Planning Report. Wayzata Planning Commission Monday, August 15, 2011

Transcription

1 Planning Report Wayzata Planning Commission Monday, August 15, 2011 File Case No: PR Applicant: Wayzata Yacht Club and Wayzata Sailing Foundation Address of Request: 1000 Eastman Lane, 1100 Eastman Lane, 1200 Eastman Lane, 1400 Eastman Lane, and 456 Arlington Circle S. Prepared By: Request(s): Project Summary: Bryan Gadow, City Planner Planned Unit Development Concept & General Rezoning and Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Shoreland/Floodplain CUP Site Plan Review Fence Variance The proposed project would create a master site plan for the long term redevelopment of the Yacht Club and Sailing Foundation properties. Section 1: Introduction The Wayzata Yacht Club and the Wayzata Sailing Foundation (collectively, the Applicant ) have submitted an application (the Application ) for the following approvals: 1. Concurrent Concept and General Plan PUD 2. Zoning Text and Map Amendment for a Semi-Public/Private PUD District 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide a property from Estate Single Family to Semi-Public/Private 4. Shoreland/Floodplain Conditional Use Permit 5. Site Plan Review 6. Fence Variance

2 Page 2 In addition to the above requests, the Applicant s master plan includes other components, such as proposed trail locations and other roadway improvements, which would require additional approvals from the Wayzata City Council and other jurisdictional agencies. These additional approvals are highlighted in Section 5 of this Report. The is the outgrowth of a community design charrette hosted by the Applicants on June 19-20, The charrette participants included stakeholders from the Planning Commission, City Council members, City Staff, WYC members, WCSC members, and adjacent neighborhood residents. A copy of the Planning Charrette briefing book is included as part of the Application materials (Attachment F). Additional details regarding the charrette are included in the Applicant s Master Plan narrative. 1.1 Property Background The Application incorporates the following parcels as part of the project area (collectively, the Property ): 1) Wayzata Community Sailing School Arlington Circle South (46,475 SF); 2) West Parking Lot Eastman Lane (53,894 SF); 3) WYC Club House Eastman Lane (20,038 SF); 1200 Eastman Lane; and 4) East Parking Lot Eastman Lane (88,033 SF). The Applicant s surveyor calculates the total Property area at 208,440 SF or 4.79 acres. Image 1: Context Aerial

3 Page 3 The 456 Arlington Circle S parcel contains a former residential building that has been converted into space for the sailing school operation. The West parking lot serves as a parking area for both the WYC and WCSC. The 1100 and 1200 Eastman Lane parcels house the existing WYC Club house facility Eastman Lane serves as a parking area for the WYC club members. 1.2 Property Description A copy of the legal description for the subject properties are on file and available for viewing at City Hall. The following properties are included in the project area of the Application: 456 Arlington Circle S Wayzata Sailing Foundation 1000 Eastman Lane Wayzata Yacht Club 1100 Eastman Lane Wayzata Yacht Club 1200 Eastman Lane Wayzata Yacht Club 1400 Eastman Lane Wayzata Yacht Club 1.3 Relevant Property Information Zoning: R-2A Single and Two Family and R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential Comp Plan: Semi-Private/Public and Estate Single Family Residential Floodplain Overlay: Property is in a Floodplain Overlay District Shoreland Overlay: Property is in a Shoreland Overlay District Total lot size: 208,440 SF or 4.79 acres. 1.4 Public Noticing Requirements Zoning Ordinance Section requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the Application. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Lakeshore Weekly on August 2, A copy of the Notice of Public Hearing was also mailed to all property owners located within 350 feet of the subject property on August 4, Section 2: Summary of Issues 2.1 Surrounding Uses A summary of land uses and their respective zoning classifications for the immediate area: Direction Land Use Zoning North Single Family Residential R-3A and R-2A South Lake Minnetonka N/A

4 Page 4 East Single Family Residential R-1 West Single Family Residential R-2A 2.2 Project Hardcover Calculations The Applicant s surveyor has provided a calculation of existing and proposed hardcover on the Property. A summary of the hardcover is included below. Much of the Property exists with crushed gravel as the surface. The Applicant proposes a number of stormwater treatment methods to address water runoff adjacent to the lake. Parcel Existing Proposed WCSC Arlington Circle 2,070 SF (6%) 8,865 SF (25%) West Parking Lot 28,859 SF (65%) 32,202 SF (73%) WYC Club House Lot 9,059 SF (45%) 10,159 SF (51%) East Parking Lot 34,842 SF (40%) 35,113 SF (40%) Hardcover Total 74,830 SF (40%) 86,339 SF (46%) As noted above, the Applicant has included a Shoreland CUP request to exceed the twenty five percent (25%) hardcover limit in the Shoreland Overlay District. As part of the Project, stormwater treatment methods, such as rain gardens, bioswales and turf pavers would be incorporated into the site. 2.3 Streetscape As part of the Master Site Plan, the Applicant is also proposing that five (5) ft striped on-street bike/pedestrian lanes be added to the north and south side of Eastman Lane to allow a connection to downtown Wayzata from Bushaway Road. In order to accommodate this request, the Applicant has indicated a willingness to dedicate some land to the City to facilitate the striped lanes. As this request would be a modification to a roadway, it would need approval of the City Council. The Applicant is proposing to install a bio-swale and vegetation on the north side of Eastman Lane in the East Parking lot to assist with screening and stormwater management. Additional screening and vegetation is proposed for the Sailing School. 2.4 Existing Eastman Lane Configuration With the potential of a Hennepin County roadway project at Bushaway Road/CR 101, there was been discussion on whether the existing location of Eastman

5 Page 5 Lane could be modified, potentially impact the Applicant s existing East Parking Lot configuration. Per the discussion at the charrette, the Applicant and adjacent residents agreed that the preferred alternative was to have Eastman Lane in its current configuration, which would leave the East Parking Lot in its current layout as well. Although, a final plan from Hennepin County on the Bushaway Road has not been provided to the City at this time, the Applicant has submitted their Master Site Plan based upon assumption of Eastman Lane remaining in its present location, as discussed at the charrette. 2.5 Zoning The Property is currently zoned a mix of R-2A and R-1 parcels. The Applicant is proposing a PUD in order to implement the Master Site Plan. The Applicant summarizes the existing and proposed usage standards in Pages of the Master Plan Narrative. A brief summary table of this is listed below: 456 Arlington Circle Wayzata Sailing Foundation R-2A Standards Existing Standard Existing Conditions Proposed Standards Front Yard Setback 30 ft 114 ft 30 ft (Eastman Lane) Front Yard Setback 30 ft 8.8 ft 15 ft (Arlington Circle) Rear Yard Setback 75 ft or Average 124 ft 75 ft or Average Building Height 35 ft Two Story One Story 1100 Eastman Lane WYC Club House R-1 Standards Existing Standard Existing Conditions Proposed Standards Front Yard Setback 45 ft 5 ft 5 ft (Eastman Lane) Front Yard Setback 45 ft 5 ft 5 ft (Public Launch- Central Ave) Rear Yard Setback 75 ft or Average 44 ft 44 ft Building Height 35 ft Two Story One Story 1000 Eastman Lane West Parking Lot R-1 Standards Existing Standard Existing Conditions Proposed Standards Front Yard Setback (Eastman Lane) 45 ft 17 ft 7 ft

6 Page 6 Side Setback 20 ft 15 ft 6 ft (Public Launch- Central Ave) Side Setback 20 ft 30 ft 7 ft Rear Yard Setback 75 ft 3 ft 3 ft 1400 Eastman Lane East Parking Lot R-1 Standards Existing Standard Existing Conditions Proposed Standards Front Yard Setback 45 ft 20 ft 20 ft (Eastman Lane) Side Setback 20 ft 14 ft 14 ft (Bushaway Road) Side Setback 20 ft 64 ft 34 ft Rear Yard Setback 50 ft 0 ft 5 ft for storage shed 2.5 History of Applicant Approvals The Wayzata Yacht Club began in 1964 on what was formerly owned by Reid s Boat Sales (1200 Eastman Lane). In 1974, the Yacht Club acquired what was formerly the Leckas property (1100 Eastman Lane), and made an application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a private sailboat club on the two parcels, with a gravel parking lot. The City Council approved the CUP on February 5, (See Attachment J for copies of CUP documents). In 1976, the Yacht Club purchased what was known as the Bell property (1400 Eastman Lane or East Parking Lot) for use as an additional parking area. On April 30, 1976, the Yacht Club and the City entered into a CUP, which limited the East Parking Lot to sixty-nine (69) parking spaces and prohibited boat storage on the parking lot. In addition, the 1976 CUP limited the number of boat slips or mooring buoys adjacent to the club house parcels to nine-seven (97) slips and thirty (30) buoys for 127 total for those parcels. For the 1990 boating season, the City allowed the temporary movement of the buoy field from 400 ft to 800 ft due to low water. The CUP was amended in 1990, to allow the Yacht Club to increase the number of boat docks beyond 105, but reduce the individual mooring buoys from 22, so that the total number did not exceed 127 for these parcels. In 1979, the Yacht Club applied for a building permit and variances to allow replacement of the existing structure with a new club house building. The City Council approvals allowed an increase in building size to 2,300 SF, a front yard setback variance to allow the building five (5) feet from Eastman Lane/CR 16,

7 Page 7 and a rear yard setback variance to allow the building forty four (44) feet from Lake Minnetonka. In 1986, the Yacht Club acquired the former Wayzata Bay Association property (1000 Eastman Lane or West Parking Lot), which had served as a private marina and parking lot. In 2003, the Yacht Club received approval of a CUP to operate a dock mounted boat lift at the West Parking Lot. In 2008, the Wayzata Sailing Foundation acquired the former Hague-Rosekran s property to operate a sailing school. The Sailing Foundation received approval of a CUP to operate a sailing school on May 6, As part of the approval, the City Council required that the Wayzata Sailing Foundation and Wayzata Yacht Club enter into a joint parking agreement to allow the Sailing Foundation to park on the Yacht Club s West Parking Lot, and prohibited drop-off or parking on Arlington Circle for Wayzata Sailing Foundation use. Section 3. Application Components 3.1 Planned Unit Development Concept and General Plan One of the main components of the Application is the inclusion of a PUD Master Plan for the Property, which provides a plan that the WYC and WCSC will utilize for the Property over the long term. This plan was informed by input from charrette participants and adjacent neighbors. One of the current concerns from the City and Applicant s perspective is that the existing approvals for the Property, mainly CUPs that have occurred over time, do not provide clear direction and guidance for the Property. The Applicant proposes a PUD master plan in order to provide a clearer vision for the future of the Property. This PUD process allows for greater collaboration between the Applicant, adjacent stakeholders, and the City to address how the Property will be utilized in the coming years. The Applicant and the City had initiated discussions over creating a PUD District for the Property in 2006, but it was not formally reviewed by the City Council at that time. As part of the PUD Master Plan, the Applicant has included proposals for incorporating trail connections on Eastman Lane, among other items, that will require separate City Council approval. The Applicant s intent with the PUD Master Plan is that the Project would be constructed in stages over time. The initial focus would be on a new structure at the Sailing School and improvements to the surrounding property, including landscaping and screening. The west

8 Page 8 parking lot improvements would be the second priority, followed by the Club House addition, and then the East Parking Lot. 3.2 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment New Semi-Private/Public PUD District After discussion with stakeholders during the charrette process, the Applicant determined that the PUD process was the most appropriate for the master plan. Due to the unique situation of the Property, including its position adjacent to the lake, the Applicant is proposing a text amendment to the City s PUD Ordinance. This amendment would create a new PUD classification for the Property, providing flexibility from items like setbacks to implement the master site plan improvements discussed at the charrette. The proposed new PUD District is based on the City s existing PUD district language, but incorporates a citizen participation component for any future changes to the Property. The Applicant s proposed text is on Pages of the Master Plan Narrative, Attachment A. A chart comparing existing and proposed requirements is on Pages of the Master Plan Narrative. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 below include the City s existing Zoning Ordinance language for PUDs for comparison purposes. 3.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Comprehensive Plan Amendment included in the Application is to correct a map error for one of the properties Eastman Lane, a small, narrow strip of land east of the WYC Club house, describes the property as Estate Single Family Residential. However, the surrounding WYC and WCSC properties are all guided for Semi-Private/Public Use in the Comprehensive Plan. The Amendment would reguide 1200 Eastman Lane to match the existing WYC and WCSC properties as Semi-Private/Public Use. 3.4 Shoreland and Floodway Conditional Use Permit The Shoreland Overlay District has a twenty-five percent (25%) impervious surface limit, however it allows properties to go up to a maximum of seventy-five percent (75%), if appropriate structures and practices are in place for the treatment of stormwater runoff, and if a conditional use permit (CUP) is approved for the Property. Based upon the Applicant s submitted hardcover calculations, the Applicant is proposing to have approximately 46% impervious surface coverage on the Property. To address the additional impervious surface that is being requested as part of this Application, the Applicant is proposing to install a number of stormwater management measures including, native vegetation buffers, bio-swales and rain

9 Page 9 gardens in the west parking lot, and rain gardens and turf grass in the east parking lot. The Property is also partially located within the 100 Year Floodplain District, which include properties at or below the ft elevation. A portion of the proposed new Sailing Center would be located within the floodplain. The Applicant is proposing to build the lowest floor of all buildings at least two (2) feet above the floodplain elevation. Any structures or placement or extraction of fill within the floodplain elevation require a Conditional Use Permit under Section and The Applicant is proposing minor cutting and filling of the floodplain area to provide bituminous service entrance to the Wayzata Community Sailing Center and structure components of the building that will be built above the floodplain elevation. Approximately 840 cubic yards of nonbearing soil would be removed from the 946 SF service area and replaced with an equal amount of bearing soil. 3.5 Site Plan Review The Project site plan is included in Attachment B. The Applicant has indicated in their submittal materials (Pages of the Master Plan Narrative Report) areas where the proposed site plan and associated buildings would not conform with the current code requirements, but would conform with the proposed new PUD District for the Property, if approved. Staff recommends that the final site plan be subject to the review of the City Engineer and other applicable staff members to ensure conformance with the proposed PUD District text and all other applicable regulations. 3.6 Fence Variances As a part of the Application, the Applicant s are interested in installing some fencing and landscaping to provide additional screening for the property. One of the proposed screening areas is on the 456 Arlington Circle property along the Eastman Lane property line, where the Applicant is interested in installing a three (3) ft berm with four (4) ft tall arborvitaes plantings to screen the front of the Wayzata Sailing Foundation property. In addition, the Applicant would like to add an eight (8) ft wood panel fence to provide screening of outdoor biff units for the Sailing School, a four (4) wood fence to provide screening of garage cans adjacent to the Sailing School building, and replace an existing wire fence in the rear of the Property along Arlington Circle with a four (4) ft wood picket fence. As these three proposed wood fences would be taller than the allow height and solid material requirements standards in the fence ordinance, the Applicant is requesting variances from those sections of the code. In the front yard of a property, fences can only be 42 inches and no more than 50 percent solid material.

10 Page Parking As a part of the Master Site Plan, the Applicant is proposing a new parking ratio to accommodate the anticipated parking demand for the sailing uses. The parking situation at the WYC and WCSC is described on Pages of the Master Plan Narrative. Under the City s ordinance, the parking ratio for marina and yacht club uses is seven (7) parking stalls for every ten (10) boat slips or a ratio of 0.7. Based upon discussions at the charrette, the Applicant is proposing a parking ratio requirement of 1.50 parking spaces per boat slip and buoy. If one takes the median parking usage experienced by the Applicant of 279 cars and divides by the number of existing boat slips and buoys of 183, one gets a ratio of 1.52, similar to the 1.50 parking ratio proposed by the Applicant. If the 1.50 parking ratio is accepted for the Property as part of the Master Plan, the parking comparison would be as follows: Number of Slips and Buoys Existing 183 Existing Proposed Proposed 189 Parking Ratio Demand 0.7 (Under current code) 1.5 (Proposed as part of Master Plan) 0.7 (Under current code) 1.5 (Proposed as part of Master Plan) Number of Spaces Required Number of Spaces Provided in Master Plan In order to utilize this parking scenario, the Applicant is requesting to fully utilize the east parking lot, above and beyond the 69 stall limit that was established by a 1976 CUP. If the CUP restriction is lifted, the East Parking Lot could accommodate 199 parking stalls, as described in the proposed site plans. To address stormwater runoff concerns, the Applicant is proposing a portion of the East parking Lot have turf grass and install a bio-swale adjacent to Eastman Lane to capture water runoff. In addition, as part of the charrette discussion with the adjacent neighbors, the Applicant developed a policy (Page 10 of Master Plan Narrative) of discouraging members, participant, and guest from parking on Shady Lane, Lake Street east of Arlington Circle, Arlington Circle, Central Ave, and Wise Ave without the permission of the adjacent owners.

11 Page 11 Section 4. Applicable Code Provisions for Review 4.1 Planned Unit Development General Standards Purpose. Section of the Zoning Ordinance provides for the establishment of Planned Unit Developments to allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or non residential areas by incorporating design modifications as part of a PUD conditional use permit or a mixture of uses when applied to a PUD District. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc., is intended to encourage: A. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. B. Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and experienced land planners, architects, landscape architects, and engineers. C. More convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. D. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. E. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development and use pattern. F. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development costs and public investments. G. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Wayzata Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) H. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.

12 Page Planned Unit Development General Standards A. General Standards. Section A of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the general standards for review of any PUD application. These are: 1. Health Safety and Welfare. The Council shall evaluate the effects of the proposed project upon the health, safety and welfare of residents of the community and the surrounding area. 2. Intent and Purpose of PUDs. The Council shall evaluate the project s conformance with the overall intent and purpose of Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Ownership. An application for a PUD District or conditional use permit approval must be filed by the land owner or jointly by all land owners of the property included in a project. 4. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed PUD must be consistent with the City s Comprehensive Plan. 5. Sanitary Sewer Plan. The proposed PUD must be consistent with the City s Sanitary Sewer Plan and not create a discharge which is in excess of the City s assigned regional limitations. 6. Common Space. The proposed PUD must provide common private or public open space and facilities at least sufficient to meet the minimum requirements established in the Comprehensive Plan and such complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the PUD. 7. Common Space Operating and Maintenance Requirements. Whenever common private or public open space or service facilities are provided within a PUD, the PUD plan must contain provisions to assure the continued operation and maintenance of such open space and service facilities to a predetermined reasonable standard. Common private or public open space and service facilities within a PUD must be placed under the ownership of one of the following, as approved by the City Council: (i) dedicated to the public, where a community-wide use is anticipated, (ii) Landlord control, where only tenant use is anticipated, or (iii) Property Owners Association, provided the conditions of A.6.c are meet.

13 Page Staging of Public and Common Open Space. When a PUD provides for common private or public open space, and is planned as a staged development over a period of time, the total area of common or public open space or land escrow security in any stage of development shall, at a minimum, bear the same relationship to the total open space to be provided in the entire PUD as the stages or units completed or under development bear to the entire PUD. 9. Density. The proposed PUD must meet the density standards agreed upon by the applicant and City, which must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 10. Utilities. All utilities associated with proposed PUD must be installed underground. 11. Utility Connections. All utilities associated with proposed PUD must meet the utility connection requirements of Section A Roadways. All roadways associated with the proposed PUD must conform to the Design Standards and Wayzata Subdivision Regulations, unless otherwise approved by City Council. 13. Landscaping. All landscaping associated with the proposed PUD must be according to a detailed plan approved by the City Council. In assessing the plan, the City Council shall consider the natural features of the particular site, the architectural characteristics of the proposed structure and the overall scheme of the PUD plan. 14. Setbacks. The front, rear and side yard restrictions on the periphery of the Planned Unit Development site at a minimum shall be the same as imposed in the underlying districts, if a PUD conditional use permit, or the previous zoning district, if a PUD District. No building shall be located less than fifteen (15) feet from the back of the curb line along those roadways which are part of the internal street pattern. No building within the PUD project shall be nearer to another building than one-half (1/2) the sum of the building heights of the two (2) buildings. In PUD Districts for parcels that were zoned commercial prior to PUD and which exceed 13 acres, the allowable setbacks shall be as negotiated and agreed upon between the applicant and the City. 15. Height. The maximum building height to be considered within a PUD District shall be thirty five (35) feet and three (3) stories,

14 Page 14 whichever is lesser. There shall be no deviation from the height standards applied within the applicable zoning districts for PUD conditional use permits. In PUD Districts for parcels that were zoned commercial prior to PUD and which exceed 13 acres, the maximum allowable height and number of floors shall be as negotiated and agreed upon between the applicant and the City. 4.3 Concept Plan In cases of single stage PUDs or for projects of limited size and scope, the applicant may, at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, submit the General Plan of Development for the proposed PUD simultaneously with the submission of a Concept Plan. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of this section applicable to submission of General Plan of Development. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider such plans simultaneously and shall grant or deny a General Plan of Development in accordance with the provisions of Section hereof. Should concept approval be granted for a PUD project, this approval in no way shall bind the City to subsequent approval of a General Plan of Development. 4.4 Rezoning from R-1 and R-2A to PUD. City Council has the discretion and authority under state law and City Code to amend the City s Zoning Ordinance. Minn. Stat. Section ; Wayzata City Code Section A zoning ordinance amendment may be initiated by the governing body, the planning agency or by petition of affected property owners. Minn. Stat. Section , Subd Standards for Rezoning. Under the City s Zoning Ordinance, the City Council acts on any proposed amendment upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission. Section In considering a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: A. The proposed action in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed use s conformity with present and future land uses of the area. C. The proposed use s conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). D. The proposed use s effect on the area in which it is proposed.

15 Page 15 E. The proposed use s impact upon property value in the area in which it is proposed. F. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. G. The proposed use s impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and the City s service capacity. 4.6 Shoreland Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Except for certain situations not applicable to the Project, Section of the Zoning Ordinance requires landowners or developers developing land in the Shoreland District to first submit a conditional use permit application in accordance with Section (CUPs) and a Shoreland Impact Plan in accordance with Section A. The purpose of the Shoreland Impact Plan shall be to eliminate and minimize as much as possible potential pollution, erosion and siltation. All conditional use permits for consideration under Section are subject to the following stipulations: 1. The projects shall be analyzed to determine the impact of impervious surfaces, storm water runoff, floodplain, and water quality implications. Only those projects shall be allowed where the adverse impacts have been mitigated through approved means to the extent possible. 2. Storm water treatment measures including, but not limited to, sediment basins (debris basins), desilting basins or silt traps, installation of debris guards, and microsilt basins on storm water inlets, oil skimming devices, etc. shall be required subject to the review of the City Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on projects where applicable. 3. Projects shall be analyzed in terms of provisions for maintenance and enhancement of landscape features, and change in the natural condition of the soil, trees, grade courses and marshes. The vegetative planting plan shall contain trees, when fully mature, that will exceed the building height. The plan shall also minimize tree removal, ground cover change, loss of natural vegetation, and grade changes as much as possible. It shall further provide for the relocation or replanting of trees which are proposed to be removed. 4. Projects shall be analyzed in terms of the appearance of the structure when viewed from the lake's surface. Building materials,

16 Page 16 and color shall be analyzed to determine which facade and roof materials minimize the appearance and blend the structure into the shoreland and vegetation. 5. Building heights shall be analyzed to determine the impact on surrounding structures and views from the lake surface or other shores. Structures shall not be allowed to exceed a height beyond that is allowed by the base zoning district or cannot be screened by landscaping or other design measures. 6. Residential densities on a project basis shall not be allowed to exceed the maximum allowed density of the base zoning district for which the project is proposed. For higher density residential development and planned unit developments, the density shall not be allowed to exceed the density standards as specified in the R-5 District of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Lot coverage on a project basis shall be restricted to the provisions for maximum impervious surface coverage as provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Overall residential densities in the shoreland area shall not exceed the surplus development capacity for residential density, as calculated for Lake Minnetonka, Gleason and Peavey Lakes, as specified in the Wayzata Comprehensive Plan/Shoreland Management Plan, as may be amended. 9. Overall lot coverage in the shoreland area shall not exceed the surplus development capacity for impervious surface coverage calculated for Lake Minnetonka, Gleason and Peavey Lakes, as specified in the Wayzata Comprehensive Plan/Shoreland Management Plan, as may be amended. 10. All projects shall be in conformance with the Stormwater Management Plan for the City of Wayzata, May 1988, as may be amended and/or approved by the City Engineer. 11. All projects shall be in conformance with the Wayzata Comprehensive Plan/Shoreland Management Plan, as may be amended. 12. All projects shall be subject to the review of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.

17 Page 17 The Shoreland Conditional Use Permits are regulated by Section F which requires City Council to consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Their judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. The proposed action in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use s compatibility with present and future uses of the area. 3. The proposed use s conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The propose use s effect on the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use s impact upon property values in the area in which it is developed. 6. Traffic generated by the proposed use is in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 7. The proposed use s impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets and utilities, and the City s service capacity. 4.7 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The City Council may by a resolution adopted by a two-thirds vote of all of its members (4 of 5 Council members) amend the City s comprehensive plan. Before adopting an amendment to the Plan, the Planning Commission must hold at least one public hearing on the proposed amendment. A proposed amendment may not be acted upon by the City Council until it has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission or until 60 days have elapsed from the date an amendment proposed by the City Council has been submitted to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. Minn. Stat. Sec , subd. 2 and Site Plan Review and Approval. Except in the case of individual single family uses and minor projects, additions or alterations as determined by the Zoning Administrator and all building and site plans as specified by Section of the Zoning Ordinance shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. Zoning Ordinance Sec

18 Page Minnesota State Statute Section , Subd. 6 (Variance Statute)(Fence Variances) On May 5, 2011, Governor Dayton signed 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amending Minnesota Statutes Section , Subd. 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to the Minnesota Supreme Court case Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka from June 24, The amended Section , Subd. 6., provides the following items for evaluating variance requests: 1. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 3. Practical difficulties, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. 5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 6. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 7. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy. 8. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in granting the variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. In evaluating a variance application, the Planning Commission and City Council shall make findings of fact on the above criteria from the state variance statute Design Review. The design of all new buildings and exterior improvements to the public side of nonresidential and/or multifamily buildings in Wayzata which clearly alter the appearance of a structure are subject to the review and approval of the Wayzata Planning Commission and City Council. City Code Section The Applicant has provided some example concept drawings for structures on the Property. If the Master Site Plan is approved, the Applicant would be required to have the building designs reviewed through the City s formal design review process at a future date.

19 Page 19 Section 5: Additional Approvals Required of As noted in the Applicant s materials (Page 26 of Master Plan Narrative) and above, certain components of the proposed Master Site Plan require additional approvals as they involve city right-of-way modifications, other jurisdictional approvals, or additional review under other City ordinances at a later stage of the Plan implementation. The additional agency that approval is required from is included in parenthesis. The associated page number refers to the page in the Applicant s Master Plan Narrative that discusses the request. The additional approvals are as follows: Club Policy Related Items: - Allowing non-trailered WYC related vehicles to park on Eastman Lane in the signed trailer-only areas on Thursdays between 4:00 PM and 10:00 PM (Page 11) (City Council) - Allowing more than 69 parking spaces, a storage building without a principal structure, and winter boat storage on the East Parking Lot (Pages 18 and 22). (City Council, as part of PUD request). - Allowing for 40% compact car usage, rather than 20% under ordinance (Page 18). (City Council, included as part of new PUD District request). Public Improvements: - Inclusion of streets and public boat launch area into the WYC PUD District geographic area (Page 12). (City Council) - Modifications to Eastman Lane as proposed in the Application to provide a five (5) ft trail, partially on WYC property and City ROW (Page 13). (City Council) - Inclusion of bollards and islands as proposed in the Application to discourage traffic on Arlington Circle South (Page 14). (City Council) - Modifications/improvements to Eastman Lane and Public Boat launch as proposed in the Application, partially on WYC property and City ROW (Page 14). (City Council) - Improvements to Public Boat launch as proposed in the Application (Page 13) (City Council, Department of Natural Resources). WYC and WCSC Property Improvements: - Channel dredging (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) - Sailing Center Building design (City Design Review Process, at a later date) - West and East Parking Lots (City Design Review Process, at a later date) - WYC Club House addition (City Design Review Process, at a later date) - Any modifications to docks and marina (Lake Minnetonka Conservation District) - Shoreland preservation and rip-rap improvements (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) - Grading and Fill on properties City grading permit process - Tree removal City tree removal permit process

20 Page 20 - Fence Installation City fence permit process, if fence variances are approved Section 6: Department Comments 6.1 Fire Marshal: Must meet all requirements of the State Fire Code. 6.2 City Forestry: Follow tree ordinance as trees are affected. 6.3 Building Official: Accessory structure on [East] parking lot without principal structure. Note: Applicant is including this request as part of their PUD District. Section 7: Action Steps After considering the items outlined in this Report, the Planning Commission should pursue one of the following options as an action step: 1. Develop findings of fact basis upon this staff report, with any additions or deletions that the Planning Commission wishes to make, and adopt a recommendation on the Application after the conclusion of the public hearing at the August 15, 2011 meeting. 2. Direct staff to prepare a Planning Commission Report and Recommendation, with appropriate findings, reflecting a recommendation on the Application for review and adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: Attachment A: Master Plan Narrative Attachment B: Master Plan Site Plan, dated July 25, 2011 Attachment C: Master Plan Landscaping Plan, dated July 25, 2011 Attachment D: Master Plan Grading Plan, dated July 25, 2011 Attachment E: Existing Property Surveys Attachment F: Charrette Briefing Handbook, May 2010 Attachment G: WYC and LMCD Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), 2011 Attachment H: CSAH 101 Wetland Delineation, prepared by URS for Hennepin County, September 3, 2010 Attachment I: Historical Resources Literature Review, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 29, 2010 Attachment J: Copies of CUP agreements