The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-05-28[C~Y OEMO~ mSSION STATE~: ~e City 0fM6~d~ thr0ug~ t~m~0rk~:~O::!C~ti~n~ l~royide~ a a[ . [ AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PAGE 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 14, 1996 REGULAR MEETING ................................... 1715-1722 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 21, 1996 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ...................... 1723-1725 CASE g96-19: JOHN HOLLOWAY, 4943 MONMOUTH / ~ ROAD, LOTS 8, 9, & W. 1/2 OF LOT 7, BLOCK 30 /21~-~/9 / WYCHWOOD, VARIANCE FOR A DECK ..................... 1726-1738 CASE #96-20: WILLIAM & JANICE DARLI~ 2600 GROVE LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, LANGDON'S LANDING, VARIANCE FOR PORCH ........................ 1739-1757 CASE//96-21: SALLY SWANSON, 1708 AVOCET LANE, LOT 26 AND NELY 10' OF 25, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, VARIANCE FOR DECK ...................... 1758-1768 :W ¢ CASE g96-22: SALITERMAN LTD./NORWEST BANK, 5211 SHORELINE,DRIVE, LOTS 7-20 & 26-35, SHIRLEy HILLS, UNIT F, VARIANCE FOR NORWEST BANK SIGN .......... '~¢' CASE~6-23: MARK HENDERSON, 320, ROXBURY.. ------ .~..~.l:iPh..7 ~'~.~ANE, LOTS 1, 2, 14, & 15, BLOCK 2a,.DEVON MINOR SUBDIVISION ........ CASE/~)6-24: KEVIN DONAHOE, 1801 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 1-2, BLOCK 6, SHADYWOOD POINT, , ~,~,.z~ VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ................. ./'0..~ ~ ~ .... 1769~1788 1789-1812 1813-1828 1711 10/' CASE//96-25: KARI& MICHAEL BERG, 1754 ~ '%~/ RESTHAVEN LANE, LOTS 21-22, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, VARIANCE FOR DECK 1829-1842 11. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 12. ~- 13. APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN PERMIT, QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS ............ 1843 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, STEPHANIE COON $42314 ............ 1844-1856 14. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS FOR HENNEPIN ~ COUNTY PROJECT//9514, TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM INSTALLATION AT INTERSECTION OF THREE POINTS AND COUNTY ROAD 110 .......................... 1857-1859 15. RENEWAL OF MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE LEASE (HANDOUT ON TUESDAY EVENING). 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P. TO DD CABLE PARTNERS, L.P. SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 11, 1996 ........................... 1860 REQUEST TO REMOVE FROM THE TABLE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE KILDARE LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - TRACY INGRAM AND .BRIAN SCHULTZ .............. 1861-1862 PROPOSED AREAS OF STUDY - METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT/LOAN PROGRAMS FOR INFLITRATION/INFLOW ISSUES RELATED TO SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. (TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING). CONTINUED DISCUSSION: WOODLAND POINT COMMONS ..................................... PAYMENT OF BILLS. (TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING) 1863-1912 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS ho FINANCIAL REPORT FOR APRIL 1996 AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ................ 1913-1914 B. LMCD MAILINGS ................................. 1915-1927 1712 Ce De Ee PARK AND OPEN SP~CE COMMISSION MINUTF_.~ OF MAY 9, 1996 .................................. 1928-1936 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 16, 1996 ............................. 1937 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1996 .................................... 1938-1949 REMINDER: PICTURES OF CITY COUNCIL ARE SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1996, AT 6:30 PM IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. LINDA'S PHOTOGRAPHY, DELANO, WILL BE TAKING PICTURES. PLEASE DRESS ACCORDINGLY! CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON MONDAY, MAY 27, 1996 IN OBSERVANCE OF MEMORIAL DAY. 1713 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Lease Renewal Agreement has been executed by Saliterman and City. Dated: Mark A. Saliterman, Landlord CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Tenant Dated: By Its: Mayor and Dated: By. Its: City Manager -2- LEASE RENEWAL AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Mark A. Saliterman (Saliterman), as Landlord, and the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation (City), as Tenant, entered into a Lease Agreement (Lease) dated December 30, 1992 for the premises known as 2324 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota (more fully described in the Lease), for the operation by City of the Mound Municipal Liquor Store for the period January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1995: and W~EREAS, upon expiration of the Lease, City has remained in possession and occupied the leased premises pursuant to the terms, covenants and conditions of the Lease: and WHEREAS, Saliterman and City have agreed to renew the Lease. NOW, THEREFORE, for One Dollar and other good and valuable con- sideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowl- edged, Saliterman, as Landlord, and City, as Tenant, hereby agree that City's tenancy at 2324 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota (more fully described in the Lease), shall be renewed for a period of three years commencing January 1, 1996 and terminating December 31, 1999, and that said tenancy shall be pursuant to all of the terms, covenants and conditions as set forth in the Lease. As of the renewal date of this Lease, there are no long-term accrued operating expenses to be charged to Tenant except the parking lot paving in the amount of $10,400.00 beginning in 1994 as agreed to previously by oral agreement. Brad & Janice Bristol 1559 Bluebird Lane Mound, MN 55364 May 27, 1996 RECEIVED Ed Shuckle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Mal;wood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 RE: woodland Point Commons Dear Mr. Shukle: This letter is in response to your memorandum of May 23, 1996 regarding woodland Point Commons. We will be unable to attend the City Council meeting on May 28, 1996, but would request that this letter be presented to the City Council members prior to the start of the meeting. In response to Wawonaissa common, we are not willing to have non- abutting dock sites placed on the commons in front of our property for the following reasons: 1) There is no access to the lakeshore except through our property which is unacceptable and an invasion of our privacy. 2) A hill on the shoreline prevents any additional dock space. 3) There is less than 40' separating the abutting neighboring docks on both sides of our dock. The dock widths, shapes, and boat lifts prevent adequate space for any additional dockage. 4) Because of the proximity of our home in relationship to the lakeshore, it would create an invasion of our privacy. In the past, non-abutters, including ourselves, were only allowed so many dock sites by the City of Mound and the association, when it existed. Non-abutters were always required to be put on a waiting list on a first-come, first-serve basis. Nothing has changed in that regard except the fact that because the non- abutters have been spoiled in the past with dock privileges, many of which never had to wait even a season, now expect it to be a guaranteed privilege. That was never the case when we were non- abutters. Ed Shuckle Page Two May 27, 1996 As an abutter, we pay higher property taxes, are responsible for maintaining and cleaning the lakeshore, which includes costs of retaining walls which the City mandated we install at 100% our cost, mowing, raking, etc. If the non-abutters want to be guaranteed a dock site, they should have bought a house on the lake. For the amount of extra taxes and clean-up costs we pay, the non-abutters could pay that amount to a marina and be guaranteed a slip. Sincerely, Brad and Janice Bristol il I, ,,I Ii .... I, MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 14, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 14, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also in attendance: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Parks Director Jim Fackler and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Dan Grady, Suzanne Grady, Richard J. Wigner, Wayne Ehlebracht, Beverly Barldey, Rodney Hein, Steve Bell, Ken Custer, Dorene Hanson, Dan and Sandi Strot, Don pedersen, Leah Weycker, Cathy Bailey, Bill and Dorothy Netka, Robert Lien, Marry and Made Johnson, Gordy Tulberg, Ted Metz, Jeanette Metz, Danie Watson, Chuck Champine, Mike Garberick, Denny Flack, Mike Gardner, Jack Korlath. The Mayor opened the Meeting. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.1 RECYCLOTTO WINNER - TOM EVANLt~OFF Mayor Polston stated that Mary Evanhoff had been to City Hall to pick up her 250 Westonka Dollars for her recycling efforts. 1.2 199__ 6 MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen, and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the Board of Review of April 23, 1996. 1.3 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 23 1996 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the April 23, 1996 regular Council meeting. 1.4 APPROVE THE MINU~TES OF THE RECONVENED BOARD_ OF REVIEW OF MAY 6 1996. Councilmember Ahrens stated the EMV of #7 seemed incorrect. The EMV for 4673 Island View Drive was reduced from $189,200 to $187,000. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen, and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the May 6, 1996 Reconvened Board of Review as amended. Minutes - Mound City Council May 14, 1996 1.5 APPROVE THE ~MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 6 1996. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the May 6, 1996 Special City Council Meeting. 1.6 PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 25 1996 AS MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND. Mayor Polston read the resolution to those present. He emphasized the need to educate and protect our children from abduction. He mentioned that on May 25th people are to keep their front porch lights on to light the way home for all missing children. Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//96-47 RESOLUTION PROCLAIM/NG MAY 25, 1996 AS MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A 12' WIDE PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED IN BLOCK 2 SHIRLEY HILLS _UNIT A AD ACENT TO 4873 SHORELINE DRIVE. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated staff and Planning Commission had reviewed the request and the platted alley does not appear to serve any public use and recommended it to be vacated. Mayor Polston opened the Public Heating and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak either for or against the vacation of the 12' wide platted alley in discussion. There was no one. He closed the Public Heating. Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//96-48 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A PLATTED ALLEY KNOWN AS CONCORD BLVD., LOCATED IN BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UN/T A, BETWEEN LOTS 12-17 AND 1-5. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. May 14, 1996 Minutes - Mound City Council 1.8 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE RENEWAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GLASS PLUS TO OPERATE A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS AT 5533 SHORELINE DRIVE. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated that Arco had vacated the property as required in a prior Conditional Use Permit. The staff and Planning Commission recommended approval for Glass Plus. The Mayor opened the Public Heating and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak either for or against this issue in discussion. Ken Custer, owner of Glass Plus, asked for permission to have up to three customer vehicles parked in the northwest corner of the front parking lot overnight. He requested this as it would allow for customers to drop off and pick up their vehicles after hours. This was not included in the proposed resolution either as an inclusion or exclusion. He would like this clause added to the resolution. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution amended to include the following, "A maximum of three (3) customer vehicles will be allowed to park overnight on the northwest corner of the front parking lot for purposes of customer pick up and drop off after hours." RESOLUTION//96-49 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS FOR GLASS PLUS LOCATED IN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AT 5533 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOT 5 & THE WESTERLY 50 FEET OF LOT 6, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 170, PID//13-117-24 33 0076, P&Z//96-07. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 R UEST TO HANG BANNERS FOR THE MAIDEN VOYAGE OF THE MINNEHAHA STEAMBOAT AND TO DISCUSS THE IDEA OF PRODUCING A BANNER TO TIE THE WESTONKA co~TIES TOGETHER - TERESA FOGARTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WESTONKA CHAMBER OF City Manager Ed Shulde introduced Teresa Fogarty, Executive Director of the Westonka Chamber of Commerce. She stated banners celebrating the voyage of the "Minnehaha", a historical streetcar boat that had been refurbished, are available and asked the City of Mound hang two of them on the light poles in Mound. She also mentioned the interest in developing 3 1'7lq Minutes - Mound City Council May 14, 1996 a banner or a sign such as the green with white trimmed ones the County has, to inform drivers that they are entering the "Westonka Community". The Council nodded approval and agreed this would be a great way to promote the area. At this time, the agenda was modified to accommodate a Planning Commission case, item//15. 1.10 CASE//96°04:_ VARIANCE FOR NEW DWEI,I,ING - RICHARD WIGNER, 233'2, DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID 13-117-24 44 0058. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the subject property needs a 10 foot width variance and a 2,752 square foot variance. The property adjacent to this property is in probate court and unobtainable by the applicant. The existing substandard dwelling will be demolished. Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g96.50 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 2332 DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID //13-117-24 44 0058, P&Z g96-04. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 PRESENTATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE .LOST LAKE CANAL REI-IABILITATION . BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR. This item was delayed at this time as Mr. Chamberlain was not in attendance yet. 1.12 PRESENTATION OF THE 1995 FINANCIAL AUDIT GARY GROEN, ABDO ABDO & EICK AND GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR. ~ Gino Businaro, Finance Director introduced Gary Groen representing Abdo, Abdo and Eick. Mr. Groen briefly reviewed the Annual Financial Report with the Council. The council had no questions. 'l"7 /q May 14, 1996 Minutes - Mound City Council 1.13 PRESENTATION OF A DETAIL PLAN RE: PROPOSED HOMEOINNERS_ ASSOCIATION WITH THE CITY OF MOUND TO SERVE AS THE "AGENT" ~N ADMINISTERING A DOCK PROGRAM FOR WOODLAND POINT: Mayor Polston stated City Attorney John Dean had prepared a draft of a homeowners association plan from the recommendations presented by the Woodland Point Mediation Group. Attorney John Dean stated the agreement was fragile due to it being voluntary. There are several opportunities for termination of the agreement. He suggested a clause be included if the membership in the association dropped to a certain percent. If agreed to, the association would prepare an annual plan to the council indicating dock locations. Also the association would present to the Council their rules. The City would act as the associations's agent. Discussion was lengthy, with many questions. The Woodland Point people present agreed to hold a meeting to include all of the Woodland Point residents to discuss the proposed association and to discuss locating a multiple boat dock at the end of Woodland Road and another one at the end of Bluebird Lane. The mediation group was invited to return to the Committee of the Whole meeting to be held on May 21, 1996, 7:30 pm, if they could reach a consensus. 1.14 PRESENTATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE LOST LAKE CANAL REHABII.ITATION - BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR_. Economic Development Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain stated the EA had been prepared because federal dollars will be used to construct the project. The EAW had been prepared because the project meets two threshold tests having to do with work in the wetlands. The City Council needed to approve the EAW as it is required prior to it being sent to the Environmental Quality Board to begin the formal 30 day comment period. MN/DOT organizes the EA process and it does not need formal Council approval. The Corps of Engineers and DNR permits will be submitted concurrently with the environmental documents. He presented a timetable on the Lost Lake project. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, and carried unanimously to accept and approve the federal Environmental Assessment (EA) and the state Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on the Lost Lake Canal Project for referral to the Environmental Quality Board for comment. The consensus of the Council and Mr. Chamberlain was to invite the Planning Commission, the Parks and Open Space Commission and the Economic Development Commission to the Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for June 18, 1996 at 7:30 pm, for Bruce Chamberlain to present the Lost Lake Canal Project and the designs of the redevelopment of the Minutes - Mound City Council May 14, 1996 1.15 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.16 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM City Manager Ed Shukle stated this was the agreement to continue participating in the Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement for FY 1997-1999. The agreement sets forth broad shared powers for carrying out housing and community development activities. One of them being Community Development Block Grant programs. The revisions are indicated in the draft and the Council was asked to review the document. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//96-51 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING THE AUTHORIZATION OF CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS City Manager Ed Shukle stated this document renewed the City's sponsorship of the state grant for snowmobile trail funds. The funds come from the DNR. Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g96-52 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING THE AUTHORIZATION OF CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 6 /'7.10 Minutes - Mound City Council May 14, 1996 1.18 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A 30 FOOT WIDE PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN BLOCK 12, LOTS 19-26, 5, 6 & 7 AND BLOCK 14, LOTS 4-17, ARDEN SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 11, 1996, MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen, and carried unanimously to set June 11, 1996 for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a 30 foot wide platted right-of-way located between block 12, lots 19-26, 5, 6, & 7 and block 14, lots 4-17, Arden. 1.19 APPROVAL OF VFW PILLOW FLUFF AND SALE OF POPPIES.. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to approve the VFW Pillow Fluff and Sale of Poppies. 1.20 APPROVAL OF FIRE DEPARTMENT FISH FRY PERMITS FOR SATURDAY, MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, and carried unanimously to approve the various permits for the Mound Volunteer Fire Department Fish Fry on June 8, 1996. 1.21 1.22 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $254,244.71, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION AND MISCELLANEOUS: A. B. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR APRIL, 1996. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR APRIL, 1996. LMCD MAILINGS. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 1996. 7 17,Of Minutes - Mound City Council May 14, 1996 Fo Go Jo UPDATE ON LAKE MINNETONKA GOOSE CONTROL PROGRAM FROM LMCD. LETTER FROM MCTO RE: APPROVED BUS ROUTE SCHEDULES. INFORMATION FROM THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES RE: 1996 ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN ROCHESTER JUNE 11-14. PLEASE CONTACT LINDA ASAP IF YOU WISH TO ATTEND. A PHOTO SESSION WITH LINDA'S PHOTOGRAPHY WILL BE HELD WITH THE COUNCIL AT 6:30 PM TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1996, IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY THERE AS WELL. PLEASE DRESS FORMALLY! REMINDE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1996, 7:30 PM. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 PM. City Manager Attest: MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MAY 21, 1996 Members present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Phyllis Jessen and Liz Jensen. Also present: City Manager Ed Shulde, City Engineer John Cameron and the following interested persons: Danie Watson, Leah Weycker, Mike Garberick, Mr. and Mrs. Ted Metz, Mike Aspelin, Cathy Bailey, Dennis Flack, Jack Korlath, Bob Lien, Mike Gardner, Marty and Marie Johnson, Ron Moytka, Dave Kunz. City Manager Ed Shulde introduced the subject of the Woodland Point Homeowner's Association. He explained that the City Council had reviewed with the mediation work group and others at its May 14, 1996 regular meeting, that a Homeowners Association, with the City acting as it agent, would be the legal structure in which to operate a dock program in the Woodland Point area. He then indicated that the Woodland Point homeowners had gotten together on Sunday, May 19th, for the purpose of discussing the possibility of a homeowner's , ' duced Mike Aspelin from the mediation work group to report on the association. He then ~nt.ro. .... _.~:~,,~ ,~, t re were 32 households represented. Since results of that meeting. Mr. ^sperm mmcatv,~ ..... the the meeting, 51 out of a possible 99 indicated that they were interested in forming a homeowner's association for purposes of a dock program. Mayor Polston opened the meeting up to those present and an informal discussion was held for over two hours. Following that discussion, the City Council asked that the City Manager draft a letter to be sent to the abutting homeowners on Wawonaissa Common who were not part of the litigation in the Flack vs. City of Mound case, to get their reaction to the placing of docks in front of their properties. These docks would be owned by non-abutters who are presently on Wawonaissa Common. The matter will be discussed at the next regular meeting of the Council scheduled for May 28, 1996. John Cameron, City Engineer, was present to introduce a grant/loan program being sponsored by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). The purpose of the program is to reduce the amount of infiltration/inflow (I/I) into the sanitary sewers of the metropolitan area. Mr. Cameron indicated that there is a possible $80,000 available in grant money for studies of I/I reduction. There is an additional $320,000 in loan money to perform the actual work in the areas of televising sewers, sump pump disconnections, sealing of manhole covers, etc. The City Council asked that the City Engineer prepare a list of possible study areas for Council at its regular meeting of May 28th. City Manager Ed Shulde reported that there was no change in discussion regarding the proposed permanent ice skating rink. He stated that he was waiting for a response from Community Education and Services with regard to the matter. City Manager Ed Shukle reported on the Municipal Liquor Store location and possible relocation within the Shoreline Plaza Shopping Center. He stated that an analysis had been done with regard to moving the store from its present location to the former Headliner's space. The cost of improvements that would have to be made in the Headliner's space did not justify moving. Minutes - Committee of the Whole May 21, 1996 The City Manager suggested the Council renew the existing lease with Mark Saliterman and study the feasibility of building its own liquor store in the future. Council consensus was that they agreed with the Manager and to approve the renewal of the current lease. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programming was continued to a future Committee of the Whole meeting. The Students in Government program was also continued until a future Committee of the Whole meeting. City Manager Ed Shukle reported on a proposed compost site in the City of Minnetrista. He indicated that a private company had made a proposal to locate a compost site at the southwest quadrant of County Road 110 West and Halstead Drive in Minnetrista. The city council of Minnetrista had been approached by residents of Minnetrista with regard to opposition of the proposed project and site. On May 20, 1996, the city council of Minnetrista unanimously denied the proposed compost site. The city manager recommended to the Mound City Council that it close its Lost Lake compost site effective May 26, 1996 for any dumping of leaves, brush, etc. The site could remain open for the picking up of woodchips processed by a mechanical grinder through the end of June. Therefore, the compost site will no longer exist in the City of Mound and other options will have to be pursued. Council consensus was that this was a good idea and that we proceed in this manner. Other business brought before the Council related to the Kildare Road Improvement Project. City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that he had been contacted by Tracy Ingrain and Brian Schulze, who had originally petitioned the City Council for this public improvement on this roadway in December of 1995. Public hearings were held in February of 1996 and another interested developer, Tom Stokes, had approached the Council with regard to the project as well. The City Council had tabled this matter at its February 27, 1996 meeting and the city manager was asked by Mr. Ingrain and Mr. Schulze to put this item back on the agenda for discussion. The city manager had indicated that it was tabled and it required a motion to remove the item from the table for discussion. The Council asked that the city attorney give an opinion on the issue of whether the Council could remove it from the table prior to it coming back to the City Council meeting for discussion. It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled for June 18, 1996, 7:30 pm. The meeting agenda will be updates on the Lost Lake Improvement project and the Auditor's Road Improvement project. The Planning Commission and the Parks and Open Space Commission and the Economic Development Commission will be invited. Minutes - Committee of the Whole May 21, 1996 Also noted was a residential property for sale located on Lake Langdon along Commerce Blvd. Councilmember Phyllis Jessen asked if the City could purchase this property. The city manager will look into this matter. There being no other business, it was moved by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 PM. City Manager 1S RESOLUTION #96-~/~-9 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SHED AND FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 4943 MONMOUTH ROAD LOTS 8, 9, & W. 1/2 OF 7, BLOCK 30, WYCHWOOD PID 24-117-24 41 0106 P&Z CASE #96-19 WHEREAS, the owner, John Holloway, has applied for variance to recognize an existing nonconforming shed and deck in order to allow construction of a conforming 9' x 10' deck in the rear yard, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both Monmouth Road and Brighton Blvd., a side yard setback of 6 feet, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, The two nonconforming issues are as follows. 1) The shed located in the front yard on the west side is setback 19 feet+- from the front property line, the required setback is 20 feet, resulting in a recognition/variance request of 1 foot. 2) The front deck on the north side is setback 16 feet+- from the property line where a 20 foot setback is required, this results in the recognition of a front yard setback variance of 4 feet+-. This deck is considered grandparanted-in, as at the time it was constructed it was considered to be in a conforming location and it also received a building permit. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. and; WHEREAS, the shed is roughly 40 years old, and some of the siding on the lower portion of the building is rotting, and; WHEREAS, the shed is up on a hill and is protected from view from the street, and there is a wide unimproved boulevard between Monmouth Road and the property line, so the shed appears to be setback further from the property line, and; Proposed Resolution Holloway Page 2 WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and impervious surface coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming shed setback of 19 feet +/- to Monmouth Road, and the nonconforming front yard setback to the deck on the north side of 16 feet +/- to allow construction of a conforming 9' x 10' deck on the rear of the dwelling. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming 9' x 10' deck. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: o o Lots 8 and 9, and the West 1/2 of Lot 7, Block 30, Wychwood, PID 24-117-24 41 0106. 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 MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COM3,KSSION MAY 13, 1996 CASE 96-19: VARIANCE FOR DECK Oil3/HOLLOWAY 4943 MONMOUTH ROAD LOTS 8 9 & W. 1/2 OF 7 BLOCK 30 WYCHWOOD PID 24-117-24 41 0106 Jon Sutherland, Building Official, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming shed and deck in order to allow construction of a conforming 9' x 10' deck in the rear yard. The two nonconforming issues are as follows. 1) The shed located in the front yard on the west side is setback 19 feet+- from the front property line, the required setback is 20 feet, resulting in a recognition/variance request of 1 foot. 2) The front deck on the north side is setback 16 feet+- from the property line where a 20 foot setback is required, this results in the recognition of a front yard setback variance of 4 feet+-. This deck is considered grandparanted-in, as at the time it was constructed it was considered to be in a conforming location and it also received a building permit. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. The shed is dilapidated, the lower portion is rotted, and there is no apparent hardship for it to be allowed in its present nonconforming location. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed, due to lack of hardship. Staff would support a recommendation for approval to allow construction of a conforming deck with the condition the shed is relocated to a conforming location or removed. This recommendation would also recognize and allow the nonconforming deck on the north side to remain as is. Applicant, John Holloway, stated the shed is roughly 40 years old, he has not heard complaints from the neighbors, it has a new roof, and the floor is solid. He stated that some exterior boards need to be replaced, and he would like to keep the shed for now, and down the road when he can afford it he will replace it. He needs a place for storage. Weiland commented that the shed is not in too bad of shape. Hanus reviewed the condition of the shed with the applicant. The Building Official confirmed that the shed is moveable, and confirmed that he did not get inside the shed, however, it appears to be dilapidated from the outside. Reifschneider commented that the shed is up on a hill and is protected from view from the street. Weiland agreed that if you walked the perimeter of the property, you would not notice the shed because of its location on the hill. Weiland suggested that they could require the applicant fix the shed. Sutherland commented that their is a grass boulevard on the Monmouth Road side so the shed appears to be more than 20 feet from the property line. MOTION by Reifschneider, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance, as requested, and allow for the shed to remain as is. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed h,, ~h,~ t-';,, r, ..... :, __ , ...... CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of May 13, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Offici~:.~./~ Variance Request John Holloway 96-19 4943 Monmouth Road, Lots 8, 9, & w. 1/2 of 7, Block 30, Wychwood PID 24-117-24 41 0106 R-2 One and Two Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming shed and deck in order to allow for construction of a conforming 9' x 10' deck in the rear yard. The 2 nonconforming issues are as follows. 1) The shed located in the front yard on the west side is setback 19 feet+- from the front property line, the required setback is 20 feet, resulting in a recognition/variance request of 1 foot. 2) The front deck on the north side is setback 16 feet+- from the property line where a 20 foot setback is required, this results in the recognition of a front yard setback variance of 4 feet+-. This deck is considered grandparanted-in, as at the time it was constructed it was considered to be in a conforming location and it also received a building permit. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. COMMENTS: The applicant states the shed has been there for forty years, its condition is dilapidated and the lower portion is rotted, and there is no apparent hardship for it to be allowed in its present nonconforming location. prtnted on recycled paper Staff Report Holloway Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed, due to lack of hardship. Staff would support a recommendation for approval to allow construction of a conforming deck with the condition the shed is relocated to a conforming location or removed. This recommendation would also recognize and allow the nonconforming deck on the north side to remain as is. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 28, 1996. t7~o .... I a .... · , , · VARIANCE APPI,ICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $5364 Phone: 472,-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ~ 2.2 Application Fee: $50.00 .. (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: 9 '" [b'"q ¢ Case No. ~ ¢""1 ~ City Council Date: ~ - ;-~') -q ¢ Distribution: ,2J 5¢ City Planner DNR ,t City Engineer Other ~t Public Works PROPERTY Lot ~ ~ q' 6" LO ~/~ -'") Block LEGAL subdivision ~ '~ ~ ~ D,2<32 D DESC. PID# ~h(- il~ -~ ~/{ ©~0~ Plat# ow~g ^adr~ss q'~q5 ~Dr~O,~Cv~'-'~}V- Phone (H) ~ 7 2' S/~. ~ ...ON) c~ 3 3- q q ~_ [ (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) _ON) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, lYj~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.): (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. J Do the existing structures comply with all ~ea, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. ff no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reaso for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Side Yard: E W ) ~ O ft. ! G, - ft. 5/ ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NS EW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for located? Yes ~<~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: the zoning district in which it is Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ~ existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe: (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 3 I a~ Ca'se 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: 7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No (). If yes, explain: Yes (eX), o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes 1~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? ~. 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 (Rev. 12/8/95) Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONE (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) = (for a~ ~ots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT Y7 x = IIW X = X = TOTAL HOUSE X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER // TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I' ? ;7¢(_.2 UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I 'REPARED BY DATE N Ill 365 i CITY OF SURVEY ON FILE? YES / 0~ ~~NO YARD -- I I)IRECTION IIOUSE ......... MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60 BI 7,500/0 ~ B2 20,000/80 R2 6,~ B3 10,000/60 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 ~D--~-~~-~G/PROi~SED EXISTING LOT SIZE: T WIDTH: . LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF (_~/S E w w N S E W N S E W I0' OR 30' GARAGE, STIED ..... OR O'FIIER DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E FRONT E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30' / ./-/. HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES This Zoning Information Sheet ~ a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact ~e City of Mound .Planning Department at 472~O600. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH AT 2600 GROVE LANE LOT 5, BLOCK 1, LANGDON'S LANDING, PID 23-117-24 13 0061 P&Z CASE #96-20 WHEREAS, the owners, William and Janice Darling, have applied for variance to/ recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a new ..~ ?' nonconforming 12' x 14' three season porch, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for a minimum 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 (OHW), and; WHEREAS, the proposed porch will follow the existing line of the deck and would encroach no further than the existing situation that is setback approximately 40 feet from the shoreline, and; WHEREAS, the original building permit for the dwelling was issued in 1986 and did include an 8' x 13' deck, and; WHEREAS, with the adoption of the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance on 3/15/93, impervious surface is limited to a maximum of 40% for lots of record with an approved drainage plan, and a setback of 10 feet is required to the top of a bluff. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. From a site inspection it is obvious the bluff line meanders through this site and also the adjacent properties. The existing dwelling is located within the bluff itself, and; WHEREAS, the proposed construction causes a minimal amount of encroachment into the bluff, and; WHEREAS, Lake Langdon has very low usage and this porch will have minimal impact on the lake, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and impervious surface coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. /73~ .] Proposed Resolution Darling Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: o o The City does hereby grant a lake side setback variance of 10 feet +/- and a bluff setback variance to allow construction of a 12' x 14' three season porch. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 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 12' x 14' three season porch. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 5, Block 1,, Langdon's Landing, 23-117-24 13 0061. 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. o 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. 174o MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 13, 1996 CASE 96-20: VARIANCE FOR PORCH WILLIAM & AN'ICE DARLING 2600 GROVE LANE LOT 5 BLOCK 1 L~NGDON'S LANDING PID 23-117-24 13 0061 The applicant is seeking a va_dance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a new nonconforming 12' x 14' three season porch. The proposed porch will follow the existing line of the deck and would encroach no further than the existing situation that is setback approximately 40 feet from the shoreline. The required setback to the OHW is 50 feet and this results in the recognition of a 10 foot+- variance. The original building permit for the dwelling was issued in 1986 and did include an $' x 13' deck, however, the existing deck is approximately 10' x 16'. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 With the adoption of the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance on 3/15/93, impervious surface is limited to a maximum of 40 % for lots of record with an approved drainage plan, and a setback of 10 feet is required to the top of a bluff. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. From a site inspection it is obvious the bluff line meanders through this site and also the adjacent properties. The existing dwelling is located within the bluff itself and therefore it was determined the exact location of the bluff line was not required to be identified on the survey at this time. In addition, the proposed construction causes a minimal amount of encroachment into the bluff. There appears to be a lack of hardship to allow .the additional encroachment into the nonconforming setback. If the Planning Commission concurs, staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request. However, from a practical sense, approval of the variance request results in the enhanced use and function of the property without additional encroachment into the existing setback. If the Planning Commission would concur with this approach, staff recommended approval based on practical difficulty. The planning Commission may wish to consider additional findings in this case. The size of the existing deck versus the size of the deck originally approved to be constructed was discussed. Hanus reviewed how this request relates to previous cases, and recalled that a minimally sized deck of 10 feet has typically been allowed to encroach into the lake side setback. Hanus noted that the ordinary high water (OHW) is not designated on the survey. Sutherland stated that he could ask the applicant to provide this information, however, due to the steep slope to the lake and the fact that no further encroachment is being requested he did not feel it was necessary. It was noted that the dimensions of the deck on the survey (10' x 16') do not match the drawings (12' x 14'). It was clarified that the deck extends 12' out from the house, but with the 4' x 4' cantilevered portion, it extends 16 feet. The applicant stated that the cantilevered portion was existing when he purchased the home. The porch is to be 12' x 14'. Mueller commented that Lake Langdon has very low usage and feels this porch would have minimal impact on this lake. Hanus commented that he doesn't want to treat people on different lakes differently. Mueller noted that they have treated people differently who live on low impact wetlands versus a busy bay on Minnetonka. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance, as requested. Findings are that the porch will have minimal impact due to the low usage of Langdon Lake, and the porch will not encroach into the setback any further than the existing deck. Sutherland commented that the existing situation was approved by a building permit in 1986. Planning Commission Minutes May l3, 1996 Darling emphasized the need for the porch and stated that in order to have room for furniture the porch needs to be at least 12 feet. Weiland stated that he would like to see the 4' x 4' cantilever removed. Mueller reminded the commission of a case on Baywood Shores Drive where they allowed further encroachment where an existing 4' walkway existed, and they allowed it to be expanded to a 10' deck. MOTION carried 5 -3. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Michael, Burma, and Glister. Those opposed were: Reifschneider, Weiland, and Hanus. I-'Ianus stated his reason for opposing is he would like the OHW located, and he would have preferred a minimal size of I0'. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1996. ! I ! ! I 'ON gO'd ~LL9 ~£ ~19 'ON BU ILD I NG C 53~ 1 Maywood STREET ADDRESS LOT _ BLOCK IMPROVEMENT "' PLAT # .'-; PlO # ADDRESS , : ;,,., BLDR.-CONT. ii.' / PARCEL ; ~.~., -: ADDRESS ,: TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION ~Single Family Sq. Ft, C:3 Mui t l-Faml iy - Sq. Ft, CCD ~o~ercl a 1 ' Sq. Ft, l:D.l.nd~s t,r ia 1 ..'~: ,- ; ' Sq. Ft.. .r'qGarage ° Size ~ Sq. Ft. .I=:DPaTlo -. Size _.Sq..Ft, t-qFence - $1:e La. Ft. OI-3151--PERMIT FEE O1-3151 PLAN CHECK FEE 01-2222 SURCHARGE $ 78-2304 78-3774 S.A.C. $ 73-3155 WATER CONN. TAPPING FEE $ FEE S "'- PERMIT APPROVAL I'.? ~----,- ;' 7333 ESTIMATED VALUE_ ZON I~C D I STR I CT_ COMPLET I ON DATE DATE '7" ~-~ ~ P~ONE. NO. ~,2 ? PHONE NO.. Al' :',,, z/ . ZIP REMODEL I NG 1::::3 Add I t i on ' Sq,Ft, Interior ' Sq. FtC - CZlSub. Level ' Sq,Ft, r'q R°°fl ng ' Sq,Ft, t"q Sldlng ' Sq,Ft,. C:31Jtillty Bldg, - Size r-'~l:ouncil Resolutlon No. DATE SEWER CONN, FEE $ 73-3744 78-3158 73-3842 OCCUPANCY C ERTI F I CATE ~, ,'¢, PLUMB I NG ,J STATIONARY ROD FEE TOTAL S / ,.r; ../., :~ C:, ARE ADDI~ION~AL PERMITS NEEDED: ELECTRICAL When permit iS granted, I hereby agree to do the proposed ~ork in accordance with description above set forth and according to the provisions of all ordinances of the City of /~und and Of ali statutes of the State of Minnesota in such CaSes made and provided. Ail building permits expire one year after date of issuance. DATE I" ;' " '" "" ' '"" ~'~'~ 7313 ...... 'c-: APPL I:A~T "" '/ · :'",: ' iii, CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of May 13, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Offici~(~ Variance Request William Darling 96-20 2600 Grove Lane, Lot 5, Block 1, Langdon's Landing PID 23-117-24 13 0061 R-1 Single Family Residential .BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a new nonconforming 12' x 14' three season porch. The proposed porch will follow the existing line of the deck and would encroach no further than the existing situation that is setback approximately 40 feet from the shoreline. The required setback to the OHW is 50 feet and this results in the recognition of a 10 foot+- variance. The original building permit for the dwelling was issued in 1986 and did include an 8x10 deck, however, the existing deck is approximatley 10' x 16'. With the adoption of the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance on 3/15/93, impervious surface is limited to a maximum of 40% for lots of record with an approved drainage plan, and a setback of 10 feet is required to the top of a bluff. Accurate impervious surface information was not available at the time this report was developed and staff will give a verbal update at the meeting. It looks as if impervious surface will easily be conforming. From a site inspection it is obvious the bluff line meanders through this site and also the adjacent properties. The existing dwelling is located within the bluff itself and therefor it was determined the exact location of the bluffline was not required to be identified on the survey at this time. In addition, the proposed construction causes a minimal amount of encroachment into the bluff. printed on recycled paper Staff Report Darling Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION.:.. There appears to be a lack of hardship to allow the additional encroachment into the nonconforming setback. If the Planning Commission concurs, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request. However, from a practical sense, approval of the variance request results in the enhanced use and function of the property without additional encroachment into the existing setback. If the Planning Commission would concur with this approach, staff would recommend approval based on practical difficulty. The Planning Commission may wish to consider additional findings in this case. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 28, 1996. 04/05/96 12:15 F.iX 612 472 0520 CITY OF ~0[?.' CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~ 55364 Phone: 472..0600, Fax: 472-(~20 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER OWNER) City Planner .ngine r I, Public Works Lot ~ _5- 1 DNR Block ~ Plat # B -2 B -3 ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 Name ~,/C. Address Phone(~) t_~--/.~ g'.~g'O __(W),.~.~.6i~"7 tLas an application ever been made ~gr zoning, v~anee, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, lg, l no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 04/05,'96 12:15 ?AX 612 472 0620 CIT~ 0F :~0L~'D ------- -- Case .N_~. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulat~cns fo~' district in whicla it is lo~texi? Yes (), No ~. II no, specify each non-conlorming use (describe for v~'ilmce request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): p..EQU~ Fj~QUF~TED (o~ exi~tiu 'a) VA.RL~NCE Lot Size: ~ - sc[ ft sq fi ~ _ Hardcover: in which k is Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning disURCt Yes (), No 04. ~f no, sz-~f~ ~°~ ~o~nfo~g use: 4~ o~ ~ 5. Which unique physical characte~stics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitteA in that zoning district? 0q) too nm'row ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation (X) too shallow ( ) shap~ ( ) othex: specify 04/05/96 12: 16 V.~i~¢e Appli¢~io., p. 3 F.~ 612 4?2 0620 CITY OF 3f0U3~ Casa No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property, in'. after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1952)? Y~s (), No (~. If yes, explain: Was the hard~ip created by any or,her man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ) No~, Ifyes, explain: .: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar on/y to the property in this petition? Yes (~, No (). If no, llst some other properties which are similarly affe. zted? 9. Comment~: I czrtify 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 rumoving such notices as may be required by law. .'?, ! f;4 ..... .,/t , / ~'/'/ . 3_- );'. Applicant's Signature (Re,,. 12/8/95) Date 7671 '. 'L(~. Oo ,,,.SCR I PT l bN ":". ":.',.'":;"" .. ,....,, .. ......... ..:/~ ~ Lot 5, BlOck 1, - ,' '. '.:' ' ~' LANGDON'S LANDING : ' ~ , I?enn=.pin County,-. B%nn=-sota~ .~..,..,,. ,'i . j HAY-09-98 THU 08:26 PIPER JAFFRR¥-I,S DEP? FR× NO, 8i2 342 6774 P, Ol u~/ut/~ Z$:ll F,~ ~1~ 47J, 0620 ._. _ ...... ' P.~ost-Jt~ Fax Note 7671 loam · -. ~,~,ous.~ ~ ~ ~. L ' ' .ousE 'TOTAL HoUsE DETACHED BLDGS. TOTAL DETACHED '" BLDGS ETC. -- = - / ,,0 SURVEY ON FILE?(YEV/ NO LOT OF RECORD'? YES / (?) YARD .... ! i , ,,au CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~1 IO,O00/60~B1 7,500/0 ~-~iA 6,0g0/40 B2 20,gOO/BO R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED J EXISTENG ~PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: 70' LOT DEPTH: qo' VARIANCE llOUSE ......... N(0E W Sd) ' 50 ' N S E W E W N S E(~ N S E W FRO~F FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF 15' (S E W SHED ..... OR OTHER DETACIIED BUILDINGS ~Ol']~.- ? FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30' )COVER ~-, ~ . . CONFORMING? YES / O~/ ? IBY:"~' U I DATED:~'--J"-q g This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a pnrtion of Lhe requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 13, 1996 CASE 96-21: VARIANCE FOR DECK, SALLY SWANSON, 1708 AVOCET LANE, LOr 26-&4NELY 10' OF 25, BLOCK 9, DRE~OOD, PID 13_11,7.24 ~1 003~ · /~,.,~e applicant is seeking a variance to construct a nonconforming 8 x 18 deck on the front of X~ 9e dwelling that is conforming to all required setbacks. The required front yard setback is 20 f.e~,,t, the applicant is proposing an 8 foot wide deck, resulting in an 8 foot variance. ~ ~ ~ssue~s .w~t.h.t~l~i~s site are. conforming other than the lot area. The required lot ~4~eSqUfee~.e feet, q.,2~o square l:eet is existing, resulting in recognition of a variance of 1,720 Allowing the variance would create a nonconforming setback and is not consistent with the zoning code or the other houses in the area. A maximum 32 square foot entry landing is reasonable in this case and may be constructed without a variance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as it is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and would have a negative effect on the adjacent properties. Hanus stated that he agrees with staff's opinion and feels there are other options available. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of denial as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 28, 1996. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT_ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of May 13 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Offici~~ Variance Request Sally A. Aqqd,~,~Z~ar'v-5c~n~-~ 96-21 1708 Avocet lane, Lot 26 & the Nely 10' of 25, & Wly 7' of 3, Block 9, Dreamwood, PID 13-117-24 21 0033 R-IA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a nonconforming 8' x 18' deck on the front of the existing dwelling that is conforming to all required setbacks. The required front yard setback is 20 feet, the applicant is proposing an 8 foot wide deck, resulting in an 8 foot variance. All other issues with this site are conforming other than the lot area. The required lot area is 6,000 square feet, 4,280 square feet is existing, resulting in recognition of a variance of 1,720 square feet. COMMENTS: Allowing the variance would create a nonconforming setback and is not consistent with the zoning code or the other houses in the area. A maximum 32 square foot entry landing is reasonable in this case and may be constructed without a variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:_ Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as it is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and would have a negative effect on the adjacent properties. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 28, 1996. ~pr~nte~onrecycledpaper (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 APR 2 Application Fee:_ $50.0C Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: I/ Case No.?¢ .---Zt City Planner DNR City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Lot. oO.& o.~&.-Pr~e nc~he,a.s~_Ly Ic~b-~ %X~l'~ock Subdivision ~ ~ rt ~-ru..c~ -- - ~f" PID# d t.; Plat ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Name_. Address phone (M) Name Address Phone(H). (M) 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.): (Rev. 12/8/95) ~,J~ .1 ] IIi I a a, Case-No· Variance Application, P. 2 · ' structures co ly witLalLarea, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning Do the exxs~ng ...... ~F'[~. ^_,,'3 u, ,~,, snecifv each non-conforming use (describe reason district in which it ~s tocatea: .yeaZK/.\ ~'~u_V,,/~. "", ~--- - for variance request, i.e. setback, lot'ar(~, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E~) 2o ft. I ~ 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: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: (~.('.~F_~.~ .sq ft a/;~O sq ft I '70-0 _sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~', No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please dr,~nw: (Rev. 12/8195) ~7 1-real! Variance Application, P. 3 Clse 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)7 Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ( ).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 ['~gZ (Rev. 1218/95) Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS, (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: iiOWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... J /7,)~-- J LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques-are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT 7,$ x /o.¢ = X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... ,4 o ETACHED BLDGS GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. -~3 x /3 = 42?' TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. 4z9 DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER /~Y2 X = X = TOTALDECK .......................... U~ ~ ~ L i x 40 = 40 TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE j //7Z, 5' J ~ OVER (,ndic. a.t-.~ ............................. J - ~ 3~' :~-j ~ / ///Z // / _dif~/_c~'~ _PREPARED BY DATE BUll.DING PERMIT SURVEY 2? £'*'//'" I1 .[\ ~-E~'~. ~'~..d 2.> LEGAL DESCRIPTION / / Lot 26, and the Northeasterly 10 feet of Lot 25, Westerly 7 feet of Lot 3, Block 9 of Dreamwood. Block 9, Dremwood; ID = WOOD STAKE PLACED B.M.- BEARINGS .ON ASSUMED DATUM DRAINAGE 000.0 = EXIST. ELEV. _'~$CHOBORG _I-&ND SURVEYING INC. egg7 CtS. Fk:f. 13SE g7'~.3221 [:)0~. MN 55326 o = IRON MON. S~-T PROPOSED INFORMATION 1st FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. 1000.0~)= PROPOSED ELEV. · = IRON MON. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. E&P_ 000.0 - EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. i hereby certify that this plan, survey or report ~. prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of M~_ ;gistration No. 14700 JOB # Book - Page Scale III1 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: ,~ ,,~ ,~h ~, _ EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: YARD { DIRECTI(}N IIOUSE ......... ~B1 7,500/0 6,ooo/n-- .2 2o,ooo/Bo R2 6,UUU/nU B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 ~ED E~'~'~,~NG/PROPOSED LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE 50' 10' OR 30' 7 FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W N S.(~ W N S E W GARAGE, SIIED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED FRONT N S E W FRONT N 3 E W SIDE N S E W SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' i/ HARDCOVER N S E W N S E W NS E W 30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES 4' OR 6' $0' 10' OR 30' DATED: ~ This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizen a portion of the requiremenls outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Or. ............ .Planning Department at 472-0600. - .... ;5 ,' I ,' 15 ~ I (50 ( 76~ 1 I ~c) o 0 ~'h o RESOLUTION #96-~-'.~ ' RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIGN SIZE VARIANCE FOR A FREE STANDING SIGN FOR NORWEgT I~ANI~ / g LITERM LTD. AT 5211 SHORELINE DRIVE LOTS 7-20 & 26-35, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F, PID 13-117-24 34 0072 P&Z CASE #96-22 WHEREAS, Norwest Bank has applied for a variance to install a new free standing sign that is 20 feet in height and 70 square feet in area, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the B-1 Central Business District, and; WHEREAS, free standing signs located in the B-1 District are restricted to 48 square feet in size, and; WHEREAS, the sign will be placed on the footing of the existing Shoreline Plaza/Jubilee Foods sign. The Jubilee Foods sign will be relocated to a new pole further to the west which was part of the conditional use permit approval for the bank. WHEREAS, the Mound Sign Ordinance limits the area of free standing signs to 48 square feet and restricts height to a maximum of 25 feet. The proposed sign is under the height limitation but exceeds the area by 22 square feet. WHEREAS, the wall signage for the new Norwest Bank building will be much smaller than what is allowed, and; WHEREAS, the free standing signs on this property include Dominos, Shoreline Plaza, and now Norwest Bank. one sign is allowed per street frontage, and this property has three street frontages, Eden Road, Wilshire Blvd., and Shoreline Drive, and; WHEREAS, the impact of this sign is minimal considering the size of the parking lot, and; Proposed Resolutions Norwest Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with the finding that this neighborhood has other competing signs that are beyond the size of the one being requested. 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 install a new free standing sign that is 20 feet in height and 70 square feet in area, resulting in a size variance of 22 square feet. 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. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY ?L G COMMISSION MAY 13, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes May l$,l~O CASE 96-22: VARIANCE FOR NORWEST BANK SIGN, SALITERMAN LTD./NORWEST BANK, 5211 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 7-20 & 26-35, SHIRLEY. ltlI.LS UNIT F, PID 13-117-24 34 0072. Chair Michael, stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Mueller stepped in as Chair. The Building Official reviewed the Planning Report from Mark Koegler. Norwest Bank is requesting a variance for a new free standing pylon sign. The sign will be placed on the footing of the existing Shoreline Plaza/Jubilee Foods sign. The Jubilee Foods sign will be relocated to a new pole further to the west which was part of the conditional use permit approval for the bank. Norwest is proposing to install a new sign that is 20 feet in height and 74 square feet in area. The Mound Sign Ordinance limits the area of freestanding signs to 48 square feet and restricts height to a maximum of 25 feet. The proposed sign is under the height limitation but exceeds the area by 26 square feet. Variances for signs can only be granted if it is determined that a "hardship or practical difficulty" are present. In the application, Norwest identifies the need for the variances based on the fact that the "setback of the building reduces the visibility for property business identification". They also refer to the size of other free standing signs in the area which exceed the ordinance threshold. All of the signs mentioned are "grandfathered uses" and the fact that they do not comply with current provisions does not, in the opinion of staff, constitute any type of hardship. It is also mentioned in the application that the copy sizes will not be readable on a 48 square foot sign. Staff again does not see hardship resulting from this issue since the most prominent graphic element on the sign is the large "N .... Additionally, the colors that are used are an important aspect of the public's recognition of the sign. Staff cannot support a variance for the sign as proposed based on hardship. If the Planning Commission feels that the setback of the building is sufficient grounds for a finding of practical difficulty, it could recommend approval of the proposed sign to the City Council. Reifschneider noted that everybody elses sign in this area are 80 square feet or bigger, including Hardees, Subway, and Rite-Way. Weiland noted that question #1 on the variance application should have been answered "yes" as Resolution g95-77 was previously issued for this property. He also noted that this resolution approving their conditional use permit does state that there are sign size requirements, so he feels they had plenty of warning. Bob Seger, Corporate Architect for Norwest, stated that Norwest tends to recycle their signs, and the sign they propose to move to this location is currently located at 98th and Lyndale. Seger emphasized that the size of this sign is 70 square feet, which is smaller than what was originally proposed in the application, and it is also smallr-r than what is consistent with the other signs along Shoreline Drive. Seger further commented that when you come over the hill from the west, you do not see the Norwest building until you are past Hardees, so they did want /77/ Planning Commission Minutes May l3, 1996 to make an impact with the sign. It is important for clients to find the bank. It was noted that the proposed sign is 22 square feet over the minimum required size. Hanus stated he wants to be careful not to approve this sign just because there is another existing sign that does not meet the ordinance. Geoff Michael stated the existing Norwest bank building has four sets of channel letters, and the wall signs for the new building will be much smaller than what is allowed. He emphasized there is a new business coming in town with a new facility asking for less wall signage than what they have at their existing location, and the proposed free standing sign is 5' lower than what is allowed and the size of the sign is not very large, especially considering what is already on Shoreline Drive. Burma asked if we are being fair to Norwest by requiring them to meet the code when others don't. Staff noted that the Shoreline Plaza sign did receive a variance for its size. Mueller stated there is no sign plan for the property, and asked if this is something that could be accomplished at this time. Mueller reviewed the existing free standing signs on this property and recalled that the sign for Rite-Way Oil is on a separate parcel. The signs on this parcel include Dominos, Shoreline Plaza, and now Norwest, this is three free standing signs on two corners for one property. The Building Official noted they are allowed one sign per street frontage, and this property has three street frontages. Mueller commented impact of this sign is minimal considering the size of the parking lot. Clapsaddle agreed it is not an exceptionally large sign. Glister is concerned about setting a precedent. MOTION made by Burma, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the sign variance application as requested to allow a 70 square foot sign. Finding: this neighborhood has other competing signs that are beyond the size of the one being requested. Motion carried 4 - 3. Those in favor were: Burma, Clapsaddle, Mueller, and Reifschneider. Weiland, Hanus, and Glister were opposed. Glister commented that there is no hardship and she is fearful of setting a precedent. Hanus stated he would like to reserve the right to change his vote at the Council level. He stated, if the code is too stringent, it may need to be changed, and if a finding for approval is because existing signs are too big, he does not want to set a precedent. Clapsaddle stated the code may be tighter than it ought to be. each free standing business to have its own free standing sign. for the Planning Commission to look at the sign ordinance. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 28, 1996. He emphasized it is common for Hanus commented he will push Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. i ln PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Sign Variance APPLICANT: Norwest Bank CASE NUMBER: 96-22 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5h LOCATION: 5211 Shoreline Drive EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-I) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: Norwest Bank is requesting a variance for a new freestanding pylon sign. The sign will be placed on the footing for the existing Shoreline Plaza/Jubilee Foods sign. The Jubilee Foods sign will be relocated to a new pole further to the west. The relocation of the Jubilee sign was approved as part of the conditional use permit for the addition of the bank to the shopping center property. Norwest is proposing to install a new sign that is 20 feet in height and 74 square feet in area. The Mound Sign Ordinance limits the area of freestanding signs to 48 square feet and restricts height to a maximum of 25 feet. The proposed sign is under the height limitation but exceeds the area by 26 square feet. Variances for signs can only be granted if it is determined that a "hardship or practical difficulty" are present. In the application, Norwest identifies the need for the variance based on the fact that the "setback of the building reduces the visibility for proper business identification". They also refer to the size of other freestanding signs in the area which exceed the ordinance threshold. All of the signs mentioned are "grandfathered uses" and the fact that they do not comply with current provisions does not, in the opinion of staff, constitute any type of hardship. It is also mentioned in the application that 7300 Metro Boul~ard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 I'775 Planning Report - Norwest Sign Variance May 8, 1996 Page 3 the copy sizes will not be readable on a 48 square foot sign. Staff again does not see hardship resulting from this issue since the most prominent graphic element on the sign is the large "N". Additionally, the colors that are used are an important aspect of the public's recognition of the sign. For example, the yellow and orange color scheme of the Instant Cash sign is probably recognized by most people prior to the time that they can actually read the lettering. RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot support a variance for the sign as proposed based on hardship. If the Planning Commission feels that the setback of the building is sufficient grounds for a finding of practical difficulty, it could recommend approval of the proposed sign to the City Council. IllJ CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 i Application Fee: $50.00} "~I:OR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: ~-- I~'-C'~ ~ Case No..~Q~ ~ City Council Date: Distribution.: ~--- [ _ City Planner DNR City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT Address 5211 Shoreline Drive, Nor-west Bank PROPERTY Lot Block LEGAL Subdivision DESC. PID# Plat # R-lA R-2 R-3 (.~) B-2 B-3 ZONING DISTRICT R-1 PROPERTY Name Saliterman LTD, Shoreline Plaza OWNER Address 4301 Highway #7, Suite 100, St. Louis Park, MN Phone (H) ON) 920-8282 OM) APPLICANT Name Norwest Bank, Sharon Cook ~F OTHER Address 2290 Conmerce Blvd., Mound, MN THAN Phone (H) ON)_ 472-4989 (M) OWNER) 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 applicauon, acUo taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. //Xnstall one internally illuminated, double faced pylon sign, 74 square feet in size, / 20, to top of sign. We will be removing Shoreline Plaza sign (1OS+ square feet) and ~ ~ installing new Norwest Bank pylon sign on same f°°ting- .~ Detailed descripton of pr°p°sed c°nstructi°n °r alterati°n (size' number °f st°ries' type °f use' et~ V. anance Application, ¥. Z Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoninz district in which it is located? Yes t~, No (). ff no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reaso~ for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~ 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 (ii,other: specify Plebe describe: Setback of building reduces visibility for proper business identification. (Rev. 1218195) :,'ariaace Application, P. 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 ~X~- If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No ~b 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 J~$, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: Norwest Bank is requesting a variance of 26 square feet in sign size to increase signage readability. Due to the limitations of graphics/copy sizes on a 48 s.f. sign the copy would be unreadable. Also, the bank signage is competing with other signage that is greater than code allows - IE: Hardee's pylon 100+ s.f.; Rite Away Oil 80+ s.f. and Subway 80+ s.f. Owner's · Applicant's Signatur(~ 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. Signature -~,d, ~, Date (Rev. 12.'8'05) /77 ~ H ~L,.G M mi lB,, August 8, 1995 RECEIVED' RESOLUTIOn' TO A~OVS A COSO=T=O"~ USS TO X~.OW TSZ O.E~U~=~O" O~ A ORZVZ-~' SXt~XI~G ~C=LIT~ =~ T"S S-1 CZ~UU~ BUSXNESS ZO~'=~'~ DISTaICT AT 5211 SHORELINE DRIVE LOTS 7 - 20 & 26 - 35, PID #13-117-24 34 0072 P&Z CASE ~95-19 WHEREAS, Mark A. Saliterman, owner of the subject property, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Drive-in Banking Facility for a new free-standing Norwest Bank building in the parking lot area of Shoreline Plaza, next to Hardee's Restaurant, and; ~REAS, the subject property is located in the B-! Centre! Business Zoning District which allows '.Drive-in Retailing Establishments" by Conditional Use Permit, and; WHEREAS, the Mound Zoning Ordinance defines "Drive-in" as, "Any use where products and/or services are provided to the customer under conditions where the customer does not have to leave the car or where fast service to the automobile occupants is a service offered regardless of whether service is also provided with a building, and; WHEREAS, Mound Zoning Ordinance Section 350:775 sets standard for drive-in businesses in all districts, and; WHEREAS, the proposed bank will contain approximately 3,600 square feet and will have a drive-in facility that includes 4 teller lanes and 1 ATM lane, and; WHEREAS, requested variances include parking space count and space size, sign placement, impervious cover, and distance between drive-in facilities and residential uses, and; .WE_EREAS, parking for the entire center needs to be considered. The site plan identifies a total of 176 parking spaces which is approximately 84% of the required parking amount. The present mix of uses in the Shoreline Plaza shopping center can probably be reasonably serviced by 176 parking spaces, and; WHEREAS, an impervious surface coverage variance; to increase from 88% to 98% (approximately), and; WHEREAS, Sign variance. In this case, the property has an extended frontage along County Road 15 and adequate space exists to accommodate the proposed Norwest sign in addition to the relocated shopping center sign, however, since the applicant has not provided any further details, it is assumed that the signs will conform to the City's height, area and setback criteria, and; 170 Augus= 8, 1995 WHEREAS, Rite Away 0il is located on a separate parcel, so their sign is separate, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and ~hnanimously recommended approval with the conditions recommended by staff. ' , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City Council does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Drive-in Banking Facility and variances pertaining to parking, impervious cover, the placement of two freestanding signs along 1 street frontage, and the electronic devices setback for a new free-standing Norwest Bank building to be located in the parking lot area of Shoreline Plaza, next to Hardee's Restaurant, suDject to the following conditions: ae The applicant shall prepare the following plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Planner: - 1) Modified Site Plan - The plan shall contain a revised layout that depicts the expansion of the bank drive-in entrance aisle, the expansion of the concrete islands and the resulting modification of the new parking lot east of the existing grocery store. 2) Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan - The plan shall contain existing and proposed contours depicting all grading and identify all required retaining walls. The plan shall also identify storm sewer modifications and improvements and include a copy of all stormwater calculations. Erosion control measures shall also be included. 3) Landscaping Plan - The plan -==~ ~,~-~ shcw the installation of landscaped island areas edged by ~oured-in-place curb and gutter in all parking lot islands shown on the site plan with the exception of the islands on either end of the 4 parking spaces on the west side of the site adjacent to Rite Away Oil Change. Landscaping shall also be shown around the bank building, in the sod island area separating Norwest Bank from the shopping center, and along the existing grass boulevard areas abutting County Road 15 and Wilshire Boulevard. Plant material quantities and sizes shall be in conformance with the standards identified in Section 350:725 of the Mound Zoning Code. 171 Augus= 8, I995 Be Ce De 4) Lighting Plan - The plan shall conform to Zoning Code Sections 350:775 and 350:730. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be reviewed and approved as conditioned by the Watershed District. With the exception of the placement variance for the two freestanding signs along one street frontage that is granted herein, all signage shall comply with the Mound Sign Ordinance. The signs will conform to the City's height, area and setback criteria. Construction of all improvements shall be in conformance with all local, state and federal ordinance and permit requirements. The applicant shall complete and submit the required variance application form including corresponding fees prior to the time that this case is heard by the Mound City Council. The applicant shall have a qualified land surveyor complete the required impervious cover calculation form and submit it to the City prior to the time that this case is heard by the Mound City Council. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Certificate No. 474801. Lots 13 to 20 inclusive, Block 1, together with the North Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between extensions across it of the East line of Lot 13 and the West line of Lot 20 and the vacated park and parking area vacated lying North of said lots between the East line of parking area vacated lying North of said lots between the East line of Lot 13 and the West line of Lot 20, and Lost 26 to 33 inclusive, Block ! together with the vacated alley lying between Lot 31 and Lots 26 to 30 inclusive, Block 1 and the South Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between extensions of the East line of Lot 33 and the West line of Lot 31, Block 1, also the vacated alley lying between Lots 18 and 19, Block 1, lying between extension across it of the North and South lines of said Lots 18 and 19 and the South Half of vacated alley adjoining lot 26 lying between the East line of Wilshire Drive and the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 31 and the North Half of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 21 to 25, Block 1, lying between the southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 21 and the East line of Wilshire Drive, Block 1, all in Shirley Hills, unit F, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO 172 AugusC $, 1995 That part of Certificate No. 580443. Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, Block 1, and that part of the parking area vacated lying West of the northerly extension of the East line of said Lot 21, all in Shirley Hills, Unit f, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO That part of Certificate No. 474801. Lots 7 through 12, inclusive, Block 1, together with the North Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between the extensions across it of the East line of Lot 7 and the West line of Lot 12 and the vacated park and parking area vacated lying North of said Lots between the East line of Lot 7 and the West line of Lot 12; and Lots 34 and 35, Block 1 and the South Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between extensions of the East line of Lot 35 and the West line of Lot 34, Block 1, all in Shirley Hills, Unit F, according to the plat thereof, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoi'ng resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None A~est: ~i~~nager ~ Mayor-- 173 RESOLUTION NO. 74-85 RESOLUTION GRANTING SIGN VARIANCE (National Food Store) WHEREAS, the National Food Store has requested permission to replace the existing sign in orderto conform with the new National Food sign style on the property located on Lots 7-20, inclusive, Lots 26-55, inclusive, and all of adjacent vacated alley and parking areas, Block l, Shirley Hills Unit "F," and ~C~REAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval for a sign 10 feet by 8 feet on the pylon on the property in front of the store, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MIi~NESOTA: That the National Food Store be permitted to place a sign l0 feet x 8 feet on the pylon on the property in front of the store, replacing the sign that is there now. Adopted by the Council this 9th day of April, 1974. 'aA'lB ':1 I:! I H$'"I IM Jl WILSHIRE BOULEVARD CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE'/ YES I NO LOT OF RECORD? YL:S / NO ZONING DISTRIC'F, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R! IO,000/60 81 7v5OO/O R1A 6,OOO/40 82 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 '~'ARD I IHRE'tTIION ] RIr.{2UI REI) EXIS'FING/i'ROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDI'H: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE IH)USE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W 50' 7OP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIEI) ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF IIARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO - 5 ,{ 5",' 4 OR OILIER I)ETACIIED BUILDINGS N S E W N S E W N S E W 4'OR6' N S E W 4'OR6' N S E W 4' N S E W 50' IO' OR 30' 30% OR 40% BY: .. ] .DATED: EDEN RESOLUTION #96' ~-~(~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCES AND A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 3207 ROXBURY LANE LOTS 1, 2, 14 & 15, BLOCK 28, DEVON PID 25-117-24 12 0219 P&Z CASE #96-23 WHEREAS, the owner, Mark Henderson, has submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 330 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks for non-lots of record, a 15 foot rear yard setback, and 40 feet of frontage on an improved public right-of-way, and; WHEREAS, the northerly parcel has a lot area of 6,376 square feet and the southerly parcel that contains an existing home has an area of 7,576 square feet. Roxbury Lane which provides frontage for both parcels is unimproved, and; WHEREAS, the property owner who lives at 4928 Aberdeen Road intends to purchase the northerly parcel, combine it with his existing parcel and construct a garage. The property at 4928 Aberdeen Road and the northerly parcel are separated by a section of Aberdeen Road that is unimproved. After the parcels are combined, a garage could be built on the northerly parcel, and; WHEREAS, a variance request for both parcels is part of this request. Both the proposed southerly and northerly parcels do not front on an improved public street, therefore, street frontage variances will be needed. Additionally, the southerly parcel has a relatively new deck which was constructed without a permit. The deck is 8 feet deep which would require a rear yard setback variance of approximately 6 feet, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: /7el Proposed Resolution Henderson Subdivision Page 2 The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing one new parcel for the property legally described as Lots 1, 2, 14 and 15 together with adjacent half of vacated Hanover Road, Block 28, Devon, subject to the following conditions: o Approval of the rear yard setback variance of 8 feet +/- for the deck shall be incorporated into this subdivision approval providing that the deck permit fee and all applicable penalties are paid prior to release of the final resolution on the subdivision. be The applicant shall prepare and submit the required variance application and corresponding fee prior to the time that this item is reviewed by the City Council. Co A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for any construction on the northerly lot with said plan being approved by the Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. Plans shall also show the method of providing driveway access to the northerly parcel. do Drainage and utility easements shall be provided along new lot lines, 5 feet wide on all lot lines except those abutting Aberdeen Road and Roxbury Lane, both of which shall be 10 feet wide. Proof of easement filing shall be required prior to release of the final resolution. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon the combination of 4928 Aberdeen Road and the newly created Northerly Parcel. The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A: Northerly Parcel: Lots 1 and 2, Block 28, Devon. Southerly Parcel: Lots 14 and 15 together with adjacent half of vacated Hanover Road, Block 28, Devon. Proposed Resolution Henderson Subdivision Page 3 o o An 8.2 foot rear yard setback variance is hereby approved for the northerly parcel to allow construction of a conforming addition to the dwelling and construction of a conforming 20' x 20' detached garage to be located 6 feet from the north side property line and 20 feet from the front property line. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this r~.solution. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI~qSION MAY 13, 1996 CASE 96-23: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE, MARK HENDERSON, 3207 ROXBURY LANE, LOTS 1,-2, 14 & 15, BLOCK 28, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 12 0219 The Building Official reviewed the Planning Report from Mark Koegler. The applicant is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to establish one new lot. If approved, the northern lot will have a lot area of 6,376 square feet and the southern parcel that contains an existing home will have an area of 7,576 square feet. Roxbury Lane which provides frontage for both parcels is unimproved. The property owner who lives at 4928 Aberdeen Road intends to purchase the northerly parcel, combine it with his existing parcel and construct a garage. The property at 4928 Aberdeen Road and the northerly parcel are separated by a section of Aberdeen Road that is unimproved. After the parcels are combined, a garage could be built on the northerly parcel. Despite the garage proposal, the subdivision should be reviewed in accordance with all applicable ordinance sections since by code, it could contain a single-family home if it is not combined with another property. Approval of the subdivision will require the issuance of variances. Both the proposed southerly and northerly parcels do not front on an improved public street, therefore, street frontage variances will be needed. Additionally, the southerly parcel has a relatively new deck which was constructed without a permit. The deck is 8 feet deep which would require a rear yard setback variance of approximately 6 feet, if approved. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the minor subdivision, including street frontage variances, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a revised survey showing the existing deck and delineating the amount of the required variance. Approval of the rear lot setback variance for the deck shall be incorporated into this subdivision approval providing that the deck permit fee and all applicable penalties are paid prior to release of the final resolution on the subdivision. The applicant shall prepare and submit the required variance application and corresponding fee prior to the time that this item is reviewed by the City Council. ge The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said fee being paid prior to release of the final subdivision resolution. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for any construction on the northerly lot with said plan being approved by the Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. Plans shall also show the method of providing driveway access to the northerly parcel. The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along new lot lines, 5 feet wide on all lot lines except those abutting Aberdeen Road and Roxbury Lane, both of which shall be 10 feet wide. Proof of easement filing shall be required prior to the release of the final resolution. ; Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 shall be paid prior to release of the final resolution for recording. Mueller suggested the assessments should be charged at time of building permit issuance, and if the intent is to vacate Aberdeen and combine the parcels, they should not have to pay an assessment. It was also suggested that the park dedication fee not be required unless a house is built on the new northerly parcel. The Building Official indicated that any questions relating to assessments can be clarified prior to the Council meeting. Sutherland confirmed that if the deck is allowed to remain, a building permit will be required and a double fee will apply. Brian Pascoe, owner of 4928 Aberdeen Road, confirmed the property is under purchase agreement at this time. Mueller commented that the unit charge is for improved property, all roads in front of this property are unimproved, so he is opposed to the unit charge unless a house is built on property. Hanus suggested they confirm with the attorney that parcels may be combined which are separated by a street. It was suggested that an application for a street vacation could be submitted. Mueller commented on the nonconforming deck stating that the impact of the deck on the adjacent property is minimal as it is on the top of a huge bluff which extends straight down to a wetland that is not used. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff, with the conditions modified as follows: -;ar'~ancc. Approval of the rear lot setback variance of 8 feet +/-for the deck shall be incorporated into this subdivision approval providing that the deck permit fee and all applicable penalties are paid prior to release of the final resolution on the subdvision. The applicant shall prepare and submit the required variance application and corresponding fee prior to the time that this item is reviewed by the City Council. 10 -- Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 e A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shah be submitted to the City Engineer for any construction on the northerly lot with said plan being approved by the Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. Plans shah also show the method of providing driveway access to the northerly parcel. n~. ........... ~-- ~ ..... :~.~ · ...... :a~ dDrainage and utility easements shah be provided along new lot lines, 5 feet wide on all lot lines except those abutting Aberdeen Road and Roxbury Lane, both of which shall be 10 feet wide. Proof of easement filing shah be required prior to release of the final resolution. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon the combination of 4928 Aberdeen Road and the newly created Northerly Parcel. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1996. ,i i ,¥! ROAD ?..¢" PO PLAI~ 990 J[ /,4, RESOLUTION #96- EXHIBIT A TC I CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-062o Dennis Hill Department of Property Tax A-6 Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Dear Sir: I hereby request a (separat~ssessment on the following described land (include legal~:~fption and P.I.D. numbers): For District 85 - City of Mound S£gnature of Fee owner Name of Taxpayer Taxpayer's Address Tax Year ~_~ ~ .~q I I I__1 Separation approved by city of Mound, Planning & Inspections Department. By: Date: Jon Sutherland Title: printed o .... ycled paper ~ Ill 8~ 8~ 9~ ,7 95,7 RECEIVED MOUND PLANNING & INSR Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision with Variances APPLICANT: Mark Henderson CASE NUMBER: 96-23 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5i LOCATION: 3207 Roxbury Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-lA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to establish one new lot. If approved, the northern lot will have a lot area of 6,376 square feet and the southern parcel that contains an existing home will have an area of 7,576 square feet. Roxbury Lane which provides frontage for both parcels is unimproved. According to materials submitted with the application, the property owner who lives at 4928 Aberdeen Road intends to purchase the northerly parcel, combine it with his existing parcel and construct a garage. The property at 4928 Aberdeen Road and the northerly parcel are separated by a section of Aberdeen Road that is unimproved. After that the parcels are combined, a garage could be built on the northerly parcel. Despite the garage proposal, the subdivision should be reviewed in accordance with all applicable ordinance sections since by code, it could contain a single-family home if it is not combined with another property. Approval of the subdivision will require the issuance of variances. Both the proposed southerly and northerly parcels do not front on an improved public street. Therefore, a variance to the section of the code requiring frontage will be needed. Additionally, the southerly parcel has an existing home with a relatively new deck. The deck was discovered during the site visit and it does not show up on 7300 Metro Boul~,ard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - Henderson Minor Subdivision with Variances May 8, 1996 Page 2 the submitted survey. A review of City records dos not indicate that a permit was issued for the deck nor was a variance granted. The deck is on the rear portion of the home and appears to have a depth of at least 8 feet. If it is 8 feet deep, it lies within approximately 6 feet of the property line rather than the 15 feet that is required. In the course of acting on this request, the Planning Commission must also address the illegally constructed deck. The property to the west of the southerly parcel is permanent open space (designated wetland). As such, the deck has very little impact on the adjacent parcel. The dilemma faced by the Commission, however, is that the amount of the required variance is unknown. Therefore, the Commission could table action on the request until the survey is updated to include all structures on the property or the Commission could proceed based on the assumption that a variance of approximately 6 feet will be necessary. As was mentioned, neither of the proposed lots has adequate frontage on an improved public street. The southerly parcel currently has driveway access off of the curved portion of the roadway that connects Hanover Road and Roxbury Lane. The northerly parcel has the potential to have access off of small portions of improved sections of Aberdeen Road or Roxbury Lane with the most probable location being off of Roxbury. It is unlikely that Roxbury Lane will ever be improved since it serves only these two lots, one of which currently has driveway access and one of which can easily construct a private driveway over a portion of the public right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION: Since the proposed subdivision complies with all ordinance criteria except frontage on an improved public street, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the minor subdivision including street frontage variances subject to the following conditions: o The applicant shall submit a revised survey showing the existing deck and delineating the amount of the required variance. Approval of the rear lot setback variance for the deck shall be incorporated into this subdivision approval providing that the deck permit fee and all applicable penalties are paid prior to the release of the final resolution on the subdivision. The applicant shall prepare and submit the required variance application and corresponding fee prior to the time that this item is reviewed by the City Council. The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said fee being paid prior to release of the final subdivision resolution. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for any construction on the northerly lot with said plan being approved by the Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. Plans shall also show the method of providing driveway access to the northerly parcel. Planning Report - Henderson Minor Subdivision with Variances May 8, 1996 Page 3 The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along new lot lines, 5 feet wide on all lot lines except those abutting Aberdeen Road and Roxbury Lane, both of which shall be 10 feet wide. Proof of easement f'~ng shall be required prior to the release of the f'mal resoulution. 6. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 shall be paid prior to release of the final resolution for recording. ! tl II II II ~11 :11 · ii J II ~ II II II II ,...; II II '-' II II '" I. tJ II - II II II N II II II II II II 0 0 O0 ~D 0 0 I O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 55364 2'6 Application Fee: $50.00 Escrow Deposit: $1,000 '~ /D~ City Planner DNR Public Works Other City Engineer Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: INFORMATION ~ ~ISTING Lot LV'Y~ i~ ~) I ~ f' I~ 8lock .~ ~ Pla~ ~ LEGAL ~ ZONING ~ DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-2 R-3 B-I B-2 B-3 APPMCANT Tho applicant is: ~wner other: Phone (~) {W) (M) OWNER Name (if other than applicant} Address Phone (H) (W) N (M) SURVEYOR/ / Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by a_.// owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this/s not the case. Date 'Owne~/~ig~ature Owner's Signature / Date ,i i ~ll & 1,4, VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: Case No. City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner DNR City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT Address .3~0 '7 ~0 K'~O~ L-N/,' I~OU!O0 PROPERTY Lot l a'~ ~ I-~' Block O~ LEGAL Subdivision DESC. PID# 4'~' - ti'7 - ~ - I ~- - ~-j c~ Plat# ZONINa DXSTPaCT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name ~ '~ ~ ~.. /~. fle~,o~eC.S OWNER Address ~ ~ O "7 ~---V )~ L'q 0 ~ ~ C... APPLICANT Name~ (IF OTHER Address '~ THAN Phone (lq) (W)_ (M). OWNER) Has an application ever been made fo~zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ('5 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.): _ ~iance Application, P. 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: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: REQUIRI::I) REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) SW , ~,--~ ft. [~/ ft. ~-- ft. /.~EW) [0 ft. ~t4 ft. ~ ft. ) tO ft. ',.o. + ft. --- ft. ( NS ~. W ) 'i .';'ft. iq "/- ft. ~[~ ft. (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: 4 0 ff. 3 0 ff. I 0 ft- Lot Size: (~OC'/) sq ft -/5"7 (~ sq ff O sq ff Hardcover: /n~)~ ~, 9,'723 sq ft sq ft sq ff Does the present, use of the property confom to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (q), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? Please describe: ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ()4~ other: specify , ~.~STl~J(., 14~0f~ Bu~b-r' (Rev. 1218/95) '~iance Application, P. 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 J~. 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 j~. II no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?. 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. · Ano~,cant's Signature Date (.Rev. I.2/8/95) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA '7~'"7~ SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA -7 ~' '7 (~ SQ. FT. X _40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = '(for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) · DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with e pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ,~ x 33- = ~ ~-'-f ~-o x i¢ = 3'9.0 X = TOTAL HOUSE ........................ ,. ~ X ~ X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x i~ = \~t ~,, TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. :~':Z x IH- = ~o~ X = X = TOTALDECK .......................... X = X = TOTALOTHER ......................... 3o o TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 l, , il Application Fee: $50.00 (FOR OlqqCE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: Case No. City Council Date: Distribution; City Planner DNTR City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT Address LEGAL -~%bdivision DESC. PID# Plat # PROPERTY Name f~ OWNER Address ,"~,q~-O 7 f~ p, X ~ "' ,~ Phone Ca) 4-7 ~- ~';~ .q ¢ 0v). (M) APPLICANT Name OF OTHER Address Phone Ca) (W) (M). OV~qER) Has an application ever been made for. zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, Jk)~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resofu'tions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 CIL~ 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 reasor for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED (or existing~ VARIANCE 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. ff. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ff. ff. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ff. ff. R. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ff- Street Frontage: ar 0 ft. [ <~ ft- ~- ~' ft' Lot Size: b t--,00 sq ff ~, .g '7 ~ sq ft ~ sq ff Hardcover: sq ff sq ft sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape Please describe: soil existing situation other: specify (Rev. 12/8195) v~*~e ~,p~u~ou, t,. 3 b~v~ propc~:Y interests in thc !and 6. Was the hardship dcsc~bed above created by the action of anyone ~ yes, } after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), blo ~'._--- ¢ '7. Was the laardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? yes (), '" e ~opefoj described · ~uliar o~Y to m ?. -ff-ectexl?- e the conditions of hardship for which you request .a vanan_c_e.~u'which are similarly au~ · g. ~. ]I 110, list some omer prol M .. -tition? Yes (3, lqO ' I certify that all of the above statementS and thc statementS contained in any requireg I Sllblllitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the prerr cation by any auth0riz~ official of the City of Mound for the purpOse of insp . ces as may be required by law. Variance Application, P. 3 II. .ii,. i , I 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 ~X~ 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 (), 8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~Q. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?. Comments: 3'r .r) Farc i 'To I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required I submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the prerr application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of insp maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ?~ A,-plicant's Signature (Rev. I2/8195) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I SQ. FT, X_40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) LOT AREA *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE ~ X = 'TACHED BLDGS ~AGE/SHED) ~AY, PARKING SIDEWALKS, TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = '~cks (1/4" min. 5oards) with a 3der are 'dcover X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ;OVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE cate difference) ............................... I ,. I ho~cby certify that thio l~ a trk~ add correct plat of a ourvey oI:' That pa~c of Lota 12, 13 and Southeasterly of th~ mo~t ~ortherly corner =~td Lot 12, all An Arden, according go tha plat thereof on f~lm or of recmrd ~n the office of tho Kegtstrmr of T£tl~8 in and fo~ Mennepln County, Minne~ot&,. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE~ NO LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO 10,000/60 Bi 7,500/0 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 ~ 83 i0,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SE~ ORD. I1 30,0OO/100 IlOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT .sL w ~sEw SIDE ~ / t/ S E W SIDE LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SI1ED ..... OR OTIIER DETACHED FRONT NS E W ,~UILDINOS FlO~ ~ FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF tlARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / ~)/ This Zoning Information Sheet only .Planning Depaxtment at 472-0600. 10' OR 30' :,%URn0, ,~ [ ~"~ t,-',,.,x ~ 0 summ~izes a portion of ~e r*quirements oullinefl in ~e City of Mound EXISTING LOT SIZE: ..50' ~ g o ~ r~ cx LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE X.... ' / ... t.T 'e',-... " ~'-.. r.I .:1.\ ,~ :~ ~'~.,../~o f:. 117 - , HA,UG'iE P RD 11 ~5)!.'~? C: Ltl ~ 0 ..-. ('3 ! ! o ~,.rl .-1- I (I) ""1 RESOLUTION #96-~'~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING I~RONT YAP. I) ggTl~.CK TO THE DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 1801 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6 SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0005 P&Z CASE #96-24 WHEREAS, the owner, Kevin Donahoe, has applied for variance to recognize the nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a conforming detached garage. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both Shorewood Lane and Quail, 6 foot side yard setback to the south and a 15 foot rear yard setback to the west, and; WHEREAS, the existing setback of 12.5 feet to Wildhurst results in the recognition of a 7.5 foot front yard setback variance, and; WHEREAS, the applicant is planning to remove the existing dwelling at some time in the future and construct a new dwelling in a conforming location. All other issues with this site are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval as the proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property and will enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment, or increase in the nonconforming status. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 12.5 feet to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the dear 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 Donahoe Page 2 o o It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 32' x 28' detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 1 & 2, Block 6, 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. 1V[INI_FFF~ OF A MEETING OF TI-IE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 13, 1996 CASE 96--24: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, KEVIN DONAHOE, 1801 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0005 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a conforming detached garage. The dwelling is required to have a 20 foot setback to both Shorewood and Wildhurst Lane. The existing setback of 12.5 feet to Wildhurst results in the recognition of a 7.5 foot front yard setback variance. As noted on the survey the applicant is planning to remove the existing dwelling at some time in the future and construct a new dwelling in a conforming location. All other issues with this site are conforming. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property and will enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment, or increase in the nonconforming status. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to approve the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1996. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of May 13 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Officia~r Variance Request Kevin Donahoe 96-24 1801 Shorewood Lane, Lots 1 & 2, Block 6, Shadywood Point PID 13-117-24 14 0005 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a conforming detached garage. The dwelling is required to have a 20 foot setback to both Shorewood and Wildhurst Lane. The existing setback of 12.5 feet to Wildhurst results in the recognition of a 7.5 foot front yard setback variance. As noted on the survey the applicant is planning to remove the existing dwelling at some time in the future and construct a new dwelling in a conforming location. All other issues with this site are conforming. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property and will enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment, or increase in the nonconforming status. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 28, 1996. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, 1VIN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: ~,'-j ~-~-~ (/P Case No. % ~'~-.4 City Council Date: ,~ 'Z~ -~ ~ Disffibufion: ~- ~ ~ Ci, Planer D~ I~ City Engin~r ~ ~t Public Wor~ S~CT Address ~ ~ ~~t D~oO ~q~ PROPER~ Lot ~ m~ D ~ Block ~ LEG~ Subdivision , ~~C'O~'~ ~ }~ DESC. PIDg /~ //~~ '~/~ ~O~~ elatg ~/~ ZONING DIST~CT ~ ~R)IA~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Nme ~.)i~t ~~&~a~ OW~R Address J~oJ ~~~ C~ ~OO~D APPLIC~ Nme (IF OTHER Address TH~ Phone ~). ~). (M) O~ER) Has an application ever been made .f?r zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, 9q 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.): (Rev. 12/8/95) %xiance Application, P. 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.): o SETBACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (a~s E W) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? Please describe: ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil (~) exis~g situation other: specify (Rev. 1218/95) V~iance Application, P. 3 J 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: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No ~. If yes, explain: Yes (), o 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? 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. Signature ~~"'~ ~-/-~_~ Date /'~~~/? APPlicant's Signature (Rev. 12/8/95) Date 4/25/96 To Whom it May Concern, I have applied for variance because my current home is a non-conforming structure. I am currently planning to build a conforming detached garage. I hope in the next five years to tear down the non-conforming house and build a conforming one. I am planning to attach the new home to the conforming detached garage, making a conforming house with an attached garage. The entire property will then be conforming. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kevin Donahoe 1801 Shorewood Lane CITY OF MOUND t-t/~P~DCO~/EP, CALCULikT%ONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: i~_,OI ~'~"~-Fh~t~ ~-~"q~ OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 3O% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. J J = (for Lots of Record') ....... I ~'/J~_~9,(.~ J = (for detached buildings only) . . J J *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT /5'-: ~ x ~,/ = ~ /. s TOTAL HOUSE ......................... ~, X "~0~ = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. = /~/ = /~/~ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X TOTAL HARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I~U? I ~ OVER (indicate difference) ............................... J /5i? J )REPARED BY .: DATE -4435 COFFIN & GRONBERG PAGE 83 04/25/199G 13:38 473-4~ pLAT~ Account No. -~ --'ON TO VILLAGE WAIER MAINS _ FOR coNNEC11 PLICAIION ' 9~ ?'~ Blocy~-~~ AP , .'~ thc myucr (m duly aufl~m'~zcd agent) al Lot~ ~ ~ ~~~- -, - Water Mains, Addition~ ~- [/ . -,qou with tl~c x ittage he,cb' ma'. ap)licati°u for pcmnssmn to -- used for d~c [ollowiug purposes:- ~ Ii s her hinds him pcl-tainin~ and agree siR~c(l, hi in ti~e sir mitred ar stood an( pipes eau OrdinanO will enga conneCtlC w. ater. an charges a ties have o1[ the tb Date lustallcd~. ¢ :~ Size o[ Tap~-----~ · No. o~ Fect~---~ ' he undersigned hereby · ' ns' That t · e water, or - · --,in~ e~preSs co".d?..'?l t'o me use o~ V,l!a_~ ..~derstOOd ', )el'mit is received rtl re ,uhdionS goverm~gafter be enacted; .[~a~bove; that tile · by tlBoerstov" '-~iflos to nolae uo~'.~ulld that are no~ · ,~ [or no other pie-} ~-,+ioB tO the laying ~--ection hereOY [, h ..... ,,~ Works of J}~ · ~.is taD)ing pe~mt ~n ~and sha~ n~,~..,~.~, he or they st,~- _... =o ~o do; ~[ ~ - ~= *n water to hy the t'.2~'iu~,t owners ? 2~5 ~mm a,,Y such ,.na}n~t~q~ired by th~,.~2f'ot Mound, on a~;~cording to the heirS, or st, y..: . in said l~no, ~'~" 5 n hereafter lqm 'doos againsl th~ vh"yff, qon will be loc~tu~o b~t when ~reed to that . --,,in~ or iroll/ a., .... Il'eel ~s chang ' to. That all war. '= ~nd as well a_ Y__- ~nvment of = v free~ing, ~r?- ~ ~he grade oj ,-y ~.iti~ the new g~'9('~&_ q~e owner ol sam W. ',~ermitted l°r-nu~'~,~roeS and penal- but I 9g~ re-locate same -'.~..rOe against anu ~ ,U"~ut oil the com'~n complied w~t,~ ~ above agreem~-- ~- lumper -'. all be a c[,~ ~ * all times tv ..... ment have u~ -~ ~ter in%o '~ Probv permitted ~h ,, ~-ave the light a- . -is of thru a~.u~ '-hi and power tu '~[3 ~he Village snat,.,,_~ until ihe proVl~'~ *hat he has t'ii'f~eo the same c~k~gned hereby certll~.~=~.ner as stateu ue.~ -. ( / ~ '~.X,,v-~aid, The unue)~.ized agent for trig ~ // ~ V/ ~ ~ ~ J ,~ e descrmea '~ ' By ' - / ' Amt. Paid- PARTICULARS OF iNSTALLATION List Additional Expenses: IX,lc{ct No-~?4~d-~ill Curl)Stop to at least two pcilnanent points ii,ii '/ CI'I'¥ UP ]~]UUINU - /_.Ul~ll'~U ll~ru~uvit~,u,, ...... ADDRESS ~~~ ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60 B1 '/,500/0 o,ooo, o SURVEY ON FIL NO ~ ~ B3 ZO,OOO/GO LOT OF R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 DIRECTION REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED IR)USE ......... FRO , hor (.Uond FRONT (~ll t ~ SIDE SIDE REAR N S E W NS E ("~) N S E W EXISTINO LOT SIZE: LOT WlDT. ki: VARIANCE FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE LAKE TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SllED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINGS N S/E~ W ~(.~E w N S E W N S E~W~ N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' ltARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO 30% OR 40% This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requi~ .Planning Department at 472-0600. 4' OR 6' 4'OR 6' 4~ ~ments outlined in lhe City of Mound Zo~ng_Ordinance. For furlher information, contact the City of Mound RESOLUTION #96-~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 1754 RESTHAVEN LANE, LOTS 21 & 22, BLOCK 5 SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0032 P&Z CASE #96-25 WHEREAS, the owner, Karl and Michael Berg has applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 25.5 feet in order to allow construction of a conforming 16' x 16' deck. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 8 feet for lots of record, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is nonconforming to the to the required front yard setback of 30 feet. The property received a variance in 1981 (Resolution #81-345) that allowed this nonconforming situation by the construction of the solar entry. The solar entry to the dwelling is setback 25.5 feet from the front property line, and with the 30 foot setback requirement, this results in the recognition of a variance of 4.5 feet. All other setbacks and impervious cover are conforming to our current ordinance, 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 a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 25.5 feet to allow construction of a conforming 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 Berg Page 2 o o o It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 16' x 16' deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 21 and 22, Block 5, 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. MINI. TFES OF A MEETING OF ~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 13, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes May i3, 1996 CASE 96-25: VARIANCE FOR DECK, KARI& MICHAEl. BERG, 1754 RESTHAVEN LANE, LOTS 21 & 22, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0032 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a conforming 16' x 16' deck. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the to the required front yard setback of 30 feet. The property received a variance in 1981 (Resolution #81-345) that allowed this nonconforming situation by the construction of the solar entry. The solar entry to the dwelling is setback 25.5 feet from the front property line, and with the 30 foot setback requirement, this results in the recognition of a variance of 4.5 feet. All other setbacks and impervious cover are conforming to our current ordinance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request, as the proposal is conforming to the ordinance, and is a reasonable use of the property. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to approve the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Hanus noted that this case would have qualified for streamlining. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1996. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of May 13, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Suthefland, Building Offici~~,)~' ~.~ Variance Request Karl and Michael Berg, Lots 21 & 22, Block 5, Shadywood Point PID 13-117-24 11 0032 96-25 1754 Resthaven lane R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a conforming 16' x 16' deck. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the to the required front yard setback of 30 feet. The property received a variance in 1981 (Resolution #81-345) that allowed this nonconforming situation by the construction of the solar entry. The solar entry to the dwelling is setback 25.5 feet from the front property line, and with the 30 foot setback requirement, this results in the recognition of a variance of 4.5 feet. All other setbacks and impervious cover are conforming to our current ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request, as the proposal is conforming to the ordinance, and is a reasonable use of the property. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 28, 1996. printeO on recycled paper lit I VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution;. .~r- ! -6~ (.~ City Planner DNR City Engineer Other r-~ I_q (o Public Works SUBJECT Address t_'~q PROPERTY Lot L~ DESC. PID# ! B- ZONING DISTRICT ~. R- 1A R-2 R-3 B- 1 B-2 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H). (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? '~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with ail area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No j~f. ff no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reaso, for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: ~QUI~D ~QU~D VALANCE (or e~sting) FrontY~d: (NSEC) Side Y~d: (~ E W ) Side Y~d: ( N~¢E W ) R~ Y~d: (N S~) t~' R. ~4/_ ft. R. ~eside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. S~t Frontage: ft. q¢,Gfi ft. ft. ~t Size: sq ft [~, q ~ sq ft_ sq ft H~dcover: sq ft 2~'~,~q ft sq ft iqg l Does the present use of the property conform to ail regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes'U, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shailow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 1218195) Variance Application, P. 3 ,J ..... ,J,~.,. ,l i,,~ J 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 ~;4~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~ No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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 (Rev. 12/8105) Date Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: r~.~ OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA ["~)L~(~'~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with e pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = TOTAL HOUSE x = I00 X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = I oo,c TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~/OVER (in.~t~e difference) ............................... Certificate cf Survey for Richard ;~ .... ~ ~' Shad',;woo~! 'Point of Lots 21 and 22 Henne~in Cowry, "' I hereby certify that this is u Lru~ :_~nd ,~crrect .~e;,:-e::antat[:m of a s~ey of the bo~daries of Lots 2i ''" 2~o~k ', dLad~od Point, the location of all axistim' bu; ~, ...... thereon. It ~oes not show other ~provements or en~r[~achm'~nts. Scale: 1" = 30' Data : 9-15-81 o : Iron wnrker X × x Ii i,il I , il n/z~-Z X X X X ZLL~ J ~lll~,j,, It I I1 ,,I I ,,iii ,I l,,[ October 13, 1981 Counc~lmember Polston moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 81-345 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE THE STREET FRONT AND SIDE YARD VARIANCE WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the owner of Lots.21 and 22, Block 5, Shadywood Point, Plat 61980 Parcel 2530, PID #13-117-24 11 0032, is requesting a 9'5" street front variance and a 2 foot side yard variance, and he is requesting this variance to allow addition of a "Solar Entry, PassiveII, and there is an existing side yard deficiency, and the Planning Commissim ~cognizes the existing side yard deficiency, but recommends approval of the variance request as stipulated on the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation and .approves the street front variance of 9.5 feet and the side yard variance of 2 feet to allow addition of a "Solar Entry, Passive" to the existing structure, recognizing the existing side yard deficiency. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Charon and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston and Swenson; the following voted against the same: none; with the following being absent: Ulrick and Lindlan; whereupon said resolution was delcared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the Acting City.Clerk. Attest~. Acting City Clerk CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ONFILE~(~ / NO 0'l~ ~ ~ LOT OFRECORlP YES /~NO YARD ~ ~"-' ] DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~10,000/6~ B1 7, SO0/O ~ o,uuo/4o B2 20~000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 ~0,000/60 R2 ~4~000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT~DEPOTH ~' +/- VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR NS E W N--s E ? N S E W LAKE 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' FRONT N S E W FRONT SIDE NS E W N S E w 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER -- 30% OP~0% ] This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes n portion of the requirements outlined ,Planning Department at 472-0600. City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound "r' 05/15/199G 83:15 05/1..S/96 11:o5 ~ ,il, · ,I i,,I 6124728272 WESTDNKA CDMM ED F~X 612 4?2 0820 CITY OF ~OUND PAGE 81 SiGN PERMIT APPLICATION O.UASI PUBO'(~ PUNCh_ION - PORTABLE $1(3_~ City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 Portal;He signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunCTion with a governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of u~ shall not exceed lan (10) consecutive days and requires agOroval of the C~ Cou~il. Signs shall ~e placed on the premises of the adve~ised event, and/or on SUCh other premiSeS as approved by the City Council when granting the perm,. A perm~ is re~ui~ed, howeve~ is exemp~ from all fees. ~DI~J~$S O~ SIGN 5'7,00 DgSCRZ BE R,~ASON / PUR[~C~SE FOX ]~I2~SS T: &pp%icant ' Da%e I/////111////////////////////////////////////I///////////////////////////!/f// ~P~OV'J:D SY ClT~ CO~C~:~, PROPOSED RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERI(IT TO 21~LOW PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND FOR STEPH~TIE COON, INCLUDING A STAIRWAY, RETAINING WALL, ELECTRIC OUTLET & LIGHTS, FLAG POLE, PLA~TINGS AND A PLAYHOUSE LOCATED ON DEVON COMMON ABUTTING 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE DOCK SITE #42314 WHEREAS, Stephanie Coon, owner of 4729 Island View Drive, has applied for a Special Permit to allow private structures on public land known as Devon Common, including a stairway, retaining wall, plantings, electric outlet and lights, flag pole and playhouse, 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, this area of Devon Common, Dock Site #42314, is classified as a Type C Common, meaning, "Shoreline with nontraversable space; stairs needed to shoreline, not accessible by public right-of-way (abutting property owners only)", and; WHEREAS, Stephanie Coon and Michael Pride have requested to replace the stairway, install lights along the stairs, repair and paint the existing cement retaining wall, and install plantings to screen the retaining wall, and; WHEREAS, Stephanie Coon has agreed to assume responsibility of the playhouse, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve a Special Permit to allow private structures on public land known as Devon Common for Stephanie Coon, owner of the abutting property, 4729 Island View Drive, subject tot he following conditions: The permit shall Council approval. license holders. expire five (5) years from the date of City Permits must be renewed with change in dock Ail conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock licensee will be withheld until completion. Proposed Resolution Coon Page 2 o The stairway may be replaced. The new stairway shall be constructed according to code and approved by the Building official. The retaining wall may be repaired and painted with a neutral color. Plantings/bushes must be installed at the base of the retaining wall to screen the wall, and also bushes on top of the wall shall be installed, as outlined in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Prior to installation, a plan describing the type of plantings shall be submitted and approved by the Parks Director. Plantings should not block or hinder access along the commons. New electric outlet and lights may be installed, as shown on the plan. All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. The flag pole and playhouse may remain, as is. / g4- PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINLrTF~ OF A MEETING MAY 9, 1996 PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH//8 The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended approval of a 5 year permit for Batch #8, subject to the conditions as noted on the chart for Batch//8. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock licensee will be withheld until completion. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holders. *All ..electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 ABUTTING ADDRESS ISLAND VIEW DR STEPHANIE COON contacted ENCROACHMENT - STAIRWAY - RETAINING WALL - PLANTINGS - ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET - PLAY HOUSE - FLAG POLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPROVE REPLACEMENT OF STAIRWAY AND REPAIRS TO RETAINING WALL. NEW STAIRWAY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO CODE AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. PLANTINGS, PER PLAN, SEE BELOW.** APPROVE NEW ELECTRIC LIGHTS AND OUTLET AS SHOWN ON PLAN.* REMOVE OR RELOCATE FLAG POLE AND PLAY HOUSE ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY. **/t42314, Coon: As an alternative to the proposed planter box on top of the retaining wall, staff recommends the applicant install plantings/bushes at the base of retaining wall to screen the wall and also bushes on top of the wall, as outlined in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Prior to installation, a plan describing the type of plantings shall be submitted and approved by the Parks Director. Plantings should not block or hinder access along the commons. The Parks Director noted that an application was submitted by the adjacent property owner. Applicant, Stephanie Coon stated that the playhouse is structurally sound, but it needs the trim painted so it will match the house. She was told when she purchased her house that the likelihood that playhouse would be allowed to remain would be good because it is structurally sound. She related the history of the playhouse and noted that the City laid the foundation and moved it to the commons. Darling asked if the playhouse would not be a public structure now that it is on public land? Byrnes emphasized that you have to cross private property in order to get to this commons, so their stair would not be used by the public. Goode added that this commons is not traversable, without a stairway. Fackler commented that staff has not specifed who is required to do the removal, and that they hope at this time to work out an agreement with the adjacent land owner; if they want to keep the structure and take responsibility for it or if they do not want to take responsibility for it and prefer that it be removed. Coon emphasized that the playhouse is not a large structure, it is only 6' x 9'. Darling quoted a statement made by Curtis A. Pearson, City Attorney, in a letter to Ed Shukle dated November 10, 1995, "I would also caution that stairways which are located on public lands are in effect open to the public's use." Darling questioned if this also applies to other private structures. Pederson commented that the dock is considered private, and questioned how this is different than stairs. It was noted that the dock is located in the water, not on land. Darling also quoted from the same letter, "There is a potential for litigation and even a potential for a loss where the steps are on public land..." 2 1£47 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 Goode commented that logically, when commons are nonaccessible or nontraversable, structures should not be considered public. Darling stated that they need to follow rules that are in place today. Casey emphasized that there are also scenic and passive uses for the commons, and some people prefer to view a natural shoreline, rather than a shoreline cluttered with structures. Byrnes confirmed that Fackler had stated earlier that if an owner assumes responsibility for a structure it may remain, and then when it gets to a dilapidated state or is destroyed by natural causes, that it would eventually be removed. Stephanie Coon agreed to assume responsibility of the playhouse. Michael Pride, Stephanie Coon's husband, reviewed the plans submitted with their application which include replacement of the stairway, lights installed on the stairs, repair of the cement retaining wall, painting the retaining wall, and planting ivy or some other type of vegetation in front of the wall. Casey asked if they would consider native plantings. Pride commented that they will work with staff and plant whatever is recommended. It was noted that this is a south facing hillside which gets a lot of sun. Pride stated that they prefer to keep the flag pole, and noted that it is bordered with railroad ties, about 3' x 4'. MOTION by Byrnes, seconded by Ahrens approve a five year permit, as recommended by staff with the exception that the playhouse and the flag pole may remain, and that the applicant talk to staff about plantings and the retaining wall. Casey commented that they are perpetuating old mistakes by allowing things to remain, and he agrees with Darling that they need to make policy decisions and determine if these structures should be considered either public or private, and decide what uses they should allow. Casey stated that he would oppose the motion, and that he is not in favor of the lights or allowing the flag pole to remain. Goode is in favor of allowing the playhouse to remain, however, feels the flag pole is a separate issue because this area will never look like public land. Ron McCombs stated that the rest of Lake Minnetonka is not pristine, and asked why Mound is trying to make the commons look pristine, and emphasized that flag poles are not harmful to environment. Casey stated that every City has rules and codes and as a Park Commission they need to recommend where the line should be drawn. The Shoreland Management Ordinance is one of these codes which both private and public land must comply with. Motion carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Goode, Byrnes, and Pederson. Opposed were: Casey, Geffre, and Darling. 11 42' 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 Ahrens stated that the Council has determined that if an applicant does not agree with staff's recommendation, that the Council will approve the permit anyway, pending the recommendations from the Commons Task Force. Ahrens noted that the Commons task force is still meeting on the issue of encroachments. Darling moved that the City look at all nontraversable or nonaccessible commons that are not private and look at selling or leasing these commons to the adjacent property owners. Geffre seconded motion. Byrnes stated that the City does not own commons, so they cannot sell it. In order to vacate any land it has to be proven to be in the public's best interest to do so. Ahrens suggested that adjacent property owners could lease the commons. Darling questioned if it is realistic for the City to manage the commons when their is no public use. Jim reminded Commission how this type of action may affect the dock program. It was discussed how the lineal footage of public land affects the number of docks in the program. Casey would like to keep control of the shoreline and attempt to regain the beautiful natural shoreline they once had. He commented that the Shoreland Management Ordinance was mandated because the shorelines have become overdeveloped and it should be a public policy to protect this land from degradation. Goode suggested they hold off on Darling's motion until the commons task force finishes their review and recommendation regarding encroachments. Darling clarified that the intent for his motion is not to arbitrarily sell land, but to start the process of researching the possibility, understand the legal ramifications, and see if it makes sense. Byrnes stated that the Commons Task Force has been directed by Council to address the issue of encroachments on the commons. Motion failed with 3 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention. Those voting in favor were Pederson, Darling, and Geffre, those opposed were Byrnes, Casey and Goode. Ahrens abstained. Ahrens explained that she will abstain anytime the Park Commission sends forward a recommendation to the Council regarding and issue such as this. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOl/ND 5341 Maywood Road. Mound. Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 55364 DISTRIBUTION: BUILDING OFFICIAL PARKS DIRECTOR DNR MCWD PARK MEETING DATE .~'- ~_~ CITY COUNCIL DATE ~-~1- ~ lc e~q~one): ~-x. ~ 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 OP STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ~__~ ~ LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, 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. Ail permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Applicant Name ~~_ ~//~- Address ~7~_ ~Zd/¥ b %/,~ Phone (home). ~/?~- ~ g~ (work) q 72 ~utting Address ~TZ~ ~.~/ ~[ f('/) Property Owner ~ ~:A. ~,~7 ~,~i,~, Legal Lot C,'~, ~ Block Description Subd. ~ Public Name Property Dock Site $ Shoreline Type Contractor Name ~k[ Address Phone VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERI~tL$): ,. si~atu~e ~of-Applicafft' Date IlL t ! . I ORUMMOND ~ __ I ! L _ _~o_-.~ ISLAND R O AiN O K E---~ . · ~0.,,?__, i REA 4729 I.V.D. 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I GOVT LOT 1 '~35. 8.3 =F_S 30- 4ot~pJ~o'~J ~o ,~.,,o ~ '~- '~" '1--~ .... ~,: ,, :,o ~;, F"~ ~" 40 /' 14 J~5 16 17 ;18 ID , 20 Zl i~1~ 26~ 77' [gl) .~ .40.40. 40 49 t40': 40~ 40 40, / 8' 'v' T F';; eR Z ,| 12L! RESOLUTION RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS OF FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 9514 RELATING TO THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 110 AND THREE POINTS BLVD. WHEREAS, plans for Hennepin County Project No. 9514 showing proposed traffic control system installation at the intersection of County State Aid Highway 110 and Three Points Boulevard within the limits of the City of Mound, as a State Aid Project, have been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said plans be in all things approved and the City of Mound agrees to provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on- street parking on those portions of said Project No. 9514 within its corporate limits. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk Resolution adopted: May 28, 1996 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineem Planners Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Edward I. Shukle John Cameron, City Engineer May 24, 1996 City of Mound Signal Light County Road 110 and Three Points Boulevard MFRA #8903 We have r~viewed the plans submitted by Hennepin County for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Three Points Boulevard with C.S.A.H. No. 110 (Commerce Boulevard) and ar~ recommending approval. The project does not include any work to the traffic lanes except for the addition of detection loops to operate the signals; therefore, thc majority of the construction will take place behind the existing curb. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. eNnain:x, shttk$-24 ££9t 'o~ SSO~ ~NY~ S8~033~ ~¥a0'8 9661'ta'i~E Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer May 10, 1996 RECEIVED ;';AY 1 6 Bg§ Mound City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM CSAH 110 AT THREE POINTS BOULEVARD COUNTY PROJECT 9514 Submitted herewith for city council approval are a set of plans and a sample copy of a resolution approving the plans for the above referenced project for which arrangements are being made to call for bids. If the plans are satisfactory, please present them to the city council for approval. A resolution approving plans must be passed by your city council prior to receipt of bids. Please return two certified copies of the council resolution to the County. If you have any questions, please call me at 930-2537. Sincerely, C. Bobra, P.E. Senior Design Engineer DCB:mak Encl osure Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696 Recycled Paper PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, at 7:30 PM, the City Council of Mound will meet in Council Chambers at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364, for a public hearing to receive input regarding the proposed transfer of ownership of Tfiax Midwest Associates. Individuals wishing to present information should attend. Publish in The Laker May 25, 1996 Linda Strong, Acting City Clerk Tracy T. Ingram Executive Sales Associate May 24, 1996 Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: XXX KILDARE ROAD, MOUND, MINNESOTA Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The Sellers ofXXX Kildare Road, (legally described as Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, Block 11, Seaton) Mound, Minnesota, are asking the City Council of Mound to please vote on the petition to have the City of Mound build the road extension on Kildare Road. We would appreciate it if you would inform us of the date and time of said vote. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Professionally Yours, Tracy T. Ingram Realtor representing the partnership of Mr. Briggs, Mr. Hawley and Mr. Schultz TTI:sdi cc. Mr. Briggs, Mr. Hawley and Mr. Schultz Lake Minnetonka 2477 Shadywood Road Orono, Minnesota 55331 Office: (612)471-0722, Voice Mail: 472-9406 Each Office Independently Owned and Operated Minutes o Mound City Council Febmary27, 1996 1.3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: KILDARE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS City Manager Ed Shukle stated a Petition and Waiver Agreement for the Kildare Lane Improvements had been sent to Mr. Ingram, representative for the property owners to the west on the proposed improvement and to Mr. Stokes, the purchaser of the property from Mr. Berglund. This document was intended for all of the interested parties to sign agreeing to pay 100% of the cost of the improvements and waiving any deficiencies or further hearings. This has not been done. Tracy Ingrain stated that his owners could not sign this waiver. Tom Stokes, Fine Line Design, developer of several of the parcels, had comments regarding the size of the building pad for the cul-de-sac. He requested the street improvement be done as the City had proposed. He did not want to pay assessments for the other property affected. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated the City could not order the improvement without the fight-of-way donated by all of the interested owners. Mayor Polston directed the parties involved to develop an agreeable plan by all the parties, and then the Council would reconsider taking action. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to table the consideration of the Kildare Lane Improvement Project until all of the interested parties agree to a workable plan and to pay for the improvements 100%. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM May 24, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER WOODLAND POINT ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSIDERATION I realize that everyone involved in this issue is at a point where they wish a magic wand could be waved and all the problems would disappear, the neighborhood would have peace and harmony, neighbors would be neighbors to each other and enjoying Lake Minnetonka would be the primary focus in the Woodland Point subdivision. Unfortunately, people are people and disputes are going to occur no matter what happens. As a City, we are caught in the middle of all this turmoil by being the agency that has administered this dock program for more than 30 years and my belief is that the City Council feels a real obligation to do what is reasonably possible to attempt to seek some closure to this matter. Therefore, where does this leave the City? What alternatives are there for the City and the Woodland Point neighborhood? Let me try to list for you what I see as the significant events that have taken place since the lawsuit was decided by the court. First, the City and the Woodland Point residents have supported the mediation process to try to assist in resolving the various disputes that have been lek unresolved as a result of the lawsuit. Second, as a result of the mediation report, the City Council was advised that an association was needed to legally have the City acting in an operating capacity over the dock system. This recommendation was met with opposition by the mediation work group who said that they did not want an association but would allow the City to continue to regulate under certain conditions. The City Council indicated that the City could not act in this manner and continued to support an association. printed on recycled paper Mayor and City Council May 24, 1996 Page 2 Third, the six litigants indicated that they did not wish to participate in an association and wanted the recommendations of the mediation work group to be followed. Fourth, the Woodland Point residents, (excluding the litigants), do favor an association as drafted by the City Attorney's office but need more time to put it together. Fifth, the six litigants have proposed, in writing, to move two non-abutting dock sites to the end of Woodland Road with the remaining non-abutting dock sites to be moved to the north end of Bluebird Lane or between Bluebird Lane and Canary Beach in a multiple dock format. Sixth, it was suggested that the mediation work group be reconvened to analyze the issues further to come up with some different alternatives for consideration. Seventh, the City has discussed "walking away" from the whole matter and letting the residents figure it out. The residents have somewhat opposed this idea for fear of losing the current number of dock sites in the Woodland Point area through LMCD rules and regulations. Eighth, further litigation has been discussed where non-abutters or abutters would ask a court for declaratory judgment to establish and define what exactly are the private easement rights of Woodland Point residents; specifically, Wawonaissa Commons dockholders. Finally, it has been suggested that non-litigant abutters be surveyed to find out their opinions on whether they would find it acceptable to place seven non-abutting dock sites in from of their abutting properties. Based upon these evems, I believe the Council needs to focus on closure of this matter. The City Council must decide what the City should do: 1. Walk away and let the residents work it out themselves. 2. Assist the neighborhood in establishing an association such as the one already drafted and putting more "teeth" into the Memorandum of Understanding and convincing the six litigants and other abutters to participate to make the association function as designed. 3. Accept the litigants letter and convince the non-abutters to go along with this approach. 4. As a landowner in Woodland Point, authorize the City Attorney's Office to commence a declaratory judgment action which would il! Iii, Mayor and City Council May 24, 1996 Page 3 decide, through a court, what the easement rights are for abutters and non-abutters alike. ' 5. Encourage the non-abutters and/or abutters to seek a court s deter- mination as stated in #4 and in the meantime, come up with a temporary plan for 1996 to allow dock users to enjoy the lake this boating season. These are only suggestions in trying to focus the discussion for the May 28, 1996 City Council meeting. There may be others, but these are ones that I have thought of that might help you bring this matter to closure. In summary, we (City Council, staff, Woodland Point residents) have spent many hours trying to resolve these disputes. In all of that time, we still come back to the same major dilemma: The abutters want privacy on a commons that is intended to be used by all the residents of the neighborhood and the non-abutters want to retain their ability to use this commons as they have for the past 30+ years. The City has been part of this dilemma and has tried to facilitate the wishes of both groups through the mediation process and up to this point. In order to solve this dilemma, cooperation has to be the key element. Until that is recognized and the past emotional issues are left by the wayside, no resolution will take place. In the meantime, the real reason everyone lives in this area, is to enjoy Lake Minnetonka. 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 May 23, 1996 TO: Margaret Gaudette, 1605 Bluebird Lane Jim Walters, 1601 Bluebird Lane Olen Pederson, 1593 Bluebird Lane Robert Kilby, 1587 Bluebird Lane Robert Lien, 1583 Bluebird Lane Robert Abbott, 1575 Bluebird Lane Carol Doyle, 1567 Bluebird Lane Ray Richter, 1563 Bluebird Lane Brad Bristol, 1559 Bluebird Lane Gerald Amah, 1555 Bluebird Lane FROM: Ed Shukle, City Manager SUBJECT: Woodland Point Commons You are aware that the CiD, of Mound has been in litigation regarding the City of Mound's regulation of Wawonaissa Common. A decision in the case was reached last year which invalidated the City's authority to operate its dock program within the portions of Wawonaissa Common in front of the plaintiffs' properties. Following the court's decision in the Flack case, the City Council was faced with accepting the court's decision or appealing it to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. There was a 90 day period for the City Council to decide whether it wished to appeal this case or accept its findings and try to work with al/property OWners in Wood/and Point on assuring that SOme type of dock program could exist. In January of 1996, the City Council notified the residents of Woodland Point (Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons) ora meeting to discuss the various issues related to the results of the lawsuit and some type of dock program that could be worked out with all Woodland Point property OWners. This meeting was held on January 30, 1996. The City asked that a mediator be present printecl on recycle~l paper at this meeting for purposes of explaining alternative dispute resolution or mediation to those present to see if the various parties would be interested in using this process to try to help resolve the issues in dispute due to the outcome of the lawsuit. Roger Williams, Office of Dispute Resolution, State of Minnesota attended and outlined the mediation process. Basically, mediation is a mechanism to try to bring the parties together to reach a solution that everyone could live with. Following Mr. Williams' presentation, the various parties present along with the City Council discussed whether mediation should be attempted to help resolve the issues. Everyone agreed it should be tried and, therefore, six constituency groups were selected and three representatives from each group volunteered to serve on a mediation work group. Over the next ten weeks, meetings were held by the mediation work group and a report was generated to make recommendations to the City Council on how the dock program could be continued with City involvement. The City Council took the report under advisement and then, through the City Attorney's office, suggested that a homeowners association be formed which would be the legal entity to operate a dock program in Woodland Point. The City of Mound would be the agent for the association and would carry out certain duties and responsibilities on behalf of the association. The LMCD has indicated that there would not be any reductions in the number of dock sites if an association was formed and the City would continue to be involved in the administration of the dock program. The City Council also agreed that it not appeal the Flack decision in an effort to assist in resolving the disputed issues. The City Council and representatives recently met on May 14, 1996 at its regular City Council meeting to discuss the homeowners association and then the representatives held a meeting at Canary Beach on May 19, 1996 to inform Woodland Point residents on the idea of an association and whether this would be acceptable to the property owners in Woodland Point. The results of that meeting were shared with the City Council at its May 21, 1996 Committee of the Whole Meeting. At the May 21 st meeting, the litigants presented a letter which basically called for not having an association but to implement many of the recommendations of the mediation work group and that non-abutting dockholders on Wawonaissa Common have a dock for two slips at the west end of Woodland Road and the remaining non-abutting dockholders currently on Wawonaissa Common be reassigned to a multiple dock at either the north end of Bluebird Lane or between Bluebird Lane and Canary Beach. The non-abutters on Wawonaissa Common do not believe this proposal to be acceptable. Following an extensive discussion, a suggestion was made to survey the abutters along Wawonaissa Common who were not part of the lawsuit, to determine whether they would be willing to have non-abutting dock sites placed on the common in front of their properties. These would involve the current non-abutting dockholders which are: Novitsky, Peterson, Eccles, Garberik, Johnson, Kelsey and Reich. Because you are one of the non-litigant abutters, I am writing this letter to solicit your response. Your response, whatever it might be, is important to both the City Council and representatives who have been working on this issue for the past several months. The City Council will be discussing this matter at its meeting on Tuesday, May 28, 1996 at Mound City Hall. The Council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. but this item won't be on until later in the meeting. I would appreciate it if you could contact me with your opinion prior to that meeting or attend the meeting and give your opinion to the City Council and those present. If you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. JOHN B. DEAN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 33%9207 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillnbury Center, Mlnneapnlin, Minne~ota 55402 Telephone (612) 337-9300 Facsimile [612) 337-9310 May 7, 1996 Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 RE: LMCD and 1996 Permits BY FAX AND MAIL Dear Mr. Shukle: At the council meeting last night, the question was posed how the LMCD would react if Mound went ahead and issued the permits for Woodland Point for 1996. The question indicates a concern to allow people to put their boats in the water while efforts continue to find a long- term resolution to the issues of use of Woodland Point Commons. I spoke with Charles L. LeFevere, the attorney for the LMCD. He informed me, based upon the information which I provided him, that the LMCD would not be interested as long as there were not more watercraft using docks than the total allowable number allocated to the city. You also have asked whether it is important that "everyone" agree to cooperate with this interim extension. Because it will violate the LMCD code to have more boats at docks on Woodland Point Commons than are authorized by permit, the more people cooperate, the more likely it is that the LMCD regulations will not be violated. The acceptable degree of cooperation is entirely up to the judgment of the City Council. From a practical standpoint, if any of the plaintiffs elect not to cooperate in the extension, we would recommend that a number of permits equal to the number held by the non-cooperating plaintiffs in 1995 be held aside and not issued. JBD:ds J~DI04196 MU200-1 Sincerely, ~J~o'hn B. Dean ' ?/~'.~' DRAFT ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF WOODLAND POINT COMMON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. May 9~ 1996 The undersigned, for the purpose of forming a corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 317A, adopt the following Articles of Incorporation: ARTICLE I The name of the corporation is Woodland Point Common Association, Inc., hereinafter called the Association or Corporation. Homeowners ARTICLE II The purpose for which this Association is formed is to operate, maintain, manage and preserve the Wawonaissa Common and the Waurika Common located on and as shown on the plat of WOODLAND POINT, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file with the Hennepin County Recorder, which is dedicated to all the owners of lots in said WOODLAND POINT, and to promote the health, safety and welfare of the owners, residents and other person residing on or using the all of the Lots in WOODLAND POINT. The Corporation shall have all of the powers and privileges and assume all duties and obligations necessary and ineidentai to the accomplishment of its purposes. In addition, the Corporation shall have the power to exercise any and all powers, rights and privileges which a corporation organized under the Act by law may now or hereafter have or exercise; exercise any other powers conferred by law; and exercise any other powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation of the Association. ARTICLE III The Members of the Corporation shall consist exclusively of the owners of any of the lots in WOODLAND POINT, Hennepin County, Minnesota, who annually file a written consent and agreement to be bound by articles of incorporation, bylaws, rules and regulations of the Association and by the terms of any and all agreements and contracts entered into by the Association with the City of Mound or any other third party, all in such form as may be approved by the Association. If title to a lot is held by more than one person, each of such persons filing such consent and agreement shall be a Member, but multiple ownership of a lot shall not increase the voting rights or other rights allocated to such lot. Each such membership shall be appurtenant to the lot upon which it is based and shall transfer automatically by voluntary or involuntary conveyance of the title of that lot, subject to such written consent and agreement. Each member's obligation in respect of registration, voting percentages and other rights and obligations are as set forth in Bylaws and rules, regulations and decisions of the Board of Directors of the Corporation promulgated in accordance with such documents. Except as otherwise provided in the Bylaws, the day-to-day operations of the Corporation shall be directed by the board of directors of the Corporation. The LMW104328 MU200-1 1 May 9, ~996 board of directors of the Corporation, without action by the members, shall have the authority, except as otherwise specifically provided herein, in the By-Laws or by law, to exercise all the powers of the Corporation. ARTICLE IV The Corporation is formed for the above-stated purposes, and not for pecuniary or financial gain. No part of the net earnings of the Corporation shall inure to the benefit of any member, officer, director, contributor, or other individual. ARTICLE V Dissolution of the Corporation shall be in accordance with the Act, and shall require the written consent of not less than eighty percent (80%) of the members. ARTICLE VI The duration of the Corporation shall be perpetual. ARTICLE VII The location of the Corporation's registered office shall be: Mound, MN . The registered office of the Corporation may be changed by the filing of a Certificate of Change of Registered Office with the Secretary of State and shall not require an amendment to these Articles. ARTICLE VIII The name and address of the incorporator is as follows: Larry M. Wertheim Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 ARTICLE IX The number of directors of the corporation shall be fixed by the Bylaws; provided, however, that the number of directors shall not be less than three. Except for the initial Board of Directors, which shall be composed of the three directors whose names are set forth in these Articles, directors shall be elected at an annual meeting of the members or at a special meeting called for such purpose, by the vote of majority of members present and voting, and each director shall hold office for a term as specified in the Bylaws and until a successor is elected and qualified. The names and addresses of the persons who are to act in the capacity of directors until their successors are duly elected or appointed are as follows: LMW~04328 MU200-1 2 Name Address Mound, MN l',~y 9~ 1996 Mound, MN Mound, MN ARTICLE X Members, directors, and officers of this Corporation shall not be personally Hable to any extent whatsoever for obligations of the Corporation. ARTICLE XI The Corporation shall have no capital stock, either authorized or issued. ARTICLE XII The power to adopt amend or repeal the By-Laws, other than the initial By- Laws, is reserved to the members. The By-Laws may be amended, at a regular or special meeting of the members, by the vote of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy. Except as provided in the Act, these Articles may be amended upon approval of members holding fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting interests in the Corporation. I~4~104328 ~y 9, 1996 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned incorporator, who is a person of full age, has hereunder subscribed these Articles of Incorporation this day of , 1996, at Minneapolis, Minnesota. Larry M. Wertheim, Incorporator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. On this day of , 1996, before me, a Notary Public within and for the state and county above, personally appeared Larry M. Wertheim to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Articles of Incorporation and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed and did depose on oath before me that he is of full age. Notary Public LMW104328 MU200-1 4 BYLAWS DRAFT OF WOODLAND POINT COMMON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I ~ffice The registered office of the corporation required by the Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation Act to be maintained in the State of Minnesota is as provided in the Articles of Incorporation. The Board of Directors of the corporation may, from time to time, change the location of the registered office. On or before the day that such change is to become effective, a certificate of such change and of the location and post office address of the new registered office shall be filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota. ARTICLE II. Members: Meeting-s, Property Rights Section 1. Membership. The corporation shall have membership as provided in the Articles of Incorporation. Section 2. Stock Certificate. The Corporation shall not issue any stock or membership certificates. Section 3. Annual Meeting. There shall be an annual meeting of the members, unless otherwise ordered by the Board of Directors, for the transaction of any necessary business. Notice of such meeting, signed by the secretary, shall be mailed to the last recorded address of each member, at least ten days before the date of the meeting, unless excused in accordance with Section 8. The notice shall state the time and place of the meeting. Section 4. Special Meetings; Notice. Special meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held whenever called by the President or by any twenty-five percent of the other directors. Notice of each special meeting shall be mailed to each director, addressed to him or her at his or her residence or usual place of business, at least three days before the day on which the meeting is to be held, or be delivered to him or her personally or by telephone, not later than three day(s) before the day on which the meeting is to be held. Each such notice shall state the time and place of the meeting, but need not state the purposes thereof except as otherwise here provided. Section 5. Notices Excused. Notice of any meeting of the Board of Directors need not be given to any director who shall be present at such meeting; and any meeting of the Board of Directors shall be a legal meeting without any notice thereof having been given if all of the directors of this corporation then in office shall be present or waive the notice in writing before, at, or after the meeting. LMW104333 MU200-1 ~ Section 6. Quorum and Manner of Acting. Except as otherwise provided by statute or by these Bylaws, a quarter of the total number of members shall be required to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting, and the act of a majority of the members present at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the members. In the absence of a quorum, a majority of the directors present may adjourn any meeting from time to time until a quorum be had. Notice of any adjourned meeting need not be given other than be announcement at the meeting at which adjournment is taken. Section 7. Property Rights. No member shall have any right, title, or interest in or to any property of this Corporation. ARTICLE III. Board of Directors Section 1. General Powers. The property, affairs and business of this corporation shall be managed by the Board of Directors. Section 2. Number: Qualification and Term of Office. The number of directors shall be not less than one. Each director shall be a natural person of full age and shall hold office until the annual meeting of the directors next following his or her election and until his or her successor shall have been elected and shall qualify, or until his or her death, resignation, or removal as hereinafter provided. Section 3. Organization. At each meeting of the Board of Directors, the President of this corporation or, in his or her absence, a chairman chosen by a majority of the directors present, shall preside. The Secretary of this corporation or, in his or her absence, any person whom the chairman shall appoint, shall act as secretary of the meeting. Section 4. Resignation. Any director of this corporation may resign at any time by giving written notice to the President or to the Secretary of this corporation. The resignation of any director shall take effect at the time, if any, specified therein or, if no time is specified therein, upon receipt thereof by the officer of this corporation to whom such written notice is given; and, unless otherwise specified therein, the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy in the Board of Directors caused by death, resignation, removal, an increase in the number of directors, or any other cause, shall be filled by a vote of the remaining directors (though less than a quorum), and each director so chosen shall hold office until the next annual election and until his or her successor shall be duly elected and qualified, unless sooner displaced. Section 6. Place of Meetings. The Board of Directors may hold its meetings at such place or places, within or without the State of Minnesota, as it may from time to time determine. Section 7. Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held each year for the purpose of electing the directors and officers of this corporation and for the transaction of such other business as shall come before the meeting. Notice of such meeting shall be given ten days before the day on which the meeting is to be held, uniess excused in accordance with Section 9. The notice shall state the time and place of the meeting. LMW104333 Section 8. Special Meetings ~ Notice. Special meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held whenever called by the President or by any twenty-five percent of the other directors. Notice of each such special meeting shall be mailed to each director, addressed to him or her at his or her residence or usual place of business, at least three days before the day on which the meeting is to be held, or be delivered to him or her personally or by telephone, not later than three days before the day on which the meeting is to be held. Each such notice shall state the time and place of the meeting, but need not state the purposes thereof except as otherwise herein expressly provided. Section 9. Notices Excused. Notice of any meeting of the Board of Directors need not be given to any director who shall be present at such meeting; and any meeting of the Board of Directors shall be a legal meeting without any notice thereof having been given if all of the directors of this corporation then in office shall be present thereat or waive such notice in writing before, at, or after such meeting. Section 10. Quorum and Manner of Acting. Except as otherwise provided by statute or by these Bylaws, a majority of the total number of directors (but not less than one) shall be required to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting, and the act of a majority of the directors present at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the Board of Directors. In the absence of a quorum, a majority of the directors present may adjourn any meeting from time to time until a quorum be had. Notice of any adjourned meeting need not be given other than be announcement at the meeting at which adjournment is taken. Section 11. Removal of Directors. Any director may be removed, either with or without cause, at any time, by a vote of a majority of the total number of directors, at a special meeting of the Board of Directors for the purpose, and the vacancy in the Board of Directors caused by any such removal shall be filled in the manner specified in Section 5 hereof. Section 12. Proxies. Proxies may be used. Section 13. Voting by Mail. Voting by mail is allowed. ARTICLE IV. Section 1. Number. The officers of this corporation shall be a President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and, if the Board of Directors shall so elect, one or more Vice Presidents and such other officers as may be appointed by the Board of Directors. Any two or more offices, except those of President and Vice President, may be held by the same person. Section 2. Election, Term of Office, and Qualifications. All officers shall be elected annually by the Board of Directors, and, except in the ease of officers appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 hereof, each shall hold office until the next annual election of officers and until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified, or until his or her death, or until he or she shall resign, or until he or she shall have been removed in the manner hereinafter provided. Section 3. Resignations. Any officer may resign at any time by giving written notice of his or her resignation to the Board of Directors, to the President, or to the LMW104333 Secretary of this corporation. Any such resignation shall take effect at the time, if any, specified therein or, if no time is specified therein, upon receipt thereof by the Board of Directors, President, or Secretary of this corporation; and, unless otherwise specified therein, the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. Section 4. Removal. Any officer may be removed, either with or without cause, by a vote of a majority of the total number of directors, at any annual or special meeting called for the purpose, and such purpose shall be stated in the notice or waiver of notice of such meeting unless all the directors of this corporation shall be present thereat. Section 5. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal, or any other cause shall be filled for the unexpired portion of the term in the manner prescribed in these Bylaws for election or appointment to such office. Section 6. President. The President shall be the chief executive officer of this corporation and shall have general active management of the business of this corporation; shall, when present, preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors and at all meetings of the Executive Committee, if any; shall see that all orders and resolutions of the Board of Directors are carried into effect; may execute and deliver in the name of the corporation (except in cases in which such execution and delivery shall be expressly delegated by the directors or by these Bylaws to some other officer or agent of this corporation or shall be required by law to be otherwise executed and delivered) any deeds, mortgages, bonds, contracts, or other instruments pertaining to the business of this corporation, including, without limitation, any instruments necessary or appropriate to enable this corporation to donate income or principal of the corporation to or for the account of such corporations, associations, trusts, foundations, and institutions as are referred to or described in the Articles of Incorporation of this corporation and as this corporation was organized to support; shall perform such other duties as may from time to time be prescribed by the Board of Directors; and, in general, shall perform all duties usually incident to the office of the President. Section 7. Vice President. Each Vice President, if any, shall be elected by the Board of Directors, shall have such powers and shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Board of Directors or by the President. In the event of absence or disability of the President, Vice Presidents shall succeed to his or her powers and duties in the order designated by the Board of Directors. Section 8. Secretary. The Secretary shall be Secretary of, and when present, shall record proceedings of all meetings of the Board of Directors and of all of meetings of the Executive Committee, if any; shall keep a register of the names and addresses of all members of this corporation; shall at all times keep on file a complete copy of the Articles of Incorporation and all amendments and restatements thereof and a complete copy of these Bylaws and all amendments and restatements hereof; shall, when directed to do so, give proper notice of meetings of the Board of Directors and meetings of the Executive Committee, if any; shall perform such other duties as may from time to time be prescribed by the Board of Directors or by the President; and, in general, shall perform all duties usually incident to the office of the Secretary. Section 9. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall keep accurate accounts of all moneys of this corporation received or disbursed; shall deposit all moneys, drafts, and checks in the name of, and to the credit of, this corporation in such banks and depositaries as a majority of the Board of Directors shall from time to time designate; LM~104333 MU200-1 4 shall have power to endorse for deposit all notes, checks and drafts received by this corporation; shall disburse the funds of this corporation as ordered by the Board of Directors, making proper vouchers therefor; shall render to the President and the directors, whenever required, an account of all his or her transactions as Treasurer and of the financial condition of this corporation; shall perform such other duties as may from time to time be prescribed by the Board of Directors or by the President; and, in general, shall perform all duties usually incident to the office of the Treasurer. Section 10. Other Officer, Agents, and Employee~. This corporation may have such other officers, agents, and employees as may be deemed necessary by the Board of Directors. Such other officers, agents, and employees shall be appointed in such manner, have such duties, and hold their offices for such terms as may be determined by resolution of the Board of Directors. Section 11. Bond. The Board of Directors of this corporation shall from time to time determine which, if any, officers of this corporation shall be bonded and the amount of each bond. ARTICLE V. Executive Committee Section 1. Number, Qualification, Term of Office. The Board of Directors may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of directors, establish an Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of this corporation and appoint two or more directors to serve on such Executive Committee, at least one of whom shall be the President of this corporation. Only persons who are directors of this corporation shall be eligible for appointment to the Executive Committee. When a member of the Executive Committee ceases to be a director of this corporation, such person automatically shall cease to be a member of the Executive Committee of this corporation. Section 2. Powers. Except for the power to amend the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws of this corporation, which power is expressly reserved solely to the Board of Directors of this corporation as hereinafter provided, the Executive Committee shall have all of the powers and authority of the Board of Directors, subject always to the direction and control of the Board of Directors. Section 3. Meetings. If an Executive Committee is established, it shall hold such regular or other periodic meetings, at such times and places, and upon such notice, if any, as may from time to time be fixed by resolution adopted by a majority of the members of the Executive Committee. In addition, special meetings of the Executive Committee shall be held whenever called by the President or by any one other member of the Executive Committee, upon the same notice as provided for in Article III, Section 8 for special meetings of the Board of Directors, unless excused in accordance with Article III, Section 9. Section 4. Quorum and Manner of Acting. A majority of the total number of members of the Executive Committee (but not less than two shall be required to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting, and the act of a majority of the members of the Executive Committee present at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the Executive Committee. In the absence of a quorum, a majority of the members of the Executive Committee present may adjourn any meeting from time to time until a quorum be had. Notice of any adjourned LMW104333 meetln~ need not be ~iven other than be announcement at the meeting at which adjournment is taken. :r.,l~ZO¢333 ~2oo-1 6 ARTICLE VI. F(n~n cisl Matters Section 1. Books and Records. The Board of Directors of this corporation shall cause to be kept: (1) records of all proceedings of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee, if any; and (2) such other records and books of account as shall be necessary and appropriate to the conduct of the corporate business. Section 2. Documents Kept at Registered Office. The Board of Directors shall cause to be kept at the registered office of this corporation originals or copies of: (1) records of all proceedings of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee, if any; and (2) all financial statements of this corporation; and (3) Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of this corporation and all amendments and restatements thereof. Section 3. Accounting System. The Board of Directors shall cause to be established and maintained, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis, an appropriate accounting system for this corporation. The Board of Directors may cause the records and books of account of this corporation to be audited as it may deem necessary or appropriate and may retain such person or firm for such purposes as it may deem appropriate. Section 4. Compensation. The Board of Directors of this corporation may at any time and from time to time, by resolution adopted by two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of directors, provide for the payment of compensation to, and for the payment or reimbursement of expenses incurred by, any director, officer, agent, or employee of this corporation for personal services rendered to this corporation by, or for any expenses necessarily paid or incurred by, any such director, office, agent, or employee, but only if and to the extent that the performance of such service or the incurring of such expenses is directly in furtherance of the charitable purposes of this corporation and the compensation or the amount of expenses paid or reimbursed, as the case may be, is reasonable and not excessive. Section 5. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the corporation shall be determined by the Board of Directors. Section 6. Checks, Drafts, and Other Matters. All checks, drafts, or other orders for the payment of money and all notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness issued in the name of this corporation shall be signed by either the President, the Treasurer, or such officer or officers, agent or agents, employee or employees of this corporation and in such manner as may from time to time be determined by resolution of the Board of Directors. LNW104333 1,(U200-1 7 ARTICLE VII. Waiver of Notice Whenever notice of any meeting is required to be given by these Bylaws or any of the corporate laws of the State of Minnesota, such notice may be waived in writing, signed by the person or persons entitled to such notice, whether before, at, or after the time stated therein or before, at, or after the meeting. ARTICLE VIII. Authorization Without a Mee~in~ Any action that may be taken at a meeting of the Board of Directors or the Executive Committee may be taken without a meeting when authorized in writing signed by all of the directors or by all of the members of the Executive Committee, as the case may be. ARTICLE IX. Indemnification To the extent permitted by law, any former or present director or officer of this corporation who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any proceeding, or the estate of any former present officer of this corporation which is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any proceeding, wherever and by whomever brought, by reason of his or her former or present official capacity as a director or officer of this corporation, or his or her official capacity as a director, officer, employee, partner, trustee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other organization, while serving at the request of this corporation, shall be indemnified by this corporation against expenses, including attorneys' fees, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement or actually and reasonably incurred by him or her in connection with such proceeding. Such reimbursement shall be made in advance of the final disposition of the proceeding to the extent provided by law. Except as expressly provided herein, no other person shall be indemnified by the corporation for expenses incurred in connection with a proceeding to which such person was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party by reason of the former or present official capacity of such person. ARTICLE X. Amendments The Board of Directors may amend this corporation's Articles of Incorporation, as from time to time amended or restated, and these Bylaws, as from time to time amended or restated, to include or omit any provision which could lawfully be included or omitted at the time such amendment or restatement is adopted. Any number of amendments, or an entire revision or restatement of the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws, either (1) may be submitted and voted upon at a single meeting of the Board of Directors and be adopted at such meeting, a quorum being present, upon receiving the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of directors of this corporation, or two (2) may be adopted, in LM~104333 MU200-1 8 accordance with Article VIII hereof, by a writing signed by all of the directors of this corporation. Dated: , 1996 Approved: Secretary , Director , Director , Director STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this ~ day of ,1996, before me, a Notary Public within and for the state and county above, personally appeared , , and , Directors of Woodland Point Common Homeowners Association, Inc., to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing Bylaws, and acknowledged that they executed the same by their free act and deed and did dispose on oath before me that they are of full age. Notary Public This instrument drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 MU200-1 (LMW) LM~104333 9 /[lllll.--~-,l, , II, I Il ,~1, Ii , ,iii ,I CONSENT AND AGREEMENT TO WOODLAND POINT COMMON HOI~OWNERS ASSOCIATION~ INC. The undersigned, being an owner(s) of Lot , Block , WOODLAND POINT, Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby consents and agrees to be bound and obligated by and adhere to the articles of incorporation, bylaws, rules and regulations of the Woodland Point Common Homeowners Association, Inc., a Minnesota non-profit corporation (the "Association") and by the terms and conditions of any and all agreements and contracts entered into by the Association with the City of Mound or any other third party. The undersigned understands and agrees that execution and delivery of this Consent and Agreement is a condition for the undersigned obtaining any rights or benefits available to members of the Association and that by executing and delivering this Consent and Agreement the undersigned shall be a member of the Association for one (1) year. This Consent and Agreement shall automatically expire after one (1) year and the undersigned shall not have any further rights with respect to the Association unless and until the undersigned executes and delivers a new Consent and Agreement in such form as the Association may require. Dated: , 199 (Print Name) (Print Name) LM~104334 MU200-1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DRAFT This memorandum of understanding is made as of the ~ day of , 1996 by and between THE CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and the WOODLAND POINT COMMONS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, an association comprised of owners of lots within Woodland Point ("Association"). I. BACKGROUND 1. For many years the City of Mound has exercised a number of functions within or relating to the various lakeshore commons areas located within the City. Those functions have included the licensing of private docks, regulations of structures within the commons, operating beach and boat launch facilities, maintaining commons area, regulating activities and uses which may occur within the commons areas. These functions were based, in part, on the basis that the lakeshore commons area were dedicated to public use. 2. In January, 1996 the case of Flack~ et al. vs. City of Mound~ et al., ("Flack case") held that a portion of the lakeshore commons area in Woodland Point known as Wawonaissa Commons was not a public commons either by virtue of the original dedication or by subsequent use. 3. Following that decision, the City and a number of owners of lots in Woodland Point, including some of the plaintiffs in the litigation, undertook mediation of the matters and concerns resulting from the decision. The report which followed the conclusion of mediation contained a number of recommendations for dealing with all of the lakeshore commons on Woodland Point. 4. Lot owners within Woodland Point have now established the Association whose purposes are described in the instruments which established the Association, and include entering into this memorandum. II. SCOPE AND PURPOSE 1. It is the intention of the parties that this agreement will apply to the entire lakeshore commons area which is shown on the plat for Woodland Point as Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common. In this agreement that area will be referred to collectively as the Woodland Point Commons. The City agrees that so long as this agreement is in effect, it will not initiate any action seeking to obtain a different judicial determination with respect to any portions of the Woodland Point Commons which was not controlled by the decision in the Flack case. 2. This agreement is intended to deal only with matters which are specifically covered. Matters which are not specifically addressed may not be included by implication; this agreement may not be construed as placing additional or further obligations or responsibilities upon the City with respect to Woodland Point Commons than the City explicitly agrees to undertake herein. III. UNDERTAKING The Association hereby requests and the City hereby agrees to perform the following functions with respect to Woodland Point Commons. JBD104342 .~ MU200-1 lgg4 A. Issue permits for watercraft to be kept at docks on the Commons. 1. Procedure. a) Not later than September 1, of any year beginning in 1996, the Association will submit to the City the Association's dock location map for the following year. The map will contain information of a nature which is similar to the dock location maps used by the City in connection with the public commons. b) The City shall then have until December 31 of that year to review the proposed map and notify the Association whether or not it is acceptable. It is expected that, if necessary, dialogue will take place during the review period in an effort to create an dock location map acceptable to the City and the Association. c) In the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement on a dock location map by December 31, this agreement wil~ automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect unless extended by the written consent of both parties. d) In the event that the parties are able to reach agreement on a dock location map by December 31, this agreement will be automatically extended until December 31 of the next following year. e) Upon agreement, the City will make application to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ("LMCD") for the lesser of: i) the maximum number of permits indicated by the agreed upon dock location map; or ii) the maximum number of permits available for issuance to Woodland Point Commons by the LMCD. f) The City will thereafter make permits available to the Association for distribution to the extent authorized by the LMCD and in accordance with the approved dock location map. g) The City may condition delivery of the permits to the Association upon the payment by the Association of a fee necessary to cover the City's costs and expenses. IV. OTHER MATTERS 1. Canary Beach. The parties acknowledge that this agreement is not intended to effect any activities of the City with respect to Canary Beach. The City shall continue to exercise its discretion in determining whether to operate and maintain and regulate Canary Beach as a public swimming area; and the owners of land within Woodland Point shall retain all the rights and remedies available to them with respect to such activities. 2. Structures and Improvements on the Commons. Except with respect to structures and improvements located on Canary Beach (should the City elect to operate Canary Beach); and except for requirements contained in the City's building, nuisance, zoning and flood management regulations, during the term of this Agreement the City shall have neither the right nor the obligation to regulate, JBD104342 -: ~m2oo-~ 2 control, restrict, demolish, remove, repair or take any action with respect to structures and improvements currently located on Woodlake Commons or erected hereafter. It is the intent of this provision that the Woodland Point Commons be treated like private property. 3. Enforcement of Laws. Except as to Canary Beach, the City shall be responsible for the enforcement of the laws relating to public offenses committed on Woodland Point Commons in the same manner as such laws are enforced on private property elsewhere in the City. 4. No Rights Conferred. It is understood that neither the City nor its officers, agents or employees is assuring that the members of the Association will receive the number of docks or location of docks shown or the approved dock location map; or that the LMCD will continue to accept applications from the City on behalf of the Association. No property rights or rights to continued use of docks is intended by this Agreement. 5. Termination. In addition to the non-extension provision contained in paragraph III A1 (c) above, this Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time upon the giving of 30 day written notice of termination to the other party. 6. Notices. All written notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficiently given and delivered only if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepared, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and (a) in the case of the City is addressed to or delivered to the City at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364 ATTN: City Manager; and (b) in the case of the Association is addressed to or delivered to the Association at IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day, date and year first above written. CITY OF MOUND By Its By Its JBD104342 ~u~oo-~ 3 WOODLAND POINT COMMONS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Its By Its JBD104342 MU200-1 Dim DiEd (6]2) 33"/.~07 KENN£D¥ & GRAVEN ?*l~im~ (I13) 337-130e R~cstxd34 (d:IZ) May 3, I996 F_.dward ~I. Shuk. le, Sn City Manager City of Mound 53,~ Maywood Enid Mound, MN 55364-168'7 RE: Rc~cunm~cndations of Woodland Point Mediation Work Oroup Dear Mr. Shuklc: At our meeting yesterday with Mayor Polston, it was sugge, sh*zi that I ~trnish you with an "outline" which hopefully would be. of a&gi,~tance ~ the city council as it considers possible implementation or' the rex:ommenflations of the work group. The general conclusion of the r~o[zm~endafion is that the Woodland Point Commons (Wawonais~a .'..and Wauiika) should be considered as ~rivatz commons which are maintained for the benefit of thc owners on lot~ in Woodland Point. 1. Involvement of the City: The city would continue to be. invo~v~ fnr e.t~entially three reasons: a) it has flze staff and the experienc~ in providin~ snme of the set, rices which the Woofll~nd Pohxt residents want, b) a conne.ctinn with the Mound dock program Is necessary in order' to ~ontinuc to obtain the current number of dock permits, c) the city provides a ~uaan for tevicwing potential disputes between owner groups. 2. Need fcc Owners Association: Because the role of the eiW, as described ia the Work tjronp report, would be as voluntee~ agent for the owners, k is very important that the instructions and directions of ~e owners have three characteristics - a) clarity, b) timetine.~ and c) ~ acceptable to ~e city. It i~ likewise I and all of Waurika. ,,T[ID3,0 4 0 Z3 Alflaough thc l~wsuit otfly iavolv~ the portions of Wawonais~a cortmaons abutting the plaintiff's property, thc work group recommendations are directed at all of Wawonai~a fax Inir~mittal memo 7671 brand Edward J. Shukle, May 3, 1996 Page Two Jr. important that the city have someone who represents the owners to whom it can communicate rather than to communicate with every Single owner. For these reasons, I am suggesting that the owners form an association whose role would be to represent the owners in all matters involving regulation of the Woodland Point Commons. The so-called association would be somewhat informal, would probably not hold the rights to the commons and would continue to function only so long as it was the concensus of the owners that it should. We will be willing to put together the necessary instruments to create such an entity. 3. Agreement Between City and Association: Once the association has been created, the association and thc city could enter into a "comprehensive agency agreement" which would del'me the roles of the parties mgm'ding the commons. The agreement would be used here to deal with the Woodland Point commons much like the Ordinances deal with the public commons. The agreement would address a number of issues which would include the following: A. Number and location of docks. a) The council may wish to consider a process similar to Mound's dock location map, except that here, the association would annually submit its location map for Woodland Point The city could either approve the map and extend the agency agreement for that year or disapprove the map and not extend the agency agreement b) multiple vs. duster docks - cost, phasing. c) · fees to cover the city's costs. Bo Improvements - Certain improvements to the commons might be necessary or desirable including stairs or other access to multiple or cluster docks. The agreement should address these matters, how they would be financed and by whom. Encroachments - The regulations which are applicable to public commons are not directly applicable here. The agreement should address whether the city should have a role with respect to controling encroachments. Canary Beach - The agreement may or may not address the stares and thc future of Canary Beach. Should it remain as a public beach operated by the city? M~:4Y 0~ '9G 10:02 KEN~E])Y & GRAVEN P.3 Ma|nt~nance - Thc agreement should assign responsibility for maintaining the commons area. Liability Issues - Especially if the city is to have no responsibility for maintenance or for encroachments, the agreement should make it clear that it is the owners and not the city which has responsibility. Law Enforcement Issues ~ Unless the agreement indicates othcrwisc, cnforccmcnt of the laws would be done in thc samc manner as with any private property in the city. Hopefully, this outline of issues may be helpful to the council in determining how w proceed; and, if the agreement format is used, thc specifics which would be included in the agreement. IBD:ds Sineer¢ly~x · l~an MU200-1 WOODLAND POINT MEDIATION WORK GROUP REPORT TO THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 23, 1996 BACKGROUND On January 30, 1996, the Mound City Council hosted a public meeting to discuss ways of resolving issues involving the use of Wawonaissa Commons. The Council invited public participation in its decision to appeal or not appeal a lawsuit limiting the city's authority over certain lands and activities within the Commons. After considerable discussion, there was a consensus that a work group, consisting of representatives of various interests in the Commons, be established to work with a mediator in identifying and addressing the issues and reporting recommendations back to the Council. The Work Group was directed to complete its activities not later than April 30, 1996, due to the city's 90 day time limit for appealing the Court's decision in the lawsuit. In forming the mediation work group, six interests were identified: litigant abutting dock holders; non-litigant abutting dock holders; non-abutting dock holders; non-abutting residents without docks; abutting Waurika Commons dock holders; and, the City of Mound. Interest groups were asked to choose their representatives to the mediation. The list of representatives is attached as Appendix A. MEETINGS The Mediation Work Group met a total often times between February 6th and April 17th. The first meeting was dedicated to a discussion of "ground rules" or procedures as to how the Work Group would interact and conduct its business. The second meeting focussed on issues from the perspective of the six interests represented at the table. These issues are displayed by interest group on Appendix B and by categories on Appendix C. The issues list formed the basis for the agenda at all subsequent meetings and will provide the structure to this report. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issue 1: Appeal of Lawsuit The Mediation Work Group reached consensus that this report, if implemented, would eliminate the need, in our opinion, for the City to appeal the court's decision in the Flack, et al. V. City of Mound lawsuit. Page Two Issue 2: Implementation of Recommendations Recommendations: A. The recommendations in this report should be implemented as quickly as possible. The City should reconvene the Mediation Work Group during the Fall of 1996 to evaluate the implementation of recommendations contained in this report. Issue 3: Dock Program Clearly, docks are the number one concern for abutters and non-abutters alike - how many, where they are located and who administers a dock program. Docks were discussed, in one form or another, at every meeting of the Mediation Work Group. To gain information about dockage options, the Group invited Mr. Greg Nybeck of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the District's attorney, Charles LeFevere to discuss how the LMCD Code would deal with dockage on the Commons in light of the order to the court in the lawsuit. A memo from Mr. LeFevrere is attached as Appendix D. The Work Group also reviewed the recommendations of the Commons Task Force pertaining to docks. The City prepared an aerial photo of the Commons, showing dock locations and a plat map that actually sited each dock in relation to the lots abutting the Commons. A sub-committee of the Work Group formulated five dock options which were thoroughly discussed by the Work Group along with a sixth option generated during that discussion. The options with Work Group comments are listed in Appendix E. A listing of all docks within the City of Mound is attached as Appendix F. Recommendations: That the future dock program: mo maintain the number of existing dock sites currently on the two Commons - 54 dock sites (two of which are unavailable due to obstructions). allow one dock site in front of each abutter's house and continue to give the abutters priority for permits on those docks. Allow non- abutter's to cluster their individual docks at ends of streets, other than Canary Lane, on both Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons. Clustered docks can be placed closer together than 20-30 feet. rewrite City rules to encourage and provide positive incentives for all dock owners - abutters and non-abutters - to share docks. Do not punish permit holders for sharing a dock one year by not granting a permit for an individual dock the next year. Page Three D. consider providing fishing docks for use by Woodland Point residents. E. consider the possibility of allowing docks accommodating more than one boat (multiple docks) in the future if supported by dock owners. F. The Work Group further recommends that the City negotiate with the LMCD to implement the provisions of this dock program. Issue 4: How should the Commons be Used? The Mediation Work Group discussed many different uses of the Commons by abutters and non- abutters. Some abutters were concerned about trespass on their private property by those gaining access or egress to the Commons. Non-abutters were concerned about continuing their right to use the Commons in an unobstructed manner, while considering the rights of abutters. Generally, it was felt that common sense could and should prevail among all parties. Recommendations: A. Information dissemination: As a means of clarifying appropriate use of the Commons by Woodland Point residents, it is recommended that an informational brochure be developed and distributed to Woodland Point residents only. B. Access points: Free and unobstructed access to the Commons should be a continued right of all Woodland Point residents. Some existing access points are in need of improvements to facilitate access while the use of others should be discontinued. Woodland Road ~ cohsider adding stairs or handicap access Bluebird Lane North - regrade path Bluebird Lane South - not an appropriate public access due to wet conditions. Work with abutting property owner to discourage trespass and limit access to Commons at this point with possible landscaping and by listing appropriate access points in the informational brochure. C. Pedestrian Use To provide privacy for abutters and unobstructed passage for pedestrians, walkers should be encouraged to traverse the Commons Page Four near the waters edge and away from close proximity to homes. The right of privacy of abutters should be respected to the extent possible. D. Shoreline fishing Fishing should be permitted from the shoreline of the Commons. Dock fishing should be limited to dock owners or those gaining permission from dock owners. Include information in proposed brochure. Noise: Include reference in informational brochure Snowmobiling/ATV's Motorized machines should not be allowed to traverse the Commons. Machines should access/egress the Commons perpendicular to the shoreline and only at Canary and Finch Lanes. Abutters may access/egress the lake directly from their property. G. Overnight Use Although some water-related use will occur at night, no overnight use of the Commons should be permitted. H. Encroaching Structures Governing encroaching structures more stringently than the Shoreland Management Ordinance is justified only where nonabutting users are hindered by an encroachment's existence. Hinderance of access to the Commons is defined here as actions or structures which block access to docks, block the ability to traverse the Commons, or block the ability to conduct other permitted activities. In order to prevent hinderance of access to the lakeshore, structures would be allowed only in accordance with Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) regulations. To the extent possible, a thirty foot traversable area adjacent to the lake would be maintained. In some cases the area of traversable lakeshore may be narrower than thirty feet. In those cases, the LMCD and SMO regulations would apply. No new lock boxes or decks that would be permissable under LMCD or SMO regulations will be allowed on Wawonaissa or Waurika Commons. Page Five Prohibited activities and encroachments which fall under the regulation of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District or the MN Dept. Of Natural Resources will continue to be governed by those agency's regulations. The current permitting process should be simplified to reduce the time required to obtain a permit and to create an approval mechanism consistent with the potential impact of the action requiting the permit. a. Some activities currently requiring a permit should be allowed without one. Examples of these activities include: - lawn mowing - trimming of tree limbs below a height of 8 feet - maintaining existing stairways or other existing structures, and - planting new flower beds which do not exceed 25 sq. ff., nor exceed 5 linear feet on any one side (for example, a 5'x5' flower bed is okay; a 2'x10' bed would require a permit bo Not all permits should require City Council approval. The appropriate City staff should have the authority to grant some permits, with residents having the ability to appeal any decision to the parks commission and/or the city council. Examples of those activities include landscaping and major maintenance activities such as: - trimming of tree limbs above a height of 8 feet - tree removal - landscaping - planting new flower beds which exceed 25 sq. f. or which exceed 5 linear feet on any one side, and - clearcutting c. All construction activities should continue to require approval of the appropriate city authority and the City Council. 5. When granted for an encroachment, a permit should be granted for the life of the structure, provided there is no change in the nature or extent of the encroachment that hinders or discourages access. 6. Planting is undertaken at one's own risk. Page Six Issue 5: Roles and Responsibilities: The Mediation Work Group had spirited discussion over the past role of the City of Mound in administering the Commons. Some abutters felt that the City was guilty of micro-management, requiring lengthy reviews of permit applications for improvements considered by them to be insignificant and/or beneficial. Other abutters felt comfortable with the City's past actions and expressed interest in continued oversight. Many non-abutters see the City as their ally, protecting their interests and rights in the Commons. Clearly, some feel that without continued City presence, the fights of non-abutters will gradually erode away. The Work Group considered various ways of administering the Commons in the future. The two most commonly discussed methods were a Woodland Point homeowner's association and continued City administration. It was the consensus of the work group that a homeowner's association not be pursued at this time. Recommendations: A. Public Safety The Work Group recommends that the Mound Police Department continue to enforce all municipal laws in the Commons and respond to calls and complaints about inappropriate use. B. Maintenance/Trash Pickup 1. The City should continue to maintain the Canary Beach swimming area 2. Abutters and non-abutters will be responsible for maintaining the commons. C. Dock Program Administration The City of Mound should continue to issue dock site permits and uniformly enforce the ongoing maintenance of docks on both Wawonaissa and Waufika Commons, excluding the six litigants. The Commons Task Force should work with the City to develop appropriate standards for maintaining and enforcing the maintenance of docks. l 'fq a Page Seven 6: Resolution of Future Disputes ~f~er~nVeen~raO6UoPnsOfon~/rOe~}va.tnndgPoint Issue ad hoc basiS, to p. ecommcndati°n" Theresidents,City shoUldon an continue to use future disputes- APPENDIX A Woodland Point Media tion Work Group Mern bets WOODLAND POINT SUBDIVISION MEDIATION PARTIES NON-LITIGANT ABUTTING DOCK HOLDERS Bob Lien 1583 Bluebird Lane 472-4095 Jim Walters 1601 Bluebird Lane 472-2622 Olen P ederson 1593 Bluebird Lane 472-7158 NON-ABUTTING DOCK HOLDERS - WAWONAISSA/WAI. JRIKA Mike Aspelin 1604 Eagle Lane 472-4860 John Eccles 5112 Woodland Road 472-3267 Leah Weycker 1586 Bluebird Lane 472-4187 NON-ABUTTING RESIDENTS WITHOUT DOCKS Rodney Hein 1605 Eagle Lane 472-2123 Cathy Bailey 1554 Bluebird Lane 472-4011 Paul Erickson 1564 Bluebird Lane 472-3845 REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SIX PLAINTIFFS Jack Korlath 1579 Bluebird Lane JeffBishop 1549 Bluebird Lane Denny Flack 1609 Bluebird Lane 472-3657 472-5456 472-7243 ABUTTING WAURIKA COMMONS DOCK HOLDERS Danie Watson Chuck Champine. Dave Kunz 1559 Eagle Lane 1550 Canary Lane 1546 Bluebird Lane 472-6477 472-4795 472-1806 CITY OF MOUND REPRESENTATIVES Ed Shulde 5341 Maywood Road Gordy Tulberg 1711 Finch Lane Mark Goldberg 4853 Island View Drive 472-0609 472-7963 472-4624 /¢'9 q APPENDIX B Mediation Issues - by Interest Group APPENDIX C Mediation Issues - by Category 2/15/96 WOODLAND POINT SUBDMSION MEDIATION ISSUES - CATEGORIZED Use of Commons Non-abutters - access points - parking - docks - non-motorized use - motorized use - overnight use - picnicking - unorganized games - fishing Abutters - building new shoreline structures - improvements to property - privacy concerns Roles and Responsibilities (who does what) - maintenance of existing structures w/o regulation/interference by city - over-regulation by city - cities inadequate response to problems - LMCD rules (fees?) - fairness in applying rules - noise, litter, privacy, parking, general maintenance and upkeep - control of encroachment - policing powers - preserve/improve existing Canary Beach swimming area - maintain existing lake views - buffer zones Docking - overcrowding - docking priorities - docking fees - multiple docking options - preserve existing rights for spaces - options for non-abutters - maintaining existing number of slips Taxes - impact of court decision on property taxes of abutters and non-abutters Define Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons Boundaries - how/who?? Miscellaneous - Accident insurance - liability - Affect on water main - Process for resolving future disputes Maintain Neighborhood Peace and Harmony/Avoid Anarchy Mediation Agreement - not to change court decision - lasting/binding - impact on similarly dedicated commons APPENDIX D Letter from Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Attorney A~tm'ne~s it L~w ROBERT A. ALSOP BRUCE ~ BATT~R~ON RONALD H. BATTY STEPHEN J. BL~L~ Jo~ B. D~ D~L j. GREY--lO DA~ J. C~RL~ L. ~E Jo~ M. ROBERT J. ~NDALL ROBERT C. COR~ H. THO~ON Greg Nybeck Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160 Wayzata, MN 55391-1836 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED 4'/0 Pillsbury Center, Mlnneapoli% Minnesota 55402 (612) 337.93OO Fac~imfle (612) 337-9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (612) 337-9215 March 5, 1996 JAM~ J. THOMSON LARRY M. WERTHKIM BONNIE L. JOE Y. YANG DASD L. G~ OF COUN~L ROBERT C. C~R~O~ ROBERT ~ ~KLLING~N H. FLOlm B. O~OM C~TIS A. P~RSON T. JAY RE: Mound Commons Dear Greg: You have asked for my comments on how the LMCD Code would deal with dockage on the Mound Commons in light of the order of the court in the case of Flack. et al. v. City of Mound. .et al.. Under the LMCD Code, dockage rights are recognized for "sites" on Lake Minnetonka. Sites are defined in LMCD Code Section 1.02, subdivision 51 as "... any shoreline lot, parcel or other piece of property legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the County Recorder". As this term is del'reed, none of the lots of the litigants in the ?lack case are "sites" because they are not "lakeshore" lots. Under the LMCD Code, the common area would be a single site. As such, if one or more docks for the storage of more than a total of four restricted watercraft (defined in section 1.02, subdivisions 41 and 55a, generally watercraft which are 16 feet or more in length or having motors of more than 10 HP) are constructed on the Commons, a multiple dock license is required under LMCD Code section 2.03. The total watercraft storage density for the commons may not exceed one restricted watercraft for each 50 feet of shoreline as provided in LMCD Code section 2.02. In most cases where multiple owners have an interest in one "site" on Lake Minnetonka, all owners join together in an application for a single multiple dock license which provides storage of not more than a total of one restricted watercraft for each ~0 feet of continuous shoreline. Therefore, one option would be for all owners having an interest in the Commons area to form some sort of association for the purpose of applying for a dock license from the LMCD. In the past, the LMCD has recognized the transfer of exclusive dockage rights from one party to another by deed, easement or license. For example, when one landowner transfers exclusive dockage rights on 100 feet of lakeshore to the owner of adjacent property, the LMCD has recognized that 100 feet of shoreline as being pan of the transfei'ee's property for licensing CLL1Ci280 LKiiO-4 Greg Nybeck March 5, 1996 Page 2 purposes. Therefore, if the owners having an interest in the Commons area consent to continuing control by the city of Mound over all dockage rights for all or a portion of the Commons area, the LMCD could treat the affected lakeshore as a part of the lakeshore of the city of Mound. Since the LMCD Code allows a municipality to combine all of its lakeshore, whether contiguous or not, for purposes of the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule, that lakeshore could continue to be a part of the city's multiple dock license application, and the city could continue to license dockage as they have in the past. Therefore, if all of the owners with an interest in the Commons area agree to a single unified multiple dock license application for the entire Commons area, it could apply to the LMCD for a license wl'fich could be granted subject to the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule. Likewise, all owners could agree to allow the city of Mound to continue to be the agency applying for this license under the city's license application to the LMCD. If all parties agree that some, but not all of the Commons area should continue to be a part of the city of Mound license, that part of the lakeshore could be considered to be a part of the city's lakeshore for LMCD licensing purposes. If there are parts of the Commons area which are not a part of a unified application, either by a homeowners group or by the city of Mound, those parts of the lakeshore would be subject to the LMCD Code as separate parcels. As to the six owners who were parties to the lawsuit referred to above, the court has ordered that the city has no right to regulate their consmaction of docks. However, the court did not resolve dockage rights among the owners of all lots having an interest in the Commons area, and did not provide any special rights for owners of lots immediately adjacent to the Commons. The LMCD has no power to adjudicate riparian rights (including the right to construct docks in the lake) between owners having conflicting claims. Therefore, I would recommend that in the case of all parts of the Commons area which are not subject to an agreement for a single application, either by the city or by a homeowners group, the LMCD simply treat this lakeshore as separate sites subject to the licensing requirement and the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule. If the parties cannot agree, and no license is secured from the LMCD, and if docks are constructed on such parts of the Commons which are not covered by an overall agreement, the LMCD would commence prosecution against all parties with docks on such shoreline for erection of multiple docks without a license. If you have any other questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, ._~,-, ~. Charles L. LeFevere CLL:cmm APPENDIX E Docking Options WOODLAND POINT SUBDMSION DOCKING OPTIONS Discussion from March 13th OPTION 1: Move Wawonaissa non-abutting docks to multiple docks at the end of Bluebird/Canary - Dock size would accommodate 3-6 boats - A stairway may be required Comments: - similar to Options 2 and 3 OPTION 2: Multiple dock program for all dock owners - with 7 multiple docks, size would be about 8 slips per dock to maintain existing site count - multiple dock sites to be evenly distributed along lake shore and at street endings - all dock owners would participate Comments: - public parking - access at Bluebird, Eagle, Dove - ownership of docks - maintenance/policing/control - freeze number of sites (no increase over current number) - security - cost - inconvenient - will remove options for public fishing - administration of program - by whom? - creates imposition on abutters - number of boats per dock - already spent money on own dock - not practical OPTION 3: Move all non-abutters to multiple docks at street endings. - Abutting owners have dock in front of house - all dock owners pay same fee to spread cost of multiple dock over all dock owners - non-abutting owners get dock site without responsibility for maintenance. - responsibility for installation, removal, maintenance would be handled by third party - city would require some assurance of control if they were asked to implement Comments: - provides some balance between abutters who maintain area and have own docks with non-abaters who don't maintain area and have multiple docks - need to have a lii't for boat - possible to accommodate non-abutter's needs by locating multiple docks for 4-5 boats at ends of six streets. - cost of multiple dock? - access down slopes? - parking - control/maintenance o want families of non-abutters to have same dock rights as abutters - seems to limit non-abutters to one boat - may affect ability of adjacent abutters to have docks on their property due to required setbacks - eliminates docks for fishing - limit size, and number of boats - option clusters non-abutters to open up space for abutters - consider a fishing dock - what would a multiple dock look like - boat size, lif~s?? - policy for site maintenance as abutters - program administration OPTION 4: Spread out existing docks by exploring possibility to expand into currently non-accessible areas Comments: - COSt - DNrR permits OPTION 5: Encourage all dock owners to share docks Comments: - rewrite city rules to recognize and encourage shared docks and not punish someone for not putting out their own dock one year by not granting a permit the next year - cap the total number of slip-holders OPTION 6: Create clusters of docks at ends of streets Comments: - utilizes current investment in dock - serves all needs: gives abutters privacy/non-abutters have their own docks. - lessens need to traverse commons. - lower cost than Option 3 APPENDIX F Attachment to Dock Location Map CITY OF MOUND ATTACHMENT TO DOCK LOCATION MAP Rev. 2/5/96 AEC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name I 00010 D 2 00030 O 3 0005O D 4 00070 O 5 00115 O 6 00125 D 7 00145 O 8 00155 D 9 00195 O 10 00215 D 11 00235 D 12 00255 O 13 O0275 D 14 00295 O 15 00315 D 16 00335 D 17 00355 D 18 00385 D 19 OO490 D 20 00550 D 21 00580 D 22 00610 D 23 00640 D 24 00670 D 25 00700 D 26 007'30 D 27 00760 D 28 00790 O 29 00820 D 30 00850 D 31 00880 D 32 OO910 D 33 00940 O 34 00970 D 35 01000 D 36 01030 D 37 01060 C 38 O109O C 39 01120 C 4O 01150 C 41 01170 C 42 01200 C 43 01530 C &4 O156O C 45 01600 C 46 01650 C 47 01880 D 48 01900 D 49 01920 O 50 01940 D 51 01960 D 52 01980 D 53 02000 D 54 02020 O 55 02040 D 56 O2O6O D 57 02080 O 58 02100 O Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Bluebird Lane Bluebird Lane Canary Lane Canary Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Dove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Oove Lane Dove Lane Oove Lane Wawonaissa Common Wawonaissa Corrmon Wawonaissa Wawonaissa Cor~non Wawonaissa Common Wawonaissa Corrmon Wawonaissa Corrmon Wawonaissa Corrmon Wawonaissa Common Wawonaissa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonaissa Co~m~on Wawonaissa Co~non Wawonaissa Common Wawonatssa Common Wawonaissa Cor~aon Wawonaissa Oommon Wawonalssa Common Wawonaissa Waurika Oo~non ~aur~ka Common Waurika Cornnon Waurika Waurika Con,non Waurika gaurika ~aurika Waurika ~aurika Conlnon Uaurlka Common Waurika Comnon Waurika Common Waurika Common gaurika Common Waurika Cor~non Waurlka Common Waurika ~aurfka Con,non ~aurika Conmon Waurika Common REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 59 02180 O Waurika Common 60 02200 D Waurika Common 61 02220 D Waurika Co~n 62 02250 O Waurika Conmon 63 02280 D Waurika Common 64 02310 D Waurika Conmon 65 02340 D Waurika 66 02370 0 Waurika 67 02400 0 Waurika Co~mon 68 02430 0 Waurfka Co~m~n 69 02460 D Waurika Con,non 70 02490 D Waurika Cormnon 71 02520 D Waurika Conmon ~ 02550 D Waurika Co~n 73 02605 D Pebble Beech 74 02635 O Pebble Beach 75 02665 D Pebble Beach Comm 76 02695 D Pebble Beach 77 02720 D Pebble Beach Comm 78 02750 D Pebble Beach Comm 79 02780 D Pebble Beach Comm 80 02810 D Three Pts. Blvd. 81 02840 0 Three Pts. Blvd. 82 02870 0 Three Pts. Blvd. 83 02900 D Three Pts. Blvd. 84 02930 D Three Pts. Blvd. 85 04070 D Beachside (North) 86 04110 D Beachside (North) 87 10020 O Shorewood Lane 88 10050 D 8eachside (South) 89 10070 O Beachside CSouth) 90 10090 D Beachs~de (South) 91 10220 D Crescent Park 92 10250 D Crescent Park 93 10280 D Crescent Park 94 10310 0 Crescent Park 95 10340 0 Crescent Park 96 10370 D Crescent Park 97 10400 D Crescent Park 98 10430 O Crescent Park 99 10460 O Crescent Park 100 10490 O Crescent Park 101 10520 D Crescent Park 102 10550 D Crescent Park 103 10580 O Crescent Park 104 10610 D Crescent Park 105 10640 O Crescent Park 106 10670 0 Crescent Park 107 10700 D Crescent Park 108 12430 D Wren Road 109 12460 O Wiota Co~on 110 12490 0 ~iota Co~on 111 12520 D ~Jota Common 112 12550 D Wiota Conl1~on 113 12580 114 12610 D Wiota 115 12640 D Wiota Co~m3n 116 12670 0 giota Commen CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT April 1996 33.33% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non- Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Sen/ices Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments April 1996 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,280,640 0 0 (1,280,640) 0.00% 5,800 560 1,570 (4,230) 27.07% 77,1 O0 11,040 34,088 (43,012) 44.21% 890,740 10,197 44,716 (846,024) 5.02% 48,250 850 2,963 (45,287) 6.14% 60,000 7,838 17,774 (42,226) 29.62% 35,200 225 1,196 (34,004) 3.40% 43,500 0 0 (43,500) 0.00% 10,000 1,035 3,913 (6,087) 39.13% TOTAL REVENUE 2 451 230 31 745 106 220 ~ 4.33% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FU ND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 307,570 54,250 139,588 (167,982) 45.38% 108,320 13,430 28,417 (79,903) 26.23% 1,430,000 105,038 408,168 (1,021,832) 28.54% 410,000 32,039 123,613 (286,387) 30.15% 766,500 64,093 259,432 (507,068) 33.85% 5,1 O0 0 1,650 (3,450) 32.35% 70,800 2,197 69,923 (877) 98.76% 05/15/96 rev95 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT April 1996 33.33% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Sum mer Recreation Contingencies Transfers April 1996 BUDGET EXPENSE 68,730 4,000 6OO 185,03O 11,300 54,450 163,600 22,000 I 06,440 804,640. 3 780 167 320 398 840 92 790 135 300 29.700 40 000 155,310 YTD EXPENSE VARIANCE 7,364 0 175 11,507 1 21 11,611 1,281 8,694 60,258 333 12,660 34,956 15,450 11,338 0 8O2 11,782 28,068 0 25O 46,994 1,669 441 48,787 9,602 23 744 255 846 1150 46 183 148216 32 55O 35 554 0 1,953 47,129 40,662 4,O0O 35O 1 38 036 9 631 54 009 114 813 12 398 82 696 548 794 2,630 121,137 250,624 60,240 99,746 29,700 38,047 108,181 PERCENT EXPENDED 40.84% 0.00% 41.67% 25.4O% 14.77% 0.81% 29.82% 43.65% 22.31% 31.80% 30.42% 27.60% 37.16% 35.08% 26.28% 0.00% 4.88% 30.35% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2 443 830 188 233 728 136 I 715 694 29.79% Area Fire Service Fund 307,570 25,301 91,293 216,277 29.68% Recycling Fund 122,420 14,946 47,898 74,522 39.13% Liquor Fund 205,930 13,494 71,952 133,978 34.94% Water Fund 413,410 18,143 121,146 292,264 29.30% Sewer Fund 963,180 70,786 369,839 593,341 38.40% Cemetery Fund 5,570 838 872 4,698 15.66% Docks Fund 37,470 1,235 4,810 32,660 12.84% exp95 05/15/96 G.B. I.J~E NINNETONK~ CONSERVATION DI~?RICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 pm, Wednesday, May 22, 1996 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 2 0 1998 RECEIVED CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES- 5/8/96 Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC CO~EL~C- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. 1. WATER STRUCTURES A. Davi~ an~ Susan Nalsh, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of side setback and length variances application; *B. Victoria Estates HOA, staff recommending approval of 1996 renewal w/o change multiple dock license application; C. Additional Business; 2. EWM/EXOTICS TASKFORCE *A. Evaluation of Truck Hauling Bids for the 1996 EWM Harvesting Program, Staff recommendation to award the Bid to Minnetonka Portable Dredging Co.; *B. Minutes of the 5/10/96 EWM/Exotics meeting; C. 5/10/96 meeting report; D. Additional Business; 3. ADMINISTRATION A. Review of proposed LMCD Purchase Order system; (Staff recommends tabling to 6/12/96 Board meeting) B. Additional Business; 4. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (handout); B. April financial summary and balance sheet; C. Review of 1995 Draft Audit and Management letter (1995 audit was previously handed out); D. Review of 1997 Draft Budget (handout); E. Additional Business; $. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 6. OLD BUfJXNES~ 7. HEW BUSXNE88 DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1VIEETING 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, May $, 1996 Tonka Bay City Hall RECEIVED CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Gene Padyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; BeE Foster, Deephaven; Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach, Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gretchen Maglieh, Minnetonka; Paul Stark, Excelsior. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; G. Alan Willcutt, Executive Director; Gregory Nybeck, Administrative Technician Members absent: Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Craig Mollet, Victoria; and Duane Marlins, Wayzata. Orono has no appointed member CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Babcock announced a budget meeting has been planned for Tuesday, May 14 at 8:00 a.m. at the LMCD offices. He encouraged Board members to attend. READING OF THE MINUTES Nelson moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the April 24, 1996 Regular Board meeting as amended. Babcock recommended three changes to the minutes. They were: 1) on page 9, to change the Motion to read, "to approve a personnel policy change to pay full coverage costs for individual employees and 2/3 of the total coverage costs when employee health care includes dependent coverage;" 2) on page 10, to properly note that health care coverage "contributes" rather than "is essential;" and 3) to add at the end of the health insurance agenda item "Chair Babcock noted the net effect of the two proceeding motions was to place all LMCD employees under one insurance plan providing consistent coverage for all employees. LMCD policy for premium and/or reimbursement was left unchanged." PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Partyka moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the consent agenda items identified by an "*" on the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (Approved agenda items include: Item lB, Hennepin Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors Meeting May 8, 1996 Page 2 County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; Item 2B, Driftwood Shores HOA, Staff Recommending Approval of 1996 Renewal Without Change Multiple Dock License Application; Item 4A, Minutes of the 5/2/96 Meeting). COMMrVrEE REPORTS e LAKE USE AND RECREATION A. Discussion and Consideration of~the new beer and wine licen~..' public hearing for Fantasia Charters, Inc. · ..... MOTION: Reese moved, Rascop seconded to approve the new beer and wine license for Fantasia Charters, Inc. for the charter boat Fantasia. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Discussion on Board Members Lake Inspection Tour Babcock noted the Board in the past has taken a tour of the lake on the first Saturday in June to review current plans or licensing concerns. He noted he would like to continue this on 6/8/96 with time and location to be determined. He noted Tonka Bay Marina has offered to provide a 50' pontoon boat with the LMCD providing a pilot, gas, and other expenses. Foster noted this is a Board inspection tour rather than a public officials inspection tour. Maglich stated she is uncomfortable with having a marina owner provide a boat. The Board directed staff to proceed with this tour.,. D. Additional Business There was no additional business. WATER STRUCTURES A. David and Susan Walsh, discussion on variance application public hearing from LMCD side setback and dock length requirements and for an adjusted dock use Babcock noted three variances have already been granted in this neighborhood. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors Meeting May 8, 1996 Page 3 He noted a low water variance was granted to the Steads in 1991 that generally affected the whole neighborhood. A second variance was granted to the Steads on 12/1/93 for an adjusted dock use area and dock length. A third variance was granted to the Carlsons on 4/27/94 for dock length. He stated he believed this variance request should be approved since it seems reasonable, has the support of the neighbors, and does not adjust neighbors' dock use areas. MOTION: Foster moved, partyka seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact approving the Walsh variance application for variance from LMCD side setback and length requirements. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Ce Additional Business There was no additional business. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. RFP for Chemical Control of Eurasian Water Milfoil on Seven Public Accesses, staff recommending Board approval to award contract to Lake Management, Inc. in the amount of $3,614.75. Nybeck noted RFP's went out to Lake Management, Inc. and Lake Restoration, Inc. to provide this service. He noted Lake Management, Inc. submitted the low bid at $3,614.75. MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded to authorize staff to develop a contract with Lake Management, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $3,6i4.75. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business Suerth reported the high-pressure washer equipment was not operational in time for the Crappie Tournament. He noted an operator had not been hired in time; however, an operator has recently been hired. He noted his name is Jeremy Arthur and will be paid at a rate of $10 per hour with an increase to $12 per hour based on a favorable performance review. He expressed concern with communication between the Water Patrol and LMCD staff since a special event permit was issued for the Crappie Tournament that staff was unaware of. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors Meeting May 8, 1996 Page 4 Willcutt noted he received a faxed copy of special event permit applications and an unsigned permit for the Crappie Tournament. He noted staff sent out a letter to the special event sponsors to further coordinate boat washing efforts. He noted staff did not receive a signed permit from the Water Patrol. Foster stated if the Water Patrol faxed copies of the special event permit applications but.did not send overt signed per.its, he reca~l~ ed tl~i.'s was what was agreed upon. Babcock stated the Water Patrol has independent authority to issue special event in addition to the authority delegated by the LMCD. He added if the Board wants explicit control over the permitting process, they would need to take back the permitting authority. Foster stated if the Board desires more control over special events, an ordinance should be considered by the LMCD which would state no special event can be held on Lake Minnetonka without the submission of a zebra mussel prevention plan. Babcock stated there are two choices to address this concern. They are: 1) to either take back the permitting; or 2) pass an ordinance. Maglich suggested staff contact the Water Patrol to find out what process was understood. She added it appears to be just a miscommunication. Board members agreed when an unsigned application is received from the Water Patrol, the LMCD must get in touch with them within seven days. Babcock stated if you want the Sheriff's Office to'buy in to this program, they must be given a legal reason to do so. LeFevere noted the Sheriff has the ability to impose conditions without an ordinance change. He added adopting an ordinance change may not achieve desired results if sufficient manpower is not authorized by the Water Patrol. He concluded the LMCD may want to reconsider the permitting of special events on Lake Minnetonka if the Sheriff is not willing to enforce the exotics program. Babcock stated it was his understanding the Water Patrol does not have the staffing to enforce this environmental issue in 1996. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors Meeting May 8, 1996 Page 5 4. SAVE Be Ce Suerth discussed the hiring of a public relations person this summer. He asked for Board approval to authorize the'hiring of this position. He recommended twenty hours a week at $8.00 per hour. MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded to authorize the hiring of a public relations intern.at $8.00 per hour for up to thirty hours a week. .Babcock noted there are additional funds available in the "Save the Lake" budget for additional hours. He noted this position could end up being a 30-40 hour a week position. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Review of 1996 proposed budget. Willcutt reviewed the proposed budget for the "Save the Lake" Committee for 1996. He noted actual expenditures in 1995 for new proposals and Freshwater Lake Watch need to be further reviewed. Partyka recommended checking the minutes of the "Save the Lake" where $1,000 was donated. Reese asked where the $12,000 appropriated for the pressure washer is noted on the 1996 budget? Babcock stated he felt the summer rules brochure should be an administrative expense. He added there should be justification for the increase in expense. He asked staff to check on the actual, costs of pH'~ting the brochures. He expressed concern the budget proposed to spend more than revenues collected. Reese stated he believed the amount budgeted for purchases for the sheriff is too high. Babcock stated budget expenditures are substantially higher than in previous years. He suggested comments be taken back to the committee in order to revise the budget. 512196 meeting report. Willcutt reported the mailing is the largest ever sent out with a mailing list of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors Meeting May 8, 1996 Page 6 ® 5,935 residents. He suggested possibly contracting some of this work out in the future. D. Additional Business Chuck Champaign. Woodland Point Development resident provided an update on the docking situation with regards to the Mound Commons dock program in the Woodland Point Development. ADMINISTRATION A. Review of proposed LMCD purchase order system This item was tabled to the 5/22/96 meeting B. Additional Business There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (handout) MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to approve the vouchers for payment from April 1 - May 15, 1996. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Review of 1995 Draft Audit and Management letter Rascop reviewed the 1995 draft audit. He no.t~d a management letter was received but was not included in the Board packet. He noted it would be included in the 5/22/96 Board packet. The audit was tabled to the 5/22/96 Board meeting to include the management letter and allow the Board time to review the audit. C. Additional Business There was no additional business. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Will~u~t r~ported on the following: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors Meeting May 8, 1996 Page 7 Liability Insurance; He reported a decrease in the liability insurance from the past year. Car/Boat Trailer Count Survey; He reported the survey was conducted and reported a total of 455 boats for the Crappie fishing tournament. MOTION: Rascol5 moved, Reese seconded to accept the car/boat trailer count survey. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Maglich asked if staff has followed up on the request from the Charter Boat Association to reduce charter boat fees? Nybeck stated this is ongoing with staff tracking time spent on the administration of charter boats. He noted a report will be done next fall to analyze charter boat fees. ~ He reported the grant from the LMCR was not approved for this project, High Water Level: He stated he has contacted the Water Patrol to notify them the water level is over 929.8 MSL, high water level standard. The Board directed Willcutt to publish this declaration in the local newspapers. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. There being no further business, Chairman Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Joseph Zwak, Secretary ITEM 2.B DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/Exotics Task Force Minutes 8:30 A.M., Friday, May 10, 1996 Norwest Bank Building, Suite 160, Wayzata, MN Presmnt: A1 Willcutt, Executive Director, LMCD; Herb Suerth, Chair, LMCD; Tom Reese, LMCD Board; Craig Nelson, LMCD Board; Rick Walsh, MN DNR; Wendy Crowell, MN DNR; R~y Newman, U of M Fisheries; John Barten, Hennepin Parks; Susie Holderness, office of Congress~an Jim Ramstad; Henry Willegalle, East Parkers Lake Improvement Association; Dick Pickard, Lake Independence Citizens A~ociation. Minutes: Minutes of March 8, 1996 were reviewed and accepted, after one change was corrected on the last page, referring to the paragraph of EPCIA; it was corrected to read EPLIA, for East Parkers Lake Improvement Association. MN DNR REPORT Wendy Crowell stated that studies were being conducted on the milfoil situation in areas that were infested last year. She stated that these studies included Round Lake, Ann Lake, Chanhassen, Christmas Lake, and the Jarvis and Keller chain of lakes. She stated that they had done a Garlon treatment last year on Little Long Lake and they were anxious to see the results of this treatment. Walsh stated that a permit was issued to treat the milfoil in Gray's Bay with a herbicide treatment, but they had been advised to wait until after the harvesting, which has been scheduled for June 10th in that area. After the cutting is done, the DNR will then make an evaluation as to whether the herbicide treatment is necessary. Reese stated that he felt the June 10th date for harvesting the Gray's Bay area would be too early because of ~he cold spring. Walsh advised that the herbicide treatment permit would remain valid through the month of September. Walsh stated that the DNR would communicate with the LMCD, letting them know the exact date if and when the herbicide treatment is going to be done. Suerth stated that the LMCD had hired a Public Relations · EWM/Exotics Taskforce Minutes, 5/10/96, Page 2 Summer Intern to work closely with the Save The Lake and Exotics Committees on programs that would help educate the public on the issues of milfoil, zebra mussel, boat washing,. etc. She will also work closely with the DNR who will assist her with their information and knowledge. It was suggested by Wendy Crowell that she contact Jay Randall, Public Education Program Director. ~ OF ~ REPORT Dr. Ray Newman gave a summary report on the milfoil spread in the Lake Auburn area and stated that the milfoil density was the heaviest it had been in September. Newman stated that milfoil growth and the presence of weevils had decreased in Smith's Bay. He stated that weevil traps had been placed in Smith's Bay in order to monitor how the weevils are transporting'themselves from the soil. Newman stated that the weevils spend the winter on the shore line, just under the first layer of soil, and in the spring they migrate into the water. In the fall, they are seen on top of milfoil plants, and raft on plant material back to the shoreline. Newman submitted reports on both milfoil and weevils to Director Willcutt. ~PDATE ON SPECIAL PROJECTS ~Willcutt commented on Phosphorous-Free Fertilizer, stating that an extensive mailing was done to the distributors/retail outlets. Follow-up phone calls were made and it was determined that K-Mart, Target, Bachmanns, Franks, Co-op of Waconia, Otten Bros., Dundee, etc. are carrying the product. Willcutt stated that he would like more feed-back on the amount of sales of the phosphorous-free fertilizer and how the general public perceives it. Willcutt stated that the newspaper coverage had been very positive and that Gene Strommen, MCWD, had participated in the public relations effort. Willcutt also stated that the Public Relations Intern would be involved in this undertaking. Henry Willegalle, East Parkers Lake Improvement Association, stated that the City of Plymouth is actively selling the EWM/Exotics Taskforce Minutes, 5/10/96, Page 3 phosphorous-free fertilizer at the.City Hall and that the response has been very positive. It is also getting positive publicity in the city Newsletter. Reese commented on the new boat-washing equipment and that it is in the experimental stage. He stated that an operator has been hired and trained to operate the equipment. He stated that the best techfiology available is being used and that this is a very pro-active program being used to fight the Zebra Mussel. He stated that if the program proves to be successful, that more boat-washing units will be made available. Suerth stated that the public seems to be willing to cooperate once the situation is explained to them and how the mussel could affect Lake Minnetonka. Reese stated that the machine is stationed at the Hennepin County Public Works, across from the Spring Park access. Suerth stated that one of the main concerns is getting the public to admit that their boat has been in infected waters and that this situation has to be handled very diplomatically. Reese stated that it takes approximately 5 to 7 minutes to wash an 18 ft. boat and it was his hope that a schedule could be arranged for boat washing in order to expedite its efficiency. ADDITIONAL AGENCY ASSOCIATION REPORTS Willegalle, East Parkers Lake Improvement Association, stated that they had applied for and received a $10,000 grant from the DNR for the purpose of conservation eduction. Dick Pickard, Lake Independence Citizens Association, stated that they had completed their survey on Lake Independence, asking the public whose responsibility it was for the problems in the lake? He was surprised that the survey showed 28% felt it was the lakeshore residents, 17% felt that · it was the lake users, and the remainder felt the responsibility should belong to Hennepin Parks and the DNR. This was a survey of 300 people in and around the lake, with a response of 152 people. Suerth stated that the new Public Relations Intern would have the responsibility of communicating with the lakeshore associations. EWM/Exotics Taskforce Minutes, 5/10/96, Page 4 ADDITIONAL BUBINES8 Suerth commented that the LMCD did not receive the grant for the Goose Control program. Reese stated that all 14 lake cities were in favor of this program and is hoping that something more can be done, possibly with the help of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Reese commented that possibly a word from Jim Ramstad's office would be helpful. It was suggested that Dr. Cooper's office could be contacted for further assistance. Reese stated that the goose situation is critical in the parks and beaches and affects the health and welfare of our children. ADJOURNI~ENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 A.M. ' Respectfully submitted, G. Alan Willcutt Executive Director PARK AND OPEN SPACE CO1VIMI~SION MINUTES OF A MlZ~E~G MAY 9, 1996 Present were: Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Bill Darling, Marilyn Byrnes, Janis Geffre, Mary Goode, and Rita Pederson, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were Commissioners Peter Meyer and Bev Botko. The following persons were also in attendance: Chris Bright, Jim and Lida Miller, Tom & Sandi Effertz,' Stephani Coon, Michael Pride, Ron McCombs, Pete Buchner, Thomas Stokes, and Doug Rippie. MINUTES Motion made by Byrnes, seconded by Geffre, to approve the minutes of the May 9, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Ahrens commented that there have been an awful lot of agenda changes, and feel that if a quick informational item is added, this is okay, but particularly long discussion items should be put on the agenda before the packets are mailed so the Park Commission has the opportunity to review the information and be prepared for discussion. The secretary clarified that the due day for the agenda is on Wednesday, one whole week prior to the scheduled meeting date. Casey agreed and feels it is a good suggestion, but also recognized that sometimes emergencies may arise when an item must be added, and suggested that whenever possible agenda items should be given to the secretary before the packet is mailed. PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH//8 The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended approval of a 5 year permit for Batch//8, subject to the conditions as noted on the chart for Batch//8. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock licensee will be withheld until completion. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holders. *All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. Ail power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 DOCK I ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE I I 42314 4729 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE REPLACEMENT OF STAIRWAY AND REPAIRS TO STEPHANIE COON - RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL. NEW STAIRWAY SHALL BE TYPE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO CODE AND APPROVED BY C contacted THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. - PLANTINGS PLANTINGS, PER PLAN, SEE BELOW.** - ELECTRIC LIGHT APPROVE NEW ELECTRIC LIGHTS AND OUTLET AS SHOWN & OUTLET ON PLAN.* - PLAY HOUSE REMOVE OR RELOCATE FLAG POLE AND PLAY HOUSE ONTO - FLAG POLE PRIVATE PROPERTY. **//42314, Coon: As an alternative to the proposed planter box on top of the retaining wall, staff recommends the applicant install plantings/bushes at the base of retaining wall to screen the wall and also bushes on top of the wail, as outlined in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Prior to installation, a plan describing the type of plantings shall be submitted and approved by the Parks Director. Plantings should not block or hinder access along the commons. The Parks Director noted that an application was submitted by the adjacent property owner. Applicant, Stephanie Coon stated that the playhouse is structurally sound, but it needs the trim painted so it will match the house. She was told when she purchased her house that the likelihood that playhouse would be allowed to remain would be good because it is structurally sound. She related the history of the playhouse and noted that the City laid the foundation and moved it to the commons. Darling asked if the playhouse would not be a public structure now that it is on public land? Byrnes emphasized that you have to cross private property in order to get to this commons, so their stair would not be used by the public. Goode added that this commons is not traversable, without a stairway. Fackler commented that staff has not specifying who is required to do the removal, and that they hope at this time to work out an agreement with the adjacent land owner; if they want to keep the structure and take responsibility for it or if they do not want to take responsibility for it and prefer that it be removed. Coon emphasized that the playhouse is not a large structure, it is only 6' x 9'. Darling quoted a statement made by Curtis A. Pearson, City Attorney, in a letter to Ed Shukle dated November 10, 1995, "I would also caution that stairways which are located on public lands are in effect open to the public's use." Darling questioned if this also applies to other private structures. Pederson commented that the dock is considered private, and questioned how this is different than stairs. It was noted that the dock is located in the water, not on land. Darling also quoted from the same letter, "There is a potential for litigation and even a potential for a loss where the steps are on public land..." Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 Goode commented that logically, when commons are nonaccessible or nontraversable, structures should not be considered public. Darling stated that they need to follow rules that are in place today. Casey emphasized that there are also scenic and passive uses for the commons, and some people prefer to view a natural shoreline, rather than a shoreline cluttered with structures. Byrnes confirmed that Fackler had stated earlier that if an owner assumes responsibility for a structure it may remain, and then when it gets to a dilapidated state or is destroyed by natural causes, that it would eventually be removed. Stephanie Coon agreed'to assume responsibility of the playhouse. Michael Pride, Stephanie Coon's husband, reviewed the plans submitted with their application which include replacement of the stairway, lights installed on the stairs, repair of the cement retaining wall, painting the retaining wall, and planting ivy or some other type of vegetation in front of the wall. Casey asked if they would consider native plantings. Pride commented that they will work with staff and plant whatever is recommended. It was noted that this is a south facing hillside which gets a lot of sun. Pride stated that they prefer to keep the flag pole, and noted that it is bordered with railroad ties, about 3' x 4'. MOTION by Byrnes, seconded by Ahrens approve a five year permit, as recommended by staff with the exception that the playhouse and the flag pole may remain, and that the applicant talk to staff about plantings and the retaining wall. Casey commented that they are perpetuating old mistakes by allowing things to remain, and he agrees with Darling that they need to make policy decisions and determine if these structures should be considered either public or private, and decide what uses they should allow. Casey stated that he would oppose the motion, and that he is not in favor of the lights or allowing the flag pole to remain. Goode is in favor of allowing the playhouse to remain, however, feels the flag pole is a separate issue because this area will never look like public land. Ron McCombs stated that the rest of Lake Minnetonka is not pristine, and asked why Mound is trying to make the commons look pristine, and emphasized that flag poles are not harmful to environment. Casey stated that every City has rules and codes and as a Park Commission they need to recommend where the line should be drawn. The Shoreland Management Ordinance is one of these codes which both private and public land must comply with. Motion carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Goode, Byrnes, and Pederson. Opposed were: Casey, Geffre, and Darling. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 Ahrens stated that the Council has determined that if an applicant does not agree with staff's recommendation, that the Council will approve the permit anyway, pending the recommendations from the Commons Task Force. Ahrens noted that the Commons task for is still meeting on the issue of encroachments. Darling moved that the City look at all nontraversable or nonaccessible commons that are not private and look at selling or leasing these commons to the adjacent property owners. Geffre seconded motion. Byrnes stated that the City does not own commons, so they cannot sell it. In order to vacate any land it has to be proven to be in the public's best interest to do so. Ahrens suggested that adjacent property owners could lease the commons. Darling questioned if it is realistic for the City to manage the commons when their is no public use. Jim reminded Commission how this type of action may affect the dock program. It was discussed how the lineal footage of public land affects the number of docks in the program. Casey would like to keep control of the shoreline and attempt to regain the beautiful natural shoreline they once had. He commented that the Shoreland Management Ordinance was mandated because the shorelines have become overdeveloped and it should be a public policy to protect this land from degradation. Goode suggested they hold off on Darling's motion until the commons task force finishes their review and recommendation regarding encroachments. Darling clarified that the intent for his motion is not to arbitrarily sell land, but to start the process of researching the possibility, understand the legal ramifications, and see if it makes sense. Byrnes stated that the Commons Task Force has been directed by Council to address the issue of encroachments on the commons. Motion failed with 3 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention. Those voting in favor were Pederson, Darling, and Geffre, those opposed were Byrnes, Casey and Goode. Ahrens abstained. Ahrens explained that she will abstain anytime the Park Commission sends forward a recommendation to the Council regarding and issue such as this. 4743 ISLAND VIEW DR TODD BRANDSTETTER - STAIRWAY - FLAG POLE APPROVE STAIRWAY ~VITH REPAIRS TO BE MADE BY APPLICANT AND APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. RELOCATE FLAG POLE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. Goode questioned if the subject flagpole is the one at the end of the dock. Michael Pride confirmed that they also have a flag pole located on the commons which is about even with the location for their flag pole. Faclder confirmed that staff is not concerned about flag poles on docks. 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 Darling confirmed with Ahrens that if the Park Commission recommends denial of an encroachment, such as this flag pole, and the applicant wishes the flag pole to remain that the Council will automatically approve the permit for five years regardless, pending the Commons Task Force recommendation? Ahrens confirmed that this is what the Council intends to do if an applicant does not agree with staff's recommendation, and that the Council had discussed a moratorium, however, decided not to. Ahrens commented that there have been situations when people have agreed to take things out. Fackler clarified that the City Attorney stated that they could deal with those people who want to make improvements or repairs, and process them according to the ordinance we have today. Casey stated that there is nothing wrong with the Park Commission giving a recommendation on these issues. Darling stated that this makes the Park Commission look like the bad guy. Darling moved that the Park Commission not make any further recommendations for Batch //8 until the City Council determines if the Commons Task Force or the Park Commission should address the issues relating to private structures on public lands. Byrnes seconded the motion. Casey stated that the Park Commission still has an obligation to do what the ordinance states. Darling suggested that they put pressure on the Council to make a decision. Byrnes suggested that they could just go down list for Batch #8 and deal with the ones that there are not objections to. Goode agreed that they could deal with as a batch. Motion carried 4-2-1. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Geffre, Darling, and Pederson. Those opposed were Casey and Goode. Ahrens abstained. No action was taken on the following: 42406 Todd Brandstetter 4743 42461 Bradley Miller 4747 42511 Chris Bright 4753 42556 Tom Effertz 4757 42586 Deborah Mathews 4763 42626 Ronald McCombs 4767 42691 Wanda Stuerman 4771 42791 James Miller 4781 Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive NEW DOCK LOCATIONS - LONGFORD ROAD Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed his memorandum. Currently, two homes are being built at 4622 and 4626 Kildare Road and another seven home sites are proposed for development on Kildar'e Road in the near future. Their location adjoins the unimproved Longford Road which is dry land above the Ordinary High Water elevation of 929.4. This land is under City control and lies between these home sites and Lake Minnetonka. 5 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 There has been a request from the builder and future home owners to have dock locations established. Because of the marsh that is present where the docks would be located, the City must obtain a permit from the DNR. From my contact with the DNR this area seems to be in compliance with their regulations to establish dock sites. Their main concern is if the marsh is recognized as a protected fish spawning area, which it is not. The only other request of the DNR is that the docks limit their intrusion through the marsh. As you can see from the proposed plans, both sites have been consolidated to accomplish this. An application has to be submitted to the DNR along with applicable fees and information. Greg Nybeck, LMCD, believes there will not be a problem adding this area to Mound's Multiple Dock and Mooring Area License, we would just have to designate this on our 1997 application. If these sites are established, the Shoreline Type should be recognized as "Type 'C' on the Dock Location Map. The docks would be installed by the homeowners and have multiple slip sites. Each slip should be recognized as a single docking site with numbering as such. A base fee (currently $150.00) should be charged each year, per slip, and limited to one watercraft per slip, unless the Dock Inspector determines that the dock area may accommodate additional boats. Along with establishing this area, a survey of Longford Road must be done to recognize any other docks that are utilizing this area for access to the lake. This needs to be done so that the City is consistent in enforcing regulations of docks on properties under the control of the City. Ahrens questioned how they can increase the number of docks past 448 without going through the LMCD or without offsetting that number. Fackler stated that there is enough public shoreland that was not included in the original lineal footage calculations to accommodate these additional dock sites. Ahrens questioned if they will need to take 9 dock sites away from somewhere else in order to add these 9. Ahrens feels they need to investigate this proposal further with the LMCD. Fackler emphasized that Greg Nybeck reviewed this issue with Gene Strommen, past Director of the LMCD and they did not think there would be a problem with the proposal. He also noted that the LMCD looks at boat count, not dock site count. Tom Stokes of Fine Line Development stated that these properties will be taxed as though they are lakeshore, so these properties should be eligible for a dock. He asked the Park Commission to approve the docks, subject to them meeting the requirements of other agencies. Doug Ripie, future owner of one of the houses currently under construction, stated that they designed the proposed dock to have least amount of impact on the lake. Goode asked if it wouldn't be better to relinquish Longford Road to the adjacent land owners? Do we need more commons? Pederson agreed, and emphasized that the property is not traversable, and there will never be a road there. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 Casey asked if the developer is paying the application fees to the DNR? Fackler stated that the City would pay the application fee, however, this would be regained through the dock license fees. Fackler confirmed that he would expect the land survey to cost about $1,000, and this would be paid from the dock fund. MOTION by Darling to recommend approval of the multiple dock plan, as submitted, pending approval and compliance of any and all government agencies. Goode seconded the motion. Casey commented that the City is under no obligation to provide landowners with docks. He sees this area as a beautiful bluff, and asked if they should compromise their space to allow for docks in the marsh? He is concerned that they would be adding docks in a small channel that is pinched already. The two existing docks located on Longford Road were discussed. Casey questioned how Crescent Park was designated as a wildlife area? Darling withdraw his motion because he thought the two existing docks were going to be replaced with this one new multiple dock. Pete Buckner, future owner of one of the houses currently under construction, stated that instead of two new docks, they are proposing one joint dock, and asked why this is an issue? Geffre asked Fackler if the other two docks are actually on Longford Road. Fackler beleived they could be, but it was not cost effective at the time to survey the property, but now because of new surveys provided to the City from a developer, he realized that it is all public shoreline so now they should add it to the dock program. It is his intent to bring the whole area into compliance. Goode asked if it would not be better to have one multiple dock for all. Fackler noted that access to the dock would be an issue. Byrnes was excused from the meeting. Tom Stokes emphasized that these people own the land on the other side of Longford Road, even though it is underwater, and this property will be part of a Homeowners Association. Faclder asked where do you draw the line? Ahrens asked how many other people own private land on the other side of their commons? Casey moved to deny the two new docks sites as proposed. The Commission asked what action will be taken with the two existing docks? Should they be brought into the program? Ahrens asked what will justify the expense of the survey if the new docks are denied? Faclder stated that he received substantial evidence that public land existed, should he ignore it? 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 Goode noted that some portions of the shoreline did abut private property and asked if the LMCD would support the placement of a private dock at these points. Fackler commented that the LMCD may have a concern regarding setbacks. He stated that the LMCD requires 50 feet of shoreline per boat, but offered to check with them on the issue. Ahrens stated she is not opposed to property that abuts the shoreline to have docks, but is opposed to having docks added to the program that do not have approval from the LMCD and she does not believe Greg Nybeck gave approval. She does not believe that the lineal footage was never computed in original permit. Fackler stated that the lineal footage has been increased over the years, the City has gained Lost Lake and the area off of Denbigh. Ahrens would like to confirm that the LMCD would allow this. She is concerned that if they surpass the number of 448 dock sites, what would prevent them from adding 20 sites to the new multiple dock by Pembroke Park or other areas? She does not want to set a precedent. Motion failed 5 to 1. Those in favor of denial were Goode, Geffre, Darling, Ahrens, and Pederson. Casey was opposed. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Darling, to table this request until further information is received from the LMCD. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission clarified the information they want from the LMCD: saturation point? maximum number of docks? can docks be installed on shoreline which is less than 50 feet wide? Regarding the two existing docks, Faclder commented that this area is not recognized on the Dock Location Map as a docking area, at this time. He would like to see this entire area addressed. Casey moved to exrtend meeting 15 minutes past 10:00. Motion seconded by Goode. Motion carried unanimously. Goode asked if the privately owned property which is under water on the other side of Longford Road changes how the LMCD looks at setbacks. REVIEW 1997 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey reviewed that there are no changes, other than dates. He referred to a statement in City Code Section 437 which needs to either be added to the dock application form or deleted from the ordinance, it reads, "The application shall contain a reminder and/or warning to the applicant that a dock license will not be issued for any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning a stairway or structure used to access the dock." Ahrens was temporarily excused from the meeting. 8 Park and Open Space Comndssion Minutes May 9, 1996 MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Darling to recommend approval of the 1997 Dock Application Forms as submitted, including the change in dates and adding a statement to the dock application form as required by City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 4, as follows: "A dock license will not be issued for any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning a stairway or structure used to access the dock, unless otherwise approved by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Ahrens returned. COMMONS TASK FORCE UPDATE Faclder reported that the new multiple dock system will be installed by May 24th, and they are now starting to look at the issue of encroachments. Geffre related a question from Pete Meyer who was unable to be present, if the LMCD has a separation requirement for docks from a public beach? Fackler stated that he thinks it is 75 feet, however, he will verify and report on at the next meeting. UPDATE ON COMMUNITY SKATING RINK Geffre asked the Commission, for Peter Meyer, if the Commission has any ideas to move this issue forward. MOTION by Goode, seconded by Darling to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 10:18 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 9 Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Churchill Lane will never be improved as a through street since the southern end was vacated previously. There does not appear to be any public purpose served by the retention of Churchill Lane as a right-of-way except to provide access to Parcel 147 (Lot 22). Staff recommended approval of the request to vacate Churchill Lane as well as the front yard setback and street frontage variances for Parcel 146 subject to the following conditions: Lots 12 and 22, Block 12, Arden shall be combined into one tax parcel prior to the time that the City releases a copy of the final resolution on the vacation of Churchill Lane. The applicants shall submit the $50.00 variance fee for the required variances as noted herein prior to the time that this item is scheduled for review by the City Council. Weiland is concerned that Lots 12 and 22 will not get combined. Hanus stated that it is written as a clear condition that the parcels would need to be combined before the resolution is released for filing. Weiland is concerned that the parcel would be sold before it is combined. Clapsaddle agreed that it is clear that no vacation will occur unless it is combined. Hanus asked how the recording expenses are dealt with for those adjacent land owners who are not applicants and did not request this vacation, and what is the status of the property if the adjacent property owners do not claim it? It was determed the city attorney would be able to report on this issue at the city council meeting. Mueller expressed a concern that after the street vacation, the subject property will still not have frontage on an improved public fight-of-way. Applicant, Michael McDonald, informed the Commission that the owner of parcel (147) could not attend the meeting because he is out of town, however, stated that his neighbor's only concern was if there would be any future costs involved as a result of the vacation. Staff noted that there may be minimal recording fees at the County. Weiland asked how the remaining portion of Churchill could get improved so they can have a proper driveway. The Building Official commented that improvements can be made on the right-of-way, subject to a permit and approval from public works. A petition for street improvement could also be submitted. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Applicant, Michael McDonald, 3018 Churchill lane, stated that he currently maintains Churchill Road, he plows and takes care of maintenance because it is unimproved and the City has no responsibility to take care of it. He would like to put Class 5 rock on this area of right-of-way that he uses for his driveway. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Mueller stated that he would like to see Churchill improved in order to provide this property with proper street frontage. Reifschneider asked of the other adjacent owners want to attach half of the vacated road onto their property, and what happens if they don't want it. He emphasized that this property is a very steep slope and people may not want the responsibility of taking care of it. Burma agreed with Mueller and his concerns with the improvement of the right-of-way. He commented that even though the driveway is not a concern now, it could become a concern to the owners of Lots 17 and 18 if there were a new owner who did not maintain the road as well. Clapsaddle suggested they table the application. The issues they want clarified were reviewed. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to table the request for vacation of Churchill Lane until the following issues can be clarified. The parcel will still have frontage on an unimproved right-of- way. What would be involved in requiring the access be brought up to minimum standards, as required by the City. Are the adjacent property owners required to attached the vacated strip of right-of-way to their property? Are they in favor of doing this? What ramifications are there? What are the costs involved? How is the right-of-way separated? They would like verification that the owner of Parcel 147 is willing to combine his parcels, and to notify him of the required process and fees. The owner of Parcel 147 should also be notified of the fact that once he combines these parcels he will not be able to separate them again without going through the subdivision process. How will this vacation affect access to utilities? Motion carried unanimously. CASE 96-19: VARIANCE FOR DECK, JOHN HOI.I.OWAY, 4943 MONMOUTH ROAD, LOTS 8, 9, & W. 1/2 OF 7, BLOCK 30, WYCHWOOD, PID 24-117-24 41 0106 Jon Sutherland, Building Official, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming shed and deck in order to allow construction of a conforming 9' x 10' deck in the rear yard. The two nonconforming issues are as follows. 1) The shed located in the front yard on the west side is setback 19 feet+- from the front property line, the required setback is 20 feet, resulting in a recognition/variance request of 1 foot. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 2) The front deck on the north side is setback 16 feet+- from the property line where a 20 foot setback is required, this results in the recognition of a front yard setback variance of 4 feet+-. This deck is considered grandparanted-in, as at the time it was constructed it was considered to be in a conforming location and it also received a building permit. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. The shed is dilapidated, the lower portion is rotted, and there is no apparent hardship for it to be allowed in its present nonconforming location. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed, due to lack of hardship. Staff would support a recommendation for approval to allow construction of a conforming deck with the condition the shed is relocated to a conforming location or removed. This recommendation would also recognize and allow the nonconforming deck on the north side to remain as is. Applicant, John Holloway, stated the shed is roughly 40 years old, he has not heard complaints from the neighbors, it has a new roof, and the floor is solid. He stated that some exterior boards need to be replaced, and he would like to keep the shed for now, and down the road when he can afford it he will replace it. He needs a place for storage. Weiland commented that the shed is not in too bad of shape. Hanus reviewed the condition of the shed with the applicant. The Building Official confirmed that the shed is moveable, and confirmed that he did not get inside the shed, however, it appears to be dilapidated from the outside. Reifschneider commented that the shed is up on a hill and is protected from view from the street. Weiland agreed that if you walked the perimeter of the property, you would not notice the shed because of its location on the hill. Weiland suggested that they could require the applicant fix the shed. Sutherland commented that their is a grass boulevard on the Monmouth Road side so the shed appears to be more than 20 feet from the property line. MOTION by Reffschneider, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance, as requested, and allow for the shed to remain as is. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1996. CASE 96-20: VARIANCE FOR PORCH, WILLIAM & JANICE DARLING, 2600 GROVE LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, LANGDON'S LANDING, PID 23-117-24 13 0061 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a new nonconforming 12' x 14' three season porch. The proposed porch will follow the existing line of the deck and would encroach no further than the existing situation that is setback approximately 40 feet from the shoreline. The required setback to the OHW is 50 feet and this results in the recognition of a 10 foot+- variance. The original building permit for the dwelling was issued in 1986 and did include an 8' x 13' deck, however, the existing deck is approximately 10' x 16'. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 With the adoption of the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance on 3/15/93, impervious surface is limited to a maximum of 40% for lots of record with an approved drainage plan, and a setback of 10 feet is required to the top of a bluff. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. From a site inspection it is obvious the bluff line meanders through this site and also the adjacent properties. The existing dwelling is located within the bluff itself and therefore it was determined the exact location of the bluff line was not required to be identified on the survey at this time. In addition, the proposed construction causes a minimal amount of encroachment into the bluff. There appears to be a lack of hardship to allow the additional encroachment into the nonconforming setback. If the Planning Commission concurs, staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request. However, from a practical sense, approval of the variance request results in the enhanced use and function of the property without additional encroachment into the existing setback. If the Planning Commission would concur with this approach, staff recommended approval based on practical difficulty. The Planning Commission may wish to consider additional findings in this case. The size of the existing deck versus the size of the deck originally approved to be constructed was discussed. I-Ianus reviewed how this request relates to previous cases, and recalled that a minimally sized deck of 10 feet has typically been allowed to encroach into the lake side setback. Hanus noted that the ordinary high water (OHW) is not designated on the survey. Sutherland stated that he could ask the applicant to provide this information, however, due to the steep slope to the lake and the fact that no further encroachment is being requested he did not feel it was necessary. It was noted that the dimensions of the deck on the survey (10' x 16') do not match the drawings (12' x 14'). It was clarified that the deck extends 12' out from the house, but with the 4' x 4' cantilevered portion, it extends 16 feet. The applicant stated that the cantilevered portion was existing when he purchased the home. The porch is to be 12' x 14'. Mueller commented that Lake Langdon has very low usage and feels this porch would have minimal impact on this lake. Hanus commented that he doesn't want to treat people on different lakes differently. Mueller noted that they have treated people differently who live on low impact wetlands versus a busy bay on Minnetonka. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance, as requested. Findings are that the porch will have minlmal impact due to the low usage of Langdon Lake, and the porch will not encroach into the setback any further than the existing deck. Sutherland commented that the existing situation was approved by a building permit in 1986. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Darling emphasized the need for the porch and stated that in order to have room for furniture the porch needs to be at least 12 feet. Weiland stated that he would like to see the 4' x 4' cantilever removed. Mueller reminded the commission of a case on Baywood Shores Drive where they allowed further encroachment where an existing 4' walkway existed, and they allowed it to be expanded to a 10' deck. MOTION carried 5 -3. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueiler, Michael, Burma, and Glister. Those opposed were: Reifschneider, Weiland, and Hanus. Hanus stated his reason for opposing is he would like the OHW located, and he would have preferred a minimal size of 10'. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1996. CASE 96-21: VARIANCE FOR DECK, SALLY SWANSON, 1708 AVOCET LANE, LOT 26 & NELY lO' OF 25, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 21 0033 The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a nonconforming 8' x 18' deck on the front of the dwelling that is conforming to all required setbacks. The required front yard setback is 20 feet, the applicant is proposing an 8 foot wide deck, resulting in an 8 foot variance. All other issues with this site are conforming other than the lot area. The required lot area is 6,000 square feet, 4,280 square feet is existing, resulting in recognition of a variance of 1,720 square feet. Allowing the variance would create a nonconforming setback and is not consistent with the zoning code or the other houses in the area. A maximum 32 square foot entry landing is reasonable in this case and may be constructed without a variance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as it is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and would have a negative effect on the adjacent properties. Hanus stated that he agrees with staff's opinion and feels there are other options available. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of denial as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 28, 1996. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 CASE 96-22: VARIANCE FOR NORWEST BANK SIGN, SALITERMAN LTD./NORWEST BANK, 5211 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 7-20 & 26-35, SHIRLEY I-III.LS UNIT F, PID 13-117-24 34 0072 Chair Michael, stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Mueller stepped in as Chair. The Building Official reviewed the Planning Report from Mark Koegler. Norwest Bank is requesting a variance for a new free standing pylon sign. The sign will be placed on the footing of the existing Shoreline Plaza/Jubilee Foods sign, The Jubilee Foods sign will be relocated to a new pole further to the west which was part of the conditional use permit approval for the bank. Norwest is proposing to install a new sign that is 20 feet in height and 74 square feet in area. The Mound Sign Ordinance limits the area of freestanding signs to 48 square feet and restricts height to a maximum of 25 feet. The proposed sign is under the height limitation but exceeds the area by 26 square feet. Variances for signs can only be granted if it is determined that a "hardship or practical difficulty" are present. In the application, Norwest identifies the need for the variances based on the fact that the "setback of the building reduces the visibility for property business identification". They also refer to the size of other free standing signs in the area which exceed the ordinance threshold. All of the signs mentioned are "grandfathered uses" and the fact that they do not comply with current provisions does not, in the opinion of staff, constitute any type of hardship. It is also mentioned in the application that the copy sizes will not be readable on a 48 square foot sign. Staff again does not see hardship resulting from this issue since the most prominent graphic element on the sign is the large "N"" Additionally, the colors that are used are an important aspect of the public's recognition of the sign. Staff cannot support a variance for the sign as proposed based on hardship. If the Planning Commission feels that the setback of the building is sufficient grounds for a finding of practical difficulty, it could recommend approval of the proposed sign to the City Council. Reifschneider noted that everybody elses sign in this area are 80 square feet or bigger, including Hardees, Subway, and Rite-Way. Weiland noted that question gl on the variance application should have been answered "yes" as Resolution g95-77 was previously issued for this property. He also noted that this resolution approving their conditional use permit does state that there are sign size requirements, so he feels they had plenty of warning. Bob Seger, Corporate Architect for Norwest, stated that Norwest tends to recycle their signs, and the sign they propose to move to this location is currently located at 98th and Lyndale. Seger emphasized that the size of this sign is 70 square feet, which is smaller than what was originally proposed in the application, and it is also smaller than what is consistent with the other signs along Shoreline Drive. Seger further commented that when you come over the hill from the west, you do not see the Norwest building until you are past Hardees, so they did want Planning Commission Minutes May l3, 1996 to make an impact with the sign. It is important for clients to find the bank. It was noted that the proposed sign is 22 square feet over the minimum required size. Hanus stated he wants to be careful not to approve this sign just because there is another existing sign that does not meet the ordinance. Geoff Michael stated the existing Norwest bank building has four sets of channel letters, and the wall signs for the new building will be much smaller than what is allowed. He emphasized there is a new business coming in town with a new facility asking for less wall signage than what they have at their existing location, and the proposed free standing sign is 5' lower than what is allowed and the size of the sign is not very large, especially considering what is already on Shoreline Drive. Burma asked if we are being fair to Norwest by requiring them to meet the code when others don't. Staff noted that the Shoreline Plaza sign did receive a variance for its size. Mueller stated there is no sign plan for the property, and asked if this is something that could be accomplished at this time. Mueller reviewed the existing free standing signs on this property and recalled that the sign for Rite-Way Oil is on a separate parcel. The signs on this parcel include Dominos, Shoreline Plaza, and now Norwest, this is three free standing signs on two corners for one property. The Building Official noted they are allowed one sign per street frontage, and this property has three street frontages. Mueller commented impact of this sign is minimal considering the size of the parking lot. Clapsaddle agreed it is not an exceptionally large sign. Glister is concerned about setting a precedent. MOTION made by Burma, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the sign variance application as requested to allow a 70 square foot sign. Finding: this neighborhood has other competing signs that are beyond the size of the one being requested. Motion carried 4 - 3. Those in favor were: Burma, Clapsaddle, Mueiler, and Reifschneider. Weiland, Hanus, and Glister were opposed. Glister commented that there is no hardship and she is fearful of setting a precedent. Hanus stated he would like to reserve the right to change his vote at the Council level. He stated, if the code is too stringent, it may need to be changed, and if a finding for approval is because existing signs are too big, he does not want to set a precedent. Clapsaddle stated the code may be tighter than it ought to be. each free standing business to have its own free standing sign. for the Planning Commission to look at the sign ordinance. He emphasized it is common for Hanus commented he will push This case will be heard by the City Council on May 28, 1996. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 CASE 96-23: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE, MARK HENDERSON, 3207 ROXBURY LANE, LOTS 1, 2, 14 & 15, BLOCK 28, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 12 0219 The Building Official reviewed the Planning Report from Mark Koegler. The applicant is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to establish one new lot. If approved, the northern lot will have a lot area of 6,376 square feet and the southern parcel that contains an existing home will have an area of 7,576 square feet. Roxbury Lane which provides frontage for both parcels is unimproved. The property owner who lives at 4928 Aberdeen Road intends to purchase the northerly parcel, combine it with his existing parcel and construct a garage. The property at 4928 Aberdeen Road and the northerly parcel are separated by a section of Aberdeen Road that is unimproved. After the parcels are combined, a garage could be built on the northerly parcel. Despite the garage proposal, the subdivision should be reviewed in accordance with all applicable ordinance sections since by code, it could contain a single-family home if it is not combined with another property. Approval of the subdivision will require the issuance of variances. Both the proposed southerly and northerly parcels do not front on an improved public street, therefore, street frontage variances will be needed. Additionally, the southerly parcel has a relatively new deck which was constructed without a permit. The deck is 8 feet deep which would require a rear yard setback variance of approximately 6 feet, if approved. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the minor subdivision, including street frontage variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised survey showing the existing deck and delineating the amount of the required variance. Approval of the rear lot setback variance for the deck shall be incorporated into this subdivision approval providing that the deck permit fee and all applicable penalties are paid prior to release of the final resolution on the subdivision. 2. The applicant shall prepare and submit the required variance application and corresponding fee prior to the time that this item is reviewed by the City Council. 3. The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said fee being paid prior to release of the final subdivision resolution. 4. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for any construction on the northerly lot with said plan being approved by the Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. Plans shall also show the method of providing driveway access to the northerly parcel. 5. The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along new lot lines, 5 feet wide on all lot lines except those abutting Aberdeen Road and Roxbury Lane, both of which shall be 10 feet wide. Proof of easement filing shall be required prior to the release of the final resolution. 9 Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 shall be paid prior to release of the final resolution for recording. Mueller suggested the assessments should be charged at time of building permit issuance, and if the intent is to vacate Aberdeen and combine the parcels, they should not have to pay an assessment. It was also suggested that the park dedication fee not be required unless a house is built on the new northerly parcel. The Building Official indicated that any questions relating to assessments can be clarified prior to the Council meeting. Sutherland confirmed that if the deck is allowed to remain, a building permit will be required and a double fee will apply. Brian Pascoe, owner of 4928 Aberdeen Road, confirmed the property is under purchase agreement at this time. Mueller commented that the unit charge is for improved property, all roads in front of this property are unimproved, so he is opposed to the unit charge unless a house is built on property. Hanus suggested they confirm with the attorney that parcels may be combined which are separated by a street. It was suggested that an application for a street vacation could be submitted. Mueller commented on the nonconforming deck stating that the impact of the deck on the adjacent property is minimal as it is on the top of a huge bluff which extends straight down to a wetland that is not used. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff, with the conditions modified as follows: ';ar':ancc. Approval of the rear lot setback variance of 8 feet +/-for the deck shall be incorporated into this subdivision approval providing that the deck permit fee and all applicable penalties are paid prior to release of the f'mal resolution on the subdvision. e The applicant shall prepare and submit the required variance application and corresponding fee prior to the time that this item is reviewed by the City Council. 10 Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 0 A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for any construction on the northerly lot with said plan being approved by the Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. Plans shall also show the method of providing driveway access to the northerly parcel. o ~.~, ~. ..... :.A.~ , ...... :"A ?-D_rainage and utility easements shall be provided along new lot lines, 5 feet wide on all lot lines except those abutting Aberdeen Road and Roxbury Lane, both of which shall be 10 feet wide. Proof of easement filing shall be required prior to release of the f'mal resolution. o Ap, royal of thi~ subdivision is contingent upon the combination of 4928 Aberdeen Road and the newly created Northerly Parcel.. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1996. CASE 96-24: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, KEVIN DONAHOE, 1801 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0005 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a conforming detached garage. The dwelling is required to have a 20 foot setback to both Shorewood and Wildhurst Lane. The existing setback of 12.5 feet to Wildhurst results in the recognition of a 7.5 foot front yard setback variance. As noted on the survey the applicant is planning to remove the existing dwelling at some time in the future and construct a new dwelling in a conforming location. All other issues with this site are conforming. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property and will enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment, or increase in the nonconforming status. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to approve the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1996. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 CASE 96-25: VARIANCE FOR DECK, KARl & MICHAEL BERG, 1754 RESTHAVEN LANE, LOTS 21 & 22, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0032 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a conforming 16' x 16' deck. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the to the required front yard setback of 30 feet. The property received a variance in 1981 (Resolution #81-345) that allowed this nonconforming situation by the construction of the solar entry. The solar entry to the dwelling is setback 25.5 feet from the front property line, and with the 30 foot setback requirement, this results in the recognition of a variance of 4.5 feet. All other setbacks and impervious cover are conforming to our current ordinance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request, as the proposal is conforming to the ordinance, and is a reasonable use of the property. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to approve the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Hanus noted that this case would have qualified for streamlining. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1996. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT No specific questions were asked. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 12