Loading...
1b 8140 Maplewood TerraceCITYOF CHANItASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www. ci.chanhassen.rnn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kristin Wentzlaff, Planning Intern DATE: July 28, 2003 SUB J: Update on CUP//2003-3 Executive Summary: The applicant, Alison Blackowiak, is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a 10 foot fence surrounding a tennis court on property located at 8140 Maplewood Terrace. Fences in residential zoned areas are limited to a maximum height of 6'6". Tennis courts are a permitted accessory structure. A standard tennis court fence is 10 feet tall. The proposed fence is 10 feet tall and made of black vinyl chain link. The site has approximately 2.5 acres, and is zoned Rural Residential, RR. PC Update: On July 1, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed CUP. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to recommend approval of the CUP. They added one condition to address adding a wind screen in the future. The summary and verbatim minutes are attached. The motion and conditions of approval can be found on page 6 of the staff report. Attachments: 1. CUP 92003-3 Staff Report 2. July 1, 2003 Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes The City of Chanhassen * A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautitul parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Z PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: CiTY OF STAFF REPORT PC DATE: 7/1/2003 CC DATE: 7/28/2003 REVIEW DEADLINE: 8/6/2003 n~ lrllr Request for a conditional use permit to exceed the height restriction of 6V2' for the construction of a fence in a residential district. 8140 Maplewood Terrace, Lot 8, Block 3, Timberwood Estates Alison Blackowiak 8140 Maplewood Terrace Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ltl PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Large Lot ACREAGE: 2.5 acres (109,006 square feet) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a tennis court on property in the Timberwood Estates subdivision. The applicant wishes to enclose the tennis court with a ten (10) foot tall fence. The ordinance requires any fence over 6~/z feet to receive a conditional use permit. The intent of the ordinance is to ensure that a fence over 6~ feet does not impact adjacent properties. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi- judicial decision. Blackowiak CUP July 1, 2003 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a 10 foot fence surrounding a tennis court. Tennis courts are a permitted accessory structure. Fences in residential zoned areas are limited to a maximum height of 6'6". Tennis courts require fences that exceed the maximum permitted height. The proposed fence would be 10 feet tall and made of black vinyl chain link. The property in question is located to the south of Timberwood Drive and east of Galpin Boulevard. Access to the site is via a private driveway off of Maplewood Terrace. The site has approximately 2.5 acres, and is zoned Rural Residential, RR. There is a conflict with the city code in that a tennis court is a permitted accessory use. It seems fair to assume that a fence would be associated with the court. Staff will be evaluating this and recommend changes in the code revisions. APPLICABLE REGULATION Section 20-1019 (c) [Buffers] No fences will be permitted between a required landscape buffer and a collector or arterial street. Section 20-0120 [Construction and maintenance] Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of material reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall be maintained in such condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore, or public or private nuisance. All fences shall be constructed so that the side containing the framing supports and cross pieces face the interior of the fence owner's lot. Any fence which does not comply with the provisions of this chapter or which endangers the public safety, health or welfare shall be considered a public nuisance. Abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper city official after fifteen days' notification, if the owner of such fence has not undertaken the necessary repairs to abate the nuisance. Link fences shall be constructed in such a manner that no barbed ends shall be exposed. Section 20-1023 [Height] Any fence over six and one-half (6½) feet must receive a conditional use permit. The fence height is measured from grade to the highest point on the fence. All other residential fences shall meet the following standards: 1. Side yards and rear yards. In any side or rear yard on lots, the height of fences shall not exceed six and one-half (6½) feet. 2. Front yards. Fences in the required front yard setback area that are opaque shall not exceed three (3) feet in height. Chain link fences in this area shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. All other open fences in this area shall not exceed six and one-half (6½) feet in height. 3. Comer or double fronted lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section, fences located on comer or double fronted lots shall be subject to the following provisions: a. Any fence within the required front yard setback area shall not exceed three (3) feet in height if opaque construction, or four (4) feet in height if open construction. Blackowiak Conditional Use Permit July 1, 2003 Page 3 The maximum height of a fence shall conform to the requirements of fences in front yards within the comer site triangle. Two (2) sides of comer site triangle commence at the comer of the lot located at the intersection of the two (2) streets and run a distance of thirty (30) feet back along the lot lines abutting the streets. The third side of the triangle is a straight line joining the end points of the adjacent sides. Section 20-904 [Accessory Structures] (3) Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear yard with a minimum side and rear yard setback of ten (10) feet, however, must comply with applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks. BACKGROUND The home was constructed in 1988 as part of the Timberwood Estates Subdivision and is located on a cul-de-sac on the north side of Maplewood Terrace. The tennis court is located in the southwest comer of the lot in a flat area. The applicant has met the required ten (10) foot side and rear yard setbacks. The neighboring properties to the north, east, and south are not impacted by the fence because a barrier of trees obstructs the view of the applicant's rear yard. The neighboring property to the west has less mature vegetation at this time; however, the home located at 8121 Pinewood Circle is slightly more than 300 feet away from the proposed fence. A standard doubles tennis court is 60 feet by 120 feet or 7,200 square feet. The proposed court is slightly smaller at 55 feet by 110 feet. Standard fencing height for a tennis court is 10 feet, which is what the applicant is proposing. The applicant is currently installing a new septic system. The construction of the fence will not affect it because the location of the new system is protected and roped off. The applicant is also considering the addition of a deck and a pool (with a fence). Staff met with the property owner to discuss areas of concern. COULTER BLVD TIMBERWOOD DR Blackowiak Conditional Use Permit July 1, 2003 Page 4 CUP FINDINGS When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: Tennis courts are a permitted use in residential areas and this particular tennis court is located on a 2.5 acre lot, therefore it should not be an endangerment to the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: Tennis courts are a permitted use and therefore comply with the city's comprehensive plan. The conflict is with the fence which is integral to the use of the court. o Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The neighboring properties to the north, east, and south are not impacted by the fence because a barrier of trees obstmcts the view of the applicant's rear yard. The neighboring property to the west has less mature vegetation at this time; however, the home located at 8121 Pinewood Circle is slightly more than 300 feet away from the proposed fence. In addition, the fence is black, which will blend into the surrounding area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The fence will prevent disturbance by stopping tennis balls from landing in neighbors yard. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The fence will be served adequately by public facilities or services and will have little impact on drainage structures and water systems. Blackowiak Conditional Use Permit July 1, 2003 Page 5 Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The proposed project will not require additional public facilities or services and will have no impact on the economic welfare of the community. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: Tennis courts are a permitted use and the fence around it is not detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare. Tennis courts do not produce additional traffic, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Additional noise may be generated during daytime hours only, as the court will not be lit. o Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed fence will not generate additional traffic because it is for the homeowner's personal use. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The fence will not cause the destruction of the area. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The fence will be black which will help to blend it in with the surrounding area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The proposed fence should have no impact on the value of surrounding properties. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: Tennis courts are a permitted use, but the proposal would need approval of the CLIP for the fence to exceed the height restrictions. Blackowiak Conditional Use Permit July 1, 2003 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff and Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission City Council recommonds approval of approves Conditional Use Permit #2003-3 to construct a ten (10) foot high fence surrounding the tennis court on the property located at 8140 Maplewood Terrace, with the following conditions: 1. The tennis court must not be lit. 2. The fencing must be black to blend with surroundings. 3. The fence must be built according to the plan dated 6/6/2003. 4. The applicant shall be aware that no building shall be allowed over the utility and drainage easement. 5. Type 1 silt fence as per City Detail Plate No. 5300 must be used along the grading area. 6. To assure drainage flow, submit Certificate of Survey showing the following: a. Proposed elevations at each comer of the new tennis court. b. Existing property and proposed contours. c. Existing neighborhood property contours within 25 feet of excavation. d. Show drainage arrows of flow direction. e. Surveyors original signature on the Certificate of Survey f. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners that are within 25 feet of the property or that may be affected by the proposed fence for the new tennis court. 7. If a wind break is added it must be constructed of a blending color." ATrACHMENTS 1. Application and letter 2. Site Plan 3. Public Hearing Notice/Label CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: ~ L.-160/,J TELEPHONE(Daytime) OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit __ Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal ~ Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan ~Review Notification Sign NOTE - Site Plan Review* Subdivision* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARNVAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. ~/.,:~c.~ F/~ V' / ~* ~Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8~/~'' X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES X. NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ~/~ This application must be'completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard tothis request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or pumhase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant'S address, J .... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 1,2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Installation of a Fence APPLICANT: Alison Blackowiak LOCATION: 8140 Maplewood Terrace NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Alison Blackowiak, is requesting a conditional use permit for a fence in excess of 6Y2 feet on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, located at 8140 Maplewood Terrace. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kristin at 227-1132 or e-mail kwentzlaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 19, 2003. C©JLT~R J Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use tem~a~r 5~6~'~0 JAMES L & LINDA J LEIRDAHL 2350 TIMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW G RICHARDSON, 8120 PINEWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICK J & KAREN C MINGER 2218 LUKEWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & SHARON COLSON 2320 TIMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAYTON & LINDA ZELLMAN 2290 TIMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER J & JACKIE A NEVA 2230 TIMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY B & JULIE R MAANUM 8040 ACORN LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R & KATHLEEN A HODGES 8101 PINEWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN F & KATHLEEN E KASEL 8140 MAPLEWOOD TER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY HUGH PERRILL 2101 TIMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY G & JULIE K SORENSEN 8121 MAPLEWOOD TER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & KIMBERLEY ANDERSON 8141 PINEWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JACK C & ILYNE SANDAS SPIZALE 8141 MAPLEWOOD TER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK A & NANCY E BIELSKI 8140 PINEWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R & DEBRA ANN LANO 2060 OAKWOOD RDG CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS W & REBECCA S MCPHERS( 2081 TIMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BARRY N COHEN & YVONNE K LAPENOTIERE 2274 LUKEWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY G HEINZ & JOAN M PADRNOS-HEINZ 2071 TIMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES D & LORIE D RYAN 8121 PINEWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS M ALLEN & ANN E HEALEY-ALLEN 2250 LUKEWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL G & NANCY J BOYLE 8011 ACORN LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT E & LOUISE A MELBYE 2224 LUKEWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® ITYO CHANH SEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952,227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952,227.1400 Fax: 952.227,1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Pho ne: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www. ci.chanhassenmn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Kristin Wentzlaff, Planner FROM: Mak Sweidan, Engineer~ DATE: June 25, 2003 SUB J: Review of Conditional Use Permit for New Tennis Court Fence Applicant: Alison Blackowiak, 8140 Maplewood Terrace The Engineering Department has reviewed a land development proposal dated June 6, 2003 prepared by the owner, Alison Blackoviak, which includes the property plat showing the location of the proposed new tennis court fence. I offer the following recommended conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall be aware that no building shall be allowed over the utility and drainage easement. 2. Type I silt fence as per City Detail Plate No. 5300 must be used along the grading area. 3. The applicant shall be aware that any grading over 50 cubic yards shall require a grading permit. 4. To assure drainage flow, submit Certificate of Survey showing the following: - Proposed elevations at each comer of the new tennis court. - Existing property and proposed contours. - Existing neighboring property contours within 25 feet of excavation. - Show drainage arrows of flow direction. - Surveyors original signature on the Certificate of Survey. - Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners that are within 25 feet of the property or that may be affected by the proposed fence for the new tennis court. jms c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer Daniel R. Remer, Engineering Technician III g:Xe ngXmahmoud'anemos\b lackowiak fence.doc The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 2003 SUMMARY MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FENCE IN EXCESS OF 6 Vz FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, LOCATED AT 8140 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE, ALISON BLACKOWIAK. Public Present: Name Address Alison Blackowiak J.D., Jill & Loft Ryan 8140 Maplewood Terrace 8121 Pinewood Circle Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Claybaugh asked what had been done on other applications for tennis courts. Commissioner Papke suggested adding criteria for wind break construction. Commissioner Lillehaug asked staff to differentiate this request from a previous request on Lake Lucy Road. The applicant, Alison Blackowiak, 8140 Maplewood Terrace presented her case. Commissioners had questions regarding notification of neighbors, a wind break, lighting, and the color of the court. Chairman Sacchet opened the public heating. There was no one wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lillehaug had concerns with approving this application when the Planning Commission did not approve the fence request on Lake Lucy Road, and what are the differences? Commissioner Claybaugh stated he would not be in favor of a wind break but would approve the conditional use permit for a 10 foot fence. Chairman Sacchet didn't have a problem with the application. J.D. Ryan, the neighbor behind this property, stated he didn't have a problem with the tennis court fence. After the motion was made, there was discussion around a friendly amendment regarding a wind break. Slagle moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit g2003-3 to construct a ten (10) foot high fence surrounding the tennis court on the property located at 8140 Maplewood Terrace, with the following conditions: 1. The tennis court must not be lit. 2. The fencing must be black to blend with the surroundings. 3. The fence must be built according to the plan dated 6/6/2003. The applicant shall be aware that no building shall be allowed over the utility and drainage easement. 5. Type I silt fence as per City Detail Plate No. 5300 must be used along the grading area. 6. To assure drainage flow, submit Certificate of Survey showing the following: Proposed elevations at each comer of the new tennis court. Existing property and proposed contours. Existing neighborhood property contours within 25 feet of excavation. Show drainage arrows of flow direction. Surveyors original signature on the Certificate of Survey. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners that are within 25 feet of the property or that may be affected by the proposed fence for the new tennis court. 7. If a wind break is added it must be constructed of a blending color. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Lillehaug voted against the motion because he was not in favor of a wind break. He would be in favor of a 10 foot high chain link fence but not the wind break. To summarized the Planning Commission felt tennis courts are allowed. Tennis courts usually have a 10 foot fence. No neighbors have an issue with it. There is distance and screening that mitigate it sufficiently. Where there is a range of opinions is to what extent they would allow potential wind break which currently is not planned, but could potentially be added in the future. Commissioner Claybaugh stated that he felt the wind break was an issue but not enough to vote against the motion. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 2003 VERBATIM MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FENCE IN EXCESS OF 6 ¥2 FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, LOCATED AT 8140 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE, ALISON BLACKOWIAK. Public Present: Name Address Alison Blackowiak J.D., Jill & Loft Ryan 8140 Maplewood Terrace 8121 Pinewood Circle Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah, I have a question. I don't imagine this is the first tennis court in Chanhassen. What have they done previously? Generous: We found two other files. One in a rural residential district and one in RSF district. They approved both of them conditioned on compliance with the submitted site plan. Claybaugh: Okay. Speak to the fence. Generous: 10 feet tall. One said black vinyl and the other didn't specify. It was based on their original site plan. Claybaugh: Okay. Then the additionally the last question I had. Somewhere in here, unfortunately I didn't mark it here, you made reference we're in the process of code review as a body, as the Planning Commission and you indicated that may be something... Aanenson: Right, I was going to point that out. That is something that we should, conditional use you wouldn't deny. You would just add conditions to mitigate the impacts and what we'd like to do since the tennis court is permitted is build those conditions right into our conditional use. Claybaugh: Right, to align the process a little bit. Aanenson: Correct. Develop the criteria that would be appropriate and we'd have that as a separate discussion. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Thanks. Any other questions Kurt? Papke: Yeah, I just had one. Is there any kind of a wind break associated with this fence? Are there slates in the fence or is there a sheeting on there and, no. Generous: No. Papke: Because quite often tennis courts are built with some sort of wind break and I don't know if we want to build that into any of our verbiage in the future or forget about it. I just bring it up because it does come up from time to time and it could affect the appearance. Aanenson: We could build that into the standards. Have some criteria for construction. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. No questions Rich? Slagle: No. Sacchet: Bethany? Bruce? Feik: No. Sacchet: Steve. 3 Lillehaug: Yeah I have one quick one. You've got to dig back in your memory bank here though. A few months ago we had a fence request for a similar height on Lake Lucy Road. What differentiates this request from that request? Other than materials are different. Location directly adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. There's a difference. Generous: It's in a conservation easement. There was existing landscaping there that, that was a privacy fence. That was their whole argument in that one that they were providing privacy and safety for their children and if you look at the fence design, there was 3 feet underneath it that they could go through. We didn't see that it was the need for the approval of that. Aanenson: The other point is, a tennis court is a permitted accessory use. It seems if you can allow tennis courts you need to have the appropriate fencing to go with that. They just don't work together so because it's a tennis court in the middle of a yard as opposed to a perimeter fencing that acted as a barricade, we saw them differently. Lillehaug: So then we're determining what really governs here, the city code for the fence or the allowable use of a tennis court? Aanenson: Allowable use of the tennis court, and we have those throughout the city. So, because that is a permitted use, and in this circumstance, as a conditional use where the fence is taller. It seems appropriate that the two should go together. Lillehaug: When you say we have them throughout the city. Aanenson: Tennis courts. Lillehaug: Do we have them on private property? Aanenson: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: And the 10 foot high is the standard for a tennis court, right? Just I believe the report says that, just want to confn'm that. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: That's all the questions from staff so I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. State your name and address for the record please and tell us your story. Alison Blackowiak: Hi, my name is Alison Blackowiak. I'm at 8140 Maplewood Terrace. I suppose you thought you'd gotten rid of me but no such luck. I'm back again. We are putting a tennis court in in a new house we recently purchased and want to put a fence on three plus sides of it. 10 feet to keep the tennis balls somewhat contained. I think the staff did a good job of outlining the findings. One minor thing that doesn't affect the tennis court, I'd like to put it up. I've added a little dashed area. We're going to be shifting part of the fence a little bit up from this back, move it up here in an effort to save two apple trees that are back there, so the fence, that's a 5 foot section. That has nothing to do with the court, but just so everyone understands that it will come up a little bit more, just so we can save a couple of the trees back there. I don't have anything to add but if anyone has questions I'd be happy to answer them. Sacchet: Question from the applicant? Claybaugh: I have a question. Alison, have you met with your adjacent neighbors regarding the tennis court? Alison Blackowiak. No. My husband had actually talked to a few of them, but we just recently moved in a little over 2 weeks ago so we don't know everyone yet. We know Randy, my husband has met people directly behind us and on either side so the ones that are I think most directly impacted we've met with. Also, Kurt you had talked about the wind break. At this point we're not planning on doing anything. We feel that there are fairly strong winds there and really don't want to anchor anything onto the fence. But if a wind break would be done, it would be a complimentary color. It'd probably be black but I don't anticipate that in the future at all. Sacchet: You had a question Kurt? Papke: Yeah. I assume this is an asphalt tennis court or are you doing clay or grass? Alison Blackowiak. Yes. No, no, no. Asphalt. Papke: That's not an issue in this case but in other cases that would affect the impervious. Alison Blackowiak. Right, yeah. This is a 2 V2 acre site so. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: Would you be opposed to adding a condition restricting your ability to add future wind breaks to the fence? As long as it's been brought up. Alison Blackowiak. I don't know. I mean for me I don't plan on doing it but I don't know that what the, if a wind break is a similar color, In other words, if you have a black fence and use a black wind break, I don't know that you'd necessarily see it. Feik: There are trees around partially. Alison Blackowiak. Yeah. Feik: I mean that's going to do some. Alison Blackowiak. Do some screening, right so would I, I guess I really wouldn't personally wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't see the value of it. I mean I would think if it would be a wind break it would have to be a complimentary color. That would make a little more sense to me than saying absolutely none because throughout the city on a lot of the city courts there are wind breaks and if it's a green fence, it's a green wind break, etc. So ! think that that would be a little more, so you don't have something screaming a totally different color. Feik: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Any other questions? One question. The fu'st condition that was put on said the tennis court must not be lit. I think I know there's a pole there. Alison Blackowiak. There is a pole that was back there that the previous owner, or even two previous owners, I'm not sure, but somebody prior to us purchasing the home had installed. That pole is going to come down. We may have a small light there just for you know decorative lighting but have absolutely no intention of putting lights up on the court. No. Sacchet: Okay, so that's not an issue for you then? Alison Blackowiak: No. Sacchet: Okay, that's all the questions. Anything? Yes, go ahead sir. Papke: Question, the color of the court is green or red? Alison Blackowiak: It's going to be a two tone green. Papke: Two tone green. Alison Blackowiak: Yeah. Papke: Because that can sometimes enter into the aesthetics as well. Alison Blackowiak: Right, yeah. I just felt that that was kind of least offensive for me too. I mean I don't want to look out and see something blue or tan. I thought green would blend nicely. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much Alison. This is a public heating. So I would invite anybody who wants to address this item to come forward. State your name and address for the record please and share what you have to say. We'll listen. Don't see too many people moving. Nobody wants to say anything about that? I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments. Who wants to start? Want to start Bethany? Tjornhom: I guess I don't really have any comments. It makes sense to put a fence up around a tennis court or else you'd, unless you have a really good dog that's going to chase your balls, you need something to stop your balls from going into the neighbors yards and it's just a reasonable request with a reasonable use so I'm in favor of it. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: I wouldn't have any concerns other than wanting to give the applicant clear direction if there's concerns regarding the screening. That we're forthright and give clear direction. Sacchet: Okay. Steve. Lillehaug: I'm actually kind of torn on this. You know why would we allow it for a tennis court and not for privacy reasons. I'm really questioning that in my mind. What's more important? To protect the neighbor from flying tennis balls or to actually like on the Lake Lucy case, have a sense of better privacy with a higher fence. You know which is more important? Papke: I have a question or comment on that, and maybe this is as much to staff. Sacchet: Well let. 6 Lillehaug: Go ahead. Sacchet: Okay. Papke: In reference to this, is this kind of a similar situation to a swimming pool where in the case of a swimming pool I think a fence is mandatory. Feik: But that's a safety issue. Papke: That's a safety issue but. Feik: This isn't a safety issue. Papke: It's not a safety issue but. Aanenson: It could be considered a nuisance, which is an attractive nuisance as a swimming pool is an attractive nuisance. Going back to what Bob said, the other issue was, it was in a conservation easement. Lillehaug: Right. If it wasn't in a conservation easement would it have been approved? Probably not. Would a 10 foot fence been approved there if there wasn't a conservation easement? If it was constructed in the right area. I don't think it would have been approved. Aanenson: I don't know. Sacchet: Well, you made your point. Lillehaug: With the swimming pool, does the city typically or do we allow 10 foot fences for swimming pool? Tjomhom: I think it's 6 feet. Aanenson: 5 foot. Generous: 5 foot is what's mandatory. And the code permits up to 6 V2 feet. Sacchet: Kurt, do you want to jump in? Papke: No concerns. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: With respect to the property on Lake Lucy Road. I think the height of a privacy fence becomes somewhat subjective. There's a lot of people on Lake Lucy Road with no fences, me being one of them. Some people are going to feel more threatened than others. I think the public standard has dictated that a 6 foot fence is sufficient for that use and I think likewise that the 10 foot fence goes hand in hand with the tennis court, is my thinking. The only reservations I had with respect to the application was the wind break and the reasoning behind that was the chain link was more open in appearance and I think a wind break would lend itself towards being more opaque so I would be against adding a wind break but would be prepared to approve the application for the 10 foot conditional use. 7 Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Rich. Slagle: Just a point of clarification fellow commissioners. The wind break, would the reason that you're perhaps against it, well actually let me ask why would you be against it? Claybaugh: Visual aesthetics. Just that the chain link, one of the attributes of the chain link is that the appearance is more open. I think that would take on more of a 10 foot wall appearance with the wind break. Again, a mesh up there or whatever variety it might be. I think that's just inherent with the product. Slagle: Okay. I tend to lean towards supporting this. You know it's not often we see applications from this area, these estates. Now is this a gated community? In all seriousness, I think it's fine. Sacchet: Just a few additional things. First the context with that other situation, fence situation we had before, was it about a year ago or what. That was in a tree preservation easement or a buffer zone where they were supposed to not be any green, no trees cut. Plus there is a regulation as to the, how much fences are allowed along that type of road, which was another conflict. So there were several very distinct conflicts that I would think that they are very distinctly different cases. Plus here it's screened. There is a lot of room around it. I mean I didn't go exactly out on the property and look at it but just looking at it from the cul-de-sac there it seems like the houses are pretty far away. There's a lot of greenery, trees, so I question whether we need to be too restrictive even with the wind break thing. Maybe restrictive to a blending color, I think that would be balanced. But the key element here is, it's my understanding for a conditional use permit in this particular case is to assure that there's no conflict with the neighborhood. There isn't a single neighbor that showed up here. This was obviously sent to all the neighbors. We have one neighbor who missed to speak up. J.D. Ryan: We live directly behind then and would be looking at it and we don't have a problem. Sacchet: You don't have a problem so you're not here to complain about it. So there we go. The only neighbor that is here doesn't have a problem. So I think in those terms, there is no conflict with allowing this conditional use permit. I would like to specify though in the wording that it's specifically a 10 foot high fence surrounding the tennis court. It doesn't say that currently so just to be specific what we are actually approving here. Or recommending approval. And with that I am ready to get a motion. Anybody want to make a motion about this? Please go ahead. Slagle: I'll make the motion. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit//2003-3 to construct a 10 foot high fence around the tennis court. Sacchet: Surrounding the tennis court, yeah. Slagle: Surrounding the tennis court on the property located at 8140 Maplewood Terrace with the following conditions 1 through 3, and then also the findings by the engineer on the back page. Sacchet: Four additional conditions, right? Slagle: Correct. Memorandum dated June 25, 2003. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Sacchet: Any friendly amendments? Claybaugh: Yes, I'd like to submit a friendly amendment to restrict any future wind break on the tennis court fencing. Sacchet: You would restrict it flat out? Claybaugh: Yes. Sacchet: Is that acceptable Rich? Slagle: Maybe I shouldn't have made that. Claybaugh: You can deny it, that's fine. I won't hold it against you. Slagle: That's fine. Sacchet: Okay. Anybody want to make a different friendly amendment? Feik: What about restricting a wind breaks except the western exposure or something like that where the prevailing wind is? A compromise. Sacchet: Or restrict wind break to have blending color? Feik: Blending color and on the westerly side or something like that. Try to get some sort of compromise. Slagle: Can I offer a thought? Feik: Please. Slagle: I would be okay with same color obviously, and then upon the approval of the neighbors. Sacchet: How would we administer that? Feik: What if the neighbors move? That's not fair. Slagle: I'm trying to help you out. Claybaugh: I'd be satisfied with current neighbors. When somebody else moves in, they know what they're moving into at that juncture. Tjornhom: Is it really visible then? This tennis court. Can people drive by and see it or who's looking at this wind break? Feik: Neighbors. But that gets back to the privacy type issue and the opaqueness of it. Slagle: You know, if it's the same color, I mean we've all played tennis. If you've got winds whipping and you're trying to serve or return serve, I mean wind breaks help so if they're the same color I'm okay. Lillehaug: So is it to stop balls or to prevent wind? Slagle: The wind break is to prevent wind. Lillehaug: So the fence is for a wind break now? Slagle: No, it's an addition. It's an add on to the fence. Sacchet: Not currently planned. Did ! hear you accept it the same color? Slagle: No one's made that motion but I would accept same color. Sacchet: Okay, I'll make that friendly amendment. Papke: One thing to consider on the color, you may not want to make the wind break the same color as the black fence. A green wind break or something like that actually might look a lot nicer so we start to specify the color. Sacchet: I said blending color. Papke: Blending color, okay. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. We have a friendly amendment. Slagle moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit g2003-3 to construct a ten (10) foot high fence surrounding the tennis court on the property located at 8140 Maplewood Terrace, with the following conditions: 1. The tennis court must not be lit. 2. The fencing must be black to blend with the surroundings. 3. The fence must be built according to the plan dated 6/6/2003. 4. The applicant shall be aware that no building shall be allowed over the utility and drainage easement. 5. Type I silt fence as per City Detail Plate No. 5300 must be used along the grading area. 6. To assure drainage flow, submit Certificate of Survey showing the following: a. Proposed elevations at each corner of the new tennis court. 10 e b. Existing property and proposed contours. c. Existing neighborhood property contours within 25 feet of excavation. d. Show drainage arrows of flow direction. e. Surveyors original signature on the Certificate of Survey. f. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners that are within 25 feet of the property or that may be affected by the proposed fence for the new tennis court. If a wind break is added it must be constructed of a blending color. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Sacchet: This will go to City Council on the 28t~ of July. And anybody who wants to appeal that can do so. Lillehaug: And then I'd like to make a quick comment on my nay vote. Sacchet: Yes we want to summarize for council here where we're at with that. Do you want to explain why you were opposed first Steve. Lillehaug: Do we need to summarize for council? It was approved. Sacchet: Yes they asked that we do. But do your's first. Lillehaug: Okay. My nay vote is because I would like to see just the chain link fence there. No wind break. Anything on 10 foot up. I think that's too extreme and not needed for a tennis court, but I would approve a 10 foot high chain link fence. Sacchet: The fence is alright but you don't want to have the option of wind screening. Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: In summary, and you can add to that if I don't cover it well. We're clear that this is appropriate. Tennis courts are allowed. Tennis courts customly have a 10 foot fence. No neighbors have an issue with it. There is distances. There is screening that mitigate sufficiently. The only issue where we kind of have a little range of opinions is about how, to what extent we would allow potential wind break which currently is not planned, but could potentially be added in the future. Anybody want to add anything to that summary? Claybaugh: I'd like to clarify my position and that is that I think the wind break is an issue. It's not enough of an issue for me to vote against the application but I still take issue with it on some level. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks Alison. 11