01-05-16 Planning Comm Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 5 JANUARY 2016 7:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
JOHNSON (Jan) ______
DAVIS (Nov) ______
GENG (Sep) ______
MADDY (Oct) ______
BEAN (Dec) ______
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1 December 2015
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A. PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
Petitioner: Jesse Kath
Location: 25025 Yellowstone Trail
B. PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
Petitioner: Todd Cebulla
Location: 5530 Vine Hill Road
2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING
L-R DISTRICT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
Applicant: Shorewood Yacht Club (Gabriel Jabbour)
Location: 23500 Smithtown Road
3. PUBLIC HEARING – REVISED CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PLANS – MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB P.U.D. (continued from 1 December 2015)
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
Location: 24575 Smithtown Road
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
5 January 2016
Page 2
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
7. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
Other
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Vice-Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Johnson and Maddy; Planning
Director Nielsen; and, Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Bean asked that Item 2 and Item 3 be discussed before Item 1.
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for December 1, 2015, as amended. Motion
passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 17, 2015
Maddy moved, Bean seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November
17, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
Discussion moved to Item 2 on the agenda.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – REVISED CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PLANS – MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
Location: 24575 Smithtown Road
This was discussed after Item 3 on the agenda.
Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She
explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving
as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The
Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the
Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an
application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is
advisory only. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a revised concept
plan and Development Stage plans for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planned Unit Development
(PUD) for Mattamy Homes, 24575 Smithtown Road.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 2 of 19
She noted that due to the size and complexity of this project and the issues that still need to be resolved
staff has recommended that this Hearing be continued to the Commission’s January 5, 2016, meeting. She
anticipates the Commission will make a recommendation that evening.
She asked that those in the audience wishing to speak keep their comments as short as possible and to not
repeat points that have already been made.
Vice-Chair Davis stated she assumes the Planning Commission will comment on this during its January 5
meeting. Director Nielsen clarified he thought the Commission should comment on things that they
thought may have been missed after the Public Testimony portion of this Hearing is closed.
Director Nielsen explained that in October 2015 the City adopted a resolution (No. 15-073) approving a
concept plan for Mattamy Homes to redevelop the MCC property as a residential PUD consisting of up to
140 single-family homes. The project consisted of traditional single-family residential and age-targeted
single-family residential. The developer has since submitted an application for the second stage of the
review process – the Development Stage.
Since then the developer was approached by the owner (Venero) of an adjoining property on the west side
of the Mattamy site to purchase the back portion of that property along Seamans Drive for inclusion into
the Mattamy project. That coupled with the loss of one age-targeted unit due to tree preservation has
brought the total number of units for the project to 142, 39 age-targeted units and 103 traditional homes.
The current application includes a request for a revision to the original concept plan. The City Attorney
has stated that because the change to the concept plan does not have a significant impact on the overall
development the PUD process does not have to be restarted from the beginning.
Director Nielsen stated the Commission has been provided with three staff reports regarding issues
associated with the Development Stage plans. They are: a planning report from him regarding the
Development Stage plans, a memorandum from Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) that addresses
natural resource and trail issues, and a letter from the City Engineer that addresses engineering
(transportation and utilities) issues. The memo from NAC and the Engineer’s report are quite technical in
nature so he will not go through them in detail. The planning report is more about policy.
He explained that for the Commission’s January 5 meeting he hopes that the issues raised in the reports
would be resolved and that a punch list would have been created of items that would be included on
revised plans for the Final Plan Stage and items that would be included in the development agreement.
t
With regard to natural resources, Nielsen explained he memorandum from NAC addresses natural
resource issues such as wetland protection, tree preservation and landscaping, and treatment of the open
space portions of the site. Following are the issues he thought were worth highlighting.
1. Public Open Space – The developer has chosen to include two small areas along the west side of
the proposed trail that would have a maintained turf. He displayed and highlighted aspects of that
Plan. In the Concept Stage of the process, it was recommended that the public open space areas
would be natural and low-maintenance. The City chose not to acquire park land because there is
Badger Park to the east of the site and Freeman Park to the west of it. Those two areas would be
for the benefit of residents living on the redeveloped site. If the City is agreeable to this design,
the development agreement for the PUD should include provisions for the homeowners
association (HOA) and declaration of covenants for the HOA to be responsible for
maintenance/mowing of those areas.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 3 of 19
2. Tree Preservation and Landscaping –The developer’s plan for tree replacement includes planting
of “street trees” along all streets in the development. These are trees that would be planted in the
boulevard areas of the public right-of-way (ROW). They would be located just in from the curb
and between the street and the sidewalk where there is sidewalk. Although staff is in agreement
that the overall effect of the design can be quite desirable, they are concerned about adding the
potential liability of new trees in the public ROW. The developer has agreed to include provisions
in the development agreement stating that the HOA would be responsible for maintenance of
street trees. The NAC has recommended that there be a variety of tree types planted. From the
beginning, the intent has been to maintain as much vegetation as possible around the perimeter of
the entire site. Buckthorn, an invasive species, currently helps screen the site and the City usually
asks a developer to remove it from a site. There has been discussion about possibly removing the
buckthorn after the new landscaping has been established. There are a couple of homes across
from the end of the cul-de-sac close to the street where the developer would provide landscaping.
3. Renewable Energy Resource Opportunities – One issue not addressed in the NAC report (but
flagged early on in the review process) is the identification of renewable energy resource
opportunities. The City has contracted with energy consultant Great Plains Institute to do a
“Shorewood Renewable Energy Analysis” which sets forth recommendations relative to
alternative energy possibilities in Shorewood. Solar power appears to warrant some
consideration. The Great Plains report makes several recommendations as to how Shorewood’s
development regulations might be amended to address solar energy. Following are those most
pertinent to the MCC project.
A. Solar gardens – The Great Plains report states: “There may be opportunity for a moderately
sized solar garden within the golf course, but until the site is finalized and the city retains
ownership of the wetland area, it cannot be determined how much solar is available at this
time. Other considerations will include complications associated with building on or near a
wetland and the proximity of utility infrastructure with adequate capacity to interconnect
with such a solar development.”
While this recommendation may have merit, it requires further study. The City will have to
determine whether such a use fits in the natural open space areas to be acquired. Questions
about who builds, who owns, and who maintains the installation must be answered. In
previous discussions of solar gardens, the issue of security was also raised. These questions
need not be answered at this time. What is known is that the land would be public and
available should the City decide to pursue that as an option.
B. Zoning Issues – Great Plains has recommended the following possible zoning provisions that
could be incorporated into the development agreement for the PUD
1. Early on the developer agreed to not include provisions in the declaration of protective
covenants for the project that would preclude either roof-mounted or ground-mounted
solar installations within the development.
2. Add solar equipment as allowable accessory uses in the development.
3. Allow solar equipment to extend 3-4 feet above the peak of the roofs, either by right, or
through a conditional use process. This one deserves close scrutiny from the standpoint of
need and aesthetics. Prior to the next Planning Commission meeting, staff will attempt to
find actual photos of such installations.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 4 of 19
4. Allow solar equipment to encroach into required setbacks. The Code does allow certain
encroachments (e.g., roof eaves, chimney chases and so forth) two feet into required
setbacks. This same exception could be considered for solar equipment. The setback
requirement for swimming pools in rear yards is 60 percent of the required rear yard
setback. This could also apply to solar installations.
5. Accessory structures are currently limited to 15 feet in height. The Great Plains report
suggests going to 20 feet for ground-mounted solar equipment. Accessory buildings may
actually exceed 15 feet (the measurement is taken from grade to the mid-point between
the eave and the peak). Therefore, 20 feet for solar equipment may be appropriate.
6. The report suggests possibly having hardcover exemptions for solar equipment.
7. The report suggests the use of “solar easements” that would preclude one homeowner
from preventing solar access on his neighbor’s property. This becomes a matter of
balancing conflicting interests. Just as the creation of ponding areas or wetland mitigation
conflicts with tree cover, solar access can affect the ability to plant or even preserve trees.
There needs to be further philosophical and legal discussion about this.
In the past the City has used a PUD process as a spring board for eventual amendments to zoning
regulations that become applicable to all properties in Shorewood.
With regard to land use, Nielsen had the following to say.
1. Concept Plan Revision – Nielsen reiterated that the owner (Venero) of an adjoining property had
approached the developer about buying the rear portion of his property along Seamans Drive and
incorporating the land into the MCC development. This necessitates a revision to the approved
Concept Plan that results in a net increase of two lots. The City Attorney has advised that “….this
parcel addition is not a material modification to the concept plan approved. The development
stage plan application is in substantial conformity to the plan approved.”
At this time not enough is known about how this proposal would leave the remainder of the
Venero property. Assuming the result is consistent with the R-1A zoning of that property, it is
recommended that the proposed conveyance be processed as a minor subdivision. Depending on
the availability of survey information, this could be scheduled as early as the January 5 Planning
Commission meeting.
2. Residential Mix – The entire MCC project is planned for single-family residential use on lots
ranging in size from 7200 square feet in area, to 43,776 square feet. Assuming the City agrees
with the Venero subdivision, the developer proposes to construct 39 age-targeted units, down one
from the Concept Plan, and 103 traditional homes, for a total of 142 homes. The remainder of the
site, aside from street right-of-way, consists of public and private open spaces. The preliminary
plat for the project includes several outlots. The uses of outlots would be as follows.
Outlot A – mostly wetland; owned and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA)
Outlots B and C – west entry monuments and wetland areas; owned and maintained by the
HOA
Outlot D – orphaned open space; owned and maintained by the HOA
Outlot E – east entry monument; owned and maintained by the HOA
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 5 of 19
Outlot F – public open space, including trail; owned and maintained by the City, except for
one of the east entry monuments and ponds* which would be maintained by the HOA
Outlot G – preserved woodlot; owned and maintained by the City
Outlot H – public open space, storm water ponds, wetland mitigation area and trail; owned
and maintained by the City, except for the ponds* which would be maintained by the HOA
Outlot I – orphaned open space; owned and maintained by the HOA
*The City Engineer will prepare a plan for the short- and long-term maintenance of the storm
water pond areas.
3. Zoning Standards.
A. Building Setbacks – The Concept Plan recommended using R-1C zoning district standards as
the basis for the traditional home lots. The Preliminary Site & Utility Plans (sheets 8 and 9 of
the plan set) show 30-foot front yard setbacks instead of 35 feet for several areas. That would
be mitigated by the extraordinary ROW widths that are proposed to accommodate street trees
and sidewalks. A 30-foot setback with a 60-foot right-of-way versus a 35-foot setback on a
50-foot right-of-way has the same net effect with respect to visual, open space impact.
Something similar was done for the Waterford Subdivision PUD and that development
contains a map showing where the setbacks did not comply with R-1C zoning district
setbacks.
Similarly, the 20-foot front setback for the westerly age-targeted units on the east side of
street on a 60-foot right-of-way has the same visual effect as a 25-foot setback on a 50-foot
right-of way. There was considerable discussion in the concept plan review about the side-
yard setbacks proposed for the age-targeted units, particularly for the westerly units. The
developer has indicated that he will illustrate how the proximity of the homes can be
mitigated with landscaping and by virtue of the curving streets. Some thought should be
given to staggering setbacks on the westerly entry street to avoid a “row house” appearance.
The Site Plans show that Lot 17 only has a 30 foot setback; the other lots along the side of the
large cul-de-sac have 40 foot setbacks. It appears that may have been done to save trees on
the back of Lot 17, If that is the case, there needs to be a provision in the declaration of
covenants about the protection of those trees.
The varying setbacks should be addressed in the development agreement (which becomes the
zoning for the site), both by list and by illustration.
B. Impervious Surface Restriction – Ordinarily, the required “hardcover” maximum for non-
shoreland lots is 33 percent. Because the lots are being clustered resulting in an extraordinary
amount of public open space being set aside, it would be reasonable to allow some additional
hardcover per lot. A standard of 40 percent maximum hardcover has been suggested.
C. The development agreement should include provisions describing how the private open space
areas may be used. For example, will any type of structures be allowed in those areas? It
should also prescribe how the areas are to be maintained in a natural open space design,
consistent with the NAC’s recommendations. These should be incorporated into conservation
easements dedicated to the City.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 6 of 19
With regard to transportation, Nielsen stated that several issues had been raised relative to transportation
in the Concept Stage review. A great deal of concern was expressed about the impact of the development
on area streets. He explained how some of the issues have been or are being addressed.
1. The City Council established an ad hoc traffic committee which has begun work on a study of the
Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive collector route between County
Road 19 and Highway 7. Traffic is already a problem along that route. The committee’s
recommendations will be provided in a separate report to the City Council.
2. In addition to some of the additional ROW widths within the project, the developer has provided
additional ROW to bring the portions of Smithtown Road and Country Club Road abutting the
site to a full 66-foot width. That provides room for the City to make changes to those roadways.
3. The preliminary plat includes a second, westerly access to Smithtown Road. Because that would
necessitates some alteration of the wetland located in the northwest corner of the site, the
developer and City will work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on a plan
for wetland mitigation.
4. The easterly entrance to the project has been shifted over about 50 feet to address the issue of
headlights aimed at properties on the north side of Smithtown Road. The entrance / exit now
aligns with a property line on the north side so that headlights pointing north would not be
pointed at the home. If that continues to be an issue the developer has offered to plant some
additional landscaping on that side of the roadway.
5. Specific design standards for the streets in the plat have been addressed in the City Engineer’s
report.
The issue of one cul-de-sac being longer than 700 feet still needs to be addressed.
6. The NAC report makes recommendations relative to the proposed trail and sidewalk system
included in the development. The City Engineer’s report addresses design and construction
standards for these facilities.
The proposed trail that would parallel Country Club Road ends at the intersection of Mary Lake
Trail. That is because of the location of a wetland just south of that and the lack of public ROW
south of that. One of the suggestions made in the concept plan review is that Country Club Road
could be made more curvilinear as a traffic calming measure. If that concept is implemented in
the future, consideration should be given to shifting the street slightly to the east to provide a
more level area for the trail to be extended down to Yellowstone Trail.
The plans do not indicate where potential trail crossings should be located on Country Club Road.
That is for the City to determine. Aside from the Mary Lake Trail location, a crossing at the Echo
Road intersection appears to be logical, assuming safe geometrics in that location. In the future,
the City may want to consider extending a small segment of sidewalk between Echo Road and
Badger Park.
With regard to community facilities, Nielsen stated public utilities have been addressed in the City
Engineer’s report. Sewer and water are both available to the site. The Engineer mentioned in his report
the potential need for an oversized watermain throughout the development. The City’s water plan
includes eventually installing an oversized watermain under Country Club Road. The watermain through
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 7 of 19
the site would take the place of that. The City’s policy has been to pay for the oversizing of the
watermain. There is a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor sewer in the
southeast quadrant of the site that has to be relocated.
One issue that is still somewhat unresolved is stormwater drainage. The MCWD was contacted early on
in the development review process and again more recently when staff got into more details of the
preliminary plat. The MCWD has provided a letter of interest which includes the sizing of the stormwater
ponds. There has been some confusion about whether the project should be calculated on the basis of a
new development or a redevelopment. The MCWD considers it redevelopment and that may necessitate
the ponds being enlarged somewhat. Hopefully, that will be resolved prior to the January 5 meeting. The
developer’s engineer and MCWD representatives continue to work on resolving the drainage plans for the
project.
Early on the developer determined that there is a stormwater outlet on the site that is an emergency
overflow. The MCWD had it as a land-locked basin. There is an old 24-inch diameter pipe that carries
water out of the south side of the property and extends down through some properties south of
Yellowstone Trail. It ends up in a pipe that goes under State Highway 7 and ultimately drains into Lake
Minnewashta. The developer has done some exploration work on that. Part of the pipe is badly
deteriorated. Early on the MCWD indicated that it would allow that pipe to be restored to its current size;
it cannot be enlarged. That has to be resolved with the MCWD as do some ownership issues south of
Yellowstone Trail.
He highlighted some items in the NAC consultant’s very detailed, technical report. She recommends
doubling up on the sidewalk in a couple of locations. The consultant stated that because of the age-
targeted units along the westerly access to the development she suggests there be sidewalks on both sides
of the street. Staff agrees with that. The City and MCWD require buffers around the wetlands. The
wetland monuments the City requires are somewhat flush mounted. They do not show up very well and
they often get buried. For this development, the City would like grass height monument signs indicating
they are wetland buffer areas. The consultant has some ideas for the design. The consultant recommends
planting a variety of trees and she asked for a tree schedule that would show percentages for the various
tree types to be planted. The deciduous tree replacement requires three-inch caliper trees. The consultant
recommends moving the monuments and plantings at the entrances in order to provide protected sight
triangles. She also mentioned the need for a vegetation management plan. Nielsen reiterated it may be
best to remove the buckthorn after the vegetation on the site has been established.
He explained that the project is proposed to be developed in three phases as illustrated in the Phasing
Plan. Park dedication fees, local sanitary sewer access charges and water connection charges are paid at
each stage of platting. Staff recommends that the trail and landscaping work on the open space areas be
started during the first phase. It is not unusual for turf to take 3 – 5 years to become established.
Nielsen reiterated that staff recommends that this Public Hearing on the Development Stage plans be
continued to the Planning Commission’s January 5, 2016, meeting. That should allow enough time to
address the various issues raised by staff and to obtain approvals from the MCWD.
Nielsen noted that Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, was present.
Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, noted it has taken a long time to get to this point in the process. He
stated he had little to add to Director Nielsen’s lengthy, detailed presentation. He then stated there are
some things that still have to be worked out in order to accomplish the City’s objectives. He noted he
intends to keep his remarks as brief as possible. He explained Venero Gardens intends to close the nursery
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 8 of 19
after next year. Incorporating the approximate rear 100 feet of the nursery site into the MCC development
makes sense. It would add two more lots served by sewer and water to Mattamy’s subdivision. The lots
would be about the same size as some of the other lots in the subdivision. It would give the Veneros
added value. The City would lose a commercial business in a residential neighborhood.
He explained Mattamy is working with owners of adjacent properties to give some of them the Outlots. It
does not make any sense to make the Outlots part of the MCC HOA. It does make a lot of sense to have
then combined with those residential properties to enlarge the rear yards. It has been part of Mattamy’s
concept from day one to provide buffer strips and buffers around the perimeter of the project site. He
pointed out on a graphic which Outlots would be incorporated into which residential properties, which
would be owned and maintained by the HOA and which would be owned and maintained by the City as
public open space.
Mr. Packer noted that Mattamy had proposed nearly all of the sidewalks that have been suggested for the
development. He explained Mattamy thinks that street trees make a nice neighborhood; they separate a
City from a suburb. Where he lives a street tree was planted for each lot 20 years ago and now they make
that neighborhood look very nice. He stated the City has expressed concern about planting the trees in the
ROW because then the City would be responsible for them. Therefore, the HOA will assume
responsibility for them. The ROWs have been made a little bigger to give the trees a better chance of
surviving and to provide more space between the sidewalks and curbs. He thought Mattamy went with 35
foot setbacks.
Director Nielsen explained the R-1C zoning district standards were to be the basis for the traditional
house lots. The front yard setback standard is 35 feet and the rear yard setback is 40 feet. Many of the
traditional lots show 35 foot front yard setbacks. The lots along the large cul-de-sac are an exception to
that. Some lots have 40 foot setbacks, some have 35 foot setbacks and some have 30 foot setbacks. Mr.
Packer stated he would check into that and noted that originally the intent was to have 40 foot front yard
setbacks. When the ROW was increased he thought the setback was decreased to 35 feet. He commented
that they would all visually look the same.
Mr. Packer stated that some of the suggestions made to add additional sidewalks do not make sense to
Mattamy. Mattamy had proposed to have sidewalks on one side of all of the streets in the development.
Sidewalks on one side in a development are usually enough to keep people off of the streets. Normally
there are sidewalks on each side of the street when the ADT (average daily traffic) is 1,000 or more.
There won’t be more than 100 – 200 ADT on the streets in the development. Mattamy is also being asked
to put in sidewalks on both sides of Club Valley Road onto a street where there are no sidewalks. For the
age-targeted units for people 55 years of age or older they should be able to cross the street to get onto a
sidewalk. He thought that one internal trail could be extended up to Smithtown Road to give people more
direct access to the new trail. He noted that the City is going to construct a sidewalk on just one side of
Smithtown Road east in 2016 and that roadway has ADT of 5,000 – 6,000.
He then stated Mattamy has worked with two of the three property owners on the southwest corner about
bringing the storm sewer line through there. The two spoken to are amenable to doing something there. It
would not be an invasive process (the process is called bursting). Bursting essentially involves pushing a
pipe along the existing pipe alignment and open cutting a couple of spots for manholes so the City can
service the storm sewer line. He expressed confidence that Mattamy would be able to get the alignment
through that area with the help of the property owners. Mattamy would work with the MCWD to ensure
there is capacity down the line noting he assumed there would be.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 9 of 19
Mr. Packer stated that as Mattamy has gone through this process it is trying to bring forward some of the
history the former Minnetonka Country Club golf course and country club represented. It had been in the
City for 100 years. There was little from the buildings that could have been saved. It has photographs of
how the old entrance monument was done. Mattamy plans to use the same types of rocks used in that
monument for its entrance monuments. The streets in the development have been named after old style
golf clubs. The center of Prestwick Court is a large green area. Mattamy would like to transplant all of the
trees (the nursery stock) that were planted as a memorial or for a special event throughout the old golf
course in the middle of that cul-de-sac. Mattamy has been working with the Witraks about naming that
area after Bohdan Witrak. He noted that because of the soil remediation work Mattamy has been having
done on the site Shorewood is a little cleaner than it was a month ago.
Mr. Packer offered to entertain questions from the Planning Commissioners.
Commissioner Bean stated that if the Venero subdivision does not get approved for some reason he
assumes that would not change Mattamy’s approach. Mr. Packer responded it would not. Bean then stated
that Director Nielsen had suggested that Ayrshire Lane be made longer in order to shorten the length of
the cul-de-sac that is too long. He assumes that would necessitate Lots 1 and 2 along Ayrshire Lane being
pushed to the west a little into Outlot I. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy has been working with that property
owner to maintain all of those trees and possibly dedicate conservation easements to ensure the trees
remain there.
Mr. Packer stated he thought exceeding the length of the maximum 700 feet for a cul-de-sac by 50 feet
was worth it to maintain trees.
Commissioner Bean stated if there would be other owners of properties along Seamans Drive north of the
Veneros property that would want to subdivide their property and sell part of their lot to Mattamy he
asked if Mattamy would want to build additional houses along Bentgrass Way and thereby eliminate
Outlot I. Mr. Packer stated yes on paper and explained that the problem would be that the houses on those
lots north of the Veneros are located on the back of the properties. He noted that those lots are one acre in
size.
Mr. Packer explained that one of the concerns that had previously been expressed by the Council was age-
targeted units on the west. He explained that on the grading plan it looks like boxes on the lots and all of
them go out to the minimum setback. He showed the Commission an illustration of what he termed
“wiggled the street east and west” which results that every time a house is on the outside of the curve the
setback is greater and when the house is on the inside of the curve there is a smaller setback on the back
of the house. He stated the illustration was for real models and the houses reflect actual setbacks. Very
few of the age-target units have the actual 7.5 foot setback. Most setbacks are 10 feet and some are 15
feet. They would be an interesting streetscape. The traditional lots are 90 feet wide and the products range
from 50 – 70 feet wide. Some of those lots would have 20-foot side yard setbacks on each side because
the houses do not fill up the entire building pad.
In response to a comment from Vice-Chair Davis, Mr. Packer stated the illustration for the age-targeted
units is not accurate based on market feedback about the driveway usability.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Packer if he has a rendering for the Capri Circle model and noted he
was curious about the circular driveway. Mr. Packer explained the Capri model is the one with the
driveway parallel to the street and another one at an angle. It looks like it is circular because there are two
garage doors with one driveway going one way and the second another way; that creates the illusion of
circular. Johnson asked if they were single garage doors. Mr. Packer responded yes.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 10 of 19
Commissioner Bean asked if Mr. Parker had any comments about the tree plan. Mr. Parker responded no
and explained that for a subdivision Mattamy plants a 2.5 – 3 inch caliper trees. Bean stated the NAC
consultant was quite specific about tree species. Mr. Parker stated her recommendations about planting a
variety of tree types and sizes make sense.
Bean stated that all of the Outlots Director Nielsen stated that would be owned by the HOA will go away.
Mr. Parker clarified many of them would and explained that the Outlots would be deeded to those
properties with restrictions on them (a little stricter than the City’s ordinances).
Vice-Chair Davis asked what would happen if property owners did not want the Outlots. Mr. Packer
stated he has not encountered property owners who do not want free land.
Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Parker if Mattamy considered pedestrian / bike trails through Outlot A
because they could give access to Seamans Drive. Mr. Packer stated it is wetland on the west side of
Outlot A so there is no place for a trail to go.
Chair Geng stated it appears that the east access to Smithtown Road has been shifted to mitigate the issue
of headlights shining into homes across Smithtown Road. He thanked Mattamy for doing that. He
questioned if there is a need to do that for the access road on the west. Mr. Packer stated across from that
access point there is a pond and a side yard. The headlights would not shine into someone home.
Geng asked if the proposed trail that would be parallel to Country Club Road would be in the ROW or to
the west of the ROW. Mr. Packer explained that in some spots it would be to the west of the ROW and
the City would get something like an easement for that. In other spots it would be partially in the ROW.
Geng stated he wants to ensure that the City has the maximum amount of ROW to make modifications to
the roadway if need be.
Commissioner Johnson stated that for the trail in Outlot G it seems that there is a good connection
between Niblick Alcove and Brassie Circle to continue that trail through the wetland to where the trail
along County Club Road dead ends across from Mary Lake Trail. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy would
discuss that and noted that is where MCES’ sewer interceptor goes.
Council Liaison Woodruff noted there was a discrepancy in the letter designation for the Outlots between
some of the graphic sheets.
Vice-Chair Davis stated that the grading plan indicates that seven of the age-targeted lots have basement
elevations below the normal water level. Mr. Packer stated that is in accordance with the City’s
regulations and the MCWD’s regulations and noted that the normal water elevation in that wetland is not
indicative of where ground water is. He also noted that all of the borings Mattamy had done adjacent to
the wetlands came out dry.
Davis noted that she would never leave buckthorn in for any reason at all. Director Nielsen explained
moving that would open things up and noted it is the buckthorn that is providing the screening at this
time. Davis stated it would be better to get rid of the buckthorn up front. Nielsen stated the intent is to get
rid of the buckthorn after the landscaping has been established. Commissioner Maddy noted that any
buckthorn left alive allow birds to eat the berries and transport the seeds to somewhere else to grow. He
would support taking the buckthorn out right away. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy can consider that but
suggested that people go and look at how open and exposed the site would become if that is done early
on. Davis stated her husband has spent 10 years trying to eradicate buckthorn from their property and now
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 11 of 19
they have a beautiful park like setting. The other trees that have since emerged have made up for what
was left open after the buckthorn was removed.
Chair Geng stated when people talk about establishing landscaping he asked if that is internal to the
property or along the perimeter. Director Nielsen explained the perimeter would be left relatively natural
aside from the buckthorn being removed. The landscape management plan is for the public open space
areas. Geng stated he also detests buckthorn but he does think it provides screening particularly during
construction. He encouraged residents to comment on whether the buckthorn should be removed early in
the project or in a couple of years.
Commissioner Johnson thanked Mr. Packer for providing the diagram for Ayrshire Lane. He asked if
there would be an opportunity to provide a little more breakup of houses. He offered up the idea of
providing two or three empty outlots to break the housing up. For the southeast corner of Bentgrass Way
Lot 1 – 5 he asked if there is an opportunity to introduce age-targeted units there consistent with what is
across the street in exchange for two to three open spaces on Ayrshire Lane. Mr. Packer stated that he was
going to respectfully resist the suggestion at this time and noted that Mattamy has demonstrated that it
would meet the minimum setbacks in almost all cases. He appreciates that some people wants more open
space but the people who are going to live there want to live in a compact neighborhood. Based on their
marketing people want backyards and they are not concerned about side yards. Johnson stated there are
areas in Shorewood that do not have the larger setbacks that have had issues with marketability.
Commissioner Maddy stated the plat shows very wide roadways in the development. He thought there is
an opportunity to construct narrower roads and provide better infiltration areas for trees to survive, more
room for the sidewalk on one side and possibly some traffic calming. Director Nielsen stated the paved
surface would be 24 feet wide plus curb and gutter and that almost one-half of the ROW would be
boulevard. Maddy noted he was pleased to hear that.
Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 8:39 P.M.
Chris Gehrke, 24650 Smithtown Road, thanked the Planning Commission for providing him an
opportunity to speak and noted that he has lived in the City for three years. He stated he was present to
speak on behalf of himself and his family. He commended Mr. Packer for listening to some of his
concerns and shifting the easterly access point to Smithtown Road to the west so that vehicle headlights
do not shine into his home. He expressed concern that the monument lighting could still shine into his
home. He asked if the trees on the front of his property would be cut down thereby making the visibility
of the monument lights worse at his home. Director Nielsen clarified that the additional ROW would be
on the south side of Smithtown Road and that Mr. Gehrke’s trees would not be impacted. Mr. Gehrke
stated the City owns the lot to the east of his property and he would prefer the access point be located
across from the City-owned lot or the American Legion property. He then stated that he would not mind
the buckthorn being left alone during construction because it provides a visual barrier. He suggested
planting white cedar arborvitae around the perimeter because it provides the best screening all year round.
David Cooley, 24725 Smithtown Road, stated that most of his concerns have been addressed. He thought
the ad hoc traffic committee would deal with his other concerns. He then stated he has spoken with Mr.
Packer about drainage issues and noted there is a lot south of his lot that has some wet areas. The back of
Lot 5 on the north side of Bentgrass Way is going to be wet because there is a wet spot there. There used
to be drain tiles that carried water for lots north of Lot 5 to the south on to the former golf course
property. There are a number of lots that are very wet. Vice-Chair Davis stated the drainage plan indicates
there is a low point and a drainage structure back there.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 12 of 19
George Greenfield, 24715 Yellowstone Trail, stated his questions would be better directed to the City
Council but it is his understanding based on what Director Nielsen has told him that this would be the last
Public Hearing on this PUD. Therefore, he wants his questions to be on record. His first question was
regarding the age-targeted units. He explained that he had attended the open house at the Southshore
Center, two Public Hearings by held by the Planning Commission and two Public Hearings held by
Council. The age-targeted housing was originally proposed to sell for about $450,000. During the
September 28 Council Public Hearing that price was increased to $500,000 – $550,000. He was surprised
that no Councilmember, particularly Councilmember Siakel, commented on that increase in price being
age-targeted housing was purported to be of benefit to the community. He viewed that increase to be an
example of bad faith. Councilmember Siakel, and others, had wanted there to be a variety of housing
prices in the development. Unfortunately, the variety of housing prices will be prohibitively expensive;
that is not a variety.
Mr. Greenfield’s second question had to do with the traffic issue and he wanted it to be addressed to
Councilmember Labadie. During the September 28 meeting Labadie made the statement that children
from 36 school districts attend schools within the Minnetonka School District. She made the assertion that
one of the open enrolled students was from Bemidji. Bemidji is about a 4.5 hour one-way drive away. He
does not find it very likely that a student from Bemidji is attending a school in the District.
He stated a lot of people are excited about traffic issues. But, the City has never addressed the traffic
issues created by the School District through open enrollment. He explained the Minnetonka School
District claims to have about 1,000 open-enrolled students. If 250 of them pass through Shorewood on the
way to various schools in the District, it amounts to 1,000 vehicle trips per school day. That dwarfs the
traffic that would be generated from the proposed MCC development. The City does not get any
compensation from the School District for the wear and tear on the City’s infrastructure. The City does
not get any type of compensation for the pollution generated from those vehicles which are allowed to
queue up at the schools because “Billy and Barbie” cannot walk 50 feet to school. They can wait in the
queue for 20 minutes with engines running. The residents who live along Smithtown Road, Strawberry
Lane and in that entire neighborhood are subjected to traffic greatly in excess of what the proposed
development is going to create. Yet, the City never calls the School District on it. He suggested the City
confront the School District about the traffic issues it creates as long as the City is trying to address the
traffic issues the new development is going to exacerbate.
Mr. Greenfield thanked the Commission for its time.
Ed Hasek, 24315 Yellowstone Trail, commented that he has officially renamed Yellowstone Trail as the
“cut-thru”. He stated that because changes have been proposed to the concept plan for the MCC
development that Council approved he asked if that opens up the concept plan entirely or is it just limited
to a few issues. Director Nielsen reiterated that the City Attorney has advised that the proposed changes
do not materially affect the concept plan. Mr. Hasek asked what the length of the cul-de-sac is on the
northeast corner of the site. Nielsen stated that he does not know the exact length offhand but he thought
it was about 500 feet long. Mr. Hasek stated he had been in the business for 35 years and understands how
a cul-de-sac should be measured. He pointed on a graphic that was displayed how he thought it should be
measured and stated he calculated the northeast cul-de-sac to be 850 feet long on the original graphic.
Nielsen stated staff checked the length and found it to be less than 700 feet long. Mr. Hasek asked staff to
re-check the length. Nielsen noted that cul-de-sac had been moved slightly in order to preserve trees.
Chair Geng clarified for the record that Mr. Hasek was suggesting the length of the Featherie Bay cul-de-
sac be calculated from the intersection of Bentgrass Way and Wooden Cleek Drive to the end of the cul-
de-sac.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 13 of 19
Mr. Hasek stated that during a traffic committee meeting he had suggested extending some of the cul-de-
sacs on the east side of the site out to Country Club Road for public safety, health and welfare reasons. If
one of the cul-de-sacs on the northeast corner of the site were extended to be across from Echo Road it
would eliminate what he perceives as an access problem on the north side of the site and it would shorten
the length of the Featherie Bay cul-de-sac. It would also provide a place for a crosswalk from the
proposed sidewalk along Country Club Road.
Mr. Hasek expressed concern about all of the traffic that will exit the development site at the exit on to
Yellowstone Trail on the south because that would be the easiest way to get to, for example, the
Shorewood Village Shopping Center. He stated the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan talks about
connected neighborhoods. Therefore, he thought consideration should be given to having an exit on to
Country Club Road to lessen the traffic burden on Yellowstone Trail. He noted his suggestion may be a
moot point because the revised concept is only about the addition of two lots to the development and an
increase of two housing units. He commented that the traffic committee was instructed not to discuss his
suggestion and that is why he brought it up now.
Mr. Hasek questioned the need for a 66-foot-wide ROW anywhere in the City except where there is an
arterial roadway. He stated the Metropolitan (Met) Council’s transportation plan for 2040 suggests that
for a collector ROW a minimum of 60 feet is needed and 100 feet is the maximum. The 66-foot-wide
ROW is two rods (33 feet total) either side of the center line which is an extremely old way of doing
business. Rods are not talked about any more. People talk about feet. He thought that most of what the
City wants to do can be accomplished with a 60-foot-wide ROW. Maybe the extra 3 feet along
Yellowstone Trail, Smithtown Road and along other streets in the City could be given back to property
owners because it is not being used.
Mr. Hasek stated from his perspective people must keep in mind Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden
Drive when considering traffic calming options for Country Club Road. He explained that during a recent
traffic committee meeting there was discussion about having a roadway (Country Club Road) with two
12-foot driving lanes with a six-foot-wide bicycle lane in either direction. If that were done the speed
limit could legally be reduced to 20 miles per hour (mph). There is a lot that would have to be done to the
current 23-foot-wide driving surface plus 6 feet of tar before the grass to implement that idea. Many of
the trees would have to be removed for example.
Mr. Hasek asked for a copy of the current plans. Director Nielsen stated he would ensure that happened
and encouraged Mr. Hasek to come to City Hall to look at the full sized plans.
Mr. Hasek stated for the existing ROW down by Yellowstone Trail he thought that there is probably one
rod on one side of the section or quarter-section line. He asked if the Outlot on the west side of that corner
lot is going to be given to the owner of that property. If so, maybe that property owner would give the
City some of his land to accommodate extending the proposed trail along Country Club Road all of the
way down to Yellowstone Trail. He then stated as a landscape architect he agrees there should be a
bicycle / pedestrian trail along Yellowstone Trail so people do not have to be walking or biking on the
roadway. He thought the residents living along Yellowstone Trail would want a trail but they do not want
a wider roadway.
Mr. Hasek thanked the Planning Commission for its time.
Joe Stano, 25235 Smithtown Road, stated that he owns the property adjacent to Outlots A and B. He
noted that he is particularly interested in learning what the ownership plan is for Outlot A. He asked what
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 14 of 19
type of barrier would be maintained on the four new lots that abut his property. Mr. Packer stated the new
lots would go all the way back to those properties but the clearing would not. Mr. Stano noted there was
grass and woods on one particular area. Vice-Chair Davis asked if that is where the compromised soils
are. Mr. Stano stated he is not sure how much of the wooded area is buckthorn. Vice-Chair Davis stated
her recommendation was not to remove the buckthorn where Mr. Stano was talking about; it was to
remove it along Country Club Road. Davis noted that if the trees still have green leaves on them they are
buckthorn.
Henry Miles, 24035 Mary Lake Trail, routed a copy of his prepared comments to the members of the
Planning Commission and staff.
“My name is Henry Miles. My wife and I have lived in Shorewood for 17 years and finished
raising our two kids here. Shorewood and the Minnetonka Public Schools have been very good to
my family and I urge everyone to continue supporting both.
I have just seven short comments to make tonight in connection with this first hearing on
Mattamy’s development plans. First, I have no issues whatsoever with Mattamy’s revisions to the
Concept Plan. They are minor, immaterial, and just fine; let’s move on.
Secondly, solar is not justified on a project of this scale given our climate, the abundance of
inexpensive natural gas, the up-front and on-going costs of solar, the unsightliness of solar
collectors, and new research going on with respect to solar energy notably in the area of clear
glass solar. To want solar collectors in the Mojave Desert is one thing, but not here, not now.
Thirdly, as to that 600-foot missing section of sidewalk west of Country Club, south of Mary Lake
Trail. The City should retain the right to build that out itself – on Mattamy’s property – when and
if the wetland and other issues can be resolved. Shorewood should require an easement from
Mattamy on that land. The fact that Mattamy does not propose it now should not mean that
Shorewood is foreclosed from pursuing it later. In addition, Mattamy’s sidewalks/trails should
not be on the City’s right-of-way.
Fourth, there should be no new trees added now to the perimeter right-of-ways in case
Shorewood finds a use for that property.
Fifth, I’ve grown tired of all the instant-shade stuff we see in every development. I like sugar
maples and hackberry and I’m delighted to see them in Mattamy’s plan. As to hackberry, two
weeks ago I took down possibly the largest hackberry in Shorewood estimated at 100 years old
and about as many feet high. It pained me to see the stress fractures running up that tree from
last summer’s storms. I would love to see more hackberry trees. I would also like to see Mattamy
plant more long-living trees like red oak, white pine, hemlock, wild cherry, and a small grove of
hornbeam in honor of Paul Hornby.
Now as to buckthorn. Believe it or not, it has its place in this world. If you have lived and biked in
England as I have, you’d know that buckthorn is a primary plant of hedgerows. But here in
Minnesota, no one except rabbits likes it because it’s invasive. That said, it has already invaded
the perimeter of the project so I am in favor of leaving it for a year or two because of the visual
and sound screening benefit it will provide during development.
And finally, I’d like to see Mattamy think A LOT more creatively about seeds and plants,
specifically those that attract butterflies and honeybees – milkweed, butterfly weed, bee balm,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 15 of 19
purple prairie clover, cup plant, aster, allium, serviceberry, wild phlox, coneflower, and so forth.
These plants are environmentally friendly and beautiful; everyone likes them and the beneficial
insects they attract. What if Mattamy incorporated into our community’s biggest development our
biggest butterfly and honeybee meadow. You want people to have good feelings about Mattamy
and Shorewood.
That’s all I have to say tonight other than to thank the Planning Commission for their service to
our community. I do ask that these comments be added verbatim into the record.
Henry Miles
24035 Mary Lake Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
(612) 790-1552”
Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:17 P.M.
Chair Geng suggested Director Nielsen address what the remainder of the Public Hearing process is
about. Director Nielsen explained that this is the last of the Public Hearings where public comment is
taken unless the City Council chooses to have an additional public hearing; that is Council’s prerogative.
Director Nielsen explained if there is something the Commission wants addressed that has not been
addressed now is the time to bring that forward.
Commissioner Johnson stated a homeowners association (HOA) has been mentioned a number of times.
He asked if that will come before the Commission at some point. Director Nielsen stated that typically
does not. It goes with the final plat to Council. Nielsen noted there have been times when the Commission
has asked to see the declaration of covenants and primarily the development agreement.
Vice-Chair Davis asked if the maintenance of the trees in the ROW in the development includes all the
things the City or a resident would typically do (e.g.; trimming, removal, cleanup after a storm). Director
Nielsen explained there was debate about whether or not the property owners should be responsible for
the trees in front of their property. The decision was made that it would be better for the HOA to be
responsible for that.
Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to review how the declaration is going to cover the street tree
maintenance and drainage issues.
Vice-Chair Davis stated she thought the maintenance of the naturalized areas should be specified. She
then stated she thought Mr. Miles’ suggestion to plant things that attract bees and butterflies was
outstanding. She knows landscape companies that specialize in that and their gardens are alive.
Chair Geng concurred with the suggestion to plant bee and butterfly friendly plants. He noted that
Shorewood embarked on that a couple of years ago when it became a bee safe city.
In response to someone from the audience, Director Nielsen clarified what the Commission was going to
consider recommending approval or denial of the revised concept plan and the Development Stage plans.
Commissioner Johnson stated the NAC’s Development Stage plans review report includes comments on
tree preservation. It states 988 significant trees would be removed from the site. He would like to be told
what percentage of the total trees that is.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 16 of 19
Vice-Chair Davis stated she thought a summary of the NAC report would be helpful for everyone. She
thought it was a good report if people took the time to read it. She then stated 900 trees is a lot and noted
that what Mattamy is going to have planted is phenomenal.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated he understood Mr. Packer to say that when Outlots are incorporated into
to other properties the owners of those properties would be responsible for maintaining that land the same
way yards within the development would be maintained. He would like to see the language that would
compel the property owners to maintain the Outlots. The Outlots would end up being at the back of a
property that fronts a different street. He expressed concern about the possibility of the Outlots being
overrun with weeds three feet high next to someone’s nice lawn. He asked staff to ask the City Attorney
about the longevity of covenants on that type of title transfer. He stated he thought covenants last 20
years.
Woodruff then stated a resident mentioned the drainage issue on Lot 5 [on Bentgrass Way]. On one of the
plans it shows removal of existing storm sewer that starts on Lot 5 and goes down through Lot 3. He
questioned the reason for taking out a storm sewer from a wet area. He does not know what is replacing it.
He wants someone to answer that for him.
Mr. Packer explained that sewer is just east of the former maintenance building. The golf course
maintenance personnel took the lawnmowers there to wash them off. The clippings and so forth from the
mowers fell into a pit and the excess water from that went into the pipe and flowed across the site and
then was discharged into a wetland.
Vice-Chair Davis stated the grading plan shows that drainage would occur appropriately.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated there was a comment about the lack of ROW on Country Club Road
south of Mary Lake Trail. He asked if there would be access to land after this project to extend the trail
down to Yellowstone Trail.
Director Nielsen stated the ROW adjoining the property on the northwest corner of Country Club Road
and Yellowstone Trail is inadequate; it is only 33 feet wide. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he liked the
suggestion of negotiating with that property owner to acquire some land for a trail.
In response to a comment from Council Liaison Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated the City would get
ownership of Outlot F.
Commissioner Maddy noted that hackberry trees were cited in the NAC’s report.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated he thought the NAC’s report was excellent and he encouraged people
who are interested about the proposed landscaping for the MCC development to read that report. From his
perspective he did not think the report covered pollinator friendly plants adequately.
Mr. Packer noted he would never have thought that when Henry Miles gave his last presentation that he
would have agreed with all seven of his points.
Commissioner Bean stated Mr. Packer indicated there would be turf and trees in Prestwick Court. He
asked if the Court would allow enough room for snowplow trucks to move through that end of the cul-de-
sac. Director Nielsen stated it would.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 17 of 19
Commissioner Maddy asked if it would be possible to decouple the solar conversation from the rest of the
development plans. Director Nielsen clarified that his recommendation was to have a separate
conversation about the possible solar garden. He noted that he is a little skeptical about having solar
devices go higher than the peak of the roof. Maddy noted the investment tax credit for solar sunsets at the
end of 2016.
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a revised Concept Stage plan and
Development Stage plans approvals for Mattamy Homes’ planned unit development of the former
Minnetonka Country Club property located at 24575 Smithtown Road to the Planning
Commission’s January 5, 2016. Motion passed 5/0.
Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 9:36 P.M.
Discussion moved to Item 4 on the agenda.
2. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT)
Applicant: Sass Investments I, LLC
Location: 6035 Galpin Lake Road, 22690 and 22740 Murray Street
This was discussed before Item 1 on the agenda.
Director Nielsen explained that Mark Sass owns two lots located at 22690 and 22740 Murray Street. In
2006 he arranged to purchase a strip of land about 20 feet in depth behind two lots from the then owner of
the 6035 Galpin Lake Road property to the north. The strip of land would bring Mr. Sass’ two lots into
better compliance with the R-1C zoning district standards. The 2006 application included vacating
existing drainage and utility easements in exchange for new easements along the new property line. The
division/combination and easement vacation were approved by the City but they were never recorded
with Hennepin County. Mr. Sass’ title company has now reapplied for the same division/combination and
easement vacation.
Nielsen noted that with the exception of some different owners the analysis and recommendation from
2006 remain unchanged. Therefore, staff again recommends approval of the division and combination and
vacation of the existing easements, subject to the applicant providing deeds for the new easements (which
he thought the City already has) and a title opinion for review by the City Attorney and the
division/combination being recorded within 30 days following Council approval of the request. He then
noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation about the division/combination this
evening Council will hold a public hearing for this request during its December 14, 2015, meeting.
Joan Young, with Premier Title Insurance Agency¸ explained that her Title company was the one that
received the documentation in 2006. The company found out the documents were never recorded with
Hennepin County. The company intends to correct that situation. Director Nielsen advised the company
that because the approval was given so long ago the request had to be made again.
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the subdivision/combination of the
properties located at 6035 Galpin Lake Road, 22690 Murray Street and 22740 Murray Street as
well as the drainage and utility easement vacations in exchange for new easements subject to the to
the applicant providing deeds for the new easements and a title opinion for review by the City
Attorney and the division/combination being recorded within 30 days following Council approval of
the request. Motion passed 5/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 18 of 19
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT)
Applicant: Al and Jennifer Larson
Location: 21125 and 21195 Radisson
Director Nielsen explained that Al and Jennifer Larson own the property located at 21195 Radisson Road.
They have arranged to purchase the property owned by Ken and Helen Hendrickson at 21125 Radisson
Road. The subject properties are located in the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning
district. As part of the transaction, the Larsons propose to rearrange the lot line between the two lots. The
westerly lot line of the Hendrickson property cuts across the lake side of the Larson lot. The Larsons
propose to straighten out that line along an existing easement that was created years ago. In exchange,
they also propose to adjust the lot line as it approaches Radisson Road so it would be more perpendicular
with the street. The configurations would be better than what exists today. Their intent is to trade parcels
of approximately equal value.
The Shorewood Subdivision Code requires the applicants to provide 10-foot wide drainage and utility
easements. In this this case the new easements would be along the existing and new side lot lines and
along Radisson Road. There is already a sewer easement that runs along Christmas Lake.
Nielsen noted that staff recommends approval of the subdivision/combination as modified subject to the
applicant’s attorney preparing deeds for the new easements and an up-to-date title opinion for the
property.
Mr. Larson noted he and his wife do have a purchase agreement on the 21125 Radisson Road property.
He displayed a rendition of the lot line proposal and highlighted what would change. He noted that what
he proposed was different than what was included in the staff report.
In response to a question from Commissioner Bean, Director Nielsen explained the Larson property
would end up with 40,245 square feet of area and the Hendrickson property would end up with 46,545
square feet of area. Both would comply with the R-1A/S zoning district requirements.
Geng moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the subdivision/combination of the
properties located at 21125 and 21195 for Al and Jennifer Larson according to the sketch submitted
this evening for the new lot line and subject to the applicant’s attorney preparing deeds for the new
easements and an up-to-date title opinion. Motion passed 5/0.
Discussion returned to Item 1 on the agenda.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
This item was discussed after Item 1 on the agenda.
Mayor Zerby stated it is his understanding that the role of the Council liaison is to represent the Council
and to serve as the liaison between Council and the Planning Commission. He thought it is inappropriate
to for the liaison to make their own recommendations and make their own comments without speaking
with Council. He noted that he intends to make his comments about the plans during a Council meeting.
He stated that is how the position of liaison works from parliamentary procedure.
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 1, 2015
Page 19 of 19
Director Nielsen stated there is the continuation of the Public Hearing for the Mattamy planned unit
development, a minor subdivision, and some discussion about solar slated for the January 5, 2016,
Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the solar discussion would be specific to a project or about Shorewood in
general. Director Nielsen explained it would lead to a general discussion but initial discussions would be
about the Mattamy PUD.
7. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s
November 23, 2015, work session and meeting (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings).
• SLUC
• Other
8. ADJOURNMENT
Bean moved, Johnson seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of December 1,
2015, at 9:40 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
From: Jesse Kath Ukath42 @gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 6:18 PM
To: Patti Helgesen
Cc: Brad Nielsen
Subject: Petition for Extension of time to complete or utilize conditional use permit.
Categories: To -Do Item
To Whom it May Concern:
Due to the extreme range of costs to correct the soils, I have not been able to finance and execute the project. More
soil tests have been done at the site. It is difficult to anticipate the proper area and amount to correct without a specific
house plan. I am still actively looking for a proper dumpsite and acceptable soil that is in the area to avoid excess
trucking fees. I am also considering weighing the costs of tradition soil correction vs. the use of helical piers once a
specific house design is completed.
At this time, the plan is to wait until spring and reassess. Please accept this as a request to extend my conditional use
permit 12 months.
Sincerely,
Jesse Kath
I, 1
MI
MEMO
Freeman Park
S S
� y S
S S
S
m;
S
S
. S
S
S S
Cdr
Minnetonka Country Club
N
A
0 300 600 1,200
mlmmmmml Feet
Property
� State "If hwav 7
02
S S
nt
S
S
� %R
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -009
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO PLACE FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS FOR
JESSE KATH
WHEREAS, Jesse Kath (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 25025
Yellowstone Trail, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described in Exhibit
A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit to
place approximately 6000 cubic yards of fill to correct poor soils located on the above -
referenced property; and
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit to place fill
in excess of 100 cubic yards; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, Mayor
and City Council dated 30 December 2014, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 6 January 2015, the minutes of
which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular
meeting on 26 January 2015, at which time the Planner's memorandum, and the minutes of the
Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City
staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant proposes to replace up to 6000 cubic yards of soil in order to
create a suitable building pad on the subject property.
2. The slope of the finished grade will not exceed three units horizontal to one unit
vertical.
CONCLUSION
A. That the application of Jesse Kath for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth
hereinabove be and hereby is granted.
B. That this approval is subject to the City Engineer's recommendations and
approval of the final grading. The City shall document the condition of the pavement in front
of the. subject property and any damage to the pavement must be corrected, at the Applicant's
expense, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new home.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy
of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 26th day of January,
2015.
ATTEST:
vk,� L"-Mp��
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
-2-
Legal Description
The West 185 feet of that part of Lots 6 and 7, Minnewashta Park according to
the recorded plat thereof Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lying Northerly of the
Northerly right of way line of State Highway No. 7. Also Lot 61, Auditor
Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Except that part platted in
Boyer Lake Minnewashta Addition and except highway.
Exhibit A
From:
Mbtpc [mbtpc @yahoo.com]
Sent:
Saturday, December 12, 2015 9:40 PM
To:
Planning
Subject:
Extension of conditional use
To whom it may concern:
I have a conditional use permit for two residences on one lot during construction at 5530
vine hill road. Due to the complexity of the home and the scarcity of subcontractors, I am
requesting a three month extension on the permit.
We are making great progress but this is a decent size home with many angles and corners
requiring significantly more time to construct. Furthermore, there is currently a
supply /demand imbalance in the metro area for skilled construction labor. This makes
scheduling difficult and often leads to delays as you wait for a subcontractor to finish the
backlog to get to you on the list.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you would like any additional
information.
Thank you
Todd Cebulla
763 - 443 -9510
1
EE] 1 Sprin Cir
1 2 St N ans
Ba it L
z _
al
Nag a -
0 Spa
C r
Subject
to Property
�a
n
n
N �•
0 300 600 1,200 C V�
Feet
CHRISTMAS LAKE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -028
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR TWO DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT
FOR TODD CEBULLA
WHEREAS, Todd Cebulla (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 5530
Vine Hill Road in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described as:
"Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 0847, excluding road"
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to live in the existing house on the property while a
new house is being constructed on the same lot; and
WHEREAS,'Shorewood's Zoning Code limits the number of homes on a single- family
lot to one, except by conditional use permit, and whereas the Applicant has requested such a
conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated
1 April 2015, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 7 April 2015, the minutes of
which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular
meeting on 27 April 2015, at which time the Planner's memorandum, and the minutes of the
Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City
staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the Property is located in an P.U.D., Planned Unit Development (Single -
family Residential) zoning district and contains approximately 29,338 square feet of area.
2. That the property is currently occupied by a single - family dwelling and a detached
garage.
3. That the new home will comply with all setback requirements of the P.U.D.
zoning district.
CONCLUSION
A. That the Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a Conditional Use
Permit under Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(4) and Section 1201.04 of the Shorewood City Code.
B. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's
request for a Conditional Use Permit to keep the existing dwelling on the property, while a new
home is being built, subject to the following conditions:
The Applicant must provide an estimate from a licensed contractor of the cost to
remove the existing dwelling. From this estimate the City will require a cash
escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150% of the estimate to ensure that the
structure will be removed within a specified time.
2. The Applicant shall provide the cash escrow or letter of credit referenced in 1.
above to the City at the time a building permit is issued for the new dwelling.
The Applicants must use the Conditional Use Permit by 27 April 2016. The
existing dwelling on the property shall be removed from the property within six
months of the time that a building permit is issued for the new dwelling.
D. That the City Clerk furnish the Applicant with a certified copy of this resolution
for recording purposes.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of
April 2015.
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, Cify Cl rk
c�r
` c Zerby, a or
-2-
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • vn w.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 31 December 2015
RE: Shorewood Yacht Club — Proposed Amendment to C.U.P.
FILE NO. 405(15.23)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club located at 600 West Lake Street (see Site
Location map — Exhibit A, attached), has requested that the existing conditional use permit (C.U.P.)
under which the Yacht Club operates be amended to remove the restriction on the number of power
boats that may be docked at the site. His request is outlined in his e -mail dated 21 December 2015 -
Exhibit B, attached. Aerial photos of the property are included in Exhibits C and D.
This property has a considerable amount of history attached to it, the most recent of which is when the
City approved a C.U.P. in 2011 (see Exhibit E), allowing as many as 52 of the 117 permitted boat slips
to be used for power boat docking. A staff report, dated 29 December 2010 has been forwarded to you
and contains detailed background on the zoning status of the property over the years.
As stated in Mr. Jabbour's e -mail, he is proposing to reconstruct the existing dock configuration,
enhancing safety by providing for wider walkways and replacement of deteriorating dock structures.
He would like to build "universal docks" that would accommodate either sail or power boats. Before
doing so, he asked that the restriction on the number of power boats be removed.
ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION
Conditional use permits are evaluated based on the criteria found in Section 1201.04 Subd. Ld. of the
City Code. City officials are urged to review that section as Mr. Jabbour's application is being
considered. With respect to his statement about not having received any resident complaints over the
past several years, staff is inclined to agree. City records contain no evidence of resident complaints.
Memorandum
Re: Shorewood Yacht Club — C.U.P. Amendment
31 December 2015
If the City is willing to remove the restriction from the current C.U.P., it would be a matter of revising
provision A.2., found on page 2 of Exhibit E. There may also be some merit in modifying 1201.24
Subd. 10.d. of the Zoning Code.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Gabriel Jabbour
0
� jc9
CD
r-r
O
an
�y
�z
it
a.
CD
Ton
k0i
C
�R
n Trail
Subject
Property
�C
OC
sior
N
A
0 500 1,000
Feet
A
a t
00 F-T-7 i
Brad Nielsen
From: GABRIEL JABBOUR [gabrieljabbour @msn.com]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 4:37 PM
To: Brad Nielsen
Subject: SYC
Members of the Planning Commission,
I would like to request the elimination of the condition in our permit requiring us to have sailboats only in Pier 1 and 2. During
the high water declaration on Lake Minnetonka it was necessary to shut off the electricity for several weeks. During that period
we recognized that if we are ever to rebuild the docks because of age or other reasons, we will not use the existing standards
that the docks were built under in order to improve the safety, as technology has changed significantly. We would build universal
docks not biased toward sailboats..
We have just finished our tenth summer and to the best of our knowledge there has not been a single complaint about the
marina. We believe that the trust that Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council placed in us by making the original
changes was proven well founded. Beyond the obvious changes it allowed the marina to make major environmental
improvements because the marina was in a better financial position to do so.
The most obvious improvements:
- Elimination of all accessory structures that served to warehouse gas cans, oil, etc.
-Mass removal of hardcover surfaces such as decking, walkways, etc.
- Rehabilitation of shorelines through permits from the MCWD to minimize and hopefully eliminate any silt, mud, etc. running
into the lake
Our commitment to be a sailboat marina will not change, nor could it given the substantial financial investments we have made
to service sailboats in our marina. So our request should not be viewed as eliminating sailboats.
A measurable number of Shorewood residents utilize the marina and enjoy a voluntary discount provided by the marina. We
believe that number will increase substantially as the Minnetonka Country Club site is developed, thus providing a benefit to our
neighbors who live off the lake.
If there are any questions I can answer please do not hesitate to call me.
Respectfully,
Gabriel Jabbour
612 - 599 -2838
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
1*7w;— Ir
va
Am
a
;w
JAW
dL
Ilk
w 'Am
12/30/2015
https://wAw.g oog le.conVmaps/@44.9033462,-93.5789782,188n-Vdata=! 3m1! 1 e3
F
Goog le Maps
2/3
From: Kurt Wehrmann [med @northernscientific.com]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 2:59 PM
To: Planning
Cc: pfoss @thinktalent.net
Subject: 34- 117 -23 -21 -0062 & 0064 Shorewood Yacht Club CUP Ammendment
Attachments: IMG 1338.JPG
Mr. Nielsen,
Thank you for the letter explaining the CUP Amendment request. Markus down as a vote AGAINST the request to
amend the conditional use permit. To allow more power boats to dock and use Lake Minnetonka is a safety hazard, will
increase erosion at Frog island and along the shoreline near the channels, and of course increase the noise level. Please
realize that many of these properties south of Frog island and along the east /west channel are low lying properties, and
are subject to flooding and increased erosion during high water periods. Attached is an image of our property during
recent high water.
Sincerely,
Kurt H. Wehrmann
444 Lafayette Avenue
Excelsior, MN 55331
Cell: 612 - 968 -6200
From: Katy Campbell [katy.koch.campbell @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 10:43 AM
To: Planning
Subject: Zoning Request for Shorewood Yacht Club
Bradley Nielsen
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
Regarding the proposal to amend the Shorewood Yacht Club's designation to give them discretion in offering mooring slips --
It appears they are looking for flexibility in renting to undetermined amounts of either power or sailboats. It is unclear how many slips
they offer, total, and what is the actual usage number of sailboats versus power boats. Is there a limit?
Generally, Shorewood Yacht Club is a good neighbor. The concern is about reckless, uniformed boat drivers who break the laws with
high speed as they leave and return to the club docks, and race through the marked channels of protected waterways. This sends big
wakes that directly impact the shorelines just feet away. These occurrences could be recorded, if there is any doubt.
The area where this club is located is a lagoon in close proximity to peninsulas of shoreline maintained by homeowners. This makes
the location unique among marinas on the lake. Personal safety, and the environment are concerns.
If approved, I would encourage the City of Shorewood to stipulate in your amendment that Shorewood Yacht Club provide as part of
their contracts with boat - owners copies of educational materials about boating laws, and to post signage in their clubhouse about how
to properly enter and exit lake channels. This would be in addition, of course, to information to educate the public about aquatic
invasive species and transport of plants by boats.
Thank you for your consideration.
Katy Campbell
Lafayette Avenue
Shorewood, MN.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD FILE COPY
RESOLUTION NO. 11 -004
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR MICHAEL MALONEY AND GABRIEL JABBOUR ALLOWING A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF POWER BOATS AT THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB
WHEREAS, Michael Maloney and Gabriel Jabbour, (Applicants) are the owners of real
property located at 600 West Lake Street (Subject Property) in the City of Shorewood, County of
Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants operate a multiple dock facility at the Subject Property
pursuant to a conditional use permit as set forth in City of Shorewood Resolution No. 00-
111, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, City of Shorewood Resolution No. 00 -111 specifically limits the water
harboring of boats to sailboats, with the exception of four power boats; and
WHEREAS, City of Shorewood Resolution No. 00 -111 was amended in 2007 by
Resolution No. 07 -029 to allow a fifth power boat to be harbored at the property for the use
of the Excelsior Fire District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested an amendment to Resolution No. 00 -111
that would allow them to use fifty percent of their allowable number of boat slips for water
harboring of power boats; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, Mayor
and City Council, dated 29 December 2010, which memorandum is on file at the Shorewood
City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 4 January 2011, the minutes
of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was considered by the City Council at its regular
meeting on 24 January 2011, at which time the comments of the City Planner, the minutes of the
Planning Commission, and written testimony of numerous individuals interested in the matter
were reviewed and additional public comments were heard by the Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as
follows;
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Subject Property is located on Gideon's Bay, Lake Minnetonka.
2. The Subject Property currently exists as two parcels of property containing a total of
approximately 2.4 acres and is located in the L -R, Lakeshore Recreational zoning district.
Exhibit E
EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
Land use and zoning surrounding the Subject Property are as follows:
North: Lake Minnetonka
East: Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company; zoned C -4 /S, Service
Commercial /Shoreland
South: County Road 19, then commercial; zoned C -4 /S and R -C /S, Residential
Commercial /Shoreland
West: Townhouse common area and single - family residential; zoned P.U.D.,
Planned Unit Development and R -1B /S, Single- Family
Residential /Shoreland
4. Water - harboring of boats is a permitted use within the L -R, Lakeshore Recreational
zoning district.
5. The Subject Property is occupied by the Applicants' business, which includes a
clubhouse and boat maintenance facility, caretaker dwelling, launch ramp and boat
slips for docking 117 boats, all but five of which are currently limited to sailboats only.
6. The Applicants have offered to devise a system to rent slips first to Shorewood
residents before opening rentals to the general public.
7. The westerly dock located on the Subject Property is configured for 35 boat slips,
designed to accommodate boats up to 30 feet in length.
CONCLUSIONS
A. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicants a Conditional
Use Permit subject to the following:
1. The conditions set forth in Shorewood Resolutions No. 00 -111 and No. 07 -029
remain in force except as modified herein.
2. In addition to the previously approved five power boats, the Applicants are
allowed to keep no more than 52 power boats, all of which must be kept at pier
#4 and pier #3, the westerly two piers. The Applicants shall provide a plan
specifying where the previously approved five boats will be docked.
3. Power boats kept at the westerly dock (Pier 4) shall not exceed 30 feet in
length.
4. The Applicants shall submit a detailed written plan, subject to approval by the
Shorewood City Council, demonstrating how residents of Shorewood will be
given first opportunity for boat slips, before slips are offered to the general
public.
-2-
B. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this
Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of
February 2011.
ATTEST:
992
erby, Ac n ayor
Description'
Farce) 1:
That part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, described
ar �11ows: Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly extension of the
Ea__ line of Lot 24, *Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin County,
Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with and 25.00 feet Southerly from the
center line of the railroad track of the Chicago and North Western
Transportation Company (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway
Coary); thence Westerly along said - parallel line a distance of 621.26 feet;
thence Southeasterly 29.64 feet, more or less, to a point which is on a line
drawn parallel with and 50.00 feet Southerly from center line of said railroad
track and 606.53 feet Westerly along the last described parallel line from the
southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence Westerly along the
last described parallel line to the West line of said Government Lot 2; thence
South along said West line to the-center line of 'County Road Number 19; thence
Northeasterly along the center line of County Road Number 19 to the Southerly
extension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence North along said extension
to the point of beginning. Hennepin County, Mhnnesct'a-
Parcel 2:
That part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23; described
as fo_lows: Beginning at the intersection of the East line of Lot 24,
'Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin County, Minnesota', -with a line
drawn parallel with and 18.00 feet Northerly from the center line of the
railroad track of the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
(formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company); thence Westerly
along said parallel line a distance of 639.27 feet; thence Northwesterly to
t, - Southwest corner of Lot 25, "Auditor's subdivision Number 313, Hennepin
Cc .cy, Minnesota'; thence Eastarly along the Southerly line of said Lot 25 to
the Southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence South along
said extension to the point of beginning.
Except, that portion of the above parcels 1 and 2 embraced within Lot 297
Auditor's Subdivision Number 135 Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel ; 3:
That part of Lot 25 lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at -the Southeasterly corner of Lot 24; thence South along the East
line of said Lot 25 a distance of 24.30 feet; thence deflecting right 79
degrees 25 minutes 40 seconds a distance of 406.48 feet; thence deflecting
right 9A degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds to a point on the Southerly line of
said Lot 25 which is the true point of beginning of the line being described;
thence continuing along last described line to the shore line of Lake
Minnetonka and there ending, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin
county, Minnesota."
Together with a 12 foot easement for road purposes, the center line of which
is described as follows; Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 24 of
said Auditor's Subdivision; thence South along the East line of said Lot 25, a
distance of 24.30 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described;
thence deflecting right 81 degrees 39 minutes a distance of 379.0 feet; thence
dE 'ecting right 58 degrees 52 minutes a distance of 46.06 feet to a point on
th— East line of above - described property and there ending, as shown in deed
Document Number 1052B91, Files of Registrar of Titles; (as to Parcel 3)
Parcel 4:
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, township 117, Range 23, described
as Lot 293, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135 and adjacent 60 feet of
Minneapolis and St. Paul Suburban Railway abandoned right -of -way (NOTE: Lot
293 all under water) .
Exhibit A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 00-111
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE
FOR A YACHT CLUB TO MINNETONKA MOORINGS, INC.
WHEREAS, Minnetonka Moorings, Inc. (Applicant) has an interest in certain real
property located at 600 West Lake Street in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to expand the Shorewood Yacht Club, which
currently occupies the property, add an accessory storage building and additional dock slips; and
WHEREAS, the existing Shorewood Yacht Club is a nonconforming use in the R -IA/S
and R -3A/S zoning districts and operates under a court- ordered conditional use permit which was
issued by the City of Shorewood in Council Resolution 24 -79, which resolution is on file in the
Shorewood City offices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has agreed to rezone the subject property to the L -R,
Lakeshore Recreational District, in which the existing caretaker dwelling on the property and the
outdoor storage of boats require a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.24 Subd. 4 of
the Shorewood City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a variance to the setback requirements for on-
site parking on the property; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in memoranda to the Planning Commission dated 27
September 2000, and 1 November 2000 which memoranda are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Engineer, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated
1 November 2000, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 3 October 2000, the minutes
of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit and variance was
considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 13 November 2000, at which time the
Planner's memoranda, the City Engineer's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning
Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City Staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
Exhibit B
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the Subject Property is located in an R -1 /A, Single - Family
Residential /Shoreland and R- 3A/Multiple- Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district and
contains approximately 4.7 acres.
2. That the subject property currently exists as two parcels of land as described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. That the westernmost parcel is currently occupied by three dock structures that
were originally intended for use by certain residents on Timber Lane. The westernmost dock is
accessed by an easement in favor of the owner of the property located at 5585 Timber Lane.
4. That the Shorewood City Council has agreed to rezone the subject property to the
L -R, Lakeshore Recreational District, upon proof of recording of the deed conveying property
described in Exhibit A to Shorewood Yacht Club that shall contain the following language:
"Grantee shall not convey this property to any other person or entity without including in
the conveyance, the property described on the attached Exhibit A (being the property
immediately contiguous to the subject property lying to the east), without prior written
consent of the City of Shorewood."
5. That a clubhouse facility, a caretaker dwelling, a boat launch ramp and boat
docking for 80 sailboats plus 2 management slips currently occupy the site.
6. That, in addition to the water harboring of boats, the Applicant's application
proposes the following activities for the subject property: 1) sailboat rental; 2) sailing school; 3)
incidental boat sales; and 4) storage of weed harvesting equipment.
7. That the Applicant proposes to extend a fourth pier from the westernmost existing
pier on the site, increasing the number of boat slips from 82 to 117.
8. That the Applicant proposes to construct a small pedestrian bridge between the
existing Yacht Club property and the newly acquired westerly parcel.
9. That the Applicant proposes to locate a small sailboat storage rack for the use of a
youth sailing school which will be conducted on the westerly parcel.
10. That the Applicant proposes to erect a boat dock frame and canopy on the
westerly parcel to be used as a shelter for the youth sailing school.
11. That the Applicant's plans show parking for 121 vehicles.
12. That the Applicant's plans are illustrated in the site plans shown on Exhibits B
and C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2
13. That the subject property is located on a lake with at least two public accesses and
is at least 5000 feet away from any other multiple dock facility.
14. That the subject property currently displays three signs, whereas the Shorewood
City Code limits the number of signs in the L -R District to two.
15. That the City has no record of complaints of noise in recent years relative to the
subject property.
16. That the Applicant proposes additional landscaping and screening along the west
side of the site, abutting the shoreline of the lake and along the south side of the H.C.R.R.A.
right -of -way and along the south side of the site abutting County Road 19, as shown on Exhibit
D, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's
request for a conditional use permit for a sailing yacht club at 600 West Lake Street.
2. That this approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. The Applicant must comply with the requirements of Section 1201.24 of the
Shorewood City Code and must obtain an annual license for the facility, pursuant
to Subd. 10 of that section.
The Applicant must obtain a multiple dock license, special density license and
necessary variances from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District.
C. The permit shall be Iimited to the docking of sailboats, except for three power
boats used by the management of the Yacht Club. In addition, the dock located at
the westernmost end of the subject property shall be limited to one boat owned by
the residents of 5585 Timber Lane. Weed harvesting equipment shall not count
against the allowable number of power boats.
d. The proposed buildings shall be constructed as shown on Exhibits B and C,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, and must be constructed in compliance
with the Minnesota State Building Code.
e. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained according to the approved
landscape plan as shown on Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Landscaping shall be completed by 15 June 2001.
f. Hours of operation shall be as follows:
Sunday through Thursday: 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
— Friday through Saturday: 6:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M.
g. Dock quiet hours shall be between the hours of 10:00 P.M and 6:00 A.M.
h. Sailboats, when not in use, shall have their halyards secured by such devices as
will minimize any noise that may be caused by them.
i. Right -of -way shall be given to all barges and work boats being used by the
adjacent dredging company.
j. Any radios utilized on -board sailboats shall be kept below decks with their
volume at a discreet level.
I The Applicant shall install a solid core steel door on the gasoline storage shed, per
the requirements of the Fire Marshall. Gasoline storage shall be limited to that
which is used by the management of the Yacht Club.
1. The shelter for the youth sailing camp shall be a seasonal boat dock canopy to be
taken down at the end of the sailing season.
M. The storage rack for the youth sailing camp shall be located 50 feet back from the
ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka.
n. The access drive from Timber Lane to the westerly portion of the site shall be
gated and locked except for occasional maintenance activities. The driveway
shall not be used as access to the youth sailing camp.
No dredging is anticipated as part of this permit. Any future dredging requests
will be subject to normal dredging permit procedures.
P. Any dock pilings to be installed must be driven as opposed to a jetting method.
q. The American Disabilities Act parking spaces must be constructed consistent with
the State Building Code and are subject to the conditions imposed by the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District.
Curbstones shall be installed for each parking stall on the site.
The overflow parking area shown on Exhibit B in the southwest corner of the site
is not approved as part of this permit.
Prior to any further work being done on the site, the Applicant must provide in
recorded form, evidence that the deed for the land described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, contains the following language:
"Grantee shall not convey this property to any other person or entity without
including in the conveyance, the property described on the attached Exhibit A
(being the property immediately contiguous to the subject property lying to the
east), without prior written consent of the City of Shorewood."
The Applicant shall submit a signage plan for the property in compliance with the
requirements of the Shorewood City Code.
3. That the Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the
Shorewood City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes.
4. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a
setback variance for the parking lot as shown on Exhibit B, subject to the conditions set forth
herein.
5. That the City Administrator /Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a
certified copy of this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of
Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of
November 2000.
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRADLEY J. SEN, CTING CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK
Description:
Farce= 1:
That Fart of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, described
ar ollows: Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly extension of the
Ea__ line of Lot 24, -Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin County,
Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with and 25.00 feet Southerly from the
center line of the railroad track of the Chicago and North Western
Transportation Company (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway
Company); thence Westerly along said. parallel line a distance of 621.26 feet;
thence Southeasterly 29.64 feet, more or less, to a point which is on a line
drawn parallel with and 50.00 feet Southerly from center line of said railroad
track and 606.53 feet Westerly along the last described parallel line from the
southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence Westerly along the
last described parallel line to the West line of said Government Lot 2; thence
South along said West line to the center line of 'county Road Number 19; thence
Northeasterly along the center line of County Road Number 19 to the Southerly
extension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence North along said extension
to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Mir MP-SOt°a.
Farce: 2:
That part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, described
as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the East line of Lot 24,
"Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin County, Minnesota', with a line
drawn parallel with and 18.00 feet Northerly from the center line of the
railroad track of the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
(formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company); thence Westerly
along said parallel line a distance of 639.27 feet; thence Northwesterly to
th - -Southwest corner of Lot 25, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin
Cr, xy, Minnesota "; thence Eastarly along the Southerly line of said Lot 25 to
the Southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence South along
said extension to the point of beginning.
Except, that portion of the above parcels 1 and 2 embraced within Lot 297
N
Auditor's Subdivision umber 135 Hennepin County', Minnesota.
Parcel; 3:
That part of Lot 25 lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at•the Southeasterly corner of Lot 24; thence South along the East
line of said Lot 25 a distance of 24.30 feet; thence deflecting right 79
degrees 25 minutes 40 seconds a distance of 406.48 feet; thence deflecting
right 9A degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds to a point on the Southerly line of
said Lot 25 which is the true point of beginning of the line being described;
thence continuing along last described line to the shore line of Lake
Minnetonka and there ending, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin
county, Minnesota."
Together with a 12 foot easement for road purposes, the center line of which
is described as follows; Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 24 of
said Auditor's Subdivision; thence South along the East line of said Lot 25, a
distance of 24.30 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described;
thence deflecting right B1 degrees 59 minutes a distance of 379.0 feet, thence
dr ecting right 56 degrees 52 minutes a distance of 46.06 feet to a point on
tl,_ East line of above - described property and there ending, as shown in deed
Document Number 1052891, Files of Registrar of Titles; (as to Parcel 3)
Parcel 4;
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, township 117, Range 23, described
as Lot 293, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135 and adjacent 60 feet of
Minneapolis and St. Paul Suburban Railway abandoned right -of -way (NOTE: Lot
293 all under water).
Exhibit A
S
W
ji 177. ark G —•— —
I
.a
1 r u wrao�
- \ �•r�S Imo' . j!.i � �`
\ 1
Yt 1
S I e�l.
� S
I�
l�
ItI
\• a,,� I
k.J'I•I�
- q I
.�... . ^...,ems. c�.�"- - - -•: "'1 _
� _:
._.
If
yyIIIIII
I I
IJ
T�
T
Ij�
MI
_
1
?1 r J' `1L
ok,
�
� 5
If
yrl —_
(�1 • '. II 11,4
I�'Ii4 l�l
Ii4' C
', ' I I -- � -1•._
..nn 1
I
jj
I
AN.
n
vl
CITY OF
Ir SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha1I @d.shorewood.mn.us
-MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 29 December 2010
RE: _ Shorewood Yacht Club - Conditional Use Permit
FILE NO. 405(10.10)
BACKGROUND
In 2007, the new owners of the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) requested approvals to
allow them to lease 50 percent of their boat slips to owners of power boats. Until that
time the Club had been limited to sailboat slip rental only. After considerable
deliberation by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City agreed to grant
an interim conditional use permit, allowing SYC to lease 35 of its 117 slips
( approximately 30 percent) to power boat owners on a trial basis (see Council
Resolution No. 07 -075 — Exhibit A, attached). The resolution provided that the
interim conditional use permit would be evaluated in three years and, based on "the
number and the nature of complaints received", a determination would be made as to
whether the harboring of 35 power boats would be allowed to continue as a
permanent conditional use or whether the interim conditional use would simply expire
(see para 7. - Exhibit A -3).
There is an enormous amount of background material on this matter. Exhibit B is the
staff report from 2007. Exhibit C is an excerpt of Planning Commission minutes
from the meeting at which the Commission recommended approval of the interim
conditional use permit. Exhibit D is, an excerpt from the 26 November 2007 City
Council minutes, at which the interim use permit was approved.
�«� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -
Memorandum - -
Re: Shorewood Yacht Club Conditional Use Permit -
29 December 2010
- Exhibit E contains the applicant's current request which, as you will note, asks for the
50 percent power boat slip rental proposed in his original 2007 request. Exhibit F
contains resident correspondence regarding the conditional use issue.
Staff has reported for the last three years, after the end of each boating season, any
complaints that have been received relative to the Yacht Club. The only comment we
received was at the end of the first season,,and the resident actually called to say that
there had been no issues relative to power boat activity. `
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
In light of all the background material and the wording of the 2007 Council
Resolution, there is little to add at this time. Three options appear to exist relative to
the Shorewood Yacht Club zoning status:
1. The City could simply allow the interim conditional use permit to expire,
, p Y
limiting the Yacht Club to,sailboats only. Based on the criteria set forth in the
resolution (complaints), this option is not considered appropriate,
2. The City could approve a permanent conditional use permit for 35 power boat
slips:
3. The _City could approve a permanent,conditional use permit allowing up to 50
percent of the slips to be leased for power boats. Based on 117 slips this "
would result in 58 power boat slips. -
A public hearing has been scheduled for 4 January 2011 to consider this - matter.
- Cc: Brian Heck
Mary Tietjen -
Gabriel Jabbour
r -
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 07-075
A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN INTERIM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR MICHAEL MALONEY AND GABRIEL JABBOUR ALLOWING A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF POWER BOATS AT THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB
WHEREAS, Michael Maloney and Gabriel Jabbour, (Applicants) are the owners of real
property located at 600 West Lake Street (Subject Property) in the City of Shorewood, County of
Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants operate a multiple dock facility at the Subject Property
pursuant to a conditional use permit as set forth in City of Shorewood Resolution No. 00-
111, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, City of Shorewood Resolution No. 00 -111 specifically limits the water
harboring of boats to sailboats, with the exception of four power boats; and
WHEREAS, City of Shorewood Resolution No. 00 -111 was amended in 2007 by
Resolution No. 07 -029 to allow a fifth power boat to be harbored at the property for the use
of the Excelsior Fire District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested an amendment to Resolution No. 00 -111
that would allow them to use fifty percent of their allowable number of boat slips for water
harboring of power boats; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, Mayor
and City Council, dated 26 September 2007, which memorandum is on file at the Shorewood
City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 2 October 2007. The
Planning Commission again reviewed the application at its meeting on 16 October 2007, at
which time it received additional public comment. The minutes of these meetings are on file
at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was considered by the City Council at its regular
meeting on November 26, 2007, at which time the comments of the City Planner and other City
staff, the minutes of the Planning Commission, and written testimony of numerous individuals
interested in the matter were reviewed and additional public comments were heard by the
Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as
follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Subject Property is located on Gideon's Bay, Lake Minnetonka.
Exhibit A -1
RESOLUTION NO. 07-05
Shorewood Yacht Club Interim C.U.P.
2. The Subject Property currently exists as three parcels of property containing a total of
approximately 2.4 acres and is located in the L -R, Lakeshore Recreational zoning district.
Land use and zoning surrounding the Subject Property are as follows:
North: Lake Minnetonka
East: Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company; zoned C -4 /S, Service
Commercial /Shoreland
South: County Road 19, then commercial; zoned C -4 /S and R -C /S, Residential
Commercial /Shoreland
West: Townhouse common area and single - family residential; zoned P.U.D.,
Planned Unit Development and R -IB /S, Single - Family
Residential /Shoreland
4. Water- harboring of boats is a permitted use within the L -R, Lakeshore Recreational
zoning district.
5. The Subject Property is occupied by the Applicants' business, which includes a
clubhouse and boat maintenance facility, caretaker dwelling, launch ramp and boat
slips for docking 117 boats, all but five of which are currently limited to sailboats only.
6. The Applicants have offered to devise a system to rent slips first to Shorewood
residents before opening rentals to the general public.
7. The westerly dock located on the Subject Property is configured for 35 boat slips,
designed to accommodate boats up to 30 feet in length.
Shorewood's Zoning Code provides for interim conditional use permits, one of the
purposes of which is "To allow a use for a brief period of time while permanent
location obtained or constructed."
CONCLUSIONS
A Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicants an Interim
Conditional Use Permit subject to the following:
The conditions set forth in Shorewood Resolutions No. 00 -111 and No. 07 -029
remain in force except as modified herein.
2. The Applicants are allowed to keep no more than 35 additional power boats, all
of which must be kept at the westerly dock on the property. The Applicants
shall provide a plan specifying where the previously approved five boats will
be docked.
3. Power boats kept at the westerly dock shall not exceed 30 feet in length.
-2-
A -Z
4. The Interim Conditional Use Permit shall be in effect for three years from the
date of this resolution, during which time the use of the Subject Property shall
be monitored for compliance with the terms of Shorewood Resolution No. 00-
111 and 07 -029.
5. Shorewood Planning staff will monitor complaints filed through the South Lake
Police Department and provide the Planning Commission with an annual
update as to the Subject Property's compliance with the Interim Conditional
Use Permit, including, but not limited to the following:
a. The number and size of power boats kept at the Subject Property.
b. Hours of operation.
C. Noisy activities after business hours.
d. Traffic issues (parking, congestion and accidents).
e. Verifiable adverse environmental effects.
6. The Applicants shall submit a detailed written plan, subject to approval by the
Shorewood City Council, demonstrating how residents of Shorewood will be
given first opportunity for boat slips, before slips are offered to the general
public.
7. Within three years and 60 days of the adoption of this resolution, the City shall
conduct a public hearing to consider whether the harboring of 35 power boats
may continue as a conditional use or the Interim Conditional Use Permit shall
expire. The determination shall be based upon the number and the nature of
complaints received and compliance with this permit. The Interim Use
Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to the provisions of Section 1201.04
Subd. 4.c.,f and g. (termination, violations and revocation, respectively) of the
Shorewood Zoning Code. Any conversion from Interim Conditional Use to
permanent Conditional Use shall follow the criteria and procedures for
conditional use permits in effect at the time the conversion is considered.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this
Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th day of
November, 2007.
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/ Clerk
-3-
Christine Lizee, Mayor
A'5
(Insert Exhibit A
-4-
—Legal Desc.)
�\- L
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 26 September 2007
RE: Shorewood Yacht Club — L -R Zoning Text Amendment and
Amendment to Current C.U.P.
FILE NO.: 405 (07.15)
BACKGROUND
L
Mike Mayoney, representing the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC), 600 West Lake Street
(see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached), has applied for an amendment to the text
of the L -R, Lakeshore Recreational zoning district and an amendment to the conditional
use permit that currently governs the activities on the property. The Club's intent is to
have current regulations changed, relaxing the restrictions that limit the storage and
water - harboring of boats to sailboats only (see Applicant's Request Letter, dated 24 July
2007 — Exhibit B, attached). As noted in their letter, the Club asks to have up to 50
percent of their currently allowed 117 slips available for power boats.
There is a substantial amount of background material relative to the subject property.
Since many members of the current Planning Commission and City Council were not
involved with the original zoning and conditional use permit for the property, we have
provided the following materials
• Attachment I: Planning Staff Report, dated 27 September 2000
• Attachment II: Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated 3 October
2000
• Attachment III: Resolution No. 00 -111
Exhibit B -1
STAFF REPORT — 2007
raa PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 26 September 2007
Memorandum
Re: SYC Zoning Text and C.U.P. Amendment
26 September 2007
Attachment IV: LMCD Quiet Waters Policy Statement
The applicant cites a survey commissioned by the Yacht Club that documents the decline
of the sailing market. He has asked the leader of the survey study group to elaborate on
the findings of the survey at the public hearing on 2 October.
The L -R zoning district is set forth in Section 1201.24 of the Shorewood Zoning Code.
While Commission and Council members are urged to review the entire section, Exhibit
C contains the provision that would need to be changed in order to accommodate the
applicant's request. This change would be a zoning text amendment. The conditional use
permit governing the property is found in Attachment III. The applicant's request would
involve changing several provisions of that document, most notably item l.c.
(Conclusions) found on page 3.
PLANNING ISSUES
Representatives of the Yacht Club have made it known for several months that operating
strictly as a sailing facility was not working out financially. In order to sustain the
facility, they find it necessary to expand their market to some percentage of power boat
slip rental. They have asked that fifty percent of the allowable 117 slips on the property
be allowed to be used for power boats. They make a case that there is a substantial
market within Shorewood itself for people that desire access to the lake. In its proposal,
SYC offers to establish priorities, first for sailboats and then for Shorewood residents,
before offering slips to the general public. In addition, they propose to offer Shorewood
residents a 15 percent discount on slip rentals.
Given the history of the property, there will undoubtedly be numerous questions relative
to the proposed changes. This report attempts to anticipate, from a planning perspective,
as many of those questions as possible, and where possible provide potential solutions.
Current Property Status. In reviewing the files for the subject property, there is one item
that was not completed from the original approval. The property currently consists of
three separate parcels. The legal combination of these parcels should be a relatively
simple house- keeping measure.
Preferential Treatment for Shorewood Residents. The L -R district already contains a
provision stating that the applicant will attempt to rent slips first to Shorewood residents
first, before opening it up to the general public. This is a difficult type of provision to
monitor and enforce. The same is true of the discount proposed by the applicant.
Ordinarily the City would not incorporate such provisions in a conditional use permit.
The City Attorney advises, however, that since it has been offered by the property owner,
including it as a condition of approval would not pose a problem.
-2- 15•Z
Memorandum
Re: SYC Zoning Text and C.U.P. Amendment
26 September 2007
Number of Power Boats. Presumably, the applicant has calculated what the Club requires
to sustain itself. Fifty -eight power boats, however, may be excessive. If the City is to
consider the addition of power boats to the subject facility, it is recommended that the
character of the property as a sailing facility be maintained. In this regard, something
closer to 25 percent power boats would be appropriate. At most, power boats could be
limited to the fourth pier (35 slips). Whatever the number, the property should remain
predominantly a sailing yacht club.
Size of Boats. The applicant should indicate if there is any intent to limit the size of boats
docked at the property. The basis for this concern is the wake created by some of the very
large boats that use Lake Minnetonka. Wave action and shoreline erosion has been a
recurring concern with respect to power boats in this relatively shallow part of Gideon's
Bay. It is possible that the current dock configuration already limits the size of boats.
The applicant should address this concern.
Quiet Waters. With respect to wake and potential shoreline erosion, it seems reasonable
that restrictions might be imposed limiting the speed of all boats entering and exiting the
facility. According to Greg Nybeck, the Director of the LMCD, a quiet waters
designation exists 150 feet out from all shorelines and from structures such as docks (see
Exhibit D). It is also possible for the City to request an expansion of the quiet waters
designation from the LMCD. A relatively easily defined and logical area is described by
drawing a line from the shoreline north of the Timber Lane cul -de -sac to Duck Island to
Frog Island to the peninsula at Lafayette Avenue.
The City would have to petition the LMCD Board for an amendment to its code,
designating the area in question. The LMCD would amend its code, based on its criteria
found in Attachment IV. It should be noted that this is a time - consuming process.
Ultimately, assuming the LMCD would approve the amendment, the Hennepin County
Water Patrol would enforce the speed restrictions, as they do elsewhere on the lake.
Neighborhood Concerns. Correspondence from residents regarding the nature of power
boaters versus sailors (e.g. hours, noise, etc.) may already be addressed within the
provisions of the current C.U.P. (Attachment III). For example, hours of operation are set
forth and dock quiet hours are established between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Residents
are advised to call the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department relative to violations of
those rules.
A TRIAL SOLUTION
If the City is willing to consider amending the Zoning Code and the SYC conditional use
permit, but has reservations over some of the issues raised herein and by residents, there
is a way to approve something on a trial basis. Section 1201.04 Subd. 4. of the Zoning
Code provides for an "interim conditional use permit ". This zoning tool allows the City
-3- 5 -3
Memorandum
Re: SYC Zoning Text and C.U.P. Amendment
26 September 2007
to approve a land use, or in this case a modification of use, for a specified period of time.
For example, the City could approve some level of power boat use for a period of three
years, during which time activity and complaints could be monitored, pending a more
permanent resolution. This requires little or no investment by the property owner and lets
the City determine whether the change is acceptable or not, or whether additional controls
might be in order.
If the Planning Commission feels that the interim conditional use permit approach has
merit, staff should be directed to draft such a permit, based on parameters set forth by the
Commission.
DECISION - MAKING PROCESS
Amendments to the Zoning Code and conditional use permits are subject to the
provisions set forth in Section 1201.04 Subd. Ld. of the Zoning Code. These criteria
should guide City officials in determining the acceptability of the proposed changes.
With respect to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, the Commission and Council are
encouraged to review the policies found in the Land Use Chapter of the Plan.
Cc: Craig Dawson
Tim Keane
Mike Mtoney
-4- ��
aD
oL
oLL
o' r-
z< °m
0
LO
N
w
a
aG
Exhibit A f3.1
SITE LOCATION
orewoo act lub — Zoning text and
.,_,,. C.U.P. amendment
July 24, 2007
City of Shorewood
Shorewood City Council
Shorewood Planning Commission
Dear City of Shorewood,
We are making formal application for an amendment to the conditional use permit which
we operate under, and a zoning text amendment to the L -R district. The change we are
seeking is to allow us to moor not more than 50% powerboats in our marina. We are
seeking this change as the demand for sailboat slips has diminished to the point where we
have currently leased 52 of our 117 slips (up 2 from last season). It is also our feeling
that many Shorewood residents would benefit from the change as it would give them
much needed access to the lake.
The Lake Minnetonka conservation District (LMCD) states in their 2004 Shoreline boat
count that there has been a 61% decrease in sailboats on Lake Minnetonka. A recent
article in the Star and Tribune (8/04/07) states that at the same time Minnesota saw a 30%
increase in boating, sailing decreased statewide by 38 %. Although the Minnesota
DNR's Boating Trends on Lake Minnetonka 1984 -2004 does not specifically mention
sailboats, its reports on other Minnesota regions all show a decrease in sailing activity.
The City of Excelsior voted at their 7/23/07 council meeting to allow powerboats to moor
at the buoys in front of the Commons Park as they have been unable to fill them with
sailboats for several years. Sailors World Marina is the only other commercial marina on
Minnetonka that caters to sailboats and currently has a total of only 18 sailboats.
The Pi Sigma Epsilon Fraternity from the U of M Carlson School of Management
conducted a survey this summer of Shorewood residents as a marketing project. Nearly
400 households responded by mail. Of the Shorewood residents who responded; 85 %+
stated that they have no direct access to the lake, about 1/2 the respondents said they
owned a boat, the majority of the boat owners have power boats with only a handful
owning sailboats. On a 7 -point scale, the respondents averaged 4 when asked if they
would use a marina that offered priority to Shorewood residents. The average went to 5
out of 7 when asked if they would use a marina that gave Shorewood residents a
discount.
The DNR's Boating Trends on Lake Minnetonka —1984 to 2004 states that 72% of the
boats in commercial marinas come from LMCD communities showing it truly is the local
community that benefits from their services. The report also cites the lack of lake access
on the east side and especially in the "Excelsior area ". Shorewood does not currently
provide any public access to Lake Minnetonka, and it's only other commercial marina,
Howard's Point, has a limited number of slips and is on the other side of the lake. The
Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force's 1994 report recommends Timber Lane on
Gideon's bay as one of 7 sites around the lake for potential lake access points. The report
also addresses "Equitable Distribution" of public access, stating "each city is encouraged
to contribute to the overall goal."
Exhibit B 13-4
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LE'T'TER
Dated 24 July
1201.24 L -R, LAKESHORE RECREATIONAL DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purpose. This District is intended to recognize the desirability for areas to
serve the lakeshore recreational needs of the city which of their very nature are by
geographic necessity located in proximity and adjacent to residential areas of this
community. Lake Minnetonka is the largest single park and recreational facility
available for use by the citizens of this city and the providing of an opportunity for
access to that facility is, in the opinion of the city, an adjunct of zoning by the city.
Recognizing the primary residential nature of Shorewood, it behooves the city to subject
the possible areas available for access to the lake to close scrutiny and limitation so as to
insure that use of the land does not unduly infringe upon property rights and public
health, safety and welfare of others residing on nearby residential sites.
The Shorewood Yacht Club is the only property in the City currently in the L -R district,
and as only 2 Shorewood residents have boats in the marina the purpose of this zoning
district to give Shorewood residents access to the Lake is clearly not being met. It is our
firm belief that commercial marinas are very important to the public's access to Lake
Minnetonka. As the marinas continue to fall to housing development, the lake becomes a
playground for only those few who can afford to live on the lake.
Shorewood Yacht Club provides a very important role on Lake Minnetonka, housing the
majority of the lakes cruising sailboats and a venue for sailors who do not wish to
participate in the race culture of the Wayzata and Minnetonka Yacht Clubs. Shorewood
Yacht Club also provides service, storage and boat handling many sailboats who moor at
private residences and those at the Deephaven and other municipal buoys. With no other
marina providing the services we provide, most of the sailboats in our care would be
forced to leave the lake if not for the Shorewood Yacht Club. We have proved our desire
to be Lake Minnetonka's premier sailboat marina by spending over $200,000.00 on a
new travel lift for safe sailboat handling, teaming with Northern Breezes Sailing School,
the Midwest's largest sailing school, and bringing Seven Seas, a sailboat chandlery with
the largest sailboat hardware inventory in Minnesota, onto the property. We feel the
change we are seeking is our best option for keeping the Shorewood Yacht Club, a true
gem in this community, intact. Failing this change, we will need to seek other was to
make this property meet its financial obligations.
We would place the majority of the power boats on pier #4 and site 2 which is over 600
feet away from our nearest neighbor. Pier 4 is better suited for powerboats than piers 1,
2 &3 due to the shallow water and wider slips. First priority to open slips will always be
sailboats; second priority to open slips will be for Shorewood residents. In addition we
are willing to offer Shorewood residents a 15% discount on slip rental.
1201.24
Zoning Regulations 1201.25
b. A license will be issued to the applicant only and is not transferable to another
holder. Each license will be issued only for the premises described in the
application. A license may not be transferred to another premise without the
approval of the City Council. If the licensee is a partnership or a corporation, a
change in the identity of any partner or holder of more than 10 % of the issued and
outstanding stock of the corporation will be deemed a transfer of the license.
(c.. An application for a license shall be accompanied by a plan, prepared by the
applicant, setting forth a procedure providing that seasonal rental of available or
unrenewed slips shall be first offered to the city residents.
Issuance of a license shall take into consideration the historic use of the site under
consideration with respect to the use of power boats. With exception of power
boats necessary for the operation of the facility, water harboring of boats on any
site located in Gideon's Bay shall be limited to sailing boats only.
Subd. 11. Termination procedure for license previously issued.
a. If upon inspection by the representative of the City Council it appears the facility
is not being maintained or operated in accordance with the terms of the
outstanding license:
(1) The licensee shall be informed of the violation in writing by the Zoning
Administrator;
(2) The licensee shall be notified it has 20 days to correct the violation;
(3) If the violation is not corrected within the time, the City Council may
revoke the license, but not until licensee has been given an opportunity to
be heard at a regular meeting of the City Council.
b. Failure to have a valid license in force shall be prima facie evidence of a violation
of this chapter.
(1987 Code, § 1201.24) (Ord. 180, passed 5 -19 -1986)
1201.25 P.U.D., PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purpose, This District is established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards
designed for district planned unit development to allow the development of neighborhoods
or portions thereof incorporating a variety of residential types and nonresidential uses.
Recognizing that traditional density, bulk, setbacks, use and subdivision regulations
which may be useful in protecting the character of ' ' '' " ' 1 P2.1
Exhibit C
1201 -149 ZONING CODE EXCERPT
Section 1201.24 Subd. .
Sec. 3. 02
(Rev. 2-04)
Section 3.02. Watercraft Speed.
Subd. 1. Maximum Speeds. No person shall operate a
watercraft on the Lake at a speed greater than is reasonable and
prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and
potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so
restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person,
watercraft or structure in or upon the Lake which is in compliance
with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due
care. No watercraft may be operated on the Lake at a speed in
excess of the following limits:
a) 40 miles per hour during the daytime;
b) 20 miles per hour during the nighttime;
`) 5 miles der hour in the following areas:
i) a quiet waters area established by this section.
ii) that area within 150 feet of the shoreline.
(iii) that area within 150 feet of an authorized bathing
area or swimmer, an authorized scuba diver's
warning flag, an anchored raft or watercraft,
or a dock or piers except that from which a
watercraft with a person in tow is being
operated.
iv) an area of restricted speed p_ osted in accordance
with Subd. 4.
The sheriff or executive director may provide for the erection of
signs at appropriate locations in the Lake to inform operators of
watercraft of the speed limitations established by this subdivi-
sion.
Subd. 2. Prima Facie Rule. Operation of watercraft in
excess of the speeds set forth in Subdivision 1 is prima facie
evidence that the watercraft is being operated in violation of
Section 3.01, Subd. 2 of this Code. ?J lob
Exhibit D
LMCD CODE EXCERPT
Re: Watercraft pee
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.:
BACKGROUND
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mmus - cityhall®ci.shorewood.mmus
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
27 September 2000
Shorewood Yacht Club — Proposed Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
405 (00.27)
John and Judy Cross, Representing Minnetonka Moorings, have submitted an application
for the rezoning of their property at 600 West Lake Street (see Site Location map —
Exhibit A, attached) from R -lA/S, Single - Family Residential/Shoreland to L -R,
Lakeshore Recreational. They also request a conditional use permit for the existing
caretaker dwelling on the site and for the outdoor storage of boats on the property.
Certain existing conditions on the site necessitate the processing of a variance
application. Finally, since the applicants propose to add property and dockage to the
existing site, they have requested an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan.
The existing yacht club contains approximately 2.4 acres of land, separated through the
middle by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority right -of -way. The site
abuts and is accessed by County Road 19. The applicants have acquired additional
acreage to the west of the existing yacht club and north of the H.C.R.R.A. r.o.w. This
property contains an additional 19,200 square feet of area(.44 acres). Both sites are
presently zoned R -IA/S. Land use and zoning surrounding the sites are as follows:
4e1® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Attachment I
Memorandum
Re: Shorewood Yacht Club
Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance
27 September 2000
North: Lake Minnetonka
East: Minnetonka Portable Dredging; zoned C -4, Service Commercial
and Single - Family Residential; zoned R -IA/S
South: County Road 19, then commercial (The Garden Patch and
Shorewood Nursery); zoned C -4, Service Commercial and R -C,
Residential Commercial
West: Townhouse common area, then single- family residential; zoned R-
1B/S, Single - Family Residential/Shoreland
A clubhouse facility, caretaker dwelling, a launch ramp and boat docking for 80 sailboats
occupy the existing site. The applicants' application describes a variety of activities that
occur on the property (e.g. sailboat rental, sailing school, incidental boat sales, storage of
weed harvesting equipment, etc.). The expansion site is currently occupied by three
docks, the use of which does not conform with current zoning requirements. The
applicants propose to use the property to provide 35 additional boat slips. Except for a
small pedestrian bridge and a storage rack for small sailboats, the expansion site will be
left in its natural state. The additional dockage will extend westerly from an existing
pier.
Plans for the existing property, as well as the proposed expansion are contained in a
notebook prepared by the applicant and enclosed for your review.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Before addressing the proposed expansion of the yacht club, it is important to review how
the existing facility complies with the L -R zoning district requirements. As you know,
the L -R District was amended in September of last year, in order to encourage two of the
existing multiple dock facilities in Shorewood to apply for the zoning. During the
amendment process it was understood that these facilities would not necessarily comply
with all elements of the Code, and that certain nonconformities would simply have to be
recognized as existing deficiencies.
I. The Existing Site.
A. Comprehensive Plan. Any rezoning must be guided by the Comprehensive
Plan. The Land Use section of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan shows the
property in question as an area of further study. Under "Lake Access" it
mentions that the L -R District has been revised "to encourage the marina on
Howard's Point Road and the yacht club north of County Road 19 to comply
with City standards." The Chapter Summary goes on to say:
"10. Recognizing certain existing nonconformities, seek ways to bring
the Howard's Point Marina and the Shorewood Yacht Club into
-2-
Memorandum
Re: Shorewood Yacht Club
Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance
27 September 2000
substantial compliance with the revised Lakeshore Recreational
(L -R) zoning district."
B. L -R Zoning Requirements.
1. Permitted Uses. The only permitted use in the L -R District is water -
harboring of boats. This is subject to an annual licensing procedure
whereby specific standards and conditions are reviewed (see below).
2. Accessory Uses. The L -R District lists off - street parking, a clubhouse
building, one storage building, gas dispensing equipment, and boat rental
as allowable accessory uses. The yacht club has an existing clubhouse
that the applicants propose to expand. Their plans are considered to be
consistent with the Code. The applicants propose to add a storage
building to the south end of the clubhouse. It is consistent with the 1200
square foot maximum area requirement. A small storage building already
exists on the site. Staff's initial recommendation to remove this structure
has been reconsidered in view of its proposed use as a dumpster enclosure.
While a fenced or walled enclosure would typically be sufficient for such
storage, having a roof over the dumpster area will enhance screening it,
particularly from the elevated H.C.R.R.A. trail. The applicants' site plan
should be modified to show the location of this structure. It is worth
noting that neither the expansion of the clubhouse or the construction of
the storage building would be allowed under the yacht club's current
nonconforming use status.
The yacht club does not dispense gas, even to its members. Gasoline used
for their own purposes is stored in a small shed located to the east of the
clubhouse building. Final approval of the applicants' request should
include a condition that the gas storage be approved by the local fire
marshal.
The applicants' application to the LMCD references public rental of five
or more boats with outboard motors. The L -R District specifically states
that water - harboring of boats in Gideon's Bay must be limited to sailing
boats.
3. Conditional Uses.
a. Single - Family Dwelling. One of the significant changes to the L -R
District was the allowance of one single - family dwelling to serve as a
caretaker residence. In this case the caretaker residence complies with
the setback requirements for the L -R District. It is located 55 feet
-3-
Memorandum
Re: Shorewood Yacht Club
Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance
27 September 2000
from the shoreline. The only other requirement for the dwelling is that
it comply with Shorewood's Rental Housing Code. Any approval of
the SYC request should include a condition that the existing house be
inspected and conform with the Rental Housing Code.
b. Open and Outdoor Dry Land Storage of Boats and Trailers.
(1) Storage of boats must be screened from view of neighboring
residential uses. Since boats are stored in the parking area to the
west of the clubhouse, this applies mostly to the homes west of the
SYC property. In this regard it is worth noting that the nearest
homes that can see the property are the Gideon's Cove twinhomes
(500+ feet to the west) and homes on Timber Lane that are
approximately 700 feet away to the west. The view of the site is
quite well screened from view of Gideon's Cove by existing trees.
Despite the proximity of boat storage to the lakeshore on the west
side of the site, there is some opportunity to enhance the
landscaping between the parking lot and the shoreline. As part of
any approval it is recommended that the applicants submit a
detailed landscaping plan for this area that introduces some sort of
evergreen tree. It is not suggested that this be a solid screen, but
should include enough trees to soften the view from the west.
(2) Storage of boats must be screened from the street. Although
property to the south of the site is zoned for commercial use, boats
stored on the south side of the H.C.R.R.A. r.o.w. are somewhat
visible. As in (1) above, there appears to be some opportunity to
enhance screening by adding evergreen trees along the south edge
of the property, along County Road 19. These should also be
included in the applicants' landscape plan.
(3) Storage should be landscaped to buffer other public r.o.w. (in this
case the H.C.R.R.A. trail). Opportunities here are limited due to
the narrow space between the boat storage area and the trail r.o.w.
It is important that existing vegetation abutting the r.o.w. be
maintained. Where possible some evergreen trees should be
incorporated into these areas.
(4) Storage areas must be grassed or surfaced to control dust. Boat
storage is limited to the existing parking areas. According to the
applicants they presently store more than just their members'
boats, using up virtually all of the existing parking areas. It is
In
Memorandum
Re: Shorewood Yacht Club
Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance
27 September 2000
recommended that future outdoor storage of boats be limited to the
spaces currently being used. If the expansion of the site is
approved, this may limit the number of non - member boats that can
be stored on the site.
(5) Lighting of the storage areas does not appear to be an issue. Based
upon a visit to the property, lighting appears to be well managed
and unobtrusive. Any additional lighting proposed in the future
should be subject to Council approval.
(6) Some of the existing parking is occasionally used for storage of
boats during the boating season. The applicants maintain that this
does not adversely affect parking. It is recommended that parking
be periodically monitored. If it is found that parking becomes a
problem (e.g. people begin to park outside of areas designated on
the site plan), the applicant should discontinue such storage during
the boating season. As an alternative, overflow parking or storage
could be accommodated in the vacant southwest corner of the site
abutting County Road 19. Since this area provides an effective
natural buffer, its use should only be required if parking becomes a
problem.
c. Lot requirements and Setbacks. The site complies with the minimum
area, width and depth requirements of the L -R District. With the
exception of parking and outdoor dry land storage of boats, the site
also complies with setback requirements. Perhaps the single most
significant deficiency on the site is the proximity of parking and
storage to the shoreline. It has already been recommended herein to
mitigate the visual impacts by enhanced landscaping. It is further
recommended that the parking areas near the lake be examined by the
City Engineer, the DNR, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
for possible ways to address drainage directly into the lake.
d. Building Requirements. The clubhouse, caretaker residence and
proposed storage building comply with setback requirements of the L-
R District. Although the proposed storage building is 20 feet high on
the east side, the fact that it is attached to the clubhouse and only the
dredging company property can see that elevation mitigates the height.
There is also merit in being able to house the portable boat hoist inside
the building during the off season.
e. Special and Specific Conditions.
-5-
Memorandum
Re: Shorewood Yacht Club
Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance
27 September 2000
1. The site is located on a lake with at least two public accesses and is
located at least 5000 feet from any other multiple dock facility.
2. Any future construction must comply with State Building Code
requirements. The caretaker residence should be subject to
inspection and compliance with the Shorewood Rental Housing
Code.
The number of slips authorized must comply with the requirements
of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code. The
applicants were in the process of receiving LMCD approval when
the City requested that no action be taken pending the City's
approval process. The draft findings of fact prepared may be of
some use in the City's licensing of the facility.
4. Parking. The applicants' plans illustrate parking for 121 cars.
This more than complies with the Code for the existing facility's
80 boat slips (one parking space per slip). If the site and dockage
are to be expanded the total parking requirement would be 115.
As mentioned earlier in this report, the westerly parking area and
four parking spaces on the north side of the site are closer than
fifty feet from the shoreline. Since the westerly parking area is
crucial to the use of the clubhouse and docking facilities, their
elimination is not practical. As recommended earlier, ways to
mitigate the proximity of parking to the lake should be further
explored.
While paving of the parking areas is not recommended in this case,
the applicants have agreed to pave the driveway entry into the site,
up to the H.C.R.R.A. r.o.w. This is consistent with the Code and
plans for paving the driveway should reflect the heavy weights of
the boats as well as other heavy vehicles using the Minnetonka
Portable Dredging Company which shares this driveway.
5. Signage. The L -R District allows two signs on the site, one facing
the street and one facing the lake. The existing facility has one of
each, plus an additional sign on its entry canopy facing the east
(Dredging Company).
6. Illumination. Lighting at the existing facility is considered to be
very well managed, balancing safety, security and impact to
surrounding properties.
BE
Memorandum
Re: Shorewood Yacht Club
Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance
27 September 2000
7. Noise. There is no record of complaints of noise in recent years
relative to the SYC facility. Early concerns of halyards rattling in
the wind were easily addressed by having members wrap the
halyard around the masts. The SYC has gone so far as to impose a
strict fine for members who violate this rule.
Drainage. No additional grading is proposed for the property,
except for the construction of the new storage building. Standard
erosion control will be required as part of the building permit
process. As mentioned earlier the City Engineer, DNR and
MCWD engineers will be asked to review and comment on the
existing drainage of the site.
9. Historic Use. The L -R District references the historic use of the
site. It goes on to specifically restrict multiple dock water -
harboring facilities on Gideon's Bay to sailboats. In the past, the
storage of power boats for management of the club has been
limited to two. Any such limitation should not include the weed
harvesting equipment kept at the site.
II. The Expansion Site. While expansion of the existing multiple dock facilities was
not specifically referenced in the L -R District, it was known at the time that at
least the Howard's Point Marina was considering some expansion. The applicants
have acquired the property immediately west of the SYC site, north of the
H.C.R.R.A. r.o.w. This property was allowed years ago to have three docks for
the use of certain residents on Timber Lane. Over the last several years it appears
to have evolved into a dock rental operation for as many as seven boats. The
docks have been accessed by a gravel driveway from Timber Lane
The applicants' intent is to add a fourth pier to their existing dock system,
providing an additional 35 slips. One of those slips provides a dock for the
property owner at 5585Timber Lane. They also propose to maintain the
easternmost of the three docks for one of their management boats. This also is
included in the 35. The additional shoreline on this site allows the applicants to
comply with LMCD boat density requirements. In addition to the additional
dockage, the applicants would like to use the newly acquired land for their kids'
sailing school and camp(not overnight). In this regard, they propose to store
several small sailboats on a rack at the east end of the parcel. They also propose a
boat dock canopy on the east end of the parcel to protect students from the
elements. This canopy would be removed at the end of the boating season. The
applicants propose to access this portion of the site by means of a small foot
bridge connected to their main facility.
-7-
Memorandum
Re: Shorewood Yacht Club
Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance
27 September 2000
With respect to the expansion, several factors should be taken into consideration:
A. Parking and Access. As mentioned earlier in this report, the applicants
propose parking for 121 cars. With the new docks the total number of slips
required under the Code is 115. It is highly recommended that access for the
westerly parcel be limited to emergency vehicles only. With the exception of
the proposed canopy and the sailboat storage rack, the westerly parcel should
remain in a natural undeveloped state.
B. Boat Traffic. The proposed docks arrangement suggests approximately a 40
percent increase in boat storage and, presumably, 40 percent more boat traffic.
The applicants estimate that their average use on weekdays is up to 10 percent
of the members, with weekends up to 30 percent (approximately 24 boats
currently). Multiplying these figures by 40 percent suggests 11 boats on
weekdays and 34 boats per day on weekends.
It is worth noting that out of necessity the sailboats using the facility must
follow a well defined channel, marked by buoys. The applicants advise us
that no additional dredging of the lake bottom will be required to
accommodate the new slips. Those on the inside, where the water is
somewhat more shallow, will accommodate smaller sailboats that have swing -
up keels.
C. Existing Dock Rights. If the expansion is approved, a stipulations should be
placed in the permit for the site that the westerly dock must be strictly limited
to one boat, for the exclusive use of the residents at 5585 Timber Lane. The
dock shall not be rented out.
RECOMMENDATION
The rezoning of the existing site is relatively uncomplicated, provided the
recommendations included herein are included in the approval. The expansion is
somewhat more challenging, but presents an interesting opportunity for the City to
achieve greater control over the property. Input from area residents will undoubtedly
raise issues not addressed herein. Assuming those issues can be adequately addressed by
the City, it is recommended that the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment be
favorably considered. The applicants' next step would then be to make a formal
application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, during which time staff should be
directed to prepare an ordinance and resolution approving the rezoning and conditional
use permit, respectively.
Cc: Larry Brown John and Judy Cross
In
0
O
w
O
Ln
0
DUCK ISLAND
FROG ISLAND 3�4d C
F�
N
500 0 500 Feet
V
��6
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Shorewood Yacht Club - Rezoning
rg
SEP 27 2000 j1�1
BY
9/27/00
Bradley J. Nielsen
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
Our family opposes the request of rezoning that Minnetonka
Moorings, Inc. has made to the City of Shorewood. The residents of
our association have previously requested a similar rezoning to permit
more docks than the two authorized by you and were turned down with
the statement that an effort is being made to limit the number of boats
on Lake Minnetonka and the two docks allowed are all that can be made
available. We accepted that decision, but reserved the right to reapply if
the situation changed.
If Minnesota Moorings is granted their request, it follows that
Gideon Cove residents are being encouraged to also request rezoning so
more docks may be built and utilized. We are asking for only ten more
docks, whereas they are asking for an additional 35.
We request that this letter be considered when you debate the
merits of their rezoning request.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth D. Jewell
23770 Lawtonka Drive
RAJewel( * *.+ 4 .'s
FILE COPY
.harry Klopp & Associates, LTD
901 MARQUETTE AVENUE, SUITE 2820 • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55402 (612) 333 -5313 • 1- 800 -669 -0602 • FAX: 1- 612- 333 -1916
September 25, 2000
Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
Planning Department
5755 County Club Road
Shorewood, MN. 55331
Dear Mr. Nielsen,
Moo
t
The Shorewood Yacht Club is an asset of the lake community, and the
enhancement of their property poses no problems to me. I therefore support
their request.
Since ely,
Larry L. Klopp
136 George Street
Excelsior, Mn. 55331
LK /cjl
REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE OF FORTIS INVESTORS. INC.. P.O. BOX 64264. ST. PAUL. MN 55164
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2000 — PAGE 3 of 8
The public hearing was opened at 7:35 P.M.
Mrs. Jeannie Polston, 28215 Boulder Circle was in attendance and addressed the Commission to explain
there was a title search in progress related to the unbuildable parcel to be combined. Barring any
contrary findings, she did not anticipate any problems with these suggestions.
Mr. Darrell Carver, 27910 Smithtown Road, asked Mrs. Polston if there were to be trees planted around
the new garage. She responded the area around the garage is quite wooded, and while no new additional
trees were to be planted on the south side of the garage, she did not believe Mr. Carver would be able to
see the new garage.
The public hearing was closed at 7:40 P.M.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned whether there was a plan to plant trees to screen the garage from the
east. Mrs. Polston stated they were planning to plant a few evergreen trees on that side of the garage in
an effort to provide screening.
Anderson moved, Woodruff seconded, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet, for Steve and Jeannie Polston, 28215 Boulder
Circle, subject to the applicant providing a landscape plan showing where trees would be planted
for screening. Motion passed 510.
3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
• COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
• REZONING FROM R -1A TO L -R
• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
• VARIANCE
Applicant: Minnetonka Moorings
Location: 600 West Lake Street
*For future reference, please note there is a Planning Commission memorandum on file at City Hall
from Brad Nielsen, dated September 27, 2000- referencing File No. 405(00.27). This memorandum
explains, in significant detail, the history and analysis surrounding these requests.
Director Nielsen provided a detailed explanation of the issues involved in these requests. He explained
John and Judy Cross, representing Minnetonka Moorings and working through the Shorewood Yacht
Club facility, had submitted an application for rezoning of their property. In doing so, a Conditional Use
Permit, Variance, and an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan were necessitated. Involved
in this property and hither complicating matters was the recent acquisition of a parcel of land
immediately west of the Yacht Club where Mr. and Mrs. Cross were proposing additional dockage in an
effort to expand their business. In reviewing this matter, Director Nielsen provided information as it
pertained to the existing site and then regarding the expansion site. Some issues pertain to both sites.
First, Director Nielsen explained that any rezoning must be guided by the Comprehensive Plan set forth
by the City. When amended last, efforts were made to pave the way, should an opportunity arise, to
bring the marinas into compliance with the Lakeshore Recreational (L -R) zoning district. In considering
the L -R District Requirements, there are Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses, and Conditional Uses relating
to Single - Family Dwellings, Open and Outdoor Dry Land Storage of Boats and Trailers, Lot
Requirements and Setbacks, Building Requirements, and Special and Specific Conditions. Following is a
brief summary of the comparison between the subject property and these requirements as detailed by
Attachment 11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2000 — PAGE 4 of 8
Director Nielsen. A more significantly detailed discussion of these issues can be found in the Planning
Commission referendum referenced at the beginning of this Item.
The permitted use in the L -R district was subject to annual licensing procedure and had as its only use
the water - harboring of boats. Specifically, the L -R district stated the water - harboring of boats in
Gideon's Bay must be limited to sailing boats.
The L -R District had off - street parking, a clubhouse building, a storage building, gas dispensing
equipment and boat rental as allowable uses for this area. The Shorewood Yacht Club had all of these.
The storage building on the site was to be removed, however, its proposed use as a dumpster enclosure
was deemed more useful, as a roof over the area would help to conceal it from the Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority trail which bisects the property.
With regard to the single family dwelling on the property as part of its Conditional Uses, all setback
requirements were observed, however, it would need to comply with the Shorewood Rental Housing
Code and would need to be inspected for conformance.
While there were many issues to be examined regarding Open and Outdoor Dry Land Storage of Boats
and Trailers, the most significant matter seemed to be a need for a detailed landscaping plan for the area
demonstrating a plan for screening of evergreen trees between the parking lot and shoreline, along the
South edge of the property facing County Road 19, as well as maintaining existing vegetation abutting
the Right -of -Way near the H.C.R.R.A trail.
Director Nielsen complimented the Yacht Club on their lighting noting it was very well done for its use
as well as being sensitive in its impact on the neighbors.
There was concern for the boat storage on the site, noting that if all parking sites would be utilized and
boats stored on the site as well, the need would exceed supply. An alternative parking /storage area was
proposed in the vacant southwest corner of the site abutting County Road 19. Parking was considered an
area to monitor and adjust as needed.
The most significant concern overall seemed to be the proximity of parking and storage so close to the
shoreline. While enhanced landscaping would help to mitigate potential problems, it was recommended
that the parking areas near the lake be examined by many agencies in an effort to address issues of
drainage directly into the lake from this site.
With regard to Signage found in the Special and Specific Conditions portion of the L -R District Zoning
Code, the Shorewood Yacht Club had three signs while the requirements stated that only two signs would
be allowed.
At this point, Director Nielsen explored the background related to the expansion site and requests made
regarding this portion of land as it related to the Shorewood Yacht Club. He noted three additional docks
existed on this site primarily for the use of certain residents on Timber Lane.
The applicants would like to add a fourth dock to the existing system, providing thirty -five additional
slips. One of the docks would be maintained as a slip for a property owner at 5585 Timber Lane. The
easternmost of the three docks would be for one of their management boats utilized in assisting
customers in need of help.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2000 - PAGE 5 of 8
When considering issues involved in the expansion site, Director Nielsen explained, it would be
important to consider issues of Parking and Access, as well as Boat Traffic and Existing Dock Rights.
Parking and Access on the expansion site was recommended to include emergency vehicles only. With
the exception of a proposed boat canopy used to protect the Sailing School students from the elements
and a sailboat storage rack, the site should remain in a natural undeveloped state.
Boat traffic was believed to increase by approximately forty percent as a result of the proposed plans for
this site, however, no dredging of the lake bottom would be required to accommodate the additional slips.
Existing Dock Rights should be maintained for the exclusive use of the residents of 5585 Timber Lane
only as part of consideration of the expansion site.
Director Nielsen summarized his comments noting he believed the plans to be well done and addressed
many issues identified in the past. He stated there would be many improvements to the property and the
expansion and rezoning would allow the City to gain more control over the property. He also noted a list
of names had been submitted to the City noting no opposition to the proposed plans for this site.
John and Judy Cross were in attendance and seized the opportunity to address the Commission. Mr.
Cross noted he had few disagreements to the recommendations Director Nielsen had reviewed. He also
noted there was no current need for the overflow parking/storage area, but did not want this to be an issue
at the time it would be needed in the future.
Mrs. Cross addressed the issue of the third sign facing the lake. She stated she considered it more of a
"landscape embellishment" as it was made of rope and occupied a flower bed. She stated the members
liked it, and it could only be seen from the lake, however, it was not needed. She also stated the
neighbors that can see the property have no objection to it being there.
Mr. Cross also expressed disappointment in the necessary delay for formal approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mrs. Cross noted there are forty-one people on a waiting list for the
proposed slips, and they were hoping to have the dockage ready next spring. The timeframe that would
occur as part of the formal approval process would not allow that to happen.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:40 P.M.
Dwayne V., 5585 Timber Lane, stated his concern regarding the noise coming from the hollow booms on
the sailboats, and a concern over the potential overflow lot on the southwesterly corner of the property.
He stated he had lived at his address for twenty -eight years and knew the locale of the proposed driveway
onto County Road 19. He voiced concern for safety in that area should the overflow lot be needed.
James Hancock, 23800 Lawtonka Drive, stated he was very much in favor of these requests as he
believed it to be a more favorable use of property.
Steve and Nancy Linder, 23730 Lawtonka Drive, were in attendance. Mr. Linder addressed the
Commission with his request to reconsider dockage for the Gideon Cove residents. He state it was his
prior knowledge that additional docks had been denied in that area as a general rule, and he was surprised
to see this request coming forward for approval.
Joann Schaub, 5465 Timber Lane, was very concerned for traffic utilizing the proposed overflow parking
area. She questioned Mrs. Cross as to whether emergency vehicles were currently utilizing that area.
Mrs. Cross responded the police may be monitoring that area, but she was not sure. Mrs. Schaub
commented she had seen vehicles removing the chain and driving in on previous occasions.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2000 - PAGE 6 of 8
Julie Ingelman, 23720 Lawtonka Drive, stated her concerns over the timing of this issue, and the Gideon
Cove request for additional dockage being denied. She also noted parking seemed to be quite crowded
on the Yacht Club property, and she would like to see the mess along the H.C.R.R.A. trail cleaned up as
she utilized the trail daily
Dan Puzak, 23830 Smithtown Road, expressed concern over the lakeshore and lake bottom. He stated
this area previously served as a drainage area for the Excelsior Sanitary Sewer Treatment facility and it
was his belief that it was one of the most polluted areas of lake bottom in that area. He stated he would
like to see a viable business run in that area with clean -up of the lake bottom. He did not support these
requests due to the muck on the lake bottom potentially being disturbed. He also had concerns for traffic
on Lawtonka Drive. He believed if it was not fenced off, it would create an eyesore in that area.
Donna Delaney, 23760 Lawtonka Drive, stated her support for the improvements to the existing marina
site. She noted she did not hear any noise, and the sailboats are a beautiful view. She did, however, have
concerns regarding the proposed drive down Timber Lane. Regarding the muck on the bottom, she
believed Lake Minnetonka to be a large lake, and she did not see the muck on the bottom affecting the
rest of the lake as a whole.
Judy Cross again spoke to address concerns regarding the proposed driveway entrance. She stated there
is a process in place used for pick -up and drop -off of students for the sailing school. She did not want
the additional responsibility of dealing with students being dropped "off in the proposed driveway
entrance area. The current process would continue to be enforced regarding the students being
transported to the sailing school.
John Cross also stated that by removing the middle dock of the three on the expansion site, the area
would be left in a more natural state.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 9:04 P.M.
Commissioner Anderson stated his two concerns to be related to storage and screening of the boats, and
the close proximity of the parking to the lake. Also, he believed access to Timber Lane should be
controlled.
Commissioner Turgeon commented she had concerns related to proposed versus actual numbers of
parking spaces on the site. Also, she did not want to see another driveway placed onto County Road 19
in that area. Furthermore, she believed sensitivity should be used when considering implications from
the muck on the bottom of the lake. She stated she would like to approach appropriate agencies and
authorities to find out what is on the lake bottom in this area.
Commissioner Woodruff echoed Commissioner Turgeon's comments regarding the environmental
impacts in and around this area. Commissioner Boehm also supported concerns regarding environmental
impacts on this site. He also expressed concern for the parking situation and proposed overflow area.
Chair Bailey reminded the Planning Commission of the efforts put into the Comprehensive Plan. He
believed these plans to be a positive step forward, and he did not want to lose sight of the opportunity to
bring this property in compliance.
Much discussion centered on how to allow the applicants to move forward with plans although a formal
Comprehensive Plan amendment could not be approved this evening.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2000 - PAGE 7 of 8
Commissioner Anderson commented it seemed as though Mr. Cross had acted in good faith and he
wanted to see the Yacht Club brought into compliance. He noted the approval process can sometimes
appear daunting, and he believed it best to work with the Yacht Club on these matters.
Anderson moved, Boehm seconded, recommending approval of rezoning the parcels in question,
the Conditional Use Permits as presented, and a variance —for John and Judy Cross, representing
Minnetonka Moorings, 600 West Lake Street, subject to final approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and submittal of a professional Landscape Plan, also a plan for controlling the access
to Timber Lane, and an Engineering Report on the matters of the new proposed parking spaces
and existing parking near the lake to be presented on November 2, 2000, as well as scheduling a
public hearing for a formal Comprehensive Plan Amendment on November 2, 2000.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she believed it would be possible to move forward with these requests.
Commissioner Anderson reiterated that it can be a cumbersome process to move government along, but
he believed the Shorewood Yacht Club to be an asset to the City, and he would like to work with the
Yacht Club to move matters forward.
Motion passed 5/0.
4. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING GIDEON GLEN
Director Nielsen stated the City Council had authorized up to $175,000 for the acquisition of the Gideon
Glen property. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District had agreed to provide up to $200,000 to help in
the acquisition. Other funding sources were being considered as well in an effort to minimize
expenditures for the property.
He also explained there are a number of purposes for securing this property —one of them being wetland
preservation. He also noted the acquisition of this property would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan for the City.
Woodruff moved, Anderson seconded, recommending approval for the purchase of the Gideon
Glen property. Motion passed 5/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Mr. Jerry Brekke, Howard's Point Marina, was in attendance and stated it was good to see the Planning
Commission work as a group to resolve tough issues. He state he had remained at this meeting because
he wanted to pay the Planning Commission the compliment of doing a good job.
Chair Bailey thanked him for his fine compliment.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The next meeting for the Planning Commission would be November 21, 2000, and would include two
items as well as a discussion regarding Right -of -Way issues.
7. REPORTS
Chair Bailey stated he would be the City Council Liaison for the month of October, 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2000 - PAGE 8 of 8
8. ADJOURNMENT
Anderson moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the meeting at 10:02 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 00-111
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE
FOR A YACHT CLUB TO MINNETONKA MOORINGS, INC.
WHEREAS, Minnetonka Moorings, Inc. (Applicant) has an interest in certain real
property located at 600 West Lake Street in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to expand the Shorewood Yacht Club, which
currently occupies the property, add an accessory storage building and additional dock slips; and
WHEREAS, the existing Shorewood Yacht Club is a nonconforming use in the R -1A/S
and R -3A/S zoning districts and operates under a court- ordered conditional use permit which was
issued by the City of Shorewood in Council Resolution 24 -79, which resolution is on file in the
Shorewood City offices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has agreed to rezone the subject property to the L -R,
Lakeshore Recreational District, in which the existing caretaker dwelling on the property and the
outdoor storage of boats require a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.24 Subd. 4 of
the Shorewood City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a variance to the setback requirements for on-
site parking on the property; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in memoranda to the Planning Commission dated 27
September 2000, and 1 November 2000 which memoranda are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Engineer, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated
1 November 2000, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 3 October 2000, the minutes of
which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit and variance was
considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 13 November 2000, at which time the
Planner's memoranda, the City Engineer's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning
Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City Staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
Attachment III
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the Subject Property is located in an R -1 /A, Single - Family
Residential /Shoreland and R- 3A/Multiple- Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and
contains approximately 4.7 acres.
2. That the subject property currently exists as two parcels of land as described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. That the westernmost parcel is currently occupied by three dock structures that
were originally intended for use by certain residents on Timber Lane. The westernmost dock is
accessed by an easement in favor of the owner of the property located at 5585 Timber Lane.
4. That the Shorewood City Council has agreed to rezone the subject property to the
L -R, Lakeshore Recreational District, upon proof of recording of the deed conveying property
described in Exhibit A to Shorewood Yacht Club that shall contain the following language:
"Grantee shall not convey this property to any other person or entity without including in
the conveyance, the property described on the attached Exhibit A (being the property
immediately contiguous to the subject property lying to the east), without prior written
consent of the City of Shorewood."
5. That a clubhouse facility, a caretaker dwelling, a boat launch ramp and boat
docking for 80 sailboats plus 2 management slips currently occupy the site.
6. That, in addition to the water harboring of boats, the Applicant's application
proposes the following activities for the subject property: 1) sailboat rental; 2) sailing school; 3)
incidental boat sales; and 4) storage of weed harvesting equipment.
7. That the Applicant proposes to extend a fourth pier from the westernmost existing
pier on the site, increasing the number of boat slips from 82 to 117.
8. That the Applicant proposes to construct a small pedestrian bridge between the
existing Yacht Club property and the newly acquired westerly parcel.
9. That the Applicant proposes to locate a small sailboat storage rack for the use of a
youth sailing school which will be conducted on the westerly parcel.
10. That the Applicant proposes to erect a boat dock frame and canopy on the
westerly parcel to be used as a shelter for the youth sailing school.
11. That the Applicant's plans show parking for 121 vehicles.
2
12. That the Applicant's plans are illustrated in the site plans shown on Exhibits B
and C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
13. That the subject property is located on a lake with at least two public accesses and
is at least 5000 feet away from any other multiple dock facility.
14. That the subject property currently displays three signs, whereas the Shorewood
City Code limits the number of signs in the L -R District to two.
15. That the City has no record of complaints of noise in recent years relative to the
subject property.
16. That the Applicant proposes additional landscaping and screening along the west
side of the site, abutting the shoreline of the lake and along the south side of the H.C.R.R.A.
right -of -way and along the south side of the site abutting County Road 19, as shown on Exhibit
D, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's
request for a conditional use permit for a sailing yacht club at 600 West Lake Street.
2. That this approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. The Applicant must comply with the requirements of Section 1201.24 of the
Shorewood City Code and must obtain an annual license for the facility, pursuant
to Subd. 10 of that section.
b. The Applicant must obtain a multiple dock license, special density license and
necessary variances from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District.
C. The permit shall be limited to the docking of sailboats, except for three power
boats used by the management of the Yacht Club. In addition, the dock located at
the westernmost end of the subject property shall be limited to one boat owned by
the residents of 5585 Timber Lane. Weed harvesting equipment shall not count
against the allowable number of power boats.
d. The proposed buildings shall be constructed as shown on Exhibits B and C,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, and must be constructed in compliance
with the Minnesota State Building Code.
e. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained according to the approved
landscape plan as shown on Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Landscaping shall be completed by 15 June 2001.
3
Hours of operation shall be as follows:
Sunday through Thursday: 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
Friday through Saturday: 6:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M.
g. Dock quiet hours shall be between the hours of 10:00 P.M and 6:00 A.M.
h. Sailboats, when not in use, shall have their halyards secured by such devices as
will minimize any noise that may be caused by them.
i. Right -of -way shall be given to all barges and work boats being used by the
adjacent dredging company.
Any radios utilized on -board sailboats shall be kept below decks with their
volume at a discreet level.
k. The Applicant shall install a solid core steel door on the gasoline storage shed, per
the requirements of the Fire Marshall. Gasoline storage shall be limited to that
which is used by the management of the Yacht Club.
1. The shelter for the youth sailing camp shall be a seasonal boat dock canopy to be
taken down at the end of the sailing season.
m. The storage rack for the youth sailing camp shall be located 50 feet back from the
ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka.
n. The access drive from Timber Lane to the westerly portion of the site shall be
gated and locked except for occasional maintenance activities. The driveway shall
not be used as access to the youth sailing camp.
o. No dredging is anticipated as part of this permit. Any future dredging requests
will be subject to normal dredging permit procedures.
P. Any dock pilings to be installed must be driven as opposed to a jetting method.
q. The American Disabilities Act parking spaces must be constructed consistent with
the State Building Code and are subject to the conditions imposed by the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District.
r. Curbstones shall be installed for each parking stall on the site.
S. The overflow parking area shown on Exhibit B in the southwest corner of the site
is not approved as part of this permit.
t. Prior to any further work being done on the site, the Applicant must provide in
recorded form, evidence that the deed for the land described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, contains the following language:
"Grantee shall not convey this property to any other person or entity without
including in the conveyance, the property described on the attached Exhibit A
(being the property immediately contiguous to the subject property lying to the
east), without prior written consent of the City of Shorewood."
5
U. The Applicant shall submit a signage plan for the property in compliance with the
requirements of the Shorewood City Code.
3. That the Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the
Shorewood City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes.
4. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a
setback variance for the parking lot as shown on Exhibit B, subject to the conditions set forth
herein.
5. That the City Administrator /Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a
certified copy of this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of
Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of
November 2000.
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRADLEY J. NIELSEN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
3
ascr__— Lpt_ion: .
irce= 1:
L.t part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, described
follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly extension of the
ist line of Lot 24, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin County,
nesota" with a line drawn parallel with and 25.00 feet Southerly from the
Ln
anter line of the railroad track of the Chicago and North Western
cansportation Company (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway
Dmpary); thence Westerly along said parallel line a distance of 621.26 feet;
aence southeasterly 29.64 feet, more or less, to a point which is on a line
cawn parallel with and 50.00 feet Southerly from center line of said railroad
rack and 606.53 feet Westerly along the last described parallel line from the
outherly extension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence Westerly along the
ast described parallel line'to the West line of said Government. Lot 2; thence
outh along said West line to the-center line of 'County Road Number 19; thence
ortheasterly along the center line of county Road Number 19 to the Southerly
xtension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence North slang said extension
o the point of beginning. Hennepin County, Mitmesc&a.
arcel 2:
hat part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 111, Range 23; described
.s follows: Beginning at the intersection of the East line of Lot 24,
Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin County, Minnesota ",' with a line
sawn parallel with and 18.00 feet Northerly from the center line of the
,ailroad track of the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company); thence Westerly
long said parallel line a distance of 639.27 feet; thence Northwesterly to
:he Southwest corner of Lot 25, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin
.ounty, Minnesota "; thence East.:rly along the Southerly line of said Lot 25 to
:he Southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence South along
;aid extension to-the point of beginning.
:xcept,.that portion of the above parcels 1 and 2 embraced within Lot 297
,uditor!s Subdivision Number 135 Hennepin County', Minnesota.
? arcs l3:
Chat part of Lot 25. lying Westerly of the following described line:
7ommencing at.the Southeasterly corner of Lot 24; thence South along the East
line of said Lot 25 a distance of 24.30 feet; thence deflecting right 79
3egrees 25 minutes 40 seconds a distance of 406.48 feet; thence deflecting
right 9A degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds to a point on the Southerly line of
said Lot 25 which is the true point of beginning of the line being described,
thence continuing along last described line to the shore line of Lake
Minnetonka and there ending, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin
county, Minnesota."
Together with a 12 foot easement for road purposes, the center line of which
is described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 24 of
said Auditor's Subdivision; thence South along the East line of said Lot 25, a
distance of 24.30 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described;
thence deflecting right 81 degrees 39 minutes a distance of 379.0 feet; thence
deflecting right 58 degrees 52 minutes a distance of 46.06 feet to a point on
the East line of above - described property and there ending, as shown in deed
Document Number 1052891, Files of•Registrar of Titles; (as to Parcel 3)
Parcel 4:
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, township 117, Range 23, described
as Lot 293, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135 and adjacent 60 feet of
Minneapolis and St. Paul Suburban Railway abandoned right -of -way (NOTE: Lot
293 all under water).-
Exhibit A
A�
ny
^r � /�/ �.rr�� 11r .:i' lt��,e �;•i j, }��y S�l�'1�t�j "' +���1�' � .,,, h...i• +• � jtit ; i'1'I .. _.. _
T /!ar if
4:1
qj
Lj•• , -
. 4,p
.... . ......... ------
._\HCiTiitlV i ?c)i�
. .........
I I I �' __.. ."• _ .._�I: ^L �+ Ffi Yx l r:: �, -^r* r,�_.i �`.I .�- =fi n—r"�' rm�
I 5 t � - If � . !: �+, . �'�'"C'h..'� --^ • •r " Lam• '•� �•. f � : J 14 �� �` � I j
,��� , '�.vu�51F:2'5':Lt'12 _ I � •'i •- �'�i'• �-Gi � •r •�L �i.�� ( ' r ill '� I
• n�ye,.".• , , z?wf9;?;J^aaeynr�`rrro ��= ;2 :._ :s^;!.':Yr._ �• -�C.' I��..._l. •_�
—C;. _1J. .:.Sf.F ' S� ✓•`_ice � ._ ICJ
. �. ' 1y,. A.iS•a� 4: 'f^an.na...w.uiW� x+a;���.r�. .._A. %"'7.rii"9.•a ..'�� :� �.. '1:-i_•i.:.
{ � ,.,I,L, �,: 1�'a•u.::�5�} ��re�',- �t��i�l 4 f r,�{Y �� _ . ��} SX` r :.... H r4
i i' / t {ttt{`(� -- ,_ C• ,`f..j�,l.�.= yI� ;: I ,I••`._.,'1'••�j�... !j;
yl � '' - -I{ } :�If I t '•^ t I• /!'II .t�I' 1. ''a�._. i I(. ,ELI {,,r'•, i� I'iF ,,�� ."7_. I t
•_1 � 1 _ _ •� I i. II I Ij,,j lI _ I i };' I
—
�I'Ili -li rl tii ''� I11 ;(�i "l, :� iHj`(` II—.id ' {1 _ __ '•I- ._- I.•
. i�l,w,.,r ; i � __ 1 a, 1 . - ^� -• -• iL ; il:� }, i : r.:,. 1 '� � I�:� ,� { ' j 1 • ' j • :�
1:".J��'1� -�-,i •�-- '-,;,. ���-'.�.` ��;_�1._(�.p.l�•_�.,I._. �.i" •�„ — i`�•�r 1�,. ��ri �; ��I1 i
I
i
I
I
i
i
ja
vP5 e.I 3Y •3.l
Wi
it
Y'� •• ,•t' 9 W;I. O h3'L����f�°��ietN,t'^ i 5 N�`�tx���.
11, Y�iv 1uL'6u: PUli�,�b`�M�t+w ls.Yt`r.4 'f�J, Cr �•`�� �' .� • l•� N -cS6 P3�-i �ttY;. i '.,
- -• -- LL •3.,• {. 9` t -'9 'r .�`. - t b�� ,. -���� 6Y V5 Y i�,'}•A'��r �t err t .,,:, �,
�.i. r ,g =C ; y • u..s Y
a'J I n
- ,� I 1 � :P t f•N:
-• ' •'\ `t • �� a 1'I � t ,�5, q��°/ �� 7 �'b�t� � � �L,w�J�J �'.'t sip, - �
�— \e'er , i, S T 1 `! — -� 121' 1 ' 1 VS, AYi � `•n,L`�' r` N � ^�i
1
— � �, t. •• '.` " ` t.l•..`� u1 1Y�25, l 4 � it �i �;=1'r' _ I
G , \• {. G� _ 111 .1 e _ �. w;` # `,��� ei .,� � � ji,� c *'
• -1 �.. °��p. — i �1 £� t:.5, .�'• !�• ,�:• � tall ��tt�''�
„�� � � \ •�a„ I t' ? ' �' �'4 \.t—'�.:.: 0'1.,.4
o-
F RUM : LMC D F-HX NU. : f45'30F3t Sep. :2 e 21JU e 10: 2 eHM N1
LAKE MI.NNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Q U I E T W A T E R
Policy Statement
9 -24 -8b
Post -le Fax Note
7671
Fr.
Date
C
pag °es M' +
TO
From
Go•
Co. /Dept.
Phone #
PhonC #
Fax It dl .
Fax #
Attachment IV
I-NUM : LMCD hHX NU. : e4t>JWBS Sep. :2e 21JU e 10: :2 fHM N�2
LAKE MINNETONKA OONSERVATION DISTRICT
A POLICY FOR ESTABLTSH> MNT OF QUIET WATUS ARnA
ON LAXB DUNNETONKA
GOAT. The goal of recreational management should be to insure each recreational
demand the highest possible availability of satisfaction of that demand con-
sistent with satisfaction of other recreational demands and preservation
of the sake itself as a recreational resource.
The goal of the Quiet Waters program is to maintain and improve the quality
of recreational experience on Lake Miin.netorcka in the least restrictive. manner.
POLICY, It is the policy of the District to establish Quiet Waters areas in
strictly limited areas of the Lake where public safety, environmental and
recreational steeds are demonstrated consistent with the quiet waters and
recreational, goals of the District.
GENERAL. To improve the recreational experience on Lake Minnetonka the District
has established general pollution, winter use, water structures, and boating
safety rules, and has restricted activity in some traditionally congested
areas (such as channels) using the quiet waters concept.
The District has adopted lakewide regulations including the establishment of
Quiet Waters areas within 1501 of the shoreline or lake structures aTound the
Lake and general. speed limits which may affect specific Quiet Waters proposals.
F KUM : LMUD h HX NU. : e45y085 Sep. 2e 201j e 10: 28HM H'
Lake 11i.nnetotika Conservation District 2.
The District has responded to expressed need to improve the effectiveness of
Quiet Waters areas by modification, i.e.:
1. changing the boundaries of regulated areas.
2. changing numbers and /or location of Slow buoys.
3. changing time and type of regulation.
4. requesting special attention by the Water patrol.
b. placing of special regulatory signs.
C. placing of general information signs at accesses.
7, circulation of boating information folders.
8_ other.
2L-ASONS I'OR'RE2UESTS. Many reasons have been expressed for requesting Quiet
Waters areas or changes, among them:
1. Excessive noise.
2. Traffic- congestion.
3. Ien oral h_-h 1Rve7 cff roa~tn activity.
4. Waterskiimg.
5. Intimidation of swimmers by wtaterskiers.
6. Waterskiin.g too close to structures or boats.
7. Wash and wake damage to boats and dockage.
8. Wash and wake damage to the shoreline.
9. To preserve natural areas.
10. To protest fishing areas.
11. To reduce environmental impact.
12. Area too small for general boating.
F PUM : LMC D F HX NU. : e45'308t> Sep. 2 e 2017 e 11d : ;28HM F'4
Lalte Minnetonka Conservation District 3
13. Smaller boats need protection.
14. Quiet Waters needed on weekends, not during weelt.
15. Only area affected needs Quiet Waters, not whole bay.
16. May encourage weed growth.
17. Rule changes should be based on accident records.
18. Establishment should include adequate signing and enforcement.
19. Recent increase in traffic.
20. Normal wave action is entensified by power boats.
21. Navigational buoys are ignored.
22. Area is critical under LMCD boat density standards.
23. BuQy placement changes needed to be effective.
24. Specified areas of shorezone need buoys.
25. Area is really an extended channel, (high traffic) area..
26. Lack of adequate law enforcement.
27. Slow buoys are more effective for traffic control than navigation markers.
28. Mixing of drinking and boating near transient facilities.
29. Increased traffic around marinas, restaurants, launching ramps or other
multiple facilities.
30. TO protect sailboat mooring areas.
31. Large haves of 4 feet to 6 feet from wakes.
32. Area is part of the "circle" route.
33. Other.
F HUM : LMC L) F HX NU. : e45308t5 Sep. :2 e 10: ;:�LHM F'S
Lzka Minnc.torika Cous$rvaLioii L)5SLI'1Ct
4.
C1t:11'lsUA for deCLrn�in�Pf,�neec� Lo con Sider thct L, stablishmem_ of » Pujet WaterS
area.
1. Determination of need as expressed by the applicant.
2. Determination of the boating safety record for the area.
3. Determination of LMCD boating density index for the area.
4. Observation of the proposed Quiet Waters area during at least three normal
high -use periods for one boating season by the LMCD.
5. Determination of any natural or special geographic features of the area
which need to be considered.
6. Determination of any special 'boating or other use characteristics affecting
the area.
7. Conduct a public hearing to develop further information about the application.
8. Determination,of affects of the establishment of the Quiet Wafters area on
nearby areas, or on the Lake as a whole.
9. Determination of whether or not the establishment of the Quiet Waters area
would be essentially of private or of general public benefit.
F HUM : LM(;ll
I- HX NU. : e45131JUt> Sep. 2 f 21JU e 1 J: 213HM F'6
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District: 5.
10. Determination of,any effects on the public health, welfare, and safety
and the most general public use of the bake.
Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors
this 24th day of September, 1986.
ATTEST:
/s/ Frank Mixa
Frank Mixa, Executive Director
/a/ Robert Basta
Robert Rascop, Chairman
CITY OF SHORE, WOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2007
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, Meyer, and Ruoff;
Planning Director Nielsen; and Councilmember Callies
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
16 October 2007
Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 16
October 2007 as presented. Motion passed 6/0/1 with Ruoff abstaining due to his absence at the
meeting.
1. L -R ZONING DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT AND C.U.P AMENDME NT (continued
from 16 October 2007)
Applicant: Shorewood Yacht Club
Location: 600 West Lake Street
Chair Schmitt stated this item was continued from the October 16, 2007, Planning Commission meeting.
He then stated at that meeting the Commission directed Staff to prepare a draft resolution; the
Commissioners had received three versions of the draft resolution (which included the revision it received
at the meeting). Director Nielsen explained the most recent version included a change to Item A.7 under
Conclusions; the change, which was recommended by Councilmember Callies, included a provision
which linked the enforcement and monitoring to the interim conditional use permit (C.U.P.). Nielsen then
read the revised Item A.7.
Commissioner Gagne noted that the interim C.U.P. allowed for the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) to rent
35 slips for power boat use; that would allow a total 40 power boats to be harbored in the water at the
SYC (the SYC was already allowed three power boats which were used by management, one power boat
for the residents of 5585 Timber Lane, and the Excelsior Fire District's rescue boat).
Director Nielsen explained this request also required an amendment to the City Code Section 1201.24
Subd. 10A regarding the L -R, Lakeshore Recreational District. He then reviewed the draft amendment
(the changes are italicized) — "d. Issuance of a license shall take into consideration the historic use of the
site under consideration with respect to the use of power boats. With the exception of power boats
necessary for the operation of the facility and publicly -owned watercraft operated by public safety
personnel, water harboring of boats on any site in Gideon's Bay shall be limited to sailing boats only.
Upon a favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council may license a limited
Exhibit C -1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Excerpt - 20 November 2007
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
20 November 2007
Page 2 of 6
number of poorer boats, provided the essential character of the property as a sailing facilio) is
maintained."
Nielsen then explained the Planning Commission must first take action to recommend the text
amendment and then take action to recommend the draft resolution.
Commissioner Geng stated he had a question with regard to the following statement in the Interim C.U. P.
Item A.7 under Conclusions — "The determination shall be based upon the number and nature of
complaints received and compliance with this permit." He questioned how complaints without merit
would be addressed. Director Nielsen stated the Interim C.U.P. specified the Staff would monitor
verifiable complaints filed through the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department ( SLMPD); it would
ultimately result in a judgment call. Chair Schmitt stated he shared Commissioner Geng's concern; during
previous Planning Commission discussions on this topic the subjectivity of complaints had been
discussed which was why the nature of the complaints had to be considered as well as the number of
complaints. Commissioner Ruoff questioned how the situation would be handled if there was one
verifiable complaint filed through the SLMPD and then there were 65 others that had not been filed
through the SLMPD. Nielsen stated if, for example, the City received a complaint during normal business
hours that there were power boats docked at slips other than those designated Staff could go down and
research the complaint.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen explained at the end of the three -
year term for the Interim C.U.P. the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding converting the Interim C.U.P. to a permanent C.U.P. (which would require another
Public Hearing), continuing the Interim C.U.P., or discontinuing the Interim C.U.P.
With regard to a question from Commissioner Ruoff about the "essential character of the property"
statement in the text amendment, Director Nielsen explained the original Staff report recommended the
number of rental slips that could be used for power boats should be less than the 50 percent requested to
keep with essential character.
Gagne moved, Gnifflw seconded, recommending approval of the draft text amendment to City
Code Section 1201.24 Subd. 10.d. Motion passed 7.0.
Gagne moved, Meyer seconded, recommending approval of the draft resolution of the Interim
Conditional User Permit for Michael Maloney and Gabriel Jabbour allowing a certain number of
power boats at the Shorewood Yacht Club, subject to the review and comment by the City
Attorney. Motion passed 7.0.
Chair Schmitt stated this item would be placed on the November 26, 2007, City Council meeting agenda
for consideration.
2. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicants: Dan and Milissa Nelson
Location: 25865 Birch Bluff Road
Director Nielsen stated Dan and Milissa Nelson's (25865 Birch Bluff Road) minor subdivision request
was continued from the October 16, 2007, Planning Commission meeting (which had been continued
from the October 2, 2007, meeting) pending receipt of a revised grading plan. Mr. Nelson had since
submitted a new plan which had been distributed to the Commission. Mr. Nelson had also submitted a
L.'�
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
November 26, 2007
Page 3 of 15
and County legislators. She stated it was ICA's goal to see that everyone in need got signed up to receive
food stamps; residents were often intimated by the volume of information they had to sort through before
they could apply for food stamps. Ms. Buehler stated there were two upcoming ICA fundraisers; all the
proceeds from the fundraiser to be held on December 3, 2007 would go to the ICA.
Mayor Liz6e stated the rotary club she belonged to had held its meeting at the new ICA facility last week
and she was very impressed by the facility and the activity there.
6. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
7. PARKS - Report by Representative
A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held November 13, 2007
Director Brown reported on matters considered and actions taken at a November 13, 2007, Park
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
PLANNING - Report by Representative
Director Nielsen stated there were two items considered at a November 20, 2007, Planning Commission
meeting and he would discuss them in great detail next on the agenda.
A. L -R Zoning District Text Amendment and C.U.P Amendment
Applicant: Shorewood Yacht Club
Location: 600 West Lake Street
Administrator Dawson stated the public hearing was held during the October 2, 2007, Planning
Commission meeting to take public comment on a proposed Lakeshore — Recreational zoning district text
amendment and the Shorewood Yacht Club's (SYC) request for an amendment to its Conditional Use
Permit (C.U.P.). He then stated the City had received a great deal of communication on these items; all
of the communication received as of 5:15 P.M. this evening had been distributed to Council. The
communication was both in support of and against the SYC's request.
Director Nielsen stated there were two zoning items for consideration before Council that evening. The
first item was a text amendment to the City's Lakeshore Recreational (L -R) zoning district which would
allow the City to consider allowing powerboats at multiple -dock facilities on Gideon Bay. The second
item was an amendment to the SYC's current C.U.P. which would allow the SYC to rent no more than 3 5
of its slips for powerboat use. The 35 dock slips for powerboats would be in addition to the ones that
were currently allowed (the SYC was allowed three powerboats which were used by management, one
powerboat for the residents of 5585 Timber Lane, and the Excelsior Fire District's rescue boat). He noted
the SYC had requested they be allowed to rent 50 percent of its 118 dock slips (this included the one slip
for the EFD) for powerboat use. He explained the Planning Commission had considered a great deal of
information that had been provided. The Commission discussed the items at its October 2, October 16,
and November 20, 2007, meetings. After careful deliberations, the Commission decided to recommend
an ordinance amending Section 1201.24 Subd. 10.d (L -R Licenses) of the City Code; it also
recommended approval of a resolution granting the SYC's an Interim C.U.P. which would allow the SYC
an additional 35 powerboats to be water harbored at the SYC and they would all be harbored at pier 4.
Exhibit D -1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Excerpt — 26 November 2007
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
November 26, 2007
Page 4 of 15
The interim C.U.P. would be in effect for three years to assess the impact of the powerboats; at the end of
that three -year period a public hearing would be held with public notice to determine whether or not the
use should be continued on a permanent basis.
Nielsen stated the property currently consisted of three separate parcels of land and they were to have
been combined as part of the last C.U.P.; the parcels must be legally combined as a condition of the
resolution. In addition to attempting to rent slips to City residents first in accordance with a provision in
the City Code (a condition of the resolution), the applicant proposed a discount for the residents.
With regard to the number of additional powerboats allowed, Nielsen stated the Planning Commission
thought the 35 slips on pier 4 at the SYC (which was the pier furthest away from the residents) would be
relatively easy to monitor. The Commission also though the applicant should specify where the five
powerboats currently allowed would be docked; the applicant had provided such a plan. The
configuration of pier 4 limited the size of the boat that could be docked to 30 feet maximum.
With regard to quiet waters designation, Nielsen stated the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
(LMCD) had advised that a quiet waters designation existed 150 feet out from all shorelines and from
structures such as docks on Lake Minnetonka. Staff had suggested it was possible for the City to request
an expansion of the quiet waters designation from the LMCD. A relatively easily defined and logical
area was described by drawing a line from the shoreline north of the Timber Lane cul -de -sac to Duck
Island to Frog Island to the peninsula at Lafayette Avenue. The Planning Commission thought most of
the area was already designated as quiet waters; if the LMCD were to classify the entire area as quiet
waters that would prohibit property owners from activities such as skiing. Therefore the resolution did
not contain any condition regarding quiet waters.
Nielsen stated Staff had suggested a trial solution of a three -year interim C.U.P. which would be
monitored on an annual basis and the results reported back to the Planning Commission. The
Commission had questioned what types of things would be monitored during that trial period. He
explained verifiable complaints and the nature of the complaints would be monitored; any complaint
filed through the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) would be considered a verifiable
complaint. If, for example, the City received a complaint during normal business hours that there were
power boats docked at slips other than those designated, Staff could go down and research the complaint.
Nielsen noted that Council had been provided a formal ordinance approving the text amendment that
evening; the Council packet contained the actual text amendment.
Nielsen explained the proposed resolution incorporated the original resolution adopted in 2000 which set
forth all the requirements for the SYC's original C.U.P. as modified by the proposed change.
Mike Maloney, 231 Third Street and co -owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club and Gabriel Jabbour, 985
Tonkawa Road and co -owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club, stated they were present to answer any
questions Council may have.
Mayor Lizee stated a public hearing had already been held to take public comment; but, if there was any
one in the audience who had not provided comment at the public hearing, or had not called or emailed or
written the City with their comments then Council would be willing to take their 1 — 2 minute long
comments.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
November 26, 2007
Page 5 of 15
Steve Haskins, 5455 Timber Lane, stated most of the pertinent information had already been published in
local newspapers. He became a resident of the City 27 years ago. Shortly after that he had attended
various discussions regarding access to the Lake. At that time he was concerned about the physical
number of boats on the Lake; he continued to have that concern. He stated if a person was out on the
Lake on the weekend it was not enjoyable due to the volume of boats. To add another 35 powerboats to
Gideon Bay (and therefore the rest of the Lake) would only add to the problem. He asked Council to
consider denying the request for the benefit of the Gideon Bay residents and the users of the entire Lake.
Mike Kramer, 5425 Timber Lane, stated he had been a resident of the City for 52 years with the last 27
of them being at his current address. He stated the residents on Timber Lane were comprised of either
two- wage - earner families or retired individuals. He recited a passage from a nineteenth century novel,
Jcme Eyre. He then reviewed what had changed from his vantage point in the last 32 years after John
Cross had first established the Yacht Club (now known as the Shorewood Yacht Club). With the sailboat
marina operating at the SYC the number of canoeists, rowers, and kayakers had increased significantly in
the small sub -bay of Gideon Bay where they are generally free from the wakes of powerboats. He stated
in the past the City Council had been excellent stewards of the small amount of Lakeshore resource on the
Lower Lake. He explained that Mr. Cross's request for additional sailboat dockage had been
recommended, but before the additional dockage was installed Mr. Cross began to market slips for
powerboat use which was contrary to what he had told the neighbors of his property; therefore, Council
had denied his request. He cautioned Council to be sensitive to responding to what, from his vantage
point, was essentially an economic argument; financial hardship was seldom allowed in the variance
process in the City. He stated Mr. Jabbour had not kept it a secret that he wanted the SYC to make more
money by renting dock slips for powerboat use. He then stated from his vantage point the Council would
put itself at serious risk for the appearance of subsidizing a commercial enterprise at the prospect of the
reduction of the livability of the neighborhood and the congestion of a very small part of Gideon Bay. He
asked Council to please continue its good stewardship of the most livable city in the western suburbs by
denying the SYC's request.
Mayor Lizee stated the Council was considering an application on the SYC's property.
Gene Marien, 5815 Echo Road, stated he was a SYC sailboat member and as most of the City's residents
he did not live on the Lake. He was able to enjoy the Lake because he had the availability of the SYC. He
thought there were a lot of residents of the City who did not live on the Lake that would like a place
available like the SYC. He stated he thought the SYC was a beautiful facility for the City. He commented
the SYC members wondered every 2 — 3 years whether or not the SYC would remain in business. He
then stated he would like the SYC to remain in business and he understood the problems the SYC was
experiencing trying to increase the number of sailboats at the SYC. He would like the SYC to remain
sailboats only but that was not realistic. He would support granting a request for a small number of
powerboats of limited size.
PerryRyan, 31395 Casco Circle, Navarre, stated he also owned the property located at 422 Lafayette
Avenue and he had previously lived at 430 Lafayette Avenue for 8 years. He stated the applicant's
request letter stated "we are seeking this change as the demand for sailboat slips has diminished to the
point where we have currently leased 52 of our 117 slips ". He then stated he had not been privy to how
many slips had been leased at the time the current owners purchased the SYC. He went on to state the
request letter stated "the purpose of the L -R zoning district was to give Shorewood residents access to the
Lake ". He noted the letter did not refer to the statement in the City Code which said "it behooved the city
to subject the possible areas available for access to the lake to close scrutiny and limitation so as to
insure that use of the land does not unduly infringe upon property rights and public health, safety and
RM
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
November 26, 2007
Page 6 of 15
welfare of others residing on nearby residential sites ". He distributed a graphic depicting the residential
locations in the Gideon Bay area of the people who signed a petition to deny the request. He stated
granting the request would result in an infringement upon property owners' rights; it would pose
additional threats to health, safety, and welfare; and it would result in additional environmental impact,
erosion, and damage to the shoreline. He distributed a graphic from the Hennepin County Sheriff's Patrol
which he thought depicted that once a boat was past the first set of buoys (especially near Lafayette
Avenue) it could speed up. He commented that according to the Sheriff's Patrol, the area past the first set
of buoys should not be posted as quiet waters. He stated the request letter stated "Failing this change, we
will need to seek other ways to make this property meet its financial obligations"; that type of threat had
been presented before. He stated at a Planning Commission meeting Director Nielsen had stated that the
SYC property could support 12 condominiums. That number would result in an additional 10 — 12 boats
on the Lake at the same time. He then stated Planning Commission Chair Schmitt was quoted to say "if it
doesn't work as a sailboat -only marina and it has to close up its doors, who knew what the property could
be developed as ". He suggested the number of powerboats allowed should not be any more than what
would be allowed if the property were developed into a residential area. He again asked what had
changed since 2003 to have the Council consider allowing 40 power boats at the SYC when only 10 — 12
condominiums could possibly be developed there. He stated Director Nielsen's report dated September
26, 2007, stated (with regard to the City Code) "these criteria should guide City officials in determining
the acceptability of the proposed changes ".
Stanley Shapiro, 14614 Karyl Drive, Minnetonka, stated he had a sailboat on the Lake for over 30 years.
He had a vested interest having the SYC stay in business because there were not many marinas on the
Lake for sailboats. He then stated since 2003 the volume of boat traffic had increased substantially
around Gideon Bay and Frog Island; the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company was very active and it
made a great deal of noise doing business; and there had been an increase in non - residents and lakeshore
property owners in the area waterskiing and pulling people on various flotation devices. He suggested if
the powerboats in the area were going to be a problem maybe the boating recreational activities (except
for anchoring a boat for fishing) could be limited to entering and exiting Gideon Bay. He stated he had
observed residents water ski from their docks and he thought that created problems. He had also observed
a resident wakeboarding and he thought that created more havoc than other boating activities. He stated
the number of boaters on Gideon Bay had increased since 2003 because there were more boats on the
Lake already.
Mr. Jabbour stated that although he was reluctant to speak this evening he thought it prudent that he
provide some comment. He commented that since the American Indians lived on the lakeshore a lot had
changed. He stated the SYC was in the mode of rejuvenate or liquidate (a mode of every business). He
noted Mr. Cross had requested that the SYC be allowed to rent all of its slips for powerboat use. He then
stated he and Mr. Maloney understood they had a right to request a change and they asked to be allowed
to use 50 percent of the dock slips for water - harboring of powerboats; they did not challenge the
Planning Commission for fewer than that. He explained a 2004 LMCD and DNR joint study indicated
there had been a 25 percent reduction at the peak time in the number of powerboats on the Lake; also, at
any given time the number of powerboats harbored at a marina that left a marina harbor was 21 percent
and at a maximum peak it was 29 percent. Therefore, if there were 35 additional powerboats harbored at
the SYC the maximum that would leave the SYC at any given time would be 9 — 10. He stated he had
demonstrated his ability to convince boaters who harbored their boats at his other marinas to be good
custodians of the Lake. He commented he believed in allowing everyone public access to the Lake.
Mr. Jabbour then stated in 1992 the Lake Access Task Force identified the SYC property as having the
potential to become a Lake access site. In 1994 the DNR, the LMCD, the Cities of Shorewood and Tonka
rVz
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
November 26, 2007
Page 7 of 15
Bay, and the Metropolitan Council approved it. He clarified that he was not threatening anything. He
stated he wanted the SYC to remain in business to be able to a render a service to the Lake communities.
He noted that the SYC was the only yacht club on the Lake that catered to non- racing sailors. He stated
the SYC had commissioned a survey by members of the marketing fraternity at the University of
Minnesota Carlson School of Management which documented the decline of the sailing market as well as
the desire for residents to have access to rental dock slips. He explained that 2100 surveys had been sent
out and approximately 20 percent had been returned. Based on a rating of 7 being high and 1 being very
unlikely, the respondents average was close to 5 with regard to the likelihood of their docking a boat at a
marina that gave priority to the residents of the City and the average was close to 6 for docking at a
marina that offered a discount to residents.
Dave Ronal, 55 Crabapple Lane, Tonka Bay, stated in 1985 he would observe approximately 25 boats on
Gideon Bay on a very busy day; this past summer the average was 34. Gideon Bay was known as a great
bay to be in for waterskiing and floating around on. The Bay had become so busy it was harder to enjoy.
He questioned what the environmental and lake use impact of the increased number of powerboats would
be. He suggested someone determine what the Lake can bear. He stated he appreciated the SYC may
have to increase its boat harboring density to be economically viable; but to ask for a zoning change now
was presumptuous.
Mayor Lizee stated there were a number of entities that dealt with public waters (e.g., the State, the DNR,
the LMCD, etc.); and although the City had some jurisdiction with regard to shoreline, it looked to those
other entities for legislation and help regarding boat density and other legal issues.
Dan Frederick, 422 Lafayette Avenue Excelsior, stated he had been renting the house on that property
for the last two years and he and his wife were building a house a few properties down (the property was
located on the south shore of Gideon Bay). He explained the rental property was located at the choke
point between Frog Island and Excelsior where the buoys were located. He stated on any given day he
could call the SLMPD to report boats that did not honor the minimum wake restriction; it did not seem
realistic that people would call the SLMPD that many times to ensure they had a verifiable complaint. He
commented that he moved from Wayzata Bay so he could live in a quieter area on the Lake. He stated
from his vantage point power boaters used the Lake differently from sailors, in particular during the
evening. He expressed concern that if the SYC was allowed to rent 35 dock slips for powerboat use that
it would eventually request more. He stated the Planning Commission had stated there was a difference
between a marina and a yacht club. He then stated from his perspective the only reason that the
application would be approved would be for Mr. Jabbour to make more money.
James Hancock, 23800 Lawtonka Drive, stated he kayaked on Gideon Bay and he harbored a sailboat at
SYC. He commented he was the President of the Gideon Cove Homeowners Association which consisted
of 12 twin- homes. He stated those homeowners had no place to harbor their powerboats on the Lake. He
commended the Planning Commission for recommending a plan for the public to be able to use the Lake
as they should be able to. He stated the viability of the SYC was an asset to the neighborhood and the
City.
Todd Frostad, owner of the Southlake Office Building located at 23505 Smithtown Road, stated if the
SYC was not able to be economically viable then someone like himself would acquire the property and
develop it for other uses. The quaintness of the SYC area today would change.
Peter Watson, 5495 Timber Lane, stated he had lived at that location for 35 years. He stated he would
like to have the recreational quality of Gideon Bay and the rest of the Lake preserved. He stated he would
M
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
November 26, 2007
Page 8 of 15
like to understand what the impact on the City's carbon footprint would be if the request were approved.
He commented that other cities around the Country were beginning to work very hard to try and reduce
their carbon footprint. He asked that Council vote no as its way to do a little bit in the right direction on
that.
Tom Nicol, 3895 Glacier Count, Minnetrista, stated he was a business owner in the City. He then stated
he had been working with Mr. Jabbour as a captain out Mr. Jabbour's marina, as well as using his
services over the years. He also stated the comment that Mr. Jabbour made his request only to make more
money was ridiculous and a disservice to a man that had done a great deal for the Lake. He went on to
state as a business owner he would be the first in line to request the opportunity to rent a dock slip for his
powerboat. He commented that many residents wanted access to the Lake. He stated the character attack
on Mr. Jabbour was unacceptable.
Deb Termer, 438 Lafayette Avenue, stated she had lived on her property for 22 years. She then stated
there was a difference between how lakeshore property owners used and respected the lake and non -
lakeshore residents. She was concerned about what could be the lack of accountability of the non -
lakeshore power boaters to the City and the residents.
John Mielke, 16311 Limerick Lane, Minnetonka, stated he was a SYC member and a SYC
Boardmember. He stated the SYC had a social membership and any person who harbored a boat at the
SYC was a member. He stated the SYC members were held accountable and the powerboat members
would be held to the same standards.
Duane Bagdons, 5585 Timber Lane, stated his property was located next to the SYC property. He
commented he had a powerboat and he loved to fish. He stated he had empathy for the Council for having
to make the decision as Council had heard good arguments in support of and against the request. He then
stated he would like the SYC to remain economically viable under the current use or the requested use.
He asked Council to approve the request.
Mayor Lizee stated the Council did not make decisions based on the number of people that were in
support or against an application. The application was considered by Council based on its merits, after a
public hearing had occurred and evaluated by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City
Council.
Councilmember Callies questioned how a three -year timeframe for the interim C.U.P. was arrived at.
Director Nielsen explained that the Planning Commission thought a one -year timeframe would not be
adequate to fairly assess the success or failure of the situation. The Planning Commission agreed with the
suggestion in the Staff report that the interim C.U.P. be in effect for three years; Staff would provide the
Commission with a status report annually.
Councilmember Callies stated the applicant had a right to make a request about the use of its property.
Tonight Council was considering the applicant's request to rent out a percentage of its existing dock slips
for powerboat use. She stated she did not agree with the statements made earlier that lakeshore owners
were more concerned and well behaved individuals than non - lakeshore owners. She explained one of the
reasons for considering an interim C.U.P. rather than a permanent C.U.P. was to allow the City an
opportunity to assess the impact of water - harboring an additional 35 powerboats at the SYC. She stated if
a resident had problems with a neighbor having loud overnight patties repeatedly then they should file a
complaint with the SLMPD or the City. She commented that economic factors were a fact of life for
anyone, but the economic viability of the SYC was not germane to the issue. Council needed to consider
MI
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
November 26, 2007
Page 9of15
whether or not the applicant's request was permitted based on the City Code as well as considering what
the effect granting the request would have on the Lake and the SYC's neighbors.
Callies went on to state based on the information that had been provided and discussed, she thought it
would be appropriate to grant an interim C.U.P. Public access to the Lake was important. She again
stated the request did not include the addition of dock slips. She commented things do change over time.
She stated the applicant requested it be allowed to rent a percentage of its dock slips for powerboat use.
She commented that many people used the Lake and many people used the Lake inappropriately. She had
not heard any comments that there had been particular problems with boaters who water - harbored their
boats at the SYC. There had been comments about powerboat operators, water skiers, wake boarders and
power boaters partying on their boats into the evening but there was no evidence linking that to the SYC.
She explained that when she drove around the area near the SYC and nearby properties on Gideon Bay
and in the City, it appeared that all of those lakeshore residents had powerboats. She stated it was
difficult for her to make a distinction such that powerboats should not be allowed at the SYC yet they
should be and are allowed at many more places on the Lake. She then stated it was prudent for the City to
exercise caution; that was the reason for the interim C.U.P. which would allow the City the opportunity
to monitor the effects (both positive and negative) of the additional powerboats. She stated she was in
support of granting the interim C.U.P.
Councilmember Wellens stated lie was also in support of granting the interim C.U.P. The new SYC
owners realized it was not appropriate to request the SYC be allowed to use 100 percent of its dock slips
for water harboring of powerboats; the previous owners had requested it be allowed to use 100 percent of
its slips for powerboat use and that request had been denied. The interim C.U.P. would be re- evaluated in
three years. At that time it could be possible to consider petitioning the LMCD to make all of Gideon Bay
a quiet waters area. The purpose of the L -R zoning district was to address the lakeshore recreational
needs of the City. The Lake had been described as a park and it did not make sense to have a park if
people couldn't access the park. Granting the applicant's request would increase public access to the
Lake which was in concert with the L -R zoning district. The City's residents would have a priority to rent
the dock slips and they would receive a residential discount. He went on to state there were a lot of
people who were hostile toward and suspicious of businesses and business owners. He stated businesses
and businesses owners were of great benefit to the community; he expressed his gratitude toward them.
With regard to what had changed, he cited the example that Excelsior had many regulations on store
fronts; some of its storefronts were boarded up because Excelsior was not willing to change its
regulations to conform to how the economy was changing. From his vantage point, he thought
government needed to change to realize the changes in the marketplace and to support and accommodate
businesses to some degree. He stated the DNR and the LMCD identified the area as one lacking in Lake
access based on a survey of boaters; the LMCD and the DNR had encouraged the Lake area cities to
contribute to the goal of a more equitable distribution of access to the Lake.
Councilmember Wellens questioned if the applicants would be willing not to water- harbor any boat that
had an exhaust system above the water. Mr. Jabbour explained that Lake Minnetonka was the only lake
in the United States that a decibel -sound rule that was 2 decibels below the national average (an 82-
decibel sound rule); boats with motors having a decibel level higher than that were against the law. Also,
it was not legal to have an exhaust system that could be switched to be above or below the water. He
stated the SYC intended to abide by those rules and it would ensure that all boats water - harbored at the
SYC were within compliance with State Statute. He stated the SYC's contracts with it members were
extremely extensive.
Lim
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
November 26, 2007
Page 10 of 15
Councilmember Turgeon stated she was not in support of the interim C.U.P.; she did not think it was an
appropriate use. She commented that in 2003 the previous owners had requested it be allowed to use 100
percent of it docks slips for powerboat use. The Planning Commission recommended that request be
denied because it was inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan in two areas — the natural
resources section (which related to the natural and aesthetic quality of the Lakeshore environment and the
reduction of lake pollution); and to the protect the lakeshore from over intensification and use and
development, along with protection of the residential neighborhoods from adverse environmental impacts
(including noise, air, and visual pollution). She stated from her vantage point she did not think anything
had changed since 2003; she had the same concerns that she had in 2003. In 2003 the Council upheld the
Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the request.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he was not in support of the interim C.U.P. He commented that this
request was a contentious issue. He stated from his vantage point it was strictly a financial discussion.
The SYC appeared not to be viable without changing the use of its property. The City had a long history
of stating economics were not a reason for considering a variance or change. He stated earlier in the year
the Council had a contentious discussion about the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club's use of some of its
dock slips for powerboat use (which was located on Enchanted Island). The Council ultimately adopted a
resolution to clarify the resolution which granted the UMYC a C.U.P. to dock or moor boats; the original
resolution inadvertently omitted the word "sail" in front of "boats ". He considered the SYC's request to
be similar to, if not exactly the same as, the UMYC's. The UMYC was claiming financial hardship and it
needed to be allowed to use some of its dock slips for powerboat use to be financially viable; Council
denied that. He went on to state the interim C.U.P. referenced the SLMPD. He explained the SLMPD had
no jurisdiction over the Lake, and was incredulous that anyone thinks that the City will tool for this 3-
year interim C.U.P. He then stated the LMCD and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department were not
effective in enforcing their responsibilities too. He related that he lived on the Lake and was a sailor and
power boater. He observed that the decibel rule is violated routinely every weekend, as was the speed
limit, and the no -wake zone, as is the unsafe boating practices. He did not think that Shorewood was
going to be able to monitor and track, and after three years with some good judgment, evaluate the
results. He again stated he was not in support of the request.
Mayor Liz6e stated she was in support of the interim C.U.P. She stated Council was considering an
application for a C.U.P.; it was not considering a variance. She stated one of the things the interim C.U.P.
was intended to do was address behavior. She stated public access to the Lake was very important; the
Lake was an asset that everyone should share. The interim C.U.P. would open Lake access for more
residents to use and have safe harbor for their boats. The Lakeshore Residential District permitted the use
being requested. In 2003 the previous owners requested the SYC be allowed to use 100 percent of its
dock slips for powerboat use. The current owners' application requested the SYC be allowed to use 50
percent of its dock slips for powerboat use. There was a significant difference between the SYC's request
and the UMYC's request: the UMYC was located in a R -1C /S, Single - Family Residential/Shorelaud
zoning district and the SYC was located in a Lakeshore Recreational District. She stated the Sheriff's
Water Patrol which would be dispatched through the 911 call center could also be responsible for calls.
She believed there would be a lot of monitoring of activities by members of the SYC.
Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 443, "An Ordinance Amending
Section 1201.24 Subd. 10.d. (L -R Licenses) of the Shorewood Zoning Code. Motion passed 3/2 with
Turgeon and Woodruff dissenting.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
November 26, 2007
Page 11 of 15
Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 075, "A Resolution Granting an
Interim Conditional Use Permit for Michael Maloney and Gabriel Jabbour Allowing a Certain
Number of Power Boats at the Shorewood Yacht Club."
Director Nielsen stated the interim C.U.P. required the applicant submit a plan subject to approval by the
Council. The applicant had submitted a plan and it had submitted a drawing depicting where all
powerboats would be located. The plan did not address the residential discount. He suggested the
applicant's plan be set aside for future consideration. He explained the plan could be approved by a
motion.
In response to a comment from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen stated he suggested the
resolution not be released for recording until the three separate parcels of land had been legally
combined.
The maker and seconder of the motion amended the motion to include approval subject to the
three parcels of land on the Shorewood Yacht Club property being legally combined.
Motion passed 3/2 with Turgeon and Woodruff dissenting.
Mayor Liz6e recessed the meeting at 8:37 P.M.
Mayor Liz6e reconvened the meeting at 8:45 P.M.
B. Minor Subdivision Request
Applicants: Dan and Melissa Nelson
Location: 25865 Birch Bluff Road
Director Nielsen stated Dan and Melissa Nelson owned the property at 25865 Birch Bluff Road, and they
proposed a minor subdivision of their property into two lots. He explained the property was zoned R-
lA/S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland, and the westerly portion of the property was occupied by the
applicants' house. Both lots would exceed the width requirements of the R -lA district. The westerly lot
(Parcel A) would contain 45,895 square feet of area, exclusive of wetland area; the easterly lot (Parcel
B), or new lot, would contain 40,000 square feet of area, exclusive of the wetland area. The major issues
with the requested subdivision were site alteration and access.
With regard to access, Nielsen explained the existing home was accessed via a private driveway that was
located in the right -of -way of Second Street, a "paper street" that had never been improved. The second
property could share that common driveway. A common driveway could have a minimum width of
twelve feet which was the width of the driveway; twelve feet was all the existing right -of -way could
accommodate leaving five feet on each side of the traveled surface for snow storage. The issue was when
the lot to the east of Second Street (Block 5) needed to have access to it; if an access were to serve three
properties it would require, at a minimum, a private road. While private roads were highly discouraged,
the Comprehensive Plan allowed them where no other alternative existed, where no more than three
properties were served, and where a 50- foot -wide easement with an adequate turn - around was provided.
A Fire Code access road (a 20 -foot paved surface) was the minimum design for a private road. A private
road design could not be achieved within the 22- foot -wide Second Street right -of -way. Consequently,
the existing lot of record on the east side of the right -of -way (Block 5) could not be built upon unless an
additional right -of -way or easement was acquired and the Fire Code access road was constructed, placing
the entire cost of it on that owner.
December 27, 2010
Brad Neilson
Shorewood Planning Commission
Background: In 2006/2007 Shorewood Yacht Club requested from the City of
Shorewood to be able to lease 50% of their slips for power boats. Giving the Yacht Club
the flexibility to manage the supply and demand, the ability to be more selective of its
customers, and to control it's business environment. The application resulted, after
extensive debate, with the interim use permit.
A substantial amount of discuss tools place during the application and public hearing
process. One of the options was to give us less and see how it goes. We are requesting
from the Planning Commission at this time to be able to lease 50% of our slips to power
boats.
Findings: No more than 20% of the power boats were ever out on the lake at the same
time, even during peals times.
A substantial demand by citizens of Shorrewood exists for the mooring of power boats
(see attached memo to Mayor and Council).
Zero incidents occurred during the trial period, Shorewood Yacht Club is the only parcel
zoned in the city for waterfront recreation (to the best of my knowledge).
Both cities, Tonka Bay and Excelsior, rovide their residents with municipal docks and
both Mayors stated at the December 8t 2010 LMCD meeting that they have more than
60 people on a waiting list.
On December 8, 2010 the city of Tonka Bay requested and was granted additional slips
going form 47 to 97 slips in Gideons Bay, The city of Excelsior went form 114 to 128.
(see attached email from LMCD).
On December 8, 2010 at the LMCD meeting none of those who were invited to comment
had any negative comments regarding either of those applications.
Applicant comments: I believe that we have clearly shown that the variety of concerns
regarding power boats that existed in the past did not materialize. We wish to give a
priority to sailboats and we would like to have the ability not to accept some clients who
may not be conducive to our overall policies such as quiet hours etc ... Having a fallback
position on potential power boats is extremely helpful. I enclosed a copy of the survey
that the Carlson School of Business conducted in Shorewood encompassing 100% of the
households with a phenomenal response rate. If I can be of any further help please do not
hesitate to call me.
Gabriel Jabbour
612 -599 -2838
Exhibit E -1
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
Dear Mayor Lizee and Council,
This years summary regarding Shorewood yacht club is as follows:
We had 31 power boats and 2 jet skis. Overall 19 Shorewood residents received 15% discount
and we accommodated 3 latecomers at Tonka
Bay Marina. Again this year we had the LMCD boat at no charge.
This year we hosted the 'Heart of Sailing' program for autistic children. Enclosed is a link to the
website for your convenience. If there are any
additional questions don't hesitate to call me at 612 -599 -2838 or Mike Maloney at 952 -221-
7387.
Respectfully,
Gabriel Jabbour
EE.-2--
,,
From: " Judd Harper" <jharper @lmcd.org>
To: "Gabriel Jabbour" <gabrieljabbour @msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:14 PM
Subject: Information Request
Below is information that you had requested.
City of Tonka Bay - LMCD Multiple Dock License
• Main site
o 47 BSUs (37 Slips, 10 slides)
• Woodpecker Ridge Rd.
o Pre 2008 -20 BSUs
o 2008 to 2010 -10 BSUs
2010 Total = 57 BSUs
2011 Proposal = 97 BSUs
City of Excelsior - LMCD Multiple Dock License
• Pre 2003 - 80 BSUs
• 2003 - 116 BSUs (92 overnight BSUs, 24 transient)
• 2007 - 116 BSUs (100 overnight BSUs, 16 transient)
• 2009 - 114 BSUs (lost two BSUs at the end of Lafayette Ave- Wehrman Variance)
• 2010 Proposal - 128 BSUs (1 12 overnight BSUs , 16 transient)
Both applications are scheduled for the 12/8/10 LMCD Board Meeting.
Please call me if you have any questions or need clarification.
Judd Harper
Administrative Technician
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
(952)745 -0789
Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 5625 (20101116)
Ttie message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
littp://www.eset.c,otit
Page I of I
12/27/2010
-3
Executive Summary: Shorewood Survey Results
In mid April, Pi Sigma Epsilon, a National Professional Fraternity for Marketing, Sales
Management and Selling from the University of Minnesota- Carlson School of Management was
engaged to study Shorewood residents' interests in special docking privileges and discounts at an
area boating facility.
Nearly 2100 surveys were sent out and an impressive 394 (18 %) surveys were returned. The
high response rate may be attributed to PSE a letter pointing out that respondents were helping a
student organization. (Many surveys offered wishes of good luck to the students.)
Key Findings
1. Shorewood Residents are More Likely to Dock at Marina if Given Resident Priority
• Respondents were in favor of a resident priority. At a level of 4.3 (on a 7 point scale -7
= very likely and 1 = very unlikely) they said they would purchase a slip at a marina
within their community if given priority over non - residents. Broken down further, 32% of
people either ranked 6 or 7 suggesting they are very likely to dock at a marina that gives
them priority.
2. Residents are More Likely to Dock at Marina if Given a Resident Discount
• Respondents averaged 5.2 on the same 7 point scale when asked if they would purchase a
slip at a marina within their community that offered a resident discount. 51.1% ofpeople
either ranked 6 or 7 meaning they are very likely to dock at a marina that gives them a
discount.
Caveat: While not a "random sample," the survey population was representative of the
Shorewood community. The age of respondents was slightly higher than the US Census age for
the community; respondent income was slightly higher than US Census figures, while gender
was nearly 50150.
The full report, which contains responses about the use and quality of parks and recreation
facilities in the area, is attached.
If you have any questions regarding the survey or analysis feel free to contact Michelle Ferber
(ferb0011 a,umn.edu) or Kevin Upton (upton006 cnre,umn.edu).
°i
Shorewood Survey Results
Introduction
*Sent out 2100 surveys (US Census 2000 = 2,500+ Households)
-Received 394 responses (18% response rate)
*Used 392 surveys (99.5% usage rate)
Respondent Age
•18 -24 10.7% (US Census 2000: 15 -24 = 9.2 %)
•25 -39 16.6% (25 -34 = 6.9 %)
•40 -55 38% (35 -54 = 40.7 %)
•56+ 31.1% (55+ = 16.5 %)
*Missing responses 14%
Respondent Gender
-Male 50% (US Census 2000 = 50 %)
-Female 43.6%
*Missing responses 6.4%
Respondent Income
•$0- $50,000 5.1% (US Census 2000: 20.8 %)
•$51,001 - $100,000 23% (31.8 %)
•$100,001 - $200,000 45.4% (30 %)
•$200,001 - $500,00018.6% (200k+ = 18.3 %)
•$500,000+ 1%
*Missing responses 6.9 %Children in Household
-048%
-1-236.5%
-3-412.5%
.5+0%
-(US Census 2000 showed 45.3% of households with residents under 18)
*Missing responses 3.1%
Property Type
*On Lakeshore 2.3%
-Near the lake without direct access 92.3%
-Near the lake with direct access 0.5%
*Missing responses .5%
Lived at Present Residence
*Less than a year 1%
*Between 1 and 5 years 21.2%
*Between 6 and 10 years 24%
,,More than 10 years 53.8%
Primary reason moved to Shorewood
-Live near lake 23.3%
-Be close to parks 12.2%
-Be close to trails 11.7%
-Live close to work 11.2%
-Good school system 10.2%
-Live on lake 3.3%
-Live far from work .3%
-Other responses:
—Liked house 2.3%
— Pretty area 2%
—Close to family 1.7%
FM
*Were able to have more than one response
Familiar with Local Parks and Recreation System
-Yes 92.3%
-No 7.7%
Park and Recreation Amenities Used
-Trails 57.1%
*Bike trails 49.2%
*Beaches 34.9%
*Soccer fields 21.7%
-Public boat launches 16.8%
-Softball fields 13.3%
-Other responses:
— Playgrounds 3.6%
— Tennis Courts, Picnic Areas, Ice Rink .8%
*Were able to have more than one response
Own Boat
•Yes 37.5%
•No 61%
*Missing responses 1.5%
What type of boat?
*Power 24' or larger 23.3%
*Power 24' or under 21.9%
*Sailboat 15.1%
-Canoe or Kayak 7.1%
*Were able to have more than one response
M1
If own, where do you dock?
-At Home 32.6%
-Marina on Lake Minnetonka 21.7%
-Personal dock 19%
-Dock through City 4.1%
-Marina someplace else 1.4%
Why not own a boat?
-Not interested in boating 41.2%
-The cost of a boat 18%
-Limited recreation time 16.4%
-The cost of boating 11.5%
*Access to docks 5.5%
-Other
—Have boat at my cabin 9.1%
—Too old 4%
—My parents have a boat 3.3%
Are you considering boat ownership?
-Yes 44.2%
-No 55.6%
*Missing Responses 0.2%
If considering boat ownership, what type of boat?
•Power 24' or larger 40.5%
•Power 24' or under 40.5%
•Canoe or Kayak 7.4%
-Sailboat 5.7%
-Other
— Fishing boat 5.7%
If there were a marina in your community that offered priority to residents how likely would you dock there? (7 very
likely, 1 very unlikely)
94.3 Average (32% ranked this 6 or higher)
*Missing responses 23%
Priority to Resident Break -down: Responded 6+
Age
•18- 2410.2%
•25- 39 22.4%
940-5549%
o55+18.3%
Gender
•Male 42.3%
*Female 57.6%
Income
•0- $50,000 5.1%
-$50,001-$100,000 17.2
•$100,001 - $200,000 41.2%
•$200,001 - $500,000 34.5%
9$500,001+ 1.9%
•Boat Ownership
*Yes 48.5%
*No 51.5%
M
If there were a marina in your community that offered a discount to residents how likely would you dock there? (7
very likely, 1 very unlikely)
e5.2 Average (51.1% rated this 6 or higher)
*Missing responses 8.9%
Age
918-244.3%
•25- 39 22.8%
-40-5540%
-55+22.8%
Gender
-Male 46.8%
•Female 53.2%
Income
•0- $50,000 3.5%
•$50,001 - $100,000 22.2%
•$100,001 - $200,000 53.6%
•$200,001 - $500,000 19.4%
•$500,001+ 1.2%
Boat Ownership
-Yes 41.3%
*No 58.7%
Open -Ended Responses
Please see attachment.
Brad Nielsen
From: Nick Ruehl [nruehl @mchsi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 11:15 AM
To: Brad Nielsen
Subject: Shorewood Yacht Club
Attachments: Shorewood Yacht Club - 9 -2007 - signed.pdf; City of Shorewood - Shorewood Yacht Club -
May 29, 2003.pdf; City of Shorewood - Shorewood Yacht Club - 3- 21- 1999.pdf;
CIMG0003.jpg; Slide1.JPG
Brad:
Please find attached the history of correspondence on this property. I would ask that you share the history and this
email with the Planning Commission and Council as you deliberate on the Conditional Use Request:
We (the many folks that opposed the introduction /expansion of the power boats 3 years ago) knew that 3 years hence it
would be next to impossible to have the power boats removed, and Mr. Jabbour would want to expand the number of
power boats at the marina. Sure enough, the request for more power boats has come. The more the power boats are
present, the fewer the sailboats will be.
We oppose the expansion of power boats. It is simple, power boats are larger, sit higher in the water (obstruct views)
and provide a party environment. It simply brings unnecessary noise, no matter what management does. Over the
years we have had problems with party noise — even from people on the sail boats. A marina does not belong this close
to neighbors. We have had to live with what is there, but you can choose to exacerbate the issues, or just say no.
Please, say no more.
One late afternoon, my wife and I heard considerable noise coming from the marina, so we boated over to observe two
power boats at the outside of the docks (see below). We should not have to be dealing with these issues by calling Mike
or 911 to report noise. Please, just say no.
Exhibit F -1
RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE
ShOf --WGVJ YA CJ)t Gl ab
Thank you. I will be at the meeting to bring a voice to our concerns.
Nick Ruehl
456 Lafayette Avenue
Excelsior, MN 55331
612 - 889 -2851
Fyn
U
0
Q
Q
V)
Fr3
Kathy and Nick Ruehl
456 Lafayette Avenue
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
May 29, 2003
Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 -8927
Re: Proposed Zoning / Conditional Use Revisions
Shorewood Yacht Club
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
I am writing to object to any change in the current zoning ordinance / conditional use that would allow more
powerboat storage than the current ordinance. I am quite upset and bewildered at the request of Mr. Cross
for changing the use.
Four years ago I generally supported the zoning revisions for the Lakeshore Recreational District; however
I did specifically express 5 concerns at the Planning Commission meeting and reiterated those concerns in
the attached letter dated March 21, 1999. As noted, Mr. Cross stated at the meeting that he had no problem
restricting the dock space to sailboats. My understanding is that the final ordinance allowed dockage for 4
powerboats.
In May of 2000,1 supported the expansion of the sailboat docks for Mr. Cross (see the second attached
letter), as up until that time he was quite responsive to the concerns of our residential neighborhood relative
to halyard /mast and people noise.
Over the past two summers, however, we have had nothing but problems with the occupants of two
particular sailboats — "Ooh Baby" and "Pinch Me." Well into the evening the people are loud and most
times their behavior is obnoxious. No end of complaining to the management of the marina has resulted in
either a relocation of the boats or reduction of noise. This year we intend to contact the Police rather than
the management.
I cannot think of anything worse than introducing more powerboats to the marina. For all of the previously -
stated reasons this is a terrible idea. Add to those, the reality that powerboats are more conducive to late
night gatherings of people (and alcohol), and the result will be more noise (engine / people) and a huge
disturbance in a predominantly residential neighborhood.
Based on the above, I ask the Planning Commission to reject the request to expand powerboat dockage
I intend to be at the upcoming public hearing. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nick Ruehl
F4
I Nicholas Ruehl, Architect
456 Lafayette Avenue
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
March 21, 1999
Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 -8927
Re: Proposed Zoning Revisions
Marina & Yacht Club
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission members and City Staff
last Tuesday. At the meeting I was able to respond to the second draft of the proposed
ordinance for Lakeshore Recreational Districts. We discussed the following issues relative to
the Shorewood Yacht Club:
1. h1 1975, John Cross was successful in establishing the Yacht Club, over the objections of
many. During his application process, I told John that I would support his project with the
following reservations:
• There would be no powerboats docked at the Yacht Club;
• There would be no gas sales from the docks;
• There would be no late night parties allowed on the sailboats;
• There would be little, if any, noise from howling masts or snapping halyards.
2. The proposed ordinance appears to allow powerboats and gas sales.
3. Powerboat docking and gas sales would fundamentally change the character of the back
bay of Guideon's in a negative way, by encouraging higher intensity usage. This would
generate more traffic, noise, and certainly affect water quality, as the bay is rather shallow.
4. Guideon's Bay, particularly the Back Bay, is essentially residential in character. I am very
concerned about anything that would affect the quiet neighborhood.
5. John Cross was present at the 3/16 meeting and indicated that he had no problem with
restricting the Shorewood Yacht Club to sailboats and no gas dock sales.
Based on the above, I ask the Planning Commission to limit the Shorewood Yacht Club to
sailboats and not allow gas sales at the dock.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional
information.
Sincerely,
Nick Ruehl
F•5
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
1 January 2016
RE: Minnetonka Country Club – Development Stage Plans – Summary of
Recommendations
FILE NO.
405 (15.20)
At its last meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the Development Stage Plan
review of the Minnetonka Country Club project to its 5 January 2016 meeting. Since then, staff has refined
its recommendations which are set forth in the attached spread sheets. This matrix is intended to identify
where in the final plan documents (final plans, development agreement and/or declaration of covenants) the
recommendations will be addressed. The spread sheet will serve as a “punch list” to ensure that all items will
be addressed.
It should be noted that the spread sheets include recommendations from all three staff reports previously
submitted by the Planning Department, NAC and WSB. Since the WSB recommendations are numerous
and highly technical, this report limits engineering items to highlights from their report.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Rick Packer
MCC Development Stage
Recommendations Summary
ISSUE/RECOMMENDATIONRFPDADCREMARKS
Planning Report
1. Open spaces to be low maintenance/natural; mow trail XX Since the open space areas will be owned by the public, it is
edges and two small maintained turf areasrecommended that maintenance be performed by the City;
final plans will include a landscape maintenance manual; see
Exhibit A
XXX
2. HOA responsible for street trees
3. Alternative energy XX No prohibition on solar in declaration; allow solar as accessory
use; allow roof-top solar, but not above peak of roof; allow
solar as allowable encroachment - two feet in side yards and
60 percent of rear yard setback; allow 20-foot height for
ground-mounted solar; allow hardcover credit for solar;
4. Concept Plan revision - Venero property X Venero survey received but inadequate for minor subdivision
approval in January; addresswith Final Plan
5. Use of outlots XXX Outlot F to be revised - modify to include entry sign area and
northeast corner as HOA owned and maintained; Outlot G to
be conveyed to adjoining property owner
6. Building setbacks XXX R-1C standards recommended for traditional lots, except allow
30' front on lots abutting 60-foot R.O.W.; 25' front setbacks for
age targeted, except for east side of westerly units - 20'; final
plans to include a setback graphic
XX
7. Impervious surface (hardcover)40 percent allowed
8. Maintenance standards - private open space XXX Developer to provide standards; reference in conservation
easements
XX
9. Additional R.O.W. for Smitthtown and Country Club Final Plat
XX
10. Second access to Smithtown RoadFinal Plat
XX
11. Shift easterly access on Smithtown RoadFinal Plat
12. Site drainage - outlet approval and pond sizes X Developer and City continue to work with MCWD; pond sizes
will depend on allowable outlet size; ponds may increase in
size
NAC Report
1. Defer to MCWD relative to wetland buffers X Maintain 35-foot buffer and 15-foot setback abutting homes;
increase buffers to 50' where possible
ISSUE/RECOMMENDATIONRFPDADCREMARKS
R = Resolved FP = Final Plans DA = Development Agreement DC = Declaration of Covenants
1
MCC Development Stage
Recommendations Summary
NAC Report (cont'd)
2. Wetland buffer monuments X Buffer monument signs to be determined; show on final plan
3. Proposed land covers X Revise/reduce eco-turf areas; incorporate into maintenance
manual
4. Revise tree replacement calculations X Calculate based on 82 disturbed acres
5. List tree, shrub, grass and perennial species and identify X Incorporate into revised Open Space Groundcover Plan; see
where to be plantedExhibit A
6. Address the balance of tree species; incorporate Hackberry X Incorporate into landscape plan and plant schedule
trees into replacement plan; increase size of replacement trees
to 3" caliper; increase shrub spacing to 3'
7. Adjust entry detail landscape plans to comply with 30-foot X Developer requests measuring 30-foot sight triangle using
sight trianglepaved street surface rather than R.O.W.; consider amendment
to current Code requirement where intersection is controlled
by stop sign; see Exhibit B
8. Provide vegetation management plan X Developer has agreed to prepare a landscape maintenance
manual addressing care and maintenance of public and private
open space areas
9. Provide a plan for identifying and eradicating invasive X Include in landscape maintenance manual; include buckthorn
exotic plantsremoval in grading plans
10. Add additional sidewalks X After considerable discussion, staff suggests that sidewalks
within the project be limited to one side of the street only;
more would be out of character with other streets (e.g.
Smithtown Road) and expensive relative to short and long-
term maintenance
11. Extension of trail along Country Club Road to connect with X Take into consideration recommendations of Traffic
Yellowstone Committee (e.g. redesign with curvilinear design; curve
Country Club to intersect with Yellowstone Trail at 90 degrees,
creating level space for construction of trail extension
WSB Report
1. Obtain MPCA, MCWD, WCA, and USCOE permits X
2. HOA maintenance of stormwater facilities XXX Incorporate into master landscape maintenance manual
ISSUE/RECOMMENDATION
RFPDADCREMARKS
R = Resolved FP = Final Plans DA = Development Agreement DC = Declaration of Covenants
2
MCC Development Stage
Recommendations Summary
WSB Report (cont'd)
3. Increase entry lane widths to 20' and move landscape X
median back south of Smithtown Rd. ROW
4. Sidewalks on both sides of Ayrshire Lane X See remarks for NAC item #10
5. Culs-de-sac longer than 700 feet X The Bentrass Way/Feather Bay cul-de-sac is approximately 715
feet in length, despite having already been shortened to save
trees in the northeast corner of the site. This is considered to
be de minimis and no revision to the plat is suggested. The
Bentgrass Way cul-de-sac on the west end is approximately
750 feet long. While this could be corrected by shifting
Ayrshire Lane to the west, it would result in loss of trees and
move the street closer to homes to the west. In light of the
minimal number of lots served by the cul-de-sac, no change is
recommended.
6. City water XXX The City's water policy requires a $10,000 connection fee per
lot, minus the developer's costs in getting water to the front
property line of each lot. City policy also provides for
reimbursing the developer for oversizing of mains
7. Streets and utility standards XX The City Enginneer is currently updating the City's standard
plates and specifications, which will be provided to the
developer's engineer for inclusion into the final plat
R = Resolved FP = Final Plans DA = Development Agreement DC = Declaration of Covenants
3
II
11 S
WN
ram,
•
kz,
-
------ - — --------
--------------
-- ----------
-- -------
0
------- — --
INA
WE
.�.Aw Wm
4-4
ENTRANCE
LL
LLI
w U)
LL LLI
LL
0 LL
LLI
,-. �,\ \ -I \ %'•. \ \�.o s. `�u..5 � �hk �...:: e .y''� u.l..a`Y ... �. .1... II'. � %I�, �. - �.__ -'__ e
L) 0
LL, =7j
LL Lu
- ---------
iI 3-
ale
'1 10 — --------
mo
----- — ------ — -----
il I 'A
------------
17 ----- --
----------- --------- ------------
-- ---- ----- --------
w
.�
U)
0
ENTRANCE
LL
LLI
w U)
LL LLI
LL
0 LL
LLI
,-. �,\ \ -I \ %'•. \ \�.o s. `�u..5 � �hk �...:: e .y''� u.l..a`Y ... �. .1... II'. � %I�, �. - �.__ -'__ e
L) 0
LL, =7j
LL Lu
- ---------
iI 3-
ale
'1 10 — --------
mo
----- — ------ — -----
il I 'A
------------
17 ----- --
----------- --------- ------------
-- ---- ----- --------
U
C
d
U
N
0
O
m
O
n
a
°o
m
3
0
N
9
R�
w
z
a
z
a
I
I�1
Q
y
z
O
W
N
3
N
O
z
a
N
U
N
F
Q
N
O
O
O
N rj
H N
z
m Q
O
W N
w
°Q z
O
N O
a
Q �
z
m O
W
a N �
N W
F
w 0 Q
=K4 zz 6O
�NO=j�W
zmwz°a
Qz azW
O =m z
2
. 3 y .60 a
0NQ wxm
O ° Z W
N m z m 7
Z N w W} Q
?w9Oa
�SimwW
°QOOO a
�ZZLL�4aa
W w w w= x
m
wwwwax
y JmJ mJ mmJ x N
W JJJ�W
m= ===w¢
ppNNNNl-
zzzz0�zzzzo
gaaaa�
a aaaaco�
_ ci ri c �ri fc � re of
_
O
Q
a
> N
m 2
° F
O
'm
�a
mz
-o
mF
a
O�
F O
F Z
O-
�a
0
=o
_r
N U
wQ
Z
'0
4 W
m V
F O
O =
ar
�m
5
_
Fn mw
rno�
�w
°
z J
z J
�o
WF
m2
ow
N w
w p
ao
°z
N w
O S,
Q �
� W
W
0 O
o�
m
-dw
W �
W U1
W �
N o
W
°o�
O W O U
F Q
c7 O z
Tz
� ~ V
U
N w z
0
N Z
Qa
w
Qmm
o�w
z
$za
Nom
JJ pO
a.w
�m
O_=
OOZO
FQO
apz
mWp
ai
5;
o J5 °
¢wz
a °a
N
;•
W
O
F O V
U
N
o
U
z
m •�
K F5�
O
V
h
O
z
O
LHI
Q L�
N U
w
a a/
° w
z° O
m� p
r o V
Q V M
O O
a z
c° < E
z Z O y
O�
a O
W
3 p
3 L7 z �5
F i
= a
Q
a e
a � 3
° o
o a
a o
O w
U �
a °
w �
� a
d s
as w
w w
N N
a"
e
s
¢F S
JN ! x
vo �9a
z
no
?° ? tl 61
z,
U
ozz
0
�w
O N
6
� m
W
� H
¢W
U 0
W J
m 4w—
m
Y
Q
mz 3 nn
¢¢
oa mm
zo s-
Q= `o
wQ ga o
UU a c��
W =
on
Fw
WE-
c)
v_o
z
WF
c) Ova
z