Loading...
Correspondence - 4165 Shoreline Drive - 11/17/2021 - MemosCITY OF SPRING PARK NOTICE is hereby given that the Spring Park Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 7:30 PM on Wednesday, December 14, 1994 at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue to hear comments on a subdivision proposal and a variance for a private street for the following described property: 3910/3918 Del Otero Avenue - Lots 2 & 3, Blk 5 Streater's Spring Park Addition - 17-117-23-33-0044/0045 The proposal is for the development of three twin homes. All interested parties will be heard at the above time and place. City of Spring Park Patricia Higus, Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer (Publish in the Laker November 28, 1994) DEAR PROPERTY OWNER, This notice is being sent to you to comply with the provisions of Ordinance 62 that: "Written notification of the hearing shall be mailed to all owners of land within 350 feet of the boundary of the property in question." Your property is within that 350 foot radius. 05/10'1995 05:45 61 4747553 SIGH SOURCE, I.C. PAGE 01 F.MSOURCE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS 7801 PARK DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TO; FAX: FROM: _ _.-_ DATE: PHONE: (612) 474-9114 . FAX: (612) 474 75-5 3 _- '-'' 0/1995 05:45 G124747�53 SI�N SOURCE, I��. PAGE 02 A'SOURCE CREwr/vic SOLUTION* --__— --___- 7801 Park Drive SCALE: nts Clonhassen, MN 55317 DATE OF PLANS: -z- iFo.K) 474-7553 FILE NAME: SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10560 WAYZATA BOULEVARO • SUITE 1 • MINNETONKA, MN 55305- 1 525 (6123 546-7601 • FAX (6121 546-9065 September 28, 1995 Ms. Patricia Higus, Administrator City of Spring Park P.O. Box 452 Spring Park, MN 55398-0452 Subject: Sanitary Sewer Easement on Edgewater Property Dear Patty: Attached is a copy of the deed filed at the Hennepin County Recorder's Office for the sanitary sewer easement across the Edgewater property. This is for the sewer service to the Yacht Club. The recording of this was delayed by the difficulty in obtaining the Owner's duplicate title. Call me with any questions. KEA/cj enc. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Kenneth Adolf AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER r a CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES REGULAR MEETING November 20, 1989 7:30 p.m. - City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Rockvam. 2. ROLL CALL Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer, Dill and Weeks were present. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Kraemer second by Dill to adopt the agenda as presented. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVE MINUTES - November 6, 1989 Motion by Kraemer second by Widmer to approve the minutes of November 6, 1989. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer, Dill and Weeks all voted aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS a) Minnetonka Yacht Club Update Council had requested an update. Les Renner and Jack Dennis were present. Les Renner presented a letter from banks to remove liens and close on the title. Their financing has been approved and they are interviewing contractors, they are optimistic towards starting to build in the Spring. They also reported they are keeping their dock license current with the LMCD and they will report to Council when they have a closing date or again in January or February. The Mayor thanked them for their report. b) Minnegasco - Natural Gas Service Mr. Henningsgaard from Minnegasco was present. In a letter, to the City, dated November 16, 1989, they stated they were seeking approval for proposed LNG equipment composed of two semi -trailers, one with the LNG liquefied vaporizer, the other an LNG tanker. They would like to locate this temporary equipment on the northeast side of Warren Ave. on railroad property. Mr. Henningsgaard explained this equip- ment would provide a stand-by supply of natural gas that can preclude CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING - November 20, 1989 Page 2 gas supply problems in Spring Park and Mound during extremely cold periods. This project was reviewed by the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal, which included their suggestions. Council was concerned with noise and the impact it would have on the residents in the area. Council suggested moving the equipment to another site that would be less offensive. Mr. Henningsgaard stated the equipment would probably be used only twice during the winter and it would have a chain -link fence around it, and would take about six days to install. Council suggested Minnegasco have a meeting with the neighborhood residents and advise them of the proposal. Mr. Henningsgaard will work with the Administrator to set up a meeting and he will return to the December 4th meeting. c) Dance Application - Minnetonka Mist The Minnetonka Mist was seeking approval for a dance on December 2, 1989. The Police Department has been notified. Motion by Dill second by Weeks to approve the dance application. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer, Dill and Weeks all voted aye. Motion declared carried. d) Rezoning - Pattee's Lane 1. Planning Commission Minutes - November 8, 1989 2. Patrick O'Fanagan The Planning Commission had held a public hearing on November 8, 1989 for the purpose of rezoning Lots 3, 4, & 5 Pattee's Lane and to clarify the present and intended use of the property. The Administrator read the Planning Commission minutes pertaining to the public hearing. This property had been owned by the City and was purchased by Wood- ridge Corporation. A proposal was received to build residential units on the property. The zoning on the three lots prior to combination and division was Lots 4 & 5 zoned commerical and Lot 3 zoned R-2. The proposal was to have a duplex on the north half and three townhouses on the southern half. This created 2 different zonings on each lot. Council approved the proposal intending to have the lots zoned resident- ial. The Administrator read a letter dated October 12, 1989 from the City Attorney stating Resolution 88-07 is recorded along with the deed of the City's intention that the property be used for residential development. Patrick O'Flanagan and Mike Mueller were present. Mr. O'Flanagan has purchased the property, he assumed the property was zoned C-1, and was intending to use the property as commercial. Mr. O'Flanagan presented plans of a proposed building and parking lot. He also presented a letter from Rod Lund, dated November 6, 1989, from the Woodridge Corporation stating he was not aware that the property could not be developed commercially. Mr. Mueller stated they knew a third of the property would have to be rezoned but they were not aware of the City's intent. 10 CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING - November 20, 1989 Page 3 Motion by Weeks second by Kraemer to rezone the following property to R-2 - 4389 Warren Ave. PID 18-117-23-43-0159 Parcel A and 4381/87/89 Pattee's Lane PID 18-117-23-43-0160 Parcel B. Dave Moore and Mr. & Mrs. Lilledahl were present, property on the south had been purchased by the Lilledahls, the property has a duplex on it, they were concerned with added traffic in a residential area, they didn't want a parking lot there and they were concerned about the valuation of their property. Upon roll call Rockvam, Widmer, Dill and Weeks all voted aye. Kraemer voted no. Motion declared carried to rezone to R-2. e) P.E. Mc Garvey, Inc. - Proposal for CSAH 15 & 51 A letter to the City Council and Staff, from P.E. Mc Garvey Inc., dated November 9, 1989 was read by the Administrator. Mr. Tushie and Mr. McGarvey were present, they were seeking input from the Council. They presented a proposal for the redevelopment of the northwest corner of CSAH 15 and Spring Street, they were also seeking approval to establish a tax increment financing redevelopment district. The Council offered these suggestions: Rockvam stated they should contact the present property owners first, then address the tax increment financing. Dill stated it was difficult to purchase property from Balboa. Kraemer stated their proposed building looked nice. Widmer stated he would have to think about tax increment financing that would be in competition with other businesses in the area. The Mayor thanked them for coming to the meeting and requested they report back to the Council. f) Miscellaneous - None 6. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS a) Ordinance 59.02 - Prohibiting Bench Signs Council has considered prohibiting all the bench signs. In discussion Council decided if they were removed the City should replace the benches. Motion by Rockvam second by Kraemer to have the Administrator check to see if the benches could be purchased or rented and check the liability. This would be tabled until Spring and put on the Pending Project List. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor The Mayor had received a letter from Paul Osborn with a proposal to CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING - November 20, 1989 Page 4 flush and paint the fire hydrants for $12.50 each. The letter will be kept on file. 1. Police Commission - November 14, 1989 - Noted The Mayor announced Milne Schmeling, a former Mayor of Spring Park had died and felt the the City should send condolences to the family. Motion by Rockvam second by Weeks to send a plant. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer, Dill and Weeks all voted aye. Motion de- clared carried. b) Council Kraemer - Kraemer asked about permits at the Spur Station. These were obtained, for banners, pennants and a search light. Widmer - Widmer stated the newly painted striping on CSAH 15 and the corner of Sunset was working well. He also asked about the removal of the trailer on the Ortenblad property. The Administrator was told it would be removed. Dill - No Report Weeks - Weeks questioned the rezoning of Pattee's Lane. c) Engineer 1. Lafayette Lane - Road Improvements The Engineer had prepared a Feasibility Study for road improvements on Lafayette Lane and Kings Road. He stated the road can be classified as substandard and has storm water drainage problems. The Engineer has worked out an estimated assessment for benefitting property owners. The Mayor requested the Engineer check the drainage plan and inquired how much of the cost was for storm water and how much for road improve- ments. In discussion Council felt this could be worked into the Storm Water Management Plan and suggested a special meeting when the Engineer has more information. d) Utility Superintendent Mr. Goman reported on repairs to Lift #6. He reported bracing was installed on the force main in the wet well. CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING - November 20, 1989 Page 5 e) Administrator 1. Recycling Report The Administrator prepared a chart indicating percentages paid by Hennepin County for amounts recycled, tonnage collected in Spring Park and resident participation. She reported Spring Park is re- cycling an average of 3.35 tons per month, 3.90 tons per month would result in qualification for 50% funding from Hennepin County. 2. Commercial Lot Sizes The Administrator had called other Cities to determine their commercial lot sizes, it appears they are very different. Spring Park does not have any guide lines. Council felt a viable project would determine lot size. The Administrator will make a list of lot sizes from other Cities and this will be put back on the agenda. 3. Miscellaneous It was determined Spring Park would not have to have a public hearing this year for the 1990 budget because the population is under 2500. Council felt the residents should be informed, therefore a public hearing will be held. Motion by Widmer second by Weeks to set December 18th for a public hearing to discuss the 1990 budget. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Kraemer second by Dill to approve the claims for payment. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer, Dill and Weeks all voted aye. Motion declared carried. The new ceiling tile and two extra lights have been installed in the Council Chamber and the office, comments from Council were that it looked nice. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Hennepin Bureau of Public Service - Re: Composting b) Minnesota Association of Small Cities - Small Talk c) LMC - Re: LMC/LMCIT Fees d) Suburban Rate Authority - Minutes 10/7/89 e) LMCD - Study Report - 11/7/89 f) Hennepin County - Re: Members at Large Appointments for 1990 CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING - November 20, 1989 Page 6 The Administrator called attention to the letter and resolution from Hennepin County dated November 14, 1989. Composting of yard waste in 1990 will be discussed at a meeting on November 30th, which may require each municipality to identify a site for the composting of yard waste. 11. MISCELLANEOUS The Mayor asked if the bulletin board in the Council Chamber could be relocated to a more convenient spot? 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Rockvam second by Kraemer to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Secretary Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Spring Park will hold a public hearing on Wed- nesday, January 11, 1989 at 8:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue to consider building height, set back variances for the building, deck and parking area for the proposed YACHT CLUB at 4165 Shoreline Drive. All comments, oral or written will be heard at the above time and place. CITY OF SPRING PARK BY Patricia Osmonson Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer Published in the Laker on December 26, 1989 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1988 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS The Regular Meeting of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Manager Spensley at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, November 17, 1988 at the St. Louis Park City Hall in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Managers present: Spensley, Erickson, Love, Lehman, Miller, and Andre. Manager absent: Thomas. Also present were Board Advisors: Mahady, Larson and Smith. Approval of Minutes The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 20, 1988, were reviewed. Manager Lehman noted that the discussion of permit 87-156 on page 5 should read that the "culvert had apparently settled," and that the "berm slid into the drainage swale." It was moved by Love, seconded by Lehman, that the minutes as so amended be approved. Upon vote, the motion carried. Approval of Permit Applications The Managers reviewed a memorandum from the Engineer dated November 11, 1988, setting forth those applications which comply with the applicable standards of the District and recommending approval of the following applications: 87-229 Merritt Peterson - Dredging project to remove 2300 cubic yards of material from channel to improve access, West Arm Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Sec. 17BD. City of Orono; 88-149 Gene Erickson - Placement of 122 lineal feet of riprap shoreline erosion protection on St. Alban's Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Sec. 26DD, City of Greenwood; 88-153 Aaron Knopik and Lorna Lisell - Placement of 121 lineal feet of riprap shoreline erosion protection along Manitou Harbor, Lake Minnetonka, Sec. 28D, City of Tonka Bay; 88-154 City of Mound - Placement of 2,975 lineal feet of shoreline erosion protection at three sites in the City of Mound, Cooks Bay and Jennings Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Sections 12, 13, and 24, City of Mound; and Minutes of Regular Meeting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District November 17, 1988 Page 2 88-155 Hoben Corporation - Stormwater management plan for a 1.65 acre commercial development in Minnetonka (Resubmittal of Permit No. 85-98), NE quadrant of intersection of Minnetonka Boulevard and Hwy. 101, Section 18AD, City of Minnetonka. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Erickson, that the foregoing applications be approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. Hearinq of Permit Applications 88-150 - Dale Palmatier -- Stormwater management plan for a 9-lot residential subdivision called "Sunny Shadows," Sec. 6BA, City of Victoria. Mr. John Karwacki appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Engineer reviewed the application, noting that the additional exhibits, including revised plans showing erosion control and water quality treatment facilities, had been provided by the applicant. Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Love, that the application be approved. Upon vote, the motion carried. 88-151 - RDP Partners c/o R. Putnam -- Stormwater management plan for a 1.5 acre commercial development in Spring Park. Mr. John Karwacki appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Engineer reviewed the application, noting that water quality treatment for stormwater runoff from the site will be accomplished through the use of two sump catch basins with internal wooden baffles, which then discharge directly into Spring Park Bay. The Engineer noted that the applicant had now submitted a revised plan showing erosion control installation detail and a restoration note. Following discussion, it was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved subject to review and approval by the City of Spring Park. Upon vote, the motion carried. 88-152 - Minnewashta Manor Channel Homeowners c/o Pat Pfeffer -- Dredging to remove approximately 5,900 cubic yards of material from a multiple user channel on Lake Minnewashta, Sec. 4BA, City of Chanhassen. Mr. Cliff Reep appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Engineer reviewed the application, noting that the proposed bottom elevation for the dredging is 939.5, or five feet below the Ordinary High Water mark for Lake Minnewashta of 944.5. This level is consistent with District standards for dredging in a multiple user Minutes of Regular Meeting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District November 17, 1988 Page 3 channel. Following discussion, it was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved subject to review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Upon vote, the motion carried. 88-156 - Channel Drive Homeowners c/o Gene Erickson -- Dredging to remove 3,100 cubic yards of material from a common user channel in St. Alban's Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Sec. 26DD, City of Greenwood. Mr. Cliff Reep appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Engineer reviewed the application. Manager Lehman inquired of Mr. Reep why the proposed bottom depth for the project was 924.0, rather than District's standard for this type of project of 924.4. Mr. Reep replied that the applicant's concern was the low level of Lake Minnetonka and a concern that the District had previously issued dredging permits to a level of 924.0 to marinas. Mr. Larson noted that the standard used in the past for common user channels and commercial marinas is the same. Manager Spensley noted that the District's standards do set three different levels for dredging, and that the District is presently reviewing its dredging rule. Manager Spensley further noted that he was not likely to support a revision to the rule which would permit dredging to the level of 924.0 for a common user channel. Mr. Mahady also noted that in the case of the marina which was granted a permit to dredge at a bottom depth of 924.0, the DNR had previously issued a permit to that level, and the application before the District was granted as maintenance dredging pursuant to Rule E(4)(a)(1). Following discussion, it was moved by Miller, seconded by Andre, to approve the application subject to the submission of a revised plan limiting the bottom depth to 924.4, and review and approval by the DNR. Upon vote, the motion carried. 88-157 - Wara Real Estate, Inc. -- Stormwater management plan for construction of a park in Minnetrista, Sec. 21DD, City of Minnetrista. Mr. Dennis Kim appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Engineer reviewed the application, noting that his recommendation was to table the application pending receipt of items 5-7 in the Engineer's Report. Mr. Kim noted that the applicant could provide that information. Manager Lehman further noted that the applicant was required by Rule B to obtain an easement to the City from the adjacent property owner concerning off -site ponding. Following discussion, it was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) receipt of proof of an easement from the adjacent property owner Minutes of Regular Meeting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District November 17, 1988 Page 4 concerning off -site ponding; (2) receipt of a revised plan showing additional erosion control protecting the proposed ponding area; and (3) review and approval by the City of Minnetrista. Upon vote, the motion carried. 88-158 - Robert Morgan -- Placement of approximately 20 lineal feet of riprap shoreline erosion protection, Enchanted Island, Lake Minnetonka, Sec. 30CC, City of Shorewood. Mr. Jim Hewitt appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Engineer reviewed the application, noting that the project involves installation of riprap approximately 13 feet above the lake level. The Engineer recommended that the application be tabled pending receipt of additional cross-section details and a revised site plan. Manager Love noted his concern that the project as proposed would be at too steep of an incline for riprap. Manager Lehman noted that Rule F provides that the slope should generally not be steeper than a ratio of 3 to 1 under normal conditions, and referred Mr. Hewitt to the rule for guidance. Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Love, to table the application pursuant to the Engineer's recommendation. Upon vote, the motion carried. New Business Manager Spensley called upon those members of the public wishing to address the Board of Managers on new business items. Stormwater management plan for a pond at 42nd Street and Bloomington Avenue South, City of Minneapolis. Engineers for the Minneapolis Public Works Department, Mr.. R. Kannankutty and Mr., P. Damon, appeared before the Board to discuss a paving project which will also involve construction of a storm sewer system which will provide an outlet for a holding pond at 42nd Street and Bloomington Avenue South in Minneapolis. Other aspects of this project have been discussed by the Board in relation to Permit No. 88-85. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has mandated that the storm sewer and sanitary sewer in this area be separated, and the Minneapolis Public Works Department plans to do this utility work at the same time as the paving project. The Minneapolis City Council will be considering the project in the month of December. The City Engineering staff asked that this project be approved under the condition that the storm sewer would be capped and not utilized until the permit conditions for the holding pond outlet to Minnehaha Creek were fully met. Manager Lehman noted his concern with erosion and demands on Minnehaha Creek as a storm sewer outlet. Manager Miller expressed Minutes of Regular Meeting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District November 17, 1988 Page 5 the need to work with the Minneapolis City Council early in the process concerning the coordination of this project. Manager Spensley stated his concern that the elevations of the storm sewers are comparable to the normal level of Lake Hiawatha. The force main enters the creek upstream of Lake Hiawatha, and when this subsystem is charged by a storm, backwater and the lake level will interact to reduce the effective head in the subwatershed storm sewers. The storage capacity of the two ponds is only a small fraction of the subwatershed runoff volume, so reducing the forced main rate or delaying onset will only infrequently be advantageous. Such a tailored operating plan likely cannot be automated and would require at least standby staffing. Manager Spensley also stated that the paving project did not require a permit as long as the storm sewer system was to be bulkheaded. The District Engineer noted his concern that the eventual storm sewer separation will divert greater volumes of storm water to the creek on a more frequent basis. The Managers noted that the future permit application for the force main will be considered at a later date. Following discussion, it was moved by Miller, seconded by Andre to direct Manager Spensley to work actively, regularly, and frequently on solutions with the City and Minneapolis Park Board to ensure that Minnehaha Creek is protected, and that a reasonable solution to the water management problems are achieved within a reasonable cost. Upon vote, the motion carried. Establishment for Flood Level for Mooney Lake, Cities of Plymouth, Orono, and Medina. Mr. Rick Sathre appeared on behalf of Lundgren Brothers Construction, homesite developers for property on Mooney Lake. Mr. Sathre stated that there is no established flood level for Mooney Lake, and no gravity outlet. The lake comprises approximately 120 acres, and the drainage base is approximately 700 acres. The land bordering the lake in the City of Plymouth is plotted into small residential lots, and parcels of 2-5 acres on the south side of the lake utilize their own septic systems. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Ordinary High Water mark is 988.0, and the flood level overflow to Lydiard Lake is 997.0. Given the joint jurisdiction of the three municipalities, Lundgren Brothers Construction requested that the Board of Managers determine a flood level for Mooney Lake for planning purposes. Mr. Larson noted that according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's calculations, Mooney Lake covers an area of 118 acres. In a 100-year 24-hour storm event, there would be 110-acre Minutes of Regular Meeting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District November 17, 1988 Page 6 feet of runoff from the subwatershed, which would result in a one foot rise in the lake level. A ten-day 100-year storm event would result in 250 acre feet of runoff. A City of Plymouth ordinance provides that the bottom level of a basement should be 2 feet above the 100-year flood plain, but there is no flood level set for the lake, and hence the developer's request. The Engineer and Mr. Sathre reviewed the available information on the highest levels of Mooney Lake in recent years. Following discussion, Manager Spensley directed the Engineer on behalf of the Board of Managers to send a letter to the City of Plymouth, informing the City that the District considers the 100-year flood level for planning purposes to be elevation 990 feet based on available information for stormwater management purposes. Copies of this correspondence should also be sent to the Cities of Medina and Orono. Treasurer's Report Manager Lehman presented the Treasurer's Report dated November 16, 1988, a copy of which is attached to these Minutes. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Miller, to approve the report and pay the bills as indicated. Upon vote, the motion carried. Manager Lehman noted that it would soon be time for the Board to select an auditor for 1988. The audit has previously been performed in recent years by Randall Lapic. Manager Miller noted this accountant's relationship to the District's regular accountant, Robert J. Lapic, and questioned whether there would be any potential questions concerning the independence of the audit or any appearance of a conflict of interest. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Love, to direct the Treasurer to identify three other accounting firms in addition to Randall Lapic to submit proposals for the 1988 audit. Upon vote, the motion carried. Engineer's Report Mr. Mahady and Mr. Larson reported on the following items: 1) The level of Lake Minnetonka was measured on November 15, 1988, at 926.04. 2) The Rules Subcommittee met on November 10, 1988, and reviewed the District's dredging rule and related issues. The next meeting of the Rules Subcommittee will be December 8, 1988 at 4:30 p.m. at the Wayzata City Hall. 3) The DNR permit for the Gray's Bay Headwaters Control Structure is up for renewal. The Engineer recommended that the Minutes of Regular Meeting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District November 17, 1988 Page 7 Board direct the staff to mail a draft memorandum to cities, counties, agencies, and other interested parties regarding the request for renewal of the Structure's Operating Plan without modifications for the period of March 1989 to March 1992. Following discussion, it was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, to adopt the Engineer's recommendation. Upon vote, the motion carried. 4) The application for the Long Lake Clean Water Partnership Grant is almost complete and will be submitted by December 1, 1988. 5) A draft of the joint Watershed Management Organization and Hennepin Conservation District Erosion Control Manual is now prepared, and it will be distributed to the watershed management organizations and the cities within several months. 6) The Engineer distributed the copy of a work plan for the Manitou Park Hydrologic Study in Tonka Bay. The work plan was recently tabled by the Tonka Bay City Council, and the project will be discussed at their meeting of November 22, 1988. 7) The District staff had received an inquiry from the Hopkins City Engineer about the responsibility to remove two beaver dams located upstream of Blake Road in Hopkins on Minnehaha Creek. The Board directed the staff to await further correspondence from the Hopkins City Engineer on this subject. 8) The Engineer reviewed the status of the cooperative cost -share program funded through the Watershed Maintenance and Repair Fund by the District in recent years. Following discussion, the Board directed the staff to table this item in light of current budget restrictions. 9) The Annual Meeting of the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts will be held in Rochester, Minnesota, on December 2-3. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Love, to send Managers Andre and Spensley as representatives of the District. Upon vote, the motion carried. 10) The District received correspondence from Mr. Billy Maddy concerning The Wave Carwash along Minnehaha Creek by Knollwood Plaza. Managers Miller and Andre noted that Mr. Maddy's concerns about the appropriate nature of the land use were legitimate, and that the land use issues would be reviewed by the City of St. Louis Park. Minutes of Regular Meeting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District November 17, 1988 Page 8 11) The District has received a copy of the Capital Improvement Plan for the Hennepin Parks for 1990-1995. 12) The District received correspondence from the Hennepin Conservation District suggesting a memorandum of understanding concerning the multi -jurisdictional development of water quality and quantity information, and model standards within Hennepin County. The Managers inquired of the Engineer concerning the role and jurisdiction of the Hennepin Conservation District. Following discussion, it was moved by Miller, seconded by Spensley to direct Manager Spensley to write a letter to the Hennepin Conservation District inquiring about their charter and jurisdiction, in order to gain a better understanding of the role of the Conservation District. Upon vote, the motion carried. Attorney's Report Mr. Smith reviewed recent correspondence with the Hennepin County Attorney's office concerning the status of the draft agreement on financing the Capital Improvement Program for the District's 509 Plan. It appears likely that the County and the District will be able to resolve all outstanding issues to finalize this agreement. The Board of Managers directed the Attorney to meet with the Hennepin County Attorney's office to finalize this agreement. Mr. Smith is also preparing draft amendments to the District's dredging rule which will be discussed at the next meeting of the Rules Subcommittee on December 8. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 10:10 P.M. Upon vote, the motion carried. Respectfully submitted, John E. Thomas Secretary ZRSV249 Att. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT To: Wayzata Weekly News/South Shore Weekly News Wayzata Sailor, Excelsior Sailor, Minnetonka Sailor, Westonka Sailor The Laker/Pioneer PUBLISH: 12-8-88 or next issue From: Eugene R. Strommen Executive Director 473-7033 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE UPPER MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB NEW DOCK LICENSE AND DENSITY PERMIT Notice is hereby given that the Lake Minnetonka Conserva- tion District will hold a public hearing at the Tonka Bay Village Hall, 4901 Manitou Road, Tonka Bay, at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, December 17, 1988, in the matter of a new dock license and Special Density Permit appli- cation for the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club/RDP Partners for 60 Boat Storage Units (BSU) at 4161 Shore- line Drive, City of Spring Park, on Spring Park Bay (LMCD Area 11). Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Spring Park will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, December 14, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue on a rezoning proposal for the following described property: 4165 Shoreline Drive Track D - RLS 1106 PID 18-117-23-44-0022 This hearing is pursuant to an application submitted by THE YACHT CLUB, RICHARD PUTNAM, to rezone the above lot from R-3 TO C-1 for the purpose of building a club house/office, with appurtenant dockage and parking. All comments, written or oral, will be heard at the above time and place. City of Spring Park by Patricia Osmonson Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer To be published on December 5th 1988 in the Laker r A 7 . .................... .......... 7/' 7011� CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MEMO January 6, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: C-4 Office Commercial Dear Planning Commission members: This classification provides for a less intense commercial use suitable for a transition zone between residential and full commercial activity. It was suggested by the Council as an appropriate classification for the lot between Edgewater Apts. and the Water Patrol. This classification was originally proposed for this lot by our consultant planner in his preliminary draft in 1981. The language is only a suggested draft. The Planning Commission is urged to review the provisions and may recommend changes, additions or modifications as they see fit. LAKE„MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN RE: APPLICATION OF UPPER MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB/RDP PARTNERS FINDINGS OF FACT The public hearing on the application of the Upper Minne- tonka Yacht Club/RDP Partners (the "Applicant") was held <,-n December 17, 1988, at 8:30 a.m. at the Tonka Bay City Ball. Dick Putnam appeared for the Applicant. The Applicant was seeking a new dock license, special density permit, and variance for the relocation of its existing yacht club facilities consisting of 60 slip spaces presently located at Enchanted Island in the City of Shorewood. Addition- ally, the Applicant requested a special density permit for all additional 32 slips to be constructed to a length of 114 feet from the shoreline. The subject property is located in the south upper lake in LMCD area number 5 in the City of Spring Park and consists of 320 feet of shoreline. The amenities offered by the Applicant are as set forth in the following Order. The Board finds the depth of water at the subject property adequate to dock out to the point of navigability without a variance for length except as may be necessary in periods of low water. However, the Board finds that an adequate provision can be made by temporary low water dock extension permits to accom- modate the facility in periods of low water. r Neighbors ciRpearing at the hearing express concerns about the proposed development of 60 slips and the aesthetic effect of the docks on the adjacent Minnetonka Edgewater apartments. However, the Board finds that the facilities authorized in the following Order will not have the significant adverse effect on the environment or on adjacent properties. In the original application, the Applicant noted that the 32 slip facility would be made available for use by tenants of the building on this site. E[owever, upon learning that LMCD Code Section 2.05, Subd. 2, does not allow such a connection between entitlement to slip space and an interest in real estate, the Applicant has given assurance that there will be no connection between an interest in real estate and the right to use slips. CONCLUSION 1. The ordinances of the LMCD allow no more than one boat per 10 feet of shoreline. Therefore, given 320 feet of avail- able shoreline, no more than 32 slips may be allowed. LMCD Code does not allow more than 32 slips under the facts of this case by transfer from noncontiguous locations or otherwise. 2. The Board finds that the public amenities listed Hereafter in the Order, as offered and agreed to by the Applicant, are sufficient to justify granting the maximum number of slips allowed under the code by special density permit. 3. The Board finds that the criteria specified for granting a multiple dock permit are satisfied in tlii.s rase. 4. The Board finds that the Applicant has not made a sufficient, demonstration of hardship to justify the granting of a length variance as requested. 5. LMCD Code Section 2.05, Subd. 2, forbids a preference or connection between entitlement to slip space and an interest in real estate. The assurances given by the Applicant to the effect that there will be no such connection together with the conditions and limitations on rental policy here- inafter provided are sufficient to ensure there will not be an impermissible relationship between ownership in real estate and entitlement to slip space. ORDER 1. The special density permit, new dock licenses, and variance requested are denied in part and granted in part as herein- after provided subject to the following conditions, the violation of any one of which, without prior approval of the LMCD Board of bisectors, is ground for revocation of the license and permit herein granted. 30 2. That part of Applicant's request to transfer -6-@- slips from the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club's current location on Enchanted Island to the subject property is denied. 3. The Applicant's request for a length variance to a:Llow construction of a dock out to 114 feet from the shoreline is denied. 4. The dock license, and special density license is hereby granted for construction of docks meeting a]1. length limitations, side setbacks, and dimensional limits in the LMCD. Code, to be constructed in accordance with the dock plan attached as Attachment One, and hereby made a part of this Order. 5. The Applicant shall establish and maintain the following public amenities: Handicapped accessible docks from building entrance to docks via a. Twe ef the slip spaee-- be provided for Use by the ^f—IRATSail-i=ng C!Ub elevators and ramps. experienced b. Six rental sailboats shall be made available to the - public at large by'reservation.by telephene: C. A meeting room shall be made available to community for civ -groups by reservatlon by telephone educational or safety purpose groups by reservation. d. A swimming beach, sail boards, and sailboats shall be made available for use by, and be used by, West Tonka Community Education classes. e. Youth and adult sailing programs will be conducted :for the public at large as well as members of the club. f. The shoreline of the site shall be stabilized with rip rap. g. A public telephone shall be provided at the site. li. Handicapped accessible public rest rooms shall be made available at the site. i. The Applicant will maintain and operate a gin pole to assist sailors in raising masts which shall be avail- able to the public -at -large as well as members of the club. j. All parking areas shall be covered with a dust -free, nonerodabld, hard surface. k. A deck and picnic area shall be constructed and main- tained which is available by reservation by-teiepket�e by -e-_ the general public for civic, educational or safety purposes. 6. No slips shall be made available to tenants, owners or occu- pants of the building at the site of the docks except in accordance with the following requirements: a. ;,lips shall re adP avai.lahle only to the ilniversity of. tlinti (�sctt.a ft1. 1 R}=(=: f�, the Hennepin COUJO y Sheriff's Water Patrol and memk-,ers of the Upper Ya ht b. Slips shall not be made available to owners, tenants, or occupants of the building at the site unless they are also members of the -Upper Yacht Club. Slips shall be made available to members of the Yacht Club on a non-discriminatory basis and no privilege of. priority shall be given to any club members who are tenants, owners or occupants of the building at the site. c. The Applicant shall annually provide to the District, prior to approval of its dock license renewal, a statement and description of the policies of the club governing allocation of slip privileges among members, which policy together with other assurances required by the District, shall be sufficient to assure the District that no violation of LMCD Code Section 2.05, ,Subd. 2, has occurred or will occur under the policy. The Club shall submit at the same time a list of all persons or entities to whom slip privileges have been given and the owners of the boats kept at the slips. The Club shall also submit a description of the identifies of any such persons who are also owners, tenants or occupants of the site or are related to, affiliated with, or employed by such owners. 7. The permit is being issued without requiring that portions of the dock be fenced to prevent tying up at unauthorized locations at the dock. however, the Board reserves the right to require such fencing in the event such fencing is deemed necessary by the Board in the future. 8. Prior to construction of the dock, the Applicant shall secure all necessary land use and building approvals re- quired by the City of Spring Park. The licenses issued hereby shall grant no vested rights to the use of Lake Minnetonka. Such use shall at all times remain subject to regulation by the District to assure the public of reasonable and equitable access to the Lake. By order of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District this day of F 1989. Gene Strommen Executive Director L5:0703AP01.E19 I 0 �pnz�g Cpakk �. BOX 452 PARK, MN 55384 Attn: Steven R. Andrews Cambridge Group, Inc Suite 110 12301 Whitewater Dr. Minnetonka, MN 55343 Tonka Corp. 6000 Clearwater Driva Minnetonka, MN 55343 Robert Ryan Mtka. Edgewater 4215 West 25th St. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol 4141 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Spr. Ag nl ante 0. BOX 452 PARK, M tV 55384 Log Cabin Cafe P. 0. Box 304 Spring Park, MN 55384 Bayview Condos 2400 Interlachen Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Robert Jerdee 3065 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 �I' m��': o City ot Spning Takk P. O. BOX 452, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384 • Phone: 471-9051 • ON LAKE MINNETONKA Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam 471-9515 January 11, 1989 Councilmembers Don Dill 471-8185 Ron Kraemer Mr. Alan Brixius 471-7339 NW Associated Consultants, Inc. 4820 Minnetonka Blvd., Suite 420 Wm. A. Weeks Minneapolis, MN 55416 471-7285 Carl Widmer Dear Alan: 471-9429 Enclosed find a copy of the proposed C-4, OFFICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT classification. Also find a copy of the Yacht Club proposal and the EAW for the project at 4165 Shoreline Drive. If you need more information please call. It is so nice to be working with you again. Sincerely, -4 �' Patricia Osmonson Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer Enc. SECTION 15 "C-41' OFFICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Subd. A Purpose . The purpose of the "C-4" , Office Commercial District is to provide a transition in land use from residential to low intensity business uses allowing for the intermixing of such uses. Subd. B Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in a "C-4 District: 1 . Professional and commercial offices 2. Funeral homes 3. Other similiar uses which have no storage of merchandise and are service oriented with no retail sale of goods on the premises. Subd. C Permitted Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the 11 C-4' District: 1 . Off-street parking as regulated by Section 3, Subd. G of this Ordinance. 2. Off-street loading as regulated by Section 3, Subd. H of this Ordinance. Subd. D Conditional Uses. The following are conditional uses in a "C-4"District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4 of this Ordinance.) 1 . Multiple family dwelling structures. a. The proposed site contains at least two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet per dwelling unit. b. The proposed site is adjacent to a collector or minor arterial street . c. At least one (1) garage space is provided for each dwelling unit. d. The proposed site is landscaped and screened with planting materials in compliance with Section 3.6.7. of this Ordinance. e. The provisions of Section 4.A.4.a. of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 2. Retail commercial activities provided that: a. Merchandise is sold at retail. b. The retail activity is located within a structure whose principal use is not commercial sales. C. The retail activity shall not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the gross floor area of the building. d. The retail activity is not located within a structure whose principal use is residential . e. No directly or indirectly illuminated sign or sign in excess of ten (10) square feet identifying the name of the retail business shall be visible from the outside of the building. f. No signs or posters of any type advertising products for sale shall bed visible from the outside of the building. g. The provisions of Section 4.A.4.a. of this Ordinance are torsi and satisfactorily met . Subd. E Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "C-4" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in this Ordinance. 1 . Lot Area: 12,000 square feet 2. Lot Width: 100 feet 3. Setbacks: a. Street side: No less than thirty (30) feet where abutting a street. No less than fifty (50) feet where abutting a county road . b. Side yard: (1) Not less than ten (10) feet on any one side yard nor less than thirty (30) feet on a side yard abutting a street. (2) Not less than twenty (20) feet on a side yard abutting residentially zoned property. 4. Building Height: No structure shall exceed three stories or thirty- six (36) feet, whichever is least, however, building height in excess of the prescribed standard may be permitted through a conditional use permit, provided that: a. The site is capable of accommodating the increased intensity of use . b. The increased intensity of use does not cause an increase in traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding streets. c . Public utilities and services are adequate. d , FQr each additional story over three (3) stories or for each additional ten (10) feet above thirty-six (36) feet, front and side yard setback requirements shall be increased five (5) feet, except for elderly public housing. e. The provisions of Section 4.A.4.a. of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 11, 1989 to discuss an amendment to the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance at City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue to add an additional classifica- tion district - Office Commercial to be called C-4. h All comments, oral or written will be heard at the above time and place. CITY OF SPRING PARK BY Patricia Osmonson Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer Published in the Laker on December 26, 1988 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Spring Park will hold a public hearing on Wed- nesday, January 11, 1989 at 7:45 p.m. at the City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue on a rezoning proposal for the following described property: 4165 Shoreline Drive Track D - RLS 1106 PID 18-117-23-44-0022 This hearing is pursuant to an application submitted by THE YACHT CLUB, RICHARD PUTNAM, to rezone the above lot from R-3 TO C-4 for the purpose of building a club house/office, with appurtenant dockage and parking. All comments, written or oral, will be heard at the above time and place. BY Patricia Osmonson Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer CITY OF SPRING PARK Published in the Laker on December 26, 1988 ROBERT S. RYAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 10001 WAYZATA BLVD. #200 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55343 612-545-2822 January 6, 1989 RDP Partners c/o Richard Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Putnam: We thought it would be appropriate to send you this letter to make clear our continuing concerns regarding your proposed office building and dock to be located next to Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments. We would hope to resolve these concerns on a mutually acceptable basis. We recognize your desire to achieve maximum utilization of the site next to our property, however we have an obligation to protect our tenant's use and enjoyment of the property together with its valuation. Our primary concerns include the following: 1. Security and visual separation between your proposed parking lot and our property. We have never seen your revised landscaping plan. No provision.appears to have been made for head lights into our property (i.e. additional shrubbery and burm would seem necessary.) 2. Maintaining the legal set back between the parking lot and our property line. 3. Office building height. We understand per state law that the maximum height allowed is 35 Ic feet along lakeshore versus your proposed height of 40'-45'. 4. Proposed dock location and configuration will cause an unacceptable amount of boat traffic to pass in front of our property, specifically underneath the balconies of our residents. 5. Possible use of parking lot for overflow parking for public parking for public access to Lake Minnetonka. We are very concerned about your parking lot becoming an area which attracts large numbers of persons who have no business at your office buildings but congregate in the parking lot, etc. -V 6. The entrance to your parking lot is extremely close to our existing access. We are concerned that this may make ingress and egress hazardous for both our properties. 7. The density you have proposed for your project seems high given the amount of land involved with your project. Although constant reference is made to the "Yacht Club", the reality of your proposal is for development of a commercial office building with the Yacht Club occupying a relatively small amount of space within your project. We hope to be able to work with you in resolving our concerns prior to your scheduled Spring Park Planning Commission Meeting on January 11, 1989. As I will be out of town early next week please contact Jeff Robinson at 545-1121. cc: City of Spring Lake Minnetonka Jeff Robinson Lois Velasco RSR/kn Sincerely, Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments kL'+ A ( � By: Robert S. Ryan Its: General Partner Park Planning Commission Conservation District TRIDENT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Finance Investments Consulting Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Attn: Jo Ellen Hurr, Chairperson RE: DOCK SLIP APPLICATION OF R.D.P. PARZN M'S FOR COMMERCIAL MARINA PERMIT - UPPER MINNEiCtIKA YACHT CLUB OFFICE BUILDING Ladies and Gentlemen of the L.M.C.D. Board: In connection with your ongoing deliberations on the above referenced application, we would formally request that you reconsider your conceptual approval of the R.D.P. Partners' application with respect to the location and/or configuration of the 30 plus boat slips which you have preliminarily approved. At the public hearing portion of your meeting on December 17, 1988, I addressed the Board regarding various concerns which R.D.P.'s application raised with relation to the Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments. As you may be aware, the Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments are an 83 unit complex that was built in 1966, and is immediately adjacent to the proposed R.D.P. office building development to the west. Historically, the residents of the complex have been primarily elderly, and the Edgewater is currently an "adult only" building since the average age of its residents is over 55. As owners of the Minnetonka Edgewater, we are particularly concerned about the number of boat slips and R.D.P.'s proposed location and configuration of the marina on the site. It was not until your December 17th meeting that we had our opportunity to see how the proposed R.D.P. dock structure related to the Edgewater. Previous drawings submitted to us by R.D.P. never indicated that the west end of the proposed dock was only a few yards from the southern wing of our building. Three of our units have balconies and bedroom windows that are literally a stone's throw from the proposed R.D.P. dock. Also, the manner in which the R.D.P. docks are configured will cause almost half of the boats in the marina to pass directly in front of our building and below these apartment units as they leave and enter their slips. Accordingly, we would request that you formally consider the following concerns. Since most boats in the marina (and especially those with slips on the shore side of the dock) will be motor boats, the engine noise factor is likely to be high. Also, because motorized boats on Lake Minnetonka are commonly used late into the night, this boat traffic is potentially even more disruptive to our residents. 11900 WAYZATA BLVD., SUITE 214, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55343 (612) 545-1121 Depending upon the size of the boats and the type of people leasing the slips, the potential for undue noise from people socializing on their boats or on the docks as they load or unload their boats is high. Again, the prospect of late evening activity is great. R.D.P. has not indicated to us, or to our knowledge to the L.M.C.D., how they intend to illuminate their marina at night. Obviously, certain lighting configurations used by R.D.P. could create a further nuisance for our residents. We do not believe that these issues were given adequate consideration by the board, as they focused on other issues such as the number of boat slips, public amenities, public access,*etc. We understand that part of the L.M.C.D.'s responsibility is to consider and protect not only the general public's use and enjoyment of the lake, but also those of lake shore residents and property owners. We, therefore, respectfully request that the owners and residents of the Minnetonka Edgewater, along with R.D.P., be given a further opportunity to explore these matters with the Board. Very truly yours, MINNETONKA EDGEKATER APARZMEN`I'S By Jeffrey A. Robinson General Partner -2- a MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: BACKGROUND northwest associated consultants, inc. Spring Park Mayor and City Council Alan Brixius January 16, 1989 Spring Park - C-4 Zoning District 175.01 - 89.01 Spring Park has received a request from R.D.P. Partners for the rezoning of a 1.5 acre site located between the Hennepin County Water Patrol Building and the Edgewater Apartments from R-3, Multiple Family District to C-1, General Commercial District. The applicant is proposing to develop the site with 28,992 square feet office building and a sixty dock/slip marina. While the proposed use may be acceptable, the City has indicated that the C-1 Zoning District may be too intense for this site. Due to land use compatibility and traffic generation concerns, the Mayor has directed Northwest Associated Consultants to prepare a zoning text amendment creating a C-4, Office Commercial District. This District is similar to the C-2 Zoning District that was deleted from the 1984 draft Zoning Ordinance before final adoption. The attached draft Ordinance amendment (see Attachment A) is provided for City consideration. This amendment can be further modified to meet the City's land use objectives. C-4 DISTRICT REVIEW Subdivision Purpose: The purpose of the C-4 Zoning District is to allow for the establishment of low intensity business uses that can provide a compatible land use transition between residential areas and more intense commercial uses. 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 Subdivision B. Permitted Uses: To accomplish the intended purpose of the Zoning District, the uses permitted within the C-4 District are very limited. These uses are restricted to low intensity businesses that can compatibly coexist adjacent to residential areas. Subdivision C. Permitted Accessory Uses: This subdivision would require any development to satisfy the City's applicable off-street parking and off-street loading regulations. Subdivision D. Conditional Uses: Conditional uses are uses within a zoning district that can compatibly coexist with the district's other permitted uses provided special conditions or design features are enforced. These uses are identified as being acceptable conditional uses in the C-4: multiple family, limited retail activities, and yacht clubs. The multiple family uses are seen as compatible with transitional intent of the C-4 District. The retail sales conditional use is intended to accommodate those service businesses that have ancillary retail products as a small part of their business. The conditional use performance standards are intended to keep the retail sales as a small element of the business. The yacht club conditional use permit is intended to allow for the establishment of low intensity recreational and educational boating activities and facilities. In this regard, this C-4 conditional use has been designed to limit the type of commercial activities associated with the yacht club. Activities such as boat servicing and repair, gasoline sales, outdoor storage and eating facilities found in more intense commercial marinas are not permitted in this C-4 Zoning District. In addition to the use restriction, the yacht club conditional use permit establishes performance standards that regulate site design. Dock facilities must be reviewed and approved by the LMCD. Grading and drainage plans must be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Standards for parking, loading and landscaping are also suggested. Subdivision E. Lot Requirements and Setbacks This subdivision outlines the lot area and building height performance standards. These provisions were not changed from the 1984 draft with one exception. The building height standards were modified to eliminate the additional setback for taller buildings. This modification makes these height provisions similar to those in the C-1 Zoning District. Amendment Summary In review of the text amendment, the City should make any modifications or revisions that they feel necessary to ensure that their land use objectives are being met. If the Ordinance is acceptable, the City may chose to adopt it and rezone the parcel accordingly. Site Plan Review In review of the submitted site plan, the following issues and concerns have been raised for consideration by the City. In our review, we have attempted to apply the City zoning and shoreland regulations. It should, however, be noted that Spring Park's shoreland regulations have not been approved by the DNR pending the adoption of new State regulations. Lot Size: The 1.5 acre site exceeds the C-4 required lot size of 12,000 square feet. Setbacks: The site plan reveals two setback violations. Either plan modifications or variances must be considered to bring the site into conformance. The applicant cites the lakeshore setbacks of Edgewater Apartments (14+ feet) and the County Water Patrol Building (30+ feet) as the basis for the setback violations. Setback Required Provided Setback from Co. Rd. 15 50 feet 110 feet Compliance East side yard 10 feet 5 feet Violation West side yard 20 feet 112 feet Compliance Setback from lake 50 feet 45 feet Violation Green Space: The City established no requirement governing the amount of allowable impervious surface in its Shoreland Overlay District. The current State regulations allow a maximum of 35 percent of site to be covered by impervious surface. It should be noted that approximately 66 percent of the site will be covered by building and parking area. This raises concerns with regard to site grading, erosion control and storm water drainage. While the Watershed District has approved the site plan, the City Engineer should also comment on its acceptability for the City. Parking: The site plan illustrates the parking stalls. The applicant calculated the required parking in the following manner: Yacht 10% Total Club Floor Net Floor Floor Area Floor Required Area Area Credit Area Spaces 28,992 - 4000 = 24992 X .9 = 22,493- 200 = 112 Under the applicant's estimation, the parking demand from both the yacht club floor space and docks are not calculated. It is assumed that the yacht club and office use will not produce conflicting parking demands. However, if the yacht club is open to members during daytime hours, it 'can be assumed that it will generate additional employee and membership parking demand separate from the office use. Under this scenario, additional on -site parking may be needed. In this light, the City has a number of options for determining the required parking. 1. Accept the applicant's methods of calculating parking demand. 116 spaces provided. 2. Require one parking space per three boat slips for the yacht club over the office parking demand. This would require an additional 16 parking stalls for a total of 132 stalls. 3. Calculate parking demand over the entire building of 28,992 square feet. Through this method, a total of 130 parking stalls would be required. The site plan maximizes the area available for parking. If the City determines that additional parking is necessary, the building would have to be reduced in size. Curb Cut Width: The curb cut onto County Road 15 is 30 feet in width. The City Ordinance requires any curb cut in excess of 25 feet to be approved by the City Engineer. Off -Street Loading: The site does not offer any off-street loading area to service the office or yacht club facilities. Moving truck and delivery services will have to occupy required parking areas while accessing the office building or yacht club. Trash Receptacles: The site plan shows no provision for trash handling equipment. The applicant should illustrate these facilities to ensure they are architecturally compatible with the building and accessible to garbage trucks. Screening: The site depends on an existing landscape screen along its western property line to screen the Edgewater Apartments from this commercial use. Older maple and oak trees are also being preserved to assist in the visual screening of the site. The parking lot is setback only three feet from the side lot lines providing little opportunity for additional landscaping. Building Height: The applicant is proposing a four story, 48 foot tall building. This exceeds the height standards for the C- 4 District and shoreland requirements, however, additional height may be allowed through conditional use permit if the site can handle the larger building. SUMMARY As cited in the site plan reviews comments, there are a number of design deficiencies that suggest the site may be over -utilized. These concetns are only raised for City consideration in their review. The City must determine the method for resolving these items. cc: Pat Osmonson ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 35.00 THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SECTION 21 "C-4" OFFICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE SITE OF SPRING PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 21 "C-4" OFFICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Subd. A. Purpose. The purpose of the "C-4", Office Commercial District is to provide a transition in land use from residential to low intensity business uses allowing for the intermixing of such uses. Subd. B. Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in a "C-4" District: 1. Professional and commercial offices. 2. Funeral homes. 3. Other similar uses which have no storage of merchandise and are service oriented with no retail sale of goods on the premises. Subd. C. Permitted Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the "C-4" District: 1. Off-street parking as regulated by Section 3, Subd. F of this Ordinance. 2. Off-street loading as regulated by Section 3, Subd. G of this Ordinance. Subd. D. Conditional Uses. The following are conditional uses in a "C-4" District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4 of this Ordinance.) 1. Multiple family dwelling structures, a. The proposed site contains at least two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet per dwelling unit. b. The proposed site is adjacent to a collector or minor arterial street. C. At least one (1) garage space is provided for each dwelling unit, d. The proposed site is landscaped and screened with planting materials in compliance with Section 3.B.7. of this Ordinance. ATTACHMENT A .` e. The provisions of Section 4.B of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 2. Retail commercial activities provided that: a. Merchandise is sold at retail. b. The retail activity is located within a structure whose principal use is not commercial sales. C. The retail activity shall not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the gross floor area of the_-bu 144:-ng d. The retail activity is not located within a structure whose principal use is residential. e. No directly or indirectly illuminated sign or sign in excess of ten (10) square feet identifying the name of the retail business shall be visible from the outside of the building. f. No signs or posters of any type advertising products for sale shall be visible from the outside of the building. g. The provisions of Section 4.B of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 3. Yacht clubs provided that: a. The yacht club docking facilities must comply with the requirements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. b. Restaurant, banquet-- facilitie-s and liquor sales are prohibited on site. C. Fuel sales and boat servicing are prohibited on site. & d. Outdoor storage of boats is prohibited on site. e. At least one (1) parking stall per three (3) boat slips be provided for the yacht club in accordance with Section 3.F of this Ordinance. f. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 3, Subd. B.9 of this Ordinance. 9. Parking or car stacking space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 3, Subd. B.7 of this Ordinance. h. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. i. Boat loading and removal facilities must be provided in accordance with Section 3, Subd. G of this Ordinance. j. The proposed site is landscaped and screened with planting materials in compliance with Section 3.B.7 of this Ordinance. k. The provisions of Section 4.B of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. Subd. E. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "C-4" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in this Ordinance. 1. Lot Area: 2. Lot Width: 3. Setbacks: 12,000 square feet 100 feet a. Street Side: No less than thirty (30) feet where abutting a street. No less than fifty (50) feet where abutting a county road. b. Side Yard: (1) Not less than ten (10) feet on any one side yard nor less than thirty (30) feet on a side yard abutting a street. (2) Not less than twenty (20) feet on a side yard abutting residentially zoned property. 4. Building Height: No structure shall exceed three (3) stories or forty (40) feet, whichever is least, however, building heights in excess of the prescribed standard may be permitted through a conditional use permit, provided that: a. The site is capable of accommodating any increased intensity of use. b. Any increased intensity of use is not reasonably expected to cause an increase in traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding streets. C. Public utilities and services are adequate. d. The provisions of Section 4, Subd. A.4.a of this Ordinance are satisfactorily complied with. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT AND BE IN FORCE FROM AND AFTER ITS PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER PASSED BY THE COUNCIL THIS DAY OF , 1989. CITY OF SPRING PARK BY Jerome P. Rockvam, Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Osmonson, Clerk Administrator TRajitrvT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Finance // 0/oo /,�/ � S.e.;Z .23D Investments Consulting % _ S- -7os January 17, 1989 R D P Partners c/o Mr. Jack Dennis 3055 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club Office Building Dear Jack: To follow up our meeting this morning, this letter is intended to confirm and memorialize various matters which we discussed in regards to your proposed development. 1.) Marina Of the thirty-two ( 32 ) boat slips wt-licr, the LMCD has approved, you have represented that twenty-two (22) boat slips will be rented by the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club and will be occupied by said boats. Of the remaining ter, (10) slips, you will use your best efforts to locate those which will be rented for use by power boats on the side of the marina 'furthest away from the Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments and on the lake side of the marina, thus reducing the potential for noise to residents of our building. , Also, you represented that all the people renting boat slips will be required to comply with the rules of the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club (a copy of which you agreed to forward to us), which will prohibit among other things, staying on boats overnight, excessive noise, etc. 2.) Parking Lot Except on rare and special occasions (e.g. fishing contests, fishing opening) your parking lot will not be available to the general public as overflow parking for the public boat landing adjacent to your property or other such public uses, and you will not enter into agreements with the city or county or otherwise make your parking lot available for such use. 11900 WAYZATA BLVD., SUITE 214, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55343 (612) 545-1121 ZL.7.3)) "A .&W Mr. Drrinie January 17, 1989 page 2 3.) Lighting The lighting foil the parking lot, the marina, and the building will be designed in such a way as to be non - intrusive to our residents. 4.) Security and Visual Separation of Properties You have agreed to construct a dark metal chain link fence on the boundary between our properties. In the event that we have tenant complaints due to headlights from cars in your lot, you are agreeable to replacing at your cost the existing hedge with an evergreen hedge (of sufficient density to block headlights) which we will maintain. 5.) Construction Hours You will instruct your contractors to schedule noisy construction work between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. to the maximum extent possible. I appreciate Les and you taking the time to get together today. In my view the meeting was quite constructive and creates a positive basis for our ongoing relationship as neighbors. Your willingness to accommodate our concerns and agreement to these understandings should do a great deal to mitigate any negative impact your development will have on our residents. In return, we would be pleased to work out the arrangements for the easement which you have requested. Very truly yours, DGEWATER APARTMENTS IMIj1 W PARZNEF SHIP JeAr Gen \,rl- TaAtnerRobinson Agreed: RDP Partners by: its: 0 HEAD, HEMPEL, SEIFERT & VANDER WEIDE A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DOUGLAS M. HEAD WILLIAM J. HEMPEL THOMAS V. SEIFERT VERNON J. VANDER WEIDE RUSSELL C. BROWN KENNETH A. LARSON MARIANNE E. DURKIN CHARLES W. ARNASON CHARLES H. CLAY JANIS M. CLAY NANCY JENSEN BECK JILL RUZICKA VIA MESSENGER FORMERLY HEAD ® TRUHN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2110 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 (612) 339-1601 Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam City of Spring Park 4349 Warren Avenue Spring Park, Minnesota 55384 RE: Zoning Dear Mayor Rockvam: TELECOPIER (612) 339-3372 January 17, 1989 JEROME TRUHN 1940 - 1982 The City Council has before it concurrent proposals for the creation of a C-4 zone, for the rezoning of a parcel along County Road 15 from R-3 to C-4, and for the granting of variances which would permit the development of the parcel for mixed business uses including an office and yacht club. It is my understanding that the City Planner has been asked to review the proposed amendement to the zoning ordinance. I have not seen any comments from the Planner and an unaware of the degree to which he has had input regarding the drafting of the ordinances. I have had an opportunity to review the results of the Planning Commission's recent public hearings, however. The Commission has recommended adoption of the new classification, the rezoning of 4165 Shoreline Drive and the variances. The Commission does not appear, however to have made any formal findings of fact as provided in Section 4, Subd. C.3 of the zoning ordinance. The mi nmtes call reflect teEti m=y given at the pearl ig. Ci vcn sh_. -J- Lt t i>. �- v - .L Ci\.L L1 a the matter will be before the Council tonight, some comments regarding the choices available to the Council are in order. Section 4, Subd. D and Subd. E of the zoning ordinance relates to Council action. After receiving the Planning Commission's report, the Council may set and hold its own public hearing before acting. This should be done if the Planner recommends material changes in the proposed ordinance which neither the public nor applicant have had an opportunity to review or if an adequate record cannot otherwise be prepared. The reasons for holding a hearing before the Commission and;'or the Council are to get public input and to ensure that there is a record of the testimony and exhibits presented. The record in any zoning matter should list all Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam January 17, 1989 Page 2 exhibits presented, summarize the testimony, summarize the discussion, and state the reasons for making a decision. It is not enough to simply reporting the decision in a conclusory fashion. In the absence of and adequate record, a court may conclude that the Council's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and it may be overturned. On the other hand, where an adequate record exists, a court will be able to determine, without granting a full trial, that the Council acted reasonably. Spring Park's ordinance requires that the Council make its own "recorded finding of fact" and this requirement should be met. Amendment of the zoning ordinance will require four votes. The Council's options are to (1) not rezone the land; (2) rezone the land only if the applicant has a viable project which meets conditions imposed by the City, agreeing that if this project cannot be built the land ought to remain R-3; (3) rezone the land without regard to the applicant's plans, agreeing that the land is generally suitable for office/commercial purposes (whi_cb may be (iescr _hed in the or-rli.nanre ac permitted or conditionally permitted uses); or (4) amend the zoning ordinance to make the applicant's intended use a conditional use in the R-3 zone. As to the first, the law is that the City is not required to rezone property, but has broad discretion. See eg. Sun Oil Co. v. village of New Ho , 220 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 1974). The Council could conclude based on t e record either that there is no need for the zone or that the proposed location is inappropriate. "Conditional zoning," the second option, has not been specifically approved by the Minnesota Supreme Court or expressly authorized by the legislature. Courts around the country are evenly split as to its legality. while there is some risk in following this tack, it is my opinion that it is a defensible and useful technique for assuring that land appropriate for more intensive use is developed only after the Council has determined that adjacent, less intensive uses will not suffer and will be protected from significant adverse effects of the rezoning. An ordinance conditionally zoning the property should address the following: (a) Legally describe the subject property; (b) Fully describe the C-4 zoning classification including permitted, accessory and conditional uses (it is my understanding that the applicant's proposed use would only be conditionally permitted in 1-hp C-4 Anne), lot- rArmiramPntS building requirements and progressivity. The conditions imposed on uses, and lot and building requirements must be reasonably related to the public health, safety and welfare as revealed in the public hearings. The conditions should be spelled out in detail in the ordinance and could include hours of operation, liquor licensing, permissibility of repair businesses, outdoor dining, etc. with the applicant's agreement, and if the conditions for giving permits have been adequately discussed by the planning commission the Council could be deemed to include a petition for a conditional use permit and a further hearing can be avoided. Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam January 17, 1989 Page 3 (c) State the conditions upon which the property will be rezoned from R-3 to C-4. These conditions could include the applicant's securing a building permit for improvements which meet all of the conditions of the ordinance, the applicant's securing any necessary conditional use permit, and the commencement of construction. Deadlines must be specified for each condition. If conditions are not timely met, the land will remain zoned R-3. If the conditions are met, the land is rezoned C-4. (d) The provisions of the ordinance should be stated to be non -severable such that if any one condition is declared invalid, the entire ordinance is invalid and the land remains zoned R-3. The combination of conditional zoning and a conditional use permit can be effcc ive. if thc-l-eveln -pe i does of eer? e� d _ _ L :... -- �' n�_ i_._ j�_"nc _ . , the 1 �.r remains zoned R-3. If it proceeds, the conditions of the conditional use permit must be continuously met, or the permit lapses. Of course, if the permit lapses, the owner will be permitted to use the land for any permitted or conditional C-4 uses for which it qualified. This is why the entire ordinance, not just this applicant's proposal, must be thoroughly considered. Simply rezoning from R-3 to C-4, the third choice, is certainly easier than the second option and its legality is clear. It does, however, create the risk that this project will not be built and one which is less tailored to meet the needs of the community and the objections of adjacent owners will be built in its place. This risk can be reduced by putting detailed lot and building requirements in the ordinance. r The fourth choice is appealing in that it could be narrowly drawn to permit the applicant's use as a conditional use in the R-3 zone, but the conditional use permit would lapse if not used within one year. The property would always remain zoned R-3. This approach is so different from that considered by the planning commission that a further public hearing would be required. Section 4, Subd. E of the zoning ordinance permits the council to conduct the hearing. Alternatively, the matter could be referred back to the planning commission. I hope that this information is useful to you as you consider the planning commission's recommendations. Sincerely, KAL:tjw 52-06-49 spoor/12 Larson MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: northwest associated .consultants, inc. Spring Park City Council Alan Brixius 23 January 1989 RDP Yacht Club Proposal Parking 175.01. - 89.01 As noted in the January 16, 1989 Planner's Report, the proposed office and Yacht Club proposal was deficient in parking. The applicant calculated parking demand on the office building without the Yacht Club floor space. If the Yacht Club is operating during regular business hours, the site plan must provide on -site parking for each of its related activities. The previous planner's report outlined several parking estimations, however, this was without knowledge of the full range of activities that are to be included on -site. A Yacht Club is a new use not specifically addressed by the City's parking standards. In these instances, the City must determine the appropriate parking standards. The following parking standards and calculations are offered for the City's consideration: Office: The City may the Yacht Club floor space in the total office space calculation, or deducted and calculate it independently. 28,992 x .9 = 26,092 - 200 = 130 spaces 28,992 - 4,000 = 24,992 x .9 - 200 = 112 spaces Yacht Club Building Space: This building space is intended to provide locker rooms and meeting space. The parking demand generated by this actual floor space will generally be associated with the other Yacht Club activities such as the boat slips, swimming lessons or sailing lessons. 4601 excelsior bled., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 In addressing the parking demand of the Yacht Club floor space, the City may tie into the other related activities, calculate it as part of the office building or treat it as a private club. Under the current Ordinance, private club parking is calculated on a one space per three person seating capacity. The Yacht Club meeting area has a 50 person seating capacity. Seating Capacity - 50 -,3 = 17 spaces Sailing School: The Yacht Club is intending to have a six boat sailing school. This use will generate its own parking demand if operating during office hours. At full capacity, six parking spaces may be needed. A one stall per boat ratio is suggested: Boats - 6 - 1 = 6 spaces Swimming School: The Yacht Club will include swimming lessons. Parking demand is determined on the basis of class sizes. With the likelihood of some car pooling and drop of students, we would recommend a parking standard of one space per instructor plus one space per each four students per peak hour. t Students - 139 - 4 = 35 spaces Yacht Club: The Yacht Club is proposing a 60 boat marina. The City has a parking standard for commercial mooring of one parking space per three slips. This is consistent with the parking standards prescribed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. Yacht Club special events sponsored solely for club members may result in higher parking demands during peak times. The Yacht Club may be able to respond to this parking influx by scheduling special events during off - office hours. To address the parking demand for a Yacht Club, the City can choose to impose the existing marina standard or a more stringent yacht club standard. Slip Parking 60 - 3 = 20 60 - 2 = 30 Total Parking The following is an estimate of parking demand if all the aforementioned standards are applied. To illustrate this demand, a high end and low end projection were calculated: High End Low End Office 130 112 Yacht Club Floor Space 0 17 Sailing School 6 6 Swimming School 35 35 Boat Slip 30 20 201 190 t