The URL can be used to link to this page

1994-07-26J! II I, J., I1 CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, throughJ teamwork and cooperation, Provides at a reasonable cost, quality services thatI respond t° the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing j communitY. I AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 26, 1994, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 1994, REGULAR MEETING AND THE JULY 19, 1994, COMMIT'FEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. PG. 2917-2923 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVED BY RESOLUTION//85-97 FOR A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA AT 5300-5400 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING), BALBOA ADDITION, PID #13-117-24 34 0096. REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR CANOPIES. PG. 2924-2958 CASE//94-44: BUZZ SYCKS, 5926 BEACHWOOD ROAD, PART OF LOT 47, BLOCK 4, AUDITOR'S SUBD. #168, PID #23-117-24 13 0023. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING. PG. 2959-2975 CASE//94-51: JAMES BEDELL AND STEVEN BEDELL, 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID #13-117-24 44 0052. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR SEASONAL SNACK SHOP. PG. 2976-3004 CASE//94-45: KEVIN WILDES, DARRYL AND CAROLYN DILLON, 1643 HERON LANE, LOT 1 & N 1/2 OF LOT 2, BLOCK 19, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0061. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. PG. 3005-3016 2914 o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. CASE//94-46: GARY PARENDO, 5001 AVON DRIVE, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID//24-117-24 14 0040. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. PG. 3017-3030 CASE//94-49: DEAN AND JULIE STEFFEN, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, PID//24-117-24 42 0016. REQUF~T: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. PG. 3031-3048 CASE//94-50: LOIS JEAN WESTERGAARD, 5914 FAIRFIELD ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 6, MINNESOTA SUMMER BAPTIST ASSEMBLY, PID//23-117-24 42 0075. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. PG. 3049-3063 CASE//94-52: STEVEN GERHARDSON, 3058 BRIGHTON COMMONS, LOT 21 & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, AND TRACT C OF RLS 1149, PID #24-117-24 43 0091. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. PG. 3064-3076 CASE//94-53: PDQ AND UNIVERSAL SIGN, 5550 THREE POINTS BLVD., LOTS 26 & 27, LAFAYET'FE PARK. PID//13-117-24 22 0017. REQUEST: SIGN VARIANCE. PG. 3077-3085 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RESCHEDULE SEPTEMBER 13, 1994, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SEPTEMBER 14, 1994, DUE TO PRIMARY ELECTION. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT. REQUEST FOR TREE TRIMMING, HOWARD HAGEDORN, AVOCET LANE, WIOTA COMMONS. PG. 3086-3100 RECOMMENDATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RE: MOUND VISIONS/ISTEA - LOST LAKE CANAL REHABILITATION PROJECT. PG. 3101-3105 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, SECTION 350:1200 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE. (SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 23, 1994) PG. 3106 2915 n, a, n I, I, 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. APPLICATION FOR CIGARETFE LICENSE FOR BY THE WAY SNACK SHOP, 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE (SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CASE//94-51). PG. 3107 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST//2 - SEWER LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $135,401.60. PG. 3108-3109 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST//2 - WATER METER EQUIPMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,259.30. PG. 3110-3111 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 300:10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE COMPLETION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME. PG. 3112 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 3113-3122 -INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Do Financial Report for June 1994, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 1994. Letter from LMCD RE: Public Officials Lake Inspection Tour, Saturday, August 13, 1994. Please let Fran know ASAP if you wish to attend. Economic Development Commission Minutes of June 16, 1994. PG. 3123-3124 PG. 3125-3137 PG. 3138 PG. 3139-3140 2916 J! il i, J, I1 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 12, 1994 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 12, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Ken Smith and Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also present were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Acting City Clerk Linda Strong, City Attorney Jim Larson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: Ed Surko, Tracy Entzel, E. W. and Joan A. Surko. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES Councilmember Jessen stated that she would like to see the location of the NCA's listed in the Minutes. Also, Roberta Cook had accepted the invitation to be on the Suburban Alliance Board. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens, to approve the Minutes of the June 28, 1994 Regular City Council meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF SECTION 350:76 SUBD. 40FTHE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. City Planner Mark Koegler updated Council on this item. He stated this would be a change to the Mound Zoning Ordinance and a 4/5 vote by the Council was needed to amend. He stated that the wording had been changed to include a weight, height and length restriction. Council discussed. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on this item. There was no one. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Smith, seconded by Jessen to table this item and continue the Public Hearing on August 23, 1994 when a full Council is anticipated. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 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. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 12, 1994 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 one year from the date of building permit issuance. The person obtaining the permit and the owner of the property shall be responsible for completion. The Council could extend the time for completion by written request of the permittee. This is not retroactive. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing asking if there was anyone present who wished to speak on this item. There was no one. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to direct staff to proceed with the modification to Section 300:10 and return with the ordinance amendment in final form at the next meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT ANY ITEM There 1.4. NOT ON THE AGENDA. were none. REAPPOINTMENT OF LEONARD KOPP TO MOUND HRA FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM BEGINNING 8/29/94 - 8/29/99. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Mayor Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #94-96 RESOLUTION APPOINTING LEONARD KOPP TO THE MOUND HRA - TERM TO EXPIRE 8-29-99. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Smith indicated that he was a representative on the HRA Board and the his position would be vacant as of December 31, 1994. 1.5 RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RE: VACANCY. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated there had been two applicants for this vacancy and the Planning Commission recommended Ed Surko to fill the vacancy of Brian Johnson. The term expires December 31, 1994. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #94-97 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ED SURKO TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 1994. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 12, 1994 1.6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1994 (YEAR XX) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM {CDBG). Acting City Manager Fran Clark indicated to Council this year's agreement looked different and had been condensed to save paperwork, but the information was the same. Councilmember Smith moved and Mayor Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #94-98 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1994 (YEAR XX) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 PORTABLE SIGN PERMIT: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL 6 LOCATIONS FROM 7/13/94 TO 8/1/94. MOTION by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve the portable sign permit for Our Lady of the Lake Incredible Festival, 6 locations from 7-13- 94 to 8-1-94. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 TREE REMOVAL LICENSE APPROVAL - WOODSMAN TREE SERVICE Acting City Manager Fran Clark stated that this service had applied and qualified for license in the City of Mound. MOTION by Smith, seconded by Jessen to approve the Tree Removal and Treatment License for Woodsmen Tree Service, PO Box 1540, Monticello, MN., Tim Gonyer, owner. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. Acting City Manager Fran Clark reviewed with Council the agreement renewal of the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force from January 1995 through December 1995. Councilmember Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: JULY 12, 1994 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RESOLUTION #94-99 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION by Mayor Smith, seconded by Councilmember Jessen to authorize the payment of bills in the amount of $218,571.17, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Monthly Reports for June 1994, as prepared by Department Heads. L.M.C.D. mailings. Letter from the City Attorney concerning opinion of the Court of Appeals in a City of Orono case concerning zoning, variances and boat dockage. Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 1994. Letter written to Secretary of State Joan Growe regarding Election Judge Training Video. COUNCIL COMMENTS' Mayor Johnson stated he had attended a Water Structures Committee meeting by the LMCD regarding the proposed dockage for the Pelican Point Development. He commented on how disappointed he was with the LMCD's actions to this dockage proposal. He wanted the LMCD to understand the Council approves the Boyer plan and would like a letter sent to that affect to the LMCD. Also, staff was to invite Tom Reese to the next Committee of the Whole meeting on July 19, 1994. Mayor Johnson also commented that Joel Krumm had been the Liquor Store Manager for 10 years and congratulated him on his ten years and a continuous profit at the store. Comments were made regarding the City becoming more financially involved with the Mound City Days fireworks and the planting of flowers around the city. s a, u I I MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 12, 1994 MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 PM. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager Attest: City Clerk MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - JULY 19, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Jessen, Jensen and Smith. Ahrens was absent and excused. Also present: City Manager Ed Shukle and Tom Reese LMCD Representative at 8 PM. The Mayor and City Council salaries were briefly discussed. The City Manager had pointed out that the City Council had discussed at the last Committee of the Whole meeting and it was continued until this meeting to talk about whether there should be an increase in the salaries and how much that increase should be. After some discussion, the Council suggested that the Mayor's salary be increased from $1800 per year to $4500 per year, and the City Council's salary from $1200 per year to $3000 per year. They then agreed to have this matter be put on the August 23, 1994 agenda when all members would be present. The actual increase would go into effect January 1, 1995. Tom Reese, LMCD representative, was present to review items of interest at the LMCD. The City Council expressed their concern that the Pelican Point project be given the request that they have made for 40 dock sites on the property. The LMCD is talking about limiting the docks to 28 or one per 50 feet. The City Council has previously expressed their support for 40 dock sites. Apparently, the Water Structures Committee of the LMCD has looked to its ordinance on regulating the number of docks on private property. They have apparently asked the applicant, Boyer Development Corporation, to come back to them in early August with proposed site plans on where docks could be located. The LMCD Board will take up the matter at its August meeting. The City Council indicated their support again for the 40 dock sites and asked Mr. Reese to convey this message to the Board when it meets on this matter. Other items discussed were the Lake Access Car/trailer Parking Agreement, the Wayzata Lake Walk Proposal, 1996 LMCD Budget implications and lake traffic boat counts. Goal Setting was then reviewed by the Mayor and Council and City Manager. The list was updated by Councilmember Jensen for this meeting and will continue to be updated as time progresses. Other business included questions regarding the Environmental Trust Fund established by the State when the State Lottery was put into place by the Legislature. The City Manager was asked to contact area legislators to find out if there is money within the Environmental Trust Fund to assist cities like Mound in doing projects related to the environment, i.e. Lost Lake Canal rehabilitation (local share). n, ,n, ii I, I Committee of the Whole Minutes, July 19, 1994, Page 2 Also discussed was the property next to the SuPeramerica on Shoreline Drive, possibly using the WAFTA site for the fall cleanup recycling day, which will probably be scheduled either Saturday, October 15th or Saturday, October 22nd, and the status of the old Superamerica property on the corner of Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. in downtown Mound. There was no other business. The next COW meeting is August 16, 1994 at 7:30 PM. Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, Ed Shukle City Manager ES:Is PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- . RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #85-87 FOR A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA FOR BALBOA MINNESOTA COMPANY TO ALLOW FOR CANOPIES AT THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING, 5330 SHORELINE DRIVE, BALBOA ADDITION P&Z CASE #94-47 WHEREAS, the applicants, Welsh Companies, Toro Company, and Balboa Corporation, have applied for an amendment to Resolution #85-87 approving a Conditional Use Permit to Balboa Minnesota Company for the establishment of a Planned Industrial Area, and; WHEREAS, Welsh Companies is seeking approval to construct two minor additions to the building to provide canopies for an employee break area and entry area. The areas will be utilized principally by employees of Toro. The front entry canopy will be attached to the building and will measure 10' x 14'. The rear employee break area canopy will measure 18' x 14'. A white baked enamel finish is proposed, and; WHEREAS, NSP has power lines that appear to lie directly above the proposed roof structure. NSP may not permit a structure, and particularly one made of aluminum and steel, to be built immediately below their lines, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the amendment to Resolution//85-87 modifying the conditional use permit to allow a front entry canopy attached to the building measuring 10' x 14', and a rear employee break area canopy measuring 18' x 14'. Approval is subject to approval by NSP on the placement of the rear canopy. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property: BALBOA ADDITION. All that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of-way located in the South Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Proposed Resolution #94-47, Balboa CUP Page 2 Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of- way; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East along said center line a distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly Ivy Street, extended southerly; thence North 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 40.16 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel with said center line a distance of 846.76 feet to the southwesterly corner of Lot 22, Block 11, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park; thence South 2 degrees 33 minutes 02 seconds East a distance of 40.00 feet to said line parallel with and 10.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to, the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of- way; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West parallel with said center line a distance of 850.35 feet to said point of beginning. All that part of Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way located in the south Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of- way; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East along said center line a distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13, said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly Ivy Street, extended Southerly; thence South 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing South 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 40.16 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel with said center line a distance of 1586.25 feet to the west line of Lot 1 O, Block 2, "L.P. Creivers Subdivision of Lot 36, Lafayette Park"; thence North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds East along said west line of Lot 10 a distance of 8.77 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 08 seconds East along the North line of said lot 10 and its easterly extension a distance of 144.02 feet to the center line of Fairview Lane; thence North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds East along said center line of Fairview Lane a distance of 41.93 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to, said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way; thence westerly, parallel with said center line a distance of 140.37 feet, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the south having a radius of 8584.37 feet, a central angle of 0 degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds and a chord that bears South 87 degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds West; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West continuing parallel with said center line and tangent to said curve a distance of 1589.10 feet to said point of beginning. Proposed Resolution #94-47, Balboa CUP Page 3 This Conditional Use Permit shall be considered as a restriction on how this property may be used. This amendment to a Conditional Use Permit shall recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. Proof of recording shall be filed with the City Clerk. ~ s a m A, mm ]tm l, CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-I 687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CA SE NO. 94-4 7 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #85-87 FOR A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA AT 5300-5400 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING) BALBOA ADDITION, PID//13-117-24 34 0096 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound will hold a ptJblic hearing on .July 26, 1994at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound offices at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, to consider an amendment to Resolution //85-87 approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Industrial Area. The Toro Company has made application to allow for two canopies for employee break areas at the exterior of the Balboa Building. The subject property is legally described as follows: BALBOA ADDITION. All that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of-way located in the South Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of- way; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East along said center line a distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly Ivy Street, extended southerly; thence North 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence cohtinuing North 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 40.16 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel with said center line a distance of 846.76 feet to the southwesterly corner of Lot 22, Block 11, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park; thence South 2 degrees 33 minutes 02 seconds East a distance of 40.00 feet to said line parallel with and 10.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to, the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of- w~y; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West parallel with said center line a distance of 850.35 feet to said point of beginning. All that part of Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way located in the south Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of- way; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East along said center line a distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13, said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly Ivy Street, extended Southerly; thence South 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing South 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 40.16 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel with said center line a distance of 1586.25 feet to the west line of Lot 10, Block 2, "L.P. Creivers Subdivision of Lot 36, Lafayette Park"; thence North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds East along said west line of Lot 10 a distance of 8.77 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 08 seconds East along the North line of said lot 10 and its easterly extension a distance of 144.02 feet to the center line of Fairview Lane; thence North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds East along said center line of Fairview Lane a distance of 41.93 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to, said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way; thence westerly, parallel with said center line a distance of 140.37 feet, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the south having a radius of 8584.37 feet, a central angle of 0 degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds and a chord that bears South 87 degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds West; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West continuing parallel with said center line and tangent to said curve a distance of 1589.10 feet to said point of beginning. 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 Mailed to property owners within 350' by July 12, 1994. Published in "The Laker" July 11, 1994. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 CASE #94-47: WELSH COMPANIES FOR BALBOA MINNESOTA AND THE TORO COMPANY, 5330 SHORELINE DRIVE, BALBOA ADDITION, PID #13-117-24 34 0096. CONDITIONAL US[ pERMIT AMENDMENT FOR CANOPIES. PUBLIC HEARING~ Mark Koegler, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. The Balboa Building is part of a Planned ._lndustri~l__Area (PLA) within which the overall building is governed by a conditional use permit. Welsh Companies is seeking approval to construct two minor additions to the building_to, p~ovide canopies_ _[o_[_a~emp~loyee break area and entry arena. The areas will be utilized principally by empl~-yyees of Toro. The~canopy will be attached to the building and will measure 10' x 14'. The.. rear. employee break area canopy will measure 18' x 14'. A white baked enamel finish is proposed. The Planning Commission may want to consi~]~ whether or not this color is acceptable or whether another color may be more complimentary to the building. NSP has power lines that appear to lie directly above the proposed roof structure. NSP may not permit a structure, and particularly one made of aluminum and steel, to be built immediately below their lines. Staff recommended approval of the modification of the conditional use permit to allow their installation subject to a~_~proval of the placement of the rear canopy by NSP. In considering this recommendation, the Planning Commission may want to comment on the proposed color of the canopy structures. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being nobody present wishing to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment subject to approval by NSP. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 26, 1994. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. rum mu PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 6, 1994 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Modification APPLICANT: Welsh Companies for Balboa Minnesota CASE NUMBER: 94-47 HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5r LOCATION: 5330 Shoreline Drive EXISTING ZONING: Industrial (Planned Industrial Area) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial BACKGROUND: The Balboa Building is part of a Planned Industrial Area (PLA) within which the overall building is governed by a conditional use permit. Welsh Companies is seeking approval to construct two minor additions to the building to provide canopies for an employee break area and entry area. The areas will be utilized principally by employees of Toro. The front entry canopy will be attached to the building and will measure 10 ' x 14'. The rear employee break area canopy will measure 18' x 14'. COMMENT: The proposed canopies are functional and fit well into the overall shape of the building. In the case of both canopies, aesthetics is an issue that needs to be considered. Both canopies are to be constructed of aluminum with steel posts. They will be roof areas only and will not contain any walls. The existing Balboa building is a mixture of a variety of materials including brick, wood and metal siding. According to the details supplied, apparently the canopies are to be a white baked enamel finish. In reviewing this request, the Planning Commission may want to consider whether or not this color is acceptable or whether another color may be more complimentary to the building. Land Use 'Environmental ' Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard ,' Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 J J 11 ! Il, I1 I, Welsh/Balboa Conditional Use Permit Planning Report June 6, 1994 Page 2 A potentially more significant issue relates to the location of the rear canopy and the existence of electrical power lines. NSP has power lines that appear to lie directly above the proposed roof structure. NSP may not permit a structure, and particularly one made of aluminum and steel, to be built immediately below their lines. RECOMMENDATION: Overall, the proposed canopies are reasonable additions to the Balboa building. Staff recommends approval of the modification of the conditional use permit to allow their installation subject to approval of the placement of the rear canopy by NSP. In considering this recommendation, the Planning Commission may want to comment on the proposed color of the canopy structures. Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / PLANNED DEVELOP1V[ENT AREA City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road~ ~ound~ ~N 55364 Vhone~ 4?2-0600, Fax~ 472-0620 ~,4 AU-7 Plann£ng Commission Date: July 11, 1994 Case No. Distribution: ~ '*'~ City Engineer: ~ZOO _ : ~ Other: ~ j ' ~ ~ *' i Please type or print the following info~ation~%~ [ ., '_.' ' j Address of Subject Pro~rty~ 5330 SHoreline ~Icva~d - Mound, ~ ~our~ppoiBted receive~ ~ner'a N~e Welsh Companies -rQr ~ooa ~znn. say Phone ~8~-~33& ~ner'e Address 112~ West 78th Street - ~en Prairie, ~ 55364 Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address 5330 Shoreline Boulevard Day Phone Name of Surveyor: Environmental Expressions Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: See exhibit A Lot Block Addition Zoning District The Toro Company (Clark Lillehei) PID No. 472-8400 337-9537 Existing Use of Property: Name of Proposed Use as Listed in the Zoning Ordinance: Description of Proposed Use: EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. Canopys for employee break areas. Area #1 has existing six foot high wood privacy fence providing sight and noise screen. Both areas have parking lot as buffer to neighboring properties. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ 10,&59.00 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ONLY: Number of Structures: Number o£ 'Dwelling bnite ~r ~ruc~ra: T-~ .... ~' !~' o ' ' sq. ft. Total Lot Area: 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. See Exhibit B Applicant's Signature See Exhibit C Property Owner's Signature Date Date Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMYF / PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA C~t~ of Kound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone; 472-0600; FaX; 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: DLstrLbutLonl CLty Planner: City Engineer: Public Works: Wche~ Case NO. Conditional Use Permit Fee=_$200.O0 Please typ~ or prat the followLng informationl ......................................... Address of Subject Property ~ ~t),~a ~(~ ~Ot~,d /~J. addres.~330 Skor~.l,;~e t~lcj Name of Surveyor: LEGAL DESCRIPTioN OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Lot Add£tLon ZoflLng D/strict , / Day Phone,,, Day Phone PID No. Existing Use of Property: Name of Proposed Use as LLeted Ln the Zoning Ordinance: Description of Proposed Use: EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed uae will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or el~minate the impacts. If applicable, a developemnt schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed develo~ent. Estimated Develol~uent Cost of the Project~ $. ~ESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS O~LY: Number of Structures: Number of Dwelling Shits Per Structure: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional uss 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. ~pplican~c's Signature -7 Property Owner's Signature Date Date WelshCompanies June 3, 1994 Mr. Clark Lillehei TORO Company 5330 Shoreline Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Re: Awnings Dear Clark: I am writing in response to your letter 'to me dated June 2, 1994. I approve of the installation of these canopies and request a copy of the permit modification and city building permits when you receive them. Also, please let me -know if any of these will be attached to the building, and if so, how. Could you also forward to me the contact name and phone number at Acme Awnings.'? I would like to talk with them before they begin. Thanks Clark. Sincerely, Denise Brown, RPA Property Manager DB/kmb 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / / I, 1, PROPOSAL 3206 BLOOMINGTON AVE. · MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55407 · 722-2731 Proposal Submitted To Work To Be Performed At ?crc Same Name. Street. 5330 Shoreline Boulevard City Mound State Minnesota 55364 Telephone Number 47 -2~0 ~422-8489 FAX-- Street City State. Attn: Mark Seegers Ju~e 21, 1994 We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of COMPLETE ENTRY CANOPIES _~ ALUMINUM TOP WITH STEEL POSTS: REAR EMPLOYEE BREAK AREA - FREE STANDING 18'0" X 14'0" FRONT ENTRY CANOPY - ATTACHED ABOVE DOORWAY 10'0" X 14'0" $10,459.00 SUB TOTAL $581.00 CITY PERMITS & MAILING LIST $11,040.00 All materialis guaranteed to be as specified, and the above workto be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of gleven Thousand Forby and no/00 ......... Dollars($ 11 040.00 ). with paymentstobe madeasfollows: ' $5,520.00 paid down on order, $5,520.00 due upon completion. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements con- tingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance upon above work. Workmen's Compensation and Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by Respectfully submitted Per Acme Awning Company Brian Kelly' Note -- This propos~.,l/may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within days ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature Date Signature A I'V /I/' I A fi/' /If ! /I/ ~' · , at, u I I, October 13, 1992 RESOLUTION $92-127 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION $85-87 TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF A PORTABLE HEATER TESTING FACILITY FOR THE TORO COMPANY AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN (EXHIBIT "A") AT 5330 SHORELINE DRIVE, SYLVIAN HEIGHTS ADDITION TO MOUND, PID $13-117-24 34 0026, P&Z CASE $92-057 WHEREAS, Resolution $85-87 was approved by the City Council on August 13, 1985 "Granting a Conditional Use Permit to Balboa Minnesota Company for the establishment of a Planned Industrial Area - 5340 Shoreline Blvd. adding item J. and K. as recommended"; and WHEREAS, The Toro Company has stated the following in correspondence to the. City of Mound regarding the proposed accessory structure: 1. The proposed use, which is to test portable heaters is not believed to have any adverse impact on the property in the vicinity. 2. No increase in traffic or parking will result from this structure with the exception of occasional deliveries of heater fuel. 3. The only noise generated will be that of the heaters within the building which will not be noticeable outside the structure. 4. The building will have no exterior lights but will depend on existing parking lot lighting. 5. No smoke will be generated. WHEREAS, The proposed building measures 16' x 32', is planned to have a metal panel exterior, and the building will meet all setback requirements; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amended and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council approves conditional use permit amendment to allow construction of the proposed heater testing facility subject to the following conditions: 225 October 13, 1992 ae The building will be used only for heater testing and related product/equipment storage. Any change in the use of the building will require modification of The Toro Company's Operations Permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a lot survey certified by a registered land surveyor for the portion of the site containing the proposed use. Co If the City receives complaints from neighboring property owners regarding noise or odor emissions from the heater test facility and if such emissions can be verified by City Staff, the Toro Company shall install required equipment or make necessary building/mechanical modifications to remove the identified noise and/or odor emissions. De The heater test facility shall comply with all applicable building and fire code requirements. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for the area around the proposed building. The landscaping plan is to be approved by the City Council. Fe This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 10 to 14 inclusive, and that part of Lot 15 lying North of the South 8 feet thereof, all in Block 2, L.P. Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36 Lafayette Park. Lots 1 to 11 inclusive, Block 5. Lots 1 to 7 inclusive, and that part of Lot 8 lying Easterly of a line drawn South, parallel to the East line of Lot 8, from a point on the Northerly line thereof distant 134.4 feet Westerly from the Northeast corner of Lot 8, Block 6; Ail of Yost Street, vacated, lying between the extension across said street of the Northerly lines of Lots 1 to 6 inclusive, Block 6, and a line drawn from the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 6, to the Southeast corner of Lot 11, Block 5; 226 227 October 13, 1992 All in Sylvan Heights Addition to Mound-Minnetrista Township, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof. The boundary lines of the above tract have been Judicially determined and marked by judicial landmarks as shown by Torrens Case No. 15805. Torrens Certificate No. 666982 PID ~13-117-24 34 0076 G. This shall be considered as a restriction on how this property may be used. H. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3595, Subd. 4. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. Proof of recording shall be filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk 227 RESOLUTION #92-127 EX]tIBIT "A" plel 299 November 24, 1987 .o o RESOLU~IOX NO. 87-205 ~ESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH.THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND AHEND RESOLUTION 187~145, DELETING ITEHS tl A~D ADDING ITEM t10 AS PROPOSED ... WHEREAS, on August 11, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolutio~ 187-145 entitled, "Resolution to Concur with the Planning Commission to Ap- prove a Revision to the Conditional Use Permit Granted to Balboa, Mn. Corp. in Resolution ~85-87 Subject to Conditions'; and WHEREAS, Item t7 of Resolution 187-145 read as follows: 'No ac- tivity shall occur in the trailer parking area between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M." and ' , WHEREAS, the Toro Corporation who uses the trailer parking .area has stated that the restriction of trailer activity between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. is a hindrance to their business operations; and WHEREAS, the Balboa MN. Corporation has agreed to landscape and berm the trailer area to minimize the noise as much~as possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that ~he City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby amends Resolution 187-145 as follows: 1. Item t7 which reads as follows: "No activity shall occur in the trailer parking area between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.' is hereby deleted. 2. Item t10 which reads as follows: 'Balboa MN. Corporation will provide.a landscaping plan which will include trees, shrubs and berming. They will also be required to post a Performance Bond in an amount up to $15,000. Construction of the landscaping will be done in the Spring of 1988.' is hereby added. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Abel and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers yoted in the affirmative: Abel, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. ~ttest: City aa a s, a, I1 I, 1, 198 August 11~ I~87 RESOLUTION #87-145 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COHHISSION TO APPROVE A REVISION TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT GRANTED TO BALBOA HN, CORP. IN RESOLUTION #85-87 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS kqERFAS, the City Council on August 11, 1987, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 23.505 of the Mound Code of Ordinances to consider the amendment of item 2(J) of the Resolution 85-87 to permit the parking of trailers at 5340 Shoreline Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the Light Industrial (I-l) zone which allows such uses; arid WHEREAS, the subject 'property has been established as a Planned Industrial Area (PIA) which allows such uses by Conditional Use Permit; arid WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request arid does recommend a pprova 1; a nd WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of .Mound, Minn~sota, that Condition 2(j) of Resolution 85-87 is hereby amended to permit the parking of trailers at 5340 Shoreline Boulevard subject to the following condi t ions: ' . All existing construction debris within the area shall be ra~oved immedia rely. Dust-free surfacing in the trailer parking area shall be n~inbatned at all times. Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, Balboa Ml~.~asota shall sutmdt a landscapin, g plan showing screening along Lynwood Boulevard for review and approval by the City Planner. · landscaping shall be installe~] within 60 days of the date of this resolution. e Trailers and trucks within the parking area and on the regaining · Balboa property shall be directly involved with tenant businesses. No trailers shall be allowed to remain parked on the site for longer than 30 days. The trailer storage area shall remain trash free at all times. Ncr ~act iv~{~ -sba 11- ~eu £- ih-the- {ra~tec- i5~c4~i~qg ~cc~ 4~e~ -~he houc~ of- ~ ~.~ -b~ -7 ~00-a · m, Se Trailer 19cations shall be as shown on the site plans dated June 25, 1987. ® · No outside storage is permitted except by operations permit. 10. Balboa Corporation will provide a landscaping plan which will include trees, shrubs and berming. They will also'be requlred to post a Performance Bond In an amount up to $15,000. Construction of the landscaping will be done in the Spring of 1988. ,u ust 1], 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-87 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COHHISSION RECOMMENDATION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT TO BALBOA MINNESOTA COMPANY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA - 53q0 SHORELINE BLVD. ADDING ITEM J. AND K. AS RECOMMENDED WHEREAS, Balboa Minnesota Company (applicant) has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a Planned Industrial Area for the property generally known as the Tonkawest Business Center at 53q0 Shoreline Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the property is presently zoned I-1 and Planned Industrial Areas are conditional uses in the I-1 zone; and WHEREAS, the applicant bas applied for a Conditional Use Permit to facilitate the full utilization of the Tonkawest Business Center structure through the establishment of one or more business enterprises either on a lease or sale basis, thereby expanding employment opportunities in the City. of Hound and contributing to the improvement of the economic climate in the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has de~ermined that the establishment of a Planned Industrial Area is a more efficient usage of the existing structure and land than couid be accomplished under traditional I-1 zoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hound, Hinnesota: It is hereby determined that the proposed Planned Industrial Area is consistent with the land use and economic development policies of the City and is consistent with the general purposes and interest of the Zoning Code of the City. The Conditional Use Permit is granted in accordance with the following conditions: Modification or alteration of the exterior of the building is expressly prohibited pending submittal of the comprehensive exterior remodeling plan for the entire structure by Balboa Minnesota Company or by approval of an Operations Permit for portion of the structure. In accordance with the performance standards of the Mound Zoning Code, industrial, warehouse, storage and handling of bulk goods facilities August 13, 1985 are required to have at least one parking space for each employee on maximum shift or one space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of gross floor area, whichever is larger. The redevelopment plan for Tonkawest Business Center (Exhibit 1) h~-s identified 427 total p~-rking spaces. As uses occupy this building, their parking requirements will be verified at the time of Building Permit or Operations Permit application· If a parking shortage occurs at any time during the development (ieasing or sale) of the building, the applicant shall be responsible for providing additional parking for the use of ali applicable businesses. Loading access areas (loading berths) shall be restricted to the locations shown on Exhibit 2 unless modified by the subsequent approval of an Operations Permit for a portion of the 'building. All loading berths shall conform to the provisions of Section 23.717 of the ~{ound Zoning Code· Within 90 days of approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the applicant shall prepare landscaping plans for ail parking areas, entrance areas and common areas on the property. Such plens, clearly identifying species, caliper and root type shall be submitted for review and epprovai by the City Planner. ?onkawest Business Center shall be combined into one tax parcel. f.. Balboa Minnesota Company shal'l prepare .a compi-ehensive signage plan' of the entire structure depicting locations of concentrations of va11 signs, the general signage theme and the location and design pylon signs. Sign permits for indiv!dual business establishments shall be withheld until such time as a comprehensive sign plan is submitted and approved. Subdivision of the Tonkawest Business Center structure in two or more units shell require review and approval by the Mound Planning Commission and City Council. Subdivisions sh~ll be consistent with ~-11 applicable City Ordinances and at the time of subdivision application, the City Council shall make a determination of park dedication requirements. h. No change in the external mechanical devices B a, " ,I, I, August 13, 1985 shall be permitted unless authorized by Operations Permit for a portion of the building. Additionally, no roof vents or emission stacks shall be constructed without Operations Permit approval. Proposed improvement along the north side of the structure including but not limited to walkways and driveways between the building and the existing parking iot shall be reviewed by the BurIington Northern Raiiroad or subsequent owner. No outside storage is permitted except by Operations Permit. Parking of vehicles exceeding 24 hours is prohibited except delivery vehicles in designated spaces and trucks in Ioading berth areas. Balboa Minnesota Company shall submit to the City $1,000 to be put in an escrow.account to cover staff review and administration. The foregoing resolution was moved, by Couneilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Couneilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk i R[$OLUTION #85-87 (£XHISIT !) I '~ .:: I ' .... ............... · ' ~,'='"~-',--':= u..,:L0kJ.~_ "' .... ~ ..... '. -}J"'""'l, ............. , ...... J I · .m:~ i o .... ~ .". :' 'r ........... '--.. ,- -.- -g.',~r ~. ~ · , , ~ I I · Il'ii:' t:~'~i'--"~l i , ] ~ ! J I i'7'il'-,.~-Li__l! .......... ' · Il I , I · i~.! ... · .... - . · .I -.. · .... 'I I I . ,,. i!.,~ ......... · ......... · - J . .,.,,. , . · ..... .-.I.i. , ,U · ,o. ,.,,, .... .! I ...... ..? .,11> · I , ,.... , '< · ~- "..~ . ii 'l-~ ._! , .......... t-, ~ ' .' I.. ~.-~ ! ,~ I , · : :.: :~! ~ I i; ;,...,,..,I ' it ' · J I I I '~' '~' '~ , ' :. ~ Ii - .-Tii !! i J:-~: :n: :'! ~;z., ..>. i -;~ ....... . ~' i ~ I I · · .~..- ! "'.~,, .... :i ; tr~,~ ...... ' i ~ ,.-.. .-'. · ,, ....... L l i i,, ,~.... I ~ . -c d/J · ' I '1~.I · ;,, . r-.,,..,., ..... i.. ;,, g. ~-~ · .~. . ; , . ;'-.,..~ · ~, : I0 '.~ · : I; 1.1~.;.. '1' , · ~ ,' , · .~ . :! .,~'J=.J~..l"0~. , , . · ~: ' ' ij : .... I' ':"~' ~ ~ -, ' · II · oo ,, I I. · I~ ., ~ · ~ ,.... ~- .... 1 , ~ , .----------- ~_~ ~, > "x. ! I ,I .,~,..:.~. ,.~ :~, ~: Z ~'~ I gJ ~ ~ =~ I ~ _O.....L~ --m:'.:.x.~. ~ X r, .... ~; I 'z'-',, '. J~=:::::.::.:. ~ ~ I LU ............ ..... ..... l, ~..J' '' ' '~":' ~:~:':'?'"((:]i' t::' J" .'':-','~: : ~..Il' '~'r-',:::::::::"'""'' ' ' ' · ',,'-, ) '1 ....... J~ ..... · U,..~ ~ ,': , ! I ..... [.~:1~-.:~'~'~ / · . , / / I ' ~ , I?.-~':--.:' :':'~---'1 : -' ' ' · .. I ~; I Il':. ' ' ' ~-'-J-~" "'.' i: -_l ° ~ ..... ~ ....... /~/ ., ~ ',9'cr:- -l: · '. ,,.,. ,,~. , ,. ..... ....,.. ~,.~-_: ,, ..~,,~,..,~._-...:::~. ~_ . . I ", , I"-,--...~' - °~1:: ~ & J ~ -. iL--.~i;!~.'--:I".I'! "11 -~~ .--~.,~:~:=--1 -- . I' -':.::-:~ i . --.-. I~ ~ / . :--' *..'.' ~:' o . -~ ~.::::.;:::.:.~ __ '-- · . ~ I,-... .' · ~. ~ ,- - -- - · o'" ' -'-~':':~ I'' '""--.'~ -:::::: .......... -_--J =1 Z:I~ ~ ~l.,~.J~ I---i:~:i'.--"~ I1 -11--'~.~ {~. ~?~"~ 'r';. "~'t'~l "- ;~.'1"" --, 3', ~ ~' i~:::::~ I: .:1- ~ . ~'D'I If°~;;~ : I ,J~'-- -I LI.I · '~ °'~::::':-- ' ' '. ' "" ~' ~ 'Lb , ' ~1.%''- -- ~ ~ .. ~:.:.:.-- : ~ .-z ; ~. - .)J--" J · -_ ..., ~.,'~.~ ~, !~:~i~--:i~ il/!.-...o.1~ ~-a I.~''.-:= a"' "~ I~i~::~!~ i!i I : · ;-.I '"-°:T., J ~ ,.,, ...... , tu ~ ~ ..... I ,J.~.t!;!;:l ' :' ~' ' ' ~o ' ~-'-~'~ I--' ',~ ' · .... .. '"~.--.Jl~.i:!:i~ ~ :! I'"---,~ ---~ ~-;-~ I:.: ,L,~-------- 0 CI I '" '.'::':.--.I ~ I.. ~ - ~ i~..· .... II ..... ~x~- -; ,~.:~::::=. ~: ,.~.~XX~T~- . .. ........ : . · ........... : ............... ~j · ,, ,~ ]~ [~.-ii:! :: ====================== ...:-:::::: - o I--.' ~E$OLUTION #~5-87 '~ (£XHISIT 2) .~ · ,,.i' I ~ ! '-. I, ..:-h;i_= ~. · -.~-:.-._l_~ ..... ..J L . ;: i~: :~ ' ' '!. "'""' ...... '"----' . · .,,-ql ....... '. ........... . '~.. ! - -. I :,-~: 'i..1 ............. ' ....... ~-.;.jJ I i J I. :~: ~':,,, ..... · ..... '~ .... ' I o ..~ .~,-. · ... ~ ......... ~ ..... t '.. I ,: ~ · .:-'.:,,.-~.: :1 ; ' ~ .~ .- ,= =~ .'., ,~ ..~. ~.t, i:[r'~ ~ . ~,=- -! LU ~" :-i----l_--=! ii ~ ~- , ==:~ , ~x~x~~.-- ' / .. , l- -',' / ~., ~ r' · i ! · ]ldd¥ Z 'OI Z 9 T,.IZ 8 '81 ~ :ll~ON ~m £ '~ O~v03~ ,r ~ PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH~i"AND ~ FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 5926 BEACHWOOD ROAD, PART OF LOT 47, AUDITOR'S SUBD. #168, PID #23-117-24 13 0023 P&Z CASE #94-~ WHEREAS, the owner, Buzz Sycks, has applied for a variance to lot frontage, lot width of 10' to the required 60', and also 15' to the required 30' front yard setback, in order to construct a new dwelling on the property, 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 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the southerly boundary is being considered the front lot line, and this lot is not considered to be a "through lot" as it does not directly abut a right-of- way, and; WHEREAS, there is no street frontage, access is to be provided by a 10' wide driveway easement approximately 175' in length. A portion of this driveway currently serves the existing dwelling on parcel (53). There is a dwelling located on the adjacent parcel (41) that precludes the possibility of gaining dedicated frontage, and; WHEREAS, existing lot width is 50', and 60' is required in the R-1 Zone. It appears unlikely lot width can be modified at this time, and; WHEREAS, due to the length of the driveway and the topography that slopes towards the lake, the applicant is seeking a 15' variance to the required 30' setback (southerly property line). There is inadequate topographical information provided to indicate a difficulty in placing the structure in a conforming location, and; WHEREAS, this property is a separate tax parcel and is under the same ownership as the adjacent parcels (53) and (24); each parcel has a separate property identification number, and; WHEREAS, assessments for sewer and water service and street improvements needs to be verified. Sewer service is available on the lake side and water service could be provided down the driveway easement as it is available on Beachwood Road, and; Proposed Resolution #94-44, Sycks Page 2 WHEREAS, the surveyor has noted no title work was furnished for the preparation of the survey to verify related information, proof of the driveway easement must be provided, and; WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, does exist and was recorded in 1974. the hardcover will still be conforming, and; this parcel is a Lot of Record, the parcel was platted in 1927, and; Mr. Sycks states that a 10 foot wide driveway access easement WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant approval of a 10 foot lot width variance and a variance for zero feet of lot frontage to allow construction of a fully conforming dwelling, subject to the following conditions: a. The proposal must be conforming to all required setbacks. bi' The approval is contingent upon receipt of an updated survey that confirms all conditions as proposed. A copy of the driveway easement shall be provided prior to the release of the final resolution. de The driveway shall be brought into conformance with Zoning Code Section 350:445, as required by the Building Official prior to the issuance of any building permits. This section relates to suitable access for the fire department. Parcels 13-117-24 11 0024 and 13-117-24 11 0053 be combined prior to release of the variance resolution. Proposed Resolution #94-44, Sycks Page 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. 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 single family dwelling, conforming to setbacks. e This variance is granted for the following legally described property: The north 348 feet of the east 50 feet of the west 1 O0 feet of Lot 47, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 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. No. 7772~ O~aTe~C~ CO~ar Ne.(e) ~3866 & L4~08 Ttaus~e~ ~t~ Nos. 67540, 680550 & 680~X O~tltaa~~ ze~tstered the 2nd da7 DE A~LX A.D. STl~ w Ilm~ REGISTRATION This Js to certify thai II.L. "Buzz" Sycke, 5926, $930 & 5932 8eachvoi,:d Road, .Crt7 of ~d, Count7 of ~e~ep~ State o~ Ht~esota t~ now the owneds) of ae estate in I~ simple of and in the followlngi described land situated in the Coun~ of H~nepin: and Sidle of Minnesota, to wit: / ~e ge~t ~O fee: and that pitt of the East 50 feet of t~e gist L~ feat ~1 ~ort~ of the South 16 i,eet t~ereof, S~bJecc to a te~ac~on o~ m~eraXs and ~nera~ rt~bts t~ ~avot o~ the ~ ~esot $ubjed to lhe encum~r;nces, ~ens and interest noted by the mem~rlal unde~rJfen m endorsed hereon; and subject fa the teltewin9 rights ~ncume~ances ~vbsishn~ ~ '~o~;de~ m me ~emy-,ourm sec,on et "~n act concermng me and the ti~le therele~ ef the General laws of the State of Minnesota fm the year 19OS, and the amendments Ihereof, namely: ~a: the said ~.L. "~uzz" Sycki t~ DE the ale of 72 years, ts u~arried a~d ts udder no d~sabiltt7. IN WffNES$ WHEREOF, have hereunto subscn'l~ed my name and affixed the Mai of my office t~is Trill,th day ef June ]992 R~trar d ~t~, In .~ f-- ~ Coun. ~ ~n~.Stat. of Mi .... ,.. MEM, )RIAL 8~ ~% -~ D~,u~ ~ ESTATe, ~S~S OR CHARG~N' THE ~ND DESCRIBED ~ THE CERTIFICATE ~ TIT~ HER~O A~ACNED. DOCUHENT ,~T DATE OF REGISTRAT)ON Quit Claim 722958 Deed Eib 20 1963Apt 10 1963 12:10 ._ Quit Clais 722959 Deed Jan 31 1963Apr 19 1963 12 _ 1128727 £aSemEUt acc 9 197& Dec 26 197& 3:&5 ' City of I~ound. CrancinS · )0 fOOt - utility & OthEr uublic utility I ~2tposae over pt of above lend. (See Init) City of Nound. Grantin& I perpetual ___for public SEver utility $ other t puklic utility purposes over pt at above land. (See lust) --'-~ Nltmeaota Gas Cosrp&ny Del _.._..J_.lof the gest 50 ft of above land, _ let OVt~ · m m i i I1 l, J, MEMORIAL Nound, NN Ou the Rest 1581123 ~rrtsage Na~ 31 19S&Jun ~ 19Si 3 __ S&O000.O0~0 ft of above land. City of Nound. Crentinl an eese=~ 1585}28 Deed Jun II 198&Jun 26 1981 ~ )ublic utility purpose~over~_~.~ above land. (See lust) Nound, ~. ~ that pArC Of the [ 167682& ~rtgaS* Oct 8 198S Oct 8 1985 5 $~.~ ~0 feet of the Vest 100 feet of t 47 ly~ut ~orch of the Sovth 160 ~ Darrell J. E[erCsou, , 509 S. Bhke load, ~, ~ 171S037 ~ssge ~r 27 1986 Apr 8 1986 i ~ $21000.~ ~the S~th 180.~ fe~t of the ~ State ~uk of ~und. Giveu co fro ~ocice o~ K~ie ~c. !o. 1~81123. Cre~ow S. issc of (See Ht~ee's Chaule of NA~ ~c N 2xox822 !~81123 ~y 16 1990 Jun 8 1990 I ~09 S. SXake Road, ~, ~ ~CIe ~c ~o DarrelX J. EierCson '210182~ ;676821 Ha~ 16 1990Jun 8 1990 I 509 S. Blake Rd., Edinn, ~ I Darrell J. [gertsou 22~87~0 ~lorJja~J 3u~ ~ 1992 5u~ 12 1992 12 99~ ~re~ Ars ~., Bloom~gco~ ~ 2273553 ~7682~ ~ 4 1992 Ju~ 251992.~ Carl R. Hanson H~ge ~c No 2273~5& ~581~23 Nay ~ ~992 ~ufl 25 ~992 1{ Carl R. H~nson ~c~*r~ of 22735~5 ~s PendenstJan 29 1992Jun 25 ~992 ~ Carl !. Hanson e~ il - }:tBe Ooc No Rest S0.00 feet of 2477684 ~.71S037 Jan 13 199&Feb 8 199& 1 Lot 47 77723~ Par Hel of ' ' d · L 2606 JJ 2477685 ~2687A0 Jan 13 1994 Feb 8 1994 1 50.00 feet of co~) ~0 ~ton St. 2482763 ~rtRaRe I~ 13 199a Feb 22 1994 II l~ea ~ DUPLICATE 2~82763 ~rough ~rt ilicatel ' 'IiftraI Syc~ of MINNE~T~ .' Aud Sub 168 ~ , MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 CASE 894-44: BUZZ SYCKS, 5926 BEACHWOOD ROAD, PART OF LOT 47, BLOCK 4, ,AUDITOR'S SURD. #168, PID #23-117-2413 0023. VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING, Jon Sutherland, Building Official, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to lot frontage, lot width of 10' to the required 60', and also 15' to the required 30' front yard setback, in order to construct a new dwelling on the property. This is a separate tax parcel and is under the same ownership as the adjacent parcels (53) and (24). Each parcel has a separate property identification number. ~, There is no street frontage, access is to be provided by a 10' wide driveway easement approximately 175' in length. A portion of this driveway currently serves the existing dwelling on parcel 53. There is a dwelling located on the adjacent parcel #41 that precludes the possibility of gaining dedicated frontage. LOt Width. Existing lot width is 50', and 60' is required in the R-1 Zone. It appears unlikely lot width can be modified at this time. Front yard setback. Due to the length of the driveway and the topography that slopes towards the lake, the applicant is seeking a 15' variance to the required 30' setback. There is inadequate topographical information provided to indicate a difficulty in placing the structure in a conforming location. Staff is in the process of verifying the assessments for sewer and water service and street improvements. Sewer service is available on the lake side and water service could be provided down the driveway easement as it is available on Beachwood Road. The surveyor has noted no title work was furnished for the preparation of the survey to verify related information, proof of the driveway easement must be provided. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to lot frontage and lot width as proposed in order to construct a fully conforming dwelling on the property with the following coriditions: ~n i I i i, Ii I I, Planning Cornrni. vsion Minutes July 11, 1994 1. The proposal must be conforming to all required setbacks. The approval is contingent upon receipt of an updated survey that confirms all conditions as proposed. A copy of the driveway easement shall be provided prior to the release of the final resolution. The driveway shall be brought into conformance with Zoning Code Section 350:445, as required by the Building Official prior to the issuance of any building permits. This section relates to suitable access for the fire department. Mueller confirmed with staff that the lot area used for the hardcover calculations is not correct, however, using the correct lot area, the hardcover will still be conforming. Mueller questioned the Lot of Record status for this parcel. Staff confirmed that this parcel has been determined to be a Lot of Record. Mr. Sycks noted that the subject parcel was platted in 1927 and registered in 1958 by another individual. Mueller noted that the survey does not show parcel (24) as a separate parcel. The Building Official noted that a Condition should be added requiring that parcels (24) and (53) be combined, and confirmed that all three parcels are currently owned by Mr. Sycks. Mueller expressed a concern about setting a precedence for allowing existing lots of record to be developed if they can obtain driveway access through an easement. Mr. Sycks stated that the 10 foot wide driveway access easement is existing and was recorded in 1974. The Building Official noted that proof of the driveway easement should be provided for the City Attorney's review prior to permit issuance, Mueller questioned if the southerly boundary is being considered the front lot line, and staff indicated yes. Mueller asked if this lot is then considered a "through lot", and staff indicated that it is not as it does not directly abut a right-of-way. Mueller requested that this be included as a finding in the resolution. MOTION made by Hanuso seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the following additional condition: Parcels 13-117-24 11 0024 and 13-117-24 11 0053 be combined prior to release of the variance resolution. Proof of the driveway access easement must be submitted prior to City Council approval. MOTION carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were: Hanus, Michael, Crum, and Voss. Michael was opposed. Mueller commented that he is not in favor of the request due to the possibility of setting a precedence for existing lots of record which could be buildable as long as they have access available by an 2 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO: LOCATION: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF JULY 11, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION, APPLICANT AND STAFF JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL VARIANCE REQUEST M.L. "BUZZ" SYCKS 94-44 5926 BEACHWOOD ROAD, LOT 47, BLOCK 41, SUBDIVISION //168, PID //23-117 24 13 0023 AUDITOR'S ZONING: R-1 BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to lot frontage, lot width of 10' to the required 60', and also 15' to the required 30' front yard setback, in order to construct a new dwelling on the property. This is a separate tax parcel and is under the same ownership as the adjacent parcels//53 and 24. Each parcel has a separate property identification number. VARIANCE ISSUES Lot frontage - There is no street frontage, access is to be provided by a 10' wide driveway easement approximately 175' in length. A portion of this driveway currently serves the existing dwelling on parcel 53. There is a dwelling located on the adjacent parcel #41 that precludes the possibility of gaining dedicated frontage. Lot Width - 50' of lot width is existing and 60' is required in the R-1 Zone. It appears unlikely lot width can be modified at this time. e Front yard setback - Due to the length of the driveway and the topography that slopes towards the lake, the applicant is seeking a 15' variance to the required 30' setback. There is inadequate topographical information provided to indicate a difficulty in placing the structure in a conforming location. COMMENTS Staff is in the process of verifying the assessments for sewer and water service and street improvements. Sewer service is available on the lake side and water service could be provided down the driveway easement. It is available on Beachwood Road. The surveyor has noted no title work was furnished for the preparation of the survey to verify related information, proof of the driveway easement must be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to lot frontage and lot width as proposed in order to construct a fully conforming dwelling on the property with the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. The proposal must be conforming to all required setbacks. The approval is contingent upon receipt of an updated survey that confirms all conditions as proposed. A copy of the driveway easement shall be provided prior to the release of the final resolution. The driveway shall be brought into conformance with zoning code Section 350:445, as required by the Building Official prior to the issuance of any building permits. This section relates to suitable access for the fire department. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $$364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 $50 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner Public Works City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~'4 "-44 Please type or print the foHowlng information: Address of Subject Property .~3b ~3~A.c/~uv'oet, 7'~ b Lot ~ qT- Addition ,,4 t..'a i 'r~J & ~ v t3 Zoning District Owner's Name Owner's Address ~ ~ I Use of Property: Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ft.,, ~, ~ '/// Address ~/~'-' ~ ~ PID No..,2 Day Phone Has an application ever been raade for.zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (q'fio. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descfipton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( Nt~"}E W ) , ~ /9 ft. Side Yard: (Nx~(~)W~.) ~. ft. Side Y~d: ( N S E~) R~ Y~d: ~ E W ) /.~ ft. ~eside: (~ E W ) .~ O ft. ' (NSEW) S~t Frontage: ~ 'O / ft. ~t Si~: ~ ~., & o ~ ~ ft H~d~ver: ~ o ~e~Jc~ ~o ~sq ft l .s ft. /.5"ft. ~~~_¢~. ft. 'ft. ft. SOD 4.. ft. ft. ft. ft. / ?,,, 4t Oe, sq ft / sqft _~ ~O ~sq ft sqft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~ too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: ..,f- e ~- ~ ~¢ /r ¢. ~ -/z4 ~ ~ ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the la after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), Nop~t, ff yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~v,~, 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 Date Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SeFT X 30% = ,~ ~ ~ SQFT X 15% = ~.~' jO) HOUSE: LENGTH WIDTH X = X = GARAGE: TOTAL HOUSE x ~ = ~ X = TOTAL GARAGE ****************** DRIVEWAY: .-~/~ X ~-~ ~ = ..g' ~ ~) X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100~[) TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** OTHER: X = X TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER :~~ ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BY: DATE: SURVEY FOR: KEN LUND LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Furnished by Client) That part of the east 50.00 feet of the west 100.00 feet of Lot 47, Auditor's Subdivision NO. 168, Hennapin County, Minnesota lying north of the south 160.00 feet. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this drawing was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 27th day of May, 1994. Revised this 16th day of June, 1994. EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC. Jac~Bolke, Minnesota License No. 20281 741'5 Wayzata Boulevard, Mpls., MN Telephone (612)546-6837 NOTES: ~. Area of the property described hereon is approximately 11,250 square feet. 2. No title work was furnished for the preparation for this survey to verify ownership, the legal description or the existence of any easements or encumbrances. 3. No field survey was performed for use in preparing this drawing. i-~ 945xt 0 34.00 O0 Z I q9 i I ! /qCHWoo0 r" 34.00 II,OM U~' ,' ,955,5 ' 50.00 - ,,~o- N.S!P 36'40" W. '--Norfh $~ufh o~: Lof 4'; Ilr&e o~ 160.00 C 4 I I I ADDRESS: Zo · u ~ I · I~EQ IRED EXISTING S~rvey O, f,,e, yesx ~o..- Date of sur;ey~ / Required Width: ~ ~ , Depth EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDI~~ ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONT~ N S g W FRONT = N S E W SIDEI N S E W 4' or 6' SIDEs N S E W 4' or §' P.~AR: N $ E W , ~AKESHORE~ 50' Imeaeured from O.H.W, ) FRONT z FRONT SIDE~ SIDEs REAR , LAKESHORE ACCESSORY BUILDING WILL THE PR/POSE] /M_FRO~ CONFORR? YES NO 141 t 19. 17 i(42) (41) ', LAW OlrlrtC~$ WURST, PrARSON, LARSON, UND£RWOOO & ME;RTZ ONE IrlNANCIAL II)I. AZ&, ,$UITI: I100 IZO SOUTH SIXTH STRE:E? MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540~'-IS03 July 21, 1994 John Sutherland Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 In Re: Planning Case 94-51 James Bedell and Steven Bedell (Seasonal Snack Shop) Dear John: You have sent us a packet of materials relating to the above- referenced matter. Among other things, the materials included the draft minutes of the July 11, 1994 Mound Planning Commission meeting. The materials indicate that the application is being treated as a variance request. We note from the materials that there has been discussion as to whether or not the proposed snack trailer is a "building" or a "structure" under either the zoning code or under the uniform building code. We do not believe that the city has to make this determination. The zoning ordinance regulates both structures and uses. The introduction of the snack trailer on to the property is clearly a "use" regulated by the zoning ordinance. The materials indicate that the subject premises is non- conforming in a number of respects, including the presence of the residential use on the premises, lot size, hard cover limitations, setbacks under the zoning ordinance, and setbacks under the shoreland management ordinance. Under Section 350:420 Subd. 1 of the Mound City Code, non- conforming uses not allowed to be expanded or intensified without the issuance of a variance. Thus, the current application is correctly being processed as a variance application. At this point, the city should: First, determine whether the proposed snack trailer represents an intensification of the non-conforming use; (the City Planner has apparently advised you that the snack trailer would be an i ,1, JJ John Sutherland 7/21/94 page 2 intensification, and we do not disagree with his analysis); Second, identify the zoning ordinance and shoreland management ordinance variances necessitated by this application; Third, review the variances under the standards and procedures set forth in Section 350:530 of the Mound City Code; Fourth, the applicants should be allowed to proceed with establishment of the new use only after having received approval for all of the necessary variances. If you have any questions please call us. Very truly yours, CMM/bJ h Cc: Mark Koegler WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERT~. Mertz ~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 CASE #94-51; JAMES BEDELL AND STEVEN BEDELL, 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1, 2~ AND 3, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID #13-117-24 44 0052. VARIANCE FOR SEASONAL SNACK SHOP, The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. This variance request is to operate a seasonal snack shop from a trailer located within the B-2 zone. The trailer was converted into a snack shop on the property. The trailer is proposed to be used seasonally for the sale of bottled and canned beverages, ice, prepackaged snacks and similar items. The use will cater to boaters utilizing the adjacent channel and will offer service via a tie-up arrangement parallel to the channel. The two existing docks in the immediate vicinity are proposed to be removed. This property contains a residential dwelling which is not an allowed use within the B-2 zone, and therefore is a legal nonconforming use. 7 Planning Commission Minutes July Il, 1994 Koegler explained, that when his report was originally written, there was some questions as to whether or not the trailer was considered to be a "building." However, the City Attorney has since confirmed that according to the Zoning Ordinance this trailer is a "building" and is subject to all setback and zoning requirements. Regardless, the proposed use can only occur if the City is willing to grant a variety of variances, including: Recognition of the existing undersized lot. Required 20,000 sq ft Existing 15,020 sq ft Variance 4,980 sq ft RecoQnition of setback variances for the existing principal structure. Hardcover variance. Total hardcover on the site is approximately 44%. Variances from the nonconforming use provisions. Section 350:420 states, "Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Chapter may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date." Therefore, nonconforming uses are not allowed to be expanded or intensified without issuance of a variance. Shoreland setback variances. The trailer is proposed to be setback approximately 19 feet from the OHW resulting in a variance of 31 feet. Recommendation. The proposed use is inconsistent with the provisions of the Mound Zoning Code as evidenced by the number of variances required. In granting any variances, the City has to render a finding that the proposal should be allowed due to hardship or practical difficulty. Economics is not a determining factor in the granting of variances. The proposed use expands and intensifies an existing nonconforming use by adding a separate commercial use on a portion of the property. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed variances as the proposal is inconsistent with the Zoning Code including Section 350:530, Subd. 1 (Variance Criteria) and Section 350:420 (Nonconforming Uses). If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is further recommended that the City issue an order calling for removal of the trailer that has been moved onto the property. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed use and the corresponding variances, it is suggested that such approval be subject to: 1. Approval of all boat docking by the Water Patrol. 2. If there are applicable sections in the Uniform Building Code, they shall be enforced. 3. A driveway/access easement shall be obtained in order to gain legal access to Bartlett Blvd. 4. The site shall conform to the parking criteria outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. 8 Planning Commission Minutes July II, 1994 Discussion The Commission, staff, and the applicant's debated weather the proposed snack shop should be considered a "building." The Building Official confirmed that according to the Uniform Building Code, the trailer is considered to be a building and a structure. It is not listed as an exemption for a permit, however, this portion has not yet been discussed with the City Attorney. Steve Bedell confirmed that according to the LMCD, after the docks are removed, they no longer have jurisdiction, however, the LMCD suggested that the traffic flow be reviewed by the Water Patrol. The applicant is of the opinion that the trailer is not a building or structure, but a utility trailer. The trailer was compared to an RV or a motor home, are they considered structures? Could they operate a snack shop from them? Jim Bedell noted that these type of trailer/snack shops exist in Excelsior and Wayzata. Sutherland confirmed that structures with less than 120 square feet of projected roof area do not require permits, however are not exempted from building code requirements. The proposed structure is 132 square feet. Zoning approval is required before building permit review. Jim Bedell feels he should have the right to have a utility trailer on his property. Steven Bedell insisted that the trailer is a "vehicle", not a "building", and it has a license from the Department of Transportation. Hanus questioned what is the difference between the portable trailers which are used to sell popcorn and travel from location to location. Sutherland noted that those vehicles are commercially manufactured, and the subject trailer was constructed on the site, and the City Attorney's office has determined that the building code regulations apply to this structures. Hanus questioned that if this trailer were pulled off-site when inactive during the off season, would this change staff's opinion? Sutherland stated that they would need to ascertain if the trailer is specifically exempted because of Department of Transportation regulations, City Staff has taken the position, that the trailer is a building and that the Building Code applies. Therefore, in order to put this trailer on his property, he would have to get a building permit, but first requires zoning approval. The City Planner commented that a structure or trailer less than 1 20 square feet to be used in a similar a manner, and if the zoning is appropriate, might be handled under the licensing procedures for hawkers or solicitors. A structure larger than 120 square feet could be handled as "Accessory Outdoor Seasonal Sales" by conditional use permit, but must be accessory to a principal use. Hanus questioned how this relates to the Farmer's Market? Koegler presumed this is under a mass license. Koegler stressed that the Zoning Code defines the trailer to be a "building." Sutherland also confirmed that Craig Mertz from the City Attorney's office has also determined, according to the Uniform Building Code (UBC), that by definition this trailer is considered a "building" and a "structure", and it is also not listed as an exemption for a building permit. Jim Bedell compared this proposal to other sites which have seasonal outdoor sales and asked if he scaled the trailer down to under 120 square feet if he could get a seasonal hawkers license. Staff confirmed that due to the existing nonconforming use of the property, a license could not be granted without variance approval to expand the use of the property. 9 Planning Commission Minutes .tu6, H, 994 Mueller questioned if multiple uses are allowed within a single zone? Koegler stated yes, for example, in the B-2 there is a statement in the provisions that identifies if the Council allows more than one structure on a principal that the setback has to be such, so multiple structures are allowed on one lot. Koegler confirmed that he would classify the proposed use as "retail". "Retail Sales" is a permitted use in the B-2 zone. Mueller questioned if a conditional use permit should be required? Koegler stated that the Code does not allow retail uses by conditional use permit. The proposed use is conforming within the B-2 district, however the existing principal use is nonconforming, therefore, it was determined that a variances would be needed, not a conditional use permit. Mueller questioned what would preclude a residence in a residential zone from setting up a trailer and selling pop, or what prevents anyone else from doing it? Koegler noted that the long-term view of zoning is to eventually have nonconforming uses disappear. Jim Bedell compared this request to the Al & Alma's business who utilizes residentially zoned property for the docking of commercial boats. Geoff Michael questioned how a variance can be granted when dealing with an economic situation? Koegler noted that according to State Statute, in order to be granted a variance you have to prove hardship or practical difficulty, and economics may not be a reason, such as not doing something because of the cost. The Planning Commission took a 5 minute break. Voss declared to the Commission that he does not believe there appears to be a solution to this request at this time. MOTION made by voss to refer this case to the City Attorney for review. Motion seconded by Mueller. Mueller stated that he seconded the motion based on the criteria that variances cannot be granted to use and agrees that the City Attorney needs to review this request. Hanus referred to the staff report which states, "The proposed use expands an intensifies and existing nonconforming use by adding a separate commercial use..." Hanus disagrees with this statement as they are actually adding a conforming use to the property, and the nonconforming portion is not being expanded.. Koegler stated that a new element is being introduced that was previously not there, and the nonconforming provisions of the code state that at the time the ordinance goes into affect, what is there may remain, however you cannot change it, and this is a change. Hanus questioned, in which way is the nonconforming aspect of the property being changed? Koegler stated that the City is charged with enforcing the code, or finding rationale by which you should vary from the code. The literal interpretation of the code says there this is a nonconforming property, which is allowed to remain as is, however, something else is now being introduced to the property. 10 Planning Commission Mintttes July II, 1994 Mueller called the question. Motion failed 2 to 3. Those in favor were Voss and Muell~r. Those opposed were Crum, Michael, and Hanus. Michael confirmed that a commercial use is being proposed on commercial property, however, the residential dwelling makes the property nonconforming. Jim Bedell noted that there are a number of properties in the B-2 district which are nonconforming to use and to setbacks. The Commission discussed the importance of being more specific with their request for an interpretation from the City Attorney's office. Mueller surmised that the' City Attorney needs to interpret whether this request requires a variance, a conditional use permit, or whether this is even a use, and if it is a use can we vary from the use, and if it is a change in use then does the nonconforming use need to be removed. The problem is having a residential use and a commercial use on the same lot. How do you deal with that? Is this a variance for a use change? or the intensification of an existing nonconforming use? Mueller questioned if use variances can be issued? Mueller would feel more comfortable about the request if it were for a conditional use permit. Mueller also expressed a concern about setting a precedence. Hanus agrees that the structure requires variances, but the use does not. He would like to see if there is a way to make this request work. Koegler noted that he does not consider this request to be a use variance, this is a permitted use in this zone, but in this case the property is a nonconforming use. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to refer this request to the City Attorney's office for interpretation of the code relating to whether or not this use is inconsistent with the Mound Zoning Code. Motion carried 4 to 1. Those in favor Voss, Mueller, Crum, and Michael. Hanus opposed. The Commission requested that the minutes be forwarded to the Attorney's office. 11 pHONE NO. DSTATE OF E.PARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNF~R ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55}~o. 772-7910 July 6, 1994 _~m-~Fackler=~ City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: COPIES DISTRIBUTED ON 7-13-94 TO: Steve and Jim Bedell Mark Koegler, City Planner C ~ City Attorney's Office Jon Sutherland, Building Official VARIANCE APPLICATION #94-51, JAMES E SALLY BEDELL, LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133-13), CITY OF MOUND, MENNEPIN COUNTY We have reviewed the above-referenced variance proposal and we recommend that the variance not be approved as proposed for the following reasons: The snack shop as proposed would be within the 25' shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka (27-133P). The building of structures within the shore impact zone is against Minnesota Rules 6115.3300 Zoning Provisions, Subpart 3A, which states: "Structure setbacks maybe altered without a variance to conform to adjoining setbacks provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone." There are reasonable alternatives available to placing the snack shop within 10' of the OHW of Lake Minnetonka as currently proposed. Based on the information we received, it appears that the snack shop could be placed within the gravel parking lot on the property and outside of the 25' shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka. The applicant may choose to place benches or picnic tables on the grass between the snack shop and Lake Minnetonka. Mardshtp must be demonstrated to Justify receiving a variance. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: A. The proposed use is reasonable; Be It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns"' and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty; AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER June 6, 1994 Page 2 C% The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. I~ the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique~ D. The problem must not be created by the landowner] The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the 1.ocality. The snack shop may be located below the lO0oyear flood elevation of Lake Minnetonka. Any variance which is issued by the City of Hound must be in conformance with the floodplain regulations of the City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance. A copy of the Clty~ decision on this variance should be sent to this office within 10-days of the date of the decision. Should you have questions regarding this matter, then contact me at 772- 7910. Sincerely, /Joe Richter Hydrologist ¢: City of Hound Shoreland File Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Ellen Sones LMCD, Eugene Strommen Section 350:530. Variances. Subd. 1. Criteria for Grantinq Variances. A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance may be issued to prDvide relief to the landowner in those zones where the ordinance imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of his land. No use variances may be issued. A variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of this Ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Ce That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. Subd. 2. Procedure - Variances. The person applying for a variance shall fill out and submit to the Zoning Administrator a variance request form. A site plan with a certificate of survey must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity showing the following information: Location and dimensions of: lot, building, driveways, and off-street parking spaces. 45 3/15/93 Flat of Su~y for Boy G. 'Dale ia Lo~s 1, 2, and ' I h~r~t.' c~rtt,~Y th,t '~." 1~ , tru- and tort-et r.pr-..entstion o:' . ~urv~ Of th* b~dart'~ of all of ~ts 1 .nd 2 of %ha~ ~_d~.%cribed.as f~llous: ~ginni~ at the .~uthr west-fly cor,~r of.sa~d ~t 2; %h~n~ ~u%heas%~rl7 alonf _. ~he ~%~h-~-~T,rlv ~.~aa~ 1~ of said ~t 2 a dist~c~ of 100 feet to a point; th-nee Nor%h-asr-ri:' .long , line which lnms at an an~le of 81°27' to th? left from s~td ~uth~"starl7 bo~Fe~ line to a ~t tntarsectin~ the ~lth~rly 1~.~ of ~:mty. ~ad No. ~ce ~thw~st~rlv .long sa~d.~ch-rly 1~ to the ~t of beginnt~; ~t. on-th~ ~rthw~st~rly Iin~ of ~ald lot distant 22.2' f~ ~st~rly ~rn.r of ,.id Iot; then~ ~athesst-rly )5 fwt to f~t ~thw. st~rl~ from th'. ~brth"a~terllr lin~ of sai6 lo~; ~hen~ ~u~h-ast~rly east.fly l~e of ,..i~ Io~ =- ,:lst~nc- or' ~) feet; thence North~.sterlF tended wou~d ~ters~c% th- I.;orth~st-~iy lln~ of s~ic 1Jo the ~int of b~A~inninr of th~ l~d to b~ d-scrib,~d; tken~ ~%h~'esterly to R~.s%.~rlv l~! o~' s~i~ io% dist.nt 10~.6 feet ~uth~ssterl7 from the ~uthw.sterly th~r~of;.'th~;ce South,.st-fly alon~ th~ ~uth~'st~rlv 1~' of · sast~riy from %n~ Eorth'o~,,t"rlF cor~r of snlc ].o5; th.race ~ut%~'~sc'rL': ~o bogtnning. Se_.a!,~: 1" = 5,0' o : Iron ma rk,'~ r C~rcon R. Coffin . Lend N~-ve.';or and Flann~r [~n{- Lake, Certificate of Survey For James Bedell in Lots 1,2 and 3, Skarp's East Lawn Hennepin County, Minnesota . e: denotes Iron marker found -: denotes Iron marker set LEGAL OE$CRIPTIO# OF PREMISES: L~ts I and 2 Of '$karp's East Lawn". excepting and riservtng therefrom that I~r~ described e$ follows: Beginning at the SouthwesterZy corner.of said Lot 2; thence Southeasterly along the Southwesterly boundary line of said Lot Z.a distance of !00 feet to a point; thence Northeasterly along a line' vh[ch rues at an ang/e of 81 degrees 27 minutes to-the left from said $outa~ester]y boundary itne to a point Intersecting the Southerly line of County Road No. IS (formerly County Road No. 7); thence SouZhwes:erIy along said Southerly line to the point of beginning; Also that part of Lot 3 of "Skarp's East Lawn' described.as follows: Commencing at a point on the Northwesterly tine of said %of distant 2Z.2 feet Southwesterly from the' Northwesterly corner of said lot; thence' Southeasterly 35 feet to a point which Is. distant 22 feet Southwesterly from the Northeasterly line of said lot; thence Southeaster%y at an eagle to the right of 48 deerees 34 minutes a distance Of 10.6 feet; thence Southeasterly patella, with:the.~Northeasterly line of .said lot a distance of 30 feet; thence Northeasterly on a line which tf extended would intersect the Northeasterly.line of said lot an a point distant'gS.6 feet Southeasterly from the Northwesterly corner of said lot a distance of 28 feet and which point is the point of beglnning.~of the [and to be des- cribed; thence Southwesterly to a point tn the Southwesterly tine of sal~ lot distant 103.6 feet Southeasterly from the Southwesterly corner thereof; thence Southeasterly along the Southwesterly. line of said lot to the Southeasterly corner of said'lot; thence Northeasterly to the Northeasterly corner of said lot; thence Northwesterly along the North- easterly line of slid lot to 4 point distant 95.6 fee~ Southeaster%y from t~e Northwesterly corner of said %of; thence Southwesteri~ to the point Of.beginning; - ~:- ~-- ~. This sur,e~ sho~s [he location of all existing buildings and visible ~baed- coYem". [[ does not pu~por~ to s~ow'any othe~ [mDrove~e~[s oF e~croachments. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Cornmission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 6, 1994 SUBJECT: Variance Request - Seasonal Snack Shop APPLICANT: Steven M. Bedell CASE NUMBER: 94-51 HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5t LOCATION: 4801 Shoreline Drive EXISTING ZONING: General Commercial (B-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variances required to operate a seasonal snack shop from a trailer to be located in the B-2 zone. The applicant moved the trailer onto the property and initiated improvements to convert the trailer to a snack shop. After receiving a letter dated June 1, 1994 from Mr. Bedell and receiving an anonymous complaint about the project, the Building Official placed a stop work order on the project until the required variances could be reviewed and approved. The proposal involves the seasonal use of a trailer for the sale of bottled and canned beverages, ice, prepackaged snacks and similar items. The use will cater to boaters utilizing the adjacent channel and will offer service via a tie-up arrangement parallel to the c~hann___~el. Two existing docks in the immediate vicinity will be removed. The property within which the proposed use will be located currently contains an existing hom.~e. Other than multi-family units, ~al uses are not allowed in the B-2"---~one. ~ the existing property is a legal nonconforming use. Land Use/Environmental ' Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 ~mm i I I, I1 1, I, Bedell Variances Planning Report July 6, 1994 Page 2 COMMENT: The zoning ordinance of the City of Mound addresses business uses allowed in the B-2 zone. The B-2 zone as well as all other zoning classifications regulates uses by either permitting them, allowing them as accessories, or allowing them through the issuance of a conditional use permit. In all cases, uses are referenced as being buildings. The proposed use could only be construed to be a building if it was placed on a permanent foundation with appropriate utility connections. Not classifying the trailer as a building perhaps presents even a larger issue than the requested variances. If a commercial use is not within a building, is it allowed at all? Prior to this issue being reviewed by the City Council, staff will seek comments on this issue from the City Attorney. Setting the issue of trailer vs. building aside for the moment, the proposed use can only occur if the City is willing to grant a variety of variances. Variances involved include recognition of the existing undersized lot, recognition of the setback variances for the existing principal structure, a hardcover variance, variances from the nonconforming use provisions contained in the City Code, and shoreland setback variances. Each of these is reviewed as follows: Recognition of Existing Variances: The subject lot has a total area of 15,020 square feet. Within the B-2 zone, lots are required to have a minimum of 20,000 square feet of area resulting in a required lot area variance of 4,980 square feet. The existing use on the property is a residential dwelling. The existing location of the dwelling and decks on the property are not in compliance with a number of setbacks including the lakeshore setback. Hardcover: Until Mound prepares and receives approval of a stormwater management plan, hardcover in commercial areas is limited to 30%. Virtually all of the hardcover on the subject site results from the existing residential use. The total hardcover on the site is approximately 44%. Nonconforming Use Provisions: Since the subject site is currently a nonconforming use, it is subject to the provisions found in Section 350:420 of the Zoning Code. Specifically, Subdivision 1 of that section states, "Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Chapter may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date." Because of this provision, nonconforming uses are not allowed to be expanded or intensified without issuance of a variance. Shoreland Standards: Mound's Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for setbacks less than 50 feet from the ordinary high water line for residential water oriented accessory structures. The shoreland provisions do not allow encroachments for commercial operations. Therefore, if this use is to be placed closer than 50 feet, a setback variance would be necessary. The proposed location is approximately 19 feet from the OHW resulting in a variance of 31 feet. Bedell Variances Planning Report July 6, 1994 Page Three RECOMMENDATION: The proposed use is inconsistent with the provisions of the Mound Zoning Code as evidenced by the number of variances required. In granting any variances, the City has to render a finding that the proposal should be allowed due to hardship or practical difficulty. Economics is not a determining factor in the granting of variances. The proposed use expands and intensifies an existing non-conforming use by adding a separate commercial use on a portion of the property. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed variances as the proposal is inconsistent with the Zoning Code including Section 350:530, Subd. 1 (Variance Criteria) and Section 350:420 (Non-conforming Uses). If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is further recommended that the City issue an order calling for removal of the trailer that has been moved onto the property. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed use and the corresponding variances, it is suggested that such approval be subject to approval of all boat docking by the Water Patrol. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: ? Di~lribudon; City Planner Public Works City Engineer a, DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case No._~.~c~~ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property 1+801 Shoreline Dr,, Lot 1;2.. end ~ Skarp's East Lawn Addition ? "bning I~strict B-2 O~vner's Name James E. & Sally Owner's Address 2625 Wilshire Applicant's Name (if omar man owner) Steve~ M, Address 1+801 Shoreline Dr.~ 1. Use of Property: Bedell Blvd,, Mound Bedell Mound, MN. Mo und ~ MN Bl~k PIDNo. 13-117-21+ 1+1+ 00~2 Residential Day Phone ~72-1959 Day Phone 1+72-2706 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (>t 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.): Seasonal operation of a snack shop from a trailer on T,,O~ 3 Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Ca~ No. e Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonir district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): front yard setback, sq ft of lot under minimum, and hsrdcover SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( hl S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: at ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq fl sq fl sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to aH regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No tX). If no, specify each non-conforming use: zoned B-2 and used residential Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (z:). ff yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes No (). If yes, explain: property to north tsken by County for ro~d and on e~t slde ses was put in 30' inside of platted shoreline Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No 6'0. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? A1 & Alma's, former Grimm's Store bldg., Minnesoftub BldE.~ Mtka Boat Renta? Small Engine Clinic BIdg.~ Chapm~n Place, Bartlett Townhouses,Langdon Court Apts., Netka Apts., Tonka Alano, Longpre Bldg. plus dozen's more. 9. Commenu: 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, '" ')wner'$ $,,natur~~> Date Date CITY OF MOUND NAME: ADORES,q: ,~/ . EXISTING LOT AREA_ /.5', 020 _~ EXISTING LOT AREA. Ib"~'02o _~ ' HARDC'OVER C~,LCULATIONS SQ FT X 30% = ~S~O' SQFT X 15% = 225'.7 LENGTH -' WIDTH HOUSE: 50.5' 0e~ ~ 9,6 x z'L~ = ~Z~Z.. 2_ . x .. s.? = E: ~ x ~.~ = · ~r~.~ ..' 'TOTAL D~VEWAY ZZ D, ECK: ~ 5. ~ .', TOTAL DECK OTHER: TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER~'~eeed'eeeeeeer*ee*e*ee*eeeeeee*. ~ % .... . ....... ~'.~.: . '. , , MEET8 LOT OOVEP~. GE REQUII~EMENT~ d£ol :.. / 7/ ¢¢/o ...: 6/1/9~ Ju# City of Mound 53~1 Maywood Rd. Mound, Mtnnesota5536~ COPIES DISTRIBUTED TO: - Fran Clark - Mark Koe§ler - Paul Sivanich, Hennepin Count Env. Health done 6/3/94 pj On property my family owns at ~801 ShoreIine Dr., Mound~ MN~ I am opening a snack shop. This business will be run from a 8' x 16' Trailer facing the Seton channel and serve boaters from 2 docks. I will be selling pop~ mix~ ice~ prepackaged snacks, candy, cigarettes, etc. Enclosed please find photo and survey with trailer location penciled in. Any questions pleese call me at $72-2706 JUN 1 ~ Certificate of Survey for James Bedell in Lots 1,2 and 3, ikarp's East Lawn Hennepin County, Minnesota · ®: denotes Iron marker found o: denotes iron marker set LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: L~ts I and 2 of "Skarp's East Lawn", excepting and reserving therefrom that part described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 2; thence Southeasterly along the Southwesterly boundary line of said Lot 2.a distance of 100 feet to a point; thence Northeasterly along a line which runs at an angle of 81 degrees 27 minutes to the left from said Southwesterly boundary line to a point Intersecting the Southerly line of County Road No. t5 (formerly County Road No. 7); thence Southwesterly along said Southerly line to the point of beginning; Also that part of Lot 3 of 'Skarp's East Lawn' described as follows: Commencing at a point on the Northwesterly line of said lot distant 22.2 feet Southwesterly from the' Northwesterly corner of said lot; thence Southeasterly 35 feet to a point which is. distant 22 feet Southwesterly from the Northeasterly line of said lot; thence Southeasterly at an angle to the right of 48 degrees 34 minutes a distance of $0.6 feet; thence Southeasterly parallel wlth:the.:Northeasterly line of said lot a distance of 30 feet; thence Northeasterly on a line which if extended would Intersect the Northeasterly line of said lot an a point dtstant'g5.$ feet Southeasterly from the Northwesterly corner of said lot a distance of 28 feet and which point Is the point of beginning.of the land to be des- cribed; thence Southwesterly to a point In the Southwesterly line of said lot distant 103.6 feet Southeasterly from the Southwesterl'y corner thereof; thence Southeasterly along the Southwesterly line of said lot to the Southeasterly corner of said.lot; thence Northeasterly to the Northeasterly corner of said lot; thence Northwesterly along the North- easterly line of said lot ~o a point distant 9S.6 feet Southeasterly from the Northwesterly corner of said lot; thenRe Southwesterly to the point of.beginning; .:,- ~.-* %.. This survey shows the location of all existing buildings and visible ~badd- cover", it does not purport to show'any other Improvements or encroachments. COPY FOR PLACE ~A~';;~ a, ~,~rm,~r m.~n. ~. m * Pemi t Nu~r LICENSES - -- SAMPLE~ FOR- LABORATORy A"~ALYSt$ --. _ ................ , ......... CdmmentS- CITY OF MOUND INSPECTION NOTICE M T W TH F [] FOOTING C] FRAMING [3 INSULATION 0 WALLBOARD [] PROGRESS I-] FINAL ~ COMMENTS: [3 PLUMBING ROUGH-IN [] PLUMBING FINAL 0 MECHANICAL PHONE # ~'f"~""~ 13 FIREPLACE AT THROAT 13 FIREPLACE FINAL [] DEMOUTION PHONE # o01TE INSPECTION RADING/EXCAV. MPLAINT LLOW-UP ~ l~5:~t.~ WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED PHOTO TAKEN CORRECT WORK & PROCEED CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING ,~ORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN TOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS Call for the next ,nspectlon~ ~,~n(~e~ (~ Owner/Contractor on s~te . ,//'"'~~ t.t~3~_,,~.x._y~,~ Inspector ~~k~~, 472-0600 Yellow Copy/Site Nol~ce V~nite Copy/Inspector's File 3o 1 Conversation Record CONVERSATION ~~~~~~/~///~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~///~//~~~///~~/~//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~1~~~~~~ J~ J · ! J, I! !l; J, Existing Lot Width SETBACKS RZQUlRED: PRINCIP~ BUILDIN9 FRONT:NS g]~ · FRONT: N S g W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S g W SIDE: N S E W PEAR: N S E W LAKE S HOPE: ACCESSORY BUILDING 4' 9r §' SO' Imeasur~4 from O.H.W.I SIDE: SIDE: REAR: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILD~ I FRONT1 FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S g W SIDE~ N S · W ACCESSORY BUILDING REAR, LAK~SHOPE IS CONFORHING? YES $~lVlSlO~'O~ LO¥S CONFORM? YES NO '1 ,~ $Og?~ L:~I TRACT A / & PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 1643 HERON LANE, LOT I & N 1/2 OF LOT 2, BLOCK 19, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0061, P&Z CASE #94-45 WHEREAS, the owners, Kevin Wildes, Darryl Dillon, and Carolyn Dillon, have applied for recognition of a 2,187.5 square foot lot area variance and front yard setback variances to the deck, house, and detached garage, in order to replace an existing nonconforming deck, 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 to Heron Lane, a 20 foot front yard setback to Woodland Road, 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the deck location is limited due to the existing electrical service lines, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant approval of a variance to replace an existing 10' x 12' deck with a new 12' x 16' deck. The following variances are recognized: 1. Lot area variance of 2,187.5 square feet to the required 10,000. A 5 foot front yard setback variance to the dwelling to the required 20 foot setback. 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 12' x 16' deck. oo5' Proposed Resolution #94-45, Wildes & Dillon Page 2 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 1 and North 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 19, Shadywood Point. 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 JULY 11, 1994 CASE #94-45: KEVIN WILDES, DARRYL AND CAROLYN DILLON, 1643 HERON LANE, LOT 1 & N 1/2 OF LOT 2, BLOCK 19, SHADYW00D POINT, PID #13-117-2411 0061. VARIANCE FOR DECK, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance in order to replace an existing non-conforming deck. A 20' setback is required to Woodland Road. According to the site plan the deck house and garage are all non-conforming. This property is also non-conforming to lot area by 2,187.5 sq. ft. Staff has discussed with the applicant the option of installing a landing and stairway directly off of the door from the upper level and then rebuilding the deck in a conforming location. However, the deck location appears to be limited due to the existing electrical service lines. Staff recom.rnended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a replacement deck as requested by the applicant. The following variances are recognized: 1. 2,187.5 sq. ft. lot area variance to the required 10,000. 2. A 5' variance from the required 20' front yard setback to the existing dwelling. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 26, 1994. 11 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of July 11, 1994 TO: FROM: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official -,~¢)1,~ ~ · SUBJECT: Variance to Replace Deck APPLICANT: Kevin Wildes, Darryl and Carolyn Dillon CASE NO. 94-45 LOCATION: 1643 Heron Lane, Lot 1 and the north half of lot 2, Block 19, Shadywood Point, PID #13-117-24 11 0061 ZONING: Rol BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance in order to replace an existing non-conforming deck. A 20' setback is required to Woodland Road. According to the site plan the deck house and garage are all non-conforming. This property is also non-conforming to lot area by 2,187.5'. Staff has discussed with the applicant the option of installing a landing and stairway directly off of the door from the upper level and then rebuilding the deck in a conforming location. However, the deck location appears to be limited due to the existing electrical service lines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a replacement deck as requested by the applicant. The following variances are recognized: 2,187.5' variance to the required 10,000 square feet of lot area. A 5' variance from the required 20' front yard setback to the existing dwelling. printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0(~)0, Fax: 472.-0~20 Planning Commission Date: 4 ~9 ~..Jq City Council Date: --.~ ~( t i--04 Application Fee: $50.00 Distribution; City Planner ~ Public Works City Engineer I I DNR Other Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ! ~ ~"~' Addition ,k~ k '2~,,,' '<u.4~ .~J ~"';¢~., ? PID NO. 7.oning District ~-~-- I Use of Property: r~..~; Owner's Owner's Address <'- ' Applicant's Name (if other than owner) "-" Address Day Phone 1. 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.): · '" ' '~(' ~ ~,~ ~ "" *,r~, :'..~ . ~ Vm'i~ce Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. e Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonir. district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason, for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S~ ~W ) ft. ~:]~'~" ft. 0)~ ft. Side Yard: ( N~)E W ) ft. (, '" ft. O~,~ ft~ Side Yard: (~}S E W~x) /~2. D '"ft. l-~i/ ft. Rear Yard: (NS E(._W~) ft. $ ft. &K ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~O ft. ~Z, ~ ft. ft. LotSize: lOgTO sqft 7gt.~ sqft ~,-3 sqft Hardcover: ,,q,3/-4 4 sq ft ,~ ?22 ~ (:,'~. sq ft o K 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? C') too narrow ( ) topography {54. too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape )soil ~) existing situation ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No t~ If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No (). If yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No {X,~. 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. ' ~wner's Signature ?C~-¥ ;'~;~' (e~ Applicant's Signature ;."~ ~ Date So II NAME: ADDRESS: CITY OF MOUND EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA = I HOUSE: LENGTH WIDTH X = X = GARAGE: TOTAL HOUSE ******************* 2~' x ~,v = 57¢ X = DRIVEWAY: TOTAL GARAGE ****************** ~ x 4'= '.~ TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***** ************ DECK: (if imperviod~ ?~ surface under deck = 100%) OTHER: TOTAL DECK @ /. ~ ~(' - -- ~"~' TOTAL~ OTHER //Y TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* ER~(OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I 2¥ ~YES__NO BY: · CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY " *"~ ..'J. CALVIN 'BARKER Mu~.' Reg. ,. 2449 .'" , Llc'e_~sed. 3]i E. l,ake St. TA 3-0163 t; ':t. . .. I '¥ .I ' Ill ,I, i I l, II n~ I Design Works (R), Knox Lumber, #217 Hopkins, MN 6/14/94 19:55 The materials in this deck will cost $1317.18 This Price does not include any Special Order Items. ,,o.,. , ~ E:)7 ' +/- SIDe': LAY~SHOItE FRONT FRO~? SIDE: SIDE: ~ ~SHO~ CONFOI~qXNG ? YES ACCESSORY BUILDING ,~ ~ ~ iff ' PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE DWELLING AT 5001 AVON DRi'VE, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID #24-117-24 14 0040 P&Z CASE #94-46 WHEREAS, the owner, Gary Parendo, has applied for variances in order to construct an addition over the existing garage that does not alter the existing footprint, and an addition which expands the footprint and is nonconforming by 26.7' to the required 30' front yard setback to Avon Drive. WHEREAS, the front yard encroachment is minimized due to the fact that Avon Drive is unimproved open green sPace, nd is unlikely to be improved in the future, and; ~-~ ~1~ ' ~ WHEREAS, there is an existing garage that is setback closer to Avon Drive than the proposed addition. The garage addition was approved for this location by City Council Resolution #68-156 and cites topography as a limiting condition for development of this site, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum 60 foot frontage on an improved right-of-way, 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, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant variances as listed below to allow expansion of the dwelling as noted on the plans received June 22, 1994, subject to the following conditions' Variance to recognize the existing nonconforming lot frontage on an improved right-of-way of zero feet. b,° Variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 3.3' to the dwelling. The deck setback of 50 feet to the ordinary high water shall be confirmed by the surveyor prior to building permit issuance. Proposed Resolution t194-46, Parendo 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 the following: ao 24' x 20' 1-1/2 story addition above existing attached garage, bedrooms, and bathroom. b. 24' x 14' 1 story dining room addition. c. 24' x 12' deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 1, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit B. 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 ,11 Ii I , 11 .$ 11.1 1a. '?-4.0 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 CASE//94-46; GARY PARENDO, 5001 AVON DRIVE, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID #24-117-2414 0040. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking variances in order to construct additions on the property. One addition is over the existing garage that does not alter the existing footprint. The other is an expansion of the footprint and is non-conforming by 26.7' to the required 30' front yard setback to Avon Drive. This encroachment is minimized due to the fact that Avon is unimproved open green space and is unlikely to be improved in the future. In addition, there is an existing garage that is setback closer to Avon Drive than the proposed addition. The garage was approved for this location by City Council Resolution #68-156, that cites topography as a limiting condition for development of this site. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of variances as listed for the expansion of the home as noted on the plans received June 22, 1994. 1, Variance of 60' to the required 60' lot width. 2. Variance of 26.70' to the required 30' front yard setback. The setback from the proposed deck to the ordinary high water was questioned. The applicant stated that he can have the surveyor confirm that the deck will meet the 50 foot setback. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Crum to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the condition that the deck setback to the ordinary high water be confirmed by the surveyor. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 26, 1994. 11 o20 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of July 11, 1994 TO' FROM: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official SUBJECT: Variance Request for Addition APPLICANT: Gary Parendo CASE NO. 94-46 LOCATION: 5001 Avon Drive, Lot 1, Block 3, Shirley Hills, Unit B, PID //24-117-24-14-0040 ZONING: R-1 BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking variances in order to construct additions on the property. One addition is over the existing garage that does not alter the existing footprint. The other is an expansion of the footprint and is non-conforming by 26.7' to the required 30' front yard setback to Avon Drive. This encroachment is minimized due to the fact that Avon is unimproved open greenspace and is unlikely to be improved in the future in this location. In addition, there is an existing garage that is setback closer to Avon Drive than the proposed addition. The garage was approved for this location by City Council Resolution //68-156, that cites topography as a limiting condition for development of this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of variances as listed for the expansion of the home as noted on the plans received June 22, 1994. Variance of 60' to the required 60' lot width. Variance of 26.70' to the required 30' front yard setback. 3o 1 yARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: '~ ~ Application Fee: $~0.00 City Planner II Public Works City Engineer t t DNR Other Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Lot t Addition ff' ~ l l~C~"ff t41c c-~ ld ru , 'V ~ PID No. 2c[-I/? - 7--c{ /r'4' ov t(o zoning msu4a Owner's Name Owner's Address Use of Property: 72.,~ 5 t o a ~ w-, A t_ t2 a- tV ~ t::, Day Phone ~ 2-9- z6o t 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 resoIutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 2'4 ~Zo ) Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. .3. 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: '"Fo ~equired requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: A,:~ crn:~-Si~ Yard: ,% o ,T~o~.gid~ Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: SEW) ft. ft. ft. EW) 50 ft. -5, '3 ft. ~r6, r/ ft. ew) ft. ?.'3 ft. ft. (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: (42 ~ ft. 0 ft. $ (") ft. Lot Size: SCl ft I~, ~OOsq ft oF-~- sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft - 4. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ¥0 shape ( ) other: specify Tt~47" Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the las,' after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No '(X5. ff yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No ('~. If yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: /9pp j 'r't o~,v 5 .Z / I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature ~' Date Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SQFT X 30% = ~(=qO SQFT X 15% = '~'"2'° HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) OTHER: LENGTH WIDTH X X X TOTAL HOUSE * X X TOTAL GARAGE X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY X X TOTAL DECK * * * TOTAL DECK @ 50% X X TOTAL OTHER * * TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ***** ************** UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BY: DATE: 1 /o Vt./ I ~'~ ] .~YES___NO ! I I ! I m I'~ o_ 0 o~-'~ 'Z.4.0 ~[n i 68-~6 8-15-6~ RESOLUTION NO. 68-1~6 RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE (Garage Placement) (Lot 1, Block ), Shirley Hills Unit B) W~RREAS, the owner of Lot 1, Block ), Shirley Hills Unit B has asked for a variance in setback for garage, and .WHEREAS, the contour of the land limits the location of the garage, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the variance be granted, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA ~ That the 20' setback for garage be waived. Adopted by the Council this 13th day of August, 1968. ADDRESS: -- · .~O~{E: , REQUI~D .... ~ EXISTING Required ~t Wldth:l{~J~ [ . (frontage ~a in ~ptoved Dblic street) A~CESSORY BUILDING FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W 4' O~ ~' SIDE: N $ E W 4' or ~' REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: }Q' Imeasured f~gm O.H.W,J EXISTING AND{OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: FRONT: FRONT: SIDE: SIDE: REAR: J. AKESHORE: ACCESSORY BUILDING IS ~OPERTY CONFORRXNG? YES BY: ~.~"~ ]k~ MILL THE PROPOSED II~RO~/EMESTS CONFORI/? YES ~. ,~ ,, .~- /__J__ NO PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & ~), BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, PID #24-117-24 42 0016 P&Z CASE #94-49 WHEREAS, the owners, Dean and Julie Steffen, have applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the dwelling, including a 3 foot front yard setback variance, and a 4 foot side yard setback variance, to allow construction of a conforming 20' x 22' detached garage, and: WHEREAS, the applicants are proposing to remove an existing nonconforming 13' x 23' garage, and; WHEREAS, the proposed improvements, including the garage and driveway, combined with existing structures result in a total hardcover of 31.5% exceeding the maximum allowed by 1.5%. It appears the driveway area can be reduced to stay within the 30%, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; /~ WHER/F~S, the./PAe~ning Co?~mission has/sug~gested the~ould tak.~i~to .~ ~con~i~:~rati~ th~0_d~nt pX~l~f~ s~L~~tur~ on th'~LLh. P~ellir~/,' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 17 feet, and the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 2 feet to allow construction of a conforming 20' x 22' detached garage, subject to the total amount of impervious surface coverage not to exceed 30%. 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 #94-49, Steffen Page 2 m 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 20' x 22' one story detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 8 and 9, Block 36, Wychwood. 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. o~ NAME: ADDRESS: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS JUL 2 1 ~ EX,ST~.G LOT AREA ~ 0 O0 so ~T x 3o~ = HOUSE: GARAGE: LENGTH WIDTH ,- x _- X TOTAL HOUSE TOTAL GARAGE ****************** I~. 7o- 0 ! I DRIVEWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) ~.~, (.,, x x TOTAL DRIVEWAY x X TOTAL DECK * * * TOTAL DECK @ ~-.~ x X TOTAL OTHER * * TOTAL PROPOSED UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * /~/YES...NO MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 CASE//94-49: DEAN AND JULIE STEFFEN, 2873CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36, .WYCHWOOD, PID//24-117-2442 0016. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. Mark Koegler, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. The applicants are proposing to remove an existing nonconforming garage and replace it with a 20' x 22' detached garage and new driveway. The proposed garage meets all setback requirements. The existing home is a legal nonconforming structure due to a 17 foot front yard setback to the required 20 foot setback, and a 2 foot side yard setback to the required 6 foot required. The proposed improvements, combined with existing structures result in a total hardcover of 31.5% exceeding the maximum allowed by 1.5%. It appears the driveway area can be reduced to stay within the 30%. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval (recognition) of the front and side yard variances for the existing home in order to allow construction of a new conforming garage. This approval is conditioned upon the applicants reducing the amount of driveway area to stay within the 30% maximum impervious cover allowed. Mueller expressed a concern about future expansion of the dwelling, and noted that he would be in favor of granting a variance to hardcover due to the adjacent public green spaces. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission requested that the resolution denote that the adjacent public green spaces be taken into consideration for future expansion onto the dwelling. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 26, 1994. 11 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 6, 1994 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Dean C. and Julie A. Steffen CASE NUMBER: 94-49 HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5s LOCATION: 2873 Cambridge Lane EXISTING ZONING: R-la COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants are proposing to remove an existing non-conforming garage and replace it with a 20' x 22' garage and new driveway. The proposed garage meets all ordinance setback requirements. The existing home is a legal non-conforming structure due to a 17 foot front yard setback (20' required) and a 2 foot side yard setback abutting a fire lane (6' required). The existing garage that will be removed has a 1' front setback. COMMENT: In addition to the proposed garage, the applicants are also proposing to construct a new driveway area and an additional parking area behind the new garage. As proposed, the improvements combined with existing structures on the property result in a total hardcover of 31.5% which exceeds the ordinance maximum by 1.5%. It appears that the driveway and/or additional parking area can be reduced to stay within the 30% impervious surface requirement of the ordinance. Because of the positioning of the existing home, there is ample lot area to possibly accommodate additions to the home in the future. The applicants should be aware that the 30% impervious surfacing is the maximum allowed by the Mound Zoning Code. Should the current owners of the home or subsequent owners of the home desire to add onto the existing structure, such approval is likely to be conditioned upon removal of additional portions of the driveway. Land Use / Environmental * Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439" (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 Steffen Variance Planning Report July 6, 1994 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval (recognition) of the front and side yard variances for the existing home in order to allow construction of a new conforming garage. This approval is conditioned upon the applicants reducing the amount of driveway area to stay within the 30% maximum impervious cover allowed. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~ City Planner t, Public Works City Engineer 1' DNR Other Please type or print the foHowin~ information: Address of Subject Property ~...._~ '1 '~ Block Addition L, y H OoP PID No. Zoning District Owner's Name Use of Property: 'Y~ LIE/~. %'I-~g:FEajDay Phone Owner's Address 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 property? ( ) yes,,}q'no, ff yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. '~EmOYE Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~l - l Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Ca~ No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yea (), No {~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing,) Front Yard: ( N SEw ) °'~0 ft. [:~- ft. Side Yard: (,,,N ~ W ) ~) ft. ~ ft. Side Yard: R~ Y~d: ( N S E W) ~eside: ( N S E W ) ~. ft. : (NSEW) S~t Fron~ge: H~d~ver: VARIANCE - fi. fi. fi. fi. sqft ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No,j~. 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 ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( )soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify Please describe: $03'1 Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lar after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes J~, No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: 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? e L 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 Date Date J, n · I I, II I I CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA ~ SQ FT X 30% = q,[~L~O SQFT X ss% = I,'~50 I HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) LENGTH WIDTH x = i! tzt. G X = X TOTAL HOUSE 2_.0 x 8_2. = ~qO X = TOTAL GARAGE '''*'''*''*'''''.. qO x &~ --I, IZ.O X TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** ~ x j~ = I~ X = TOTAL DECK ********'**** I ~-~ TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** S,8 x ~P_.. = ~,q X = TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .... YES~-~_NO J ! II I ,il, ,11 J 98 q~. ROOF. 5OF~T. PE~4 h~,ST F_..R. ~OOR FOUN {3~x,TlON ~ 20'-0" ,p. i PROJECT DATE ~o/1'7 SCA!F I//.j.,' .= I "C)" DRAWN 7839 Elm Street Minneapolis, MN 55432 (612) 571--0260 J i {,'.-0' Rp O?~NIN~, FO~ ~.X~ iV~U D 51L-L. FRONT F~\l kl 5 ~LF___v~T~0~.I ~n n a i l, ,11 Il I ADDRESS: ~. . ~. I ~ . ZONEI . , R~QUIRED ~ ~ EXISTING__ I, _J ~isting ~t Width / , Depth SETBACKS REQOXRED: FRONT* N ~W ACCESSORY BUILDING/ SXD~ N~E W ~t N S EXIBTYNG AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDXN~G I lS ~~R~ ~N~XNG? YgS A~'~SSORY BUILDING ~ 4~ FRONTz N S~ ~~ FRONT: N S l[ N SIDE* E W REAR: N S B W LAKE SHORE ~ ~o": ~ ~ PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO HARDCOVER, AND TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NOI~ICONFORMING SETBACKS AND LOT AREA TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 5914 FAIRFIELD ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 6, MINNESOTA SUMMER BAPTIST ASSEMBLY, PID #23-117-24 42 0075, P&Z CASE #94-50 WHEREAS, the owners, Lois Jean and Roy Westergaard, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming lot area of 4,820 square feet, an existing nonconforming 1.5' side yard setback to the dwelling, and a variance to impervious surface coverage to construct a 16 x 22' one story detached garage, and; WHEREAS, due to the small lot size, a variance will inevitably be needed in order to construct a garage and to allow reasonable use of the property, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both Fairfield and Meadow, a 6 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance request allowing a maximum of 40 percent hardcover due to the small lot size. Staff was directed to work with the applicant to reduce the impervious surface coverage to 40 percent, and; WHEREAS, after meeting with the Building Official, the applicant's have modified their proposal to reduce existing driveway coverage in order to reduce the amount of impervious surface coverage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant the following variances to allow construction of a 16' x 22' detached garage, as follows: aJ Variance for side yard setback to the principal dwelling of 1.5 feet to the required 6 foot setback. Variance for lot area of 4,820 square feet to the required 6,000 square feet. Variance to impervious surface coverage not to exceed 41%, or 1,980 square feet, according to the plan attached as Exhibit A. Proposed Resolution #94-50, Westergaard 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 16' x 22' detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 6, Block 6, Minnesota Summer Baptist Assembly. 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. 3050 EXHIBIT ~A~ (p. 1 of 2) (p. 2 of 2) MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 CASE #94-5Q LOIS JEAN WESTERGAARD, 5914 FAIRFIELD ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 6, MINNESOTA SUMMER BAPTIST ASSEMBLY, PID #23-117-2442 0075. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a 16 x 22' one story garage in a conforming location. The following nonconformities exist with regard to dwelling: EXISTING REQUIRED. VARIANCE Front (W) 20.5' 20' Okay Front (S) 24' 20' Okay Side (N) 1.5' 6' 4.5' Rear (E) 23' 15' Okay Hardcover* 1949 sf 1445 sf 504 sf *Proposed Hardcover= -Surveyors Existing Calculations 1949 - Proposed Garage 16 x 22' 352 - Staff's Estimate of Proposed Driveway 296 - Less Removal of Concrete Slab (56) - Total Proposed Hardcover 2541 or Amount Over 1096 or 53% 13% With the layout of the existing and proposed driveway the hardcover is excessive and inconsistent with the ordinance. The Planning Commission may wish to consider an alternate location for the driveway that creates less hardcover, and also explore the possibility of further reduction of hardcover in other areas. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed by the applicant due to excessive hardcover. An alternative is to table the request to give the applicant time to work with staff to reduce the hardcover to a more reasonable percentage, and bring the case back to the Planning Commission for additional review. MOTION made by Voss to table the request. The motion died due to lack of a second, The Commission agreed that the applicant should have the opportunity to work with staff to reduce the hardcover, however, they did not want to delay any action by the Council. It was noted that due to the small lot size, a variance will inevitably need to be granted. A suitable hardcover variance figure was discussed. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance request allowing a maximum of 40 percent hardcover due to the small lot size. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 26, 1994. 3053 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF JULY 11, 1994 TO: FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION, APPLICANT AND STAFF JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT ONE STORY GARAGE APPLICANT: LOIS JEAN WESTERGAARD CASE NO: 94-50 LOCATION' 5914 FAIRFIELD ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 6, MN. SUMMER BAPTIST ASSEMBLY, PID//23-117-24 42 0075. ZONING: R-2 BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a 16 x 22' one story garage in a conforming location. The following non-conformities exist with this property with regard to setbacks to the dwelling lot area and hardcover. EXISTING REQUIRED VARIANCE Front (W) 20.5' 20' Okay Front (S) 24' 20' Okay Side (N) 1.5' 6' 4.5' Rear (E) 23' 15' Okay Hardcover 1949 1445 504 SF over STAFF REPORT - WESTERGAARD - PAGE 2 Proposed. Hardcover_' - Surveyors Existing Calculations, + 1949 sf - Proposed Garage 16 x 22' + 352 sf - Staff's Estimate of Proposed Driveway + 296 sf - Less Removal of Concrete Slab .- §6 sf - Total Proposed Hardcover + 2541 sf 53% Amount Over 1096 sf COMMENTS With the layout of the existing and proposed driveway the hardcover is excessive and inconsistant with the ordinance. The Planning Commission may wish to consider an alternate location for the driveway that creates less hardcover, and also explore the possibility of further reduction of hardcover in other areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed by the applicant due to excessive hardcover. An alternative is to table the request to give the applicant time to work with staff to reduce the hard¢over to a more reasonable percentage, and bring the case back to the Planning Commission for additional review. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: City Planner City Engineer Other Public Works DNR Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q4-50 ,, Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property _,~""q/l{ Lot 6,, Block (~ Pm No. d?- Il? -q2-OOTff' Adrfifion T~ t M l~. 5ct ~'D't~e r4 ft ccp . t, g'g ~ m · Zoning District Owner's Name Owner's Address Use of Property: ~a cd ~o 5 7~.e g~ G I'7t9 RD Day Phone Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure f6r 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.): c,~..o_. ..,'-¢-,:~.4..,..,, o,.-,.,,~ l~ x. aa a I i ,11 Ii 1, Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming (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. Side Yard: ([~,S E W ) ft. ft. Side Yard: ~S E W ) ~,' ft. I, ~' ft. "~, ~ / Rear Yard: E W ) ft. ft. Lakeside: ( bl S E W ) ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. Lot Size: 6:, Or~ sq ft 4 ~, 7-0 sq ft I I qvD Hardcover: ! ~ ~q ft I q~q sq ft 121r-~' ft* ft. ft. ft. fi. ft. ft. sqft sqfl 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? ixtoo narrow too small too shallow Please describe: ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify $05? Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. e Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lane 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? No i~. If yes, explain: yes (), ge Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition9. 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 3o s 0.~_g ~) Date _ _ , -- ~o&~- Survey Requ~[red ~ot llt. dth: ' / ' I (~ronta~e o~ an ~proved ~bl c Itrle~) ACCESSORY BUILDXNq ~RONT: N S I ~l~ ~ SXDE:(._.~S Z W Or e, SIDE: N S E W 4' or §' ~I~SHOI~: 50' (measured from O,flTW.) FRONT: N · · W FRONTI NO E W SIDEI N S g W SIDEr N S E W ~AR I N S g W LAF~ SHORE z WELL THE PJ~OPOSED IMPROV~NTS CONFOI~? YES. NO PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DECK AT 3058 BRIGHTON COMMONS, LOT 21 & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, AND TRACT C OF RLS 1149, PID #24-117-24 43 0091, P&Z CASE #94-52 WHEREAS, the owner, Steve Gerhardson, has applied for a variance to allow an 8' x 14' expansion of an existing deck with a nonconforming setback to the front property line of 1 2 feet to the required 20 foot setback, and; WHEREAS, all other aspects of this case are conforming to the ordinance. WHEREAS, the proposed deck is not a minimum situation, however, the impact of the nonconforming setback is minimized by the expansive boulevard. The street of Brighton Commons is unlikely to be widened unless a cul-de-sac is installed in the future, and; WHEREAS, the deck was existing when the applicant purchased the property, and there is no permit history for the existing nonconforming deck, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA 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, 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 of the deck expansion as the deck is a reasonable use of the property and there is minimal impact to the nonconforming setback due to the 28' + boulevard, and the deck will be setback approximately 41' to the curb of the street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 12 feet to the required 20 foot setback to allow an 8' x 11' expansion onto the deck. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution #94-52, Gerhardson Page 2 J 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 8' x 11' expansion onto the existing nonconforming deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 21 and the south 20 feet of Lot 22 in Block 15 of Arden according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said Hennepin County. Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 1149, Files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County. 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 JULY 11, 1994 CASE 894-52.; STEVEN GERHARDSON, 3058 BRIGHTON COMMONS, LOT 21 & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, AND TRACT C OF RLS 1149, PID #24-117-2443 0091. VARIANCE FOR DECK.. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. This site is located in the R-lA zoning district which requires a lot area of 6000 square feet, a lot width of 40' and setback of 20' to the front 10' to the sides and 15' to the rear. The applicant is seeking a permit to expand the existing deck in a non-conforming location in the front yard. As shown on the site plan, an area of 8' x 14' is to be added. The actual setback from the deck is 12' to the front property line. The required setback is 20', resulting in a variance of 8' for both the existing and proposed deck. All other aspects of this case are conforming to the ordinance. The proposed deck is not a minimum situation, however, the impact of the non-conforming setback is minimized by the expansive boulevard. The street of Brighton Commons is unlikely to be widened unless a cul-de-sac is installed in the future. In discussing this possibility with the city engineer, he was of the opinion this is a remote possibility. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the deck expansion as the deck is a reasonable use of the property and there is minimal impact to the nonconforming setback due to the 28'+ boulevard, and the deck will be setback approximately 41' to the curb of the street. The Commission confirmed with the applicant that the deck was existing when the property was purchased, and there is not permit history for the existing nonconforming deck. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Crum, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 26, 1994. 11 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF JULY 11, 1994 TO' FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION, APPLICANT AND STAFF JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A DECK APPLICANT: STEVEN A. GERHARDSON CASE NO' 94-52 LOCATION: 3058 BRIGHTON COMMONS, LOT 21 AND 1/2 OF LOT 22, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, PID. 24-117-24 43 0091 ZONING: R-lA BACKGROUND This site is located in the R-lA zoning district which requires a lot area of 6000 square feet, a lot width of 40' and setback of 20' to the front 10' to the sides and 15' to the rear. The applicant is seeking a permit to expand the existing deck in a non-conforming location in the front yard. As shown on the site plan, an area of 8' x 14' is to be added. The actual setback from the deck is 12' to the front property line. The required setback is 20', resulting in a variance of 8' for both the existing and proposed deck. All other aspects of this case are conforming to the ordinance. COMMENTS The proposed deck is not a minimum situation. However, the impact of the non- conforming setback is minimized by the expansive boulevard. The street of Brighton Commons is unlikely to be widened unless a cul-de-sac is installed in the future. In discussing this possibility with the city engineer, he was of the opinion this is a remote possibility. p~inted on recycled paper STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the deck expansion as the deck is a reasonable use of the property and there is minimal impact to the non-conforming setback due to the 28'+ boulevard. The deck will be setback approximately 41' to the curb of the street, J J · i J, ,11 iii VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: . (p 'L']"~ City Planner ~' Public Works City Engineer ti DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.__..~~"~- Addition ~¢~/~ Ei~W~ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property 30-5~ ~/'~9~.'7to.~/ C~rr/~cU.Y Lot 07/ + ~ o7)7- Block Use of Property: Applicant's Name (if other than owner). Day Phone Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~f'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.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoni~ district in which it is located? Yes (), Noj~ If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reaso, for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): e SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) FrontYard: (NSI~ 70' ft. 12''mcw< t. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N $ E W ) ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq fl scl fi VARIANCE fto fi* ft. ft* fro fte sqft sqft Does the pre~nt, use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes/$~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: ~n n a i i, Ii [ I Vm'iance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: x_ /25 Was, j,he hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No/~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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_~,-,~ ~~~~_ Date Applicant's Signature Date 3o'7/ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: ~x,s~,.~.o~ ^.~^ '7 '~ ~ I I~L ~Z~hCT C_, ' / ' - EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FT X 30% = SQFT X 15% = LENGTH HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: WIDTH X X TOTAL HOUSE ******************* TOTAL GARAGE ****************** 1'7- TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: ~Xd'~'Jll ~ (if imperviou~ surface under~oF deck = 100%) TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** 704 OTHER: X = X = TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * YES NO DATE: tV O IN I"V O :~ NO2/-/9. ~1 i I I I., ,n ii t3ENEIL, kL ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET ADDRESS: ~ ZONE' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~istin, ~t Width ~ / , Depth. SE?BACK8 REQUIRED: FRONT I N FRONT e~ I · I0,, C~ ' '" ] O / ~SHO~z 50' ;~aoured from BXXSTTNG AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: FRONT ~ N S I SXD,, S . . ~) , FRONT. N . . . SHO~ ~ ~SHO~ z OPER~ ~NFO~ING~ ~ ~ .. · ~P( I~N~S ~NFO~ YES. t! (93) ( 14' (~)? (f35)6 4.0 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR PDQ FOOD STORES 5550 THREE POINTS BLVD., LAFAYETTE PARK, LOTS 26 & 27, PID #13-117-24 22 0017 P&Z CASE #94-53 WHEREAS, the owner, PDQ Food Stores, has applied for a variance from the sign ordinance to replace an existing free-standing sign with one that exceeds the total allowable sign area for the B-1 zoning district by 32 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the proposed sign will total 80 square feet. The Mound Sign Ordinance allows businesses in this zone to have one free-standing sign per street frontage with such signs not to exceed 48 square feet in area, 25 feet in height, and they must meet a minimum setback of 10 feet from the street right-of-way, and; WHEREAS, the existing sign totals 64 square feet, and; WHEREAS, PDQ could technically have two free-standing signs, one on Three Points Blvd., and one on Commerce Blvd. with a total area of 96 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the applicant is willing to limit the property to only one free- standing sign, and; WHEREAS, The proposed sign will meet the setback and height requirements, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with the understanding that the City Council will review if the existing signage complies to the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a sign variance to allow the installation of one new free-standing sign for the PDQ site totalling 80 square feet in area and meeting height and setback requirements. In granting the variance, PDQ agrees that the approved sign will constitute the only free-standing sign to be erected on the premises. If PDQ or subsequent owners or operators desires to erect a second free-standing sign, such approval will be contingent upon the removal of the sign that is the subject of this variance and its replacement with one that complies with the size provisions of the Mound Sign Ordinance. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 1, 1994 CASE #g4-5.3; PDQ / UNIVERSAL SIGN, 5550THREE POINTS BLVD., LAFAYETTE PARK, LOTS 26 & 27, PID #13-117-2422 0017. SIGN VARIANCE. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the staff report. PDQ is requesting a variance from the sign ordinance to replace an existing free-standing sign with one that exceeds the total allowable sign area for the B-1 zoning district. The existing signs totals 64 square feet, and the proposed sign will total 80 square feet. The Mound Sign Ordinance allows businesses in this zone to have one free-standing sign per street frontage with such signs not to exceed 48 square feet in area, 25 feet in height, and they must meet a minimum setback of 10 feet from the street right-of-way. PDQ could technically have two free- standing signs, one on Three Points Blvd., and one on Commerce Blvd. with a total area of 96 square feet. The proposed sign will meet the setback and height requirements. The applicant is willing to agree to limit the property to only one free-standing sign. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested sign variance to allow the installation of one new free-standing sign for the PDQ site totalling 80 square feet in area and meeting height and setback requirements. In granting the variance, PDQ agrees that the approved sign will constitute the only free-standing sign to be erected on the premises. If PDQ or subsequent owners or operators desires to erect a second free-standing sign, such approval will be contingent upon the removal of the sign that is the subject of this variance and its replacement with one that complies with the size provisions of the Mound Sign Ordinance. Rick of Universal Signs was present to represent the applicant. Mueller questioned if all the other existing signage on the site is conforming. Staff noted that a permit was recently issued for the signage on the canopy. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the sign variance as recommended by staff, with the understanding that the City Council will review if the existing signage complies to the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 26, 1994. 11 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 6, 1994 SUBJECT: Sign Variance APPLICANT: PDQ Food Stores CASE NUMBER: 94-53 HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5u LOCATION: 5550 Three Points Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: General Commercial (B-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: PDQ is requesting a variance from the sign ordinance to replace an existing free-standing sign with one that exceeds the total allowable sign area for the B-2 zoning district. At the present time, PDQ has two signs mounted on one pole. The total area of the existing signs is approximately 64 square feet. The proposed sign has a total area of 80 square feet. COMMENT: The Mound Sign Ordinance allows businesses in the B-2 zone to have one free- standing sign per street frontage with such signs not to exceed 48 square feet in area, 25 feet in height and they must meet a minimum setback of 10 feet from the street right-of-way. In accordance with this section, PDQ could have two free-standing signs, one fronting on Three Points Boulevard and the other on Commerce Boulevard with a total free-standing sign area of 96 square feet. PDQ is proposing to have one sign identifying both the PDQ store and the Happy Garden Restaurant. The sign will be located on the existing pole, it will meet the ordinance setback requirements and it will meet the height requirements. The applicant is proposing that the size of the new sign be allowed to be 80 square feet and that they would further agree to limit the property to only one freestanding sign rather than the two allowed by the ordinance. Land Use 'Environmental · Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 PDQ Sign Variance Planning Report July 6, 1994 Page 2 Under the proposal, the total free standing sign area for the property would be 16 square feet less than that allowed if two signs were installed. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested sign variance to allow the installation of one new free-standing sign for the PDQ site totalling 80 square feet in area and meeting height and setback requirements. In granting the variance, PDQ agrees that the approved sign will constitute the only free-standing sign to be erected on the premises. If PDQ or subsequent owners or operators desires to erect a second free-standing sign, such approval will be contingent upon the removal of the sign that is the subject of this variance and its replacement with one that complies with the size provisions of the Mound Sign Ordinance. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $$364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution; City Planner Public Works City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property. 5550 Three Points Blvd. Lot Addition Zoning District Owner's Name Use of Property: P D Q Food Stores Owner's Address Block PID No. Retai 1 Day Phone 835-0300 5270 West 84th Street, Bloomington, MN 55437 Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Universal Sign Company Address 1033 Thomas Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 Day Phone 612-645-0223 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure ftr this property? ( ) yes, (9 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.): Remodel existing freestanding sign to include 2nd building tenant identification. ~rariance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonir district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reaso, for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): e SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (N~EW) 10 ft. 10 ft. 0 ft. Side Yard: iN~ ~iE 10 ft. 10 ft. 0 ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. 0 ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. 0 ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. 0 ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. 0 ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. 0 ft. Lot Size: scl ft sq ft 0 sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft 0 sq fi Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes O0, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation (X) other: specify Please describe: Code allows two freestanding signs of 48 Sq. Ft. each on this lot. To reduce visual clutter and maintain PDQ's new identity program, a variance is requested. The variance would allow only one freestanding sign of 80 Sq. Ft. This sign will maintain the existing height and setback requirements of the code. Var/ance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. 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: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No 0O. ff yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No 00. 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 S,gnatu /?>~ /~-'~t~ /~-~ X/~.,"~ Date Applicant's S]gnature~' ~J~~ Date SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION 5550 Three Points B1 vd. BUILDING OWNER P D Q Food Stores NAME OF APPLICANT Universal Sign Company (if other than owner) APPLICANT'S ADDRESS SIGN CONTRACTOR ZONE PHONE PHONE 1033 Thomas Avenue, St. Paul, MN, 55104 SAI'IE PLEASE INDICATE NUMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: being requested, see back): TYPE OF SIGN: wall mount 1 free standing/ SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: 10 ft high x 8 645-0223 PHONE (if more than one wall sign is temporary 1 permanent ' 80 ' sq ft ft wide : , , SEASONAL SIGN: DATES TO BE ERECTED: FROM TO / FREE STANDING: Now HIGH WILL SIGN BE FROM GROUND LEVEL TO THE TOP? 25' WALL SIGN: WALL AREA: ft high x ft wide NUMBER OF EXISTING WALL SIGNS: LIST SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EACH EXISTING SIGN: sq f* TOTAL SQ. FT. OF ALL EXISTING WALL SIGNS: PERCENTAGE OF WALL AREACOVERED BY SIGNS: DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.): See drawign sq ft percent June 21, 1994 Date IRECEIVED BY & DATE: IAPPROVED BY PLANNER: IAPPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL:I REPLACE FACES IN PYLON & REPAINT STRUCTURE niversal Signs TVVIN CITIES 612-645-0223 DRAWN BY JDATE RLP J 3/18/94 FILE NAME PDQ292P. CDR "" 'PDG MOUNP JTHIS DESIGN REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF UNIVERSAL SIGN CO. AND IS TO BE RETURNED ON DE,,~D. NO REPRODUCTION SHALL BE MADE EXCEPT BY WRII-rEN AGREEMENT SCALE NONE PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRIMMING OF VEGETATION ON WIOTA COMMONS ABUTTING 1749 AVOCET LANE, LOTS 15 & 16, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD DOCK SITE #13630 WHEREAS, Howard Hagedorn has applied for a Land Alteration Permit to allow trimming of Vegetation on Wiota Commons, abutting his property known as 1749 Avocet Lane, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval, by a four-fifths vote, for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance allows limited clearing and trimming of vegetation on steep slopes to provide a view to the water from the principal' dwelling site provided that screening of structures is not substantially reduced, and; WHEREAS, trees are allowed to be trimmed in a manner appropriate for removal of branches to benefit the trees. Healthy trees and plants with healthy root systems must remain intact to prevent erosion of the steep slope, and; WHEREAS, on August 13, 1991, the City Council approved a motion to allow trimming of trees and bushes at this same site, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Hagedorn is requesting permission to trim small trees, 2-3 inches in diameter- to a crown at the top and reduce underbrush in order to improve the view to the lake; and WHEREAS, the Public Land Use Plan classifies this area of commons to be a fishing area, community park, and a resident permit docking area, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval, with conditions and supervision by the Parks Director. Proposed Resolution Hagedorn Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a Special Land Alteration Permit to allow the trimming of vegetation on Wiota Commons abutting 1748 Avocet Lane, Lots 15, and 16, Block 9, Dreamwood, Dock Site//13630, subject to the following Conditions: The trimming be performed in accordance to the attached plan, Exhibit A, drawn by a landscape architect. 2. The trimming be performed by a licensed contractor. 3. The Parks Director shall conduct on-site supervision of the trimming. 4. Only one occasion permitted for trimming. St All trimming must be removed from the site and cost of removal and trimming is the applicant's responsibility. · RESOLUTION ~94- ~IBIT * A * MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 14, 1994 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT: REQUEST FOR TREE TRIMMING BY HOWARD HAGEDORN, AVOCET LANE, WIOTA COMMONS, DOCK SITE #13630 Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to trim trees and shrubs on Wiota Commons as detailed on the information provided with the application. The proposal would trim trees that are 2 to 3 inches in diameter to a crown at the top, and trim shrubs down to a height of 2 to 3 feet at the top of the hill, in order to open up clear ~ight lanes or corridors to the lake. In 1991 the Park Commission and Council approved a permit for trimming for this abutting owner. The permit included a plan from a professional landscape architect which was viewed by the Commission. A licensed tree trimmer was also required as part of the permit approval. Staff recommended the Park Commission recommend approval of a one time permit, and further that the applicant be required to submit an update of the 1991 plan from a landscape architect that is acceptable to staff prior to the City Council hearing of this request. Applicant, Howard Hagedorn, introduced Richard Indritz to speak on his behalf. Mr. Indritz explained that no trimming was done in 1991 after approval of that plan, and the plan from 1991 is no longer adequate to the applicant. Mr. Hagedorn is requesting permission to trim small branches of large trees, reduce underbrush in order to improve the view, and open the area to allow for growth of new trees and allow existing trees to grow. He stated that the applicant's are in accordance with the staff recommendation. The Commission clarified that the 1991 plan is not what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Indritz explained that what they are now proposing is to make it a more even trimming all the way across the entire width of the lot. The applicant has already contacted a landscape architect .who is preparing a plan to be submitted to staff prior to the City Council meeting. Darling confirmed that the primary reason for the trimming is aesthetics and view of the lake. Geffre noted that when she visited the property, one of the tree limbs noted on the 1991 plan has been removed. Mr. Hagedorn confirmed that they did have some loss, and that one of the elm trees is almost dead and it should be removed. Geffre expressed a concern about clearing the vegetation in order to see their boat which was listed as a need on the application. The applicant's noted that it is anticipated that the boat will be able to be seen from the upper level deck if their plan is approved. Mr. Indritz explained that if there are trees exceeding 2 to 3 inches in diameter, they will only be trimmed to a crown, everything is not going to be removed. Darling questioned why approval was recommended. The Parks Director explained that limited trimming is allowed, some view should be permitted, according to the DNR's Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO). The DNR's SMO suggests that limited clearing is permitted if the structure remains adequately screened when viewed from the water. Also, staff will require a meeting with the contractor prior to any trimming to ensure compliance to the plan, and staff will monitor the trimming while in progress. Draft - Park Commiss/on Minutes Hagedor~, Page 2 Darling reminded the Park Commission of some of the values they have been discussing relating to the public lands remaining in a natural state and what are the abutting owner's rights to alter the public land. Mr. Hagedorn referred to City Code Section 350:1200 which allows limited trimming, and confirmed with Darling that what he was referring to is not ordinance. Fackler referred to the Use Plan, which classifies this area of commons to be a fishing area, community park, and a resident permit docking area, and the areas which the City looks at harshly for trimming are the areas classified as nature areas. Mr. Indritz also emphasized that this commons area is dedicated to only those in the subdivision of Dreamwood. MOTION made by Byrnes to recommend approval of the trimming as recommended by staff, including the following stipulations: 1. The trimming be done by a licensed contractor. 2.. The trimming be supervised by the Parks Director. Meyer seconded the Motion. Geffre expressed a concern about the proposed "corridor" as written in the application which will allow them to view their boat which she feels would take away from the natural look. The Hagedorn's commented on the vandalism done to their boat. Byrnes commented that boats are expensive, and the City should be fair to these abutting property owners as they are expected to maintain the property and they should have every right, paying the taxes that they do, to see the lake. She does not think all the vegetation should be cut down, but if a plan is approved and the trimming is done by a reputable company and under the supervision of the Parks Director the trimming should be permitted. Darling commented that the motion is in direct conflict with the Commission's previous discussions relating to the values for the public land. Also, it has not been established that because you pay taxes that you have the right to do what you want on public lands. The Park Commission's responsibility is with the public. Meyer commented that he has faith in the City staff to keep the trimming down to a minimum. Chair Schmidt called for the question. MOTION carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Schmidt, Meyer, and Geffre. Darling was opposed to the motion. This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 26, 1994. L ndz rk Design, Inc. Landscape Architects · Landscape Contractors JOt Z 1 cc: Jim Fackler 7-22-94 20 July 1994 Howard Hagedom 1748 Avocet Lane Mound, MN Howard: Enclosed is a perspective / sketch of the area we discussed to be trimmed along your property and the adjacent lake [Minnetonka]. I believe this along with the original plan done by Otten Bros. follows the requirements set by the city zoning ordinance and as discussed in the City of Mound Park and Open Space Commission meeting on July 14 of this year and the original meeting of the same August 13, 1991. I encourage you to work with the city and the tree trimming company you have selected to minimize the removal of trees and at the same time selectively prone back and trim unhealthy trees and shrubs to help encourage the healthier ones. You will still have a view of the lake and the property will require less maintenance and increase the aesthetic value. We are happy to have been of service to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Todd Halunen CC: Richard Indritz 105 Orono Orchard Road Long Lake, MN 55356 612.476.6765 Fax 612.475.8984 3o'fl CITY of MOUND Memorandum 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX ¢6!2! 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT:' LOCATION: July 14, 1994 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION FOR LAND ALTERATION HOWARD HAGEDORN DOCK SITE #13630 ON WIOTA COMMONS ABUTTING 1748 AVOCET LANE, LOTS 15 & 16, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD Applicant's Request The applicant is seeking a permit to trim trees and shrubs on Wiota Commons as detailed on the information provided with the application. The proposal would trim trees that are 2 to 3 inches in diameter to a crown at the top, and trim shrubs down to a height of 2 to 3 feet at the top of the hill, in order to open up clear sight lanes or corridors to the lake. Background and Comments In 1991 the Park Commission and Council approved a permit for trimming for this abutting owner. The permit included a plan from a professional landscape architect (note attached Exhibit A). A licensed tree trimmer was also required as part of the permit approval. There have been previous requests and approvals by the City Council for trimming in this area. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Park Commission recommend approval of a one time permit, and further that the applicant be required to submit an update of the 1991 plan from a landscape architect that is acceptable to staff prior to the City Council hearing of this request. JS:pj printed on recycled paper ~l[ .in[ ,~ ] PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Mavwood Road. Mound. MN 55364 Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 DISTRIBUTION: BUILDING OFFICIAL PARKS DIRECTOR __Dm TO __MCWD I~J~ ~- ~check lone): I~1 DATE RECEIVED ~ PARK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). I I__1 PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ~ ~ CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to rem·in in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). I--~--I LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, dr·in·ge, slope, t~ees, ye e~ion, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for · limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit ts for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change in dock sate holder. Applicant Name /~~ I Address /g~,~ /dJ~7- Phone (home) ~7~- ~ (work) -- Abutting Address /TZf AVm~ Property Owner ~ ~ ~ ~ ~=~,= ~ Legal Lot /~ / ~ Block Description Su~. ~~ ~o~-h Public Name Property Dock Site $ Shoreline Type contractor Name ~ ~ ~ ~. Address Phone q~- VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS) Signature of Applicant Date 30?¥ lira ! I I I, ,11 l~ Jl MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - ~UGUST 15, 1991 1.1 REQUEST TO TRIM FOLIAGE ON WIOT~ COMMONS BY HOWARD I~AGEDORN, 1748 ~VOCET L~=NE The City Manager reported that the Park & Open Space Commission has reviewed Mr. Hagedorn's request and the plan submitted by Otten Bros. Nursery to trim the foliage on Wiota Commons. They have recommended approval. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to allow the trimming of the subject trees and bushes on Wiota Commons by a licensed reputable tree service under the direction of the Park Director. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COHMISSION JULY 25, 1991 .REQ~IEST TO TRIM FOLIAGE ON WIOTA COMMONS BY HOWARD HAGEDORNt 174EI AVOCET LANE On July 23, 1991 the City Council made a motion to table Mr. Hagedorn's request to trim Foliage until the Park & Open Space Commission has a chance to review the Otten Bros.' recommendation and any other plans Mr. Hagedorn submits at Its July 25th meet- Ing. At the July lith Park Commission Meeting, the Following motion Failed on a 3 to 3 vote: to recommend that a reputable and licensed tree service trim the subject trees and bushes under the direction of the Parks Director. Mr. Hagedorn reviewed the plan submitted by Otten Bros., and also asked If he could replace the sumach with some other type of vegetation, possibly grass. He commented that the Sumach Is starting to nx~ve Into his yard. Casey commented that Sumach is very difficult to kill, and only Round-up would do the trick. Casey questioned IF lack of lake view was a legitimate reason to allow trimming. Etschetd commented that proper trimming can en- hance natural areas. Nagedorn commented that the area looks wild and scraggly and he understands that this Is due to the trimming done by him In the past, however, he would like to correct that by trimming the area properly to benefit the gro~h of the trees. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Andersen, to recom- mend that a reputable and licensed tree service trim the subject trees and bushes under the dlrectlon of the Parks Director. Casey moved to amend the motion to Include that the Parks Commission determine the definition of a Nature Area and give reasons For changing the original motion. There being no second, the amendment Failed. Byrnes commented that a definition of a -Nature Area should be discussed as a separate Issue. Casey expressed that IF the Parks Commission Is going to change a previous recommendation made to the Council, they should give reasons. Motlo~ carried 4 to 2. Those In Favor were: Byrnes, Anderson, Ahrens and Elscheld. Those opposed werel Casey and Asleson. Asleson commented on his reason For denial which relates to the motion n~ade by the City Council in 1989 which states that "all trimming be discontinued." This request will be reviewed by the City Council on August 1991. ~OrE: C~TA~ OF l~oc~s SEE RECOI~ PLAT. 2 (HARR~SONSI I I CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 July 22, 1994 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - REGARDING MOUND VISlONS/ISTEA LOST LAKE CANAL REHABILITATION PROJECT As you know the City of Mound has been awarded a grant in the amount of $500,000 under the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The monies will become available in 1997 for the rehabilitation of the Lost Lake Canal. Attached are the minutes of the EDC meeting of June 16, 1994, detailing the discussion that the EDC had. Some members of the City Council were present at that meeting and recall that the EDC made a recommendation that the removal of the Post Office and an attempt to relocate the Post Office within the City of Mound, along with continued discussion about the Auditor's Road improvement be endorsed and approved by the City Council. The purpose of this item being on the regular City Council agenda is to get the City Council's approval as to the direction that the EDC is headed with regard to the ISTEA project and the Auditor's Road improvement. Attached is a resolution to this effect for the City Council's consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:Is 3101 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RELATING TO THE MOUND VlSlONS/ISTEA - LOST LAKE CANAL REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission has been working on the Mound Visions Program for the downtown redevelopment of Mound for approximately two years; and WHEREAS, recently the City received notification that it has received a grant in the amount of $500,000 for the year 1997 to undertake the rehabilitation of the Lost Lake Canal from Cook's Bay into downtown Mound, and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission as part of the Mound Visions program has discussed the possibility of improving Auditor's Road as a part of the Canal rehabilitation project; and WHEREAS, within the grant application submitted to the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) the Post Office building was discussed in connection with the canal turnaround and the building would have to be removed to complete the project as described in the application; and WHEREAS, funds for the restoration of the Post Office site were included as part of the grant application. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound accepts the recommendation of the Economic Development Commission, which is to proceed with the idea of having the Post Office removed and attempting to relocate the Post Office within the City of Mound, along with continued discussions for the improvement of Auditor's Road. 111 ~ II ! II, ,11 Il The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2,1o , MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -JUNE 16, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Paul Meisel, Stan Drahos, Councilmember Ken Smith, Dave Willette, Mark Brewer, Jerry Longpre, Jerry Pietrowski and Sharon McMenamy-Cook. Aisc present: Bruce Chamberlain of Hoisington, Koegler Group, Inc.; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Liz Jensen and City Manager Ed Shukle. Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Drahos and carried unanimously, the Minutes of the April 21, 1994 meeting were approved. The ISTEA Grant award was discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle provided the background of the application. He indicated that the application had been approved for submittal by the Economic Development Commission and City Council in March of this year. It was submitted on or about April 1st. We received word that the City of Mound had obtained a grant for $500,000 to do the restoration of the Lost Lake Canal between Lake Minnetonka and the Mound Post Office near County Road 15. The project involves dredging the canal, putting in transient docks, modifications to the Bartlett Boulevard bridge and seawalls. The City of Mound will contribute $384,000 of its own funds for a total project of $884,000. He reviewed the activities that need be carried out with construction scheduled for 1997, and completion towards the fall of 1997. The project scope was also discussed as it relates to financing, legal issues and other matters. The Economic Development Commission will serve as the steering committee for the project. The Park and Open Space Commission and the Planning Commission will also become involved in the process. Discussion focused on the need to remove and relocate the Post Office so that the channel can be dredged to recreate the original channel outline that was in place in the early 1900's. Aisc discussed was the Auditor's Road improvement and its relationship to the project. It was moved by Brewer, seconded by Drahos and carried unanimously to forward a recommendation to the City Council for the removal of the Post Office and the attempt to relocate the Post Office within the City of Mound along with continued discussions for the Auditor's Road improvement. The motion was approved unanimously. Other business included discussion regarding public relations within the community as it relates to the Lost Lake Canal rehabilitation project. It was suggested that this item be placed on next month's EDC agenda. Ken Smith will bring the rolls for the next meeting which is scheduled for Thursday, July 21, 1994, at 7 AM, at Mound City Hall. ]11 ! I I l, il i~ Minutes - EDC Meeting of June 16, 1994, Page 2 Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Meisel and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 AM. Re~sp,~ctfully su~mit,ted, Ed Shi. rkle City Manager ES:Is PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE SECTION 350:1200 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on Tuesday. August 23, 1994 in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. to consider modifications to the Shoreland Management Ordinance, City Code Section 350:1200. The proposed modifications will include, but are not limited to: Definition modifications. Modification of bluff setbacks. Non-water oriented structure setbacks. Modification of hardcover restrictions to increase the amount of allowable impervious surface on residential lots. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk (To be published in 'The Laker' August 8, 1994) Il ! I I I, ,n ii $12.00 Annual Fee $1.OO/Month Pro-Rate Original Renewal o/L} / fig-Uee. Yr. Not Transferable: Person or Premises fl.c CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 CIGARETTE LICENSE APPLICATION · ~ (Print or type only) Mound Business: Mound Address: Bus. Phone: Applicant Name: ~-/'g t/~4 ~ l.bE gU- Applicant Date of Birth: W-.~_ / 0 D v r', Li . #: Hom Home Phone: Social Sec. #: apany Name: Company Address: Company Officials: City: /~OOA~b Zip: ~irs0 ~iddle) ~s0 ~ate of Biah) 2. ~irs0 ~iddle) ~s0 ~ate of Bind 3. ~irs0 ~iddle) (~st) (Date of Bind Type of Business: Sec. 440:00 License Reouir~l, No person shall directly or indirectly or by means of any device keep for retail sale, sell at retail, or otherwise dispose of any cigarette or cigarette wrapper, cigar, pipe, or cigarette tobacco, snuff and chewing tobacco unless a license has been obtained. Section 440:15 Restrictions. No such license shall be issued except to a person of good moral character. No license shall be issued to any applicant at any place other than his established place of business. No license shall be issued for a movable I~~' - of business. No license shall be issued for a vending machine for the ' ag of cigarettes, cigarette wrappers, cigar, pipe, or cigarette tobacco, snuff, or chewing tobacco, except that such vending machine be located in such place where persons under the age of 18 years are prohibited from entering. No person shall sell any cigarette containing any opium, morphine, jirnson weed, bella dona, strychnnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine.. Signat'6-fe of Applicant Department Approval/Denial (Submit memo if denied) Police Dept. Adm. Bldg. Dept. Fire Dept. Approved Denied McCombs Frank RoDs Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX RECEIVED JUL 2 July 19, 1994 Engineers Planners Surveyors 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. 2 MFRA #10555 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Rice Lake Contracting's Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through July 8, 1994, on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $135,401.60. 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. John Cameron JC:jb Enclosures 3 IO 8 An EquaI Opportunity Employer 0 SOOEI )tHUil-I SI~WODDW WUI~I :0I ~'G, ~z '~nc 31o? ~ 1S060 23r--~ Avenue No~h. Plymouth, Minnesota 45447 Telephone 812/47S-e010 812./476-163~ FAX Englnee~ PIinnlfl Sun~vom ~uly 20, 1994 Mr. ~dwerd J. 8hukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mo~tnd, M£nnesota 5536~ SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Water Mater Reed System Payment Request NO. 2 MFRA #10622 Dear Sd: Enclosed la Schlumberger'a Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through July 9, 1994, on the subJe¢~ project. The amount of ~his payment request tB 846,259.30. We have reviewed this request, find that it is in order and raoommend payment in the above amount to the Contraotor. If you have any questions or need add£tlonal Information, please oon~aot us. Very truly yours, McCOMB8 FRANK Roes ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron 3C:Jb ~nolosuree An Equal Ol~;x:,tunity Employer ORDINANCE NO. 68-1994 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 300:10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE BY ADDING SUBD. $ REQUIRING THE COMPLETION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 300:10 of the City Code is amended by adding a new Subdivision ~ which shall read as follows: Subd. 5. Time Limits on Building Completion. All work to be performed pursuant to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs, remodeling, and alterations to the exterior 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. 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. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council July 26, 1994 Published in. the official newspaper, The Laker, August 8, 1994 ~l i I I I, II Ii BILLS July 26, 1994 BATCH 4072 $185,606.41 ! I ~ I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000 O0 I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII Illlll 3lief 0~ J Off 0 h >- Z Z 0 Z · < ~ · Z bJ Z 0 -J ~ o .J ~0 ..J O~ LU 0 ill ! II I e, ,11 Iii III I I ! ! ! o oo -4' ! ,-4 0 o Z I ZZZZ Z .< ...,.. 0 Z Z 0 0 .< 0 oo ,0 I o I IIIIlI IIlllI 3Ilk o iiI I ii ZZZ ZZZZ OCO~ Z Z ZZ~ ~ Z ~ZZ~ Z uJZ ! I I I r,,'~.I~. I-.I--l.- ..,,~ :,..,, .,..~ o 0 >..< uJU ',J I Z Z 0 Z uJ Z uJ Z 3~ ~ ~ ~ZZZZZZ~I ~ ~Z I ~ 'JJ · ~ 00o000 o D:D:::::::~ oo oo oo oooooo IIIIIIIIII I I I IIIII 0~0000ooo0 o 0 0 Z ZZ II ,.~ 0 Z 31~ZO ~Z ~-0 I ~ (2: ~ Z ~ 0 ~ ~ I ~ ,-4 I I I ° ~ ° ~oo2ggggg~~o ~OO~oo ~ IIIIIIIII III II 000000000 ~00 O0 IIIIIIIII III II -~ e e e i 0 O, O, O, 0 , ~0 Z Z bd O~ 0 Z · 0 0 oO 0 Z .,.J ;:3 ud I 3J: t ,,.% ~~~o~oo$o~ ooo oo IIIIIIIII II I IIIIIIIIIIIII II I o OO o ~ OOC~ ~ Z *4" .'""~ ,~ ~a 0 ~,a 0 ~a 0 P'*,- Z ~ Z I'~ Z UJ UJ Z~ ~ ~ 0 ~ Z Z ) 0 ~ Z ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ Z ~ 0 0 e 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 Z >- Z .< Z Z ill, ! II ! e, ,11 !li GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT June 1994 June 1994 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,231,780 9,450 59,850 884,960 49,500 65,000 60,800 15,000 (25) (25) 5,444 7,463 VARIANCE (1,231,805) (1,987) 15,831 45,069 (14,781) (149) 27,895 (857,065) 1,009 7,122 (42,378) 5,966 26,865 (38,135) 6,056 12,196 (48,604) 1,319 6,568 (8,432) 2 376 340 35.451 133,153 50.00% PERCENT RECEIVED (2.243.187) 308,817 11,958 147,342 (161,475) 108,000 27,084 54,536 (53,464) 1,300,000 130,742 627,542 (672,458) 380,000 29,712 161,293 (218,707) 680,000 59,326 334,003 (345,997) 5,650 25 1,105 (4,545) 72,000 1,406 72,132 132 -0.00% 78.97% 75.30% 3.15% 14.39% 41.33% 20.06% 43.79% 5.60% 47.71% 50.50% 48.27% 42.45% 49.12% 19.56% 100.18% 07/17~94 rev94 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT June 1994 50.00% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspectio ns Streets City Property Parks Sum mer Recreation Contingencies Transfers June 1994 BUDGET EXPENSE 63,130 2,000 1,380 180 330 11 320 48 350 151 O8O 24 200 81 5OO 795 240 5 400 157 850 397 520 102 860 136 620 33,930 40,000 134,240 YTD EXPENSE VARIANCE (5,635) 29,421 33,709 0 0 2,00~) 0 35O 1,03~) 14,281 84,265 96,065 317 3,397 7,92~1 18 340 48,01~ 6,673 71,860 79,220 1,977 11,009 13,19~1 3,604 37,565 43,935 55,196 362,379 432,86~1 63 718 4,68~ 10,732 66,116 91,73~ 23,633 181,712 215,80; 6,151 51,812 51,04~ 11,627 58,680 77,941 475 475 33,45! 446 3,847 36,15: 10,026 60,160 74,08~ PERCENT EXPENDED 46.60% 0.00% 25.36% 46.73% 30.01% 0.70% 47.56% 45.49% 46.09% 45.57% 13.30% 41.89% 45.71% 50.37% 42.95% 1.40% 9.62% 44.82% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2 366 950 139~584 1~024~106 1~342~84~t 43.27% Area Fire Sentice Fund 240,190 15,690 1 02,220 137,97~ 42.56% Recycling Fund 104,330 2,829 62,838 41,49;~ 60.23% Liquor Fund 190,840 15,126 97,897 92,94}t 51.30% Water Fund ........... 8_34,9_90 ...... 59,239_ 222,306 612,68~ 26.62% Sewer Fund 1,390,280 85,863 546,705 843,57~ 39.32% Cemetery Fund 5,240 175 2,329 2,91 ~1 44.45% Docks Fund 53,680 4,035 27,672 26,00~ 51.55% expO4 07/17/94 G.B. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Mark Hanus, and Lisa Crum, City Planner Marl( Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were: City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Planning Commissioners Frank Weiland and Jerry Clapsaddle. The following people were also in attendance: M.L. "Buzz" Sycks, John Price, Brad Sohns, Julie Steffen, Jim Bedell, Steven Bedell, Steven Gerhardson, Tom Sarenpa, Lois Jean Westergaard, Roy Westergaard, Kevin Wildes, Carolyn Dillon, Darryl Dillon, Gary Parendo, and Lizabeth Parendo. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 1994 were presented for approval. It was noted that Lisa Crum and Geoff Michael were not listed as being absent and excused. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 1994 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CASE//94-44: BUZZ SYCKS, 5926 BEACHWOOD ROAD, PART OF LOT 47, BLOCK 4, AUDITOR'S SUBD. #168, PID #23-117-24 13 0023. VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to lot frontage, lot width of 10' to the required 60', and also 15' to the required 30' front yard setback, in order to construct a new dwelling on the property. This is a separate tax parcel and is under the same ownership as the adjacent parcels (53) and (24). Each parcel has a separate property identification number. Lot frontage., There is no street frontage, access is to be provided by a 10' wide driveway easement approximately 175' in length. A portion of this driveway currently serves the existing dwelling on parcel 53. There is a dwelling located on the adjacent parcel #41 that precludes the possibility of gaining dedicated frontage. Lot Width. Existing lot width is 50', and 60' is required in the R-1 Zone. It appears unlikely lot width can be modified at this time. Front yard setback. Due to the length of the driveway and the topography that slopes towards the lake, the applicant is seeking a 15' variance to the required 30' setback. There is inadequate topographical information provided to indicate a difficulty in placing the structure in a conforming location. Staff is in the process of verifying the assessments for sewer and water service and street improvements. Sewer service is available on the lake side and water service could be provided down the driveway easement as it is available on Beachwood Road. The surveyor has noted no title work was furnished for the preparation of the survey to verify related information, proof of the driveway easement must be provided. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to lot frontage and lot width as proposed in order to construct a fully conforming dwelling on the property with the following conditions: 31,15"" Planning Commission Minutes July IL 1994 1. The proposal must be conforming to all required setbacks. The approval is contingent upon receipt of an updated survey that confirms all conditions as proposed. A copy of the driveway easement shall be provided prior to the release of the final resolution. e The driveway shall be brought into conformance with Zoning Code Section 350:445, as required by the Building Official prior to the issuance of any building permits. This section relates to suitable access for the fire department. Mueller confirmed with staff that the lot area used for the hardcover calculations is not correct, however, using the correct lot area, the hardcover will still be conforming. Mueller questioned the Lot of Record status for this parcel. Staff confirmed that this parcel has been determined to be a Lot of Record. Mr. Sycks noted that the subject parcel was platted in 1927 and registered in 1958 by another individual. Mueller noted that the survey does not show parcel (24) as a separate parcel. The Building Official noted that a Condition should be added requiring that parcels (24) and (53) be combined, and confirmed that all three parcels are currently owned by Mr. Sycks. Mueller expressed a concern about setting a precedence for allowing existing lots of record to be developed if they can obtain driveway access through an easement. Mr. Sycks stated that the 10 foot wide driveway access easement is existing and was recorded in 1974. The Building Official noted that proof of the driveway easement should be provided for the City Attorney's review prior to permit issuance. Mueller questioned if the southerly boundary is being considered the front lot line, and staff indicated yes. Mueller asked if this lot is then considered a "through lot", and staff indicated that it is not as it does not directly abut a right-of-way. Mueller requested that this be included as a finding in the resolution. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the following additional condition: 5. Parcels 13-117-2411 0024 and 13-117-2411 0053 be combined prior to release of the variance resolution. Se Proof of the driveway access easement must be submitted prior to City Council approval. MOTION carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were: Hanus, Michael, Crum, and Voss. Michael was opposed. Mueller commented that he is not in favor of the request due to the possibility of setting a precedence for existing lots of record which could be buildable as long as they have access available by an 2 Planning Commission Minutes Mueller questioned why the Planning Commission was not given the opportunity to review the potential Nature Conservation Areas recently adopted by the City Council, It was Mueller's understanding that the NCA Plan denotes that the Planning Commission shall have input on recommended sites, Within the City Council Minutes of June 28, 1994, Information/Miscellaneous, item "E,", Mueller questioned what the figures were for the preliminary population and household estimate as prepared by the Metropolitan Council, MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Crum, to adjourn the meeting at 11:08 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 13 BOARD MEMBERS William A. Johnstone Chair, Minnetonka Tom Penn Vice Chair, Tonka Bay Douglas E. Babcock Secretary, Spring Park Robert Rascop Treasurer, Shorewood Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior Eugene Partyka Minnetrista Duane Markus Wayzata Craig Moiler Victoria Tomas W. Reese Mound Herb J. Suerth Woodland Joseph Zwak Greenwood Orono RECEIVED JUL 2 1 1§g4 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 * WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 * TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR YOU AND YOUR GUEST ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS LAKE INSPECTION TOUR SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 1994 ON LAKE MINNETONKA CONDUCTED BY THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Please note earlier starting time All aboard at 10:00 AM Return to Port at 12:30 PM at Al & Alma's Charter Dock 5201 Piper Road, Mound Coffee, juice, fruit & rolls courtesy of Al & Alma's Restaurant Aboard Al & Alma's new 100 passenger Avant Garde 6~"~'= RecycJed Content 3(~= Post Consumer Waste Please RSVP by Monday, August 8 including guest's name, 473-7033 (directions on reverse side) ~tn ,n I I n, ,ii ii I, MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - JUNE 16, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Paul Meisel, Stan Drahos, Councilmember Ken Smith, Dave Willette, Mark Brewer, Jerry Longpre, Jerry Pietrowski and Sharon McMenamy-Cook. Aisc present: Bruce Chamberlain of Hoisington, Koegler Group, Inc.; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Liz Jensen and City Manager Ed Shukle. Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Drahos and carried unanimously, the Minutes of the April 21, 1994 meeting were approved. The ISTEA Grant award was discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle provided the background of the application. He indicated that the application had been approved for submittal by the Economic Development Commission and City Council in March of this year. It was submitted on or about April 1st. We received word that the City of Mound had obtained a grant for $500,000 to do the restoration of the Lost Lake Canal between Lake Minnetonka and the Mound Post Office near County Road 15. The project involves dredging the canal, putting in transient docks, modifications to the Bartlett Boulevard bridge and seawalls. The City of Mound will contribute $384,000 of its own funds for a total project of $884,000. He reviewed the activities that need be carried out with construction scheduled for 1997, and completion towards the fall of 1997. The project scope was also discussed as it relates to financing, legal issues and other matters. The Economic Development Commission will serve as the steering committee for the project. The Park and Open Space Commission and the Planning Commission will also become involved in the process. Discussion focused on the need to remove and relocate the Post Office so that the channel can be dredged to recreate the original channel outline that was in place in the early 1900's. Aisc discussed was the Auditor's Road improvement and its relationship to the project. It was moved by Brewer, seconded by Drahos and carried unanimously to forward a recommendation to the City Council for the removal of the Post Office and the attempt to relocate the Post Office within the City of Mound along with continued discussions for the Auditor's Road improvement. The motion was approved unanimously. Other business included discussion regarding public relations within the community as it relates to the Lost Lake Canal rehabilitation project. It was suggested that this item be placed on next month's EDC agenda. Ken Smith will bring the rolls for the next meeting which is scheduled for Thursday, July 21, 1994, at 7 AM, at Mound City Hall. Minutes - EDC Meeting of Juner, 1994, Page 2 Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Meisel and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 AM. ,e.~ectfully,submitted, Ed S~ukle City Manager ES:Is RECEIVED JUL 2 § LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Notice and Agenda 6:30 PM, WedDesday, July 27, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. Review of 6/22/94 Meeting Report, copy attached Receive draft ordinance for Planned Usage Development concept for unique public dock facilities, i.e. the Wayzata Lakewalk (staff recommends it be referred to the Water Structures Committee for review) Proposal for policy on the reserve level for the Save the Lake Fund balance Review of "Treasure your lake" T-shirt sales involving LMCD payment advance for inventory ordered by Save the Lake Advisory Committee member in name of LMCD Proposal for overhead charges to be applied to applications for variances and multiple dock licenses Workers Compensation Managed Care service agreement with CorVel Corp. to assist injured employees in recuperation and back-to-work treatment, including employer and employee safety program counseling and monitoring of physician and health care provider handling of worker injuries in exchange for 5% premium discount; executive director report 7. Additional business LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 PM, Wednesday, July 27, 1994 Tonka Bay city Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd RECEIVED JUL 2 5 1gO4 CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone READING OF MINUTES - 6/22/94 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, 7/9/94 meeting * B. Rockvam Boat Yards, Spring Park, West Arm, as-built surveys of Site 1 & Site 2; 1) recommending approval of the as-built survey for Site 2 as submitted, noting the two foot discrepancy on the length is not a variance, but because of its minimal impact on the lake, it will be accepted with the condition that if the docks are rebuilt at any time, the dock is to be brought into conformance, 2) recommending approval of two make-ready docks added to the Site 1 dock plan * C. Temporary Structures, Sect. 2.07; recommending an ordinance be drafted to change the distance from 200' to 150' and delegating permitting authority t6 the Sheriff's Water Patrol. D. Draft Ordinance amending Sect. 2.12, Subd. 12 Dock Dimensions and Sect. 2.03, Subd. 11 Service Consoles; recommending approval of the first reading of the draft ordinance as amended by the committee * E. DNR proposal to delegate dock permits to the LMCD; recommending the executive director be authorized to proceed with developing a cooperative agreement between the LMCD and the DNR, authorizing the LMCD to issue multiple and permanent dock permits in lieu of the DNR F. Additional Business LAKE USE AND RECREATION, chair Foster * A. Approval of minutes, 7/18/94 meeting B. Draft ordinance relating to Marine Toilets, amending Sect. 3.04, Subd. 7; recommending approval of the third reading LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 7/27/94, Page 2 * C. Shore fishing site improvements; recommending that the LMCD support the DNR plans for improvement of existing shore fishing sites at the Narrows Channel and the North Arm access De "Hush Kit" Campaign to bring loud boats into compliance; recommending support of a cooperative program with interested marinas to install "hush kits" on boats that exceed the 80dbA noise limit, starting in September 1994, allocating up to $500 from the 1994 Contract Services Public Information budget * E. * F. Special Events - Deposit Refunds @ $100 each; recommending approval of deposit refunds to the following: 1) Minnetonka Bass Classic, 6/4/94 2) IN Bass Tournament, 6/11/94 & 6/12/94 3) Mound city Days Water Ski Show & Fireworks, 6/19/94 4) MS Walleye Contest, 6/25/94 5) Morrison Fireworks, 7/4/94 Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report G. Additional business SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Mollet A. Approval of 7/7/94 minutes and meeting report B. Progress to date on private fund solicitation C. LMLOA "Minnetonka Memories", 8/16/94; LMCD booth display proposal EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn A. Approval of 7/15/94 minutes and meeting report B. Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee Report, 7/20/94 meeting $. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone * A. Approval of minutes, 6/22/94 meeting B® Report of 7/27/94 meeting 1) Proposal on reserve level for Save the Lake Fund Balance 2) Planned Usage Development for Wayzata Lakewalk 3) Payment advance for Save the Lake T-shirts 4) Proposed Workers Compensation Managed Care service agreement with CorVel Corp. C. Additional business FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. June Balance Sheet B. Year to Date Financial Summary C. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (meeting handout) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT J J II ! J, ,11 Iii I,, RECEIVED JUL 2 5 lgg4 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM. ~ Wednesday~ June 22~ 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Johnstone at 7:30 PM. ROLL CALL Members Present: Wm. Johnstone, Chair, Minnetonka; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Jos. Zwak, Greenwood; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Treasurer, Shorewood; Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Craig Mollet, Victo- ria; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; D~ane Markus, Wayzata. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair Johnstone announced that the annual Public Officials Lake Tour, is scheduled for Saturday, 8/13/94, 10 AM-1 PM. An Al & Alma's cruise boat will be used. Departure will be from A1 & Alma's Supper Club in Mound. The executive director explained that county, state, local government and other agency officials are invited to participate. Invitations will be sent in July. READING OF MINUTES: Reese moved, Zwak seconded, to approve the minutes of the 5/25/94 Board meeting as submitted. Motion car- ried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from persons in attend- ance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda items identified by a "*" on the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES~ Rascop for Chair Babcock E. Temporary Structures The committee recommended that an ordinance be drafted changing the distance in Sect. 2.07 from 200' to 150' and remov- ing the LMCD from permitting temporary structures as long as the Sheriff's Water Patrol will issue permits under LMCD's ordi- nances. Rascop explained that temporary structures are those not connected to the shore, such as swimming rafts and buoy markers. He said this ordinance will bring temporary structures in closer to shore to be consistent with the 150' shore zone,and relieve the District of the actual permit issuance. MOTION: Zwak moved, Reese seconded, to direct the staff to draft an amendment to Section 2.07, Subd. 2 of the LMCD Code changing the distance from 200 feet from shore to 150' from the shore. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 1 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994 Thibault reported th~ sheriff's Water Patrol has not had an opportunity to review the proposal. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded, to defer the action and refer the matter to the Water Structures Committee until the Sheriff's Water Patrol has had an opportunity to review the ordinance amendment. VOTE: Motion .carried unanimously. F. Gas Dock Width The committee recommended an ordinance be drafted to allow a 10' width for gas docks with some limit on the length included. The Board received a staff report of the length and widths of existing gas docks on Lake Minnetonka. Staff recommended a length limit of 50' for 10' wide gas docks. This dimension will accommodate an average of two boats, as well as the larger boats on the Lake. Copies of Section 2.03 and Section 2.12 of the Code were supplied. Foster said he has no problem with the 75' length at the Tonka Bay Marina. He said he would not have a problem with 40' to 50' for each set of pumps. Zwak said it would not be feasible for a marina to have a 100' long gas dock. In addition, the Dis- trict controls the Dock Use Area. As an example, he said Bean's Greenwood Marina's gas dock, with an 89' length, allows room for waiting for gas. Foster said there is a need for the 10' gas dock width and the shelter for electronic equipment. LeFevere said there can be a provision for a 10' gas dock width, with the length to be considered on a case by case basis at the time of licensing. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded, to have LeFevere prepare an amendment to Sect. 2.12 of the Code allowing a 10' width for gas docks with the length of the dock to be appropriate to the area. DISCUSSION: Johnstone noted that Curly's Minnetonka Marina and Sailors World have gas docks wider than 10' LeFevere said the ordinance, Sect. 2.12, provides for "grandfathering" docks in existence on 6/30/82. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. G. Shelter for Electronic Equipment on Gas Docks Rascop reported the committee recommended an ordinance be drafted to allow a weatherproof shelter for cover and security of electronic equipment with a size to accommodate one or two people. The LMCD staff recommended a maximum size of 6' wide x 6' long x 8' high under the following conditions: 1. The structure to be located on gas docks only 2. The structure to provide shelter for electronic equip- ment associated with the sale of gas and fuel related items only. 3. No other merchandise may be sold from this structure 4. The structure must meet building code requirements of the local city. 5. Any advertising signs to meet current LMCD ordinances 6. The color of the structure must be neutral, no bright colors. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994 Rascop suggested adding "and local city ordinances" to #5. The executive director commented on the effect of allowing a large structure without controls on the color. LeFevere said it is dangerous to get into aesthetics. He suggested a requirement that the location, design, size, structure siding and architec- ture be reviewed as part of the licensing process. Gabriel Jabbour, Tonka Bay Marina, suggested handling it with a condi- tional use permit. That would provide for a one by one review of each site, letting the applicant know just what would be al- lowed. Jabbour distributed a picture of a sample shelter. LeFevere said Jabbour's suggestion could be handled by making the shelter a part of the licensing provisions which would allow a review of a given site. The 6' x 6'x 8' size could be included in the ordinance and other matters made a part of the licensing conditions. Rascop added #7 to the list of conditions: "Lighting to meet existing LMCD Codes". LeFevere said the lighting could be addressed as part of the review process. LeFevere recommended changing #4 to state the structure must meet applicable city or state building codes. MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to direct LeFevere to draft an ordinance to allow a weatherproof shelter for cover and security of electronic equipment on gas docks, including the conditions suggested by the LMCD staff with changes as brought out in the discussion. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. H. City of Wayzata's Lakewalk Rascop said the committee recommended initial concept ap- proval of the City of Wayzata's Lakewalk, to direct staff to work with Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. to draft ordinance provisions which would be reviewed by the LMCD attorney. This would provide for Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. covering the initial costs of ordinance preparation.. Scott Richards, Northwest Associated Consultants. Inc., representing the City of Wayzata, said they 'are willing to pre- pare a draft ordinance, with options, to run through the commit- tee. They would like authority to work with the LMCD staff in preparing the draft. Penn said he is opposed to the project. He said he agrees that the City of Wayzata needs better city docks and the public needs better access to the Lake. He does not agree with the concept as presented. He believes it is being driven by the retail establishments in Wayzata and the motivation is financial. He does not agree with the size of the structure, one fifth of a mile in length. It sets a dangerous precedent. Penn mentioned other governmental agencies, such as the Cities of Excelsior, Spring Park and Mound, having similar situations. He supports the Board not approving the concept. Penn referred to the time- line submitted by Richards, indicating the project is well under- way. Penn said only one concept idea has been submitted although other concept ideas were suggested in discussions with the Board. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994 Penn concluded that the District is in existence for one reason and one reason only, that is to protect the Lake. He would oppose a 1,000' structure anyplace on the Lake. Zwak said he supports Penn's comments, particularly that the District has seen just one concept. He can see no reason for the Lakewalk other than for the benefit of the downtown Wayzata area. Johnstone said he shares some of the reservations stated by Penn. He said this is a substantial, unprecedented structure. Johnstone said that if concept approval means he would be approv- ing the plan, he will have to oppose it. Reese said he does not believe there are a lot of options available because of the restrictions in the area. He said this should be developed as a Planned Unit Development. This is one solution to the District's desire to develop destinations on the Lake. It would give the public an enjoyable experience. Reese supports the concept and encourages the Board to work with the developer and the City of Wayzata. Penn said he does not believe it is necessary to have a 1000' dock to give access to the Lake. Foster said he believes it is common water management at many cities to have some kind of public pier. He believes this is a perfect location for that type of access. He does not believe the type of ordi'nance which would be proposed should promote other structures like this one. Penn asked LeFevere if a new ordinance could be so restric- tive as to prohibit building another structure.like this one elsewhere on the Lake. LeFevere said a PUD is not a complete solution. If one application is approved it is difficult to deny others. He said there are political considerations in giving approval to one city and not to another. There has to be a rational basis for distinguishing between two situations. If the Board concludes that this is appropriate in this location and can define why that is, it will have to be prepared to approve it in another location where the same situation exists. The Board may turn down someone who does not meet the criteria. If the Board cannot come up with a logical basis for distinguishing one situa- tion from another, it will have to be inclusive. Grathwol prefaced his remarks by stating he will not vote on this issue because of a potential conflict. He said he shares the concerns about the desirability of this project. He said if the proposal is restricted to public facilities, paid for by the public and open to the public he could support it. He said the City of Excelsior, for over 100 years, has maintained the Commons for the public. It has had 100' docks with steam boats parked at them. He does not see that this is a proposal so new that it cannot be contemplated. Foster said this proposal is different because it cannot be put on shore because of the railroad right-of-way. That can be a provision which makes this site unique. Suerth said he is concerned about the long range aspects. He has discussed the matter with Woodland residents. He did not J i I i l, ,11 Ii J LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994 have one negative reaction. It was the opinion that something should be done about the Wayzata shoreline but there is a need to control this as a specific set of circumstances. Richards said this plan is necessary because it is the only way access can be given to the water. The walkway can't be placed on the shoreline owned by the City because of the 25' easement to Burlington Northern (BN). LeFevere said there is the possibility that someone can build this structure on land. The problem is that the city cannot do it without the (BN) approval. He said there are ripar- ian rights belonging to someone. Penn asked what concept approval means. Reese said that is a method used to give someone approval to go ahead with a design. Zwak said he cannot support saying "go ahead" with a 1000' dock. There is land in the BN easement, owned by the City of Wayzata. This is waterfront and a 1000' dock is not the way to develop lakeshore. Johnstone observed there have not been any public hearings. There has been no input from the public. He has reservations based on many of his own values and judgments. He would want to hear from more people than what has been heard from to date. He has no objection to the developer proceeding with the design and spending its own money for ordinance development. Richards said they are willing to spend their own money. They are asking for guidance from the LMCD staff. Penn said he cannot see the staff spending time and effort on this if the Board does not give concept approval. Reese said he does not know if postponing this would provide more information. He is not in favor of standing in the way of the development as long as the District reserves the right to make a final judgment. Party- ka said the Board does not have a draft ordinance on which to review the project. When an ordinance is in place the Board will know how to handle it and a public hearing would be appropriate. Johnstone said anyone in the public sector is free to dis- cuss matters with the LMCD staff. The LMCD documents are open to the public. That can be done by the developer without the Board taking a final action at this time. LeFevere said this is not an uncommon problem. Concept is not preliminary approval. The applicant can ask for concept ap- proval. That is a method of finding out how much resistance or acceptance there is of the idea. It can be helpful to the appli- cant. That is not the only way of letting an applicant know how the Board feels. A straw vote is another method without a com- mitment. ' MOTION: Penn moved, Zwak seconded, to not support the concept approval of the Wayzata Lakewalk. VOTE: Zwak, Penn and Johnstone voted aye. Grathwol abstained. The motion failed 3 ayes, 6 nays and 1 abstention. MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve the concept of the Wayzata Lakewalk. VOTE: Partyka, Reese, Foster, Suerth and Rascop voted aye. Zwak, Penn, Johnstone and Mollet voted nay. Grathwol abstained. Motion carried 5 ayes, 4 nays and 1 abstention. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994 Rascop said he would want "PUD" to mean Planned Usage Devel- opment. He would like to see a guideline or something in the Code which would allow the Board to accept an application for such a PUD so it could be developed in an orderly manner. Richards said in view of the fact that the current LMCD ordinances do not address a PUD he would like to see an adminis- trative amendment which would allow a Planned Usage Development. MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to approve drafting a Code amendment for an administrative procedure which would allow acceptance of a PUD with a public hearing requirement. DISCUSSION: LeFevere said the District can hold a Public Hearing at any time. The amendment would include all of the provisions. It would be a new type of regulatory procedure. He would have to set up a procedure in the ordinance. Rascop said the procedure would be to set up a public hearing, to give a certain period of time for accepting the application, the type of survey required, the ownership of the property, the possible need for an EAW, the usages. Johnstone said this should be discussed in committee. Rascop said this is an administrative item. He could agree to sending it to the Administrative Committee. Zwak said there is a need to do a review of how the District handles variances and other parts of the ordinances. MOTION WITHDRAWAL: Rascop and Reese withdrew the previous mo- tion. MOTION: Rascop moved, Johnstone seconded, to refer the issue of drafting a Planned Usage Development ordinance to the Administra- tive Committee. DISCUSSION: Richards and Jim Robins said a two month delay can be worked into their timetable. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Suerth asked if a negative vote on the project could prohib- it its development. LeFevere said the developers could come back with separate applications, for the docking and variances, and require the Board to vote on each item. 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster B. Draft Ordinance Relating to Watercraft for Hire, Amend- ing Sect. 3.07 Thibault asked that the subject be referred back to the committee for comment from the Sheriff's Water Patrol. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded, to table the Draft Ordi- nance Relating to Watercraft for Hire back to the committee for Sheriff's Water Patrol comments. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Draft Ordinance Relating to Marine Toilets, Amending Sect. 3.04, Subd. 7 Foster reported the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has informed the District that the overflow vent on marine toilets is normal and acceptable. 6 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994 MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the second reading of a draft ordinance relating to marine toilets, amending Sect. 3.04, Subd. 7, as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Request for Quiet Waters Area South of Deering Island MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to deny the request for a quiet waters area in the area south of Deering Island. DISCUSSION: Steve Farnes, owner of Deering Island, in a letter dated 5/6/94, requested that the west and south channels around the island be designated quiet water zones. Farnes said the island is surrounded by two quiet water zones, one at Fagerness Point in Coffee Cove and one in the North Seton Channel area. He submitted a 1913 plat of Deering Island and a composite using the 1913 plat and a 1960 aerial photo along with his own survey. He said the documents show substantial erosion. He said the island has lost about 40% of its land mass since 1913. On the south side of the island about 130' of shore- land has eroded away. Since 1960 about 62' of shoreland is gone. He believes this is due to waves from passing boats. Ferries said other quiet water zones have been established in areas with less traffic. He believes the committee favors boat speed. Farnes asked what the criteria are for establishing a quiet water zone. He said he has the impression that the LMCD is saying quiet water zones cannot be established where needed over the Lake and that the Lake has to be preserved for boats that want to go fast. He does not believe rip-rap will solve the problem. A neighbor, Judy Ess, 2043 Lakeside, Mound, is in the process of re-rip rapping due to wave action washing over their rip-rap. He said he thought the request would stand on its own merits. He did not contact many other people. He said Mrs. Ess would appear before the Lake Use and Recreation Committee at its next meeting. Ferries requested that certain standards and procedures be developed for quiet water areas. He said the Board should be reminded that it is not in existence for special interest groups and should be concerned when unique natural features of the Lake are being decimated by the use of boats. Foster responded that Fames was given the criteria for establishing quiet water areas. Farnes responded that the crite- ria are nebulous and are self serving in the interest of boaters. Penn asked if there was input from the Sheriff's Water Patrol. Foster said the Water Patrol indicated that in the Minnetonka Beach area and the Big Island area safety was a prime concern. Zwak said the District could be in the position of estab- lishing quiet water areas for everyone who thinks there is ero- sion from boat traffic. In looking at the difference between 1913 and 1960, he sees natural forces acting on the island. Rip rap is an alternative available to the owner. Zwak said there is a difference between using quiet waters for safety purposes and using them for shoreline protection. 7 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994 Johnstone said he is concerned that the basis on which the District decides where quiet waters are established is too biased toward boat use and not sufficiently to the property owner. He said he has difficulty in separating this request from other areas that have been granted quiet water status. Suerth commented that the temporary quiet water areas desig- nated during high water were based on erosion. He said he has seen boats going through the subject area too fast. Penn said the first priority of the District is to protect the Lake. He wondered if there are other alternatives to slowing down the boats. Perhaps there are ways of directing the traffic away from the island more than 150' Jim Scruton, Seton Village Townhomes, said he looks across at the rip rap work being done on the Ess property. He said if this area is not designated quiet waters, the Ess' will have to dredge again. He believes this is an issue of safety to the people, boaters and the land. He submitted a drawing showing the proximity between Deering Island and Seton Channel, the Seton Townhomes and the Ess property. Scruton said he understands that the District cannot make every bay and passage a slow zone. He said this is an issue that will not go away. VOTE: Motion carried, Johnstone, Partyka, Penn and Suerth voting nay. Suerth commended Farnes and Scruton for their presentation. Scruton invited the Board to observe the bass boats going through that area early in the mor. ning. F. University of Minnesota Scientific Buoy in West Upper Lake MOTION: Foster moved~ Reese seconded, to issue a special event permit, without application fee, to the University of Minnesota for a time-sequencing sediment trap in West Upper Lake just north of Crane Island. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE~ Chair Mollet B. Divers Lake Bottom Clean-up Mollet reported 28 divers held a lake bottom clean-up on 6/19/94. Samples of some of the material removed from the Lake are on display at the LMCD office. There was television coverage and a newspaper feature following the event. Mollet reported some scout troops are being organized for a shoreline clean-up. C. Private Fund Solicitation Moiler reported a list of civic organizations which could be solicited for funds is being prepared. The executive director reported $13,842 has been received to date in response to the May mailing. This is ahead of the 1993 solicitation at this time. ~1 i · I I, ,n ii LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994 Mollet reported T-shirts are being sold at $8.00 each in dozen lots for retail resale. They are being sold in some retail stores. 4. LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol Grathwol reported the Lake Access Committee met at 6 PM 6/22/94 to review the comments on the draft Lake Access Task Force report. Grathwol reviewed the few changes recommended for the re- port. The major change had to do with inserting a section on designing and building all ramps and parking facilities accessi- ble to the disabled unless there is some environmental or other restraint preventing it. He said lack of funds is not a reason for non-compliance. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Rascop seconded, to adopt the 5/11/94 draft of the 1992 Lake Access Task Force Report, as amended, as the first supplement to the Lake Minnetonka Management Plan. DISCUSSION: Penn said the City of Tonka Bay wishes to have the city removed as an access site. The Board did not take specific action on Penn's request. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Grathwol will prepare cover letters communicating the Lake Access Task Force Report to state and regional public officials. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to designate the Lake Use and Recreation Committee to implement the Lake Access Task Force Report recommendations and to terminate the Lake Access Committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Johnstone, on behalf of the Board, expressed thanks and appreciation to Grathwol for chairing the Lake Access Committee. 5. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn B. Report on 6/10/94 Task Force Meeting Penn reported the Administrative Committee voted to appro- priate an additional $7,830 to provide for overtime to pick up the pact of harvesting. The weather has produced a bumper crop of milfoil resulting in public calls for immediate harvesting. The harvest procedure is being modified so the first pass will be a selective cut to clear navigation paths to docks rather than clear cutting an entire bay. Once the harvesting has been done around the Lake, a second pass will be made with more extensive cutting. That plan will get the harvesters around the Lake fast- er. It will reduce the number of acres harvested with the cost per acre going up due to more travel time, less efficiency. The extended hours will make this possible. Penn said Phelps, Black, Seton and Emerald Lakes, Spring Park, Cooks and Harrison Bays, have been harvested. The next areas to be harvested will be Carmans, Old Channel, Echo, Gide- , on s, St. Albans and Excelsior Bays. The following week Grays Bay and Wayzata Bay will be harvested. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994 Penn reported the Corps of Engineers is testing Garlon 3A in portions of Phelps Bay and Carsons Bay with a control site in Carmens Bay. The MnDNR reports there are no new infestations of milfoil. Sonar treatment at East Parkers and Zumbra Lakes is being evaluated. C. Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee Report, 6/15/94 The subcommittee would like to determine the areas the Zebra Mussel is coming from. Mike McLean, MN Sea Grant, has volun- teered to do a study of boat traffic to gather information on where boats are traveling after leaving Zebra Mussel infested waters in the Mississippi River. If a course of action is decid- ed on, the subcommittee can go to the source and target those areas. Additional signing is being looked at along with modifica- tions of the MnDNR signs. There was discussion of the State Conservation Corps inspectors at public accesses interviewing boaters about their knowledge of Zebra Mussel. Penn reported Dick Nelson of the Minnesota Sportsfishing Congress has been added to the subcommittee. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone B. Report of 6/22/94 meeting 1) Policy proposal on reserve level for Save the Lake Fund Balance. Johnstone reported the committee considered the draft reso- lution to establish a policy on the reserve level of the Save the Lake Fund. The committee will determine the base dollar level of the reserve fund and report back for the next meeting. It was agreed that the disbursement of any portion of the reserve fund will require a majority of all board members, or at least eight of the fourteen board members, to approve a disbursement from the reserve fund. The final Resolution will be considered at the next Board meeting. 2) Review and recommendation regarding extended overtime hours for milfoil crew to speed up milfoil harvest. The executive director presented a proposal, dated 6/21/94, to extend operating hours for harvest crew personnel. MOTION: Penn moved, Zwak seconded, to authorize the executive director to provide for two extr~ hours of overtime each day for the next 36 days for the harvesting crew, adding up to $7,830 in extra personnel costs, $5,000 of which would come from the budg- eted contingency allowance, and the remaining $2,830 to come from Milfoil reserves. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Penn moved, Zwak seconded, to authorize an amendment to the trucking contract for the hauling of milfoil to provide for an additional 2 hours a day at an increase of $10.00 an hour (over the base trucking rate of $39.95 per hour). The executive director estimates this amount will be covered by the existing truck contract budget. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 10 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994 FINANCIAL REPORT$~ Treasurer Rascop. Rascop submitted the May Balance Sheet showing the status of funds as of 5/31/94. The Year to Date Financial Summary shows the District is within the budget projections. Rascop submitted a list of bills to be paid, payroll checks 1219 through 1224 and general checks 9760 through 9804 in the total amount of $22,476.27. The 1995 LMCD budget was presented for adoption and submit- tal to the member cities. MOTION: Zwak moved, Johnstone seconded, to approve the May Balance Sheet as of 5/31/94 as submitted, to approve the Year to Date Financial Summary as submitted, to approve payment of bills in the amount of $22,476.27 as submitted, and tg adopt the 1995 LMCD budget for submittal to the member cities. DISCUSSION: The executive director reported there were no objec- tions received from the cities when the draft budget was submit- ted. Penn said the City of Tonka Bay suggested it might be bene- ficial to have the city administrators sit in on the budgeting process. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Penn thanked Chair Johnstone, the executive director and Treasurer Rascop for the explanation given to the city councils. Johnstone observed that the cities still have a formal opportunity to object to the adopted budget. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Strommen did not have any new items to report. Penn mentioned the possibility of an annual shore clean up. Rascop suggested designing a program so that every ten years, during a low water year, there be a comprehensive shore clean up. ADJOURNMENT Johnstone declared the meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM. Wm. Johnstone, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 PM, Wednesday, June 22, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone 1. Annual Public officials Lake Tour, Saturday, 8/13/94; time and location confirmation READING OF MINUTES - 5/25/94 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. CgMMITTEE REPORTS WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock * A. Approval of minutes, 6/11/94 meeting * B. Bayshore Manor Condominiums, Excelsior, Excelsior Bay, multiple dock license; recommending approval of the 4/5/94 site plan * C. Lord Fletchers Apartments, Spring Park, West Arm, multiple dock license; 1) recommending approval of dock reconfiguration with no increase in slip sizes per 5/6/94 site plan, and 2) recommending approval of partial construction of the Lord Fletchers Apartment docks (for 14 of 32 slips) * D. Facilities with unrestricted watercraft affected by Resolution 90; recommending that Resolution 90, adopted 4/27/94, be effective beginning with 1995 license year Ee Sect. 2.07 Temporary Structures; recommending that an ordinance be drafted changing the distance in Sect. 2.07 from 200' to 150' and removing the LMCD from permitting temporary structures as long as the Sheriff's Water Patrol will issue permits under LMCD's ordinances ' Fe Gas dock width; recommending an ordinance be drafted to allow 10' width for gas docks with some linearity on the length included Ge Shelter for electronic equipment on gas docks; recommending an ordinance be drafted to allow a weatherproof shelter for cover and security of electronic equipment with size to accommodate one or two people LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 6/22/94, Page 2 Ho * I. * J. * K. city of Wayzata's Lakewalk, Wayzata Bay; recommending initial concept approval, to direct staff to work with Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. to draft ordinance provisions which would be reviewed by the LMCD attorney DNR proposal to enter into a cooperative agreement with the LMCD, to have the LMCD issue certain permits for the DNR; recommending a letter be sent to the DNR that the LMCD is interested in entering into a cooperative agreement Minnetonka Yacht Club; recommending approval of a multiple dock license renewal without change for 1994 scientific buoy in West Upper Lake; recommending to the Lake use & Recreation committee that a special event permit be issued with no fees for this scientific buoy [Item 2. F. 1)] L. Additional Business LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, 4/18/94 and 6/13/94 meeting (4/18/94 minutes distributed with April board agenda mailing) Be Draft ordinance relating to Watercraft for Hire, amending Sect· 3.07; recommending approval of the first reading, as amended by committee Co Draft Ordinance relating to Marine Toilets, amending Sect. 3.04, Subd. 7; recommending approval of the second reading De Request for Quiet waters Areas south of Deering Island; recommending that no quiet waters area be established in the area south of Deering I~land * E. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report Fe Additional business 1) U of M Scientific Buoy in West Upper Lake; Water Structures committee recommendation that a special event permit be issued with no fees SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Mollet * A. ApproVal of minutes, 6/2/94 meeting B. Divers Lake Bottom Clean-Up, 6/19/94, report of committee event C. Progress to date on private fund solicitation response I~CD Board of Directors Agenda, 6/22/94, Page 3 LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol A. Report of 6/22/94 meeting 1) Present Lake Access Task Force Report for final adoption upon review of comments from cities and agencies 2)Communicate Lake Access Task Force Report to state public officials 3) Designate Lake Use & Recreation committee to implement Lake Access Task Force Report recommendations and terminate the Lake Access Committee EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn * A. Approval of minutes, 6/10/94 meeting B. Report on 6/10/94 Task Force meeting C. Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee Report, 6/15/94 meeting ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone * A. Approval of minutes, 5/25/94 meeting Be Report of 6/22/94 meeting 1) Policy proposal on reserve level for Save the Lake Fund Balance 2) Review and recommendation regarding extended overtime hours for milfoil crew to speed up milfoil harvest C. Additional business FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. May Balance Sheet B. C. D. Year to Date Financial Summary Audit of Vouchers for Payment (meeting handout) 1995 LMCD Budget for adoption and submittal to member cities EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 6/17/94 J ! I l, ,11 Ii RECEIVED JUL 2 5 lgg4 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures Committee Meeting: 8:15 A.M., Saturday, July 9, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Jos. Zwak, Greenwood; Wm. Johnstone, Minne- tonka; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Techni- cian; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 8:34 A.M. Boyer Building Corp., multiple dock license application for Pelican Point Development, Mound, Spring Park Bay. Members present attended the 8 A.M. Public Hearing. Babcock expressed the committee's appreciation to the City of Mound for its communication. Babcock noted that, in the case of municipalities, the District allows the transfer of density by combining non- contiguous shoreline, including fire alleys, in shoreland calcu- lat ions. Grathwol said his reaction to the information he has is that 28 slips is enough. He doesn't see a way to allow the transfer of density without creating the problems mentioned by LeFevere. The only way he would consider this is if a positive public benefit were obtained by the transfer of density from the island. He believes the MnDNR would limit putting bridges out to the island. He could see a limitation on the use of the island which would limit the District's exposure to transferring the density. Babcock said the LMCD ordinances do not al low what the applicant is asking, as the island was not contiguous as of 1978. LeFevere said it is clear that the ordinances would have to be changed. A variance would not apply in this case. Johnstone said he is not, at this time, in favor of an ordinance change to allow this. He said there may be ways of eliminating the risk. If the District limits the applicants to 28 slips with the rest on the island it wouldn't be restricting them from the normal use of their property. Given that they can use the shoreline, the Board could look at a minor amendment to the ordinance to permit non-contiguous land being combined. For the committee's information, the portion of the property description referring to the public easement for the channel was read. LeFevere said the public has rights within the channel, not affecting the riparian rights of the island owner. The reference to riparian rights should not confuse the issue, the application should be considered treating the island as separate from the mainland as shown on the drawings. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 9, 1994 Skip Johnson, Mayor, City of Mound, said there are criteria for granting variances. In this case there may be a reason for a variance because a governmental agency developed the channel, creating a hardship for the owner. Thibault said she understands a previous owner dredged the channel. John Blumentritt, representing the developer, said he has talked to the MnDNR regarding annexing the mainland and the island with a seasonal bridge. The response from the DNR was that is something to consider but they do not favor it. The DNR favors the mainland configuration. Babcock observed that in light of the current ordinances, the island cannot be considered as a contiguous parcel. The committee is also waiting for a new site plan for the docks and the water depths. The committee can consider how many boats it wants to see at this site or the application can be tabled for a month. Grathwol said he believes the committee needs more informa- tion. He would not want to proceed ahead of the applicant. He would want to know what kind of dock will be built and its loca- tion. Grathwol said if there is a transfer of boat slip credits from the island to the mainland there has to be something posi- tive for the public. Ed Chanin, Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand, attorneys representing the applicant, said they would be happy to go along with some public benefit as a condition. He said it is important for the project to know whether there will be 40 or 28 slips. Chanin asked for LMCD approval for 40 slips on the mainland, pro- vided they meet certain conditions in an ordinance amendment so as to not create problems on the rest of the Lake. They are agreeable to conditions for preserving the island in a natural state. Babcock suggested allowing the transfer of dockage rights from the island to the mainland at 25% of the normal 1:50' level, not allowing any dockage on the island, without any vari- ances at the destination site. Johnstone advised the developer that at the present time they are entitled to no more than 28 slips on the mainland. If they proceed with a purchase agreement they are doing it at their own risk. Johnstone said he is prepared to look at an amendment to the code which would allow a transfer under certain circum- stances. He would advise the applicant to work on something which would answer the questions raised at this meeting. Responding to a question from Rascop, LeFevere said the island could be dedicated to the public through the city or the state. LeFevere said he understood the applicant was willing to leave the island natural, but was not talking about a public use of the island. Blumentritt said the property is being developed under a homeowners association agreement (HOA). The property adjacent to the lakeshore, Outlot C, is owned by the association. The island could have restrictions in the HOA, that it will be left in a natural state. He said the homeowners do not want the public to bring boats to the island. 2 WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 9, 1994 Rascop asked if Mound allows docks on property without a principal structure. Mayor Johnson responded that it does. Grathwol said he would find the:application more passable if the public had some rights such as a conservation easement on the island, not necessarily picnicking and camping. A conservation easement would be to limit development on the island and enhance the natural appearance. Partyka said another option could be a layout with 28 slips on the mainland and 12 on the island with the possibility of transferring 12 to the mainland. Partyka said he would support an ordinance amendment with tight controls to allow this. Babcock asked if the island could be developed for a house. It was understood that it would not be possible because of set- back requirements. Babcock suggested the following directions to the LMCD staff and the developer's attorney in considering an amendment to the ordinance: 1. In transferring Boat Storage Units (BSU) from non-con- tiguous sites they must be immediately adjacent or within a limited distance. 2. The amount to be transferred to be limited to a percent- age of the available BSUs. 3. There is to be some public amenity. 4. The area to which the BSUs are being transferred must be practical for development without any variances. 5. Wetlands are to be excluded. 6. All docking rights are to be transferred from the one site to the other in total. 7. Allow the Board the right to turn down the transfer if it impedes navigation, the boat density is too high, or it creates an unforeseen situation. 8. The staff is to determine what other islands around the Lake are available for development. Grathwol said trying to determine where the 929.4' OHWL is in wetlands can be difficult. Item 5 was discussed as to whether it is more desirable to transfer BSUs from wetlands to developable property than to have 500' long docks through the wetlands. Mayor Johnson said this development is more desirable at 40 slips than if the property were to be developed in individual lakeshore lots with the maximum boat storage at each site. He added that in many cases the private property owner will rent out boat slips the owner does not need. Rascop suggested rental of slips by homeowners is solvable if the city has an ordinance prohibiting commercial use in a residential area. Babcock said the law requiring titling of boats may help in the enforcement of renting slips at private property. Blumentritt asked about the possibility of extending the dock out more than 100' if the water depths require it. That would require a variance and the public hearing process could delay action further. Babcock suggested staying within the 100' LeFevere suggest'ed the developer submit several options for the dock location. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 9, 1994 The executive director reported the City of Mound has pre- pared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Pelican Point development. He provided the committee with the EAW high- lights, dated 7/8/94, supplementing information provided in the LMCD new multiple dock license application. The EAW is open for comments through 8/20/94. The executive director said he will talk to the Environmen- tal Quality Board (EQB) to see if the EAW will satisfy the re- quirements for a response from the District on the docks as well as for the land. Docks are identified in the EAW. The LMCD comments include a mention of the effect of lighting on the Lake. MOTION: Partyka moved, Zwak seconded, to table the Pelican Point application to the next Water Structures Committee meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. Rockvam Boat Yards, Spring Park, West Arm; as-built surveys of Site 1 and Site 2. Site 2. Thibault, in a memo dated 6/30/94, reported that a two foot discrepancy was found in the length of the main dock on Site 1, to which the slips on Site 2 are attached, when the as-built survey was completed following construction of the permanent docks. The total length of the dock is 171' instead of 169' and the slips for Site 2 extend to 155' instead of 153'. The surveyor reported that shoreline movement may occur over a year or two, causing the discrepancy. Jerry Rockvam, owner of Rockvam Boat Yards, explained the procedure used in locating the docks, as detailed in Thibault's memo. He said the error was not intentional. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Zwak seconded, to recommend approval of the Rockvam Boat Yard Site 2 as-built survey as submitted, noting the two foot discrepancy is not a variance, but because the impact on the Lake is minimal it will be accepted. If the docks are rebuilt at any time the dock is to be brought into conformance. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Site 1 Thibault reported that the updated Site 1 dock plan shows two make-ready docks that border the launch ramp. These make- ready docks are not currently shown on Rockvam's site plan. Rockvam stated that a make-ready dock has been next to the launch ramp since 1967. In 1983, when the launch ramp was widened, the original make-ready dock was divided into two docks, 32' and 48' in length. They are used for temporary storage when off-lake storage boats are launched and for loading and unloading people from the rental boats. Rascop said it is good to have this kind of dock available. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Johnstone seconded, to recommend approv- al of the two make-ready docks in the Rockvam Boat Yard Site 1 dock p 1 an. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 9, 1994 3. Proposed Ordinance Amending Sect. 2.07, Temporary Structures The committee received a letter from Sgt. Bill Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol, dated 7/5/94, stating the Water Patrol supports a change in the LMCD Code delegating authority to the Water Patrol for issuing temporary structure permits and changing the distance from shore of temporary structures from 200' to 150' MOTION: Rascop moved, Johnstone seconded, to recommend drafting an ordinance amendment to Sect. 2.07 Temporary Structures, chang- ing the distance from 200' to 150' and delegating permitting authority to the Sheriff's Water Patrol. DISCUSSION: Babcock asked about the reference in the Shoreland Regulations regarding the MnDNR use of a 60 meter shore zone in establishing the area not to be used in calculating density on the Lake. Rascop explained this reference was discovered by David Arndorfer in preparing the Management Plan. He said the DNR has disavowed that paragraph as having been placed in error and it does not use the 60 meter number in its calculations. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Dock Dimensions, Draft Ordinance Amending Sect. 2.12, Subd. 12. 5. Service Consoles, Draft Ordinance Amending Sect. 2.03, Subd. 11 The committee received a proposed amendment to LHCD Section 2.12, 8ubd. 12 and 2.03, Subdivision 11. The amendment would allow a 10' width for gas docks and allow construction of a weatherproof shelter to accommodate 2 people in a 6' x 6' x 8' maximum space for protection of electronic equipment on a gas dock. Babcock asked for a wording change in Sub. 11 e) to read: "No service consoles or shelters shall be used for the display or sale of any goods or merchandise other than fuel and oil." MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval of the first reading of An Ordinance Relating to Docks Used in Conjunction With The Sale of Fuel; Amending LMCD Section 2.12, Subdivision 12 and 2.03, Subdivision 11, as submitted adding or shelters to consoles in Subd. 11 e). VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LeFevere was excused. 6. DNR Proposal to Delegate Dock Permits to the LMCD MOTION: Zwak moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend authorizing the executive director to proceed with developing a cooperative agreement between the LHCD and the HnDNR authorizing the LMCD to issue multiple and permanent dock permits in lieu of the DNR. DISCUSSION: Babcock suggested checking with the Sheriff's Water Patrol and the Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District to see if they are included in the agreement. He said this arrangement should also be included in the agreement between the LMCD and the Sher- iff's Water Patrol. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5 WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 9, 1994 7. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park, Minnetrista Launch Ramp Thibault submitted a report, dated 6/30/94, listing known launch ramps on Lake Minnetonka. Thibault said the Code requires the LMCD to license launch ramps, but in the past they have not been licensed except in conjunction with a multiple dock. The subject has come up because of a proposal by the Suburban Henne- pin Regional Park to place a launch ramp on Halsteds Bay. The committee raised questions as to whether the launch ramps at the commercial marinas are covered in the Multiple Dock License. Babcock said the committee needs a copy of the ordinance with a recommendation and proposal from the staff summarizing how the ordinance would apply to various situations, how it could be implemented at this time, and whether the requirement should be continued or eliminated. Before any response is made to the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park, these issues should be cleared up and discussed at the next committee meeting. Partyka said there are ramps planned on Halsteds Bay and on West Upper Lake at the Regional Park. He does not believe they are going to be built this year. 8. Report on 6/1/94 Envelope Subcommittee Meeting The committee received a comprehensive report of the En- velope Subcommittee meeting of 6/1/94. The meeting report con- tained the previous findings of the subcommittee and items for the committee to review. Babcock said the most difficult question to answer is whether or not to require a grandfathered licensee to come into conformance with the curr'ent code for dock length and setbacks when reconstruction of a dock occurs. Another issue is when a grandfathered licensee reconstructs to a lesser density, whether or not it can, at some other time, return to the original density. Partyka asked for a clarification of the word "envelope" as it applies here. Babcock explained that there is a Dock Use Area (DUA} for sites on the Lake established in width by the extension of lot lines, less the normal setbacks. The maximum length of a DUA is 100' although there are quite a few marinas with a grandfathered, non-conforming status allowing them to go out to a maximum of 200' Currently a licensee has to have a variance to make any change in the area beyond 100' . The sub-committee suggested removing the restriction and allowing licensees to make changes in its entire dock structure without requiring a variance but retaining the same density or less. Partyka asked if the intent is to allow more flexibility in the marina operation or to bring the docks back to 100' John- stone said he believes the purpose of the envelope concept is to eliminate micro-managing by the Board and to allow more flexibil- ity in marina operation. Orathwol said one question is, whether or not the marinas should be brought into conformance with the ordinance. He said marinas are needed, but in a sense, by grandfathering them, the District has created a monopoly. 6 WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 9, 1994 Babcock said essentially what is currently being done is locking in the area beyond 100' resulting in a difficulty to the operator in making changes in the 100' area which would affect the docks in the area beyond 100' There is no intent to in- crease the number of boats on the Lake. The operators want to respond to the change in boat widths from 8' to 8-1/2' Thibault asked if the committee would consider making commercial marinas legal to 200' if they had corresponding shoreline, rather than having them all be non-conforming. Babcock said with the envelope concept there would be no intent to increase the number of boats on the Lake, the setback would remain the same and the distance into the Lake would remain the same unless the operator voluntarily reduced the length. Babcock said the sub-committee felt there must be some way of limiting the total number of boats as well as size of the boats. The sub-committee looked at formulas for totaling up the square footage of the existing dock slips and allowing reconfiguring so the total remains the same. Various formulas were looked at to calculate the square footage of the slips. One question was if the docks were reconstructed, would they have to conform to the current setbacks or could they retain the grandfathered setback. Grathwol was excused. Rascop said he interprets the discussion as saying an error was made when the 100' length limit was determined. This envelope concept effectively eliminates any chance of docks being brought in to 100' Rascop also said the sub-committee has forgotten about the American Disability Act (ADA). This plan will result in very narrow walkways or no walkways at all. Babcock said it (ADA) has been discussed by the sub-committee, as noted in the report on Page 4, and is a valid point. Johnstone observed that just by establishing an envelope of use does not mean there does not have to be conformance to many other issues in the Code. He said there should be care taken in adopting any ordinances with the assumption that there won't be any new marinas. Partyka observed that this proposal permits non-conforming marinas to go to where they are now. It does not seem to him that is the direction the District should be taking. The District should be trying to bring the marinas back into conformance. Babcock reviewed the history of the establishment of the DUA. In 1976, marinas were brought in from 400' to 300' In 1978, everyone was brought back to 100', but existing marinas at 200' were allowed to stay at 200' with no alterations to the dock structure between 100' and 200' The feeling has been, in recent years, that the marinas should have some flexibility through reconfiguration to structures beyond 100' Rascop observed that grandfathering on water is different than grandfathering on land. Applicants for marinas have no implied right to a grandfathered status as the water is owned by the State. Johnstone said this should be underscored every time a license is granted. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 9, 1994 Partyka suggested changes could be allowed if they become more conforming for a gradual return the 100' Babcock said care should be taken to avoid an ordinance change which will allow reconfigurations which are not desirable. Babcock said no action is required at this time. Input should be taken from different groups and there should be more input from Water Structure Committee members. A meeting of the sub-committee with the Water Structures Committee was suggested. Babcock said there is no time pressure on reaching a conclusion. However, decision should be made as there will be time required to take care of details, drafting of the ordinance and public hearings. Zwak was excused. 9. Variance Application Deposit Refunds Thibault said a question has risen as to the amount to be refunded because there has not been an overhead rate determined. MOTION: Babcock moved, Johnstone seconded, to recommend approval of variance application deposit refunds to Colson Construct co. and Kent and Mary Carlson. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 10. Additional Business A. Minnetonka Boat Works (MBW) Markus reported the owner of MBW is closing the Minnetonka Boat Works office. There is discussion about various uses of the land including trading the land to the City of Wayzata. The owner wants to retain a minimal amount of shoreland and keep the marina. Thibault pointed out that the Minnetonka Boat Works has a Special Density License requiring some amenities on land. It was also noted there will be a need for parking for the marina. Babcock asked for a review of the Code to see what can be or cannot be done. B. Hennepin County Bridge The executive director reported Hennepin County is planning to build a bridge at the channel from Excelsior Bay to St. Albans Bay to accommodate the light rail transit system. C. Wayzata Lakewalk Johnstone has written a letter to the City of Wayzata ex- pressing his personal views on the Lakewalk. He furnished a draft copy to the committee. Rascop said he would like to see an application designed so the City can make application for the Lakewalk and the' District can then draft an ordinance for that special circumstance. Rascop will develop a sample administrative form. 8 J J J i J,, ,11 Ii J; WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 9, 1994 11. Adjournment Chair Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 11 A.M. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair 9 J · II I ·,, ,11 Ji .. RECEIVED LAKE MINNRTONKA CONSERVA?ION DISTRICT DRAFT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee ~eeting: 5:30 P.M., Monday, July 18, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata, Room 106 Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; James Grath- wol, Excelsior; Jos. Zwak, Greenwood; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound. Also present: Rachel Thibault~ Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Foster at 5:40 P.M. The committee agreed to take the agenda items out of order to accom- modate the public in attendance. 4. Fishing Contests on Lake Minnetonka The fishing tournaments were represented by John Hesse, Dennis Green Bass Tournament, Don Shelby Invitational, Chevrolet Silverado and Denny Nelson, Denny's Super 30 and Wednesday Evening Bass Tournaments. The committee received a letter from Richard Nelson, dated 6/22/94, in which Nelson asked for information on the increase in the number of fishing tournaments on Lake Minnetonka from 1984 through 1994. He is also gathering information on the number of tournaments in Minnesota and in the metropolitan area. LMCD staff submitted a report showing the number of fishing contests and number of days they were held, covering the years 1988 through 1994. The report showed an increase in the number of contests per season from 5 to 16. The number of contests days per season increased from 16 to 37. The increase from 1993 to 1994 is 5 new contests, 14 additional contest days. Partyka asked if it 'is possible for later start times for tournaments. Nelson said he has moved his starting times from 6 A. M. to 7 A. M. in Excelsior Bay. He has also made some changes in his take-off locations. Bloom noted there were com- plaints in the pas~ from Greenwood residents about the early starting times and noise. Foster said he does not feel the fishing people are a prob- lem. The District has to look at enforcement of speeds and noise. Bloom observed that the organizers have been cooperative. Nelson said the Sheriff's Water Patrol patrols the areas where the contestants take off and has not had to ticket anyone this year. The contestants of his events are disqualified if ticket- ed. Hesse said he has the Lake Minnetonka rules in his contest literature. On the Sunday before Labor Day there is a Shelby pre-tournament meeting at which they go over the speed limits and noise limitations. He will include a penalty of the first day's catch for speeding violations during pre-fishing. If a contest- ant is ticketed he will be disqualified for that day. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE July 18, 1994 Foster suggested the tournament directors hire off-duty Water Patrol officers to assist in self-policing the tournaments. Bloom suggested, that when the tournament has a second party in the boat as an observer of the fishing rules, that observer could also be charged with seeing that the LMCD rules are enforced. Hesse said that could be done at the Shelby tournament but other contests are team contests, no observers involved. Thibault said Richard Nelson, in his letter, mentioned a policy be adopted to increase the number of available weigh- in/release sites because a survey shows the released fish do not return to their original home ranges. Foster observed that is not within the District's jurisdiction, it is a matter for the MnDNR. In response to a question from Reese, Hesse said most of the contestants in the D. Green and Silverado tournaments are from Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Shelby tournament brings contest- ants from all over the country. Reese asked if there is a practical limit to the number of tournaments that the Lake can sustain. Nelson said there is no decline in the fish count. He said Lake Minnetonka is the best bass fishing lake in the country. The fish are larger and more numerous than in the past. Grathwol suggested it would be in the interest of the fish- ing tournaments to supply the District with the origin and number of people participating in the tournaments. This would give the LMCD data to furnish to the public. The executive director said there is concern about the number of tournament car/trailers filling the public accesses on weekends. It is limiting parking for the recreational boater. This will be a future concern of fishing tournament current use and the impact on car/trailer parking resulting from growth in tournaments. Hesse said he would be willing to talk to Richard Nelson about the concerns expressed in his letter. Foster concluded that the committee did not see a serious problem with fishing tournaments, except for speeding. He sug- gested the tournament directors look toward having an official as an observer in the boats to watch the speed and other regula- tions 6. Request For a Minimum Wake/Quiet Waters Area Clinton Morrison, 2400 Cedar Point Drive, Wayzata, wrote to the District, 6/28/94, requesting a minimum wake/quiet waters area in the channel between Cedar Point and the reef just to the north of the point in Wayzata Bay. Peter Heno represented Mr. Morrison. Heno distributed photos showing the erosion around the rip-rap caused by washes from the boats going between the reef and the point. There were slow buoys at that location in 1993 during the high water emer- gency. 2 LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE July 18, 1994 Heno said the water goes over the top of the rip-rap. Morrison has lost about 6' of shoreland and the trees are start- ing to fall. He believes it is because of the volume of boats going through at a high speed. Foster said the high water has caused considerable erosion, some caused by choppy waves. Bloom said perhaps the rip-rap would have to be increased in height. Zwak said many people have the same problem and the LMCD cannot shut down the Lake by placing slow buoys every place a shoreland owner would like them. Foster agreed with Zwak, adding that if the Lake is to be left open for general use the only solution is more and better rip-rap. Foster said the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is careful in regulating the height of the water. Partyka said he had to put in rip-rap to 931.5' and that has helped alleviate the problem now that the Lake is down some. Heno asked if the channel buoys can be placed out further. Foster said that could be done. The executive director is to talk to Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lakes Improvement, about moving the buoys further out. 1. Draft Code Amendment Relating to Charter Boats The committee unanimously tabled discussion of the amendment to Sect. 3.07, Watercraft for Hire, adding Coast Guard safety standards until the Sheriff's legal counsel reviews the draft ordinance. 2. Draft Code Amendment Relating to Special Events Thibault submitted a memo, dated 7/18/94, reporting that Sgt. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol, has advised that the Sheriff's legal counsel said that the Water Patrol cannot issue a special event license for the LMCD. Currently the Water Patrol issues event permits under. DNR State Statutes, 86B.121. However, the LMCD may not reverse Water Patrol action or decisions as provided for in Subd. 4 of the draft Ordinance. Foster said as long as the permits are proposed to be issued under the LMCD Code~ citizens should have the right to appeal to the District. Then there could be a meeting with the Sheriff's Water Patrol and, if necessary, ask it to reconsider its action. Bloom said he does not believe the Sheriff has to partici- pate in a request for reconsideration. Foster said it appears the ordinance needs more work and conversation with the Sheriff. It should be clarified that the District would only be asking for reconsideration, not asking them to reverse a decision. The committee unanimously agreed to table the discussion for further information resulting from a review with the Sheriff. 3. Draft Code Amendment Relating to Marine Toilets MOTION: Grathwol moved, Partyka seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of the third reading of the Draft Code Amendment relating to Marina Toilets, Amending Sect. 3.04, Subd. 7. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE July 18, 1994 7. Coffee Cove Shore Fishing Site Improvement Foster said the Coffee Cove shore fishing site looks out- standing. Bloom asked why the State can put in hardcover so close to the shoreline. The executive director explained that the exist- ing crushed rock parking area is impervious. In this case there was more damaging run off from the crushed rock than from the cleaner asphalt surface which now drains through a settling basin. In a memo dated 7/7/94, the executive director reported Mike McDonough, Water Recreation Specialist, MnDNR Trails and Water- ways, advised that the DNR is prepared to consider shore fishing site improvements at the Narrows Channel and Hendrickson Bridge on North Arm. McDonough said plans could be ready by the end of 1994 for construction in 1995. The executive director said the sign detailed in his memo will be modified to a smaller size. There will be a final in- spection and approval of the site on 7/21/94. The executive director will attend the ceremony. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Bloom seconded, to recommend to the Board that the District support the MnDNR plans for improvement of existing shore fishing sites at the Narrows Channel and Hendrickson Bridge/North Arm access that have a high use. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. "Hush Kit" Campaign to Bring Loud Boats Into Compliance with the 80 DBA Noise Limit The executive director submitted a memo, dated 7/12/94, explaining a proposed campaign, which would include interested marinas, to install "hush kits" on loud boats. The memo ex- plained that there would be a sound testing of any boat that comes in to the participating marinas this fall. These marinas would be asked to offer special reduced costs on the muffler kits and labor. The LMCD would notify/attract boat owners who have noisy boats through a publicity campaign. The executive director said there has not been a meeting of the marina owners because Frank Pillsbury, Minnetonka Boat Works, has not been available. Information on exhaust management through the use of standard, available muffling systems was distributed. Bloom said he put a muffler on one of his boats and it is effective with no loss of power. Foster said there is almost no effect on performance. Foster said Gabriel Jabbour, Tonka Bay Marina, is committed to the program. MOTION: Reese moved, Bloom seconded, to recommend the Board support a cooperative program with interested marinas to install "hush kits" on boats with "through the hull" or similar exhaust systems which significantly exceed LMCD's 80 dba limit, starting in September, 1994, allocating up to $500 from the 1994 Contract Services Public Information budget to fund promotional bulletins and/or paid newspaper advertising. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. J ~ II i J, ,11 Iii LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE July 18, 1994 Special Events - Deposit Refunds MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of $100 Special Event deposit refunds to the following: Minnetonka Bass Classic, 6/4/94 IN Bass Tournament, 6/11/94 & 6/12/94 Mound City Days Water Ski Show & Fireworks, 6/19/94 MS Walleye Contest, 6/25/94 Morrison Fireworks, 7/4/94 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 9. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Monthly Report The committee received the Water Patrol report on Lake Minnetonka activity from June 22 to July 17, 1994. The report showed 8 Boating While Intoxicated arrests for a total of 29 for this year on Lake Minnetonka. Thibault said she has information that the proper handling of a diving accident victim by two special deputies saved the person's life and prevented total paralysis. Bloom asked the staff to verify the information and bring it up at the next meeting for consideration of a commendation. It was reported that the boat fire in Priests Bay on 7/17/94 was probably caused by gas fumes. No one was injured. Bloom asked for information on what law enforcement agency is the proper one to handle thefts from boats in the water. He believes there is confusion as to whether the local police or the Water Patrol has the jurisdiction when the theft is from a boat on the Lake and the material stolen is recovered on land. Foster understands a theft from a boat in the water falls in the juris- diction of the Water Patrol. (Cooperation with the local police department and the Water Patrol is standard procedure when han- dling a theft from a boat on the lake which transfers to the land, according to Sgt. Bill Chandler.) Reese was excused. 10. Additional Business A. Lake Access Committee Grathwol reported that the Lake Access Committee has been abolished. The Board wants the Lake Use and Recreation Committee to pick up the lake access activities. He said a (Lake access) certification program has to be developed. The committee also has to start thinking about how the accesses are going to be upgraded. Car/trailer parking agreements have to be obtained. Zwak understands the District does not have the power of eminent domain and does not have bonding authority. The DNR does have this authority. He ~aid the committee should work closely with the DNR in any access acquisition. 5 LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE July 18, 1994 B. ltalsted Bay Access Partyka said there is a property re-zoning of the Williams property north of Halsted Bay. He understands that the DNR has been asked to look at the possibility of changing the Halsted Bay Williams Street access location. The executive director will talk to the DNR and report at the next meeting. C. City of Greenwood - Charter Boat Docking Zwak reported that the City of Greenwood is involved in a law suit with a charter boat owner who uses his residential property as a berthing location. Zwak said he understands the District licenses charter boats to see that the boat is safe and where it picks up and discharges its passengers. In the Greenwood case, the charter boat owner uses the residential property to provision the boat and upon return from charters, discharges his waste for pick up on land. The neighbors are concerned about the provision trucks and that there are as many as 10 garbage cans at one site. Zwak's ques- tion to the committee is whether the District should be concerned that the berthing area is residential and is being used commer- cially. . Foster said this has been discussed in the past. Some charter boats have been berthed at the owner's dock with no advertising signs. The Greenwood resident seems to be using the land for commercial activity. The District is restricted in its authority to the water side of the 929.4' level. He believes it is a land use issue. Bloom believes the LMCD Code could classify this use as that of a commercial dock and it would have to be licensed as such. Grathwol said different cities have different feelings about the LMCD getting involved with land issues. He believes this is a matter for the city to solve. Zwak said if the owner has to have a commercial dock license it should be required and the city given notice of the applica- tion. Grathwol believes that would be a change in the District's policy. Bloom said he believes the activity described by Zwak is covered by the LMCD Code. Zwak said he will talk to Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel, about ordinance interpretation. 11. Pending Items Thibault asked the members to retain the information fur- nished on lighting for future reference. 12. Adjournment Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 7:15 P. M. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair 6 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Save the Lake Advisory Committee Minutes 5:00 pm, Thursday, July 7, 1994 LMCD Conference Room 160, Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Present: Chair Craig Mollet, Co-chair Bob Pillsbury, Stuart Frick, Len Kopp, Frank Mixa, Executive Director Gene Strommen MINUTES. Minutes were accepted with the amendment offered by Pillsbury to list him as Co-Chair among the members present. "TREASURE YOUR LAKE" DIVERS CLEAN-UP EVENT EVALUATION. Pillsbury reported 28 participants, an excellent turn-out for a first-time event in ten years on Fathers Day. Diver awards solicited by Frank Mixa were sufficient so that every diver received a merchandise award. Businesses providing awards were: Bank of Lakes, Navarre Club Scuba, Long Lake Excelsior Park Tavern First National Bank of Wayzata Lakeside Marina Lafayette Club Lord Fletchers on the Lake Minnetonka Boat Works Minnetonka Mist Rockvam Boat Works Ski Hut Sunsets Restaurant Wayzata Bar & Grill Wayzata Marine Recognition letters will be sent to all contributors. Pillsbury reported the lack of chase boats to direct boats away from the dive area was the main deficiency experienced. The Minnetonka Power Squadron offered some help, but time to recruit and conflicts with Fathers Day created difficulties. The Excelsior Park Tavern served a generous continental breakfast on board their charter boat which was used for the divers meeting. "TREASURE YOUR LAKE" T-SH.IRT SALES. The 500 T-shirts ordered by Pillsbury arrived the Saturday before the event. Three stores in Excelsior, two contacted by Jim Grathwol and one by Strommen, each bought a dozen shirts. Sales are pending with three stores in Wayzata, contacted by Pillsbury. The shirt supplier, Initially Yours, Wayzata, called for immediate payment of the full amount of $2,811. A first payment of $829.50 was paid toward 150 shirts on 6/22 based upon sales and those charged to LMCD for the diver participants, committee, and milfoil harvest crew and shirts on consignment. The balance of $1,989.50 was paid 6/29. The artist fee of $100, plus 20 complimentary T-shirts the artist claimed, was added to the cost, bringing the T-shirt cost to $6.04 each. The funds paid by LMCD upon the authorization of the LMCD chair and treasurer, were only minimally budgeted based upon the complimentary shirts to the participants. The LMCD board will review the transaction at its July 27 SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 7/15/94, P. 2 meeting. Pillsbury was asked in a letter by the executive director to take his personal share of the responsibility for the sales and/or payment as Pillsbury stated in arranging the T-shirt promotion. Pillsbury is continuing to assist in arranging sales. Committee member Alice Bronstad has agreed to help sell T-shirts on a commission basis of $.50 per shirt depending upon final sales outcome. Mixa has contacted Tom Penn about a possible Target Store purchase. They could be interested in the possible full inventory of approximately 300 shirts remaining. Shirt prices for resale through stores were discussed, with $8.00 each for one or two dozen, $7.50 for three to four dozen and $7.00 for five or more dozen. This is the schedule Bronstad is using. Individual retail sales for one or a few is $10. DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR A POLICY ON "SAVE THE LAKE" RESERVE FUND A draft resolution, presented to the LMCD board in June, was referred to the committee for recommendations on an actual fund balance to be remained which would only be spent upon majority board approval. The fund balance at the close of 1993 operations was $84,427. Based upon discussions wit~ the board which favored funding projects from current revenues raised in that year, and a committee discussion on the over-all value of retaining a strong fund balance and building a $100,000 reserve fund, Mixa moved, Mollet seconded that the 12/31/93 balance of $84,427 be held as a reserve, with half of the interest earned each year added to %he fund balance. The motion carried unanimously. The committee continued tq discussion the. need for ~ vision for the fund. balance. Expenditures from the fund. balance should meet the.. intent of such A vision. The committee is interested in further developing such A vision. ADOPT-A-SHORELINE CLEAN-UP. The volunteer chair for this effort has not had the time to devote to it according to Mollet. Scout participation is probably less available at this time in the midst of summer vacations/activities. Mollet will continue to pursue the project. PROGRESS ON 1994 REVENUE FROM MAIL SOLICITATION. Response to the mail solicitation since the May mailing is $14,722, Strommen reported. A second mailing to current contributors was recommended at the end of August just ahead of Labor Day. Additional mail contacts were discussed. Return envelopes were circulated for committee review and identification. Strommen reported Gabriel Jabbour can help the committee with lakeshore property owners. His list will be compared against SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COPL~4ITTEE, MINUTES, 7/7/94, P. 3 LMCD's to build additional prospects. Jabbour indicates he has a variety of categories he can use to identify the prospects as well. Strommen will work with Jabbour to expand the Save the Lake list. Mailings to new prospects will be done at an early date. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 pm. Res_pectful ly ~t~mit_~d, ~trommen Executive Director RECEIVE[:) ;' 5 lgg4 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force Minutes 8:30 am, Friday, July 15, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg Conference Rm 135, Wayzata Present: Acting Chair Tom Reese, LMCD Board, Mound; Gene Partyka, LMCD Board, Minnetrista; Bob Rascop, LMCD Board, Shorewood; John Barten, Hennepin Parks; Mike Brandt, Hennepin County; Tom Frahm, LMLOA; Todd Grams, LMCD Project Manager, EWM Harvesting; Dave Hetland, Congressman Jim Ramstad's staff; Ray Newman, U of M Fisheries; Marsha Videen, E. Parkers Lake Improvement Assn.; Chip Welling and Rick Walsh, MN DNR; Pat Wulff, MN Lakes Assn.; Cob Burandt, guest, citizen; MINUTES. Welling asked for the following corrections: Page 2, Para 3, line 5, correct by deleting "Re-registration of 2,4-D, the current herbicide to control EWM and other aquatic plants, is being held pending the outcome of this testing. . Page 2, Para 6, line 10, correct to read "Welling noted that some initial injury to native plants WAS EXPECTED. (in place of "followed". and delete balance of sentence continuing on P. 3, lines 1 and 2.) FILAMENTOUS ALGAE. Reese circulated an EWM plant sample in water which he had taken this morning containing significant filamentous algae on the plant. Welling and others noted that such algae does occur on EWM and other aquatic plants. It is also expected that such algae can retard the plant growth. Reese expressed the hope that this may help contain some EWM matting on the lake surface where such algae growth occurs. LMCD HARVEST REPORT. Project Manager Todd Grams presented: a. Harvest progress from June 13 to July 8 consisting of: Harvester loads -- 204 (equivalent full loads) Acres harvested -- 188 (light due to channel cuts) Truck loads -- 88 (estimating 10 tons/truck load) Truck load weights will be verified due to questions raised. Current harvesting is selective for channels to docks and smaller surface matted areas rather than clear cutting done at the program start. This procedure allows harvesting more areas of the lake early. It does reduce the efficiency and lowers the acreage harvested, Todd added. Most people want their areas harvested in July. This procedure will allow more of that to be accomplished. Second harvesting of bays will follow. The last three weeks will likely involve second harvesting in the more infested lake areas. EWM TASK FORCE MINUTES, 7/1.5/94, P. 2 b. Milfoil qrowth compariso~ from ]99~ t_9o ~1994 has shown considerably more surface matting. The most infested bays such as Phelps, Carmans and Gideons are similarly infested as in 1993, but more density and surface matting has been found in Grays, Wayzata and Smiths and Lafayette Bays. Lower lake area is dense, but without matting. Harvesting matted areas increases harvester load results compared to lighter infested growth found in bays which still require some harvesting. c. Harvestinq ~orecast for the five weeks remaining include moving to the northwest bays and then upper lakes, followed by re-harvesting in the early bays with heaviest infestation--Phelps, Carmans, Gideons, Lafayette, others. d. Access fragment clean up at public accesses varies from day to day as to volume of accumulated fragments. South facing accesses, such as Spring Park Bay, are among those most subject to accumulation. Daily monitoring is done by LMCD personnel, with the DNR Conservation Corps boat inspectors assisting in between LMCD stops. Cob Burandt circulated a photo showing a heavy fragment build-up at Spring Park Bay access. Burandt suggested a floating rope be installed to catch fragments before they reach the access. Mike Brandt, Hennepin County, reported plans to have a fence installed on both sides of the access to catch drifting milfoil fragments before they move into the access opening. A wall bordering the access serves to funnel fragments to the access. County personnel will conduct the fragment clean-up. Installation is expected possibly this month. The Task Force did not act on Burandt's rope suggestion. e. Herbicide treatment, at eight major public accesses was completed in the first two weeks in June. A second treatment will depend upon results of inspection for regrowth. GARLON 3A TEST APPLICATION. Chip Welling reported on a 16 acre test site at Phelps Bay and 17 acre site involving Carsons bay south of Minnetonka Blvd. The maximum concentration rate was used. Application was made 6/21 at Phelps and 6/23 at Carsons. Corps of Engineers personnel are monitoring herbicide presence in the water column. Persistence of Garlon 3A in the water is 5 to 7 days. Broad leaf plants (dicots) are more susceptible to Garlon than narrow leaf plants (monocots) such as curly leaf pondweed, Welling added. The effect on EWM appears to be a complete "knockdown". EWM TASK FORCE MINUTES, 7/15/94, P. 3 SONAR UPDATE. Treatments were done on Parkers lake 5/]9 and Zumbra 5/24. Milfoil went down earlier in Parkers Lake. Some green tips were still visible, but this is expected since Sonar is slow acting. The first thorough Sonar evaluation of Sonar and its effect on milfoil and native plants will be done 90 days after treatment. Curly leaf pondweed is expected to be impacted. Sonar concentration after the 10 pm application rate was found as high as 30 ppm. This is due to the difficulty in estimating water volume and how Sonar mixes with the water column. The mixing is affected by water column temperature, water movement and other factors. After four weeks past treatment, Sonar concentration was just under 10 ppm. The test was planned to have a concentration high enough to remove the milfoil while minimizing the effect on native plants. MILFOIL SIGHTINGS. No new milfoil infestations have been reported to date. The watercraft inspection program at infested lakes is believed to be contributing to the spread control. Eradication of initial infestations is evident on Crooked Lake, treated with. Sonar in 1992, and 2,4-D treatments on Bay, Christmas and Sugar Lakes. Control work is continuing on six other lakes to attempt eradication of small infestations. DNR is cooperating on control work on 14 lakes, with another 14 lakes pending local lake groups to take the initiative to undertake control treatment. ZEBRA MUSSEL AND EXOTICS ACTION PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE PROGRESS. Strommen previewed the 7/20 meeting agenda which included: a. Progress on Zebra Mussel Draft Control Plan b. Transportation survey on movement of boats; c. Survival rate studies of zebra mussel larvae; d. LMCD staff report on DNR opening of 3 public accesses on Mississippi river in light of zebra mussel presence; The minutes of the 6/15/94 meeting were provided to the Task Force. WEED PULLER DEVELOPMENT. Burandt was present to comment on the mechanical preparations for the weed puller conversion from a weed harvester provided by John Evans, Freshwater Aquatics. As the person responsible for the mechanical plans and installation, Burandt noted that the $5,000 received in the winter, followed by the larger share of funds March 15 did not allow enough funding for early work he had planned. After the March 15 receipt of funds Burandt stated he no longer had the "discount" offer from a source which was to help in the conversion. Changes in the harvester dimensions and flotation system are done. Rollers have been modified and belting "sharpened", but there are still skip problems in the pulling process. The turbo engine did not support the pulling system. A centrifugal pump has been purchased. It will hold weeds to the conveyor in place of the turbo engine. EWM TASK FORCE MINUTES, 7/15/94, P. 4 LAKE ASSOCIATION REPORTS. a. Parkers Lake is monitoring its access, but volunteers have been hard to find according to Marsha Videen. The MN Conservation Corp inspectors are providing some monitoring. The City of Plymouth will hire and train a paid access monitor. b. The MN Lakes Assn. annual conference is in Alexandria October 28/29. Wulff will be speaking this month to a Leach Lake property owners group which is fearful of EWM getting into the lake. HENNEPIN PARKS. Barten reports an EWM infestation in Fish Lake has been treated and knocked down. However, boaters are traveling through the mi]foil-buoyed area A French lake treatment has experienced a 95% kill on a heavy infestation. Two acres of EWM have been treated in Lake Independence with Diquat. Diquat, a contact herbicide, allows a faster knock down, although it does not have the more lasting effect of 2~4-D which is systemic -- reaching plant roots. Wulff added that the lake association treated a ten acre site on the west side of the lake with good success. WEEVIL RESEARCH. Newman reported a second sampling of the buoyed area in Smiths Bay is done. Weevil damage has been observed in the near-shore areas. A blood worm, the midge, has been found living on the tips of EWM. It does well in northern climates, being found in British Columbia and Ontario. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 am. Respectfully submitted, Eugene R. Strommen Executive Director RECEIVED JUL 2 5 1§g4 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Report 6:30 PM, Wednesday, June 22, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall Members Present: Bill Johnstone-Chair, Bob Rascop, Tom Reese, Joe Zwak, Jim Grathwol, Gene Partyka, Herb Suerth, with Bert Foster and Craig Mollet as noted; staff members Rachel Thibault and Gene Strommen 1. 5/25/94 Meeting Report MOTION: Zwak moved, Grathwol seconded to recommend approval of the minutes of the 5/25/94 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 2. cities .comments on draft 1995 LMCD Budget Rascop had contacted his mayor and a meeting was scheduled for the following Monday. Reese said that the Mound council felt that the LMCD is drawing down the reserves too fast. Grathwol said that he talked to Excelsior's mayor and there was no comment from the council. Suerth said Woodland's Mayor Duff presented the budget to his council. Suerth was not at the meeting, but would follow up to see if any comments were made. Johnstone said that there was no comment from the City of Minnetonka. He pointed out that if the Board approved the 1995 Budget at its meeting tonight, the cities could still comment on it. city comments may be taken up to the time they set their budgets in the fall. Rascop said that the cities used to do their budgets in July, but now they have until December to do them. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Rascop seconded to recommend approval of the 1995 LMCD Budget as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Proposed Policy for the reserve level of the Save the Lake fund balance Johnstone reviewed the proposed policy for the reserve level of the Save the Lake Fund, which was to leave a certain fixed dollar amount as the balance of the fund, spending only the annual contributions for a given year. Spending below the fixed balance would require a 2/3 vote of the Board (or 9 members) . Rascop pointed out that an ordinance only needs a quorum or 8 members to be passed The consensus was to change the proposal so that only a majority vote of the Board (8 members) was required instead of a 2/3 vote. Another suggestion was to establish the base amount, and increase it by half of the investment income or interest each year. Budgeted expenditures of the annual contributions and half of the interest would be approved by a simple majority of the board, with spending of the base amount requiring approval by a majority of all members. Bert Foster and Craig Mollet arrived. Rascop supported a position that the amount to be spent in a given year would be equal to the previous year's donations, plus half the investment income. Administrative Committee Meeting Report, 6/22/94, Page 2 Mollet said that the committee members were more interested in raising funds than in spending them. He said that their concern is that the funds are spent for a worthwhile purpose. Johnstone asked for a suggestion for the fixed balance. Strommen said that the fund is currently in the mid-nineties. Since January 1994, the LMCD has received $15,200 in donations. MOTION: Zwak moved, Grathwol seconded to table the subject to the next Administrative Committee meeting, with a recommendation for a dollar amount. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Extended overtime hours for EWM crew to speed up harvest program The executive director distributed a memo regarding a proposal to extend the operating hours for the milfoil harvest crew because of the extensive growth this year. Reese asked if the harvesters would be paid overtime rates for the extra two hours each day. Strommen said that they would not unless they worked over 40 hours for the full work week. Partyka asked why the program would end on August 19th. Strommen said the boating season is in decline in mid-August, and the operators, many of whom are students and teachers, go back to school. MOTION: Rascop moved, Zwak seconded, to recommend approval of authorizing the executive director to have the milfoil crew work 36 ten hour days instead of eight hour days. Motion carried unanimously. Strommen pointed out that the trucking contract will also have to be amended. The trucking contractor, Bill Niccum, Minnetonka Portable Dredging, is asking for an adjustment to his bid for time after 5:30 PM at $10 per hour, unless the District requires an earlier start time or longer than a 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM normal eight hour contractor work day. Strommen said that Niccum would only operate until the last milfoil load is unloaded each day. Strommen finds that even with the extended hours, the milfoil program should be within the budget due to lost time. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend authorizing an amendment to the trucking contract to allow $10 per hour for overtime, maximum 2 hours per day. Motion carried unanimously. Strommen advised the committee of a small (3-5 gallon) hydraulic oil spill occurring from one of the harvesters this evening. He explained what happened and how the spill would be cleaned up. The meeting was adjourned at 7:17 PM. ~chel- Thibau~t, Administrat ive Technician PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-. TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION 3110 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 58, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID #19-117-23 34 0081 P&Z CASE #94-48 WHEREAS, the owners, John and Joleen Price, have applied for a variance to recognize the following nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a garage addition, entryway addition, driveway, and deck: REQUIRED Side, South 6 Lake 50 EXISTING/PROPOSED 3.7' (to house) 2.3' 41.0' +- (to deck) 9.0' VARIANCE and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1A Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, topography on this site is the greatest difficulty to overcome in order to provide for a garage. The garage as proposed represents a positive improvement, is reasonabte, and hardcover and setbacks are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the proposed deck does exceed the 10 foot setback requirement to the top of the bluff, and; WHEREAS, the house does not meet the 50 foot setback, it is setback approximately 49 feet, and; WHEREAS, an 8 foot deck is minimal in size and deck expansion to the north side is prohibited due to the location of the sewer line, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with conditions, and with the finding that it is a reasonable use to allow the proposed 8 foot deck as it is minimal in size, and the location of the sewer line prohibits expansion to the north. 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 allow a setback of 41' from the ordinary high water to the deck, and to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 3.7 feet to allow construction of a conforming garage addition 22' x 24', and entryway addition 6' x 30', a driveway, and a deck 8' x 36' (approx.), subject to the following: Proposed Resolution //94-48 - Price Page 2 The survey be updated to show the sewer and water line locations. B. Drainage on the property be acceptable to staff. 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 garage addition 22' x 24', and entryway addition 6' x 30', a driveway, and a deck 8' x 36' (approx.), subject to the following: This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 58 in Phelps' Island Park First Division, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County of Hennepin; That certain premises bounded as follows: Bounded on the Westerly side by the Easterly or front boundary line of Lot 58 in Phelp's Island Park First Division; on the Easterly side by the Iow water line of Lake Minnetonka; on the Northerly side by the Northerly line of said Lot 58 extended on a straight line to the said lot water mark of said Lake Minnetonka; on the Southerly side by the Southerly line of Lot 58 extended in a straight line to the said Iow water line or said Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County at Hennepin. 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. iii ~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 ~ _JOHN & JOLEEN PRICE~ 3110 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 58, PHELPE ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID #19-117-23 34 0081. VARIANCE GARAGE ADDITION The applicant is seeking several variances for a new garage, entryway, driveway and deck. This property is located in the R-lA Zone which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40' of street frontage. Following are the setbacks and requested variances: REQUIRED _EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE Front 20 87 +- Okay Side North 6 20 +- Okay Side South 6 3.7 2.3' Lake 50 41' +- 9' Bluff 1 O' 10' + Okay The topography on this site is the greatest difficulty to overcome in order to provide for a garage. The applicant has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in developing this plan. The garage as proposed represents a positive improvement, is reasonable, and hardcover and setbacks are conforming. Just prior to the meeting, staff received a revised survey which indicates that the deck does exceed the 10 foot setback requirement to the top of the bluff. The location of the sewer and water still needs to be located. It appears possible to re-orient the deck to the north side to a conforming location. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the garage as proposed. The proposed deck will need further discussion at the Planning Commission meeting when additional information is expected. The applicant, John Price, confirmed with the surveyor that there are no utility easements on his property. Also, according to Greg Skinner, Sewer and Water Superintendent, the water is located on the street side, and the sewer line extends from the north side of the house and hooks up to the line on Lot 57. Therefore, the deck, as proposed, does not interfere with the utility locations. Mueller expressed a concern that an 8 foot deck will not provide enough space for a table and chairs. Mr. Price noted that their original plan included a 12 foot deck, however, it has been scaled back after discussions with City staff. Staff confirmed that the house does not currently meet the 50 foot setback, that it has been scaled to be 49 feet. Other possible locations for the deck was discussed. The applicant noted that the deck cannot be larger on the north side due to a door on the lower level and the location of the sewer line. Planning Commission Minutes #94-48 - Price July 14, 1994 The Building Official stated that an 8 foot deck is minimal in size and in light of the sewer line location would recommend approval of the deck as proposed, however, the sewer line location must be reviewed by Public Works and the City Engineer. Mueller questioned if there are any concerns relating to drainage. The applicant commented that the driVeway has been cut back 8 feet in width from the original plan, that some type of rock terracing will be installed along the driveway to help slow the drainage, and he is considering the installation of a grate at the bottom of the driveway. Mueller expounded that the intent of the hardcover ordinance is to slow water runoff into the lake by allowing it to first filter through the ground. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, subject to the following: 1. The survey be updated to show the sewer and water line locations. 2. Drainage on the property be acceptable to staff. The Planning Commission finds there is reasonable use to allow the proposed 8 foot deck as it is minimal in size, and the location of the sewer line prohibits expansion to the north. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Staff informed the applicant that this request is scheduled to appear before the City Council on July 26, 1994. The applicant requested that it be heard by the City Council on July 13, 1994. , ! i ! I !! ~ ,~, z~ 3 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO: LOCATION: ZONING: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF JULY 11, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION, APPLICANT AND STAFF JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL ~ VARIANCES FOR GARAGE AND DECK JOHN AND JOLEEN PRICE 94-48 3110 ISLANDVlEW DRIVE, LOT 58, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID #19-117-23 34 0081 R1A BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking several variances as listed below, for the existing and proposed development on this site. A new garage, entryway, driveway and deck is proposed. This property is located in the R1A Zone which requires a lot area of 6000 square feet, 40' of frontage and the following setbacks: REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE Front 20 87 +- Okay Side North 6 20 +- Okay Side South 6 3.7 2.3' Lake 50 41' +- 9' Bluff 10' Verify Verify The topography on this site is the greatest difficulty to overcome in order to provide for a garage. The applicant has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in developing this plan. The garage as proposed represents a positive improvement and is reasonable, hardcover and setbacks are conforming. Additional information is J J II J J, ,11 J PLANNING REPORT - PRICE - PAGE 2 needed to evaluate the proposed deck. This site contains a bluff and this plus the 10' setback must be identified on the survey. In addition, the utilities must be located on the lakeside in order to evaluate setbacks .and prevent encroachment into this easement. It appears possible to re-orient the deck to the north side to a conforming location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the garage as proposed. Staff will respond to the proposed deck at the Planning Commission meeting or as soon as the additional information is provided. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472.-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: '~ Distribution: City Planner I~ Public Works City Engineer " DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 . Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property 3110 Islandview Drive, Mound, PiN 55364 Lot 58 Phelps Island Park 1st Division Addition Zoning District Owner's Name Use of Property: John & Joleen Price Block P~ No. 19-117-23 340081 Homestead Owner's Address 3110 Islandview Drive, Mound, ~ 55364 Day Phone (John) (Joleen' 347-4831 or 475-4162 Applicant's Name Of other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure f6r this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application ,. action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1979 - To build parkin~ a~ea which was ~ranted. The current ~lan is to remove that parkinz area and tie wall. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 0' ~(~,' */- To add a ~ara~e measurin~ ~?' x 24' an entry way 6' x 30', a driveway and a deck to existin~ i~ouse (see blue print for details). I,i · ia J ,I II J, I, Vm-iance Application (11/93) Ca~ No. 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 VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N..~S.,E W ) Side Yard: (~ W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S/~W ) (~.~a~;J~,. (N~V) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. et. ft. I ' +/- ft. ft. ft. It ' ft. sqft !/~. 3 ~55 sqft sqft sq ft .~2~t_L~sq ft o l( sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe:(,4x!O Cl_~-)x~ ) topography )/drainage ~shape (~))~oil xisting situation ther: specify Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. 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: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No I~. 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. O wner'sSignatu 'r~~~x~r,-.-------~ Applicant's Signa~'~j Date Date 7o II I '*'*" &NCHOR $ClENTIFI ~ 001. NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY:" DECK: CITY OF MOUND HARD COVER CALC ULATi ON S //5 8QFT X 30% = '.54-/~'. SQ FT X 15% · LENGTH .' WIDTH TOTAL HOUSE 24.0 . TOTAL'GAUGE ' TOTAL DRIVEWAY (if imperv-ious ~ surface under deck = 100%) "TOTALDEOK zq7,~ TOTAL DECK sO~' ' ' OTHER: .... ' " TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTSi'* * * * * * * * * * * * * * BY: C~',~'A-/,;c,/ ,~ ~"/'p,4./.d C/~ ~'" ];"~C. · DATE: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '''°'' ' lll,l ¢ ......... Iii · I ~iiii~i~!i~:~ii~!~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::: fill IIii~ ......... I ......... .............. :::: ..... " ii'i'i'iH"Hi .... ....... ; .................. :E:IO:I 30N3CII$3W J, i II I J, Ii J, 7'7 ADDRESS: . i .~ '~- ~ ZONE: Re. ired ~t ~ldth: ~ / t J (frontage on an ~proved ~blic street) ~ XS TI'IX CONFOI~IX NO ? YES BY, "~ ~ EXISTING ~J,,ID/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS** PRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT~ N S E 0' FRONT: N S g W I ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONT ~ N S g W FRONT ~ N S g W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDEz N S lC W 4' 9[ §' REAR: N S E W . 4' f~SHORE: $0' (meaou~gd from O.H.W.t FRONT ~ N S · W FRONT: N S E W SIDle: N S · W SIDE: N S · W ~EAR: N S u W LAICES HORE t ACCESSORY NO < ~7;' C::~ ~ ~5 / { MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 26, 1994 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 26, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Jim Larson City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by seconded by to approve the Minutes of the July 12, 1994, Regular Meeting, and the July 19, 1994, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVED BY RESOLUTION //85-97 FOR A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA AT 5300-5400 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING), BALBOA ADDITION, PID//13-117-24 34 0096, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR CANOPIES. moved and°~econded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-100 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVED BY RESOLUTION //85-87 FOR A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA FOR BALBOA MINNESOTA COMPANY TO ALLOW FOR CANOPIES AT THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING, 5330 SHORELINE DRIVE, BALBOA ADDITION, P&Z CASE//94-47 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE //94-51: JAMES BEDELL AND STEVEN BEDELL, 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID #13-117-24 44 0052, VARIANCE FOR SEASONAL SNACK SHOP. t / Ib.~- CASE #94-44: BUZZ SYCKS, 5926 BEACHWOOD ROAD, PART OF LOT 47, BLOCK 4, AUDITOR'S SUBD. #168, PID #23-117-24 13 0023, VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING. J J II i J, ,11 1, moved and~econded the following RESOLUTION//94~0-J resolution: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH, AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 5926 BEACHWOOD ROAD, PART OF LOT 47, AUDITOR'S SUBD.//168, PID//23- 11%24 13 0023, P&Z CASE//94-44 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 CASE //94-45: KEVIN WH.DES, DARRYL AND CAROLYN DILLON, 1643 HERON LANE, LOT 1 & N 1/2 OF LOT 2, BLOCK 19, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//13-117-24 11 0061, VARIANCE FOR DECK. moved and seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-J_~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 1643 HERON LANE, LOT 1 & N 1/2 OF LOT 2, BLOCK 19, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//13- 11%24 11 0061, P&Z CASE//94-45 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. J ~ II I ,J, ,11 1, 1.5 CASE #94-46: GARY PARENDO, 5001 AVON DRIVE, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID #24-117-24 14 0040, VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. moved and/~seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #94-10~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE DWELLING AT 5001 AVON DRIVE, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID//24-117-24 14 0040, P&Z CASE g94-46 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.6 CASE//94-49: DEAN AND JULIE STEFFEN, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, PID #24-117-24 42 0016, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. ~l J j i J, ,11 J; J,, moved and seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, PID //24-117-24 42 0016, P&Z CASE //94-49 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 CASE//94-50: LOIS JEAN WESTERGAARD, 5914 FAIRFIELD ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 6, MINNESOTA SUMMER BAPTIST ASSEMBLY, PID //23-117-24 42 0075, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. ?- moved and~econded the following RESOLUTION//94- resolution: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO HARDCOVER, AND TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS AND LOT AREA TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 5914 FAIRFIELD ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 6, MINNESOTA SUMMER BAPTIST ASSEMBLY, PID//23-11%24 42 0075, P&Z CASE//94- 50 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 CASE #94-52: STEVEN GERHARDSON, 3058 BRIGHTON COMMONS, LOT 2! & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, AND TRACT C OF RLS 1149, PID #24-11%24 43 0091, VARIANCE FOR DECK. moved andffeconded the following resolution: ]g)~'~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO TO RESOLUTION ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DECK AT 3058 BRIGHTON COMMONS, LOT 21 & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, AND TRACT C OF RLS 1149, PID//24-117- 24 43 0091, P&Z CASE//94-52 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 CASE //94-53: PDQ AND UNIVERSAL SIGN, 5550 THREE POINTS BLVD.. LOTS 26 & 27, LAFAYETTE PARK. PID #13-117-24 22 0017, SIGN VARIANCE. J J II ! J ,11 I1, RESOLUTION #94-Itg~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR PDQ FOOD STORES, 5550 THREE POINTS BLVD., LAFAYETTE PARK, LOTS 26 & 27, PID #13- 117-24 22 0017, P&Z CASE//94-53 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 1.10 RESCHEDULE SEPTEMBER 13, 1994, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SEPTEMBER 14, 1994, DUE TO PRIMARY ELECTION. MOTION made ny, seconded by to reschedule the Tuesday, September 13, 1994, Regular City Council Meeting to Wednesday, September 14, 1994, at 7:30 P.M., due to the Primary Election on September 13th. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT. REQUEST FOR TREE TRIMMING, HOWARD HAGEDORN, AVOCET LANE, WIOTA COMMONS. moved and seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #94-~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRIMMING OF VEGETATION ON WIOTA COMMONS ABUTTING 1749 AVOCET LANE, LOTS 15 & 16, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, DOCK SITE #13630 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 RECOMMENDATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RE: MOUND VISIONS/ISTEA - LOST LAKE CANAL REHABHJTATION PROJECT. T_he vnta Nx, o~. __ ,,non;m,,,,-],, ~n fRvor. ...uuu:.''-':-'- ~ 1.13 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, SECTION 350:1200 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE.~ MOTION made byffseconded by~o set August 23, 1994, for a public hearing to consider modifications to the S'horelane Management Ordinance, Section 350:1200 of the Mound City Code. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 APPLICATION FOR CIGARETTE LICENSE FOR BY THE WAY SNACK SHOP, 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE (SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CASE #94-51). 1.15 1.16 1.17 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST //2 SEWER LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $135,401.60. MOTION made by t~seconded by)o approve Payment Request #2 for the 1994 Sewer Lift Station ImproVement Project to .~he amount of $135,401.60. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ' ~-~ o<~cb~- ~,7~A3~,~'~ APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST #2 - WATER METER EQUIPMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,259.30. MOTION made by~ seconded/)by to approve Payment Request #2 for the Water M -- eter Equipment Project to in the amount of $46,259.30. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. .S 'c~dx~~ APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 300:10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE COMPI.ETION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME. ~ ~'~'A~-moved andAseconded the following: ORDINANCE NO. 68-1994 The vote was unanimously in favor. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 300:10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE BY ADDING SUBD. 5 REQUIRING THE COMPLETION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME Motion carded. 1.18 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by , seconded by - to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ~ INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Financial Report for June 1994, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. B. Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 1994. C. Letter from LMCD RE: Public Officials Lake Inspection Tour, Saturday, August 13, 1994. Please let Fran know ASAP if you wish to attend. "" Economic Development Commission Minutes of June 16, 1994. MOTION made by~seconded by~A to adjourn at P.M. The vote unanimously was in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk