannot grant special variances all around the Lake. Babcock is also uncomfortable with someone other than a city official speaking for the City of Wayzata. tie would like to hear the city state that the MBW proposal is the only way the handicapped access can be gained to the city docks. Suerth said he is comfortable with the idea that this is a transition period because of the ADA and the development of the Wayzata waterfront. He could favor an extension of the temporary low water variance to see what happens in the interim. LeFevere said the idea of granting a variance for nine slips beyond 200' to provide one handicapped slip would be a big step for the Board even on a temporary basis. At the time the tempo- rary low water variance was granted it was for five years due to the high expense, although there was no way, at that time, of knowing when the lake would return to normal. LeFevere suggested the Board could extend the five years to a longer period of time rather than tying the handicapped access to a variance. Foster said ther~,~s no doubt that any action to extend the TLWV falls in a "gte area. In considering a variance, the behavior and activity of the applicant should be given considera- tion. He brought up the subject that the boats being sold at MBW are in violation of the LMCD noise ordinance. Farrell said he was not aware of a problem but would check it out on Monday. Whittaker said she knows of only one incident. Foster asked for a response to the question as to whether it is the policy of the MBW to sell boats that are above the noise level. Babcock said he believes there is little support on the committee for a permanent variance beyond 200' He would like to see the City of Wayzata involved in the discussion regarding the ADA requirements. He said there is the possibility of a recon- figuration for 89 boats within the 200' If a permanent variance outside the 200' were to be considered the EAW should be complet- ed before action is taken. Babcock said the committee has the - continued WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE May 14, 1994 options of denying the variance and amending the temporary low water variance to allow time for ADA requirements to be met, with input from the City of wayzata on the possibility of a cooperative agreement for handicapped access at MBW. MOTION: Foster moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend denial of the permanent variance application, the Findings and Order to be prepared. DISCUSSION: Partyka said it is important to look forward to see where the District is going with the ADA compliance and if there are going to be any changes in the 200' distance. Farrell asked if MBW can withdraw its application before the committee votes. Babcock said considerable time has been spent on this application. The committee is making a statement that it does not want docks beyond 200' on a permanent basis. LeFevere said if the application for the variance is withdrawn and subse- quently MBW wants to ask for an extension of the temporary low water variance a public hearing would be necessary. If they plan to have an extension of the TLWV, it should be done now so an additional public hearing could be avoided. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Suerth moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend extension of the MBW temporary low water variance for one year to 4/26/95, subject to execution of a cooperative agreement with the City of Wayzata for tile use of the handicapped accessible slip. DISCUSSION: Foster said an extension would be going against the firm promise made by MBW when they got the temporary low water variance that five years would be sufficient. He said MBW agreed to remove the docks after five years. IIe is concerned that the facility will comply with the ADA and there has been no communi- cation from Wayzata as to its needs. Babcock said he can speak for the motion for two reasons. One is the information on the ADA. The other is that the LMCD passed an ordinance requiring replacement of non-encased poly- styrene foam docks. MBW has to come into compliance at its Orono marina this year at considerable expense. Babcock said he would rather see MBW replace the polystyrene foam this year, than move the docks back in from 200' Foster does not believe this extension should be approved. The LMCD is being watched by all the other multiple docks and it will appear the LMCD is giving in to the 200' limit. In addition MBW has the financial advantage of the additional shoreline and density created by the jetty. Partyka said he has sympathy with the dollar cost involved in the polystyrene foam removal and believes MBW is ~{ing the message that there will be no exten- sion beyond 200' He believes there has to be some consideration of financial aspects. Suerth said he favors the extension because there is no way of knowing at this time how the ADA will appear in final form. Babcock said this motion will also require roping off eight slips on the interior and the use of the handicapped slip for in and out only. Babcock said the Board needs to decide on requiring MBW to rope off the eight slips adjacent to the handicapped slip or the nine inside slips. The consensus was to rope off the nine inside slips as before. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE May 14, 1995 The executive director said that, from a practical stand- point, it may take some time for execution of the cooperative agreement with the City of Wayzata. The committee agreed that there must be a letter of intent from the City of Wayzata by the Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried, Foster voting nay. MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded, to table the applica- tions for the Special Density License and the ~tultiple Dock License. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Thibault mentioned that the amenity of a restaurant to serve the public is no longer available. That will be reviewed. Partyka suggested requiring that all Multiple Dock Licenses be in comp'liance with the ADA. Foster said the ADA rules will not be published until 1996 and he cannot see any threat to the City of Wayzata for non-compliance at this time. In addition the City is planning a whole new waterfront which will address some of those concerns. LeFevere was excused. 3. Kent Carlson, Dock Length Variance, 21650 Fairview Street, Greenwood, Lower Lake South MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded, to recommend approval of the draft Findings and Order granting a dock length variance to allow construction of a dock twelve feet beyond the dock use area of the Kent Carlson property at 21650 Fairview Street, Oreenwood. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Sandy Beach Place, 3995 North Shore Drive, Orono, West Arm MOTION: Babcock moved, Partyka seconded, to table the multiple dock license application of Sandy Beach Place for a minor change from six to five slips until there is communication from the City of Orono regarding the applicant's request to retain one slip for his own use. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Beans Greenwood Marina, 21945 Minnetonka Blvd., Greenwood, St. Albans Bay Beans Greenwood Marina has applied for a multiple dock license with a minor change in slip locations. Jim Bean, owner, submitted a revised site plan and said he would propose moving slip #104 near slips #55-58, and moving slip #110 next to slip #7, both within 100' He also proposed moving slip Tl13 next to #84 and Tl12 next to #80, both outside of 100' The latter two are spaces that customers tend to use to drop off boats when they come in for service. Babcock said he would like to see a configuration at this marina that does not change every year. The objective the last time was to get all of the slips within 100' Foster did not agree, stating marinas should be allowed to make changes of this type. Thibault said she is not comfortable with the change of Tl13 next to slip #84, a space which was given special considera- tion in the past. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE May 14, 1994 Bean said that over the past fifteen years the marina has been reduced in size. tie is trying to do something to meet the convenience of the public. Partyka said it is his impression that the District is trying to get all of the slips within 100' He cannot see why an exception should be made for Tl12 and Tl13. Babcock said the Board approved a revised site plan for slips #79, 80 and 104 within 100'. A survey showed that slip #104 is now beyond 100' By moving Tl12 and Tli3 the problem is being compounded. Babcock said this is not a minor change and should be handled as a vari- ance for the area outside of 100' Foster said Bean is reacting to what the public does. Foster said a variance for only a few feet would require considerable expenditure in application fees. Babcock said he believes there was agreement with Bean for 110 Boat Storage Units, with any relocation of slips to be within 100' He is opposed to changing the existing envelope. MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded, to recommend approval of a minor change to the Bean's Greenwood Marina multiple dock license by moving slip #104 to the space next to slips 55-58 and to move slip 110 next to slip 7. To recommend denial of the movement of Tl12 and Tl13. The dock ends next to slips #80 and #84 are to signed "No Boat Docking" VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 6. Bayshore Manor Condominiums, Excelsior, Excelsior Bay The committee received a revised site plan for the Bayshore Manor Condominiums showing the docks are larger than the original site plan dating back to 1977. Thibault distributed letters of affidavit stating that there has been no change in the docks since before 1982. Babcock indicated concern about the difference in slip size on the two site plans. Some slips are 40' instead of 24' Foster said there has been considerable change in boat sizes since 1978. MOTION: Foster moved, Suerth seconded, to table the Bayshore Manor Condominium application pending receipt of aerial photos. VOTE: ~totion carried, Partyka voting nay. 7. Lord Fletchers Apartments, Spring Park, West Arm Chair Babcock turned the chair over to Foster because he is a tenant at the I.ord Fletchers Apartments. Thibault explained that Lord Fletchers Apartments has sub- mitted a revised site plan, relocating several slips and adding some fingers, without increasing slip sizes. They are licensed for 32 BSU on 420' of shoreline, with a boat storage density of 1:13' They _do not plan to put in the full dock structure for the 1994 season. A partial dock plan has been submitted. Lord Fletchers Apartments has a special density license issued in 1984. They no longer qualify for a special density license because the docks are not open to the general public. According to LMCD Ordinance No. 123, if facilities under a Special Density License are not fully constructed for any two year period they WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE May 14, 1994 shall be deemed abandoned. The Ordinance provides for partial construction upon Board approval and the amenities required under the Special Density License (SDL) are provided. Thibault said Lord Flctchers Apartments is requesting per- mission to put in 14 of the licensed 32 slips this year. They are also requesting reconfiguration of the docks by moving some of the smaller slips, actually reducing the width. They meet all length and setback requirements. Foster said that when the ordinance was amended to include the "build it or lose it" provision there was considerable dis- cussion. At that time he did not favor that provision whereas Babcock was in favor of it. Foster said he now has mixed feel- ings on the subject of overbuilding docks on small parcels. Foster suggested breaking the motion into two parts. MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded, to recommend approval of the revised site plan submitted by Lord Fletchers Apartments showing a relocation of slips with no increase in slip sizes. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Foster then continued on the subject of "banking" the addi- tional slips. According to the current Code, 420' of shoreline would limit the applicant to 8 boats. The current license is for 32 boats under a Special Density License. Foster said his con- cern is with re-development on land affected by the availability of 32 slips at this location. Thibault said there are grandfathered multiple docks on the Lake with a density greater than 1:50' without amenities who are not fully constructing their docks. Those with a Special Density License have to provide amenities. Another question is whether the District wants to force the applicant to put in all 32 slips rather than leaving it at the 14 slips needed. Foster said there is a possibility that by forcing construction of the 32 slips they would develop into rental slips. There would be a financial burden in forcing the construction. At the same time there is a financial benefit in land value, by having the 32 slips. Thibault said it is her understanding that if they do not build at all they lose the license. They have the option of coming in each year at license renewal to request permission for the partial construction, it Foster requested the staff to clarify the ordinance as applies to this application. He does not think the intent was to allow "banking" of additional slips. Babcock resumed the Chair. 8. City of Wayzata's Preliminary Plans for a Lakewalk on Wayzata Bay Inc Scott Richards, Northwest Associated Consultants, · exhibited the proposed plans for a Lakewalk on the downtown Wayzata shoreline, the The Lakewalk concept has been developed to address following: Northern Railroad 1. Safe crossings over the Burlington tracks and right-of-way WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE May 14, 1994 2. Access from the colnmunity to tile City-owned shoreline between Broadway and Barry Avenues. 3. Complete a walking loop from Barry to Broadway 4. Access to Wayzata businesses from Lake Minnetonka for people in boats. 5. Access to and dockage for the restored streetcar boat "Minnehaha". The preliminary work is being funded by $250,000 from tile city from Tax Increment financing to get the project started. Funding of the estimated $2,000,000 cost would come from fund raising and private donations. James Robin, Landscape Architect, and Gerry Carisch of the Wayzata Improvement Foundation were present to answer questions. There will be 20 rental slips at the east end of the walk- way. The walkway will be 1000' in length. There will be 400' of transient boat storage. There will be public restromns on the Lake Street side of the tracks. There will be two sun/rain shelters. There is parking available at the Inunicipal ramp. The construction will be above the 100 year flood plain at a 931.6' elevation. Ladders will be built along the walkway to accommo- date low water conditions. The fees collected from the rental slips are to help with the maintenance costs. Charter boats, other than the Minnehaha, will be discouraged unless the passen- gers are bused in due to lack of parking. There is consideration of allowing fishing or building a fishing pier at the far west end of the walkway. Babcock said he can support the concept but is concerned with the approach. They are asking for a 1000'dock in LMCD jurisdiction. Obviously an Environmental Assessment Worksheet will be needed. Strommen said the developer should be aware that there are LMCD ordinances to comply with and MnDNR prohibitions about structures on a dock. Suerth was excused. Robin said they still need information on the depth to solid lake bottom for the construction. There was discussion about de-icing the structure and the type of lights they will use on the walkway. MOTION: Foster moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend concept approval of the Lakewalk in Wayzata. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 9. Deicing Refunds MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded, to recommend approval of $100 deicing license refunds to the following: Curly's Minnetonka Marina, Echo Bay Frank Elshaug, St. Albans Bay Excel Mariga, St. Albans Bay Gayle's Marina Corp., Maxwell Bay Gray's Bay Marina, Grays Bay Hans tlagen, Wayzata Bay Howard's Point Marina, S Upper Lake WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE May 14, 1994 Reid MacDonald, Lafayette Bay Leno Mikenas, St. Albans Bay Minnetonka Boat Works, Browns Bay Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata Bay North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay Douglas Ramstad, Wayzata Bay Paul F. Resberg, Grays Bay Rockvam Boat Yards, West Arm Sailors World Marina, Smiths Bay Rodney Wallace, St. Albans Bay Wayzata Yacht Club Site 1, Wayzata Bay Wayzata Yacht Club Site 2, Wayzata Bay City of Wayzata, Wayzata Bay Walt Wittmer, Lafayette Bay James Wyer, St. Louis Bay Ed Yaeger, Gideons Bay ,Dennis Carlson, St. Albans Bay *Thomas Johnson, cooks Bay , Mike Kramer, Gideons Bay *Tonka Bay Marina, Lower Lake South , Licensees had deficiencies that were more significant. Due to the late date of the inspections, second or third inspections were not conducted. The licensees are to be advised that defi- ciencies will not be allowed next year. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 9. Envelope Sub-committee Babcock said the Envelope Sub-committee will have to be re- scheduled. 10. Adjournment Chair Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 12:30 PM. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair RECEIVED ';.;y 2 3 )gg( EAKE MINNETONEA OONSERVATION DI$~EICT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting: 5:30 PM., Monday, May 16, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata, Room 106 Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; James Grath- wol, Excelsior; Jos. Zwak, Greenwood; Gene Partyka, ~innetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. DRAFT The meeting was called to order by Chair Foster at 5:30 PM. 1. Draft Model City Ordinance for Lighting Neir the Lake Foster introduced Marlow Peterson, Northern States Power Company, Community Relations, Lake Minnetonka District. Foster gave the background of the District's study of light- ing on the Lake as it affects night vision when boating. High intensity lights are a safety problem and affect the quality of enjoying a night experience on the Lake. Foster explained that the District has developed an ordi- nance that requires lights over 100 Watts to be shielded with a sharp cut-off shield so the light .emitting source cannot be seen 150 feet from the lake side of a dock. There is no distinction as to the type of light. The next step is to develop an ordinance to take to the District cities with a request that it be incorporated into their ordinances. Penn asked how many cities already have such an ordinance. Foster said most of the cities treat lighting as a nuisance and it is part of their building codes. Penn suggested any ordinance should be simple and avoid technical details. The committee received a letter from Gabriel Jabbour, Orono, dated 5/3/94, in which he suggested the ordinance should address the amount of lumens produced. The ordinance should also care- fully consider the vantage point and distance at which measure- ments for compliance would be taken. Foster did not agree with Jabbour's premise that lumens should be the measuring device. Foster said the important point of the proposed ordinance is that the light emitting source not be seen. Marlow Peterson said he has met with the City of Deephaven's lighting consultant. Deephaven currently has cobra head fix- tures on its lakeshore lights. The Deephaven Park Committee wants to light its dock area with a light that has a more down- ward thrust. In Mound there is a security light with a 250 Watt bulb. Upon complaint of neighbors across the lake, Mound has asked NSP to provide a shielded light. NSP can comply with any ordinance the cities or the District might have. Peterson made the point that NSP deals with the cities on street lights and is not involved in private lighting. ¸1. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE May 16, 1994 Zwak said he believes the cities have the capability of dealing with this themselves. He does not believe the District is justified in spending District money developing an ordinance for the cities, zwak said he has had a response from some cities that they are not interested in having the District tell them what to do. Reese said the mayors of Wayzata and Orono have indicated to him that it is good idea. Foster said he believes there is a sensitivity on the part of the LMCD as to what the boaters need vs. the non-boater. Foster said that approaching the cities in a cooperative manner will result in a positive response. Penn suggested not approaching the cities that already have suitable ordinances. A simple request to add the details of the proposed ordinance to theirs should be sufficient. Thibault said Orono had the most specific ordinance. The executive director said the cities were surveyed as to their ordinances in January, 1992. Orono has an ordinance, Excelsior and Victoria said they do not have one, Tonka Bay had no comments and Mound was suppor- tive of the District. Partyka would object to the District passing an ordinance for the cities. There should only be suggestions to them. Foster said it is agreed the District does not have any jurisdic- tion on the land. However what happens on land does affect the Lake and the cities are being asked to cooperate by considering their adoption of a uniform ordinance. Zwak said the District is talking about spending $5,000 for this ordinance. The executive director said it is doubtful there will be that kind of expense. Reese said that amount was budget- ed at the time there was a thought of doing a demonstration project. At this time the City of Deephaven and the Wayzata Yacht Club may be demonstration sites at no cost to the District. Reese said any money spent to reduce the lights on Lake Minneton- ka is well spent. Rascop arrived. There was discussion about the ball field lights in Excelsi- or and their affect on the Lake. Grathwol said there have been some efforts made in the past to correct the lighting. Rascop was not present earlier when the Jabbour letter was discussed. Rascop said he has asked three knowledgeable individ- uals how light can be measured as indicated in the Jabbour let- ter. He was told the proper measurement is foot candle. NSP has a meter. When used to measure the light entering a house from another point it will not measure anything. That indicates that the light source is the objection. Reese said Jabbour suggested the members go around the lake to observe the objectionable lights. Photographs could be taken with a notation of the location. Foster said another element of the ordinance to take to the cities is how far back from the shore the lights should be regu- lated · Foster asked the committee for its opinion as to what should be done next. Grathwol said a tour of the Lake with photos and survey information put into a presentation package would be LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE May 16, 1994 helpful in getting the cities' attention. Partyka said he be- lieves it would be premature to take the ordinance to the cities until there is more background. Reese said it is important to keep up the discussions and publicity. Foster said an evening tour of lighting on the Lake will be arranged. 2. Draft Code Amendment Relating to Lighting on Docks~ Amending Sect. 2.03 and Sect. 2.12 There were no changes suggested in the Code Amendment re- garding lights on docks under the jurisdiction of the LMCD. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Penn seconded, to recommend Board ap- proval of the second reading of the Draft Code Amendment Relating to Lighting on Docks as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop voting nay. 3. Huntington Point Quiet Water Areas, Lower Lake North MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of the Draft Ordinance establishing two quiet water areas: 1) in the channel on the northeast side of ttunting- ton Point anti 2) in the channel between Lower Lake North and Lafayette Bay at the southern tip of Huntington Point, waiving the second arid third readings. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Draft Code Amendment Relating to Charter Boats The committee received a draft Code amendment relating to Charter Boats, amending Sect. 3.07 Watercraft for Hire, adding Coast Guard safety standards with changes recommended by the Water Patrol, and a memo from the Water Patrol regarding how the ordinance affects existing charter boats. Rascop asked who drafted the ordinance. The executive director said the regulations in the ordinance come from the Corps of Engineers. Foster explained that this is being offered for adoption in support of the Water Patrol who does tile inspec- tions of the charter boats. Thibault added that if the Water Patrol does not have this ordinance they do not have the power to enforce compliance if needed. There was discussion as to how this ordinance wil 1 affect the restored "Minnehaha" Partyka was concerned that the organi- zation doing the restoration may not be fully aware of what will be required. Fie would not want some of the requirements for boats used on Lake Superior. tte would not want something that will rule out the Minnehaha. The executive director said he understands the Minnehaha people are working with the Water Patrol. Zwak and Reese said they believe the charter boat owners should have an opportunity to review tile ordinance. MOTION: Zwak moved, Reese seconded, to senti the draft ordinance regarding charter boat safety standards to the charter boat companies and the Minnehaha. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Grathwol was excused. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE May 16~ 1994 5. Draft Code Amendment Relating to Special Events The committee received a draft ordinance authorizing the Sheriff to issue special event permits for the LMCD along with a memo from the Sheriff's Department recommending additional changes. The copy furnished to the committee had been extensive- ly annotated to incorporate the Sheriff's comments. Zwak moved to table the discussion for a re-write. There was no second. Rascop said he is opposed to the ordinance. He believes the District should stay in the event permit processing. Partyka would like to see a full re-write. MOTION: Zwak moved, Penn seconded, to forward a clean draft to the Board without recommendation because the committee has not reviewed the final draft. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Penn was excused. 6. Draft Code Amendment Relating to Marine Toilets Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel, submitted a letter, dated 4/14/94, explaining the reason for the draft ordinance. Thibault elaborated by explaining the LMCD marine toilet ordinance refers to a treatment device of a type acceptable to the State Pollution Control Agency, but there is no treatment device that has been approved. The draft ordinance simplifies the current LMCD code and will be usable by the Water Patrol. Foster said originally there was a ruling that portable facilities could not be used. Then there was a change in sentiment and the portable toilet was informally allowed. The theory is that it is better to allow the use of such toilets, rather than having people depositing waste directly into the Lake. Zwak said it is better to regulate the boats with permanent fixtures as it is difficult to inspect something that is port- able. Foster said there are some areas that strictly enforce a ban on portable toilets. It was agreed the issue of proper handling of portable toilets is covered in the ordinance under the section on not dis- charging waste into the Lake. MOTION: Zwak moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend the first reading of a Draft code amendment relating to Marine Toilets, amending Sect. 3.04, Subd. 7 of the LMCD Code. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. There was a discussion about the discharge of "grey water" from boats furnished with sinks. Foster said in Wisconsin there is a requirement for separate grey water tanks on boats, tte thinks that is a much abused requirement. Partyka said the District should not get involved unless it wants to redesign boats, as many of the boats in use are built with sinks. Strom- men pointed out that is not a concern with the PCA. It was agreed no action is necessary at this time. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE May 16, 1994 8. Deposit Refunds MOTION: Reese moved, Zwak seconded, to recommend approval of the deposit refund of $100 for the Holiday/Johnson Crappie Contest Specia! Event. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 7. Policies and Procedures Regarding Minimum Wake/Quiet Waters Area Requests The LMCD staff is asking for guidance in dealing with re- quests for minimum wake/quiet waters areas and shoreline erosion problems due to high water. Examples are a) Deering Island, West Arm (per 5/6 letter from Steve Fames, Deering Island); b) Cedar Point, West Upper Lake. The executive director said there have been inquiries about declaring a high water emergency. The high water emergency has not been declared. To date the water is .06' over the level for declaring an emergency. With warm weather it fluctuates daily. The expectation is that the lake level will soon drop below 929.8' Zwak said the lake level elevation at this time is very close to the high water emergency point. It is very difficult to turn off the emergency declaration once it is made. Partyka said the high water is a factor, but wave action from boats is a major problem with erosion. Steve Farnes, Deering Island, submitted pictures showing the erosion on his property. He said there has been considerable loss of land by erosion caused, as he believes, by the water level and boat wakes. Rascop said erosion is a natural process and can be controlled by rip-rap. He said the MnDNR has a pro- gram to allow restoration of loss of land. He said it is the responsibility of property owners to maintain their shore. Farnes said it would be an economic impossibility to rip-rap the island. Foster said rip-rap can be a controversial subject. Fames said if there is any reason for the massive erosion other than boat wakes he would like to know what it is. He feels the title Conservation District places it in the District's hands. He suggested that a Slow Buoy would be helpful, lie pointed out that there is a lot of boat traffic near his island. Zwak said there are criteria for declaring a quiet waters area that have to be met. Zwak suggested Farnes review the criteria and make application to the Board. Fames said his situation meets the quiet water area criteria and his letter should serve as an application. Thibault said there is no formal application process, a letter would suffice. There needs to be a Public Hearing before a Quiet Waters Area can be declared. Foster suggested the committee look at the area around Deering Island. Zwak said the committee and Board cannot make a decision without the Public Hea[ing as there may be other people in the area who do not want quiet waters. Foster said the Public Hear- ing could be held at the next committee meeting. He personally does not want to designate too many areas for quiet waters. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE May 16, 1994 Partyka spoke to the condition at Cedar Point. He said there are a couple of point buoys but the boats do not slow down. He would like a slow buoy in the channel. Partyka said enforce- ment of the channel buoy markers would be helpful. The executive director said he has talked to Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvements, about the situation. Bailey will see if he can get the red channel buoy 150' from the shore. Bailey said he also may be able to move the green channel buoy out further from share. Foster said he will view both properties and asked other members to do the same. If there is no other solution a Public Hearing will be called. The executive director said a lake tour has been tentatively scheduled for June 7, leaving at 7:30 PM. 9. Wine and Beer License - Excelsior Park Charter Boat Thibault reported applications have been received for the Excelsior Park charter boat Wine and Beer Licenses. The charter boat has passed inspection by the Water Patrol, and the applica- tions are completed with the exception of the applicant's back- ground check by the Sheriff's Department. MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of a wine and beer license for the charter boat Excelsior Park subject to the Sheriff's Department satisfactory background check of the applicant. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 10. citizen Complaint addressed Keith Suessi, 5000 Meadville Street, Greenwood, the committee on what he considers over-enforcing of minor boat- ing laws by the Water Patrol, while it over looks major infrac- tions. Rascop said the District, over the years, has stressed to the Water Patrol the importance of enforcing the LMCD ordinances. Zwak said a warning ticket might be as effective as a regu- lar fine for some of the minor infractions which are more an overlooking of the items required than infractions involving the safety of the public. 11. Adjournment Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair RECEIVEt , 3 lgg LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Save the Lake Advisory Committee Minutes DRAFT 5:00 pm, Thursday, May 5, 1994 LMCD Conference Rm. 160, Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Present: Bob Rascop, LMCD board; Bob Pillsbury, Stuart Frick, Alice Bronstad, Len Kopp, Frank Mixa, guest JoEllen Hurr, Orono; "LAKEWATCH" REPORT. JoEllen Hurt, former LMCD Environment Committee chair, was invited to introduce the committee to the 1994 "Lakewatch" water clarity and temperature monitoring program scheduled for a kick-off meeting May 14. Hurr noted that the 1993 first year monitoring experience resulted in a 79% response of the volunteers who agreed to do the monitoring. Seven new people are being recruited for the 1994 program. In all 36 persons are needed for all bays being monitored. In addition to water clarity readings taken from Secchi disc readings as well as water temperature, observations are asked for on waterfowl presence and other lake or shore occurrences which may be indicators relating to the water environment. The monitoring purpose is to establish trends with data covering several years. It is hoped that more complicated measurements can be added for volunteer monitoring. Cooperating sponsors/agencies in the program are the Tonka Bay Marina and Freshwater Foundation. The Foundation gathers the data from the volunteers and prepares the final summary report. Final data is submitted to the MN PCA to be added to their Citizens Lake Monitoring annual report. Hurt invited committee members to attend the kick-off meeting set for 9:00 am, Saturday, May 14, Tonka Bay Marina. FUNDING CRITERIA. Draft criteria recommended by the committee to the LMCD board was approved April 27, Strommen reported. While some board members observed that the criteria were too subjective, the majority approved them as presented. Several board members urged strong support. SAVE THE LAKE BUDGET. The LMCD board approved a budget totaling $26,500. Strommen explained the board's concern not to approve a budget notably in excess of the funds raised in 1993. It therefore removed from immediate funding: Eurasian water milfoil harvesting · . $10,000 Water Patrol inflatable boat 4,500 Minnehaha Steamboat generator 4,500 Tonka Bay City fishing pier .... 2,500 Total Adjustments $21,500 SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Minutes, 5/5/94, P. 2 The board now prefers that no further funding be provided for programs until the revenue raised exceeds that for which funds are already budgeted. The board was not prepared to budget spending a portion of the fund principal. Strommen circulated a letter authorized by the board to committee chair Craig Mollet and the entire Save the Lake Advisory Committee commending each member for the significant accomplishments in its first few months of operation. LAKESHORE LIGHTING FUNDING. Upon discussing the board's budget action, pillsbury moved, Kopp seconded that the lakeshore lighting expenses of $5,000, approved 11/93 for lighting consulting and legal fees for purposes of drafting a lighting ordinance, be drawn from LMCD public funds. The motion carried unanimously, staff was asked to present the item to the board. RESERVE LEVEL. The committee discussed the existing fund balance and asked that the board consider a policy on how it views the current fund balance and what it supports as an appropriate reserve or fund balance. NEW SOLICITATION PROSPECTS. Ideas were offered on locating more names in addition to the valuable additions already provided by the committee. Boat registrations from the county, new home purchases and county assessment data were among the suggestions offered. COMMITTEE PROGRAM PROGRESS: a. "Don't Drop It" flyer was proposed to be put on hold due to the detail involved in carrying out its use for a restaurant place mat and/or poster. Sales and distribution obligations are significant, the committee concluded. Proposer Jeanne Bowers resigned from the committee due to personal obligations which prevent her from continuing. Strommen did report prices on restaurant place mats at $32/K copies print cost only. A different design for place mats was also suggested. b. Divers Lake Bottom Clean Up is moving well, Pillsbury reported. Water Patrol divers are prepared to help in the project. A date of Sunday, June 19, has been set. Divers will identify sites Sunday morning, and dive for the clean up sunday afternoon. Pillsbury is working on the balance of details. c. Adopt-a-Shoreline Clean Up is underway with Guy Grafius from Wayzata coordinating the effort with Scout Troops as reported by Strommen. Mollet is working with Guy. d. Historical video was discussed briefly. Frick had SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 5/5/94, P. 3 names to suggest as resource persons including his father, also Judd Bracket and John Palmer. Strommen will be viewing a video done by Bob Bolles, Excelsior, as an example of how a program might be put together. A chair and active committee to lead this project is still needed. ee Organizations Around the Lake are now being identified by Bronstad. Their assignments were discussed with Bronstad, with the concenses being to involve them in undertaking a Save the Lake project. This will require meeting with the organizations one-on-one. Alice will continue gathering information. Grocery Store Bag Promotion was reported by Strommen as on hold until next season due to the time required to get on the schedule for bag publication. The Super Value contact was supportive of having space reserved for early 1995 to get the clean up message out in the May/June time frame. MAlL SOLICITATION PROGRESS. Strommen reported he expects the mailing to be out approximately mid-May. NEXT MEETING, ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, the next meeting was announced for 5:00 pm, Thursday, June 2. The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 pm. Executive Director RE. CEIVEt3 , $ DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Access Task For'ce Meeting Report 7:00 pm, Wednesday, March ll, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg. Conference Rm. 135, Wayzata Present: Task Force Chair Jim Grathwol, LMCD Board; Bert Foster, Deephaven mayor's representative; John Anderson, Excelsior mayor; Eugene Partyka, Minnetrista mayor's representative; Nick Duff, Woodland mayor; Gary Larson, Fishermen Advocating Intelligent Regulation (FAIR); John Schneider, Minnesota Sportfishing Congress; Bev Blomberg, Maxwell Bay residents; Agency Staff: Dennis Asmussen, Gordon Kimball, Larry Killien, MN DNR Trails & Waterways; LMCD Executive Director Gene Strommen; Public Guests: Randy Boyd, Norman Cocke, Tom Frahm, Pat & Tom McGoldrick, Bill Stoddard, Steve Wood, LMLOA; Edward Callahan Jr., Orono mayor; Dave Cochran, former LMCD board, Greenwood; Gabriel Jabbour, Orono; Chair Grathwol opened the meeting by introducing members of the Lake Access Task Force. Orono Mayor Ed Callahan requested that a roll call be made of Task Force members. The roll call was conducted with attendance as recorded in these minutes. Task Force procedures allow for appointment of an alternate spokesperson in the event the appointed spokesperson is not available. Alternates were present for the cities of Deephaven and Minnetrista. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REVIEW. Foster conducted a review of the Summary and Conclusions which open the report. Foster invited questions of clarification on this section. Boyd, Deephaven, questioned the reliability of car/trailer parking spaces when spaces are full. More than 700 users attempting to find a reliable parking space will create parking conflicts. The Task Force responded that reliable spaces, meeting the parking standards in this report, will be available on a first come-first served basis. Markell, DNR, commented that the DNR approached this study with an open mind. DNR officials agreed the unique nature of Lake Minnetonka required a change in its approach in working with its people. Much time was spent listening to cities, other stakeholders. The DNR intends to work with the communitieS. Orono is an example of DNR's cooperation. It will continue to conduct its LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE MEETING REPORT, 5/11/94, P. 2 exchanges in an open process while protecting the private interests as required by law. The report shows compromise from all sides, including the DNR. 3. Asmussen, DNR, admires the degree of collaboration which went into the study. He has tried to see the arguments from the opposition's point of view and learn from their concerns. He recognizes help was provided by all participants in this report. 4. Schneider, MN Sportfishing Congress (MSC), does not see the issue of access on public waters going away. While MSC does not agree with the entire report, it agrees the report provides the basis for moving forward with the process. Anglers will be subject to the 700 car/trailer limitation. He also believes most organizations/cities have participated in the report's preparation at one time or another. 5. Jabbour, Orono, finds DNR officials have proven their willingness to work with communities in a constructive manner. He credited many individuals. He also recognized the angler compromises. 6. Foster, Deephaven, sees the absence of some organization's spokespersons as an expectation that the plan will be passed without objection. 7. Anderson, Excelsior, found the report draft as showing that people can listen to each other. Excelsior officials support access to the lake in many forms, even though the city does not have a public boat launch. 8. Callahan, Orono, voiced concern that the report puts organizations on record as agreeing to it without having participated in its formulation. He further notes that cities ultimately have control over their car/trailer parking spaces. He questioned how the cities will participate with the terms of the report once it is adopted. 9. Duff, Woodland, asked about the next steps after the report is adopted. He noted their council has not yet reviewed the report. Grathwol responded that the Task Force will first wind up its business upon adopting this report for presentation to the LMCD. Next the Task Force will dissolve, its business being done. Finally the LMCD will use the report as a working document, enlisting other agencies to carry it out upon officially adopting the report. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE MEETING REPORT, 5/11/94, P. 3 lo. Blomberg, Maxwell Bay residents, is pleased with the draft. She believes it is fair and feels the homeowners have been and~will be listened to. She is concerned about the enforcement issue, seeing this as a city responsibility. She is disappointed the cities are not present. Blomberg emphasizes cooperation of the cities with LMCD is necessary. ll. LMLOA was invited to comment but offered none at this time. 12. Larson, F.A.I.R., stated that anglers recognize access is not always supported by people who live on the lake. People who fish on Lake Minnetonka are not there to "tramp on the water". They support environmental lake protection, habitat preservation and reasonable regulation. He believes the report is a good working document. The cities now need to get behind the report. 13. Grathwol reported that the Shorewood City Council, while not represented at this meeting due to their Board of Review meeting going on at the same time, did accept the Lake Access Report on a 5-0 vote. A Metropolitan Council staff report also stated upon their review of the report that the Lake Access Task Force Report is consistent with the Council's Policy/Plan Development Guide and is consistent with metropolitan planning for water resources. Grathwol called for any objections to the report and a straw poll on its acceptance as drafted. Blomberg asked about incentives for marinas providing car/trailer parking. Jabbour responded his understanding that upon completion of the Maxwell Bay public access, adjoining street parking will be removed and no additional marina launching will be allowed to increase density through marina access on Maxwell Bay. Frahm asked that car-top parking be broken out in the report. McGoldrick, Deephaven, asked about the responsibility for make ready docks. These are addressed as part of the car/trailer parking agreement for slips beyond 1,500 feet from the access. Cost may be negotiable. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE MEETING REPORT, 5/11/94, P. 4 Schneider recommended to the Task Force that: 1. The report be accepted with technical editing taking into account comments and questions presented, and 2. that the Task Force be dissolued, and 3. that the report be presented to the LMCD board. Grathwol asked if there were any objections to this recommendation. There were no objections. Grathwol declared the recommendation as being accepted as the unanimous concenses of the Lake Access Task Force. Thanks were expressed to all members of the Task Force by Chair Grathwol on behalf of LMCD and by the DNR representatives who participated the collective outcome. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, Executive Director DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee 6:30 PM, Wednesday, April 27, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall Members Present: Bill Johnstone-Chair, Robert Rascop, Tom Reese, Joe Zwak, Jim Grathwol, Bert Foster, Gene Partyka, Mike Bloom, staff members Rachel Thibault and Gene Strommen The minutes of the 3/23/94 meeting were accepted. Resolution Relating to License Fees for Commercial and Multiple docks; a revised version of the resolution setting the $7.50 WSU fee starting 1995 through 1998, was submitted in response to objections from the multiple dock licensees, per the executive director's 4/22/94 memo. Motion: Grathwol moved, Zwak seconded, to recommend approval of the revised resolution relating to license fees for commercial and multiple docks. Motion carried unanimously. 3. The Meeting Notioe and Agenda for the City Council and Mayor's meeting May 4, 1994 was distributed. Foster asked if there would be handouts and historical information presented. Johnstone said he did plan to review the history of the LMCD including its ....... statutory authority, its relationship with other agencies, the Management Plan and other pertinent information. Reese commented that his council was positive about the meeting and suggested it be done every two years to coincide with new councils terms. Johnstone said he would ask all board members to call their council members and encourage their attendance. Progress report on city councils responses to dissolution resolution: Johnstone reported that the City of Minnetonka had, at its last meeting, passed a resolution opposing dissolution of the LMCD with an additional qualification that the LMCD continue with the goal of improvement in focus, structure and representation. Deephaven also passed a resolution opposing dissolution. Johnstone said he would be talking to Mayor Callahan of Orono about the past due levy amounts and appointing an Orono board member. Johnstone summarized the cities' positions on the LMCD. * Three cities voted to dissolve the LMCD: Orono, Wayzata and Spring Park. * Nine cities voted not to dissolve the LMCD: Minnetonka, Shorewood, Minnetonka Beach, Deephaven, Excelsior, Minnetrista, Mound, Woodland, and Greenwood. * Two cities have taken no action, Victoria and Tonka Bay. Strommen said he talked to Mayor Haug, Tonka Bay, who said his concerns are the structure of the LMCD and too many committee meetings. Strommen pointed out that there are a lot of meetings to address issues raised about the lake, for example the recently added Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee. Strommen feels that meetings are a sign of activity and concern.~ __~ Administrative Committee Meeting Report, 4/27/94, Page 2 Gabriel Jabbour, Orono city council member, stated that the LMCD board is misled if it believes the cities who voted not to dissolve the LMCD were all in support of the LMCD. All the cities conditionally supported the LMCD, with the cloud of the alternative being the DNR. He has seen the LMCD try to improve. Representation is one issue Jabbour thinks needs to be addressed. Johnstone finished the discussion by stating that the decision of the cities has been made no% to dissolve the LMCD. 5. Contract extension for shoreland rules consultant Steven J. Prestin. Strommen explained that the DNR is reviewing the last of the cities Shoreland Rules between now and 6/30/94. Prestin is working with the remaining seven cities to finish up the presentations to the DNR by 6/30/94. Motion: Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval of the extension of the contract with Steven J. Prestin to continue service on the Shoreland Rules Adoption, from July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1994. Motion carried unanimously. Grathwol asked for a report from Prestin at the end of the project. Partyka arrived. 6. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) excess liability coverage= Strommen explained that there are monetary limits on tort liability established by MN Statutes 466.04, of $200,000 individual or $600,000 aggregate, when suing a state government agency. In the past, the LMCD has waived the limits because those amounts aren't considered enough. The excess liability coverage recommended would bring the limit to $1,600,000. Grathwol said that this is what most cities do. Motion: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to recommend the board waive the monetary limits on tort liability. Motion carried unanimously. 7. June Lake Inspection Tour: Strommen advised that in the past the June Water Structures committee meeting was cancelled and a lake tour conducted to look at lake and structures issues. Last year a Friday evening tour with spouses was planned. A large cruiser was provided by Paul Pedersen, Grays Bay Marina. Foster added that it was a ,'tragedy" with only four board members attending. Foster said that in the past, when the tour was held on Saturday morning, at least 11-12 directors came. He said he finds it to be a beneficial outing. He recommended going back to Saturday morning. Grathwol and Rascop agreed. Reese said he doesn't think the tour is necessary. Partyka said he hadn't been on a tour and would find it advantageous. Zwak felt that he is already familiar with the lake and knows the different areas well enough. Bloom arrived. Bloom said he probably would not attend because he is on the lake all the time. /"~ministrative Committee Meeting Report, 4/27/94, Page 3 Johnstone said that there are enough new board members to have the lake tour. It is a good opportunity for those who don't regularly use the lake. Strommen said he Would distribute a sign-up sheet to the board to determine their preferences· He said he thinks an evening tour is better because it is a good time to see the heavier boat traffic and to look at lighting on the lake. Foster and Rascop said that Friday and Saturday evenings are not good. They recommended offering a weekday evening or Saturday morning· Additional business: A. High Water: Johnstone asked about the lake level and at what level the high water ordinance took effect. Partyka said the lake level was 929.61, on 4/25/94. Strommen answered that the ordinance was effective at 929.8, elevation. Foster said he thinks it is too soon in the season to declare a high water emergency· Johnstone reviewed the conditions of Ordinance 126, relating to high water. The executive director determines when the water level reaches the high water point of 929.8, and takes the necessary steps. No action was taken. B. Draft 1992 LATF Report: Grathwol and Foster reviewed the status and gave a summary of contents of the 1992 LATF report. They asked that board members encourage their cities to read the report and attend the 5/11/94 meeting to discuss the draft of the report· Grathwol also asked that if anyone hears any comments or criticisms, to forward them to FOster or himself. C. Holiday-Johnson Crappie Tournament Boat Count. Strommen said that the first boat count was conducted by contractor Dave Dotzenroth, Clear Air, Inc. There were 830 boats in use on the lake, 520 car/trailers in parking spaces, and 35 rental boats out at the time of the count. The small bays were crowded due to the wind that day. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm. For the Subcommittee: Rachel Thibault Administrative Technician 5/12/94 CROWN OCTOBER 1993 NOVEMBER 1993 DECEMBER 1993 JAN/FEB 1994 FEBRUARY 1994 APRIL 1994 MAY 1994 RECEIVED ",;'2 4 COMMUNITY CENTER Crown College proposes feasibil/ty study of a College/Community recreational center to be located on the Crown College campus, used by college and COmmunity alike, funded by college, COmmun/ty and foundations Joint College/Community Task Force formed; Co-chairs are Gary Plaster and Bob Heinrich Initiated market research Surveyed COmmunity and college; held public meetings Crown College Board of Trustees meets; reCOmmends further study, final report due October 1994 Preliminary design developed; includes two gYmnasia, leisure & lap pool, whirlpool/hot tub, exemise and free weight equipment, walking/ jogging track, aerobics, meeting rooms and more Preliminary construction cost estimate: $8,345,060 Develop fundraising plan, explore revenue POtential of likely donors SPONSORED BY THE COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT GARY PLASTER AT 332-0004, EXT, 288 OR BOB HEINRICH AT 446-4134 GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments TOTAL REVENUE CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT April 1994 April 1994 BUDGET R EVE N U___E_E 33.33% 1,231,780 0 9,450 915 59,850 6,300 884,960 1,031 49,500 1,341 65,000 6,207 60,800 2,598 15.ooq ~ 19.670 YTD PERCENT REVENUE VARIANCE ~RECEIVED 0 (1,231,780) 0.00% 1,924 (7,526) 20.36% 21,575 (38,275) 36.05% 28,044 (856,916) 3.17% 4,988 (44,512) 10.08% 15,582 (49,418) 23.97% 4,854 (55,946) 7.98% ,098) 80.869 FIRE FUND 308,817 21,152 110,371 (198,446) RECYCLING FUND 108,000 10,027 18,801 (89,199) LIQUOR FUND 1,300,000 108,365 376,113 (923,887) WATER FUND 380,000 27,395 103,747 (276,253) SEWER FUND 680,000 55,063 219,448 (460,552) CEMETERY FUND 5,650 0 400 (5,250) DOCKS FUND 72,000 3,537 71,097 (903) 26.01% .3.40% 35.74% 17.41% 28.93% 27.30% 32.27% 7.08% 98.75% 05/15/94 rev94 G.B. GENERAL FUND Council Pro motions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Sum met Recreation Contingencies Transfers GENERAL FUND TOTAL CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT April 1994 April 1994 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENS___~E 63,130 4,837 33,816 2,000 0 0 1,380 49 148 180,330 14,110 56,832 11,320 1,225 3,046 48,35O 15 297 151,080 16,504 50,118 24,200 I 7,571 81,500 15,862 27,353 795,240 61,992 251,588 5,400 244 717 1 57,850 13,397 44,088 397,520 26,676 135,598 102,860 6,275 25,708 136,620 8,939 36,821 33,930 0 0 40,000 738 1,766 ~134,240_ 10,027.. _40,107 2 366 950 180.89!_ 33.33% PERCENT VARIANCE_ EXPENDED 29,314 53.57% 2,000 0.00% 1,232 10.72% 123,498 31.52% 8,274 26.91% 48,053 0.61% 100,962 33.17% 16,629 31.29% 54,147 33.56% 543,652 31.64% 4,683 13.28% 113,762 27.93% 261,922 34.11% 77,152 24.99% 99,799 26.95% 33,930 0.00% 38,234 4.42% 94,133_ 29.88% 30.23% Area Fire Service Fund Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund 240,190 18,497 72,045 104,330 11,281 41,408 190,840 14,560 69,855 834,990 18,833 142,865 1,390,280 70,218 351,413 5,240 403 1,458 53,680 3,119 20,995 168,145 30.00% 62,922 39.69% 120,985 36.60% 692,125 17.11% 1,038,867 25.28% 3,782 27.82% 32,685 39.11% exp94 05/15~94 G.B. May 5, 1994 RECEIVED i. t' g lgg LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: Participants Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force FROM: Executive Director Gene Strommen~ SUBJECT: May 13 Meeting Cancellation, and Progress on Business Addressed at Recent Meetings Prospects of a light agenda and priorities of the May 14 weekend fishing opener dictate that the May 13 EWM Task Force meeting be cancelled. In lieu of this meeting, we wish to advise participants of the following developments since that meeting: * The Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee wi1! meet at 8:30 am, Thursday, May 19, in the Norwest Bank Bldg. conference room 135 Wayzata. Subcommittee members are: , Gary Montz, MN DNR Mike McLean, MN Sea Grant John Barren, Hennepin Parks Tom Frahm, Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Assn. Pat Wulff, MN Lakes Assn. Tom Penn, LMCD Board and Task Force Chair The meeting is open to the public. The Lakes Coordinating committee of the MN PCA is holding its first meeting at 2:30 - 4:30 pm, Wed., May 25, MN PCA Agency offices, third floor Conference Room 1. Members are: , Kathy Svanda, PCA Water Quality Divn, Nonpoint Source Jim Hodgson, PCA Brainerd Regional Office Marcel Jouseau, Metropolitan Council Water Mgr. Unit Douglas Thomas, MN Board of Water & Soil Resources Mark Zabel, Dept of Ag., Agronomy Services Divn. John Linc Stine, DNR Divn. of Waters Jack Skrypek, DNR Section of Fisheries U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will give a presentation on the potential for biological control of Eurasian water milfoil at 9:30 am, Wednesday, May 18, 4th floor conference room, DNR office, 500 Lafayette Rd. Strommen will attend with one or two Task Force representatives. Steve McComas, Blue Water Science, St. Paul, has published a new handbook, the First Lake Maintenance Handbook, "LAKE SMARTS", a do-it-yourself guide to solving lake problems. Call 690-9602 for information on ordering your copy. DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eurasian water Milfoil Task Force Minutes 8:30 am, FridaY, April 15, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg. Rm. 135, Wayzata Present: committee Chair Tom Penn, LMCD Board, Tonka Bay; Committee vice Chair Tom Reese, LMCD Board, Mound; John Barten, Hennepin parks; Mike Brandt, Hennepin county; Ray Newman, U of MN Fisheries; Marsha videen, E. parkers Lake improvement Assn.; Chip welling, MN DNR; Pat wulff, Lake independence & MN Lakes Assn.; guest cob Burandt; Executive Director Gene Strommen; MINUTES REVIEW: Minutes of 3/25/94 were accepted as presented. Strom~nen noted Gary Montz, DNR, had reviewed the minutes and edited his comments for accuracy, completenesS' MN DNR REPORT, Chip welling: OF EXISTING EURASIAN A. FUND ALLOCATION FOR 1994 CONTROL WATER (EWM) MILFOIL INFESTATIONS' welling reported that the watercraft surcharge increase resulted in $101,055 of funds being made available for control work. Funds will be made available to the agency or organization doing the EWM control work. Funding for Lake Minnetonka EWM control work conducted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has been established at $24,500. Guidelines for funding eligibility are attached. Eligible organizations are to make application for funds in advance of the control work and request reimbursement upon completion of the work. Reese questioned how far into the future such funding might continue. It was pointed out that the $5 watercraft surcharge is effective until 12/31/96, a~ter which it returns to $3. The watercraft license is valid for three yearS. In-kind research, B. CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESEARCH suPPORT. complimentary and parallel to Minnesota EWM research, valued at $200,000, has been confirmed, included are: 1) predictions of the spread and future abundance by identifying the characteristics of lakes sensitive to EWM infestation' 2) Examine biological control agentS. 3~ Survey for other Farb°gens which may attack EWM. ' An earlier Massact~usettS study had examined fungUS as a pathogen in lab studies, but it did not work in field studies. No biological control agent has yet been identified ti~at is ready to use. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Minutes, 4/15/94, p. 2 4) Potential for control by herbiverous insects will be examined. The CoE is meeting in May with DNR and U of MN staff. SONAR WHOLE LAKE STUDY. Treatment for Zumbra & E. Parkers Lake is ready to go in early May. Water temperature will be a factor in the actual application date. The lake will be treated after the water is stratified by temperature gradients. Neither lake has much volume below the littoral area. Treatments must be done before June. Welling reviewed the purpose of the Sonar test to be evaluating the potential for controlling EWM without a severe impact on native plants. ZEBRA MUSSEL SPREAD PREVENTION. This item was proposed for further discussion following Gary Montz's March presentation. Reese expressed concern that he does not see prevention of spread occurring at the source. He proposes three treatment stations be set up around the lake where boats would be cleaned and inspected. The Mound council had no objections when he proposed the concept to them. The cost and effectiveness of such a program could be determined. It would also serve as a boater education tool. The question is how do you know when to trigger such a plan? When one veliger (larvae) is found in the lake? Then it is too late. A sub-committee to develop an action plan was suggested. Existing exotics funds could be re-prioritized to make more available for Zebra Mussel (ZM) spread prevention. Questions the sub-committee could address are: l) What is the ZM prevention program for the Mississippi River? 2) What is an adequate treatment program for cleaning boats? 3) Can prevention be reduced to "zero"? 4) How many people move from the river to lakes? Newman suggests the Inter-agency Task Force on Exotics be included in the subcommittee deliberations. Jay Rendall was also suggested. Sport fishing groups were also proposed to be involved. Reese suggests that Lake Minnetonka marina capacity be expanded to reduce the number of boats using public accesses. There was no immediate Task Force suggestion on a subcommittee to undertake development of a Zebra Mussel action plan. Spiney water flea and ruffe fish were also suggested to be included in the action plan. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Minutes, 4/25/94, P- 3 Wulff called attention to a Lakes coordinating committee chaired by Kathy svanda, MN PCA. Strommen will get details from svanda and follOW-Up with Gary Montz on his suggestions- HARVESTING MILFOIL sOON AFTER ICE OUT. The question of standing milfoil requiring harvesting soon after ice out was raised by cob Burandt and discussed at the 3/25/94 EWM Task Force meeting. At the committee'S suggestion, the Hennepin County sheriff's Water Patrol was requested to conduct an underwater dive and photo examination of EWM plant condition. The Water Patrol did send two divers to examine plants out to about ten feet deep on April 11 (ice out was declared at 10:47 pm, April 11) in front of the water Patrol headquarters in spring park BaY. Strommen was present at the time. No standing milfoil was identified. A few samples of plants brought in did not look healthy. The photos were not ready at this meeting- not Burandt and the Task Force were satisfied that there was sufficient milfoil standing to require harvesting after ice out. Burandt circulated milfoil samples he picked up at the spring park access which he believes demonstrates that auto- fragmentation occurs even though EWM is laying on the lake bottom. He suggested spring park Bay be intensively harvested in the fall. In response to when the weed pulling machine would be in operation, Burandt said the arrival of the second check of $12,500 in mid-March delayed work on the machine. He is not sure at this time of when the machine will be ready or if it will have all of the modifications he had planned to make. EWM SITUATION ANALYSIS IssUES AND ACTIONS- LMCD staff recommendations on identifying the actions was ~,~sented to the Task Force in a draft dated 4/8/94. Items through "E" were individually reviewed, comments offered were: Item A_~ On shore/aesthetics and recreational -- An additional suggestion for catching floating fragments in bays being harvested was offered by Burandt. Use of a floating rope will catch them before they reach shore. It__~em D~- Boat landings/recreational and ecological -- "as Action item 1 suggested to be changed from "daily" to cal -- John needed." Item E Near shore and off shore/ecologi ~ar~e~offered to initiate a scientific subcommittee review of the challenges of the problem dealing with ecological impacts of EWM on native plants, fisheries, invertebrates and other organisms. The balance of the Situation Analysis was agreed to reflect appropriate actions as recommended- Long_term considerations EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Minutes, 4/]5/94, p. 4 in Aquatic Plant Management require further attention. LAKE ASSOCIATIONS, EAST PARKERS LAKE. Videen reported lake access monitoring is planned during the 1994 summer Sonar treatment test, with DNR to commit service to monitor the access, same at Zumbra. HENNEPIN PARKS. Barren reported inspections start next week for milfoil condition. Fish and Eagle Lake will be monitored for their new infestations identified in 1993. Treatment in 1994 will be appropriate to the EWM infestation. NEXT MEETING, ADJOURNMENT. The next meeting was confirmed for Friday, May 13. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 am. Respectfully submitted, Executive Director Anouncement of availability of funds for management of Eurasian watermilfoil from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources As you may know, the DNR has conducted control of milfoil on many Minnesota lakes in the past five years. Much of this work was done on a ,cost-share' basis that involved participation of lake associations, conservation districts, municipalities, and similar · control work. These cooperative efforts were attempts to r anizations in paying f_or _ .-.,.,~,,o ~,i,,he. t~riorit¥ for control work, and will be o g ....... '~'-es t~e j~x,. ~ ,-e,---st ~ - eliminate mmo~l Item ~ , districts, ~0ntinued in 1994. The purpose of this announcement is to inform lake associations, conservation municipalities, and similar organizations of the availiability in 1994 of State funds for management of Eurasian watermilfoil in certain Minnesota lakes. The DNR will make funds available to outside organizations (See attached lis0 for management of milfoil on lakes where eradication is not possible with current technology. · Guidelines To be eligible for this program, a lake mus~ have at least one public access. These funds are intended to pay for management of Eurasian watermilfoil that will benefit a majority of homeowners and the general public who use a lake and protect valuable fish, wildlife, and native plants. These funds may n_9i be used for control work that would otherwise be done by private individuals under a DNR permit to control aquatic plants.. In addition, these funds may not be used for control of aquatic plants other than Eurasian watermilfoil. Work eligible for reimbursement includes: 1) Control of Eurasian watermilfoil in areas of high use such as channels from shore to off-shore areas, accesses, or in areas where valuable fish, wildlife, and native plants are present. Control may be done by the following methods: a) Use of 2,4-D herbicide, b) Mechanical control, c) Pulling done by hand.. :' of an access to reduce the · · ' evicinity r',~ntrnl 0 Eurasian watermilfoil m. !n ,__ ,.~.,,,.,., coming off the lake at the 2) ,.. ..... 7' f _ _~, .~,;~¢,~iI from a ~axe accidental transport u, ,, work. acceSS. 3) Surveys of mil_foil done by a contractor in support of control Organizations that apply for funds available through this program will be required to complete and submit the attached application forms: one for funds from the DNR and the other for an Aquatic Plant Management permit. To complete this application for funding, organizations must provide: 1) a lake map on which areas of Eurasian watermilfoil and areas to be treated are marked, 2) a description of other plant species found in the area, 3) a description of methods to be used, 4) a description of anticipated benefits, and page 1 · 5) an estimate of the number of people who would benefit. .' the DNR approves the applications for a lake, the organization must solicit competitive bids ,or the proposed work and select a contractor tO do the work. Only one Aquatic Plant Management permit for control of Eurasian watermilfoil will be issued, free of charge, for an individual lake in 1994. This limit does not restrict individual property owners from applying for permits, for aquatic plant management adjacent to their property. The outside organization will pay for the work, bill the DNR for a specified amount, and be reimbursed. The DNR will provide technical assistance when requested. Under this program, the DNR is not obligated to do surveys or supervise applications. Reimbursement by the DNR will require that your organization apply for the program and be accepted. After the work. is.~mpleted, your organization must provide the DNR with: ,:,,, ,. 1), Record of bids received, , .. 2) copy of the orightal invoice from the contractor, ,.: '3). maps of areas with Eurasian watermilfoil and areas treated, 4) a description of other plant species found in the areas treated, 5) a description of methods used, 6) a description of benefits, and ,. 7) an estimate of the number of people who benefitted. We hope that this program will promote the wise ~nanagement of Eurasian watermilfoil in Minnesota's lakes. Continuation of this pilot program beyond 1994 will depend on its effectiveness and availability of funds. If you plan to apply for funding, please follow the ....... lstructions in this announcement carefully and mail completed forms to the address given oelow. If you have any questions, please phone the Section of Ecological Services at 612- 296-2835. Ecological Services Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Box 25 500 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul MN 55155-4025 'CW- 13 Apr 94) page 2 RECEIVED ..... LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DIBTRICT Saturday, May 14, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135 (Elevator handicapped access, west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) PUBLIC HEARING: 8:00 AM ..... ~-on 5595 Timber Lane, Shorewood, ~ideons Bay; ~{chael G. arvz~ , -' ~-- ~r Lot 293, Auditors subd. 135 ~ltiple Dock License appllcau~u,, 8:00 AM PUBLIC HEARING: Minnetonka Boat Works, 294 ~. Grove Lane, Wayzata, Wayzata Bay; Multiple dock license, Special Density License and Dock Length Variance applications WATER STRUCTURES C~MMITTEE AGENDA orewood, Gideons Bay, multiple dock license · Michael G. ]%rvxd~on, Sh ~_ blic hearing and make 1_ .. . . . ........ findings from pu application{ ~=vz=- ' recommendation to board 2. Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata, Wayzata Bay, multiple dock license, special density license and dock length variance applications; Review findings from public hearing and make recommendation to board 3. Kent carlson, 21650 Fairview Street, Greenwood, Lower Lake South, Dock Length variance; Draft Findings and order granting approval of dock length variance san4~ Beach Place, 3995 North Shore Drive, Orono, West Arm, multiple dock license application; minor change from six to five slips per city of Orono requirements due to loss of one qualifying land structure; nwoo~ Marina, 21945 Minnetonka B}vd, Greenwood, St. · Beans Gree .... =--~ ~{c se ap licat~on for minor change in 5 --~--e uu~ _en _P Albans Bay, muAu~x slip location; 6. Bayshore Manor condominiums, Excelsior, Excelsior Bay, multiple dock license; revised site plan to reflect existing structures 7. Lot4 Fletchers Apartments, spring Park, West Arm, multiple dock license; requesting approval of partial dock construction, per Ord. 123, amending Sect· 2.05, Subd. 8, Special Density licenses 8. city of Wayzata's preliminary plans for boardwalk on Wayzata Bay 9. Deicing License Refunds @$100 each, per staff memo 10. Pending issues before the committee (not ready for action): a) Envelope concept subcommittee meeting, scheduled for 5:30 pm, Wednesday, May 18, 1994 b) Minnetonka Yacht Club new multiple dock license application, pending resolution of issue regarding shoreline ownership; ' n slides to slips and committee to address convers~o of necessity for a special density license 11.. Additional business MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1994 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Lisa Bird, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also in attendance: Quirin Matthys, Maria Matthys, Pam Auger, Chuck Auger, Richard Garozzo, Pauline Garozzo, Joann Boeser, Bernard Boeser, Sue Schebler, Sandy Berkey, Steven Berkey, Craig Goodrich, Donna Easthouse, Candice Anderson, Brad Stannard, Cheryl Wren, Shirley Gustafson, Chris Coleman, Ann Miller, Todd Ringsred, Karen Walters, David & Betz Goman, Sengkham's, Becky Hunt, Patti Herzog, Jackie Meyer, Klm Gabby, Dave Bartels, Merritt Geyen, Nathan Geyen, Daryl Geyen, Lyle Fuller, Ray Kuehn, Bob Smith, Holly Schluter, Gerold Esselman, Rod Larson, Lynne Confer, Tom and Sue Williams, Don Fulton, Patty Guttormson, Robert Vanacek, Ed Vanecek, Greg Sicheneder, Phyllis Jessen, Mark Berg, Valerie Hessburg, Nancy Lang, John Fischer, Joan Underwood, Rhonda Eurich, Robert Meuwissen, Dan Hessburg, Sue Lynott, Pastor Eric Gustavson, Helen Melsness, and Larry Melsness. The Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 1994 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 1994 as written. Motion carried unanimously. ~MENT DIRntJ.~_~lnN: °E~'TI"N ---:76 _ BD. 4 TR ARKIN IN RE IDENTIALAREA . p BLI HEARIN . City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the history of the proposed ordinance change. current ordinance states: The Subd. 4. Tru(;k P~3rkin~l in Re~identiel Areas J No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and ~o commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision. The proposed Zoning Ordinance modification would remove the above language and insert the following: Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residentiel Aree,~. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer, not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor a length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed to be parked outside. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 The City Planner further suggested that the proposed language be amended to delete the last four words, "to be parked outside". His feeling is this will clarify that only one commercial vehicle may be parked or stored on each residential property. The Commission confirmed that this modification will make the ordinance less restrictive. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Gerold Esselman, 5870 Lynwood Blvd., spoke in opposition of the ordinance amendment. He believes the existing ordinance is adequate, and he is not in favor of having large, unappealing commercial vehicles parked adiacent to his property. He is not in favor of having diesel fueled commercial vehicles allowed to be parked in a residential area because they are noisy and require to be warmed up before they can be driven. He is also concerned about the safety of children when commercial vehicles are driven in residential zones. There being no further citizens wishing to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Hanus commented that he would like to consider the possibility of using the Conditional Use Permit process to regulate commercial vehicles in a residential zone. Mueller commented that residents should be allowed to have one vehicle stored outside, and they should be allowed to store more vehicles inside a garage if they are able. MOTION made by Vose, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment to City Code Section 350:760, with the deletion of "to be parked outside". Motion carded 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Voss, Clapsaddle, Bird, and Jensen. Those opposed were: Weaand, Mueller, and Hanus. Weiland commented that he is in favor of keeping the ordinance the way it was. 3. pUBLIC HEARING~. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the proposed modification to Section 300:10 of the Mound City Code to add provisions requiring the completion of structures within a specified period of time, as follows: Subd. 5. T~me Limits on B¥ildin.~ Comoletion. All work to be perform, ed pursuant to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs, remodeling, and alterations to the exteriors of any building or structure in any zoning district shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit issuance. The person obtaining the permit and the owner of the property shall be responsible for completion. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor offense. 2 Planning Commission Minutes May O, 994 The City Council may extend the time for completion upon written request of the permittee, establishing to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Council that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee prevented completion of the work for which the permit was granted. The extension shall be requested not less than thirty (30) business days prior to the end of the one- year period. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. There being no comments from citizens present, MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add provisions requiring the completion of structures within a one year period of time. Motion carried unanimously. 4. ~ ~_V_EN_TI N PR E T IN . FINA OIL HEMI AL MPANY 17 MMER E BLVD. PART F L T 27 LAFAYETTE PARK PID//1 -117-2422 2 . Z NIN RDINAN EAMENDMENT NDITI NAL E PERMIT AND M VIN B ILDIN PERMIT: NTIN ED P BLI HEARIN . City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the actions required by the Planning Commission. First the Zoning Amendment must be acted upon, second the Conditional Use Permit needs to be reviewed, this is the portion of the request where the City can require certain landscaping, parking requirements, etc., and last the Moving Building Permit where the Commission needs to determine if the appearance of the building is consistent with the character of the area. A public hearing is scheduled for this item at the City Council meeting tomorrow, May 10, 1994. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Those who sepke in fpv0r were' ~ spoke in favor of the request, and read letters from persons supporting the proposed shelter: 1) Susan Neis, Executive Director for Cornerstone Safe House, 2) Patrick McFarland, Executive Director for Anoka County Community Action Program, Inc., 3) Dan Cain, Executive Director for Eden Programs, 4) W.E.L.C.A., 5) Valerie Hessburg, and 6) Elwyn Tinklenberg, Mayor, City of Blaine. He believes this shelter would be an asset to the Community, and asked that the Commission come to some sort of decision this evening. Hessburg also submitted a petition supporting the shelter which his sophomore daughter collected signatures from 250 high school students. -~[Y~, District Court Judge in Hennepin County, addressed the concerns of the neighborhood, and stated that she contacted Chief Laux of the Minneapolis Police Department and asked about the consequences of the Harriet Tubman Shelter being located in a neighborhood. Harriet Tubman shelter has had only 2 calls in the last 5 years, and the neighborhood has organized groups that help support the shelter. Minneapolis is in the process of developing a new facility which will be 100% public as they see this as an asset. She stressed the great need for more shelters. She submitted a letter from Diana S. Eagon, Family Court Referee stating the need for safe housing for victims. 3 May 9, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes Chair Michael questioned the conditions of release for an abuser, and the Judge stated that a 36 hour hold without bail is standard, and if there has been an assault they are held with a bail set at $1200. ~_~~, 5028 Shoreline Drive, Mound. She has been a victim of domestic abuse, and was housed at Harriet Tubman, however, wishes there was a shelter in the Westonka area. She has helped house other friends and acquaintances who are victims, and there is no place in the westonka area to go to. Harriet Tubman is usually full, and there is no place to go. If we do not have a shelter in Mound, we are saying that it is okay to abuse your spouse and kids. Grea Sichenede_r, resident of Minnetrista, works for Family & Children's Services, he reviewed a handout entitled "Help for Children from Violent Homes" and reviewed some characteristics of violence in the home. He stated that the shelter is essential. F~.D_~, who resides in a neighboring community and professionally, is a Fund Raiser, is in support of the shelter. He helped raise donations for eight other shelters. He stressed that this proposed shelter will serve the Westonka Area, not just the City of Mound. N n_p.D.C,_y_.I~P..~, a crises advocate for ten years stressed the need for a shelter in this area. She also stated that she talked with the director of the Sojourner Shelter about the rumors of garbage on the property, and the director informed her that they have been renovating the building and the garbage consists only of sheetrock and other building supplies. ~:athv Richardson_, resident of Buffalo is an advocate for battered woman and is in favor of the request. She stressed the need for the shelter and commented that parking will not be a problem, and if a hotel is used for the safe house, safety at a hotel is not good and support groups are not available. Rose McGlinsk~, has lived at 1951 Lakeside Lane for 27-1/2 years, they have seven children that range in age from 13 to 28 and she is in favor of the shelter. The people of Mound should be a part of the solution. She expounded upon the existing dangers within the Three Points area, and stated that there is always a need to watch your children. She supports the location of the shelter, because it is not isolated, Three Points is a dead-end, and the access is good for the police. She suggested that the neighbors help support the shelter, and they can help make the building a showplace, it should not be compared to other shelters. If Mound wants this shelter to work, it can be really nice. Let Mound be a model. L~j.e._~f_~9~, a member of the Westonka Intervention Proiect, spoke in favor of the request. She likes the proposed locations, and stated there will always be people who won't want the shelter in their neighborhood. Those oDoosod were: ~2P_~, 1735 Lafayette Lane, has her own reasons for not wanting the shelter. She was a victim of abuse when she was a child, however, is opposed to a shelter in this location. She stressed that the neighbors are really concerned and do not want this shelter. 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 Richard Garozz~, 1772 Lafayette Lane. Richard stressed the fact that the information provided by Westonka Intervention at the last meeting is just hear-say and is not factual data. Richard handed out to the Planning Commission documents reflecting a study completed by himself using numbers supplied by Westonka Intervention. The study related to occupancy and the need for a shelter in this area. His conclusion was that there is not a need for a shelter in the Mound area, and that the number of domestic abuse cases in Mound does not warrant a shelter, using the hotel is functional. ~-~, 1759 Lafayette Lane, distributed photographs to the Planning Commission for viewing. The photos were taken by herself of Sojourner's shelter to show the poor condition of the building and the piles of garbage being stored on the site. She also distributed to staff statements from neighbors regarding the injuriousness and infringement of enjoyment to the neighborhood properties, and a stack of police reports to verify the infringements. She expressed many concerns regarding the ability to maintain the property, including financial concerns. She questioned if Westonka Intervention is in compliance with all reporting requirements of the Attorney Generals Office, and noted there is a requirement to register contributions exceeding $25,000. A letter written by Brian Schebler was read to the Commission, the letter expressed opposition to the request. The photographs were returned to Sue. ~, 1762 Commerce Blvd., provided a letter from Forsythe Appraisals, Inc,., Charles L. Novak, which states that the shelter will negatively impact the market value by 1 to 5 percent, and lengthen marketing times. Mr. Fuller requested that Westonka Intervention be asked to withdraw this request. r i~,[aj~, 1776 Lafayette Lane, is opposed to the request and feels there are other better locations for the shelter and that Westonka Intervention could have done more research to find a better location. _Thom{~ Williams, 5551 Three Points Blvd., the northwest corner of his property abuts the proposed site, and he is opposed to the request. He would like to ensure that the actions of this shelter will not infringe on the neighbors. He is concerned about affect on the value of homes. He is President of the Harrison Townhome Association and they are opposed. v.~.I~, 1768 Lafayette Lane, opposes to the proposed location. His family is a member of the Driftwood Shores Homeowners Association, and they are opposed to the request and do not believe the proposed use fits the City's plan for this property. Does this facility warrant a change in plans for the goals of the City? He is also concerned about safety in the neighborhood and traffic. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed the aspects of the case, and some of there comments are as follows. Clapsaddle commented that he shares a number of concerns and he would lika to see more information addressing them. The house has potential and could be made to look really nice. 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 Mueller commented that this B-2 area is the best of the three B-2 zoned properties for a shelter site. Bird commented that she sees this is a very sensitive issue and she is not sure how she will vote. Weiland can understand everyones concern, and if this request is moved forward, he stressed that everyone work together to make the Conditional Use Permit effective. Jensen suggested that if the Zoning Amendment is voted down, the Conditional Use Permit application still be discussed in case the City Council votes differently, to determine what conditions should be implemented. She would not be opposed to have this shelter in her neighborhood. She suggested the language for the zoning amendment be changed to read "Shelter for victims of Domestic Abuse." Voss is in favor of the request, and he does not feel the public needs to be concerned about safety. Hanus has some reservations about changing the B-2 zoning uses as all the B-2 zones abut residential zones. Michael lives 6 blocks from the proposed site and he feels the fears expressed by the neighbors are unfounded. He is in favor of the zoning amendment. He recalled that he was expressly opposed to the Tonka Alano which is located on Three Points Blvd., however, this use has proven his fears wrong. Koegler confirmed that the State License does not apply in this case and the Zoning Ordinance defines a Community Residential Shelter to be state licensed facilities, therefore, the use should be specified as a Domestic Abuse Shelter. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Section 350:25 to allow 'Domestic Abuse Shelter' as a Conditional Use in the B-2 General Business Zoning District. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Voss to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a Domestic Abuse Shelter with the B-2 Zoning District at 1730 Commerce Blvd., subject to, but not limited to: 1. A complete security analysis by Mound Police Chief, Len Harrell, and St. Boni Police Chief, Craig Anderson. 2. Expansion of the proposed parking area. 3. Preparation of a landscaping plan. 4. preparation of e plan for improvements of the exterior of the building, including required participation by a registered architect. 5. Submittal of an updated survey drawing. 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 Submittal of a grading, drainage and utility plan. Total compliance with MPCA requirements. Submittal of security plans and additional operational information about the shelter. Motion seconded by Weiland. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to waive the Planning Commission Work Rules to allow the meeting to extend past 11:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission questioned if the conditions for the CUP can be outlined and reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to their recommendation for approval. Staff confirmed that this could be done. Hanus commented that the items listed in the motion are issues, not conditions. Jensen agreed, and noted some additional conditions she would like addressed within the CUP, such as: - She can see a potential need for parking of 15 spaces. An approved landscape plan. Security plan approved by the Mound Chief of Police. - Operations Plan. - House Rules including that the residents be required to be confined to the shelter property. Lighting plan. - Fenced play yard. Define vegetation barriers. Motion detectors. - By Laws for Westonka Interventions should be updated, the City needs a contact person. No storage of personal property on the site. - No additional buildings constructed on the site without review by the City Council. She would like to see these items before the permit is approved. Mueller suggested that an annual review of the permit be required. Clapsaddle also suggested that the sanitation facilities be approved, and maybe a maintenance plan for the grounds be provided. Jensen added that the motion that is currently on the floor does not help the City Council, and she would vote against the motion, but is in favor of the request. Hanus called for the question. 7 May 9, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION failed 2 to 6. Those in favor were: Weilend and Vose. Those opposed were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Bird, Michael, Jensen, and Hanus. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to direct staff to supply the Planning Commission, for their review at the June 13, 1994 meeting, with a draft of the Conditional Use Permit language reflective of the issues noted during meeting discussions. Motion carried unanimously. The Chair confirmed that the public hearing was closed, and the public hearings will continue at the City Council level. The Commission confirmed that a recommendation was previously made to the City Council to approve a Moving Building Permit to allow the convent building to be moved within 2385 Commerce Blvd., and stored for a period of not longer than 6 months. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddie to table the Moving Building Permit and bdng this item back to the Planning Commission for further discussion subsequent to the review of the Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on May 10, 1994. · & ALMA'- '1 "" T' IXEDn BLVD.- LOTS~ 5. ..... AMENDMENT: H RE PID //24-117-z'~ v<~. ND ~_UBLIC HEARING~- City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to modify their existing conditional use permit to allow the docking of a 63 foot boat in place of a 52 foot boat at lots 22 and 23. The change will not require any physical modification of the existing dock structure. Koegler reviewed the properties involved in the existing operation of Al & Alma's, and displayed a map on the overhead indicating the following areas: Area A Location of restaurant building a limited park. Area B The Geyen's home and location of licensed transient docks. Area C Lots 22 and 23 which accommodated the docking and boarding of four 52 foot dinner cruise boats. Area D Residential property with docks accommodating the mooring only of two 52 foot dinner cruise boats. No passenger loading or unloading occurs at these docks. Area E Off street parking lot. Area F The 6th area, which is not shown on the map, is a residential property that accommodates the mooring only of one 52 foot dinner cruise boat. 8 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1~4 In 1993, Al & Alma's operated a total of seven 52 foot boats, each of which had a capacity of 51 plus crew members. The existing conditional use permit that was approved in 1984, Resolution #84-26, contained a number of restrictions, and among them, it limited the boats parked at the docks at Lots 22 and 23 to no more than four 52 foot boats. Al & Alma's is proposing to acquire a new 63 foot boat which will accommodate handicapped patrons with a seating capacity of 68, and a total capacity of 80 to 90 people. Two of the 52 foot cruise boats have been sold, one of which was moored at the off-site location, Area F, and the other was docked at Area C (Lots 22 & 23). The two boats which have been sold had a total capacity of 102 patrons, and the new 63 foot boat has a capacity of 80 to 90 patrons. The net effect of the boat replacement is a slight reduction in passenger capacity. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a new conditional use permit for Al & Alma's allowing docking and boarding of the 63 foot boat at Lots 22 and 23, and further encompassing all aspects of the restaurant and cruise boat operation. If the Planning Commission concurs with this recommendation, the following motion was suggested: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a new conditional use permit for Al and Alma's Supper Club which limits dinner cruise boat operations to a total of five 52 foot boats and one 63 foot boat. Conditions that are part of the permit should address all aspects of the restaurant and cruise boat operation including the transient docks, the fourth slips at Lots 22 and 23, and the two boats which are moored at docks located at Lot 21." Koegler clarified that the existing conditional use permit applies to only lots 22 and 23, and Koegler suggested that Planning Commission consider looking at the entire operation and that the City document what it there for operational purposes and for future purposes. The Planning Commission also has the option of taking into consideration to modify the permit for only lots 22 and 23 as it currently exists. Mueller clarified with staff that the people notified of this hearing included only those people within 350 feet of Lots 22 and 23. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. ~ of 5246 Piper Road, which is four houses west of the docking facility, spoke in favor of the request and submitted a letter stating this. He stated that the difference in the boat length is insignificant. ,Shirley Gustaf$0~n of 5142 Tuxedo Blvd. is about six houses before you get to Al & Alma's. She is opposed to the change in the boat length. She complained about the amount of traffic, both on the road side and on the lake side, and noise late at night. She also expressed a concern about the tour buses and safety for children in the area. ~ of 5206 Drummond Road, does not object to the request. He has lived there for 13~1/2 years and does not have a problem with the business in this location. 9 Planning Commission Minutes ~ of 5232 Seabury Road feels the business has outgrown the parking, but he is mainly concerned about the buses and service vehicles blocking the intersection at Tuxedo and Piper which could be a hazard if emergency vehicles are unable to pass. ~, owner of Al & Alma's, explained the style of boat being requested and emphasized that the boat will be handicap accessible which will be able to serve more people. They are not trying to expand their business, they are only changing the type and style of service. She is not in favor of combining all the permits, she is requesting only a simple change in the length of the boats required. She explained that when this conditional use permit was originally approved, the only reason the 52 foot boat length was chosen was because that was the length of their boats at that time. She explained about the other pick- up locations used by Al & Alma's. There being no other citizens wishing to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed the difference between combining all the conditional use permits for the property into one document versus approving the change in this conditional use permit only. It was questioned if the Planning Commission combined the permits if they would have the opportunity to review the proposed resolution prior to City Council review. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddie to recommend approval of the amendment as recommended by staff, including the consolidation of the conditional use permits for Al & Alma's into one documents. It was further requested that the Planning Commission be given the opportunity to review the completed document prior to it being forwarded to the City Council. Michael commented that this is a simple request, why would the Commission need to review the revised permit before it goes to City Council? Koegler agreed, and clarified that the revised permit would essentially be the same as the 1984 permit, with the exception that it could refer to the other boats being moored at other properties, but that they are not loaded at these properties, and to reference the parking lot. Mueller feels that the conditional use permits will be changed for the other properties, and expressed a concern about the notification to abutting property owners. He also does not agree with the verbiage used in the existing conditional use permits when they refer to the boats being "stored,' and "stored" is not the same as "moored", or "docked". Mueller summarized that the application applies to lots 22 and 23 only, and they are only requesting to change the length of one of the boats at this property. Staff noted that a public hearing notice has already been published for the Council the hear this request at their meeting on May 24, 1994. Clapsaddie withdrew his second. Weiland noted that he will not withdraw his motion because he is in favor of having everything under one permit instead of five individual permits. Due to lack of a second, the motion failed. 10 Planning Commission Minutes Koegler noted that the hearing notice did specifically state 'Lots 22 and 23". MOTION made by Mu.liar to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment, modifying Resolution #84-26, as follows: Where the language reads "storage' it should read 'dockage'. Item 2.c. shall be amended as follows: "Any lig,hts .... Whipple Shores shall be four, and the maximum length shall be 52 feet for three boats, and one boat at 63 feet docked lakeside at this Drooert-; · ...... , .,,,-,, Motion seconded by Voss. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. CASE #93-049: JOE FLEISCHHACKER, 5601 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF GOVT. LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID #23-117-24 14 0001. VARIANCE FOR DECK~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the request. This case was initially tabled at the October 11, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting where the Planning Commission requested staff to investigate the issue with other agencies. This work is completed, approval from the State of Minnesota Indian Affairs Council was received on April 11, 1994 with conditions as listed in the attached letter. All other facts remain the same Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 3 foot side yard setback to the house, and to grant a 40 foot +/- setback variance from the deck to the Indian mound, subject to the conditions stated in the letter from the Indian Affairs Council dated April 11, 1994. The request is a reasonable use of the property and every effort has been made to minimize the impact to the Indian mound. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mu.liar, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 10, 1994. ~ ROD LARSON AND MYRNA NOYD, 2976 HIGHLAND BLVD. THAT PART OF BLOCK~ I AND 2, IN.C.L. BUCKBEE DR. NOW VACATED .'MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY , PID #23-117-2441 0016. VARIANCI FOR GARAGE ADDITION~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. The subject property is located in 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 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation. The applicant is seeking variances to recognize an existing nonconforming second dwelling on the street side of the parcel, in order to construct a 34' x 30' garage addition onto the principal dwelling as shown on the survey. This property and the street side dwelling is 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 nonconforming as a second dwelling in the R-1 single family zone, it is also nonconforming to the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. This building has a 3 foot overhand extending to within 6 feet +/- of the front property line resulting in a 21 foot setback variance. All other issues are conforming, including hardcover, based on the applicant removing the existing wrap-around black top driveway as detailed on the survey. In tracking the building permit history, staff was unable to find a permit where the City approved the conversion of the garage into a residence, or subsequently into a rental unit. In any event, the rental unit is nonconforming to the existing Zoning Ordinance and its use should be discontinued at the earliest opportunity. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommended approval of a variance to recognize the existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing nonconforming setback to the street side structure in order to allow construction of a 34' x 30' attached garage as shown on the survey revised 11-19-93 with the following conditions: 1. The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval for the addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by Mound City Code. The owners are advised that City staff and City Council will likely not allow any variances for the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with the current codes. 2. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel. Mueller questioned the accuracy of the hardcover calculations, and noted that he calculated they were over the amount allowed by 400 square feet +/- (2%). Sutherland commented that even if the hardcover calculations exceed the minimum allowed by 2%, he feels this is reasonable, and suggested that the applicant could work with staff to address watershed issues. Mueller commented that to be over on hardcover for a lot of this size is excessive. The applicant noted that the proposed addition will help existing drainage problems on the property. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle, to table the request until hardcover calculations can be confirmed by staff. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Mueller, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Bird, and Voss. Those opposed were: Weiland, Jensen, and Michael. DWARDVANE EK 2 4 FAIRVIEW LANE L T L K 8. ~ ........... ~' ~" LOT LAFAYETTE PARK PID #1 -117-244 L.P. REVI R uu. r r/~n/ r 00~4. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. This property is located in the R-2 single family residential zoning district that requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. 12 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 The applicant is seeking variances to recognize a nonconforming side yard setback of 4.7 feet to the existing dwelling, and a lot area variance of 1,200 square feet, in order to construct a 24' x 24' two story addition with a tuckunder garage which will be conforming to setbacks. This property fronts on two streets and has a driveway and access off of each street. This results in impervious surface coverage greater than the maximum 30 percent allowable by the ordinance. The applicant shows a proposed reduction of the existing rock driveway on the east side, presumably to maintain the convenience of off-street parking in the front of the dwelling. This proposal results in total hardcover of 2,965 square feet, or a variance of 1,565 square feet (32% over, 62% total). Staff recognizes the need for the accessory building, however, the Planning Commission may wish to consider both the excess hardcover on this small lot and the aesthetic view point of eliminating the driveway and access on the east side and returning this area to green space. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances as noted, in order to allow construction of a 24' x 24' two story addition with a tuckunder garage, as shown on the survey dated April 14, 1994, upon the condition that the existing parking area, driveway, and access on Fairview lane be removed, and this area be returned to green space or lawn area, and thereby reducing the impervious cover variance by 420 square feet. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. 9. ~ DAVID AND BETTY GOMAN, 2 .a~.O CHATEAU LANE, PART Ol LOTS 8 AND 9. BLOCK 1. SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, PID #24-117-24 12 0048. .VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance to the existing impervious surface cover that is 512 square feet over the maximum 30 percent allowable. The applicant has proposed a 21' x 26' garage addition, which according to the site plan submitted and my calculations, will not meet the required side yard setback of 6 feet. A 19 foot wide garage addition will conform to setbacks. The existing 22' x 24' detached garage is of minimal size and is located at the rear of the lot, thus requiring the long driveway and slight excess of impervious cover. The additional garage space is a reasonable use of the property. The proposal, due to the existing conditions, does not significantly impact the impervious cover, however, it is difficult to find hardship for any encroachment into the side yard. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to impervious cover of 520 square feet in order to construct a 19' x 26' garage addition that is conforming to the required north side yard setback of 6 feet. 13 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 Mueller Commission questioned the accuracy of the hardcover calculations. Mueller also questioned if a four car garage is necessary on a lot this size. The applicant explained that the garage addition is intended to solve drainage problems on the lot. He would be happy to re-do the hardcover calculations. Jansen questioned if the amount of hardcover could be reduced if the existing driveway was also cut back to meet the 6 foot side yard setback. MOTION made by Voss, seconded Hanus to recommend approval of the impervious cover variance as recommended by staff. The applicant shall clarify impervious cover calculations with staff prior to the City Council meeting. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Bird, Weiland, Michael, Jansen, Voss, and Hanus. Mueller opposed. Mueller is not in favor of allowing a hardcover variance to allow a four-car garage on an 11,000 square foot lot. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. ARK AND DAWN BER WARNER LANE L T 1 11. ~ WHIPPLE PID #2 -117-2421 I . VARIAN E R ADDITI N . Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation. The applicants are seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming north side yard setback of 9.3 feet to the required 10 foot setback, in order to construct the following: 1. Garage addition 32' x 13' + 28' x 13'. 2. Deck at lakeside 16' x 16'. 3. 16' x 14' three season porch. 4. Entry addition for airlock front door 6' x 8.5' at north side. 5. Water-oriented Accessory Structure 4' x 5' x 4'. All the proposed improvements are conforming to setbacks, impervious cover, and other provisions of the ordinance, with the exception that the footprints will follow the existing 9.3 foot nonconforming setback on the north side. The 0.7 foot side yard encroachment is minimal and appears reasonable. It is practical from an architectural standpoint to follow the existing line of the building. The existing deck is dilapidated and needs to be replaced. Other needed improvements are planned to the exterior that tie into the garage and porch additions. 14 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the nonconforming 9.3 foot side yard setback resulting in a 0.7' variance, and the nonconforming 50 foot lot width resulting in a 10 foot variance. The proposal is substantially conforming, there is no further encroachment than the existing building, and the improvements are a reasonable use of the property. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voss, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. 12. CASE #94-29: DONALD H. FULTON. 5952 IDLEWOOD ROAD. LOTS 22, 23.24, & E 10' OF 25, BLOCK 1, THE HIOHLAND$, PID #2~1-117-2442 0105. VARIANCF FOR NEW DWELLIN~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking a 3 foot front yard setback variance in order to construct a new dwelling. The buildable footprint on this parcel is limited by the wetlands at the rear. Causing greater difficulty is the topography that slopes dramatically towards the wetland. The applicant has modified their house plans to some extent and is making an effort to reduce the impact to the wetland by maintaining the 15 foot plus setback to the ordinary high water. In discussion with staff, it appears that a minimum encroachment to the front is reasonable and balanced by the improved setback and impact to the wetland. In addition, there is a boulevard that is approximately 12 feet in width between the front property line and the curb, reducing the visual impact, with a 39' setback to the street. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 3 foot front yard setback variance in order to construct a new single family dwelling as shown on the survey revised 4-21-94 with the following suggested Findings of Fact: Special conditions exist with this property due to topography and the wetlands that limit the buildable footprint. The applicant's proposal is sensitive to the wetlands with a 15 foot setback, and this causes a minor encroachment in the front yard. The minor encroachment into the front yard is minimized by the approximate 12 foot wide boulevard between the property line and the curb, this results in a total distance of 39 feet from the front line of the house to the curb. Sutherland noted that he received confirmation from Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, that the lot area of this property above the ordinary high water elevation is 15,300 square feet. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mu. Il.r, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 15 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1994 This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 12:51 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 16