Loading...
1985 07 10 e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 10, 1985 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Thompson, Tom Merz, Susan Albee, Bill Ryan, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit Request to Allow a Group Home for Ten Boys in the R-la District, 2600 Arboretum Blvd., Mid-American Baptist Social Service Group Public Present e Chuck Gabrielson Mid-American Baptist Social Service Olsen stated that the applicant, Mid-American Baptist Social Service Group originally applied for and received a conditional use permit for a group home of 10 boys at the Assumption Seminary site. She stated that due to difficulties in purchasing the site, the applicants have chosen another location for the group home. She stated that the property is located on 20 acres in the R-1A District and consists of a single family home, a detached 2 car garage, a barn and a detached 4 car garage. The building inspector inspected the site and found all buildings to be struc- turally safe. She stated that the applicant will be using the 2 garages for parking and storage and are no plans to use the barn at this time. She stated that the proposal meets the conditions set for a group home. She noted that the proposed group home will have 10 residents and 4 staff and the site has adequate area for parking and it is well screened from the road and neighboring sites. J. Thompson moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #85-8 for a group home with the following conditions: e 1. Compliance with state licensing requirements. 2. Compliance with local building and fire codes. e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1985 Page 2 3. Annual review process (a public hearing process). 4. Compliance with Ordinance 10-A, Individual Sewage Treatment Systems. 5. l~ mile spacing requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit Amendment Request to Allow the Expansion of Outside Storage and Business Activities Associated with a Landscaping Contractor's Yard, Gardeneer, Inc. Public Present Mike Sobraske Michael Murphy Keith J. Boudrie Gardeneer, Inc. 6474 Murray Hill Road 6482 Murray Hill Road Olsen stated that Gardeneer, Inc. received a conditional use per- mit on May 2, 1984 for the outside storage and business activi- ties of their landscaping business. She stated that staff was notified of an expansion of Gardeneer's activity by an adjacent property owner who complained about noise early in the mornings, and especially on weekends. She also noted that the property owner also noticed the expansion when walking along his property lines. She stated that Gardeneer, Inc. was then notified that activity must cease until an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow additional outside storage was approved. She stated that in a letter to the city, Gardeneer explained that due to an excess inventory of landscape materials, an expanded storage area south of the existing area was needed for trees and storage of boulders. She also noted that the increased storage area would only be required until October 31, 1985. She noted that although the area is well screened from neighboring residences, the noise and hours of operation appear to be causing a nuisance for abutting properties, especially in early morning on weekends. She noted that their hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and limited hours on the weekend. She stated that the applicant also has permission from the owner to be using the property temporarily. She stated that the applicant has also notified staff that the boulders will be removed by July 10, 1985. She stated that expanding the area of operation is intensifying the use and staff prefers the use to remain con- tained in the area of the school district site. Olsen stated that the Commission and Council need to evaluate the extent of the expansion of the operation and its effects on adja- cent properties. She noted that the subject area was not origi- nally intended for Gardeneer's activities and expanding the e Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1985 Page 3 area of opertion is intensifying the use. She stated that because the large boulders on site will be removed, vehicle noise from the expanded area is significantly reduced. She stated that removing the trees at this time would severely damage their growth potential and because there is little vehicle use to maintain the trees on a day to day basis, staff recommends that the applicant be allowed to retain the trees until October 31, 1985 as requested in their letter. She stated that staff recom- mends the area should be returned to its original state by November 15, 1985 and not used for expanded activities again. Olsen stated that staff is recommending that specific hours of operation be enforced and recommends the hours be from 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturdays and none on Sundays. She also recommends that an annual review of the conditional use permit be done to insure compliance instead of the stipulated three years from approval. Sam Hanske stated in the spring, a great deal of noise started. He stated that his concern is really the hours and that 7:00 a.m. is really to early to have the noise start. e Keith Boudrie stated that the opening of the fence was illegal and he has requested Tom Wortmann that the fence be closed off and they are discussing whether they are going to close it with gates or just put the fence back. Mike Sabraske stated that they were given permission by the Director of Community Services. He stated that what the school requested is that Gardeneer provide a chain across the opening at approximately 5:00 p.m. He stated that the reason they asked us to do that is there is horseback riders that use that open piece of property and they get onto the football field and tear it up, etc. Albee moved, seconded Noziska, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. Thompson stated that the expansion is remindful of other expansions occurring in the city without the city knowing about it like contractor's yards. Albee felt this was a violation of the original conditional use permit and now they are trying to amend the permit to intensify the use and that was a specific condition of the original permit. e Noziska asked if the applicant knew this was a criminal mis- demeanor. He stated he would have felt better if the applicant had checked it out first with the city. M. Thompson stated that he voted against the original conditional use permit one year ago. r e Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1985 Page 4 Ryan stated that the Commission's concerns over the past three years on conditional use permits is trying to lay some reasonable conditions that can be monitored and meaningful. Albee moved, seconded by M. Thompson to deny the request to amend Conditional Use Permit Request #83-3 and consider revoking the conditional use permit that was originally established and return the site to its original state. Merz asked if the Commission would consider leaving the trees in place until October 31, 1985. Albee stated no. Albee, Ryan, Noziska, and M. Thompson voted in favor. J. Thompson and Merz were opposed. Motion carried. J. Thompson stated he would be willing to let the trees exist on the property until October 31st. He did feel that the total conditional use permit should be terminated after that time. Merz stated that he only objected to the financial loss of moving the trees. He felt that they should move out of there. e Ryan stated that the Commission is concerned with the process of awarding conditional use permits with understanding that the people will abide by the conditions and then to find out that they are not abiding by those conditions. Mike Sabraske stated that this was not done in a malicious manner and he would like to formally apologize to the neighbors and the Planning Commission for that. He would like to continue the operation in cooperation with the neighbors and city. PUBLIC HEARING Land Use Plan Amendment Request to Redesignate 10 acres of Residential Medium Density land to Residential Low Density and to Amend the Location of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area Boundary to include said 10 acres of property zoned R-la and located north of and adjacent to Lyman Blvd. and west of Lake Riley Blvd., Richard Eide, applicant. Public Present Larry Harris Representing Lakeview Hills Investment Group Attorney for Richard Eide Craig Mertz e Dacy stated that the applicant's original land use application was considered by the Planning Commission at their October 24, 1984 meeting. She explained that the matter was tabled so that e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1985 Page 5 staff could locate another ten acre site for the Eide's to swap. She noted that staff could not locate another ten acre site. She stated that the third option remaining was to redesignate a higher density residential area as Low Density and therefore pur- sue a density transfer swap to include the Eide property. She stated that subsequently, the applicant retained an attorney to file a Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the City of Chanhassen. She explained that the Writ claims that the exclusion of the portion of the Eide property constitutes a taking and that the city should award Mr. Eide an appropriate amount of compensation for losses and damages incurred by not including the ten acres in the urban service area. She stated that in June, 1985, the applicant notified the city of his willingness to redesignate ten acres of the medium density resi- dential to low density. She explained that the total parcel totals 60 acres and by redesignating 10 acres of the northerly 20 acres of medium density developable area to low density will result in a reduction of 35 units. She stated that by adding the now excluded 10 acres of low density area to the urban service area will result in the addition of 34 units at maximum and therefore an even swap of units is occurring. Craig Mertz stated that he is representing Lakeview Hills Ivestment Group which owns the property east of the subject par- cel. He stated that his clients had no objection with the application. He stated that they did not want to swap a portion of their property removed from the urban service area that would reduce their development potential. Albee moved, seconded by Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Merz to recommend the City Council approve Land Use Plan Amendment Request #84-5 to redesignate ten acres of Residential Medium Density to Residential Low Density and to change the MUSA boundary to include the southwesterly ten acres of the applicant's parcel subject to Metropolitan Council approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Preliminary and Final Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Request for an 18 Unit Townhome Development and Recreational Beachlot on ro ert zoned R-l and located at 3900 Red Cedar Point Road, Plocher Geske, applicant Public Present Fred Plocher Darel Geske Jim Hill Applicant Applicant Applicant's architect e Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1985 Page 6 Olsen stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for the Red Cedar Cove townhouse development on May 8, 1985. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the townhouse con- cept, but could not support the additional dockage requested on the beachlot. She also noted that the City Council approved the townhouse concept and agreed to further discuss the proposed beachlot. e Olsen stated that the townhouse concept allows the clustering of dwelling units to retain large areas of open space. She stated that this is beneficial in that it lessens any visual or physical impact of development in the immediate area of the shoreline. She also noted that staff maintains its previous position pre- ferring access onto Red Cedar Point Road. She noted that this would prevent additional access onto Minnewashta Parkway and also prevent additional grading along the east side of the road. She stated that the applicant's objective was to maintain as much of the existing topography as possible. She stated that the only major grading will take place between the townhomes and Minnewashta Parkway. She stated that the landscaping designs for the private yard space and entry courtyards were submitted; however, the applicant should also submit a detailed plan for the screening along the south and easterly lot lines using existing vegetation and taking into consideration site lines of the lake for existing residences. Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Albee moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to recommends approval of Preliminary and Final Development Plan Request #85-5 for 18 townhomes based on the plat stamped "Received June 19, 1985" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a detailed landscaping plan for the areas on the south and east property lines; 2. Conditions listed in the City Engineer's memorandum dated July 5, 1985. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conditional Use Permit Request #85-9 for a Recreational Beachlot, Red Cedar Cove, Plocher and Geske, applicants e Dacy stated that there are two conditional use permit requests, one for the beachlot and one for the renovation of the existing structure at the northwest corner of the site. She stated that when the City Council reviewed the townhome request, they felt it was very unique and unlike any other request in the city. She stated that the Council was concerned that a precedent not be e Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1985 Page 7 set with an approval of the proposal for a beachlot, so requested the city attorney to research the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to investigate methods to accommodate a beach lot in conjuction with a clustered townhome development. She stated that the variance application was considered by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the City Council on July 1, 1985. She stated that the Board and Council were also provided with the draft revision of the Recreational Beachlot. She stated the Council denied the variance request by a two to two vote on the following motion: 1. To allow member vehicles ingress and egress to the Homeowners Association to set and remove docks. 2. To allow for overnight mooring and overnight docking of up to a combination of 18 boats slips and moorings. 3. To allow three docks, instead of the proposed two. 4. The dock length will be based on the depth of the water. 5. DNR approval must be obtained. e She also noted that the City Council requested staff to schedule a public hearing on the attorney's proposed ordinance revision and the public hearing is scheduled for July 24, 1985. She stated that DNR has informed staff that the maximum of 12 boat slips would be allowed under present DNR PUD regulations and additional moorings would also be allowed if placement would not cause a navigational hazard. Dacy also noted that on July 15, 1985, the Council moved to reconsider the variance requests at the August 5th meeting. She stated that an absent council member or one opposing the request can ask that the item be reconsidered. Dacy stated the applicant is requesting consideration of his con- ditional use permit request for beachlot improvements including a combination of moorings and slips for 18 watercraft and should the commission approve the request, approval should be con- ditioned on the granting of the variances and approval by the DNR. e Mr. Plocher stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to pre- serve the lake quality and to minimize lake use. He stated that the Recreational Beachlot is also to prevent developers from taking unfair advantage of the lake by putting small lots on the lake. He stated that the ordinance is a wonderful idea but felt it unfair. He stated that if he took out 16 of these homes, and had two townhouses, and have this common area, those two folks on seven acres could not keep a boat on their dock overnight. He e Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1985 Page 8 stated that it is not logical. He stated that they did not create a beachlot, the ordinance created a beach lot for them because with townhomes there is a common area which the ordinance defines as a beachlot. He said that it is of no concern to the Commission or Council of their economic consideration, it is our problem; however he felt indirectly it was. He stated that the intent of the ordinance was to protect the lake and cut down the use and abuse of the lake. He stated that they paid lakeshore values for this special piece of property and if he cannot get lakeshore values out when he resells the townhouse project, they cannot do this project. He stated that everybody they show this project to likes the plan. He stated that this is the best use of the land and if he can't do it he will be forced to do detached homes. He stated that they could have seven individual homes placed on the property, each able to have five boats and that would be 35 boats with 7 docks, out 86 feet. He stated that they only wanted 18. He also stated that those homes would be 75 feet from the water. He stated that the closest townhome would be 150 feet. He stated that this property was extremely intensely used in the past. He stated that he cannot believe there is a precedence, the shoreline is not a wildlife habitat, and there is no road running between the homes and the lake. e Merz asked what is to stop the Leach's from coming in and asking for the same thing on the next lot and so on. Plocher stated that he felt this was a unique situation. He also stated that their variance requests would be just for a company to come in twice a year to put the dock out and pull it out. He also stated that they would not allowing parking on the beachlot. He also had a letter from surrounding neighbors who were in favor of the project and had no objections to the docks or beachlot. Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. M. Thompson felt that the existing beachlot ordinance was appropriate and that there was no need to vary from it. He felt that the applicants had a choice to do other things with the lot. Noziska also felt that the ordinance should not be varied from. He did like the idea of the townhomes and the open space. He stated he would be inclined to go along with the DNR recommen- dation of 12 boats. e J. Thompson also stated that the beachlot ordinance should not be changed. He felt that 18 boat slips would be a reasonable request and has no problem with a 100 foot dock. He stated that the Water Surface Usage Ordinance was put into place to clean up Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1985 e Page 9 the lakes and felt that this is a move in the right direction. He stated that the applicants have created a park allowing a cer- tain number of spaces instead of the Leach property where trailers were parked everywhere. He also stated that this property is going to be developed and this is the best plan. Merz felt that they would be setting a precedent by allowing the slips. He felt it would help in destroying the lake. Albee felt that 18 slips was a reasonable use of the property. She felt that this plan was a good concept for the land as well as the lake. She stated that she made a point of talking with some of the neighbors individually and got nothing but favorable comments. She felt that the beachlot ordinance should be reviewed very soon. She stated that she would not like to see this divided into a little subdevelopment which would intensify the land and lake use. Ryan felt that they should not ignore any professional agency's recommendation such as the DNR recommending only 12 slips. e Merz moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to deny the proposal for 18 slips and proposed docks; however, recommending the applicant install one dock and conform with the provisions of the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. J. Thompson, Merz, Ryan, Noziska and M. Thompson voted in favor. Motion carried. Albee was opposed. Albee stated that this proposal is a very good use of the property and the ordinance in question definitely needs to be reviewed. Conditional Use Permit Request #85-10 for a Boathouse, Red Cedar Cove, Plocher and Geske, applicants Plocher stated the old building which exists on the property would be partially removed and the rest of the structure would be remodeled to match the townhouses. He stated that the use for the proposed building would be that there would be 18 small rooms for the residents to keep their life preservers, fishing equip- ment, etc. He stated that it would be landscaped and would be a real professional looking building with a six foot fence running from the lakeshore back to the project. e Albee moved, seconded by Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. - Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1985 Page 10 The Commissioners were concerned about the difference between a boathouse and accessory storage building. Dacy stated that a boathouse is defined as a structure that is used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment. She stated that the DNR regulations allow for a boathouse within the setback via a conditional use permit. She stated that because it is an existing structure and its size will be decreased, approval of the conditional use permit is recommended. Olsen stated that if the building was an accessory building, the applicants would be encroaching in the setback and would need a variance; however, a boathouse may encroach in that setback area. Albee moved, seconded by Noziska, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #85-10 for a boathouse subject to the following conditions: 1. The boathouse cannot be used for habitation and cannot con- tain sanitary facilities. 2. Submission of a detailed landscaping and architectural plans _ at the time of building permit application. J. Thompson, Merz, Albee, Ryan, and Noziska voted in favor. M. Thompson was opposed. Motion carried. M. Thompson felt that if it were a beachlot and the structure was not there, it could not be built. APPROVAL OF MINUTES J. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee to approve the June 26, 1985 meeting minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Barbara Dacy, City Planner - Prepared by: Vicki Churchill 7-19-85