Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
01-25-16 CC Reg Mtg AgendaP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Zerby___ Labadie___ Siakel___ Sundberg___ Woodruff___ B. Review Agenda Attachments 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2016 Minutes 3. CONSENT AGENDA – Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List B. Authorize Advertisement for Bids for Badger Park Improvements Planning Director’s memo C. Recording Secretary Services Agreement Administrator’s memo D. Approval of Extension of Conditional Use Permit for Jesse Kath, Planning Director’s 25025 Yellowstone Trail memo E. Approval of Extension of Conditional Use Permit for Todd Cebulla, Planning Director’s 5530 Vine Hill Road memo F. Appointment of Representative to the Minnetonka Community Education Clerk’s memo Advisory Council 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATION A. Report on Lake Minnetonka Conservation District activities by representative Report Deborah Zorn CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – January 25, 2016 Page 2 7. PARKS A. Report on the January 12, 2016, Park Commission Meeting 8. PLANNING Minutes A. C.U.P. Amendment Regarding Shorewood Yacht Club Planning Director’s Applicant: Shorewood Yacht Club (Gabriel Jabbour) memo, Resolution Location: 23500 Smithtown Rd B. Minnetonka Country Club Development Stage Plan Approval Planning Director’s Applicant:Mattamy Homesmemo Location: 24575 Smithtown Road 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Approval of the 2016 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates Engineer’s memo, Resolution 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Excelsior’s Waters Proposal 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Trails Schedule Trail Schedule 2. November 2015 Monthly Budget Report Finance Director’s memo B. Mayor and City Council 1. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Software 12. ADJOURN 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 Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, January 25 2016 7:00 p.m. A 6:15 PM Executive Session is scheduled for this evening. Agenda Items #2A: Approval of Minutes from the January 11, 2015 Regular Council meeting. Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list. Agenda Item #3B: Staff seeks authorization to solicit bids for the turf playfield at Badger Park. Agenda Item #3C: Approval of the Recording Secretary Service Agreement with Christine Freeman for 2015-16 is recommended. A slight increase in the fee is requested; sufficient funds exist in the 2015-16 budgets for the increase. Agenda Item #3D: Jesse Kath has requested an extension of his conditional use permit allowing him to fill more than 100 cubic yards on his property on Yellowstone Trail. Agenda Item #3E: Todd Cebulla has requested an extension of his conditional use permit to keep his existing home on Vine Hill Road while building his new one. Agenda Item #3F: Tad Shaw has expressed interest in continuing to serve on the Minnetonka Community Education Advisory Council for another year. A resolution making this appointment is provided. Agenda Item #4: Matters from the floor – no council action will be taken. Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings scheduled this evening. Agenda Item #6A: Deborah Zorn is scheduled to report on recent LMCD activities. Agenda Item #7A: A report on the January 12, 2016 Park Commission meeting will be provided. Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of January 25, 2016 Page 2 Agenda Item #8A: Gabriel Jabbour has requested an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Shorewood Yacht Club, removing the restriction on the number of power boats that may be docked there. Agenda Item #8B: Mattamy has submitted development stage plans and a preliminary plat for the redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club. Although the Planning Commission has recommended approval, the developer has now modified the preliminary plat and must return to the Planning Commission for a new hearing. No action is required at the 25 January meeting. Agenda Item #9A: This resolution adopts Standard Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction. Agenda Item #10A: This item is for discussion of Excelsior’s Waters Proposal. Agenda Item #11A: Staff reports are provided in the packet and will be given at the meeting. Agenda Item #12.B.1. Mayor Zerby has information on CRM Software for Council’s discussion. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby Absent: Councilmember Siakel; Administrator Joynes B. Review Agenda Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, December 14, 2016 Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 14, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. B. City Council Executive Session Minutes, December 21, 2016 Labadie moved, Sundberg seconded, Approving the City Council Executive Session Minutes of December 21, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-001, “A Resolution Setting the 2016 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for the City of Shorewood.” C. Reaffirm Travel Policy for Elected Officials CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2016 Page 2 of 11 D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-002, “A Resolution Accepting Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for TH 7 / Christmas Lake Road Signal Re-Painting Project.” E. Setting the Date of Monday, May 2, 2016, for the Open Book Meeting Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report by Sue Davis on Arctic Fever 2016 Mayor Zerby noted that this is the 10-year anniversary of the Arctic Fever event. Ms. Davis noted she and Jeremy Norman (who was also present) have been members of the executive committee since this event began. She stated the event has grown to be as big as people thought it would someday be. A new activity is added to the event each year and very few activities have been dropped. A schedule for this year’s event can be found at www.arcticfever.net. Mayor Zerby stated he thought it is a terrific event. The goal from the very beginning was to get other South Lake communities involved and that has been achieved. Activities will again be held in Shorewood, Tonka Bay and Excelsior and at Lord Fletcher’s in Spring Park. This is the one event that brings the communities together. He thanked Ms. Davis and Mr. Norman and others for their efforts. Ms. Davis stated she and others have some concern that the event could get so big that residents would not enjoy themselves. There had been a couple of Saturdays during past events where there were about 1,000 people in Freeman Park and that is difficult to manage. She then stated with the exception of Public Works personnel and City Hall staff time the rest of the effort is paid for from donations and sponsorships. She noted the executive committee likes to carry forward a balance of $2,000 so the sleigh ride and dog sled ride providers can be booked early. She stated businesses have come to want to be sponsors. Mayor Zerby stated he was pleased to see that Kowalski’s, a relatively new business in Excelsior, was a significant sponsor. Ms. Davis asked Mr. Norman talk about fireworks; something the committee would love to have as an activity one year. Councilmember Woodruff asked Ms. Davis to list the donors. A partial list includes: Kowalski’s, WSB & Associates, American Legion Post #259, Shorewood Parks Foundation, Excelsior Library, The Friends of the Excelsior Library, Excelsior Brewing Company, Joey Nova’s, New Horizon Academy, Country Club Lanes, Jake O’Connor’s, Mediacom, Xcel Energy, MidCountry Bank, Big Thrill Factory, and Hazzellewood Grill and Tap Room. Ms. Davis noted that it would not have been possible to have Arctic Fever without the Legion’s support. She stated there are many who made small donations as well. Mr. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2016 Page 3 of 11 Norman stated Joey Nova’s provides all of the pizza for the Friday night party at the Southshore Center and Hurricane Grill & Wings provided gift cards. Ms. Davis stated an attempt is made to put a link to the business donors on its website. Mr. Norman noted people come from all over to enjoy the event. Ms. Davis stated the event starts Friday, January 15, at 5:30 P.M. at the Southshore Center / Badger Park for the snow sculpture judging and pizza party. On Saturday, January 16, there are activities in Freeman Park (Shorewood) and in Manitou Park (Tonka Bay) and in Excelsior. It ends on Sunday, January 17, with the Princess Brunch at Lord Fletcher’s. It goes from 10:00 A.M. – 2:00 P.M. with the princess activities going from 11:00 A.M. – 1:30 P.M. Councilmember Labadie asked how many teams have registered to do snow sculptures. Ms. Davis responded 16 to date. Mr. Norman stated from the inception of Arctic Fever the hope has been to some year have a fireworks display. Because this was the 10 year anniversary of the event and because of the increase in donations / sponsorships that goal was close to becoming a reality. Committee members approached sponsors to try and raise the additional funding. Council and the Park Commission were made aware of the goal. They spoke with representatives from the Excelsior Fire District and South Lake Minnetonka Police Department about traffic concerns. He spoke with the fireworks company that is responsible for the fireworks display on the Fourth of July over Excelsior Bay. The committee ultimately decided 2016 was not the right year to have the fireworks display because it was not sure the display would be good enough. The goal is to do it in 2017. He clarified small shells would be used for the display in Freeman Park; those used over Excelsior Bay are large shells. Ms. Davis stated that to do it in 2016 would have required using the carryover dollars. Councilmember Sundberg asked what it would cost to put on a fireworks display. Mr. Norman stated it costs approximately $5,000 for a 10-minute-long display plus an additional $1,500 for public safety services. Mayor Zerby again expressed Council’s appreciation for the efforts of all of those involved with planning and orchestrating the event and for the sponsors and donors. Mr. Norman thanked Council for its support over the years. Ms. Davis stated she was 99 percent sure there would be a surprise media event on Friday evening. 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING A. Report by Patrick Johnson on the January 5, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commissioner Johnson reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 5, 2016, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Sundberg noted that she attended that meeting as the Council Liaison and stated that she was pleased with how the Planning Commission has handled the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. She thought residents think they were heard. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2016 Page 4 of 11 Commissioner Johnson stated a resident who was part of the Planning Advisory Committee and who attended the public hearings for the MCC PUD project stated during the December 1, 2015, hearing that he thought the Planning Commission had done a good job. That resident commended Mattamay Homes as well. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Discussion Regarding Potential Beaver Control Measures Director Brown explained that during its December 14, 2015, meeting Council directed staff to research beaver control options. Over the past few years staff has received complaints about issues caused by beavers. Issues such as beaver dams causing water to back up into low lying lands, obstruction of drainage outlet structures (in particular near Silver Lake), and fallen trees (caused in large part by beaver damage) that took out power lines and obstructed roadways. The fallen trees issue has primarily been on Enchanted and Shady Islands. Councilmember Woodruff has also reported incidents of damage caused by beavers to private landscape areas. Staff contacted the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and was directed to its website. Staff learned that beavers are a protected species under the jurisdiction of the DNR. Beavers cannot be transported without a permit from the Commissioner of the DNR. The permits may be obtained from the DNR Conservation Officers. In 2007 the Shorewood City Code of Ordinances Chapter 603.06 Offenses Involving Weapons and Chapter 703 Hunting and Trapping Animals were amended to include provisions for allowing wildlife management. Staff contacted four contractors to find out what methods they use and what their rates are. Two of the contractors do not provide services to municipalities because of public reactions to wildlife control measures. The other two provided reasonable proposals. Most trappers use leg traps that are set at the edge of or just under the water. Mr. Steve Rutti charges $125 for each beaver removed plus $20 per day per trap (he uses leg traps). He typically leaves his traps out three to four days beyond the last beaver catch to ensure all nuisance beavers are removed. Conley’s Wildlife Control, LLC charges $350 for each beaver removed and that fee is reduced to $300 per beaver for ongoing services. Staff has asked what type of trap Conley’s uses. He thought the costs would ultimately end up relatively close. He noted the DNR does not allow relocation of beavers. Staff noted there are sufficient funds to execute beaver control measures in the Public Works Contracting line item or use of reserves. Staff asked Council to provide direction on how it wishes to proceed. Mayor Zerby stated he concurs that beavers are causing damage to a greater area; more than one or two properties. He then stated the staff memo indicates that residents can contract for beaver removal and he suggested the City let residents know that. He went on to state he would like to move forward with beaver removal but he would like there to be a broader policy on it similar to the one for deer management. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the City Ordinance allows for private parties to contract for beaver removal because hunting and trapping is prohibited unless done by the public body (i.e., the City). Director Brown responded yes and clarified they must use a licensed contractor who obtains a permit from the DNR. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2016 Page 5 of 11 Woodruff stated he thought the cost for the services is somewhat high. Yet, the cost to replace a mature tree is high. He noted he would like the City to move forward with this. He stated he assumes the removal effort would have to wait until there is open water in the spring. Director Brown confirmed that. Woodruff stated he prefers the Conley’s proposal because there is no cost to the City if no beavers are removed. Councilmember Sundberg stated she agrees there are areas in the City where the beavers are being destructive. She noted that she wants them to be treated humanely. She asked if the leg trap is a claw-like trap. Director Brown responded yes. Brown explained that he had been told by one trapper that if trappers say they capture beavers with a cage trap they are not being honest; live trapping is not successful. Sundberg stated that means the beavers would be seriously injured or they would die. Brown responded yes. Sundberg asked when beavers give birth to their offspring and if the removal would not be done during that time period. Brown indicated he would check into that if Council wants staff to do that. Director Brown explained that the DNR is in charge of regulating the beaver population. If there is a time the removal would put the species at risk he assumes the DNR would not allow removal. Councilmember Sundberg asked if there is any idea of what the beaver population is out on the Islands. Director Brown responded no and stated that it would not be unusual to have at least six of them. Director Brown explained that Public Works personnel have cleaned approximately eight yards of material out the drainage outlet structure near Silver Lake one day and by the following afternoon the structure is clogged again. Councilmember Sundberg asked if there is any belief that certain population sizes are less destructive. Brown stated he is not aware of that and noted that beavers are nocturnal animals. Councilmember Labadie asked if there is an estimate of the number of hours Public Works staff spends cleaning up after beaver destruction and damage. Director Brown estimated a minimum of 200 hours per season. In response to another question from Labadie, Brown stated the beaver destruction on the Islands can create safety and power issues. For the Sliver Lake outlet structure there is usually more warning of a critical situation. He clarified that does not include the destruction caused to private properties. Labadie stated from her perspective the City’s Deer Management Program has been successful and she thought the City could find a way to do that for the beaver population. Councilmember Woodruff stated there is one beaver lodge in Shorewood and there are two in the Minnetrista portion of the Islands; they are about one-half mile apart. He noted he has spoken with the Mayor of Minnetrista and she is interested in hearing about what Shorewood intends to do. Minnetrista has done beaver control in the past and he suggested asking Minnetrista to do so again. Mayor Zerby stated that Director Brown’s report indicates the City Ordinance was amended to allow trapping and hunting of animals. The report also includes information from the DNR’s website which states “If beaver damage is occurring on your land, you as the landowner or occupant, may shoot or trap the animals without a permit or license (Minnesota Statute 97B.655).” It also states “You must comply with local ordinances which may prohibit trapping or the discharge of firearms.” The City Ordinance does not allow the discharge of firearms. It seems that trapping would be allowed. He asked if that is correct. Brown responded yes and clarified they would have to have a permit from the DNR. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City Ordinance Chapter 703.03 Prohibited Acts prohibits hunting or trapping and Chapter 703.04 Exemption from Provisions states “Trapping and hunting performed by, or with the authorization of the city under a permit issued by the state for the purpose of managing wildlife populations.” Zerby stated the City would have to issue a permit because its Ordinance is more restrictive than State Statute. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2016 Page 6 of 11 Councilmember Woodruff stated the beaver lodge on the Islands is located in the right-of-way (ROW). He then stated that he is aware of two instances of private property owners complaining about beavers causing damage to their properties. If they wanted to remove the beavers they would need a permit from the City. Councilmember Sundberg noted that she prefers that the City control the removal of beavers to ensure professionals are doing the removal. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the City were to remove beavers from private property it would need approval from the property owner similar to what it needs for the Deer Management Program. Director Brown stated the information from the DNR’s website that Mayor Zerby referred to also states “You must contact your local DNR Conservation Officer or Area Wildlife staff within 24 hours after killing a beaver.” Councilmember Labadie expressed her preference for the Conley’s proposal because it is a flat fee for the removal of a beaver. She explained for Mr. Rutti’s proposal it could be possible to have to pay the daily trap fee for a number of traps for a number of days and possibly never have any beavers removed. Mayor Zerby stated an internet search shows that a trap costs about $20. Councilmember Woodruff stated there is a requirement that a trapper check their traps daily. Therefore, there is a cost to the trapper to do that. Councilmember Sundberg suggested testing the beaver removal concept on the Islands first and find out what the success rate is. Mayor Zerby stated he assumes beavers provide some environmental benefit. Director Brown stated there is currently an ample beaver population based on staff’s discussion with DNR representatives. The DNR did not indicate any damage would be caused by the City harvesting beavers. Councilmember Labadie stated she likes the idea of starting the effort out on the Islands. She supports working with Minnetrista staff on a removal initiative but if Minnetrista does not want to do that she does not want that to deter Shorewood’s initiative. Councilmember Woodruff offered to let the Mayor of Minnetrista know that the City will initiate a beaver removal effort this spring. Mayor Zerby suggested staff make the contract with Minnetrista staff instead. Director Brown stated he would do that. Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, directing staff to contract with Conley’s Wildlife Control, LLC to provide beaver control services on City-owned property on Enchanted and Shady Islands in the spring of 2016. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would support the effort with some discomfort because it is wildlife control of a protected species. She noted she has heard from some residents about issues created by beavers. Mayor Zerby concurred with Sundberg’s comments and noted he thought it would be worth testing the effort. Motion passed 4/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2016 Page 7 of 11 B. Discuss Priorities for Renewable Energy Planning Engineer Hornby explained that early last week Council was emailed two reports related to the City’s Renewable Energy Project – the Shorewood Renewable Energy Project Citywide and City Operations Carbon Baseline Assessments from 2011 to 2013 from Orange Environmental and the draft Shorewood Renewable Energy Analysis from the Great Planes Institute. They will eventually be combined into one document. He sent the documents so Council can decide what the short-term and long-term priorities should be. His memorandum identifies the consultant’s and committee’s ( Mayor Zerby, Councilmember Sundberg, Director Brown and Engineer Hornby) recommendation for short-term priorities which are: 1) identify on-site solar energy installation on buildings; 2) identify sites for potential community garden sites; 3) identify ordinance modification to encourage energy efficiency and/or renewable energy alternatives; 4) identify utility incentive programs; and, 5) prepare educational opportunities for residents and businesses on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Their recommendation for long-term priorities are: identify fleet maintenance, purchases, and fuel conversion opportunities; improve efficiency of city buildings including performing thermal and pressure tests; and, assess energy use for high service facilities (e.g.; water supply/pumping facilities, wastewater pumping stations). Their recommendation for future study priorities are: re-commission the joint powers agreements (JPAs) for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department and the Excelsior Fire District; and, review/identify technologies that will reduce GHG emissions for City facilities. Once Council has decided what the short-term priorities are they will be incorporated into the final report and the consultant will be invited to present the final report to Council. Councilmember Sundberg asked Engineer Hornby to define what short-term means. Engineer Hornby stated that can be defined however Council wants it to be defined. Short-term could be defined as zero – 10 years and long-term could be defined as 10 – 20 years. Sundberg suggested staff take the two reports and come back to Council with its detailed recommendations along with timelines and high level budget estimates. She asked if that could be accomplished within six months. Engineer Hornby stated once Council identifies the priorities that would be the next step. It would be set up as a Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He clarified that would be the next step beyond this report. Sundberg recommended a review of financing options be included in the short-term priorities. For short- term item #2 she suggested adding review of other solar gardens the City could participate in. That may be more feasible for the City. She stated the GreenStep Cities program could be used as a model. Sundberg noted she supports what staff has provided. She again asked staff to prepare a detailed plan and budget within six months. Engineer Hornby stated the renewable energy market has been changing rapidly. If new viable technologies come to market, there needs to be flexibility to incorporate them. There is also a need to keep abreast of new financing options. Those fall into the future study priorities. Councilmember Labadie stated she thought the six-month-long timeframe is appropriate. Mayor Zerby expressed his appreciation for the work done to date on this effort. He stated it is an exciting project from his vantage point. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2016 Page 8 of 11 Councilmember Sundberg stated she appreciates the fact that staff has spoken with the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) developer about solar ready alternatives. She clarified that she was not personally interested in pushing solar energy on anyone. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the City Ordinances be amended to address alternative energy sooner than six months out. Director Nielsen stated those recommendations would be incorporated into the MCC Development Agreement and Declaration of Covenants. Those would lead to additional ordinance amendments. Those amendments will be incorporated into the Planning Commission’s work program. There was consensus to have staff and the Planning Commission address alternative energy ordinance amendments before six months is up. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Making Appointments to Certain Offices and Positions within the City of Shorewood for the Year 2016 Mayor Zerby asked Council how it wants to proceed with making appointments to certain offices and positions for 2016. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like to serve as the alternate Excelsior Fire District Board Member in 2016. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was okay with that proposed change. Mayor Zerby proposed leaving the appointments for 2016 the same as those for 2016 with the exception of those changes Council already made for the liaisons to the Park and Planning Commissions and changing the alternate EFD Board Member. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-003 “Making Appointments to Certain Offices and Positions within the City of Shorewood for the Year 2016.” 1. The following persons are appointed to the following offices and positions: a) Acting Mayor: Debbie Siakel Council Representatives to: b) Park Commission Liaison: January – June 2016: Jennifer Labadie July – December 2016: Dick Woodruff c) Planning Commission Liaison: January – June 2016: Kristine Sundberg July – December 2016: Debbie Siakel d) Metro Cities (AMM) and League of Minnesota Cities (LMC): Dick Woodruff e) Alternate Metro Cities (AMM & LMC): City Administrator f) Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission: Scott Zerby g) Alternate Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission: Debbie Siakel h) Minnetonka Family Collaborative Council: Jennifer Labadie i) Coordinating Committee South Lake Minnetonka Police Department: Mayor CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2016 Page 9 of 11 j) Alternate to Mayor on Coordinating Committee South Lake Minnetonka Police Department: Jennifer Labadie k) Excelsior Fire District Board Member: Debbie Siakel l) Alternate Excelsior Fire District Board Member: Kristine Sundberg m) Investment Committee: None n) Personnel Committee: Debbie Siakel and Dick Woodruff o) Weed Inspector: Mayor p) Assistant Weed Inspector: Joe Lugowski 2. That the following other appointments are made: a) City Attorney: Timothy J. Keane, Kutak Rock LLP b) City Prosecutor: Ken Potts c) Emergency Preparedness Director: Per Police Board Decision 3. Official Depositories: Beacon Bank, 4M Fund & other Depositories as necessary 4. Official Newspaper: Sun Sailor. Notices may also be published in the Laker. 5. That the Blanket Bond (Official Bonds) is approved. That such appointments shall take effect on the date hereof and shall continue for the remainder of the year or until such time as a successor is appointed by the City Council. Mayor Zerby noted that he would like a resident to take his place as the representative to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission because it is difficult for him to make all of the meetings because of the other Mayoral related commitments he has. Motion passed 4/0. B. Deer Management Plan 2015 Summary Report Director Nielsen stated in 2015, 16 deer were harvested as part of the Deer Management Program; 18 were harvested in 2014. He also noted the Three Rivers Park District did not conduct an aerial survey for 2015 because of the lack of snow. An aerial survey will be done for 2016. He explained that for 2015 virtually all of the deer were harvested on the west side of the City; that was unusual. The area around Christmas Lake has usually yielded several deer. Mayor Zerby stated the Rotary Club does roadside pickup along Highway 7 and he picked up along Christmas Lake Road. Three deer skulls were found alongside of the slope. Maybe weather had an impact. Director Nielsen stated the winter of 2014/2015 was relatively mild. Councilmember Woodruff stated the deer removal report does not indicate whether a hunt area was even hunted. Putting that notation on report would make it more meaningful. Mayor Zerby asked if the information in the report will be placed on the City’s website. Director Nielsen responded yes. C. Review and Approve Expectations and Roles of Liaisons Mayor Zerby explained that during its December 14, 2015, meeting Council asked that an item be added to the document relating to the Expectations and Roles of Liaisons. A copy of the revised document was included in the meeting packet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2016 Page 10 of 11 Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, approving the Expectations and Roles of City Council Liaisons to Advisory Commissions and Commission Liaisons to City Council, as amended by Council and directing staff to circulate it to members of Council and members of the Park and Planning Commissions. Mayor Zerby stated the document had not been circulated to incoming members of Council or the Commissions for quite some time. Motion passed 4/0. Councilmember Woodruff suggested staff to prepare a package of information for incoming members of Council and the Commissions. Director Nielsen noted that a package is prepared for incoming Planning Commissioners. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Trail Schedule Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the Trail Schedule. He stated the contractor has not started any tree trimming of the site for the Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension. Engineer Hornby explained that he has prepared a draft letter that would be sent to residents living along that section of Smithtown Road to inform them the contractor might start doing that. He has been trying to confirm that with the contractor. Staff has informed the contractor that he has to give the City a two week notice before starting that work so the City can notify the residents. Zerby stated that there has been discussion about the permit application the City submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) relating to the Galpin Lake Road trail segment. The MCWD had some questions about the application. He asked if any progress has been made on that and if that could be worked on during the winter months. Engineer Hornby stated that will be resumed next week and noted his project manager has been on her honeymoon. Councilmember Woodruff asked if there is a short summary of the plan for the Smithtown Road sidewalk project on the City’s website. Engineer Hornby stated the schedule is on the website. Woodruff stated from his perspective a paragraph summary would be helpful. Hornby stated he will work with the Communications Coordinator on that. 2. February 5, 2016, Retreat Topics – Prioritized List Mayor Zerby noted there is a Council and staff retreat scheduled for February 5 and it will be held in the Emergency Operations Center in the public safety facility. Councilmembers ranked the topics for priority of discussion. A list of the ranked topics was included in the meeting packet. Councilmember Woodruff stated an item was added to the list after the topics were rated. Zerby stated he asked that joint powers agreement formula negotiations be added to the list. Woodruff suggested that be discussed in a separate Council work session. Zerby stated he will touch on that during the retreat. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2016 Page 11 of 11 Other Director DeJong stated the bond refunding issuance for the public safety facilities was closed on January 7, 2016. He thanked Mayor Zerby for signing a very large number of documents and the office staff for notarizing all of the documents. He also thanked Administrator Joynes, Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board Chair Fletcher, South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Coordinating Committee Chair Gaylord, EFD Chief Gerber and the EFD Secretary Freeman for signing documents as well. He then stated staff is getting the financial system ready for 2016. Attorney Keane noted beavers breed in January and have their kits in the spring and that they are monogamous for life. B. Mayor and City Council 12. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of January 11, 2016, at 8:09 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #3A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: January 25, 2016 Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Attachments: Claims lists Policy Consideration: Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid? Background: Claims for council authorization. 62214-62239 & ACH 56,463.78 Pending 62240-6226 & ACH 99,503.69 Total Claims $155,967.47 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending January 10, 2016. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents an budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may r expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval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`"@1 ,( !"#$% &#'"(!)*! +, - *./0,# *$&/*#+""*$%-,1#(2#3#(# "# 48 9:,I5%@A!,*T/C.' > $&5 !/((a4H<,HKHLWXR,DK4C48 9:,G M2 $9 !,T?4N,H$@=A &!,S@A G%6%\/T/(TQ+/'.UO.,452$% 3,4A2=,L&,-,,(()*()(.-(*)*.)(.,.*C//(*)O()*'(.*'(-''-/OT'-'''' 48 9:,I5%@A!,.*C// I5%@A,;5 ,48 9:,L2$!,+R'.TC.+ I5%@A,5;,K26= ,5;,48 9: !,T ?"-45672% ,48 9:," 55;,<# %,=3,> $&5 ,_'()*()*'(+,-,,(!./,"0`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` L"48 9:,N O2 $9 !,(D?4P,G$@=A &!,Q@A 'ED'FD/B @ ,B@AA,>@AV ,S*CS.'()*D)*'(+('(-E*-.**(-'''' 48 9:,I5%@A!,S*CS. ?"-45672% ,48 9:," 55;,<# %,=3,> $&5 ,Z'()*()*'(+,-,,(!./,"0["@1 ,* !"#$% &#'"(!)*! +, - *./0,# *$&/*#+""*$%-,1#(2#3#(# "# > $&5 !E('0 HL4L-"?<N48 9:,N O2 $9 !,(+?4P,G$@=A &!,Q@A *'(+*'(+-0 6= 8#7,X2 -I^#A@,T 52%,*DC'''()*D)*'(+('(-(E-..EE-'''' 48 9:,I5%@A!,*DC'' > $&5 !E(FRGJG0K,HUJ0?H48 9:,N O2 $9 !,(F?4P,G$@=A &!,Q@A *'(+-? 9%#9Q VB@$$ ,;5 ,*'(+,? 9%#9,Q V ,-,a,># 2@A,L67@9%,./.C*('()*D)*'(+('(-DE-...(-'''' 48 9:,I5%@A!,./.C*( > $&5 !E**UQQL4G,XG"UI48 9:,N O2 $9 !,(/?4P,G$@=A &!,Q@A /(F('F+.E''(I5$ ,*.SC/('()*D)*'(+('(-(D-.*''-'''' /(F('F+.E''(N277A# ,./C.('()*D)*'(+('(-(E-.*''-'''' 48 9:,I5%@A!,*S/C** > $&5 !EE+" J4P?NG,"UWGJ48 9:,N O2 $9 !,(S?4P,G$@=A &!,I 2 J ;#AA &-'(((*'(+?99%,b/'''-S'''-'F.E-/**E-J ;#AA-'((((+,(_'''C'''()*D)*'(+('(-(E-.*'/-'''' J ;#AA &-'(((*'(+?99%,b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c4G<,GHGJTK_,LH4C48 9:,N O2 $9 !,*D?4P,G$@=A &!,Q@A N%6%b./D/...DSD+DD,0 3,<@$ ,-,(*)'/)(D-'()(()(+,**C'('()*D)*'(+('(-D*-.E/'-'''' N%6%b./+SF/./F"@ : -N%@% 6 $%,5$,'()*')(+,E(+CF''()*D)*'(+('(-D*-.E/'-''''?99%,D(.DE(F((S N%6%b./+SF/./F"CWC,BA&1,NV9-N%@% 6 $%,5$,'()*')(+,E..C.F'()*D)*'(+('(-E*-.E/'-''''?99%,D(.DE(F((S N%6%b./+SF/./F"CWC,N% %,<#18% ,NV9-N%@% ,5$,'()*')(+,*_.SFCS*'()*D)*'(+('(-E*-.ESS-''''?99%,D(.DE(F((S N%6%b./+SF/./F4CPC,NV9 -N%@% 6 $%,5$,'()*')(+,E/FC(E'()*D)*'(+('(-(S-.E/'-''''?99%,D(.DE(F((S N%6%b./+SF/./F?6 =2 3,NV9,-N%@% 6 $%,5$,'()*')(+,**'C+F'()*D)*'(++'(-''-.ES.-''''?99%,D(.DE(F((S N%6%b./+SF/./FB52A& ,B #&1 ,NV9,-N%@% 6 $%,5$,'()*')(+,+SDCDE'()*D)*'(++'(-''-.ES+-''''?99%,D(.DE(F((S N%6%b./+SF/./FNCGC,? @,NV9,-N%@% 6 $%,5$,,'()*')(+,(_++SC+/'()*D)*'(++'(-''-.ES/-''''?99%,D(.DE(F((S N%6%b./+SF/./FN% %,<#18% ,-N%@% 6 $%,5$,'()*')(+,..'CE('()*D)*'(++((-''-.E/'-''''?99%,D(.DE(F((S 48 9:,I5%@A!,+_DS.C.* > $&5 !.(EdGG,0GXL4?<,NGJ>L4G48 9:,N O2 $9 !,*+?4P,G$@=A &!,I 2 D.'SD++DQ# %,?#&,DFC(''()*D)*'(+('(-E*-.*.D-'''' 48 9:,I5%@A!,DFC(' I5%@A,;5 ,48 9:,J2$!,SE_..DC(E I5%@A,5;,H26= ,5;,48 9: !,*+ ?"-45672% ,48 9:," 55;,<# %,=3,> $&5 ,Z'()*()*'(+,-,,(!./,"0["@1 ,. #3B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Badger Park – Authorize Staff to Solicit Bids for Playfield Meeting Date: 25 January 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Policy Consideration: Should the City Council authorize staff to solicit bids for the construction of an artificial turf play field at Badger Park? Background: As you are aware, the City was successful in obtaining a $200,000 grant for the construction of an artificial turf playfield for Badger. You should also be aware that the amount requested was $300,000. Staff has met with representatives from Lacrosse to discuss what to do about any shortfall that may occur. It is worth noting that the numbers used in the application were based on estimates from various vendors and staff, for the most part, used the highest numbers available. In order to determine what, if any, shortfall there may be, staff and the Lacrosse representatives recommend that actual bids be obtained for the work. The Park Commission also agreed with this approach. Financial or Budget Considerations: Potential $100,000 shortfall. Options: Authorize the solicitation for bids or continue forward on the basis of the estimates received to-date. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff suggests the only way to determine the feasibility of the project is to work with actual numbers made available through a bidding process. Next Steps and Timelines: Time is somewhat of the essence. The grant must be used this year and if the project is to move forward, the sooner we have bids, the better. Connection to Vision / Mission: Healthy environment, attractive amenities, and sound financial management. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 #3C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Recording Secretary Services Agreement Meeting Date: January 25, 2016 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator CC: Tim Keane, City Attorney; Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments: Proposed Agreement Policy Consideration: Consideration of Revised Agreement for Recording Secretary Services Background: Independent Contractor Christine Freeman has served as Recording Secretary for the City Council and Planning Commission meetings since November, 2005. Since that time she has had two rate increases. The last rate was set for years 2013 and 2014. That rate was set as follows: Length of Meetings Compensation * Up to 3 hours $250 Over 3 hours $40 for each additional 1/2 hour or portion thereof * For additional meetings held on the same night before or after the Regular City Council meeting, such as a Work Session, an additional $50 for meetings up to 30- minutes, or $100 for meetings over 30 minutes will be paid. It should be noted that certain meetings held on a Regular meeting night, such as meetings to conduct commissioner interviews, were previously billed at $55 per meeting to prepare the minutes. Under this rate structure, these are being prepared pro bono. The proposed fee for 2015-2016 is: Length of Meetings Compensation * Up to 3 hours $260 for year 2015 $265 for year 2016 Over 3 hours $43 for each additional 1/2 hour or portion thereof * For additional meetings held on the same night before or after the Regular City Council meeting, such as a Work Session, an additional $50 for meetings up to 30- minutes, or $110 for meetings over 30 minutes will be paid. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Ms. Freeman provides detailed meeting minutes; Staff believes the proposed fee increase supports the effort and time taken to produce such detailed minutes. Financial or Budget Considerations: For 2015, the increase results in a total of $356 more for Council meetings and $126 more for Planning Commission meetings as compared to the 2014 rate. Sufficient funds were allocated in the 2015 and 2016 Budgets for Recording Secretary Services. Options: Approve the Recording Secretary Service Agreement with Ms. Christine Freeman, as provided. Provide other direction to staff Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Recording Secretary Service Agreement with Ms. Christine Freeman, as provided. Next Steps and Timelines: The Agreement is for a two-year term from January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2016. Ms. Freeman will submit her request for payment for 2015 by month’s end for allocation to the 2015 budget. Connection to Vision / Mission: Production of the detailed meeting record provides a quality public service to residents. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RECORDING SECRETARY SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between Christine Freeman, 2240 Shadywood Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 (City Recorder), and the City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 (Shorewood). Shorewood wishes to contract with City Recorder to provide recording secretarial services for all Shorewood City Council meetings and some or all of the Planning and/or Park Commission meetings. This agreement shall also encompass any special meetings that City Recorder is asked to attend. IT IS THEREFORE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Recording Secretary. City Recorder shall attend, record, and transcribe, and submit minutes of all regular Shorewood City Council meetings, and some or all of the regular Shorewood Planning and/or Park Commission meetings, as determined by City Staff. Minutes of each meeting shall be submitted within seven (7) days after each meeting to the City Clerk or to other such officer as the City Clerk may designate from time to time. 2. Equipment. Shorewood shall provide for each meeting at the meeting site, all tape recording equipment required to record the minutes of the meeting. City Recorder shall provide all equipment and materials necessary to transcribe and prepare the minutes and to take notes at a meeting. 3. Charges. City Recorder shall be paid for recording secretary services as follows: Length of Meetings Compensation * Up to 3 hours $260 for year 2015 $265 for year 2016 Over 3 hours $43 for each additional 1/2 hour or portion thereof * For additional meetings held on the same night before or after the Regular City Council meeting, such as a Work Session, an additional $50 for up to 30-minutes, or $110 for meetings over 30 minutes will be paid. 4. Billing. The City Recorder shall bill Shorewood, listing each meeting date attended. Shorewood agrees to submit each invoice with the next bill list or other applicable expense authorization list to be considered by the City Council or the authorizing official of the Council. Billing on an annual basis should be provided as soon as possible after the end of the year. 5. Cancellation. This Agreement may be canceled at any time by either party, subject to a thirty (30) day written notice. 6. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on January 1, 2015, and shall continue for a 2-year period, ending December 31, 2016. Dated: City Recorder Dated: Shorewood Mayor Shorewood City Administrator #3D & 3E MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Requests for Extension of Deadlines to Comply with C.U.P. — Cebulla and Kath Meeting Date: 25 January 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Exhibit A — Kath Request for Extension Exhibit B — Cebulla Request for Extension Policy Consideration: Should the Council grant extensions of time to Jesse Kath and Todd Cebulla to comply with their respective conditional use permits? Background: Kath —Jesse Kath was granted a C.U.P. to deposit fill in excess of 100 cubic yards on his property at 25025 Yellowstone Trail (see Exhibit A). He asks for an additional 12 months to complete the work. While this is somewhat longer than a typical extension (six months), it is considered reasonable in light of the circumstances. Cebulla — Mr. Cebulla is nearing completion of his new home at 5530 Vine Hill Road, but asks for an additional three months before he has to remove his existing house (see Exhibit B). A three -month extension will put him very close to road restrictions. Staff recommends a six -month extension. The Planning Commission reviewed both requests and recommended in favor of the extensions. Financial or Budget Considerations: N/A Options: Approve the extensions; deny the extensions; or approve different extensions. Recommendation / Action Requested: Both property owners have demonstrated good faith in trying to comply with their respective C.U.P.'s. Staff recommends the extensions. Next Steps and Timelines: The Kath property will be inspected upon receipt of a grading permit within the next 12 months. The Cebulla property will be inspected upon request of a certificate of occupancy within the next six months. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 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. 1 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 N Exhibit A p o p 4S o� c� o-0 L i N C:) (1) p LL - ,g N p U � � a qnl'D cu z L o _ v lea a� M C H� CL -M J S ® p 0 -� M0 0a "° 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: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk -2- 4. nI- Us s Legal Descripti 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. 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 Exhibit B 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 WHERE AS,'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: 1. 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: va-PL P "M Jean Panchyshyn, Ci'6 Clerk -2- --', Zerby, a or #3F MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Appointment of Tad Shaw as representative to the Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Advisory Council Meeting Date: January 25, 2016 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council appoint Tad Shaw to serve as the Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Advisory Council representative? Background: Tad Shaw has served as representative on the MCE Advisory Council for just over 21 years, and he is interested in continuing to serve for 2016. As no other candidates have come forward, Council may decide to appoint Mr. Shaw for another term. Should another candidate express interest in serving on this advisory council, Tim Litfin, MCE Executive Director, indicated an additional member would be welcome. Options: 1)Approve the attached resolution appointing Tad Shaw as the Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Advisory Council representative for 2016. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval of the attached resolution provided. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will notify Mr. Shaw and MCE of his appointment. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 16-___ A RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE MINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION (MCE) ADVISORY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood annually appoints a Shorewood resident to serve as City Representative on the MCE Advisory Council; and WHEREAS, the City advertised this volunteer board opportunity for appointment to said Advisory Council; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby appoints Tad Shaw as City Representative on the Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Advisory Council for the year 2016. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of January, 2016. _____________________________ ATTEST:Scott Zerby, Mayor _____________________________ _____________________________ Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #6A DT: January 25, 2016 TO: Shorewood City Council FR: Deborah Zorn, LMCD Representative for City of Shorewood RE: LMCD Quarterly Update 1.STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTION OF LMCD – U of M Carlson School of Management MBA students Key Insights LMCD is well recognized as an agency that manages Lake Minnetonka o Stakeholders who have high familiarity with LMCD generally rated the LMCD as o ineffective AIS, Lake Regulation, and Lake Safety are view as the top issues by Stakeholders o Recommendation Reassess: Confirm that LMCD strategy is aligned with the needs of the lake as o well as the priorities of the Stakeholders Leverage: Explore join efforts with other lake management agencies to facilitate o mission success. Communicate: Increase communication with stakeholders via social media, o promote LMCD successes 2.STRATEGIC PLANNING June 2015 to present Final step – Redefining 2016 Work Plan 3. UPCOMING DATES & TOPICS Code Review Boaters Safety Education Training Course (youths ages 12-17) – Spring/Summer Public Safety issues (garbage, navigation, etc) Building Stakeholder relationships (Water Patrol, municipalities, partner agencies) Handout @ Meeting CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Vice-Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; and, Council Liaison Sundberg Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Geng moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for January 5, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 1, 2015 Geng moved, Bean seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Director Nielsen noted that this is the first time the Planning Commission agenda included a Consent Agenda. He explained that Council almost always has a consent item on its agenda for its regular meetings. The consent agenda is for minor items. Tonight’s Consent Agenda includes two petitions for an extension of a conditional use permit (C.U.P.). Both petitioners submitted their requests before the expiration of their original approval. Staff considers both requests to be reasonable. Staff anticipated that the applicant for two houses on one lot would ask for an extension at the time the original C.U.P. was granted. If a Planning Commissioner has questions about an item on the consent agenda the protocol would be to remove it from the consent agenda for discussion and then vote on whether or not to recommend approval of the item separately. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the 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 Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 2 of 21 2. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING L-R DISTRICT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Applicant: Shorewood Yacht Club (Gabriel Jabbour) Location: 23500 Smithtown Road Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 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 an amendment to a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for the Shorewood Yacht Club (owned by Gabriel Jabbour), 23500 Smithtown Road Director Nielsen explained Mr. Jabbour, owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) located at 23500 Smithtown Road, has requested that the existing 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. There is a lot of history associated with the property. In 2007 the SYC was granted an interim C.U.P. that allowed the SYC to keep more power boats at its dock slips. In 2011 the then Council approved a permanent C.U.P. largely because of how things went during the there-year trial period. The permanent C.U.P. allowed the SYC to keep up to 52 power boats [in addition to five previously approved] at dock slips located at pier #3 and pier #4. The SYC had asked to be able to keep up to 50 percent power boats at its 117 slips. The remaining slips were to be for sail boats. Mr. Jabbour proposes to reconstruct the existing dock configuration which would enhance safety by providing for wider walkways and by replacing deteriorating dock structures. He would like to build “universal docks” that would accommodate either sail or power boats. Before making that investment he asked that the restriction on the number of power boats be removed to allow for more flexibility. He intends to continue to run a sailing operation. His request is outlined in his e-mail dated December 21, 2015, (a copy of which was included in the meeting packet). Copies of aerial photos of the property were also included in the packet. Nielsen noted that Mr. Jabbour was present. Gabriel Jabbour, owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club, noted his daughter Georgette was present as well. He commented that when the SYC was first conceived there used to be thousands of sail boats on Lake Minnetonka. For his previous application there were hundreds that were not housed at racing yacht clubs. He explained that one of his companies has owned the SYC property for 10 years and during that period there has not been a single resident complaint about the marina. His hope is it will continue to be that way. He noted he has no immediate need to change the docks. He explained that while making improvements to some of the SYC’s docks it has become very clear that the docks should not have been constructed the way they were. Walking on the docks is somewhat like walking a plank. The electrical and the site in general need to be improved. He does not envision a drastic change in the ratio of sail boats to power boats. The SYC’s owners have a strong moral and financial commitment to those who supported the changes to its C.U.P. the last time. The owners of the SYC have equipment which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars that is biased towards sail boats. Also, the SYC does not want to turn away 60 – 70 sail boat owners who want to rent dock slips from the SYC. This year there is a group of people who are going to be a sailing in different parts of the world so five or six of the Club members will not be coming back. Next year there could be sailors who are visiting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 3 of 21 He stated life is cyclical. At one time there may have been a reason to limit the number of power boats because residents living near that part of Lake Minnetonka did not want them there. He then stated he is finding more and more residents in the community who would like to dock their boats at the SYC. The SYC has voluntarily offered a discount to Shorewood residents who rent a slip at the SYC. It has also offered the same discount to Shorewood residents who have to rent a slip at another marina he owns because there was no room for them at the SYC for an interim period. He anticipates the Minnetonka Country Club development will generate more desire to rent slips for power boats at the SYC. He clarified he has no intention to ask a current renter to leave or to not give bias to a sail boat owner. But, if there are ten empty slips he does not see a reason why a power boat owner cannot rent one. He went on to state if the City were to remove the restriction on where the power boats have to dock it would give him the option to mingle power boats and sail boats. He commented that slip renters don’t want to move their boat from one slip to another very often. He noted the lease document does stipulate that the SYC has the right to move a renter to a different slip. He thanked staff, the Planning Commission and City Council for the trust it had placed in the SYC owners and managers. He hopes that people believe that they have lived up to their promises. He stated that he thought they have improved the site significantly. He explained the business plan for the SYC is to reduce the density on land. The intent is to have less density while maintaining revenues. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to drive through the site and see the reduction of density on land. Mr. Jabbour offered to entertain questions from the Commissioners. Vice-Chair Davis asked if all of the docks will be replaced. Mr. Jabbour responded he is not sure when that will happen. Some slips have been rebuilt but the next time that needs to be done he wants to replace an entire pier at a time. Mr. Jabbour noted that in one area there had been three layers of walkway on land. He stated he thought the best approach would be to remove piers and replace them and to replace the electrical at the same time. He noted that in 2014 when the level of Lake Minnetonka was so high he was very concerned about leaving power on to the slips. He was at the site frequently to check on things. He stated over the last 10 years new technologies have come to market to make monitoring easier. He noted that the SYC has no plans to migrate away from sail boats. He also noted that the SYC is the only site around the Lake, except for Sailor World which has three to four boats, which can handle the number of slip rentals for sail boats that the SYC can. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the SYC needs a permit to rebuild its docks. Director Nielsen explained the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has authority over the placement of the docks and the City has the opportunity to approve them. Mr. Jabbour noted that the SYC would not do anything without copying the City on what it submits to the LMCD. Mr. Jabbour encouraged people to look at the marina he owns on St. Alban’s Bay. One hundred percent of the docks were replaced. Commissioner Bean recognized Mr. Jabbour for being one of the best stewards of Lake Minnetonka in the entire Lake area. Bean stated he understood Mr. Jabbour to indicate there has been a decline in sail boating and he asked if that is why he would like the SYC have more flexibility with the number of power boat owners that can rent slips at the SYC. He asked him what he thought the increase in the slip rental for power boats would be. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 4 of 21 Mr. Jabbour commented that he remembers when marina staff changed oil and spread the oil on the gravel. He stated, for example, if the SYC would lose 30 renters because they wanted to sail around the world he thought the SYC could be able to rent one-half or one-fourth of the slips to owners of sail boats. He noted that his staff at the SYC only knows about maintaining and repairing sail boats and all of its storage is for sail boats. He also noted that the SYC gives priority to sail boats and to Shorewood residents. He reiterated that the discount it gives to Shorewood residents is voluntary. He stated if the SYC experiences a loss in revenue he would likely have to cover the loss for a while. But, he would like to have the flexibility to maintain that revenue. Commissioner Bean stated he thought it would be nice to provide the residents in that area a sense of what Mr. Jabbour thought might happen at the SYC over the next few years. Mr. Jabbour guaranteed that over the next two years nothing will happen but he is not sure what will happen over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Bean asked Director Nielsen to display the aerial photo of the SYC included in the meeting packet. He then asked Mr. Jabbour if the configuration of the docks would remain relatively the same. Mr. Jabbour stated that the number of slips the SYC can have is limited by the C.U.P. The lengths are limited by LMCD regulations. The LMCD has recently changed the lengths for a qualified marina (which the SYC is) so the length could be up to 200 feet. Director Nielsen stated he thought the length is less than 200 feet today. Commissioner Bean stated that at the St. Alban’s Bay marina the platform on the docks was widened. Vice-Chair Davis stated as part of her job she was involved with redoing another municipality’s docks and the LMCD allowed alterations as long as the original footprint remained the same. Mr. Jabbour disclosed that he is Orono’s representative on the LMCD Board. Vice-Chair Davis asked what the SYC’s vacancy rate was in 2015. Mr. Jabbour noted there were no vacancies and the SYC had a waiting list for slip rentals. Mr. Jabbour stated in 2008 there were 357,000 boats manufactured in the United States. In 2009 158,000 were manufactured. The manufacturing rate is starting to trend upward now. He commented that he knows that because he works very closely with the ABYC (American Boat and Yacht Council) on how to redesign boats to make it easier to remove aquatic invasive species (AIS) from them. Vice-Chair Davis asked what the largest size power boat is that could be docked at a SYC rental slip. Mr. Jabbour stated that how the length of a boat is measured has changed such that an old 28-foot-long boat is now considered to be 32 feet long. Mr. Jabbour pointed to where he would like to have a handicap accessible structure on the aerial photo. Commissioner Bean stated that under the current C.U.P. power boats have to be docked at the first two piers. Director Nielsen clarified piers #3 and #4. He then stated he understood Mr. Jabbour to be asking for flexibility to dock power boats and sail boats anywhere. Mr. Jabbour explained the maneuverability of boats varies and therefore it would be helpful to dock boats in certain slips based on the maneuverability. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 5 of 21 In response to a comment from Commissioner Bean, Mr. Jabbour explained the slip rental contract stipulates that if a person violates certain rules their contract is voided and their boat will be removed from the water by SYC staff and the owner cannot get their boat until they pay the rental fee for the entire season. Commissioner Johnson asked if that includes violating wake restrictions. Mr. Jabbour clarified he cannot control that; it is a criminal violation and not a civil violation. Mr. Jabbour stated SYC staff tells slip renters that the SYC and renters are guests in the area. He then stated SYC staff explains the buoys’ significance in the waters near the SYC to renters. Commissioner Bean stated that some of the letters submitted by residents expressed concern that the increase in boat traffic would generate more and/or larger wakes in waters surrounded by fragile shoreline until the boats pass the small island there. There could be potential that additional power boat traffic could create a more volatile situation for the shoreline. Mr. Jabbour stated he disagreed 100 percent. Mr. Jabbour explained that he personally took issue with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) about public access. The DNR wanted every boat in Minnesota to have access to a public access. The LMCD did a survey and found out that on the peak day (Fourth of July) 20 – 24 percent of the boats are out on the Lake. On a Thursday evening during the summer on Wayzata Bay 100 percent of the boats docked at Wayzata Bay Yacht Club are out on the water participating in a race. He stated that he understands that sail boats cannot make the same size wake as power boats; it is irresponsible boat drivers that cause the larger wakes. The SYC is in a financial position where it does not need to rent to boat owners who break the rules. Commissioner Bean stated that all of the sail boats being out on Wayzata Bay does not generate the amount of wake that one 30-foot-long Sea Ray does. Mr. Jabbour agreed provided the Sea Ray was not putting around. Mr. Jabbour noted that SYC staff asks power boaters to keep their wakes to a minimum when near the SYC. He then noted that because there have been no complaints over 10 years about power boaters whose boats were docked at the SYC they must be doing something right. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the SYC has ever evicted a renter. Mr. Jabbour responded yes. Commissioner Johnson asked what percent of the sail boats docked at the SYC participate in races. Mr. Jabbour stated the SYC has a good racing club and commented that the former mayor tells him how good they do. The Club changed its name for liability reasons. Last year it had five races and the most participation was five boats and usually three boats. Johnson stated that confirms Mr. Jabbour’s earlier remarks about the decline in sail boating. Mr. Jabbour stated the decline in sail boats has been in the thousands. He then stated the SYC used to hire someone for the judges’ boat at the SYC. That was stopped four years ago because that boat went out twice a year. Johnson stated from his perspective part of the reason for the decline in sail boats on Lake Minnetonka is the number of power boats because power boats inherently change the way a sail boat races in the water. Mr. Jabbour stated in 2004 there was a major reduction at the peak time for boats being out. In response to a question from Johnson, Mr. Jabbour clarified that was for power boats. Mr. Jabbour stated he is very excited about the Minnetonka Yacht Club’s sailing school. Commissioner Bean stated that irrespective of the mix of power boats and sail boats he thought he heard Mr. Jabbour indicate that there would not be any change to onshore services provided. For example, there is no plan for a gas dock. Mr. Jabbour clarified the SYC has changed the services it provides on shore. He eliminated the store two years ago, he eliminated services, he removed all of the unnecessary buildings and he downsized the number of employees. He compared it to going from being a hotel to a motel. Mr. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 6 of 21 Jabbour stated that last year the SYC hired the Coast Guard Axillary to teach people how to use their boats. Bean asked if Mr. Jabbour plans on keeping the operation downsized. Mr. Jabbour stated at this time that is his plan. Commissioner Johnson asked how many vehicle parking spaces are on the site. Mr. Jabbour stated he does not know the answer to that offhand and noted that there has never been a parking problem which is why he does not know that answer. He thought the SYC had a lot more parking than other marinas have. He clarified he does not know what Shorewood’s ordinance requires but he was confident it was not one space per slip. Johnson stated the City has an ordinance that stipulates the character of the site has to be primarily for sailing. He asked if there is a way to give the SYC more flexibility while continuing to keep it primarily for sailing. He then asked if it would help the SYC if he were able to put power boats in any slip. Mr. Jabbour stated no. Mr. Jabbour stated sail boats enter from the middle and power boats are entered from the rear. Also, sail boats require very little electricity. To rebuild things just for flexibility is not a good idea. Commissioner Johnson stated when the docks are rebuilt he asked if there would still be some docks that are just for power boats. Mr. Jabbour clarified he would like to rebuild it so that power boats or sail boats could use most slips. Mr. Jabbour stated there are some long-keeled sail boats. They have to be docked way out. There are times it would be very helpful to ask a power boat owner to move to a new slip so that type of sail boat could be docked in that slip. Mr. Jabbour questioned if the City’s ordinance still applies. He clarified that the SYC is primarily a sail boat place. He explained that the SYC had a problem last year when one renter allowed kids to jump off the docks. That is not allowed. He also lost some renters when he would not allow a club to rent slips and have people he did not know use them. Ms. Georgette Jabbour made some comments that could not be clearly heard on the recording. Director Nielsen explained that the site plan from 2007 indicated there were 115 parking spaces and he thought that is in compliance with the City’s Ordinance. The SYC has land along Country Road 19 but he is not sure how much that is used. Vice-Chair Davis stated based on what she looked at it appears that parking is allowed for SYC boaters in the empty space up at Lucky’s Station. Mr. Jabbour clarified that is for the Excel Boat Club which now has a different name. Mr. Jabbour noted that since 2007 he has purchased the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company’s land. Mr. Jabbour stated that even on the Fourth of July when people pulled onto the SYC’s land to watch fireworks there was not a problem with parking. Vice-Chair Davis opened the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M. Troy Stottler, 23620 Smithtown Road, noted his property is the closest residential property to the SYC and that he thought Mr. Jabbour has been a wonderful person for the Lake Minnetonka area. He stated he does not hear much noise generated on the SYC property or marina that is not drowned out by the noise from traffic on Country Road 19. He then stated more noise is generated on the Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail than at Mr. Jabbour’s marina. He went on to state that things change and people have to adapt. Mr. Jabbour should be able to run a profitable business and to continue helping the City and Lake Minnetonka area out. He thought that if the City continues to limit the number of power boats that can be docked at the SYC marina and if he wanted to rent a slip for a power boat but the allocated number of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 7 of 21 slips for power boats were all rented then the limitation would be problematic for him yet he pays taxes to the City. He thought the SYC should be able to dock any type of boat at any of the slips; that is what the marina is for. He noted that his property does not front the Lake and that he cannot afford property that fronts the Lake. He stated he thought Mr. Jabbour’s request would be a win for every one and that he would not have an issue if all the slips were rented to power boat owners. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M. Commissioner Johnson asked Director Nielsen what the original reason was for the restriction on power boats was and how things have evolved. Director Nielsen explained the marina was originally proposed as a sailing yacht club and noted that was before he worked for the City. It came in under a C.U.P. under old Ordinance number 77 which allowed yacht clubs in a residential zoning district. The application was contentious and the City fought it. It was taken to court. The court ruled in favor of the owner because it was listed as a C.U.P. in the City’s ordinance but there were no conditions associated with it. The applicant met all of the conditions of the C.U.P. because there were none. The court told the City to grant the C.U.P. It operated as a yacht club for a number of years. The SYC struggled after a while and Mr. Jabbour eventually bought it. Mr. Jabbour continued to operate it as a sailing yacht club for a while. In 2007 the SYC requested the City allow the SYC to rent out a certain number of slips for power boats. The C.U.P. was changed to allow a certain number of slips for power boats for a three-year period of time to find out how things would work out. In late 2010 the SYC submitted a request to make its interim C.U.P. permanent and increase the number of slips that could be rented for power boats. That was approved in early 2011. The SYC could then rent 52 slips plus the original five approved for power boats. Nielsen reiterated that there has not been a single resident complaint about boats docked at the SYC. He noted the site has been cleaned up significantly since Mr. Jabbour bought it. He also noted the City is well aware of Mr. Jabbour’s generosity of storing the Excelsior Fire District’s fire service boat for free at the SYC. He thought Mr. Jabbour and his SYC have been a good neighbor over his ten years of ownership. Commissioner Maddy commented that it has been pointed out that the power boats are restricted to the two westerly piers. He explained the sail boats have to leave the marina and travel through the channel because of their keels. It is not a necessity for the power boats to do that. He asked what the water depth is at the two westerly piers. He also asked if there is a way to force the power boats to also use the channel when leaving the marina area. Director Nielsen stated he knows there is a dredged channel and it would make the most sense for all boats to use that. Maddy stated he has a neighbor who docks at boat at the SYC on the far westerly side closest to shore and when leaving the area he cuts across even though it is quite shallow. That boat generates a wake that likely flows onto someone’s yard. Commissioner Bean stated when a boat is on the water that is under the LMCD’s or Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol’s jurisdiction. Bean noted there is no posted restriction keeping boaters from going there. Maddy expressed concern about making a decision about this when it cannot manage what happens after the boats leave the dock slips. He questioned if the City should solicit input from the LMCD. Chair Geng stated he does not think there is a need for LMCD input on the number and location of power boats. Maddy stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a fax from 2007 regarding the LMCD’s Policy for Establishment of Quiet Water Area on Lake Minnetonka. It refers to reasons why it would be beneficial to establish quite water areas some including: the wash and wake damage to the shoreline, area too small for general boating, normal wave action intensified by power boats, area is really an extended channel, and to protect sail boat mooring areas. Because the LMCD has brought those types of things up it causes him to be concerned. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 8 of 21 Chair Geng clarified that the document actually states that many reasons had been given as reasons for requesting changes to quiet water areas. It does not state they are facts. Geng reiterated that once a boater is out of the marina Shorewood has no control. He stated he does not think that in and of itself is a reason to limit the number of power boats allowed at the marina. He then stated that drivers speed up and down Country Club Road yet cars are not banned from traveling on that roadway. It is an enforcement issue. If there is an enforcement issue on the water then residents need to bring those issues to the attention of the proper authority and those authorities need to be responsive. Vice-Chair Davis stated the Planning Commission had the same discussion about enforcement and reporting the last time the SYC requested a change to its C.U.P. Mr. Jabbour noted the LMCD has a process it follows to determine if an area should be designated as a quiet water area; it is a study. He stated from his vantage point he thought the Water Patrol’s Lake Minnetonka headquarters was established when the use of the Lake was different than it is today. The Lower Lake is underserved by the Water Patrol. He explained that two years ago he approached the Hennepin County Sherriff about leasing a slip for free at the SYC for a Water Patrol boat if they need it. He stated you cannot manage boaters’ behaviors by limiting the number of slips for power boats. He explained the SYC used to offer free sewage pumps for boats. That practice has been stopped thereby reducing boat traffic. He thought the enforcement issue should be paid for by many people not just one site. He clarified he is a strong proponent for safety and enforcement. Chair Geng stated he appreciates Commissioner Johnson sharing his perspective about being a sail boater. At the same time it is important for people to recognize there has been a significant decline in sail boaters on Lake Minnetonka and throughout the nation. Commissioner Johnson stated before making a change in the ratio and location of power boats he thought it important to understand why the original restrictions were put in place. He does not think people will ever know that. He commented that there continues to be a decline in the number of yacht clubs. Chair Geng stated he thought it is important to recognize that change is a constant. He then stated that in 2014 when the water level in Lake Minnetonka was extremely high the wake restrictions put in place made living near the Lake very nice because there was limited and slow boat traffic. Commissioner Johnson stated it was great for sailing. Geng then stated the wakes generated by extremely large power boats make it less pleasurable for boaters of smaller sized power boats. It is not just sail boaters that are impacted. Johnson noted it is not just sailing versus power boating it is also big power boating versus small power boating. He stated that in 1997 a 19-foot-long power boat was sufficient for use on Lake Minnetonka; now a 35 – 40-foot-long boat is needed to keep from being bounced around by the wakes. Commissioner Johnson stated one of the things he likes about allowing the SYC flexibility to mix and match the location of power boats and sail boats is to get the power boaters to use the channel. He would like the LMCD to let the City know if there are ways to promote the use of the channel. That would be helpful to control wave action against the shoreline. Chair Geng noted that he also thought that Mr. Jabbour is a good steward of Lake Minnetonka. He explained that Mr. Jabbour has used his equipment to help pick up and remove trash from Big Island. Three years ago he singlehandedly made an effort that culminated in a large meeting of boat builders held in Las Vegas, Nevada, last spring to talk about how boat designs could be changed to help discourage the transportation of AIS. Mr. Jabbour has been a leader in moving that forward and he has been a responsive business owner in Shorewood. There has not been a complaint about the SYC operation in ten years. Commissioner Maddy stated that because Lake Minnetonka has so many public access spots it undermines people’s ability to control the types of boats used on the Lake. Independent of whether or not CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 9 of 21 more power boats would be allowed at the SYC it will not change the fact the Lake is pretty much a drunken playground for boaters of large power boats every weekend. He questioned Code Section 1201.24 Subd 10.d which states “Issuance of a license shall take into consideration the historic use of the site under consideration with respect to the use of power boats.” He thought it odd to regulate a historic use over a changing demographic. He does not think there is a benefit in doing that; it would regulate the SYC out of business if there is not some flexibility. On the other hand Mr. Jabbour is operating the site without the required parking; there should be 117 spaces. He acknowledged he must not need them because he has never seen vehicles backed up to Smithtown Road. He suggested the Planning Commission discuss the parking requirements at a future date. He stated there is not a dust free driveway and that is stipulated in the 1201.24 Subd. 8.h. There are also other criteria in Section 1201.24 the Commission should also discuss. He questioned if maybe the Ordinance was not up to date as opposed to there being an operational problem. Mr. Jabbour explained concrete slabs, the same as those used on access ramps, have been put down in some areas where people drive. Dust suppressant material is used and it does work for 3 – 4 months depending on rain and the volume of traffic. He has had samples of stormwater runoff taken and sent to a lab to have it tested. He continues to try and improve the site. The Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company has voluminous amounts of stuff coming to and from the site. He has increased the amount of parking when compared to 10 years ago because he has removed buildings from the SYC site and turned that into parking. He has trimmed overreaching vegetation back. He then stated he owns four marinas and he did not realize that parking was an issue. Had he known that he would have done something about it. Commissioner Bean suggested clarifying the ordinance relative to parking. He stated he is not sure any marina has complied with it in the past. Director Nielsen clarified the SYC’s parking is in compliance with the C.U.P. He explained the City Code requires 115 spaces and the site plan shows 121 spaces. Commissioner Bean stated the C.U.P. stipulated the power boats being kept at pier #4 cannot exceed 30 feet. He asked if that is still appropriate. Mr. Jabbour clarified if the docks are reconfigured pier #4 will still have a 30-foot restriction. Vice-Chair Davis asked if there is a way to accommodate Mr. Jabbour’s request and then revisit the City Code at a later time. Director Nielsen responded yes. Director Nielsen clarified the only thing being asked for is to change the restrictions on the number of power boats. It does not change the restriction on the length of boats being docked at pier #4. Mr. Jabbour thanked the Planning Commission for its time. Geng moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the amendment to the Shorewood Yacht Club’s conditional use permit to remove the restriction on the number of power boats and adding the review of Zoning Code Section 1201.24 to the Planning Commission’s 2016 Work Program. Motion passed 5/0. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – REVISED CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS – MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (continued from December 1, 2015) Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 10 of 21 Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 8:21 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. She also noted the Hearing was continued from December 1, 2015. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to continue its consideration of a revised concept plan and Development Stage plans for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Mattamy Homes, 24575 Smithtown Road. Director Nielsen explained that during the December 1 Public Hearing the Planning Commission heard about the revised concept plan and the Development Stage plans, including the preliminary plat, for the MCC PUD. The Commission had been provided with three staff reports regarding issues associated with the Development Stage plans. They were: a planning report from him regarding the Development Stage plans, a memorandum from Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) that addressed environmental and landscaping issues, and a letter from the City Engineer that addressed engineering (transportation and utilities) issues. The three reports each contained a list of recommendations. Staff consolidated recommendations into a spreadsheet and noted when each of the recommendations would be addressed (i.e., R= resolved, FP = Final Stage plans; DA = Development Agreement; and, DC = Declaration of Covenants or possibly all three). The spreadsheet also included remarks explaining what staff’s recommendation is. The spreadsheet will serve as a punch list and used to ensure all items get addressed. Commissioner Johnson recommended the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing be reopened before the Planning Commission has its discussion. Vice-Chair Davis reopened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:23 P.M. Henry Miles, 24035 Mary Lake Trail, stated that during the December 1 meeting there was some discussion about conveying some of the open space to property owners. He expressed concern about doing that. He thought the goal was to keep as much of that open space as natural as possible. Director Nielsen noted that has been a concern of staff. He explained the orphaned piece on the northwest side of the site would not be usable by the public. Staff has suggested that in order to ensure the open spaces remain as such that there be a conservation easement over all of the open space. If the orphaned spaces can be conveyed to a property owner and if the property owner will maintain it in in a fashion consistent with the conservation easement, that would be desired. Some property owners have expressed an interest in doing that. He is not aware of any case where any of those potential owners could by virtue of that gift of land re-subdivide their property. The conservation easement would dictate how the open space needs to be maintained and what can be done on it. Staff has spoken with the developer about preparing a landscape maintenance manual which would include how all of the open spaces are to be maintained whether the space is public, owned by the homeowners association (HOA) or orphaned land conveyed to property owners. Mr. Miles stated that irrespective of how the orphan pieces are conveyed he asked if the conservation easement is enforceable. Director Nielsen responded absolutely. Mr. Miles then stated that his instincts tell him that the absorption statistics on sales are high. There is a lot of house inventory in the market and interest will continue to gradually increase. There are some indications that new home sales are slowing down somewhat. He asked if it would make sense to build the development in more than three phases to avoid ending up with a large unsightly track of land because it is partially developed. It is his understanding that Mattamy would sell a lot and then build on it. That provides a certain amount of control for Mattamy. He questioned if staff and the Planning Commission should have a conversation about that. Director Nielsen noted that came up during the Concept Stage plan review by Council. Nielsen stated lots that were not actively being built upon would have to have some type of vegetation cover on them. Mr. Miles stated he just wanted to ask if it warranted further conversation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 11 of 21 Whitley Mott, 24890 Yellowstone Trail, stated that sometimes it is difficult for residents to get access to the final plans and what the Planning Commission tells Council. Therefore, residents have some concern about the development of the outlots and particularly Outlot H. Director Nielsen stated there are graphics that show what the landscaping will be for the public open spaces and that would or should be out on the City’s website. The consultant recommended some of the eco turf “low mow” lawn be reduced a little and be replaced with more natural vegetation. Mr. Mott stated one graphic indicates the land abutting his property would be native buffer seeding (pollinator) and he expressed concern that would invade his property. There had been discussion about having a buffer zone to a contiguous property to keep his manicured lawn from turning into a native buffer seeding (pollinator). He does not want to have to battle keeping native grasses from invading his property. That same issue was discussed with Nielsen about trails and Nielsen indicated there would be a buffer zone along the trails. He noted that he has fought the issue of snakes and field mice invading his property. Nielsen suggested having discussion about having eco turf abutting Mr. Mott’s property. Mr. Mott stated he needs the Planning Commission to understand how the development and landscaping of the outlots would impact his property and house. Mr. Mott noted that Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, has been very helpful. Director Nielsen noted that would be added to the spreadsheet punch list. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:34 P.M. Chair Geng asked how the Planning Commission’s discussion should be structured. Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, distributed an exhibit of the age-targeted units in the MCC development showing the setbacks. There was Planning Commission consensus to discuss each of the items listed in the MCC Development Stage Recommendations Summary spreadsheet. They were broken into three sections – Planning Report, NAC Report, and WSB Report. Director Nielsen explained each item on the spreadsheet and for each item there was Planning Commission discussion. Planning Report 1. Open spaces to be low maintenance/natural; mow trail edges and two small maintained turf areas. Director Nielsen explained staff has discussed reducing the amount of eco turf “low mow” lawn to reduce the amount of maintenance that has to be done. Staff does like the idea of a transition between residential lots and the more natural area. Per the comments from Mr. Mott there is no reason the eco turf could not be extended to Mr. Mott’s property line. The developer will prepare a landscape maintenance manual for how the areas will be maintained by both the HOA (for the private open spaces) and the City (for the public open spaces). Those items will be included in the final plans and the Development Agreement (it will set forth the responsibility of the parties related to who maintains what). Outlot F on the northeast corner of the development will be private open space and maintained by the HOA. Commissioner Bean asked if the various colors used in exhibit MCC Open Space Groundcover Plan reflect who will maintain what. Director Nielsen clarified the colors only indicate open space; not necessarily who will be responsible for maintaining them. The list of the outlots does that. Bean then asked if the letter designation of the outlots has been made consistent in all drawings. Nielsen explained Outlot G had mistakenly been labeled that it would be owned by the City; that was corrected to indicate that it will be conveyed to the owner of the adjoining property. And, Outlot F on the northeast corner now indicates it will be private open space and maintained by the HOA. The remainder of Outlot F will CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 12 of 21 probably be changed to Outlot G and so on down the line. Nielsen noted the preliminary plat outlots have not been relabeled; that will be done for the final plat. Commissioner Johnson suggested that be added to the punch list of things to do. Bean then asked Nielsen to expound upon the conservation easement for the open spaces. Are the details for that known yet? Nielsen explained the conservation easement states the open space will remain as such with some of it being owned and maintained by the City, other parts being owned and maintained by the HOA, and in the case of the westerly lot that will be conveyed to owners of the adjoining properties yet have a conservation easement over it. That land would not end up as a property owner’s rear yard. The Declaration of Covenants will include the landscape maintenance manual which will indicate how that land would be maintained. Commissioner Johnson stated one of the property owners who may have land conveyed to them had expressed reservation about accepting the land because it would increase their property taxes yet the use of it would be restricted. Director Nielsen stated that individual should not accept the land if they have reservations. Nielsen clarified because there would be a conservation easement on the conveyed land it would not increase the value of that person’s property very much. Commissioner Bean asked what happens if a property owner does not accept the land. Nielsen explained that the original intent was for the HOA to take care of the orphaned pieces of land. Mr. Packer reviewed options for the Outlot I which would basically be to convey the land to property owners west of the Outlot or have the HOA be responsible for that. Commissioner Bean asked why a property owner would want to accept an outlot if there would be restrictions on how it could be used and if it would increase their property taxes by some amount. Mr. Packer stated one property owner has landscape plans for enhancing an outlot and clarified that person would not manicure the outlot. That owner would make it easier for his children to get to the sidewalk abutting the development and within the development or to parks. He clarified he is not an appraiser. Bean stated if the owners of properties abutting Outlot I accepted the land the three owners could possibly maintain the conveyed property differently. Director Nielsen reiterated the maintenance manual will specify how that open space has to be maintained. He stated they would not be able to store things on that land nor manicure the lawns; the land would have to be kept in its natural state. Bean asked why the City would not want to maintain control of the outlots to ensure the land would be maintained the same way. Nielsen stated because the orphaned pieces would not be available for use by the public. The pieces the City has agreed to maintain will be available for use by the public. Mr. Packer stated most of the land has scattered trees on it and are golf course rough areas. Mr. Packer commented that if Mattamy were to deed the land to property owners Mattamy would likely require that the land be mowed three times a season. He also commented that owning a small piece of vacant land is not worth it. Mr. Packer noted Outlot A is predominantly wetland. He also noted that Lucas Eichmeyer, the owner of the property to the south of the Outlot, has expressed interest in that land but they have not agreed to any terms. There is some right-of-way (ROW) that is platted as wetland; he does not envision the City constructing a road through there. Commissioner Bean asked if that was an extension of Seamans Drive. Mr. Packer responded yes. Mr. Packer stated Outlot B and Outlot C will be owned and maintained by the HOA. Mr. Packer then stated Outlot D will be owned and maintained by the HOA or it may be conveyed to Matt Carlson, owner of the property just north of Outlot D. There is a storm sewer and catch basin in that area. Commissioner Bean asked if, conceptually, that could ever be an extension of Club Lane if and when the City could be in a position to widen that roadway and connect it through. Mr. Packer stated that was CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 13 of 21 talked about with the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) earlier on in the process. He noted that is not even a half of ROW there. He stated to extend that roadway would require the City to acquire a lot of private property. Bean stated keeping it under the HOA may allow for future flexibility if needed. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy does not prefer one way or the other. Director Nielsen explained Club Lane was considered as a second access to Smithtown Road but it did not make any sense to do that for the development. He does not know what would be gained by extending Club Lane to Bentgrass Way. It would more likely be a cul-de-sac serving whatever that land is redeveloped to. He commented that it may be prudent to leave the land for a partial trail connection. Bean clarified he was not advocating for anything specifically. Nielsen explained as Outlot D is described in the Development Agreement and the Declaration of Covenants it could be left as an option. Commissioner Johnson he asked if as part of the final plans there would be a breakdown matrix for each outlot. Director Nielsen responded yes. Mr. Packer noted they will be renumbered, noting there will be more outlots added. Mr. Packer stated Outlot E will be owned and maintained by the HOA. He then stated that Outlot F will be reconfigured and possibly broken into multiple outlots. He went on to state a trail will be brought out to Country Club Road across from Mary Lake Trail. He stated for the outlot to the west of the Coffey property at the northwest intersection of Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail (currently part of Outlot F) part will be conveyed to the Coffeys; a triangle piece and the piece where all of the trees are. The HOA will landscape and maintain an area about 50 feet back from the curb. He noted that a small part of an outlet near the Coffey property would be eliminated and that area near the street entrance would be landscaped and maintained by the HOA. Mr. Parker stated Outlot H on the south side of the development would be owned and maintained by the City. It would also be under a conservation easement. Commissioner Bean asked what the pink color area is on the Groundcover Plan. Mr. Packer stated that is wetland. It is mitigation for the wetland lost by making Ayrshire Lane an access to and from Smithtown Road on the northwest corner of the development. The dark blue areas are stormwater management ponds that would be 5 – 8 feet deep. In response to a comment, Mr. Packer stated eco turf “low mow” lawn needs to be mowed a couple times a year and it looks like wavy long grass. Director Nielsen explained the City will maintain that on City owned parcels. Commissioner Johnson asked if this item needs to be amended to include extending the eco turf area along side of the Whitley Mott property. Director Nielsen suggested that be added to the remarks section for NAC Item 3. Chair Geng asked if there are any other properties that could have potential concerns about native buffer seeding (pollinator) area next to their properties. Director Nielsen stated there were not any that would be affected the same way. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 14 of 21 2. HOA responsible for street trees Director Nielsen explained that in the initial staff report the issue was raised about the City not wanting to maintain any more trees than it needed to. There was agreement that street trees would be visually nice and that the HOA would be responsible for the street trees. That would be stipulated in the Development Agreement and Declaration of Covenants. 3. Alternative energy Director Nielsen explained the Council is going to discuss a draft report of renewable energy analysis during its January 11, 2016, meeting. Council hired a consultant to do that analysis a number of months ago. The consultant’s focus was on solar energy. Each consultant the City spoke with indicated that wind energy on individual properties would not be very feasible. The consultant recommended changes that could be made to the Zoning Code that would encourage the use of alternative energy. The developer has indicated that it would not include any prohibition on solar in the Declaration of Covenants; some developments prohibit solar. Solar as an accessory use would be allowed. Roof-top solar would be allowed but staff does not recommend it be installed above the peak of the roof. Solar would be an allowable encroachment – two feet into side yard setbacks and into 60 percent of the rear yard setback. A 20-foot height restriction would be allowed for ground-mounted solar. A hard cover credit would be allowed for solar; that should be discussed further. The solar things allowed in the MCC development would eventually be incorporated into the Zoning Code. The alternative energy provisions will be a statement in the Development Agreement and a provision in the Declaration of Covenants. KR clarified that the intent, from her perspective, is that renewable energy would be permissive. No one is trying to force renewable energy on the development. Director Nielsen stated that one of the recommendations in the renewable energy analysis was the use of solar easements. It concluded that does not work very well for single family lots. That results trading one property owner’s right to have trees in their yard for another owner’s right to have a solar array. Mr. Packer asked if the City’s intent is that the solar arrays would be a matter of right or would they have to apply to the City for approval to do that. Director Nielsen stated that would be handled with a zoning permit and he assumes the HOA architectural review committee would have some say in that as well. Commissioner Bean stated that if, for example, a tree grew to 40 feet high on an abutting property and blocked the solar panel on the other property the tree would trump the solar panel. Director Nielsen stated there is an energy value to having trees. Commissioner Bean asked if it would be simple enough to say there would be no prohibition of solar in the development but it would be subject to what the City ultimately includes in its solar ordinance and is approved by the HOA. Director Nielsen suggested discussing solar more before the final plans are done. 4. Concept Plan revision – Venero property Director Nielsen explained staff is confident that the portion of the Venero property Mattamy proposes to buy would leave enough area to meet the R1-A zoning district standards. The barn and greenhouse would have to be removed because Mattamy will build two houses on what it purchases. There is no sense of urgency for the minor subdivision. It can be addressed with the final plans. He anticipates the subdivision to be done in conjunction with the final plans. He noted that the Veneros want to keep their garden CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 15 of 21 business through next summer. He explained a condition can be specified that by a certain date the buildings would have to be removed and the City would have to receive an escrow to ensure that happens. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy is not going to purchase the lots unless the buildings have been removed and noted the buildings were built to be relocated. Director Nielsen asked Mr. Packer to let Mr. Venero know that the City does require moving permits for buildings that are somewhat intact. Mr. Packer noted the development on two lots of the Venero property would not occur until phase 3 of the development. 5. Use of Outlots This was discussed as part of Item 1 above. 6. Building setbacks Director Nielsen explained the underlying standards for the development will be R-1C standards for the traditional lots. For lots abutting 60-foot ROWs, 30-foot front yard setbacks would be allowed. For the age-targeted units, 25-foot front setbacks would be allowed except for the east side of the westerly units where 20 feet would be allowed. The final plans must include a graphic showing what the setbacks are for each lot. Mr. Packer explained Mattamy heard some concern expressed about the age-target lots and the size of the homes resulting in narrower side yard setbacks. The vision of an army barracks came to mind for some. He displayed a graphic showing actual floor plans for the age-targeted units Mattamy builds. The fronts can be significantly different. If people go to look at the units in a development out in Minnetrista or wait until age-targeted units start to get built for the MCC project they will see that they are anything but army barracks. That is accomplished by the design of the houses and the placement of the units on curved streets. Mattamy has made a concerted effort to make the development interesting, noting the MCC development is compact. 7. Impervious surface (hardcover) Director Nielsen stated in the initial staff report staff recommended a hardcover maximum of 40 percent. He explained that ordinarily residential lots have a 33 percent maximum and 25 percent if located in a shoreland district. Because the MCC development is being done under a PUD and about 40 acres of the site is set aside as open space staff suggested the maximum per lot be increased. That would be indicated in the Development Agreement. 8. Maintenance standards – private open space Director Nielsen stated the developer will provide maintenance standards for the private open space that would be referenced in the conservation easement. That will be shown in the final plans and included in the Development Agreement and the Declaration of Covenants. 9. Additional ROW for Smithtown Road and Country Club Road Director Nielsen stated the developer has already shown that in the preliminary plat. That will show up again in the final plat submitted as part of the final plans. 10. Add second access to Smithtown Road Director Nielsen stated the developer has complied and that will show up again in the final plans. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 16 of 21 11. Shift easterly access on Smithtown Road Director Nielsen stated that has been done and it will show up again in the final plans. 12. Site drainage – outlet approval and pond sizes Director Nielsen stated staff and the developer continue to work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on site drainage. The stormwater pond sizes will depend on the allowable outlet size. Ponds may have to be increased in size and the size would be subject to MCWD approval. The developer would have to have MCWD approval prior to submitting its first final plat. Commissioner Johnson asked if there should be any reference to the Development Agreement and the Declaration of Covenants regarding the maintenance of the stormwater ponds. Director Nielsen stated that would be included in the landscape maintenance manual for the open spaces, noting wetlands are part of the open space. NAC Report 1. Defer to MCWD relative to wetland buffers Director Nielsen explained the City Ordinance requires a 35-foot-wide wetland buffer plus a 15-foot setback abutting homes. It was suggested that be increased to 50 feet where possible. To some degree it is a moot point because so much of the site is being left as open space. 2. Wetland buffer monuments Director Nielsen explained the intent is to place monument signs such that they adequately show property owners where their lot ends and where the natural buffer areas begin. Commissioner Johnson asked if that meant there would be something contiguous, such as riprap, to go all the way around the wetlands. Nielsen clarified they would be discreet but noticeable signs. He explained the City currently requires something like a survey stake that when pounded in flares out at the bottom to make them difficult to pull out. Unfortunately, they are flush to the ground and often get covered by normal grass. The intent is to have signs that would be slightly higher than the abutting turf treatment. The style of signs needs to be determined. The location of them needs to be shown on the final plans. 3. Proposed land cover Director Nielsen stated the amount of eco turf “low mow” lawn needs to be reduced and it needs to be extended to the Whitley Mott property on the final plans. The maintenance of the land cover needs to be included in the landscape maintenance manual. 4. Revise the tree replacement calculation Director Nielsen explained the plans submitted to date indicate the replacement trees would be well in excess of the requirements stipulated in the City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. That will be confirmed in the final plans. 5. Provide a tree list, shrub, grass and perennial species and identify where they will be planted Director Nielsen stated the landscape architect has asked for a list of tree, shrub, grass and perennial species and an indication of where they would be planted. That information should be incorporated into the revised Open Space Groundcover Plan that would be submitted with the final plans. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 17 of 21 6. Address the balance of tree species; incorporate Hackberry trees into the replacement plan; increase size of replacement trees to 3-inch caliper; and, increase shrub spacing to 3 feet Director Nielsen stated these suggestions from the landscape architect should be incorporated into the landscape plan and planting schedule and submitted with the final plans. 7. Adjust the entry detail landscape plans to comply with the 30-foot sight triangle Director Nielsen stated the verdict is not in on this yet. He explained staff has discussed this with the developer. The developer has stated that the majority of the cities it has dealt with use a sight triangle that is measured along the edge of the paved street surface. The City Ordinance requires that 30-foot triangle be measured from the property lines. Staff researched what other cities do and found some allow it to be measured from the paved surface and others still measure it from the property line (ROW). In the case of a stop condition which exists on all three intersections measuring from the paved surface could be adequate. However, the City Engineer pointed out that at one intersection the stop sign is placed approximately where the start of the curb radius is. In that intersection it would not be as visible as it would be if the property line was used for determining the sight line. Staff suggests determining the sight line after they know where the stop signs would be placed. Independent of what staff determines there will likely be a need for an ordinance amendment that would apply to other developments or streets. The sight lines are to be determined. 8. Provide a vegetation management plan Director Nielsen stated the developer has agreed to prepare a landscape maintenance manual that addresses the care and maintenance of public and private open space areas. Public Works personnel need that direction. The manual should be submitted with the final plans. 9. Provide a plan for identifying and eradicating invasive exotic plants Director Nielsen stated the landscape maintenance manual should address this and buckthorn removal should be addressed in the grading plan. He explained there are differing perspectives about removing buckthorn up front. Some of the screening along Country Club Road is buckthorn. Removing that will change the appearance to people. The current intent is to transition it so that some of the landscaping improvements along there are made about the same time as the buckthorn is removed. 10. Add additional sidewalks Director Nielsen explained the report suggested adding more sidewalks. Areas proposed for sidewalks on both sides of the street include the areas where the age-targeted housing would be. The age-targeted housing would not necessarily be for seniors. After considerable discussion staff suggested sidewalks within the development be limited to one side of the street only. Having sidewalks on both sides would be out of character with the rest of the City because there are not sidewalks on both sides on the street. That would also require added maintenance by the City. Staff believes the proposed sidewalk and trail plan was adequate as submitted. He noted that as part of the project just over 11,000 feet of trails / sidewalks will be constructed. The entire Smithtown Road trail will be about 13,000 feet long. He stated the original plan showed the sidewalk on the west side along Ayrshire Lane. It may be moved to the east side so it ties in with the sidewalk along Bentgrass Way which would be on the north side. That would be worked out in the final plans. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 18 of 21 11. Extension of trail along Country Club Road to connect with Yellowstone Trail Director Nielsen explained that the difficulty in extending the proposed trail along Country Club Road down to Yellowstone Trail is the City does not have enough ROW to do that at the southeast end of Country Club Road. Also, there is some topography that does not lend itself to a trail and putting in a trail would require the construction of an expensive retraining wall. The traffic committee has discussed the possibility of making Country Club Road slightly curvilinear. That could include curving the roadway to intersect with Yellowstone Trail at 90 degrees. Moving that paved surface a little to the east would open up the flat area at the end of the roadway so the trail could be extended through there. If that is not done, another option could be to acquire additional ROW on the east side of Country Club Road and shift the remainder of that trail over to that side of the street. The sidewalk does go down to Yellowstone Trail through the project along Club Valley Road. Commissioner Bean asked if the City has enough ROW to make that curve. Director Nielsen stated the City would have to acquire additional ROW on the other side of the roadway and noted the developer does not control that area. Bean stated he assumes no one has contacted the property owner. Nielsen confirmed that. Director Nielsen clarified that the options have been a discussion and not a recommendation as of yet. It does make some sense because it would correct the intersection. WSB Report Director Nielsen noted the Engineer’s report contains about three pages of recommendations. Staff selected those it thought should be included in this list of recommendations. The Engineer’s report serves as the Engineer’s check list. All of those recommendations will show up in the final plans and those will change as plans are submitted. 1. Obtain MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), MCWD, WCA (Wetland Conservation Act) and USACOE (US Army Corps of Engineers) Permits Director Nielsen noted a permit was also needed from the Department of Agriculture related to soil remediation. He also noted the developer does not need a permit from the USACOE; the MCWD will handle that. 2. HOA maintenance of stormwater facilities Director Nielsen stated this has been discussed from the very beginning and noted it needs to be incorporate into the landscape maintenance manual that has to be submitted as part of the final plans. It also needs to be referenced in the Development Agreement and Declaration of Covenants. 3. Increase entry lane widths to 20 feet wide and move the landscape median back south of the Smithtown Road ROW Director Nielsen stated that moving the landscape median is because of sight line issues. That and the sight triangle issue will be discussed as part of the final plans. 4. Sidewalks on both side of Ayrshire Lane Director Nielsen noted this was talked about as part of Item #10 under the NAC Report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 19 of 21 5. Cul-de-sac longer than 700 feet Director Nielsen explained the initial plan which did not have a second access point onto Smithtown Road had shown a cul-de-sac that was much longer than 700 feet. A second access has been added on the preliminary plat. The plat shows that the Bentgrass Way/Feather Bay cul-de-sac is approximately 715 feet in length; it has already been shortened to save trees in the northeast corner of the site. This is considered to be de minimis and therefore staff does not recommend a revision to the plat. The Bentgrass Way cul- de-sac on the west end is approximately 750 feet long. This could be corrected by shifting Ayrshire Lane to the west but that would result in loss of trees and it would move the street closer to houses to the west. Because of the minimal number of lots served by that cul-de-sac staff does not recommend a change. In response to a comment from Commissioner Bean, Director Nielsen explained the PUD allows for that type of flexibility. 6. City water Director Nielsen explained 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. After speaking with the Director of Public Works earlier in the day staff believes it might be a wash. City policy provides for reimbursing the developer for oversizing watermain. The developer needs an 8-inch pipe and the City wants it to be 12- inch so the City will pay the difference. 7. Streets and utility standards Director Nielsen explained the City Engineer is in the process of updating the City's standard plates and specifications for streets and utilities. Those will be provided to the developer's engineer for inclusion into the final plat. This concluded the discussion about the recommendations and when they will be addressed. Chair Geng stated there has not been any discussion about park dedication fees. Director Nielsen explained the agreement that has been negotiated thus far is that the developer will pay the $6,500 fee per lot for the 121 lots that it originally had in its project. It was the PAC that wanted diversity in housing style. Per State Statute the City has to give some credit for the public open space and for constructing the trails / sidewalks. He clarified the land is not park land. Chair Geng stated an aesthetic concern has been raised since the Planning Commission’s December 1 meeting about the age-targeted housing on the northwest corner along Ayrshire Lane. He asked Mr. Packer if there is sufficient screening on the back of the first four units on the northwest side of the roadway. Vice-Chair Davis stated that it appears that landscape icons have been placed over existing trees on some graphic. Mr. Packer stated that was done to more accurately depict what it will look like; the aerial photograph was enhanced. Mr. Packer stated he would like to address Mr. Miles’ concern, which Mattamy shares, about phasing the development in. He explained that Mattamy prefers to keep its phases as small as possible. Sometimes utilities and grading do not make that feasible. The smaller the phases are the more impact a few houses under construction will have. Mattamy divided the project construction into three phases. The first phase will include construction of three types of products: 16 – 18 age-targeted units; 14 houses in the center that will be built by custom home builders; and some traditional houses to about half way down the site. Mattamy has not determined where all of the excavated dirt will be put. Dirt excavated from phase 2 may have to be put on the phase 3 land. He noted the City is requiring Mattamy to build the trails as part of the first phase. At the same time ponds are built in the common open space houses in the first phase will be CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 20 of 21 constructed. He noted the areas he was talking about on some graphic. He stated that its regular subdivision mowing is done about once a month during construction. Mattamy wants the site to look somewhat tidy during construction. Mattamy wants to keep its footprint as small as possible with each phase. Geng moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the revised Concept Stage plan for the planned unit development (PUD) of the former Minnetonka Country Club property located at 24575 Smithtown Road, as proposed and approval of the Development Stage plans subject to the recommendations set forth in the staff report as amended by the Planning Commission’s discussion this evening. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng noted that this ends the Planning Commission’s formal involvement with this development. He stated from his perspective Mr. Packer has been a wonderful representative for Mattamy. He appreciated Mr. Packer’s patience and Mattamy’s patience as well as the way Mr. Packer has been straight forward when dealing with staff and the Commission and Council. Mr. Packer stated that goes both ways. He then stated that he and Mattamy have established a good relationship with staff and the City. Nothing has been brought up that was ridiculous. He noted he found it enjoyable to deal with a professional Planning Commission and a staff that understands there has to be give and take throughout a project like this. He thanked the Commissioners and staff. He commented that he guarantees that some things will change. He stated he hopes he and Mattamy have built a strong enough relationship with staff and the Commissioners and Councilmembers to cooperatively work through changes as they come up. Commissioner Bean asked what the next steps in the approval process are. Director Nielsen stated a timeline is being prepared. Nielsen explained the revised Concept Stage plan and the Development Stage plans will be considered by Council during its January 25, 2015, meeting. Once those are approved by Council the final plans will be prepared. He will meet with the City Attorney on January 7 to start to draft the Development Agreement for the project with what is known to date. Per the City Ordinance, the City gets 20 days after the submission of the complete final plans to review them and bring them before Council. During its December 1, 2015, meeting the Planning Commission had asked for an opportunity to see the Declaration of Covenants. That document will be routed to the Commission as soon as it is available. He anticipates the City will receive a final plat for the first phase of the development in April or possibly March. Mr. Packer explained it’s Mattamy’s plan to have the site loaded with equipment in April before road restrictions are put into effect. Its final plan would be submitted to the MCWD on January 8 and representatives for the MCWD have committed to him that they will turn that around in two days. Mattamy hopes it can get the required permits from agencies within 30 – 60 days. He noted there are no wetland impacts until the third phase of construction but it does need other permits from the MCWD for the first phase. He stated Mattamy hopes to bid the project out in February and get machinery on the site in April. Then there will be a tremendous amount of activity on the site as well as dust and noise. Full blown construction will go on all summer long. The intent is to start constructing houses in October. He noted Mattamy will send out a letter to the nearby residents providing them with Mattamy’s contact information. Its inspector does not live too far from the site. Mattamy will encourage residents to call it directly unless it’s not doing something it is supposed to do. Chair Geng asked if Mattamy is going to bring in more than one custom builder. Mr. Packer responded it will bring in several custom home builders. He explained that Mattamy selected one custom builder but that company backed out, in part, because of the size of the project and because of fear that the market for upper end housing may have peaked. He noted that there are a number of companies that want to construct the age-targeted units. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 21 of 21 Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 10:15 P.M. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Bean noted that he will not be at the February 2, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Council Liaisons were selected as followed: January 2016 Commissioner Johnson February 2016 Vice-Chair Davis March 2016 Chair Geng April 2016 Commissioner Johnson May 2016 Commissioner Maddy June 2016 Commissioner Bean 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a senior housing project slated for the February 2, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Sundberg noted there is a Council and staff retreat scheduled for February 5, 2016. • SLUC Director Nielsen noted that Commissioner Maddy told him he was interested in going to the next Sensible Land Use Coalition session. Maddy stated he thought the topic is about land development economics. • Other Director Nielsen stated an advertisement in the Sun Sailor indicated there were openings on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Johnson stated the City’s newsletter also did. Chair Geng, Vice-Chair Davis and Commissioner Johnson all indicated they would be interested in continuing on when their terms expire at the end of February 2016. 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 5, 2016, at 10:22 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder #8A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Shorewood Yacht Club – Proposed Amendment to C.U.P. Meeting Date: 25 January 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City approve an amendment for the Shorewood Yacht Club, removing the restriction on the number of power boats that can be harbored at the property? Background: The owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club has requested that the restriction on the number of power boats that can be harbored at the Yacht Club be removed. See Planning Director’s memorandum, dated 31 December 2015, for detailed background. After holding a public hearing, at which one person spoke in favor of the amendment, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the current SYC C.U.P. Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicant’s fees cover the cost of processing the application. Options: Approve the attached resolution, deny the resolution or modify the resolution. Recommendation / Action Requested: A resolution approving the applicant’s request is attached for your consideration. Staff agrees with the Planning Commission. Next Steps and Timelines: If the resolution is approved, the applicant should record it with Hennepin County within 30 days. Connection to Vision / Mission: Variety of attractive amenities. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 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. From: petra.e.cripe @gmail.com on behalf of Petra Cripe [cripe @mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 1:14 PM To: Planning Subject: amendment to conditional use permit for Shorewood Yacht Club Just getting to this letter now -sorry we were out of town for New Year's. I am interested in what became of this meeting because I'm sure I'm not alone with residents that don't want the expansion of motor boat use in and out of the small inlet we share with Shorewood Yacht Club. According to the former mayor the yacht club was Never meant to have ANY motorized boats. Now they are saying that 50% of their slips is not enough? I find this ridiculous. We are fine with the sail boats, although there have been noise issues with some. Many residents don't appreciate that boat slip renters don't heed the minimal wake that applies to our small inlet. Granting even more motor boats would just compound the issues and adversely affect the wildlife in the surrounding bay and islands. I am against it and hope you will not succumb to the pressures to comply with their wants. Perhaps they should consider a name change if Sailing Yacht Club is no longer what they want their business to be. Respectfully, Petra Cripe 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 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: 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. From: petra.e.cripe @gmail.com on behalf of Petra Cripe [cripe @mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 1:14 PM To: Planning Subject: amendment to conditional use permit for Shorewood Yacht Club Just getting to this letter now -sorry we were out of town for New Year's. I am interested in what became of this meeting because I'm sure I'm not alone with residents that don't want the expansion of motor boat use in and out of the small inlet we share with Shorewood Yacht Club. According to the former mayor the yacht club was Never meant to have ANY motorized boats. Now they are saying that 50% of their slips is not enough? I find this ridiculous. We are fine with the sail boats, although there have been noise issues with some. Many residents don't appreciate that boat slip renters don't heed the minimal wake that applies to our small inlet. Granting even more motor boats would just compound the issues and adversely affect the wildlife in the surrounding bay and islands. I am against it and hope you will not succumb to the pressures to comply with their wants. Perhaps they should consider a name change if Sailing Yacht Club is no longer what they want their business to be. Respectfully, Petra Cripe 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 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 RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GABRIEL JABBOUR REMOVING THE RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF POWER BOATS AT THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB WHEREAS , Gabriel Jabbour, (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 23500 Smithtown Road, formerly 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 Applicant operates a multiple dock facility at the Subject Property pursuant to a conditional use permit as set forth in City of Shorewood Resolution No. 11- 004, which is an amendment to previous Resolution Nos. 00-11 and 07-029; and WHEREAS, City of Shorewood Resolution No. 11-004 specifically limits the water harboring of boats to sailboats, with the exception of 52 power boats; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested an amendment to Resolution No. 11-004 that would remove the restriction on the 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 31 December 2015, 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 5 January 2016, 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 25 January 2016, at which time the comments of the City Planner, the minutes of the Planning Commission, and verbal and written testimony of 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 1. 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. 3. Land use and zoning surrounding the Subject Property are as follows: North: Lake Minnetonka East: Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company; zoned C-2/S, Service Commercial/Shoreland South: County Road 19, then commercial; zoned C-2/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 Applicant’s business, which includes a clubhouse and boat maintenance facility, caretaker dwelling, launch ramp and boat slips for docking 117 boats, all but 52 of which are currently limited to sailboats only. 6. The Applicant has 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 Applicant 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. The restriction on the number of slips for water harboring of power boats is hereby removed. 3. Power boats kept at the westerly dock (Pier 4) shall not exceed 30 feet in length. 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 25th day of January 2016. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk 2 2 -2- 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 #8B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: MCC – Development Stage Plans and Preliminary Plat Meeting Date: 25 January 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 24 November 2015 Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 1 January 2016 Policy Consideration: Should the City approve the development stage plans and preliminary plat for the redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club? Background: Mattamy Homes has submitted development stage plans and a preliminary plat for the Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. For very detailed background on this item, see the attached memoranda from the Planning Director. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the plans and preliminary plat, subject to the length list of recommendations provided by the Planning Department, Northwest Associated Consultants and WSB. The Commission also recommended that the “eco-turf” landscaping be extended westerly t abut Whitley Mott’s property, at his request. Early this week the developer advised staff that they are proposing a modification to the preliminary plat approved by the Planning Commission. Essentially, based on market considerations, they propose to replace the age-targeted homes on Featherie Bay with 10 of the “traditional” home lots. They would then replace the traditional lots on Niblick Alcove with 20 age targeted lots. While the unit count remains the same as recommended by the Planning Commission, the preliminary plat and the phasing plan will change. Consequently, the plans must be referred back to the Commission for a new public hearing. In order to keep the review process on schedule, staff will ask the Commission to hold a second th meeting in February on the 16. Financial or Budget Considerations: See previous reports. Options: In light of the need for a new public hearing, no action is need by the City Council on 25 January. We have kept the request on the agenda in order to give the Council an opportunity to bring up any concerns or questions with the plans thus far. Recommendation / Action Requested: None. Next Steps and Timelines: Assuming the Planning Commission makes a recommendation at the 16 February meeting, the Council will see the revised preliminary plat and staging plan at its 22 February meeting. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 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 [Type text] 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: 24 November 2015 RE: Minnetonka Country Club – P.U.D. Development Stage Plan and Revised Concept Plan FILE NO. 405 (15.20) BACKGROUND In October of this year, the City adopted a resolution (No. 15-073) approving a Concept Plan for Mattamy Homes to redevelop the Minnetonka Country Club property as a residential Planned Unit Development, consisting of up to 140 single-family homes. The project consists of traditional single-family residential and age-targeted single-family residential. The developer has now submitted an application for the second stage of the review process – Development Stage. During the initial review process, the developer was approached by an adjoining property owner (Venero) on the west side of the site to purchase the back portion of his property for inclusion into the Mattamy project. This coupled with the loss of one age- targeted unit due to tree preservation, brings the total number of units for the project to 142, 39 age- targeted units and 103 traditional homes. Consequently, the current application includes a request for a revision to the original Concept Plan. A public hearing is scheduled for the 1 December 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Various issues associated with the Development Stage plans will be addressed in three separate reports. Planning issues are addressed herein. A memorandum from Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) addresses natural resource and trail issues and a letter from the City Engineer addresses engineering (transportation and utilities) issues. Spoiler alert: due to the size and complexity of the project and issues that remain to be resolved, staff is recommending that the 1 December public hearing be continued to the January 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Memorandum Re: Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. – Development Stage Plans 24 November 2015 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Natural Resources. A. As mentioned, the memorandum from NAC addresses wetland protection, tree preservation and landscaping and treatment of the open space portions of the site. Issues worth highlighting here are as follow: 1. Public Open Space. In the Concept stage of the process, it was recommended that the public open space areas would be natural and low-maintenance. Aside from minimal mowing abutting the trail that winds through those spaces, the space would be similar in character to the Gideon Glen conservation open space on County Road 19. The developer has chosen to include two small areas along the west side of the proposed trail that would have maintained turf (see page two of the Preliminary Landscape Plan). If the City is agreeable to this design, the development agreement for the P.U.D. should include provisions for the homeowners association for the project to be responsible for maintenance/mowing of those areas. 2. Tree Preservation and Landscaping. Part of the developer’s plan for tree replacement includes planting of “street trees” along all streets in the development. These are trees that are planted in the boulevard areas of the public right-of-way. While staff is in agreement that the overall effect of the design can be quite desirable, we are concerned about adding the potential liability of new trees in the public R.O.W. In response, the developer agrees to having provisions included in the development agreement, stating that the homeowners association will be responsible for maintenance of street trees. The City Attorney has advised us that this type of provision would be appropriate. 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 an energy consultant - Great Plains Institute - for the “Shorewood Renewable Energy Analysis” which sets forth recommendations relative to alternative energy possibilities in Shorewood. The analysis somewhat downplays the use of wind generators, recognizing potential nuisance aspects and limited energy capture. Solar power, however, 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. Those most pertinent to the MCC project are as follow: 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.” -2- Memorandum Re: Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. – Development Stage Plans 24 November 2015 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 as to 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 resolved at this time. What is known is that the land will be public and available should the City decide to pursue that as an option. The City may wish to have Great Plains do a more detailed analysis of the site, based on the plans currently presented. b. Zoning Issues. Following are possible zoning provisions that could be incorporated into the development agreement for the P.U.D. (1) The developer agreed early on 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) Specifically 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. (4) Allow solar equipment to encroach into required setbacks. It is important to recognize the importance of structure setbacks in maintaining open space character. Having said that, our codes do allow certain encroachments. Certain features – roof eaves, chimney chases, etc. - are allowed to encroach 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. Since accessory buildings may actually exceed 15 feet, due to the measurement being taken from grade to the mid-point between the eave and the peak, 20 feet for solar equipment may be in order. (6) The report suggests the possibility of hardcover exemptions for solar equipment. -3- Memorandum Re: Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. – Development Stage Plans 24 November 2015 (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. Further philosophical and legal discussion is required. The City has in the past used P.U.D. as a spring board for eventual amendments to zoning regulations that become applicable to all property in Shorewood. For example, tree preservation requirements and wetland buffer requirements are the result of earlier P.U.D. developments. This can also be the case for the MCC project. Alternative energy provisions from the development agreement can be amended into the current zoning regulations to apply throughout the city. The project actually provides a good case study for determining which changes to adopt. Land Use. B. 1. Concept Plan Revision. As mentioned earlier in this report, an adjoining property owner (Venero) approached the developer about buying the rear portion of his property on 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.” Not enough is known as of this writing as to how this proposal leaves 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 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. The developer includes 39 age-targeted units, down one from the Concept Plan, and 103 traditional homes, for a total of 142 homes, assuming the City agrees to the Venero revision. 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 which are as follow: Outlot A – mostly wetland; owned and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA) Outlot B and C – west entry monuments and wetland; 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 -4- Memorandum Re: Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. – Development Stage Plans 24 November 2015 Outlot F – public open space, including trail; owned and maintained by the City, except for one of the east entry monuments and ponds* which will 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 will 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 ponds. 3. Zoning Standards. a. Building Setbacks. The Concept Plan recommended using R-1C zoning district standards as the basis for the traditional home lots. As shown on the Preliminary Site & Utility Plans (sheets 8 and 9 of the plan set), several areas propose 30-foot front yard setbacks instead of 35 feet. This is mitigated by the extraordinary right-of-way 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. Similarly, the 20-foot front setback for the westerly age-targeted units (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 also be given to staggering setbacks on the westerly entry street to avoid a “row house” appearance. There is one exception to the above analysis. Lot 17, Block 10 (see sheet 9) has a 30-foot setback on a 50-foot right-of-way. It appears that this is done in an attempt to save trees at the back of that lot. If this is the case, some provision needs to be made for the long-term 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. It is reasonable to allow some additional hardcover per lot, due to the extraordinary amount of open space being set aside on this project. Based on the amount of open space in the project, a standard of 40 percent maximum hardcover is suggested. -5- Memorandum Re: Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. – Development Stage Plans 24 November 2015 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 will also prescribe how the areas are to be maintained in a natural open space design, consistent with the NAC recommendations. These should be incorporated into conservation easements dedicated to the City. Transportation. C. Several issues were raised relative to transportation in the Concept Stage review: 1. An ad hoc traffic committee has begun work on a study of the Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive collector route. Its recommendations will be provided in a separate report to the City Council. 2. In addition to some of the additional right-of-way widths within the project, the developer has provided, as requested, additional right-of-way to bring the portions of Smithtown Road and Country Club Road abutting the site to a full 66-foot width. 3. The preliminary plat includes a second, westerly, access to Smithtown Road. Since this 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 on a plan for wetland mitigation. 4. The easterly entrance to the project has been shifted over so as to address the issue of headlights aimed at properties on the north side of the street. The street now aligns with a property line on the north side so that headlights pointing north will not be pointed at the home on that side of the street. 5. Specific design standards for the streets in the plat will be addressed in the City Engineer’s report. 6. The NAC report makes recommendations relative to the proposed trail and sidewalk system included in the development. The City Engineer should address design and construction standards for these facilities. You will note that the trail that parallels Country Club Road stops at the intersection of Mary Lake Trail. This is due to the location of a wetland just south of that and the lack of public right-of-way 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, in the future, that concept is implemented, consideration should be given to shifting the street slightly to the east, providing 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. This is for the City to determine. Aside from the Mary Lake Trail location, a crossing -6- Memorandum Re: Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. – Development Stage Plans 24 November 2015 at the Echo Road intersection appears to be logical, assuming safe geometrics in that location. In the future, the City may wish to extend a small segment of sidewalk between Echo Road and Badger Park. Community Facilities. D. Public utilities have been addressed in the City Engineer’s report. One issue in that regard that remains somewhat unresolved is storm drainage. Although the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was contacted early on in the development review process, some confusion apparently exists as to the exact standards for the project. The developer’s engineer and the District continue working to resolve the drainage plans for the project. Watershed representatives indicate that storm drainage should not substantially alter the overall design of the plat. Since this is one of the most significant issues associated with the development, staff recommends that the Development Stage plan review be continued to the first meeting in January. 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. With respect to phasing, it is recommended that the trail and landscaping work on the open space areas be commenced in the first phase. It is not unusual for the proposed turf establishment to take 3-5 years to become established. RECOMMENDATION As mentioned at the beginning of this report, staff recommends that the public hearing on the Development Stage plans be continued to the 5 January 2016 Planning Commission meeting. This should allow enough time to address the various issues raised by staff and to obtain Watershed District approvals. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Tim Keane Rick Packer -7- NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners @nacplanning.com AI • ' � TO: Brad Nielsen FROM: Michelle Barness DATE: November 24, 2015 RE: Shorewood — Minnetonka Country Club — Development Review FILE: 227.02 BACKGROUND Mattamy Homes has purchased the Minnetonka Country Club and would like to develop the site for single family residential use. The developer will cluster the parcels on the site, leaving approximately 43% of the site in open space. The following review addresses components of the development design pertaining to open space, natural resources, sidewalks and trails, and tree preservation and replacement. Attachments: Exhibit A: Preliminary Landscape Plan and Details Exhibit B: Environmental Analysis — MN Land Cover Classification Exhibit C: Environmental Analysis — Metro Mosquito Control District Wetlands Exhibit D: MCWD Wetland Buffer Study Extract Exhibit E: Eco — Turf Recommendations Exhibit F: Sidewalk Circulation Recommendations Exhibit G: Trail Circulation Recommendations ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Natural Resources. The development proposal is to cluster single family residential parcels on higher areas of the site, while protecting lower areas of the site with poor building soils for open space use and natural resource protection. Trails, water treatment, wetland restoration and habitat are intended to be incorporated within open space areas. A brief analysis of natural conditions on the site demonstrates that little native ecosystem remains today. The pre - settlement vegetation in the area is identified by the MnDNR as Big Woods, consisting of a combination of hardwood tree species. Nonetheless, the existing site does host a variety of natural areas and maintained green spaces which benefit the community by providing passive park space and serving ecological function (wildlife habitat, stormwater treatment, etc.). Exhibit B - Environmental Analysis - MN Land Cover Classification demonstrates that the site consists of a combination of non - native deciduous forest, grassy areas with scattered trees, and built areas. Further, there are several wetlands on the site, the most significant being the sedge meadow / seasonally flooded forest in the northwest corner and several small open water wetlands to the east (see Exhibit C - Environmental Analysis - Metro Mosquito Control District Wetlands). The development design generally attempts to preserve tree stands where construction of roads and lots is not occurring. This includes areas around the perimeter of the site and scattered tree cover in Outlot G to the south. The most significant impact to natural resources on the site appears to be the disturbance of the largely contiguous seasonally flooded forest in the northwest portion of the site, including disturbance of an identified wetland near the intersection of Ayrshire Lane and Smithtown Road. The decision to disturb the wetland in this area, and mitigate it by creating a new wetland elsewhere on the site, was arrived at in discussions between the City and Mattamy Homes. The second access at the end of Ayrshire Lane is intended to resolve the issue of that road being an excessively long cul -de -sac. Further, the City wishes to encourage project traffic to use Smithtown Road / County Road 19 rather than Country Club Road / Yellowstone Trail. Open Space Design and Restoration. The implementation of the proposed open space design will require the protection or conversion of existing land covers on the site, which include a combination of overgrown golf course lawns, unkempt wetland edges, small ponds, sand traps, and scattered areas of shrubs and trees. The developer will need to address how current open space areas will transition in the course of implementing the proposed open space plan. In particular, the developer shall address the following key issues via a narrative, revised plans, or additional information submittals as needed: Wetland Buffer Areas. The City requires a minimum 35 foot natural buffer adjacent to wetlands with new development. Further, a minimum 15 foot building setback must be maintained from the natural buffer area. However, the Minnehaha Watershed District also has requirements for wetland buffers based on the classification of individual wetlands. In discussion with the Watershed District, the developer and the City regarding what minimum wetland buffer standard should be applied, it was decided that the Watershed's minimum requirement would prevail. To be clear, the Watershed District's minimum wetland buffer requirement may be less than the City's in the case of specific wetland classifications on the site, particularly once wetland buffer averaging is applied. As the Watershed District is responsible for conducting a review of the project against its own standards, the City should defer to the Watershed District in the buffer review, but make development approval contingent on receiving the Watershed's approval for these and other wetland related issues. The 35 foot wetland buffer requirement is a minimum City standard imposed with the goal of preserving the function and appearance of protected wetland areas. The site is large and provides ample opportunities for building on the minimum requirement to create a larger conservation area. This is a goal expressed by the City and the developer alike. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District engaged Emmons and Olivier Resources to complete a 01 wetland buffer study that suggests an increase in wetland buffer width to 50 ft. can provide increasing ecological benefits with regards to sediment and nutrient trapping (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorous) and stormwater treatment, and an increase of buffer width to 100 ft. can provide better wildlife habitat and corridor protection (see Exhibit D - MCWD Wetland Buffer Study Extract). The current landscape plan already provides "native buffer seeding" regularly in excess of 35 ft., and there are opportunities to expand this further. Based on the watershed district's analysis it is recommended that the developer take a second look at available open space (with the understanding that additional wetland buffer expansion into parcels is not recommended or required), to identify locations where "native buffer seeding" can be increased to 50 ft. in width to improve sediment and nutrient trapping, or 100 ft. in width to provide more substantial wildlife habitat. A survey monument is required at each lot line where it crosses a wetland buffer strip and as necessary to adequately determine the location of the wetland buffer strip. These monuments shall remain in place after site grading of the lot has been completed. The developer shall verify that wetland buffer monuments will be provided. Open Space Planting Specifications. A wetland buffer is a general descriptor for the creation of a naturalized area around wetlands that can serve the ecological functions described. However, a wetland buffer is not necessarily a single planting type, but may be quite diverse based on local environmental conditions (e.g. soil type, sun conditions, topography, etc.). For example, a wetland buffer may consist of wet meadow or riparian vegetation in temporarily saturated areas at the wetland edge, or mesic prairie and grassland plantings in upland areas beyond. So the City has a clear understanding of what restoration plantings are planned for the open space areas within Outlot G on the development site, the landscaping plan should be revised to further differentiate proposed land covers according to the following guidelines: • Areas for low mow "eco- turf." • Stormwater pond seed mix (on slopes of stormwater facilities). • Wetland buffer rehabilitation seed mix (inter- seeding into established vegetation along existing wetland edges, as long as monoculture stands of switchgrass, canary reed grass or Kentucky bluegrass are not present). • Wet meadow / wet prairie seed mix (for saturated or regularly flooded zones; State wet meadow / wet prairie mixes are designed to be used from the planned edge of open water to around 1.5 feet in elevation). • Mesic prairie seed mix (for sunny zones that will not experience saturation or flooding; State upland seed mixes are used starting at approximately 1.5 feet above open water). • Woodland edge grassland seed mix (for partly shaded zones along shrub or tree lines). Lawn Areas. In addition to wetland buffer seeding, the developer wishes to maintain areas of lawn in the central open space area. Low -mow eco -turf is being used to provide a manicured edge to the native planting areas, and two maintained lawn areas are shown for un- programmed recreational opportunities as well. The width of the low mow eco -turf can be minimal for it to serve its purpose as a manicured edge to natural areas. Mowed lawns abutting natural areas already provide a manicured edge that is distinct from native plantings, so the addition of low mow eco -turf outside of parcel boundaries is largely unnecessary. Currently, large areas of the open space / conservation area in Outlot G are occupied by the proposed low mow eco -turf, which has significantly less benefit from a conservation standpoint then the naturalized wetland and prairie plantings that are being recommended by the City. Please adjust the landscaping plan to implement the minimal area necessary for the low mow eco -turf, more closely reflecting the areas recommended on attached Exhibit E - Eco -Turf Recommendations. The low mow eco -turf can be a positive alternative to mowed lawn in the overall landscape plan. It has a moderate tolerance to heavy foot traffic and is slow growing. It may be a suitable alternative to standard lawn in the un- programmed recreation areas currently identified as "maintained lawn" on the landscape plan. Also, it is recommended that eco -turf be provided continuously to a 3 ft. depth along the edge of bituminous trails through the site, to provide a manicured, low maintenance edge for that use. See Exhibit E - Eco -Turf Recommendations. Low mow eco -turf areas shown along the perimeter of single family lots should be permitted to grow naturally to their full height (e.g. 12 to 18 inches, but may be variable depending on seed mix). This will reduce maintenance requirements, and will allow the eco -turf to function well with regards to stormwater treatment and wildlife habitat. Restoration Plantings. The developer has engaged the Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company in creating a vegetation management plan for the wetland and open space plantings on the site, which is to be provided to the watershed district for review. The management plan shall also be provided to the City for consideration, and shall address the preparation, planting, and maintenance of open space / conservation areas. The following is a general list of issues that should be addressed in the management plan (it is possible that the Watershed District has further recommendations for the vegetation management plan; the following recommendations do not supersede the Watershed District review, but should be considered supplementary): Preparation of Sites. Address how the site will be prepared for wetland buffer / stormwater treatment / conservation plantings. 1) Transition from existing land cover — e.g., Inventory herbaceous vegetation around existing wetland areas; identify advantageous / native species worth protecting; identify invasive species that should be removed. 2) Provide a plan for invasive removal - The Shorewood Zoning Ordinance requires submission of a plan identifying aggressive or invasive exotic plants as described in Minnesota Non - Native Terrestrial Plants: An Identification Guide for Resource Managers and a program for eradicating or managing the exotic plants. Removal of invasive species may include a combination of mowing, prescribed burning, tilling, scrapping, digging, inundation (for perennial weeds such as reed canary grass) or herbicide application. Non - herbicide methods are preferred over herbicide intensive methods to protect beneficial plants and animals. 3) Prepare seedbeds for naturalized plantings — Any tilled soils should be rolled to prevent seed from being buried too deep, but the soil surface should not be so hard packed or smooth that seeds are lost or have a difficult time establishing. If inter - seeding is intended, site preparation could include the removal of thatch through burning or haying to provide light for seedlings. Alternatively, planting nodes could be cultivated within larger areas for native seeding over time. Short -lived cover crops could be planted to help stabilize project sites, minimize the need for additional mulch, build up the health of site soils, and provide time to observe and treat weed issues. Cover crops are harvested or mowed before maturity to prevent re- seeding. Examples include oats or winter wheat, or slough grass in wet areas. Planting. Identify intended wetland buffer / stormwater treatment / conservation area plantings, and describe the proposed planting schedule and method. 1) Seed mixes - The developer shall provide a list of intended seed mixes by land cover type. Seed mixes could include the collection of seed from the project site or nearby natural areas, or may consist of State seed mixes, private vendor mixes, or custom mixes developed for site conditions. State seed mixes are developed for a variety of project types (e.g. wetlands, prairies, forest edges, roadsides, riparian areas, and stormwater treatment systems), and are designed to increase diversity, create competition for invasive species, and promote plant community resiliency. 2) Planting dates — According to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, spring seeding is favored for native grass establishment, and fall seeding is favored for planting forb, sedge, and rush seed to allow winter conditions to break down seed coats. Further, dormant seeding (after November 1St and before the soil freezes in the fall, or shortly before snowmelt in the spring) could be employed. Dormant seeding is beneficial for pollinator projects with a high percentage of forbs (which the developer has indicated they would like to pursue), or when a wet site is inaccessible for planting after the spring snowmelt due to wet conditions. If the wetland buffer will be established in the spring / early summer, or will have fluctuating water levels, is would be better to seed later in the spring after water levels stabilize, but not later than June 30th when high summer temperatures can result in a loss of seedlings. 3) Planting considerations — Upland seed mixes can be broadcast or drill seeded, or explain alternative methods proposed. When applicable, it may be helpful to overlap wetland and upland seed mixes to account for unknown hydrology levels where the zones meet. 5 When applicable, steps should be taken to prevent upland soils from eroding into wetland areas and cover wetland seeding. Temporary cover crops or additional weed -free mulch can be used for this purpose. Maintenance. Restoration project maintenance is essential to ensuring long range success. The developer should provide a vegetation management plan for wetland buffer / stormwater treatment / conservation area plantings, including: 1) A schedule summarizing maintenance activities on a monthly basis to guide contractors and project managers. 2) Information on problematic weed species for the Minnetonka Country Club site, and how they should be controlled over time (which may be addressed in an invasive species identification and management plan). 3) A description of management methods, which could include mowing to allow sufficient light to reach native plant seedlings and to prevent weed seed production; hand weeding to control small populations of weeds and as opposed to using herbicides in wetland / pond areas; biological control methods; prescribed burning to remove thatch, control invading wood plants in wetland and prairie areas, and to maintain diversity in prairie plantings; spot treatments of weeds; and woody tree control in prairie planting areas. Open Space Service Facility Ownership and Management, and Park Dedication. PUDs are required to contain provisions to assure the operation and maintenance of open space and service facilities. Such facilities may be placed under the ownership of a Property Owners Association, when the facilities serve all residents of the development, or may be dedicated to the public when a community wide use is anticipated (as in the case of the Outlot G open space and conservation areas shown on the submitted plans). Further, all new subdivisions are required to provide a park dedication in the form of land or a fee in lieu of land. It appears that the dedication of open space areas within the development for public use may serve as park dedication for the development. The developer shall continue to work with the City to address issues of open space dedication, and otherwise address the design and maintenance of open space and green areas within the development via the finalized development agreement. Tree Preservation and Replacement. Number of Trees. Mattamy Homes performed an inventory of all significant trees on the site. The tree inventory identifies tree species, the diameter of trees at breast height, the number of tree stems, whether the tree was removed or saved, and the number of replacement trees required. A total of 988 significant trees will be removed from the site in the course of development. Many of the trees located in an area of sedge- meadow in the northwest corner of the site will be removed in the creation of the age targeted lots along Ayrshire Lane. rel The City of Shorewood's Tree Preservation and Replacement Policy caps total tree replacement at 8 trees per disturbed acre. The submitted landscape plan indicates that 79 acres will be disturbed, and identifies the replacement requirement as 316 trees (which is based on a 4 trees per acre replacement). The actual requirement for 79 acres would be 632 replacement trees. While the project will meet and exceed the tree replacement requirement with a total of 767 new trees planted onsite, the landscape plan must be amended to reflect the correct replacement requirement. In addition, at a meeting with the developer it was indicated that actual disturbed acres may be 82 acres. The tree replacement requirement must reflect the most recent calculation of disturbed area. Replacement trees will include 282 street trees, 241 buffer / accent trees, and 244 lot trees (two per standard lot, and one per age targeted lot). In addition, 12 trees will be transplanted from onsite for use in a memorial green design. Tree Species. The plant schedule lists the species of trees that will be planted on the site, however the landscape plan does not currently identify where specific trees will be planted. The City requires this information to verify that there will be a balance of tree diversity on the site, and that trees will be suitable for the conditions shown. An annotation on the plan indicates that this information will be provided in the final landscape plan version. Pre - settlement vegetation on the site would have been Big Woods, consisting of a combination of hardwoods (oak, maple, basswood and hickory). Elms, ironwood, and aspen would also have been common in this forest system. According to the Shorewood Tree Preservation and Replacement Policy it is the policy of the City to recognize and preserve existing natural resources of the community. With this goal in mind, the ratio of tree plantings on the final landscape plan shall emphasize the replacement of native trees on the site, and shall attempt to diversify plantings so that no one species is planted over others. Proposed tree species do appear to correspond to the City's recommendation for replacement trees. A few additional species are being provided, including species of Elm, Maple, Aspen, Birch, and Serviceberry. While Elm is not a City recommended tree, the varieties proposed are Dutch Elm Disease resistant and hardy to the growing zone. The following are specific comments pertaining to tree species proposed: 1) Accolade, Princeton and Discovery Elms. To increase diversity of replacement trees, it is recommended that one of these cultivars be replaced with the native Hackberry tree, which his recommended for the area by the City, the University of Minnesota Extension Service, and the State of Minnesota. Discovery Elms are slower growers, in which case the Hackberry, generally a fast growing tree, may be an advantageous substitute. 2) Autumn Blaze and Sienna Glen Maples. These both provide attractive fall color and function well in urban settings, and Sienna Glen Maples are specifically recommended by the University of Minnesota Extension Service for Minnesota landscapes. However, Autumn Blaze Maples are typically over planted. Please provide information demonstrating that maple tree plantings will be equally balanced between Autumn Blaze, Sienna Glen, and native Sugar Maple plantings. 7 3) Whitespire Birch. River Birches are recommended by the City and the State of Minnesota for the area, and may either supplement or replace the proposed Whitespire Birches. Please confirm that Whitespire Birch trees are suitable for the zone, or replace with City recommended varieties. Tree Size. Proposed deciduous trees range in size from 2 inches to 2.5 inches in caliper, and evergreen trees are to be 8 feet in height. The City's tree replacement policy requires that deciduous replacement trees be a minimum of 3 inches in caliper and evergreen replacement trees be a minimum of 6 feet in height. The planting schedule must be revised to require deciduous trees a minimum of 3 inches in diameter. Street Trees. In discussing the issue of street trees the applicant and the City arrived at the consensus that the care and maintenance of trees in the public rights of way would be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. This contingency will be addressed in declaration of covenants for the development. Other Site Landscaping. The submitted landscape plan illustrates gateway entrance landscaping designs at Wooden Cleek Drive and Smithtown Road, Ayrshire Lane and Smithtown Road, and Club Valley Road and Yellowstone Trail (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Landscape Plan and Details). The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District review of submitted plans will provide feedback on the issue of the entrance design at Ayrshire Lane in relation to the wetland areas in the northwest corner of the development site. With regards to the zoning review, the final landscaping plan will need to provide additional information as to proposed shrub, grass and perennial species, including identifying plant sizes. The Shorewood Zoning Ordinance requires tall shrubs to be a minimum of 3 to 4 feet in height upon installation, and low shrubs to be 18 to 24 inches in height upon installation. Notes on proposed tree species and tree sizing are provided earlier in the report. Illustrated plant spacing on the landscape plan meets City requirements. Plant centers in the northeast entry detail must be shifted minimally south to adhere to the requirement that a 3 foot distance be maintained to the property line. Upon installation, all landscaping is required to adhere to general landscaping criteria provided in the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance, Section 1201.03, Subd. 2.G. Required Landscaping and Screening. Traffic Visibility. On corner lots in all districts, no structure or planting in excess of 30 inches above the street center line grade shall be permitted within a triangular area defined as follows: beginning at the intersection of the projected property lines of two intersecting streets, thence 30 feet along one property line, thence diagonally to a point 30 feet from the point of beginning. It appears that the entry monuments at Ayrshire Lane, Wooden Cleek Drive, and Club Valley Road fall within the traffic visibility triangle and will need to be adjusted to fall outside of the described zone. In addition, the landscape plan shows that a variety of plantings will fall within the visibility triangle, including perennials, small grasses, small deciduous shrubs, medium ornamental grasses, medium evergreen shrubs, and large deciduous shrubs. Height and species for these plantings have not yet been provided. At the time of final plat review the landscape plan and planting schedule must demonstrate that all plants within the visibility triangle will adhere to the 30 inch height limitation. Sidewalks and Trails. The City and the community have expressed interest in seeing open space in the development preserved for public use. In response, the developer has clustered homes on the site to better preserve natural features, and is providing a combination of sidewalks and trails for pedestrian access to the neighborhood and open space areas. In the submitted plan set sidewalks are provided along one side of the main roads through the subdivision, including the following: 1) The west side of Wooden Cleek Drive, to where it meets Smithtown Rd. 2) The north side of Bentgrass Way, from Wooden Cleek Drive to Ayrshire Lane. 3) The west side of Ayrshire Lane, to where it meets Smithtown Road. 4) The east side of Club Valley Road, to where it meets Yellowstone Trail. The Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance does not identify a requirement for the provision of sidewalks in new subdivisions. And the sidewalks provided in the development plan so far are in response to initial discussions with the City regarding what minimum access and pedestrian movement is necessary. That said, if the development would like to provide community access to open space within, sidewalk and trail connectivity should be a priority and the current plan can be revised to better accomplish this goal. One concern with the current sidewalk design is that it fails to provide an accessible circulation design for the age targeted lots located along Ayrshire Lane, which will receive a significant amount of the sites traffic due to its intersection with Smithtown Road. Safe, off - street circulation options are particularly important for age targeted residents. This population may have special mobility needs, and are a portion of the population that may be more interested in walking opportunities. It is recommended that the developer provide sidewalks east along the age targeted lots that meet Country Club Lane on Bentgrass Way. A sidewalk in this location at the east end of Bentgrass Way, from Wooden Cleek Drive to the east end of the Bentgrass Way cul -de -sac, would also improve access to the development site from Country Club Road and Badger Park. Pedestrian use of the site could be further improved by providing sidewalks on both sides of the street where internal circulation meets sidewalks or trails outside of the development. Aside from providing connectivity for subdivision residents, sidewalk access sends the message to the community that the unique trail and open space amenities within the development are something that is being shared with neighbors. Areas for sidewalks on both side of the road could include Ayrshire Lane (as described above), Wooden Cleek Drive, and Club Valley Road from Yellowstone Trail north to the beginning of the internal trail circulation. Exhibit F - Sidewalk Circulation Recommendations illustrates areas where additional sidewalks are recommended. At the City's request, an off -road 8 foot bituminous trail has been provided along the west edge of Country Club Road. The trail begins at the intersection of Country Club Road and Smithtown Road, and terminates approximately 600 feet before the intersection of Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail. The developer has indicated that the trail is terminated where it is because natural conditions associated with two wetlands to be protected south E towards Yellowstone Trail pose a challenge with regards to trail placement. In addition, the parcel at the intersection has steep topographical conditions that would require the construction of retaining walls for a trail, and the property is in separate ownership from the developer. It is possible that in the future the City may adjust the Country Club Road rights -of- way to the east, which could provide flexibility in extending a trail all the way south to Yellowstone Trail without requiring the construction of a retaining wall along the southern most Country Club Road property. Alternatively, the City discussed the option of extending the Country Club Road trail west around the wetlands and into the Minnetonka Country Club development, but it was decided that the option of moving the trails closer to private homes is not ideal. How this option might be pursued without impeding on private properties could be explored. For example, the developer could identify options for employing screening or trail beautification to minimize visual impacts on nearby homes. In addition, the City and the developer could discuss how the trail could be engineered to bypass the wetlands on the southeast portion of the site. For example, a number of wetland projects incorporate interconnected trails and boardwalks to allow trail users to pass over wet areas. Boardwalks become an amenity, providing a unique opportunity for trail users to experience wetland plants and hydrologic conditions up close. Education or interpretation materials pertaining to wetland plants and animals could be incorporated in the boardwalk design to provide additional attraction to the site. It is possible that steep grades or existing vegetation in the area may prevent this possibility, but it may be an option to explore. An 8 foot bituminous trail also winds its way through the interior of the development site, past proposed open space and wetland areas. A spur of the internal trail begins at the bituminous trail running south along Country Club Road. This trail spur heads southwest to Club Valley Road, past a stormwater treatment area, and outlets on the sidewalk on the east side of the road. At that point, trail users need to walk south along the Club Valley Road sidewalk and must cross the street to pick up the trail again, which heads west into the sizable open space area in the south portion of the development. From there, the trail goes north through interesting wetland, tree, and restoration areas. Several trail overlook opportunities are identified along the way. The trail then goes north to Bentgrass Way, and at that point trail users must cross the road to use the sidewalk on the north side of Bentgrass Way to exit the site via Ayrshire Lane or Wooden Cleek Drive. The internal trial appears to does a nice job of exposing trail users to a variety landscapes within the conservation area. The trail plan could be further improved in the following ways (as shown on attached Exhibit G - Trail Circulation Recommendations): • Connect the separate trail spurs in a more intuitive manner, or provide clear signage so trail users are able to easily navigate the trails into and out of the development site. In particular, the trail jog between the east spur (where it meets Club Valley Road) and the trail within the Outlot G open space area should be examined for its usability. • Trail directional signage may be considered if the trail itself is not altered, to provide a more clear connection where the trail spurs intersect with roadways. 10 ® Interpretation or educational signage may be incorporated along the trail within the open space / conservation area, highlighting native plants and animals or the history of the site. ® A proposal for trail amenities (e.g. seating, trash / recycling receptacles, etc.) may be identified for trial overlook areas or other locations along the trail. ® Pedestrian safety measures, such as pedestrian crosswalk striping or alternate paving, should be integrated on roadways where trail users must cross roads. In addition, pedestrian signage may be incorporated identifying the trail crossing locations. RECOMMENDATION The submitted preliminary plat plan set is found to address the requirements of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance, and is recommended for approval contingent on the developer addressing the following items prior to submission of the final plat plan set for review: 1) The developer must demonstrate that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has reviewed and approved the wetland permit for the project. 2) As conditions permit, given the proposed location of parcels, wetland buffers (in combination with adjacent natural areas) shall be increased to a minimum of 50 feet. 3) The developer shall verify that wetland buffer monuments will be provided. 4) Revise the landscaping plan to address the following: a) Differentiate proposed land covers according to the guidelines discussed in this report, and provide a list of intended seed mixes. b) Amend low mow eco -turf areas to more closely reflect the recommended eco -turf zones illustrated on Exhibit E - Eco -Turf Recommendations. c) Reflect the correct tree replacement requirement, based on an eight trees per disturbed acre calculation and a total disturbed acreage of 82 acres. d) List proposed perennial, grass, and shrub species in the plant schedule. e) Identify where specific tree, shrub, grass, and perennial species will be planted on the site. f) Address the balance of tree species to be planted on the site by listing total trees by species on the plant schedule. The final tree planting proposal must emphasize the replacement of native trees (or native cultivars), and attempt to diversify plantings so that no one species is planted over another. 11 g) Address questions regarding tree species selection discussed in this report, and incorporate Hackberry trees in the planting plan. h) Increase the size of deciduous replacement trees to 3 inches in caliper, as required by the City's tree replacement policy. i) Identify the size of shrubs shown on the landscaping plan, which must meet the City's minimum size requirements. j) Shift plant centers in the northeast entry detail south to adhere to the 3 foot distance requirement from property lines. k) Adjust the entry detail landscaping plans to move entry monuments and plantings in excess of 30 inches from the traffic visibility zone. 5) Provide a vegetation management plan to the City for consideration, which shall address the preparation, planting, and maintenance of open space and conservation areas on the site as discussed in this report. 6) Provide a plan for identifying aggressive or invasive exotic plants as described in Minnesota Non - Native Terrestrial Plants: An Identification Guide for Resource Managers and a program for eradicating or managing the exotic plants on the site. 7) Revise pedestrian circulation on the site to provide the additional sidewalk options identified on Exhibit F - Sidewalk Circulation Recommendations. 8) Work with the City to address how the bituminous trail running south along Country Club Road may be extended all the way to Yellowstone Trail in the current development phase, or at a later date. 9) Revise plans for trail circulation on the site to address the issues raised in this report and shown on attached Exhibit G - Trail Circulation Recommendations. 12 F Ii L T a. • a �9 w a•: o ait M, M5 elk _ � ■■�s dpi �0 � ,�►►•' ® ..aa .�, a �-�.� M li �`4� i •'� , r i . M i ENTRANCE` MONU E - M NT' � > : - gAj;N�Cx � \ l M1 I __ -- pp I 1 t c\ r I M. 1 1 - 4 141.41 il \.m .i. I 614' .6 • ;d { It 1� E- 1 I - I 1 1 - r. I I S 1 I I 1 I I \ Ii a I 1¢31 a /• - f n I 1 I r. I I' t I I 1 MA TCH SHEET 1 1 ti 4! •1 •t, IUTA TCH SH E T2 1` ! I I � •llilATC I `I I H�SHEET 2 1� - 1 , 1 - B - r 1 � s , II r Landscape Requirements t. Legend ,1y - ��$$ Typical Eco-Turf Example TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS' 316 TREES REQUIRED NATIVE BUFFER SEEDING hT•E STRfP. ,BrF waeP uTE,nn>_ raw uP«nBa TO Easr TRAIL OVERLOOK (4 trees per disturbed acres) . PLANT Wry - DO NOT n ..— 3T — w . (POLLINATOR) a A \= D e�aruL srsl. r r+r wrN �EanE.o zEr sDES 11. eaT— OF w,re P -ciFlt ,D uEF'GU! sA4'1aR0 EOB —y srcoc roB uT•uPn enu T ro oc PLC,YTm OPPOATUNLTEES _ - - OVERALL TREES PROVIDED: 781 TREES PRO\ADED LA28 tl STREET TREES (60' spocing, typ): • BUFFER /ACCENT TREES: 294 TREES 241 TREES '. ECO TURF 'LOW MOW' LAWN f TRAn.HRAD OPPORTUNITIES - • LOT TREES (by Builder): 244 TREES LOT TREES (PROVIDED BY BUILDER) W13PLAND MITEGATION SAVED TREE CANOPY LINE 2 additional trees to be provided by builder after home construction is complete; (1 addtionol tree per small lot) EXISTING WETLAND - ar'�• -",= DENOTES EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE TO REMAIN DEMOTES E M I NG DBMUOUS '. . TREE TO REMAIN Weslwxtl Prohxional SeMtte, Irw 7699 Anagrmn orive Eden Pr —, l4N 65361 PHOt� 952 - 837 -515D PA% esz- 937.ba22 �,,f Tau- 1- 886937 -5150 Westwood wmv.westwoodpsmm t hueby mWy Wet WL P'ea wu pn{srW by me m urea my Revldons dlmtt evpuWefa+ and ibt I em •duly Ifine! IAN¢SCAP6 AflQIIil�r 1e the 4rre M Ite Nafe of HL'mmet Cory Meyer Dctm 11/3/15 Lk— N. 26971 Deatpxk cEAt Prepared for. L•AG -kd: aM Dews NTe3 Rang[ Dra W 1m/dstc Kitam Homes 7201 Washington Avenue South, Suite 201 Edina, Minnesota 55439 Il. 0' 100' 200' 300' PEUO = n .11 nw ncwi ! rens°�nc � cavr�,E'n n1N r nag seem u�Dl ,En EPEaiEDAT —11 TAO L$41!\ IS£AS xwicr s.RTM �•a 63rrn! aF Ne-P� o— calrraEa sca ! 9 nrru PEUIT ar 1N4 sPeorw ,c scn nN as uawc,so .r cartASOn r— sat al & PERENNM iER PWIRNG ) ,<.B DN onR ca.ETP u'.rs � 7sov DB ro rasr = a,vT,m ANO T40E ao,T Sul O.R[ raEE ,0,0- w , a:0 Pa mtCPnENe ON POI,LRInEnE 10 PEA ��-mN 00 NOT PEE APAHSTr1R h5X iDEFP WATEianO 50.4N. Pwrr P.T Yfrx SPEC61Ea B0.CMill1 SQL 6CU8£Y :DES RI.D 00T1w Q EVERGREEN TREE PLANPNG PR01lc as wm+1 OON L.SOIPE e9AYGNES. bovnE LEADEz ,nNC srsS as r.Ewrt<, '. ecov=sl 1 un cccu'rnuus rracs TOP $TF{'1$ 5' A50 E CA =, Wa +. D.x io rs,sr ePnnat t. h51 Or 'ESIV3L) i" 0B E4GII,R 011'9!0 POSTE ,1y - ��$$ PA BE 2- %751E¢�DELEf n.�W � FOStS. PL„tt ] POS15 [aHA,R. ARd= \0 Boor out scary La:G PO t0 POSID WM 16" PiW00P,t➢.£ bt ParElNna.0 w uL, u• hT•E STRfP. ,BrF waeP uTE,nn>_ raw uP«nBa TO Easr �w..cuNE aa.1 ns rar5�o. PIACE t!VNT DEPRI FS �Ea,tED . PLANT Wry - DO NOT n ..— 3T — w T ti - ` a A \= D e�aruL srsl. r r+r wrN �EanE.o zEr sDES 11. eaT— OF w,re P -ciFlt ,D uEF'GU! sA4'1aR0 EOB —y srcoc roB uT•uPn enu T ro oc PLC,YTm @A� ,lsrtn eewl.-w.LBE uN G � E �o `"� �a�,m Sa I ,<rcND '0 cE9 BA,Wta1 tliWh5r1\E whl FV191ED 91E OEOnUGUS TREE V PLANTNG LA28 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0004775PLP01 Minnetonka Date 11/3/15 Sheet 1 OF 3 Country Club Preliminary Landscape Plan Minnetonka'Minnesota - EXHIBIT A F 02015 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. III S 3 t — N L•� 1 I \ I it iI - 1 , L rl I � � dAtl i - t 4 A JA TCH SHEET 1 - �o MA TCH SH ET 2 L K 1 - - I' - - `I.. _. I m MATCH BHEET 2 _ 1 .I _ \ . ✓.. - - 7�_ I � } 1 I - I \. I i. I - 1 I I I I 1 � f, I 4'- i I t; 1 h ' I' I: I _ 4 I 1 iJl 4 i I N - / I _ j 1 I _ I X61 I f I i MAINTAINED` TURF ARE \: : �•' _ —__ _�. . J: ,n: � t. _ -. -__ _ ' \ ✓ ..,:� ;M t, "� _ _� - J. Preliminary Plant Schedule Single Family SYMBOL —71 I I I ' N ; \ .; J _ PROT OTY. COMMON BOTANICAL NAME SIZE SPACING O.C. I— I 1'I N L R x STREET TREES 282 Y \ I. A INTAINED Ali' _ -_ �_� —,� 1 i I '� N+. 1 �•\ ��: T RF AREAI BUFFER/ACCENT 35 TREES 1 � — — ; \�, � \g ., ' _ \ \,. ,�.• � � _ � rtl a .. ��, \� SEE NORTH WEST���i�� , �. ENTRANCE'€ lL 1—.`� \� MAINTAINED rt ... .. TURF AREA MEMORIAL TREES 12 On —site deciduous trees to be rela oted F t 1 1 1 a _ \ , � ' � ../,<...,.. ; i ,, • ,.. \, •: ,.., ..\ , : . 1 i,r .: �;1 . . .• ; t .:f \` 7. �\r ;:C * .•' • `'ti 1 t • � I Thornless Co cksop/ u r M o Hawthorn rief irCe rat aea us c s all BB CL AS S HOVN EE Jo o e se Te Li la c S rn o etiva a 6' HT BB CLUMP AS SHOVN it' QD Allegheny Se rviceberr Y / Amelan drier laems UMP AS SHOIM ORNAMEJTAL 3 2 —Quaking Aspen / Populus tremulo,des 2 � 86 AS SHOAJ r,e R b lu R ose 2° 88 AS SHOVM Pr—,en Cr b 2° BB ENTRANCE P fu so Cr o b A auu s s AS SHOVM 2" BB MONUMENT. . ' ,. , I, Spring Snow Crab 1olus 'Spring Snow AS SHOV44 2" BE AS SHOWN COLUMNS 'Red Splendor' Red Crob Molus 2° 68 AS SHOYR'1 EVERGREEN 171 Black Hills Spruce / Plcea olouca densoto 8' HT„ BB Colorado Green Spruce / Picea p un ens AS SHOWN, SHOVBJ N _ N ",yq, _I Austrion Pine / lnus nigro `_ ,� \ s >,. _ - -- - •4, \/ w v -- _ N N ,4 n i I Norway Pine / Plnus resinoso 8' HT BB AS SHOWN ...(b 8 HT BB AS SHOV'M �Nyh / Pmus sylvestr(s 8' HT BB AS SHOYPJ o Sco Pine r _. e / P 8' 66 AS SHOVM White nus s rob s NOTE: P Pi- ON I PLAN SUPERSEDE LIST QUANTITIES IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY. r a ° r Legend M N ------------------ _ ___ TRAIL TEI (POLLINA OR) OUNTITS f 1RAILMAD OPPORTUNITIES 0' 100' 200' 300' /;' // / e I• ... _� _._ I HCO TURF 'TAW MOW" LAWN ._ n_ WEI'LAND MITIGATION 9AVBD TRIM CANOPY L1NB !r DR40THS EISTING CONIFEROUS H JQtING WF iAND TREE TO REtvfAIN 1 / DENOTES EXISTIN G DECIDUOUS I I I I TREE TO HHMAAIN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION / N03775FLP02.dn wa rwBen Prof -ion s.,Vwa, we F X,,,yy �,,, y uut ,,,, Minnetonka Date 11/3/15 sl4eec 2 of 3 µan wva p.ap.M by ma a wAa ny 1 1 1659 AnaBramadm duen .sp.,waa aae ib.t r.m. may urzrd twNr>rcnes R°�'i�„ ,,. ettt Prepared for. Matta my Homes ®' 9 tre� l� y PreliliiinaTy Eden Prairie,NN 65314 A4 ❑afHR mdu ibe ht.s d a:a abS � C@ i `dV 6A. PHO FAX r 962.93, -6,60 Landscape Plan FAX 852- 93).6822 Dra%'c N76f rou.n� ra3ss3y.st6o Cory Meyer c>v�na �/ 7201 Washington Avenue South, Suite 201 p Westwood wuw.werivaodp om o.� 11/3/15 xa 26971 FAina, Minnesota 55439 _ Minnetonka,Mianesota EXHIBIT A F 02015 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Northeast Entry Detail ONE Southeast Entry Detail Northwest Entry Detail WAM 11 ]rvd MED. ORNAMENTAL - \\ GRASS ENTRY M. UM COLUMN ENTRY MONUMENT SHREDDED/HARDWOOD ,.` SM. DECIDUOUS COLUMN -I - -__ -I- -- SHRUB SHREDDED HARDWOOD ;BARK MULCH - BARK MULCH EDGING _ a - � PERENNIALS /SM. GRASSES (TYP.) ie i A EDGING (TYP.) / LG. DECIDUOUS SHRUB I J I I - NOTES: • SPECIFIC PLANT SPECIES A14D AMOUNTS WILL BE CALLED OUT IN THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. • PLANTING BED EDGING AND PLANTS MAY BE FIELD FIT BASED ON EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING TREES L i —,I A ml m•3 am t I vm• &0y ti by me m vela ay dune wpm ->�m .na wi i .m . a„q u®.®1 wroulrs ABQIIf�f ®L¢ fk 45r• N as 6h4 of 33m�r. Cory Meyer D� 11/3/15 c xa 26971 Planting Notes 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE AT 811 OR CALL811.COM TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROU14D UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANTS OR LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. 2. ACTUAL LOCATION O PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD AND SITE CONDITIONS. 3. NO PLANTING MILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEIN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, 4. ALL SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY BID AND /OR QUOTE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 5, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO YEAR GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE GUARANTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S OR OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR GUARANTEE COMMENCING UPON PLANTING. 6. ALL PLANTS TO BE SPECIMEN GRADE, MINNESOTA -GROWN AND /CR HARDY. SPECIMEN GRADE SHALL ADHERE TO, BUT IS NOT LIMITED BY, THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WOUNDS, SCARS, ETC. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM NOTICEABLE GAPS, HOLES, OR DEFORMITIES. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. ALL PLANTS SHALL HAVE HEAVY, HEALTHY BRANCHING AND LEAFING. CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL HAVE AN ESTABUSHED MAIN LEADER AND A HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO OF NO LESS THAN 5:3. 7. PLANTS TO MEET AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1 -2004 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION) REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND TYPE SPECIFIED. B. PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES, 9. PLANTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL AT SITE. PROPERLY HEEL -IN MATERIALS IF NECESSARY; TEMPORARY ONLY. 10. PRIOR TO PLANTING, FIELD VERIFY THAT THE ROOT COLLAR /ROOT FLAIR IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DOWN TO THE ROOT COLLAR /ROOT FLAIR. WHEN THE BALLED & 13URLAP TREE IS PLANTED, THE ROOT COLLAR /ROOT FLAIR SHALL BE EVEN OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 11. OPEN TOP OF BURLAP ON BB MATERIALS; REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLANTS; SPLIT AND BREAK APART PEAT POTS. 12. PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES. 73. WRAP ALL SMOOTH- BARKED TREES - FASTEN TOP AND BOTTOM. REMOVE BY APRIL 1ST. 14. STAKING OF TREES OPTIONAL; REPOSITION, PLUMB AND STAKE IF NOT PLUMB AFTER ONE YEAR. 15. THE NEED FOR SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED UPON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PLANTING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE NEED OF ANY SOIL AMENDMENTS. 16. BACKFILL SOIL AIJD TOPSOIL TO ADHERE TO MN /DOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 3877 (COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW) AND TO BE NATIVE TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. 17. FOUR INCHES OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO BE USED AROUND ALL TREES WITHIN TURF AREAS. 18. EDGING TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. SPADED EDGE TO PROVIDE V- SHAPED DEPTH AND WIDTH TO CREATE SEPARATION BETWEEN MULCH AND GRASS. UTILIZE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS FOR EDG114G (WHERE POSSIBLE. INDIVIDUAL TREES TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 19. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED, AS NOTED, SOD TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA GROWN AND HARDY BLUEGRASS MIX. FREE OF LAWN WEEDS. ALL TOPSOIL AREAS TO BE RAKED TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND ENSURE DRAINAGE. SEE FINAL LANDSCAPE AND GRADING PLANS FOR NATIVE SEEDING TYPES & SPECIFICATIONS. 20. PROVIDE IRRIGATION TO ALL SODDED AREAS ON SITE. IRRIGATION OF STREET TREES & BOULEVARD SOD AREAS TO BE RESPONSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS; BUFFER TREES IN OUTLOTS TO BE IRRIGATED BY DEVELOPER /HOA. NO IRRIGATION TO BE PROVIDED IN CITY OWNED OUTLOT AREAS, UNLESS OTHERWSE NOTED. IRRIGATION WILL BE DESIGN /BUILD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. ALL INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLAl1ON AND SCHEDULING CAN BE OBTAIINED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 21. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY WATERING OF PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL THE PLANT IS FULLY ESTABLISHED OR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS OPERATIONAL, OWNER WILL NOT PROVIDE WATER FOR CONTRACTOR. 22. REPAIR. REPLACE, OR PROVIDE SOD /SEED AS REQUIRED FOR ANY ROADWAY BOULEVARD AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION, 23. REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT 110 COST TO OWNER. D.d.-d . Prepared for Ch.k.4 =1 D.— NTM RmN Dnwicg by /date NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Minnetonka Date: 11/3/15 Sheet 3 OF 3 attamy 'Homes Country Club Preliminary 7201 Washington Avenue South, Suite 201 Landscape Details .— Edina, Minnesota 55439 Minnetonka,Minnesota EXHIBIT A Westvrood P7ohssional SerA Inc 7659 A,ug Drive Ell, 1110, MN 65333 PHONE 952 -937 -5160 FA% 857- 937.582] iDlLFfiff 168 &437 -5160 ��� WestvjoW YMW.We3two0dp- L i —,I A ml m•3 am t I vm• &0y ti by me m vela ay dune wpm ->�m .na wi i .m . a„q u®.®1 wroulrs ABQIIf�f ®L¢ fk 45r• N as 6h4 of 33m�r. Cory Meyer D� 11/3/15 c xa 26971 Planting Notes 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE AT 811 OR CALL811.COM TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROU14D UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANTS OR LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. 2. ACTUAL LOCATION O PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD AND SITE CONDITIONS. 3. NO PLANTING MILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEIN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, 4. ALL SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY BID AND /OR QUOTE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 5, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO YEAR GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE GUARANTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S OR OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR GUARANTEE COMMENCING UPON PLANTING. 6. ALL PLANTS TO BE SPECIMEN GRADE, MINNESOTA -GROWN AND /CR HARDY. SPECIMEN GRADE SHALL ADHERE TO, BUT IS NOT LIMITED BY, THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WOUNDS, SCARS, ETC. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM NOTICEABLE GAPS, HOLES, OR DEFORMITIES. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. ALL PLANTS SHALL HAVE HEAVY, HEALTHY BRANCHING AND LEAFING. CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL HAVE AN ESTABUSHED MAIN LEADER AND A HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO OF NO LESS THAN 5:3. 7. PLANTS TO MEET AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1 -2004 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION) REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND TYPE SPECIFIED. B. PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES, 9. PLANTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL AT SITE. PROPERLY HEEL -IN MATERIALS IF NECESSARY; TEMPORARY ONLY. 10. PRIOR TO PLANTING, FIELD VERIFY THAT THE ROOT COLLAR /ROOT FLAIR IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DOWN TO THE ROOT COLLAR /ROOT FLAIR. WHEN THE BALLED & 13URLAP TREE IS PLANTED, THE ROOT COLLAR /ROOT FLAIR SHALL BE EVEN OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 11. OPEN TOP OF BURLAP ON BB MATERIALS; REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLANTS; SPLIT AND BREAK APART PEAT POTS. 12. PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES. 73. WRAP ALL SMOOTH- BARKED TREES - FASTEN TOP AND BOTTOM. REMOVE BY APRIL 1ST. 14. STAKING OF TREES OPTIONAL; REPOSITION, PLUMB AND STAKE IF NOT PLUMB AFTER ONE YEAR. 15. THE NEED FOR SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED UPON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PLANTING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE NEED OF ANY SOIL AMENDMENTS. 16. BACKFILL SOIL AIJD TOPSOIL TO ADHERE TO MN /DOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 3877 (COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW) AND TO BE NATIVE TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. 17. FOUR INCHES OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO BE USED AROUND ALL TREES WITHIN TURF AREAS. 18. EDGING TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. SPADED EDGE TO PROVIDE V- SHAPED DEPTH AND WIDTH TO CREATE SEPARATION BETWEEN MULCH AND GRASS. UTILIZE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS FOR EDG114G (WHERE POSSIBLE. INDIVIDUAL TREES TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 19. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED, AS NOTED, SOD TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA GROWN AND HARDY BLUEGRASS MIX. FREE OF LAWN WEEDS. ALL TOPSOIL AREAS TO BE RAKED TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND ENSURE DRAINAGE. SEE FINAL LANDSCAPE AND GRADING PLANS FOR NATIVE SEEDING TYPES & SPECIFICATIONS. 20. PROVIDE IRRIGATION TO ALL SODDED AREAS ON SITE. IRRIGATION OF STREET TREES & BOULEVARD SOD AREAS TO BE RESPONSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS; BUFFER TREES IN OUTLOTS TO BE IRRIGATED BY DEVELOPER /HOA. NO IRRIGATION TO BE PROVIDED IN CITY OWNED OUTLOT AREAS, UNLESS OTHERWSE NOTED. IRRIGATION WILL BE DESIGN /BUILD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. ALL INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLAl1ON AND SCHEDULING CAN BE OBTAIINED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 21. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY WATERING OF PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL THE PLANT IS FULLY ESTABLISHED OR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS OPERATIONAL, OWNER WILL NOT PROVIDE WATER FOR CONTRACTOR. 22. REPAIR. REPLACE, OR PROVIDE SOD /SEED AS REQUIRED FOR ANY ROADWAY BOULEVARD AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION, 23. REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT 110 COST TO OWNER. D.d.-d . Prepared for Ch.k.4 =1 D.— NTM RmN Dnwicg by /date NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Minnetonka Date: 11/3/15 Sheet 3 OF 3 attamy 'Homes Country Club Preliminary 7201 Washington Avenue South, Suite 201 Landscape Details .— Edina, Minnesota 55439 Minnetonka,Minnesota EXHIBIT A M X 00 W Minnetonka Country Club - Environmental Analysis MnDNR Land Cover Classification System Legend Non - native deciduous forest - Non - native seasonally flooded deciduous forest - Buildings / Pavement (91 -100% impervious cover) - Long grasses on upland soils - Non - native dominated emergent vegetation - Short grasses and mixed trees (26 -50% impervious cover) - Short grasses and mixed trees (4 -10% impervious cover) Short grasses on upland soils ElShort grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils MMCD Wet Areas N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet lea-I 000` 4 009 09Z 0 N deep jaa} £ AIlensn aalem luouewied - t, .t seem( AGp jo aawwnsplua ui Ino [up Aew pue `saeaA Bann ul aeGA ayj 10 Isoua pa6601 J@Ienn ao jam `aalenn AJeaodwal - 6'£ 0 11elleo ou `nnopeaua a6pas Allueulwopaid - Z'Z uoseas bulmoa6 ayj jo uonw buunp pau!eap Ilam AIlensn `aaleM �Jejoduaal - �* 1 - pua6a-j spuellom (Goww) IOIJISIG loa4uoo olinbsow uel!lodo.ilaW . r I 6.._.._.._.._..�.._..= .._.._.._.�..� D a -- �� j 'o j j f e h- SISAIeud JeJuauauoainu3 - qnlo fujunoC) a )iuo}auuiw U m X W =3 0 0 06 N, ) 0 E E w > Ud C: = =5 U) Li- &- 4-- 2 0 Co -0 Cl) < co CO _0 0 4-- -0 (D M C'4 CL Ico 0- a- X LU 4., Aj 7� trl P&I AM > lam X17 r� r13 to ED ia. -4! 01A ,j v er A Cr_ r_ r. M .:3 -u u 1 � C r C.- 'j. tj 4.4 lao L- V v z 75 co X LU NORTH W fill R `1 O, �n a a■ 1t NORT_ H m 2 w Building a legacy äÒ© legacy. 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: 651-286-8450 Fax: 651-286-8488 November 24, 2015 Mr. Brad Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Minnetonka Country Club Development Development Stage Plan Review City Project No. 14-13 WSB Project No. 02925-12 Dear Mr. Nielsen: We have reviewed the development stage plan submittal that inclu management plan, and soils report for the Minnetonka Country Club Development. Plans are prepared by Carlson McCain, dated October 30, 2015. We have the following comments and recommendations for the development stage plan review. General 1.Prior to the start of any construction, permits will need to be the following agencies: a.MPCA Construction General Permit b.Minnehaha Creek Watershed District c.WCA Wetland Permitting d.USACOE 2.A maintenance component to the Home Owners Association will be r stormwater treatment facilities will be maintained long term. T minimum include the following: a.Annual inspection b.Maintenance of all erosion control measures including, but not limited to: rip rap, s sewer outlets, catch basin inlets, etc. c.Verification of system drawdowns with 48 hours for infiltration d.Removal of trash and debris. Erosion and Sediment Control 1.The SWPPP shall provide the estimated quantities for all proposed erosion contro The quantities shall be sufficient to provide temporary erosion to meet the stabilization timeframes of the MPCA construction ge 2.Details shall be provided on the plans for the type of inlet protectio for all phases of construction, including existing streets adjacent to t occur. 3.All pond side slopes and slopes 3:1 or greater should be stabilized using erosion control blanket. Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:\02925-120\Admin\Docs\LTR_PTH-BNielsen-112115-Development Stag plan review - Submittal 1.docx Mr. Brad Nielsen November 24, 2015 Page 2 Grading Plan 1.Design certification for retaining wall systems will be required. Material types are to be identified with the construction plans. We recommend boulder or-cast segmental blocks be used for wall longevity. 2. appears this area can be graded to a 986 elevation north of the -de-sac. 3.Pond 4 is an existing wetland with proposed HWL of 985.2 and a N984.0. Seven adjacent east of the pond propose low floor elevations lower than the wetland NWL. Special foundation construction or foundation drain system lots. Soil borings 4 and 5 located east and west of the pond did not e the borings. The proposed surface grade at the building will be satisfactory runoff and the pond HWL. 4.The HWL for rear yard drainage structures needs to be provided on the grading plan. Drainage and utility easements will need to contain the proposed 100-year HWL elevations. 5.The storm water inlet to the south end of Pond 20 is not ideal f to the location of the pond outlet. The outlet could be moved to the next lot line north to balance spacing. 6.The storm sewer that drains the low point at station 7+00 on Clu realigned to be within the Outlot. 7.ovided for clarity. The grading plan shows grading and building type. 8.The low points, high points, and grade of the off-street trails should be shown on the grading plan. 9.Ponds 2 and 5 do not appear to provide at least 1 foot of freeboub Road. 10.The western boundary of the plat has some drainage that is tribu Block 1 and Outlot I. The existing storm drain system is to be 11.Additional comments on the grading plan may be forthcoming in future plan submittals. Streets, Sidewalks, and Trails 1.The proposed centerline of Ayrshire Lane intersects Smithtown Ro feet to the east from the centerline of Fairway Drive. 2.The intersection of Wooden Cleek Drive includes a landscape medi 18 feet proposed. The street lane widths need to be 20 feet in the north median nose needs to be south of the Smithtown Road right of way line to accmodate larger vehicle turning movements including snow plows. K:\02925-120\Admin\Docs\LTR_PTH-BNielsen-112115-Development Stag plan review - Submittal 1.docx Mr. Brad Nielsen November 24, 2015 Page 3 3.The Bentgrass Way cul-de-sac appears to be greater than 700 feet in length from Ayrshire 4.Sidewalk is recommended on both sides of Ayrshire Lane in the ag and Wooden Cleek Drive, since these streets will be the access points to Smi 5.WSB will provide the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension side developers use in designing walk connections at intersections. 6.The trails and pond maintenance access adjacent to storm water ponds will need to have at least 1 foot of freeboard to the 100-year HWL. Pond 1 HWL appears to flood the trails and maintenance access and does not meet this requirement. 7.Pedestrian ramps will need to meet current ADA requirements. The MnDOT details are to be used for construction plans and the ramp layout will need to avo 8.Additional detailed design comments and recommendations will be plan submittals. Storm Water Management 1.The existing storm sewer outlet south of the plat to Lake Minnew will need to be rehabilitated or replaced depending upon the condition of the pi corrugated metal storm pipe is to be replaced in Shorewood. A p the City of Chanhassen and their requirements may vary from the City of Shorewood. 2.The culvert crossing Smithtown Road west of Ayrshire Lane is to development storm sewer system. 3.The storm water management plan indicates the estimated site imp construction is completed is estimated to be 20.37 acres. It is estimated that this num including the max allowable per lot impervious and the combinati trails could be as high as 22 percent. Provide calculations demonstrating how the site impervious percentage is as low as 17 percent. 4.The stormwater management plan indicates that volume control is exempt by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; however this site should be classified as redevelopment and not new development, therefore triggering the redevelopment standard of their rule. This will require that their phosphorus control, rate control, and volume control standards be met. 5.The ed by ordinance, requires the abstraction via infiltration, evapotrans one inch of rainfall from the site. The applicant will need to d requirement. Where site soils do not allow infiltration flexibility may be given, but at a minimum the applicant will need to demonstrate through modeling that the increasing when comparing existing and proposed conditions. 6. ordinance, requires design calculations demonstrating that for the 1%, 10%, K:\02925-120\Admin\Docs\LTR_PTH-BNielsen-112115-Development Stag plan review - Submittal 1.docx Mr. Brad Nielsen November 24, 2015 Page 4 storm events that the runoff rates do not increase from pre-development conditions. The applicant has provided modeling demonstrating compliance with th 7. ordinance, requires treatment to NURP standards prior to storm w a lake, stream, or wetland and prior to discharge from the site. The apphas provided NURP ponding demonstrating compliance with this requirement. 8.The City of Shore ordinance, requires that the minimum building elevation shall be at l project 100-year water elevation. The following lot low openings shall be ad requirement: 33, 139, 140, 162, 163, 211, and 212. Wetlands 1.All wetland permitting and mitigation plans will need to be appr preliminary plat. 2.The City of Shorewood requires a 35-foot buffer adjacent to wetlands, watercourses, and lakes. The MCWD may have more stringent buffer standards and the most stringent requirement will apply. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain 1.The development proposes relocation of an existing MCES intercep quadrant of the plat. The proposed relocation will need to be papproved by the MCES. The MCES staff indicated they have not received plans to 2.Pond 10 may present access issues to the proposed relocated alig 3.The top of casting elevations for the sewer system will need to freeboard to any adjacent 100-year high water elevations. 4.The City Water Plan includes a future 12-inch watermain in Country Club Road. The City may require the extension of the 12-inch watermain through the development and reimburse the developer for oversizing costs. The City will model the water s determine the proposed 8-inch watermain is sufficient to supply the development. 5.The watermain is to extend from the cul-de-sacs along Country Club Road to the Country Club Road right of way for future looping of the distribution system of the develop 6.The hydrants will need to be spaced to provide coverage of the buildinwith a 250 foot radius from the hydrants. Lots 9, 12, 14, and 23 of Block 10; L Block 7 do not appear to meet this requirement. 7.The hydrant at the Smithtown Road and Ayrshire Lane will need to be relocated. 8.Additional gate valves will be needed throughout the development placed so that no more than 20 homes are out of water if a water K:\02925-120\Admin\Docs\LTR_PTH-BNielsen-112115-Development Stag plan review - Submittal 1.docx Mr. Brad Nielsen November 24, 2015 Page 5 shut down for maintenance. Phasing of the development will need to be considered with gate valve layout. 9.Additional sanitary sewer manholes are likely to reduce boulevar maintenance operations. 10.Watermain layout is to keep the watermain within one traffic lane for maintenance. 11.The sanitary sewer and watermain will be reviewed in detail with the construction p submittals. plates and typical sections for streets and trails. The City 2016 Specificat specifications and the CEAM Utility specifications. The details that will be brought to Council for acceptance at a future meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any addition Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, P.E. City Engineer (651) 286-8453 phornby@wsbeng.com ph K:\02925-120\Admin\Docs\LTR_PTH-BNielsen-112115-Development Stag plan review - Submittal 1.docx MINNEHAHA CREEK The ,All(r /7e; aho Creek ''Woter:sheo Distr ct is fi,o'erst;ip �c)1e its protectinci, irrsprovi'rrg and f7tanoging the surface P/Uteri CM' q,f"Ya ed t,. "rou( ",i,Jvllt£r lE?�t�Lt!C'eS v thin the District, irrcltrdinT their r lcttitnsir; :r,3 to th ecosystern� of vdlich they care cri integral pa?i. ✓Ve achieve ow mission thrnuyr l reg/dotion, Capital prgiec.ts, education,, cooperative endeovors, aril other prc�qll ois based on soil d science, innovative thinking, 01;l ir7foaved and engoged Constituency, and the gist effective use of publi funds. QUALITY OF WATER November 30, 2015 City of Shorewood Attn: Brad Nielson 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Nielson, WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF LIFE Per your request, this letter is being provided to outline the level of coordination between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), the City of Shorewood (City), and Mattamy Homes (Developer), regarding the proposed redevelopment Minnetonka Country Club project. As you know, on November 19, 2015 MCWD convened a meeting to coordinate planning and agency review of the proposed development with the City of Shorewood and Mattamy Homes. To date MCWD has not received any plan or engineering submittals for review. However, at the November 19 meeting the following technical issues were identified on a preliminary basis: • It appears that the proposed stormwater management plan was developed to comply with "New Development" requirements of MCWD's Stormwater Management regulations, rather than "Redevelopment ". This may have resulted in undersized stormwater management facilities in the current proposal. Plans and calculations will need to be submitted before this can be verified. Meanwhile, MCWD, Mattamy Homes and Shorewood will continue coordinating on this issue. • Mattamy Homes proposes to open the historically restricted outlet from the site. In order to ensure no adverse downstream hydraulic issues are created, technical information will need to be provided and analyzed as part of the District's development review process. It is the District's understanding that the Minnetonka Country Club project will appear before the Planning Commission on December 1, 2015, and potentially City Council for preliminary plat review on December 14, 2015. During this time, and throughout the duration of the permitting process, District staff will continue to coordinate with the City and the developer to coordinate permitting processes and the satisfaction of all applicable District rules. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Tom Dietrich Permit & Compliance Coordinator CC: Rick Packer, Mattamy Homes November 3, 2015 Amended Concept PUD Plan and Development Stage PUD Narrative Minnetonka Country Club Shorewood, MN Request Mattamy Minneapolis, LLC (Applicant) is the owner of the property formerly known as the Minnetonka Country Club. Mattamy has obtained Concept PUD Approval from the City Council with conditions. Approval has been given to Mattamy Homes to demolish the buildings on-site and remove contaminated soils in the golf greens. Mattamy is currently requesting an amendment to the Concept PUD to incorporate two lots from an adjacent property (Venero Gardens) and Development Stage Approval of the entire development (142 units) Reason For Request It is Mattamy’s desire to develop the former golf course for residential uses utilizing a cluster design leaving approximately 43% of the site in public open space. The public open space will developed with passive open areas and trails. The trails will connect the open space to the proposed sidewalk on Smithtown Road and the proposed trail corridor along the west side of the trees that line Country Club Road. Development Plan Development Objectives The main objective of the plan is to preserve significant open space areas, dedicated to the public for its use as passive open space while clustering 142 proposed home sites on the higher areas of the site. The home sites will consist of 103 traditional homes on 16,200 square foot lots (90’X180’) and 39 “age targeted” home sites on 9,350 square foot lots (55’X170’). The age targeted homes are proposed to be maintenance free, single level homes with basements, clustered in the Northeast and Northwest corners of the site. Incorporated into the open space will be trails, water treatment/quality basins, wetland restoration and habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Target Markets The Lake Minnetonka area market is a highly elastic market, assisted by being served by the top high school in the state. The west side of the metro is home to several Fortune 500 companies. The landscape elements of the sub-region are very attractive. Mattamy is projecting 3 “target” markets. At present, Mattamy is expecting to build on 89 of the traditional single family lots. The “product line” for these will be as seen in our North Oaks project (Charley Lake Preserve) and our Victoria project (Ambergate). These homes will generally range from $650,000-$900,000. Additionally, Mattamy is proposing to construct 39 “age targeted” homes. These are single level, maintenance free lifestyle homes with a target market consisted of empty nesters that may winter places other than Minnesota. These homes all have full basements with an expected price range from $430,000 - $650,000. We are exploring partnering with one or more custom home builders on the 14 lots on the center cul-de-sac. The builder would address that part of the market that prefers a completely custom home. These homes will likely be $1,000,000+. Utilizing these 3 target markets will cover a broader range of buyers, increase the rate of absorption and provide for housing diversity within the neighborhood. Environmental Considerations Mattamy has performed a tree survey of all trees within the areas proposed to be disturbed. Numerous minor modifications have been made to preserve significant, healthy trees. Street (boulevard) trees are proposed throughout the neighborhood as well as trees for screening purposes and ornamentation. Mattamy includes 2 front yard trees in the base landscape plan for each house. Based on the City’s tree replacement policy, we are replacing nearly twice the number of trees required. The central open space is proposed to be developed with 3 different types of landscape. In areas that abut residential yards, a low-mow or no-mow grass is proposed. This landscape will act as a “less wild” landscape between the manicured yards and the natural, native landscapes proposed to connect the wetland areas and stormwater features. Having a grassy landscape will make the wildlife areas seem more intentional and not just a “bunch of weeds” as described by many. Unless needed to construct storm water treatment facilities, trees in the central open space area will all be preserved. The existing wetlands, replacement wetlands and storm water treatment ponds will all be connected with native prairie vegetation of vegetation suitable for the soils and there existing characteristics. This will provide for a very distinctive look and create corridors for wildlife and other forms of habitat. A public trail will be provided through the open space exposing the users a variety of different landscape experiences including ponds, wetlands, woods and passive open spaces. Mattamy feels that part of this open space area should be set aside for passive recreational activities like throwing Frisbees, neighborhood pick-up games or other spontaneous recreation. The area should be relatively flat and mowed to promote its use. We are aware that the City is not particularly keen on maintenance but the area is relatively small and will not need irrigation. Traffic Considerations Traffic was a topic of considerable discussion during the PAC process. At the conclusion of this process, it was generally agreed that the traffic concerns (Country Club Road corridor, Eureka/ SH 7, Smithtown Rd/CR 19, CR 41/SH 7) were existing issues and that the development of the site with the number of homes proposed would not make the conditions considerably worse. It was also concluded that the golf course site didn’t present any opportunities to correct the problems. Access is proposed from Smithtown Road on the north and Yellowstone Trail to the south. The northern entrance has been moved west to line up between two properties on the north side of Smithtown. This is in response to concerns raised by both the Council and the residents. In accordance with Concept PUD approval, an additional access is proposed on the west side of the site. To minimize wetland impacts, the road is offset west from Fairway Drive by the Code required 125 feet. Pedestrian Circulation Throughout the PAC review, comments were made regarding the desire to build trails along the periphery and interior of the site. Mattamy proposes to address this with the following: 1.Construction of a 6’ wide on west side of the proposed Fairway Drive. This will wind through the neighborhood and connect with the trail system in the central open space, eventually connecting to the proposed trail along the west side of Country Club Road. 2.An off-road trail west of the tree line along Country Club Road. This trail would connect to other trails and sidewalks within the neighborhood and central open space. 3.Sidewalks will be incorporated into the street design as agreed upon by the City and Mattamy. Street Rights of Way/Setbacks We feel that boulevard trees are a necessary element of any neighborhood. We could get lost in the details of controlling street micro-climates but the simple fact is that they make a neighborhood look better. These trees are what differentiate mature cities from newer suburbs where concerns such as reduced snow storage and liability trump traditional neighborhood design. We are proposing street trees at approximately 60’ intervals; closer when the situation merits it. With a 50’ ROW and a 6’ sidewalk, there is only 4’ of boulevard in which to plant these trees. In our opinion this is not enough. As such, we are requesting that all streets that have a sidewalk also have a 60’ ROW. On these streets we would have a 35’ front setback (same distance to street as a 50’ ROW and 40’ setback as originally proposed. The same would hold for side yard setbacks on corner lots. On the age targeted product in the NW corner, setbacks would be increased on the sidewalk side (west side) so that cars don’t overhang the sidewalk. Minimum Setbacks -- Discussion Minimum setbacks are shown on the plans submitted with our proposal but it’s important to point out certain realities of our design. We measure side setbacks all the way through the lot pad (house) and design the lot accordingly. For example, on a pie-shaped lot (narrower in the front), the critical measurement is taken at the front setback. Since the lot lines diverge going to the rear, the setback increases. Conversely, if the pie shape is wider at the street, the critical dimension is at the back of the pad (house). This then creates a side setback at the front of the house that is substantially more than the minimum. This is one reason that neighborhoods with curvilinear streets look better – the side setbacks are in fact varied. This particularly important with the age targeted neighborhoods where concerns have been voiced about the 7.5’ side setback. We will be preparing drawings of these neighborhoods using real floorplans and minimum setbacks to illustrate what a difference this can make. In most cases, the front sideyard setback is 10’ or greater. In areas that abut existing residences, the street is curved in the reverse direction to create sideyard setbacks at the rear of the home that are greater than the proposed minimum and in many cases greater than the normal 10’. Homeowners Association There will be a Master Association to cover development maintenance and a Sub-association to cover snow plowing and yard maintenance in the age targeted neighborhood. The Master Association will cover items such as the entrance monuments, landscaped medians, street trees and any common open spaces. The Sub Association will deal primarily with the yard maintenance and snow plowing in the age targeted neighborhoods. All units will belong to the Master Association. Historical Reference It is our intent to keep Minnetonka Country Club as the name of the neighborhood. While it is no longer a country club, the club has been a fixture in Shorewood and the Lake Minnetonka area for a century. It makes sense to retain the name. Streets are named after old types of golf clubs, the name of the course where the first golf tournament was played, and the city in which it occurred. We are researching the materials of the initial entrance monument to design something reflecting what people saw decades ago. The central “loop” in the middle of the site will contain a neighborhood green (a park, not a golf green) around which we will be transplanting trees from the golf course that had been planted as memorials to deceased members or important events. We are working with the Witracks to come up with a name for the “green” that will have some historical significance, possibly after their father. While the look for the area will change considerably, bits and pieces of history are nice to leave behind. Going Forward It is our intention to obtain preliminary approvals early in 2016. After obtaining these approvals, we would proceed to prepare final plans and obtain other State and local permits in hopes of placing heavy equipment on-site before road restrictions and in anticipation of a Spring start. Weather permitting (combined with a little luck) we would start our models beginning in October with a grand opening and VIP event (people who have been put on our waiting list) near the Spring 2017 Parade of Homes. SEE SHEET 3 OF 18 SHEETS R Know what's MATTAMY HOMES 3890 Pheasant Ridge Dr. NE #100 2 CERTIFICATION Print Name: Thomas R. Balluff MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB C# Drawn: Blaine, MN 55014 environmental Iherebycertifythatthissurvey,planorreport EXISTING CONDITIONS 7201 Washington Avenue - Suite 201 of Phone: (763) 489-7900 Signature: engineering waspreparedbymeorundermydirect 933 File No: Shorewood, Minnesota Fax: (763) 489-7959 18 supervisionandthatIamadulyLicensedLand surveying Edina, Minnesota, 55439 Date:10/30/2015License #:40361Date:10/30/2015 Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. www.carlsonmccain.com Save Date:11/02/15f:\jobs\5401 - 5420\5411 - minnetonka country club\cad\survey\prel. plat\5411_excon.dwg SEE SHEET 2 OF 18 SHEETS R Know what's MATTAMY HOMES 3890 Pheasant Ridge Dr. NE #100 3 CERTIFICATION Print Name: Thomas R. Balluff MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB C# Drawn: Blaine, MN 55014 environmental Iherebycertifythatthissurvey,planorreport EXISTING CONDITIONS 7201 Washington Avenue - Suite 201 of Phone: (763) 489-7900 Signature: engineering waspreparedbymeorundermydirect 933 File No: Shorewood, Minnesota Fax: (763) 489-7959 18 supervisionandthatIamadulyLicensedLand surveying Edina, Minnesota, 55439 Date:10/30/2015License #:40361Date:10/30/2015 Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. www.carlsonmccain.com Save Date:11/02/15f:\jobs\5401 - 5420\5411 - minnetonka country club\cad\survey\prel. plat\5411_excon.dwg MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB SEE SHEET 5 OF 18 SHEETS SEE SHEET 6 OF 18 SHEETS R Know what's MATTAMY HOMES 3890 Pheasant Ridge Dr. NE #100 4 CERTIFICATION Print Name: Thomas R. Balluff PRELIMINARY PLAT MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB JAB Drawn: Blaine, MN 55014 environmental Iherebycertifythatthissurvey,planorreport 7201 Washington Avenue - Suite 201 of Phone: (763) 489-7900 Signature: engineering waspreparedbymeorundermydirect 933 File No: INDEX SHEET Shorewood, Minnesota Fax: (763) 489-7959 18 supervisionandthatIamadulyLicensedLand surveying Edina, Minnesota, 55439 Date:10/30/2015License #:40361Date:10/30/2015 Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. www.carlsonmccain.com Save Date:11/02/15f:\jobs\5401 - 5420\5411 - minnetonka country club\cad\survey\prel. plat\5411_prp-cover.dwg MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB SEE SHEET 6 OF 18 SHEETSSEE SHEET 6 OF 18 SHEETS R Know what's MATTAMY HOMES 3890 Pheasant Ridge Dr. NE #100 5 CERTIFICATION Print Name: Thomas R. Balluff MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB JAB Drawn: Blaine, MN 55014 environmental Iherebycertifythatthissurvey,planorreport PRELIMINARY PLAT 7201 Washington Avenue - Suite 201 of Phone: (763) 489-7900 Signature: engineering waspreparedbymeorundermydirect 933 File No: Shorewood, Minnesota Fax: (763) 489-7959 18 supervisionandthatIamadulyLicensedLand surveying Edina, Minnesota, 55439 Date:10/30/2015License #:40361Date:10/30/2015 Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. www.carlsonmccain.com Save Date:11/02/15f:\jobs\5401 - 5420\5411 - minnetonka country club\cad\survey\prel. plat\5411_prp.dwg MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB SEE SHEET 5 OF 18 SHEETS R Know what's MATTAMY HOMES 3890 Pheasant Ridge Dr. NE #100 6 CERTIFICATION Print Name: Thomas R. Balluff MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB JAB Drawn: Blaine, MN 55014 environmental Iherebycertifythatthissurvey,planorreport PRELIMINARY PLAT 7201 Washington Avenue - Suite 201 of Phone: (763) 489-7900 Signature: engineering waspreparedbymeorundermydirect 933 File No: Shorewood, Minnesota Fax: (763) 489-7959 18 supervisionandthatIamadulyLicensedLand surveying Edina, Minnesota, 55439 Date:10/30/2015License #:40361Date:10/30/2015 Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. www.carlsonmccain.com Save Date:11/02/15f:\jobs\5401 - 5420\5411 - minnetonka country club\cad\survey\prel. plat\5411_prp.dwg #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title/Subject: Resolution Adopting Standard Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction Meeting Date: 1/25/2016 Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution Adopting Standard Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction. Standard Specifications and Detail Plates are available at City Hall and transmitted to the Council under separate cover Background: Periodic updates to the Standard Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction for the City of Shorewood are necessary to comply with revisions made to the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC), Supplementary General Conditions to the EJCDC Contract, Standard Specifications for Construction by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM). The City's current edition of the Standard Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction is dated 2001. Since this time, MnDOT has published 3 revisions to their Standard Specifications for Construction (2005, 2014 and 2016) and CEAM has recently updated their standard specifications as well (2013). Given the number of updates completed since the last revision to the City's Standard Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction, it is necessary to update the specifications and detail plates to meet current standards. Options: 1. Approve the resolution Adopting Standard Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction contingent on final review by the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney 2. Take no action on this item at this time. A Resolution has been provided with this agenda item for Council consideration of adopting the 2016 Standard Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 16-_, Adopting Standard Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction for the City of Shorewood contingent on final review by the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 16 - A RESOLUTION ADOPTING CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAIL PLATES FOR STREET AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, recent updates to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) standard specifications, the City Engineers Association of Minnesota(CEAM) standard specifications, Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC) documents, and Supplementary General Conditions to the EJCDC, necessitate update of the City of Shorewood Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has updated the City of Shorewood Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction in accordance with the MnDOT, CEAM, and EJCDC documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to adopt the resolution accepting Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction for the City of Shorewood. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25h day of January, 2016. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #11A.1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952-960-7900 Fax:952-474-0128•www.ci.shorewood.mmus•cityhall @ci.shorewood.mmus Re: Trail Schedule Update—Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road(East) Prepared by Paul Hornby and Brad Nielsen Galpin Lake Road Walkway Schedule—PROJECT IS POSTPONED 0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 0 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report 0 Survey (30 days) —May 0 Feasibility Report (30 days) —June 0 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk—July 0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 0 Council approves Feasibility Report 0 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 0 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications 0 Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days) ■ 95% Complete submittal to MnDOT 7/01/14 ■ MnDOT Review Complete 7/31/14 ■ CC Authorization to Advertise for bids 6/23/14 ■ Open Bids 8/19/14 ■ CC consideration of Award 8/25/14 0 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs) • Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications • Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required • Reduces project schedule 0 Neighborhood post-bid meeting 10/30/14 ❑ City possession of easements/letter of compliance N/A ❑ Groundbreaking Ceremony TBD ❑ Begin Construction TBD ❑ Construction substantially complete—Phase 1 Construction TBD ❑ Construction substantially complete—Phase 2 Construction TBD ❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony TBD ❑ Restoration complete TBD Trail Schedule Update Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road(East) Page 2 Smithtown Road East(LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 6/03/14 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report 6/23/14 0 Survey (30 days) — (In Process) 7/14/14 —9/10/14 0 Feasibility Report (30 days) — 8/18/14-10/10/14 0 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk 10/21/14 0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 10/21/14 Council approves Feasibility Report 10/27/14 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 10/30/14 0 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans 12/08/14 and Specifications 0 Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90-120 days) (99% complete) 12/11/14 -5131115 0 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs) 2/1/15- 8/31/15 • Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions • Review proposed easements with staff/attorney • Letters to property owners regarding survey staking • Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser/RW Agent • Easement viewing—parcel owner and RW Agent on-site • Appraisal information • Appraisal review • Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule • Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners 0 Begin eminent domain action 3/23/15 0 Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) 6/03/15 0 Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids 7/13/15 0 Receive bids for construction 8/21/15 0 City possession of easements/letter of compliance 8/24/15 0 Council awards Construction Contract 8/24/15 0 Neighborhood preconstruction meeting 9/09/15 0 Groundbreaking Ceremony 9/14/15 ❑ Begin Construction 5/02/16 ❑ Construction substantially complete 6/30/16 ❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 6/30/16 ❑ Restoration complete 6/30/16 Date: January 25, 2016 To: Mayor Zerby Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: November, 2015 General Fund Monthly Budget Report The 2015 General Fund is tracking about where we would expect. Revenues are a little over 2014, with great results in the building permit area.. Expenditures are a little below 2014. There are no items that are of concern at this point in the year. GENERAL FUND REVENUES Licenses & Permits will likely be around the 2014 level and we have exceeded budget for the year. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES • Council — This is the only budget that varies significantly from the prior year. The difference is primarily the transfer that was made in 2014 for the house sale proceeds to the Park Improvement fund. • Planning — This budget is over in Other Services & Charges primarily due to some expenditures related to the Minnetonka Country Club redevelopment process. • Park Maintenance — this budget is over primarily due to coding of time since less was posted to Public Works Service and Ice & Snow Removal compared to last year. • Recreation — this budget is over in salaries because more time has been coded here rather than to Administration. Please contact me or Mr. Joynes if you have any questions. Attachment: November Budget Spreadsheet General Ledger Revenue and Expense vs Budget Period 01 - 1l Fiscal Year 2015 Description $ 226,818.94 Budget Period Amt YTD Budget % Collected General Fund 20,900.00 $ 11,594.44 $ 19,158.33 55.48% Taxes $ 4,931,464.00 $ 2,526,030.04 $ 4,520,508.67 51.22% $ Licenses & Permits $ 147,770.00 $ 262,907.81 $ 135,455.83 177.92% $ Intergovernmental $ 87,251.00 $ 98,740.19 $ 79,980.08 113.17% $ Charges for Service $ 38,700.00 $ 55,093.37 $ 35,475.00 142.36% $ Fines & Forfeits $ 57,000.00 $ 54,073.66 $ 52,250.00 94.87% $ Misc Revenues $ 213,900,00 $ 165,865.69 $ 196,075.00 77.54% $ Other Financing Sources $ 25,000.00 $ - $ 22,916.67 0.00% $ Revenue'l'otal $ 5,501,085.00 S 3,162,710.76 $ 5,042,661.25 57.49% $ Description 0.00% Budget Period Amt YTD Budget % Expended Council $ 197,138.33 61.60% $ 189,438.69 Personal Services $ 22,600.00 $ 20,327.45 $ 20,716.67 89.94% $ Supplies $ 2,000.00 $ 1,751.03 $ 1,833.33 87.55% $ Other Services and Charge $ 110,350.00 $ 46,869.38 $ 101,154.17 42.47% $ Other Financing Use $ 70,000.00 $ - $ 64,166.67 0.00% $ Council $ 204,950.00 $ 68,947.86 S 187,870.83 33.64% $ Administraton Personal Services $ Supplies $ Other Services and Charge $ Administraton $ Finance Personal Services $ Supplies $ Other Services and Charge $ Finance S Professional Services Supplies $ Other Services and Charge $ Professional Services $ Planning Personal Services $ Supplies $ Other Services and Charge $ Other Financing Use $ Planning $ Municipal Buildings Supplies $ Other Services and Charge $ Debt Service $ Other Financing Use $ Municipal Buildings $ One Year Prior Actual 2,503,95199 255,432.33 162,190.30 52,375.27 53,864.56 116,294.71 3,139,893.70 One Year Prior Actual 15,394.17 690.28 42,856.09 283,414.00 342,354.54 251,15100 $ 226,818.94 $ 230,223.58 90.31% $ 220,069.98 20,900.00 $ 11,594.44 $ 19,158.33 55.48% $ 15,820.32 145,500.00 $ 121,598.16 $ 133,375.00 8157% $ 111,109.92 417,553.00 $ 360,011.54 $ 382,75692 86.22% $ 347,000.22 134,758.00 $ 131,528.42 $ 123,528.17 97.60% $ 121,119.38 10,050.00 $ 12,211.40 $ 9,212.50 121.51% $ 8,356.50 16,000.00 $ 13,106.32 $ 14,666.67 81.91% $ 12,900.79 160,808.00 $ 156,846.14 $ 147,407.33 97.54% $ 142,376.67 - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - 215,060.00 $ 132,486.59 $ 197,138.33 61.60% $ 189,438.69 215,060.00 $ 1329486.59 $ 197,138.33 61.60% $ 189,438.69 173,157.00 $ 167,932.07 $ 158,727.25 96.98% $ 160,067.54 300.00 $ 423.33 $ 275.00 141.11% $ 302.38 11,000.00 $ 16,516.49 $ 10,083,33 150.15% $ 4,597.47 - $ $ . 0,00% $ - 184,457.00 $ 184,871.89 S 169,085.58 100.22% $ 164,967.39 23,400.00 $ 11,657.16 $ 21,450.00 49.82% $ 49,436.50 170,800.00 $ 143,703.92 $ 156,566.67 84.14% $ 89,640.55 - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - 101,513.00 $ - $ 93,053.58 0.00% $ - 295,713.00 $ 155,361.08 $ 271,070.25 52.54% $ 139,077.05 Public Safety Professional Services $ $ $ 0,00% $ Public Safety $ $ S 0.00% $ Police Protection Supplies $ $ $ 0.00% $ Other Services and Charge $ 1,072,645.00 $ 986,247.38 $ 983,257.92 91.95% $ 961,815.43 Capital Outlay $ 225,181.00 $ 225,180.00 $ 206,415.92 100.00% $ 229,764.00 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - Police Protection $ 1,297,826.00 $ 1,211,427.38 $ 1,189,673.83 93.34% $ 1,191,579.43 Fire Protection Other Services and Charge $ 361,315.00 $ 360,644.21 $ 331,205,42 99.81% $ 348,788.60 Capital Outlay $ 276,156.00 $ 276,156.08 $ 253,143,00 100.00% $ 278,422.64 Fire Protection $ 637,471.00 $ 636,800.29 $ 584,348.42 99.89% $ 627,211.24 Protective Inspections Personal Services $ 121,323.00 $ 116,323.82 $ 111,212.75 95.88% $ 106,080.40 Supplies $ 200.00 $ 72.95 $ 183.33 36.48% $ 156.75 Other Services and Charge $ 7,700.00 $ 9,358.23 $ 7,058.33 121.54% $ 4,521.38 Protective Inspections $ 129,223.00 $ 125,755.00 $ 118,454.42 97.32% $ 110,758.53 Public Works Professional Services $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - Public Works $ $ $ 0.00% $ City Engineer Personal Services $ $ $ 0.00% $ - Supplies $ $ $ 0.00% $ 611.75 Other Services and Charge $ 87,900.00 $ 61,400.25 $ 80,575.00 69.85% $ 56,625.25 City Engineer $ 87,900.00 $ 61,400.25 $ 80,575.00 69.85% $ 57,237.00 Public Works Service Personal Services $ 494,547.00 $ 338,567.73 $ 453,334.75 68.46% $ 300,283.31 Supplies $ 167,700.00 $ 93,291.60 $ 153,725.00 55.63% $ 116,317.15 Other Services and Charge $ 142,600.00 $ 87,758.75 $ 130,716.67 61.54% $ 80,595.64 Other Financing Use $ 830,000.00 $ - $ 760,833.33 0.00% $ - Public Works Service $ 1,634,847.00 $ 519,618.08 S 1,498,609.75 31.78% $ 497,196.10 Ice & Snow Removal Personal Services $ 58,339.00 $ 16,086.69 $ 53,477.42 27.57% $ 49,132.23 Supplies $ 45,000.00 $ 15,589.91 $ 41,250.00 34.64% $ 25,591,20 Other Services and Charge $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - Iee & Snow Removal $ 103,339.00 $ 31,676.60 $ 94,727.42 30.65% $ 74,723.43 Park Maintenance Personal Services $ 109,473.00 $ 141,183.83 $ 100,350.25 128.97% $ 104,301.10 Supplies $ 23,300.00 $ 17,264.96 $ 21,358.33 74.10% $ 12,133.27 Other Services and Charge $ 38,000.00 $ 30,111.21 $ 34,833.33 79.24% $ 23,385.60 Park Maintenance $ 170,773.00 $ 188,560.00 $ 156,541.92 110.42% $ 139,819.97 Recreation Personal Services $ 36,743.00 $ 40,424.66 $ 33,681.08 110.02% $ 38,357.99 Supplies $ 5,800.00 $ 5,680.43 $ 5,316.67 97.94% $ 5,416.32 Other Services and Charge $ 18,800,00 $ 4,115.09 $ 17,233.33 21.89% $ 7,849.34 Other Financing Use $ 42,000.00 $ - $ 38,500.00 0.00% $ - Recreation $ 103,343.00 $ 50,220.18 $ 94,731.08 48.60% $ 51,623.65 Expense Total $ 5,643,263.00 $ 3,883,982.88 $ 5,172,991.08 69.00% $ 4,075,363.91 Revenue Total $ 5,501,085.00 $ 3,162,710.76 $ 5,042,661.25 57.49% $ 3,139,893.70 General Fund Net $ (142,178.00) $ (721,272.12) $ (130,329.83) $ (935,470.21)