Loading...
1d. CUP for 102 Sandy Hook Rd. Id, C ITY 0 F PC DATE: May 15, 1991 j' CH�ANH�SSEN•II CC DATE: June 10, 1991 \ I . \� � CASE #: 91-3 CUP �l-,- - • By: Olsen/v II I STAFF REPORT il . . PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit for a Water Oriented Accessory IStructure Located within the 75 Foot Shoreland Setback I- IZ LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lak.etion by City Admin ratot QEndorsed ✓ D�Ac I U APPLICANT: Peter. Moscatelli ?Acidified 102 Sandy Hook Road Rejected _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Date 6-5- ql Date Submitted to Commission I 4 Dete Submitted to —~ Council IPRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family- ACREAGE: DENSITY: I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Lotus Lake S - RSF; single family IE - RSF; single family Q W - RSF; single family i'm WATER AND SEWER: Available to site. I ; PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site has an existing single family I W residence and a sloped area toward the center. of the lot. I (" 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential I II '- \ , •+I Fox/.OLLOW w ' \ ,, , •� ∎� lelir�D# �i RIVE s,•., eA '' Nk 4 gr,t;co--6 ini ,„,„,,dhall • -,_ •,■*/14 ii : Fo , 4,,,..1i A'�'—I RSF N �" �IL'I.n�, , OcouRr = rAlilt .11 6600/, \rtar•ii\. i R _ ‘ 111, . E.10 ( )riAL-i-o,tv � ,, • , —R Propose-4 or1 � li , I :_ - -- - 6700 elk miNnnn ` rr ,, '' T'' Tiiamp:..:54 \11 tclW 'da RD m1 `- �� 1.41/ _ ___ - � � x/1116 j .• T!}}�� �0t► ���'- pa LOTUS ��- \� ` 6900;410\-,ft -07' .., •Tirramvr.„ - : 140.1.01110 % ,„,,,,,‘,.,0% �' a Awl � 7000 •• W Ow lima, MIMI 'I �� 7100 1 � � pwstupro■ t ue rot14� .7 111 +..,\ ; c 4104 E Elam , 4 ` , • . .tm� LA 1 se. t : F ■111 . 7200" ,�It < � 1 41 a� owl P! � L A AE \ f iti' nA � Q � � � = V -` � ■■ 11 ♦� - Ea Nadal.. iraiNoitil,;.‘b U1:7 Ong 4 .-:' , r,L1■o��1i vs., 4;-0 7R 40 0 f IM t... \I,‘\m■.___■. i__",._n:.__:: o. g .e co - .. ..,4411: - -§- -- _ LD to co , OM .--;:-.■ I-7 ljesiei PI oriel IF 1111101 r1)\ - '.....1 iv t. ■ tlirj'it :::12! :,V 1 4!±. a 1_,fm_.I LII WI git0 \ o' ter. ors iiuErim ellvi ■era E �.. 11/4- �t " 3 .,i.t 1••- V01 1/ % —1.,t ..I.1I 0 IF11r--1/1.I,. .,. ,.ar. at" i.a 1g � 7411 ! unr,1I 1. ;I..111 • 71 H STIFEEr •• - - ■ 11111 111111 / • ,1 um a'lilt"• . /.° Pte'' ` u.-.: . _ _ _- t-i1rr-,.-s—4---id_ 3 loP . ~091.- w low: w�∎...��low_ ri...., IGHVIO _ .1111M - , O • 111 • �����l , w 0 J tI Moscatelli CUP May 15, 1991 Page 2 1 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The Shoreland Ordinance permits a water oriented accessory structure to be located within the shoreland setback with a conditional use permit. The applicant is proposing to construct a 120 square foot storage building 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake and 10 feet from the westerly side lot line. The accessory structure is located at the base of a slope in the rear yard. The applicant cannot meet the 75 foot shoreland setback unless the slope is altered and some vegetation removed. The accessory structure is proposed to be constructed of cedar shakes and cedar siding and painted the same color as the home. There is wetland fringe vegetation between the proposed accessory structure and Lotus Lake which will serve to screen the proposed accessory structure. The shed will be used for storage of boat equipment and lawn equipment. The building will be landscaped into the hillside so that it will not limit the view of the lake from the applicant's home or the neighbors. The natural wetland area between the accessory structure and Lotus Lake will not be disturbed and landscaped shrubs between the accessory structure and the lake will also help screen the view of the accessory structure from the lake. I The new Shoreland Ordinance, which has not yet been adopted by the City, allows each lot to have one water oriented accessory structure within the shoreland setback if the structure does not exceed 10 feet in height and exceed an area greater than 250 square feet. The setback of the structure must be at least 10 feet from the ordinary high water mark and must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, color, etc. The facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Since the new Shoreland Ordinance has not been adopted by the city, the applicant must still go under the old regulations and receive a conditional use permit. The proposal by the applicant does meet the new criteria for a water oriented accessory structure in terms of the required setback, height and design of the structure. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. I PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit of the with staff's recommended conditions with clarification that the structure, roof and exterior be cedar shakes and cedar siding; and that vegetation must be maintained for the purpose of screening. I • I/ I I Moscatelli CUP May 15, 1991 Page 3 The Planning Commission also wanted it clearly stated for the City Council that the applicant stated the maximum height of the structure will be 7 feet. STAFF UPDATE The applicant has stated that the highest point of hte structure would not exceed 8 feet. He was not sure of the height when he said 7 feet at the Planning Commission meeting. He felt the ' structure might exceed 7 feet at the rear. Therefore, staff is amending condition #3 to state 8 feet rather than 10 feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #91-3 as shown on plans dated May 8, 1991, with the following conditions: 1. The structure must have an exterior of cedar siding and a roof of cedar shakes and painted a similar color as the principal structure. 2. The structure may not be used for human habitation and may not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. ' 3 . The structure may not exceed a height of 8 feet. 4. The applicant must maintain vegetation for the purpose of screening between the water oriented accessory structure, Lotus Lake and neighboring properties. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Application. 2. Site plan. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 1991. I I i CITY OF CHANHASSEN 890 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: z°fi 1'c MG G c C kt<I (1 OWNER: — Os^^^.12-- ADDRESS: tG cexvj i l`-c L 12.1) ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) ct 7 4 161 TELEPHONE: 14-q—© � 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision Conditional 2. � Cod o a Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit ' 5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning ` ' g 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review ' 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ A A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8W X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. I * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 1 IPROJECT NAME / ( LOCATION ( k_ 1 (C- v' l n 6(z)«._ VAS I C C ekv,e9 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION • I PRESENT ZONING IREQUESTED ZONING • PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION IREQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST -e/ -re's r 1-6,4•Jt/1/4— 1,4 C S j je 4 e• LN\.'L.t • IThis application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly 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. 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 to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party I 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 purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I 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 Iof my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. , ISignature of Applicant D to Signature of Fee Owner Date IApplication Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on ._ . , , . I •••••.............. ...••■•••••••••■■■•• ••••■••.............•■••••■•■••••■••■•■ \ , I I ! - 0 G"1. ..-', i■•••K---> ll'•‘0.. ■ • . .\\ I cotwrov,..1t4iTi . r1 ATE PA.-2.V.. I / PLAT 1 ik2e 4' • . / A•0". '''''''''\Its...://:14.:\ 1 • ■ ‘. i . 1- ,‘, .../ -s . 2-‘ I: :..6 .■ I' • 1 . '''M . P •••-• -s-7 CA) fiN.4 N -4 ilft • , ..., ---7 / ....„,,I, * *. 1-- N C..:■ r-' -.. N, • I 1 ! , it, -,,,' y -..- %A° •‘,0* - --\\, \ , ... r $ 00.111 1-".‘') _ /56 •••...„ ...... t., . . t • , e, 1•!-•, - ' r, • 1.1,4k------;\ --•1.17.7-,C;-,5:::'I.s-7.- t,,," :;):,-.Z.,--"*".-- -....,„,.- , j .:--7 2, \ \ ,, %>-_,„,•40 7,'..tz- -',1:'.--‘L.:- ' - <bk.' -- ' p-.f - ,. _.„...-.•"‘pa/ . - .:.;%-,,, 4011:, t• ..1-4,i e*--:,- 01 7-cc....-4C)" ft.,--=',4r'" ‘1,,,,4,"440 -•.': -..-.4„.,., .. Os-iv, -1-0 6.• •'''•:4'*- • ' . „. 'i. • : .-,:..-- . . . •. ._. r k '-1111 ._. : ,..0____- ■••■ ,-.....e'-4.-:-.- -0'"*".-7.........--;1-1•°‘7!" 1 -.2,''- t) •4 ,e, Vit .4.1 - 1974,7 t- .:.-,‘ v - -.: .1. - 2:5 .,,&: I Xi>6 4 .• '- . to" h4 1 *s. \ • •!...,A ... it; k ' ro4 5 4,41, - ;-- f PT:4 __. ,,,_\ \ --;:•'. ,115f,,).....-------1•11; t, ..t , '114 ,•• A li...?";- if 241 • ' '..-1.- -3 1 el \ % 7., re, 1,150.......,-"'". ...- 2 r ' --:'''.7' \ ' ' - V '1' I • (.1 2. t . to \ l: L-•-• --t i -1, -. — q t ' : ,---.91S)i I X.ri.,,li1 n f..-..-; 11 L—o 1.'!,,-,%, ;■ >--- 7'.1\—t- •,..1 , \ . ........10......4-, .,.--it.--.----•'--...'2j•,4r"-e'4.'.-X4..-J:.f:;O 4,z6-r.-,.‘%ic‘•-,-0 -:., •.\ '-• °... \t4 I 4- : 0.-1..A. \40 _ I- -- _ -~- ' ,, `, . ' ' L (] TL.] ^i" L4 k E ` I . \^c /IA c.5CceJ^ } ( | . I .~~~-=' _- - � - -'_ / / / __ ' / _-'-_ - -_-- --_-- I -- .� 1 /-- --__ --_- '--__- ----- --~- --- - I . _ - - ,■ ' . _- - ~.- - - I // _ -= ---. -�- _ | \ \ \ i - - - _ _ \ ___ � \ I _____- --- 2uvsa��n, \ \ --_ ~ . ' \ ^^ ' _\ � • s• - s, 1 -- - \ii 'r---%/.- .... CROVAIL COVE'St ..\...__.__..._3_ ::i it_ir..--45:_e_xerksI.41...5-N_14.-------------=..-.1---..- -- ------- - - x (wINTARGRefros"...,\ _i__ 10 1.1 v01111.ET A ,......,,....z...,1 • • 2'C Nb. ''.- C) 0 ARTE• V;14.1TE...rel.2:1:' I 10 • aregraftr _de dillvicitc.24..5: PLANTED) .... .--____1 i__t , I —NA' AMMIIIIIIIIT1111111- I % ___........,...__.(Tv An s ' .. P. ,Agnimais mi..: •. ..,gm ..,„ .. . .,.......... ......1•LEN',_ ... -, .. . ,„ - ...,,,.■--Fin MINIUMIIIIV ■ • \ N, —1 -----\ —...\,k N., ■S' I t — H ,—,---- ..„,, _ _ , . ,..7, , ,,,,., ;__ ) v ( 1 i '' ------......__ ... \, i 1 N. N i '1 i •C, v-S . ) ( , —... ........... I \( _ i 1 I 1 cli . __ _ •:., • . . , i; i 1-- — _Ill ,.........____.— \ , rf • I -1 • 1 1 s , i I ! \ t . I . i - ( I I e-- 11i f (N) aji I :::--• ..... -_ . _ .. - I -----1 ..-- __ ......... . ,.• C.- St ql) ( • . I I..... ..... 17 i ‘-• C 0 _A\ -.' .- - 4 S il +-i ".:■ 1 I 1. V) ..r.' e..2) } 12 ..r ! _ j- `''' . ''''' , I --_,. 'J-i 4--- -4--- • i 1 ri ,,,,,' I \a. S) ■ i L '-- 1-- Nr I. , ‘ I ..., t c'd li , t4i C III g - \\.-...—...------.-• \ .4• 1 (-'4 i--- _ I Agizv•6<ali--k•6v,_, �e9 stL,Cs0 f- j 6e_ S ate_vvt w j-cv\ic..- I \r.e,c-k, :C &m 1 ,C(_) 1. -- .tx, C ;N uCk Le (,-eK c C . ttiia( I 4.Q_ (AR-- r1:5 A ( Pfck'c) CaJ gz. p L vveRreLq 1 1 1 1 ? - - - . it� 1 =( 6 ( Q1 1 1 1 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 1991 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:37 p .m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Annette Ellson , Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner and Steve Kirchman , Building Inspector II PUBLIC HEARING: - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE SHED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK FOR PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 102 SANDY HOOK ROAD, PETER MOSCATELLI . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . ' Emmings: What is the status of the adoption of the new Shoreland Ordinance? ' Olsen: We 've gotten our notification that we have to do it . I 'm going to be meeting with Ceil next month to get the process initiated . Emmings: What do you have to do? Olsen: We have to pretty much review all the lake designations to still make sure if it 's a recreational or environmental . Then we go through a checklist of what our ordinance currently , what we have to change . Just go through the shoreland regulations and whether or not we agree to them and II change whatever we want to change . Emmings: Wasn 't there something about us having to have it done by a I certain time? Olsen: 2 years . We have until January of 1993. Emmings: Oh , okay . When do we expect to get it done? Olsen: When do we expect to? ' Emmings: Yeah . Olsen: Well I was hoping to do it this summer . But next year , I .would not II count on it being completed until next year . Batzli : Until the summer of 1992? Olsen: Yes . Emmings: So , alright . This is a public hearing . If the applicant is here , this would be an opportunity to tell us anything additional . - Peter Moscatelli : I 'm here but I don't really have anything additional . I • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting IMay 15 , 1991 - Page 2 ' Emmings : Alright . Are there any other members of the public here that want to address themselves to this application? Is there a motion to close the public: hearing? 1 Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was °closed. I Erhart : Why do we restrict water supply? What difference does it make? Is it the applicant 's request or staff 's request to restrict the water . . .? IIOlsen: You mean for habitation? Erhart : No . I understand the habitation . I 'm just saying why not , why I can 't he have a water hose? I mean a guy can put a hydrant anyplace out there . A guy could put an underground sprinkler system in . What 's the reason for that? I Olsen: I think that 's the wordage that the DNR uses for the restriction so I don 't know why it couldn 't have water supply . I think it was more for habitation . For cleaning fish or something . IErhart : Oh yeah . I mean clearly . Everybody . . .habitation . That 's my only comment . . .that just seemed , I don 't know why that 's in there . ' Emmings : And along the same lines you know , there 's a lot of our lakes , the sewer goes between the house and the lakeshore . It 'd be very easy , if you wanted to bring the water in too and water 's actually harder to get in . ' But having a toilet or something in there . . . Erhart :' You mean your concern someone would use it for human habitation? Emmings: I don 't really care but I 'm sure that 's what the DNR 's concerned about . IErhart : I just think sometimes it 's useful for accessory buildings to have a hydrant for like putting out lawn sprinklers and stuff. I 'm just wondering why . IEmmings: Or just gardening or potting or whatever . I Conrad: Was the resident to the north sent a notification? Or to the west? Olsen: Right . Everyone within 500 feet . . . I know that even Mr .. Pfankuch Ior Frost was in . Is he to the west of you? Peter Moscatelli : He 's to the east . IOlsen: The resident to the west , they were notified . Peter Moscatelli : There 's actually not a resident . Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 3 Conrad: Is that a vacant? ' Peter Moscatelli : It 's a vacant lot . Conrad: What is our standard for height on a building? It says 10 feet . That 's our current standard . What is the standard for size? Olsen: For size? , Conrad: Yeah . Olsen: Well now the ordinance , it can't be like 1 ,000 square feet . Conrad: Because that 's a back , that has nothing to do with a lake ordinance? That 's really just a residential lot ordinance? Olsen: Right . That 's our accessory structure . Conrad: Accessory structure . Olsen: What 's the height of the building that you 're putting-up? ' Peter Moscatelli : Oh , well . It would be a maximum about 7 feet . . . I 'll keep it as short as possible because it 's kind of down , tucked into the hill so the visibility from my house to the lake over it . Conrad: And what do you think if somebody built to the west of you , do you think it 's going to be , is it obstructing any visual line of sight that you II can see? Peter Moscatelli : No , not at all . Because the lake is off in the western I diretion so that lot would be the other way and the building is back from the lake . . . Conrad: I guess I 'm uncomfortable with the ordinance . I don 't know where I staff is coming from in terms of the next ordinance that we take a look at but the 10 feet in height in my mind is not acceptable . This has nothing to do with the applicant right now . That's not an acceptable height to me . II Olsen: . . .high? Conrad: Yes , absolutely . 10 feet is as high as this ceiling. On the lake II side , I just can't imagine . If my neighbor put up a 10 foot building , that 's going to block my , that 's going to be offensive . We 're not dealing with a back yard . We 're dealing with the lake side which many people treat as a front yard . It 's a whole different mentality here . The 75 foot setback change to 50 , that doesn 't bother me too much because , environmentally that doesn't bother me . There 's enough screening and things like that? In 50 feet you can do a lot so I 'm comfortable with that . I 'm not comfortable that the new ordinance or wherever we 're going is taking care of neighbors and that 's why I was asking if the neighbors II were in fact notified? I think in this particular , in a 250 foot standard , 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 4 ' again that 's a big building in somebody 's front yard . Well on the lake and if we 're talking boat houses , I 'm not sure what we 're talking about.. I 'm really kind of uncomfortable with maybe what I see . The staff report is saying our new standards are going to be . I think we need to look at them . I think we need lake people input to tell us whether they 're right or wrong and obviously we ' ll go through a public hearing but I think we should make ' an effort , and I know Jo Ann you will , to make sure the lake associations are informed . That aside , the applicant and what they 're asking for , what he 's asking for tonight , I 'm comfortable with. I just don 't know that; I guess I 'm only uncomfortable with am I setting a precedent? Is there any ' precedent setting , you know we haven 't gone through a public hearing and we 're saying 50 feet is okay because that 's what our new standard is going to be and I 'm not sure yet . I haven 't had the input . Ellson: Something new proposed? ' Conrad: Right . And so I 'm trying to justify it based on something I 'm not sure of but I do feel that the applicant 's proposal is acceptable based on what I can see . ' Ellson: I agree that it looks fine . I did want to tell Peter though. I was greeted at the curb by your nice growling dog so I didn 't really get to see the back yard . After talking with him , the dog kind of liked me but as. ' I took a couple more steps he started growling so I didn 't even come closer . Batzli : Sam? Is there a dog house back there with Sam on it? IPeter Moscatelli : Yeah . ' Batzli : Okay . I called the dog the wrong name . Apologize for me . Ellson: Yeah , he didn 't quite like redheads but I don 't have a problem ' with it . Batzli : Is that about where the structure is going to go? Back where the dog house is? IPeter Moscatelli : Yeah . Batzli : Because really then the vacant lot to the west is it? That 's really up a slope in addition to the dog house being down a slope so I guess I don 't have a problem with this particular location . I Peter Moscatelli : If I could comment on the location of the structure . It would tend to obscure the view of the lake from my house more than anywhere so I 'm kind of taking on every effort to minimize that . To be as short as ' possible and to be tucked into the hill as much as possible . Batzli : I just had a comment on the first condition . I assume when we say I that it 's made of cedar siding , that we 're talking about it has an exterior of cedar siding? Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 5 Olsen : Right . ' Batzli : And in number 4 Jo Ann . Does that mean they have to maintain vegetation between the accessory structure and Lotus Lake and the accessory II structure and the neighboring properties? In other words , it 's between the water oriented accessory structure and both Lotus Lake and neighboring properties . • Olsen: Right . Batzli : I guess just really hypertechnical but I mean there 's a path that I goes down there right now so obviously it 's not like contiguous . Olsen: With the lake , right . Batzli : That 's okay? You 're just talking about you need some natural vegetation around the structure? Olsen : And to maintain what 's there . Maintain that screen . Batzli : That 's all I have . ' Farmakes: I think it 's in an unobtrusive spot . I don 't see where it 's going to bother any line of sight or anybody 's visual sight to the lake and I I have no objections to this . - Ahrens: I think the site is fine too . I don 't have any problem with it 'although I 'm kind of curious as to why we call this a water oriented accessory structure . It just seems like it 's a storage shed located near a lake . Olsen: That 's essentially what it was . But also one of the main purposes II of this was for his canoes and paddles and boats . Ahrens: But it doesn 't have to be used for a water accessory structure? ' Olsen: No . Ahrens: It doesn 't have to be used for . Olsen : No . It can be used for others . Ahrens: . . .anything that says they have to use it for any specific purpose? Olsen: No . He can still put his lawnmower in there. Ahrens: Why is it called water oriented then? ' Olsen: Again I 'm just starting to , that 's the terminology used in the DNR regulations currently and the new one where it is primarily for the boat accessories . Motors , things like that that need to be closer to the lake 1 I Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 6 ' so people don 't have to haul it. as far . That 's one of the reasons that they 've allowed exceptions into the 75 foot setback . ' Ahrens: But it doesn 't really have to be used for that? Olsen: No . ' Ahrens: Something seems odd there to me . I don 't know . It seems like if it 's not going to be required to be used for water oriented activities , why should we give any special treatment as to how close it is to the lake? The setback . Batzli : I think the people who live on the lake would say that anything I built between the house , the standard kind of line of the houses are inbetween the lake and should be considered that so you don 't end up with things on the lake . You need to have that setback whether it 's going to be oriented for water uses or just a backyard tool shed . IAhrens : I understand that but I 'm wondering why we call it something if it doesn 't have to be used for that purpose . ' Batzli : Because it gives it more restriction if you call it that . IAhrens: How? Batzli : Because then it needs to have a larger setback . I mean if you just called it a tool shed and you didn 't consider that you were on the I lake , then you just need what? A 5 foot , 10 foot setback off the back lot line? ' Emmings: No . No , because you can 't build a structure within 75 feet of the lake . To have a structure in that area it must be either a boat house or a• water oriented accessory structure . You can 't put the 1 ,000 foot . IOlsen: Garage . Emmings: Yeah , or the storage building within 75 feet of the lake . But ' you can build something you call , so you change the name a little bit . I think as a matter of fact Joan , I have one of these . I have a water oriented . Ahrens: What 's in your shed? I Emmings: All the inflatables that you blow up for the kids to play on . The paddles and the knee boards and the ski equipment and it would be , life would be pure hell for me if I didn 't have it I can tell you . IAhrens: Well , that was my point . Emmings: But I think as a matter of fact people , at least with my ' neighbors and things , the stuff like lawn mowers and all the stuff you normally put in a storage shed stays away from the lake side and the stuff Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 7 that gets down there by the shore is , it 's either picnic stuff or directly II associated with the lake somehow . Ahrens: I was just noticing that the applicant said it was going to be used for storage of lawn equipment . That 's all I have . Emmings: Alright . The only thing I 've got is in number 4 . It seems to me '' that the applicant should be required to screen this by vegetation . Not just maintain by vegetation . But other than that , I don 't really have .a problem with this . Is there any further discussion? Conrad: Are we setting a precedent on this case? 1 Olsen : I don 't believe so . Conrad: Are we prejudicing the new ordinance in any way? Olsen: Oh no . I 'm still using the same criteria that we 've dealt before II with . • Emmings: Under the new ordinance this would be a permitted use if we adopt II it the way it is . Here it 's a conditional use permit and we 're going under the old , I guess we 're going under the old ordinance . The only question is , that I suppose you could raise would be , if we don 't want these things at all and if we 're going to make a stricter standard than the new ordinance that 's coming out , do we want to apply that in this case? Maybe that 's the same question you 're asking . Ahrens: But if we don 't know what the standard is , how can we apply it? Emmings: It 's hard to apply a standard you haven't made yet . Conrad: All you can do is what we 're doing and the only thing we 've got is 75 feet . Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of conditional use permit #91-3 as shown on the plans dated May 8, 1991 with the following conditions . Condition 1 to read, the structure must have an I exterior of cedar siding and a roof of cedar shakes and be painted a similar color as the principal structure . Number 2 and 3 as in the staff report . Number 4 to read , the applicant must screen the water oriented accessory . Now wait a minute. What did you have for that? Emmings: It doesn 't make sense the way I have it . Ahrens: How about for the purpose of screening? Vegetation for the purpose of screening . Batzli : Alright . The applicant must maintain for the purpose of screening I between the water oriented accessory structure and both Lotus Lake and neighboring properties . 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 8 ' Emminja : Is there a second? Ellson: Second . ' Emmings : Any discussion? Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Conditional Use Permit #91-3 as shown on plans dated May 8, 1991 with the following conditions: 1 . The structure must have an exterior of cedar siding and a roof of cedar ' shakes and painted a similar color as the principal structure . 2 . The structure may not be used for human habitation and may not contain ' water supply or sewage treatment facilities . 3 . The structure may not exceed a height of 10 feet . I4 . The applicant must maintain for the purpose of screening between the water oriented accessory structure and both Lotus Lake and neighboring properties. IAll voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1 . IEmmings: Ladd why? II Conrad: No reason . No , I 'm a little bit uncomfortable with the 10 foot standard . I think I 'd like to review the new ordinance before , or the new standards that we applied . I Emmings: Well , but my understand Ladd is that he 's got to have a 7 foot maximum . That 's the plan we 're approving for him . I Conrad: I didn 't see that on the plan . It can 't go to 10 but it 's not 7 feet . Emmings: Wait a minute . We 're approving his plan . Has he presented a Iplan of the structure showing a height? Olsen: It doesn 't really show the height on it . Emmings: Alright . IConrad: It passed . Erhart.: Can you make -sure it 's clear in the Minutes what you 're . ' Emmings: Well I certainly passed it with the understanding that it 'd be 7 feet maximum is what he told us . Olsen: I 'll put that to the Council when it goes to Council . Planning Commission Meeting May 1E , 1991 - Page 9 Batzli : Well I think , not to put words in his mouth that that 's the walk II in height and then you have a peak . Is it 7 feet at the highest? At the peak? - Peter Moscatelli : Yeah . I can't imagine , it certainly wouldn 't be more than 7 1/2 or 8 feet . Very close to 7 feet . There 's a requirement on the pitch which it has to . . . I would try pretty hard to keep it within . Conrad: But it 's also dug into the hill . Peter Moscatelli : Yeah . The hill would . . .probably at least that high . Conrad: Visually I think it 's going to be . . .uncertain with some of our standards and I 'm making a point . Emmings : Okay . And for his benefit this will go to the City Council when? June 10th? Olsen : June 10th . ' PUBLIC HEARING: , INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE DRIVING RANGE AT SWINGS GOLF RANGE ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2 AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, JOHN PRYZMUS. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . , Emmings: John , do you want to address us on this at all? John Pryzmus: Yeah . ' Emmings : If you could come up here please . John Pryzmus: Just a couple things . The plan that I used when I did the II alterations was a plan that you have had . It was done by a landscape architect in 1986 so that 's with the berming and what was proposed in 1986 I is what we had . And I just had never finished anything north of the parking lot so up until this point , I did all the berming from the north of the parking lot to the end and I did an additional berm to screen my equipment because the equipment is then sitting in the parking lot . And so II the additional berm to the north . Now as far as the additional tee area , you know it 's not at this point, and never will be , it 's for the golf pro and his student . I just wanted him to be away from the rest of the people II and the club which is coming out so staff is protraying it as a big expansion to my operation . It 's just one person teaching another person how to golf back there . The batting cages would be all outdoors . There would be nets similar to . . . And the building there would be for the golf pro for his office and you have TV's in there to review your video of your swing and that . Then I would have it for an additional storage for the winter . My equipment is getting pretty beat up . I can't keep anything '