05-28-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

!'U: li- r I..' • 1 f ■tr t?: fl'pf- h t- r- ■"• i', LMCD Doard of Directors April 24, 1991 the Dali Property JUP so that tne r.ooring would net be pi ed to occupy or impede the public access ingress and egress. ..._re has been complete compliance with ingress/egress tor ^ne launch ramp as d^^inon St ratted on the site plan. oont.i.nued that th© disagreement the WYC is having with the city is that without holding a hearing, (in fact they do not have a right to hearing on it) they are asking the WYC to modify the Shoreline Property CUP. The WYC has said they are prepared to do that, but they want a broader discussion with the city. The city said if the WYC does not sign the new CUP, they will object to and try to keep the WYC from getting its dock license. That is the basis of the disagreement betx^een the WYC and the city. The city has other remedies, and in this case they are dead wrong. Cole stated that Mayor Gisvold has agreed that the city has no right to demand that the WYC amend the Shoreline Property CUP. Gisvold says they want to get it done because the city manager thiniks it should bo done. Cole indicated they are willing to do it. There is a broad range of issues . . . Wayzata wants to move the launch ramp and they want part of the WYC property. The WYC is willing to make that part of the discussion. In response to a question from Hurr, Cole identified the property to the west of the launch ramp. Site 2, as^an R-1 site with a prior non~conforming use. There is no CUP on this property. The property had been used before the city had zoning exactly as it is being used today, including numbers of boats. The land use questions raised are whether the property has always had parking on it and docks next to it. This property has never been raised as an issue. The WYC has proposed that this property be brought into a larger CUP. Carlson questioned whether complaints on use of a property might cause a city to review a CUP. Cole responded no, that ^ COP is irrevocable. In the case of the Bell Property (parking lot) the city could invoke a court process to review the CUP, but it does not want to do that because they want the parking at that location (for club members). No violation of the CUP has been charged. The mayor wants the Shoreline Property CUP to be Joined with the Bell Property CUP under a master agreement. The WYC has not agreed to do that. The city has never held a hearing on it, and they can’t hold a hearing on it. Cole continued that there has been no charge that the WYC is in violation of any CUP. that he knows of. And the mayor has agreed that the WYC is not in violation of the CUP. The city’s demand that the WYC alter the other CUP is without legal rights. Martinson pointed out for the city that the district mooring field (DMA) on the WYC application would be different from the DMA which is drawn in the 1976 Bell Property CUP. Grathwol asked for a suggestion for a DMA which would be acceptable to the city. Martinson responded that it wf'uld be as in the new application which is in the revised pj 3sed change to the Joint CUP over both properties. The WYC and .jity have still not agreed to the revised CUP.