Loading...
080707 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, and Ruoff; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Meyer APPROVAL OF MINUTES 17 July 2007 • Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 17 July 2007 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCE AND VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE Applicants: Craig and Sandra Erickson Location: 4715 Lakeway Terrace Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on an August 27, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen reviewed the criteria for granting variances which were as follows: 1. Circumstances must be unique to the property ?? The owner faces problems that other owners in the zoning district do not ?? The possibility of the variance establishing a precedent for other properties must . be considered 2. The applicant must demonstrate “undue hardship” ?? The property can not be put to a reasonable use ?? Plight is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the owner (or previous owners) ?? The variance should not alter the essential character of the locality ?? The variance must meet all three of the above 3. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute hardship 4. The burden of proof is on the applicant 5. The City may attach reasonable conditions CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 2 of 12 Director Nielsen explained Craig and Sandra Erickson, 4715 Lakeway Terrace, had requested a rear-yard variance to build a larger deck at the rear of their house. The property was located in the R-1D/S, Single Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and contained approximately 15,750 square feet of area. Nielsen reviewed a property survey showing the location of the existing home including a rear room addition and an existing deck, a site plan showing the applicants’ proposed deck location, a proposed deck plan view, and the proposed deck elevation view. Nielsen noted that this property was the subject of a previous variance in 1990. He commented that a copy of the staff report for that application had been provided to the Commissioners. He then explained in that case the previous owner of the property had a 20-foot x 32-foot deck that encroached into the rear yard setback. That owner was granted a variance to construct a 20-foot x 20-foot porch over part of the deck, leaving a 12-foot x 20-foot deck on the north side of the deck. The Ericksons now proposed replacing the existing deck with a lower level deck that would be 30 feet long, with one end that is 24 feet wide and the other end 15 feet wide. A landing approximately 5 feet x 10 feet would connect the porch area to the deck. The proposed deck would be 20 feet from the rear lot line instead of the 35 feet required by the Zoning Code. The variance, if granted, would increase the nonconformity of an already nonconforming structure. Nielsen stated he distributed a document to the Commissioners from the applicants stating how their request complied with the criteria for granting of variances found in the City’s Zoning Code. With regard to the analysis of the nonconformities, Nielsen stated the applicants’ request involved expansion of the nonconformity of the subject home beyond the variance that was granted for the property in 1990. The proposed deck would be 20 feet from the rear lot line, almost three feet closer than the existing nonconforming part of the building. He explained Section 1201.03 Subd. 1.k. of the City’s Zoning Code stated: “That such expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located.” Nielsen then stated that the applicant requested a variance to accommodate the larger proposed deck. He explained that Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. of the City’s Code provided criteria for consideration of variance; all the criteria must be met in order to make an exception to the law. He reviewed how the applicants’ request failed on more than one of the criteria. 1. There was nothing physically unique about the applicants’ property that necessitated a variance. A large deck could be built on the south side of the porch. 2. The provisions of the Zoning Code did not deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in their zoning district. They already had a 12-foot x 20-foot deck, and they could have a much larger one. 3. The previous owner had a very large deck, but chose to cover much of it with a porch. 4. In light of the ample room in which a deck could be built on this property, and the variance that had already been granted for the property, the applicants were able to make very reasonable use of their property. Nielsen stated because the applicants’ request did not meet the criteria for granting of variances, Staff recommended that the setback variance and variance to expand a nonconforming structure, be denied. Nielsen stated Craig and Sandra Erickson were present this evening. Mr. Erickson highlighted some of the items in the document submitted by his wife and him stating how they thought their request complied with the criteria for granting of variances. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 3 of 12 Their property had several unique characteristics. The location of the existing house was ?? 53 feet from the street, which made it nonconforming; that location created a significant limitation for the use of the back of the property. Locating the house that far back on the property created value for the neighborhood in “maintaining continuity,” but it put the property at a disadvantage to be fully utilized and that demonstrated hardship. They requested the same consideration granted to the previous owners in 1990 be applied to the new variance request. He noted the variance granted in 1990 also restricted new construction on the front side of the house. Because they were constrained on building new structure, including a deck, on the front of the house, they feet it would be appropriate to be allowed expand the use on the back side of the property; that use would be the same or similar use of their property as was their neighbors. The back of their property was a triangle shape; the south corner, which was the larger of the corners, was heavily wooded and steep. The deck doors from the existing enclosed patio structure lead out to the north. Building ?? to the south as suggested was not a practical solution; because of the setback, they would not even be allowed to construct a walkway around the sun room to a south deck. Building a deck on the south of the sun room would require the removal of several large ?? oak trees, which add significant value to the home and add visual appeal to the neighborhood. The 20-foot variance that they requested was in line with the 20-foot variance granted to ?? neighboring properties directly to their north and their immediate neighbor to the north. Many of their surrounding neighbors had expressed support of the project; they were not ?? aware of any neighbors that had expressed issues about the request. The proposed deck would be unobtrusive with a low profile, and it would be barely ?? visible from any other property. Building a deck on the south back side of the property would be visible by multiple houses in the neighborhood, and from their vantage point would be an eyesore. Mr. Erickson thanked the Planning Commission for considering their request. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Mr. Erickson stated they had started to replace the old deck with a lower level deck (thinking it was a patio which would not be attached to the home and would not require a permit) before he realized they needed a permit. Some of the frame for the new deck had been installed and platform boards were lying on top of the frame. Gagne was bothered by the fact that the applicants were requesting a permit after they started work on the new deck. Ms. Erickson also stated she was not aware they needed a permit. Mr. Erickson stated they stopped construction as soon as they realized they needed a permit. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Mr. Erickson stated the construction that had been done already on the new deck was consistent with the plan that was submitted. In response to another question, Mr. Erickson stated the structural reason to extend the deck was to be able to add stairs. Mr. Erickson commented they had owned the property for four years. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 4 of 12 Chair Schmitt stated he could appreciate why the Erickson’s wanted to do what they proposed; but the city had a set of rules that had to be followed and legally an applicant had to prove hardship for a variance to be granted. Schmitt also stated the City’s Code specified the expansion of nonconforming structure could not increase the nonconformity, yet the proposed deck would do that. Schmitt then stated the previous owner created the situation with the house location when the house was built. Mr. Erickson questioned if the setback requirements were less when the house was built. Chair Schmitt stated he could not speak to the past; but the applicants’ request failed on more than one of the variance criteria. Gniffke moved, Hutchins seconded, Recommending Denial of a Setback Variance and Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure for Craig and Sandra Erickson, 4175 Lakeway Terrace. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:24 P.M. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR TWO HOUSES TEMPORARILY ON ONE LOT AND ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicants: John and Kristi Marquardt Location: 5985 Afton Road Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:24 P.M. Director Nielsen stated John and Kristi Marquardt owned the property at 5985 Afton Road. He explained the subject property was zoned R-1A, Single-family Residential and contained 40,204 square feet of area. The Marquardts wanted to live in their existing house on the property while their new home was being constructed. Once the new house was completed, the old house would be demolished. At staff's direction, the Marquardts applied for a conditional use permit; the City’s Zoning Code limited the number of single- family dwellings on a site to one. Nielsen explained the proposed building plans included attached garage space that, when combined with the utility shed on the north side of the lot, exceeded 1200 square feet of total accessory space. For this the Marquardts had also requested a conditional use permit. Nielsen stated in the past the City had granted variances allowing property owners to keep an existing house on the property while a new house was under construction. The Code was amended in 2000 to allow for such requests by conditional use permit. Nielsen reviewed how the Marquardts’ request complied with Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(4) of the City’s Zoning Code which limited the number of single-family dwellings on a site to one. 1. Keeping an existing house should not result in a less desirable location for the new house. In this case the existing home was nonconforming with respect to R-1A setback requirements; the house was only 35 feet from Afton Road and 40 feet from Cathcart Drive, both of which setbacks should be 50 feet. The new home would be situated in the center portion of the lot and it would conform with all R-1A setbacks. Although some trees would be lost to construction, the proposed home would be situated to minimize removal of existing trees on the property. One particularly excellent tree would be saved – a large maple to the west of the house would be protected. The tree CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 5 of 12 preservation and reforestation plan called for this tree to be root-pruned prior to excavation. There were two trees at the northeast corner of the new home that are shown as being saved. Because of their close proximity to the new house and the substantial grade change planned for that area, it was unlikely those two trees could survive. The applicants’ landscape architect should address how those trees might be protected, or realistically if they should be removed. Tree replacement would consist primarily of nine evergreen trees along the Afton Road side of the property and three sugar maples – two on the east side of the lot and one in the southwest corner of the property. 2. There must be some assurance that the existing home would be removed upon completion of the new one. This would be resolved by the requirement of an escrow, sufficient in amount to guarantee that the house would be removed. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants must provide bids for the demolition of the existing house. The applicants would then be required to provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the bid to guarantee removal of the older house and restoration of the site. The applicants may consider moving the existing house off the site. If they chose to move the house, a house-moving permit, subject to Planning Commission review and Council comment, must be obtained. 3. The approval must have a time limit. The Code allows the builder six months to complete the new home. On some larger or more complicated homes, the six month limit has been found to be a bit restrictive. It would be likely the applicant would have to request an extension; that request should be made prior to the end of the six months. Nielsen then reviewed how the Marquardts’ request complied with the four criteria listed in Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.4.(4) of the City’s Zoning Code for granting a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet. 1. The total area of accessory space (1304 square feet) would not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principle structure (5606 over two and one-half stories). 2. The total area of accessory space would not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R-1A zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). 3. The proposed garage and the existing shed would comply with the setback requirements of the R-1A zoning district. Existing and proposed landscaping would be adequate to soften the larger garage space. 4. Because the garage would be an integral part of the house, materials and design were not considered to be issues. In fact, the garage would be split into two elevations, facing east and south. Nielsen stated staff recommended approval of the Marquardts’ request subject to the following: 1. The applicants’ landscape architect must submit recommendations relative to the two trees located at the northeast corner of the new home. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 6 of 12 2. The applicants must provide a copy of their contractor's bid for demolishing the older house. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants must provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit, for 150 percent of the bid amount, to guarantee that the house will be removed and the site restored. 4. The existing house and outbuilding must be removed within six months of the applicant receiving a building permit for the new house. 5. The applicants must work with the City Engineer to ensure the fill would be properly graded and the effect that grading would have on the trees, and to demonstrate how the drainage would be contained as it flows to the northwest corner of the property. Nielsen stated John and Kristi Marquardt were present this evening. Mr. Marquardt stated they would make a concerted effort to minimize the amount of fill and to preserve as many trees as possible, and they would replace any trees that had to be removed. He then stated it would take longer than six months to build the new house. He explained if they chose to relocate the existing house, weight restrictions would prohibit moving the house during the winter months. He also stated they would comply with the City Engineer’s recommendations for grading and tree preservation. Seeing no one present to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M. Chair Schmitt questioned if the C.U.P. could be granted for nine months. Director Nielsen stated that could be part of the motion. Schmitt suggested the demolition bid should also include the cost to restore the site the existing home was on. Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Two Houses Temporarily on One Lot and for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet for John and Kristi Marguardt, 5985 Afton Road, subject to Staff recommendations and the demolition bid including the cost to restore the site the existing house was on, and the C.U.P. would be valid for nine months. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen stated the City was not overly concerned about the type of fill used to restore the site the existing house was located on. Nielsen then stated the fill area at the site of the existing house would be noted on the property files the City maintained. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. 3. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCES Applicants: Thomas and Patricia Scherber Location: 5080 Shady Island Trail Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 7 of 12 Director Nielsen explained the City had received a complaint alleging that Thomas and Patricia Scherber, 5080 Shady Island Trail, had added fill and paved their driveway over their property line onto an adjoining residential lot (which was owned by the Shady Island Home Owner’s Association). The complaint also cited a small utility building and various construction materials that had accumulated on the property over the years; a large boat and trailer occupy the newly enlarged driveway. Upon inspection of the site, the complaint was found to be accurate. The owners of the property were sent a zoning violation notice. The same notice was sent to the Shady Island HOA. Nielsen went on to explain that the Scherbers’ attorney subsequently appealed to the City Council for additional time, suggesting that his client may have a claim for adverse possession. Mr. Scherber then contacted staff about the possibility of applying for a variance. The City Council granted the property owners 30 days of additional time, in which they were to either file claim for adverse possession or apply to the City for a variance. They did apply for a variance that would allow them to have their driveway extend up to the property line instead of the five-foot setback requirement. They also asked for a five-foot setback variance to place their 8-foot x 12-foot shed five feet from the property lines in the southwesterly corner of their lot instead of the ten-foot setback requirement. Nielsen also explained the subject property was zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contained 15,616 square feet of area. The driveway currently extended onto the property to the southwest of the subject site. According to the applicants’ surveyor, existing hardcover on the property was 36.4 percent of the total lot area. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen related that during a phone conversation Mr. Scherber stated they needed room to get out of their garage. Nielsen stated the distance between the garage and the property line was 38.8 feet. With a five-foot setback they have 33.8 feet. The City had a policy which required end-loading garages to have at least 25 feet of room for a vehicle to back out. Most often that type of design would include a small flared-out area to back into, which the Scherbers could do. With regard to the criteria for granting variances per Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. of the City’s Zoning Code, Nielsen stated there was nothing unique about the lot and the current situation was brought about by the owners’ own action. In addition, the property was already well over the 25 percent hardcover maximum set forth in the City’s Code. With regard to the shed, Nielsen stated if the shed were located such that it lined up with the northwest edge of the existing black top next to the garage, an approximate two-foot setback variance would be required. There were only six feet between the ten-foot setback and the garage and the shed was eight feet wide. The shed could not be partially placed on the driveway in order to be in compliance because the garage door went to the corner of the building. Nielsen stated that based on the analysis, Staff recommended the variance for the driveway be denied and a two-foot setback variance be granted for the shed to allow the shed to be relocated to line up with the northwest edge of the black top. Nielsen stated Ms. Scherber was present this evening. Ms. Scherber stated the shed had been in its current location for over fourteen years, but they would be willing to move the shed to the suggested area. She also stated she thought the original driveway was on the property line; but they did add the small portion to the driveway that apparently crossed over their property line. After discussion and based on the location of the pillars at the end of the driveway, she decided the original driveway may have been in compliance and the part of the driveway that was added CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 8 of 12 and was not in compliance could be removed. Therefore, there would not be a need for a setback variance for the driveway. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. Dennis O’Hagen, 5100 Shady Island Trail, stated the Scherbers had a three car garage and the black top should extend 34 – 35 feet from the garage door to the property setback; he thought that distance should be adequate to back out of the garage and then pull forward out of the driveway. He also thought there was enough area to park cars away from the garage doors on the driveway. He stated the Scherbers generally own up to four vehicles (cars and trucks) as well motorcycles, trailers, boats, snowmobiles, etc. All of those items do not fit in the garage at the same time. At times many of those items are parked such that they are in his sightline to the woods at the Shady Island HOA. He stated from his vantage point the original driveway was in compliance with the setback requirement. He then stated he objected to a variance to the setback requirement for the driveway. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. Chair Schmitt clarified that it was his understanding that staff was recommending a 2-foot setback variance for the shed, and the driveway would be brought into conformance. Chair Schmitt stated he did not think the applicants had satisfied the hardship criteria for granting a setback variance for the shed; an applicants’ inability to prove hardship had been one of the reason for recommending denial of another a variance request earlier in the meeting. He suggested the setback variance for the shed be recommended for denial to be consistent with other actions the Planning Commission had taken. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Ms. Scherber stated the shed was used for storage. He then questioned what the hardship would be. In response to a question from Commissioner Gniffke, Director Nielsen explained the reduction in hardcover that would be realized from bring the driveway into compliance would be minimal. Once the driveway was brought into compliance the City had no leverage to ask that the driveway be reduced in size to reduce the amount of hardcover. Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Recommending Denial of the Setback Variance for a Shed, and Acceptance of the Applicants Decision to Withdraw the Setback Variance Request and to Bring the Driveway into Compliance. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M. 4. MINNETONKA 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. AMENDMENT UPPER LAKE YACHT CLUB Proposer: City of Shorewood Location: 4580 Enchanted Point Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M. Director Nielsen reviewed the history of the case. He stated the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club (formerly known as the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club) was located at 4580 Enchanted Point. The UMYC currently existed as a nonconforming use in the R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 9 of 12 district. The City initially granted the club a “special use permit” as a sailing yacht club in 1969. That approval allowed the club to dock or moor up to 30 sailboats and two power boats. The City amended its Zoning Ordinance in 1973 to allow “yacht clubs” as conditional uses in residential zoning districts. In 1977 the UMYC applied for and received a conditional use permit, which was renewed in 1978. In 2006, the City received resident complaints that the Yacht Club had begun renting out slips for power boats. The City cited the Club for expanding or intensifying a nonconforming use, and commenced enforcement action. The action was dismissed in district court because the most recent C.U.P. resolution did not reference “sailboats”. The City had since proposed correcting the 1978 C.U.P. to accurately reflect the UMYC’s application and the City record. The City Attorney agreed with taking that approach. Nielsen stated the City’s records contained a long and clear history of the UMYC operating as a sailing yacht club. He commented the Planning Commission had been provided with a list of documents that reflected that intended use. The documents included: The 1969 resolution approving a special use permit, among other restrictions, limiting the ?? UMYC to 30 sailboats and two power boats. A docking plan submitted for a 1976 docking license. ?? A page from the UMYC’s application to the LMCD for a dock license in 1977. ?? The 1977 UMYC application to the City for a conditional use permit for a sailing yacht ?? club. The UMYC’s 1977 dock permit request. ?? The Shorewood City Council minutes from June 27, 1977, which reference the Planning ?? Commission recommendation that the same conditions imposed in the 1969 special use permit be established. Resolution No. 30-78, approving a conditional use permit for the Yacht Club. It is the ?? same as one adopted in 1977. The reference was inadvertently not included in the resolution. A letter from Commodore Skip Jewett showing that as recently as November 1992, the ?? Yacht Club still portrayed itself as for sailboats only. The letter was part of an application for rezoning which was ultimately denied. Nielsen noted the City had received anonymous complaints since the UMYC stared renting dock slips to power boats with regard to the noisy activities and some overnight use (which was prohibited by the C.U.P.). The City had also received a document from a property owner which expressed support of the direction the City proposed taking. Nielsen stated staff recommended the City consider a revised resolution clarifying Resolution No. 30-78, and patterned after the 1969 approval, limiting the use of the facility to 30 sailboats and two power boats for the use of the Club. Nielsen then stated the UMYC had taken issue with the City’s proposed approach; the UMYC thought it had the right to dock any type of boat it wanted to. Also, the UMYC did not think it had been given enough notice of this Public Hearing. The notice of the Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper for the City, as well as in the Laker newspaper. The UMYC’s Commodore and its attorney were each mailed a copy of the notice eleven days prior to the Public Hearing. Because of UMYC’s concern about notification, Nielsen stated staff recommended the Planning Commission take public comment at this Public Hearing, and then take formal action to continue this Public Hearing to a September 4, 2007. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 10 of 12 Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:15 P.M. Scott Brown, 4560 Enchanted Point, stated he lived next door to the UMYC. He commented he had found out about the Public Hearing from a member of the UMYC Board ten days ago. He explained he had sailed with the UMYC since 1990; he had been a member of its Board and held various UMYC Board positions; and, he still thought very highly of the UMYC. When he was considering purchasing his property, he reviewed the UMYC’s files to do research on the history and workings of the UMYC. He stated there was a great deal of information that supported the efforts of the UMYC’s founders, the City, and the property owners to establish a “sailing club” in a residential area. The UMYC was a member of both the Inland Lake Yachting Association (ILYA), and the ILYA was a member of the US Sailing organization. He stated after he and his wife purchased their property, they assumed the role of liaison between the UMYC and the nearby property owners. When they first took occupancy of their home they helped address what the neighbors perceived was a “drug peddling operation”. They also spent weeks cleaning up the UMYC property at their own expense because they liked the UMYC and because of their location. He explained he was asked to return to the UMYC Board in either 2003 or 2004 which he did decline. He stated he did attend a Board meeting during January of that year where funding was discussed. At that meeting he said he stated to the Board that they were all aware that the UMYC made it very clear to the City that it was a “sailing club only”; and the response from the Commodore was “the city could pound sand”. From his vantage point, the UMYC did not charge enough rent for its boat slips but it did have a tax issue. He explained sailors come to the YMYC on a Saturday morning, they rig their boats, they sail, they return, and then leave. After that the power boaters come with groups of people for a long day of socializing, and often by the end of the day they are loud and not behaving appropriately. He commented the power boaters who rent UMYC slips don’t pay the fees the UMYC members pay. He stated he had conveyed his dissatisfaction with the power boater’s behaviors to John Barlow and Joel Neuman. He explained during the summer of 2007 an individual urinated on his lawn and made inappropriate comments to Mr. Brown’s wife. Ms. Brown called numerous individuals at the UYMC about that situation, but no one responded and said they would resolve the problems. He stated there were times when there were multiple jet skis on the UMYC property, grills on the dock, large amounts of alcohol being consumed, and yet no UYMC members were present. Mr. Brown clarified he was not opposed to the UYMC as a sailing club and sailing was a wonderful sport; but there was difference between the UYMC considering itself a marina for profit and it being considered an organization with a piece of land where people come to enjoy the sport of sailing. David Olivers, with the law firm of Lindquest and Vennum PLLP, stated he was there in place of Jack Strothman (the UMYC’s principal attorney on this matter). Mr. Olivers stated the issues raised by Mr. Brown were outside of the scope of the item on the Planning Commission’s agenda. The issue at hand was the City’s request to amend a conditional use permit that had been in effect for 30 years; the amendment would correct an error in the C.U.P. He stated because of the passage of time that would be an illegal act for the City to take. He went on to state that after the C.U.P. was granted in 1977 and 1978 the City had not addressed the error in the C.U.P. The City did charge the UMYC with a criminal act, and tried to hold the UMYC accountable by fining it or putting members of the UMYC in jail. The Court dismissed the action because the most recent C.U.P. resolution did not reference “sailboats”; he stated the Court stated “boats were boats not sailboats”. Mr. Olivers explained in a submission from Director Nielsen dated August 1, 2007, there was no evidence included that had not already been submitted to the Court when the Court first considered this matter. Mr. Olivers stated Planning Commission had the opportunity to distinguish between boats and sailboats; the Commission did not include that distinction. Mr. Olivers stated in a 1992 letter from Commodore Skip Jewett, which was part of an UMYC rezoning application (which was ultimately denied), the UMYC had been willing to limit the scope of its slip CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 11 of 12 rentals to sailboats. With regard to hardship, Mr. Olivers stated the UMYC may be suffering some issues as far as membership goes. He referenced an article in the August 5, 2007, Star Tribune newspaper which stated there were statistics that indicated that “the number of sailboats were down 38 percent and power boats had taken over as the boat of choice of all types”; “this was going to prove a financial hardship to the Yacht Club as we progress down the road”. Mr. Olivers stated the C.U.P. was granted under the auspices of allowing the UMYC to dock boats in its slips. Mr. Olivers then stated “boats are boats”. Mr. Olivers commented Mr. Strothman would likely attend the September 4, 2007, Public Hearing if there were to be any future correspondence between the City and Lindquist and Vennum. James Thibault, 4565 Enchanted Point, stated his property was located across from the UMYC. He explained that he and his wife had provided the City with a written document stating their support for a revised resolution clarifying Resolution No. 30-78 such that the word “sail” would be added to the front of the word “boat”. He highlighted their comments in their document. They stated that by adding the word sail the resolution would be consistent with the application made by the UMYC on April 25, 1977, the discussion and recommendation made by the Planning Commission on May 26, 1977, and the discussion and action taken by the City Council on June 27, 1977, and on July 25, 1977. They also referenced the UMYC’s April 25, 1977, application for the conditional use permit which stated the UMYC property would be used for a sailing yacht club and the club would not have substantial or unduly adverse effect upon adjacent property, and the UMYC may develop dockage and/or mooring facilities for 34 sailboat slips or lift spaces. They also referenced the minutes of the May 26, 1977, Planning Commission meeting where stated the application was for 34 sailboat slips and 2 slips for Yacht Club Committee boats. Mr. Thibault stated that he and his wife thought adopting a new resolution clarifying Resolution No. 30-78 to be consistent with the City’s records and the approval motions by the Planning Committee on May 26, 1977, and Council on July 25, 1977, was the right, legal and ethical action to take. Bill Zucco, 4485 Enchanted Point, stated his family had been at that location since 1918. He commented that he had attended the 1969 meeting and all subsequent meetings regarding the UMYC property and its use. He stated he was fairly versed with what went occurred and with what the intent was. There was never any doubt that the UMYC was intended to be a “sailing club”. He then stated the property owners made a deal with the City in 1969 for the UMYC property to be used as a “sailing club”, and a “deal was a deal”. The City should correct the error. Scott Colesworthy, 5480 Howards Point Road, stated he was currently a UMYC Boardmember. He then stated he heard a different version of the incident on the Browns’ property. He also stated he had heard the individual who had their boat at the UMYC was asked to leave the UMYC, although he was not sure that had occurred. Libby Larson, 4545 Enchanted Point, stated there had been unpleasant incidents by many of the power boaters and their friends during the day and evening at the UMYC. She commented many children live or visit the surrounding area. She stated there was a difference between sailboats and power boats. She noted that she had taught at the UMYC and was a sailor herself, and members of her family were members of the UMYC. She stated she would like the UMYC to stay as a sailing club. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:38 P.M. Gniffke moved, Geng seconded, Continuing the Public Hearing to a September 4, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 12 of 12 Wallace Larson, 4545 Enchanted Point, questioned why the Public Hearing was being continued. He suggested the agreement that the UMYC property would be used for a sailing club should be enforced, and the resolution should be clarified now. Chair Schmitt stated the Planning Commission was not trying to avoid making a recommendation. The Public Hearing was continued because of the UMYC’s concern with too short of notice for the Public Hearing. The City also needed time to respond to legal information received from the law firm of Lundquist and Vennum. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 8:42 P.M. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there would be continued discussion of Planning District 6 at the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for August 21, 2007. 7. REPORTS Liaison to Council • Commissioner Ruoff reported on matters considered and actions taken at a July 23, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). SLUC • No report was given. Other • None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 7 August 2007 at 8:56 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder