02-22-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1245 Februaty 11, 1988 Page 2 of 3 the south side of 15 to the control point in Casco Point Road and then southeasc to Carmens Bay. Cook advised that at a future date the City may also reduce the discharge from tl : ,forth side of County Road 15 by dredging the wetland and creating mDre of a retention area within the wetland. Also note in the plan that there will be an upgrading of the drainageway on the south side of 15. Lakeshore Encroachment - Review Exhibit K Encroachment of the lakeshore along the west edge of the City adjacent to the Spring Park border involves expanding of the road bed/shoulder. Installation of the paved walkway area and certain sections based on the cuts and the filling will require timberwa l l retaining walls - a l l appear to be located within 75 feet of the lake. As Cook's letter advises, the land alterations are all above the 931.5 elevation and do not require a permit from the DNR for this section of the County improvement. The total encroachment would up to 2 feet of the 929.4 elevation (lakeshore of Lake Minnetonka). The City will ask for appropriate erosion control during the time of construction. Once again, there is an upgrading of a storm sewer s action on the north side of 15 coming from the Hennepin County facility. If you look at your section map of the County road plan (exhibit K), you will note drainage going to the west into Spring Park along the north side of County Road 15. Included in that upgrading will also be an expansion of the pond size near the shop to provide additional retention for the 12.5 watershed. Staff has been contacted by two property owners adjacent to the improvement. The one is a property owner on the north side, staff has designated 3770 Shoreline Drive on the wetlands map (exhibit H). The owner contends thzt there will be filling for the parking of construction vehicles on his property. Staff has checked with the County Representative Mr. Ault and he has advise4 that this conditional use permit would not cover any additional filling activities on adjacent properties but merely covers the County Road project. Mr. Ault ad-ised that he received a call from that same individual and advised him that the County permit had nothing to do with the filling of his property. Staff will advise the property owner of the need to apply for a separate conditional use permit if the activities 4nvolve more than 100 cubic yards of fill. The second property owner, who has advised they will attend the meeting, is located on the south side of County 15 to the western edge, and is concerned with the ti.mberwall construction adjacent to her property line. The concern is based on a future need for a garage and that the County improvement may prevent the construction of a future garage. This kind of concern may have to be specifically addressed by both County and City with the individual property owner to resolve the concerns of the property owner. Staff Recommendation To recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance application of the Hennepin County Department of Transportation based on the following findings: 1. The proposed improvements along County Road 15 will not result in a significant change in the quantity or quality of -r discharged to Lake Minnetonka. 2. The project will not result in any reduction in the water storage area of the wetland/floodplain.