Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
112607 CC Reg AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Callies Wellens A. City Council Work Session Minutes, November 5, 2007 (Att. -Minutes) B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, November 5, 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 Conse~zt Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List) B. Staffing - No action required C. Shorewood Village Shopping Center Conditional Use Permit for Signage (Att. - Resolution) D. Accept Final Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane, Teal Circle Road Reclamation Project, City Project 02-02 (Att. -City Engineer's memorandum, Resolution) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report on Intercongregational Communities Association (ICA) activities (Att. ICA Report) 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. 6. PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -November 26, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 2 7. PARKS -Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held November 13, 2007 (Att.- Draft Minutes) 8. PLANNING -Report by Representative A. L-R Zoning District Text Amendment and C.U.P Amendment (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum, Resolution, Proposed Text Amendment) Applicant: Shorewood Yacht Club Location: 600 West Lake Street B. Minor Subdivision Request (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum) Applicants: Dan and Melissa Nelson Location: 25865 Birch Bluff Road 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Contract for Audit Services (Att. -Staff memorandum) B. Authorizing Off-Sale Liquor Licenses (Att. -Staff memorandum, (2) Resolutions) 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff B. Mayor & City Council 12. ADJOURN 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 Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 26 November 2007 A 6:00 p.m. work 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 resolution for the Shorewood Village Multiple Signage C.U.P. was pulled from the last consent agenda, pending certain changes to the document. Most significantly, a provision stating that the C.U.P. would prevail over the application if any conflict were found to exist. The requested changes have been made. Agenda Item #3D: The Wedgewood Mallard Teal Road_Reconstr>.iction Project has been completed. As the normal path of the project, the contractor, and the City, all have to verify construction records and tally all costs involved: This has been completed, and the project is ready to be accepted and final payment is to be issued to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Staff is recommending approval of the resohtion that accepts the Wedgewood Mallard Teal Road Reconstruction Project, and Authorizes final payment. Agenda Item #SA: Annette Marie Poeschel, Executive Director, and Shirley Buehler, Project Coordinator for Intercongregational Communities Association (ICA) will provide a report on ICA activities. Agenda Item #7A: Park Commissioner Jeremy Norman will report on the November 13, 2007 Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #8A: After considerable deliberation, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of a zoning text amendment and an interim conditional use permit for the Shorewood Yacht Club that would allow the Club to rent no more than 35 of their slips to owners of power boats. Due to the volume of written testimony and comments from interested parties, you may receive duplicates of some of the correspondence. There were people who either made their own copies of their comments or insisted that the Council get them right away. The two actions to be considered by the vm ~®~0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 26 November 2007 Page 2 of 2 Council are a text amendment relaxing the restriction relative to power boats in Gideon's Bay and a detailed resolution allowing docking of 35 additional power boats at the westerly pier of the facility. The applicants have provided two items requested by the Commission: 1) a written plan for how they intend to give preference to Shorewood residents; and 2) a drawing showing where the five previously approved power boats (including the Fire District boat) will be located. A formal draft ordinance amendment will be distributed prior to Monday night's meeting. If you have questions relative t this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Plamling Director at home over the weekend. Agenda Item #8B: Dan and Melissa Nelson propose to divide their property, located at 25865 Birch Bluff Road. Significant issues relative to their first proposal have been resolved by virtue of the adjoining property owner waiving any right to use Second Street, a grossly substandard, platted -but not developed, public right-of--way serving the properties. The applicants also submitted a revised grading plan that drastically reduces the amount of site alteration needed to construct a home on the new lot. Staff should be directed to prepare a resolution for the 10 December City Council meeting. Agenda Item #9A: City Auditors Abdo, Eick and Meyers have submitted a contract for annual auditing services for the year ending December 31, 2007 in the amount of $23,900. Staff is recommending approval of this contract due to the complexities of the 2007 audit and a reasonably favorable quote for services. Agenda Item #9B: The City has received the following two Applications for an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License at the locations noted: 1) The Cellars Wines & Spirits of Shorewood, Inc., 19905 State Hwy 7; and 2) Park Square Subway, Inc., DBA Shorewood Liquor, 23670 State Hwy. 7. Both licensees have submitted appropriate liquor license application materials and have paid the license and investigation fees. Favorable financial and criminal background checks were processed for the individuals listed on both applications. As both applicants have met all the requirements for a license, and there is no apparent reason to deny either license, a Resolution approving the Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for The Cellars Wines and Spirits of Shorewood, Inc., and a Resolution approving the Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Park Square Subway, Inc., DBA Shorewood Liquor is in order. The effective date of issuance will. coincide with the closing on the sale of each store. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 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 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wcllens, and Woodruff; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Mayor Lizee asked Item 6, Policy on Coffee and Water at City Hall .and the Public Works Facility, be added to the agenda. Councilmember Woodruff asked Item 7, Phone Iaiqucttc, be added to the agenda. Councilmember Turgeon asked ltcm 8, Setting a llate for the City. Administrator's Performance Review, be added to the agenda. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, ~~lpproving the Agenda as Amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. ANNOTINCF.IIENTS TO i1IEF.T COliNC'ILMEMBERS Administrator Dawson stated Councilmember Woodruff had requested Council discuss placing announcements to meet individual members of the Council in official City communications. In the past few issues of the Shore Report an announcement had been published about Mayor Lizee's "coffee with the mayor" sessions. He had nut been able to find a working policy regarding this topic. Dawson then stated Council should clarify three things: 1) should such meeting announcements be allowed in City communic~~ltions; 2) should they be limited or open to any member of the Council; and, 3) should they not be peni~itted after one had announced an intention to run or filed for candidacy for a City office. Mayor Lizee stated in the few months preceding an election the Mayor's and Councilmembers' names were not printed in the City newsletter. Administrator Dawson stated that was done so name recognition was not given to the candidates. Council thought it was appropriate to list the elected officials' names. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had received a few comments about the City publicizing the coffee with the mayor sessions. There was question as to whether the meetings were City meetings or private meetings. He suggested the City have a policy on things of that nature. He commented that he had checked with the League of Minnesota Cities and was told that it was such a minor use of City resources #Za CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 2 of 7 that it was anon-issue. He commented that the Mayor of Mound had also started to conduct similar sessions. He questioned if a session was City sponsored, did the person holding the session have a responsibility to report back to the Council on what was discussed at the session. Mayor Lizee stated her coffee with the mayor sessions were not sponsored by the City, and they were not conducted on City-owned property. If other Councilmembers chose to hold similar sessions in a public place she saw no problem with that. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if she could advertise to conduct sessions at her house where she would provide food and/or something to drink. Councilmember Callies stated that would be similar to campaigning. Councilmember Callies stated she did not have an issue with any, C'oui~cilmcmber conducting similar sessions in anon-political way as long as they were not preceding anel.eetion. There was consensus to abolish that practice of not listing the names of the elected officials in official City communications after the filing date for an election, allow any elected officialto~c~nduct similar sessions, and if an elected official was running for-officcthen sessiol~s with them would no longer be publicized in official City communications starting with the September newsletter of the. election year. 3. 2008 GENERAL FUND BUDGETS Director Burton stated this would be the last time Council would revie~~~~ the draft 2008 budgets before the Truth-In-Taxation public hearing on December 3, 2007. She stated the City had received information from Hennepin County which stated if the City adopted the budgets as discussed the City's tax rate would increase from 26.889 to 27.016. Burton thanked Councilrt~embcr Woodruff for his questions he had submitted to Staff in advance of the meeting. She then pravided the following answers to hiy questions. - The department budgets ~~rould be updated to reflect October actual figures. - Staff reconul~cnded the Liquor Fund balances should not be co-mingled with the General Fund until a ftcr the ..close of the year and the completion of the audit of 2007 transactions. Staff also recommended the 2007 and 2008 transfers from the Liquor Fund to the General }~uud remain as planned. A work session would likely be held early in 2008 to discuss how Council would like to use the Liquor Fund balances. - ~ The $110,000 transfer out of the Municipal Building Department Budget was for a $50,000 transCei~ into the Public Facilities and a $60,000 transfer into the Sewer Fund for the debt service payment on the City-owned house. - The 525,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Stormwater Fund would be eliminated (and therefore removed from the levy) and any related impacts corrected. Councilmember Turgeon stated Council needed to discuss the rate for the semi-annual market rate salary adjustments (or economic adjustments) for non-union employees in the relatively near future. She commented that $20,000 was also budgeted for pay-for-performance adjustments. Administrator Dawson explained the budget assumed a 3 percent economic adjustment (which would be administered semi- annually as 2 percent adjustments). Councilmember Woodruff stated the Federal Government stated the adjustment for social security would be 2.3 percent. Woodruff suggested the 2008 economic adjustment be administered once for an amount of 2.3 percent and that it be done in conjunction with pay-for- performance adjustments which would be administered after performance appraisals had been conducted. Councilmember Callies questioned if the 2.3 percent increase was specific to social security or was that CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 3 of 7 economic adjustment amount applicable to other things. Dawson stated the Consumer Price Index was approximately 2.7 percent; and, he had spoken with a number of his colleagues who generally indicated their economic adjustments were planned at 3 percent. Callies stated she would want additional information prior to making any decision. Woodruff stated the decision did not have to be made at this meeting; it should be decided prior to the budget being adopted. Councilmember Wellens suggested the economic adjustment be based on some independent amount (e.g., the social security increase, the CPI, etc.) from this point forward. Dawson commented the economic adjustment rate was reviewed yearly. There was consensus to discuss the economic adjustment rate at a November 26, 2007, work session. Callies requested Council be provided with various alternatives for the. economic rate adjustment discussion. Councilmember Woodruff stated the draft 2008 budget included ~ 170.000 for the second half of the Public Works addition project. He then stated he would like to .have the. project cancelled and the $170,000 capital outlay removed from the 2008 General Fund biulget. If that$170,000 were removed along with the $25,000 transfer to the Stormwater Fund, the 2008 levy increase overthe 2007 levy would be slightly less than 5 percent. The $195,000 was approximately 3.5 percent of the proposed 2008 levy. He also suggested the funds that had been contributed in 2006 and 2007 for that project remain in the reserves. He then clarified he did not think the project had to be cancelled; he only wanted any 2008 funding for the project removed. He stated he thought the addition wash, "nice to have", but it was not necessary; there were other alternatives that could be considered .instated of the addition to allow for a lift to be installed. Councilmember Wellens stated he had difficillty urith a total project cost of $400,000 with the primary benefit of being able to install a lift. Director Brown stated the lift would be used to work on all of the Public_Works vehicles. The lift could also be used to work on Excelsior Fire District vell~clcs and South Labe Minnetonka Police Department vehicles. He stated the lift would make the work environment for the Public Work's shop technician much safer. He then stated he could not justify a break-even cost for the project, Councilmember Turgcon stated i f slle had to choose between the City Hall renovation project and the Public Works addition project, she «~ould prefer to do the City Hall project first. In response to a question, Brown stated he would place the City ITaI I renovation project a higher priority than this project. Administrator Dawson surnn~arized ~~~hat he heard Council agree to: additional funding for the Public Works addition would bedelaycd until 2010 in the CIP, and the funds which had been allocated for the project in 2006 and 2007 ($230.000) woilld remain in the General Fund for that project. Director Burton stated the draft 2008 General Fund budget would be reduced by $195,000 - $170,000 would be removed for the Public Works addition and $25,000 for a transfer to the Stormwater Fund. 4. STATUS O`' 2007/ O8 GOALS AND PRIORITIES Administrator Dawson stated some of the goals and priorities had taken more time than had been anticipated (e,g., the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane and Glen Road project; the City Hall renovation project). The high priority items had basically been addressed, as well as the majority of the medium priority items. With regard to "problem drainage areas", Director Brown stated drainage improvement projects where scheduled based on availability of CIP funding. Councilmember Woodruff suggested an announcement be published in the Shore Report stating that City documents and records could now be accessed through a link on the City's website. Director Brown CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 4 of 7 stated before the web link was opened to the public the necessary security protection must be put in place. Councilmember Woodruff stated he wanted Staff to prepare a plan for accomplishing the following lesser priority items -finalize the electronic database for all as-built information re: Public Works infrastructure; update the right-of--way ordinance; review the water rate structure; and develop and implement a water conservation plan. Director Brown stated the focus had been on the high and medium priority items, and if time was available then the lesser priority items would be addressed. Woodruff stated he only wanted to have a short discussion about what was needed to complete the item and what resources would be required to do so. Councilmember Turgeon stated she understood Woodruff to ask for a monthly or quarterly update. Turgeon also stated Brown not provide a specific date if he could not strongly commit to that date. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director. T3rown stated before the City could issue the final invoice on the County Road 19 Smithtown Road intersection project the project needed to be closed out by Hennepin County. The County and WSl3 and Associates (the engi~~eer for the project) had been in discussions regarding the increased engineering costs «~hich the County wanted the City to pay for. Staff had met with one of the Hennepin County Commissioners who promised to have the project closed out this winter. Director Burton stated the auditor was aware of the situation. 5. COUNCIL APPRECIATION EVENT Administrator Dawson stated the City had received communication from =the State Auditor's Office regarding an inquiry it had received about the City Council°s annual appreciation event. During its 2007 session, the Legislature amended a statute to clarify that cities may establish and operate an employee recognition program, and it pro~~ided that publicfunds could be used for such a program. Staff had prepared a proposed policy for the event which had been reviewed by the City Attorney. Councilmember Call~es stated the amended statute was very:broad. She then stated she would continue to support having the annual appreciation event; there was nothing wrong with doing so under the law. She went on to state the Citv of Minnetonka had an annual picnic that was catered for employees and their families, it .holds an apprcciatioti event, meals were provided before each Council and Planning Comnussi~~n i~ieetings, it proyidcd water and coffee for its staff for productivity and morale reasons, etc. Councih~~emher Wellens stated the proposed policy was fine, as did Councilmember Woodruff. There was consensus to add approval of the proposed policy for an appreciation event to the regular meeting agenda forthat evening. 6. POLICY ON COFFEE AND WATER AT CITY HALL AND THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY Mayor Lizee stated after she became aware the City had received communication from the State Auditor's Office regarding an inquiry (which Councilmember Wellens stated he had sent) regarding the City council's annual appreciation event and the City's paying for coffee and water for City employees she contacted Director Burton to ask for the costs for the coffee and water services. It was at that time she found out the services had been terminated, and she thought that was not appropriate to do. Councilmember Callies stated the Council had not made the decision. Director Burton stated she and Administrator Dawson had made the decision based on the feedback from the State Auditor's office. Dawson stated the Staff was polled, and it did not want to pay for the services. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 5 of 7 Lizee stated the services were also used by guests at City Hall, the Planning and Park Commissioners, Councilmembers, etc. She commented the water fountain at City Hall had not worked correctly for a number of years. She stated it would have been appropriate for Council to discuss the topic prior to any changes being made. Councilmember Wellens stated he had brought the topic up to Council earlier. Councilmember Callies stated there should have been discussion prior to changes being made. She again referenced Minnetonka's policy and what that city provided. Councilmember Turgeon stated Minnetonka's policy addressed employees and elected and appointed officials, it did not specify spouses or guests. She stated she could support either position with regard to water and coffee services. Director Burton stated the monthly costs for coffee services at the Public Works facility were approximately $30 and they were approximately $50 for City Ha11. Water cooler expenses were incidental. Burton stated she was confident the employees ~woilld be grateful if the services were reinstated, Councilmember Woodruff stated based on his experience at three different companies. a water filter system that would also dispense hot water would be more cost effective than the CulliganGVater cooler system. The State Auditor would have no comment on doing that; thef-efore, he suggested a system be installed. He commented the system could be moved if need be during the renovation effort. Councilmember Callies stated she would like to discuss the topic tiu-ther and she questioned if the City should adopt a policy similar to Minnetonka's. °~ Mayor Lizee stated she would like to see the services reinsiatedprior to adopting a policy. Councilmember Woodruff again staicd he would prefer a water filter system be installed rather than reinstating the Culligan «rater cooler system, Administrator Dawson summarized the directions he heard Council provided - a water filter system would be installed, coffee service. would he reinstated, the policy regarding the appreciation event would be considered. at the regular meeting this evening, and Minnetonka's policy would be clarified and adapted by the Ciry. - Director Brown stated if thecoffcc service was to be reinstated only to be terminated again he suggested the service not be reinstated. In response to a question, Brown stated having coffee pots at employees' workstationswas a safety issue.... Councilmember Callies questioned if anyone was opposed to having the coffee service reinstated to which Councilmember Wellens stated he did not want the City to pay for employee's coffee. Mayor Lizee recessed the work session at 7:01 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the work session at 8:53 P.M. 7. PHONE ETIQUETTE Councilmember Woodruff stated he had sent an email to Staff informing them that he had received many comments from people stating it often took many days to receive a response to a phone call they had made to the City. The comments were about all of the departments. He also stated there had been an incident where a person had a policy question and they were referred to the Senior Accounting Clerk to CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 6 of 7 get an answer; he thought that was inappropriate. He suggested Staff adopt a policy that all phone calls would be returned within one business day, even if the response was to tell the person they would have to get back to them at a later date. He also suggested that all policy questions should be answered by a manager, department head, or the City Administrator. Councilmember Turgeon stated this had been discussed before, and when it was discussed response time improved for a while. She also stated she was the one that received the complaint regarding policy questions. Councilmember Callies questioned if Staff changed their voice mail to inform .callers when they were gone for an extended period of time. Director Burton stated she thought that effort was made. Director Brown stated recently he was at a funeral on a Friday and when he returned the following Monday an employee told him there was a woman who had come in to complain 11er phone calls were not being returned. The woman called him on Thursday evening and the next day slie told the employee that Brown would not return the calls. Director Burton stated there were occasions when a resident receives a response they woiildprefer not to hear. Administrator Dawson stated there were tinges when a call maybe forwarded to someone else to respond to, and residents would complain that the person they intended to call did not respond. Councilmember Turgeon stated if someone was gone for an extended pcrii~d of time (e.g., on vacation) then she thought it would be appropriate for sonleonc clseto a~espond to the caller even if it was to say they didn't have an answer. Councilmember Woodruff asked Staff if the next business day turnaround for a response was acceptable. Director Burton stated that is ~~~hat Staff already tried to do. . 8. SETTING A DA'hE FOR THE CITY ADM 1 ~ISTRATOR'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW Councilmember `Turgeon stated if Council wanted to have Administrator Dawson's performance review completed by year-end then it must bescheduled for the near future, Mayor Lizee questioned if it could be done in January 2008. Administrator Dawson stated if there was to be a change in Councilmembers because it was an election year, then it tivas better to conduct the review prior to the change in members; that was not the ease this year. Lizee stated she would appreciate it if it could be done on the first meeting date in January (Januaryl4, 2008). Councilmember Tur~eoii questioned if the process should be the same as the last time (she sent out the form to the Councilmembers and compiled the information). Mayor Lizee stated she would like to be more involved. There was consensus to leave the performance appraisal form the way it was. Councilmember Woodruff stated because this would be Administrator Dawson's formal review all Councilmembers should fill out the form. He suggested the process of filling out the fornl be started in December so the actual review could be conducted in January. Administrator Dawson stated he would distribute an electronic copy of the form to the Councilmembers. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 7 of 7 9. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of November 5, at 9:05 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee,'V[ayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councihnembers Keane; Administrator Dawson; Brown; and Engineer Landini Callies, Turgeou, Wellens and Woodruff; Attorney Finance Director Burton; Director of Public Works Absent: None B. Review Agenda Administrator Dawson stated at a Council work session held earlier this evening Council requested Item 9.D, Proposed Policy Regarding Council's Amulal 1lppreciation Event, be added to the agenda. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Agenda as Amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF 1\~IINUTFS A. Joint City Council /Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, October 16, 2007 Woodruff moved, 'I'urgeon seconded, Approving the Joint City Council /Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Public Forum Minutes, October 22, 2007 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Public Forum Minutes of October 22, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2007 Callies moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 22, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. Councilmember Woodruff questioned when Council would receive an update on what had been done to address the concerns brought to Council's attention during Matters from the Floor at its October 22, 2007, regular meeting. Administrator Dawson stated he would email Council that information later in the week. #aB SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 2 of 9 D. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, October 29, 2007 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of October 29, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. E. City Council Work Session Minutes, October 29, 2007 Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of October 29, 2007, as amended in Item 4, Page 5, Paragraph 5, add "Councilmembcr Woodruff indicated he had many comments to discuss with Engineer Landini later.". Motion passed ~/0. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List as amended to add invoice number 8232007 for the quarterly liquor liability insurance for an amount equal to $2,394.25. B. Staffing - No action required -~ C. Accepting Low Quote and Awarding Contract for 2007 Sanitary Sewer Main Line Televising (This was moved to Item 10._B under Engineering/Public Works,) D. C-1 Zoning Tcxt Amendment Approving ORDINANCE NO. 440, "An Ordinance Amending the Shorewood Zoning Code to Re-establish Lot Requirements, Setbacks and Building Requirements in the C-1, General Commercial Zoning District." E. Shorewood Village Shopping Center Conditional Use Permit for Signage (This was moved to Item 8.A wider Planning.) Terminating Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project, City Project 07-O1 (This was moved to Item 10.A under Engineering/Public Works.) G. Resolution Proclaiming November 10-17, 2007 to be Housing Awareness Week Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-071, "A Resolution Proclaiming November 10 - 17, 2007 to be Housing Awareness Week 2007." Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Joe Lugowski, 24710 Glen Road, asked Council to reconsider its stated direction to terminate the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project. He believed the feedback Council had received from the property owners was based on incorrect information. He related at the October 22, 2007, Council regular meeting, Jim Hoban stated if the City were his broker he would say "no deal" on the project and he asked the Councilmembers to vote their conscience. Lugowski stated based on SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 3 of 9 neighborhood meetings he had attended (which were also attended by Councilmember Woodruff, and neighbor and Councilmember Turgeon), he did not understand how Mayor Lizee and Councilmembers Carries and Wellens could vote no. He questioned if a no vote was the right vote. He stated he had recently spoken with staff from four neighboring cities regarding how they handled funding for improvements, and reviewed his findings. Chanhassen assessed 40 percent of street improvements. Excelsior assessed for 60 percent of sidewalk improvements for residential property owners and 100 percent for business property owners. Mound had two ways to do it; one resident stated she was assessed $4,000 for the improvements in her neighborhood. Tonka Bay was assessing for improvements on Woodpecker Road. He stated if he were a broker and considered the cost of what the assessments could be today ($20,000 - $30,000 based on what the other cities do) he would say X10,000 would be a bargain and maybe that cost would be unreachable in the future. Mr. Lugowski then stated he would like to see Staff draft a letter explaining how storm water runoff would be channeled through a specified size pipe and also how it would be directed to a pond by another specified size pipe. The letter should also explain what the construction easements were for, and the possible damage and reclamation of that easement area. It should explain the reason for the road being in the center of the right-of--way. He stated everyone understood the potential for tree loss. Ile stated from his vantage point the project would be a good project not only to help resolve his water issue (which was made worse with the addition of Christopher Road), but it would also benefit the property owners in many other ways. Mayor Lizee stated the termination of the An31ee Road, Manitou Lane, Glcn Road Street Reconstruction Project had been removed from the Consent Agenda for the evening and ii would be discussed as Item 10.A. 5. REPORTS AND PRFSLI~TATIONS A. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District~(LMCD) Representative, Tom Skramstad Report ou LMCD Activities LMCD Board Chair Skramstad provided au update on LMCD activities, as detailed in the report distributed to Council. Chair Skramstad stated with regard to the Milfoil Demonstration Project two of the areas treated had positive results; the results for third area treated were not as good. Based on the results of the project it appeared that the treatment would not be a one-time application; it would probably have to be done every few years. The cost for the demonstration project was $20,000 for the very small portion of Lake Minnetonka which was treated: to treat a larger portion of the Lake would take a great deal of money and there was no funding a~~ailablefor that at this time, He then stated what, if any, next steps would be taken in treating the Lake would be one of the outcomes of the Lake Vegetation Management Plan (LVMP). Financing for the effort would need to come from the fourteen LMCD member cities, lakeshore owners, businesses (e.g., charter boat operations, marinas, etc.), and recreational users of the Lake. With regard to the LVMP, Chair Skramstad stated three public meetings had been held and the feedback from those meetings would be tabulated. The turnout for the meetings was modest. After the tabulations were done the participating agencies would then prepare the LVMP. He would provide Council with a date for when the LVMP was estimated to be completed when it was available. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 4 of 9 With regard to the Internet Landing Installed Device Sensor (ILIDS) program, Chair Skramstad stated preliminary indications were the program was successful based on on-site surveys conducted. People stated they were more attentive to not transporting exotic species on their boats because signs informed them that they were being observed. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if there was any statistical information available to prove the program was successfuh Skramstad stated there were some data but he did not have that at the moment. Councilmember Turgeon stated she had read that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may consider relaxing its eight-foot maximum dock width regulation. Chair Skramstad stated he did not think the DNR would relax that regulation; the DNR may not actively enforce it. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Chair Skramstad stated that in most of Shorewood for a residential lakeshore property owner to have more than four boats (boats «~}th a motor greater than ten horsepower), one must have enough Lakeshore (fifty feet per boat) and one must get a multiple dock license. Lizee questioned if the LMCD had considered reprising its ordinance regarding number of boats so that personal watercraft may be counted differently; the ordinance was put in place prior to the influx of personal watercraft. Skramstad stated the LMCD hoard was reviewing its current ordinances to ensure they were still relevant. Chair Skramstad suggested the City consider appointing its representative to the LMCD Board for a three-year term. He explained when the State created the LMCD it stated that the LMCD Boardmembers would have athree-year term; Shorewood appointed its Boardmember for a one year term. Mayor Lizee stated Council would discuss that before the position ~~as posted in December. Mayor Lizee stated Chair Skramstad was not going to apply for the City's LMCD Boardmember position at the end of the year. She then stated Skramstad had served the City well in that capacity and that he had been a fabulous LMCD Board Chair. She thanked hiri~ for his efforts. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS No report was given because there had not been a Park Comnssion meeting since the last City Council Regular meeting. 8. PLANNING No report was given because there had not been a Planning Commission meeting since the last City Council Regular meeting. A. Shorewood Village Shopping Center Conditional Use Permit for Signage This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruff's request. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had spoken with Director Nielsen on Friday, November 2, regarding the draft resolution for a Conditional Use Permit for Signage for the Shorewood Village Shopping Center and during that conversation they had concluded there were some modifications needed to the draft SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 5 of 9 resolution. He then stated Nielsen had recommended this item be continued to the November 26, 2007, Council meeting. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, continuing the matter of the resolution granting a conditional use permit for multiple signs to Shorewood Village Center to a November 26, 2007, Council meeting. Motion passed 5/0. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Proposal for Additional CSO Services by SLMPD for 2008 Budget Administrator Dawson stated at its October 30, 2007, meeting the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee recommended that its member city councils approve the proposal for expanded services through community services officers (CSOs). He explained the member city councils reviewed the proposal this past summer, but none took action to include it in its 2008 budget at that time. The councils requested further information and they had agreed to consider the proposal in the fall. He stated SLMPD Chief Litsey had provided the additional information as requested. He noted that the Tonka Bay city council had approved the scr~~ices for ?008 provided the other member cities' councils also approved the proposal. He explained a small portion of expanded CSO services would be used to provide animal control (approximately 15 percent of the additional 2080 hours of service per year); the remaining hours could be used to do many activities now done by sworn officers (sworn officers would be able to spend more dime on activities that required ~ license to perform them), and the CSOs could also assist the member cities directly with activities such as nuisance violations. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Chief Litsey explained that under the current Orono contract for animal control ser~rices for three of the member cities, many of the animals are first transported to the SLMPD where they were kept overnight. He then explained under this proposal for the short-term stays animals would be kenneled at the SLMPD and the owner would be charged a fee for that. For longer-term stays (e.g., 3 - ~ days) the plan was to retain the Mound Police Department to quarantine the animals. Mound also char~~ed $16 per day for an animal which the owner had to pay when they retrieved the animal. I l~ the owner did not retrieve the animal, the appropriate city would have to pay the fee. In response to another question from Councilmember Turgeon, Chief Litsey explained the SLMPD used a full-sized vehicle to patrol the trails along with the cities' parks for ordinance violations. During the summer bikes ~o~ould be used. Turgeon stated the Three Rivers Park District had its park patrol do similar activities from March through November each year. Litsey explained the park patrol was not available to do those activities most of the time. Woodruff moved, Welleus seconded, approving the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department proposal for expanded Community Service Officer coverage, and that it be included as a basic service to be provided by the SLMPD. Motion passed 5/0. B. Amendment to Title 400, Liquor Regulations and Title 1300, Municipal Fees, of the Shorewood City Code Administrator Dawson stated because the Council had decided to sell the City's liquor stores, the City's Liquor Ordinance needed to be updated to abolish Municipal Liquor Stores and allow for the off-sale of SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 6 of 9 alcoholic beverages by license. Also, an off-sale liquor license applicant fee and investigation fees needed to be established. Dawson then thanked Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn for shepherding the effort. Panchyshyn had reviewed the City's ordinance and identified ways the Code could be made significantly easier to understand. She also reviewed the Minnesota League of Cities' model ordinance, contacted the State, worked with people at the City Attorney's office, and reviewed other cities' ordinances. She also updated the ordinance to be compliant with State Statute. He then highlighted the changes to the ordinance. He related that the City Attorney thought the amended ordinance looked absolutely great, In response to a comment from Councilmember Turgeon, Administrator Dawson stated it was his understanding that liquor could be served at the Southshore Center provided it was not sold. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving ORllINANCE NO. 441, "An Ordinance Amending Title 400, Chapters 401 through 404 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Liquor" as amended in Section 401.18 Subd. 2 delete "and no person shall consume liquor in any place" Motion passed 4/1 with Lizee dissenting. - Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving ORDIN ANCF. 1y0. 442, "An Ordinance Titled `License, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fces'." Motion passed 4/1 with Lizee dissenting. Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-072, "A Resolution Approving Publication of Ordinance No. 441 and Ordinance No. 442 by Title and Summary." Motion passed 4/1 with Lizee dissenting. C. Selectio:r i3f Arc:-itcct for City Hall Project Administrator Dawson stated in August 2007 the Council decided to pursue a concept that would remodel/renovate City Hall and likely would move Council Room activities to an off-site location. As part of its decision, the Council also directed Staff to start the process to retain architectural services for the project. Three finds that responded to the City's Request for Proposals (1ZFP) were interviewed by Staff in mid-October and two were reduested for a final presentation/interview on October 29. Collaborative Design Group (CDG) and Oertel Architects presented to Mayor Lizee, Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen, Director Brown and him on that date. The City's team reached a quick consensus to recommend that Council authorize the services of Collaborative Design Group. Councilmember Turgeon stated she went to East Bethel to take a look at a city hall project CDG did. The East Bethel City Staff was pleased with CDG's work, the project came in under budget, and the facility was very mce. Councilmember Callies questioned if CDG had any comments or questions about the City's remodel/renovation project. Councilmember Turgeon stated CDG did not express any apprehension about the City's project. Turgeon said CDG appeared to have creative ideas about the ADA compliance part of the project, and CDG had a strong interior design group and they thought the focus of the project would be on the interior of the building. Turgeon went on to state CDG intended to have City Hall portray a small town image. Councilmember Wellens commented the report of CDG stated City Hall "was structurally sound and well suited to renovation". SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 7 of 9 Mayor Lizee stated during the interview process it became apparent that one of CDG's greatest strengths was creative problem solving. She then stated until the structure of the building was inspected in depth it would not be possible to know the quality of the structure. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, authorizing the services of Collaborative Design Group, Inc., for the City Hall project per its proposal of October 2007, and authorizing the execution of an agreement for services subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Motion passed 5/0. D. Proposed Policy Regarding Council's Annual Appreciation F.vent Administrator Dawson stated the proposed policy for the Council's annual appreciation event had been discussed at a work session earlier that evening. At the work session Council requested the policy be placed on the meeting agenda for adoption. Callies moved, Wellens seconded, adopting the proposed policy for the Council's annual appreciation event as part of an employee recognition probram. Motion passed 5/0. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Terminating Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project, City Project 07-O1 This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember 'burgeon's request, Engineer Landini stated at the October 22, 2007, Council mcetinc a Public Hearing was held to take public comment regarding the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane and Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project. The majority of the property o~amcrs present were in opposition to the project. He then stated a few of the adjacent property owners opposed granting the City the necessary temporary and permanent easements to construct the improvements. That opposition would have forced the City to begin condemnation proceedings. Therefore, Council directed Staff to prepare a resolution terminating the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane and Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project. Councilmember Turgeon stated she requested this item be pulled from the consent agenda so she could recusc herself from voting oat this resolution because she owned property in the proposed project area. She then stated she had forwarded a letter to Administrator Dawson for Council from one of the property owners (John Miller, 24925 Glcu Road) which requested the City form a committee comprised of property owners, members of the staff, and members of the Council to discuss other alternatives for doing the proj ect. Councilmember Callies stated she was not opposed to the property owners forming a committee of their own to explore alternatives. She then stated the reason she will vote to terminate the project was because of the unwillingness of some of the property owners to grant the necessary easements. She went on to state she was reluctant to have Staff spend more time on the project unless there was a commitment by the property owners to grant the necessary easements. She noted the City had already spent more than $60,000 on consulting engineering services on the project. Councilmember Woodruff stated during his tenure the Council there had been many discussions about the project, and in the last 60 days an emotional peak had been reached by affected parties. He then SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 8 of 9 stated if a committee were to be formed he suggested there be a 90-day cooling off period before discussions would begin. Mayor Lizee stated she appreciated Councilmember Woodruff s perspective; but, she thought it prudent that the property owners commit to granting the easements before Staff spent any more time on the project. She then stated there were other areas in the City where projects could be done and the projects would be welcomed. She thought the project should be terminated, and if the circumstances changed the project could be considered at another time. Councilmember Wellens stated he did not think Staff should spend any more time on the project unless the property owners were willing to make the necessary commitments. lfe suggested Staff focus its time on other projects. Mayor Lizee stated the Council, Staff, and property owners had learned many throbs on this project that would prove valuable in future projects. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-070, "A Resolution Terminating the Amlee Road, Glen Road and Manitou Ilaue Reconstruction Project." Councilmember Callies stated she was very sorry that the project had to be terminated, but it was not feasible to acquire the necessary easements through eminent domain. She then stated the roads would not be improved and City water would not be installed in the project area unless something was to change on the part of the property owners. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Turgcon recusing. B. Accepting Lo~~ Quote and Awarding Contract for 2007 Sanitary Sewer Main Line Televising This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruff's request. Councilmember Wooch-ul~f stated he request this item be removed from the consent agenda because there was only one firm that responded to the request for bid. The quote received was for $100,619 for the entire project. Staff recommended the project scope be reduced to $50,000 to meet the statutory quote limit. He questioned what Staffs expectation was regarding the cost of the total project. He also questioned what. the plan was to do the remainder of the project. Engineer Landini stated Staff thought the quote for the main line televising portion of the project was close to what Staff would have anticipated, and that portion of the project had to be done to determine the scope of the chemical grouting component of the project. He then clarified some chemical grouting would be done as part of the downsized project; if there was more chemical grouting required than could be done within the $50,000 project limit additional funds would have to be authorized for that effort. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-069, "A Resolution Accepting Quote and Awarding Contract for 2007 Sanitary Sewer Jet Vacuum Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Structure Inspection, Lateral Inspection and Internal Chemical Grouting Project." Motion passed 5/0. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 5, 2007 Page 9 of 9 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff Administrator Dawson stated the Southshore Center working group met on November 2, 2007. The group established committees to discuss what the vision of the Southshore Center should be for the community with the understanding it would be a community center and not just a senior center, and to discuss management structures. The next meeting of the working group was scheduled for November 27, 2007. He then stated the new financial software had been installed and the training on the use of the software had been completed. Director Brown stated with regard to the Radio Read Meter Project all lnrt eleven of the 305 meters in the east project area had been installed, and the installers had already spent 3.S weeks installing meters in the west project area. He then stated resident feedback received to date had been vcTy positive. B. Mayor & City Council Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting to an Executive Session at 8:23 P.M. 12. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Litigation regarding Ascending Praise Church B. Labor Agreement Negotiations / AFSCIIE 13. RECONVENE TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lizee reconvened the Citv Council regular meeting at 8:50 P.M. Callies moved, Woodruff sccondect, approving the labor agreement with AFSCME. Motion passed 5/0. Administrator Dawson stated the Council discussed the litigation situation with Ascending Praise Church; the discussion was regarding vrorking toward a settlement. 14. ADJOUK\T Woodruff moved, ~~'ellens seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of November 5, at 8:47 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk PAYABLES APPROVALS For 11/27/2007 Council Meeting Pre ared b : ~ ~/ Date: ~ ° ~ ~~ ,_.., Michelle T. Nguyen, Sr. Accounting Clerk Reviewed by: ~ ~ ~;~ ° ~% ~ ~~ ~~,~' Date: ~~ '~ ~ , Bonnie Burton, Finance Dire t r ~ ~` Approved by: ~ --__ ;-_ ~ _ _ _ e Date: Craig ~ E~wson, City Administrator ~? PAYROLL APPROVALS For 11/27/2007 Council Meeting ~ y ~ ~ ~~ Prepared by: ~ Date: ~~ ! ~, ~~, ~ t ~ Michelle T. Nguyen, Sr. Accounting Clerk ,-~ , ~ t Reviewed by:~ ,~ ;, ~ ~ , , ~~ `~ ~~ Date: ~~ ~~. Bonnie Burton. Finance Director Approved by: ~ ~_ _ _ ~ _ p Date: ~ g Crai Dawson, City Administrator CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE SIGNS TO SHOREWOOD VILLAGE CENTER WHEREAS, Shorewood Village Center, Inc. (Applicant) has an interest in the real property located at 23680 State Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota; legally described as: "Lot 2, Block 1, Shorewood Village Addition" WHEREAS, the Applicant has prepared a new signage plan for the shopping center located on the above-referenced property; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. II.e.(3)(c) of the Shorewood City Code, to install multiple signs on the above- referenced property; and WHEREAS, Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission and City Council, dated 2 October 2007, which memorandum is on file at City Hali; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 2 October 2007, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Ha11; and WHEREAS, Applicant's request for conditional use permit was considered by the City Council at their regular meeting on 22 October 2007, at which time the Planner's memoranda 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 The Subject Property is located in a C-1, General Commercial zoning district. 2. The City Zoning Code allows multiple signage for shopping centers subject to an overall signage plan approved as part of a conditional use permit, and not to exceed ten percent of the area of the building silhouette, as viewed from the street. 3. The shopping center and the attached grocery store are subject to one overall sign plan. The signage for the grocery store, plus the freestanding sign for the site total 862 square feet of area, leaving 787 square feet of sign area for the center. ~~ ~ 4. The Applicant proposes to divide its allowable signage up into two categories of signs as follows: a. Major tenants: 293 square feet b. In-line or interior mall tenants: 494 square feet 5. The Applicant proposes to limit the use of window signs on exterior windows of the shopping center. 6. That the Applicant, as opposed to individual tenants of the shopping center, will make any applications for temporary signs, pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 1 l.c.(4) of the Shorewood City Code, as maybe amended. Anew tenant may apply for a temporary business sign in conjunction with requests for its permanent sign. CONCLUSIONS 1. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit subject to the following: a. All signs on the property shall comply with the Applicant's application, set forth in Exhibit A, attached, and with the requirements of Shorewood' s Zoning Code, as maybe amended. b. All future sign permits for the subject property will be evaluated based upon consistency with this conditional use permit. c. The Applicant may erect "directional" entrance and exit signs and other traffic control signs as approved by the Shorewood Zoning Administrator. d. The Applicant proposes to prohibit the use of window signs on exterior windows of the shopping center, except that each "in-line" tenant may have one window sign stating the name of the business and "open closed". No such window signs shall be allowed on the common mall area windows or doors. Such window signs shall not exceed four square feet in area, which area shall be included in the tenant's allowable sign area. e. Any temporary sign permits shall be consistent with the Shorewood City Code, and will be controlled and applied for by the Applicant, as opposed to individual tenants of the shopping center. Anew tenant may apply for a temporary business sign in conjunction with its request for a permanent sign. £ If a conflict exists between this resolution and the applicant's application, this resolution shall prevail. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. -2- ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 5th day of November 2007. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -3- CITI' 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: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Public Works Director FROM: James Landini, City Engineer -~,, DATE: November 21, 2007 RE: Acceptance of Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane and Teal Circle Reconstruction Project, City Project #02-02. On July 25, 2006, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with Northwest Asphalt, Inc. to reconstruct Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane and Teal Circle. The project was completed during the 2007 construction season. WSB has verified the construction records and all the costs have been tallied. The original contract was for $1,053,041.82. The project had three change orders, listed below, which totaled $82,552.09. This amended the contract to $1,135,593.91. - Change Order No. 1 was to change the .stone pipe size to match existing conditions. A resolution was approved on Sept. 25, 2006. - Change Order No. 2 was to directional drill the water main versus open trench construction. A resolution was approved on Oct. 9, 2006. - Change Order No.3 was to modify a sanitary service and authorize 1.5" clear rock to stabilize the roadbed. A resolution was approved on Dec. 11, 2006. Poor soils were also encountered on the project. This, combined with poor weather conditions was cause for additional excavation, structural fill, geotextile fabric, silt fence, topsoil and sod to be used. These natural conditions increased project costs by $196,287.36. Acceptance of the Construction Project and Authorize Final Payment. This portion accepts the final project and authorizes final payment to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. The final project cost is $1,331,881.27. ,! ~~ ®r~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mayor and City Council Accept Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane and Teal Circle Reconstruction Project November 21, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the resolution that accepts the final project and authorizes final payment for the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane and Teal Circle Reconstruction Project. A resolution is attached for your consideration. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FINAL IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE WEDGEWOOD DRIVE, MALLARD LANE AND TEAL CIRCLE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT; CITY PROJECT #02-02 WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract for construction with Northwest Asphalt, Inc. for the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane and Teal Circle Reconstruction Project, City Project #02-02; and, WHEREAS, the Contractor has petitioned for final acceptance of the project and final payment based on work performed to date; and, WHEREAS, the Project Manager 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 the two-year guarantee shall commence as of June 27, 2007: ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 26nd day of November, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk W ~ v .J ~ ~--, W ~ ~--~ W ~ ~, b 0 X19 ~ O ~ W ~ N ~ ~ ~ c~ • c~ ~ w ~ ~ c~ co ~o • ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ V1 _~ O ~~ O~ N 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ 0 J w ~ ~ .[, W ~ ~ 0 0 N tp 0 0 0 0 N J N X31 W Cy0 ao J .p N c~ IN O O c0 N 0 0 b~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 0 J 0 ~~ ^,~~-~ / ~---- ,., ~~ ~~- N 0 0 o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ °o ~ C'~ ~. ~ ~ o ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. v~~~ ~ O ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ 0 e a ~, , ' ~ ..,....,..,1 d i .~ ~ V1 'd 0 ~~ L~ ~ .~'' ~ N „~ O ~w ~~ v C~ C~ a~ ~~b ~~~ ~ ~~~o.~ i ~~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ .~ ~O j p ~ ~ O ~ U ~ ~ O ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ U ~ ~O ~ 44~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bA ~ N ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ti ,~ ~ '~ ~ 'b o ~ ~ ~ ~ 'd ~ 'ion ~ ~ ~ O ~ v ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U x ~ c O N~ vUi ~ ~ N U b~ ,~ ~ .,-~ .~ ~ O ~ r, ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ o~ ~, o ~ ~ o o.o rro ~ ~ ~ a~b ~ ~ o ~ ~o o°~, o~~+ • ® ® • • • • O i•~ ~ ~ U CCj p O ~ ~-r CCS ~ N ~+ ~ .~ O ~ O•~ ~~~~•U ~ U O O N~ ~ may.. ' ~ ~, by '~ bA -~~, • cad O ~ U C~ ~ ~ ~~~--++' 00 ~ j O ' ~rJ y~ ~' {{1"~~~ O O v~ ~n .,.. U ~ O ti ~ v1 cct ~ y ti v~ 'C .-~ ® ® ® ® U ~ ~ ~ O ~ v~'i ~ O ~ ~ U O O O ~ N U O O ~ rn ..., ~ ~ V ~,' ,fl O tom" f-+ ~+-~ , ~ .U., ~ ~ ~ .}'. ~ ~ cC3 ~ U U ~ ®~ as p c, ~ p O U ..~ ~, ~ ~? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ v v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-. at O N N ~ v~ y ~ U ~ "G ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ''a bA ~ • ~ ~ .~ ~ cu ~ ~ 4® ~ . ~ ~ o ~ U ~ ~ '-+ cis _ ~ N ~ ~ N ya ~ ~ ~ as ~ v c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ s ~ ~ cd '~ Q ~ ~ .~ ~ U O O N ~ ~ ~ cu ® cn .~ ~ O ~ U ~-, ~ j U U ~ ~ U ~ bA bA ~ ~ ~ O "d ~,~ "cy ,p O ~ U ~ U ,~ ~ ~ U ~ «3 ~°' aka ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ c~ , ~ ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ~ 'o d a> O O .~ O p.. H a~ U N-i Q U Q .~ a p~ w 0 ci-, O a +~ .~ ~, ~', -cs .N .~ iw bA IW r 0 0 w _.:.. !~ d an ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~~ ~aa o .~ '.°G ~ ° c 'v °' yea ® av ~~~~ •~'a~~ v'~~O~~i ~~ 5 v~~~~ ~°o ~ ~ o ~ ~ '~ ~ a ,~ "~ ~ •~ b,o Una .~? .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ as c~ •.. ~ ~ „~ ~ ~ ~ ~° '~, '"" v, e~ ~ v o v E ~ Za °~ '~ O Oo ~ O R,t M t°~ N ,~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ °~~. ~ ~ ca N U ~" U U ~" •~ .~ U U .Ci r~i ~ ~ ~ U .~ U ~ W v U o UU~ v:~~,~U,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ U ° ~ ~ O U cd ~, ,.~ a ~ ~ ~+ ® ®U ~ ~ .p 4) ~ ~ y cd cd cd ~ ~ ,~ ®a s~ "'d O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ga . ~ N ~ ~ ~ ®~ ~ ens ®•®3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ o 0 o~U ~ o.~ ®~=~ ~''aa =~ ~W ~ o ~., ..~ as ®'vz zn ~ ~ ea ° ca +.~ ~ ~ .,..~ as cr3 3 ~ ~ ~ as ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ `i' teas ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~: ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~-. ~ P~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ • ~ "~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ® ® ~iC ?C • c~ • ~ fl> t~ ® .., .-, ,-i ,-a o ® ~ ~ .~i r-+ ~, a-S ~-S +.+ .a.i ++ • y'~,a O 0 0 N t)19T~i P~iR~70` 1~ t)11 t)`T~i `~r~S~ST~ I;1~Qi 1~ PLUS FRESH MEAT PRODUCT, PRODUCE, BREAD, HYGIENE PRODUCTS, BASIC NONFOOD ITEMS, SUCH AS PAPER PRODUCTS AND DETERGENT, AND SEVERAL ITEMS OF THEIR CHOICE. `~1~,~t) P~il~-70`T7 I~VlI t)~T~~ ~,l~i~il\• ~~L~ti I; PLUS BAG A, FRESH MEAT PRODUCT, PRODUCE, BREAD, HYGIENE PRODUCTS, BASIC NONFOOD ITEMS, SUCK AS PAPER PRODUCTS AND DETERGENT, AND SEVERAL ITEMS OF THEIR CHOICE. `l~IIli.l:l: 1'l:li.St)\TS 1~01~ O~TI~ N'l:l;i~. ;1~ti ~. PLUS BAG A, AND BAG B, FRESH MEAT PRODUCT, PRODUCE, BREAD, HYGIENE PRODUCTS, BASIC NONFOOD ITEMS, SUCH AS PAPER PRODUCTS AND DETERGENT, AND SEVERAL ITEMS OF THEIR CHOICE. ~ .............................................................................o Enclosed is my tax deductible donation for ICA. A Bag _$25 A & B Bags _$50 A & B & C Bags _$75 _$100 Name Address City, state, zip Please charge my VISA or MasterCard Charge card nurrzber Signature Other Please make checks payable to ICA Send to: Intercongregation Comntuzzities Association . 12990 St. David's Road Minnetonka, MN 55305 Expiration Date (a signature necessary for credit card charge) 'p 'T1 - (O O ~ ~ ~ ~ Z n ~ ~- ~ ~~.. ~ CD to ~ ~' • fD " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ w ~? ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ m V rf ~ O ~ ~ 0 l ~Nn~ n o n CD cfl o ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' 0-q , o ~ "~~~ ~~ ^~.~ ~ W ~ ~ ~~ FY1 ~ z ~ O ~ ;~. a. cno C~ ~~ p - N' ~ ~ ~,, N G ~ C C .~ n ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ _ Z ~ d C ~ ~ ~? -+, ~ O O O ~' ~ ~ t/Y ~ ~ ~ -+~ ~ v (~ • O o ~. C't c~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ r.,. ~~ n t~ -~, z CD i ~ c~~~ J ~ e z ~ o N ~ p ~ ~ ~- 'II ~ \ V q U O ~ s C/) sst cn C-3 ~ O n ~ ~ ~ ~ m . ,~ ~ ~~ G ~ ~ €~ f T rn --- ® . -~ T ® . ~~ ~~ , ; ~ " ~ ~ r ,., F~ ` { ~~ A ~ ~ j 6 s;. ~ r ?. T~ / ~ ~ L ~ ` ~4 h -S' t ~ ~ y ~ ,~ L ti ~ ~~ ~ o ''ci - ~E~>~' ~~ cn '~ ~'' k 4.; .. ~:. _ ~ . .. tr .~ ~~~ 1a ,E ~~•~#{; ~~ ~: ~, .__,~ ~r,~ ~~. ~~ ~~ ~° ~`.. ~u ~~ xY R~{F~! ~.~5y J Ss ~' ~~~~, uW,~ ,, ~~ ~ ' .i~ ' ~~ m i ~ ~~ = `. ,~" z t S17 ~.p 7°• t ~'o trq ' _ ~,e~, ~' ,~' ~ ~~ ;;,. ~ ~f ~ C ~i •-' ~ ~ - 5 .,~ ~ ~ 4 ~ F: E ~~ u ^ ~ ~~ y~~t~ ~ y. ~ l x f ; ~ , z ms ~ % ~ . e -.- ~ 0 ~~s INTERCONGREGATION COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION ICA Center at St. Davad 12990 St. David Road, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone: (952) 938-0729 Fax: (952) 938-7822 EmaiL• ica@icafoodshelf.org www.icafoodshelf.org October, 2007 Dear Friends, tCA's mission, to assist our neighbors in meeting their emergency needs, is more challenging now than ever in our history. To address this need, ICA is planning a "Housing & More" fundraiser this November. Why "Housing ~ More"? • Emergency food distribution in July, 2007 was 44,000 pounds. Compare this to July, 2006 which was 31,436 pounds. • Emergency financial assists from January through August 2007 totaled $128,588. Compare this to January through August 2006 which totaled $55,214 • The number of households rece-wing financial assistance January through August, 2007 was 230. Compare this to January through August 2006, when we. served 94. This is why HCPFP-ICA (Housing Grisis Prevention Funding Program-ICA) is now "Housing & More". ICA needs funds to meet the demand for all our emergency assistance programs and our general fund. Our goal is $150,000 & More. This will be our seventh annual event, with kick-off on November 12 at The Old Log Theatre in Excelsior. Chili & More will be served starting at 5:15 PM. Enjoy John Trygstad, The Piano Man, on the keyboard during Chili & More. The Whitesidewalls Rock `n' Roll Revue will perform at 7:45 PM. Then on November 30t", from 6 to 10 PM, there will be a Fine Arts Reception at Your Art's Desire, 12928 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka. Everybody needs a home, food, basic needs such as prescriptions and utilities, and transportation. We need you to partner with ICA in meeting these increased emergency needs. Thank you for your support and your generosity and for "Making a Difference"! Annette M. Poeschel, ICA Executive Director See reverse side for information on two exciting events to raise funds for "ICA-Housing ~ More"~ ,. ,, ~„ -;; . O L ~ C ~ N N a. 0 152 ~ p ,:. ~ , N . ~ ~ Q _ N , , t~ 3 . og>o ': ~ ' ~,: h p a7 W ~ _ 'O N to ~ i ~ ~ -N • N to ~ Q i., d N -i' U1' t4~ ~ , ~.. '.: s Q~- ~ .4.r L ~ ~ ~ t _ ' ~ ~ ~' ~ 3 L, o ~ p ,.L 'a "~ O ~~ ~ ~~ ~ p'~~ .r ~. ~ N Q~~~ N ~ ~ ,...N . s _ ~ ~.! ~: o - - ~ ° 3 ' ° _ ~ ~ C N .~ ~ C ~ W ~ O ~'" ' `' O c ~ p Y ' ~ a~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ m~ c n O M'Q -p N ~ ' N vi a C6, ~ _ O ;~, ~~ p ~ .~ ~ ,L ~ p , , , r ~ ~ o ~ 'd' ~ ~ N N ++ M <4 N 'O p ~ ~ ' ~ ~ , d ~ O ' t= _ p y=+ ``~ O ~ V O ~ ~' N_ ~ N _ p N O RS 'a i ., a~ o r' ~4 cQ ~~' ~` ~.o~ O y- 'a~.Q~ m-~: , t~ ~ ~ ~ :c o ~'~ ' c a~ ~ ~ .~, ` o ~ c ® V ~ a> ~ r- y,.. , tC 41 tC L ~ (A w- tC p ~ tC i N .. ~. , C.> t1L ++ ~+ C ~ Z o O ++ ~ ,:~ -~ 'C ~ U tC O 'C Q 'a .O O p p *-' O Ijp ~ ,~,,0 ~ 0 O O .' ~ ~ 'tn ~ U y ~ . N .Q ~ ~ ~ ,SL _ ~~ ~ av-.'~' i ~ i ,r ~ ~ ~,U ~~ ~ p p ~O N tC.~ 3" ' O - t~ tC o ~~, ~ ~ ~ " o _, o N Q ~ ' d ~pG o fl. O ~ I i° ' > c C7 , v- ~ +~ { - ~' O ~' ~ p ~ t .. C s U ~ ~s N tG ; ~ ~ '~' ~' p - _ ~ p p ® ' O ~ p ; ~ - 0 Q. O . N O ~ _ ~ Q `~ ~ '- - to 0 . 3~~~ ~ ~ ® ~ c~L~ ~N N p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ®Cd? ~ ® S: ~ p *+ ~ •-' O p ' O ~ L O 01~ O ~ 4- ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ N ~ O ~-- 'o GO r' °O .V 1 ~ ~~ d 3 m •~ 3 ~~°~`~3 ~ ~ •U Q of ~ N V s ~ ~ ~ 4a~w3 Q W H V z Q c~ W ~ DC O ~ ~'.' ,.• In ~ v W°~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ o H ~ •" Z g +- ~ ~ ,~ L d d ~ l+~L = ~1' ~ ~ O ~ V +- V V. • ° ~ H ~ O~ o V ~ ~ o Z L ~ L .~ . ,~ d ~ ~ H ~ q cn >d L vo- vi Wis.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d o ~ ~ ~ ' Q d _ ~ cn ~ , _L O +~- . _~ = s U j cri p tn d ~ >~ N O N N ~ 3 a d ~ O ~ .~ d O L d~ L ~~ ~ O 4- L ~ d "t1 ° ~'~ L N L L ~ 'p 'fl U S >• d d N X~ o ~ rn~ o ~ n i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~v> o 0 0~ vi o ~ +- } L d. U L +' L Ql d d U d '~ tl) = LC') d ~ O d o> cn o -~- d d~ L d= to L -Y O d ~ ~- ~ > ;~ ~ ~ ~ o ! O ~ ~ ' ~ d ~ d -ty ~ L ~ O d d ~ :+- ~ ~ = c3 o ' c ~ , ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ : S p ~ D .~ d U d W~ N d d o u V' o~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ o~ L 0 ~ -c V ~ N ~ L ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ L tit , ~,,., yO-. ~ d m d ~ ~ ~ L ~ a- j~--'~ ~ .o ~ ~ vi o+o- ~-a'~ ~ o N ~ ~ o 'o ~ ~ ~~ o cY ~ o a ~ ~ `- -i- ~ ~ '{" ~ to ~.>, i- L- • Vl ~ ~ ' ~ O U d a1 3 ~ Q~ p) d In ~ ,~ Q .V1 L ~ , Vy ~7 ~ C1 d ~- V_1 ' d ~ `i V 'p -Y n } . O _ ~O i' N ' ~ ~ N ~ L N ~ V~ to N p to ~ d O ~ S ~ - to N -~ to Q' Q N O " T o 0 0 ' y ~ L d ~ II- a~ d d tf~ Q ~ L ~ C ~ ~ ~ Y •~ b d ~ ~. ~ E'` ~ 4C H ~ ~ +- O _p O d ~ ~ -~ ~ v ~- ~ c ~o°i • O a > tl. ~ L ~ O c~°~ ° o vo i3 N .~ 'p v- ~ N O ~ u N d ~ ~ .fl ~ {-- A ~ 4 ~3N: +- U '~ I"- L ~ Vt H Z O .~-~ is o +' ~ '^-o~~N~N ~ N - •- DC O p U - d O n p Q O ° S y ~' . .~ j } G'1 U °' {'S L v NV ~ ° o00 ~ } ~ Q1 vt ~ 0 N GL d ~ .} .. ~ ors ~ ~~ ~ ~~}rn ~ O ® ® .~_ L V1 }~ O J p o D L g U ~ f' VI ~ A ® ~' i- O O ~ O CS LS d ~ Z O ~ w u9 ~~V~ DC Q v~QZp w Z ~, w Z ~" N iii°>~ OAF-Q~~ ZO~i~- ~aZ_..-Q--~ ~ ~~w°W~QQ~°L~o fi W°°q~~°w~~~Q vOOF-HW~F-mZ~ w00¢aCaOH~00 DL LL IL°°Ef3=lnn.VT vi O -F=- a z~ +- 4-- 0 V ' > .N 't7 ~• ~, "t3 G7 -F- V L '> O ._ ~- U ~ s ~ ~ c~ p V E--a INTERCONGREGATION COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION, INC. ICA Center at St. David 12990 St. David Road, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone: (952) 938-0729 FAX: (952) 938-7822 Email: ica@icafoodshelf.org wti4~cv.icafoodshelf.org Annette Marie Poeschel, Executive Director Volunteer Information (Please Print) NAME ADDRESS City Zip. If Studerit: School I would Like to volunteer for: ^ Driving Clients (see other side) ^ Fundraising/Special Events ^ Data Entry/Clerical ^ Family/Youth Group Projects ^ Food Room ^ Internship ^ Food Order Delivery ^ Mailings ^ Grocery Pickup ^ Outreach ® Holiday Program ^ Site Maintenance ^ Public Relations/Public Speaking ^ Community Service ^ Reception Desk ^ Other What skills would you like to use at ICA? Day Preferences ^ MONDAY ^ TUESDAY ^ WEDNESDAY ^ THURSDAY ^ FRIDAY Time Preference ^ 9AM-12:30 PM ^ 12:30 PM-4 PM Is this for required Community Service? ^ Yes ^ No If yes, how many hours? IJo you wish to use documented volunteer activity with ICA as part of a resume for employment or other pus-pose? ^ Yes ^ No EMERGENCY CONTACT DATE HOME PHONE CELL PHONE: (optional? email Grade PHONE NOTE. Please complete the reverse side if you are driving, in any capacit)~, ,for ICA. y'f a~~ ~~ ~. ~ 4 ,~ ... z w °-L - .,,. ~ _ ~ ._~ L ,~,-_ -~~r. _ .,,.rte ~~~~~ ~.~$ ~~.,,, ~~. ~ sti `s' i:~ ~ . , ---~ -z. } a t~~ ~,~.,4.~.~ - ~-. 3 f __ ~ z ?T ~ ~ x lu~•. ,g~ ~ ~, ~~ Bring your family for a special evening at Nlaynards Restaurant o n Lake Minnetonka Monday, December 3rd Any #ime between 5pm and 1 am ^ Enjoy carols sung by Madrigal Singers ^ Share a wonderful meal with family and friends ^ 100% of the proceeds go to the ICA Food Shelf Make your reservation #oday by calling: (952) 47®-1 ~0® 'Thank you and happy holidays frorri The ICA Food Shelf Maynards Restaurant • 685 Excelsior Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55~~1 sf t Ya~~~ '7'„ ~ ~ ~~ t kf?f s :at ~ - ~v~- ~ ~ ,gc~~~`b - ~.' I'~~. ` ~ ~ ~ ~z !~ y., ~~ ~~~ ..~ ~ .. ~y3~~ ~t .~ .' ~.- ''tirr~r~ 1-'d: c ~ ~';t:.. .~ - r~~r vx~4 w.e_ ..e....-. ~~, a ,~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~„r„o,~yr ~~ ~ ,, _ f d ~ ~ •' ~y ~, * ~ B, ,+ ~ i."~'i- _ r. v _ t_ y ~ ~~~ ~. ~ .R ,~$ ';~ ~ x f ~~ o ~~~ ~~'' 1 w('~ ~+) ~1. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. Chair Davis convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Davis; Comnssioners Young, Norman, Quinlan, a~1d Gate arrival Hensley; Public Works Director Brown; and City Council liaison Turgcoil Absent: Commissioners Trent and Alegi - B. Review Agenda Norman moved, Young seconded, approving the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission MeetingMinutesof October 9, 2007 Norman moved, Quinlan scconded,approving the Minutes of the October 9, 2007, Park Commission Meeting as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. REPORTS A. Report ou City Council Meeting Brown reported that the City Council ~roted to terminate the Amlee and Manitou Roads road project at this time, Tom Skramstad of the LMCD gave an update on activities, and an architect for the City Hall renovation was chosen. During their work session, Brown stated that the City Council reviewed the general budget and approved a policy regarding appreciation events. Commissioner Hensley an~ived at 7:04 p.m. B. Report on Arctic Fever Meeting Chair Davis announced that the American Legion had pledged $1100 to sponsor the horse drawn carriages rides at Arctic Fever and would consider sponsoring the event in `perpetuity'. She noted that both the Park Foundation and Tonka Bay had pledged $500 for the event as well. Brown added that none of those contacted via mail to sponsor the event had contacted Twila Grout with interest to date. ~'7r PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 5 Norman mentioned that the next meeting would be held on November 20t~' and that this would also be the deadline for much of the collateral pieces. Chair Davis stated that they have approached the DNR with the Three Rivers Park District to consider sponsoring the fishing contest. Some of the other potential events include human bowling, mounted patrol, and Nordic walking demos. C. Update on Music in the Park Chair Davis acknowledged that Big Walter had been booked for July 11, 2008. D. Report on Skate Park Camp of October 18 and 19 Brown stated that he was impressed by the feedback they' d received with regard to the skate camps and that the target audience for whom the equipment was intended for were those who participated in the camps. Norman suggested the City shore up their summer programs. for next year soon and use 3'~d Lair's own PR and marketing to promote the ca~i~ps over the winter. 4. PARK DEDICATION FEES - (Pla»nilig Director Brad Nielsen) Planning Director Nielsen. explained the current system used to assess park dedication fees, set currently at $2000 per residential lot since 2002. After reviewing the current statutes, staff formulated a recommendation to see what other cities were charging relative to their park dedication and found that, while the fees were somewhat all over the board, fees ranged from $1000 to as much as $25,000 pel- lot inMinnetrista. While Shorewood is approximately 95% de~~eloped, Nielsen acknowledged that it's park system still has ~ZCeds, as evidenced. by the projects~that have been discussed by the Commission over the last ~seviceal years. The cost of said projects such as hockey rink lighting and new tennis courts, as well as the wetland restoration project at Freeman, will outstrip the amount of money budgeted from the general fund for years to come. Nielsen stated that it is z~oLrcasonable to assume the relatively few lots that will be created over the next several years should pay for all of the desired park improvements, it is suggested however that the Park~Commission recommend something in the range of $4000 - $6000 as the updated park dedication fee. While this appears to be a relatively drastic increase form the current fee, Nielsen stated that it only represents 2-3% of a $200,000 lot and is well under the mid range of what other cities are charging. He requested the Commission's input on the suggested recommendation. Young acknowledged that some of the Commission's biggest long-term projects could probably use these additional funds in the coming years. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 Norman asked how the park dedication fees applied to commercial subdivisions. Nielsen stated that the change would apply to commercial development as well, and explained that there is a sliding conversion scale applied to commercial subdivision. Hensley asked for more information with regard to the $4000-6000 range. Nielsen pointed out that the range was chosen because it must be defensible with regard to what is fair and equitable within this and other communities. Hensley moved, Young seconded, that the Park Commission recommend approval of an increase in the Park Dedication fees from $2000 to $4000 per residential lot subdivision. Both Chair Davis and Norman felt justified that the amount be set a bit highea~. Chair Davis stated that she felt Shorewood had a significant percentage of park la~idin comparison to developed area when compared to other cities and would be justified in a higher fee structure. She asked if staff could determine a ratio of park land to developed land as compared to other communities. Nielsen acknowledged that Shorewood did haven good ratio of parks to residents and indicated it might be interesting to draw that comparison as part of the justif cation process when compared to neighboring communities. Turgeon interjected that Shorewood has 96 park acres. Norman suggested the Co~i~missiort shoot Higher inorder to offset the higher costs of replacement and the issues faced by the harks.. Nielsen pointed out that it is the City'schoice to choose up to 8% of land mass for parks or to take cash in lieu of land. Ifonc compared the average cost of land in Shorewood, the range is justifiable, ~~~hen a developer considers giving up as much as 1-2 acres of land versus a park dedication fee. Turgeon indicated that the Planning Commission had also been charged with the task of examining the potential impacts of future redevelopment of the golf course land in Shorewood. Norman asked to amend the motion to $5000. The Commission concurred. Hensley amended his motion to reflect a Park Dedication fee of $5,000 per subdivided lot. Norman seconded the amended motion. Motion passed 5/0. Nielsen mentioned that the public hearing would likely take place in January. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 5 Brown added that, due to levy limits in recent years, additional constraints have been put on cities, which has led to infrastructure issues. 5. REVIEW AND DETERMINE SUMMER DATES FOR 3RD LAIR SKATE BOARDING CAMP Chair Davis maintained that, in order to determine dates for the 3'~a Lair summer camps, the Commission should first look at its overall event calendar for the summer. She felt it was premature to discuss this item until all of the variables were considered. Brown stated that he would come back with a potential summercalendar at the next meeting. 6. DETERMINE LIAISON FOR NOVEMBER 26 CITY COUNCIL: MEETING Norman volunteered as the November 26 City Council liaison. NEW BUSINESS Brown reported that 12-15 people attended the Gideon Glen dedication, many of which were staff and watershed folks. He stated that more improvements were slated and that the watershed would be working with the neighbors to make the improvements. Chair Davis asked whether staff load set up a mectinb or spoken to Chanhassen about Cathcart Park. Brown stated that staff had intended to visit with Chanhassen at the Dog Park dedication but the Chanhassen representatives ~~~crc not in attendance at the opening Shorewood was at. As a recap, the Commission pledged 55000 from their CIP~the Foundation pledged a matching donation, while the City of Chanhassen sponsored the park with a $25,000 - 30,000 pledge. He pointed out that Carver parks not only_pledged~noney (•or the dog park but also the labor and ongoing maintenance of it. He praised Carver parks for stepping up and filling this high demand niche for the western suburban area. Turgeon indicated that this would be her last meeting as liaison and pointed out that she had noticed an attendance issue over the past many months on the Commission. She stated that the Council would leave it up to the Commission if it felt it could function with a team of 4-5 as opposed to the 6-7 it was set up as. She suggested the Commission discuss the subject and even consider instituting an unexcused policy of how many unexcused absences a Commissioner is allotted as a courtesy to the rest of the Commission. On a final note, Brown mentioned that the drain the installation at Badger Park had begun thanks to mild weather conditions. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 5 7. ADJOURN Norman moved, Quinlan seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of November 13, 2007, at 9:06 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recorder crrr 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: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 26 September 2007 RE: Shorewood Yacht Club - L-R Zoning Text Amendment and Amendment to Current C.U.P. FILE NO.: 405 (07.15) BACKGROUND Mike Mahoney, representing the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC), 600 West Lake Street (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached), has applied for an amendment to the text of the L-R, Lakeshore Recreational zoning district and an amendment to the conditional use permit that currently governs the activities on the property. The Club's intent is to have current regulations changed, relaxing the restrictions that limit the storage and water-harboring of boats to sailboats only (see Applicant's Request Letter, dated 24 July 2007 -Exhibit B, attached). As noted in their letter, the Club asks to have up to 50 percent of their currently allowed 117 slips available for power boats. There is a substantial amount of background material relative to the subject property. Since many members of the current Planning Commission and City Council were not involved with the original zoning and conditional use permit for the property, we have provided the following materials (copied in yellow): • Attachment I: Planning Staff Report, dated 27 September 2000 • Attachment II: Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated 3 October 2000 • Attachment III: Resolution No. 00-111 .f s®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • Memorandum Re: SYC Zoning Text and C.U.P. Amendment 26 September 2007 • Attachment IV: LMCD Quiet Waters Policy Statement The applicant cites a survey commissioned by the Yacht Club that documents the decline of the sailing market. He has asked the leader of the survey study group to elaborate on the findings of the survey at the public hearing on 2 October. The L-R zoning district is set forth in Section 1201.24 of the Shorewood Zoning Code. While Commission and Council members are urged to review the entire section, Exhibit C contains the provision that would need to be changed in order to accommodate the applicant's request. This. change would be a zoning text amendment. The conditional use permit governing the property is found in Attachment III. The applicant's request would involve changing several provisions of that document, most notably item l.c. (Conclusions) found on page 3. PLANNING ISSUES Representatives of the Yacht Club have made it known for several months that operating strictly as a sailing facility was not working out financially. In order to sustain the facility, they find it necessary to expand their market to some percentage of power boat slip rental. They have asked that fifty percent of the allowable 117 slips on the property be allowed to be used for power boats. They make a case that there is a substantial market within Shorewood itself for people that desire access to the lake. In its proposal, SYC offers to establish priorities, first for sailboats and then for Shorewood residents, before offering slips to the general public. In addition, they propose to offer Shorewood residents a 15 percent discount on slip rentals. Given the history of the property, there will undoubtedly be numerous questions relative to the proposed changes. This report attempts to anticipate, from a planning perspective, as many of those questions as possible, and where possible provide potential solutions. Current Property Status. In reviewing the files for the subject property, there is one item that was not completed from the original approval. The property currently consists of three separate parcels. The legal combination of these parcels should be a relatively simple house-keeping measure. Preferential Treatment for Shorewood Residents. The L-R district already contains a provision stating that the applicant will attempt to rent slips first to Shorewood residents first, before opening it up to the general public. This is a difficult type of provision to monitor and enforce. The same is true of the discount proposed by the applicant. Ordinarily the City would not incorporate such provisions in a conditional use permit. The City Attorney advises, however, that since it has been offered by the property owner, including it as a condition of approval would not pose a problem. -2- Memorandum Re: SYC Zoning Text and C.U.P. Amendment 26 September 2007 Number of Power Boats. Presumably, the applicant has calculated what the Club requires to sustain itself. Fifty-eight power boats, however, maybe excessive. If the City is to consider the addition of power boats to the subject facility, it is recommended that the character of the property as a sailing facility be maintained. In this regard, something closer to 25 percent power boats would be appropriate. At most, power boats could be limited to the fourth pier (35 slips). Whatever the number, the property should remain predominantly a sailing yacht club. Size of Boats. The applicant should indicate if there is any intent to limit the size of boats docked at the property. The basis for this concern is the wake created by some of the very large boats that use Lake Minnetonka. Wave action and shoreline erosion has been a recurring concern with respect to power boats in this relatively shallow part of Gideon's Bay. It is possible that the current dock configuration already limits the size of boats. The applicant should address this concern. Quiet Waters. With respect to wake and potential shoreline erosion, it seems reasonable that restrictions might be imposed limiting the speed of all boats entering and exiting the facility. According to Greg Nybeck, the Director of the LMCD, a quiet waters designation exists 150 feet out from all shorelines and from structures such as docks (see Exhibit D). It is also possible for the City to request an expansion of the quiet waters designation from the LMCD. A relatively easily defined and logical area is described by drawing a line from the shoreline north of the Timber Lane cul-de-sac to Duck Island to Frog Island to the peninsula at Lafayette Avenue. The City would have to petition the LMCD Board for an amendment to its code, designating the area in question. The LMCD would amend its code, based on its criteria found in Attachment IV. It should be noted that this is atime-consuming process. Ultimately, assuming the LMCD would approve the amendment, the Hennepin County Water Patrol would enforce the speed restrictions, as they do elsewhere on the lake. Neighborhood Concerns. Correspondence from residents regarding the nature of power boaters versus sailors (e.g. hours, noise, etc.) may already be addressed within the provisions of the current C.U.P. (Attachment III). For example, hours of operation are set forth and dock quiet hours are established between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Residents are advised to call the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department relative to violations of those rules. A TRIAL SOLUTION If the City is willing to consider amending the Zoning Code and the SYC conditional use permit, but has reservations over some of the issues raised herein and by residents, there is a way to approve something on a trial basis. Section 1201.04 Subd. 4. of the Zoning Code provides for an "interim conditional use permit". This zoning tool allows the City -3- Memorandum Re: SYC Zoning Text and C.U.P. Amendment 26 September 2007 to approve a land use, or in this case a modification of use, for a specified period of time. For example, the City could approve some level of power boat use for a period of three years, during which time activity and complaints could be monitored, pending a more permanent resolution.. This requires little or no investment by the property owner and lets the City determine whether the change is acceptable or not, or whether additional controls might be in order. If the Planning Commission feels that the interim conditional use permit approach has merit, staff should be directed to draft such a permit, based on parameters set forth by the Commission. DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Amendments to the Zoning Code and conditional use permits are subject to the provisions set forth in Section 1201.04 Subd. l .d. of the Zoning Code. These criteria should guide City officials in determining the acceptability of the proposed changes.. With respect to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, the Commission and Council are encouraged to review the policies found in the Land Use Chapter of the Plan. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Mike Mahoney -4- ~~ ~ '~ '~s ' ~~ ~. ~ i ~-_ J O- Q ~ J LL Y V ////_ / \~~ /~ `! i i ~ \~ ~~ ~~~ ~~,~ '~ \~/ \~ <\ // ~ \J/ ~, , . \ t i ~~ ;i/~ ~~~/ ~ ~I ~_ Q. ~~ cn a N °oLL o' z ~ o 0 N O \` I U W k J ~~ 3 0 N 5 ? s aaivm ~.. _'~\ ~~ a r '~I d~~N 1 oR Exhibit A SITE LOCATION orewoo act lub -Zoning text and C.U.P. amendment ~~ '~ ~L_ July 24, 2007 City of Shorewood Shorewood City Council Shorewood Planning Commission Dear City of Shorewood, We are making formal application for an amendment to the conditional use permit which we operate under, and a zoning text amendment to the L-R district. The change we are seeking is to allow us to moor not more than 50% powerboats in our marina. We are seeking this change as the demand for sailboat slips has diminished to the point where we have currently leased 52 of our 117 slips (up 2 from last season). It is also our feeling that many Shorewood residents would benefit from the change as it would give them much needed access to the lake. The Lake Minnetonka conservation District (LMCD) states in their 2004 Shoreline boat count that there has been a 61% decrease in sailboats on Lake Minnetonka. A recent article in the Star and Tribune (8/04/07) states that at the same time Minnesota saw a 30% increase in boating, sailing decreased statewide by 38%. Although the Minnesota DNR's Boating Trends on Lake Minnetonka 1984-2004 does not specifically mention sailboats, its reports on other Minnesota regions all show a decrease in sailing activity. The City of Excelsior voted at their 7/23/07 council meeting to allow powerboats to moor at the buoys in front of the Commons Park as they have been unable to fill them with sailboats for several years. Sailors World Marina is the only other commercial marina on Minnetonka that caters to sailboats and currently has a total of only 18 sailboats. The Pi Sigma Epsilon Fraternity from the U of M Carlson School of Management conducted a survey this summer of Shorewood residents as a marketing project. Nearly 400 households responded by mail. Of the Shorewood residents who responded; 85%+ stated that they have no direct access to the lake, about '/2 the respondents said they owned a boat, the majority of the boat owners have power boats with only a handful owning sailboats. On a 7-point scale, the respondents averaged 4 when asked if they would use a marina that offered priority to Shorewood residents. The average went to 5 out of 7 when asked if they would rise a marina that gave Shorewood residents a discount. The DNR's Boating Trends on Lake Minnetonka -1984 to 2004 states that 72% of the boats in commercial marinas come from LMCD communities showing it truly is the local community that benefits from their services. The report also cites the lack of lake access on the east side and especially in the "Excelsior area". Shorewood does not currently provide any public access to Lake Minnetonka, and it's only other commercial marina, Howard's Point, has a limited number of slips and is on the other side of the lake. The Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force's 1994 report recommends Timber Lane on Gideon's bay as one of 7 sites around the lake for potential lake access points. The report also addresses "Equitable Distribution" of public access, stating "each city is encouraged to contribute to the overall goal." Exhibit B APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER I a ed~~'' 1201.24 L-R, LAKESHORE RECREATIONAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. This District is intended to recognize the desirability for areas to serve the Lakeshore recreational needs of the city which of their very nature are by geographic necessity located in proximity and adjacent to residential areas of this community. Lake Minnetonka is the largest single park and recreational facility available for use by the citizens of this city and the providing of an opportunity for access to that facility is, in the opinion of the city, an adjunct of zoning by the city. Recognizing the primary residential nature of Shorewood, it behooves the city to subject the possible areas available for access to the lake to close scrutiny and limitation so as to insure that use of the land does not unduly infringe upon property rights and. public health, safety and welfare of others residing on nearby residential sites. The Shorewood Yacht Club is the only property in the City currently in the L-R district, and as only 2 Shorewood residents have boats in the marina the purpose of this zoning district to give Shorewood residents access to the Lake is clearly not being met. It is our firm belief that commercial marinas are very important to the public's access to Lake Minnetonka. As the marinas continue to fall to housing development, the lake becomes a playground for only those few who can afford to live on the lake. Shorewood Yacht Club provides a very important role on Lake Minnetonka, housing the majority of the lakes cruising sailboats and a venue for sailors who do not wish to participate in the race culture of the Wayzata and Minnetonka Yacht Clubs. Shorewood Yacht Club also provides service, storage and boat handling many sailboats who moor at private residences and those at the Deephaven and other municipal buoys. With no other marina providing the services we provide, most of the sailboats in our care would be forced to leave the lake if not for the Shorewood Yacht Club. We have proved our desire to be Lake Minnetonka's premier sailboat marina by spending over $200,000.00 on a new travel lift for safe sailboat handling, teaming with Northern Breezes Sailing School, the Midwest's largest sailing school, and bringing Seven Seas, a sailboat chandlery with the largest sailboat hardware inventory in Minnesota, onto the property. We feel the change we are seeking is our best option for keeping the Shorewood Yacht Club, a true gem in this community, intact. Failing this change, we will need to seek other was to make this property meet its financial obligations. We would place the majority of the power boats on pier #4 and site 2 which is over 600 feet away from our nearest neighbor. Pier 4 is better suited for powerboats than piers 1, 2&3 due to the shallow water and wider slips. First priority to open slips will always be sailboats; second priority to open slips will be for Shorewood residents. In addition we are willing to offer Shorewood residents a 15% discount on slip rental. "~- 1201.24 Zoning Regulations 1201.25 b. A license will be issued to the applicant only and is not transferable to another holder. Each license will be issued only for the premises described in the application. A license may not be transferred to another premise without the approval of the City Council. If the licensee is a partnership or a corporation, a change in the identity of any partner or holder of more than 10% of the issued and outstanding stock of the corporation will be deemed a transfer of the license. ''c., An application for a license shall be accompanied by a plan, prepared by the applicant, setting forth a procedure providing that seasonal rental of available or unrenewed slips shall be first offered to the city residents. d. Issuance of a license shall take into consideration the historic use of the site under consideration with respect to the use of power boats. With exception of power boats necessary for the operation of the facility, water harboring of boats on any site located in Gideon's Bay shall be limited to sailing boats only. Subd. 11. _ Termination procedure for license previously issued. a. If upon inspection by the representative of the City Council it appears the facility is not being maintained or operated in accordance with the terms of the outstanding license: (1) The licensee shall be informed of the violation in writing by the Zoning Administrator; (2) The licensee shall be notified it has 20 days to correct the violation; (3) If the violation is not corrected within the time, the City Council may revoke the license, but not until licensee has been given an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the City Council. b. Failure to have a valid license in force shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this chapter. (1987 Code, § 1201.24) (Ord. 180, passed 5-19-1986) 1201.25 P.17.D., PI..ANNED UNIT DEVEI,®PIVIEIVT DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. This District is established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed for district planned unit development to allow the development of neighborhoods or portions thereof incorporating a variety of residential types and nonresidential uses. Recognizing that traditional density, bulk, setbacks, use and subdivision regulations which may be useful in protecting the character of s~ ' ' Exhibit C 1201-149 ZONING CODE EXCERPT echon u Sec. 3.02 (Rev.2-04) Section 3.02. Watercraft Speed. Subd. 1. Maximum Speeds. No person shall operate a watercraft on the Lake at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, watercraft or structure in or upon the Lake which is in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. No watercraft ma be operated on the Lake at a speed in excess of the following limits: a) 40 miles per hour during the daytime; b) 20 miles per hour during the nighttime; c) 5 miles er hour in the following areas: i) a quiet waters area established by this section. ii) that area within 150 feet of the shoreline. (iii)that area within 150 feet of an authorized bathing area or swimmer, an authorized scuba diver's warning flag, an anchored raft or watercraft, or a dock or pies except that from which a watercraft with a person in tow is being operated. iv) an area of restricted s eed osted in accordance with Subd. 4. The sheriff or executive director may provide for the erection of signs at appropriate locations in the Lake to inform operators of watercraft of the speed limitations established by this subdivi- sion. Subd. 2. Prima Facie Rule. Operation of watercraft in excess of the speeds set forth in Subdivision 1 is prima facie evidence that the watercraft is being operated in violation of Section 3.01, Subd. 2 of this Code. Exhibit D LMCD CODE EXCERPT e: atercra t pee -47- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND CI'TE' 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 Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 27 September 2000 Shorewood Yacht Club -Proposed Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Variance 405 (00.27) John and Judy Cross, Representing Minnetonka Moorings, have submitted an application for the rezoning of their property at 600 West Lake Street (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) from R-lA/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland to L-R, Lakeshore Recreational. They also request a conditional use permit for the existing caretaker dwelling on the site and for the outdoor storage of boats on the property. Certain existing conditions on the site necessitate the processing of a variance application. Finally, since the applicants propose to add property and dockage to the existing site, they have requested an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. The existing yacht club contains approximately 2.4 acres of land, separated through the middle by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority right-of--way. The site abuts and is accessed by County Road 19. The applicants have acquired additional acreage to the west of the existing yacht club and north of the H.C.R.R.A. r.o.w. This property contains an additional 19,200 square feet of area(.44 acres). Both sites are presently zoned R-lA/S. Land use and zoning surrounding the sites are as follows: ~®a' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Att~lchlllent I Memorandum Re: Shorewood Yacht Club Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance 27 September 2000 North: Lake Minnetonka East: Minnetonka Portable Dredging; zoned C-4, Service Commercial and Single-Family Residential; zoned R-lA/S South: County Road 19, then commercial (The Garden Patch and Shorewood Nursery); zoned C-4, Service Commercial and R-C, Residential Commercial West: Townhouse common area, then single-family residential; zoned R- 1B/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland A clubhouse facility, caretaker dwelling, a launch ramp and boat docking for 80 sailboats occupy the existing site. The applicants' application describes a variety of activities that occur on the property (e.g. sailboat rental, sailing school, incidental boat sales, storage of weed harvesting equipment, etc.). The expansion site is currently occupied by three docks, the use of which does not conform with current zoning requirements. The applicants propose to use the property to provide 35 additional boat slips. Except for a small pedestrian bridge and a storage rack for small sailboats, the expansion site will be left in its natural state. The additional dockage will extend westerly from an existing pier. Plans for the existing property, as well as the proposed expansion are contained in a notebook prepared by the applicant and enclosed for your review. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Before addressing the proposed expansion of the yacht club, it is important to review how the existing facility complies with the L-R zoning district requirements. As you know, the L-R District was amended in September of last year, in order to encourage two of the existing multiple dock facilities in Shorewood to apply for the zoning. During the amendment process it was understood that these facilities would not necessarily comply with all elements of the Code, and that certain nonconformities would simply have to be recognized as existing deficiencies. I. The Existing Site. A. Comprehensive Plan. Any rezoning must be guided by the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use section of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan shows the property in question as an area of further study. Under "Lake Access" it mentions that the L-R District has been revised "to encourage the marina on Howard's Point Road and the yacht club north of County Road 19 to comply with City standards." The Chapter Summary goes on to say: "10. Recognizing certain existing nonconformities, seek ways to bring the Howard's Point Marina and the Shorewood Yacht Club into -2- Memorandum Re: Shorewood Yacht Club Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance 27 September 2000 substantial compliance with the revised Lakeshore Recreational (L-R) zoning district." B. L-R Zoning Requirements. 1. Permitted Uses. The only permitted use in the L-R District is water- harboring of boats. This is subject to an annual licensing procedure whereby specific standards and conditions are reviewed (see below). 2. Accessory Uses. The L-R District lists off-street parking, a clubhouse building, one storage building, gas dispensing equipment, and boat rental as allowable accessory uses. The yacht club has an existing clubhouse that the applicants propose to expand. Their plans are considered to be consistent with the Code. The applicants propose to add a storage building to the south end of the clubhouse. It is consistent with the 1200 square foot maximum area requirement. A small storage building already exists on the site. Staff's initial recommendation to remove this structure has been reconsidered in view of its proposed use as a dumpster enclosure. While a fenced or walled enclosure would typically be sufficient for such storage, having a roof over the dumpster area will enhance screening it, particularly from the elevated H.C.R.R.A. trail. The applicants' site plan should be modified to show the location of this structure. It is worth noting that neither the expansion of the clubhouse or the construction of the storage building would be allowed under the yacht club's current nonconforming use status. The yacht club does not dispense gas, even to its members. Gasoline used for their own purposes is stored in a small shed located to the east of the clubhouse building. Final approval of the applicants' request should include a condition that the gas storage be approved by the local fire marshal. The applicants' application to the LMCD references public rental of five or more boats with outboard motors. The L-R District specifically states that water-harboring of boats in Gideon's Bay must be limited to sailing boats. 3. Conditional Uses. a. Single-Family Dwelling. One of the significant changes to the L-R District was the allowance of one single-family dwelling to serve as a caretaker residence. In this case the caretaker residence complies with the setback requirements for the L-R District. It is located 55 feet -3- Memorandum Re: Shorewood Yacht Club Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance 27 September 2000 from the shoreline. The only other requirement for the dwelling is that it comply with Shorewood's Rental Housing Code. Any approval of the SYC request should include a condition that the existing house be inspected and conform with the Rental Housing Code. b. Open and Outdoor Dry Land Storage of Boats and Trailers. (1) Storage of boats must be screened from view of neighboring residential uses. Since boats are stored in the parking area to the west of the clubhouse, this applies mostly to the homes west of the SYC property. In this regard it is worth noting that the nearest homes that can see the property are the Gideon's Cove twinhomes (500+ feet to the west) and homes on Timber Lane that are approximately 700 feet away to the west. The view of the site is quite well screened from view of Gideon's Cove by existing trees. Despite the proximity of boat storage to the lakeshore on the west side of the site, there is some opportunity to enhance the landscaping between the parking lot and the shoreline. As part of any approval it is recommended that the applicants submit a detailed landscaping plan for this area that introduces some sort of evergreen tree. It is not suggested that this be a solid screen, but should include enough trees to soften the view from the west. (2) Storage of boats must be screened from the street. Although property to the south of the site is zoned for commercial use, boats stored on the south side of the H.C.R.R.A. r.o.w. are somewhat visible. As in (1) above, there appears to be some opportunity to enhance screening by adding evergreen trees along the south edge of the property, along County Road 19. These should also be included in the applicants' landscape plan. (3) Storage should be landscaped to buffer other public r.o.w. (in this case the H.C.R.R.A. trail). Opportunities here are limited due to the narrow space between the boat storage area and the trail r.o.w. It is important that existing vegetation abutting the r.o.w. be maintained. Where possible some evergreen trees should be incorporated into these areas. (4) Storage areas must be grassed or surfaced to control dust. Boat storage is limited to the existing parking areas. According to the applicants they presently store more than just their members' boats, using up virtually all of the existing parking areas. It is -4- Memorandum Re: Shorewood Yacht Club Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance 27 September 2000 recommended that future outdoor storage of boats be limited to the spaces currently being used. If the expansion of the site is approved, this may limit the number ofnon-member boats that can be stored on the site. (5) Lighting of the storage areas does not appear to be an issue. Based upon a visit to the property, lighting appears to be well managed and unobtrusive. Any additional lighting proposed in the future should be subject to Council approval. (6) Some of the existing parking is occasionally used for storage of boats during the boating season. The applicants maintain that this does not adversely affect parking. It is recommended that parking be periodically monitored. If it is found that parking becomes a problem (e.g. people begin to park outside of areas designated on the site plan), the applicant should discontinue such storage during the boating season. As an alternative, overflow parking or storage could be accommodated in the vacant southwest corner of the site abutting County Road 19. Since this area provides an effective natural buffer, its use should only be required if parking becomes a problem. c. Lot requirements and Setbacks. The site complies with the minimum area, width and depth requirements of the L-R District. With the exception of parking and outdoor dry land storage of boats, the site also complies with setback requirements. Perhaps the single most significant deficiency on the site is the proximity of parking and storage to the shoreline. It has already been recommended herein to mitigate the visual impacts by enhanced landscaping. It is further recommended that the parking areas near the lake be examined by the City Engineer, the DNR, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for possible ways to address drainage directly into the lake. d. Building Requirements. The clubhouse, caretaker residence and proposed storage building comply with setback requirements of the L- RDistrict. Although the proposed storage building is 20 feet high on the east side, the fact that it is attached to the clubhouse and only the dredging company property can see that elevation mitigates the height. There is also merit in being able to house the portable boat hoist inside the building during the off season. e. Special and Specific Conditions. -5- Memorandum Re: Shorewood Yacht Club Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance 27 September 2000 1. The site is located on a lake with at least two public accesses and is located at least 5000 feet from any other multiple dock facility. 2. Any future construction must comply with State Building Code requirements. The caretaker residence should be subject to inspection and compliance with the Shorewood Rental Housing Code. 3. The number of slips authorized must comply with the requirements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code. The applicants were in the process of receiving LMCD approval when the City requested that no action be taken pending the City's approval process. The draft findings of fact prepared maybe of some use in the City's licensing of the facility. 4. Parking. The applicants' plans illustrate parking for 121 cars. This more than complies with the Code for the existing facility's 80 boat slips (one parking space per slip). If the site and dockage are to be expanded the total parking requirement would be 115. As mentioned earlier in this report, the westerly parking area and four parking spaces on the north side of the site are closer than fifty feet from the shoreline. Since the westerly parking area is crucial to the use of the clubhouse and docking facilities, their elimination is not practical. As recommended earlier, ways to mitigate the proximity of parking to the lake should be further explored. While paving of the parking areas is not recommended in this case, the applicants have agreed to pave the driveway entry into the site, up to the H.C.R.R.A. r.o.w. This is consistent with the Code and plans for paving the driveway should reflect the heavy weights of the boats as well as other heavy vehicles using the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company which shares this driveway. 5. Signage. The L-R District allows two signs on the site, one facing the street and one facing the lake. The existing facility has one of each, plus an additional sign on its entry canopy facing the east (Dredging Company). 6. Illumination. Lighting at the existing facility is considered to be very well managed, balancing safety, security and impact to surrounding properties. -6- Memorandum Re: Shorewood Yacht Club Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance 27 September 2000 7. Noise. There is no record of complaints of noise in recent years relative to the SYC facility. Early concerns of halyards rattling in the wind were easily addressed by having members wrap the halyard around the masts. The SYC has gone so far as to impose a strict fine for members who violate this rule. Drainage. No additional grading is proposed for the property, except for the construction of the new storage building. Standard erosion control will be required as part of the building permit process. As mentioned earlier the City Engineer, DNR and MCWD engineers will be asked to review and comment on the existing drainage of the site. 9. Historic Use. The L-R District references the historic use of the site. It goes on to specifically restrict multiple dock water- harboring facilities on Gideon's Bay to sailboats. In the past, the storage of power boats for management of the club has been limited to two. Any such limitation should not include the weed harvesting equipment kept at the site. II. The Expansion Site. While expansion of the existing multiple dock facilities was not specifically referenced in the L-R District, it was known at the time that at least the Howard's Point Marina was considering some expansion. The applicants have acquired the property immediately west of the SYC site, north of the H.C.R.R.A. r.o.w. This property was allowed years ago to have three docks for the use of certain residents on Timber Lane. Over the last several years it appears to have evolved into a dock rental operation for as many as seven boats. The docks have been accessed by a gravel driveway from Timber Lane The applicants' intent is to add a fourth pier to their existing dock system, providing an additiona135 slips. One of those slips provides a dock for the property owner at 5585Timber Lane. They also propose to maintain the easternmost of the three docks for one of their management boats. This also is included in the 35. The additional shoreline on this site allows the applicants to comply with LMCD boat density requirements. In addition to the additional dockage, the applicants would like to use the newly acquired land for their kids' sailing school and camp(not overnight). In this regard, they propose to store several small sailboats on a rack at the east end of the parcel. They also propose a boat dock canopy on the east end of the parcel to protect students from the elements. This canopy would be removed at the end of the boating season. The applicants propose to access this portion of the site by means of a small foot bridge connected to their main facility. -7- Memorandum Re: Shorewood Yacht Club Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, C.U.P. and Variance 27 September 2000 With respect to the expansion, several factors should be taken into consideration: A. Parking and Access. As mentioned earlier in this report, the applicants propose parking for 121 cars. With the new docks the total number of slips required under the Code is 115. It is highly recommended that access for the westerly parcel be limited to emergency vehicles only. With the exception of the proposed canopy and the sailboat storage rack, the westerly parcel should remain in a natural undeveloped state. B. Boat Traffic. The proposed docks arrangement suggests approximately a 40 percent increase in boat storage and, presumably, 40 percent more boat traffic. The applicants estimate that their average use on weekdays is up to 10 percent of the members, with weekends up to 30 percent (approximately 24 boats currently). Multiplying these figures by 40 percent suggests 11 boats on weekdays and 34 boats per day on weekends. It is worth noting that out of necessity the sailboats using the facility must follow a well defined channel, marked by buoys. The applicants advise us that no additional dredging of the lake bottom will be required to accommodate the new slips. Those on the inside, where the water is somewhat more shallow, will accommodate smaller sailboats that have swing- up keels. C. Existing Dock Rights. If the expansion is approved, a stipulations should be placed in the permit for the site that the westerly dock must be strictly limited to one boat, for the exclusive use of the residents at 5585 Timber Lane. The dock shall not be rented out. RECOMMENDATION The rezoning of the existing site is relatively uncomplicated, provided the recommendations included herein are included in the approval. The expansion is somewhat more challenging, but presents an interesting opportunity for the City to achieve greater control over the property. Input from area residents will undoubtedly raise issues not addressed herein. Assuming those issues can be adequately addressed by the City, it is recommended that the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment be favorably considered. The applicants' next step would then be to make a formal application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, during which time staff should be directed to prepare an ordinance and resolution approving the rezoning and conditional use permit, respectively. Cc: Larry Brown John and Judy Cross -8- 0 °o W 0 _/~ DUCk ISLAND FROG ISLAND N 500 0 500 Feet --, C C E Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Shorewood Yacht Club -Rezoning r~~r ~~ ~~ 9127/00 ~ ., , ~. v . Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Nielsen: Our family opposes the request of rezoning that Minnetonka Moorings, Inc. has made to the City of Shorewood. The residents of our association have previously requested a similar rezoning to permit more docks than the two authorized by you and were turned down with the statement that an effort is being made to limit the number of boats on Lake Minnetonka and the two docks allowed are all that can be made available. We accepted that decision, but reserved the right to reapply if the situation changed. If Minnesota Moorings is granted their request, it follows that Gideon Cove residents are being encouraged to also request rezoning so more docks may be built and utilized. We are asking for only ten more docks, whereas they are asl~ing for an additional 35. We request that this letter be considered when you debate the merits of their rezoning request. Respectfully submitted, ~p G~-~~-~ Ruth D. Jewell 23770 Lawtonl~a Drive ~ufih }ewel( •;• •;~ FILE COPY L cz~°r~ (.~~ sic i~-tes, ~" ~ ~ . ,~ P 901 MARQUETTE AVENUE, SUITE 2820 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55402 (612) 333-5313 1-800-869-0602 FAX: 1-612-333-1916 September 25, 2000 Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood Planning Department 5755 County Club Road Shorewood, MN. 55331 r, li~ _ ~" i ~~~ !i -' ~ ( i~'~ . ,r s ' e Dear Mr. Nielsen, The Shorewood Yacht Club is an asset of the lake community, and the enhancement of their property poses no problems to me. I therefore support their request. Sincerely, f d=~ Larry L. K1opp 136 George Street Excelsior, Mn. 55331 LK/cjl REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE OF FORTIS INVESTORS. INC.. P.O. BOX 64284. ST. PAUL. MN 55164 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 -PAGE 3 of 8 The public hearing was opened at 7:35 P.M. Mrs. Jeannie Polston, 28215 Boulder Circle was in attendance and addressed the Conunission to explain there was a title search in progress related to the unbuildable parcel to be combined. Barring any contrary findings, she did not anticipate any problems with these suggestions. Mr. Darrell Carver, 27910 Smithtown Road, asked Mrs. Polston if there were to be trees planted around the new garage. She responded the area around the garage is quite wooded, and while no new additional trees were to be planted on the south side of the garage, she did not believe Mr. Carver would be able to see the new garage. The public hearing was closed at 7:40 P.M. Commissioner Woodruff questioned whether there was a plan to plant trees to screen the garage from the east. Mrs. Polston stated they were planning to plant a few evergreen trees on that side of the garage in an effort to provide screening. Anderson moved, Woodruff seconded, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet, for Steve and Jeannie Polston, 28215 Boulder Circle, subject to the applicant providing a landscape plan showing where trees would be planted for screening. Motion passed 5/0. 3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • REZONING FROM R-lA TO L-R • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT e VARIANCE ApAlicant: Minnetonka Moorings Location: 600 West Lake Street *For future reference, please note there is a Planning Comrnission memora~Zdum on file at City Hall from Brad Nielsen, dated September 27, 2000-referencing File No. 405(00.27). This memorandum explains, in significant detail, the history and analysis surrounding these requests. Director Nielsen provided a detailed explanation of the issues involved in these requests. He explained John and Judy Cross, representing Minnetonka Moorings and working through the Shorewood Yacht Club facility, had submitted an application for rezoning of their property. In doing so, a Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan were necessitated. Involved in this property and further complicating matters was the recent acquisition of a parcel of land immediately west of the Yacht Club where Mr. and Mrs. Cross were proposing additional dockage in an effort to expand their business. Iri reviewing this matter, Director Nielsen provided information as it pertained to the existing site and then regarding the expansion site. Some issues pertain to both sites. First, Director Nielsen explained that any rezoning must be guided by the Comprehensive Plan set forth by the City. When amended last, efforts were made to pave the way, should an opportunity arise, to bring the marinas into compliance with the Lakeshore Recreational (L-R) zoning district. In considering the L-R District Requirements, there are Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses, and Conditional Uses relating to Single-Family Dwellings, Open and Outdoor Dry Land Storage of Boats and Trailers, Lot Requirements and Setbacks, Building Requirements, and Special and Specific Conditions. Following is a brief summary of the comparison between the subject property and these requirements as detailed by Attachment II PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 -PAGE 4 of 8 Director Nielsen. Amore significantly detailed discussion of these issues can be found in the Planning Commission referendum referenced at the beginning of this Item. The permitted use in the L-R district was subject to annual licensing procedure and had as its only use the water-harboring of boats. Specifically, the L-R district stated the water-harboring of boats in Gideon's Bay must be limited to sailing boats. The L-R District had off-street parking, a clubhouse building, a storage building, gas dispensing equipment and boat rental as allowable uses for this area. The Shorewood Yacht Club had all of these. The storage building on the site was to be removed, however, its proposed use as a dumpster enclosure was deemed more useful, as a roof over the area would help to conceal it from the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority trail which bisects the property. With regard to the single family dwelling on the property as part of its Conditional Uses, all setback requirements were observed, however, it would need to comply with the Shorewood Rental Housing Code and would need to be inspected for conformance. While there were many issues to be examined regarding Open and Outdoor Dry Land Storage of Boats and Trailers, the most significant matter seemed to be a need for a detailed landscaping plan for the area demonstrating a plan for screening of evergreen trees between the parking lot and shoreline, along the South edge of the property facing County Road 19, as well as maintaining existing vegetation abutting the Right-of--Way near the H.C.R.R.A trail. Director Nielsen complimented the Yacht Club on their lighting noting it was very well done for its use as well as being sensitive in its impact on the neighbors. There was concern for the boat storage on the site, noting that if all parking sites would be utilized and boats stored on the site as well, the need would exceed supply. An alternative parking/storage area was proposed in the vacant southwest corner of the site abutting County Road 19. Parking was considered an area to monitor and adjust as needed. The most significant concern overall seemed to be the proximity of parking and storage so close to the shoreline. While enhanced landscaping would help to mitigate potential problems, it was recommended that the parking areas near the lake be examined by many agencies in an effort to address issues of drainage directly into the lake from this site. With regard to Signage found in the Special and Specific Conditions portion of the L-R District Zoning Code, the Shorewood Yacht Club had three signs while the requirements stated that only two signs would be allowed. At this point, Director Nielsen explored the background related to the expansion site and requests made regarding this portion of land as it related to the Shorewood Yacht Club. He noted three additional docks existed on this site primarily for the use of certain residents on Timber Lane. The applicants would like to add a fourth dock to the existing system, providing thirty-five additional slips. One of the docks would be maintained as a slip for a property owner at 5585 Timber Lane. The easternmost of the three docks would be for one of their management boats utilized in assisting customers in need of help. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 -PAGE 5 Of 8 When considering issues involved in the expansion site, Director Nielsen explained, it would be important to consider issues of Parking and Access, as well as Boat Traffic and Existing Dock Rights. Parking and Access on the expansion site was recommended to include emergency vehicles only. With the exception of a proposed boat canopy used to protect the Sailing School students from the elements and a sailboat storage rack, the site should remain in a natural undeveloped state. Boat traffic was believed to increase by approximately forty percent as a result of the proposed plans for this site, however, no dredging of the lake bottom would be required to accommodate the additional slips. Existing Dock Rights should be maintained for the exclusive use of the residents of 5585 Timber Lane only as part of consideration of the expansion site. Director Nielsen summarized his comments noting he believed the plans to be well done and addressed many issues identified in the past. He stated there would be many improvements to the property and the expansion and rezoning would allow the City to gain more control over the property. He also noted a list of names had been submitted to the City noting no opposition to the proposed plans for this site. John and Judy Cross were in attendance and seized the opportunity to address the Commission. Mr. Cross noted he had few disagreements to the recommendations Director Nielsen had reviewed. He also noted there was no current need for the overflow parking/storage area, but did not want this to be an issue at the time it would be needed in the future. Mrs. Cross addressed the issue of the third sign facing the lake. She stated she considered it more of a "landscape embellishment" as it was made of rope and occupied a flower bed. She stated the members liked it, and it could only be seen from the lake, however, it was not needed. She also stated the neighbors that can see the property have no objection to it being there. Mr. Cross also expressed disappointment in the necessary delay for formal approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mrs. Cross noted there are forty-one people on a waiting list for the proposed slips, and they were hoping to have the dockage ready next spring. The timeframe that would occur as part of the formal approval process would not allow that to happen. Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:40 P.M. Dwayne V., 5585 Timber Lane, stated his concern regarding the noise coming from the hollow booms on the sailboats, and a concern over the potential overflow lot on the southwesterly corner of the property. He stated he had lived at his address for twenty-eight years and knew the locale of the proposed driveway onto County Road 19. He voiced concern for safety in that area should the overflow lot be needed. James Hancock, 23800 Lawtonka Drive, stated he was very much in favor of these requests as he believed it to be a more favorable use of property. Steve and Nancy Linder, 23730 Lawtonka Drive, were in attendance. Mr. Linder addressed the Commission with his request to reconsider dockage for the Gideon Cove residents. He state it was his prior knowledge that additional docks had been denied in that area as a general rule, and he was surprised to see this request coming forward for approval. Joann Schaub, 5465 Timber Lane, was very concerned for traffic utilizing the proposed overflow parking area. She questioned Mrs. Cross as to whether emergency vehicles were currently utilizing that area. Mrs. Cross responded the police may be monitoring that area, but she was not sure. Mrs. Schaub commented she had seen vehicles removing the chain and driving in on previous occasions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 -PAGE 6 of 8 Julie Ingelman, 23720 Lawtonka Drive, stated her concerns over the timing of this issue, and the Gideon Cove request for additional dockage being denied. She also noted parking seemed to be quite crowded on the Yacht Club property, and she would like to see the mess along the H.C.R.R.A. trail cleaned up as she utilized the trail daily Dan Puzak, 23830 Smithtown Road, expressed concern over the Lakeshore and lake bottom. He stated this area previously served as a drainage area for the Excelsior Sanitary Sewer Treatment facility and it was his belief that it was one of the most polluted areas of lake bottom in that area. He stated he would like to see a viable business run in that area with clean-up of the lake bottom. He did not support these requests due to the muck on the lake bottom potentially being disturbed. He also had concerns for traffic on Lawtonka Drive. He believed if it was not fenced off, it would create an eyesore in that area. Donna Delaney, 23760 Lawtonka Drive, stated her support for the improvements to the existing marina site. She noted she did not hear any noise, and the sailboats are a beautiful view. She did, however, have concerns regarding the proposed drive down Timber Lane. Regarding the muck on the bottom, she believed Lake Minnetonka to be a large lake, and she did not see the muck on the bottom affecting the rest of the lake as a whole. Judy Cross again spoke to address concerns regarding the proposed driveway entrance. She stated there is a process in place used for pick-up and drop-off of students for the sailing school. She did not want the additional responsibility of dealing with students being dropped off in the proposed driveway entrance area. The current process would continue to be enforced regarding the students being transported to the sailing school. John Cross also stated that by removing the middle dock of the three on the expansion site, the area would be left in a more natural state. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 9:04 P.M. Commissioner Anderson stated his two concerns to be related to storage and screening of the boats, and the close proximity of the parking to the lake. Also, he believed access to Timber Lane should be controlled. Commissioner Turgeon commented she had concerns related to proposed versus actual numbers of parking spaces on the site. Also, she did not want to see another driveway placed onto County Road 19 in that area. Furthermore, she believed sensitivity should be used when considering implications from the muck on the bottom of the lake. She stated she would like to approach appropriate agencies and authorities to find out what is on the lake bottom in this area. Commissioner Woodruff echoed Commissioner Turgeon's comments regarding the environmental impacts in and around this area. Commissioner Boehm also supported concerns regarding environmental impacts on this site. He also expressed concern for the parking situation and proposed overflow area. Chair Bailey reminded the Planning Commission of the efforts put into the Comprehensive Plan. He believed these plans to be a positive step forward, and he did not want to lose sight of the opportunity to bring this property in compliance. Much discussion centered on how to allow the applicants to move forward with plans although a formal Comprehensive Plan amendment could not be approved this evening. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 -PAGE 7 of 8 Commissioner Anderson commented it seemed as though Mr. Cross had acted in good faith and he wanted to see the Yacht Club brought into compliance. He noted the approval process can sometimes appear daunting, and he believed it best to work with the Yacht Club on these matters. Anderson moved, Boehm seconded, recommending approval of rezoning the parcels in question, the Conditional Use Permits as presented, and avariance-for John and Judy Cross, representing Minnetonka Moorings, 600 West Lake Street, subject to final approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and submittal of a professional Landscape Plan, also a plan for controlling the access to Timber Lane, and an Engineering Report on the matters of the new proposed parking spaces and existing parking near the lake to be presented on November 2, 2000, as well as scheduling a public hearing for a formal Comprehensive Plan Amendment on November 2, 2000. Commissioner Turgeon stated she believed it would be possible to move forward with these requests. Commissioner Anderson reiterated that it can be a cumbersome process to move government along, but he believed the Shorewood Yacht Club to be an asset to the City, and he would like to work with the Yacht Club to move matters forward. Motion passed 5/0. 4. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING GIDEON GLEN Director Nielsen stated the City Council had authorized up to $175,000 for the acquisition of the Gideon Glen property. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District had agreed to provide up to $200,000 to help in the acquisition. Other funding sources were being considered as well in an effort to minimize expenditures for the property. He also explained there are a number of purposes for securing this property-one of them being wetland preservation. He also noted the acquisition of this property would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Woodruff moved, Anderson seconded, recommending approval for the purchase of the Gideon Glen property. Motion passed 5/0. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Jerry Brekke, Howard's Point Marina, was in attendance and stated it was good to see the Planning Commission work as a group to resolve tough issues. He state he had remained at this meeting because he wanted to pay the Planning Commission the compliment of doing a good job. Chair Bailey thanked him for his fine compliment. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA The next meeting for the Planning Commission would be November 21, 2000, and would include two items as well as a discussion regarding Right-of--Way issues. 7. REPORTS Chair Bailey stated he would be the City Council Liaison for the month of October, 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 -PAGE 8 of 8 8. ADJOURNMENT Anderson moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the meeting at 10:02 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 00-111 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A YACHT CLUB TO MINNETONKA MOORINGS, INC. WHEREAS, Minnetonka Moorings, Inc. (Applicant) has an interest in certain real property located at 600 West Lake Street in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to expand the Shorewood Yacht Club, which currently occupies the property, add an accessory storage building and additional dock slips; and WHEREAS, the existing Shorewood Yacht Club is a nonconforming use in the R-lA/S and R-3A/S zoning districts and operates under acourt-ordered conditional use permit which was issued by the City of Shorewood in Council Resolution 24-79, which resolution is on file in the Shorewood City offices; and WHEREAS, the City Council has agreed to rezone the subject property to the L-R, Lakeshore Recreational District, in which the existing caretaker dwelling on the property and the outdoor storage of boats require a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.24 Subd. 4 of the Shorewood City Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a variance to the setback requirements for on- siteparking on the property; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in memoranda to the Planning Commission dated 27 September 2000, and 1 November 2000 which memoranda are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Engineer, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 1 November 2000, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 3 October 2000, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit and variance was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 13 November 2000, at which time the Planner's memoranda, the City Engineer's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: Attachment III FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Subject Property is located in an R-1/A, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and R-3A/Multiple-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and contains approximately 4.7 acres. 2. That the subject property currently exists as two parcels of land as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. That the westernmost parcel is currently occupied by three dock structures that were originally intended for use by certain residents on Timber Lane. The westernmost dock is accessed by an easement in favor of the owner of the property located at 5585 Timber Lane. 4. That the Shorewood City Council has agreed to rezone the subject property to the L-R, Lakeshore Recreational District, upon proof of recording of the deed conveying property described in Exhibit A to Shorewood Yacht Club that shall contain the following language: "Grantee shall not convey this property to any other person or entity without including in the conveyance, the property described on the attached Exhibit A (being the property immediately contiguous to the subject property lying to the east), without prior written consent of the City of Shorewood." 5. That a clubhouse facility, a caretaker dwelling, a boat launch ramp and boat docking for 80 sailboats plus 2 management slips currently occupy the site. 6. That, in addition to the water harboring of boats, the Applicant's application proposes the following activities for the subject property: 1) sailboat rental; 2) sailing school; 3) incidental boat sales; and 4) storage of weed harvesting equipment. 7. That the Applicant proposes to extend a fourth pier from the westernmost existing pier on the site, increasing the number of boat slips from 82 to 117. 8. That the Applicant proposes to construct a small pedestrian bridge between the existing Yacht Club property and the newly acquired westerly parcel. 9. That the Applicant proposes to locate a small sailboat storage rack for the use of a youth sailing school which will be conducted on the westerly parcel. 10. That the Applicant proposes to erect a boat dock frame and canopy on the westerly parcel to be used as a shelter for the youth sailing school. 11. That the Applicant's plans show parking for 121 vehicles. 2 12. That the Applicant's plans are illustrated in the site plans shown on Exhibits B and C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 13. That the subject property is located on a lake with at least two public accesses and is at least 5000 feet away from any other multiple dock facility. 14. That the subject property currently displays three signs, whereas the Shorewood City Code limits the number of signs in the L-R District to two. 15. That the City has no record of complaints of noise in recent years relative to the subject property. 16. That the Applicant proposes additional landscaping and screening along the west side of the site, abutting the shoreline of the lake and along the south side of the H.C.R.R.A. right-of--way and along the south side of the site abutting County Road 19, as shown on Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. CONCLUSIONS 1. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit for a sailing yacht club at 600 West Lake Street. 2. That this approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The Applicant must comply with the requirements of Section 1201.24 of the Shorewood City Code and must obtain an annual license for the facility, pursuant to Subd. 10 of that section. b. The Applicant must obtain a multiple dock license, special density license and necessary variances from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. :: c. The permit shall be limited to the docking of sailboats, except for three power boats used by the management of the Yacht Club. In addition, the dock located at the westernmost end of the subject property shall be limited to one boat owned by the residents of 5585 Timber Lane. Weed harvesting equipment shall not count against the allowable number of power boats. d. The proposed buildings shall be constructed as shown on Exhibits B and C, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and must be constructed in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained according to the approved landscape plan as shown on Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Landscaping shall be completed by 15 June 2001. f. Hours of operation shall be as follows: Sunday through Thursday: 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Friday through Saturday: 6:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M. 4 g. Dock quiet hours shall. be between the hours of 10:00 P.M and 6:00 A.M. h. Sailboats, when not in use, shall have their halyards secured by such devices as will minimize any noise that maybe caused by them. i. Right-of--way shall be given to all barges and work boats being used by the adjacent dredging company. j. Any radios utilized on-board sailboats shall be kept below decks with their volume at a discreet level. k. The Applicant shall install a solid core steel door on the gasoline storage shed, per the requirements of the Fire Marshall. Gasoline storage shall be limited to that which is used by the management of the Yacht Club. 1. The shelter for the youth sailing camp shall be a seasonal boat dock canopy to be taken down at the end of the sailing season. m. The storage rack for the youth sailing camp shall be located 50 feet back from the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka. n. The access drive from Timber Lane to the westerly portion of the site shall be gated and locked except for occasional maintenance activities. The driveway shall not be used as access to the youth sailing camp. o. No dredging is anticipated as part of this permit. Any future dredging requests will be subject to normal dredging permit procedures. p. Any dock pilings to be installed must be driven as opposed to a jetting method. q. The American Disabilities Act parking spaces must be constructed consistent with the State Building Code and are subject to the conditions imposed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. r. Curbstones shall be installed for each parking stall on the site. s. The overflow parking area shown on Exhibit B in the southwest corner of the site is not approved as part of this permit. t. Prior to any further work being done on the site, the Applicant must provide in recorded form, evidence that the deed for the land described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, contains the following language: "Grantee shall not convey this property to any other person or entity without including in the conveyance, the property described on the attached Exhibit A (being the property immediately contiguous to the subject property lying to the east), without prior written consent of the City of Shorewood." 5 u. The Applicant shall submit a signage plan for the property in compliance with the requirements of the Shorewood City Code. 3. That the Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the Shorewood City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes. 4. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a setback variance for the parking lot as shown on Exhibit B, subject to the conditions set forth herein. 5. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of November 2000. ~~ WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: ~y~ BRADLEY J. NIELSEN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR 6 3es•crintion• ?arce= 1: Chat part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, described is follows:. Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly extension of the cast line of LoC 24, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin County, annesota" with a line drawn parallel with and 25.00 feet Southerly from the :enter line of the railroad track of the Chicago and North Western transportation Company (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway :ompary>; thence Westerly along said parallel line a distance of 621.26 feet; Thence Southeasterly 29.64 feet, more or less, to a point which is on a line irawn parallel with and 50.00 feet Southerly from center line of said railroad crack and 606.53 feet Westerly along the last described parallel line from the Southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence Westerly along the Last described-parallel line to the West line of said Government Lot 2; thence South along said West line to the center line of•County Road Number 19; thence Jortheasterly along the center line of County Road Number 19 to the Southerly axtensior. of the East line of said Lot 24; thence North along said extension to the point of beginning. Hennepin County, Mi.,txn8sot`a. Parcel 2: That part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23> described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the East line of Lot 24, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin County, Minnesota", with a line drawn parallel with and 18.00 feet Northerly from the center line of the railroad track of the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company); thence Westerly along said parallel line a distance of 639.27 feet; thence Northwesterly to the Southwest corner of Lot 25, 'Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin County, Minnesota'; thence East.:rly along the Southerly line of said Lot 25 to the Southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 24; thence South along said extension to the pout of beginning. Except,. that portion of the above parcels 1 and 2 embraced within Lot 297 Auditorlc Subdivision Number 135 Henaepin County, Minnesota. Parceli3: Phat part of Lot 25_ lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at .the Southeasterly corner of Lot 24; thence South along the East line of said Lot 25 a distance of 24.30 feet; thence deflecting right 79 degrees 25' minutes 40 seconds a distance of 406.48 feet; thence deflecting right 9~4 degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 25 which is the true point of beginning of the line being described; thence continuing along last described line to the shore line of Lake Minnetonka and there ending, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 313, Hennepin County, Minnesota." • Together with a 12 foot easement for road purposes, the center line of which is described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 24 of said ~uditar's Subdivision; thence South along the East line of said Lot 25, a distance of 24.30 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflecting right Bl degrees 99 minutes a distance of 379,0 feet; thence deflecting right 58 degrees 52 minutes a distance of 46.06 feet to a point on the Sast line of above-described property and there ending, as shown in deed i?ocument Number 1052891, Files o£ Registrar of Titles; (as to Parcel 3) Parcel 4: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, township 117, Range 23, described as Lot 293, F,uditor's Subdivision No. 135 and adjacent 60 feat of Minneapolis and St. Paul Suburban Railway abandoned right-of-way (NOTE: Lot 293 all under water). Exhibit A •,.,r~,a ~, i ,,,~;r,. <; ~~ ~ 1, ~, \ /: .,v C\ I it ~ ~ Ig I ` r ~', ~.I, Vii. ,~ - ... ((({r~ r ___..... _ . ... ,Iry F' ~{f l ~ r-•`I \ rr .«~ f{rr~la~rL,~l: i\.d~ *{~~~ `ti~', ~~ isf~~;:{ I vl~ ~ "-oXr.'~~~ .~~! ~ I ~~~)~"1~~j ff1 } 1 ~y ~ ~ r ~ I 1 I 'y,~\,( Y ,~,rr~7 ~,!~Il .fff~ !~ r~ t~ . r t ~'~ a q R v'~ IJ^ ~ ~ - ° :~yi (, 'i l ......_.-_.r v v ~~s + ~ir.. ~. ~ I ~ `N ~ 4 '~ M1{1 Ilr , k I~ 1 9f 1 .ho ~. ~ i~` r ~ ~ I ]N ~ r r t " ~.A '~ ~~ ;~{,z --~~ .. '!. weir.. e ~ n I -~~ ~~~;~~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ l~ + ~ ,rt~4"'4+IF>Mr7 s~ _s~. ~uluYSgw-~ .;-"'+k~!~ r, rAr^ ~ ~ '~Mf A~ L'~.' ' ` EG1 ~ .. T.a I "'- ..~1 1 l qw T~' . ~' i c „ I .1 ~ r "'`'~ yy `_'' rs ~ l~ I `~ ~w ~,a y' ~ W'v I 1 ~ 'rr IY cccli L'1_k.!:: r 1- I f-~ ~,~§,t~~1r1~'.s I "~-;s ~'" ,~, ,, F r+ a 'l r ~I s rr "~la ~ ..t q,. .I ~~~~ s ~ r~ a~,,,, ~a...._ _ ~ vfi~ l I -"~~I~ -•_. .-r '~ ?f~ ~.~ ] dl r;+,17""1„'"-~-""`"^ ~ ~} mod..; > ~'i ~:_, ~ ~ 4~'+ _ ~'I -'- ---~ . x d l ,' C rSk/~ + sn ' 1 l v d ~--I _ ~,.,~,,.~'-"" ?' a, .i 17-' ~ 'r'! - .-' 7 6 ~.L Ce ~g 3 '7t ~ ^'+1~,,1,~a ~~°" ,,~., I-. i, 1 ~I ' ' ~ .,. , Qp, ilr ti , S~ u~~~+~~ z 5 r~ ~ ~ ~ ~'i ~y ~ li . , ~ . ~ . , ~ ~ s lA. ~ ^r ~ ~ ._ X11 f u~ ~ I ~ ~ `~ ~'l~~ ~r s ~ ~' 'r"`" 1 ~ t `j - 'I Y f i$'X4k j l S I I ~ I A ~ g tt~ `p~~ j / f:... ,., - i ~-. ~. d ~~ ' ~ ~ ~; ~,, I ~>.5~~'` . tu. ~ n t<' ~ i ip ; 'f f.~ ~ ~/i ~~•' _._. -'---'i~' - I . ~. :. jt .. , I i t' , _. .... ._ ~_ 1 „~ ~ - - ... _ ~ r . ,.~.~ If ~~~ ~` y _. ~I _. _.. .. -~ f __._ .,~ .... __ __ _. .. • .. .. ~~ I I ~ _ _ .: _ -.. I ~ L ----~-~~ '~' 0. _ ~ I ~~ ~I ~ i~ ~ ~~~~) _.,. n f I I if I I' ~ ~ fI ~t t.'i i II-. .__... _. I .. n~ r4. i^ .. - I- I _ - ttu l ! i I _ ~~ ~ I .. .. .. _f _ _ ,. _ ._._ , , , .....' f _.._...._ ._., ~ l ~- ~' r n - r I _._... rte- ~ J~ ~-- I 1---- -- I ~; t ~ / ., ~ y -~ . • ;; _a"~ ~. .. (. .. I I ~_ ~ r ~~r`I 1 _... 11 Cc ...aa~i"~. Y i G i ~^ I ~ ~ , ...:: _ r~ r. , I III r ui i ~ t ~ t ~ f f li I I~ I I t ~r I„I" A ~5'~7" V'1.~u~~ I ~II^ I f ~ i li I r~i ff! Sj•IU I _. .. _ -.~~+ .. ~ ::. ~ ~ ~tr• rr '~ J I ~ .~~' t,, ;') 1 ~ a - t,,. Ir.~ a ~ y `~5,y, . ?F1 (~ , ` , ~ I _ ~ _ _ ', ~+ f ,,fir f ' i l! ' ;~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~ I ~~ ~ I I, - I .. ,.. I ~ ~ ~ I i f ~ , ~ ~, ~ i _ „~ ~ ; G Il ~ ~ I , I ~ ~ ~~~~i ~ ~ ~~tl~ . , _ ~ . ---- ~. ~ i I ~' I il ~ I , , 1 4 I I , , ~I ,II ~ I I ~ I , ~, 'I. i I ~ j _.A II III II ~, 0 I I ~ II ~ I l~ ~ I / ~ I ~ I I I ,. 1 ~I f l l i h ~ ~~ ~ 'I~~ I I ~ ~ _"~ 1 I I ~ ~ ~ w I~ « ~ L~ .@ ~'.. I' II I ~ ~~I ~~ 1 f .. _. I ~~~~. I t _ ~~f I f ~ .. ~ .; . II ... r ~, ~ K~ r ~ r r" , I h°,b'r~ ~ rt %cY.eiR .d./G< ~Lircco~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~~ n „f ref ~ ~ ~~~~ ' ,_,~_F ~ ,~ ~ ,~ b.. L 4 ~_ S 7,~j=j ~ _1 . ~ ftJp ,~J~ t ~6'nSJ ~ ~ .i ~ ~ 1~ r ~~. Tt ~e i rrr~ ~ r_:: ~ ~ r ~~ ~. ~ .(„~~ ~tst .n ' ~ ' 6 r , f ~ ~A _ a F t -6 - 4 _ i ~a ~~+~~ is _ b. s '.:, ~ •. ikZ. ~.' <~a. T y~i a t- kU(''I t_h1L:ll F HX NU. r45yt~~i~ dep. ~ r ~L1a ~ 1L1: ~ rHr1 F'1 LA~I; MINNE`1'U~IKA CO~TS~RVA'~ION AZSTRIC'1` CCU I ~~' W~,~'ER ~o3se~y Statement 9-24-8b Post-It2 Fax fVOte 7671 rr. Date G~ pag°es k e To Fram C6./DatSt. Co. Phone # Phone # -~ Fax it ~ ...~ Fax # _,,......w....~ ~~~'~%. Attachment IV F-t~Uf'1 LI'1C:ll I-HX NU. (45'~1~~5 Sep. ~ ( ~~t9 ( 1t~: ~ rHh1 h'~ kAKE MINNETOhlK~ C(~NSERVATIC)N 1]I~TR4CT A ~OL1CY ~'O~t ESTAnLISllrit,NT OF Qi,1IET WA?'E?2S A1tLA DN LAtt,I; P#I.NNI~TUN~ GQAL. The goal, of recreational management should be ko insure eaa}'~ recrest~,az~al demand the highest ptresib],e avazlabil,ity c+f satisfaction of that demand con- sistent w~.th satis£actiaz# of ocher recreational demands and preservation of the Lake itse~.f as a recreational, res¢urce. T'he goal of the Quiet Waters program is to maintaXn ar~d improve the quality of recreational experience on Lake Miuneton~ in the least restrictive manner. ~'OLICX, Yt is the paiicy of the District tq establish Quiet Waters areas in str~etly limited areas of the Lake where public ss.£ety, environmental and recreational needs are demonstrated consistent with the quiet waters and recreationai, goals of the District, G1;N~RAL. Ta improve the recreational experience opt Lake M~.nnetanka the Tistrict his establish~:d general pc~Zlution, winter use, water structures, and boating safety rules, and has restricted activitr~ irs soave traditionally congested areas (such as channels) using the quiet waters Concept. The District has adapked lakewide regulations including the establishme~tt of Quist Waters areas writhin I5Q' vt the shoreline or lake rtructuzes azbund the Lake and genera. speed limiCs zahich may affect specific Quiet GJaters proposals. r-r~uM ~r~t~~ Fr~x rvu. r~~~uu~ Sep. ~ r ~uu r 1~: ~u~r~ N.s Lake i,~i.nn~inr~ka f..U7;servaiiat3 .iistrict 7.. The District. ha.s resj~onded to expressed need to improve the effectiveness of Quiet Waters areas by modification, i.e.: 1. changing tine bouo.daries of regu~.a;.ed areas. ~. changing numbers and/ar location of Slaw buoys. 3. changing time and type a.~ regulation. 4. requesting special attention by the LJatex i?atrt?l. ~. placing of special regulatory signs. 6. placing of general ir~farmatiau signs at accesses. 7. eireu].atian of baatir~g iz~farmation folders. 8_ ether. i~.ASONS FOR i2,Ef~U1;STS. Many reasons have been expressed far requesting Qu7-et L7aters areas c,r changes, among them: 1. Excessive nt~ise. 2. ~'raffic cangestian- ~. ~e~~eral h-~,h ~rta1 aw i~;~arti~> activity. ~. Waterskiimg. 5. Yntim~.datian of swimmers by wraterskiers. 6. ~Taterskiing too c~,ose to structures or i7oats_ 7. Wash and wake damage to boats and dockage. $. Wash anti wake damage. to the Shoreline. 9. To preserve natural areas. 10. To prated fishzng areas. i3. To reduce eriviror~meritaJ. impact. 12. Area too small for general boating. r t~~M Lh1~:ll F HX NU. r~~Jt~~iS Sep. ~ r ~bVJ r 1~1: ~~iHf'1 t-'4 Lalce 1`4annetonk2 Conservation District 3 X3. Smal~.er boats need protection. 14. Quiet Waters needed on wreelt¢nds, z~ot r~uzing week. zS. Only area affected needs Quiet Waters, net whole. bay. z6. May' encourage weed growth. 17. Rule ci-ianges shauid be based on ~.ccidenL records. X8. Establishment should include adequate sign~,ng and enforcement. 19_ Recent increase xn traffic. 2D. ~Tr~rmal gave action is entensified by pawex- beats. 21. Navigational buoys are ignored. Z2_ Area i.s critical under LMCD boat dens~.ty standards. 23. Buoy placement changes needed to be effective. 24. Spec~.fied areas of shore one need buoys. Z5. Areaa is really an extended clzanne~, (high traffic) area.. 26_ Lack of adequate lgw enforcement. Z7. S~.aw buoys are wore effective for traff~.c control than navigation markers. 2$. Mixing of drinking and boating near transient facilities. 29. Increased traffic around marinas, restaur~ts, launching ramps ox othez . multiple facilities. 30. ~'o protect sai~.3~oat mooring areas, 31. urge waves of 4 feet to 5 feet from wakes. 32. A.re.a is part of the "circle" mute. ~3. Other. F F~U('1 Lh1~:ll I- H?4 t~lU. r4~y~~i~ Uep. ~ r ~U~ r 1~1: ~L;Hf'1 F'~ L31« )~linnc~l:ortk3 ~fY17Si'TV;jL].atl llastrict 4. Cdt77'1,TL).A_ far daterminil7frntc~d Lts con;~~der Lhc~ cstaL~iishtr3~~nt of a t~~i:iet W;~terE, area. 1. Determination of need as expressed by the app3.icant. 2. }~e~exmination of the boating safety retard for the area. 3. Determ%n.ation of LMCb baat3.ng, density index .for. the area. ~. Observation of the proposed Quiet Waters area during a~t least tl].ree norm~.l high-use periods fear one boating season by the LMCD. S. l~et~erminatiun of an,= natural or special. geographic features of the area which need to be considered. b. Determination of any special bQatzng ar other use characteristics affecting the area. 7_ Oonduct a public hearing to develop further information about the application. 8. TJetermin.ation.of affects of the. establishment of the Quiet Waters area on nearby areas, or on the Lake as a whole, ~. Determination of whether or not the establishment c]f the Quiet Waters area would ba essentially of pr~.vate or of general public benefit. I- I~UM Lh1t:ll F HX NU. 14~y~1~S~ Sep. ~ r ~~Jb .' 1k1: ~yH('1 N6 ~,a3te Mi37netUnlt~ t;anservai.ion D~.strSct: S, 3. C1. DetQrminatian of .any effects on the pa~,3ic health, welfare, and safety and the most genex-al publ3,c use o~ the hake, Adapted b~ the Lake ~linnettyAka CtSnserwation District hoard of birectoxs t32is 24th da~+' of September, x.9$6. /s! Robert Basco ~D~?£Xt ~a$~4~}, Chairman ATT~S~': /sJ ~rax~k Mixa drank Mixa, ~x~cutive I3i.rector f-h'Uh1 WHLLYS HHFcE=f'1 F'HUNb NU. b1~4 x41145 'yep. ~ r ~k1L; i' '~: U1`~r'^1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 4~! ~~' 5~~7' ~ w.xlar-~z ~1~~,5 ~ ~ 23711 I,~-wkanfr~ Dr. ~ ~. Exsalsiar, MN' 55331-17f~7 f ~r~~ ~ y ~ 'S ~{~~u~~~T ~Q~ U~' ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~~~~` ~c~c~ sit ~, ~.u~' ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~a~~~~~~ ~z~, OJ ~,,y~~~~9~ ~~ ~~~~~ 09/28!2007 16:35 9524705087 Johtx H. and Mary l~llert Olson 237801=.awtnnlca I~~ve ~harewaod, MN 55331 Phone: 952 470 50?1 enxazl: iahttholson~rnsn.cotxt 8eptemb~r ~$, 2007 Planning Camznissian City of Shorewood S7'S5 Caunt~ry Club Road Shorewood, MhT 55331 PAGE 61 Vl~e are writ~g izt support ofthe retlttest by the Shorewood Yacht Club to permit tbenx to designate up to SQ percent of the dock. slips far tkte tnooring of power b+~ats. Our feeling is that the current owners are making a substantial e~art to upgrade the facilities and refratin from actions that would offend their neighbors and flaunt ntt~tieipal regulations. It seems that interest in sailing is not increasing while demand 1"or power boat rnoortng is increasaxtg, thus making it necessary to iztcrease capacity far them in order to maintain a viable business. Therefore we respectfully ask that you favorably act an tl'te request by tie Yaeltt Club. Sin l , ~., hn H. Ql n N,lazy Ellen sort 23750 Lawtonka Drive Shorewood, MN 55331 September 27, 2007 Eradley J. Nielsen City of Shorewood c/o Planning Dept. 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Shorewood Yacht Club request Dear Mr. Nielsen: We are submitting our support for the Shorewood Yacht Club's request to designate up to SO percent of its dock slips for the mooring of powerboats. We are affected property owners as we have dock space immediately adjacent to the yacht club's property. We believe that the yacht club is a positive presence on the lake and would like to see that presence continue. We have lived here five years and have never had any problems with the club. In fact, we have had very positive responses and interaction any time we have dealt with the club and Mr. Maloney. We cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this action. The only time that one might be aware of the boats would be while they are entering or leaving the drib. This would be no more of a problem than it already is when the boats on Timber Lane leave and return to their docks. There is no place for speeding in this bay, the channels are clearly marked, and I would expect that the club would have expectations for the power boats entering and leaving the facility as they must already have for the sailboats. After all, the sailboats use motors to enter and leave the bay. We believe that a marina on the lake and at this location is an asset for us and for the surrounding area. The lake is large and can accommodate many boats. We sincerely hope that the planning commission will consider our opinions and will vote to allow the Shorewood Yacht Club to maintain its position and a viable business on the lake by allowing the yacht club to designate up to 50 percent of its dock slips for the mooring of powerboats. Copy to Shorewood Yacht Club Kathy and Nick Ruehl 456 Lafayette Avenue Excelsior, Minnesota 55331. September 24, 2007 Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen, 1'Ianning Director City of Shorewood. 5755 Country Club Road ~~" Shorewood, Minnesota 55331-8927 Re: Proposed Zoning District Text amendment and Conditional Use Permit amendment Shorewood Yacht Club Dear Mr. Nielsen: As Yogi Berra said, "This rs like eleja vu all over again. " We are writing to object {again) to any change in the current zoning ordinance /conditional use that would. allow more powerboat storage than. the current ordinance. We are quits upset and bewildered at the request of the Yacht Club ownership for changing the use. Just over four years ago, there was an attempt by Mr. Cross to add powerboats to the Yacht Club. The Shorewood City Council roads a wise decision in denying the request. We believe that denying the current request would also be a wise decision. My wife and I have lived in our house since 1974 -before the property was converted to a sailboat marina. We live very close to the docks, and. notice that sailboats, with their small motors and small crews, make little noise. Toward the end of the Cross ownership, we were disturbed by evening gatherings (parties} an the boats closest to our property. While those issues have been managed. by the current owners, we are concerned that powerboats, if allowed, would be more conducive to late night gatherings of people {and alcohol}. There will certainly be more noise (engine /people} and. a huge disturbance in a predominantly residential neighborhood. In a recent discussion with the managezrzent of the Yacht Club, my wife was told there are no limitations in the lease regarding staying overnight at the marina. When the current owners purchased the marina two years ago, they knew that powerboats had been. previously rejected by the Council, and they purchased the property at a value that reflected sailboats only. The upside accrues only to them if the use changes. There is na upside for the neighborhood. We cannot think of anykhing worse than. introducing more powerboats to the marina. Large boats, large engines (and twin screws), along with entertaining larger groups of people later into the evenings will certainly be disruptive to the surrounding neighbors. We also have concerns about the ecological issues with larger boats and engines. We ask, again, for you to reject this proposal. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~• y and Nick Ruehl Kathy and Nick Ruehl 456 Lafayette Avenue Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 May 29, 2003 Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331-8927 Re: Proposed Zoning /Conditional Use Revisions Shorewood Yacht Club Dear Mr. Nielsen: :, I am writing to object to any change in the current zoning ordinance /conditional use that would allow more powerboat storage than the current ordinance. I am quite upset and bewildered at the request of Mr. Cross for changing the use. Four years ago I generally supported the zoning revisions for the Lakeshore Recreational District; however I did specifically express 5 concerns at the Plamiing Commission meeting and reiterated those concerns in the attached letter dated March 21, 1999. As noted, Mr. Cross stated at the meeting that he had no problem restricting the dock space to sailboats. My understanding is that the final ordinance allowed dockage for 4 powerboats. In May of 2000, I supported the expansion of the sailboat docks for Mr. Cross (see the second attached letter), as up until that time he was quite responsive to the concerns of our residential neighborhood relative to halyard/mast and people noise. Over the past two summers, however, we have had nothing but problems with the occupants of two particular sailboats - "Ooh Baby" and "Pinch Me." Well into the evening the people are loud and most times their behavior is obnoxious. No end of complaining to the management of the marina has resulted in either a relocation of the boats or reduction of noise. This year we intend to contact the Police rather than the management. I cannot think of anything worse than introducing more powerboats to the marina. For all of the previously- stated reasons this is a terrible idea. Add to those, the reality that powerboats are more conducive to late night gatherings of people (and alcohol), and the result will be more noise (engine /people) and a huge disturbance in a predominantly residential neighborhood. Based on the above, I ask the Planning Commission to reject the request to expand powerboat dockage. I intend to be at the upcoming public hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Nick Ruehl J. Nicholas Ruehl, Architect 456 Lafayette Avenue Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 March 21, 1999 Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331-8927 ,~ Re: Proposed Zoning Revisions Marina & Yacht Club Dear Mr. Nielsen: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission members and City Staff last Tuesday. At the meeting I was able to respond to the second draft of the proposed ordinance for Lakeshore Recreational Districts. We discussed the following issues relative to the Shorewood Yacht Club: 1. In 1975, John Cross was successful in establishing the Yacht Club, over the objections of many. During his application process, I told John that I would support his project with the following reservations: • There would be no powerboats docked at the Yacht Club; • There would be no gas sales from the docks; • There would be no late night parties allowed on the sailboats; • There would be little, if any, noise from howling masts or snapping halyards. 2. The proposed ordinance appears to allow powerboats and gas sales. 3. Powerboat docking and gas sales would fundamentally change the character of the back bay of Guideon's in a negative way, by encouraging higher intensity usage. This would generate more traffic, noise, and certainly affect water quality, as the bay is rather shallow. 4. Guideon's Bay, particularly the Back Bay, is essentially residential in character. I am very concerned about anything that would affect the quiet neighborhood. 5. John Cross was present at the 3/16 meeting and indicated that he had no problem with restricting the Shorewood Yacht Club to sailboats and no gas dock sales. Based on the above, I ask the Planning Commission to limit the Shorewood Yacht Club to sailboats and not allow gas sales at the dock. Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional information. Sincerely, Nick Ruehl e to: Mayor Lizee and the Shorewood City Council ~6 , From: Steve Frazier, former Mayor ~ CC: Jim Thibault Date: September 24, 2007 Re: Shorewood Yacht Club It has come to my attention that the owners of the Shorewood Yacht Club are requesting that the property's permitted use be expanded to a power boat marina. As mayor from that period of time in the City of Shorewood I would like to share with you my historic perspective on the conditions we set forth as the conditions for operation of the Shorewood Yacht Club and specifically did not allow the permitted use of the yacht club to be used as a marina. I have also spoken with Bill Keeler who was also on the council at that time and he confirms these same recollections that I am sharing with you in this memo. The Shorewood City Council had received an application from John Cross to allow the property adjacent to Timber Lane to be used as a yacht club. The council held the required hearings for the permitted use of a yacht club with residents from Shorewood, Tonka bay and Excelsior in attendance: Since this was a quiet mostly residential bay (except for the dredging establishment) residents were concerned with the affects of a yacht club being placed on the property because of noise, sailboat traffic and precedence of allow its use in a residential zone. It was very controversial and the number of slips granted by the council was specifically limited to sailboats that were to be used by the members of the private yacht club. Also allowed were two power boats to be used for maintenance and recovery purposes. The sailboats were limited to "small" motors for navigational purposes in and out of the bay. This facility was never intended to be used as a commercial powerboat marina and specifically limited its uses to differentiate if for the Howard's Point Marina that did permit both powerboats .and sailboats. We also limited the number of slips to allow for reasonable use and in line with how we interpreted our ordinances and form public input. However, John Cross challenged us in court about the number of slips we granted and the judge in the case ruled that the council had been "arbitrary and capricious" in the granting of slips and gave a compromised marginally larger number. Even the judge in the case commented that sailboats and yacht clubs by their quiet nature are not intrusive to residential neighborhoods and the small navigation motors would not disturb residential neighbors. If the historical precedence of intended use carries any legal weight the Shorewood Yacht Club in question was never considered nor permitted to operate as a marina and its specific permitted use was limited to sailboats. A definite differentiation exists between the terms "yacht Club" and a "Marina". I hope this information is helpful in your deliberations and sorry that I can not be at your meeting in person to share this information with you. Please contact me if you have any further questions on this matter. Based on the above comments I urge you to deny the request to make the yacht club facility into a powerboat marina and to honor the Iong time commitment to the area residents to keep the usage as a private sailboat yacht club. Sincerely, Steve Frazier, former Shorewood Mayor ® Page 2 Whc~: Shorewood Yacht Club, 600 West Lake Street What: Public Hearing far request of Zoning District Text amendment and Conditional Use Permit amendment. Why: The Shorewood Yacht Club, located at 600 West Lake Street, is requesting a text amendment to the L-R (Lakeshore-Recreational) District of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the use of powerboats, as well as an amendment to its Conditional Use Permit. The requested amendments would allow the Yacht Club to designate up to 50 ercent of its dock sli s for the moorin f erboats. The Yacht Club is currently allowe up to ive power oats and the remaining slips are restricted to sailboats. When: Tuesday, 2 October 2007 at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible Where: Shorewood City Hall Council Chambers, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood Legal Description of property: A legal description of the property is on file at City Hall. P.I.N. 34-117-23-21-0061 and 0062 plus 34-117-23-22-0002 and 0003 _ ____ _ ____ _ _.____ _ -----_--_- - ***See Map on Reverse-Side *** _ --_---- Verbal and written comments will be considered at the hearing. Anyone having questions relative to this matter may contact Plannitng Department by phone at (952) 474-3236, or by fax at (952) 474-0128. Or you may submit your written comments via U.S. Mail to City of Shorewood, c/o Planning Dept, 5755 County Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 City of Shorewood BRADLEY 7. NIELSEN Planning Director JO~n VV, ie~~.~ I~, ~I~ LTC COI~ISULTIl~1G Serving People in Long Term Care Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Commission City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood MN 55331 Re: Shorewood Yacht Club proposal Dear Mr. Nielsen, I am writing in support of the Shorewood Yacht Club proposal to add powerboats to its conditional use permit. I am a board member of the SYC owners association and a life long resident of the Lake Minnetonka area. My wife and I have greatly enjoyed keeping our sailboat at SYC for the past four years. We are especially happy with the current management at SYC. As a board member I can assure you that powerboats (and their owners) are a welcome addition to SYC. We fully intend to include them in our social events. We also will expect therm to abide by our rules and regulations. The sailors at the club are aclose-knit group of people who value the privilege of using and sharing the lake with many other boaters. We watch out for each other and expect proper boating and social conduct on the water and at the marina. This has been our experience at Shorewood Yacht Club for the past four years. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. We hope that the marina can be available to residents of our area far years to come. Sincerely, s John W. Mielke P.O. Box 458 Exce~sior, MN 55331-0458 Phone/fax 952-400-465J ~miel~Ce@comcast.net P October 2, 2007 To: City of Shorewood, Planning Commission From: Gene Marien, Shorewood resident (5815 Echo Road) Sub: Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) -proposal for power boats. As a resident of the City of Shorewood and someone who has had his sailboat at Shorewood Yacht Club for the last 7 years, I am an interested party to the proposal before the planning commission. Sure it would be nice to just have sailboats at SYC as stated in the "Conditional Use Permit", but sailing has not had the growth to fill the marina like power boats at other marinas on the lake. The economics of not being able to fill the slips with sailboats puts SYC at a financial position to keep raising rates or get out of the business. With slip fees already high, more sailboat owners will leave SYC or sell their boats. The alternatives for SYC to sell or develop the land for residential use are limited by its location and size. We as boat owners at SYC have gone through many years of uncertainty, not knowing if we will have a slip for the next year or not. Shorewood Yacht Club is a very nice and attractive facility that adds benefits the City of Shorewood. As a resident, I do not live on the lake so SYC provides me a piece of the lake that my family can fully enjoy. Please give the power boat proposal positive consideration so that all of us sailors and power boaters alike can continue to enjoy Lake Minnetonka that is a wonderful part of the City of Shorewood. Si ice ely, ~ ~ ___ ~ Gene Marien Page 1 of 1 Brad Nielsen From: Shorewood City Hall [cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:02 AM To: Brad Nielsen; Planning (Planning) Subject: FW: Planning Commission -Shorewood Yacht Club permit - 7 pm, Oct. 2 From: David Adams [mailto:davidgadams@frontiernet.net] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:08 PM To: cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Cc: Mike Maloney; Grant and Meggan Adams; Barton Adams Subject: Planning Commission -Shorewood Yacht Club permit - 7 pm, Oct. 2 Dear Members of the Shorewood Planning Commission: As a sailboat owner and member of Shorewood Yacht Club, I encourage you to approve the conditional use permit requested by Shorewood Yacht Club. I understand the permit would allow SYC to take in a limited number of power boats. It goes without saying that the club owner, club members, neighbors and the City of Shorewood would all prefer to keep SYC as a sailboats-only marina. It has been an ideal location for sailboats for over 25 years.However, ecomic realities make that virtually impossible. The popularity of sailing has been declining in recent years while power boating keeps growing. There are not enough sailboat owners in the area to keep the marina more than about 60% full. Without the added revenue from a limited number of power boats, SYC will be forced to close. If SYC closes, the owners will, of course, look for alternative business opportunities, one of which would be a condominiums, most likely purchased by power boat owners. As I see it the city's choices are: 1. Approve the conditional use permit and allow SYC to continue in business with a mixture of sailboats and power boats 2. Do not approve the permit with the likely result that SYC will close and be replaced by condominiums with power boats only and no sailboats I urge the Planning Commission to approve the permit. It is in the best interest of the city, its residents and the entire Lake Minnetonka community. Sincerely, David Adams Minnetrista, Minnesota 10/1/2007 Page 1 of 2 Brad Nielsen From: Shorewood City Hall [cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:05 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: FW: Shorewood Planning Commision Meeting Oct 2 2007 From: sfarnes@pol.net [mailto:sfarnes@pol.net] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:54 AM To: cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Cc: schaubs@mchsi.com; terripresley@comcast.net; peggymarrin@yahoo.com; stauter@aol.com; nfarnes@earthlink.net; margblu@aol.com; peterwattson@earthlink.net Subject: Shorewood Planning Commision Meeting Oct 2 2007 September 29 2007 Planning Commission and City Council members City of Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: Shorewood Yacht Club request for Motorized Boat Rental Slips The Shorewood Marina is requesting that their sailboat-only facility be allowed to harbor and service motorized boats. This same issue was brought up to the Council only a few years ago by the previous owner of the Marina, John Cross. After public hearings and exhaustive discussions, the proposal was properly voted down by the city council. The current owner of the Marina, Mr. Jabbour, apparently needs the (considerable) extra revenue that motorized boats would generate in order to make the Marina economically viable. Mr. Jabbour owns at least two other marinas on Lake Minnetonka, and has been in the marina business for over fifteen years. I fmd it difficult to believe that he was unaware of the economic facts surrounding the Shorewood Marina at the time of purchase. Did Mr. Jabbour buy the sailboat Marina confident that he could "flip" the Shorewood council into permitting motorized boats in the Marina- accomplishing what the previous owner tried to do on two separate occasions and failed? Whatever the actual circumstances, the city of Shorewood is under no compunction to bail Mr. Jabbour out of a bad business decision, especially when the solution would be to the detriment of the general public, for the following reasons: -A motorized Marina would mean an exponential increase in the noise level generated by the facility. The Shorewood Marina is located in a confined area of the southwest corner of Gideon's bay. There, even the slightest noise is propagated hundreds of yards down the shoreline and across the bay. Also, loud music would likely be a problem, as the type of person who operates a large motor craft is radically different from the sort who operate sailboats. Alcohol use by boat operators would probably be another problem. -The southwest corner of Gideon's Bay has developed into a tranquil haven for Canoeists, Kayakers, and people who operate and enjoy other types of non-motorized personal watercraft. I have even seen children swimming from the Excelsior shore across to Frog Island, and then on to Duck Island. With the traffic increase caused by fifty or more large motorized boats in the area, this sort of recreational use would certainly diminish or even stop altogether. There is a safety factor here to consider, as well as a quality of life issue. 10/1/2007 Page 2 of 2 -For decades, the city of Excelsior dumped partially treated sewage into the waters where the Shorewood Marina now has docks. The depth of the lake there is very shallow. If powerboats were allowed at the Marina, in low-water years the props of the larger boats will surely would stir up the muck and pollutants on the bottom. This would contribute to poor water quality and be a potential health hazard. Shorewood already has one Marina dedicated to motorized boats within its city limits, and should keep the Shorewood Yacht Club dedicated to sailboats-only. Steve Farnes 5445 Tamberlane Shorewood, Mn 55331 952-474-2676 10/1/2007 Peter S. Wattson 5495 Timber Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 (952)474-7988 peterwattson@earthlink.net September 29, 2007 Bradley J. Nielsen c/o Planning Department City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Nielsen: I understand that on Tuesday, October 2, 2007, the Planning Commission will consider the application of the Shorewood Yacht Club to amend its eonditionai use permit to allow it to moor powerboats in up to half of the slips currently limited to sailboats only. I submit this letter on behalf of my neighbors and myself in opposition to the request. In 1975, John Cross sought a permit from the City of Shorewood to construct a commercial marina to moor 270 boats of all kinds. My neighbors on Gideon's Bay and I opposed the request, and the City voted to deny it. Mr. Cross challenged the City's decision in districtcourt and was successful in getting an order compellingthe City to issue the permit. The Gideon's Bay Homeowner's Association and I intervened in the case on behalf of the City and appealed the district court's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. In 1979, the Court denied our appeal. The City and the LMCD granted Mr. Cross, doing business as the Shorewood Yacht Club, the right to construct a marinato moor 80 sailboats. I believe that number was later increased to 125. Mr. Cross has sold his interest in the Shorewood Yacht Club to various purchasers over the years, most recently to Gabriel Jabbour. On August 15, 2007, at a meeting at the Shorewood Yacht Club, Mr. Jabbour told my neighbors and me that the Shorewood Yacht Club currently has 117 slips available for rent to sailboats only. Mr. Jabbour also told us that he had paid Mr. Cross more than the property was worth, and had invested more than $200,000 in improvements to the property, not realizing the number of slips that Mr. Cross had been unable to rent, or had rented to members of the Wayzata Yacht Club at a below-market rate. Mr. Jabbour told us he would ask the City of Shorewood to increase t11e number of powerboats to up to one-half the number of permitted slips, since powerboat owners were willing to pay higher rents than sailboat owners. He said this was necessary in order for him to get an adequate return on his investment. It may be that Mr. Jabbour has invested more in the property than it is worth, but that is no justification for changing the character of the Shorewood Yacht Club. If powerboat owners really are willing to pay higher rents than sailboat owners, that economic fact will tend to drive the sailboats out of the Club entirely, to the extent the City permits that to happen. As I said in my letter to you dated June 1, 2003, in opposition to Mr. Cross's application to remove the limit on the number of powerboats moored at the Shorewood Yacht Club, the Club has been running an exemplary operation. The sailboats have been no bother at all. The sailors have kept their halyards tied off so they don't clang against the mast, they haven't had loud parties, and they haven't caused any trouble, other than exceeding the permitted number of powerboats in 2003 and immediately before. The sailboats have been a pretty sight. The Shorewood Yacht Club has run occasional races and a modest sailing school. The Club has been a good neighbor. Conversion of up to half the slips to powerboats would be out of keeping with our residential neighborhood. The Shorewood Yacht Club has been permitted as a conditional use in a residential zone because sailboats, when properly cared for, do not disturb our quiet serenity. Powerboats are quiie different. They are noisy and tend to pollute both the air and water with the gas and oil they consume or leave in their wake. The few boats needed to run races and manage the facility have not been a problem, but up to 58 additional powerboats would change the facility to a commercial marina-appropriate perhaps in a commercial zone but not in a residential zone. Mr. Jabbour told us that the powerboats would first be put into the slips furthest west, where the water tends to be too shallow for sailboats with keels. That may serve his interests, but it also puts them into the part of Gideon's Bay where their props will do the most harm stirring up the phosphorous-rich. sediments, thus contributing to the growth of the Eurasian watermilfoil and water lilies that are already choking the bay between Frog Island and Timber Lane. That same area has become a haven in recent years for kayakers, canoeists, and electric-trolling bass fishermen. Fifty-eightmore powerboats passing out of and into the marina will interfere with their quiet serenity, as well as our own, while their wakes increase the erosion of Frog Island. On behalf of my neighbors and myself, I respectfully request that the application for an increase in the number of powerboats permitted at the Shorewood Yacht Club be denied. Sincerely, s ~,__ _.. Peter S. Wattson cc: Mike and Karen Kramer, 5425 Timber Lane Tom and Nancy Henke, 5435 Timber Lane Marge Yaeger and Steven Farnes, 5445 Timber Lane Steven and Diana Haskins, 5455 Timber Lane Hans and Joanne Schaub, 5465 Timber Lane Donald O. and Nancy Erickson, 5485 Timber Lane Richard Tradewell, 5515 Timber Lane Richard Lundy and Lucille Goodwyne, 5525 Timber Lane 2 October 1, 2007 City of Shorewood Planning Dept. 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Planning Director and Commission: My name is Steve Linder and I have a residence at 23730 Lawtonka Dr. in Shorewood. I am writing in support of the Shorewood Yacht Club's request for a change in its conditional use permit to allow power boats in the marina. I believe that the Shorewood Yacht Club is an asset to our community and that this change is necessary for its continued viability. I also think that this change would allow more community residents like myself to become a member and help keep the yacht club a community asset. I live in the neighborhood and do not think that this change would have any significant negative impact. UCL Ul GUU / f ~ ft'PI l.tiKPil'ill Shorewood Planning Commission. 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, 3w7N 55331 Submitted Via Facsimile . X952 4'74 0128 bear Planning Commission: ~~C-~~l-U.~i31 (~• 1 I am writing to the Shorewood Planning Commission to e7cpress my support for the Shorewood Yacht Club's (SYC) request to accept power boats at their Marina. It is my understanding that this matter wilt be discussed during the planning meeting scheduled far Qctober 2, 20Q7. Due to business travel, I am not able.to persanaliy attend the meelang, although my opinion on the matter is very Strang. I have been a member of the SYC since waving the area in 24Q2. In looking at the Marina in Gideon's Bay, my family and I were struck by the beauty and sereauty of the area.. In fact, I based xaty decision to relocate to the area in na small part because of the slip we were able to rent at SYC. We saw then, as we see today, that the marina is very quiet and family friendiy. Since ~OEl2, we have seen the SYC go through many positive changes which I thinly have added to the appeal of the marina. Mast notably the present owner and business manager of the SYC have undertaken significant improvements to the property, including an improved boat crane and well, decking, and slip maintenance. Although these improvements have been made, the membership of the SYC has stayed approximately the same, or decreased iu.the last few years. Based on any understanding, without the addition of power boats, the fang teran viability of the marina is in question. I would note that the restriction to sailboats at the marina is seems irrelevant, since nearly ail of the boats have a means of engine power. For example, our boat has aat in-board 23 HP diesel motor. In addition, the members of the SYC have been courteous and thoughtfitl to the rieigtabors of adjacent properties. As a property owner and tax payer, the SYC has every motivation to keep the area quiet, and will do so in the future. Based on the above, I am requesting that the Planning Commissioa~ approve the request for the SYC to accept power boats. Sins , roc an (952) 93I 03$5 Page 1 of 1 Brad Nielsen From: Shorewood City Hall [cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us] ~v Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:01 PM To: Brad Nielsen; 'Bruce Gniffke'; Jeff Bailey; Jeff Bailey; 'Kevin Conley'; 'Richard odruff ; 'Robert Gagne' Subject: FW: SYC Slips From: TThiss@aol.com [mailto:TThiss@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:49 PM To: cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: SYC Slips Dear Planning Commission, As a resident of Gideon Cove adjacent to SYC, I would support their request to add power boats to their slips. They clearly prefer sailboats and would continue to give preference to them, but they have tried for two years to make it work and the numbers aren't sufficient. They have demonstrated that they ar good neighbors, and I would rather have a viable marina than other alternatives should they choose to sell property if it continues to be a losing investment. Sincerely, Tom Thiss 23740 Lawtonlca Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com 10/2/2007 'I V-VL-V /; V:i VVI-'IVI; tl; Fi~HI I VCWVHKS October 2, 2007 SENT VIA FAX 952-474-012$ Bradley Nielsen Planning Department City of Shorewood 5755 County Club Rd Shorewood, MN 55331 - 9 Q~` ~ C~~~~ Subject: Public Hearing Notice for Shorewood Yacht Club request of Zoning Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit amendment Dear Mr Nielsen and the Planning Department Members I am an affected property owner at 23790 l.awtonka Drive and including the Lakeshore property immediately west of the subject Shorewood Yacht Club. I have no objection to up to 50% of the slips at this marina being used by power boats. As a resident of Shorewood and neighbor of the Yacht Club I welcome the ability to have power boat docks available in Shorewood. I feel as a resident and a neighbor that the operation of a viable marina at this location is an asset to the neighborhood and the city of Shorewood. I feel that the success of this marina also enhances the value of our properties. Best Bret Olseth 23790 onka Drive S ewood, MN 55331 952-474-2997 Page 1 of 2 -~ Brad Nielsen From: kevin faus [kkeevviin2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:14 AM To: planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us ,~ Subject: Shorewood Yacht Club and Motorboats "~ October 3, 2007 Dear Mr. Nielsen, Shorewood Planning Commission Members and City of Shorewood City Curd:+~_,ii Members, Thank you and the Planning Commission and the City Council for listening to citizens concerns about the application of the Shorewood Yacht Club (club) for adding motor boats to its slips. My family owns property at 452 Lafayette Ave. Most boats, (sail or motor) that go back and forth from and to the club go within about 70 feet of our dock. To be brief, following are my concerns, after listening to the speakers at the Public Hearing last night, October 2, 2007: 1. Financial gain -decisions should not be made because of financial gain or loss. The Club was bought two years ago knowing the circumstances. The owners may increase their profit by downsizing if they choose. Many large companies are doing this. 2. Property values decrease -the homes along Lafayette Ave. on the lake will decrease in property value because of increased boat haffic. If a property valuation study was done properly by a reputable firm, I'm sure this would be true. This principle is the same as homes along a quite street; that they are more valuable than homes along a busy street, all other variables being the same. Why should the financial gain for a business be at the expense of residential property owners? This financial valuation should be considered here because these homes are not part of the business. 3. Why is sailing declining -the reason sailing is decreasing is because motor boats are increasing. Who wants to go sail boating when the lake is filled with motorboats? Obviously, only 57 out of 117 slips are filled. If you add even more motorboats, then sailing will further decrease. I have watched the sailboats going up and down the motorboat wakes, the sails and other things on the sailboats shake all over, motorboats going to close to sailboats, sailing on a crowded lake, all making for an unpleasant experience. 4. To many motorboats for the Lake? - 12,000 motorboats. How many is too many? Everyone wants more. Where will it stop? Cities may need to start taking responsibility for what happens to the lake and the number of motorboats. I think we should start now. 5. Stewardship - do we want to keep the natural resources that we have in good condition? I think we do. I believe the Lake is satuuated with motorboats and more will tip the balance to begin a decline in the natural resources of the Lake (this includes recreational positive experiences). 6. Bequest - I believe we want to bequest to future generations natural resources that are viable habitats for most animals and plants as well as optimum recreational opportunities. If we leave a lake over saturated with motorboats, this will not happen. 7. Aesthetics - it is generally pleasant looking at the lake with few boats and little noise and little pollution. It is generally unpleasant looking at the lake with many boats, much noise and much pollution. I have been on shore when, cumulatively, thousands of boats have gone by (again, around 70 feet from our dock) and motorboats are much noisier than sailboats, and, motorboats give off odors of exhaust and occasionally, but not often, sheens of petroleum. Sailboats do not give off odors or sheens of petroleum. 8. Pollution -Sailboats minimally give off hydrocarbons from their small motors. Motorboats give off much hydrocarbons from their large motors. Hydrocarbons in the water are detrimental to organisms and fish and plants. We do not see the hydrocarbons, but they are there causing injury. Diesel engines may also give off small amounts of polynuclear aromatics (PAH's), which some are carcinogenic as well as detrimental to fish and wildlife and plants. These pollutants may or may not be a concern now, but adding more and more hydrocarbons and PAH's to the water will ultimately be too much, if not already. I think we should stop the increase now. 9. Condominiums -the argument that if the club does not make it then condominiums will bring many motorboats is not 10/3/2007 Page 2 of 2 vwiid, after listening to Brad Nielsen. First, if the club is managed properly, maybe by downsizing maybe not, they will stay and no condo's will be built. Second, if condo's are built, only about 12-13 boats will be added (assuming one per condo), and maybe some of those would be sailboats. Because of the above concerns, I firmly believe, as folks representing the City of Shorewood and because the good of the Lake Minnetonka area will benefit the people of Shorewood, the City of Shorewood should not give permission to increase the number of motorboats at the Shorewood Yacht Club. I would appreciate this email being forwarded to all Shorewood Plamiing Commission Members as well as all members of the Shorewood City Council. If possible, I would also like to be copied on forwarded emails. Thank you very much, Kevin Faus 952/920-8825 Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet_it~our pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 10/3/2007 Page 1 of 2 Brad Nielsen From: Shorewood City Hall [cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:04 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: FW: Shorewood Yacht Club From: Steve Haskins [mailto:shaskins@rambenefits.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:43 PM To: cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: FW: Shorewood Yacht Club Please see below. Steven W. Haskins, CLU Phone: 952-908-2688 800-334-4275 ext 34 Fax: 952-933-8845 "An Alliance of the Nation's Premier Independent Benefit Advisory Firms" The contents of this electronic mail message and any attachments are confidential, possibly privileged, and intended for the nddressee(s) only. Only the addressee(s) may read, disseminate, and retain or otherwise use this message. If received in error, please immediately inform the sender and then delete this message without disclosing its contents to anyone. Hi Brad Nielsen, I have been out of the state for the past few weeks and could not attend the meeting. Please accept this as my input to the council and commission. I moved here 27 years ago, just after the first law suit was settled. It is my understanding that the city gave the site a conditional use permit to be a "sailboat only marina." This was to be its only option. Mr. Cross challenged this status only a few years ago, after we (City of Shorewood) gave him permission to expand the facility. He then blatantly violated the use permit and had 25 powerboats in the marina as rental slips. By the way, if you remember he had not even payed his operations license for two years. The Council then said no, and reaffirmed the site as a sailboat only marina. I have known Mr. Jabbour for at least 10 years, and have had dealings with him at Tonka Bay Marina before. Mr. Jabbour had to have known of these restrictions as the Cross's were well known in the Marina community. What he paid for the Marina is not material to this discussion. As tax-payers we are not concerned with whether he made a good deal or not. It is public knowledge as to what all the Cross's were doing,and they were notorious at best. Mr. Jabbour had full knowledge of what he was buying, and if he did not, he is not as bright as I have previously given him credit for. In my opinion, Gabe knew exactly what he was buying and was betting on the come, that he could get use permit changed. Why else would he so magnaimously donate the use of a dock to the Fire Department? I specifically asked the Council, at that time, if that would have any effect on the conditional use permit. If it pleases the Council, please review the tape and you will see that you reaffirmed the sailboat only status and that his action would not effect same. 10/ 10/2007 Page 2 of 2 The real reason I write this letter is that there are several fundamental reasons that power boats should not be in that Marina. Some of these include: 1. The area around the Marina was the outlet for the Excelsior Sewer system years ago. There are tons of phosphates deposited in that area. Power boats will stir that up and the growth of weeds and algae will be seriously promoted. 2. Frog Island continues to erode into the bay, have any of you seen the erosion? The main access to the marina is a channel that is only 10 feet or so from the banks of the island. Powerboats will exaccerbate that erosion and cause the bay to fill. The nine residents of Timber lane spent 43,000 plus to reduce this damage in 1989-90. The DNR, Water Conservation District, and other agencies do not see this as a problem. One look at the banks and trees of this island will tell you what is going on. Powerboaters consistently violate minimum wake requirements in these channels. Therefore the erosion goes on -- imagine what 57 or so additional boats would do. 3. The sail boats are very nice to watch and we do not have a problem unless they move outside the channel. Our nine houses are one of those special secrets of Shorewood. We think/know that 57 powerboats will change the environment in this bay. We pay property taxes and they do not. Our property values will be diminished if the 57 powerboats are allowed. If our values decrease, your taxes/income decrease. Mr. Jabbour will ask for tax concessions to increase his profits (he already owns several other marinas). His taxes go down, our values/taxes go down -- Shorewood gets hit twice. 4. I personally asked Mr. Jabbour if he was OK with the sail boat only arrangement when we put the fire boat in. His response was, "It is going great!" How could all this change in 6 weeks? He knew perfectly well what the Cross's were doing and still bought the marina. 5.. The residents of Lawtonka La. would love to see this happen. They could then lease power boat slip space in walking distance from their domiciles. They have already tried cutting down trees for increased views that were not there prior. Their request for slips was not granted when they built the units, for the same reasons we have given. We are convinced that Mr. Jabbour has promised very favorable terms to these people for their support. Please note the attendance at the first petition -- mostly Lawtonka residents. Their property values would be minimally enhanced and therefore your revenues would still decrease. 6. The residents of Timber Lane cannot improve their Lakeshore (depth) because of the DNR, Watershed and other agencies. With continued erosion we have a problem anyway. Additional powerboats will only exaccerbate the problem. The bay is being filled again by the erosion of the islands. Please remember that these islands are essentially the products of dredging in 1952-53. In 1989-90 we could not use our boats for a year and a half. If our Lakeshore becomes unusable, the city will lose at least half of our tax revenue. Are you prepared for that? Life is short, but God gave us a chance to enjoy and share these special places. You as the Council have the resposibility to preserve what God has given us to share. You also have the resposibilitlity to affirm your predecessors decisions if the reasons remain. Thank you for reading this, and I do also affirm Peter Wattson's letter. We ask you to deny Mr. Jabbour's request. We ask you to affirm Shorewood's green position. Would you be so kind as to forward this to the City Council members and the Planning Commission members? Please let me know if that request is possible - if not I will deliver in paper format. Thanks for your time. Best Regards, Steve and Diana Haskins 5455 Timber lane Excelsior, MN 55331 See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 10/10/2007 Page 1 of 2 Brad Nielsen From: abjnielsen@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:31 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: FW: Attention Brad Nielson Re: Shorewood Yacht Club zoning change Brad Nielsen -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- From: "Shorewood City Hall" <cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us> To: "Brad Nielsen" <abjnielsen@comcast.net> Subject: FW: Attention Brad Nielson Re: Shorewood Yacht Club zoning change Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:56:49 +0000 From: schaubs@mchsi.com [mailto:schaubs@mchsi.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 1:17 PM To: cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Peter Watson Subject: Attention Brad Nielson Re: Shorewood Yacht Club zoning change Dear Brad, Planning Commission Members and Mayor Chris Lizee, (Brad: Please copy Planning Commission Members and Mayor Lizee.) My husband and I attended, but did not speak at, the public hearing on Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007, to discuss the proposed addition of power boats to the Shorewood Yacht Club. We reside at 5465 Timber Lane, Shorewood. We chose to have Peter Watson represent and speak on the behalf of our neighborhood of 16 residents, not including our children. We oppose the change in zoning to accomodate power boats. We are concerned about the adverse impact on the neighborhood, that being "the public health, safety and general welfare." Gabe Jabbour's personal, economic concerns regarding the marina's existance or 1. The "scare tactics" used for current sailboat rentals ending due to low levels or 2. The "discount enticements" to Lawtonka townhome and other Shorewood residents should not be a factor in this proposed major zoning change. This is historically a peaceful, residential neighborhood, zoned for a sailboat only marina. We support Peter Watson's letter and oppose the addition of motor boats. After speaking personally with you at city hall weeks before the public hearing, you assured me that our neighborhood would be notified in writing of the public hearing. I regret that we were 10/10/2007 Page 2 of 2 NOT notified. JoAnn and Hans Schaub The Schaubs~a mchsi.com 10/10/2007 i e ~ ~. v~K ~ ~ LARGEd PO4ES ~ SAGGING SKIN ~ •EF ~-IVES UNEVEN TEXTURE -, _~_ DULL SKIN ~o~ bestsel,,, v _ .. one simple ki'~. t e I~~I. °i~ ! G?l' ~~ ~~ ~ ~` ~ ''lan ~e folders ~ . ~,_ ,.~ ~' I ~_ , .,~~~. I ~~~~~ ~n ~~sE~~Ea~~N~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~4~~ c~~ ~i-~c~i~.vUQ~~ ~~~- `~ ~rin~ E prof€t ~ ~, _~ _ ...,E ~ ~ - z,n ;~ r i ry tl ~e dull version of Windows ~Ive Fdotmail. f tt' ) © 2007 Nfilcroso~t Privacy ', _-gal Fiefs Central ', ~c ~~ar' Feed~ac~ Page 1 of 1 Brad Nielsen From: Shorewood City Hall [cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:01 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: FW: Shore Yacht Club From: sfarnes@pol.net [mailto:sfarnes@pol.net] Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 9:10 AM To: cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Shore Yacht Club Brad Nielson and the Planning Commission I am against powerboats at the Shorewood Yacht Club and I am surprised that the Shorewood Planning Commission is taking this issue up again when it voted it down three years ago, and by a unanimous margin. The only difference today is that Gabe Jabbour is claiming he is losing money. That is no reason to change public policy. If the SYC can't make it as a going concern the way it is charted, then it should either go out of business, or raise the rates on the boats to cover expenses. Have you seen the books of the SYC? Does the Planning Commission really know if the SYC is losing money? At the very least, Gabe's claims should be independently verified before there is any talk of giving him a public subsidy, and degrading the quality of life in Gideon's bay. Steve Farnes 5445 Tamberlane Shorewood, Mn 55331 952-474-2676 10/10/2007 Page 1 of 2 Brad Nielsen From: Craig Dawson Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:18 PM To: Brad Nielsen (bnielsen@ci.shorewood.mn.us) Subject: FW: Public Hearing on the Shorewood Yacht Club From: Pat Fasching Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:21 AM To: Christine Lizee (cgordonlizee@mchsi.com); Laura Turgeon (Irturgeon@visi.com); Martin Wellens (m.wellens@mchsi.com); Paula Callies (pac@ehsmp.com); Richard Woodruff Cc: Jean Panchyshyn; Craig Dawson Subject: FW: Public Hearing on the Shorewood Yacht Club From: sfarnes@pol.net [mailto:sfarnes@pol.net] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:19 AM To: CityHall Subject: Public Hearing on the Shorewood Yacht Club City Clerk- please copy this off and see that it gets to all the Councilpeople and the Mayor. Thanks. SF 11-2-L007 Shorewood City Council Councilpeople; It has come to my attention that the council is not going to hold a public hearing on the issue of whether the Shorewood Yacht Club should be allowed to rent out slips to powerboats. As you are aware, the Marina is currently restricted to sailboats-only. I feel, however, that this issue is important enough for a public hearing in front of you, the elected officials of Shorewood, and not just the Planning Commission- which apparently has approved the action after a public hearing with little debate. To start, I believe that in the first public hearing, inadequate public notice was given, giving a skewed impression of the level of support at the public hearing to the Planning Commission. The Shorewood Planning director Brad Nielsen did not give proper formal notice to many households that were within 500 feet of the Shorewood Yacht Club- most notably four or five residences on the southern part of Tamberlane road. These houses are on Lakeshore property and have traditionally 11/8/2007 Page 2 of 2 opposed Marina expansion. Additionally, the published public notice itself was misleading, and the casual reader would not know what the true nature of the proposal was. The notice referred to motorized boat storage, and not about the renting of boat slips to powerboats- a basic change in the nature and business of the Marina. When I read it, I thought it referred to on-land winter storage only- not an unusual or unreasonable request in an area where sailboats are stored as well. The notice could easily have been more specific. Were there people who decided not to attend the public hearing and speak, thinking that the sailboat restriction of the Shorewood Yacht Club would remain in effect? The Planning Commission discussed few of the important issues raised at the public hearing- issues that almost mandate a full airing in front of the elected people of the Shorewood City Council. For example, did the Planning Commission accept at face value the assertion by the SYC legal counsel that sailboats and powerboats create the same amount of noise and wave action? And did the Planning Commission accept the SYC assertion that the noise levels will remain low, and that safety will not be compromised when fifty powerboats begin to use the two narrow channels that lead to the SYC docks? Also, there seemed to be quite a bit of sympathy on the part of the Plaiming Commission to the assertion by the owner, Mr. Jabbour, that he was not making enough money off of the sailboats to justify his investment. Mr. Jabbour, however, presented no documentation to support this, and it was not questioned by the Planning Commission. This leads to another major issue that needs to be discussed by the Council: is it the place of city government to bail out someone who made a bad business decision- even someone as apparently civic-minded as Mr. Jabbour? Plus, the issues of environmental damage to this delicate area by the introduction of more than fifty large powerboats was barely touched on by the Planning Commission- does this mean they were unconcerned? It is possible that the Shorewood Council, seeing that the proposal passed the Plamling Commission without a dissenting vote, might think there were no real issues of controversy involved, where in fact there were many, and as a result pass the measure without the close examination it deserves. I fully understand that there are some land use issues that are relatively "cut and dried", and where the public hearing process is more of a formality than anything else. Under those circumstances, I agree that a second public hearing in front of the full council does not serve any real purpose. However, the proposal. by the Shorewood Yacht Club is not one of those issues and the Council should at least hear first hand from the proponents and opponents of it. Respectfully submitted Steve Farnes 5445 Timberlane Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-474-2676 11/8/2007 To: The City of Shorewood City Council, and The City of Shorewood Planning Commission From: Tom Skramstad 28020 Woodside Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Date: November 4th, 2007 Subject: Shorewood Yacht Club Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members, ~F ~ ~ ~ t i I wanted to share my thougr~ts about the decision you are considering that, if approved, will allow a certain number of power boats to be docked at the Shorewood Yacht Club. Before I get to my point, I would like to share with you some of the relevant experiences and duties I have held over the years in the area of water, the environment and our Lake community in general. • I have served on the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) for 8 years, and have been honored to be selected to chair the organization's Board for the last four years. The LMCD is responsible to manage many aspects of the Lake, including docks, boat storage, exotic species management, charter boat licensing, liquor licensing on charter boats, establishing speed limits, and lots more. • I have served as a member of the Citizens Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP) for the last 15 years. Members of this organization take regular readings of the lake's clarity, quality, temperature, and more. This data is accumulated in both a state-wide (DNR) and national database so that trends in water quality can be identified and managed. • I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Freshwater Society (FWS). The FWS has a forty year history of being the premier knowledge resource for freshwater in the World. The FWS has recently hired Gene Merriam, the former Commissioner of the Minnesota DNR, to be its President. The FWS will making an even bigger impact and difference in freshwater management in the future. • I was pleased to serve as a Special Deputy on the Sheriff's Water Patrol a few years back. This was a tremendous experience, and it allowed me to work with the boaters and snowmobilers on the Lake throughout the seasons. It gave me a first hand account of what goes on the Lake (both the good and the bad.) • I served on the Planning Cormmission for the City of Shorewood prior to taking on the LMCD assignment. The comments I will make here are made as a private citizen, not as a representative of any of the above organizations. Lalce Minnetonka is a public lake. I would like to see as many citizens as possible have access to this Lalce and to have an enjoyable and safe experience. It has been a challenge in recent years to balance widespread usage of the Lake with a safe experience, but we all continue to tzy to make the situation better. In recent years some marinas have converted to public launch ramps (Gray's Bay Marina became the Gray's Bay Public Access and Gayle's Marina became the Maxwell Bay Public Access). A few other marinas have been converted to residential use (Stubbs Bay Marina being one.) The tax assessor's office seems to be evaluating properties based on what they are worth if maximized as a residential property. This is causing difficulty for some owners of marinas, restaurants, docking companies, and dredging companies as their escalating property tax bills can be troublesome. This makes it tempting (perhaps inevitable) for theirs to sell their businesses. I would like to see the existing businesses on the Lake have a chance to survive. We need to have places for the public to get to the Lalce, to use the Lake, and to get the services that they require. If Lakeshore businesses go away, for whatever reason, then fewer residents of our community can take advantage of our great water resource. Both the current owner and the former owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club have had trouble getting their business to succeed financially. Unfortunately, sailboat ownership and sailboat sales have been depressed in recent years, and the SYC has been restricted to sailboats only. I would like to see the Shorewood City Council approve the SYC's application to allow soiree power boats at Pier 4. Such a decision would allow more of our citizens the ability to enjoy ot~r Lake and would also allow the current yacht club owners a better chance to make their business financially viable. On more thing: I have heard that some people only want sailboats at the SYC because they don't like power boats for (I believe). reasons such as noise, exhaust fumes, and water pollution. I am sure you know this, but every one of the sailboats currently at the SYC has a motor. Sailboats get from their mooring location to the main Lake by using their motors to get to the open water where their sails can be raised to catch sufficient wind. There isn't any difference, environmentally, between a power boat and a sailboat as they idle along at a low speed through the channel into Gideon's Bay. Thank you for considering my thoughts. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 952-474- 5374 or by email -toms@mr.net. Sincerely, Tom Skramstad 28020 Woodside Road Shorewood, MN 55331 ROSS MANAGIlvIENT GROUP, INC. November 8, 2007 365 Lakeview Avenue •Tonka Bay, Minnesota 55331 ° 952-474-5624 To: Mayor Lizee, City Council of Shorewood and the Shorewood Planning Commission From: Martha and Ross McGlasson, Tonka Bay Subject: Shorewood Yacht Club application for Power Boats We have lived on Gideon's Bay for 29 years, directly across from Frog Island and the yacht club behind it. We were encouraged many years ago that the development of a "Sailboat Only" yacht club would be good for Gideon's Bay and Lake Minnetonka in general. This has been true and we have enjoyed the sailboats and their quiet activities. We are very much opposed to the inclusion of power boats at that marina for the following reasons: 1. The channels are too narrow for higher speed boats that would only add to the confusion (yes, I know the channels are no wake zones}, 2. The waters adjacent to the channels are very shallow, adding power boats will increase the probability of groundings and accidents. 3. -The "nature preserve" use of Frog Island would suffer with power boats coming so close to nesting areas. 4. Power boats come too close to shore now, creating unsafe conditions and causing erosion, especially when the lake level is high. We don't need more power boats added to the mix. 5. Gideon's Bay is a quiet bay most of the week, and we enjoy the peace and quiet. . Adding more power boats will reduce our quality of life. 6. The owner of Shorewood Yacht club is the only person who could benefit from this application. Why should all Gideon's Bay residents suffer for this? It doesn't seem fair. He knew the situation when he purchased the enterprise since the previous owner had made the same application and was denied. We encourage you in the strongest terms to deny this application. And please take necessary steps to ensLU'e all the residents of Gideon's Bay that this request will not be granted now or in the future. Please do not even grant a conditional use permit; this would only start us all down a slippery slope. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely ~ ~~'- ,~ Martha and I~.oss McGlasson 952-474-1249 ~ ' Business ~~~ Partnee Brad Nielsen From: jim f [jdf1966@usfamily.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:53 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: yacht club Dear Sir Please note our support for using the shorewood yacht club to allow powerboats. It would seem a positive to an under utilized asset. Thanks; jim&Dana Floring 4795 ferncroft,dr. Shorewood --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - 1 Page 1 of 1 Brad Nielsen From: Pat Fasching Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:50 AM To: Christine Lizee (cgordonlizee@mchsi.com); Laura Turgeon (Irturgeon@visi.com); Martin Wellens (m.wellens@mchsi.com); Paula Callies (pac@ehsmp.com); Richard Woodruff Cc: Craig Dawson; Brad Nielsen (bnielsen@ci.shorewood.mn.us) Subject: FW: Shorewood Yacht Club application for Power Boats From: Bob Breckner [mailto:bbreckner@datasales.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:47 AM To: CityHall Cc: Bob Breckner Subject: Shorewood Yacht Club application for Power Boats Dear Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commission: My name is Bob Breckner, my home is at 395 Lakeview, Tonka Bay, MN (right across from the Shorewood Yacht Club). I am writing to you today to express my strong opposition to the allowance of power boats at the Shorewood Yacht Club! One of the most endearing qualities of Gideon's Bay is the relatively queitness due to the sail boat only Yacht Club and being a dead end bay. Very few areas on Minnetonka's lower lake provide the quality of setting as Gideon's Bay. It is a quality worth perserving! As you know the bay has many shallow areas, narrow channels, swimming areas for anchored boats, calm areas for fishing, walking paths along the west side of the bay and a designated swimming area for Excelsior. All, which do not mix well with the increase of power boat traffic! I am very concerned that the allowance of power boats in the Yacht Club will redefine the character of the bay to the detriment of everyone except the owner of the Club! Not allowing power boats will go along way to keeping the area just as your website says! ......"the beautiful, natural surroundings -- lakes, trees and plenty of open space! A great City to call home"! Thank you for your consideration! Sincerely, Bob Breckner Vice President Data Sales Company 3450 West Burnsville Pkwy Burnsville, MN 55337 952-895-3355 11/15/2007 Brad Nielsen From: Mike Fortner [michaelfortner@att.blackberry.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:36 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: SYC Mr. Nielsen, I live in Shorewood with my family. I have recently become aware of the powerboat availability at the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) We are very much in favor of this. We and most people we know would use the powerboats, and they would be a great addition to the community. I encourage you to take a positive stance, encouraging progress of this project. Thanks, Mike and Jen Fortner Shorewood, MN 55331 952-470-9332 Mike Fortner 612.865.6670 1 ~ ~. TO: MAYOR CHRIS LIZEE, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR: SCOTT SCHMITT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS TO THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB. WE BELIEVE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS CHANGES THE YACHT CLUB TO A COMMERCIAL MARINA AND NEGATNELY IMPACTS GIDEON'S BAY AND THE NEIGHBORS OF EXCELSIOR. TONKA BAY AND SHOREWOO~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL r . . , ,~, ~- ,. ~; ~ u ~; ` f ~ , .~~z ~.~- ,r` ~°' ~~_ ~{ ~~~ ~ ~t 6. .o. ~- ', k ~^ ~ q i .,mss ° _, "Your email information will not be sh~arecl ~rvith the planning commission or city council ~s (;' TO: MAYOR CHRIS LIZEE, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR: SCOTT SCHMITT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS TO THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB. WE BELIEVE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS CHANGES THE YACHT CLUB TO A COMMERCIAL MARINA AND NEGATIVELY IMPACTS GIDEON'S BAY AND THE NEIGHBORS OF EXCELSIOR. TONKA BAY AIVD SHOREWOOD NAME ~~ c~ ,e.--~~_ c~ .. 22= -J~-'"1-- 4~ ~~ _ ~ ~/'? ~ ~ n~, ~~Z t _, ~~ ~ ADDRESS _ / ~y~s~_ ~~~~2 .~~~ PHONE ~~~ ~~~ ~ 7 9.~~ - ~1~1~ - `~c~~~r~ j'S ~ - f7 / i~'`'~r3 EMAIL ~~5~ - ~3 _~ ~- i ~~~.~. J ~° lJ J,~ , ,~ V5 `~ / S' ~~r~v~ L~~...~1 ~, ~~ ~ f/~~`-a ;~~~5 ~~Ll-~~~~C~ / % ~~' .- ~/Y'~z~~ l.._.-.~~~ ~ - b (( ~/ ~/`} r `~ ~~ ~~ ~ Your email information mill not be shared Er~ith the planning commission or city council r~l ~/fp !' v TO: MAYOR CHRIS LIZEE, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR: SCOTT SCHMITT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS TO THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB. WE BELIEVE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS CHANGES THE YACHT CLUB TO A COMMERCIAL MARINA AND NEGATNELY IMPACTS GIDEON'S BAY AND THE NEIGHBORS OF EXCELSIOR, TONIfA BAY AND SHOREWOOD ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL ~~ ~ ~ a 7~ ~ ~- wd ~- ~~ ~,2~ t~~,h~..,~~.r, `~5Z- ,~-5c~~i _.r .,~,~ v " ~~ ~ 5~,1~~~ ~b ~~1~~,,,, ~a~~s~~ S.l~~ ~~ ~~~ ll ow W~oas~ t~ j ~l ~~~ ~V 2 *Your email information will not be shared vrith the planning commission or city counciE y ~~. ; gy2~~o ~8'~'Y ~r (o~2~~I~~~iS qSZ- 4~4--~d~-1 . _,-~ ,~ , .~ ~~ TO: MAYOR GHRIS LIZEE, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR: SCOTT SCHMITT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS TO THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB. WE BELIEVE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS CHANGES THE YACHT CLUB TO A COMMERCIAL MARINA AND NEGATNELY IMPACTS GIDEON'S BAY AND THE NEIGHBORS OF EXCELSIOR. TONISA BAY AND SHOREWOOD NAME ADDRESS _._ r ~,,,~, 4 -----°_° t z ,~( ~~}' ~ nom, ~-~-. ~ .^ ~ ~~ ~~'~ '' _ ' , 1 ~~~~~~~ 7 ~~ ~-~ i ~ ~~ .r ._ h PHONE ~'S~-y'cl.-,735- ,. EMAIL y ~" ems`; ~l stG/ r~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 7~t it ~~' ~r t- ~, ~ . } ~ ~- _. ..~. _._ _.~ i,-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- f ~~% ~-1 ~ ~y~ U l ~~,~ ~~r ~ ~~1 ~-~ -~ c~~~ ~~ *Your email information will not be shared with the planning commission or city co~ncii w- tai .,~ " F TO: MAYOR GHRIS LIZEE, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR: SCOTT SCHMITT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS TO THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB. WE BELIEVE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS CHANGES THE YACHT CLUB TO A COMMERCIAL MARINA AND NEGATNELY IMPACTS GIDEON'S BAY AND THE NEIGHBORS OF EXCELSIOR. TONKA BAY I-ND SHOREWO NAME ADDRESS d % L~ ~~ / r~ Env a7 `~ ~~ ~F~ ,~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ OD PHONE (~f~2~4~4- ~ti ~~ ~~dS~._~- y7~t -~ca y ~- . ~~~,.~ ~,,~ ~J~~T1 ~ f ~" ~~~'3 `~3i f 5 ~ ~f7~ ~ .~~ ~1 EMAIL *Your email information wil! nat be shared with the planning commission or city council ,f'r t(~ TO: MAYOR CHRIS LIZEE, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR: SCOTT SCHMITT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS TO THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB. WE BELIEVE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS CHANGES THE YACHT CLUB TO A COMMERCIAL MARINA AND NEGATNELY IMPACTS GIDEON'S BAY AND THE NEIGHBORS OF EXCELSIOR. TONKA BAY AND SHOREWOOD NAME ADDRESS PHONE (~~~vr~ ~ ~~`~ ~~r2~i~~~` ~~ 'lc j ~ +i? ~' , ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~y ~~ ~~~ ~~- ~~ r,~ t ~~ ~ ~~ ., ~ ~ ~~ ~ ; d ~ ~~ ~.~.ti. ,, ll i EMAIL ~' G I i1 ./ ~[-%~(2 L~a~A~e ~1~ ,/~ ~~, ~ S ~ ail ? L~ `~~'c~~' a 1 ~ ~~ ~z- L-h ~~e S~~ ~, ~ ~ 1 u ~ ,~.~ t i ` 1 `~ ~ ~~z Y7y` l~~r ~ ~; ~ c ~ ~~l U ~~ k "~ ,, ~~ f2 I ~l `~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~~- ~~ ~..~ ~l \1 \...! ~l.y ~~ '~..1~ I~'>~~ ~~. L~~ (mac ~S~t . L~ ~~' c~-~~ _~-~~ _ ~,~~~ ~~5 Z. - ~ f' Ul --~ ~ ~~rf'~--> *Your email information will not be shared ~+ith the planning commission or city council F~, ~~ `__. };~ t ~; TO: MAYOR CHRIS LIZEE, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR: SCOTT SCHMITT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS TO THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB. WE BELIEVE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS CHANGES THE YACHT CLUB TO A COMMERCIAL MARINA AND NEGATNELY IMPACTS GIDEON'S BAY AND THE NEIGHBORS OF EXCELSIOR, TONKA BAY AND SHOREWOOD NAME ,~~c ~~~ ,% ~~ ~' f~ ADDRESS PHONE ~~~, ~ ~,, ~ ~ ~, -l,' ~ r L~ 1 n f ~ ~~~, UUU ~ ~~ --~~. ~ r~ ,, l•~ ~~ ~--~ z s c ~ta~.-~ EMAIL ~` << .~ ~' .-, ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.~~~ ~ ~5~ . ~ ~.~ ~ 7~ ~ ~ z ~ ~~ `Your email information will not be shared with the planning commission or cit}r council ~/ ~~ (:. ~ ~ ~' C/ } TO: MAYOR CHRIS LIZEE, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR: SCOTT SCHMITT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS TO THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB. WE BELIEVE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS CHANGES THE YACHT CLUB TO A COMMERCIAL MARINA AND NEGATNELY IMPACTS GIDEON'S BAY AND THE NEIGHBORS OF EXCELSIOR, TONFCA BAY AND SHOREW~®D NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL ; ~~~ ~.~ o , ~,~/` ,-gym-~~ V~~ { L! V !' y ;~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~.;~~~ -~-_~. v ~ `~ ~1 f i- 6+'~ ~ r 1 ~/ j /~~ ~J ~.~ f ~1~~~~a 9 l1 d€. ~ `_ ~__ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __~ ~~ A ~' X ` ~~~ ~~ "~ ~_ ~~~~ ~~ 1~~~' ~' / ~1~ ~~-~ *Your email information will not be sharad with the planning commission or city council Ir TO: MAYOR CHRIS LIZEE, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR: SCOTT SCHMITT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS TO THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB. WE BELIEVE THE ADDITION OF POWERBOATS CHANGES THE YACHT CLUB TO A COMMERCIAL MARINA AND NEGATNELY IMPACTS GIDEON'S BAY AND THE NEIGHBORS OF E~fCELS10R TONMCA BAY AND SHOREWOOD NAME ~- ~ `~, .. ~ -'b s. ,..~ /!~~ ~~ f .~\ 1. K. ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ ADDRESS "3 '.~ .~ r a .. y,. , _ ~ ,~ PHONE EMAIL f ---y-__ *Your email information will not be shared with the planning commission or city council Ladies and Gentlemen: I am responding to the current application by the Shorewood Yacht Club as a business owner and a resident of Shorewood. As a local business owner, I am please to state that I favor this application. This community needs businesses like Shorewood Yacht Club in the area that provide meaningful services, access to Lake Minnetonka, and employs people that live in our community. This value added service would be a great opportunity for the community to gain access to the lake via power boats. We need businesses like Shorewood Yacht Club that employ people that will help make our community more of a success. The individuals that work at Shorewood Yacht Ciub are a great pool of talent for our city. Specifically, the fire barn which is just a blociC away, needs volunteer fire fighters. This company is a great access for more volunteers. This community needs more business opportunities to employ more people create a robust economy, with the expansion of services at Shorewood Yacht Club, more employment would follow. As a resident of Shorewood, I am aiso in favor of this dockage request. I would be very interested in docking my powerboat at sr}Gh a convenient location. This is half wad between my home and my office (all within the city of Shorewood). It makes a Bleat deal of sense to allow power boats in this bay. Please vote in favor of this application. Sincerely, ~ ~, Robert M. Weiss 6175 Lake Virginia Drive Shorewood 15 weber ~3Q7 i v d ~I ~F thin^~-`no~r~n `i' l~a~c~r Idi~ee, ~~ncil of hc~rew~s~d and the ht~re~v~c~d i'lan~~in €~rr~is4 i€~r~ FIt~}I~: fir. cab and Jody IJliller~ 465 I/al~evie~v ~venaxe, '~c~nl~a aye J~~`: c~re~€~d yacht ~l~a application ~~r ~c~er eats ~s1y ~vit'e end ~ are verb/ conce ~~ about the aplicatit~n ~`or a change in use at ~ ~hore~vood Yacht flub tc~ include power beats. ~ are deraitel opposed ~ this request. when the present ~ er bought the prol~ert he nevi that ~°evious request to aid power boas had. been denied and there~'ore should not be s~.~rprise that many residents idecans day are still in ~sp~scssitis~n tc~ this proposal. There are many other marinas on ~al~e i etonka that have slips available f`sar pc~~ver boats. ddin power buts t€~ Shorewood Yacht ~l~zb would create many ne~tive ~~ctc~rs incl~adin the ra~~le ecology of ~'ro Island and the erosion cif t[~e shoreline of idecans l3ay -not including the air and noise pollution that these boats would create. ~ have heard that here is ~ petition against this proposal and i we have the oppeartunity, we would Madly sip it. ~Te are not residents of the co~~nrnunity of Shorewood, but live directly across the lal~e Frc~ the ~`acht Club anal do enjoy watching the sailboat races on the weekends. when the Shorewood ~c~uncil and. I'lannin Cornrnission make their decision on this proposal, please keep in rrzind that your decision effects more than the residents of Shorewood. Sincerely, ----f~ -° --%~ ~,--2 y~ ~ / _ °°~-R Y G ~~~.~~ f3~°. lob and Judy [~1~ller 465 l,akevie~v t~venue ~"onl~a l~ay> 55~ 1 ._ ~.~ ~: Tel: 952/7w6364 T®: pity ICI ~r: ~~~ I~Iiels~n MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY CHANGE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, BUT THE DECISIONS THEY MAKE WHILE IN OFFICE CAN FOREVER IMPACT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. SI~I~} ~`J€~t~I~, ~N ITS ~~~SI`TE, IiAAS A Z~I~II~~ () II~T. CEg #12Q162, I. SI-I ~ A."I'If~~i lDIS'I' ~T`, I~I-I IZE~t~C3I~IZES 'I`I-IE ~~vv STIgI~gEI~~'~T~ j~v jI'`~~A~T''~y Y CpJ~:FT'('SpI"~~~~3 y,~+~~V7t~®I)~T~'+ Ia T'g''R~g~I(yI'yI/~~E~S I~~R C]Lf35E 5~~.~T'I"IN~I, n~® A ~. 1f'11 !_7 e5~ 5..7~ $. d1~ A.~tilV ll i.}~g.;~tJ 1~~ .6.1~V i~ 6.-1r lJS a.J1V . ~ g i ~ g III ~.I~ I~I.'~ ~ E~'~ ~ V~~I~~'AI2~ CAF' ~'I'IIE SI I~1G ®~1 I~tEA ~' SI ~N'TI ST' ETS S1T ~IOI~ 7 ITI Sm le ~.~IV~; ~ ~'t~.~.A7'd~.~Z,IT'Y 13 F1Ipe4~7° LTF~1it,SII ~iI1~,~~1VC.~ ~,IY~1~P.~ ~I~dT~R~?1~1V~.~~TT'o ~e S d+~fy 9 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~qv''y{{y9 r~pJ~p 1F~~jgr)p^Sg9l(Ypg$®.9 ~S1LTg f®'!1y¢Vyp'~y~-sg53.}~ip~1"13(y~^~Iyt®~~"@q~py~g/'ygLy~'it4yp .t ~i~i' A1g4L(gp'Ol1Vli 9ry[~~&~.'} 1l. l.li 1Vl'17~1 +4J 81.d 8..tA `~ d A.C >gJ ~~8~~.lII AIY'l8 °J lP L.70.Y Vd 8.! 1Y1 3 g.J~ ~ yi-+gS~gl~;t~r+/~+1~ T~yg ~'3g.~1 Wig'~~~.SyL7.gLa~~~1~M+ggs.~7~Fy3t~gA'~A . l.Sp g.C~~~IvJLq'...gt7'by1 ~3_d it "d ~i~~ ~./].~y1~7S 3~ lY1~F~~ n~S lt"2~}.a YY y L.J~1'i'~h.. ~JLl SAS 1VA I.~EJ Y~.~i-y 1'B. E ~9 Sl"N 1~~ ~~i.,71V e ~STAp.ITIT,(~C~#f1~~~'~S~'(Tp~ ~~y~~°l~.L~,~TI~~g~~JyC;? T;1Cg3~'T,T~~~7'~'~gl~g~ s~1~7IgL,1~A'~ ~I~aT` ~ '~'Tt~ `I`~3 t`d.L~ Y ~F51-~ 1 L'r 1 ~.f 1 L.y A.l~ 1 i~.t~ ~ Y J.~l~ il'V ~~L'~d' ~L;di. ~d'i ~ PA"I' C-~P~I,I~~.T'I~I~IS ~4~1~ ~I~~TG~' T® T~-I~ SAl1/I~ ~C}N~tC~ ~ ~i~T~~ WERE I)EI~I~I~, ~ `~`I-~E S~IC~ ®~~3 ~~~°`l` ~~,~T, I~I~~T St~IL~l~,~"S CJI~~~'g LL E~~T~IE A ~C)NI ~.~IAL I'(3WE ~3A'~ NIA A I`I'I I~I`I'IC~I~I ®~` I'®E C}A`TS. Page 1 of 4 Brad Nielsen From: Sent: To: Subject: Pat Fasching Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:52 PM dick.woodruff@yahoo.com FW: Shorewood yacht Club proposal Attachments: Boatsandaquatics.pdf From: sfarnes@pol.net [mailto:sfarnes@pol.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:30 PM To: Pat Fasching Subject: Shorewood yacht Club proposal 11.20-2007 Dear Councilman Woodruff; I urge that you vote against the Shorewood proposal for added powerboats. I enjoy watching the Council meetings and I impressed with your meticulousness, your refusal- many times- to go along with the consensus, as well as your habit of asking tough questions on difficult issues. This is an issue that you should be familiar with as a Plamling Commission member some years ago. At that time, I believe you voted against it. Things really haven't changed much since then. The fact that the current proposal is for only 35 powerboats (ONLY?!) does not really change anything. Eventually, with their "foot in the door", the SYC will become totally motorized. Why? Because that's where the money is, and this is a money driven issue. If this proposal is granted, next year, or the year after, Gabe will come back to the council for another concession! Too bad you weren't on the Planning Commission for the recent Public Hearing on the issue. Be honest with me, Dick- when a former member of the Minnesota State Supreme court went on record to say that there were no differences between sailboats and powerboats, as a planning commission member would you have questioned that? Or at least smiled in disbelief? The members of the present planning commission sat stone faced and (apparently) accepted it. And when the accolades about the wonderful deeds of SYC owner Gabriel Jabbour came bursting forth from Mr. Jabbour's employees and customers (who packed the council chamber that night!), you might have asked for the details about Jabbour's current lawsuit against Excelsior concerning the use of a commercial dock. The lawsuit wasn't even brought up. We on Tamberlane are only nine residential properties and the only Shorewood residents who live on Gideon's bay. Please don't let Gabe steamroll this issue through. Most of the petition signers- ninety in all- are from Excelsior and Tonka Bay. I would think that, just in the spirit of inter-city cooperation alone, this important decision should be delayed to gather input from the affected cities. Once powerboats are introduced, it will nearly impossible to remove them! 11/20/2007 Page 2 of 4 Attached is a brief summary of the deleterious effects of boats on the environment. Below is a letter that I am sending to the entire council on the issue. Gabe is running a smooth and seamless PR campaign to get this through. I am sure, though, that you will take a long and hard look at it, and ask the tough questions! respectfully Steve Farnes 952-474-2676 5445 Tamberlane Shorewood Minnesota 55331 Once again, the Shorewood Yacht Club is petitioning the Shorewood City Council to allow theirs to rent dock slips to powerboats. This go-round, the SYC owner is Gabriel Jabbour, the former Mayor of Orono, and already the owner of at least two large Lake Minnetonka powerboat marinas. Mr. Jabbour freely admits that if he could fill up the Marna with sailboats, he would not be petitioning the Shorewood Council. However, Mr. Jabbour°s apparent business failure is no reason for the Council to change its long-standing policy regarding the SYC. In fact, only three years ago a similar request by the former owner, John Cross, was turned down by a unanimous vote of both the Planning Commission. and the City Council. We have submitted to the Shorewood City Council signed petitions from over ninety people- residents from Excelsior, Tonka Bay, and Shorewood- who oppose the SYC changeover. With a significant increase in large powerboats in this shallow area of Gideon's bay, lake aquatics will be adversely affected (see attached). As well, water quality will be decreased from the suspended sediments that will be stirred up by the prop wash from the powerboats. Unavoidably, there will be disruptions of turtle "beaches", nesting birds, and other aquatic-dependent wildlife. Noise will also a problem, as well as visual polhition. The SYC site is at the center of a sharply curving shoreline- the noise generated at the SYC propagates for hundreds of feet along the Shorewood and Excelsior sides. An alarming trend- seen even with the sailboaters- is for boat owners not to take their boats out at all, but instead use them as party platforms. There are boat density issues as well, with Gideon's bay becoming more and more crowded with watercraft. This causes safety concerns, especially close to the SYC, where only two narrow channels exist to accommodate coming and going traffic. Also, boat waves will cause shoreline erosion. The bay cannot help but deteriorate with more boats. A closer look at Mr. Jabbour's case for more powerboats reveals some interesting facts. 11 /20/2007 Page 3 of 4 -While the real reason for the SYC to request a change is an economic one, the owners are attempting to make a case for increasing public demand for powerboat slips. To "prove" this, the SYC presented to the Planning Commission a supposedly randomized survey of Shorewood residents. This was not done by a professional public relations firm, but by business students. According to the students, 80% of the Shorewood households responded favorably to the possibility of renting out a "discounted" boat slip at the SYC. Of course, the key word here is "discounted". There are plenty of motorized slips available on the lake at market rates. Without a dollar amount suggested, many Shorewood residents probably thought that a Deephaven-like marina was in the offing, where a boat slip could be had for a small fraction of the market price- from thousands of dollars down to mere hundreds. Take out the "discount" factor, and emphasis that all renters would have to pay near-market rates, and few Shorewood residents would have likely responded. This is a flawed and misleading survey and should itself be "discounted" by the Council. -Most, if not all, of Mr. Jabbour's supporters have an economic or personal incentive to do so. People who presently rent sailboat slips at the SYC have testified in large numbers and with fervor in favor of powerboats. These people are clearly fearful of losing their slips entirely if Mr. Jabbour shuts the SYC down and redevelops it into condominiums. To that degree, they have no stake in keeping Gideon's Bay peaceful and quiet. Sadly, if powerboats are approved at the SYC, it will only hasten the decline of sailboats on the lake, and especially Gideon's bay. While Mr. Jabbour has claimed that the decline in sailboat recreation is due to simple lifestyle choices, it is obvious to long-time lake residents that the casual sailboater has been chased off the lake by the wave chop and mayhem produced by minimally restricted powerboats. -A few Shorewood residents who hope to rent a powerboat slips at the transformed SYC have also testified enthusiastically in favor of the marina changeover. Mainly, these are the residents of Lawtonka, a town home development off Timberlane road. On the surface, these residents provide an effective counter to the Lakeshore property owners on Timberlane- property owners who unanimously oppose Jabbour's proposal, and who have opposed similar proposals for decades. But lets look more closely at the Lawtonka group. The Lawtonka townhomes were sold in the late eighties with a promise of lake access- with every townhome owner getting a boat slip. But LMCD and Shorewood regulations precluded that from happening, and the owners have been bitter ever since. For years, they have been trying to get a multiple dock permit to accommodate their residents, but without success. Two of the present townhome owners also own small "orphan" Lakeshore properties on Timberlane road. Unfortunately, these properties not big enough to allow a house or a dock to be constructed 11/20/2007 Page 4 of 4 legally. One property, however, has been grandfathered in to allow a boathouse and two docks -but for the owners individual owner only. The other property was flat out denied any dock at all, despite the owner appealing to the LMCD and the Shorewood City Council. I suspect that the S~'C has given the Lawtonka people first crack at these proposed "discounted" boat slips- which would be within credible walking distance of the Lawtonka development. It is also possible that Lawtonka people feel that by opening up that shallow area of Gideon's Bay to high-density powerboats, they will increase their own chances for amultiple-slip dock permit on their marginal properties. I would urge the Council to keep the SYC a sailboat-only facility. In petitioning the Shorewood City Council for change, Mr. Jabbour is actually requesting a public subsidy for private business purposes. In this case, the subsidy will be paid by the public many times over through the progressive degradation of the delicate lake environment. l 1 /20/2007 The Effects of Motorized Watercraft on Aquatic Ecosystems Timothy R. Aspiund, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Integrated Science Services and University of Wisconsin, Water Chemistry Program March 17, 2000 [--Excerpted--] How might boats affect aquatic ecosystems? Boats may interact with the aquatic environment by a variety of mechanisms, including emissions and exhaust, propeller contact, turbulence from the propulsion system, waves produced by movement, noise, and movement itself. In turn, each of these impacting mechanisms may have multiple effects on the aquatic ecosystem. Sediment resuspension, water pollution, disturbance offish and wildlife, destruction of aquatic plants, and shoreline erosion are the major areas of concern and will be addressed in the following pages. Impacts of boats that primarily affect human use of lakes, such as crowding, safety, air quality, and noise will not be addressed specifically. This report is organized in terms of the aspect of the aquatic ecosystem that may be affected by boat activity Water Clarity (Turbidity, nutrients, and algae) Why is water clarity i~rnporta~it lie aquatic ecosystems? Water clarity is important for a number of reasons. It affects the ability offish to find food, the depth to which aquatic plants can grow, dissolved oxygen content, and water temperature. Water clarity is often used as a measure of trophic status, or an indicator of ecosystem health. Water clarity is important aesthetically and can affect property values and recreational use of a waterbody. How n:iglat boats affect water clarity? Propellers may disturb the lake or river bottom directly, or indirectly through the wash or turbulence they produce, especially in shallow water. This may affect water clarity by increasalg the amount of sediment particles in the water or may cause nutrients that are stored in the sediments, such as phosphorus, to become available for algal growth. Waves created by watercraft may contribute to shoreline erosion, which can cloud the water. Wlaat do we know? Boats have been shown to affect water clarity and can be a source of nutrients and algal growth iu aquatic ecosystems. Shallow lakes, shallow parts of lakes and rivers, and channels connecting lakes are the most susceptible to impacts. Depth of impact varies depending upon many factors including boat size, engine size, speed, and substrate type. Few impacts have been noted at depths greater than 10 feet. W/iat ca~a we do about it? No-wake zones in shallow areas of lakes and rivers could help to reduce impacts on water clarity, both by reducing the overall amount of boat activity in these areas and by limiting impacts from high-speed boats. In certain cases it may be beneficial to restrict boat activity altogether, such as in extremely shallow waters where boats can disturb the bottom even at no-wake speeds. Water Clarity (Turbidity, nutrients, and algae) Why is water quality important is aquatic ecosystems? As discussed earlier, nutrients can affect the algal growth in lakes and rivers and have an effect on water clarity. Dissolved oxygen and pH levels influence the type and abundance of fish. In high enough amounts, metals and hydrocarbons can be toxic to fish, wildlife, and microscopic animals. In addition, these substances may have human. health effects if a lake or reservoir is also used as a drinking water supply. How might boats affect water quality? Boat engines are designed to deliver a large amount of power in a relatively small package. As a result, a certain amount of the fuel that enters into a motor is discharged unburned, and ends up in the water. Two-stroke engines, which make up a vast majority of the motors in use on all types of watercraft, have been particularly inefficient. Estimates vary as to how much fuel may pass into the water column (25-30% is a reasonable average) and depends upon factors such as engine speed, tuning, oil mix, and horsepower. Other concerns include lowered oxygen levels due to carbon monoxide inputs, and spills or leaks associated with the transfer and storage of gasoline near waterbodies. What do we know? There have been numerous studies on the effects of outboard motor exhaust and related pollution from fuel leakage. (See Wagner (1991.) for a good review of these studies.) In general, these studies have shown minimal toxic effects on aquatic organisms because 1) the amount of pollution is small compared to the volume of a lake; and 2) most hydrocarbons are volatile and quickly disperse. However, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and fuel additives have been detected in some cases, and could be a concern for drinking water supplies. Build-up of certain compounds in sediments has been documented, especially near marinas or other high concentrations of boats, and may be detrimental to bottom dwelling organisms. Wlaat can we do about it? Cleaner technology, such. as four-stroke engines, and more efficient two-stroke models should help to reduce the inputs of fuel and exhaust into water bodies over time. Education of boaters and stricter controls of places that store and sell fuel near the water would help to reduce sediment contamination from fuel transfer and storage. Keeping engines well-tuned and using manufacturers' recommended mix of oil and gasoline would help engines run more efficiently and reduce the amount of unburned fuel that is discharged. Shoreline Erosion yi<'hy is shoreline erosion important irz aquatic ecosystem? Shoreline erosion may affect water clarity in near shore areas, shading submerged aquatic plants as well as providing nutrients for algal growth. It can interfere with fish use of shallow water habitat, as well as wildlife use of the land-water edge. Excessive shoreline erosion can negatively affect property values and can be expensive for riparian dwellers to prevent and control. How mig/at boats affect shoreline erosion? Boats produce a wake, which may in turn create waves that propagate outward until dissipated at the shoreline. Wave height and other wave characteristics vary with speed, type of watercraft, size of engine, hull displacement, and distance from shore. Propeller turbulence from boats operating in near shore areas may also erode shorelines by destabilizing the bottom. What do we know? Waves or wake produced by boats is the primary factor by which boats can influence shoreline erosion. Wave heights depend upon speed, size and draft of boat, but can reach heights of 40-50 cm (IS-20 in.) equivalent to storm-induced waves. However, wave heights dissipate rapidly as they move away from the boat, while wind waves increase with larger distances. Therefore, river systems, channels connecting lakes, and small lakes are likely to be most influenced by boat-induced waves, as boats may operate relatively close to shore and wind-induced waves are reduced. Shoreline erosion has been documented in river systems and has been attributed to frequency and proximity of boat traffic. Loosely consolidated, steep, unvegetated banks are more susceptible to shoreline erosion. What can we do about i~t? No-wake zones are designed to minimize boat wake so the obvious solution would be to use no-wake zones to limit shoreline erosion, particularly in channels or small sheltered lakes (i.e. areas where effective wind fetch is less than 1000 feet). Currently in WI, boats are restricted from operating at speeds greater than no-wake within 100 feet from fixed structures such as boat docks and swimming platforms. Many lake communities have established no-wake ordinances at 100 feet from shore or more. Seawalls and riprap have been. used extensively in lakes and rivers to prevent shoreline erosion; however, these engineering approaches have little wildlife value and are expensive. Maintaining and restoring natural shorelines would help reduce the impacts of all types of waves on shoreline erosion. Aquatic Macrophytes (Plant communities) Wlzat do we mean by "aquatic n:acropfzytes?" Aquatic macrophytes are large rooted plants that inhabit the littoral (shallow water) zone of most lakes and rivers. They are usually divided into three categories: submerged, emergent, and floating-leafed species. Common species include coontail, milfoil, elodea, pondweeds (submerged species), bulrushes, reeds, sedges, wild rice, and cattails (emergent), and water lilies, spatterdock, and lotus (floating). Why are aquatic macropfzytes important ire aquatic ecosystena7 Aquatic plants perform many important ecosystem functions, including habitat for fish, wildlife, and invertebrates; stabilization oflake-bottom sediments and shorelines; cycling of nutrients; and food for many organisms. In some lakes, submerged plants grow in abundance, yet they also may compete with algae for nutrients and help maintain better water clarity. Emergent and floating-leafed species may be valued for their aesthetic qualities and help provide a more "natural" buffer between a developed shoreline and the open water. What factors affect aquatic macrop{rytes? There is considerable variability in plant communities, both within the same lake or river and among similar bodies of water. Macrophyte growth is limited by a number of factors, including light availability, nutrients, wave stress, bottom type, water level fluctuations, and water temperature. The shallow water extent of submerged plant growth is usually limited by bottom conditions and wave stress, while the deep water limit is usually dependent upon light availability. Eutrophication, boat traffic, controlled or raised water levels, shoreline development, invasive species, and rough fish can all have in impact upon aquatic plants, either through changes in abundance or species composition. How rnig/at boats affect aquatic macroplaytes7 Boats may impact macrophytes either directly, through contact with the propeller and boat hull, or indirectly through turbidity and wave damage. Propellers can chop off plant shoots and uproot whole plants if operated in shallow water. Increased turbidity from boat activity may limit the light available for plants and limit where plants can grow. Increased waves may limit growth of emergent species. Finally, boats may transport non-native species, such as Eurasian water milfoil, from one body of water to another. What do we know? Several researchers have documented a negative relationship between boat traffic and submerged aquatic plant biomass in a variety of situations. The primary mechanism appears to be direct cutting of plants, as many have noted floating plants in the water following heavy boat use. Other researchers have determined that scouring of the sediment, uprooting of plants, and increased wave activity may also be factors. Where frequent boat use has created channels or tracks, it was noted that these scoured areas persist for several years. What cars we do about it7 No-wake zones and restricted motor areas effectively reduce the impact of boats on aauatic plants (see Asplund and Cook 1999). Limiting boat traffic in areas with sensitive species or where a large proportion of the plant material is floating or emergent may be a good way to guide boat activity to more appropriate parts of a waterbody. While no-wake zones do not prevent all impacts, they do serve to reduce the overall amount of boat activity in a given area. Basing no-wake zones on water depth or the maximum depth of plant growth may be more useful than those based upon fixed distances from shore. Fish Why are fsh important in aquatic ecosystem? Fish form an important part of the food web in aquatic ecosystem, and can be either top predators, intermediate herbivores, or plankton eaters. A variety of birds and other animals depend upon fish. as their primary food source. The presence or absence of individual species, as well as overall fish numbers can be an indicator of ecosystem health and can affect water clarity and water quality. Fisheries form an important resource for food and recreation for humans as well. In fact, angling is the most popular recreational activity on most Wisconsin waters. How might boats affect fish? Direct contact of boats or propellers may be a source of mortality for certain fish species, such as carp. Pollution from exhaust or spills may be toxic to some fish species. Boat movement can affect individual fish directly by disturbing normal activities such as nesting, spawning, or feeding. Increased turbidity from boats may interfere with sight-based feeding or success of eggs or fish spawning. On a population level, boats may affect fish through habitat alteration caused by waves or propeller damage. What do we know? i Asplund, T. R., and C. M. Cook. 1999. Can no-wake zones effectively protect littoral zone habitat from boating disturbance? Lakeline, 19(1): 16-18+. Very few studies have documented direct impacts of boat activity upon individual fish behavior or mortality. The few studies cited here demonstrate that boat activity can disturb fish from their nests, but that overall breeding success is likely not affected. Toxic effects on fish have generally not been observed, except in extreme situations (such as near boat testing facilities). Of much greater concern and effort, however, is the effect of boats on fish habitat (water quality, clarity, and aquatic plants) which subsequently may impact fish. populations. These studies have been summarized elsewhere. What caia we do about it7 Keeping boats out of known fish spawning areas may help to improve overall fish success, however, it would be detrimental to anglers. Most boat activity usually occurs after peak fish spawning times, but extending protection of critical areas through early June may help to protect certain species. A more useful approach would be to protect shallow waters an plant beds from boat activity through the use of no-wake zones. No wake zones in prime fishing areas may also help to reduce user conflicts by creating a separation between a~lers and high-speed boaters. Aquatic Wildlife W{ay are aquatic wildlife important iti aquatic ecosystems? Aside from the aesthetic value of being able to see eagles, loons, deer, and other animals near water, certain species form an essential part of the food chain, especially those that feed on detritus or carrion or those that feed on the top predator fish. The presence of loons and osprey can be an important indicator of ecosystem health. How might boats affect aquatic wildlife? Boats may have direct impacts on wildlife through contact with propellers or disturbance of nests along the shoreline by excessive wave action. Disturbance by the fast movement of watercraft or even the presence of humans near feeding ground or breeding areas may prevent certain species, especially birds from being successful. Noise or harassment may cause some wildlife to vacate nests, leaving eggs or young vulnerable to predators. Indirect effects may include destruction of habitat or food source in littoral areas, or impaired water quality. Wlzat do we know? Boat activity certainly causes many wildlife species to be disturbed from a variety of activities. For some species, this may represent just a temporary disturbance, with little long-term effect. For other species, or in cases where unique habitats are disturbed by high frequency or intensity of boat use, boat activity can have effects on the entire population. Migratory birds may require more protection as their energy needs can easily be disrupted by excessive disturbance. What can we do about i~t7 Buffer zones have been suggested for a variety of bird species, ranging from 100 to 1.80 m. Protectine littoral zone habitat or known breeding areas with no-wake zones would help to provide this buffer, though it would not eliminate boat activity. Preventing access to undisturbed shorelines or areas maybe warranted if it can be shown that these areas provide a unique resource to wildlife populations. Loon nesting sites, heron rookeries, "turtle beaches," and eagle wintering sites, would all be possible candidates for such a restriction. In some cases, all human activity, not just motor boat use, may need to be restricted in order to protect wildlife populations. Personal Watercraft ("Jet skis") What rto we mean by "personal watercraft?" Personal watercraft (PWCs), commonly referred to as "jet skis", include a variety of watercraft that are designed for use by one or two individuals (though newer models are being developed for 3 people). Riders either sit or stand, depending upon the design. Propulsion systems are generally quite different from traditional outboard motors, making use of a water pump rather than propellers to move the craft through the water. Steering is accomplished by ejecting the water at high force through a movable nozzle. PWCs are designed to be powerful and maneuverable and can operate in waters less than 12 inches deep. Why are PWCs important in aquatic ecosystems? Since the introduction of the first Jet Ski in 1973, PWC use has skyrocketed throughout the country, especially since the late 1980's. It is estimated that 200,000 PWCs are sold annually in the U.S., representing 30% of all new sales of watercraft. They still represent a small proportion of overall watercraft in use (about 1 million compared to 12 million outboards), but on certain lakes and rivers, they can achieve relatively high numbers. Along with the increase in numbers has come increasing conflicts with other users, as they tend to be more noticeable and create noise and perceptions of reduced safety and increased crowding. How might PWCs affect aquatic ecosystems? PWCs can have many of the same effects as described in other sections. However, because of their unique propulsion systems and use characteristics, this special section has been included to summarize studies that have addressed the impacts of PWCs specifically. For example, PWCs are often criticized for the noise that they produce, due to their frequent stops and starts and operation at full throttle. Most PWCs employ two-stroke technology for their engines, thus making them a concern for their air and water emissions of hydrocarbons and other pollutants. Because PWCs can be operated in shallow water, at high speeds, and in remote areas not usually frequented by boats, disturbance to wild life maybe more of a concern than other types of watercraft. Finally, while PWCs do not generally have propellers, the turbulence produced by the jet propulsion may still disturb plant growth and sediments, especially during acceleration or turns when the thrust may be oriented downward. Studies: Noise Wagner (1994) described a study of PWC noise vs. outboard motor noise on a heavily used lake. The study showed that the actual noise level (in terms of decibels) is not much higher than most other types of watercraft. The loudness decreased with distance from the watercraft such that the sound level was within background levels at distances of 300 feet or more. However, the PWCs tended to have more variable sound levels and a higher pitch than most other types of watercraft. These frequent changes in pitch tend to make the noise more noticeable to human ears, and were usually the cause of complaints. Responding to these concerns, PWC manufacturers have introduced quieter technology in recent years. Wlaat can we do aboist it? Manufacturers have voluntarily been introducing quieter, cleaner burning machines in response to citizen complaints and EPA rules requiring 75% reductions in air emissions from all marine engines by 2025. Wisconsin currently has a no-wake rule for PWCs within 200 feet of shore, which effectively minimizes the effect of PWCs on shallow water habitat This no-wake restriction also reduces the noise level exUerienced by Ueople on shore. Enforcement of this no-wake rule would go a long way toward minimizing the effects of PWCs. Restricting PWC use in natural areas or critical bird breeding areas may be justified in some cases; however restricting all motorized watercraft may be necessary to truly protect species of concern. Some states and the National Park Service have considered or enacted bans on PWCs within their jurisdiction, largely based upon disturbance to wildlife and the noise issue. Summary What do we know? While the effects of boats on aquatic systems are complex and depend on a number of factors, a few general observations can be made. First, the physical effects of propeller, waves, and turbulence appear to be more of an issue than engine fuel discharge. Water clarity, aquatic plant disturbance, and shoreline erosion all are serious issues that can be exacerbated by boat traffic. Second, most of the impacts of boats are felt most directly in shallow waters (less than l0 feet deepl and along the shoreline of lakes and rivers. Third, these effects can have repercussions for other features of the aquatic ecosystem, including the fish community, wildlife use, and nutrient status. These observations all emphasize that the most important area of a lake or river to protect is the shallow-water, near-shore habitat known as the littoral zone. Boats that operate in deep waters with large surface areas are not likely to be impacting the aquatic ecosystem. What can we do about it? No-wake zo~aes Given that most impacts of boats are exhibited in shallow-water near-shore areas, protecting these areas with no-wake zones would be the most effective way of reducing impacts. No-wake zones have a dual benefit by both slowing boats down and directing traffic elsewhere. Currently in Wisconsin, boats are required to operate at no-wake speeds within 100 feet of piers, docks, and moored boats, while PWCs are required to operate at no-wake speeds within 200 feet of the shoreline. Lakes less than 50 acres in size are entirely no-wake. While established primarily for safety and navigation reasons, these restrictions appear to be adequate for protecting against shoreline erosion, at least in developed lakes. In many cases, however, these restrictions do not adequately protect shallow- water sediments or beds of aquatic macrophytes. Some communities have extended no-wake restrictions to 200 or even 300 feet through local ordinances These extended no-wake areas have the potential to protect a much more significant proportion of the littoral zone and may help to reduce shoreline erosion. A much more useful way of establishing a no-wake area would be to determine the depth at which plants grow in a given waterbody, and then establish a no-wake zone based upon water depth and vegetation parameters. At minimum a no-wake zone based upon a 6-foot depth would reduce disturbance to sediments. A deeper depth threshold could be justified if the tops of plants come within 5 feet of the surface, or if the sediments were particularly fine. These guidelines could then be coupled with the minimum 100-foot no-wake zone to protect shorelines. Restricted areas In some cases, protection of aquatic resources may require restricting all boat activity, not just speed. Boats can still disturb plants, sediments, and wildlife at no-wake speeds. These types of restrictions need to be based upon unique features of a resource and are often used to provide a certain type of experience on remote or "wild" lakes. For example, to adequately protect waterbird breeding areas, a "buffer zone" of at least 100 m (300 feet) has been suggested, in which all human activity would be banned. Similar areas could be established for emergent or floating-]eafed plant beds, which may be impacted by boats operating at any speed. Research on Long Lake in the Kettle Moraine State Forest- Northern Unit showed that no-motor zones did a better job of preventing disturbance of submerged plants than simple no-wake zones (Asplund and Cook 1999). Some lakes currently have electric-motor only or no-boat restrictions, which may help to protect particularly unique or sensitive natural areas. These types of restrictions need to balance protection of the resource with the right of public access. Enforcement and Educatio~a Many of the environmental problems associated with boat activity could be resolved with better enforcement of existing ordinances or regulations and promoting awareness among boaters. Slow-no-wake rules are often ignored or misunderstood by boaters, such that impacts to sediments, aquatic plants, and shorelines occur even in no-wake zones. Another important avenue is informing recreators about the value of plants, littoral zones, and natural shorelines and how their activities may affect the aquatic ecosystem. If people understand that their activities may be hurting the ecosystem, they may be willing to confine their activities to more appropriate places. Tec/urology Recent technology spurred by Federal air quality standards has the potential to reduce water pollution impacts from outboard motors as well. A112-stroke engine manufacturers, including traditional outboard motors and PWCs, must reduce air emissions by 75% by the year 2025. Most manufacturers have already introduced cleaner burning 2-stroke engines and PWCs. Four-stroke engines, which use fuel more efficiently, produce cleaner exhaust, and run more quietly than traditional 2-stroke engines, are becoming much more common. However, technology may have the oUposite effect on physical impacts, as engine sizes continue to increase and PWC manufacturers continue to emphasize speed and power. The consequences of operating bigger and faster machines in our inland waterways must continually be addressed in the future. Brad Nielsen Good Morning, My family has lived on Timber Lane Road and was one of the first builders in the late 50's. We have grown up and recreated in Gideons Bay till present. Please do not grant any variance to the SYC for motor boat docking. We have been successful over many a litigation process to maintain its small peaceful status. The homes and lots are small and tucked in nicely. The inlet is tiny with a prevailing challenge as always to navigate the channel. I am aware of this history with profiteers buying and then wanting to "push the envelope" to increase their profit. Mr. Gabor has been involved with other properties and marinas on Lake Minnetonka. In my opinion, this is just another "boondoggle approach" with the typical development pressure often used to try and change current law. I am aware that Mr. Gabor is also getting some public subsides too!!! Please hold the line with this request. If the profit is not good enough then he is entitled to sell it to someone else. Thank you for time in reading my concerns. Peggy Marrin. Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ 1 Page 1 of 1 Brad Nielsen From: smcomer22@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:34 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB HELLO BRAD I AM A TONKA BAY RESIDENT AND AM WRITING YOU ABOUT THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB AND THEIR WANTING TO HAVE MOTOR BOATS AT THE YACHT CLUB. MY HUSBAND AND I SUPPORT THEIR APPLICATION FOR THESE BOATS,I KNOW THEIR ARE MANY BOATS ON THE LAKE BUT HONESTLY ,ANYONE CAN PUT A BOAT IN THE LAKE AT THE PUBLIC LAUNCH ! TO DENY THE YACHT CLUB THE CHANCE TO OFFER SOMEONE A OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE EASIER ACCESS TO THE LAKE IS RIDICULOUS. WE FULLY SUPPORT THEM . SINCERELY Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! 11 /21 /2007 Page 1 of 1 Brad Nielsen From: Jim Stack [jstack@teemaster.com] Sent:. Friday, November 23, 2007 4:48 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Yes to powerboats at Marina As a Twin City resident, boat owner and former lakefront home-owner, I DO support the addition of power boats to the Shorewood Marina. It is your best interest to support local business. And because the marina is a no-wake zone, there'll be no more disturbance to the shore that that caused by residents who a) are complaining, and b) have motorboats themselves. We must remember the 90% of lake users who look at the shore from the lake and not just those who live on the lake. Thanks, Jim Stack Woodbury, MN 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 2 Brad Nielsen From: Craig Dawson Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:51 PM To: Brad Nielsen (bnielsen@ci.shorewood.mn.us) Cc: Jean Panchyshyn Subject: FW: Shorewood Yacht Club Request From: kcmanum@comcast.net [mailto:kcmanum@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:00 PM To: Craig Dawson Subject: Shorewood Yacht Club Request Craig, Can you please forward on the following to your city council and plaiming commission? Thank you in advance for your assistance! Kristin November 26, 2007 Dear Shorewood City Council and Planning Commission; I was very pleased to see the Planning Commission's thoughtful analysis and subsequent recommendations to the city council regarding the Shorewood Yacht Club's recent request and I would like to urge the Shorewood City Council to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow the Shorewood Yacht Club to permit Power Boats at their Marina starting in the year 2008. The Shorewood Yacht Chib is a very valuable asset not only to Shorewood and the surrounding community, but to the residents of Mimlesota as well. Not only do they provide a meeting place for family and friends on their nicely manicured grounds and clubhouse, but in addition they cater to the novice and/or less wealthy sailing community. Shorewood Yacht Club is the only location on Lake Minnetonka where a person can rent sailboats and/or take adult sailing lessons. It is the only sailing yacht club that does not require strict racing parameters in order to be a member and dock your boat there. This is incredibly important on Lake Minnetonka and if you do not allow them to supplement their current income that is being generated by sailboats alone; this beautiful club will be torn down and replaced with more McMansions. In turn decreasing the lakes availability to all and limiting it only to the wealthy as well as helping decrease even further the dwindling number of sa ilboats on the lake. As Mike Hanks detailed in his recent article, the sailing population continues to decline on Lake Minnetonka and this explains why Shorewood is making this important request. It isn't to help one business owner as a recent letter to the editor stated, but is a business plan that will allow the yacht club to flourish and to continue to reach hundreds of Minnesotans. Allowing these power boats is essential to the viability of this yacht club. If there's no power boats there will be no sailboats either (and with less sailboats on the lake would come more powerboats). If the surrounding neighbors, most who are all power boat owners, are worried about the noise or increased traffic; common sense tells us that this can be easily managed by simply placing and enforcing the slow/no wake buoys already present within Gideons Bay. In addition, this could even be a simple management issue from the yacht club staff, and I'm sure Mr. Maloney and Mr. Jabour would be more than will ing to help enforce any pre- 11 /26/2007 Page 2 of 2 established rules of behavior that can be included as part of a contract for their power boating members. You wouldn't get this from private property owners, so actually, keeping a power boat in a marina like this ensures stricter adherence to the laws, etc that govern the lake that private property owners can get away with not obeying. So please do listen to your planning commission who has considered this request, made appropriate revisions, and has come to you with a sound recommendation that would benefit us all. Kindest Regards, Kristin Manum 612.308.6658 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 2 Brad Nielsen From: Craig Dawson Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 9:21 AM To: Brad Nielsen (bnielsen@ci.shorewood.mn.us) Cc: Jean Panchyshyn Subject: FW: Shorewood Yacht Club From: Heidi Viesturs [mailto:heidi@viesturslaw.com] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 1:28 PM To: Dick Woodruff; Laura Turgeon; Paula Callies; Martin Wellens; Christine Lizee Cc: Craig Dawson Subject: Shorewood Yacht Club Good afternoon Mayor & Council members, I am writing in support of Shorewood Yacht Club's application to amend their conditional use permit. I have sailed with Mike and Beth Maloney for years and have been sailing out of the Yacht Club since the change of ownership. There is no person who would rather have a yacht club filled with sailboats than Mike. In light of economics and the community's demand, however, a sailboat only restriction hinders the long term viability of the Yacht Cltib. As a neighboring council person, I understand your decision on this issue is not just one of economics, but also one of policy and what is the best for Shoretivood. In my opinion, the best interest of Shorewood speaks in favor of granting the Yacht Club's request. Your predecessors had the wisdom and foresight to create a Lakeshore Recreation District -presumably so your citizens could utilize the Lakeshore. Even with such a policy, Shorewood residents do not readily have access to the lake. Building a relationship with the Yacht Club will provide Shorewood residents the access they want and deserve. And availability of access will come with no cost to the City. In fact, the financial success of the Yacht Club should translate into increased revenues for Shorewood through any increase in property values. Some citizens have raised concern about noise, boat speeds, and "ambiance". I will take each of these in turn. First, noise. I spent the night on my boat on a number of occasions this last summer. Most weekends there are a few people spending the entire weekend on their boats. The Yacht Club community is a tight one and people are respectful of everyone's space and enjoyment. If a member is loud or causing a disturbance, members will be quick to address the issue. This will be the case regardless if the member is on a sailboat or a power boat. Second, boat speeds. The area just outside the Yacht Club is no wake. Any power boats would travel at the same "no wake" speeds that the sailboats travel at. If any boat travels too fast, the members of the yacht club, as well as management, will be swift to curtail that activity. For the safety of boats, members want any wake movement curtailed. 11 /26/2007 Page 2 of 2 Third, "ambiance." I find it remarkable that those who are critical of 1laving power boats at the yacht club because of "ambiance" or "character of the neighborhood", nine times out often, own power boats. That just does not make sense. These neighbors are not, presumably, louder than other neighbors, or presumably drive their boats faster than the no wake restriction, and their power boats do not, presumably, change the character of the neighborhood. It just seems odd that a power boat owner wants to prohibit residents of Shorewood, among others, from also having power boats on the lake because they would rather look at sailboats. In closing, I hope you will support the Yacht Club's application to amend their conditional use permit. Unfortunately, Excelsior has a work session scheduled at the same time as your council meeting, so I will not be able to attend. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter with me, I welcome your call. Thank you for your time and consideration, Heidi Heidi E. Viesturs, Esq. Viesturs Law Office PLLC 8421 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 320 Minneapolis, MN 55426 hedi~viesturslawcom Ph: 763.544.0258 Fx: 763.544.2158 www.viesturslaw.com This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this e-mail message and any attachment from your computer. Thank you. 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 1 Brad Nielsen From: GABRIEL JABBOUR [GabrielJabbour@msn.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:57 AM To: Brad Nielsen Honorable Mayor and Council Members, On Wednesday a resident of Tonka Bay who lives on Gideon Point gave me a copy of a petition against the proposal presented by Shorewood Yacht Club. I find it surprising that all except for 9 people that signed the petition do not reside in Shorewood .More surprising that their expectation that one property only, Shorewood Yacht Club, should not have the right to have power boats, as they feel Gideon's Bay is sensitive. People from Gideon's Point have in the recent past been given a multiple dock license from the LMCD for 47 slips with no size limit. The city of Tonka Bay is licensed for 47 slips for the municipal marina and that gives their residents a wonderful amenity. The city of Excelsior is expanding their municipal marina to 42 slips which is a substantial amenity for their residents, not to mention, that both of those cities have three additional large marinas and municipal docks on the Lower Lake. The residents who signed the petition have never appeared to protest any of the above, nor do I think they should- but they expect to have perhaps the largest shore holder property on the bay ,Shorewood Yacht Club, not to have any powerboats thus making the responsibility to mitigate what they perceive as negative impact fall on one property owner instead of being shared equally, not to mention perhaps the largest taxed property on the bay. More importantly, they expect the city of Shorewood to have no power boats on the Lower Lake nor any Shorewood resident to be able to to enjoy the same exact amenity the two other cities have for their residents although Shorewood is a substantially larger city and has a substantial number of residents who do not live on the lake in comparison to the others. I apologize to the Council for this lengthy comment and request that they take the petition that the city has received for what it is which is clearly " I have a dock with several power boats in front of my house and nobody else should have any". Respectfully, Gabriel ]abbour 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 1 Brad Nielsen From: Jay & Deb Miller [j-dmiller@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 9:33 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: RE: Shorewood Yacht Club- Power Boats To Whom it may concern- We are in support of the Shorewood Yacht Club putting in dock slips for power boats. This is a good oppurtunity for the residents of Shorewood to have a dock in their community. This will allow them to put their boat in the village that they live in, instead of having to go across the lake for access. Jay & Deb Miller 5860 Hillendale Rd Shorewood, MN 11/26/2007 SIIOREWOOD YACI-IT CLUB -ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 11-20-2007 Zoning Code Section1201.24 Subd. 10.d. (Current Code Provision) "d. Issuance of a license shall take into consideration the historic use of the site under consideration with respect to the use of power boats, With the exception of power boats necessary for the operation of the facility, water harboring of boats on any site located in Gideon's Bay shall be limited to sailing boats only." Proposed Text Amendment: "d. Issuance of a license shall take into consideration the historic use of the site under consideration with respect to the use of power boats. With the exception of power boats necessary for the operation of the facility ana'~ublicly-~3wned u~ate~^c~aft o~et~ated ~y public safety Pei°sona?el, water harboring of boats on any site in Gideon's Bay shall be limited to sailing boats only. ~Ipon a fa~o~able ~ecof~~~7~endation by the Planning ~`o~t~~~~~issian, the ~'it~> ~'ozrncil T~~~ay licea~se a li~~rited nunzbe~° of powe~° hoa~s, p~°ovic~ed the essential cl7a~acteF^ of the facility as a sailing facility is tnaintaineca'. " -D-R-A-F-T- CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN INTERIM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MICHAEL MALONEY AND GABRIEL JABBOUR ALLOWING A CERTAIN NUMBER OF POWER BOATS AT THE SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB WHEREAS, Michael Maloney and Gabriel Jabbour, (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at 600 West Lake Street (Subject Property) in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the Applicants operate a multiple dock facility at the Subject Property pursuant to a conditional use permit as set forth in City of Shorewood Resolution No. 00- 111, acopy of which is attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, City of Shorewood Resolution No. 00-111 specifically limits the water harboring of boats to sailboats, with the exception of four power boats; and WHEREAS, City of Shorewood Resolution No. 00-111 was amended in 2007 by Resolution No. 07-029 to allow a fifth power boat to be harbored at the property for the use of the Excelsior Fire District; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested an amendment to Resolution No. 00-111 that would allow them to use fifty percent of their allowable number of boat slips for water harboring of power boats; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council, dated 26 September 2007, which memorandum is on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Plaiming Commission at its regular meeting on 2 October 2007. The Planning Commission again reviewed the application at its meeting on 16 October 2007, at which time it received additional public comment. The minutes of these meetings are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on , at which time the comments of the City Planner and other City staff, the minutes of the Planning Commission, and written testimony of numerous individuals interested in the matter were reviewed and additional public comments were heard by the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT The Subject Property is located on Gideon's Bay, Lake Mimletonka. 2. The Subject Property currently exists as three parcels of property containing a total of approximately 2.4 acres and is located in the L-R, Lakeshore Recreational zoning district. 3. Land use and zoning surrounding the Subject Property are as follows: North: Lake Minnetonka East: Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company; zoned C-4/S, Service Commercial/Shoreland South: County Road 19, then commercial; zoned C-4/S and R-C/S, Residential Commercial/Shoreland West: Townhouse common area and single-family residential; zoned P.U.D., Planned Unit Development and R-1B/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland 4. Water-harboring of boats is a permitted use within the L-R, Lakeshore Recreational zoning district. 5. The Subject Property is occupied by the Applicants' business, which includes a clubhouse and boat maintenance facility, caretaker dwelling, launch ramp and boat slips for docking 117 boats, all but five of which are currently limited to sailboats only. 6. The Applicants have offered to devise a system to rent slips first to Shorewood residents before opening rentals to the general public. 7. The westerly dock located on the Subject Property is configured for 35 boat slips, designed to accommodate boats up to 30 feet in length. 8. Shorewood's Zoning Code provides for interim conditional use permits, one of the purposes of which is "To allow a use for a brief period of time while permanent location obtained or constructed." CONCLUSIONS A Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicants an Interim Conditional Use Permit subject to the following: The conditions set forth in Shorewood Resolutions No. 00-111 and No. 07-029 remain in force except as modified herein. 2. The Applicants are allowed to keep no more than 35 additional power boats, all of which must be kept at the westerly dock on the property. The Applicants shall provide a plan specifying where the previously approved five boats will be docked. Power boats kept at the westerly dock shall not exceed 30 feet in length. -2- 4. The Interim Conditional Use Permit shall be in effect for three years from the date of this resolution, during which time the use of the Subject Property shall be monitored for compliance with the terms of Shorewood Resolution No. 00- 111 and 07-029. 5. Shorewood Planning staff will monitor complaints filed through the South Lake Police Department-and provide-the Planning Commission with an-annual update as to the Subject Property's compliance with the Interim Conditional Use Permit, including, but not limited to the following: a. The number and size of power boats kept at the Subject Property. b. Hours of operation. c. Noisy activities after business hours. d. Traffic issues (parking, congestion and accidents). e. Verifiable adverse environmental effects. 6. The Applicants shall submit a detailed written plan, subject to approval by the Shorewood City Council, demonstrating how residents of Shorewood will be given first opportunity for boat slips, before slips are offered to the general public. Within three years and 60 days of the adoption of this resolution, the City shall conduct a public hearing to consider whether the harboring of 35 power boats may continue as a conditional use or the Interim Conditional Use Permit shall expire. The determination shall. be based. upon the number anal. the nature of complaints received and compliance with this permit. The Interim Use Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to the provisions of Section 120.1.04 Stibd. 4.c.,f. and g. (termination, violations and revocation, respectively) of the Shorewood Zonii~ig Code. Any conversion from Interim Conditional Use to permanent Conditional Use shall follow the criteria and procedures for conditional use permits in effect at the time the conversion is considered. B. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this day of , 200 CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATORICLERK -3- (Insert Exhibit A -Legal Desc.) -4- 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: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 21 November 2007 RE: Shorewood Yacht Club -Resident Preference Plan and Boat Location Plan FILE NO. 405(07.15) As you were advised by e-mail earlier today, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the text amendment and an interim conditional use permit for the Shorewood Yacht Club. Two of the conditions of approval were: 1) the applicants must submit a detailed written plan showing how they intend to give preference to Shorewood residents; and 2) the applicants must provide a drawing showing where the currently-allowed five power boats will be docked. These plans are attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane .s ;a ~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Plan for giving priority to a~I ~ ~ Shorewood residents for open slips. ccr~ o~ :~t-tnsa~~~,r • In the first year we will hold all 3 5 slips open for Shorewood residents as verified by a drivers license or state I.D. until the week of the Minneapolis Boat Show (January 21St). To secure a slip a resident needs to sign a contract and make the first payment. • To retain their slip for following years, a resident will need to renew their contract and make their first payment before the week of that year's Minneapolis Boat Show. • A slip will be considered "open" if the previous years tenant does not sign a contract and make their first payment before the week of the Minneapolis boat Show. • If there are no open slips, Shorewood residents may put their name on a waiting list and will be given first consideration to open slips of a size and type that is appropriate to their boat. • Shorewood residents will be required to follow the rules and conditions required by the annual contract, Shorewood Yacht Clubs conditional use permit, and any policies and regulations the management of Shorewood Yacht Club deems appropriate. Refusal of a slip or expulsion from the marina for these reasons will not be considered a violation of this plan. Exhibit A d _.. ..a,~_ -~ „B ~~ ;4.- c 1 ~t )~> ,' 1 J ffr t .. _...:~..--y ~~ Exhibit B crrv 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, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 29 August 2007 Nelson, Dan -Minor Subdivision 405 (07.13) Dan Nelson owns the property at 25865 Birch Bluff Road (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, and Property Vicinity map -Exhibit B, attached). He proposes to subdivide the property into two lots as shown on Exhibit C. The property is zoned R-lA/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland, is occupied by Mr. Nelson's home, and contains approximately 2.61 acres (113,596 square feet) of area, of which 37,701 square feet is wetland. The site is characterized by relatively steep slopes that drop from an elevation of 980 on the north side of the site to 931 at the wetland on the south side of the site (see Exhibit D). The property is substantially wooded with large deciduous trees forming a dense canopy. The existing home is accessed via a private driveway that is located in the right-of--way of Second Street, a "paper street" that has never been improved. The property owners were granted an incidental use ofright-of--way permit in 2004, prior to their purchasing the property. Background on that is contained in Attachments I and II, attached (copied in yellow). The proposed division results in two lots. The westerly lot (Parcel A) with the existing home on it would contain 45,895 square feet of area, exclusive of wetland area, and the easterly lot (Parcel B) would contain 40,000 square feet of area, without wetland area. The applicant proposes 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 to serve a new home on Parcel B. Note that the possible future home shown on Exhibit E is intended to illustrate the buildability of the new lot. ~f®a' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER #88 Memorandum Re: Nelson Minor Subdivision 29 August 2007 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS As noted in the following, the applicant's request raises significant issues with respect to site alteration and access. A. Site Alteration. As can be seen in the attached exhibits, and in visiting the site, the land in question is extremely sensitive from an environmental perspective. The plans presented result in approximately half of the site being altered by tree clearing and grading. The severity of the slopes is well illustrated on Exhibit D. 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 results in extensive tree removal. It should be noted that the tree inventory has not been signed by a landscape architect, licensed forester or certified arborist. Nor has the applicant submitted a tree replacement plan. The Natural Resources chapter of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan recommends "...12 percent grades will be considered a `warning flag'." It goes on to say that development on slopes greater than 12 percent be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Finally, the Plan recommends that development that results in disturbed slopes exceeding 3:1 (33 percent) should not be allowed, except in extreme situations. It is suggested that an extreme situation would include allowing an existing lot of record to be put to use, but not necessarily the creation of a new lot. In the review of this application it is recommended that the Planning Commission and Council review the Natural Resources chapter of the Comp Plan, particularly the section on Slopes (pg NR-9). The plan submitted did not include the 35-foot wetland buffer area and the fifteen-foot setback from the buffer. These were added to Exhibit C by staff. If the subdivision is to be approved, the applicant must provide legal descriptions of the wetland buffer area and deed a conservation easement to the City over the buffer area. It is worth noting that no erosion control plan was submitted with the plans. 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 is currently accessed by a private driveway located on public right-of--way known as Second Street. The driveway is approximately 12 feet wide, which is all the existing r.o.w. can accommodate, leaving 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, which is what is anticipated for the property to the east of Second Street (Lot 5), another existing lot of record. If this access is to serve three properties, as proposed by the applicant, it would require, at minimum, a private road.. Shorewood's Subdivision Code requires all lots to have frontage on a public street. While private roads are highly discouraged, the Comprehensive Plan allows them where -2- Memorandum Re: Nelson Minor Subdivision 29 August 2007 no other alternative exists, where no more than three properties are served, and where a 50-foot wide easement with an adequate turn-around is provided. A Fire Code access .road (20-foot paved surface) is the minimum design for a private road. Even a private road design can not be achieved within the 22-foot wide Second Street r.o.w. Consequently, the existing lot of record on the east side of the r.o.w. (Lot 5) could not be built upon unless additional r.o.w. or easement is acquired and the fire access road was constructed, placing the entire cost of it on that owner. Further, if the current request is approved, it is reasonable to expect that Lot 5 might be subdivided in the future, which is precluded 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 appears that more than three lots can 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 r.o.w. for Clara Avenue and Second Street should be required with any subdivision approval. C. Process. When the applicant initially contacted staff, he was advised that the request should be submitted as a formal preliminary plat, rather than a minor subdivision. This was due to the right-of--way issues, the dedication of drainage and utility easements and the dedication of conservation easements for the wetland. In addition, the platting process involves a public hearing, while a minor subdivision does not. Based on neighborhood concerns at the time the right-of--way permit was approved, there is 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 is his right, to apply for a minor subdivision, citing the cost of formal platting as his reason. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding, approval of the applicant's proposal is ill-advised. At minimum, it should be considered a premature subdivision. That is, until the affected property owners can acquire the necessary right-of--way to comply with City standards, no more development should occur beyond the use of the existing lots of record. With respect to the amount of site alteration required to make the plan work, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is questionable. Nevertheless, if consideration into continue, it should be done through the formal platting process, addressing the concerns raised herein. Cc: Craig Dawson James Landini Larry Brown Tim Keane Dan Nelson -3- o ~ 0 o ~7 z ~ o ~o~ ~ ~ P ~3' O N ~~0 b~ S~pL ~ ~ O Off. ~ ~~O xara= ~ ~ ~ ~~. -Y' %' 3= ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ rc ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 8 as v~3ana -~ -71 -M .~ ~! .~ ~ ,_~-!1 -~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ d ~ s awi.~=O ~ ~ ///~/~~ L O v+- Q. -71 ^~ W w ~ J -, -~ ~ -~ a~ 5 d '~ 5 0 9 0 0 Exhibit A -~ SITE LOCATION ~' Nelson - minor subdivision -, I i ~` U I O I I T........_... ----~--r-------- --------------------------------------------------' i ~~~ ~Qp~R N I I I ~ ~ WI ' `'~+ ' ~+' 33 33 ® 144 ' "" C i i ^'p~ i ~~n ~`~r z' ~ f ~~ - - - 150 - 21 122 p-94--~ i ~ 7 6 i 5 (31) (qH i ~~)G ~+~ I ~ ~ it°rn i ~ 9 8 (5) i32) i DO NO 6 1670 ~' o i ~ ~ i ~~ i i II 10 (6) ,~y~~~ ~ ~ ~~ & 66 (• a n, 32 i r, ao X12 i (7) ~ (>~ i ~ ,,~ a~ '($) ~ ~~8~ ~ ~ I 66 66 j~n ~ ,, j ` ~ 14 it (9) , i ~= 1 54 ~F FD - ~' ~ 15i (10) ~ , zi .:~ ~~ ~ 12".. I 9lRDN gLiFAV6UED 5 i ;. •• ~ 16 ' • I .,. ~ i ~ ~ 66 66 N AS NOW 5 61'5 ,~ 17 (IU Q ~ 1.5 , ~ ~, i am 1 t~ ~ p~ i 66 66 u' 67,55 6 •~ I ~ N ,`t~~..1B;% .~i• ~~ ~I o`er"' ~? iii- i 55y1.55 ~~ ~~k~ ly(•~~13"-' a 19 (IZ) si ~ am 1 •~ ~ ~ Q~ 61.55 61, ~ II ~ (37) i a zo ~ (35) ~ 1 ,~ ~' ` ~~~ 1 ~ .61.55 61.E ~~ ~,~ g , to (33) ~ '-- --. ~I {3) ~ 4' ~ ~'RCR1 ~ 5 6 • ~~ ~6 7 5 8 ,x(20) ~' 13d a 66 1 45 61.5 5 (I$) 15` 'i<- ,~Ff~~n i 1 r" (4) p ~ i-100-- 55 61 55. '~ ~E'~~ 3 (I7) ~ {I9) i 14 ',,,,: ( ,gyp 61. 16 i 15 ' (3$) - ._ ..., _. i i ~ > F' 22 ~Q"o~ ' S "61.55 i ni M I I ~ y' • ~I7 i ..; a ° 65 i 25 °z {5) p~~ -:' ~°' 6 ,55 6~`' ~.S ~ 1 II ; ; ~ - i I9 IS o ~ ' t5 61'N5 ~ i2 1 0 g5 ~:p 10 , i5 i 20 D 55 ~'1• N o I I (6) ., 6 •r ~• 9 , (f5) 362• i ~ 6i• m ~ (2411 75 6 5 8~' ~' a {I9) L• •.~ ~ M~ (25) Qi.55 i R ~~ 24~~ ~ i 25 695 S;~~nn~~ n 7 (13) I •.:: i ~~° i 61.55 61NDE51~ .;. ;~ ~ Q~ i (25)M ~'$° ~ ~,,~ m ~ 6 - 1 % '• I pa Q(~1 I 1,55 N ~ `~ts~-~ 25 , -ii 5 ~ ''~ ti ;; .. „ (16) i 21 !24) 161.55 6 ~' ,~ i ,. 13.15 d8 ~ ~ 4 r i '.• O 1 12 n - i i5 ~ ~j(~ ~"`2$) N89°4T28'E 220 ' ,°[,1~3i (10) ~ ~a ~' 1 I ~ ~ ~Q 3 {2$) ;' 1 Q 13 ~ i382• 1 1.11 U Z56. d (76;63 p ~ ` 28 8~'' i `~'~~~ ~ ~ 36 E O ci0v m ,.. i,;,' G ~ l:/ 15 4 i 5 5836 W 135.6 2 ~rn rMi, IJ. ~~(a~~ 5 0 a _ 16 Q (4 t • ~. ~ ~ i11) 0 ii 5 ~ ~ ~N1 ° 5 ~ h- ~ I, m G 5 i 55.61.551. 61.,5 ~ 510° ~ {43) c "-' 2)~, .. r ~9 5 ~ CL ~ e 496: .: , , F = ~~~C@~- ~ .,•, (I$) M Ia' (39) ~55 5 6 • A ~, OL D ~~~~~~.32 ~ ~ R 66: N s o ~ 1291 ~ m • 20 ;` 1 ` 69.5 OE`A w s ~9 E 63.1i 2 Z J' S ~ ?~ ~ ° ° ,° 21 ;.'' 81 lUN ~~ ~ rTlj W(q$) 00•~ ~N N82°31'08 y9C~. ~ N 9• 4 5 : ~6 Z 129.68 2 •'.' .69.5 I (~fj~ ~~~ o S99y ~0~~1 ;n~i~lE 80 69 " 9'' 9 3 ~~ ~ ~$~n d~G~~ 6g'S' ~ f] (/~J M a . ¢\p'L• i6.8 ~,~~~, 6 ~ ~ ~,~~ ~ ~ •• 5 ~U~ ~ ~ a a 5 9(° D '~ m2 jd~ ~~' ^~d" -~ 1-L ~69• ~~~ rv3 (44) N ~Ol1VDl~J r_ d.. „, ~~,.~_M I {D I ;, ro Y ~ ~ ~ n' ~~ a rn d~ m 25 . ~. H m M ~ ~ 3 ao ° ~~(~~ _ ~. g {29) P = 'uii2a A9d' m W $g 35 ,7g ~ (45) Z QZ) ~ J~~~~ I a p~ 5 ~~. ~d 01'482W r Q ~ ~ 14 ~{~~~ -- ~~ i ~ Q~aka. o -y.2X12 ~' 6 IS ('}~') i f9•.. ~ ~p11~p•~, ~~ ~~ m ~ roro' 151.9 N •, 16 (14) ~yj~'>~S 2 c w {20) /J u,z a r~~ti•~ p°' ~ 3 ?62.99. 123.4 ° ~ I7 !13) 69• Q o !30) o~ o ~~ `5Qn ,o .~~ ~^ (47) 033 1 aw 1~ mi8 ~ 6g5 69' y((>) ~. ~F = ~? m o0~,~~0~\~ ~€.4`7~ ~ 4 185 9 I (J o N89° 34'S8'W ,, 1 a °'• gA '~ ~ ' z 3 74 589°47'28°W a; --- _ X300' 593 166.19 37 S89° 56'E o : ; 300 , 558 340 293.63 96.61 p13 ,...' q m .~' ~ .. s.lq 4 429•ze m: ~ ;;m N ' '9 (35) ourLOr a 213 21 .5 ~ i ., OU7LOT 3 UTLOT C roti~N~~ 9~~ 2ap h °J 3. " (2U m : (9) of {3$) o N 365 13 265 13 N % °' ~ {36) ~ ~ m _ ~ 3 p9j o o~. Oaf{ a ~©C~ o {z4) 6~ ~~ °~p~Q , ' 4'RES GOVT LOT 2 z633.o$ RES GOVT SOT I ~y -~ Ao, ~~ Y CTnD6A CCIdiCR (11CTRIf T RnIINIIIsRY .W O N N r m ro m z ai r~ r m 3 (7) w m ri a O ~~~ ~~W~~ 1.71 C ~R3, p1' Exhibit B PROPERTY VICINITY ~ 2a } ry I v ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ _ ------- ~~ ~ ~~ S" T R ~' ~' T /]l,~ JN /~/r uuw. :,e "' .r~; \ N ~ , rbm '\,~ - -379:1'6-~ S L ~ O -~ I L ~~ -'-___ `~"~. \ 121NpP'.C PFE W1p ~ _ ''~ .1.-n~nracv.•~r J S O~E7`44'S3°,•E { ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ GARAGE ~~ ~ ' } \\ `, {~ `,~ 'q '\ `~ ~' mnwwa a mMN,w£~l ~r~ F v _ 2~ `9 (( tl ~y EXISTING - ~ ~ X21 ~ 1 ,~~ a 1`~ ~~`~ ~" ~u ,.:~:..-- 1 u O DWELLING ^ ~_ . -1. _ . 1~', `~ ; , ~"' \ ' y~~ ,~ a,. 1• J ,~: - 11 ~! 70591 291117121 NELSON, DAN & MELISSA ~ 11 ~ t pa° ~\ ' ~ ~ \ \ rswo ` VANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. \\°'°- ~y.~ ~, ~~ 1>; ' , ~~\" 9=s~,{.,; '>\\1,,, ' 1'`,~ u,. `~ •~ PROPOSED PONDING, DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT 300 S. Hvry. Nc.101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 8267 '' \ 1~ ~ `I '` ' ~ °H ° ~`~ ~' 1 ~~ vfiY FOR: DANIEL ~ MILISSA NELSON - - - - -_ ~i ~`, . `~~~ ~, ~` ~{ ~ \ ~~ °, '~''~; •~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~' m 1°P ¢~av ~.°°m l°KN : ~_."..,, 1 1 ', 1 `~ ~ i'`,' ;`\\ `C' ~ , ~ .~j ~ ~°~ PARCEL B m IIRVEYED: July, 2007 DRAFTED: July 26, 2007 _ - .._y - \ , , s{ , ay, ~,` ' \ 5 z ~N0gef3 ~y \ ~1 ~` ~ ~~~ ` '` ~ - ~ ,a as,ooosQ.ir.TOEASRtmNTt,Ras ~~ RIGINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PARCEL: ~ ~' `y'~ \ tsl `. •... ~ \; ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ' ~ \ lack 6, Mean's Addition to Birch Bluff Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin CounTy, Mirmesota. 1 ',11 w 1 ~'e { ~ ~' ~ , ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ \ cm ~„ ~ ~ ww \\ ', ROPOSEDLEGALDESCRIPTIONOFPARCELA: 3 1' ~ 'o ~~ l~, ° ~ ~ ~ a '''sa. '~ \ `. a~ hetpartofBlock6,Mann'sAddiGontoBuchBluff,LakeMinnetonka,HennepinCounry,Minnesota,that ~ j 1', ,' ~~ a~{I ~`'`\I{``\\ `', ~~y~ ~'~ "`' '•.~ \\ ~ ~`j'/~ 'es westerly of the following described line: {1 ~ y l r ~ d ~ \ ~ ~"~ ~. ~ ~ , ax ~awN ommencing at the northwest comer of said Block 6; thence on ao assumed bearing of North 77 degrees 21 \1 ,~ 1{`; , , ~} ~ \ ~, \~~ ', \, ~~'~ \\\ ' ~ ' ' ~ \ ~ \,9 ' utes 2i seconds East a distance of 125.88 feet to the paint of beginning of the line to be described; ` \\ J : W, 1 , \ 11 " • , 9s~ ~ . \ \ t ence South 10 degrees 45 minutes 33 seconds fiast a distance of 342.04 feet to the south line of said ~ \ N ~ 1 ~Ye \I) ~~, '~ ~` '. , ~ ; . , ~ ~ . , ~ ~ \\ \ lock 6 and there terminating. ~, \ ~ Q, ', } s , ~ ~ q1- \ \\ `~ -~ \r0 0 . - - -raw InaN \ {, -13 °' °~ '\~ - ~ .,~ ` :,, \ T~0' . , ~ ~ ~\ \ ROPOSEDLEGALDESCRIP'fIONOFPARCFiLB: ~, ~ ~ 1~',' 11 ~`~''` 1 , ~', ~A\ ~ ~ ~~' GAR-~~sR~.o" r~\'`~~ ~ a \\\ ~\ _I hat art of Bieck 6, Mann's Addition to Birch Bluff, Lake Minnetonka, Herne in Coun , Minneso drat ' ti o ~ ~, 'es easterly of the following described line: { } <yt, 1, e ~ ~ ss e~ \ N~ `,. ~~ ~ \ ommencing at the nortlrwest.comer of seidBlock 6; thence on ao assumed hearing of North 77 degrees 21 ' , 1 1 { ' 1P 1. ~ \ \ s3 \\ '. , ~\ \\ mutes 25 seconds Fast a distance of 125.88 feet to the paint of beginning of the Gne to be described; { _ ~ { NrQ ~ ` ~.~ ~ ~'~ \ ~ '. \ \ / i ence South 10 degrees 45 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 342.04 feet to the soutlt line of said ~ ,~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ' 9 ~~ \ ;~ ~ ` ~, ~,~'~ \\ , / \ , lock6andthereterminating, ~ ~ \\ 11 ~ {~~, ~ j ~~ ~ '~ `, d,l~l \~~0'45'53" E \\ \ "~ J1~ , OTES AND LIMITATIONS: 1 1 1 `•; { ~ ~~ ,~ \\ ', ~,~; '~; ..~ \~, „~34 ~escopaoforuservicesfort6isjobisasfollows: ~'. A ~., 4~ ~i. --" y~;,° ~'~Y'/~~Q~/""~' 1 ~. w\ ~ I .Showing the lengthandd'uectienofboundary]inesofthelegaldescripdonwhichyoufiunished. ``, \1 1 ~~y~~~'~\ a \\~° ', ~'~• i, 11 ` \\ . Shawiag the lecadon of ezistiog improvements we deemed important ' ~ 11 1{ ~ + ,~ ~ ; ~ . ~.--''r\ ~ 1 \~ 3 . Setting new monuments ar verifying existing monuments to mazk the comers of the property. ~ - 1 rmr snnew wPrl ~a ~ ~/~ \ `~ \ ~ O .Showing topography of the site per the city's topogmphy andper spot elevadoos we detemrined during _ . - - ~ t ", ~-~ ~ \\ \ `\ \~ `~ u<survey, fWNO IRON ~y {.- 4 30.a \ 1 '_. \ \ \ . We have provided a benchmazk for youruse in determining elevadeos on this site, use that benchmazk ' ; I y ~ 1 \ t~ \~ d nothing else for that purpose. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shovm to verify your - ~ \ ; \ \ \ ~ ~~ We show a proposed division of the property. Pleaseraviewthapmpesattoseethatitiswhatyou I ~ \I{ yc r~ b. ~~ } \\ ~~a tend and submit to those governmental agencies that have jurisdicdon to obtain then approvals, if you 1 1 1 _ { \ \\ I, w an, before making any decisions regarding the property, ' ~ ~ ° \ , , \ \ I ; ~ j Setdngoftheimnmonumentsonthepmpertyisdefereduotilweazenoti6edthattheproposeddivision ~ °'o~• ~, ~„~~~ I~~ ~~" /`"~. \\ \\ I am as been approved. ~ ' ~ 'c 1 I \ \ ~ I A . We understand that the proposed new home is to be served by sump and pump as the existing home on ~ \ " t r I \\ \~ I ~ i arcel A is. ' 1 ~' n s I I \ ~ I z I . Easements for drainage and utility purposes ]0 feet iD width end adjacent to all front and side lot lines 1 ' 1 ° ~ c', I \ \ proposed Legals to be drafted far easements when and if proposed division is approved. ~`! ~ J `' 1 ° 1 i I PARCEL ~ \ ~ I ' ~ w ~ ' { 1 45,845 SQ. FC. TO EASEMENT ISN~ \ -~_ , . TANDARD SYIvIDOLS & CONVENTIONS: ~ - - - - - - ~ ~. ~ 1 «+,~ wwK ~~ 11 1` ~ i \\ \\ \ \ I ' ~"Denotes 112" ID pipe with plasdc plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise ei ' ~ I otcd. ~ ~. ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ \ d' a 1 ~ I 1 1 1 i ', \\ I ~' hereby certify Wet dds plea, specd'icadon, report or surveywas pnpazed by me ar 1 i ''' , . It 1 1 `" i I \ I der my direct supervision end that I am a licensed Profesaioml Engoreer and a 1 i ' \ F - - rofessione155rrveyaruaderthelawsoftheStateofMianesota. ` ` 1{ 'aeo 1 i \~ I 6 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I am H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 ~ '.. _ . y {I - n 1 ~ IJ ~ \\ I I I \ I. , , LEGEND ~ ---1-- '. -. ~I ~ ,' j l \ _ .i. . .. DENOTES FJDSTAIO CONTDUlILEVE I __ - / - ---- - \ ~-----~=,- -~- ~ --~----I-- ., ~'4~ DEN07E5 PROPOSED SPOTELEVATION _ - .~t -- 1 ``-~ S 00'44'53" E tw~afir~a~r •--~+s--- DENOTESPROeasEDCONTDURLINE GRAPHIC SCALE 1 \,`•'-raNai/YarNgp¢ --:512.12-- 31 ~rn ro ;~ ~: ~ r7 rot NI f- ~---- ~fww 1/S 7ACN qPE ° '° ~ ~ 5 1 ~,~, Exhibit C me DENO'rFS PROPOSED DIAEC170N OF STORM WATER FIAW ~~ -JI 2 DENOrESPROeosEDSn.TPSNCSTxPEZ l m "~' 1 ~ 1 pR~P~SED ~IVISI~N t ~, ~. ~ x 983.9 4d ,6 O 87.8 X ® ~ 964.5 ® 35,7 '~ ~ ~ '~ '' x 97f.9 ~~ 980.6 X ~f/I J. # 971.6 RZ C O ~i O t C 'C d C. 0 a 0 c d c c O N d z ~ c I I ' ' $ ~ ~ - I I t ~i I ~ i ~ ~ I ~ i ~ ! ~ ~, I I ~! I I ~ i. ~ I I ~ _ ~ t II i ~~ ~ I ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ a : I i QJ ~ ~ = I ~ ~ i ~ U~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ j I ' 1 I ~ , I I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ i ~ ~ i I I I I - ~ ~ : ~' ; i I' i ! ' ~ I II I i Iv _ -' ~ C ~! ! ~' ~ j i ! I I ! i i ~ ~ f ! ~ I I I ~~ I i I' I' ~ U ' I ~ ~ I! I I i ' ~ i C~ ~ ~~ I O ' i I ~ I I I I N NI ~~ i i I i i ~ ~ ~ I i f I i Q~ N O ! I i I I ~ I O U ~I `' '' i O I C ~~ I ~I' ~ ~ t6 ~ Q)I a a A~ Qi ~~. " to ~i -. '1 ,~ O ~ ~ '. of '~ i ( I ~ j I L ~~ a-' i caI ~ i m! I ~ ail ~ c~ ~~ •+ ~ ~ L I ~ I~ '~ ~ ~I ~. ~ ~ ~, ~I I ~ ~ ~I ~~ N ' a c, f ~ ~ U~ I c I ° ~ ~I ~I ~ ~ .r. I I I ' i ~ O v, , cn , cn I I O C ~! T I mo ~ O ~, ~ ~ I ~i ti5 ~ ~ ~ r O O p O p O ~ L I ~I Z' O~ O ~ Z I I ~ { O ~ I I 1 U -O I ~~ ~ I v- I ~ O I _ 4- ~Oy(~ •U U ^' ~ ~ U O N Y ~= ~ O ~ I ~ O ~ ~ (6 ~ I ~ O ~ ~ O to ~ ~ (6 I ~!• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ^O ':S U 3~ ~ ~ ~ ~I 4=~ ~I ~ I v ~I m -aI ~~ ~ ?' ~ =I .r O O OI O O O i O ~ O ~I I ~I OI c: .. ~ >r ~ N N .... O ...~ _O to ~ ..~ O ~, .~.~ O +.. O to ~ i, O ~ ~ O ; O ~ L` ,L I N ~ +~ O O ~. ~ U r-+ ~-+ N a, U i~..i U ''"' ~ O ~ to (A (tA cn cn to I I l . I cn [n O O N N ~ ~ ^O ~, ~ s. ~ " v ~ U~ tA ~ Z 2, 12 = = 2 i d 2 S Z 2 = ~ ~ . ~ t-" s. ( d" O O O _ ~ I ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~r r I r~ r r ~r N j e- ~ Ir l ~ r ~ r ~ ~r' ` r ~y' ~ ~r l r N ~r M ( I r N r 1C'q ~ I ~~ '~~',.'~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • O m ~ ~ M r r r ~ N N I jr ~ ~ 61 r ~ Ir ~ N O r ~ I.C) Ir r ~ N ( Ch r 100 ~N OJ 'r ~ M N I f r M 00 N Cfl lr CO ~- CO N _ U ~ ~ ~" ~+ '~ ~"~'.i N +~~+ ~ S-+ ~"" ~ ~, ~, U +-+ O ; I I I ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ Z N U ~ ~Y O (B O I O ~ p Y (6 .Y t6 N N n. L2 (6 tII j . G ~ Y ~ N Q t6 j . C (6 j _G ttS ~ O I ~ Q Z' O ~ Y i ~ I ~Y tII Y (0 ' Y [6 Y (d 1 (6 ~ ~ ~ 1 tIS I ~ ~ ~~ ~ bi "C3 ~ ..~ O O ~_ V1 .~ ~'^' •+=+ .~''-~ ~ (~ '(3 (n (A ~ ~ ~- ~ i ~- I I N O Y ~- ..O I'CS 'B ~ "O I '~ Y 'O U ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ L ~ ~, m ~ m m m ~ m ~ m ~rn ~I~ v ca gym l (~ , ~ v m v ca ~ m ~ (~ ca _ m tr ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v :ca ~ N U O C ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ cn~cn m ,~ Im m I ~ I i ~ ~m I ~ c o~ o o R a I I _, ~ s. °' ~ ~ I ~ ' I . l ~ i ' ! i ~ l ~ l ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ O '-+ N ~ M ~-+ d w a v . ~ r!N O O M O ~V O '~~.1" IO )ICO:t~ :O'O ~ O ~O O O r Ir r ~N ~r M r d r 'ilf) ir ICD ~- ~I~ r IO~ .r IO~ r O iN r N ~N N ~('O N ~ i G it 3r p O F"1 E'•M U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ch ~ ch ~ M i~ ch ~~ ('~ ~ co ~ M ~ c+' ~ ) CA ~ t~ I~ co ~ ~ M ~ (th ~ CO I~ ' G'4 I~ co ~ I ch I~ M ~ c~") I~ (h ~ ~ ch ~ I M ~ M ~ ~ I I ~ ! ! ! i ~ ~ I I I, ~ N L I i I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I i I I I ~ i I t i ~ ~ i I ! F.xhihit F. i is m L V 0 Z LL~ 1~ t~ O N O Z O a d v l0 -a 0 -~ d R O. a TREE INVENTORY CITY F SHOREWOOD MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: 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 Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 4 December 2003 Nelson, Dan and Melissa -Permit for Private Driveway in Public R.O.W. Property(25865 Birch Bluff Road) Dan and Melissa Nelson have a purchase agreement to buy afive-acre parcel of land, located in the southwest quadrant of Second Street and Clara Avenue, south of Birch Bluff Road (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). Both Second and Clara are "paper streets" -platted public rights-of--way that have never been developed as traveled roadways.... The Nelsons have. requested a permit to extend a private driveway to the property, using the Second Street r.o.w. The property in question is characterized by rugged terrain, varying in elevation from 980 feet in the northwest corner of the site, down to a wetland with an elevation of 934 in the southeast corner of the site (see Exhibit B). The site is heavily wooded. The most logical place for a building pad is the north/center part of the lot. The Second Street r.o.w. is quite narrow, only 22 feet in width. There are existing homes on the two properties that abut Second Street, the driveways of which are very close to the Second Street r.o.w. At staff's direction, the Nelsons have had had some survey work done on the r.o.w.. As can be seen on Exhibit C, there is already some encroachment on the r.o.w. by the two adjoining properties. The property at 25885 Birch Bluff Road has a retaining wall that comes onto the r.o.w., and the driveway for 25845 Birch Bluff Road arches into the r.o.w. by approximately five feet. Bs s®a' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Attachment I Memorandum Re: Nelson R.O.W. Permit 4 December 2003 Besides the narrow right-of--way, access to the property is complicated by topography. It is worth noting that the City studied this area a number of years ago, examining how this property and the two parcels on either side of it might be accessed in the future. Alternatives considered were: 1) a road coming in off of Third Street (another "paper street" to the west; 2) the second street option; and 3) a road extending in from Eureka Road along Clara Avenue. Despite the issues inherent to Second Street, it currently appears to be the most viable option. Before the City takes any formal action on this request, more information is necessary. Staff recommends that the applicants prepare a detailed grading plan, illustrating how the driveway would be constructed within the r.o.w., including the design details of any retaining walls that may be necessary to construct the driveway. There is inadequate room to construct a 20-foot driveway to satisfy fire access requirements. As a consequence, any home of the site will have to have a sprinkler system. The proposed driveway design should show a minimum of 12 feet of paved surface, with 16-foot wide pull-outs in strategic locations to facilitate two cars passing one another. The plan should also show how the site can be serviced with sanitary sewer. The applicants are anticipating the use of a lift pump. It should be mentioned that the applicants were advised to contact the owner of the property to the east of Second Street to see if she might be willing to sell an easement over a portion of her existing driveway. This would eliminate some tree removal and there would not then be three driveways in very close proximity to one another. To-date, that owner has expressed no interest in a shared driveway. Understandably, the Nelsons do not wish to spend a great deal more money on engineering without some assurance from the City that Second Street could be used. This item has been scheduled for Council review on 8 December. Due to its potential impact on the two adjoining properties, those owners have been advised of the request. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone or e-mail. Cc: Craig Dawson Larry Brown Tim Keane Dan and Melissa Nelson Carrie Dorfman Greg Buckley -2- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 2003 Page 4 of 7 E. Approval of the Prosecuting Attorney 2004 Contract for Services Administrator Dawson stated the City, along with the cities of Tonka Bay and Excelsior under separate contracts, had retained the prosecuting attorney services of Kenneth Potts for the past four to five years. He noted Mr. Potts had provided the information requested by Council regarding workload and hours spent in services for the City. He also noted the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department had noted efficiencies to the SLMPD officers' time in the preparation of cases and at court, and had also made for economy to the cities for prosecutor costs. Administrator Dawson stated, while the arrangement seemed to be working, Council should consider evaluating this arrangement during 2004 and consider solicitation of prosecutor services in 2005 as part of due diligence. Councilmembers Garfunkel and Zerby agreed, stating there were no issues with Mr. Potts performance, but both believed it important to review the arrangement of services provided as part of the due diligence process. Garfunkel moved, Lizee seconded, Accepting and Approving the Continuation of Prosecution services per the November 12, 2003, letter from Kenneth N. Potts, P.A. Motion passed 4/0. Councilmember Zerby stated he would like to see more detail of the caseload Mr. Potts worked on in the past as part of the due diligence process of review in the future. F. Permit for Private Driveway in Public Right-of--Way Applicant: Dan and Melissa Nelson Location: 25685 Birch Bluff Road Director Nielsen explained the applicants had a purchase agreement to buy a five-acre parcel of land, located in the southwest quadrant of Second Street and Clara Avenue, south of Birch Bluff Road. Both Second and Clara Streets were platted public rights-of way that had never been developed as traveled roadways. The applicants had requested a permit to extend a driveway to the property using the Second Street right-of--way. Director Nielsen went on to explain the property was characterized by heavily wooded rugged, terrain varying in elevation, and with a wetland in the southeast corner of the site. He explained the Second Street right-of--way was only 22 feet in width, with some existing encroachment on the right-of--way from the adjoining properties. The property at 25885 Birch Bluff Road had a retaining wall that encroached onto the right-of--way, and the driveway for 25485 Birch Bluff Road arched into the right-of--way by approximately five feet. The access to the property was also complicated by the topography of the site. Director Nielsen went on to explain many other options had been studied throughout the years with regard to access to this property. Despite the issues inherent to Second Street, it currently was considered the most viable option. Prior to any formal action being taken by the City, Staff recommended the applicants prepare a detailed grading plan, illustrating how the driveway would be constructed within the right-of--way, including the design details of any retaining walls that might be necessary to construct the driveway. He noted any house on the site would need a sprinkler system, and the proposed driveway design should show a minimum of 12 feet of paved surface, with 16-foot wide pullouts in strategic locations to facilitate two cars passing one another. The plan also should show how sanitary sewer could service the site. `° ~ Attachment II REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 2003 Page 5 of 7 Carrie Dorfman, 25845 Birch Bluff Road, presented a letter stating questions and concerns with the project to Council. She requested clarification on several items regarding the potential project, and noted concerns with several two-hundred-year old oak trees on the property that she believed were at risk as part of the project, and requested preservation of these trees. Similarly, with regard to the pullouts recommended as part of the proposed driveway plan, she requested these pullouts be reworked to preserve the oak trees on the site. She was also concerned about additional runoff onto her driveway, and requested consideration be given for lessening the current runoff, rather than adding to it. Greg Buckley, 25885 Birch Bluff Road, also submitted a letter of concerns to Council for further consideration. Included in this letter were questions regarding access to the property and clarification of the use of the proposed driveway. He also noted concern for the extreme topography and its impact on soil erosion and run-off, as well as concerns for tree preservation of the noted two-hundred-year old oak trees. He also encouraged further exploration of options for access from Third Street. Dan Nelson, 24270 Yellowstone Trail, stated it was his preference not to disturb the oak trees in question, as he had spoken with the excavator who stated he would work around the trees and retaining wall. He had examined options to build a small retaining wall, and questioned who should have financial responsibility of rebuilding the existing retaining wall on site. He also noted snow removal would be pushed to the back of the site. Mr. Gump, in response to Director Nielsen's question, stated he would need to research the aspects of the case presented prior to making a decision regarding responsibility of the retaining wall. Councilmember Zerby, in response to Director Nielsen's request for comment on the project for the applicant, stated he thought the current adjoining property owners should be required to move off the right-of--way and street area onto their own property. He also noted concern for regarding legality issues with the project. Discussion ensued regarding the recommendations Director Nielsen stated as part of the project. Mayor Love stated he thought the issue should be addressed at a policy level, and Councilmember Lizee suggested the applicant meet with Staff to work through the recommended issues of concern. Director Nielsen stated the applicant should return with a preliminary plan for the project, including a detailed grading plan with driveway grade and tree preservation measures demonstrated as part of the plan. Mayor Love thanked all parties present for due diligence to the planning process as well as information shared by the neighbors in trying to resolve issues of concern. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Discussion of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) State Highway 7 Speed Corridor Study Engineer Brown stated a speed study had been conducted by MnDOT on State Trunk Highway 7 between Trunk Highway 25 and Trunk Highway 100. The purpose of the study was to determine the proper speed limit posting along the segment described. He then went on to explain the projects utilized in the study. He also reviewed the current posted speeds along the roadway with the City limits. He stated MnDOT had performed the necessary calculations and recommended the eastbound and westbound Trunk Highway 7 be posted at 55 miles per hour. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 26, 2004 Page 6 of 8 Michelle Timonen, representing the neighborhood, agreed the "cobra head" style of light fixture would be agreeable to the neighborhood. Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving a Request for a Street Light at the Intersection of Fairway Drive at Smithtown Road. Motion passed 4/0. B. Park Commission Appointments Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, to appoint Paula Callies, Sue Davis, and Mary Lou Meyer to three-year terms beginning February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2007; and Judy Farniok for a one-year term from February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005; and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 04-011, "A Resolution Making Park Commission Appointments." Motion passed 4/0. C. Planning Commission Appointments Turgeon moved, Garfunkel seconded, to appoint Jeff Bailey, Kevin Conley, and Ann Packard to the Planning Commission for three-year terms from February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2007; and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 04-012, "A Resolution Making Planning Commission Appointments." Motion passed 4/0. D. Nelson Right-of--Way Permit -Birch Bluff Road Engineer Brown explained Dan and Melissa Nelson had submitted grading plans for their proposed driveway, which they had requested permission to build on the Second Avenue right-of--way. He noted considerable engineering efforts would be needed regarding working around two-hundred-year-old oak trees on site, as well as a retaining wall, and sanitary sewer concerns. Dan Nelson, 24270 Yellowstone Trail, stated these issues could be mitigated as part of the plans he was presenting to Engineer Brown this evening. Greg Buckley, 25885 Birch Bluff Road, and representing Carrie Dorfman of 25845 Birch Bluff Road, expressed concerns regarding his retaining wall, the two-hundred-year-old oak trees, and stormwater runoff on the site as a result of the proposed request. Engineer Brown requested Council allow Staff to attempt to resolve these issues of concern with the submission of the material from Mr. Nelson presented this evening and report back at a later date. Turgeon moved, Garfunkel seconded, Continuing this matter to the February 9, 2004, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda. Motion passed 4//0. E. City Code Recodification Administrator Dawson reviewed items remaining from past Council Work Session meetings held in the Fall of 2003 regarding proposed changes from the drafts prepared by American Legal, the firm retained to do this project, and guidance offered by Duke Addicks of the League of Minnesota Cities. Mayor Love thanked Staff and the Consultants involved in the recodification process on a job well done. ~ i ~ u ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Page 3 of 6 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS There had not been a meeting of the Park Commission since the most recent Regular City Council Meeting; thus, there was nothing to report. Engineer Brown noted a Park Commission Meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, February 10, 2004. 8. PLANNING Chair Bailey reported on the February 3, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Turgeon complimented Chair Bailey and Vice Chair Pisula and the Commission on a job well done in the past year. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Nelson Right-of--Way Permit -Birch Bluff Road Director Nielsen explained an encroachment agreement had been prepared by the City Attorney regarding a request for aright-of--way permit for Dan and Melissa Nelson regarding property on Birch Bluff Road. He stated there were two properties currently encroaching on the Second Avenue right-of- way including a driveway to the east and a retaining wall to the west. He noted the agreement noted stipulations regarding corrections to a retaining wall. Director Nielsen noted issues of concern were still being discussed with the Nelsons', including how best to position atwelve-foot-wide driveway in the limited 22 feet available for construction of that driveway. Mayor Love questioned how many memorial (i.e., old) trees were to be impacted with the potential manhole and curb cut slated for the access to the property. Greg Buckley, 25885 Birch Bluff Road, submitted a letter into the record for Council review, noting his concerns for fiduciary responsibility of his retaining wall, projected tree loss for the potential project, stormwater runoff plan, and safety of his children related to the height and length of the retaining walls required near the proposed driveway. Carrie Dorfman, 25845 Birch Bluff Road, requested information on City policy regarding remuneration should any items on her property be destroyed or damaged as a result of the construction issues associated with the Nelsons' proposal. Attorney Keane stated the agreement would hold the applicant responsible for any damage, and noted it would seem prudent to consider negotiating the value of the memorial trees on her property that could be in jeopardy as a result of any construction on the applicant's site. In response to Mayor Love's questions on drainage and retaining wall safety issues, Engineer Brown stated the topography and runoff flowed downhill, and the proposed driveway would need to be constructed lower than the surrounding area and thus, would act as a catch basin of sorts to direct water flow to an appropriate outlet. He also stated the retaining wall would need a guard rail if it's height was oz-o9-o'} CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Page 4 of 6 over four feet. He noted with the potential safety hazards of having children in the area; he encouraged the applicants to put a guardrail atop the proposed retaining wall. Dan Nelson, applicant, stated he would prefer two shorter retaining walls along the driveway area versus one wall as the condition of the current wall was quite unique. He also stated the height of the retaining wall proposed varied near four feet. He stated his plans attempted to have construction as close to the retaining wall, and as far away from the memorial oak tree in the area of the driveway, as possible. In response to Councilmember Turgeon's questions, Engineer Brown explained the construction plans were pushing all constraints associated with the property, and he anticipated construction to be difficult. He believed constructed plans presented thus far could be constructed, however the technical items had not yet been approved as part of the planning process for this project. Discussion ensued regarding the indemnification aspects should damage occur to the trees and surrounding properties during construction. Further discussion ensued regarding the encroachment issues and associated implications from this action on the City's behalf. Mr. Nelson stated without access to the property, the official purchase of this property would not be taking place, thus, the request was being made at this time. Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought it imperative issues such as this one be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for consideration and recommendation prior to Council taking action. Councilmember Garfunkel noted if the City had historically granted requests such as this one, and the City was legally protected from damages incurred as a result of construction to the properties in the area, it seemed as though the issues presented this evening requiring resolution could be found between the private parties involved in the project and adjoining neighbors. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Encroachment Agreement for 26075 Birch Bluff Road, subject to Engineering, and Planning Staff Recommendations, and a maintenance agreement be utilized for the sanitary sewer. Motion passed 4/0. B. City Hall Assessment Report Administrator Dawson explained Bill Baxley of the BKV Group was present this evening to briefly review and present the City Hall Space Needs Assessment Report. Mr. Baxley briefly reviewed four options available to the City for consideration of appropriate space needs for City Hall into the future. He stated very rough cost estimates had been provided, including "soft costs" in effort to provide consideration of the magnitude of the four scenarios shared as Council began to consider viability of City Hall in future years. Councilmember Zerby stated he would like to see inclusion of a scenario that included complete construction of a new facility in the vicinity of the Public Works site. Mayor Love agreed this scenario might need to be added at a later date should Council agree a new facility would be the best option to proceed. However, it was important to request and receive information regarding the imminence of environmental concerns currently associated with the present building. Page 1 of 1 FIlE COPY Brad Nielsen From: GREG BUCKLEY [Buckley_23@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:39 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Planning Comm Mtg 9/4/07 Hello Brad: Tried to call you and Pamela today, but got neither. I see from the Agenda for tonight's meeting that the Nelson minor subdivision is on. I thought this was rejected earlier? What changed? I left a message for Pamela regarding public comment on minor subdivisions, meaning do I have the opportunity to comment tonight? If not, and if you are planning to be there I would appreciate the following questions be addressed: 1: What access is granted to the new subdivision, and how does this affect access to other land lots to the East (re: Ruefenock property) 2: Being the property lines are tight near the road access (20ft instead of std 25ft) and that there is limited visibility when coming up the driveway, what conditions must be met to avoid accidents/swerving when two cars from the 2 lots meet? We walk our dog and the kids bike all the time at this intersection, so our safety is at question. 3: I can't help but notice that all new construction and remodels that have occurred in recent years have included either an asphalt, concrete or paver driveway -EXCEPT for the Nelson's. What can be done to ensure some covering takes place before a second lot with same access is granted. The gravel noise and dust in summer months is not great now, and will only get worse if additional traffic is granted. Thanks for your consideration of these points. Best Regards, Greg Buckley 952-470-0149 9/4/2007 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.sho~ewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 15 November 2007 RE: Nelson -Minor Subdivision -Revised Plans FILE NO.: 405 (07.13) Dan Nelson's minor subdivision request was continued from the 16 October Planning Commission meeting pending receipt of a revised grading plan. Mr. Nelson has since submitted anew plan which is attached as Exhibit A. Mr. Nelson has also submitted a letter from Gene and Judy Ruffenach, the owners of the property to the east of the Nelsons, stating that they were willing to forego the use of the Second Street right-of--way as access to their property. You will recall that the two significant issues associated with this request were site alteration and access. Following is how these issues have been addressed: Access. The Ruffenachs' offer to waive any right to use the Second Street right-of--way is extremely significant. It eliminates the problem of having to develop a private road to serve three lots. They are satisfied that their property can be adequately accessed via Meadow View Court,"which extends to the southeast corner of their property. While the letter provided by the Ruffenachs expresses their intent, it is not. considered a recordable document. If the subdivision is to be approved, it should be contingent upon a deed restriction or a development agreement between the Ruffenachs and the City, suitable for recording with. Hennepin County, being recorded against the Ruffenach property. The purpose of the agreement is to put any future owners of the property on notice that Second Street can not be used to access the property. Since the Nelson's existing home and a new home on the new lot will share a considerable length of common driveway, a driveway easement and maintenance agreement must be provided by the ~. a' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Nelson Minor Subdivision -Revised 15 November 2007 applicants'. attorney. Staff will provide the applicant with a sample of such an agreement for use by their attorney. The City has received a request by an adjoining neighbor that the driveway that extends between the two homes abutting Second Street be paved to control dust. This has been past practice by the City and should have been required with the original right-of--way permit for the Nelson property. Any approval of the subdivision should include a requirement that the common driveway be paved. Since the new home will require the installation of a new sewer service along Second Street, it may be best to require paving at the time a building permit is issued for the new house. An alternative would be to have the applicant install the sewer and pave the driveway as a condition of subdivision approval. The resolution approving the division should specify which alternative will be required. Site Alteration. The applicant has submitted a revised grading plan (see Exhibit A). The new plan results in significantly less site alteration than the previous plan. Approval of the subdivision should include reference to the revised plan, recognizing that the proposed house is only illustrative of how the lot maybe built upon. The resolution should put any future owner of the newly created lot on notice that construction on the lot may well require a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards, that the retaining wall will have to be engineered by a registered engineer, and that any altered slopes shall not exceed 3:1 grade. A detailed tree preservation and reforestation plan will be required as part of any building permit for the new home. Following is a summary of what should be required in conjunction with any approval of the proposed subdivision: The applicant's surveyor must provide the following legal descriptions: a. Drainage and utility easements, 10 feet wide on each side of the north, east and west borders of the new lots. b. Drainage and conservation easements over the wetland areas, including the 35- foot wetland buffer. c. The proposed 30-foot driveway easement that extends along the north side of the new lot. 2. The applicant's surveyor must provide a survey showing where required wetland buffer stakes will be placed on both lots. The buffer must be staked with City- approved wetland markers at the time the corners of the lots are staked (within 60 days of recording the resolution approving the request). 3. A deed restriction or development agreement must be prepared and recorded against the Ruffenach property to the east, including the waiver of any right to use Second -2- Memorandum Re: Nelson Minor Subdivision -Revised 15 November 2007 Street for the future development of the Ruffenach property. This agreement must be recorded at Hennepin County, together with the resolution approving the subdivision. 4. Future construction on the new lot will be subject to the following restrictions: a. Grading on the lot and the construction of necessary retaining walls shall be designed by a registered professional engineer. No site alteration shall result in a disturbed slope in excess of 3:1. b. Fill in excess of 100 cubic yards on the site shall require a conditional use permit per Shorewood Zoning Code requirements. c. The common portion of the driveway serving the two lots (existing and proposed) shall be paved as part of construction of the new home on the easterly lot. d. The owner of the home on the newly created lot must enter into an encroachment agreement for use of the Second Street right-of--way. e. The plan shown as Exhibit A shall be used as a guide for the future development of the new lot. 5. The applicant's attorney should prepare. a deed restriction, suitable for recording, with the City as a signatory, to be recorded with the resolution approving the division. The deed restriction should put future property buyers on notice that the lot is restricted as set forth in the resolution. 6. The applicant must enter into a new right-of--way encroachment agreement with the City. 7. Prior to release of the resolution approving the division, the applicant must pay park dedication ($2000) and local sanitary sewer access charges ($1200) for the new lot. 8. The applicant should provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion on the property for review by the City Attorney. 9. Ordinarily, the City would require the above items to be completed within 30 days of Council approval of the application. Given the amount of legal and surveying work involved with this matter, it is recommended that the deadline to complete the items should be 60 days. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane James Landini Larry Brown Dan Nelson -3- 1 25 1 --- ------ o ~ ---~'~31. ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ p~ ~ w r~ D ~7 ~7 r/~ _ _ /]1,~ /_/l' _///~~~/T /n/ _ ~_ ~ ~~.., ~\\ N i ~ ~ ~ ~P°IS ~ ~ `~ _______ '9379:T6-~ ~J 1 1L L' L' 1 " -- - ~ L V O 1I L II ~A ~ ~"-________ ~ - \ \ 1R GlP1G PWE /d51b" '```+ `___- ~~y'f ~ .{~~~i_ ~ - _ l..amxrnav."spDa "r" I 44 5.. a '~-- p~ 11 i 1 ~s„ 1 ~ I I p~$ i N -'961,_ 4P 1 ~ 1 -96D-~ N - { ~DY4 &Otl( Pj2 ~I '-f__- `' + ' i ~' _ / g111LER ~ErMNXO _____,~_\ \\ / 1 \~,1 19 A WILL iCP -538Mt~11 I 1 I~S1Y \ 1 STNO I ~ Q GARAGE - ar,, ~ `~ 1 A\ `, 1 ~ ixw i ~ I S mltExiae a~auxx¢ ~ >`,~. ,~ ~ I~1 EXISTING ---A` 1 .\ _~i- \1~~1 1 a W~Dx \r°5~1 ~ ~ -__.;,-.-.-- I ~ O DWELLING _ 'jf~ ~ ~p°r"~'Y CRS" "~-- __ dsss b~ `a lea ~°d~^^^AG. \\ ~ 3r.~ ~~'s~ ~~` I 70595 29111712E NELSON, DAN&MELISSA II A pv , , ~ I v yas°a ~ ~~ °° 1 I ~~'' ~ e~, ~ 1 PROPOSED PONDING, DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT DVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. ~"°~"--'y \~~,,'~~ 1< ~ ~, ~ ~~~,'~ a~, . ~ ,~`; `. ~ '~,~ \\9 , I ~``~ ' 300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Mintetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 8267 v 1~ '~ ` `I ` v `` Isms ~ p ~9j'------'~, vh,.~~ A ss~~ ~ 1~ A\41 vv ~'' um> I~'~, w t uxvEY FoR: DANIEL & MILISSA NELSON - - - - C\~ ~1 ~` ` 1 ~` I ~9~ ~' ~ ~' ~ ~ \ ~ ~ I ` °' 7 M'AMNdM1 ,e\ ~ , ,D &~ ~~ppp \ b°, 1 111\~LL L Z I URVEYED: July, 2007 DRAFTED: July 26, _007 _ _ - y'~_,, ~ 1v ~ __ '`gyp sn ~ `~ d~ ~ mxlmre uuu m WidEw p, ~° ~~ ~ f&, EVISF,D: October _3, 2007 ~'Np1"m'- ;,h:N \ s~ ~~ ,~~ \ ~ r ~ ao,ooosQ.Fr.roenseME*rrLmE RIGINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PARCEL: 1 ~ `` ~ \ w_1 s ~ `~ ~\ \\~`, ri~ ism ~ ~ `'\ \ `, lock 6, Mann's Addition to Birch Bluff, Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ~ 1~ 4th ` 1 %~I I°' -~~ `~` , - , A` ~~ A ~ - ~ ~ _ \\ ROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL A: I I~ ' , ' r I ~ "`, 11 :w ~° ~` 9 - ~~ ` ~ `~ vv ~`, bat part of Block 6, Mmw's Addition to Birch Bluff, Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota, tlfat (' ad, `I ~~ 1 a ~, \ 1 ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~,.e, D ~~ _ ~ `"S°s~rw+xc T$tW~~~`, ~',~p ~' ~`\ ies westerly of the Pohawing described line: \ ~ 1 ~1 I'`~~ ~ ` \``~ , , , \ ~ ~ - Asa- \\ qt` ommencingafthenortlnvestwrnerofsaidBloek6;(henceonanasswnedbearin;ofNodh77degrees2l 1 \\ ~~~W, I 1 \,r~ ~j~- ~j ~1 ', u \~ J/ ~ ',9s~s ~ ~` ~`~ ~`,\`` \\ ` ninutes 25 seconds East a distance of (25.88 feet to the paint of beginning of the line to be described; ~ A ~~ ~ 1 ~ ren r~Ul ~`, 'J~ r ~ `.~ - v ~ ~, vv ence South ]0 degrees 45 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 342.04 feet to the south line of said `, A - s CJ, ~ 1 `_; 1 w 1 ' ,, ~'-~ti ~ ap,,~ ~ -. v ~ v ~`, lock6 and there terminating. - raxo ~ \V ;~,, ~ 1 ~ ~, I~~1 `~ ~ T0'W~ ~ v ~~ ROPOSEDLEGALDESCRIPTIONOFPARCELB: 11 "I II '~ " '~~ ~ g.°~ \~~`~ ~DG~ o9Sg~~y~.~~` ,\ ~\ ~~ ~`~ \\~`, ~`\ hat part of Block 6, Mann's Addition [o Birch Bluff, Laka Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that ' 1 I < ~ ~~ ~`" ¶ ' ss> ~/ G ~ ~ ~` \~\ ~ \ '~'~ 11 `i, 1 , s ~~\ ` `~` ~ ` X63, \ N ~ \\ ~ \ ~` ies easterly of the following described line: ,01 1 ~ , 1 `tr ~ ¶ \ \ \ \ ~," ommencing at the northwest corner of said Dlock h; thence on aft asswned bearing of North 77 degrees 21 ~ \~ , 1 ~~',~ q t Q ~~ '~ .~ \ ~` `. ~ `y~ i`'\\ ~, ninutes 25 seconds East a distance of 125.88 feet ro the point of beginning of the line to be described; ~ ~ ~ I', 1 7 ~ s ` ;3+ ~ \ \ `, `,q \~ ~ v ~ \ ~` .~ ~ v hence South 10 degrees 45 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 342.04 feet to fhe south line of said 1 `~ \\ 1 ~' ~ ~ `~, ~ ~, \ ~; ~ 'S3" ~ \\ ~ ~~ ~~ lock 6 and there terminating. \\ 11 11 `.~ } ,F~ ~'S:.S`ti' ~ ~\\ ^X~ ,`~~ ~ ~ : ~ ` ~ ~ ~513~2.a"" 1 ~~ '< \` ~ \~~~ 1 \ 2 OTES AND LIMITATIONS: ~. A ~., " 9~ ~Ia-__~~ ` - "`v~ `,' v I~ ~` ~ NI 1 ~\ '\ ~~ ~ ~ hescope of our services far this jab is as follows: ~ ~` AV I ~~x '~• i; ~ A\~' ` +~ ~`D ~ v ~=~ ~~ ' AI '1 ~ ~ I\ I. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description which you furnished. , >~ l j ~ ~ ,~ ~;; ~ y~`\ ~'S A ~ V A v v~ ~ . Showing the location of existingimprovemen(swedeemedimportant. 1 \ u-' Iro°rttrawwruu ~ `q °~o ~~~~ \\ ~ \ \ \\ ~, ` ~ \~~ ~ . Setting nets monuments or verifying existing monumeatts to mark the corners of the property. _ ~ ~~ t '~ \ ~a A\ ~ ~\ `~ ~~ A ~v v~ rauno iROn \ . Showing topography of the site per the city's opography and per spot elevations we determined during ~~-1 ~, aoA a~ \\ a ~~ ' \ \ ~ ~ ~`\ \\ ursurvey. 1 'g ~I \ ~~~ . We have provided a benchmark for your use in delern»ning elevations on this site, use that benchmark \ _ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~\ al II \ \ ~`.\ ` \ ~ r~ nd nothing else for that purpose. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shown to verify your „"~1 x'~ _S.(-' - ~ ~ ~ o ~'D 6'0 '\ \ `~ \ ~ ~`~ levatinns. x 1 \\ ~a~ M ~, 1 1 ~ ~\ \ \ ~ \ \ I . We show a proposed division of the property. Please review the proposal ro see that it is what you 11 1 ? mm g Qo8 I ~ ~ ` \ ,I w I ~i mend and submit to those governmental agencies that havejurisdictien (o obtain (heir approvals, if you G 1 ~ \ m°~ ~'~ " ~ ~ I ' ~i an, before making any decisions regarding the property. ' I ~~ ~ ° o b I \\\ ` ~`~ ~\ \~ I a~ . Setting of the iron monuments on the property is defered until we are notified that the proposed division ~ / ~ ~ r 8 o ~ ,~ i , `v A A v ~~ rom as been approved. ~ \ ~° z. I ~\ \ ~`, \ ~ i . We understand [hat the proposed new home is to be served by sump and pump as the existing home on 1 I „off '" ~ ° ' \' • ~ I Z arcel A is. 1 1 1 ~ I 1 `. `. ~ ~' • _ . Easementts for dmhtage and utility purposes 10 feet in width and adjacent to all front and side lo[ Ihtes ~ ~ ;1 ~ 1 1 ass9{ sQ. FT. ToASSmENT LIN ~v v ~`V A v I re proposed. Legals to be drafted for easements when and if proposed division is approved. 1 ` w / 1 0 1 1 ~I \ \ 7'-~. °~ s 1 1 c°"'a nxr~r °m 1 I ~I \ TANDARDSYMDOLS&CONVENTIONS: ~ ~ ~`~ ~~ 11 ~q" 1 I v ~ ~~ ~V ~`v ~~ ' ~"Denotes Ill" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State Licwse Number 9235, set, unless otherwise , ~ ~ 1 d ° ~ , I ~ A A I - ,,II~~ V 1 ~ W i Pad I I A ~'eetCby certify thaRhis plan,specification, report or survey was prepared by me nr _,g~`_ 1 1 1 , x I \ ~ I under my direct supefvision and Ihat I am a Geensed Professional Engineer and ~ 1 I ~ ~ I A ~ -' Professional Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota. 1 1 ^v '?8o I I \ ~ I 1 --~~ 1 1 ~`' i I I \ \ mn s H. Parker P.I?. & P.S. No. 9235 ~ ~ 1 `- ) I , A _ _ I i 1 '4 1 I ' I v I LEGEND ~ ----- D„__ 1 - I ~ \\ I ---+-----'-- - ~I I ~ ~ ~ r V ~ -L-- 1 1 ~ ~ I _~_ ____ v _-~ _,c- DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR LING 1 L _ _ _ ~~ . - _ _ _ -r-1--+--~--r- -i- 1-~ \ 1 __ I ~ ~ I ~ --- ~ ~ , -_~J2_yr ___-- I ~ I ~______I 1 94fi.4~ DF.NOTESPROP09EU SPOT ELEVATION - I -' -~ ~~-! S 00'44'53" E `rwNDl/riaDVn~ ---vas--- DENOTGSPROrosancaNTOUnLINE GRAPHIC SCALE , 1,'~•araxmlR~ixala°r _- ~ <:?- ~ DENOTES PROPWGU UIRECTIONOF STORM WATER FLOSV 1 25 /a ~ .mil ae~~ ~~ t DENOTES PROPOSED SILT FENCE TYI'E2 (IN FEET) 1 3 I ~n ;0 ,^i ~ r, ~ I 1-- -- ~i-DND I/3' IADN %R l~~ .CITY F s 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 Celebrating 50 Years ~ 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM Date: November 10, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members e From: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer Craig Dawson, City Administrator Re: Auditing Services Contract The City's independent auditors Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, have submitted their engagement contract for services for the December 31, 2007 annual audit. State statute requires that all cities with a population over 2,500 have an annual audit by an outside independent CPA firm. The estimated fee for the 12/31/2007 audit services is $23,900 compared to approximately $21,000 for the 2006 audit services. The increased fee is due to new audit standards related to fraud and internal control. In addition, there have been many one-time financial events in Shorewood this year. As stated, this has been an active financial year for the City of Shorewood. In addition to the usual on- going financial transactions, there was a Crossover Advance Refunding of the EDA bonds. The City also transitioned to a new financial software package installation and conversion, and the municipal liquor operations have been discontinued and the stores sold, with all that is involved. Given this level and type of activity, staff believes there is great vahle and economy in retaining the current independent auditor, who brings historical knowledge of, and familiarity with, Shorewood's finances and operations. Their prior experience with the City's municipal liquor operations will be especially valuable in the final audit of that operation. In addition, the firm of Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP has broad experience in Governmental auditing, demonstrated by their extensive list of clients (attached). The Partner-in-Charge of Shorewood's activities is Mr. Andrew Berg and he conducts the field work with the assistance of various junior. auditors. Shorewood's annual audit usually takes place in early April. Council has had discussions about issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 2007 audit services. Staff has noticed a significant number of RFP's by other cities over the past few months. Among the cities we've contacted, audit fees for various cities are as follows: Mound $27,000; Victoria $30,600; Monticello $36,250; St. Louis Park $40,000. The fee proposed for Shorewood is very favorable. Given the complexity of the 2007 audit, staff would recommend retaining a firm familiar with the City and postpone an RFP to 2008. Actio~i Regasested Staff recommends authorizing the City Administrator to enter into the audit engagement contract with the firm of Abdo, Eick and Meyer, LLP for auditing services for the year ending December 31, 2007. ~®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -/ /.. ~ f~ ~~ 1_~~~ ~X ~~~~~~~"" LI'1' November 7, 2007 '' 3 7 ~.l1lk.'~ff~l+tttlV (;runflvicly ~ :,Iles 5'i1! I11rta ~taft~i~ ~tl E(f• ~ 1 ~} Honorable Mayor and Council City of Shorewood Shorewood, Minnesota We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide the City of Shorewood (the City) for the year ended December 31, 2007. We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the City as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI), such as management's discussion and analysis (MD&A), to accompany the City's basic financial statements. As part of our engagement, we will apply certain limited procedures to the City's RSI. These limited procedures will consist principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation, which management is responsible for affirming to us in its representation letter. Unless we encounter problems with the presentation of the RSI or with procedures relating to it, we will disclaim an opinion on it. The following RSI is required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and will be subjected to certain limited procedures, but will not be audited: - Management's Discussion and Analysis. Supplementary information other than RSI, such as combining and individual fund financial statements, also accompanies the City's basic financial statements. We will subject the following supplementary information to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the basic financial statements and will provide an opinion on it in relation to the basic financial statements: - Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements and Schedules - Summary Financial Report -Revenues and Expenditures for General Operations -Governmental Funds The following additional information accompanying the basic financial statements will not be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements, and for which our auditor's report will disclaim an opinion. - Statistical Section Audit Objective The objective of our audit is the expression of opinions as to whether your basic financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in then United States of America and to report on the fairness of the additional information referred to in the first paragraph when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Our audit will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and will include tests of the accounting records and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such opinions. If our opinions on the financial statements are other than unqualified, we will fully discuss the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have not formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or to issue a report as a result of this engagement. f~ ~ ,~~ f~a<~« ~ ~ 7 I~r,~.a,~,_.,~,~~ ~ 2007 ALG-CL-1.1: Audit Engagement Letter-Standard ~,~ ~~ 7rt'.x1e17,cq 7a~,cf,n, City of Shorewood November 7, 2007 Page Two Management Responsibilities Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls, including monitoring ongoing activities; for the selection and application of accounting principles; and for the fair presentation in the financial statements of the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City and the respective changes in financial position and where applicable, cash flows, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Management is responsible for the basic financial statements and all accompanying information as well as all representations contained therein. You are also responsible for management decisions and functions; for designating an individual with suitable skill, knowledge, or experience to oversee our financial statement preparation services and any other nonattest services we provide; and for evaluating the adequacy and results of those services and accepting responsibility for them. Management is responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us and for the accuracy and completeness of that information. Management is responsible for adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and for confirming to us in the representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud, and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud or illegal acts affecting the government involving (1) management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud or illegal acts could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the government received in communications from employees, former employees, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the entity complies with applicable laws and regulations. We will prepare a general ledger trial balance for use during the audit. Our preparation of the trial balance will be limited to formatting information in the general ledger into a working trial balance. As part of the audit we will prepare a draft of your financial statements and related notes. We will also use the financial statements to complete the Office of the State Auditors' City Reporting Form. You will be required to review and approve those financial statements and forms prior to their issuance and have a responsibility to be in a position in fact and appearance to make an informed judgment on those financial statements and forms. Further you are required to designate a qualified management-level individual to be responsible and accountable for overseeing our services. 2007 ALG-CL-1.1: Audit Engagement Letter-Standard 9>? ~;3;i.4(!9(j I<x~ 9i~2,Fi:~:7.:~'Ztr3 sv ~e ~r.aKS xu~ ~ r.VS,c•cn n City of Shorewood November 7, 2007 Page Three Audit Procedures -General An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether from (I) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the entity. Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements may exist and not be detected by us. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements, or violations of laws or governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, we will inform you of any material errors and any fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also inform you of any violations of laws or governmental regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors. Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, creditors, and financial institutions. We will request written representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit, we will also require certain written representations from you about the financial statements and related matters. Audit Procedures -Internal Control Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment, including internal control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify deficiencies in internal control. However, during the audit, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance internal control related matters that are required to be communicated under professional standards. Audit Procedures -Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we will perform tests of the City's compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and agreements. However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion. „~~ . ~ ~~ ~,,~,~, .,~,~~~ 2007 ALG-CL-1.1: Audit Engagement LetterStandard iti{4'\6-.i~".f [9 (''Y'r.Eti.('CIIIi City of Shorewood November 7, 2007 Page Four Audit Administration, Fees, and Other We may from time to time, and depending on the circumstances, use third-party service providers in serving your account. We may share confidential information about you with these service providers, but remain committed to maintaining the confidentiality and security of your information. Accordingly, we maintain internal policies, procedures, and safeguards to protect the confidentiality of your personal information. In addition, we will secure confidentiality agreements with all service providers to maintain the confidentiality of your information and we will take reasonable precautions to determine that they have appropriate procedures in place to prevent the unauthorized release of your confidential information to others. In the event that we are unable to secure an appropriate confidentiality agreement, you will be asked to provide your consent prior to the sharing of your confidential information with the third-party service provider. Furthermore, we will remain responsible for the work provided by any such third-party service providers. We understand that your employees will prepare all cash or other confirmations we request and will locate any documents selected by us for testing. Our fee for these services will be $23,900 for the audit and $490 for the Office of the State Auditor's Reporting form. The increase from 2006 to 2007 is due to the implementation of the new risk based audit standards. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree of responsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation. In accordance with our firm policies, work may be suspended if your account becomes 90 days or more overdue and may not be resumed until your account is paid in full. If we elect to terminate our services for nonpayment, our engagement will be deemed to have been completed upon written notification of termination, even if we have not completed our report. You will be obligated to compensate us for all time expended and to reimburse us for all out-of-pocket costs through the date of termination. The above fee is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the audit. If significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee estimate before we incur the additional costs. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us. Sincerely, ABDO, SICK & MEYERS, LLP Certified Public Accountant & Consultants V ~` Andrew K. Berg, CPA Governmental Service Partner 2007 ALG-CL-1.1: Audit Engagement Letter-Standard tC 6V;4'.iifi`~ Plt'.' )iE4.CE1111 City of Shorewood November 7, 2007 Page Five RESPONSE: This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Shorewood. By: Title Date: 2007 ALG-CL-1.1: Audit Engagement Letter-Standard ~) ,.'.! 1 '. ~1f1 i<:-(~ ' I u~')~2.~ 35.:x'61 KILI~~CHILLIN~ LZ D CONSULTANTS AND CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS September 16,2005 To the Partners Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP DeanR Ager, CPA Thomas L Sykes, CPA Michael S. Altman, CPA Deborah J. Medlin, CPA Darla R Benoit, CPA Ronald E Peterson, CPA Thomas J. Fling, CPA William Gravelle, CPA of Counsel We have reviewed the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP in effect for the year ended May 31, 2005. A system of quality control encompasses the firm's organizational structure and the policies adopted and procedures established to provide it with reasonable assurance of conforming with professional standards. The elements of quality control are described in the Statements on Quality Control Standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The firm is responsible for designing a system of quality control and complying with it to provide the firm reasonable assurance of conforming with professional standards in all material respects. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the design of the system of quality control and the firm's compliance with its system of quality control based on our review. Our review was conducted in accordance with standards established by the Peer Review Board of the AICPA. During our review, we read required representations from the firm, interviewed firm personnel and obtained an understanding of the nature of the firm's accounting and auditing practice, and the design of the firm's system of quality control sufficient to assess the risks implicit in its practice. Based on our assessments, we selected engagements and administrative files to test for conformity with. professional standards and compliance with the firm's system of quality control. The engagements selected represented a reasonable cross-section of the firm's accounting and auditing practice with emphasis on high-risk engagements. The engagements selected included, among others, audits of Employee Benefit Plans and engagements performed under Government Auditing Standards. Prior to concluding the review, we reassessed the adequacy of the scope of the peer review procedures and met with the firm• management•to discuss the results of our review. We believe that the procedures we performed provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In performing our review, we obtained an understanding of the system of quality control for the firm's accounting and auditing practice. In addition, we tested compliance with the firm's quality control policies and procedures to the extent we'considered appropriate. These tests covered the application of the firm's policies and procedures on selected engagements. Our review was based on selected tests; therefore it would not necessarily detect all weaknesses in the system of quality control or all instances of noncompliance with it. There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any system of quality control and therefore noncompliance with the system of quality control may occur and not be detected. Projection of any evaluation of a. system of quality control to future periods is subject to the risk that the system of quality control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or because the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. 600 Wells Fargo Center • 230 West Superior Street • Duluth, MN 55802.1953 • Phone 218.722.4705 • Fax 218.722.8589 807 Cloquet Avenue • Cloquet, MN 55720.1677 • Phone 218.879•L503 • Fax 218.879.6240 www e>:kill. com Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP September 16, 2005 Page 2 In our opinion, the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP in,effect for the year ended May 31, 2005, has been designed to meet the requirements of the quality control standards for an accounting and auditing practice established ~by the ~AICPA and was complied with during the year then ended to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of conforming with professional standards. As is customary in a system review, we have issued a letter under this date that sets forth comments that were not considered to be of sufficient significance to affect the opinion expressed in this report. ~~ y .l~~ o,>. ~ S~ Similar Engagements with other Government Entities. School Districts ISD #4075, Avalon Charter School ISD #2895, Jackson South Central Service Co-op ISD #252, Cannon Falls ISD #2144, Lindstrom Trio Wolf Creek Charter #4095 ISD #282, St. Anthony Metro ECSU ISD #4092-07, Watershed High School ISD #391, Cleveland Minnesota Valley Education Fund ISD #424, Lester Prairie River Heights Charter School Cities Bayport Isle # North Mankato *+ Belle Plaine Janesville + North Oaks Blooming Prairie Jordan Norwood Young America + Byron Kasson # + Olivia +#^ Cannon Falls + Kenyon + # Otsego Carver Kilkenny Owatonna Centerville Lake Elmo + Pemberton + Chisago City Lauderdale Pine Island + # Claremont + LeSueur + Plainview Corcoran Lindstrom # Prior Lake + Courtland Long Lake + Red Wing Dayton + Loretto Rockford + Elk River * + # Luverne *# Rogers # Elysian + Madison Lake + Shorewood * # Excelsior+ Mankato * Sleepy Eye Fairmont * # + Maple Plain Springfield + Faribault * Mapleton + # St. Francis Freeport Mayer St. Louis Pazk Gaylord + Medford + # Vadnais Heights + * Glenwood Melrose +^ Vermillion Good Thunder Minnetonka Beach Victoria+ Granite Falls # ^ Montgomery + Wabasha Green Isle Montrose Waldorf # + Greenfield Morristown Waterville + Grove City Mound * # Wells + # Hamburg Mountain Lake + Westbrook Hartland + Nerstrand Wilder Henderson + New Auburn Winnebago Hilltop New Germany Woodland Hutchinson * # New Richland + Wyoming + Independence New Ulm *+ Zimmerman Isanti # Nicollet + Other Governmental Units Albert Lea HRA Lake Mtka Communications Commission Plymouth FRA Albertville Joint Powers Water Board Lake Mtka Conservation District Region Nine Development Comm. Anoka/Champlin FRA Lake Washington Sanitary District Sherburne/Wright Cable Comm. Blue Earth County HRA Lakes Area Police South Bend Township + Carver County HRA Lakeville Arenas South Central MN Multi County HRA Dakota Communication Center Legislative Coordinating Commission Southern MN Cable Comm. Delevan FRA Lindstrom FRA St. Francis FRA Easton FRA Linwood FRA St. Paul Park Fire Relief Elk River Utilities Louisville Township St. Peter FRA Eureka Township Minnesota House of Representatives Traverse des Sioux Library System Excelsior FRA Minnesota Lake FRA Truman FRA Excelsior Fire District Mound HRA Vemon Center FRA Government Training Service New Prague Utilities Waseca FRA HRA of Stearns County Northfield FRA West Hennepin Public Safety Dept. Kenyon Utilities Office of the Legislative Auditor Westbrook Utilities Kenyon FRA Owatonna HRA * Firm clients who submit a CAFR, and are holders of the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. + Fire Relief Association included # Liquor store included MEMORANDUM 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 DATE: November 21, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator RE: OFF-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES The City has received purchase agreements for the two Shorewood Liquor stores. It is anticipated that the closing date for the sale of the two stores will be on Tuesday, November 27, 2007, or as soon thereafter as possible. One of the items needed at closing is the approved Liquor License for each applicant. The City has received the following two Applications for an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License at the locations noted: 1) The Cellars Wines & Spirits of Shorewood, Inc., 19905 State Hwy 7 2) Park Square Subway, Inc., DBA Shorewood Liquor, 23670 State Hwy. 7 Both licensees have submitted appropriate liquor license application materials and have paid the license and investigation fees. Financial and criminal background checks were processed for the individuals listed on both applications. The financial credit background checks came back with very good ratings. There were no disclosable records for convictions within the past five years of any violation of laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor or any other criminal activity for either applicant. Both applicants have met all the requirements for a license, and there is no apparent reason to deny either license. City Council Action Adopt a Resolution approving the Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for The Cellars Wines and Spirits of Shorewood, Inc.; and Adopt a Resolution approving the Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Park Square Subway, Inc., DBA Shorewood Liquor. The effective date of issuance will coincide with the closing on the sale of each store. a®M~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER @ l CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN OFF-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Chapter 401, provides for the licensing of the off-sale of intoxicating liquor in the City; and WHEREAS, said Code provides that the applicant shall complete an application for a liquor license, fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, have a favorable financial credit background check and a criminal history background check; and pay a licensing and investigation fee; WHEREAS, the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a license for the "off-sale" of intoxicating liquor; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: That a License for the "off-sale" of intoxicating liquor be issued after the sale of the City's liquor business for the remainder of the license period through May 31, 2008, consistent with the requirements and provisions of Chapter 401 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following applicant: Address Park Square Subway, Inc. DBA Shorewood Liquor 23670 State Hwy. 7 Shorewood, MN 55331 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 26th day of November, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN OFF-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Chapter 401, provides for the licensing of the off-sale of intoxicating liquor in the City; and WHEREAS, said Code provides that the applicant shall complete an application for a liquor license, fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, have a favorable financial credit background check and a criminal history background check; and pay a licensing and investigation fee; WHEREAS, the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a license for the "off=sale" of intoxicating liquor; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 2007. That a License for the "off-sale" of intoxicating liquor be issued after the sale of the City's liquor business for the remainder of the license period through May 31, 2008, consistent with the requirements and provisions of Chapter 401 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following applicant: Applicant Address The Cellars Wines & Spirits of Shorewood, Inc. 19905 State Hwy. 7 Shorewood, MN 55331 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 26th day of November, ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 2007 PUBLIC SIGN-IN SHEET For the record, please print your name and address below. Thank you. Name Address :° 5:~~~F~-t ~_ C~~ i ~~ ~ ~,~ i ~ l ~ ~.~ rte. ~ ~'~~ ~: r. _ ~_ ~ ~ _ -~ tl.C {T f,~ ~ i rr~:1 /~{ ~~~ ~~~rf ~~k! i t Pf. ~i9fl. F J ~~.s ~ ~~ ;:: i~. 1 ,. p ,v CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 26, 200` PUBLIC SIGN-IN SHEET For the record, please print your name and address below. Thank you. Name Address 1. , ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~r ~ ~j ~ -- ~~ 4.~v 5. C~ ~ ~Q-- w~u,~ s. 9. 10.