The URL can be used to link to this page

092407 CC Reg AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Callies Wellens B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, September 10, 2007 (Att. -Minutes) B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 10, 2007 (Att.- Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA -Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List) B. Staffing - No action required C. City Clerk License Approvals -Temporary Gambling License for the Friends of the Southshore Center (Att. -Deputy Clerk's memorandum, Resolution) D. Accepting Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for Badger Football Field Lighting Project (Att. -Director of Public Works' memorandum, Resolution) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report on Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) activities by Tim Litfin, Executive Director 6. PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -September 24, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 2 7. PARKS A. Request for Funding for 2"d Annual Arctic Fever Event on January 19, 2008 (Att. - Director of Public Works' memorandum) S. PLANNING -Report by Representative A. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum) Proposer: City of Shorewood Location: Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, 4580 Enchanted Point B. Conditional Use Permit for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards (Att.- Planning Director's memorandum, Resolution) Applicant: Tom and Debra Mahoney Location: 6150 Deer Ridge 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. 2008 Interim Funding Agreement regarding the Southshore Center (Att. - Administrator's memorandum) B. Discussion regarding Liquor Stores (Att. -City Attorney's memorandum) 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff B. Mayor & City Council 12. ADJOURN CITI' Uf SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD., MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 24 September 2007 A 6:00 P.M. Executive Session is scheduled this evening Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: No staffing items. Agenda Item #3C: The Friends of the Southshore Center have requested a Temporary Gambling Permit to conduct a raffle on Tuesday, January 2, 2008, to be held at the Southshore Center. The required permit fee and documentation has been submitted for this permit. Approval requires simple majority vote. Agenda Item #3D: The Badger Football Field Lighting Project has been completed.. Staff is recommending approval of the resolution that accepts the project and authorizes final payment in the amount of $7,941.05 to Honda Electric. Agenda Item #SA: Mr. Tim Litfin, Director of Minnetonka Community Education (MCE), will present an update on MCE activities. Agenda Item #7A: As talked about during the joint City Council and Park Commission meeting conducted on August 28th, 2007, the Park Commission and Arctic Fever Committee, are seeking financial support from each city involved in the event. At the Park Commission meeting conducted on September 5th, 2007, the Commission provided direction for a request to be presented to the City Council for an amount of $3,000. This is an amount that has not been dedicated previously within the Park Budget, and would be funded from the General Fund, if approved. Agenda Item #8A: This item relates to the review of the Conditional Use Permit for the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club. Agenda Item #8B: This item is consideration of a resolution granting a conditional use permit to place fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Debra and Tom Mahoney at 6150 Deer Ridge. .' ,-®a' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 24 September 2007 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #9A: This item is the 2008 interim funding agreement between the five cities and the Friends of the Southshore Center. With this proposal, programming and staffing could be continued through an arrangement between the Friends and SCS from November 2007 through December 2008. Council should also indicate whether it would approve the proposed interim agreement if Section 4, as proposed by the Friends, were to be included. Agenda Item #9B: During the September l Ot'', 2007 City Council Meeting, there was considerable discussion regarding the need or no need to conduct a public hearing for divesting the City from the City's liquor store operations. Tim Keane, City Attorney has prepared a memorandum addressing this issue, and will be at Monday's meeting to clarify any questions. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Director of Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Welle,ns, acid Woodruff; Administrator Public Works Brown; and Engineer Without objection from Council, Mayor Lizee proceeded with the Agenda for the meeting. 2. AMLEE ROAD, MANITOU LANE,. GLEN ROAD STRE.F,T RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Mayor Lizee stated at the City Council regular meeting following ibis work session Council will decide whether or not it wanted to approve the Feasibility Report for the'Amlee Road / Manitou Lane/ Glen Road Road Reclamation Project and set the date for a public hearing for the proposed special assessments. Administrator Dawson stated at .its August 13, 2007, meeting Council directed Staff to have WSB and Associates revise the Feasibility Report to reflect the changes it recommended regarding the width of the driving lanes;and it reduested an easement acquisition report. Mayer l.in~ stated Steve Gurney, with WSI3 end Associates, was present this evening. Engineer Landini highlighted the tabulation of the survey results from the property owners in the project area: 47 perceTit'of the respondents wanted watermain installed; 66 percent of the respondents wanted edge control installed; 66 perce»t of the respondents had drainage issues; 71 percent of the respondents did not want parking restrictions; and 87 percent of the respondents thought the current street widths, which varied from 14 - ~4 .feet, were adequate. Landini then reviewed the easement acquisition report that had been provided to Council that identified which affected property owners had verbally agreed to the easements, those that were unsure, those that were opposed, those who had been left a message, and those that had not been asked. The easement map that had been distributed identified the all proposed permanent and temporary construction easement locations, as well as hydrant and storm sewer easements. If watermain did not get installed there would not be a need for the hydrant easements. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Engineer Landini stated if the fire hydrant was placed on the other side of her property the City did not need a hydrant easement from the Okeys. Landini commented hydrants were normally placed on a property line so a ten-foot by ten-foot hydrant easement would be equally placed on two properties. He explained the easement was necessary should #z,A CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 2 of 5 the City need to repair the hydrant. He commented there may be some flexibility with the final location of the hydrants. Engineer Landini stated there was not much flexibility with the location of the storm sewer easements. Their location was determined by where the storm sewer pipes could be located. It would be necessary to have a storm sewer easement between two of the properties so the storm sewer pipe could traverse to the proposed water detention pond on the north side of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) trail. He commented the City had not been denied any requests for storm sewer easements; but the City had not heard from all affected property owners. He explained that when the project area was platted the City did not require storm sewer and utility easements as standard.. between each property. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Engineer i,aadini stated no funds had been budgeted for easement costs. He then stated the City would not want to pay for easements as that could set precedent. Councilmember Turgeon commented that some easements could actually increase a property's value because it would be an improvement. Administrator Dawson stated if a storm sewer or utility easement was located on the property line between two properties it could be considered to be of benefit to the properties. Engineer Landini stated there were 85 - 90 trees that would have to be removed as a result of the proposed narrower driving lanes; that number was down from approximately 110 trees for the 24-foot- wide driving lanes. Councilmember Wellens stated the reduction in the number of trees to be removed may not warrant narrower driving lanes. Landini then stated an additional 108 trees would have to be removed for the construction of the proposed water detention pond. Mr. Gurney clarified that any tree greater than four inches in diameter was identified for removal; that was a MnDOT standard. Gurney also clarified sumac were marked for removal; they were in addition to the previously stated figures. Mayor Lizee stated some of the trees targeted for removal appeared not to be healthy. Engineer Landini commented that 1-our power poles would have to be relocated to the edge of the right- of-way. Mayor Lizee questioned if the utility Lines could be placed underground, and the anticipated impact to each property. T~irector Brown stated the Public .Utilities Commission placed a maximum limit on the surcharge arn~~~unt that could be charged to the rate payers per month, Brown then stated rate payers were already i~a~ ing a surcharge. for other projects, thereby limiting the number of additional projects that could arc completed. With regard to impact to individual properties, Brown explained utility lines were buried ~~' - ~h inches deep. The Jarger impact to a property owner would be that the home service would have to be }~Inct:d underground,: and that would require the property owner to upgrade the electrical box inside their house,, at their cost. Councilmember Wellens commented he recollected that costs for upgrade would be ~1 ,000 - $2,000 per household. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Brown explained the City's standard for the width of a cul-de-sac was a 45.5 foot radius to the back of the curb based on the requirements for fire rescue vehicles and City plows. Brown explained the current cul-de-sac was somewhat oblong in shape, and that would become wider in areas after construction. He stated different design options could possibly be considered. He commented that similar discussions had occurred regarding cul-de-sac widths for the Mallard Lane /Teal Circle / Wedgewood Drive project; follow-up comments from property owners indicated they were generally satisfied with the cul-de-sacs that were the City's standard in width. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had sent Staff an email asking them to review existing drainage issues and what would be done to resolve them. Mr. Gurney stated the property at 24735 Glen Road had been identified as a problem area in the 2005 Drainage Problem Area Report. Storm sewer improvements CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 3 of 5 are proposed that should reduce the possibility of flooding at backyard of the property 25735 Glen Road, and the backyards of the properties between the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) trail and Amlee Road. He stated there were many homes that were located lower than the road; the installation of edge control. and the storm sewer improvements would reduce the amount of water flow off the road onto the properties. There was a pond located near the Shorewood Place Apartments that had a 12-inch PVC outlet pipe that was located next to County Road 19 and eventually emptied next to the trail ditch; some of that that road runoff would be rerouted. Drain the would be installed throughout the project area. Director Brown stated the City had a standard that would allow homeowners to empty their sump pump water to the drain tiled areas. Gurney stated the drainage concern near the property at 5565 Harding Lane would probably not be resolved as part of this project, but it would not be made worse as a result of the project. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Mr. G~u~ney stated the flags around the wetland area marked the existing wetland boundaries and that wetland area would be expanded. Woodruff questioned if the proposed detention pond would result iii new drainage issues for property owners on the north side of the HCRRA trail. Gurney stated it would be containcd'within the City-owned properly, and there would be a buffer of trees on the north and west sides of the pond: Director Brown stated the new detention pond would filter the water and it would detain the water for a controlled rate of runoff. He commented when water was detained it could extend the timeframe that water would trickle down the outlet after a heavy rain storm. Councilmember Wellens suggested Council discuss the possible installation of watermain. Councilmember Callies stated from her vantage. point nl~ny trees wouldbe removed, but there would be many trees that remained. She commented that only Ainlee Road and Manitou Lane were considered as part of the original project that was proposed. She stated she would prefer the drainage issues be resolved where possible; but she would not ~e supportive of doing so if watermain was not installed as part of the project. She stated the City must consider the needs of future property owners and well as current properly owners at this time. She stated this road reclamation project should address drainage issues and watermain installation. IC the City could not afford to do tNe project such that it addressed future needs, then the project should not be done. In response to a comment by Coiiucilmember Turgeon, Administrator Dawson explained the installation of watermain could be deleted from the scope of the project at a later date but it could not be added to the scope. C'~umcil should give direction astothe maximum scope of the project. Councilmember Woodruff statud thcr~ Baas an option to reiitove WestGlen Road from the project scope (although he was not stating he advocat~c( tl~c~t), and if that were done he questioned how many fewer trees would need to be removed. Mr. Gurney Stated approximately 40 - 50 percent of the 85 - 90 trees designated for removal were located on West Glen Road. `1'ur~eon stated there were more property owners on West Glen Road that wanted watermain installed than there were on East Glen Road; most of the properly owners on Manitou Lane wanted watermain installed. Mayor Lizee stated there had been drainage issues in the project area for 40 years. She thought the project should address road improvements, drainage issues, and watermain installation (if feasible) as major improvements to Glen Road would not be considered for maybe another 20 years. Although no one wanted to remove trees, that would have to be done and those trees could be replaced. Engineer Landini commented the City had a tree preservation policy that would have to be brought before Council for action; the policy allowed the Council to exclude City-owned property. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would prefer to keep the scope of the project as broad as possible. The installation of watermain would not impact the number of trees that would have to be removed for CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 4 of 5 other project reasons. Mr. Gurney stated there were approximately l2 trees that would have to be removed solely because of watermain installation. Councilmember Callies stated it was a loss to remove trees, but they could be replaced. If the infrastructure was not installed as part of this project it would probably never be done; the City should not miss the opportunity. She also anticipated that some of the existing houses would be replaced in the future. In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens, Mr. Gurney stated the scope of the project could be reduced. Councilmember Woodruff stated he interpreted that to mean that keeping the proposed scope would not add to the cost of the project if the scope were later reduced. In response to a question Councilmember Turgeon related from a property owner, Mr. Gurney stated the radius of the cul-de-sac would be the City's standard and it was not impacted by the width of the roads. Councilmember Turgeon related another a property owner. questioned if tlierc was any benefit to reducing the proposed width of Amlee Road to 22 feet (which would be the same: as proposed with for Manitou Lane). Director Brown stated that property owners on Noble Road complained that school buses had a problem navigating the road when construction vehicles were on the road; NobleRoad was 20 - 22 feet wide. Mayor Lizee stated Council would now accept questions from the pubic. Wall~Piroyan, 24845 Glen Road, stated the trees that would be removed on the south side of Glen Road were some of the oldest trees on the street; those trees would be replaced with small saplings that would take a very long time to reach maturity and he may never see that. He then stated he had signatures from 70 - 80 percent of the property owners on Glen .Road that were inopposition to the project. He also stated based on previous discussion it was his undet-standing if there were any upgrades to the road which would include the installation of curb and gutter, then watermain would be installed. He stated from his vantage point the loss of tr~CS would negatively impact the property values. He questioned why the project was being forced on the property owners on Glen Road. Kevin Conley, 24740 Amlee Road; suggested. property owners be provided with additional information about the reforestation plan (e.g., what the. tr~ce replacement ratio would be). He stated that there were varieties uftrees that matui~emuch (aster than others. Kip lCnutsun, 24820 Glen Road, stated at the public information meeting held recently there had been some comme»ts indicating that some of the drainage issues on the north side of Amlee Road would not be corrected I~ec~~nse of issues with Hennepin County. At this meeting he thought he understood that most of those issue ~ would be addressed. He then stated even if the number of trees proposed for removal was reduced significantly, those that would be removed were some of the oldest trees. John Miller 24925 Glen Road, stated there was a comment made at a public information. meeting that other cities had been able to do roadway improvements, including the installation of curb and gutter, with minimal construction easements. He questioned if that had been researched, and could it be considered as a compromise. Rick Eng, 25170 Glen Road, questioned if the City considered the safety issues of installing a new water detention pond near a park with athletic fields. No chain link fence was proposed around the pond. He stated the site proposed for the pond was a hardwood forest and it was not a wetland area. He proposed the City enter into a joint agreement with Tonka Bay and create a nature center on the site. There was an existing water detention pond located 3,000 feet away. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 5 of 5 Bob Gagne, 24850 Glen Road, stated the pond area Mr. Eng referenced was donated land. The athletic fields on land had originally been marsh and had been filled. Elizabeth Van 24170 Amlee Road, questioned how her existing drainage concerns would be resolved. She stated it was her understanding from discussion at a previous Council meeting that the City could not do anything to address damage that had been done to the wetland area as a result of stormwater being conveyed to it. She stated the proposed plan drawings did not clearly depict the location of the existing wetland area. Mayor Lizee stated the boundaries of the existing wetland area were currently marked by flags. Mr. Gurney stated wetlands had been delineated on both the north and south side of the HCRRA trail.; the delineations had been approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. District. The delineations were shown on the construction documents and would be on the permit applications. Mayor Lizee stated that recent water detention ponds had been built to NationalUrban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Mr. Gurney explained that typically a pond that had been designed in accordance with NURP standards had a safety bench (a ten foot wide area that had aone-foot slope) around it. Emergent vegetation grew in that area; that made it difficult [~or people and natural predators to access the pond. There had been instances when NURP ponds had been Cenced in, but that created a liability issue due to lack of access for rescue workers. The majority. of municipalities install softscape buffers (e.g., an emergent vegetation bench, buffers). The proposed pond «-ould be 3 - 4 deep, the same depth as the existing pond. Councilmember Turgeon stated the pond would be designed similar to Gideon Glen pond. Director Brown stated the pond constructed next to the Badger,Football Field was a NURP pond; loose balls were stopped at the weed edge of the pond. Brown explained that NURP standards were designed to account for the silt from initial construction ~pdappro~imately 25 years of sediment buildup before they must be restored. Councilmember Woodruff conui~ented that wetlands did not have to have water on it to be considered a wetland. The area designated as a wetland on the north side of the HCRAA trail was clearly a wetland. 3. OTHER There was no other business for discussion. 4. ~ nJOUI2N Turgeon u~~n cd, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of September lil, 2U0?, at 6:59 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Administrator Dawson; Associate Attorney Mayeron; Finance Director Burton; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Administrator Dawson requested Item 12, I?~ecutive Session, be added to the agenda to discuss legal matters related to the City-owned properly at 5795. Country Club Road and the adjournment would become Item 13. Mayor Lizee requested thatitenl 111.T3, Approve Feasibility Report for Amlee Road/Manitou Lane/Glen Road, be discussed after Item y.>;, ~~pproval of 2008 LMCC Budget. She also requested Item 9.G, Approval of a Deer Management Contract, be moved. to Item 9.I and items Item 9.G, Setting Public Hearing Date for City's dale of the I ,iquor Stores, and Item 9.H, Request for Financial Investment Advice about Anticipated Rate oC Retu1•n on Profits Crom the Sale of Liquor Operations, be added to the agenda. Wellens nu~~ ed, Callies seconded. approving the Agenda as Amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APP12OVAL OF MINUTES A. C'.ity Council Work Session Minutes, August 20, 2007 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of August 20, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 27, 2007 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of August 27, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, August 27, 2007 #ZB SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 2 of 12 Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of August 27, 2007, as amended in Item 9.A, Page 7, Paragraph 6, Bullet 5 change "The power supply" to "The uninterruptible power supply". Motion passed 5/0. D. City Council/Park Commission Joint Meeting Minutes, August 28, 2007 Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council and Park Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained' on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. ~~ A. Approval of the Verified Clams List (This was moved to ltcm 10.C under Engineering/Public Works) B. Staffing -Liquor Operations C. Approving ORDINANCE NO. 439, "An Ordinance Titled `License, Permit, Service charges and Miscellaneous Fees". Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROi11 THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS ~\I) I'RF,SF,NT:ITIONS None. 6. PU 13 L 1 C FIEARING None. 7. PARKS Chair Davis reported ion matters considered and actions taken at the September 5, 2007, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Callies stated she appreciated the opportunity the Council had to meet with the Park Commission on August 28, 2007. At that meeting there was an item discussed that she thought Council should consider in the future. The Commission had suggested because of the proximity of City Hall, Badger Park, and the City-owned house, that area should be viewed as the City's campus; therefore, it thought Badger Park should be considered as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Callies stated the City had a unique opportunity to consider environmentally friendly and green projects as part of the SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 3 of 12 proposed City Hall project and possible improvements to Badger Park and other City parks. She thought the Commission had demonstrated leadership on that issue. As part of the City Hall project she suggested Council consider how City Hall should fit within the entire campus and the Southshore Center and it should consider green construction as part of that project. It was important the City demonstrate the type of construction it would like to have happen within the City limits. Although the City was not a growing city, it was a quality City. Residents lived in the City because the City provided quality services, had quality staff, and had many volunteers that wanted to make a difference. She thanked the Commission for being on the forefront of that issue. 8. PLANNING Chair Schmitt reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 4, 2007, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Amendments to LMCC .Toint PowcrsAgreement Administrator Dawson stated Sally Koenecke, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) Executive Director, and Patrick Hodapp, one. of the City's two representatives on the LMCC Board, were present at the meeting to review the proposed amendments to the LMCC Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). Ms. Koenecke stated there were two proposed changes tothe JPA. The LMCC had changed over the last ten years. The first change was to the voting quorum: whateonstitutcda quorum changed from seven members to commissioners from a majority of memEjei~ cities: The second change was to the annual budget process: the date by which the budget had to he lormulaled changed from August IS to August 31; the date the budget must be adopted changed from at the Commission's annual meeting in September to September 30; and the budget was eFfective only "if approved by a majority of the members within 30 days," was changed to "unless rejected. by a majority of the members within 45 days after its receipt by them." She comment~~l (hit somaeities did notact ~»> the budget. Councilmember Woodrul7~ commented the proposed changes had been discussed at two full Commission meetins. L Ic thought the proposed changes made sense. Woodruff novcd, Callies seconded, a~iproving the proposed amendments to the Lake Minnetonka Communication Commission Joint Powers Agreement. Councilmember Well~~n~ ex}?ressed concern about the automatic nature of the approval of a proposed budget. He stated he hail n~}t seen any data showing the budget process had failed because member cities had not acted on the budget in a timely manner. Mr. Hodapp stated it took considerable time and effort by Ms. Koenecke to prod the cities to act on the budget. Hodapp stated in the past it was late in the year and the budget had not been approved. Wellens stated this was similar to an automatic tax increase - if it was not rejected it was approved. Councilmember Turgeon stated the LMCC budget was derived by franchise fees and PEG (public, educational, and governmental) fees, not a tax levy. Motion passed 5/0. B. Approval of the 2008 LMCC Budget SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 200'7 Page 4 of 12 Ms. Koenecke stated the 2008 LMCC budget had been drafted by the LMCC Budget Committee, of which Mr. Hodapp was a member. She commented that Mr. Hodapp was also the treasurer. She explained the budget was comprised of three separate funds -the Franchise Administration Fund, the Studio/Access Production Fund, and the Capital Improvement Fund. Each year the Capital Improvement Fund Budget was prepared by the LMCC Operations Manager and its Programming Manager; it reflected the needs identified in the LMCC's five-year plan. She noted the $17,000 in funds budgeted in the 2007 Capital Budget for an upgrade to the LMCC local area network were carried forward to 2008; the LMCC chose to delay the upgrade because it did not want to purchase technology that would be obsolete in a few years. The 2008 Capital Improvement Fund Budget also reflected funds to replace equipment in the production control rooms due to obsolescence of videotape technology. Mr. Hodapp stated there were no major changes reflected in the expense side of the budget from the 2007 approved budget. The 2008 budgeted staffing was the same as 2007. With regard to the Capital Improvement Fund Budget, he stated the budget reflected the rcpl~icement of personal computers in groups as it was not always prudent to replace one personal computer at a time. Fle noted in 2008 the LMCC would continue to use its existing computers. Councilmember Turgeon stated it would be helpful to her if the variance between the E~roposed budget amount and the previous year's adopted budget amount were .identified on the budget report. She questioned what caused a nominal increase. in the budget for web streaming costs as her service had not changed. Mr. Hodapp stated the increase in costs was a result of the projected increase in the amount of data that was transferred; there had been an increase in the number ofpeople viewing meetings on their computers. Callies moved, Woodruff .seconded, Approving the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 2008 Budget as presented. Motion passed 5/0. C. Approval of the 2008Proposed Budget and Tax Levy This item was dise~~ssed after Item T-0.'B on the agenda. Finance I)ircc;iur Burwn explained City. Staff had prepared the 2008 Proposed General Fund Operating Budget for raview and approval this evening. The budget was the result of Council and Staff work- sessiou5 on .lane 25, August 6, August 20,'and August 27, 2007. During the work sessions, Council and Staff revie«~cd all aspects of the preliminary 2008 budget; Council also discussed implementing a General Fund I:o>urve Policy in conjunction with using some General Fund reserves for capital improvements. Burton then reviewed the highlights of the budget including the lack of levy limits imposed by State Legislature. The proposed tax levy of $4,806,995 was a 9.34 percent increase from the 2006 tax levy. Revenues from fees, licenses, and permits were expected to remain stable; building permit revenue was expected to decline. The budget proposed the use of $100,000 in General Fund reserves (in addition to tax and fee revenue); the use of reserves would result in an anticipated General Fund balance of $3.18 million (approximately 57 percent of 2008 expenditures and transfers). Transfers to Capital improvement funds were programmed at $970,000 for 2008 (an increase of $300,000 from 2007); the increase was to the Street Reconstruction fund to provide for sealcoating and street "slurry" projects. Burton explained the key 2007 General fund expenditures, not including capital expenditures, reflected an approximate 1.8 percent increase from 2007. The key expenditures were: the remaining construction SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 5 of 12 costs of $170,000 for a Public Works building addition; salary and insurance adjustments reviewed by Council which included $20,000 for employee merit increases; and interim funding for Friends of the Southshore Center ($21,300). A half--time position in the Finance Department was removed from the 2008 budget. She noted the City's tax base would increase by approximately 9 percent for Pay2008. Police and fires services totaled approximately $1.734 million in 2008. Burton stated staff recommended the Truth-In-Taxation process be followed as usual, using the timetable and procedures set in place for the past few years. The State Legislature had designated Monday, December 3, 2007, as the suggested dated the Truth-In-Taxation public hearing be held. If necessary, a continuation hearing would be held on December 10, 2007. The City Council would approve and adopt the final budget on December 10, 2007. Burton then stated Staff recommended Council approve the resolution "Setting the 2008 Proposed General Fund Budget and the Proposed 2007 Property Tax Levy,Coll~ctible ni 2008". Councilmember Woodruff stated the Council had spent a great deal of time discussing the proposed budget. He then stated there was a significant increase in funding for street sealcoating and "slurry" projects (an additional amount of $300,000 from Gencral h'und 1•eserves) and that accounted for a significant portion of the proposed tax levy increase. The additional funds would allow for a more rapid rate of street improvements, which could- include the use of a new emulsified asphalt (i.e., slurry) technology that was more expensive but had a much longer life than traditional sealcoating. Woodruff reiterated Director Burton's statement that the proposed increase could be reduced prior to adopting the 2008 General Fund Budget in December, but it could not be increased. He then stated Council would have future budget discussions with regard to the Enterprise Funds, and he was hopeful the proposed General Fund tai levy could be reduced. Turgeon moved, Welleus sccondcd, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-058, "A Resolution Setting the 2008 Proposed GencralFund Budget and Approving the Proposed 2007 Property Tax Levy Collectible in 2[IOR.'' ~~ lotion passed 5/0. i3. Setting the T--uth-in-Taxation Public Hearing Dates Administrator Dawson stated a resolution had been prepared setting the date for the Truth-In-Taxation public heari n ~_> I ~~r December 3; 2007, and December 10, 2007, as the date to continue the hearing if necessary. Woodruff moved, Tu-•geon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-059, "A Resolution Setting the Truth-In-Taxation Pudic Hearing Dates on the Proposed 2008 Budgets and the 2008 Property Tax Levy." Motion passed 5/0. E. General Fund Balance Policy Administrator Dawson stated at its August 6, 2007, work session Council reviewed a draft of a policy regarding the undesignated balance in the General Fund. There had been general agreement with the policy by Council. The policy was used during Council deliberations on the proposed 2008 General Fund Budget. He noted the policy was presented to Council for formal adoption at this meeting. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 6 of 12 Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, adopting the policy regarding the General Fund balance reserves as presented. Councilmember Woodruff suggested that in the future Council should consider an amendment to the policy to add more than two percentage points annually to the undesignated balance if it were to fall below 50 percent. Director Burton stated the policy could be approved with the suggested amendment included. Woodruff suggested the amendment to the policy would be if the undesignated balance fell below 50 percent Council would take emergency action to restore the balance to at a minimum 50 percent. Without objection of the seconder, the maker of the motion accepted a friendly amendment to the motion to include a change to the policy that would require Council to take immediate action to restore the undesignated balance to a minimum of 50 percent should the balance fall below 50 percent. Motion passed 5/0. F. Selection of Business Broker for Sale of Liquor Operations Administrator Dawson stated at its August 6, 2007, special meeting Council directed Stnlf to begin the process to sell the City's liquor operations. Staff had prepared a request for proposals (RFP) for business brokerage services, and sent them to firms. which were reconit~lended or had requested to receive the RFP. Five brokers had responded to the ;RFP. He commented that al] five firms had significant experience in liquor store transactions or with the liquor industry. Dawson explained Staff had reviewed all five ofthe proposals and met with representatives of each of the brokers that had responded. Staff thought the best proposals and interviews were made by Darrell Ansel; Hospitality Services, Corp.; and Sunbelt Business Brokers. He then stated Staff suggested Hospitality Services, Corp., be retained as it had the best combination of experience, knowledge of liquor store transactions and the w~iquc logistics for the separate sales of the City's liquor operations, and compensation arrangement Ike noted ghat firm had stated its commission would be less than proposed because there would 1~~• multiple propei•t'ieslisted with the City. He commented that firm would be able to begin its work inuncdiat~;ly. Dawson (hrn stated Staff rec~~nunended Council authorize execution of a six-month exclusive listing agreement ~~~ith Hospitality Services, Corp:, for the sale of the City's off-sale liquor stores. .~ Councilmember `Cw•geon stated based on the rating system used, it appeared Opportunities in Business had some ratings that ~~ are higher than those for Hospitality Services, Corp. Administrator Dawson stated there was a certain a~n~~unt of judgment that was involved with all five firms. He then stated Hospitality Services, Corp., had thoroughly researched the City's liquor business; that firm suggested the shortest listing period; and the firm had confidence in its ability to deliver. Staff thought that after assessing the five firms, it felt most comfortable that Hospitality Services, Corp., would do the best job. Councilmember Turgeon stated Hospitality Services, Corp., charged a commmission of 10 percent typically yet Opportunities in Business charged between 6 - 8 percent. Hospitality Services, Corp., stated it would take 2 - 3 months to sell the properties; Opportunities in Business stated it would take a minimum of 60 days to sell. Hospitality Services, Corp., had a staff of three people; Opportunities in Business had a staff of ten. Administrator Dawson stated the time it would take to close on the sale was not binding; Staff had asked the firms to provide their expectations regarding that timeframe. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 7 of 12 In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Administrator Dawson explained that he and Director Burton had each interviewed the five firms. He commented that the difference between the three-star and four-star ratings was negligible. Burton stated the summary of proposals should have included a rating for each firms' use of technology. She then stated Hospitality Services, Corp., had done its homework; she and Administrator Dawson thought that firm had a sound grasp of the market. Burton commented that each firm had different areas of expertise. She noted Hospitality Services had indicated it would reduce its commission if the purchaser would be a contact the City had provided. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator DaW:50n stated each of the firms had provided an extensive list of transactions they had been involved with.. Mayon Lizee commented that all the firms were licensed brokers. Dawson stated Hospitality Services, Coip., was excited about the opportunity. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, authorizing execution of a six-mquth exclusive listing agreement with Hospitality Services, Corp., for the sale of the City's off-sale liquor stores. Motion passed 5/0. Councilmember Callies stated that based on the information provided in RFPs, the lease-term for the building was a factor in selling the operation and one of the issues would be the negotiation of a longer- term lease. She commented that the City's. Liquor Operations Manager had advocated and negotiated a longer-term lease for the Waterford liquor store building which Council rejected. G. Setting Date for a Public Hearing Regarding the Sale of the City's Liquor Operations Mayor Lizee stated it was brou~htto her attention that when a city planned to dispose of real property a public hearing was necessary. Associate Attorney Mayeron stated to divest of a lease-hold interest as tenant required a public hearing; if the city were to remain the tenant of the property a public hearing would not be required. Councilmember W~o~~druff questioned if it would be more appropriate to hold the public hearing once the City had a sales agreement with a buyer. Councilmember Callies stated the agreement could not be finalizeduntil a public hearing was held. Mayor Lizee 'stated the City's liquor operations were an asset to the City. She commented that at a July 30, 2007, Liquor ~'ommittee meting, the Committee agreed a forum should be held where public comment could be hc~~rd regar~iuig the potential sale of the operations. At its August 6, 2007, special meeting Council made << dccisioi~ that it was not necessary to involve the public in that decision. Councilmember Woodruff stated it was his recollection that at the August 6, 2007, special. meeting he had stated a public meeting could still be held. Woodruff stated the topic of the sale of the City's liquor operations and the financial situation regarding the businesses had been publicized in multiple local papers. He stated he would like to know what would be discussed at a public hearing. Councilmember Turgeon stated Associated Attorney Mayeron had previously discussed the need for a public hearing if the lease-hold interest were to be disposed of, and Mayor Lizee talked about the sale of the operations; Turgeon stated those were two different things. Lizee stated the topic were the leases for the liquor operations buildings; therefore, a public hearing was necessary. Turgeon stated until a decision had been made as to whether or not the buildings would be sublet, it was premature to have a public SHOREWOOD CITX COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 8 of 12 hearing. Turgeon also stated if the liquor operations were not sold before the leases expired, there would not be a need for a public hearing. Associate Attorney Mayeron stated if the City were to enter into asub-lease agreement for the buildings, it would be considered a disposition of real property and would require a public hearing. Councilmember Callies stated the buildings leases were linked to the City's liquor operations. When a city wanted to sell some of its real property, the public should be made aware that the city was divesting itself of an asset. She then stated from her vantage point it was not in the spirit of wanting to hear public comment, to wait to hold a public hearing until a sale agreement had been reached. She also stated she would be in support of holding a public hearing. Councilmember Woodruff stated he wanted to review a proposed agenda for the public hearing before a date was set for the public hearing. Associate Attorney Mayeron suited it was not necessary to have an agenda. Woodruff stated he did not want to avoid a public hearing nor did he want to wait until the very end to hold one; he wanted to ensure there was somethingrncanin~fhl to discuss at the. public hearing. Councilmember Turgeon stated Council had been discussing the possible sale of the City's liquor operations for seven months. She stated she had heard from one resident who stated they liked the convenience of the Waterford liquor store... She had phone calls .from four residents who indicated the City should get out of the liquor operationsbusiness. She stated she was not opposed to holding a public hearing provided there was an agenda. She commented a public hearing .was not held regarding the decision on the City Hall project. Councilmember Callies suggested a public hearing be held for the City Hall project; she thought a hearing would have to be held because it ~-vas real properly interest. Callies stated the reason to hold a public hearing was to hear public comfinent. Woodruff moved, Turgegn seconded setting the date for a public hearing on the sale of the City's liquor operations for which there «uuld have no agenda and no presentations would be made by Staff or Council. Councilmember Wellen5 cvnunented the ~~ ity did trot have a consistent policy for when a public hearing was held. Administrator Dawson stated that during more detailed discussions regarding the sale of the liquor operations, the City's attorney advised him that State Statute did not require a public hearing be held to sell the liquor's o~~erations; State: Statute required a City to hold a public hearing if it was considering divesting itself of a real prope~Ky interest (e.g., vacating a drainage and utility easement or divesting itself of a lease prior to it expiring). Councilmember Callies suggested the motion be withdrawn as the City had no choice about holding a public hearing if were to divest itself of the lease. She stated to hold a public hearing only if there was no agenda and no presentations by Staff or Council would unduly restrict the hearing. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would support holding a public hearing with a presentation by Staff provided he knew what the presentation would consist o£ He then stated the lease may be discussed. He also stated he would be willing to amend his motion to say the City was going to potentially divest itself of its leases. Callies stated dates for other public hearings had been set without having similar information in advance. Administrator Dawson stated a public hearing could be scheduled for October 22, 2007. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 9 of 12 Motion passed 5/0. In response to a question, Councilmember Woodruff clarified it was his understanding that the motion was to hold a public hearing on the sale of the City's liquor operations on October 22, 2007, and there would be no agenda for the hearing and no presentation by Staff or Council at the hearing. Councilmember Callies stated she did not think that was the motion under consideration. She did not want to restrict what could be discussed at a public hearing. Councilmember Turgeon stated she wanted clarification regarding the proposed subject matter for the hearing; if the purpose was to take public comment she was in support of a public hearing. Mayor Lizee stated the facts should be presented at the public hearing and public comment should be taken. Administrator Dawson proposed the public hearing would includea presentation by Staff explaining the reason a public hearing was necessary, and what the issue was (in this„case it was the City had lease-hold interests through October 2008 and the City was considering the possibility of terialinating the lease-hold interests prior to October 2008). Councilmember Woodruff stated lte would accept that. Dawson stated it would be good to take public comment, and after hearing public comment take action statingCouncil had heard the public's concerns and it had authorized actions to be taken subsequent to that. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, withdrawing the previous motion and setting October 22, 2007, as the date for a Public Hearing on the City's potential divesture of lease-hold interests which would be done in conjunction with the sale of the City's liquor operations. Motion passed 5/0. H. Request for Financial Investment Advice about Anticipated Rate of Return on Profits from the Sale of Liquor Operations Mayor Lizee stated shewanted to request financial investment information about the anticipated rate of return on the profits from the sale of the City's liquor operations. She then stated at previous Council meetings there haci h~~cn comment that the. profits fro~il the sale could be invested and would provide a rate of retun~ Tai wc~uldbe similal• to the funds that the City received from revenues from the operations. She suggested Staff provide the information in the form of a memorandum to Council. Couneilu~cml7er Woodruff stated the Liquor Operations Enterprise fund contained substantial reserves and suggested th~+ reserves be included iti'the analysis. Councilmember i allies stated she understood the request was to clarify that the investment potential from the proceeds li•om the sale of the City's liquor operations would be similar to the funds the City received on a yearly basis ti~om the revenues from liquor operations. Administrator Dawson stated the memorandum would be.prepared by Staff and the information would be provided to Council for its first meeting in October. There was Council consensus to direct Staff to prepare the memorandum. I. Approval of a Deer Management Contract Administrator Dawson stated at its August 27, 2007, work session Council had a presentation by a representative from Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) regarding deer management; it also discussed the possibility of contracting with that organization. At that work session Council directed Staff to prepare a contract with MBRB. He stated the City Attorney Ilad stated the form of the agreement SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 10 of 12 was acceptable and had suggested Council approve the agreement contingent on the dates being filled in on the draft agreement. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Administrator Dawson stated private property owners who had property of a minimum size could contact the City regarding the possibility of having a deer management effort conducted on their property; the City would forward the appropriate requests to MBRB. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agreement with Meta•o Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) for deer management services subject to the dates being identified in the draft agreement. Motion passed 5/0. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Proposal for Cleaning of the Minnewashta Water Tower Director Brown stated the City owned and maintained a 500,000 gallon water tower (known as the Minnewashta Water Tower) located on a parcel of landaddressed as 26350 Smithtown Road. During budget work sessions conducted over the past few months, Council directed Staff to seek quotations for power washing the Tower. Staff also asked the contractors to quote pricing for painting the "bottom structure" of the Tower as part of their bi~i. E f~~ commented that vandals had marked the bottom cone portion of the pedestal and painted the overflo~~ ~znt pipe. He stated theCity iiad received two bids: one from Water Tower Clean and Quote, Inc. for a bid amount of $5,900 and one from TMI Coatings for a bid amount of $9,900. He stated Staff recommended theproposal by Water Tower Clean and Coat, Inc., for washing the Tower and painting the "bottom structure". In response to a question. from Councilmember Callies, Director Brown stated TMI Coat, Inc. may submit a bid for the coating.: portion of the East Water shower project. Staff had received an update to the plans and specification for the East Water Tower project and that could be presented to Council at its next meeting. It was anticipated the project would be put out for bid in January or February of 2008. With regard to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Brown stated a fence around the Minnewashta Water Tower may keep children away from the Tower (although it may attract them), but it would pr~~bably not keep terrori~t> ,~~~ ay ti'o~n the Tower. Turgeon mo~cd, Woodruff seconded, accepting the proposal provided by Water Tower Clean and Coat, Inc., for extei•ic~r washing of the Minnewashta Water Tower and security upgrades not to exceed $6,700. Motion passed 5/0. B. Approve Feasibility Report and set Public Hearing Date for Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project, City Project 07-O1 This item was discussed before Item 9.C on the agenda. Administrator Dawson stated WSB and Associates had prepared the Feasibility Report for the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Reconstruction Project. The Report had been revised to reflect the Council's August 13, 2007, discussion regarding the width of the driving lanes and the installation of watermain throughout the project area. He stated the revised Feasibility Report had been discussed at the City Council work session immediately preceding this meeting; at this meeting Council could take formal SAOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 11 of 12 action regarding the scope of the project. The Report proposed special assessments be used as a source of revenue for the watermain installation; therefore, a public hearing must be held prior to ordering the improvement project. If adopted, the resolution would set October 8, 2007, as the public hearing date. Woodruff moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-060, "A Resolution Approving Feasibility Report on Proposed Improvements and Setting Public Hearing Date, City Project 07-O1 Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Reclamation Project." Motion passed 5/0. The discussion returned to Item 9.C on the agenda. C. Verified Claims List This was removed from the Consent Agenda at Councilmember Woodruft~s request. Councilmember Woodruff explained he asked this item he t•cmoved from the consetlt agenda because there were 9 - 10 items on the verified claims list relating to expenses for the City-owned house. He ,: questioned if they reflected the majority of expenses. Director k3rown stated he thought that was the majority; he noted there were bees residing in the air conditioner and a small leak in the roof and those problems had to be resolved. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the verified elaims list as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator &. Staff Administrator Dawson stated ~h~~rc h~,d been a meeting. of the Southshore Center working group on September 7, 2007. The comm~~nt~ pit that meeting by `representatives of the member cities councils indicated there had .been agreement by four cities ttlat the interim funding should not be contingent on changes to the Shorewood Option in the, Cooperati~~e Agreement. It was expected that Deephaven would reeonsiderits position at itsCouncil meeting on September 17, 2007. He stated he anticipated he would have tl~c Iinal interim fui~dino agreement .available for Council to consider at its September 24, 2007, meeting. Administrator f>awson stated Staff was attempting to coordinate an executive session for September 24, 2007, at 6:00 P.iYI. I-le noted that he would not be at the September 24, 2007, meetings. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Dawson stated it was his understanding that Senior Community Services had planned to continue services through the end of the year based on the feedback it had received regarding interim funding. In response to a request from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Brown provided an update on the emulsified asphalt pilot projects. He reviewed various methods that were used to apply the product. He stated after initial application the surface would smooth out. He explained that the road surface had to be patched before the product was put down. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Brown stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was responsible for ensuring maintenance was done by the Kestrel Group to the SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 12 of 12 Gideon Glen wetland area for a total of two years. Mayor Lizee commented that the Kestrel Group had made a presentation to Council in October 2006 regarding maintenance of the wetland; another presentation would be made this year. B. Mayor & City Council Mayor Lizee stated the South Lake League of Women Voters would host an issues meeting at 7:30 P.M. on September 13, 2007, at City Hall. The mayors from Excelsior, Deephaven, Greenwood, Shorewood, and Tonka Bay had been invited to attend to inform the public about local issues. Mayor Lizee stated she planned to attend a Municipal Clerk and Finance Officer meeting scheduled on September 14, 2007. Mayor Lizee stated the following topics were discussed at thesecond coffee withthe mayor session: the sale of the City's liquor operations, pedestrian safety at flee intcr~section of Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail, the street lighting in neighborhoods, interest in a stop light at Edgewood~ Drive and Grant Lorenz Road, deer management, and the Amle~ RoadlManitou Lane/Glen Road Road: Reclamation Project. Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting to an Executive Meeting at 5:~5 P.M. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Lizee began the executive session at 9:00 P.M: All Councilmembers were present, as were Administrator Dawson, Associate Attoniey Mayeron, and Director oC Public Works Brown. The purpose of the meeting was for conCdential attorney-client communications regarding the City's suit against Livingwaters Church/Ascending Praise. Church. The Executive Session s~~asconcluded at 9:22 P.M. 13. RECOlVVEivE TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor 1_i~~c reconvened the regular meeting at 9:23 p.m. She reported that the Council had given direction t~~ the City Attorney'to,~pursue discussions with the defendant consistent with Council direction given in the c~c~ntive session. ' °~ 14. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of September 10, 2007, at 9:24 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk PAYABLES APPROVALS For 09/24/2007 Council Meeting Prepared b -``~ ~-r Date: ~ s Miche e T.~ Nguyen, r. counting Clerk Reviewed by: - `~~c..~ , ~ - ' ®~~ Date: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director Approved by: 4 ~~ 3 ~ ~ ~, c ~ Date: ,~,s Craig Dawson, City Administrator ~~p. PAYROLL APPROVALS For 09/24/2007 Council Meeting I f Pre aced b ~ Date: r chelle T. Nguyen, ccounting Clerk Reviewed by: ~ ~=~-- ~~ ~ ,~ ,~~.- ~ -- -- Date: ~ Bonnie Burton, Finance Director ~` Approved by: '' ` ~ ~ a - -~ Date: ~ E~`~ r Craig Dawson, City Administrator CITE' F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: September 17, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk RE: TEMPORARY GAMBLING LICENSE -Friends of the Southshore Center The Friends of the Southshore Center have submitted an application and appropriate fee for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Permit to conduct their annual raffle drawing on Wednesday, January 2, 2008, at the Southshore Center, 5735 Country Club Road in Shorewood. Proceeds from the raffle drawing will be used to support the Southshore Community Center. COUNCIL ACTION A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Temporary Gambling License for the Friends of the Southshore Center, for a raffle drawing to take place on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at the Southshore Community Center, 5735 Country Club Road, in Shorewood. ss 7` j®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER (~,. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO.07- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TEMPORARY GAMBLING LICENSE WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Chapter 301, provides for the licensing of certain gambling activities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City prescribes certain restrictions concerning eligibility for such licensing and application, whereby the licensee will hold the City harmless for all claims arising out of the granting of such license; and WHEREAS, the following applicant has met the eligibility requirements for such a license and has agreed to all terms and conditions of the agreement contained in the license. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: That a single temporary license for the conduct of gambling as specified in the terms and conditions of the license be issued to Friends of the Southshore Center. Said gambling activities are to be held on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at the Southshore Center, 5735 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 24th day of September, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk Minnesota Lawful Gambling Page 1 of 2 6107 Lta11U Application for Exempt Permit For Board Use Only An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that: Fee IS ~rJ® f®r Clieck# • conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and • awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. each e~/ent $ ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Organization name ),~ Previous gambling permit number r, c, Type of nonprofit organi tion. Check (~) one. ^ Fraternal ^ Religious ^ Veterans [~ Other nonprofit organization Mailing address City State/Zip Code County ~~~ N e of chief exe utive o er (CEO) Daytime phone number . ,~ ATTACH A OPY OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOR PROOF OF NONPROFIT STATt1S ~ Do not attach a sales tax exempt status or federal ID employer numbers as they are not proof of nonprofit status. _ Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing. Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from: Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 180 State Office Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Phar~e: 651-296-2803 _ Internal Revenue Service -IRS income tax exemption [501(cj] fetter in your organization's name. Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, send your federal ID number and the date your organization initially applied for tax exempt status to: IRS, P.O. Box 2508, Room 4010, Cincinnati, OH 45201 -Internal Revenue Service -Affiliate of national, statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter) If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following: a. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a registered nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling b. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. Internal Revenue Service -proof previously submitted to Gambling Control Board If you previously submitted proof of nonprofit status from the Internal Revenue Service, no attachment is required. GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place} r Address (do not use PO box) t , City Zip Code County Dat (s);c° -~~tivity (for raffles. ind ate the date of the drawing) Check the box or boxes that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will conduct: ^ Bingo [~] Raffles ^ *Paddlewheels ^ Pull-Tabs ^ *Tipboards * Gambling equipment for pull-tabs, tipboards, paddlewheels, and bingo (bingo paper, hard cards, and bingo number selection device) must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Gambling Control Board. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and click on List of Licensed Distributors, or call 651-634-4076. LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 2 of 2 sio~ LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT AGKNUW ~EDGMENT If the gambling premises is within city limits, If the gambling premises is located in a township, both the city must sign this application, the county and township must sign this application. Check ('~~ the action that the city is taking on Check ('~) the action that the county is taking on this application. this application. __The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting -The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting period, anti allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days (60 days fora 1st class city). days. The application is denied. The application is denied. Print city name Print county name On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application. On behalf of the city, f acknowledge this application. Signature of county personnel receiving application Signature of city personnel receiving application Title Date ! / Title _ Date / / TOWNSHIP: On behalf of the township, 1 acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. [A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application [Minnesota Statute 349.213, subd. 2}] Print township name _ Signature of township official acknowledging application Title Date I / GRIEF `EXECUTIVE C)FFICER'S SIGNATUR E The information provided in this applicatipn is coiriple~ and accurate to the best of my knowledge. !acknowledge that the financial report will be comple(ecPand returnert~~the Board within 30 days of the date of our gambling activity. ~, ~ ~~,. ~ Chief executiveofficer'ssigna r ,,~ Date /~~„~ / °`~ Complete an application for eac ambi activity: Financial report and recordkeeping • one day of gambling ac~it"y required • two or more consecutive days of gambling activity A financial report form and instructions will be • each day a raffle drawing is held sent with your permit. Within 30 days of the Send application with: activity date, complete and return the financial • a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and report form to the Gambling Control Board. • $50 application fee for each event. Questions? Make check payable to "State of Minnesota." Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Ta: Gambling Control Board Control Board at 651-639-4076. 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, MN 55113 Data privacy. This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. The information requested on this forrn (and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control Board (Board) to detem~ine your qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in RAinnesata. You have the right to refuse to supply the information requested: however, if you refuse to supply this information, the Board may not be able to determine your qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue you a permit. If you supply the information requested, the Board will be able to process your application. Your name and and your organization's name and address will be public information when received by the Board. All the other information you provide will be private data until the Board issues your permit. When the Board issues your permit, a!! of the information provided to the Board will become public. If the Board does not issue a permit, all information provided remains private, with the exception of your name and yorir organization's name and address which will remain public. Private data are available to: Board members, Board staff whose work requires access to the information; Minnesota's Department of Public Safety; Attorney General; Comrnissioners of Administration, Finance, and Revenue; Legislative Auditor, national and international gambling regulatory agencies: anyone pursuant to court order, other individuals and agencies that are specifically authorized by state or federal law to have access Co the information; individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a new use or sharing of information after this Notice was given; and anyone with your consent. CITE' F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.Ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: September 20, 2007 RE: Accept Project and Authorize Final Payment for the Badger Field Lighting Project, City Project 06-07 On Apri123rd, 2007, the Shorewood City Council awarded a contract for replacement of the Badger Football Field Lighting System to Honda Electric, Inc. Staff is pleased to report that the project has been completed, the contractor has submitted asbuilt drawings for the system, and final'paperwork and withholding certifications needed to close out the project. Thus, the contractor is due the normal progress payment for work completed, in the amount of $4,275.00, in addition to funds that have been retained throughout the project to insure adequate completion and documentation in the amount of $3,666.05. If approved, this brings the total payment due to $7,941.05. Table 1 below is a summary of the total project construction costs. Original Contract Amount $69,000.00 Change Order 1 $4,321.00 Revised Contract Amount $73,321.00 Engineers Estimate for Construction $83,710.00 Table 1 Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the attached resolution that accepts the project and authorizes final payment in the amount of $7,941.05. .m ~a r9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~ ~ ~~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO 07- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BADGER FIELD FOOTBALL FIELD LIGHTING PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, CITY PROJECT 06-07 WHEREAS, on Apri123, 2007, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with Honda Electric, Inc., for City Project No. 06-07, for the Badger Football Field Lighting Project; and, WHEREAS, the Contractor has petitioned for final acceptance of the project and final payment based on work performed to date; and, WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has made a final inspection of the project and recommends acceptance and final payment be made by the City. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The City hereby does accept the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final payment to the Contractor, and all warranties shall commence as of the date of this resolution, subject to the following items: The Contractor furnish the City a maintenance bond pursuant to the contract. 2. The Contractor must make satisfactory showing that he has complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding of State Income Tax. 3. Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the Contractor by reasons of the contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 24t" day of September, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk ci77 or ~ SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: September 6, 2007 RE: Request for Funding -Arctic Fever The Arctic Fever 2008 committee has been meeting every month, since January of this year, planning next year's events and fundraising for "Arctic Fever 08." As talked about during the joint City Council and Park Commission meeting conducted on August 28tH, 2007, the Park Commission and Arctic Fever Committee, are seeking financial support from each city involved'in the event. At the Park Commission meeting conducted on September Stn, 2007, the Commission provided direction for a request to be presented to the City Council for an amount of $3,000. This is an amount that has not been dedicated previously within the Park Budget, and would be funded from the General Fund, if approved. Attachment 1 is a listing of the anticipated costs for the entire event. Attachment 2 is a draft letter of request that is also being presented to many private organizations in and around the lake area communities to try to obtain the balance of the funding needed for the planned event. Recommendation The Park Commission requests approval of funds, outside of the current 2007 Park Budget in the amount of $3,000 for the Arctic Fever 08 event. If approved, funds would originate from the general fund. /k 7f~ .f j®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Arctic Fever Levels of Sponsorship Fireworks Sponsor - $4,500 -Naming rights of activity i.e. -Arctic Fever Fireworks presented by (xxxxx) -On-site presence to promote business or product. -On-site signage acknowledging contribution. -Logo featured on web-site as fireworks sponsor. -Logo featured in marketing collateral as fireworks sponsor. -Logo featured in newspaper ads as sponsor. Sleigh Ride Sponsor - $1,100 -On-site signage acknowledging contribution. -Logo featured on sleigh. -Logo featured on web-site as sleigh ride sponsor sponsor. -Logo featured in marketing collateral a sleigh ride sponsor. -Logo featured in newspaper ads as sponsor. Schutzhund Doq Sponsor - $700 -On-site signage acknowledging contribution. -Logo featured on web-site as sponsor. -Logo featured in marketing collateral as sponsor. -Logo featured in newspaper ads as sponsor. Sled Dog Sponsor - $500 -On-site signage acknowledging contribution. -Logo featured on web-site as sponsor. -Logo featured in marketing collateral as sponsor. -Logo featured in newspaper ads as sponsor. Coca & S'More Sponsor - $500/in-kind -On-site signage acknowledging contribution. -Logo featured on web-site as sponsor. -Logo featured in marketing collateral as sponsor. -Logo featured in newspaper ads as sponsor. Uniform Sponsor - $300 -Logo featured on uniform as sponsor. -Logo featured on web-site as sponsor. -Logo featured in marketing collateral as sponsor. Mini-Horse Sponsor - $200 -On-site signage acknowledging contribution. -Logo featured on web-site as sponsor. -Logo featured in marketing collateral as sponsor. Activity Prizes - $various/in-kind -Acknowledgement as a sponsor on web-site and marketing materials. ATTACHMENT 1 ARCTIC FEVER FUND LEVELS August 29, 2007 (Name) (Company) (Address) (Address) Dear (name), The Arctic Fever Committee invites you to be part of the 2"d annual Arctic Fever by becoming a sponsor and getting your business involved in the event. Arctic Fever is one-day winter festival of family fun events and shopping happening throughout the South Lake Minnetonka area. Arctic Fever was established in 2007 to bring the communities of the South Lake area together for a winter event they could call their own. Arctic Fever 08' takes place on Saturday, January 19'h. The first Arctic Fever was a huge success, entertaining hundreds of kids of all ages at various events throughout the day. For 2008 we added additional programming and our goal is to double attendance from last year. Enclosed is a sponsorship form, information on sponsorship opportunities and some additional information about Arctic Fever. We hope you become involved with this wonderful event. Whether you can contribute financially, in-kind or not at this time; we invite you to join us on Saturday, January 19'h, 2008 atone of the many activities throughout the day. Sincerely, The Arctic Fever Committee ATTACHMENT 2 LETTER OF REQUEST CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2007 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniflkc, Iutchins, and Meyer; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: Commissioner Ruoff APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7 August 2007 Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Comnussion Meeting Minutes of 7 August 2007 as Amended in Item 4, Page 12, delete "Chair Schlnitt closed the Public Hearing at 8:42 P.M." Motion passed 5/0/1 with Meyer abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. 1. C.U.P AMENDMENT -UPPER LAIiF 1\IINNETONKA YACHT CLUB (continued from 7 August 2007) Proposer: City of Shorewood Location: 4580 Enchanted Point Chair Schmitt re-opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P,M. (which was continued from August 7, 2007), noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a September 24, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated the City had received additional correspondence with regard to the City considering a revised resolution clarifying the original resolution granting the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club's (UMYC) 1977 conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for nonconforming use of its property. The UMYC was formerly known as the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club. He explained because the Public Hearing had been continued there would likely be additional public comment and additional comment by the law firm representing the UMYC. Jack Strothman with the law firm of Lindquest and Vennum PLLP, stated he was the UMYC's principal attorney on this matter; he was not able to be present at the Public Hearing on August 7, 2007. He commented that he had been involved in defending the UMYC in the trial regarding the criminal complaint filed by the City against the UMYC. Mr. Strothman explained that the materials he had prepared (which were not distributed to the Commission until this evening for a variety of reasons) were lengthy; he suggested the Commission may want to review them in detail at its convenience and discuss them with the City's attorney. He commented that he also provided the Commission with the transcript of the court proceeding on April 24, 2007. He stated that in his document he referenced various City records that the Planning Commission had previously received copies of from City Staff. He then stated in his document he detailed how his CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 2 of 14 interpretation of those records was different from the City's interpretation. He also stated he was aware the City had received resident complaint about the UMYC's nonconforming use of its property. Mr. Strothman highlighted some of the comments made in the document he had prepared. - The decision to dismiss the criminal proceeding was based on the history of the City's actions regarding the UMYC's 1977 and 1978 C.U.P.s and the use was not restricted to sailboats. - Between 1977 and 1993 there had been 29 occasions on which the City Council dealt with the C.U.P. and its language, and another nine occasions by the Planning Commission; a suggestion was never made to change the language in the C.U.P. - In City correspondence regarding the UMYC's 1992 application for a variance to build a clubhouse on its property, there were suggestions flat restrictions to sailboats could be made as a condition of approval and there was a reference to the requirement that the halyards (on sailboats) had to be tight. Although the Planning Commission recommended the variance for approval, the Council denied that request in 1993. - There had not been any action on behalf of the City Council, Planning Commission or Staff from 1993 to 2006 regarding limiting the UMYC's use to sailboats; that action occurred after the City received resident complaints in 2006. - In 1977, there were Public Hearings held for C.U.P. permit requests for both the UMYC and the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC); the Public Hearings were held at the same Planning Commission meeting with one following the other. Both C.U.P.s were recommended for approval by the Panning Commission -the SYC C.U.P. was limited to "sailboats only" and it included a reference to halyards being tied off; the UMYC C.U.P. did not include any limitations nn tha type of boats. As part of its C.U.P. the UMYC did accept a reduction in the number of slips it could have from 42 to 30. - As part of its 1977 application request, the UMYC had also made a request to build a clubhouse; that request was not granted. - Public records indicate that the 11ti1YC allowed powerboats to use its slips for decades; it was not a change in use. - The UMYC had done a terrible job of populating the marina; very few boats had been in the marina. The marina was not in the best of locations. However, some portion of the boats had always been powerboats. - The UYMC had been operating as a "non-profit organization" for 40 years with community involvement for the benefit of the community. - The Minnetonka Yacht Club's (MYC) 36-slip marina was currently populated entirely by powerboats; its slips were rented by Club members. Over the last three decades the marina had been mostly populated by powerboats. The rental of slips for powerboats had helped the Club to ~,~row its membership. The renters of the slips were responsible, and if they were not they had to leave the marina. - There had been very few "strictly powerboats" located at the UMYC in any year. - There had been one complaint issued in 2007 against an individual using the UMYC property; because that individual did not respond positively to a warning it received from the UMYC they were no longer allowed at the UMYC marina. The UMYC had not received any other complaints; it could not respond to complaints the City may have received if it was not notified. Mr. Strothman stated from his vantage point it would not be legal for the City to consider a revised resolution clarifying the original resolution granting the UMYC's 1977 C.U.P. John Barlow Vice Commodore of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, stated his position was a volunteer position. He then stated the UMYC was a small organization that dated back 40 years; and there were CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 3 of 14 third-generation members of the UMYC. He commented that the UMYC had not been very aggressive in marketing its services prior to 2006 as it didn't have a need to until Hennepin County reclassified the UMYC property. That reclassification resulted in its property taxes being increased to more than $27,000 from approximately $5,500. He explained the marina was the UMYC's chief source of income. He stated the controversy at hand was not about motorboats in the marina; it was about UMYC's survival. Without revenue from the marina the UMYC could not afford to pay its property taxes. He commented that the need to rent slips to powerboats was not a scheme. He also commented that he had been a member since 1975 and it was the worst time in the UMYC's history. Mr. Barlow explained that every boat at the UMYC's marina had a motor on it, and some of the boats also had sails; the sailboats required a motor to get from the marina to a Bailable part of the lake. Four of the boats currently docked at the marina did not have sails. One of the boats had been used 10 - 11 times in 2007; that boat was owned by a retired couple and one of them had been a UMYC member many years. The second of the four boats was owned by the executive of a company and his wife, and that man had been along-time sailor, The third boat was owned by a woman who was ahigh-powered executive of ahigh-tech company and her husband; she and her family had used their boat approximately 20 times in 2007. The fourth slip was rented by an analyst for an in~~estment banking firm, but he currently did not dock a boat there. There could possibly be another two powerboat owners that may be interested in renting a slip from the UMYC. Mr. Barlow stated on the UMYC property was a sign stating "This is a private marina located in a residential area. Please be courteous to our neighbors. You are responsible for your guests. Limit noise like you would at your own home. Absolute curfe«~ is 12:00 AM midnight until sunrise. No exceptions. Enjoy boating and be safe. UMYC Board of Directors. For airy questions, comments or complaints contact John Barlow 612-759-7161." fle then stated his home phone number was 952-472-6132, and he wanted residents to call him about problems with people at the marina. Chair Schmitt opened the Public `T'estimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:26. P.M. Lee Lahore 4445 Enchanted Paint, stated four of his neighbors were present this evening. He then stated he felt "bad" that the UMYC's property taxes were more than $27,000; but, the combined property taxes for he and his four neighbors ~~~ere far in excess of $27,000. If he and his four neighbors came before the Planning Commission to request more boat slips on their lots so they could rent them out to make money to pay property taxes, he ~~~as confident the Commission would say that was in violation of the City's Ordinance. Mr. Labore then quoted a statement made in the UMYC's C.U.P, application dated April 25, 1977: "The Yacht Club may develop under the conditions of the City and LMCD, dockage and/or mooring facilities for 34 sailboat slips or lift spaces, 8 buoys, and 2 slips for Yacht Club Committee boats. Four dinghies or prams may be used by sailboat owners." He then stated from his vantage point there never had been any confusion regarding what the C.U.P. pertained to. Originally the residents were upset because the property was residential property and it should not be used for sailboats. He stated when the C.U.P. was granted for 30 slips for sailboats the UMYC indicated that was what they wanted and they would not come before the Council to ask for anything else. He also stated in 1992 he circulated a petition to Enchanted Island residents stating the UMYC wanted to build a club house in which it would serve alcohol and the UMYC had broken its promise. Mr. Lahore stated he had nothing against the UMYC; he thought it had done a remarkable job teaching children how to sail. He felt bad that the UMYC did not have the participants in its sailing program that it would like to have. He suggested the UMYC market its sailing school in the schools. He stated he was not in support of the UMYC renting slips for powerboats, that would be contrary to its original application and to the position the Planning Commission and Council had taken for over 30 years. He quoted a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 4 of 14 statement in UMYC's 1977 application "and the Club property shall not be rented to any individual or organization". He then stated the UMYC ensured the residents at that time that the UMYC would be a sailing yacht club; the residents had supported that for years. He commented that the size and speed of powerboats had increased significantly over the years. He stated for the sake of justice, continuity, and protecting Enchanted Island the UMYC must remain a "sailboats only" yacht club. James Thibault 4565 Enchanted Point, stated his property was located across from the UMYC. He stated at the Public Hearing meeting on August 7, 2007, he had reviewed a document he and his wife had submitted to the City stating their support for a revised resolution. He quoted excerpts from a memo to Planning Director Nielsen from UMYC Commodore Skip Jewett dated November 12, 1992: "The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club is a sanctioned yacht club entity, operating under rules of the Inland Lakes Yachting Association. All yachts are sailboats only, except for one powerboat, which is used for officiating races.", and "The use is significantly different from marinas, where boat use and times are determined by owners throughout a 24 hour day. UMYC has rules regarding property, moorings, and use, which have been drafted to eliminate neighborhood complaints and problems." He stated he had participated in the meetings in 1976 and 1977, and when an agreement was finally reached in 1977 it was his understanding that the UMYC was authorized for 30 sailboats. He was not aware that anything different was occurring until he noticed four powerboats at the UMYC, it was at that point they complained to the City. He stated he hoped the City would adopt a revised resolution clarifying the 1978 resolution. Scott Brown 4560 Enchanted Point, stated he lived next door to the UMYC. He commented he was a former member and Commodore of the UMYC. He stated there had been multiple complaints to the UMYC; he and his wife had made many complaints face-to-face to Noel Neuman (UMYC Commodore) or John Barlow (Vice Commodore). He stated the complaints were delivered verbally because of his friendship with the individuals; he did not think it was necessary to formally document them. There had been a statement made earlier that there had been only one complaint in 2007; that was clearly in error. He then stated that problems at the UMYC were still ongoing. He explained that over the past weekend sailors arrived at the UMYC around 9:00 ~.M. and after a morning of sailing departed shortly after noon; later in the day two groups of power boaters came, and one of the groups never left the UMYC property (it was a party area). Mr. Brown stated in 2005 the UMYC made a definite and distinctive change in its behavior. At a January 2005 UMYC Board meeting (for which he wrote the minutes) there was discussion about how the UMYC could make money; renting slips for powerboats was part of that discussion. The documentation for membership had also changed; it went from marketing renting slips to various size sailboats to marketing renting slips to various size sailboats or powerboats. That had not occurred in previous years. He then stated no sailing lessons had been given at the UMYC in 2007. He also stated a member of the Sailing School had stated to the UMYC membership that the school was teaching people how to sail, and the money that was put into the Sailing School was driving an increase in membership and paying for itself. He commented that when he reviewed the records for the last five years; he was not able to find an instance where a child who had taken lessons at the Sailing School had joined the UMYC. He stated he liked the UMYC and its membership, and the UMYC served a purpose for people on that end of Lake Minnetonka; but the UMYC property needed to be used for a sailing club because that was what was asked for. He commented that the UMYC did not keep its judges' powerboat at the UMYC; that boat was docked at another slip for a cost of approximately $11,000 per year. Keith Morical 3942 Enchanted Lane, stated his property was located approximately one mile from the UMYC property. He commented he was a UMYC member. He stated he had visited the UMYC at least three times per week, at various times of the day and night, since the ice went out in spring of 2007. He then stated he had observed two groups of people on the property (other than sailors or slip renters coming or going) during those visits. One group was a family that rented a slip and it was having a family CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 5 of 14 picnic; they stayed on the property for less than two hours and were relatively quite while on the property. The other group consisted of neighboring residents that were not UMYC members. He stated he was in charge of a sailing class (learn to sail your own boat) in 2007; eight new UMYC members were a result of that class. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M. Commissioner Hutchins questioned when was the first time the UMYC rented slips for powerboats. Mr. Strothman responded for decades. Hutchins clarified he was referring to tnie powerboats, not sailboats with a power motor on them. Strothman stated sailboats with power motors on them were powerboats. Strothman then stated he had gotten the LMCD records regarding what types of boats were docked in the slips; he could not determine if the boats' owners paid for the slips for not, but he did know powerboats went back for decades. Mr. Brown stated he purchased his property next door to the UMYC in 2005; and he saw the first true powerboat in a rental slip in 2006. Mr. Barlow stated he was Commodore during the low-water era of 1986 and there were powerboats then; also, the records showed that slips were rented for powerboats in the 1990s including one to an individual that rented from the UMYC in 2006 and as far back as 1998. Commissioner Hutchins stated Mr. Jewett's letter to Director Nielsen dated November 12, 1992, stated all yachts were sailboats only. Mr. Strothman stated that was part of the application process and indicated what the UMYC would have going forward; as part of that negotiation process the UMYC stated it would reduce its number of slips to 25 from 30 if the variance for a club house was approved. Strothman then stated during that process the recommendation by the Planning Commission included restrictions to sailboats as a condition of approval. Hutchins quoted an excerpt front the letter: "All yachts are sailboats only, except for one powerboat, which is used for officiating races." Strothman stated he was not involved at that time and was not sure what that was about; it was his understanding the negotiation was about a club house and the UMYC was willi~lg to make the commitment to sailboats only. Mr. Brown stated when he was Commodore (which he believed was 1997) the UMYC Board spent hours debating why powerboat owners wanted to rent slips at the UMYC. Brown then stated it was stated in UMYC minutes that the UMYC was not supposed to rent slips for powerboats. At that time the UMYC Treasurer was aggressive and was willing to rent a slip for powerboat use as the UMYC would have a paying customer. He commented that renting a slip for powerboat use was a violation, Commissioner Gagne stated he had a lot of history with the topic of the UMYC property. From day one, the UMYC was to be a yacht club, and to him yacht club meant for sailboats. The UMYC had wanted to construct a club house on the property, and that request was denied. He stated far back in time there had been discussion that the UMYC needed one powerboat for judging races, and his recollection was that was okay. He could understand why the UMYC would want to rent its slips for powerboats because of the potential revenue from the rentals and because of its high property taxes. He then stated it was his personal opinion that the City Council would have to make a decision. From his vantage point, the UMYC was supposed to be a yacht club with sailboats and maybe one or two powerboats for judging races and that was what it was designed for. The residents had compromised on sailboats, even though they did not want any nonconforming use in the residential neighborhood. He thought the intent of the original special permit/C.U.P. should be adhered to. Commissioner Geng stated after listening to the public comment at this public hearing and the one on August 7, 2007, he was impressed that all of the neighbors who spoke were supportive of the sailing function of the UMYC. The long-time residents thought the restriction to sailboats was consistent with the compromise they had agreed to, and that was important to him. Enchanted Island was entirely a residential neighborhood, and a sailing yacht club was a nonconforming use in an R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland district. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 6 of 14 Geng then stated in the transcript of the court proceedings the attorney representing the UMYC stated "with respect to the issue of taxes, I think that that is a question wholly outside of what this case is about." He then stated when it was convenient for the UMYC to disassociate itself from the property tax issue during the criminal preceding it did so. Now the UMYC was stating it needed the rental it could receive from renting slips for powerboats because of its high property taxes. He found that change to be "disingenuous". Geng went on to state that a lot of this controversy had been "placed on the Planning Director's doorstep". He noted the transcript of the court proceeding indicated it was the State of Minnesota versus the UMYC. He doubted the Planning Director or any other member of the City staff could have initiated the law suit without approval from the City Council. Commissioner Gniffke stated the long-term intent of the UMYC had been for a sailing yacht club in a residential area. It appeared as if there was a desire to become a marina in the residential neighborhood; the area was not zoned for commercial use, and he thought a marina would be classified as a commercial use. Commissioner Hutchins stated he thought the property tai issue was a "non-issue" because financial hardship had no bearing on the C.U.P. The spirit of the intent of the original application for a special use permit and the agreement that was forged between the UMYC and the neighboring property owners, with involvement from the City, was for a sailing yacht club. IIe then stated when he looked at the UMYC website it was stated that the UMYC was quiet, affordable, and sailboat friendly. The website identified the marina features as twelve slips with Crepeau docks for sailboats less than 30 feet long, eighteen shoreline lift spaces for dingy and scow sailboats. The website had no mention of rental for powerboats. The remainder of the website (although much of it appeared to be out of date) spoke fully of the UMYC's purpose of sailing. From his vantage point, he sensed the rental of slips for powerboats was because of financial need; it appeared to be an attempt to take undue advantage of an administrative oversight in the resolution which stated "boats" rather than "sailboats". He did not think the rental of slips for powerboats was within the intent of the original agreement. Chair Schmitt stated from a purely planning perspective, a marina was not an appropriate use in a residential area. He did not think the Planning Commission would have recommended a C.U.P. for commercial use for a marina with powerboats in the residential area when the original agreement was approved. At least one of the other yacht clubs on Lake Minnetonka was located in a commercial district and was not in a residential neighborhood. Ile can sympathize that the population of sailboats was on the decline. Financial hardship did not factor into a C.U.P. for nonconforming use. It appeared the UMYC found an oversight with the language of resolution granting the C.U.P. to satisfy the UMYC's financial needs. He stated commercial use in a residential district would be inappropriate. Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending approval of 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. Motion passed 5/0/1 with Meyer abstaining. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 P.M. 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION. Applicants: Dan and Melissa Nelson Location: 25865 Birch Bluff Road Director Nielsen stated Dan Nelson owned the property at 25865 Birch Bluff Road, and Mr. Nelson proposed a minor subdivision of his property. Nielsen explained the property was zoned R-lA/S, Single- Family Residential/Shoreland, and it was occupied by the applicant's house. The property contained CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 7 of 14 approximately 2.61 acres (113,596 square feet) of area, of which 37,701 square feet was wetland. The site was characterized by relatively steep slopes that dropped from an elevation of 980 on the north side of the site to 931 at the wetland on the south side of the site. The property was substantially wooded with large deciduous trees forming a dense canopy. 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. He commented that Clara Avenue was also a paper street. He stated the property owners had been granted an incidental use ofright-of--way permit in 2004, prior to them purchasing the property. Nielsen then explained the proposed subdivision would result in two lots. Both lots would exceed the width requirements of the R-lA district. The westerly lot (Parcel A) with the existing house on it 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 applicant proposed that the new lot would share the portion of driveway that lies within Second Street with the existing home. From the northeast corner of the property a new driveway would split off at the intersection of Second Street and Clara Avenue to serve a new home on Parcel B. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen reviewed the significant issues that were raised by applicant's request with respect to site alteration and access. A. Site Alteration. The land in question was extremely sensitive from an environmental perspective. The plans presented result in approximately half of the site being altered by tree clearing and grading. Existing grades are at 33 percent over much of the property. The proposed grades result in disturbed slopes as steep as 46 percent -all of which would result in extensive tree removal. A tree inventory had not been signed by a landscape architect, licensed forester or certified arborist. 'fhe applicant had not submitted a tree replacement plan. The Natural Resources chapter of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan recommended "...12 percent grades will be considered a `warning flag'." It also said development on slopes greater than 12 percent must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Finally, the Ylan recommended that development which would result in disturbed slopes exceeding 3;1 (33 percent) should not be allowed, except in extreme situations. A situation would inchide allowing an existing lot of record to be put to use, but not necessarily the creation of a new lot. The plan submitted did not include the 35-foot wetland buffer area and the fifteen-foot setback from the buffer. If the subdivision was approved, the applicant must provide legal descriptions of the wetland buffer area and deed a conservation easement to the City over the buffer area. No erosion control plan had been submitted with the plans. The applicant's home was served by a single sanitary sewer line that extended across their property along Second Street into the sewer system on Birch Bluff; the system was a lift system which meant the system had to be pumped. If the applicant's lot were to be subdivided, and if Block 5 were to be subdivided, there would be a potential for four individual pump sewer lines in a very narrow piece of right-of--way. If both lots were to be subdivided, there should be aright-of--way wide enough to accommodate the installation of City sewer. B. Access. In the original plat of Mann's Addition to Birch Bluff, three large lots were created along a network of platted rights-of--way that were never developed as City streets. The subject property was currently accessed by a private driveway located on a public right-of--way known as Second Street. The driveway was approximately 12 feet CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 8 of 14 wide, which was all the existing right-of--way could accommodate; that left five feet on each side of the traveled surface for snow storage. Under Shorewood rules a second property could share this as a common driveway; that was what was anticipated for the property to the east of Second Street (Block 5), another existing lot of record. If this access was to serve three properties, as proposed by the applicant, it would require, at minimum, a private road. Shorewood's Subdivision Code required all lots to have frontage on a public street. While private roads were highly discouraged, the Comprehensive Plan allowed them where no other alternative existed, where no more than tln-ce 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. Even 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 access road was constructed, placing the entire cost of it on that owner. Further, if the current request was approved, it was reasonable to expect that there may be a desire to subdivide Block 5 in the future; that would be prechided because the number of properties served would then exceed three. Any development, beyond allowing the existing lots of record to be built upon and being served by a shared driveway, should involve a cooperative effort by the affected land owners. If it appeared that more than three lots could be achieved from the properties, the existing "paper street" network (Second Street and portions of Clara Avenue) should be upgraded and improved as City streets. In this regard, additional right-of--way for Clara Avenue and Second Street should be required with any subdivision approval. C, Process, When the applicant initially contacted staff, the applicant was advised that the request should be submitted as a formal preliminary plat, rather than a minor subdivision. This was due to the right-ol-way issues, the dedication of drainage and utility easements, and the dedication of conservation easements for the wetland. In addition, the platting process would involve a public hearing, while a minor subdivision would not, Based on neighborhood conccl7~s at the tinge the right-of--way permit was approved in 2004, there was considerable interest in the development of the subject property. For these reasons, staff stands by its recommendation that the division be processed by formal platting. The applicant has chosen, as was his right, to apply for a minor subdivision, citing the cost of formal platting as his reason. Nielsen stated based upon the preceding, Staff did not recommend approval of the applicant's proposed subdivision; at minimum, it should be considered a premature subdivision. No more development should occur beyond the use of the existing lots of record until the affected property owners acquire the necessary right-of--way to comply with City standards. If consideration of a subdivision was to continue, it should be done through the formal platting process, addressing the concerns raised. Nielsen noted Dan and Melissa Nelson were present this evening. Dan Nelson distributed various aerial photos of his property. He then addressed some of the issues reviewed by Director Nielsen. - On the drawing depicting how a house could be built on the new lot while adhering to zoning regulations, the surveyor located a driveway to the house starting at the corner of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 9 of 14 Second Street and Clara Avenue. If the driveway was moved 30 feet the loss of trees would be reduced to two. - With regard to the 46 percent grade, he stated that was the grade in existence today. The grade was that severe because the City had requested the existing private driveway be placed on Second Avenue, and it was adjusted slightly on to their property to accommodate the installation of full storm sewer system. - The highest slope of the land was from the corner down to the wetland; there would not be anything built close to the drop-off. The proposed grade of 34 percent could be modified. There was a property on Lake Virginia where the grade was significantly greater than 34 percent, and it was reduced by putting in a great deal of fill. - The surveyor's plan did not reflect the 35-foot and 15-foot setbacks; that was an error by the surveyor and it would be corrected. - The narrowest part of the driveway was approximately 15 feet wide. The reason the driveway was not 22 feet wide all the way was because of the placement of a neighbor's retaining wall and another neighbor's driveway. - His house was required to have afire-suppression system installed in it to meet fire code. He assumed any house that would be built on the proposed new lot would also have to have a system. - Shorewood rules allowed for a second property to share a common driveway, and it was assumed that was anticipated when the area was originally platted. All regulations were met when Second Street and Clara Avenue were developed. - The property owners of Block 5 had no interest in selling their property at this time. Although the City would prefer the applicants' wait until Block 5 was sold, they should not be penalized for wanting to subdivide prior to that happening. - Access to Block 5 could ve accommodated by using Mapleview Court; therefore, there would not be an issue to access the proposed new lot off of Second Street. - Private roads had been allowed. Thcrc were three houses on Third Street that were accessed off a private drive off of Birch Bluff, On Grant Lorenz Road there were two houses that were accessed via a single drive; also there were five other houses on Grant Lorenz Road that were accessed via a single road, - The sewer system to the existing house was originally supposed to be a gravity-flow system; water conditions under Birch Bluff Road prohibited that. An E-1 System was then installed; the system was recommended by City staff. - The cost to do a formal plat to subdivide the property was estimated to be $30,200 for the survey. To date the applicants had spent over $6,000 on survey costs. - In the Ridge Road area, a property with a more significant grade than the applicant's, had recently been approved for a subdivision, even though it did not meet all the City's regulations. - When the right-of-way permit was approved in 2004, there had been concerns expressed by the neighbors to the west and east. Their concerns had been addressed. - A licensed arborist had been to the site, and marked and counted the trees on one half of the lot. - The legal description of his property was Block 6 (not Lot 6 as stated on the City's documents regarding this case); blocks were meant to be split into individual lots. Ms. Nelson commented that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District had no interest in their property at this time; it would be interested at the time the property was further developed. Mr. Nelson stated there was no stream that ran through his property (as some people assumed), it was a trench that was dug by the property owner of Block 5 to drain water from his property into the wetland. CITY OF SAOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 10 of 14 Grey Buckley, 25885 Birch Bluff Road, expressed concerns about access. If the proposed subdivision and access were to be approved, he questioned what the impact would be on lots located to the east of the Nelson's property. He would also want to have the existing private driveway covered with something other than gravel, to minimize noise and dust from increased traffic. He also had concerns about the existing width of the road. Chair Schmitt explained the Planning Commission had to abide by the existing City code; the Code that existed at the time Second Street and Clara Avenue were built was different from today. He stated he thought access to the property and its impact on access to Block 5 would be a major issue. He then stated he thought the Planning Commission needed more information before it could make a recommendation on the request to the Council. He commented he would prefer to see a preliminary plat unless the applicant had another way to demonstrate how the road would be engineered to meet existing safety standards and the City's current Ordinance. Mr. Nelson stated they had only received one quote for a formal plat He clarified that it was a private driveway not a road that provided access to his property; the driveway had a 10-ton per axel rating. Chair Schmitt stated the width of the private driveway was more concel-~~ing if it were to be used to access multiple properties. Director Nielsen clarified the applicant proposed the existing private driveway would be shared with the proposed new lot; the issue was if/when Block 5 were subdivided a house could not be built on the new road unless a private road was installed (three houses required a private road; two houses could be accessed from a private driveway). Chair Schmitt stated the applicant should not be held responsible for the impact on future potential development on Block 5 as he could not control it. Director Nielsen clarified the City's Ordinance did speak to premature subdivisions. This proposed subdivision (and private driveway access) would leave a future new subdivided lot from Block 5 without access. The Ordinance did require the "big picture" be considered as part of planning process for minor subdivisions. Chair Schmitt stated if Block 5 were to be subdivided and access to both lots were to be off of Mapleview Court (which ends in a cul-de-sac), that could potentially become an issue if the road had to be lengthened. That was one example of the long-term planning considerations that must be taken into account when considering a subdivision. The impact for future development of Block 5 must be taken into account. Mr. Nelson commented the property owners of Block 5 had stated to him that City water and sewer would come down Mapleview Court to their property. Commissioner Meyer stated he shared many of the same concerns Chair Schmitt expressed. He thought it was important that the property owners of Block 5, and other neighboring property owners, be informed of the request and the possible impact on a future subdivision of their property, and they should have the opportunity to comment on it. Commissioner Gagne stated the Planning Commission had never made a recommendation based on cost. Director Nielsen clarified if the application were denied the worst case would be the applicant could not reapply for a minor subdivision for six months. He then stated the applicants survey stated it showed proposed contour lines; there appears to be confusion as to whether they are proposed or current. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 11 of 14 In response to a question from Commissioner Meyer, Director Nielsen stated if the existing grade exceeded the 33 percent allowed in the Comprehensive Plan that was different than allowing someone to create a grade in excess of that; the development did not cause the grading limit to be exceeded. After ensuing discussion there was consensus that this request could be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting subject to the applicant providing the Planning Commission with the following additional information. - The impact on future subdivision and development of Block ~, including a proposed plan for how it could be developed in conformance with the City Ordinance, and input from the current Block 5 property owners. - An updated survey to reflect setback requirements, and accurate and correctly labeled topography information. - A code analysis which identified how the plan would conform to the City Code. Gniffke moved, Gagne seconded, continuing the request for a minor subdivision for Dan Nelson, 25865 Birch Bluff Road, to the October 16, 2007, Planning Commission meeting, subject to the applicant providing the additional information listed above. 1lotion passed 6/0. 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicants: Jack and Anne Carter Location: 5705 and 5725 Smithtown Way Director Nielsen stated Jack and Anne Carter, the applicants, had withdrawn their request for a minor subdivision. 4. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -C.U.P. FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CU. YDS. Applicants: Tom and Debra Mahoney Location: 6150 Deer Ridge Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at x:49 P.M Director Nielsen stated Tom and llebra Mahoney, 6150 Deer Ridge, proposed to raise the level of their back yard to create a level play area for their children. The project would involve bringing in approximately 1800 cubic yards of till material and the construction of a rather large retaining wall. The City's zoning regulations require a conditional use pernut for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards; therefore, the Mahoneys have requested a C.U.P. Nielsen explained the property was zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential, and contained approximately 53,503 square feet of area. The lot sloped from south to north with approximately 25 feet of grade change between the back of the house and the north (rear) property line. The area in which the fill would be placed had been cleared. A relatively dense deciduous wooded area encompasses the rear yard of the site. Nielsen then explained the retaining wall would be terraced, with the upper portion being approximately 240 feet in total length. The lower portion of the wall would be approximately 50 feet from the rear lot line and 10 feet from the side lot lines. The wall would be approximately 18.5 feet tall at its highest point. The two walls would be separated by a five-foot deep terrace, in which the applicants propose to plant dogwoods. They proposed arborvitae for the top of the wall, and the wall would be constructed of Keystone masonry block. The plans for the retaining wall had been prepared by a company called Civil Solutions Group, LLC. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 12 of 14 With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated from a planning perspective the C.U.P should address the potential impact on surrounding properties. Because the retaining wall would be 18.5 feet at its highest point, it was recommended the wall be broken up into three sections, rather than two, with no section being taller than six feet. The terraces should be no less than five feet apart and should be landscaped, based upon an approved landscape plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect. The additional terracing should allow more light to the landscaped areas. The landscaping should break the wall up and soften the view from surrounding properties; it would not have to completely block the wall from view. The landscaping should include, but need not be limited to, evertn~een plant materials. The landscape plan should be accompanied by copies of bids for the landscaping, upon which a letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one-half times the amount of the bids should be required. The security should be in place for two growing seasons. Nielsen then stated the location of the wall was considered to be too close to the side lot lines. It is recommended that the wall be moved to be 10 feet from the drainage and utility easement; the additional ten feet would allow askid-steer vehicle to maneuver along the wall without compacting soil over the tree root system. Tree protection fencing should be placed at the drainage and utility easement in order to protect the root zone of the trees along that border from construction tz~affic. Engineer Landini made the following comments, which were documented in his report. - The 1800 cubic yards of fill would require approximately 150 12-yard-capacity truck trips across Deer Ridge Road and adjoining roads. - The construction access for the fill and retaining wall would be tight; therefore, a temporary construction easement from the adjoining property was recommended. - Techny Arborvitae should be planted outside the geogrid reinforcement area; the geogrid would interfere with tree root development. - Low permeable soil should be used to cap unit core fill to reduce the amount of water behind the wall. - If the ground cover stayed pervious as was shown in the plans, runoff or drainage should remain similar to existing conditions. 'The area should be graded to minimize runoff over the top of the wall. Engineer Landini reeomnlended the following conditions be included as part of the C.U.P. - An escrow account should be opened to repair infrastructure damages in the amount of $5,000. - A structural engineer should inspect the wall during and after construction for quality assurance and plan conformance; the results should be reported to the City. Mike Jaunich, with Alpine landscape, stated he would be installing the retaining wall. He stated he did not foresee any problems accommodating the recommendations of Director Nielsen and Engineer Landini. He explained the top section could be reduced so it was no higher than 6 feet above grade. The applicants would prefer to keep the retaining wall to two sections because of cost. He stated plantings other than arborvitae could be planted in the geogrid area. The fill would be brought in from inside the proposed wall. Therefore, there would not be any traffic on the outside of the wall and he did not see a need to move the wall 10 feet from the drainage and utility easement to allow askid-steer vehicle to maneuver along the wall without compacting soil over the tree root system. The neighbors had already been contacted about a temporary construction easement and had no problem with it. Deb Mahoney stated they wanted to install the retaining wall to assist in leveling out their steep back yard; it did not allow for their two boys to play in the yard without major supervision and concern. The neighbors had already agreed to a construction easement. The retaining wall would be built from the inside out; there were a variety of options that could be used for construction access that would not CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 13 of 14 damage the existing trees. They had previously cleared out dead trees and buckthorn; unfortunately, they cleared some from neighboring properties by mistake and those items would be replaced on those properties. They were working with a landscaper on plantings, and currently 50 - 60 trees were planned to be planted. She stated they would prefer to have two tiers, and she thought the landscape could be done such that it would be a nice view for the neighbors. Mr. Jaunich stated there would be a fence on the top tier of the retaining wall. Mr. Mahoney explained there would be a layer of trees on top of the top tier and behind that would be a 6-foot wrought-iron fence. Director Nielsen stated he wanted to ensure the fill on the back side of the northeast corner of the wall would not occur within the root zone of the trees. He stated the landscape plan should identify the location of the root zone of the existing trees. Chair Schmitt stated his major concern was safety; but the 1=once should eliminate that concern. He questioned if the applicants considered boulder walls because of the natural look. Mrs. Mahoney stated their first choice was boulder block, which was more expensive. She commented the neighbors would not see the property line. She explained the keystone block that would be used would have a rock face, and they would be of varying sizes. She thought the amount of plantings they would put it in would make it denser than it was today. Director Nielsen noted the fence had to be 5 feet back from the edge of the wall. Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Recommending Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Fill in Excess 100 Cubic Yards for Tom and Debra Mahoney, 6150 Deer Ridge, subject to Staff recommendations which were modified to include a rivo-tier retaining wall with each tier no higher than six feet, asix-foot wrought-iron fence on the top tier of the wall with plantings on each side of the fence, and no trees being damaged as a result of the fill. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing. 5. DISCUSS PLANNING DISTRICT fi This item was continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. 6. SET DATE FOR JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Planning Commission. selected 1.6 October 2007 at 6:00 P.M. for a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission to discuss Planning Commission activities. The meeting would be held prior to a Planning Commission meeting. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there was a Conditional Use Permit for a Multiple Signage Plan, a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space over 1200 square feet, and a request for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow more than 50 percent powerboats at the Shorewood Yacht Club slated for the 2 October 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 September 2007 Page 14 of 14 9. REPORTS Liaison to Council Commissioner Hutchins reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 13, 2007, and August 27, 2007, Regular City Council meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). Council Liaisons were selected as followed: September 2007 Chair Schmitt October 2007 Commissioner Geng November 2007 Commissioner Meyer December 2007 Commissioner Gagne January 2008 Commissioner Gniffke • SLUG No report was given. • Other There was no other business presented this evening. 10. ADJOI7RNMENT Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 4 September 2007 at 9:44 P.M. Motion passed f,/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITE' OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO. BACKGROUND Planning Commission Brad Nielsen 2 August 2007 Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club -Revised Conditional Use Permit 405(07.12) The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club (formerly known as the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club) is located at 4580 Enchanted Point (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). It currently exists as a nonconforming use in the R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning 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 C.U.P., which was renewed in 1978. In 2006, the City received resident complaints that the Yacht Club had begun renting out slips to 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 now proposes to correct the C.U.P. to accurately reflect the Yacht Club's application and the City record. A public hearing has been scheduled for 7 August 2007 to consider this matter. The Yacht Club property contains 50,932 square feet of area (1.17 acres), and is occupied by a small storage building, a gravel parking area and various dock and boat storage devices. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The City's records contain a long and clear history of the UMYC operating as a sailing yacht club, as illustrated in the following exhibits (note: references to sailing club have been highlighted): es ~. ~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~gq. Memorandum Re: UMYC Revised C.U.P. 2 August 2007 Exhibit B is the original resolution approving a special use permit, among other restrictions, limiting the UMYC to 30 sailboats and two power boats. Exhibit C is a docking plan submitted fora 1976 docking license. Note references to sailboat slips and lifts. Exhibit D is from he UMYC application to the LMCD for a dock license in 1977. Exhibit E is the 1977 UMYC application to the City for a conditional use permit for a sailing yacht club. Note references to sailing yacht club, sailboats and sailing. Exhibit F is the 1977 dock permit request by the UMYC. Several references to sailing club, sailboat storage, sailing program and sailing activities are made throughout the document. Exhibit G -the Council minutes from 27 June 1977 reference the Planning Commission recommendation that the same conditions imposed in the 1969 special use permit be established. Exhibit H is Resolution 30-78, approving a conditional use permit for the Yacht Club. It is the same as one adopted in 1977. It is not known why the reference to sailboats was not included in the resolution. Exhibit I is a letter from Commodore Skip Jewett showing that as recently as November 1992, the Yacht Club still portrayed itself as for sailboats only. This was part of an application for rezoning that was ultimately denied. RECOMMENDATION Shorewood has taken the position that sailing activities are distinctly different than power boating activities. Aside from a court case decided in the City's favor, additional evidence is provided by complaints that have been received from residents living near the tJMYC (provided under separate cover for confidentiality). Staff recommends that 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. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Noel Neuman Jack Strothman -2- a~ o ti 0 o ~7 0 z < N N N O ~ ~ bo air a -~ ~,:~' o"' -y 8 ~ 3 S ,. -~ ~ ~- ~ v 9 .y "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .M ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SdWMOH Y O~ ~ O U ~abHS /~ ~~ ~_ ~~ ~~ ~ d ~~ fl. ~ ~ v~ a O ~~ n~ `W' i J L Q Q -~ 00 3° -l '~ -~ V7 -~{ -~ ~ -Y -~ ~` .~ -~ Exhibit A -~--~ -~ ~' -~ ~ w SITE LOCATION ~' ~ ~' - evise .U.P. ~. ...~..... ...W. aapaoq a}sia}auuiW }o ~(}i~ ti ~ ~. RESOLUTION OF TIIE VILLAGI~ OF SIiORESJOOD GRANTING SPECIAL USE PERPSIT TO UPPER LAKT MINNETONI{A YACHT CLUD. IdHEREAS, The Upper Lake Minnetonka.Yacht Club, a non-profit corporation, has requested of 'the Village of Shorewood a special use permit to use land within the limits of this village, de- scribed as follows: Lots 1'7, 18, 19, and the North 1/2 of Lot 21, Block 1, Enchanted Park and Lots 1 and 2, Blocic 4, Enchanted Park, all located on Enchanted Island, Hennepin County, Minnesota. as and for the operation of their private yacht club activities and further to construct docks, wharfs and other docking facil- ities to be attached to said property and to be used in con- junction with their club activities, and 1~HEREAS, said described land is located within the residen- tial zone as defined by Shorewood zoning ordinance No. 8 as amended and the use of the land as requested is permitted only upon issuance of a special use permit in accordance with the terms of the ordinance, and TTIiEREAS, the,Village of Shorewood has, following published notice, held a public hearing on said request. NO1~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village Council of the Village of Shorewood 1. The council does find that the establishment, main- tenance and use of the land described as follows: Lots 17, 18, 19, and the North 1/2 of Lot 21, Block 1, Enchanted Park and Lots 1 and 2, Block iF, Enchanted Parlc, all located, on Enchanted Island, Hennepin~County, Minnesota. as and for the operation of a private yacht club by the Upper Lake Aiinnetonlca Yacht Club and the construction of docks and docking facilities thereat will not, under the conditions made a part of this resolution be detrimental to the health, safety, moral, comfort, convenience and welfare of persons r@siding in the neighborhood of such use, nor .would such use be i ,7urious to public welfare or property and improvements in the~neighbor- hood. , 2, The council does hereby grant. a special. use permit to the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club to use land described as: Exhibit B ,,, 1969 SPECIAL USE PERMIT ,..,. a Lots 17, 18, 19, and the North 1/2 of Lot 21, Block 1, Enchanted Paxtt and Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Enchanted Park, all located on Enchanted Island, Hennepin County, Plinnesota. as and for the operation of the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club together with the right to construct docks and docking facilities at said property under, pursuant to and limited by the following terms and conditions: (1) This permit shall be effective May 15, 1969, for a period of 3 years. It shall be subject':to be extended however upon application for its extension being filed with the council. The council may extend the permit for additional periods upon the applicant showing proof of full compliance tivith the terms of this permit. (2~ The applicant shall prior to November 1, 1969, submit the fo3:l,owing to the council for their approval. a. Plans for 'the construction of adequate parking for club members and their guests. The surface of the panting area sha_l1 be covered with a dust resistent material. The parking area must be designed in such a way as to alleviate any drainage problems which may result therefrom. b. Plans to provide an adequate water supply and private sewer system, which plans shall meet the minimum requirements for such installations as required by village ordinances. c, Plans to provide toilet facilities for club members and their guests. Separate facilities shall be pro- vided for each sex. d. Plans for the construction and layout of uniform type boat docks and other docking and mooring facilities. After said plans have been approved by the council, construction of the above facilities shall be completed within 12 months. e. Plans for immediate acceptable toilet facilities and temporary doctcs shall be submitted for approval by the council prior to Atay ls, 1969 and completed and installed prior to June 1, 1969• ~3~ Use of the property shall be limited as follows: a. Club house and social activities shall not extend beyond 12:00 A.M. _2_ ~~, ~b b. No liquor license, beer license, bottle club license or food license shall be issued to the occupants of the property. c. No more than 30 sailboats shall be docked or moored at the property at any one time. d. No more than 2 power boats shall be moored at the premises overnight. e. The premises shall not be used for the purposes of dropping in of sailboats or launching of power boats or trailers. f. The premises shall be used for club and social act•lvities and they shall not be rented out to other clubs or organization. g. All structures including existing structures located on the property shall meet building codes of the village. h. No boat house to store sailboats shall be constructed on the premises. i. There shall be no off season storage of 'boats on the premises. j. All sailboats docked at the property shall be kept in boat lifts, except that buoys may be used for temporary dockage or mooring, but not beyond the hour of 9:00 P.M. k. TYie premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner. l.. The applicant shall forthwith correct any.un- satisfactory condition to the premises which are called to its attention by 'the council. m. Activities on the premises shall not create a nuisance or'noise so as to impair the comfort or convenionce of persons residing in the neighborhood. n, Violation of state statutes or ordinances of the Village of Shorewood shall not be permitted on the premises. o. Upon approval of the plans specified in 2a through 2d and the expiration of the period for completion of the work in accordance with the plans, the details of each such plan shal]_ become a condition to this spec~~.~ ^se permit. By motion adopte d at the Dicey 12, 1969 meeting, the description contained in thi s special use permit was amendod to correct a typographical er ror. The correct description is shown herein. -3- ,,~.. . t J~ yy@@E "~1 n 7~ ... .. f ... ___ moo` (rn~-x~ ~ . .. , . _ .. d 1. `~ ~,~mm ~~1"G.l~ ~~~` i~,,r~(~Y ~Li~ ,_,, ~. .. t7 ~ ~~~ ° r 3' c -~- a ~ ¢l~ ~' r ~ ~ ~ ~~ -- - ~ ~ ~~ y ~,~ F» ~ - _ _ a t- ~ ~ a c3 .....~ ~f ~ Q ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ... . .............. .. ~ ~ ;; ;G ~; "" ~1 ~ ~~ p }v ,-~ Exhibit C T ~ ~ ~ DOCK LAYOUT ~~~ -~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ oc c lcense Application '' Just 2~ 06 08: ~zp January 7, 1977 City Shorewood p. 14 1977 L. M.C. D. Dockage Pe rntit 95~4~40128 Applicant: Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club { U.M.Y.C. ) Location: Enchanted Island--Shorewood Pur ose: To explain the dockage and boat storage {.summer only) . request on lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Auditors Subdivision owned by the U.h1.Y.'C. This memorandum is intended 'Lo provide general information about the U.M.Y.C. and its primar ur ose which is to encoura e or an'zed sailing on the U er a e. History: The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club is rather young in comparison with many other sailing clubs, Formed in 196Q by a few families living around the Upper Lake, the club grew slowly to its present membership of about 50 families and 65 racing yachts. The yacht club members acquired p~°operty on Enchanted Island in the Village of silorewood in 1969. _ The club has made improvements to the property by adding a.parking area, a storm water pond and a lawn area. Membership: The yacht club encourages all members who are interested in furt{erin h s t f ai In 1975 the U.M.Y.G. Board of Directors adopted a maximum membership limit of 100 families based on the U e a •and capacities o the yacht club property. The 1976-77 Board of Directors reaffirmed this membership limit and has developed a dockage plan which we believe is consis- tent with club and L,M.C.D. policies. U.M.Y.C. incorporated Keel( MORC ) and Ensign Fleets in 1975 which complemented the four scow fleets, diversified the club`s membe7~ship and reduced the need for another yacht club on the Upper Lake. Our Pm re s, I1,~yP found th~mix of keel and scow fleets to be very successful, Exhibit D DOCK PERMIT APPLICATION .~,~ ,~szcrc.~~ APPLICn^1I0'_'d FOR SP?~CIAL USE pL~i;:47IT (C}~iAP}GED TO CC~:dDII'z0I`a^I, USE PERT;?IT $Y ORDI~IItiVCE'' Pd0 . '~'l F VILLAGE 0~'' SHOP~is'i~00D Aprlicants Uppor I~a~_e ~iinneton}ca Ye.ch-t. Glut' (UL'~IYC) s a 1`}arr-°rofit Minnesota Corporation, lvcated in Vil.lat~a of Sharvsvoad, 1-ier~crepin Cvurity, 1~2ir1i~esota. Date: April 25, 197'7 Cltkb 0~'ficers: Conimadorep Dr. .Richard ~,eaveri•,}rorth, s,'tcoclside Ros.d, ^' Excelsior, t+4n. 553,:1. X74--s5~7 Vice Garnmed~rc, ~ Rich.ar. d. 7?.tztizam, Cas::o Po~.nt Tcad~.. - i^tay r.~d.~l;~~.~, ~ivli, ~ i~``3.1. 4.71-9082 Sectt_ari ?, Conditi.or.a.7_ Uses, O,.d.inance Pdo. 7't~~ Vi11a,~;e of Shoret`road. Subd. 2 Standards and Conditit~r_s :ior Conditional ilse~~. A. A candi-tional ases'_:perrnit shall ba fir. anted for t?~e following uses onlys (1) Arty use specifically listed as. a Condit ~.ciz:al tESe in regulations applicable ta:-.the district in, ~vhic}i i t is to be enacted. The UL!'~YC property is located in P~--1 T onir_g D:i_str. ict as provided irl Ordinance ;?'-?'~ , Section 18, Suvd...3D Gvhere i-t states " (D) C,~o1f Oouz•se and Clubhouse fa.ci 1i tie~a t Yacht Club B. A Condi_tiona.l Use .Permit s}1a11 be gr2rited onl<<~ i:r" evidence is presented -to e;~ta.blishs (1) `!'hat the proposed bui:Ldirzg or use ,x111 not h..a~ro a substantial or und~.ze ~=,elverse effect u~aon. adjacon-t property, •the charactex• .of the n~ighborhoGd, .~trai' "ic car~c:iti or_s , u~~il:~.-ty . facilities and other matters af'fectin~ the publi health, safety and z e~zeral ~~el:Fa~^e; .arid (2) That the proposed build7.n or use will be d.esi r ar. ran~od. and operated so as ~tc permitt tine development 2nd use v:c nei ghborir?L property :.n accordance ,~riih the ~+.pp7_icable district re u7_a.t_ Aho UL'~'iYC has occupied Lots 1 and 2, g Blovi;: ~-H e Auditors Sl~b~ iv-i s io,-l, slr"1C2 '~ ;~r)Q tP.'hen t:~e Sho.ret•,ood Village Council ,,r~.ntect a Special tise; permit ior~ t}~.e Yacht Club use subject to speci ~''~ c terms and cor~ciition of Resolution ,'~ > OuT^ 197' -~;errnit update applica-tiori 4`r3_C submitted in acoord ~,vith the it~itei;t oi' Grd.in~tce ;~;(7 v Sc: c-t . '7 , Su{xis . l , :t~ 1 ~c 2 , wherE v~:e m tn%~.i ~',tl.i"G :~l;t:C' U.Se OJ 5dld U'_~UyJ`?Y-'t.'.i_L'O1' ~3. SalJ I.r-ice 7I;'~C11t C~-!ll7 CiOP.S l~^,-~:~ 11~.VE-' ";;U.vS"G3:[7?:13..L Off' Ll(lUU..I_y ~CtVE.i'S~: E1litvl:l+ uUVtt nu,~a~cii~ u~.vv~~~ ~yF p7' r`ne.la~l~lnt}'tGUd. `f hilSO t~1.2~G -tIl(? i1L~`~i~~~:+ USG' `~'vJ_1.1 r1° C~BUl~nGC~ < 2.tJ:'2T1~'c p}~b.',r'8.ti~:~ SU cf1.S %O _p ('.r'Ci11-t t}~.? ~c-v~~lop(~tE`.TI.t; ar1C~. L.~C: G1 ]".:~1`}1}~C7'~CI,'s~ ~'.I~CU~ in accc;r.~.;-~_nce ~;i.~h the ap;~l.ico_blc dist~,ic~t (T;.--1) re~u7__t~tions.'~ Exhibit E 1977 APPLICATION FOR C.U.P. nt Subd. 3 Procedure. A. Not applicable - UL°,ZYC status was revievred by the Village Counr_i1, at the I~Tarch 1~~, 1977, meeting to review the 1977 L~•ZCD. Dock Permit Application. The Village Council directed ULiQYC to submit an amendment to its existing Special Use Permit in order. to update the conditions and formally change to a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Ord. ~#7~ B. Fee. UI,[~iYC has submitted the required application fee to the Village Clerk ~.vith l,~ copies of our application. C. Submission requirements: •~ 1. Legal Description: Lots l & 2, Block ~, .A.uditors Subdivision "Enchanted Park",_ Lake i~innetonka, Village of Shorewood,. Henn.epiri County itiTn. 2 , 0 :rlnership s The Lots 1 and 2 are owned by ULiyTYC, a i~i~znesota corporation. The property was purchased by five yacht club members in 19c~8 and that property included: hots l & 2 (present yacht club property} hot 1~,. -sold tc ~~Ir. Thibault. Lot.21, Pd~, presently owned by 5 club members. Lot l9, Sold to Tollefson, currently for sale, Lot 17 , Sald tc Dr . Paul Englund.. The five. yacht club members that originally purchased the total property are: Richard Leaven4~rorth , Jack Chandler, Ed Abramson, Jim Franklin and Owen Nelson. • 3. Financial Capa:oility: The UL•`~YC is financed by yearly membership dues and a stack payment plan. All club members must meet; the financial obligations by 32ay lath, -to ~oartici.roate in the sailing season. . The Club has rio outstanding de is except .for t e special. assessment levied for sanitary sewer which totals X9,000 spre~:c over 20 years. The Club has expended approximately ~±~12,000 to improve the property in order to meet the needs of our members anti adjacen property ovrners. Those improvemsnts have been made using capital. derived from the members' stoc,~ plan. The 1976 financial statement can be provided upon the Village°s request, ~, _. ~k,. Physical Features:(Refer to Exhibit A) a. Zoning: The ULPv1YC .property and adjacent lots are zoned R-1 Residential District. b. Land Use. Lots 1 ~: 2 are used for yacht club purposes of parking, dockage/mooring, recreational activi.ties.,. and support services - sanitary facilities, etc. Lots 3 and 18 are currently developed as singl e family homes. Lots 17; lq, 16, N2 21, are currently vacant lots but the property o4~mer of Lot 1`~ plans to build a home this summer. -- .... LalLe Road is a 2~' public right-of-vvay which extetzds to the lake, The road is not improved to Village standards and is not maintained by the Village. The . sanitary se~hrer is located within the ROT;d, c. Natural features; Exhibit A illustrates .the location of significant trees., woodland ground cover , shoreland and small .l•~nol .The site .is developed to permit existing natural woodland ~.nci landform, areas to provide a. buffer or transition space abutting neighboring single family .properties. These natural areas.maintain woodland .habitat which is normally lost to urban development,. The remainder of the site is maintained as lawn area of approximately. 1 acres and crushed rock parrL~izgfdri~~ way area of .15.acres. ~. °~Prela.ma.nary Plans (Refer to Exhibit R) . a. Buildings: The club plans to add a structure that will'accomod~.tf waterlsanitary facilities,. storage and group gathering area. The construction will be phased er e new 10 years dependent upon club resource and needs. As Exhibit B re~-oresents~, ~ the use of deck and/or patio space and sanitary use facility swill be our=earl~.est improvements. Current plans for building construction vrould not exceed 1200-1600 sq. feet total size. The~hase one core services would be appro,cima.tely ~-~00~700 s~ ~ .feet b. Parking: The existing parking area accornodates ?.0 spaces or a~ 6000 sq, feet, The club proposes ~i;o expand the exis~ parking area to accorrrodate ~k0 spaces or 10,000 sq. f-~ The parking area surface will be crushed rock vri~th gravel base providing a.n all vaeather surface 4rhile allovain water percolation rather ~~han runoff . ~-' -~~ s The parking area is proposed for complete improvement as the need dictates. The C~.ub will implement parking regulations during 1977 designed to reduce the~nu:nber of ears/boat that park at the Club property.. Final parking area plans will be submitted to the Village •far approval consistent with the provisians of Ord. X77 and the terms of. the Club's Conditional Use- Permit, c. Drives Two entrances to hake Road exist and are to be maintained,. d. Adjacent Uses: Two single family homes are located .adjacent to the ULI~.IYG site. The homes are moderately large Lakeshore homes that are sited to maximize .hake views to the east and south,. Exhibit A illustrates the homes approximate locations. e • LatS c~: I310CIi. T~Icit applicable.. • f. Carnmon space. • Not applicable. • g. Sketch structure & landscaping. No preliminary building plans have been developed,' Landscaping plans wi11 be designed based upon building,. parking and dockage improvements approved by the Village of Shorewood consistent with the provisions of Urd, ,~7'1. h, Drainage. Exhibit ¢i reflects the existing and proposed drainage for the UL~~IYC site. The home constructed upon I,ot 3 constructed a driveway adjacent to our property line and filled up to ~4 foet, T=~e drai~.age fra.n Lot 3 is presently aireu-tec< to our Lot 2 northv:~est corner. .The Club constructed a pondin~; area in the fall of 1975 prior to the home construction an Lot 3 to accomodate the existing drainage. This spring. after a heavy rain a:nd. sno~nr melt, our property and a por'cion of Lake Road.was covered with wfter_ res~trictir access to i~r. Thiba.ult' s home . The UL^~~YC will !~rorli with adjacent property oG,mers and the Village in a.n ef:Cort to solve the -oroblem. The ULi'FIYC' s ability to :malee property impr. ove.rnents is a function of our members-hip size and income derived from the stock plan. Our expenses must balance ~vit~ improvement cost in order to maintain a stable financial condition. -~- ~. • °.~ 'i. Tablulation_ of Use Areas: Property/building; data. "~• Acres Sq . feet j Other • 1. total •site area ~" ~ ~~~-~ ~(~~ ~2. Natural area ~' ,~, g~~~ 3. Lawn area ~- ~ ~ inclu . ~ ~~~ ~. Ponding ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ 5. BL??lding area. fi - . _ f~~~~,~ • 7. Parking drives ~. ~ ~~ /c~~~;~.~ 8. Street frontage ~= N~A NfA N/A 4°w :I,ir? 9. Shorel ine f ~ N~A N/A ~ IV/A 2~~ tin Dock/lift/mooring- data. . 1970-72 1976 1977 Proposed Type Spec. Use Permit ~ P`erDit I,97CD Permit Dock length Not specified 80' 160` Boat storage - Lift 30 l~~ 26 Slip -~ $ P,Zooring ~ ~ 3 g Drystared ?0 0 ' 30 ~l + ~2 . ~'NOiE: T~~ZCD Boa.f Dens~.fiy Index da.-t~, refer to I,;ZC`D Public Hearing, t+larch 16, .1.977 report. " °'^' Refer to Exhib~.t ~ for dock/mooring .plan. • 6. Common open space. Not applicable. 7. Covenants, ' Not applicable. 8. Staging, UL~~YC property improvements are dependent upon r~ernbership size and income generated from the stoclt plan and rnooz^ing/docltiage feE - charged to members wh kee sailbo is at the Club, Our source of improvement funds regulates the Club`s property improvement program. Based upon projected Club membership and boat moarin~ capacity, the 19'r'7 ~3aar.d of Directors proposes the following phased development plan. 1977 - lst phase landscaping; parl~ing area expansion to 30 - 35 spaces; purchase additional creapeau doc1.L/bouys; drainage problem solved with Village ~ adjacent property owners. ~'~ r 1978 - lst phase core services structure 400-700 aq. ft. .lst phase deck~pati:o; connection to Village sanitary sewer; second phase landscaping. 1979 -General property improvements; additional 5 - 10 parkin spaces total 40.. Third phase landscaping. 1980 - 2nd phase deck and screen roof area .for ls't phase deck space. 1981- 1885 -- Praintenance of existing facilities and possibly additional deck patio space and build~r~ improvements. . 9. Traffic Survey. The ULt~4YC is aware. of the concern- for the amount af, traffic generated by the Club and the safety considerations for children in. the neighborhood. The Club will advise all members of these concerns and will cooperate in relieving any problems experienced in•the neighborhood. . The traffic generated by our Yacht Club is unique .in that it occurs in non-peak hoursan.~ is seasonal. If the Village. axeproves the proposed ULI~~iYC plans with cl~'~.mate parking for. 40 cars and the sailing schedule remains _about__'the .same with ~ races and ~ late e en.-~eelboat races, the following traffic is generated: A.D.T. ~ A..DT. A.D.T. Vdeek sail Season Year ~~red . Evening (6) 20 120 120 Saturdays (l7) 40 680 ~ 680 Keel only Sat . (6) 20 120 .~ 120 Sunczays (12) 4U 480 - 480 ^Other, 20 500 700 140 ADT 1900 ADT 2100 ADT jFWorkdays, cleanup; trash service, special event, pan-schedule sailing by boat. owner; 50 a of o:Eher total trips. ~`~ADT -- average daily trip - traffic generation measurement for 2 way trip. As a means of comparison, two single family homes on the Yacht Club property ~,vould generate the followring traffic: ADS!'/weep ADT ear ~2 sin le family homes (8.5 ADT~day) 1~-The metro area traffic fro,n 8 to 9 . ~ ADT . 119 6200 generatti oil ra~t:n is one home ranges -6- The Yacht Club will generate about the same amount of -traffic as two homes on a weekly basis, however, 60 0 . of the Club traffic accurs on the wcelcend. Saturday traffic is about double the single family rate while ~ days each week w<ill have little or no traffic. Because of the seasonal character of the Yacht Club little traffic except for special event would be experienced from November through April. The ULtiZYC -proposed use is compatible with 'the existing road system designed for residential traffic. 10. Plan Relationship: The Club has existed since 196~~ and since 1869. The Village is updating and the UL:~7YG believes that sailing. contri~u~c~n to or ani•zed recrea-tlo C021 roue as a desirable land u e' ~v Shorewood. occupied the hots 1 and 2, its comprehensive plan and our yacht club al a ~e use wi 1 e .thin e Village o.f The Preamble of Ordinance ,~77.perhaps best describes our relatio~lship to the Village goals: "The name of this Village denotes its' character - a village of shore, land, water and woods -- natural assets its` citizens hold in trust for future generations. Tt is' in the .public interest. to protect these assets against ha?~ha.zardx unco~ordinated~and unplanned development; it behooves this communit~.= to loolr ahead and anticipate the needs of its' people; this, of course, recognizes the need far "change" . In developing and building for tomorrow, it is the hope of this Village that the past be not discarded, but that there be a melding of our roots tivith the future so that this community can give its' people a last:i.ng environment and preserve .tts' quality os" life.. Tt is with the intent of Peeping the best of the~nresent, perpetuating the values of the past and recognizing the need to change for the future...." 11. Property Value. The ULT~iYC has not in the past eight years reduced the value of any property surrounding our site. This is obvious by the high quaff-ity of tYie ttrro residential homes constructed on hots 3 and 18. Since the improvement to the Club's grounds in 1975 the o~~rner of Lot l'~ has decided to build and the property avrner of Lot 19 has increased his ss.le price by nearly= 100;x. Our Board of Directors believes such facts prove the impact of the Yacht Club on adjacent properties is no-t in any manner injurious ~to adjacent property values. 12. Neighboring Pronerties~District Regulations.. The Yacht Club use does not restrict or limit the neighboring properties use as single fa.rnily residential lots, The Club use will t~.lte advantage of municipal. utilities, li:~~.t and control property use and preserve open space. ULI~IYC has ravided a service tothose families interested in calling on the tTn_ per .,a.Ke. The Club has improved. lots 1 & 2 and malntairzed i ~,s property in a high quality manner ~+.~h:~ch is a credit to the nei;hbarhood and Village, ~~he Club in-tds~: ~. to work closely v~ith the abutting property owners and neighborhood to insure the compatibility of our Yacht Club with the existing high. quality residential-environment. 13. Special conditions applicable to UL1~4~rC Permit. The UL~.~IYC Board of Directors believes .that many of the exzs ins specla use .perms The follaGVing Conditions are su mi e o e i age for review, discussion and approval, Propert~T Development: • A. The Yacht Club shall provide adequate parking not to exceed ~0 spaces for members and~°guests. Said parking shall be surfaced vtiTith crushed rock_ and other dust. resistant material. B. C. D. E. The Yacht Club shall provide adequate water and sewer facilities compatible with phased property improvements.. The Yacht Club may construct a structure consistent vrith the provisions of application for conditional use permit dated 4~2s~77• The Yacht Club may develop under 'the conditions of~ the City and L~:ZCD, dockage and/or mooring facilities for 3~ sailboat sli s or left sn c 9 uoys, an slips for ~ Yac t Club Commit-tee boats . ~ Fo?zr dinghies or prams may be used b sailboat ovmers •to rovide access to boats moore on uoys in a dn. ion to tze norma moorings. The Yacht Club property grounds shall be maintained iri a•park like manner enhancing the neighborhood.. F.. That the Y~.c~Zt Club mdy store, iri an orderly manner, boat lifts, doclt, buoys , property maintenance. equipment f two comrni'ttee boats and other items necessary for Club . activities. G. Storage of boats or trailers during the winter months is prohibited except. .for two official Yacht Club committee . boats . Protierty Use Re.~-ulations : A.. The Club may not launch any~boa-t except for dinghies or prams which..;pi^ovide access to laoats r.~oored at buoys. B. The Club shall not be granted a liquor, beer,. food, or bottle club license. C . The Club property shall not be r. o;i-tct' to any individual or organi~~o.ti.on. D. The Club shall no t•have any activities which last pad 12s 00 midnight, E. The Club premises and structure may be used far social and racing Yacht Club activities for members and guests. - 8- ~a The Club shall nat alloG~v overnight .residency upon the property except far secur::~.ty purposes G. The Yacht Club shall publish ~'or ids members speca.:~i~ rules and re;ulations governing; the use of the Club property eonsisten't ~~~~ith th.~ provisions a:~ th.e V~.llage of Shorewood Conditional tSse Permi~l; and Yacht C:!_ub ~3y~"Laws ~."C~ _~_ .7t.n~'r:°` 22 06 08:21p City Shorewood ..~ . ,' ' .~ . t j F l~ F R ~ L.[~.k~. ~ IV~~I ~`3 N ~ ~ 4 ITT ~~. A Phayox and MembeCouncilhQ Shorewood City 9524740128 p.12 XAC~~' CL.aU~. MaY 3, 197? Lake Minnetonka Yacht G1ub (iJLMYC) 1977 Dock/Moo'ring Permit Application Re: UpFer .. P.e„gu~• 'Because of the time for amendment to th o.f'~°oar'.members, is store e lan., Cur permit process, bu requirements of ou of our request delays which we are experiencing .in processing on behalf e ULMYC Special Use permit, our Board~of Directors, TeQuesting consideration of an interim d hekconditaonallubeat request is not intended to "short cut" t , t rather to allow ous sailin club o o rate under the basic r original permit • ., `•'.. ' d k/moox= The ULMYC requests that the ing permit that warmitlcan conditional use p..' Shorewood City Council approve a revised oc ,~. ,-,~ the club to install docks and operat¢ until the"amendsd p wired by city zoning procedures: ~,'';~:~'~:... ~.~a : . be considered as r_q °ack round: 7, 1977~for The tJL}~1YC submitted a Dock permit Application to the LMCD ~h~uLMGD referred our or March, The Gity Council proposed enlargement of our foShorewaod innFebruarytles• The City Gouncl°, permit request to the City rmif. at the March 28th meeting. p iicatian revi?wed our proposed deck pe- directed the,t3]..MYG to subm~MYC special use upon advice from the city attorney; the existing for a conditional use permit, in effect amending permit issued in 1969• ~ ermit liaatlon'for a conditional u~~rp The ULMYC Board of Directors submitteC ~nisspon• The Commission held a p The to the Shgrewvod Planning and Zoning 2bth regular meeting. hearing April 28th and continued our xequest to the Malication before a repoxt to coRSnissian has a maximuUired90 days to.considPr an app the City Council i5 req ULhtYC Fxobler?' difficult position ^e~au~c ~-+ ~--- is laced in a very 21. Y{ith rUr sailing clu p season on May ' cess and the beginning of our regularly scheduled raoux9club~s sailing pxoq_ram xoved dock. permit from the City of Shorewood: royal of the con , no app ar nt thaw app oes well. vrill be disrupted far all our members. It is ape ~ art f June if all g i s fox all fleefi~-from ditional us v. ~ii~15exiouslY restrl t ouresailin9tactiyi . e- Such a del.a, „ "keel boats- the kids "~ boats to the ', E~hibi~ F i97;' ~OCI~ A.PPL~CA~'ION ~~ ,~~2.~ 22 06 08: 22p City Shorewood 9524~4fl 128 Our yacht club board does not believe that the GztY Council intended that .the club be penalized for updating the existing special use permit. •Our club mem-- hers are roud of our saxlin and sociable re utation not only among other sailors but in our local communities'. We firmly believe the Gz y o orewood 'sunaorts ouz~ club',5 objective of amity recreation an the Upper Lake. p,13 Proposed Compromise: The ULMYC Board of Directors requests consideration of the following amended dack~mooring permit application. • a. That the dock configuration approved for 1976 be modifa.ed as follows: 1. fatal overall length remain at 200' ' 2. that the dark extend lb0' from shore rather than 80` . b. That the buoy~maoring Numbers (3}.and configuration remain the. same as 1976 except about 50'•further ou-~ dram shore. c. That the number of boats moored at the dock! on buoys or on lifts shall not exceed 30 as approved in the original permit. d. That the ULMYC agrees, to proceed with the pending amendment to•our ori- ' ginal permit~as specified in Ordinance #77• _ i : , .:~ .. :.. •;:~~5umtnar` :' - :t,,.;T:~•~' 'in •o •ularit'over the , :, .~• :: ' . • .: ~:.~~..:: ~'•~• ~ ~As`;you,„knorr,~~;•saiiin' •has•ex er3.encea `'a°ra• id .increase .:. . p ... la~st;~3.~;to''4...Years:":~.Duririg {:that;=tlme.::our'sai u as ~xncreased in member- . • ..;, ..:. ,.....~~~~ ..... ,,.,.... . ~ ~~ th ~ about `.~75 'total 'boats. .~~ ~ `5:{to~':its ;.pxesdiit'~~O.~.some;.fainilies ::w~. ,:. • . - . ; . . ..:';,~.;~:.. .~° r:;°:~-: .;';=.`r~:: .:,:'. , :... ~'_ .boats at our cl • At•.this::..t.ims':•ouz~••:'cl.ub`:~has.'•xe uests~'£or'~docae~•of 27_sail ,fie variety of boats propertyw~~~~~~Thie •is• ate `incxease'.af, 7 boats over last Year. docked at ~he~club includes l8 sco •~•to be stored on boat lifts and 9 keel boats ensigns moored in dock slips or buoys. ,,~ ' Our yacht club Board requests your consideration of our compromise dock permit pion in the hope that the public in~exest and our members' needs can be achieved in an Qquitable manner. Thank you fax your consideration. Respectf~.ally, Richard Leavenworth, Commodore, ULMYC Richard Putnam, Vice Commodore, ULMYC °' I # •- ~: sxoREWOOD PLAZINING corr~ssloN MAY 26, 1977 A'IINUTES The Shorewood Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, iday 26, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. in TY4innewashta Elementary School, Frank Reese presiding in the absence of Chairman Watten. Also present were J. Brecke, J. Cole, K. Stover, S. Larson and J. Miller. Motion by Stover, seconded by Cole, to approve the minutes of P~Iaxch 24, April 28, and Ma.y 12, 1977. Unanimous approval granted. JI~d DUTCHER'S REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE FOR WILD DUCK, 3rd ADDITION Mr. Dutcher stated Excelsior has a water main coming up to his groperty and feels that they.(Excelsior~ would like to supply the water. He says that he also feels Shorewood will want him to use their water when the system goes through. At the present time he is planning on using wells only, urLl-ess an alternative is worked out before construction is underway. Drainage is a questionable problem. ~Tr. Dutcher feels it would:`be easier to have drainage going into Excelsior area where it has been going, than to re- channel it through Shorewood. He said he would comply with the council's request but he would also. point this out to the council. Motion made by Brecke, seconded by Cole, to approve the Wild Duck, 3rd Addition, as proposed for thirteen buildings, 26 living units without recommendation to the council where the drainage should be directed. Frank Reese amended the motion to include suggestion that the council review the 412877 Engineer's report on this matter. Reese amended the motion further to state that Jim Dut- cher is willing to deed outlots A and B to adjacent landowner. Motion carried unanimously. UPPER LAKE MINNET4NKA YACHT CLUB CONDITIONAL USE PERt+ZIT Frank Reese pointed out that some members of the commission had visited the Yacht Club premises on May 21st. Jerry i~tiller .stated that with land reduction from what the Club has owned in the past, he does not feel the one (1~ plus acres remaining can hold more people, cars or boats. The discussion also centered around what caused the flooding to take place. The Yacht Club property was improved with a parking lot and Rascop's added a drive- way. Yacht Club spokesman said that boats were now kept there overnight because of members who did not live on the lake. No one living on the lake kept his boat there. Question was raised as to whether the special use permit automatically became a conditional use permit by the Council's adoption of Ordinance #77• They decided that it did not. The commission felt that the yacht club would be better if handled under a condi- tional use permit including the terms of the special use permit. The question came up on page three of the application regarding the striking of "group gathering" from the paragraph. By a 3 to 3 vote, it remained in. Stover, Larson and Miller in favor of striking; Cole, Reese and Brecke in favor of leaving it in. Page 1 of the application also makes reference to nuisance situation control which we felt was adequate plus the need for a certain grou~ to be on the premises on the morning of race days. CITY OF sxoREwooD COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1977 :30 .m. The Shorewood City Council convened at the site of the proposed Shorewood Yachtp~eub on the southeast shore of Gideon's Bay at 5:30 p.m. on rionday, June 27t 1977• sent were Mayor Frazier, Council Members Haugen and Naegele~ as well as John Cross, applicant for conditional use permit, some potential members of the Yacht Club and residents of near by Timber Lane. John Cross and his associates demonstrated for visitors the capabilities of sailboat traffic in and out of the two channels in that area of Gideon's Bay. 6.45 ~•m• ROLL CALL Council reconvened at Minnewashta Elementary School at 6:45 p.m. Mayor Frazier presided and present were Council members Haugen, Huttner, Keeler and Naegele, Engineer Norton and Clerk 4diltsey. {Attorney Kelly arrived at 7:30 p.m.) MINUTES APPROVED Haugen moved, Keeler seconded, to approve the minutes of the June 13th meeting as submitted. Motion carried 4-l. Naegele abstained. CONDITIONAL USE PERPQITS FOR LAKE USES Debate Limit Set Keeler movedrfifteen minuteseeach farmthe protand conesides,texcluding presentagionsh lake uses to SHOREWOOD XACHT CLUB GIDEON'S BAY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~ESOLUT~oN-.3.5: r- 7~ Hearing opened to a full house. John Cross and associates presented his proposal for the establishment of a yacht club on the southeast shore of Gideon's Bay. The same people who testified at prior hearings presented their statements. Upon completion of the testimony, the council questioned the applicant and residents further. At Keeler moved the conclusion of this questioning, the matter was put to a vote. Huttner seconded to table the vote to the second council meeting in July (July 25), for purposes of discussion. Motion passed 3-2. Voting aye: Huttner, Naegele~ Keeler4 voting nay: Haugen, Frazier. t7ppER LAKE MTNNETONKA YACHT CLUB ErTCHANTED ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT g_ 0, Leavenworth made the presentation for the Yacht Club. The recommendation of the planning Commission for {30) slips and the establishment of the same conditions Attorney Kelly provided set down in the S ecial Use Permit of 1 w eviewed. backgroun inf ormation and informed the council that in the event the Conditional Use Permit is not granted, the original Special Use Permit is valid. Keeler moved, Huttner seconded for purposes of discussion, to table a decision on this matter to the second meeting in July, during which time a compromise shall have been worked out between the Yacht Club and adjoining residents. After discussion, Huttner withdrew his second. Motion died for lack of a second. Jan Haugen moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit allowing for .twenty-one (21) boats. B4otion died for lack of a second. Exhibit G COUNCIL MINUTES -JUNE 1977 K( f SHOREt^t00D CITY COUNCIL P1~EETING JUNE 27, 1977 MINUTES - page 2 UppER LAKE MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB CONDITIONAL USE PERPZIT -contd. Huttner moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission for a Condi- tional Use Permit ,. as recorded in the minutes of the Planning Commission of May 26, 1977. Frazier seconded the motion. Motion lost because of a tie. Voting aye: Huttner, Frazier; voting nay, Naegele, Haugen; abstaining, Keeler. Keeler moved to table a vote until a compromise has been worked out with neighbors. Naegele seconded. Motion lost, 3-2. Voting aye, Naegele, Keeler; voting nay: Huttner, Haugen, Frazier. After further discussion, Frazier moved to ap~rove a Conditional Use Permit at thirty-f our (34) slips. Huttner seconded. .Potion failed due to tie. Voting aye: Huttner, Frazier; voting nay: Naegele, Haugen; abstaining, Keeler. Haugen moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit with provision for dockage for thirty (3o boats as er Planning Commission recommendation. Huttne~~/5oonded for purposes of discussion. Motion or lack of a equa e vo es ailed, s vote needed) Voting aye: Haugen, Huttner, Frazier; voting nay: Naegele, Keeler. Haugen moved to table action until the second meeting in July. Huttner seconded. Motion carried 4-1. Voting aye: Haugen, Huttner, Keeler, Naegele; voting nay: Frazier. . DOCK INSTALLATION CHRISTP+IAS LA.KL LOT 11 RADISSON INN ADDITION Gerald Hayes, Owner Gerald Hayes, present o*aner of Lot 11, Radisson Tnn Addition, expressed his concern over those property owners in the surrounding area whose property descriptions in- clude an easement over Lot 11 to Christmas Lake and the interpretation of their rights under that easement. He asks the property owners to remove the dock to relieve him of liability and to conform to the Shorewood ordinances. G~.le Johnson, representing a group of those property owners that had installed a dock at that site and shared in the post and use of it over the past number of years, appealed their right to continue its usage. After discussion by the parties involved, Keeler moved that the council take no action, that the situation maintain a status quo and that the matter be resolved in civil court between the parties involved. Naegele seconded for purposes of dis- cussion. Motion defeated 4-1. Voting aye: Keeler; voting nay: Haugen, Huttner, Naegele and Frazier. Frazier moved that the dock must be removed as it is in violation of a city ordi- nanCee Naegele seconded. Haugen moved to table the previous motion. Huttner seconded. Motion carried. Voting aye: Haugen, Huttner, Keeler, Naegele; voting nay: Frazier. After further discussion Ir[s~. Johnson addressed the council to make verbal applica- tion for a continuance of the dock installation on Lot 11. i~7r. Hayes registered his abjection to such application. ~. J~tn 22 06 08:20p City 6harewood 9524746128 p.16 REgOLUTION NO. 30-78 _CONOTTTONAL.USE PERMIT '~i w. a non-Profit Minne- ~;~.~. :"• ~ Lake ~Minnetanka Yacht Clu r Hennepin ~REAS~ the Upper the City of Shorewood, with headquarters xn ermit to ~~por has made application for a conditional. use P ~~'~ ation, Shorewood ",:;,::' esota, ranted by ;.Minn ~ ursuant to authority g a yacht club under and P :,°"`~ ~ and and has presented "'`~ once Na. 77 ~ club ~^Qrdin R ichard ;~,''~REAS7 ~he applicant is an dove ofbthe club being pr. HH the Commo Ri.ch~rd Put- ~'~'~ Cammordore being nae to that effect, and Vice ,`nworth, Shorewood, pginnesota, Minnesota, and the fee owner of ;Wayzata, . REAS, the llpper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club is RWHE ro erty, to"w'~t' acated on following described P P of vyhich is 1 S••~ Block 4, Enchanted Park all Lots 1 and Z, ' Island in the City of Shorewood and nted the City of Shorewood did hold is to the application, ne~vs a er ' Wt{EREAS, pursuant n the official P P ' receded by published notioe i arsons were heard. ublic hearing p all interested~p the City, and at whicZThREgOLVED, the City Council of the City of NOW , THEREP ORE , BE orewood do05- the following findings: Lots 1 and 2, 1, Hereby make described as a) The proposed use of property. will not ock ~•, Enchanted Park as and for a yacht club Bl effect upon adjacent undue advexse affie con- have a substantial or hborhood tr property', the character of th ande other matters affecting the utility facilities, ditions, and general welfare. aeht public health, safety ertY as and for a Y f the above-described Prop he opinion of b) The use o club as hereinafter author ended a ranged and operated so as Council be design ~ hearing property the City Neig meet and use of ulatians as to permit the develop livable district re9 in accordance with the app . t Club a condi- contained in Ordinance No. 77. ereby grant to the UPper Lake Minnetonka Yach described as 2° H acht ro arty erate a y c lub an P P use permit to op sub'ect, however, to the follow- tional Block 4, Enchanted Park, Lots 1 and 2, ing limiting provisions: unction with the use of a} That upon and attached and in conk said property may be located lifts, slips, docks> anc ~. Exhibit H RESOLUTION 30-78 J~.~n 22 06 08:20p City Shorewood 9524740128 p.ll - z - 0 boats Lon Flo.. 30-78 not more than 3 and keeping ~yuoys eapable.of staring .. ocking season, and such facilities sha11 not during the d extend beyond 200 feet of the shoreline. 1st of each year That the applicant shall on °rtchf o~e~heydock buoys and slip ~) Clerk a ske file with the City license for the operation . and obtain a yearly this arrangement, s authorized by buoys and slip and use of the docks, ermitted from the s e• conditional use permit. That no launching of boats shall be p the sit e. except c) e shall be permitted on be kept d) That no winter storag dock arrangements may. that lifts which are part of the the off season, plus one pontoon boat may be o~n the site during Kept on the site. ravide ated parking area on the site shll p b) That the design nat be in for 30 vehicles and motor vehicl~hathdesignated for park g area except allowed to be parked in anY parking. authorization ermit shall not be deemed to include on the site. f) That this p building far lacat3.on, construction or use of anY t on the site. That no boat trailers shall be sforecampingpor overnight use g) h) That the site shall ubtobeth~~d guests. by members of the cl time of 12:00 o'clock i ) That the club shall. enforce a curfew midnight remises shall not be rented out to other Clubs or ~) That the p organizat>;vns. negt and clean k) That the premises shall be maintained in a manner • ~ nuisance That activities on the premises shall. not create a l) air the comfort or convenience of or noise so as to imp persons in the neighborhood. • n of city statutes or ordinance of the City of m) That violat~.o ermitted on these premises, Shorewood shall not be p Bated: A ril 24 1978 of Shoreweod this ted by the City Council of the Gity Adop 2c~th day of April, 1978. f'~ ° 2- ~_ T.,_. Ji.?n 22 06 OS:17p City Shorewood 9524740228 p.6 UPPER • LA.~E ~IIi~•N~TO~K.~. ~`~'-A-C~-IT CLUB p,p. BOX 358 EXCELSIOR, MN. 55331 I~ToVezttber ~~ 1992 Bradley J'. Nie1$en, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Gauntry Club Road Shorewood, MN 55311 Subject: Number of slaps atr UMYG property ~ - Dear Brad, The Ugper Minnetonka Yacht Club is a sznctioned yacht racing entity, operating under rules of the InL3.nd L.`ikes Yachting Associi~tion. All yachts are s-~.ilbaats only, except for one pawer~'baa which is used far officiating races. . The club, yearly+, presents its' racing schedule to the LIvICD and Water Patrol far their approval. This schedule .~.11ows for rang only as follows: Y. The end of Ida}r through the end of September 2. ~aturda3l a#leznoons and Sunday marnint~s 3. Seven Wednesday evenings This use is sign~can different from maz~nas, where boat use and times are determined by the awnezs ttuoughout a 24 hQUr day. Ui~IYC has rules regarding progeny, moozings, and use, which have been drafted to eliminate :ne~ghborhoad complaints and problems. (Please see "Regulations" ism enclosed atlsmu.~i book.) Additional paints to consider that dif~erenfiate UMYC frown a public mazina as perrtzitted under "I„•ikeshore Recreational Distzict" are: 1. No boat dock canopies 2. Na ramp far boat launching . 3. Na commercial sales 4. Na gasoline dispesmsing 5. Igo fishing boats for rent 6. No storage of boats or tral7ers With the grestly reduced use of our docking area, it is our belief that we shQUld be allowed a minunum of 25 slips. Brad, if you have any ciuestions regarding the above subject, please contact zne. Sincerely ~~~~-- Skip 3ewett, Commodore - 471-7964 Exhibit I 1992 REZONING APPLICATION etter om ommo ore ewett Jun 22 06 08:17p City Shorewood 4 r • V w ~ ~+ r .... v 0 ~ G N N U '~' a U _ '~ ~ N ~ ~ a ~. N L U Gi e ~ G V O' N ~~.. o c ~ n r. _ u ~ ~ _ r ~ ~. °' ~ ~ ~ ~s a ~ u v ~c y ~ v ~ c ~, ~ ~' G .... CJ _ r ~ .^~ ~ ~ ~ =tea V U ~ N U a ~' U ~ •' c3 _ V ~ U ~ ~ ~ h ~ CA V CA ^ ~ ~ ~ tII '7 a ~ 0 N w ~ ~ _ a~ ~ a o '~ c ~ n U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ N ~ X d V ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ ~ `° > ~ a c N c ~ w' X 'CS G "U .O ~ m y >... G O a e1 u p o G ~ ~ ~ t.0 .. ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ .. ~ ~ L R N ~ G ~ o ai ~ "' A p ~ ~ ~ ri. a, ~ a c U . ° R .. cs C~ ~ V ~ ~ ~° a ~ ~ "~ ~ U ~ rU., ~ ~ G C '~ N M ~' tr7 ~ C~ CQ } , -. H t ~. 9524740128 p.7 ~ C G G ~ C! '} C3 h U ~ ~ w L ~ O ~,~ • ,.. vU O G U C. ~ r ~ i O~ V a V 'g v ti .O ~ L .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ; _ O ~ O ~ ~ ° ~ v ~ L~ ` ~ ,~ x: U ~ ? ~ G O ~i ~ O C i _. .. ~ C.1 • ~ 'O ~ ~ ~ ctl T u ~ ?~ r ~ p r ~ O O .~ cn '~ .r. CfJ ~ 7, CJ CJ L r.7 C O y G ~ '~" ~ r. ' L ~ ~ S ~ ~ ^ rr.. ... u ~ L ~ G ~ r + ~ ~ L O m ~ N ~ , i ~ >, C x `n ccr V ~. .~ O ~ ~ ~ m ^. v ^ .~. ~ N '^ ' 'i7 u u ~ ~;G G ono r ~ ~ ~ Y ~ R ~~~ ~ v ~ ^r. ," , ~ CA ~ ' ~ .. ,^. ~ ~ .'.' ~ ~ ~ G1 U .: ~ v ovco ~ ;~~ acx , o~ C ~ o ~ `~ S Sao ~:_ ~ 9 ~ c o Ci ,,.: N M '~S' ~ ,.. N ~ ~ ~ ° O i ~ o L a U Y .. - >-, _ _ ' C ~ ~ ~" ~ O t n ~•~~ _ >``~ . .... o ~ O N ~ 'ti J "' Q L N ~ ': rJ C .=- ~ O .... .. ~ ~ N N G7 ' .... ~ ° ~ O • RJ Ott') to O C1 O O ti ) '» N 4+ • rs -r ~ ~ .. V ~ G ~ ° Ci ~Nj ER d} ff7 ER Eft ro4 ~ U y ~ w N A O~ .. v 0 ~., ... ~ \ ' O C ~^~ o~+~ ~ ~ ~ U m • .. ~~ 9 ~ ~ aw imo c -a.a~ ~ uc, ' N?.~ L G U' U V G r3 = 'O .'J i ~ V d N L ~r O Q ~- C t~S O "O ?. C iN.. w (~ _ C O N O ~ Q S' ~ ~en R : U CAW O .. ',~?~n...o ~~ ~ _, `V --~~ Q O. oar ~? CJ ,~ `CL ~ 'a`:~ ` L3 • ec d U N -' ,,, ~~ L ~ N vy ~ N U O r '~ ~ W h N Ti N I;. U . U () ~ CA . ~ ~ '~ ~ t3 VN. .d ', ~ L ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~N.. V = N L w G r' ~ ~- e~ a L: G ~" ~ O }' c1 N O _U, n 1~ v O r U a N r 4 v .~. ~ . m C v r s ~ y 1. r , O ^ U CJ ~ u' r • O • ~ ~ T] G rl ~ r ~ ~ I .... ^ ~ N c.f~ ~_ N ~ .G O ` (, `~ ~. 4 O ~'" U C~ iC N rn N N ~ ~ r_ a rs cs ~-+ } G`.N O ;n .r `- l . > O Q 2 v a ~ te' ~u .O ~ in ~ L ~ ~ }" N O .-, '~ ~ V V U ~.J G-. in :.. ^~ N .~ .... G • ._. ~ J - ~ ~ ~ C_ti F ~ ~ ~_ U am ~in •vt V ~ G1 .~ ~ .ar V a V G C. V .. CJ L .7 ry G , .= x ,l '~ y O"... ' ~ Q z ~ o ~r ~ ~ ~a ~ c ~~.~ ~ p n s ~ ~ r ~ • u ~ U ~_ u ;~ V O U ;J U ! ~ . ~ L=. O EA• .. ?+. Q ~ C...: .. .... , .G ~ ~ .. r Ju,n 22 09 08:1Sp City Shorewood 9524740128 p.8 ,. ^ _ . ~,~::~ ~4 ' _4_ :.~ .. ~.y ~ . ~' i `- ' ; ..^ 'y- i'? r ~ s 4 ~~R_ ..,Z~. 4 !:. i . .. ' t l i ,:.: - _ G 4 V1 .~ ~ •~" r~ •V .LZ O .~ '~ ~ 0. O •.•' w U • G ~ s ~+ G~ y • ~ ~ ~ v bA ~c .~ N aa. ... '(~ ~ ~J r1'~ ~ O G CCp Tom. •rJ ~ ~ O ~ 'L3 ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ w N _~ ~ 3 O ~ "C "'•' N ~ N a 'd G ~ o 0 0 o a o ;~ ~~ cyi c ~ G G ~ C ?~ ~ G d M n'I M c~ cn t; ~ G N ~ 'O ~1 ,p ~ ~ '~ O ~ O i a; m x ~ N mil' N `i' ~' ~ ~ •^ ~ k c m ~ a .n ~, ~ ~ ~ C.. Q p p o ~ ~ "CS •... ~ ~ Q e~ L, N a ,G ~ ?~+ ~ ~ C7 O C7 b ~ ~ y Ti ~ y C? i2. ~ O cD ~ t0 ~ ~ C7 .-. cn .-+ [+') Ci'1 r•+ ~ bD ~ ~ ~ G,1 y CT Q~ ~ •~ V •~ (3. ~•' $ c~'~ A c3a`Zrn~ me ~ p~.~ ~ N~n `~ a,~ zg R ~ n y, 'p ~ ~ ~-+ O C G G G~ is u '~ ~ O N G .. ~ ~ ~ G •~ c3 •iCa p G V ~ ~ '~'' :~ ~ ~ r •~ .O-•..~. .~, tea-. N C. O ~ `CS ~" N~ ~ r =, 'S$ ~--• N ~ RS ~. ~ si ....~U ~ ~ p ~,~~ ...I O G ~ r cu ... (T1 Q a•.r ~ ~rs ~ ~ ~ p U ~ CV ~" r •~ ¢ O N ~ w } ~ G ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ O O ,~ ,~ ~ N r ,_Y, V W ~A 1- a E- °" ~s ro Jun 22 06 08:19p City Shorewood 952474018 p.9 y O U ~ O t' cC G X' ~O L~ tpptL~ G C~0 u "~ ~ y ,`~ ,~ ~ ~~ O C0 N G O O ~ ~ ~+~ ~ ..~^+ ~ v CO ~ GG ~ ~ C ' ~ ~i n ~ ~ ~ ice. ~~ v ~ ~ y~ c~s ~ ~ ~ G ~ O G ~ ~ N G .G ?,~ ~ G o •7 ~ ~~ ~.d.~ tai ~ ~~ o x o r cC c6 s G ~" cG0 aXi N * ca ,p ..: ,~ 'G N :,; O ;~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y„ ~ Q O G .~ G _ ~ •~ w~ 'mC m '" tip r. aGi ~ ro A .b~iu U " G ~ ~ izs •~, nt p O Q1 ~ Iu'. m G ~"UU^'U rl`""Uf"a..u..~.. gW,VUG7.~+W c.. "in ~-. r O W~ y'].L b d+ c4 cC,r.. W x^0~~~"~-,cN~F+~NN+47...1~"N m v ~ ~y P. W N ~" ~ ~" F., tt7 ~ cn A. yti ~. ~ X ~ A tom. 0~.~ G O ~r ~ ~ M N C7 p o0 ~ `"` +:~ _f'J ~ ~' ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~` a G NO c~ y G t 3 tom-. y ~ o c~.• ~ Off„ UJ Ct) ~+ Cn Cf) Ir. Cn N O O itt R~ ~ ~' :~ ~ ~ ~ Q p, ~ + cn H 'ti .a E•~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ O V ~ .a U c~ .o U U V a r;, a ~ ~, ~. '~ :~ ~ ?`fi'r ?, .~ v ~ c`"'a v ~ ~ v ~ ~ «t ~ is ici O O ""` w0 '.. ^~ ~ U o V V v a~ 'C$ ~ G ~ CJ ccS G a7 m ~ G ~c .°xa ~ ~ x ~ G .~c ~ ~.? ~ O c~a G ~ ~ - V U'1 _ N _ +. • ~ ... ,-. x v ~ ~ ~ U ~ R w ?G ~ ~ G ~ ~ Q EAU Z ~U y ~ ° '~ 'G ~ cY p. c~ d °' as y c ~ ~r' w V °' O r U ~ ~~ ~ w ¢ ¢~ ?C X ~~ ~ cn 2 LAX v ~,,. U2 N ' :~ ~ N N t4 J' fT T-' ~ '~' f, r ~ O N N r r-~ N N '~ ,-. ~ ' ~ ~ ~ O Q C7 00 d `Q' •^ ~' ~ ~ ~' rn m ~ O O O ~ a dames ancf Bardara ~ii6auCt 4S6S Enc~iante~C~oint Sfwrewood; ~~ SS331 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Shorewood Mayor: Christine Lizee' City Council: Laura Turgeon, Paula Callies, Martin Wellens, Richard Woodruff Planning Commission: Bruce Gniffke, William Ruoff, Scott Schmitt, Thomas Geng, Robert Gagne, David Meyer, David Hutchins City Administrator: Craig Dawson Planning Director: Bradley Nielsen FROM: James and Barbara Thibault DATE: August 2, 2007 Amended August 30, 2007 RE: Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club, 4580 Enchanted Point Public Hearing for Amendment of Conditional Use Permit Correcting Error in Resolution No. 55.2-77 We urge the Planning Commission and City Council to correct the error in Resolution No. 55.2-77, provision "a)" by inserting the word "sail" in front of the word "boat". With this correction, provision "a}" would read as follows: a) That upon and attached and in conjunction with the use of said property may be located lifts, slips, docks and buoys capable of staring and keeping not more than 30 sailboats during the docking season, and such facilities shall not extend beyond 200 feet of the shoreline. Correcting this error by adding the word "sail" is consistent with the application made by Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club on April 25, 1977, the discussion and recommendation made by the Planning Commission on May 26, 1977, and the discussion and action made by the City Council on June 27, 1977 and on July 25, 1977. A review of the record clearly shows the request (application} and granting of the Conditional Use Permit (and previous Special Use Permit) is for sailboats. Some of the more relevant documentation is provided below. Application -- Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club The Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club states in its own application for the Conditional Use Permit dated April 25, 1977 the following: Page 1: ".. , where we maintain that our use of said property for a sailing ,yacht club does not have "substantial or unduly adverse effect upon adjacent property,"or "neighborhood". (emphasis added) games and~~ardara ~Irii6auCt 4S6S Enc{ianted~~oint Shorewood, ~1~1/~ SS331 Page 8: On page 8 of the application the Yacht Club submits conditions in Item 13. The Yacht Club states: "The following conditions are submitted to the Village for review, discussion and approval.n In item D on page 8 (again submitted by the Yacht Club} it states: "D. The Yacht Club may develop under the conditions of the City and LMCD, dockage and/or mooring facilities for 34 sailboat slips or lift spaces, 8 buoys, and 2 slips for Yacht Club Committee boats." (emphasis added) A major item of discussion during review and approval was the number of sailboats to be allowed. See attached Exhibit A, Page 1 of the Yacht Club's application, and Exhibit B, Page 8 of the Yacht Club's application. _Planninq Commission On May 26, 1977 the Planning Commission considered Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club's application for a Conditional Use Permit. The minutes and record reflect the following: ^ The Yacht Club's own application was for 34 sailboa# slips and 2 slips for Yacht Club Committee boats. ^ At some poin# the Yacht Club apparently changed the request to 42 slips. (No written change to the request was uncovered.) ^ Jerry Miller's statement that: "... with land reduction from what the Club has owned in the past, he does not feel the one (9) plus acres remaining can hold move people, cars or boats." ^ The Commission recommended and motion was to keep the use tied to sailboats except for the two Committee boats. The motion as recorded in the minutes is as follows: "Discussion got down finally tv the only objection was the proposed expansion of the facility to 42 slips. Miller moved, Larson seconded, that the granting of a conditional use permit be recommended with the restriction that only thirty (3d) boats be allowed and that no additional provisions were granted for the two committee boats' dockage. The vote was 4 to 2 - Brecke and Cole voting nay, Miller, Stover, Reese and Larson voting aye. See Exhibit C, excerpts (2 pages) from Shorewood Planning Commission May 26, 1977 minutes. 2 games an~'~ardara ~ii6auCt 4S6S ~nchanted~~oint SFiorezvood, .~I~LN SS331 City Council The Council considered and discussed the Conditional Use Permit and S ecial U Permit in a series of meetings in May, June and July, specifically at least the follow ng: May 9, 1977 May 23, 1977 (correction of minutes) June 27, 1977 July 25, 1977 The number was the big issue. Since the focus was on the number, the words "boats", "slips" and "sailboats" were used somewhat interchangeably since it was understood the applicant requested in writing "34 sailboat slips or lift spaces, 8 buoys, and 2 slips for Yacht Club Committee boats (emphasis added) and that the number or slips referred to sailboats except perhaps for 2 Committee boats. Here is how the minutes (for this case) of the June 27 City Council meeting begin on this matter (the first time the City Council considered the conditional use request after the May 26, 1977 recommendation of the Planning Commission): CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R.O. Leavenworth made the presentation for the Yacht Club. The recommendation of the Planning Commission for (30) slips and the establishment of the same conditions set down in the Special Use Permit of 1969 was reviewed." See Exhibit D, City of Shorewood Council Meeting June 27, 1977 (minutes). On July 25, 1977 the City Council passed the following motion: "Frazier made a motion to approve a conditional use Permit providing for thirty slips and parking for 30 cars and that any bui/ding be acceptab/e to the planning commission and the council. Motion carried with Haugen, Huttner, Naege%, Keeler, and Frazier voting aye." See Exhibit E, City of Shorewood Council meeting minutes July 25, 1977, I was at this meeting and requested that the limit be 21 slips. The issue was the number. At no time was there discussion, consent or approval of boats in general. dames and~~ardara ~iidault 4S6S Enchanterf~oint Shorewood; ~~?V SS331 CONCLUSION The City's record clearly shows that the Conditional Use Permit for this now non- conforming land use was for sailboats not any type of boat or boats in general; Therefore: 1 • The Planning Commission needs to recommend that the word "sailboat" be used in a corrected resolution since that was the premise in the application, in the discussion at the Commission meeting of May 26, 1977, and in the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council on that same day. 2. The City Council needs to correct the error in Resolution No. 55.2-77 by changing provision a) to read: a) .That upon and attached and in conjunction with the use of said property may be located lifts, slips, docks and buoys capable of storing and keeping not more than 30 sailboats during the docking season, and such facilities shall not extend beyond 200 feet of the shoreline. We believe adopting a new resolution which corrects the error is consistent with the City's record and the approved motions by the Planning Commission on May 26, 1977, and the Council on July 25, 1977. Correcting the error is the right, legal and ethical action to take. Thank you for addressing this important matter. James Thibault Barbara Thibault (We have lived across the street from the property owned by the Yacht Club since 1974.) 4 games arcd~~ardara ~iidautt 4S6S Enchanted <1'oint Shorewood, ~l~V SS331 ADDENDUM August 30, 2007 City Council Action/Approval 1977 No showing has been made to indicate that the Conditional Use Permit request or approval was for anything but sailboats. The issue was the number. In fact, the Council motion approving the Conditional Use Permit was for "thirty slips"..,. The word "boat" was not used. The actual motion is copied below. See also Exhibit E. "Frazier made a motion to approve a conditional use Permit providing for th_rt~i slips and parking for 30 cars and that any building be acceptable to the planning commission and the council. Motion carried with Haugen, Huttne~ Naege%, Keeler, and Frazier voting aye." Emphasis added. The Resolution needs to be corrected to be consistent with the action approved by the City Council. Otherwise, the City Council's action is usurped. Yacht Club's 1992 Ac~plication for a Zoning Change The Yacht Club's 1992 application/materials continue to reflect the understanding that the Conditional Use Permit is for sailboats. In the yacht Club's letter dated November 12, 1992 and signed by Skip Dewitt, Commodore, it states "All yachts are sailboats only, except for one powerboat, which is used for officiating races." See Exhibit F. 5 A._~x~LiCx'1'I0.''v 1:`'t~~ ti l?E (~ ~~..~F ~.~.X~ ~1j1 ham' Yr 1 z y LrSE PEr~i;ilT ~Y QRDT~I~,~CE Pd~t, ~=,'° ~IT~ per/r^~A,"~/C~~,f~_~`~01~~;.~i~./~t.~Q1tI,'?'7~C~~~~y .,- ~ f S 1 ~.t~.E? ('rL 1111 .`l.1-CU1~1s~JtOC1~ } ~.~ t~licax-tts U~pp;;r :flake ~,ilznetor3ka ~~. ch-c CZts~ (t}?,'~4~.'C ) I+?orz-1?ro it ~tz~nLsota Co3~poration n Shorerrc3od: i-[erzl3e~in Co:.tr7t1 nn ~-o~ateci in ~Ti1.:Lan•i; of .YTe ~~7n31e~:io~a. ~ D--..~..~ A X3:13 ~.~ ~ ?. ~'1 7 C~"u° 0~':1~zc2rs s Comrr~odore - 9 ~~'=ci~ichar•d I,ea~rer;,ar>e~'th¢ ~~roodside Roan. Exe..lsiors 'tn. 5~3,.I.. s Vice Cc~rnmodGrc:, Richard p ~~~u"`~-~~'7 ut_~zan3~ Cason T.-'o~.nt Fcaa ' _5~ ' X71-~Qo82 Sectzc~n 7>" Conditional L~ Ses $ Ordinaries 1`~0. 7l; Villa;e of Shoretvooda 5ubdr 2 St~:i'3?~rC~s and. Conditions r'or ~-. Condi~.lc;nal U~e~a. = A eorzai-tional ;~ ~rmit `Ise;; ~° shc_2? be r;' d fog allawin~- aces o}-,iys r ante -the tl) l~rr~r use sueczf.i.cally 1j_s-ted as a core in regtzla-~io3is a~l~z icah~l.e to:-.t~•,e d.:-td.~.ti~o~.al_ tlse which ~ t is to brr cn~.ct?d. let in. TheQrd~t Y'C-`-prop°3"'%~" ; 5 .located ~.n Pw" 4 r3ance ;y~?7; Section Z~; .~- ~anlr i;.'.._strict as ~"czV':ided e S kzhd ~ . ~TJ ~uhe~ ~o it staters _. d C Z t.~br,o,,~r;, f ac i 1 i -~i,~v vac}z-~ ?, ?3= ~ Conditional Ctt;. _e BF evidence is £PSC Per, rni L shall he granted or3~i.`r i,f' ' :~~-.erted to es-caUlish; a st.?i~r+~,-,~, dosed ~u:tldi?~g or use-, t~vz:~1 ~ZaU 1~a~r ~adjaceiz-F t~.roz~E:rt ~.3~e3^se ef.icc-t upon 31°1v'r ~-, yP~:.I2e C.124 r3C-z°2' Ci'i' "Gt2@< . _,. ~..0:>:'f1QOi~ ~ t~'c~.:~'±'1t; Coildi'Vi (};iS y Ll~%i l it:~ ' ~:'uc11a (;~.eS `"~3'1~ O"~iZE?r 'Tt~.``t'~;L'.Y's alfects.n t?!2C `__;:' Buhl healt}2 n safety and ~;e=_~SCral sTel:~'ar , . e ~ a.z~3d ~~~ That the pro~oced htsildi.n or u.,e vrill arrant;^d arzd o~eratec~ so as -Go ~ he c~e~=i rIe-v~ela,~rrit~r.t atad ttse ;~er~rtz:i'i: t12e y accnr of ~~Se i ~~}:,oorir_~ ~r'oyoer ~,~ i d3_alce ':r:i.~ch -c}ie anni~ cable dig' ,. c U.~S:ri {C` '1 ;? S O t C t 2 L71 C r,~ T 7 `_ >1YiCC 1 C)ii4 gas}',@i'? -'Q~;S -~- aY2G y ~ i . , ~ ~ = ¢:.3 ~i~Ot ~-'t",FOt;d 'T ~ , ~ a l OC~x !~ s ftLtdi~02 s SLIi~F ~C;1^!?"t1 tC~~° ~;1)F Y~ n h~ t~ }~~--t--G2~e t. CStIriC3_; ,.r ~~.V'l_.r-~1o'ti~ of 1~2eaolttt:ion ~` ~ f1 ., l`.~.Ltt;.~ tt e sLtbje`ct to sonciran~ed ~. S;~ecial ~F;e ,, . C F' 1"!T3S a3"i d C O3i Ci i. "i°^ i. t _ : ,. ~ ti 1' ~. ~ T ~( ~ f't '1 j. ~. ~ t7 ;.tU.-l~ ? ,^_~Y71J~.Ii:a. ':l.C)i2 G'1;3.s; Si.I~~tft_Lt~i,^- r ~. c ~: ,~ , ,, 'G~1 z G C7 ,t.L , ~t C t '~, ~'~,~ iS ~ ~ ~ ~ IYlc7.C?CCSC~ °Xit~1 tt'~ _ Li`~@ ~' ~-:~ ~.,. > , U r~ t. ,.. T ,r r .~. F ,3 l t kt~ { ~ i ~ PI d! ,3 t1 ~:;,y3 .F. l~ ~y I .~. ~. t ky'~ ~ V ~ )~ -7 ~j ~ ~ ~ ~.3 ES 1 x( ! $~YkJ~ ~-~i ~a ! l..""'.. ! ~~ C:~Ld~ ~,- (T ,. G 1 t ...- is u d ,f. C}~;;j t+ ~3. F A 4i i ~ f~ e.} f~.. ~ ^I f f .i..... ~. ~~ G ~ ~'t'~ / r~~ ~ t.~. -'1 a~ aC.is~_= i.~~~~ ~."1~i.: y~ '( ~C'r~rl t ~.r:'OC~t~i"f"^\.r !t . C3~?r ~~: ' ~ :--i0 .~1.3 'i;t~ '(7i Y 1111 ~ ~ ~,~,~ ~{P G< <@~~.i ;i t ~`~:. ~n t,~;i _L .L fJ!:' C~~:?'.~ 3_~Y1~?C? g i~i:'t:`,. lt3 cICCyC)1^i~..'w?CF: t47i ~-1~ .! ~.1 .t ~.~` = i7t'.tc. ! e, I~Y1C}. USC' ~, - ~~ .£' ~.~?~~ l,C ~t71.;: d ! S ~:i. t( ~ ~Cn)e.L~~ 12'}. ~~}?.;py]l~tyCy53.'Zi~.:'~ EXHIBIT A `Inmvc nr~rf'(~nr~inrn ?ri~tinv/t i:o wore cTbsely wii:th the abuttir~ neighborhood to insure the compa~ibil~zntYtofoau~ryacha with the existing high. quality residential environmentClub ~-~ • Special conditions a pplicable to ULIV~YC Permit. The Ul,~'IYC Board oz Directors be conditions of the Neves -that many of the 19b9 Special Use Permit and other _ conditions are appropria-t;e fog°~ - subm~tn~~special use permit, f~hpendment to the UL`t~tYC t,~._ +~ +h e Sri, = cll:_ P~r~perty Develotimenta ~n~i ~-~~~"val. A° The Yacht Club shall provide ade exceed 40 spaces for members andq-uate ~a~rb ;-, `'t ~:m shall be surfaced ~+tith crushed rocl eand~otherddt~~~ resistant material. B° The Yacht Club shall provide adequate water and sewer facilities compatible t~rith phased property improvements C• The Yacht Club r.~ay construct a structure consiste -~. the provisions of application for conditional use dated 4/25/77 < nt trz ~n . permit . D. The Yac}~t C1~-'~ r~~:a:y develop under -the conditions of t ~`.I.t~' and L`iCt~o doC}iage.a~'~d,/,r~r tT1EZOrzYits' he }rs~ faci7 s ~. for ~Or `_c..L~ti~~ 1 ., Or lz.~t St7aCeS~ ~ IPZ,ao 1.tl~S .~+~~ ~n-,7; z 1, ~~ 'r: ~~d, FOUr dznC arzd ~ s 1~:,;~ prams may be used b y~'" `~ shies or . to boats moored on buoailboat o~~mers to provide access E• The Ys in addition to the normal mooring. Yacht Club property grounds shall be ~,s° a park li}ce manner enhancing the ne1ghborhoodtained in F° That the Yacht C1LZb ma boat lifts doer, bLao ~ stores in an orderly manners two co;nrnittee boats and ~o~hereitemsanecessary forz~ment~ activities. lub G"• S`tbra~::e-~of~:boats~~or~~tia~.Iers d}Zr;'n is prohibited except for two official ~~YachttClubocoms • _,_~- boats, mz-i. ~~e ProUert Use Re~zlations: A, The Club rrtay not launch an r ~ Y boat except for dinghies ar p~ a.ns v.•hich_;pr^ovida s.ccess to boats s7~oared at buoys• B. The Club shall not be ~- . bottle club licenUe, granted a liquor, beer zood ~ - or C • The Club property shall not b~ ~,~;~ pct? to ar or orgaa~.i ~,a. t.~ ~::~a. ~ i~~dividLaal 1-}° The Club shall not have any s.ctivities ~:~hich last ~.2~ C(7 m~.dn? gh-~, pad E. The Club premises and ~. and a°acing Yacht Club activi tie,.T`ay be Lased for social .~ for members and goes-ts. .~ ~_ ~TTTT)T'T n i SEiORE~~00D PLA1tIi11V'Cg CO~~TSSI02 ~~A.Y 26, 19?7 ~~~~rTEs The Shorewood Planning Commission met i 1977, at 'x;30 p~m® in P~Zinnewashta E n rogular session on thursdays ~8,Y 26, the absence of Chairman lementary School, Frank Reese S. Larson and Je ~~.ller•~atten® Also present Caere J® I3recke presiding in , J. Cole, K'. Stover, motion by Stover, seconded by Coffey to approve the minutes of ~Tarch 2 and P~1ay 12, 1977® Unanimous approval grantedm 4$ April 28, JI~+I DUTCF~R a S RL`QUEST TO SUBDIVZI,}E FOR GILD DUCK, 3rd ADDITIODi ~'• Dutcher stated ~celsior has a water main comb, feels that they (excelsior) would like to supply the water~hiRsepsroperty and he also feels Shore rood will want .him to use their water when the system ae through. At the &Ys that alternative is workedeouttb~ore construo+~g on usia~g walls onl ~' s ion is underway. ya unless an Drainage is a cyuestionable problem, ~ have drainage going into Excelsior area~whrehit haslbeen ~~sld~;be easier to channel it through Shorewood. F£e said he would comply with thesoouneilo re- but he would also point this out to the council. s request motion made by Brecke, seconded by Cole, to a as proposed for thirteen buildin pprove the gild Duck the council where the ~,ai ~y 26 3iving units without reeomm dation1to4 motion to include su age should be directed. .F'ranic Reese report on this matter~,estion that the council review the a~aended the Reese amended the motion further t~2s-~ate~ atQ;T~m 7~t- cher is willing to deed, outlots A and B to adjacent lando~mer ` unanimously, Motion carried ~'~ LAKE ~~t~7~T0 YACHT CLUB CONDITIONAL USE PERP~IZT l'z'ank Reese pointed out that some members of the o ~~ yacht Club promises on h~fay 21st. ommission .had visited the fro~a what the Crab has owned in theerry Miller .stated that .th land reduction acres remaining can hold more past, he dace not feel the .one 1` People, cars or boats® ~ d Plus The discussion also centered around what caused the floodi Yacht Club property was improved with a Aarkin lat o way. ng to take place. The ~' aizd Rascop s added a d_Tive~ Yacht Club spokesman said that boats were now kept there overni t members who did not live on the lake. ~Io one livin there® ~ because of g on the lake kept his boat question was raised as to whether the special use Pz?'mit auto co:ndational ~.ase permit by the Council ~s adoption of Ordinancematically~bece a that 'it did not. #77. `3'.o.,,y decided The commission, felt -c:aat the v aoht elute °~ould be better i tional use permit includip?g the terms of the special use f handled. order a condi~ permit, T'zte q~.zcsticsn came ~~p on, pago three of the apPlicat~.on rs j of '°gr~aup gatherinWt ; nom t~ze Paragraph. B ga,rding the s criking Stover, ?arson end Filler in favor of ~. , Y a 3 to ,~ votes it -remained in. off' leaving s.,ri~~.ng~ Coley Reese azad .8recke in favor ~, it ~.~,~ .Page I of the application also r? akos refex~enoe to nuisance ~otb~tonnthenpr misssoon~ heemornin~ ofate ,plus the .Head for a curtain ou ~, _ ace days. ~' p EXHIBIT C :Page 1 of 2 ,_ .._. SHOREHlOOD PLAI3.~itING• COMP+LTSSION MINUTES -page ~ 33zsoussion got do~•an finally to- the... ,:_~- objection ~~as the ~.e ,°aoilit to proposed ex~~s;~n of Y 42 slaps: Millex moved Larson seoonded: that the~,~conaito__.,.7. -.--~ Lnse permit be'ret~,rded with the restriction that only thirty (30) boats be allowed and that no additional provisions were granted for the two committee boats dockage, The vote eras 4 to 2 ~reoke and Cole voting nay; ~3iller, Stovers Pisses arzd Larson eating aye. It was also moved by Deese and seconded by Miller that our cit ems, the conditions of Lake Roadp access road to the U Y gQeer study and the residential properties ad'oini Peer Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club and inadequate size that have been brougtattto thedattentionboemthef flooding mission. Passed unanimously. P anraing eom- SHOOOD YACh"T CLUH questions developed for discussion: l® The total number of slips 2. `T'raffic entry exit on County Road 19 3. Tow the operation would be handled 4. .~rvidson law suit on neighboring Tsroperty S• Controlled use of channQls Reese questioned whetl2er look A had the right tp by doing so it came to less than.2O0 feet from a neiohborO0 feet into the bay, if bor would be l6(}s from the and of Dock,A. ~rarren Clg ~ shorelines One neigh- aspeot of the area Vaas quite goody one of the better~cations~ondthelake forVe a marina. .~ Commission members who were at the marina Saturday felt ohannels mere even bet {bigger axed wider} than they had anticipated. Also that boats will not createer a lot of traE'fic on the bay {C•ideon~s} because they will head. straight for o en water of the big lake. P Th® Arvidson lot is not buildable nova without a special variatace permit because of the size. We do not knave the outcome of the suit over the sale of the proper- ty`or the questions of sight Line interpretation. Bohn Cross suggested a compromise to delete two sli off of °tT3t4m This would shorten bath docks and Ps off of dock PcA„ and $ slips dock $tAe1 and 180 $ of buffer to nei bor - gave about. I$O'$ to marina on ~ total loss of 10 slips to marina. Bxecke suggested that the end slips from A B but look I7 remain as is because of lack of'its and C docks be removed {ZO slips} penetration into the bay. Informal poll of members was that the proper number ran ed prom 14{7 ~ ~- slips with three people feelin, 11 g ~ dips ~o l2~ . g 5 was aceeptabieti . The ~.'~estion of fencing to prevent users of either ?narina ox dred to cross into oti~er road was disc~zssed. Cross said he ~rould Ong compeay prevent it. St zs intended ;hat ma~°araa a~rould op$rate during normal, 'ooatirg season rar13.y$ p•~o ac°~ivity in winter is planned. Tennis and e cot~.rts *¢rould not be lighted. itTo __ svr~.at~rning pool ? s being Put in or antioipateda EXHIBIT C Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SF30RE~JG=:: i covrrclL ~~ETZ~_ ~. J ~7~ 197 s30 .m. j `the Shorewood City Cotulcil convened at the site of the I on the southeast shore of Gideon's B .pz'oPosed Shorewood Yacht Club ~ sent were Mayor Frazier, Council NemberstHau30np~m. on Monday, June 27, 1977. Pre- I g'e and Naegele, as well as John Cross, applicant for conditional use permit, some potential members of the Yacht Club and ' residents of near-by Timber Lane. John Cross and his associates demonstrated for visitors the capabilities of sailboat traffic in and out of the two channels in that area of Cideon's Bay. 645 P~m. ROLL GALL Council reconvened at Minnewashta Elementary School at b.45 p.m. Mayor Frazier presided and present were Council members Haugen, Huttner, Keeler and Noe ele Eng3.neer Norton, and Glerk ~Tiltsey. (Attorney Kelly arrived at ~ 7$30 p.m.~ P~INtTTES APPROVED Haugen maned, .Keeler seconded, to approve the minutes of the June 13th meeting as submitted. ~~otion arrrved 4 1. Naegele abstained. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR LAKE USES Debate Limit Set Feeler maned, Naegele seconded, to limit debate on the next three i lake uses to fifteen minutes each for the sues dealing with _ Pro and eon sides, excluding presentations. SHOREW{30D YACHT CLUB GIDEON'S BAY CONDITIONAL USE PERP~TT ~~SaCr~~soN.,~"3, y_ Ru'ing' opened to a full house. John Cross and associates ~~ the establishment of a yacht club on the southeast shore of Gideones Bhis proposal for people who testified at ~ ay. The same prior hearings presented their statements. Upon completion of the testimony, the council questioned the applicant and residents further, At the conclusion of this questioning, the matter was put to a voted to ~ab1e the vote to the second council meeting in July Jul 2 I{aeler moved, for purposes of discussion. Motion assed ~ y 5~, Huttner seconded voting soya Haugen, Fraziers P 3-2s Voting a~yea Huttner, Naegele, Keeler? --- - y vv~r.u.~L~~vtv~L USA PERI~iIT R. O. Leavenworth made the presentation for the Yacht Club, The recommendation of th.e Planning Commission'for 3C; ~1ip~ d the establzshrra~t o° s~,~ sat down in -the a ecial Use ~- s~.,,~a card? floes ~P _ .,~~.;_ ,~' -~u9 ~.;aa rer~ ;reeds Attorney Kell background information and informed the council that in the event the C nditional Use Permit is not granted, the original Special Use Permit is valid. Keeler moved Rattner seconded far p°~rposes of discussion, to table a decision an this matter to the. second meeting in Jttly~ during~s. 3 . hich time a compromise sha,3.l have been crocked out- betcreen the Yacht Club and adjoining residents. After discussion, ~iuttner r~ri.thdrew his second. T,~otion died for lack of a seconds don Rouges moved to approve a Conditional Ise Permit allocrin for tcrenty-one. (2Ij Y~oatss iriation died for lack of a seconds EXHIBIT D vity of Shorewood louncil Meeting -July 2~ ~ 1977 P~Tinut e s -page 2 C~~'PER LAk`F` t+1ZI~t~.~-ETONKA YACI-iT CLU3 -contd. At the Mayor®s request Naegele withdrew his second and Keeler withdrew his mot.. Frazier made a ssaotion to approve a conditional use Permit ~'on° slips and parking for 30 cars and that r Providing f~~. -~hir.~y commission arsd the eouncilo Motion car~iedbwithgHaube acceptable to the planning and Frazier voting aye, ~r gen, Plattner, Naegele, Keeler,. BOULDER BRIDGE EXTEi~SION ON FTN'AL PLAT Tom 9~'artman appeared before the aauncil to re ninety days for submission of the final plat of ethe boulder 3rxndge Developmennal ~~totian was made by Plaugen, seconded ~Sy Huttner to days. ~~totion carried wit3a Frazier, Naegeleo F3uttnerP ~aue the extension of ninety t gen and Keeler voting aye® LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD PROPOSAL A proposal heal been received from the South Tonka Athletic Association where they ~rould deed the Little League Field to the city for ~l.OO in exchange for certain improvements Keeler made a motion, seconded by Huttner to a and authorize the attorney to negotiate an • PProve the concept bring 1~aek a proposal® agreement with their representatives and JUNK .ORDINANCE - PIkST READING An ordinance r®strieting the accumulation on private inoperable equipment, junk or debris, had its first readPu~ty of unsafe, unusable, AME'.tTDI~t1IINFi~ TO 20NIN'G ORDINANCE - Qt~'Df ~iQ9 ~~,~ ~,~. ~' Pie: Lot 1q.5 Aud, Subm 7 ~~ mA rr~~ Du~~ ~+ On the second readingp a motion was made by Hau an ordinance to amend Ordinance Noo 77 to reaone~Lotseconded by Keeler, to adopt with certain grovisions® Motion carried unanimouslya_~~$ Aud, Sub® 120 to G-1 HORSE IIV'SPECTION aLEPOP.T Attorney made a report at the request of the horse inspector to recommend re'ecti the horse permits of Term Schoenecker and to de Haugen made a motion second~:d b Huttner to a ~ on of s y ~ a permit for Lucille I~'yl~d~ horse inspector and authorize the legal, stops necessaryhtorco Al~n~i~hosaid recom- mendation, ~Fotion carried unanimouslyo MORSE 013DINAITCE REVISIONS Haugen made a motion, seconded by Huttner$ to authorize -the attorney to draft an amendment to the horse ordinance to include certain ~orovisions as recommended by the_horseaT,~.ers association and the councilo Motion carried unanimouslyQ T?OEL~i00D PIEIGHTS - PP~LIP~iIItIAI=t`I PLAT Plaugea~ made a motion, seconded by iiuttner to a ~~ood Pleights as recommended br the Pl pprova the preliminar ~ azuaing Gor~mission and at tox~neyYtolaeq~~,IeToal~ bonds escrow funds or letter of credit in t'eze arna•,znt of l~ ! cf the estimated cc~s~t of the setter and ~~©ad improvements ?+~otion ca,.rriQd unar~.;,mou,sly n EXHIBIT E J~a UPPER • L~.I-LE ~YIY\TI`~I'E'~ONKA YACHT CLTJB P.O. BOX 358 EXCELSIOR, MiV. 55331 November 12, 1992 Bradley 1. Nielsen, Plannn~g 1?irector Cify of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rand Shorewood, MN 5533I Subject: Number of slips at UMYC property Bear Brad, The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club is a sanctioned yacht racing entity, operating under riles of the Inland L.•rkes Yachting Associ~~tion. All yachts are sailboats only, except for one.. powerboat, which is used far a~iciating races. The club, yearly, Presents its' racing schedule to the LMCD and Water Patrol for their approval. This schedule allows far racing only as follows: I. The end of May through the end of September 2. Saturday afternoons and Sunday mot~n'n~c 3. Seven Wednesday evenings This use is signi_ticantiy dif~•exent from ma~.inas, where boar use and times are determined by the owners throughout a 24 hour day. UIvfYC ,has rotes regarding properly, moorings, and use, which have been drafted to eliminate neighborhood complaints and problems. (,Please see "Regulations" ~ enclosed annual book.) Additional paints to consider that dir'~'erentiate UMYC from a public marina as permitted under "Lakeshore Recreational District" are: 1. Na boat dock canopies 2. Na ramp far bast launching 3. Na commercial, sales 4. Na gasoline dispensing 5. Na fishing boats for rent 6. Na storage of bows or trailers With the greatly reduced use of our docking area, it is our belief that we should be allowed a minimum of 25 slips. Brad, if you. have any q'~estions regarding the move subject; pl:.ase corzt~ct ripe. Sincerely, ~,~ `~- Skip Jewett, Commodore - 471-1964 ~:~hihit B ~ET"I'ER ~~~MU.L.M.~`.~` Dated i? ~over;~ber 199= EXHIBIT F LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.t_.t_.P. 42001DS CENTER 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2274 TELEPHONE:612-371-3211 FAx:612-371-3207 ATTORNEYS AT LAW IN DENVER: 6OO 17TH STREET, SUITE 1800 SOUTH DENVER, CO 80202-5441 TELEPHONE: 303-573-5900 FAx:303-573-1956 J. H. STROTHMAN (612)371-3254 jstrothman@lindquist.com September 4, 2007 Mayor of Shorewood Christine Lizee City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood City Council Members Shorewood City Planning Commission Members City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Mr. Timothy Keane Leonard, Street &Dienard Suite 2300 150 South 5`i' Street Minneapolis, MN55402 Mr. Timothy Kelley Leonard, Street &Dienard Suite 2300 150 South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN55402 www.lindquist.com Mr. Craig Dawson Shorewood City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Ms. Bonnie Burton Shorewood City Finance Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Mr. Bradley Nielsen Shorewood City Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: City of Shorewood Threatened Amendment to 1978 Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club ("UMYC") Conditional Use Permit As counsel for UMYC we reviewed a copy of the City Planning Director's August 2, 2007 memo to the Planning Commission suggesting that the City "correct" a 30 year old UMYC conditional use permit. Our receipt of this memo followed our delivery of a package of informative documents to the Planning Commission and City Officials on August 1, 2007 (after we indirectly learned of the August 7, 2007 public hearing on this matter). We did not have time before the hearing to research and respond to the Planning Director's memorandum. We have now reviewed many historical records. ~~ ~ i Doc# 2429579\I LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.~.~.P. Shorewood City Council September 4, 2007 Page 2 We obtained from the City's website May 14, 2007 council minutes from the Council's work session that day. On August 31St we also found in a city file a memorandum dated May 9, 2007 from the City Planning Director to the City Council. The Mayl4th minutes and the May 9th City Planning Director's memorandums reflect that many factual representations made to the City Council by the City Planning Director and the City's attorney were erroneous. The Planning Director's memo also does not fairly present the history of the adoption or the life of the UMYC CUP. This letter is a summary of many of the corrections and clarifications that should be made to what has been put forth by the City staff as "history." Support for these corrections and clarifications is contained in: (a) documents mailed by me to you earlier as attachments to the UMYC trial brief in opposition to the City's criminal complaint; (b) The many Planning Commission and City Council minutes and staff memorandums to the Council and Planning Commission from early 1977 until today; and (c) the transcript from the City's late April 2007 criminal court trial against UMYC, including the Court's comments on the absence of support for the City's effort to restrict the UMYC boat slips to sailboats. 1. To respond to The City Planning Director's first two points in his May 9, 2007 memorandum and similar statements made to the council at its May 14th work session: (a) The City Planning Director references complaints the City has received. Have you seen them? I haven't, although I have made multiple written requests to the City and its attorneys; (b) The attorney for the City states that the Apri12007 criminal proceeding was on a "tab" charge like a traffic ticket. No way. This was afull-blown criminal complaint prepared not by a sheriff or police officer but by a law firm and served by a process server (although on the wrong yacht club). The City Planning Director suggests that the Court in its April criminal trial against UMYC focused only on the 1978 CUP and attaches a memorandum from the City's attorney. However, that attorney's memo leaves out the word "not," thereby totally misrepresenting what the judge said. Attached to this letter is the transcript from that trial. It was decided on a UMYC motion to dismiss where the standard effectively is that the City has no evidence on which it could prevail at a full-blown trial. The Court's decision is on the last page of the trial transcript. It conclusively shows that the Court's ruling was based not only on the clear language of the 1977 and 1978 permits but on the City's admissions in the City Planning Director's 1992 memorandum and in City actions at the time of the 1992 variance request Doc# 2429579\I LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.~.~.P. Shorewood City Council September 4, 2007 Page 3 by UMYC. At that time the City clearly indicated that the 1977 and 1978 permit did not exclude power boats. The Court also took affront to The City Planning Director's overreaching action shown in Exhibit Q to our trial brief (mailed to you earlier). In short, the Court reviewed the best the City had to offer and threw out the City's case. There is no new evidence favorable to the City. 2. After reviewing thirty years of City Council and City Planning Commission minutes last Friday (when finally made available after repeated requests) I could find no support whatsoever for the City's claim of a mistake by it in using the word "boat" rather than "sailboat" in the 1977 permit. On the contrary, between early 1977 and 1993 there were 29 occasions on which the City Council dealt with this permit and its language and another nine occasions by the Planning Commission. No one even suggested that "boat" was an incorrect description or that power boats were not included in the permit. In fact as noted in the response to the UMYC variance request 15 years ago (to build a clubhouse and otherwise improve its property) there were multiple suggestions, first by the Planning Director and then by the Planning Commission, that restriction to sailboats could be made as a condition to approval of the variance. It is inescapable that the 1977 permit was understood by the City in 1992 to permit boats of all kinds. That continued to be the case at ali other times until the Planning Director vas influenced by one or more crusading neighbors to try to impose this new limitation of "sailboats." Incidentally for 13 years after the 1992 City actions and admissions (from 1993 to 2006), the City never objected to the UMYC permit allowing power boats although the City's approval was annually requested in writing by the LMCD -and often given by the City. 3. The City Planning Director in his May 2007 statements to the City Council is improperly trying to rewrite history by coloring and distorting the UMYC permit applications in 1977 and 1992. This type of colored input from the City's staff (influenced, it appears, by "campaigning" neighbors -almost all of whom, incidentally, bought and/or improved their properties with knowledge of the UMYC 30 boat marina) makes your job tougher since you need to separate fact from fiction. But fictionally rewriting 30 years of history is inappropriate and unbecoming of the City of Shorewood (or any city) particularly when the entity affected by this fictional historical reconstruction is anon-profit organization that has consistently been advancing community and family activities for 40 years. Thirty years of acceptance of the 1977 permit legally forecloses any such "corrective" amendment. Apart from this legal reality the applications and the City's many actions related thereto clearly demonstrate that the City Planning Director has mischaracterized these two applications and taken words out of context. The 1977 and 1992 applications were not for a permit as a "sailing club" as the City Planning Director now states. All applications were and are for a yacht club including a marina and docks and many a yacht club, if not most, have marinas for both power boats and sailboats. (In fact on the lower lake for decades Minnetonka Yacht Club with its intense racing of sailboats has had a 36 boat marina populated virtually 100% with power boats.) The UMYC 1992 variance application was to build a clubhouse and otherwise Doc# 2429579\1 LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.~.~.P. Shorewood City Council September 4, 2007 Page 4 improve the property. To get this approval UMYC offered many things, including reducing the number of marina slips from 30 to 25 and the willingness to have them be for sailboats - acceptable if it could build as it wanted. The City's suggested conditions to approval referenced above make this contingency clear. In 1977 the UMYC application was simpler in form than 1992 but essentially the same - for a clubhouse and other improvements and incident to this UMYC would reduce its slips from 42 in 1976 to 30. After numerous meetings and discussions by UMYC with City staff and officials UMYC was persuaded to accept a reduction in boats -all inclusive, both sail and power -with its race committee power boats counted as part of the 30 boats, not additional as had been the case in earlier years. It did not get its clubhouse at this time but this part of its application was deferred. It did get an unlimited permit as to the nature of its boats. Supporting this clear intention of the parties in 1977 are the Planning Commission minutes on the public hearings held in 1977 for both the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club and the Shorewood Yacht Club and the later meeting of the Planning Commission acting on the applications of each yacht club. Considering both permit requests within minutes of each other, for UMYC the City agreed upon a permit that is clear it is for "boats" without limitation. For Shorewood Yacht Club the City required that its permit be for "sailboats only" and added other conditions related to sailboats. 4. The City attorney suggested to the City Council on May 14, 2007, that its litigation with Shorewood Yacht Club was decided in favor of the City because it was a civil rather than a criminal matter. That is not the reason for the difference in decisions. The decision in the Shorewood Yacht Club case shows that Shorewood Yacht Club lost that effort to add power boats specifically because it had a clear permit that allowed only sailboats. The City cannot prevail against UMYC unless it has such a permit. Hence, apparently, this 30 years late effort by the city staff, none of whom where around then, to rewrite history. 5. It is clear that until May 2007 there has been no effort by the City to correct the UMYC 1977 or 1978 permits. Yet UMYC has had power boats in its slips for decades. They did not suddenly spring up in 2005 although they certainly could have under the UMYC permit. 6. There is a financial reality that affects this process. Sailboats once on the rise in popularity are now in extreme decline. A Star Tribune article on Sunday, August 5, 2007, noted that the number of sailboats in use in Minnesota was down 38% over the last 20 years while power boats have taken over as the boat of choice by boaters. Populating a marina and justifying ever-increasing taxes on the land requires UMYC to lease slips to its members for whatever boat they wish to keep there. The reality is that more and more over the past decades increasing land values and attendant sale prices have forced most yacht club members to move off Lake Minnetonka or never move on it. They need a place for their power boat and sailboat and UMYC needs them as members. Thus as with other yacht clubs the UMYC membership has changed over the last three decades to include many more off- lake members with power boats. You might find it informative to talk to folks at the Minnetonka Doc# 2429579\I LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.~.~.P. Shorewood City Council September 4, 2007 Page 5 Yacht Club on the lower lake. You would learn the benefit to this club by its 36-boat Carson's Bay Marina leased to members. (These members have also been well-behaved and many of the power boats are seldom used as opposed to racing sailboats used 3 to 4 days a week. Neighbors who disparage in advance potential UMYC members who become slip renters are way off base.) 7. UMYC recognizes that it has a few neighbors who appear to be fighting it at every turn. Their names are known to you and some can be found in minutes as far back as 1977. Interestingly most all of them bought or built near the UMYC marina knowing of it. Their demands to rewrite history ring hollow. It might also be observed that awell-run non- profit yacht club marina with power boats can be less intrusive than a marina with 30 sailboats with (a) masts in the air, (b) halyards clanging almost no matter how well they are tied and (c) with much more frequent boat use as is generally true of sailboats raced by yacht club members. If any of you have questions not asked at the September 4th hearing you may reach me at my office, 612 371-3254 or on my cell, 612 747-5566. S' cere y, J. . Strothman JHS/jee cc: Mark Larsen Noel Neuman David Ahivers Maggie Bass Doc#! 24295790 STATE OF MINNESOTA IHENNEPIN COUNTY (State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, v The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, Defendant. DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS File No. 27CV-06-076882 ORIGINAL The above-entitled proceeding came duly on for hearing before the Honorable Charles A. Porter, Jr., one of the judges of the above-named Court on the 24th day' of April, 2007 at Courtroom 323 Ridgedale Court, Division III of Hennepin County District Court, City of Minnetonka, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. APPEARANCES: Tim Kelley, Shorewood City Attorney, appeared for and on behalf of the Plaintiff State of Minnesota. Mark Larson, Attorney at Law, appeared for and on behalf of the Defendant Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2G 21 2~ 2. 2~ 2~ (WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were duly had:) THE COURT: Appearances on State versus Upper Lake - or Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. MR. KELLEY: Tim Kelley, K-E-L-L-E-Y, on behalf of the City of Shorewood. MR. CARSON: Good afternoon, Your Honor, Mark Larson and Jack Strofland (phonetic) appearing on behalf of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. THE COURT: Counsel, I understand we're going to hear a motion to dismiss here and that the record is going to include the Complaint and the exhibits contained in the City's trial book, of which there are 18, as well as the exhibits attached to the Defendant's trial brief which go through Letter R; is that correct? MR. CARSON: That is correct, Your Honor. MR. KELLEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Larson. The record should reflect that I have reviewed both parties' trial briefs as well as the exhibits that I just referenced. MR. CARSON: Thank you, Your Honor, and thank you for the expenditure of judicial resources to take a look at what are really felt to be more voluminous proceedings, especially within the context of a simple misdemeanor case such as this. We appreciate the Court's time and attention 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. 2C 2J 2~ 2: 2~ 2! to those details. Your Honor, we do today, before the Court, make a motion to dismiss the pending Complaint in this case and we would ask that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Your Honor, I think it does bear mention that although initially obvious, later perhaps we'll have a little better appreciation for why it really matters that the City in this case has decided to proceed with a criminal proceeding. Obviously the City has engaged in an election of remedies, if you will, but that election is not a one-way street. It's a two-way street, and it's a two-way street that's going to result in a collision between the City's case and what justice demands in this particular matter. Your Honor, the Court has seen numerous conditional use permits, but there's only one that's relevant to this case and that's the permit that was issued back in 1978. The Plaintiff has asked the Court to receive, and we endorse the Court receiving this particular exhibit, No. 14, because that exhibit is the beginning and the end of this matter. That exhibit clearly states that my client is permitted to engage in ~~the storing and keeping of not more than 30 boats." Your Honor, our view of the law if very straightforward here. The term boats is a term that a layperson on the street can understand and appreciate. We are prepared to prove up, if this case were to have gone to' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 2L 2. 2~ 2`. trial, exactly what that terms means, and it includes not only powerboats, but it includes sailboats, it includes ore boats and includes steamships. It includes boats of any kind and those are precisely the great variety of different boats that this permit would allow my client to keep and store at Enchanted Island. Now, the Plaintiff isn't satisfied with the permit, so the Court asks us to look behind a straightforward, unambiguous document in an attempt to define intent from 1969 to 1978. Whose intent does the State ask us to determine? Only it's own. The State asks the Court to look to the City's intent, even though that so-called intent never made its way into the permit, never was communicated to my ,client and never has been part of the pattern and practice of activities at this particular facility. Your Honor, to conclude that something more than the term ~~boats" should be read into this permit, threatens a taking of my client's property and threatens a deprivation of my client's right to due process. And that`s why I started off talking to the Court and discussing the fact that this election of remedies, this criminal case, carries with it consequences to the City's attempt to prevail here. The City could have engaged in a condemnation action and it elected not to do so. We know why, it would have cost the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ City millions of dollars to do that. Instead, the City elected to attempt to deprive my client of his right to due process in a criminal proceeding by electing to proceed as it has. What is the consequence here? The consequence is straightforward, Your Honor. If there were to be an ambiguity here, we don't think there is, but if there were to be an ambiguity, the door slams shut firmly on the State' s case . That' s because the rule of Lenity applies in this proceeding. It's a criminal case. If there were any ambiguity, that ambiguity has to be construed consistent with my client's right to due process which renders the result, the term boats means exactly what it means, boats of any kind, powerboats and sailboats. Your Honor, that's why we believe this case should be dismissed. It should be dismissed fully, finally and forever with prejudice. THE COURT: Mr. Kelley. MR. KELLEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Larson) talked a lot about the City's intent when the documents they agreed are a part of this record and part of the Court's review are the Defendant's own applications and statements. Looking at this conditional use permit that was originally granted in 1977, you look at their application. What do they state? They say, City, here are proposed conditions for your review, discussion and approval. Thirty-four boat slips. Sailboat slips, excuse me. Sailboat slips. Look at the City 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Council meeting minutes from the night they approved this conditional use permit. The spokesman for the Defendant, Dr. Levenworth says, City, I agree to reduce my request, or the Defendant's request, to 30. I asked for 34 sailboat slips, I'm agreeing to reduce it to 30. The original permit granted back in 1969, 30 sailboat slips. That is what is understood by the parties and what was intended when this conditional use permit was issued. There is no ambiguity. They knew what they received because that's what they asked for. They asked for 34 sailboat slips, later their representative says, we'll accept 30. It's clear. These records are clear. And their justification for why they need to do this is their having complaints with their taxes. Now, that's a separate issue they can address with the assessor. But it tells a story here - THE COURT: They're having problems with the taxes and their having problems with their support. MR. KELLEY: This is residentially non-conforming use, a sail yacht club. They have the issue of sailboats and then also the 2005 membership application contained in the records shows they came up with this scheme of how to raise some money. We'll start looking at powerboats, but you know what, you can't become a member in our yacht club. You can pay to rent that slip, you don't have to buy stock like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 2~ everyone else does who is a sailing boat member, you can just rent the slip. So that is, by definition, not a club member. And so powerboats, separate and distinct from sailboats. They asked for 34 sailboat slips, reduced it to 30 by agreement, and that's what they got from the City. None of this was an issue until 2005 when they complained about their taxes. And so then they schemed some way to try and raise revenues and that's where they came up with this idea of, well, let's see if the Gity watches us here. Let's try to slip these powerboats in. The neighbors who have lived in this area, residentially zoned, deserve to have the nonconforming use limited to what it was approved to be. That was a sailing boat yacht club. Their own materials says, we're in the business of racing sailboats. They asked for sailboats and that's what they got. Clearly there is enough here to take this matter to trial. Thank you. THE COURT: Response, Mr. Larson? MR. CARSON: Your Honor, with respect to the issue of taxes, I think that that is a question wholly outside of what this case is about. We would ask the Court to just take a look at the simple, unambiguous document, recognize along with us that boats means boats. It doesn't just mean some types of boats, and grant our motion to dismiss. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 2c THE COURT: All right, I'm going to enter an order dismissing this matter. And not only on the plain language of the permit, but on the interpretive language from the State with regard to the response to the variance request as well as with regard to the response to the LCMD from last summer. It seems to me clear that the City understands that it has a problem with its - with the language of its documents, failed to maintain a consistency that it claims it maintained. The matter is dismissed. This is a criminal case, however, Mr. Larson, and there is no such thing as a dismissal with prejudice. Thank you all. MR. CARSON: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. KELLEY: Thank you, Judge. (WHEREUPON, at this time, the proceedings were concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2? 29 2c ...STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, Cheryl Wallat, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing transcript consisting of the preceding eight pages is a true and correct transcript of the digitally recorded proceedings and is a full, true and complete transcript of the proceedings to the best of my ability. Dated: August 22, 2007 ~C.~ Cheryl Wallat, Official Court Reporter -~ ~ °~ ", ~~ ~.. ~~ Testimony to the Shorewood Planning Commission September 4, 2007 John Barlow My name is John Barlow, Vice Commodore of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club with responsibility for the marina. I am here as a representative of the club with a request for your commission to end this process now. First, I would like to apologize to any of our neighbors if any of our members have behaved poorly in their presence. It is our intention to operate our marina and club activities in a family friendly manner. Secondly, I would like to apologize to this commission for the time that you are spending on this issue. This is a matter that can and should be handled another way. Our club has had a proud history that is more than just sailing on the Upper Lake. Many of us have created lifetime friendships that have extended far beyond membership in the club. Several of the members are third generation from those that founded the club and had the foresight to purchase this property in 1968. In my own case, it has shaped my life and that of my children and now grandchild. I would not be standing before you today if I did not feel an extreme gratitude for the opportunity created for my family by the individuals that created the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. The club has gone through many changes since its' founding, but our values remain unchanged. When I joined the club in 1975, the marina was full and so was the starting line on the water. And yes, the social activities on the property were frequent and fun and enjoyed by many, many more people than today. The property was a very active place. But, we were also schooled by the club elders about the importance of respecting our neighbors and the constraints of the conditional use permit. Anyone that is involved in this controversy, whether a proponent of the club or an adversary, knows that this is not about motorboats in the marina. In my 32 years as a member I do not recall a single year when we have not had motorboats in the marina. This is about survival for the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club. Through 2005, we were able to operate without filling our marina because the economics did not require us to do so. Then in 2006, our properly taxes went from $5,500 to over $27,000. The total revenue from our club was less than $30,000 so we had to maximize all club revenues to survive. We must put boats in the marina in order to survive. Take away that capability and you kill the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, as you know it today. (See Exhibit A) Now, let's look at what we have done. Today, we have ten slips that allow for boats tied to our dock. I have personally screened each member in the marina. All boats have motors. The boats in slip 21, 22, 23 and 26 do not have sails. Here is who they are: Slip #21: Diclc and Mary are retired with 6 grand children. Dick has sailed on Minnetonka since 1946 and has been a club member many years. They have used their boat about 10-11 times this year, never on weekends. Slip #22: Gary & Carol are in their 50's and Gary has also been a Long time sailor and raced an MC scow last year. Gary is an executive in a culinary wholesaler. Slip #23: Laurie is in her early forties, married with two small children and VP of a high tech company. She and her husband and two children have used their boat about 20 times this year. Slip #26: Mike continues to rent the slip but moved the boat to a private home he is renting and hopes to buy. He is an analyst at an investment banking firm. My volunteer responsibilities at the club include maintaining an orderly marina. Each member that keeps a boat at the marina signs an agreement. In addition, the items shown in Exhibit B are posted at the property. My telephone number is shown on both items and I live a mile away at 3946 Enchanted Lane. I have had two complaints this year about a single member from a single neighbor. We resolved the issue after the second complaint and asked the member to remove his boat. I have received no other complaints. I am not aware of any police complaints. I encourage anyone of the neighbors to call me if there is a problem. My home number is 472-6132. It is our intentions too operate an orderly and friendly marina. This whole controversy is a black mark on the rich and wonderful history of our club. It has been costly in more ways than money. Personal friendships have been destroyed. All for what? If you remove the emotion from this and look at the facts, this is ridiculous and needs to end now. The CUP is clearly written. None of you were around when it was negotiated. We have always had powerboats in the marina. Our members are upstanding people that enjoy the Upper Lake. Your actions have added to our financial burden and yet you suffer no burden as The League of Minnesota Cities funds your legal costs. This is an embarrassing waste of tax dollars and your time. My request to the members of this commission is to vote against bringing this to the Shorewood City Council. Thank you G( i U John Barlow EXHIBIT A HEtvNtPiN ti(JU1`i"i'Y' 20Go F't{iirEk'f'Y S'it1 5'['AYcNIEWI" HatnyeG~Gnur~•In,a^uror '~+01cp t-nt.r; n:i.a x<:Sl '•do'rcae-PrIJ?y Ar.',Cil ~ia!rrnle•d ~m•'.et M1fim hln:+ID, fA(d aDa!;7-+I ~I i:7 :nt^_.v1:~ ?flt 1 n•Ewf. nr.aD'.r ,.•:,y" ~7F7f oC1~ AE iAY,P{yEA COPY UPPER H?KA YdCHT CL IJR 4:05 SHDREI:t+F. OR E: rE iu SPRI HG PARY, HN 5538 4-?b 53 P,v.rlr Cf¢alm7 Icn ~ xl L.I t. t<:un Lnn G xreEPERAEC rr+: Inp,uw.wruE.:+m] E.rIU:L:nv G d F~Smltta :vR:1'J]U! ]n~,nnn [Un,Dto tS+tOL: IV IHt'I!!In ti,:1,70D d95.O10 OAT:r r. y: ,..f Y".-"'.r. :•.ITt Nrr. rn •,.+.L~: L. :I.N<,t/lYC'21t•, JPP EA LAY.E XTK.R 't 4._HT' ^_LVB R: M..',il!: r coast lacn[tr.[a,CU'lNL DELI.fI:Exr T.VFD JnO7F<I+IT CU:ett. ~ :.LC:":.W:,"IY.tw m.art~tM;w ~u::•...:'..'.fF:.rr ': ,V ,00 'Mfr irnln(vr was •f... n I. aa:.w 5t I+. Etrl. 3 F, : D 0.3' aP-.__'.+Ni.'yr+.-tn -t.-+•n.l,.d.-: ,.,.: t. I 3,!2=, 9c 9.591.:c {} ,-~lq;r.N.t l..rr.-Win.... •. .. '• na .. SD-117-[3 53 0025 ~.r..a.+n.,... ., .,tnp:Ar lr ak't=rc:xrl:-a>r,r.~n.a.f•nal«.nra .pJ ., • Nurse M.ul ':.YMt.IN nw"htt PF ~ E.': tKY:ff_(:/Iy Ye g!;a'1M--•.,• _.'.Zd.2i ..?.009.x ' 277 3 2d t.y...rr:::Yr,. •rw ~!v,:.-~^I.,..r..«.,r,,.:l. x7tM W u Prx; r,fi h. DOm co PNWns`>,I+n•:fy _ Gl 1. tlJ ir631.52 ,2nf [,IC.1,.\MIt n I f • ~ ._.._ __,.. ~~~tt +n ~ ,i+r+R.f:.tt:. t: Sl•o•• 5'..7?1 d°tl°~}i,:u LNr9n rt¢K II I'I•::h t~c.- ~ ..._.. ,rf.w«u w 1.47 .57 .DD 3f:ti5.b~ a.73 F.as le; off. a'hLrl~f.l.x _x.,u ... 1,:•36.33 7,"•x'..73 U U G n.ll.,.o.l I.x.... 23v, A9 LD'E AND t 'ta c.f.ne,r: yrl>.1 w.+w C,,.r. ... 165. u4 3317.7: n rlirr'1«.' roI; JI,:, 236. P 1 910. D9 Mb. Ca,» Lan1J;. C.i..l'.':,:r:': _.. .. ...._...... .nn .u: .0D D .... vf..t.:M +ua..:l TvCgYly l:r:: _..... '~ r .a F' t 65.07 l~l.e= ,. 575 ec 13 .uqc: a..~0:.l4Uf w•.11:ra1 ro. ' . . ~,{~ ~, !~ ~ t''~ } } ~ It ..1 x:. b.ralrs,.lyR~af -... ...... II>, • 4x. a. r,..L vl ---. I ~ ~ I ~.~~ ~L'YYirIWGlYii1~~ 1i ,575. 66 Ic\L'f1a701ar 1ccarcn Tr.taxnsTeclu x926?MEhT2 5f490.dQ 4 ~ ~27~.1 b1 .3~ WAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO HENFlEPIN COUaIfY TAEA9UREA HEHHEPI~f GUvNTi 7m6 PROPERTY'fAX STATEtL1EfQT J:C D1r. 9~5,` Il :IY IV P'4'Vn'Iy Ta. Paxn.nn~ ft.`.:._ TG tJ:1' Yr nl]Tnal Cf t'x N1~/1'i il. v,l Dc. I., :r Y..14 Y.Y DY. STATE CaPY Frlw b+ tw3uxllka 11rP.f~ wAyK u PPEA N'f KA 'i ACNT tLUR 4165 SHURELt ME DP. 5TE IU SPR INB PARK HN SSSB4-965+ CMrr:t UPPEk LAKE tA7 SA. YAC1eT CLUB p,nrnm; le.,nn.+.w„r+~. Murlo 30-11F-23 33 0025 26 tH 1'Y.K'N xnr.r.,a waa" I llnd 3I. PYTn 1.1f r (A Sr,+ I' ~~:V Y: tta U/-T.r.T. rr ', U.l 11~~ nJ~.rlla srf:it:/:t :. ~P npf: I:< cnaL'K [I; YGU D:'fE BELIHr1UEHT intt3 ..rtu AAE NOT ELIUIBIE. .uo un! +: . DL'r Lx., t: .Go tv.! ,: P+fy ,,vr ar natCl'a VClccrT tV, YVV., foa vox,nny, LIxV fIFtL~ rhx, .a, vu cvasu Plvr»r..:.f 1M rr.n~.x wtl.1z 2•r/nrn ui:.flli<fi. TAKFAYen on aC2111 nlJxlc KT+~..CGE LOJ11tK.•. II I•t`t H M .. t:llll ..~ R1n5 SHGUEI]NE nDR STE IrI arrrrNr. rnxK nn +,.s n+ van.. PiK`ciAt"t hnortc:. 11t~~{ I~[(~Ef~+ AED: EMr:HJMTC^ fT ~'Il~iftl~~~IIIaY~~ M1-ck OBI IPe Psy--nn9l DG1on2: (nr,vrheflfaclr aE I -owPen,rn~e-iFilrra a xG _ ~ z n~ to ~:~~"' ? I•# ; U,t~l t 7.823 w3" 0,25 T, .. ,,, ~~, 1~.. 57$,. E•.6~ 231173Ds3D025D0DODDDD0~013575b62317,73a?300255 Par an [+trfota day 15, awE Iw avale parmn;l 1ST HALF PAY STUB 2f}O(i M.mermO me PastT2 ).y m. pym•rt o•nmw+nn. Ta,il•>,YtH Ufi L/DEIR t. v1r~ ut.. ,iLliE LUt!'iQ J:~rEk YTiG YJ.CHT LtUe 2E 47>9 SN REEL?NE DR eTE 17 .:+•Itl ni: rax4 nl. fb.:i-+a F.] pppp[n TY FLQit53 i:8r7 E(/Gx t.rt rED PT :,x_IY~~~.., Q81111116!(1f~1~11 LAND f1HETD f_nX LAt7C. Pft EFE CE.ED ' 111,uM1v tr~yUr adtlr•: ~: at xnRHn Ylvn.~e. wrr Nryrc~rannll; of cartM, «c:l: crx: rtr. mnl a Fu,.rlhn e~ ~ -- etv:mlm:r«m I T~~EVnF~arn»,~~ r- _ rtl~ Y-..,~>:>; ~, ~I:n=xp~.F T,,:y T m ~ [w,w,.rd ~~.y~,4Lrt 75h ,000 ( 'oY5. UUD jl' S0~I17~23 ~3 o3z5~_ .._-_~'9.1ST.,~~' _ _,r i3_F3_a 6'~ ~. w n..1•,v,,. 4D1 ,;DG H~ Z95, OOU :I 231],73Q330025~D2?133?2D01357565t31L73033QD257 EXHIBIT B #21 Dick & lYIarv Caswell 952-474-3677 #22 Gary ~ Carol Anderson 952-470-5315 #23 Laurie Legus 612-310-6099 #24 open #25 aim E~;itsch 952-857-2611 #26 iYIichael Kline 651-270-9371 #27 Steve Haeg 952-474-2887 #28 Tony Scahill & Terry Freeberg 612-926-5890 #29 Denis & 11-Tiehelle Tiernev 952-474-4817 #30 Tim & Patricia Hepner 763-2$7-9393 This is a private marina located in a residential area, Please be courteous to our neighbors. You are responsible for your guests. Limit noise like you would at your own home, Absolute curfew is 12:00 AM midnight until sunrise. No exceptions, Enjoy boating and be safe. ~.Tll~Y~ Board of :Directors For questions, comments or complaints contact John Barlow 612-759-7161 Upper llinnetatka Yach[ Cluh 201M Slip Assignments For [nfonnxtion cul: john E3atiow ~i T2-+9-' 161 i__~~_ _--.__._..-___-__,_._~._-____-.._.__~___-~_ CITY F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 30 August 2007 Mahoney,Tom and Debra -Conditional Use Permit for Fill In Excess of 100 Cubic Yards 405 (07.14) Tom and Debra Mahoney are the owners of the property at 6150 Deer Ridge (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). They propose to raise the level of their back yard to create a level play area for their children. The project involves bringing in approximately 1800 cubic yards of fill material and the construction of a rather large retaining wall. Shorewood's zoning regulations require a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. The Mahoneys have requested a C.U.P. (see Applicant's Request Letter, attached as Exhibit B). Plans for the retaining wall and fill are contained in a memorandum from Civil Solutions, LLC (Exhibit C). The location of the wall is shown on Exhibits C-3 and C-4. The wall is terraced, with the upper portion being approximately 240 feet in total length. As illustrated, the lower portion of the wall is approximately 50 feet from the rear lot line and 10 feet from the side lot lines. It is worth noting that the wall is approximately 18.5 feet tall at its highest point. The two walls are separated by afive-foot deep terrace, in which they propose to plant dogwoods. At staff's request, the applicant has provided across-section drawing (Exhibit C-8). The proposed wall is a Keystone masonry block as shown in Exhibit C-5. The property is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential, and contains approximately 53,503 square feet of area. The lot slopes from south to north with approximately 25 feet of grade change between the back of the house and the north (rear) property line. While the area in which the fill will be placed has been cleared, a relatively dense deciduous wooded area encompasses the rear yard of the site. as ,P®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~` 8 ~. Memorandum Re: Mahoney CUP 30 August 2007 ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Shorewood's Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit whenever more than 100 cubic yards of material is brought on to a site. This equates to approximately 10 dump truck loads of dirt. Issues associated with these types of requests are typically engineering related. Consequently, the plans were forwarded to the City Engineer, whose comments are provided under separate cover. Grading, drainage and structural aspects of the proposed wall are addressed in the Engineer's report. From a planning perspective, the conditional use permit should address the potential impact on surrounding properties. Although the applicants' consultants have terraced the wall into two sections and suggested plantings in the space between, it is recommended that the wall be broken up into three sections, with no section being taller than six feet. The terraces should be no less than five feet apart and should be landscaped, based upon an approved landscape plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect. It should not be expected that the landscaping would completely block the wall from view. Rather, it should break the wall up and soften the view from surrounding properties. The height of the wall and the fact that it is north-facing, provides certain limitations with respect to choice of plantings. The additional terracing should allow more light to the landscaped areas. Landscaping should include, but need not be limited to, evergreen plant materials. The landscape plan should be accompanied by copies of bids for the landscaping, upon which a letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one-half times the amount of the bids should be required. The security should be in place for two growing seasons. The location of the wall is considered to be too close to the side lot lines, particularly along the northeasterly lot line. It is recommended that the wall be moved to be 10 feet from the drainage and utility easement. Tree protection fencing should be placed at the drainage and utility easement in order to protect the root zone of the trees along that border from construction traffic. The additional ten feet will allow askid-steer vehicle to maneuver along the wall without compacting soil over the tree root system. Cc: Craig Dawson James Landini Larry Brown Joe Pazandak Tim Keane Tom and Debra Mahoney -2- ~'\._~ p LL "'\~- O -~ z < N -~ N Q ~ O i~ W ~ ~{' '~ ~/ L .. -~ ~y5~ ~5: U 5: ,~ ~ ~.~ c~ U ~~ oy VI )yyr '~ i ° -Y t - - w ~ ~ U -~ o a O ~_ \,, U a a~ :~, c ~ L Q .. .._ e` ~~. o~' U~ obi ~roid~~ I_ Exhibit A SITE LOCATION p Mahoney C.U.P. City of Shorewood, MN August 6, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for reviewing this proposal in regards to building a new retaining wall to assist in leveling out our backyard. We have been in this neighborhood for the past six years and are very excited to be raising our two boys in this particular neighborhood and community. Our current backyard has an extremely steep slope that does not allow the boys and our two dogs to run and play without major supervision and concern. This process of leveling out the steep slope of the back yard and making a larger and level play area for the boys and dogs will allow them a safe and fun environment to play and have tons of fiui. We are very excited about this since our kids are at the age of playing soccer and tee ball and think this will be a wonderful part of their childhood. This proposal we feel would not jeopardize our neighbors' privacy or property value since this request is for a wall well within our property lines. Again, thank you so much for your time and consideration. Thanks again, ,. The Mahoneys 6150 Deer Ridge Exhibit B APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER i Civil Soiutioe~~ Group, LLC. --- ~ MEMORANDUM DATE: August 7, 2007 TO: Milce Jaunich -Alpine Landscape, Inc. FROM: Tirn Hatters -Civil Solutions Group, LLC. RE: Mahoney Residence Retaining Wall (07-366) Shorewood, MN Enclosed are three (3) sets of final plans fox the Mahoney Residence retaining walls. The approximate final quantities are as follows: W ll # Unit At•ea Ca AF ea Wall Len th Mirafz 3XT Mirafi SXT Grid Len th a (SF) (SF~ ~~~ ~sY~ (~'Y) (~T) 1 1,275 65 185 196 857 9-16 2 1,575 85 240 576 0 6-8 Totals: 2,850 150 425 772 857 N/A ® The unit area quantities are neat quantities. ® The grid quantity includes a 5% waste factor ~ The total wall area is the sum of the wall and cap area (2,850+150) = 3,000 SF Design Assumptions: Keystone Compac Units, Near Vertical Setback, 4" cap units Rankine Design Analysis 3:1 Max Toe Slope Soil Design Properties: ~ 7 c Reinforced Soil 26° 120 PCF 0 Retained Soil 26° 120 PCF 0 Foundation Sail 26° 120 PCF 0 Exhibit C PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PLANS Memo from Civil Solutions Group wnvw.civiisotutionsgroup.com 0200 Humboldt Avenue South, Sulte i00, 8toomingtan Fill Calculations: Fill Soil (Clay to Sandy-Clay) Drainage Rock (3/4" Clear Red Rock) Approximately 1500 yds Approximately 300 yds ,~ ~ ~~m o ~ g~E m ~ ~ o G S \ (~ ~ ~ r fifififi nai Z 3 ~ \~~ 'n p 0 ~ ~ O 'D S O {- m3o C -\~\ AO m.-.~~ Z \ c~i~voz0 ~ mv~ ~' z c Z ~ ?T~3~Cn (~ ,'-ate 3~ovu~i~-CI ~ ` ~F m NN~x p ~ r C o ~ ~~ ~. ~ z ~m ~~ oao~c Cry N ~ ~~ o5Y $" ~ c°n o ~"n W ~ CTS, ~ z v~ ~ a ~ z- o~ ss` 5g ~6~ gE~`N ~'~"`' N s ovo ; w~uc 6'~ e~~"',w~'- ~~ _~ ~~ S ~A~ ~~~, _~ Y ~~y OOZ ~ ~° 3 (L ~ ~O rn ~ < Gj _ / ~ --__./ ti ~ r n ~~~ Q~ ~ z ZZ ~Gj ~ ~° ~OZ ~~~ ` ~coa m ~ ~ `L ~ ~~ 0 ~Z '~~~ r~ ~ N 5 ~z 00 ~ `~ , ~ \`l N~ wa ~ 1~= ~6c ~ a w p 3~ , ~~ 3~» ~~ ~V ~~ ~Y ~~ a ~t~ ~~ j ~e~ ~_ °s ~zo .~ ~~ 9 ~A a T (- C vmm ~ -nxoo p ~ ~~mj°tC t> m 1, .. ©~~~~-_i ~ °~NOZ O 3 ro'" ~ C Cn z rr'o3~ ('i rrZp ~ ~~o ~cn~~l s<n tnrx en u- -~ C "~ r 'C7 i s~l ~s~,~ ~~~~ ~, n~ O 41 ~ r `~~ (^~ o ~~ ` DR i /_ C~,l r / ~„_ t ~~~ ~ ~~ -1 m m (°~ f ~-~'y~' '~f f ~f m ~K G~ _/~ l rn ~o m Z ~~ ~~~, ,`,/ ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~~_ l ~\ ~`~ g ~ ~ '`\ ~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ a `~ ~~~ ~~ ° ~~ `~ ~~ ~~ ; ~~ ,: i m. p ~z ...- ' "~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ,_ n~~ _ ~ ~~-~ ~, .-_..,_.,n..._._ ,_~, O~ ~~~ T ~~ o~ ~~ A''~ r ~o dam a o~~ O ~Z~ °~m ~_ o~R °c~ m- o~ ~~ O ~ ~F N C ~ ,~~+ O Da ~m ~'D N~ V ~~ O N ZQ ~Z ro rn. z P ff//~~ zgg~~ J 9W ¢ ° m L~3 ~~~ w~ w {y~ ~W~ WJ .7 ~a~ ~~NC b'L~ ~- dzo wr wa U~ Z~wO e.. N~~wS~ m =~ a¢'Na cz-a~~z a~z a°~ 8.€ vm~ o ~ r-~ a zo t~ vim w~~o°-~,ra zt~'~a~j ~iaz~ cW¢ w~ZN zoo aw_ ~ e~ w w Fv°i~rmo~' N °o ~si ~a~° ~z z voJiSi°~F $~~ ¢z t-w ~viw0 ~r z~q ~~ scwl'"iQ z ~ ~~o~ ~op~ ~~o ~o}- ~oza mw~~~ ~~d € ~ 3UFZ_ EO' (F~ UU~ O 5.. "? Q~Y~O~ WZ~W WWZ ~p_Ud KOQC7 2}~}~yp~W~ bE 5 ~ ~ d WW~4~¢ rilU00 mZ~O F-UN= Wwffl° 6m==00 ~3rG'i G) Z~ZW~U(~~77 !-S~~ ~WOU mZ Oly ~2~+1 ~W3KW0 ~~eEeS ¢WUU~¢ °3~Gw J~W~ ~¢00 ~~ j~ C7 wN°~ .5.0 pp ¢S¢ ~°a z 5 ~p ~~ ~ gig°6a' ~caw~ q~0~0~ 0~~~ atZi ~~~~ U12 Jw Z?~< Om~~W(°7 i P a z~pn~z >c~z~w ~~zo ~°o~a ~i~z a~pO~~C °~ ~" ~- o ~a~o~~ ~~~m~° Y~~a w~iv~~ o~~izd jz°~i?i~o ~ ~ tV M ~ to cG. t~ ^~'~I/^ w Q ~Z ~ W~ W oW ~o ~- N° ~~ W W O J 0 o I_ ¢ m i- s W • v w ~ ~ '4 Y _ L~ ~, y ~ F- z a W ~~ Q o f'"~~ _ _ 1~ ~ ?- o ~~~ ~- ® tiJ+v W a ... ' 6 ..3 2~ . {. rp :e,.. pp ° J J W 3 rrr ZQ ~ Zp~ZVO apr~Z v~~~ cgicsicsi v3 ~ F3~~0~ ,=Nm~iz (~ .~ o~m~a ~~ ~~ ~ o ~F3 a z wc' o } ...1 U ~ ~ ¢¢ mZ la. ~Q µ!° mN~¢ 2VU w C9 ~ j ~Z W ~04tZ WZ~Z~Q 0'u _ ____- ~-"Z t°if or°O =w ~ ¢vpiONZ V! ul4~UW~n~ Ois,n ~n (/~ aWa ZZ Nm ~ ~iN J=~ ZO SOOW. F- ~ ~Hwna~ ryj ~Z O ~ ~N_i u~ p ~OZ IiWW ~d° J JJ ~~WmUx ~ UIp2¢WJ Z~ZN~~. W O UUU WO V1N mm ¢a °W 4. Z J Zp N.-~~ ~Z ~aaa n.~ ¢¢ ~ WON m¢ Ow NNE f .. ~F~ )' 60fJ Ka Oz ~.=t ~~ a`O U mU1~S3 ~° 4Z P.a.~ ~,_ ~ ~~Y N~~ a0 W¢ ~ Oa.d NNV)~q ~ Q~O?ZZ ~ =p~~ZiC~ o a ¢a z w J o 4 _~ cscal.~ min to °< ~1 ozrF- z-Wr'>$z ~ <^~~WOy g Om°~~-~ Wa $INNN ~~ Nw u7000 O}~ O w ~ gm ,I .. tLL,~~G.~ Vii- W°~ NZZZ ¢~Nm~O 4 O~f=- Jz0 ~ J 2 OZ Z~...~ ~J(n qUZ Z~ OO~j~W~ ~ =OZ rn 3zz o ~~ ¢_ ~i ti ~w ~ ~ oNOUO ~ U" j 0 O wN0 w¢V JtA a F ~O~ 2 C3 ~~Z~ U y p~ ,i~.j~ w _ Off- IOig~~` oZ~ t-w~ ~~ ~N~O ~Q~C~ZU w UZpf~mt°il -- pw v7 JJ _. .:..-.,: - .'.:. Z WU1J~n Zaj J~Z w- WUNO 4JUJgag [.7 W JGZLJQW ~`~vin ~~~ voimc°~ zF~ Zmrwn= zFm~c~3w~ ~ 37W"~t~ti~ p .- ni ri ~ _- ~' 8 aj ~~ ° ° W Z ~ O F ~ ~ Z O O W U a6u'¢aN W ° zC~Gj3~ S ~ (( ~~ ~ = ~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~~ N ~ (~ 1 /W { C~ } } N ~ u ~ /! ~ ~ 1- F a *-Nl~I Mtnmh Aso a ~'_,~ w pNOlldi1313 O S 0 0 0 0 0 0 i~,mmmmm°m~n I I I I I I i l 3Nf1 H01tlY1 00'OZ C ~IiF li.~a3o ~Nr3a y sz•se n O °a o ~+i n .- O u m W 4 a J_ O O U (n W Z p M u7 ~v n YQVQ ~0 ~m n~ ~~ Z ~ Q 2 z VU M~ ~ Q g ~~ ~~ .v ~~ W~ ~ w z o: .l.I m W ~ Q '' °~ ~Z ~m ~ z ZW 0 3 0~ w~ w? ~~ ~~ N I 1 (((1 I NOIldN3~3 ` m ado ~ g U < ~ U Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `n o m W ~ ~ ~ ~~~ n ^ ~ a a o o ~ SNOtla ON3 ° ° ~ I E I I I I os•LS o 0 000 0 d < " ~ Z snlatla aN3 n ~ ~ h na c ~ IIVM ON3 ' ~ M v v i i ~ 496 09 - - --- ,D 2 ® I z 1 m C w I I ~ ~ 1 'I Qi w i I ~ 3 ` "~ l II o _ ~ l a ~ _! it i U ~ H1d30 ~Ni3a y ~ H.1d30 ~NI3a p I 1 < <- SZ'tr4 I o 09'£91 II m t, 4 It i ~ m Z o I m o ~ j N°. ¢ v(~ I I ¢ ^f I Or W NOj I- ~ I I ~ I 1 O L Sf1I0tla NIJ39 ' ® ~ } - St110Ya NI938 ' 3 ~ C 9£ SZ 1 ~ c~ LiJ SZ SSi ~ If o ~ M 16 ~ ~ ~ z w°~ ~ j o z 1 ~ 3d.LL dN13a p _ H1d30 3NI3a p ~ ° ° I I{ ~ r 9Z'9Z , u F j 1 w ° ~ ~ I I I • I ~ ~ 1 j I ~ ~ _ II I I ( o a 0 I U O O N I I I I n O m ~ ~ ~ ~` eIm T ~ l ~ m ~ IW ~ ! j i t _ _ ~ I ~ T V H1d30 3N13a y ~ ® ~ 6 t 00'Z6 ~ ~ r o ~ M~ n ~ ~ I m V A ~ ~~ u w ~ u ~ 0 3ciJ.1 jNl3a v - - w vi Hid30 .iNl3a p ~ w ~ SL'£Z l ~ o TItlM NIJ38 O 3NIl HOPdW 1 - :~ ~ 00'00 00'OZ Z °' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W~~+J U Z~ W p 0 0 0 0 '0...1' w V w ~+- Z~ W 0 O 67 m 4` N O m t~ w m m m m m ~ n ~v O= 0W q - O in m d' N ~ rn m_ m_ m_ m_ m_ ~ ~ O v = W ¢ - _ _ _ ~ ~ NOII~,f~3~3 i ro s~ NOIlb7\313 ir o o~ ~ Ito IF~~ ~, o W~ ~ °o > 0 ~ p J >.3 W z it - _ = J J ~ N Q 3 g ~ ~a ~~ .~= ~o C.? o J o J na s ~ "' _ O i"'a~~ ~ ~uv'is~ i ~ ~Z1~ o Cn w~~a? ~z,.a ~>~PViu F-az_..P ~ma~~f F ~ J~ 1 ~ o tt U m 1 A,~ ~ ei/ n s ~$ W NOlld/~3~3 NOilb'/ti313 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0°° tG d' N GJ 00 ~C fd ~t CV O m ~ Ol O1 Q! Of GO 00 ~ W lA a m m 3NIl H01tlW i l l l ~ l o 'I'1bM 0N3 I I i ~ l ~ °o OO'OZE E E I ~ 00'0bZ N E I I E I 1 I E i p. ~ W ° ~ '~ snlova oNa ° o SZ'OEZ I N ~ HLd30 .~NI3a p it ! I ) ! 5CSZL TTE I I I t E E I O E I N M I ~ N I I I i A 0 { EI I 1 I E E E ° _ I II tl w H1d30 ~NI32! p E ~~ I Sf110VL1 0N3 j i j as•tEZ E I °_ 00'O8 t E I N n1042! N1939 t k'i ~1 ~ i 1 1 1 m ~ ~ -~ O m J W (~ ° (di. {..._ ~ I { I i i i I I 1 i i i 1 I 1 I ~ f J ~ 3 o o ro w ¢ ~ N I.~ L rn lai ~. SL'99 I C I ~ ~ I ~ ° ~ ~ ~ i ~ ; ~ i i i ~ C j ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ I I I I ~ ° ro I I I y ~ o ~ l Z z I j I l i Q I I 11 I I 1 I ~ I I snlova NIJ36 I I z N SL'bLt I I I ~ ~ I ~ I I I ~ I o ~ o °° 11 1 I ~ o < <°n J j i j I ¢ °_ 1 1 1 o m Q 1 1 1 I v II 1 I I O ~ I I o ... .. w 1 j 1 ¢ Comm aD IjI ~ Z ~°mrm 1 o I I Q ~ M M I I I N M ~ I 1 w ~ ~ ~ I 1 I ~ °° _ ~ U M _ _ ~ ~ ~ ° H1d30 ~NI3H p I~ %I II w 1 1 i I I I 00'bZ I ; Y I I o N I I I I I o ,}. N I a ~~ vo Z w d zg Q w N O 7 {~1 ~ p W } 3 Z C N drN J ~~ r I~ c (!t a I r I t l U 1! I I I n _1 S H1d30 dN1321 p 11 1 ~ J w SL'S L ~! I I I ~ r I I I ~~ 1 ~ o ( 1 1 w o ~~ ~n 3 ,°n o C9 0 ~ ! 1 t ~ '- ° 1 1 1 in w~Pa %'- `° 11 1 z oz,.a N ~ ~ I l 1 I 1 I I 1 i ~ Ow~~R~ I-az~o~~ ~ oozz Y IIYM NIJ3fl 3NIl HOlVW I t l ° Q m o =~ s 00'00 o 00'0Z L c v - ~ E ° F-- ~'-T---~-7-~-7 tL J z O o~ WW Z~ o °i ~O iO iO to WW Z~'~ U ~ c9 t N O m (O ~~ ~ilwi t0 O cV O m tD ~`~ ai rn cP rn® m O= ~" rn m rn rn m w O= ~` u Z~ r~ ` Z~ F-J ~ NOIlbn313 ~o o~ NOIlbJ~3 ~3 ~o 03 ~ __" __ '~ r O ~~~ o ~ ~g ~ o~ 3 OG Z 4 ~I-im O 3= ~8 ~y (_(~~ W ~~O K 4 ~~S C'J Z F ~ ~ (A ~ m ~'§ Cts Z U SU w W 4'i J_~ p ~ Up~ a ~O J Z U li. ~~~ (n W ~ c _~ v a °z~iv~ m "~ ~~~ ~w z ~ 4a=~ O z F~ O ~ WOO w 3 ~~~ U u~ °d O w O W ~r° Na Y Nm~a ~ ~ ~p8p~s J Q Z . S_~3 ~~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ a~ aS o ~Q~ ~ w Q ~coi ~M 7d ~~¢~ z a `oa ~~ ~tA N~ ~30~ii o O t~ ~ per, ~~ ~ yVZ¢¢E~ q6q w N eo ~~ O¢ ~_ gWW U O xx ~ , _ Nw U~ ~Z Wpm W ' J ~ W zFnr mO3 wo 3°z~? O ~ Q 3 O-~ ~S <-~ ~ O F- _~~ W~ d fn O W W Q ~ p ~ ~ y c~i ~ ~z F~~O ~ w~ w w Z ZzGz wa ~w O ?~w~ F-Z ~ t- "z ~ O¢N y ~¢ x~Wxp ~ ~ ,~ O wE ~N~ ~~ Ulu>>~yy W~~U ~ dZ i Z VO-]p V uwi~z 3z oi'it z~~a ~ p~ 9 ~ ~ -o y^. ~°o vWi wz ww ww o, x~ a z ay ~ ~ O o0 r r~i .T Sri m ~ _z 20 z a m ~ o ~ ~~~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ > ~ a p `t U Z ,{ ~W U } ~~ ~ ~ ^ I - ----------------------'r ~ •- _ ~ 1 ~ Z ~~ o ° ~ ~° U i ~O U i ( ~= W ~ 1 +! JF- III i t- ~' i o~3 ~ ^ O ~ j WOE- ~ m N i 1 d 0 $i m ~ N J i 1 pW0~ ~ Z ~ ~ 1 ~~O W p ~ , i cgi, a ~ () x 6 l p~ d o ~ ~ ; ~3p N ~. w ~ O { ~ U~~ ~ O •--{ ~ ~ C7 2 { ~. Q~® ~ Z i0 ~ i 1 ¢U ~ ~ v ~ j ~U14i a ~ I ~ I ~ V ' ~ M _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ t w Z Z 7 ~~ '°~ U> > Z W ~Z Z C V ~ p O V~ J o°_ O ~a < ~~ w Z~ J w \ O F- `}'N) of ~ ~w ~ ^ Uw ~ V1 _ Y Nv IZ-- ~ V7 ~ xgxg UO p 1x-~na (n O 2U N g~ Op C.`J o~'~s 0 ~z1 ~ Y ~ ~ z ~ Z= ~W~nPi p~.Z lit ~ ~ wN ZO w Z H ~ ~ Y ~v Z_K ~~rn~v U ~ Qzv~ w H ~ W .. Y -1 j~pq g Q O~Sti (~ mma ,L9' ,0 l l ~ J = O M M ~ ~_ ~ rn ~_ n U ~ ~ ti II J ~! -~ W w w t, wr/ Michael and Cheryl Pederson 22230 Murray Street Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 August 29, 2007 ~° Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen ~ `#~ Planning Director City of Shorewood clo Planning Department 5755 country club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit - 6150 Deer Ridge Dear Mr. Nielsen, Our family has resided at 22230 Murray Street since 1987. Our property lies immediately north of, and abuts the north property line of the subject property. One of the primary reasons we purchased the property was the seclusion afforded by the surrounding wooded area. We were effectively screened from the existing residences at the time we purchased, and were satisfied we would continue to have a buffer even as the land to both the south and the north were ultimately developed. It is understandable any property owner would have the desire to improve their landscape in order to increase its effective use. However, it is equally difficult to comprehend how the city would allow construction either to the extent proposed or to the resulting condition. Our understanding is that the city takes pride in their effort to retain the natural surroundings prevalent within the city. The proposed modifications to the property will result in a considerable departure from any natural environment concept. While recognizing that property owners have the right to develop their property, within certain ordinance and regulatory requirements, as they so desire, we have several concerns with the proposed modifications. • The height of the wall at its greatest is over 16 feet and is virtually vertical. As a comparison, Shorewood, similar to other communities, limits a privacy fence to a height of 6 feet and requires it to be at least 25% open. • The length of wall at its greatest is 240'. The length of wall visible from any one point is up to 1S0' long. While this comment will undoubtedly be offensive to some, given the length and height of the retaining wall, it is more reminiscent of an industrial development or a freeway sound barrier rather than "landscaping." • Screening is ineffective. The plantings proposed will do little to screen the height or view of the wall, will be difficult to maintain, and may well not survive due to either lack of maintenance or due to the north exposure. • What natural screening there was had been removed prior to finalizing any plan. While the removal of wooded area is an owner's right, a good deal of wooded area that could have afforded natural screening was removed from the property. Refer to attached sketch. Michael and Cheryl Pederson 22230 Murray Street Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • Additional screening was removed (by their contractor) from the adjacent property, including ours, further eliminating any screening. • The clearing of the site was performed prior to confirming the lot boundaries. The lot corners were not checked until we pointed out to them that their contractor was clearing and grubbing more than 50 feet beyond the property lines. Consideration should be given to several areas. 1. First and foremost, consideration should be given to developing this "terrace" area at an elevation closer to the natural (lower) grade resulting in a balanced cut and fill rather than hauling in 1800 cubic yards of material. Reducing the elevation of the final grade will obviously result in a more reasonable height of retaining wall and allow greater flexibility in design. 2. Additional stepping or terracing of the retaining wall and with a material other than the concrete block proposed. Amore natural appearance could be achieved with a greater mix of plantings, natural slopes, and perhaps boulder walls similar to those currently on site. 3. Restoration of the wooded area or comparable screening within the subject property as appropriate for the resulting retaining wall height, length, and design. 4. Restoration of the adjacent property owner's disturbed areas to duplicate the natural screening within their property that was destroyed. A fully developed landscape and planting plan should be required prior to granting any request. The primary goal of the plan should be either restoration or screening in order to develop a more natural setting consistent with the previous or surrounding conditions. Thank you, ~i~./ Michael Pederson s ~ ~~~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~€~ N ~~ . ~~ J z0 t9 Z i~~ ig~ ~~ ~_ ~~ ~~ a° ~~ 0 o~ N~~ ~~~ a ~ ~Q Imo 3y 5~ of ~-- //'~ ~ 200 _ 1g ~~ Q A ~ ~o~~ ~~~o Q ,,,,) O ~~~ 1g5 ~ ~ '..~ Z ~~~ `9S X90 }_ ~ ~= ~n / p~ f ~ A~ ~ a ~;~ ~ ~ ~ o J h07 ~ ~ a 47~ ~~( ~ ~~~~'~ ~ V ~ HEPS V Y Z~~~~N ~QZ_.~..aiW ~~ ~ ~ ~ J~OZ..x G Ji > m v~ Y M s~ ~~s 1 .o 2 5 ~ ~~~ N ~ ~_ ~N .'~ -210 ~ w 205 ; ~~ w= z °° g h ~; W _~ ~ 470'' ~ g y _ ~ ~' ~ w~F ~~~c August 29, 2007 Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit - 6150 Deer Ridge Dear Mr. Nielsen, I am writing to echo the concerns communicated to you from Mike and Cheryl Pedersen, my neighbors, via a letter with today's date and regarding the abovementioned public hearing. I wholeheartedly agree with the rationale expressed in the Pedersen's letter for concerns regarding the Mahoneys intended landscape plans. Additionally, I want to express my concerns about the environmental impact on the adjacent properties. Drainage is a primary problem, especially if the Mahoneys plan to fill and cover (tennis court? Pool? Concrete?, etc) the area of their property undergoing redesign and development. I am worried that water runoff to the adjoining wooded properties might affect the plant life and trees adversely, and potentially causing flooding and even swamping- utterly changing the environment as it exists. Also, as mentioned is the Pedersen's letter, the Mahoneys cleared wooded areas of my property and the Pedersens. They never disclosed their error to us. Mr. Pedersen confronted Mr. Mahoney at the time, and I had to figure it out after they contacted me to offer to buy a portion of my property. Furthermore, after they realized that their contractor had cleared adjoining property, they felt compelled to survey on my land, marking boundaries they wished to purchase, without permission. I am not nor have I ever been interested in parceling off any portion of my property for sale or for clear cutting. After consulting with the Pedersens, as their property was violated as well, I asked the Mahoneys to provide a plan for how they intended to restore our wooded areas following the clear cutting. I asked that the Pedersens and I would have a final approval for their restoration plans. I have not heard back from them on this issue. I realize that the abovementioned situation is a legal issue more than a planning issue, but I do feel it is relevant considering the proposed "great wall" they intend to build and because the clearing was done, whether intentionally or by accident, to accommodate their landscaping plans- which you are reviewing as a planning issue. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Jodie Tanaka 22320 Murray Street Shorewood, MN 55331 TTY ®F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commision Brad Nielsen, Director of Planning Larry Brown, P.E., Director of Public Works FROM: James Landini, P.E., City Engineer - DATE: August 30, 2007 RE: 6150 Deer Ridge CUP The Mahoney family submitted information for review with respect to their Conditional Use Permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. I offer comments on the application packet. 1. 1800 cubic yards of fill will require approximately 150-12yd capacity truck trips across Deer Ridge Road and adjoining roads. This will cause accelerated wear on the infrastructure. An escrow account should be opened to repair infrastructure damages. 2. Construction access for the fill and retaining wall will be within tight quarters. A temporary construction easement from the adjoining property is recommended. 3. Techny Arborvitae should be planted outside the geogrid reinforcement area. The geogrid will interfere with tree root development. 4. Low Permeable Soil should be used to cap unit core fill to reduce amount of water behind wall. 5. If ground cover stays pervious as shown in packet, runoff or drainage should stay similar to existing conditions. The area should be graded to minimize runoff over the top of the wa1L This review does not include Building Permit Plan Review which is required for the fence and retaining walLPermit. Recommendations Staff recommends the following conditions if the Condition Use Permit is granted: 1. Structural Engineer inspect the wall during and after construction for quality assurance and plan conformance. Report results to the City. 2. An escrow account should be opened to repair infrastructure damages in the amount of $5,000. 6150 Deer Ridge Rd ®~ 8/31/2007 i/ ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ®a -D-R-A-F-T- CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PLACE FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS FOR DEBRA AND TOM MAHONEY WHEREAS, Debra and Tom Mahoney (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at 6150 Deer Ridge, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described as: "Lot 2, Block 1, Deer Ridge"; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit to place up to 1800 cubic yards of fill to raise and level off the rear yard 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 Applicants' request was reviewed by the Planning Director, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council dated 30 August 2007; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Engineer, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Director, dated 30 August 2007, which memorandum is on file at City Ha11; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 4 September 2007, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was considered by the City Council at their regular meeting on 24 September 2007, at which time the Planner's memorandum, 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: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located in the R-1C, Single-Family Residential zoning district and contains approximately 53,503 square feet of area. 2. The proposed fill will be contained by a terraced masonry retaining wall and will be used to level off the rear yard of the Applicant's property. 3. The area of fill shall be limited to that which is shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. The design of the proposed retaining walls has been addressed by Michael R. Johnson, Civii Solutions Group, LLC, a registered professional engineer, whose recommendations are set forth in a memorandum to the applicant's contractor, dated 7 August 2007, a copy of which is on file in the Shorewood City Offices. CONCLUSION a. The application of Tom and Debra Mahoney for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth hereinabove be and hereby is granted. b. The fill and retaining wall shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of Civil Solutions, LLC and the recommendations of the City Engineer. c. The retaining wall shall be constructed so that no portion of either tier exceeds six feet above grade in height. The applicants shall submit revised plans illustrating how this will be accomplished. d. Final grading shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. e. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to filling. f. The applicants shall submit a landscape plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, addressing the issues raised in the Planning Director's memorandum. The plan shall show proposed grading and provide for the protection of trees adjoining the project. The landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. g. The applicants shall provide bids for the approved landscaping. A letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one-half times the bid amounts shall be provided by the applicants. The security shall be in place for two growing seasons. h. A wrought iron style fence shall be placed five feet inside of the upper tier of the retaining wall. i. The applicants shall provide a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $5000 as assurance that any damage to the public street caused by construction traffic shall be repaired. j.. 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. -2- ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 24th day of September, 2007. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk -3- CI'I'~' ®F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator DATE: September 13, 2007 SUBJECT: Interim Funding Agreement re: Southshore Center for 2008 Background: The Southshore. Center working group met on September 7, 2007, to review progress on proposed 2008 interim funding between the five cities and the Friends of the Southshore Center. With this proposal, which would be accomplished with a binding agreement, programming and staffing could be continued through an arrangement between the Friends and SCS from November 2007 through December 2008. Agreement with Concept: All five cities' councils had approved the interim funding concept, and all had wanted some items clarified as an agreement was drawn up. The Deephaven city council had attached a condition in its approval that would require an amendment to the 1996 Cooperative Agreement related to the "Shorewood Option" to purchase the building. It was this single matter that was to be brought back to the city councils for comments or official positions, and then reported to the September 7 meeting of the working group. An indication of general agreement with or without the condition made by Deephaven was needed by the SCS Board, so it could determine whether it would continue its services at the Center in November and December 2007 City Councils' Positions re "Shorewood Option" Linkage: On August 27, the City Council stated it would not support an interim funding agreement that required any amendment to the 1996 Cooperative Agreement. The agreements were separate matters, and it was not appropriate to link them. At the September 7 meeting of the working group, representatives of Excelsior, Greenwood, and Tonka Bay related that they did not believe that such linkage was appropriate either. The Deephaven representatives said the matter would be considered again by their council on September 17. Latest/Final(?) Draft: The working group reviewed the working draft of the proposed interim funding agreement, and developed a version that all participants concurred with. Notably, the provision regarding the "Shorewood Option" that had been in prior versions was deleted. The final draft is attached. vs j®~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~= I ~- f Interim Funding Agreement re: Southshore Center for 2008 September 24, 2007, City Council Meeting Page Two Friends's Revision: In Section 4 (page 2) of the interim agreement, the Friends would not be able to use any funds from its dedicated building maintenance reserve in the event that it incurred an "operating shortfall" during 2008. The Friends representative on the working group believed that this provision would be acceptable to the Friends Board. At its meeting on September 10, the Board took action that it would not support this restriction, and has proposed the following: "4. If, for any reason, the Friends incur expenses in excess of the contributions of the Cities when operating the Center in 2008, the shortfall shall be the responsibility of the Friends and not the Cities, and no amount in excess of $10,000 of the existing reserves of the Friends Board shall be used for the purpose of `covering' the shortfall. The balance of the Reserves is to be dedicated for building maintenance." The City representatives on the working group had agreed that these funds should not be used for operating expenses, especially when consideration is being given to the idea that the cities may take over responsibility for costs related to the building and grounds. This Reserve would then be transferred to or used by the cities. In this case, if the Friends were to use Reserve funds for operations in 2008, the cities would need to come up with up to $10,000 to the Reserve for unfunded expenses at some time in the future. The cities' $42,600 commitment to 2008 could thus be seen to increase by another $10,000. City Council Action: The working group has recommended that the city councils approve the 2008 interim funding agreement between the cities and the Friends of the Southshore Center. The City Council should indicate whether it also would approve the proposed interim agreement if Section 4 as proposed by the Friends Board were to be included. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952-474-3236 Fax: 952-474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Date: September 19, 2007 To: Mayor and City Council From: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk ~ ,:~~~ ~~~ Re: Update on the action by other cities regarding the 2008 Southshore Center Interim Funding Agreement At its meeting earlier this week, the City of Deephaven approved the 2008 Interim Funding Agreement between the cities and the Friends of the Southshore Center. Regarding the Friends's proposed revision to Section 4 (page 2) of the Agreement, the Deephaven City Council took no action on the Friends's revision. The Excelsior City Council approved the Agreement with the provision in Section 4 that the Friends may use up to $10,000 of the existing reserves to meet expenses in excess of the contributions of the Cities when operating the Center in 2008. COOPERATIVE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHSHORE SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER This Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2008, by and between the City of Deephaven, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Deephaven), the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Shorewood), the City of Excelsior, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Excelsior), the City of Tonka Bay, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Tonka Bay), the City of Greenwood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Greenwood), hereinafter collectively referred to as "Cities" and the Friends of the South Lake Minnetonka Senior Community Center, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Friends". WITNESSETH.• WHEREAS, the Cities entered into a Cooperative Agreement for the SouthShore Senior/Community Center (Center) on March 4, 1996 that established the terms and conditions for the construction of the Center and the amount of each City's original investment and proportionate ownership in the Center as set forth in Appendix A; and WHEREAS, the Cities entered into a Lease on April 17, 1996 with the Friends that established the Friends as tenants of the Center and as the responsible party for maintaining the Center in good order, condition and repair during the term of the Lease; and WHEREAS, the following proposal has been submitted by the Friends and Senior Community Services (SCS) requesting that the Cities provide the Friends with interim funding in 2008 for the maintenance of the Center thereby enabling the Friends to fund a portion of SCS's costs for providing senior programs and services: PROPOSAL 1) The Cities are requested to provide building maintenance funding up to the amount of $42,602.00 to the Friends in 2008 as "interim funding" to enable the Friends Board and the Cities an opportunity to develop a specific proposal for long term funding. 2) The funding provided by the Cities in 2008 would be used solely for building maintenance. 3) The funding request of $42,602.00 would be allocated among the Cities according to each city's ownership percentage in the building and would be comprised of two parts: a) $17,602.00 according to each city's ownership percentage. b) Up to $25,000.00 in funds according to each city's ownership percentage that would "match" the Friends additional net fundraising activities. 4) The Friends would assume the responsibility for monitoring, evaluating and negotiating programs, services, staffing and program funding at the Center for 2008 and develop a plan for management responsibility. 5) SCS would cover staffing costs at the Center from agency reserve funds through 2007 upon the Cities approval of the interim funding proposal. -1- NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: Exclusive Use of Funds. The Cities contribution of up to $42,602.00 is granted solely for 2008 and shall be used exclusively by the Friends for the maintenance of the Center. Any surplus funds remaining from the $42,602.00 that are not needed for the maintenance of the building in 2008 shall be deposited within a Building Maintenance Reserve Fund. The Cities contribution shall be made in quarterly installments, beginning in January 2008. The October 2008 payment shall address any potential shortfall in the additional fundraising efforts of the Friends. 2. Friends Fundraising Contribution. The additional $25,000.00 in fundraising that has been proposed by the Friends for 2008 must be net fundraising income over and above the regular fundraising income that the Friends normally raise each year, using FY 2006 which has been established as a base line as shown in Appendix B, in order to receive matching funds from the Cities. 3. 2008 Funding Shall Not Exceed $42, 602.00. The Cities contribution in 2008 shall not exceed $42,602.00 and will not be increased. 4. In the Event of an Operating Shortfall. If, for any reason, the Friends incur expenses in excess of the contributions of the Cities when operating the Center in 2008, the shortfall shall be the responsibility of the Friends and not the Cities, and the existing reserves of the Friends Board shall not be used for the purpose of "covering" the shortfall. Reserves are to be dedicated for building maintenance. 5. Reporting Requirements. The Friends shall provide the Cities with quarterly reports beginning on April 1St detailing all revenues and expenditures in order to monitor the progress of the fundraising efforts, building rental income, payments, program services provided and consideration of the establishment of a Foundation. 6. Amendments to Existing Agreements. The Cities shall make the appropriate amendments to the 1996 Cooperative Agreement and Lease that more accurately defines the new role of the Friends Board regarding managing staffing, programs and services during the 2008 interim funding period. 7. Long Term Funding and Management Plan. The Cities and Friends shall complete preliminary documents pertaining to the establishment of a long-term funding and management plan for the Center beyond 2008 by March 1, 2008. Final documents and the necessary amendments to existing agreements for along-term funding and management plan for the Center shall be completed by June 1, 2008. 8. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2008 and continue for twelve months ending December 31, 2008. 9. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. -2- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities of Deephaven, Shorewood, Excelsior, Tonka Bay and Greenwood, in accordance with the authorizing resolution from their respective City Councils, and the Friends of the South Lake Minnetonka Senior Community Center, have caused this Agreement to be duly executed. Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: CITY OF DEEPHAVEN By: Its: City Administrator By: Its: Mayor CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Its: City Administrator By: Its: Mayor CITY OF EXCELSIOR By: Its; City Manager By: Its: Mayor CITY OF TONKA BAY By: Its: City Administrator By: Its: Mayor -3- CITY OF GREENWOOD Dated: By: Its: City Administrator By: Its: Mayor FRIENDS OF THE SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER Dated: By: Its: Secretary By: Its: President -4- EXHIBIT A Ci $ Contribution % of Contribution Shorewood 311,000 50.00% Excelsior 90,812 14.60% Greenwood 24,569 3.95% Dee haven 139,639 22.45% Tonka Ba 55,980 9.00% Total 622,000 100.00% EXHIBIT B FY 2006 FUNDRAISING BASELINE FUNDRAISING EVENT NET EVENT REVENUES GROSS EVENT REVENUES Attic Sale 2,286.00 2,884.30 Friends Campaign 7,652.00 9,410.00 Raffle 1,471.00 7,846.00 Wine Tastin 2,686.00 3,242.00 Total 2006 Fundraisin 14,095.00 23,382.30 LEONARD STREET 11ND 13~;1NAttll M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Christine Lizee Members of the City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Tim Keane, City Attorney RE: Sale of Municipal Store Operations DATE: September 20, 2007 FILE NUMBER: 59374-25 This memorandum is in response to discussions concerning the City of Shorewood sale of the municipal liquor store operations. It is my understanding the city has engaged a business broker to seek and qualify potential buyers for the sale and acquisition of the two municipal stores. The brokerage engagement will hopefully result in multiple offers to purchase. The offers should lead to a process of evaluation of proposed terms, valuation issues and a fitness for sale. I was previously asked if a public hearing was required for the sale of the municipal stores. Upon review of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 340A, and Minnesota League of Cities guidances, I concluded there was no statutory public hearing or public process as a prerequisite for the City to get out of the off-sale liquor store business or to sell the operations. I further advised staff my recollection that there may be a statutory requirement to hold a hearing to divest the City's leasehold interest in the real estate in the municipal operations. This preliminary advice was not based upon thorough research of Minnesota law but my general familiarity with the conveyance through sale or disposition of general interests in publicly held real estate. I wish to clarify that recommendation. There are many examples where state law requires a public hearing as a precondition to a municipal sale or vacation of an interest in real property. Examples include: • Vacation of street right-of-way. • Vacation or relocation of a utility or other easement. • Sale or release of city park or park lands. • Sale of an interest in property held or developed by a city housing and redevelopment agency or an economic development authority. f ~~ Mayor Christine Lizee, Members of the City Council, Craig Dawson City Administrator September 20, 2007 Page 2 Moreover, Minnesota Statutes 462.356 provides: After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote, dispense with the requirements of the subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement is no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan. The City of Shorewood's leasehold interest in the demised premises of the municipal liquor stores is a "publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality" and any assignment or sale of the leasehold interest would be subject to the provisions of this statute. This section does not require a public hearing. After the terms of the sale of the municipal liquor stores have been negotiated and reduced to a binding purchase agreement, and prior to closing, the City Council will need to undertake certain actions and formal steps to effectuate the sale and authorize privatization of the successor operations. 1. Adoption of a resolution authorizing the sale of the municipal stores including: • Sale of the ongoing business enterprise. • Sale of all equipment, assets and fixtures. • Sale of inventory. • Assignment of leasehold interests (the City will need to secure both an assignment of lease and a subordination and non-disturbance agreement). 2. Adoption of municipal off-sale ordinance providing for licensing, conditions of license, standards for license, investigation of licensee, and authorization of license issuance. The City Council must hold a public hearing pursuant to the issuance of an off-sale Liquor license to a prospective buyer/licensee. Again, the above referenced items will be set to schedule for action once a prospective buyer has entered into a binding purchase agreement and the schedule and terms of closing are established. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. TJK/mw 4092638.1 games and ~ar6ara ~Ihi6auCt 4565 Enchanted ~1'oint Shorewood, ~K.~V 55331 MEMORANDUM SUPPLEMENT 1 TO: City of Shorewood ~, r-, Mayor: Christine Lizee' City Council: Laura Turgeon, Paula Callies, Martin Wellens, Richard Woodruff City Administrator: Craig Dawson City Attorney: Timothy Keane Planning Director: Bradley Nielsen FROM: James and Barbara Thibault DATE: September 20, 2007 RE: Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club, 4580 Enchanted Point Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Clarifying/Correcting Resolution No. 55.2-77 This report, Supplement 1, is supplemental to our Memorandum submitted to the City of Shorewood, Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission, and others, dated August 2, 2007 and Amended August 30, 2007. We ask that Supplement 1, our attached Memorandum with Exhibits A through F, and our Addendum be made a part of the City's official record. The purpose of this Supplement 1 is to: ^ Provide a brief synopsis which summarizes the basis for clarifying (correcting) Resolution 55.2-77. ^ Respond to John Barlow's testimony to the Shorewood Planning Commission. ^ Respond to the letter from J.H. Strothman (counsel for UMYC) dated September 4, 2007. BRIEF SYNOPSIS -BASIS FOR CLARIFYING/CHANGING RESOLUTION 55.2-77 The record clearly shows: ^ The Yacht Club's application sought use "for a sailing yacht club". (Our Exhibit A) ^ The Yacht Club submitted in its application a condition "... for 34 sailboat slips ...". (Our Exhibit B) ^ On June 27, 1977 the Yacht Club Commodore O.L. Leavenworth made a presentation and the City Counsel minutes state "R.O. Leavenworth made the presentation for the Yacht Club. The recommendation of the Planning games and Barbara 2hi6au~t 4565 Enchanted <1'oint Shorewood, ~t~1~V 55331 Commission for (30) slips and the establishment of the same conditions set down in the Special Use Permit of 1969 was reviewed." (Our Exhibit D) ^ On July 25, 1977 Frazier made a motion for "thirty slips". The actual motion is "Frazier made a motion to approve a conditional use Permit providing for thirty slips and parking for 30 cars and that any building be acceptable to the planning commission and the council. Motion carried with Haugen, Huttner, Naegele, Keeler, and Frazier voting aye. " Note that the wording is thirty slips and the word "boat" is not used. (Our Exhibit E) ^ Only the City Council can approve a Conditional Use Permit. ^ The Yacht Club in its 1992 application material continued to have this understanding. (Our Exhibit F) ^ On September 4, 2007 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on amending the Resolution, reviewed written and oral testimony and voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council amend the Resolution. ^ No showing has been made that the Conditional Use Permit requested and approved was for anything but sailboats and the 2 committee boats. The word "boat" is not used in the minutes of the motion. Approval was for thirty slips. Therefore, the Resolution needs to be clarified/corrected to be consistent with the action approved by the City Council. No ministerial act or slip can usurp or cease the City Council's authority in approving or clarifying a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit -including the permit for a nonprofit sailing yacht club limited to thirty sailboat slips. More details are provided in the attached Memorandum, Addendum and Exhibits. RESPONSE TO JOHN BARLOW TESTIMONY This document contains inaccurate and misleading statements. He tries to saturate the record with his misused term "marina" for yacht club. The City's approved C_:onditional Use Permit is to "operate a yacht club" (first Whereas in the Resolution), "for a yacht club" (1.a) of the "Now, Therefore, clause). The Resolution uses the term "yacht club" in two other locations in the Resolution. The Resolution does not allow, state, or use the term "marina". The City Council should not be fooled by the Yacht Club's attempt to distort what the use is. Motorboats - He states "this is not about motorboats...." "... I do not recall a single year when we have not had motorboats ...." "We have always had powerboats in the marina." This too is an attempt to distort the record since not more than 2 committee boats (power boats) have been allowed. Having more than 2 power boats commencing around 2005 caused noncompliance and the complaints. Economics is not the issue -but if it becomes one, we are prepared to provide documentation related to this matter. 2 games ancC~ar6ara ~I'hi6au~t 4565' 2nchanted~~oint Shorewood; ~iYl~ .55.331 RESPONSES TO J.H. STROTHMAN LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4, 20Q7 His letter contains inaccurate, misleading statements autright distortions and errors. ^ Complaints -They do exist. We have complained. ^ The City Council dealt with the permit 29 times. We don't believe the Conditional Use Permit was formally considered by the City Council or Planning Commission between 1977-78 and approximately 2005 when noncompliance occurred. An annual dock permit, although somewhat related, is separate from the Conditional Use Permit. ^ Boat -The word boat is understood to refer to sailboats by the parties. !t wasn't until about 2005 that more than two powerboats were a# the slips and the noncompliance and complaints commenced. ^ Variance -The fact that sailboats can be made as a condition to approval of a variance is merely a statement of fact. The law allows conditions to a Conditional Use Permit and to a variance. ^ Marina - He uses this term 8 times in an attempt to distort the record ar to establish a new name for the use.- The use in the Conditional Use Permit is yacht club. ^ History -This is not about rewriting history - it is about the Yacht Club's application in 1977, the description presented at the Council meeting, and the Council action as recorded in the minutes. ^ Sailing Club - He s#ates the application was not for a sailing club. The record clearly shows otherwise. They stated in their application "where we maintain that our use of said property for a sailing yacht club ...". (See Exhibit A}. ^ "Power boats for decades" -This wording by UMYC is a blatant attempt to try to distork the record. No more than 2 power boats/committee boats goes back to the 1960x. In approximately 2005 the Yacht Club went beyond 2 power boats, that action triggered non-compliance and complaints. ^ 1992 -Counsel far UMYC would like to have the City believe that in 1992 UMYC was willing to switch to sailboats. UMYC letter dated November 12, 1992 uses the word is where it states in the very first two sentences "The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club is a sanctioned yacht racing entity, operating under rules of the Inland Lakes Yachting Association. All yachts are sailboats only, except for one power boat, which is used for officiating races." (Emphasis added} We actively participated in this process and at no time was there a switch from sailboats to boats. Nor has our search of the record found any evidence of a switch. ^ Star Tribune -Counsel for UMYC erroneously states #hat the Star Tribune article on Sunday, August 5, 2007 noted that the number of sail boats in use in Minnesota was down 33% over the last 20 years. Lake Minnetonka is the premier sailing lake in Minnesota. No evidence has been presented to show the number of sailboats has gone down on fake Minnetonka. The percent of sailboats to total watercrafts has dropped. ^ Taxes and Land Values -The statements are not relevant to this CUP. Flowever, far the record, the assessor adjusted fihe tax for the Yacht Club on August 16, 2007. Secondly, this property benefits by being in a high value Revised - C©rrected 9-24-07 3 dames and Barbara ~Ilii6auCt 4S6S Enchanted ~1'oint Shorewood, ~VI~V SS331 market for single family use. If the Yacht Club cannot make it economically, the club can sell the property for single family use, a use just like other property on Enchanted Point. ^ "Power boats less intrusive"- Counsel states "It might also be observed that a well-run nonprofit yacht club marina with power boats can be less intrusive than a marina with 30 sailboats with (a) masts in the air, (b) halyards clanging almost no matter how well they are tied and (c) with much more frequent boat use as is generally true of sailboats raced by yacht club members." We don't think this is true. And the Yacht Club doesn't either. See Exhibit F in which the Yacht Club expresses at length the benefits of the Yacht Club over a marina. Note also UMYC counsel's misuse of the term "marina" for yacht club. 4 games and~<3ar6ara ~ii6auCt 4S6S EnchantecC~oint Shorewood, ~I~I~V SS331 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Shorewood Mayor: Christine Lizee' City Council: Laura Turgeon, Paula Callies, Martin Wellens, Richard Woodruff Planning Commission: Bruce Gniffke, William Ruoff, Scott Schmitt, Thomas Geng, Robert Gagne, David Meyer, David Hutchins City Administrator: Craig Dawson Planning Director: Bradley Nielsen FROM: James and Barbara Thibault DATE: August 2, 2007 Amended August 30, 2007 RE: Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club, 4580 Enchanted Point Public Hearing for Amendment of Conditional Use Permit Correcting Error in Resolution No. 55.2-77 We urge the Planning Commission and City Council to correct the error in Resolution No. 55.2-77, provision "a)" by inserting the word "sail" in front of the word "boat". With this correction, provision "a)" would read as follows: a) That upon and attached and in conjunction with the use of said property may be located lifts, slips, docks and buoys capable of storing and keeping not more than 30 sailboats during the docking season, and such facilities shall not extend beyond 200 feet of the shoreline. Correcting this error by adding the word "sail" is consistent with the application made by Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club on April 25, 1977, the discussion and recommendation made by the Planning Commission on May 26, 1977, and the discussion and action made by the City Council on June 27, 1977 and on July 25, 1977. A review of the record clearly shows the request (application) and granting of the Conditional Use Permit (and previous Special Use Permit) is for sailboats. Some of the more relevant documentation is provided below. Application -- Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club The Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club states in its own application for the Conditional Use Permit dated April 25, 1977 the following: Page 1: "... where we maintain that our use of said property for a sailing yacht club does not have "substantial or unduly adverse effect upon adjacent property,"or "neighborhood". (emphasis added) games and~~ardara ~ii6auCt 4S6S Enchanted~~oint Shorewood, ~VL~V SS331 Page 8: On page 8 of the application the Yacht Club submits conditions in Item 13. The Yacht Club states: "The following conditions are submitted to the Village for review, discussion and approval." In item D on page 8 (again submitted by the Yacht Club) it states: "D. The Yacht Club may develop under the conditions of the City and LMCD, dockage and/or mooring facilities for 34 sailboat slips or !ift spaces, 8 buoys, and 2 slips for Yacht Club Committee boats." (emphasis added) A major item of discussion during review and approval was the number of sailboats to be allowed. See attached Exhibit A, Page 1 of the Yacht Club's application, and Exhibit B, Page 8 of the Yacht Club's application. Planning Commission On May 26, 1977 the Planning Commission considered Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club's application for a Conditional Use Permit. The minutes and record reflect the following: ^ The Yacht Club's own application was for 34 sailboat slips and 2 slips for Yacht Club Committee boats. ^ At some point the Yacht Club apparently changed the request to 42 slips. (No written change to the request was uncovered.) ^ Jerry Miller's statement that: "... with land reduction from what the Club has owned in the past, he does not feel the one (1) plus acres remaining can hold more people, cars or boats." ^ The Commission recommended and motion was to keep the use tied to sailboats except for the two Committee boats. The motion as recorded in the minutes is as follows: "Discussion got down finally to the only objection was the proposed expansion of the facility to 42 slips. Miller moved, Larson seconded, that the granting of a conditional use permit be recommended with the restriction that only thirty (30) boats be allowed and that no additional provisions were granted for the two committee boats' dockage. The vote was 4 to 2 - Brecke and Cole voting nay; Miller, Stover, Reese and Larson voting aye." See Exhibit C, excerpts (2 pages) from Shorewood Planning Commission May 26, 1977 minutes. 2 games and~<3ar6ara ~(ii6auCt 4S6S Enchanted~~oint Shorewood, Jt~1N SS331 City Council The Council considered and discussed the Conditional Use Permit and Special Use Permit in a series of meetings in May, June and July, specifically at least the following: May 9, 1977 May 23, 1977 (correction of minutes) June 27, 1977 July 25, 1977 The number was the big issue. Since the focus was on the number, the words "boats", "slips" and "sailboats" were used somewhat interchangeably since it was understood the applicant requested in writing "34 sailboat slips or lift spaces, 8 buoys, and 2 slips for Yacht Club Committee boats" (emphasis added) and that the number or slips referred to sailboats except perhaps for 2 Committee boats. Here is how the minutes (for this case) of the June 27 City Council meeting begin on this matter (the first time the City Council considered the conditional use request after the May 26, 1977 recommendation of the Planning Commission): "UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB ENCHANTED ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI T R.O. Leavenworth made the presentation for the Yacht Club. The recommendation of the Planning Commission for (30) slips and the establishment of the same conditions set down in the Special Use Permit of 1969 was reviewed." See Exhibit D, City of Shorewood Council Meeting June 27, 1977 (minutes). On July 25, 1977 the City Council passed the following motion: "Frazier made a motion to approve a conditional use Permit providing for thirty slips and parking for 30 cars and that any building be acceptable to the planning commission and the council. Motion carried with Haugen, Huttner, Naegele, Keeler, and Frazier voting aye." See Exhibit E, City of Shorewood Council meeting minutes July 25, 1977. I was at this meeting and requested that the limit be 21 slips. The issue was the number. At no time was there discussion, consent or approval of boats in general. 3 games and ~ardara ~ii6auCt 4S6S Enchanted~~oint SCiorewood, .~VI~V SS331 CONCLUSION The City's record clearly shows that the Conditional Use Permit for this now non- conforming land use was for sailboats not any type of boat or boats in general; Therefore: 1. The Planning Commission needs to recommend that the word "sailboat" be used in a corrected resolution since that was the premise in the application, in the discussion at the Commission meeting of May 26, 1977, and in the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council on that same day. 2. The City Council needs to correct the error in Resolution No. 55.2-77 by changing provision a) to read: a) That upon and attached and in conjunction with the use of. said property may be located lifts, slips, docks and buoys capable of storing and keeping not more than 30 sailboats during the docking season, and such facilities shall not extend beyond 200 feet of the shoreline. We believe adopting a new resolution which corrects the error is consistent with the City's record and the approved motions by the Planning Commission on May 26, 1977, and the Council on July 25, 1977. Correcting the error is the right, legal and ethical action to take. Thank you for addressing this important matter. James Thibault Barbara Thibault (We have lived across the street from the property owned by the Yacht Club since 1974.) 4 games and'~ardara ~ii6auCt 4S6S Enchanted~~1'oint Shorewood, ~t~l~V SS331 ADDENDUM August 30, 2007 City Council Action/Approval 1977 No showing has been made to indicate that the Conditional Use Permit request or approval was for anything but sailboats. The issue was the number. In fact, the Council motion approving the Conditional Use Permit was for "thirty slips".... The word "boat" was not used. The actual motion is copied below. See also Exhibit E. "Frazier made a motion to approve a conditional use Permit providing for th rt sl%pS and parking for 30 cars and that any building be acceptable to the planning commission and the council. Motion carried with Haugen, Huttner, Naegele, Keeler, and Frazier voting aye." Emphasis added. The Resolution needs to be corrected to be consistent with the action approved by the City Council. Otherwise, the City Council's action is usurped. Yacht Club's 1992 Application for a Zoning Change The Yacht Club's 1992 application/materials continue to reflect the understanding that the Conditional Use Permit is for sailboats. In the yacht Club's letter dated November 12, 1992 and signed by Skip Jewitt, Commodore, it states "All yachts are sailboats only, except for one powerboat, which is used for officiating races." See Exhibit F. ~~' A.~~'~LIGATIC)?d ~'GF~ S~'?~G:CAL U:3E 1~'I,I?"rTIT (C:3i?~I'~`t~FD TU vi~~~.~il';T:CT71~?T, IISE :t7Eri;1I'!: I"~Y C)RD:II~It's.il}C?_'' I'dCf, ~'i a VI:LL.~C;f;. C)~:' ~:I-if)R1s'r~1~Oli} . A~~,lican~s Uppcr .i~al:;c ri},notonka ?~.ch-c C;itzb (ti~,',~YC) a a ~... 1.orz--t'~:ofi ~ i~in~esota Corroaratian, :Lavated in ~T:i1.1a a a:I' Shc}rc~';GCd a 1-IerLtrerlin CotLrlt;~~a nlTl2l.il~~ia ~a. Chub Oi'ficarss Cammadoreq ?~rd,Richard _Lea.~-ar~Arertha t'Fcadsidc: Road.a E~celsiora "'ir1. 5~;~1. ~•'~~~-857 ~icc Gammodarc:, Richard pu-tnama C~.sco T'aa.nt r c~.a® Sectc;n~s Gos-~d~_"~ior~a.l_ ~sosa Cfidir~a}~c~ P1o, 7~`, V~.1_la~;e as alzor?~^rccdo ~.`~ Subd. 2 Stanr?ar~i~; and Conditio7zs a'or Conditiana? Use,, A. A. corLdi-tiana.l z?ses c~e~'mi~ sh.~~1? 1~2 ~;ran-t;od fez^ ~.~,hE 1d~.~nVtsi?'s~ USQS Cz"11V3 {I} any use s~;acif-'s.call3r i is'ted as a cardi ti`cn.a.l t=.so in re ~ula-Gi_cTZS ~-.~p~ i_ca.b~t.e '~o_'.-tiho d °t.;tric:t; ire. ~~hi.ch i t is ~o b~ en~LCted . ThG U".:,!°>iY~C '~~}ror~i~'t,V is laca~ed i.n P.--:~. Tani-r_~ i~~_str. ~.c~ as p}^c~.-idcd i..~~ Orri'~.na,~ce x'77; S~:ctian 18a Subs?, .3T~ ,vhcl~c it st:ztess ~s~p) Gcl_:j: '~ours~ ~~nd G`?_ub?-io}w~:n fac;~i-Liras, YaciLt G`~.uh.~~ ?3. A Gcrd:i.-tiona.l t,~sG Perr,~it sha~_1_ be ~rantrd ai::,L~r ~.~~ PV1CicnCC lu ~iY'E 7Cn't'.ed t0 Lu'GciI37~~.~:1; v (l) That ~hc prax~osed i;ua.ldi.ra~; or use ~~T:t:~i not i~.;~ro a S}3b;~tar? Lia]- ar uc~dtza ;^.ci~erse ef~'cc't upa:1 ~adja.csn~t pxope?-^ty Q 'i,i'tc cha._rac per o'i' -t'r~}o rfc:tg'c}.?~arha~~d, traffic carldi ~? orrs a u't;~ it;,~ facilii;ios and othor ~n~,ttc~rs aa~'ecti.n~ ~hc nuby~_c. hcalth a Caz o;;y and ~e~rzcrai :~~elFai"e 3 and -- (~} That the pro~c,osAu. bLZi:Ldi.n~ or use Gail? t,c cics? :__ ._ .. arrrn~.^d arid' crera-i:ect sa as -ta i~c~•~ia:t'~ t:-ie r1c-veloUmcn.-t axrcl use ai neigl•tborir_~. propert~r ir'~ a.cc~~^a.~.nce ~:ai~ch t,~e a_pplicablc dig ;ria~i- re ul~°.-°: .. _ .. Y~j- _ _ c UL:'~LG has acctzni cd ?rots 1 a_rLC~ a B~ ocl;~ ~~ ~ A,rdators Subdi'~i siai-} a sir}ce i_~?s;o ~,~I'~p-r; t`~U Sr~cre~vcacd 'Y il'.ae Cour}ci? ,=,r. antod a. S;~er.ial C1=;a S'urm,t 1:'or 1,Ize Ya,ch-~ Clui? use subject -ta spaci'ic tc!°}z}7 and cc±aicil.~~itr.~. O~ IiE;3C}y,.ltian a'It , C7u~' 1 ~~•~ -t~E~~~•r~i.-c tzpdat,e ap-~1.i~:a.~,;~_on :~~a:~, s1.~brr}.ittcd. in ac~co:rc~. t>~~i'F.1'L tr~.< .r"1 "1:(?'r;tt n'!.~ ~r(~ir}a'1CE'. ;;t'j7s SCC"E., `~s :iui~.1.S. ~; ~~ ~ cc ~. ~~~}2?1G t~r~ p k b .~.~ e It.~.t ~~tC' uS~ c~ ;~°c'.l.~I. t;}~ J~ ,~~w-~ -F~yy 3 a2.1 I.ii:?; .~ r ti; t:.(_fd~.) f'fC?t?.~ t~ ''~ ~TZ~3~ ~`~.tiC%1~}.~, r [' C~4'S ~€1~_~/ ?C~.TJi?t._.s~ ~ f.~r.C~G~. LI~vZ~ ciC1,~c~Gc~:~.~~ yos:a'C)t?:4Ti~s ee f}:P" "r1~l.ts;ils,)r`Y'I'xEiv~ . " !I,I,Sa '~.`2Ct'!~ ~:7r~ iJl_i`:'i4`C: U.iry `l~v i _'LJ. fJC rs'`r3:'-, 1~nLC? a aL i`.:_, _ f3~E'.Z''c~.~,c?:~ ;~'.} ~~.5 'i,a j~:.:?"Cll~~ -i:I'?C tat:fs'Uzaj7rtcTlc`'; ~Yll~'. L:aC: cC~ t:Cl~'hk~G7 .~_[1~~ ':: " ir} accc~r.ci_:~rce ~°r? th •t,he aI}~1.ie;z1}lc: dis~;a:'iet (I'.'~-i} regula-t.i.or~as." EXHIBIT A . Uc5 wank ~ eTos el~r t~iith the abutting property owners and neigl~borhood to insure the compatibility of our Yacht Club with the existing high. quality residential environment. 13. Special conditions applicable to U1;,ittYC Permit. The ULi`:~YC Baird of Directors believes that many of -the conditions o:f' -the 1,969 Special Use Permit and other _ - conditions are appropriate fo~~ amend~ne:n-t to the UL"~itYC existing special use permit. The ~' 7 _ ~ ~~ -_ ; ;: ,~ - Sl.al~)riJ_~:t~~ a:~ ~~'?~ T,r i1,? ~cre~ -!'v-r, -^?~sj1P'A~_ ~l,Si l?^' J~ (sr~ ~41L y_ i ~.E~,"al. Property Develonmenta A. The Yacht Club shall provide adequate 1~e'-~'~~'.g :mot exceed CFO spaces for members and~-gues-~.~~., ;~-e,~;d ;,~,~,~ shall. be surfaced ~=~rith crushed roel~_ and other dust resistant material. B. C® D. E. The Yacht Club shall provide adequate water and sewer facilities compatible with phased property improvements. The Yacht Club may cor_struct a structure consistent vaith the provisions of application for conditional use permit dated 4f25f77. The Yacht Cla~b?~ ray de~relop under the conditions of the City- and L~`1CD, dockage andlor mooring. faeiliti.cs'yor j~ cr. ~~, or lift z?d 'a ~ ~ ''? ; ~ i ~ sx~aGes g g bu.oyS g a ^,: ~" '7~3 '~,:v ., '; ,~~,? '~=-~s. Four dinghies or prams may be usecz by sailboat oc~rners to provide access to boats moored on buoys in addition to the. normal moorinCs. The Yacht Club property grounds apark lilts manner enhancing the F. That the Yacht Club :may boat lifts g docl~, buoys, two committee boats and activities. shall be maintained in neighborhood.. store, in an orderly manner, ?~ronerty ms.intenance equipment, other items necessary far Club ~`. S'~~o~ra~:o•~of `'bba~ts~~or~~t;nail.~rs dlZrzng the winter monthsu is prohibited except for tsPao official Yacht Club committee baits. Property Use Re,~zlations s A.. The Club may not launch any boat except for dinghies or prams which_;p~^ovide access to boats moored at bu.ays, B. The Club shall not be granted a liquor, beer, fooda.or bottle club license. C . The Club property shall not be re1F tr;c~ to any itadividual ar or~;ani za.t i o.~ , 11. The Club shall not have any activities ~~'hich last pad, 12s E70 midnight. E. The Club nrer~~ises and structure may be LtsPd for social and racing; Yacht Club aetiviti.es f'o~.~ members and guests. y g~, EXHIBIT B SkOREI~OOD PLASIATINO COP~NtISSIO~ ~iAY 26, 1977 I~ilzdU'I`ES The Shorewood P1anr~ingrCommission met in regular session on Th°arsday, ~Iay 26, ~a: 1779 at 730 p~m. in I~tinnewashta Elementary School, Frank Reese presiding in the absence of Chairman ~datten. Also present were J. Brecke, J. Cole, i{. Stover, S. Larson and J. ~Ziller. Potion by Stover, seconded by Cole, to approve the minutes of March 24, April 28, and flay 12, 1.977® Unanimous approval granted, JI~i DUTCI~ER'S REQtTES1^ TO SUBDIVIDE FOR ~TILD DUCK, 3rd ADDITIObT Pr. Dutcher stated Excelsior has a eater main coming up to his property and feels that theyExcelsior} would like to supply the water. lIe says that he also feels Sharewood wi11 want him to use their water when the system goes through. At the present time he is planning on using wells only, unless an alternative is worked out before construction is underway, Drainage is a cpxestionable problem. dir. Dutcher foals. it ~rould-~:'be easier to have drainage going into Excelsior area where it has been going, than to re- chanz~el it through Shorewood. Ke said he would comply with the council's request but he would also point this out to the council. ldotion made by Brecke, seconded by Cole, to approve the Wild Duck, 3rd Addition, as proposed for thirteen buildings, 2b living units without recommendation to the council where the drainage should be directed. Frank Reese amended the motion to include suggestion that the council review the 4,/2$77 E~gineer~s report on this matter, Reese amended the motion further to state that aim Dut~- char is willing to deed outlots A and B to adjacent landowner. Motion carried ~n~- unanimously. UPPER LAKE P~tIi'~NETONKA Y,~CHT CLUB CONDITIONAL USE Plas'~tIT Frank Please pointed out that some members of the commission had visited tPa.e ~'aoht Club premises on ~'Iay 21st. Jerry Mi11er .stated that with land reduction from ~~hat the Club has o•s.ed in the past, he doss not feel the one ~l~ plus acres remaining can hold more peoples cars or boats. The discussion also centered arot~d what caused the flooding to take place. The Yacht Club property was improved with a parking lot and Rascop°s added a drive~- wa~i'. Yacht Cl~zb spokesman said that boats were now kept there overnight because of members t~ho did ~~.ot live on the lake. No one living on the lake kept his boat there. Question was raised as to whether the special use permit automatically became a condi~tiona,l use permit by the Council's adoption of Ordinance ~` tha~~it did not® 77 They decided The commission felt that the yaoht club would be better if Iaandled under a evndi~ tional use permit including tI?e terms of the special use permit. The cfaestson ca~ae ,gyp on page three of the application r°gax°ding the strilgi~sg of "~ oup gathering°8 fr€am the para~aph. B.p a 3 to 3 votes it remained in. Stover, Larson and Diller in favor of striking Col$, Reese and Brecke in favor of leaving it ins Rage 1 of the application also maces reference to :nuisance situati on oontrol which we felt was adequate plus th.e .need for a certain group to be on the premises can the morning of race days® EXHIBIT C Page 1 of 2 SkIOR~b~d00D PLAI~T~iiIIV'G C0~[P~IISSIO~ i~iZNtJTES -page ~ Disoussion got down finally tai the only objection was the proposed.exansi n of ~th.e fa~sility to ~.2 slips;, Pr~iller moved, Larson seconded~g: that the~.~contzonal use permit be'racc~~.~~,rded with the restriction that only thirty (30} boats be alloa~red ~rzd that no additional provisions were granted for the two oornenittee boats` dockage. The vote was ~ to 2 Breoke and Cole voting nays I~iiller, Stover, Reese and Larson voting aye. It was also moved by S~eese and seconded by Ntiller that our city enigneer study the conditions of Lake Road, access road to the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club and the residential properties adjoining it, based upon problems of flooding and inadequate size that have been brought to the attention of the planning com- mission. Passed unanimously. SHORI;kl00D YACHT CLUB Questions developed for discussions 1. The total number of slips 2. Traffic entry exit on County Road lg 3. Flow the operation would be handfed q.. Arvidson law suit on neighboring property 5. Controlled use of channels Reese questioned whether dock A had the right to ga out 200 feet into the bays if by doing so it came to less than. 200 feet from a neighboring shoreline. Oxxs..e neigh- bor would be 160° from the end of Bock,A. Marren Clag~ze commented that the Dove aspeot of. the area was quite good, one of the better looations on the lake for a marina. Commission members =~rho were at the marina Saturday fait channels were even better (bigger and wider} than they had anticipated. Also that boats will not create a lot of traffic on the bay (Cideon's} because they will .head straight for open water of the big lake, ~' The .Arvidson lot is not builr~able now without a special variance permit because of the size. irde do not know the outoome of the suit over the sale of the proper- ty`or the questions of sight line interpretation. John Crass suggested a compromise to delete two slips off of dock "A" and 8 slips off of °iI)°t. This would shorten both docks and give about 1$0' to marina on Book iPA°I anal 1$0' of buffer to neighbor -total loss of 10 slips to marina. Brecke suggested that the end slips from A, B, and C docks be removed (10 slips} but dock D remain as is because of lack of its penetration into the bay, Informal poll of members was that the proper number ranged from 100 slips to 125 slips with three people feeling 115 was acceptable. . The cp.~estion of fenoing to prevent users of either ma~°in.a ar dredging company to cross into ot'_~er road .gas discussed. Crass said he would prevent it. It is intended that marina would operate during normal boating season only. I~1o activity in winter is plannedo Tennis and ga~ae courts would :not be lighted. i~To swimming pool is being put in or anticipated. EXHIBIT C Page 2 of 2 CI tY OF SHORElfOC= COUNCIL iFiEET~` ~ 2?~ 197E :30 .m. The Shorewood City Council convened at the site of the proposed Shorewood Yacht Club on the southeast shore of Gideon°s Bay at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 27, 1977. Pre- sent were Mayor Frazier, Council lbembers Haugen and Naegele, as well as John Cross, applicant for conditional use permit, some potential members of the Yacht Club and residents of near-by Timber Lane. John Cross and his associates demonstrated for visitors the capabilities of sailboat traffic in and out of the two channels in that area of Gideon°s Bay. 6.:45 p.m. ROLL GALL Council reconvened at I+~innewashta Elementary School at 6:45 p.m. Mayor Frazier presided and present were Council members Haugen, Huttner, Keeler and AIaegele, Engineer i~orton, and Clerk ~Tiltsey. (Attorney Kelly arrived at 7:30 p.m.} P~iINt7TES APPROVED Haugen moved, I{eeler seconded, to approve the minutes of the June 13th meeting as submitted, Motion carried 4 1. Naegele.abstained. CONDITIONAL USE PERP+iITS FOR LAKE USES Debate Limit Set I{eeler moved, ~daegele seconded, to limit debate on the next three issues dealing with lake uses to fifteen minutes each far the pro and eon sides, excluding presentations. SHOREad00D YACHT CLUB, GIDEON°S BAY, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~~SetutloN•3.~ ~~77 Healing opened to a full house. John Cross and associates presented his proposal for the establishment of a yacht club on the southeast share of Gideon's Bay, The same people who testified at prior hearings presented their statements. Upon completion of the testimony, the council questioned the applicant and residents further, At the conclusion of this questioning? the matter was put to a vote. Keeler moved, to table the-vote to the second council meeting in July (July 25}, Huttner seconded for purposes of discussion. notion passed 3-2o Voting aye: Huttner, Naegele, Keeler voting nay: Haugen, Frazier. UPFER LAKE ~glNidE'PON.K.4 YACH`r! CLUBS II3CHANTED ISLA'~?D. COIdDITIOIdAL USE PZiRMIT R. 0. Leavenworth made the presentation for the Yacht Club. The r©commendation of th^ Planning Commission' yr t 3G) sips axsd .he astabli sH,.:an+ of -~ _e sage Bondi ti ons set ;down. in the Special Use ;/~r~:~ ~ :;~ 1yn; .:as re~;.2~~eci. Attorney Melly provided bacl4ground information and informed the council that in the event the Conditional Use Permit is not granted, the original Special Use Permit is valid, i{eeler moved, Huttner seconded for purposes of discussion, to table a decision on this matter to the. second meeting in July, dvsing~srhich time a compromise shall have been worked out bet~reen the Yacht Club and adjoining residents. After discussion, Huttner withdrew his second. i~!otion died for lack of a second. Jan Haugen moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit allot~ring for tc~renty-one (21} boats, ~lati an died for lack of a secondo EXHIBIT D pity of Shorewood ~:ouneil P~Teeting ®July 25 s 1977 Yslinutes ~» page 2 LiPP~ L A.~E T+'lITdI~ETCIN'KA `YACHT CLU3 -contd. At the ~IayorBS request Naegele withdrew his second and Keeler withdrew his motion, Fra:~ier made a motion to approve a conditioxial use Permit providi~~g fcr thirty slips and parking for 30 ears and that an3r building be acceptable to the planning oomcnassion axed the council. Motion carried with Haugera, Kuttner, :~7aegele, Ifeeler, and Frazier voting aye. 'r 73OULDER BRIDGE E7T~+TSION ON FINAL PLAT tom Gdartman appeared before the council to request an extension of an additional n~.nety days for submission of the final plat of the Boulder Bridge Development. P~Totion was made by Haugen, seconded by Huttner, to approve the extension of ninety days, Motion carried with Frazier, Naegele, FTuttner~ Haugen and Keeler voting aye. LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD PROPOSAL A proposal had been received from the South Tonlta Athletic Association where they would deed the Little League Field to the city for X1.00 in exchange for certain improvements. Keeler made a motion, seconded by Huttner, to approve the concept and authorize the attorney to negotiate an agreement with their representatives and 'wring back a proposal. JUNK ORDINANCE - I`IRST READING An ordinance restricting the accumulation an private property of unsafe, unusable, inoperable equipment, junk or debris, had its first reading. fl1ENT TO 20ATING ORDTVAt~TCE - ®~Dt N~ Nt°_~ ~~ Re• Lot 145 Aud, Sub. 120 (Terry Dug~arl~ 0x1 the second readings a motion eras made by Haugen, seconded by Keelere to adopt a an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 77 to rezone Lot 145, Aud, Sub® 120 to C-1 A with certain provisions. T'?ation carried unanimously. FiORS~ II.SSPECTION REPORT Attorney made a report at the s~equest of the horse. inspector to recommend rejection of the horse permits of Tom Sehoenecker and to deny a permit for Lucille Nyland. Haugen made a motion, seconded by Huttner, to approve the recommendation of the horse inspector and authorize the legal steps necessary to comply svith said recom® mendation. P•~otian carried. unanimo•azsly® tTORSE ORDINANCE REVISION S Reagan made a motions seconded by Huttner, to authhorize the attorney to draft an amendment to the horse ordinance to include certain provisions as recommended by the horseowners association and the council. Notion carried. unanimouslyo lI0ELW00D HEIGHTS - PRELIT7IINARY PLAT Haugen made a motion, secanded•by Huttner to approve the preliminary plat of AToelw taoad. TTeights as recommended by the Plataning Commission anal attorney to require a bonde escrow funds or letter of oredit in the amount of l~ of the estimated cost of the sea~rer anal road improvementsp T~oti or_ carried rznaniraouslyo EXHIBIT E I.7Fp~I~, ~ LAKE iYIINN~TONK.~. `~A.CHT GL'UB P.O. BOX 358 EXCELSIOR, MN, 55331 November 22, 2992 Bradley 3. Nelsen, PLacuting Director City of Shorewood 57'55 Counfiiy Club Raad Shorewood, MN 55331 Subject: Number of slips at UIviYC property Dear Brad, The Upper lUlinnetonka Yacht Club is a sanctioned yacht racing entity, operating under rules of the Inland L.2kes Yachting Assockition. All yachts are sailboats anty, except for one power°baat, which is used for ai~'iciating races. The club, yearly, presents its' racing schedule to the LMCU and Water Patrol for their approval This schedule allows far racing only as follows: I. The end of May through the end of September 2. Saturda}~ afleinaons and Sunday mo~m'n~c 3. Seven Wednesday evenings This use is signit3.cantiy different fiam marinas, where boar use and times are determined by the awnei5 throughout a 24 hour day. UivfYC has rules regarding property, moorings, and use, which have been drafted to eliminate neighborhood complaints and problems. (Please se: "Regulations" in enclosed annual book.) Additional points to consider that differentiate UMYC from a public marina as permittr;d under 'Z.nlceshare Recreational District" are: I. No boat dock, canopies 2. No ramp for boat Ltiunching 3. No commercial sales 4. No gasoline dispensing 5. No fishing boats far rent 6. No staraga of boats ar trat7ers with the greatly reduced use of our docking area., it is our belief that we shanld be allowed a minimum of 25 slips. Brad, ifyau. have any questions regarding the above subject, please contact rne. Sinc~•ety, of ~~ ~` Skip Jewett, Camrnadare - 471~796~ Exhibit B LETTER FR0~1 U.L.~f. Y. ~~' Dated 12 Navembe:- 199= EXHIBIT F