Loading...
1986 02 26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1986 - Vice-Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Ryan STAFF PRESENT Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City planner and vicki Churchill, Secretary. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot and to construct a storage building on 5,500 square feet of property zoned R-l and located at 9241 Lake Riley Boulevard, sunnyslope Homeowner's Association, applicant Public Present - Steve Burke Bill Boyt Eunice Kottke Rudy & Lucille Remus Mairan Dewitt Paul & Suzanne Olson Joy Tanner Don sitter applicant 7204 Kiowa Circle 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. 9245 Lake Riley Blvd. 9225 Lake Riley Blvd. 9239 Lake Riley Blvd. 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Olsen stated that the Sunny Slope Homeowner's Association pre- viously applied for a conditional use permit to allow the lot to become a recreational beach lot and have an existing dock comply with the zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission considered the request on August 8, 1984 for the beachlot which also requested permission to: 1. Install a seasonal dock. 2. Install two canoe racks. 3. Install a privacy fence. 4. Allow overnight storage of four watercraft. - Olsen stated that the request required variances to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to allow overnight storage of four watercraft and a dock on a lot with less than 100 feet in width. She stated that the Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to deny the conditional use permit request for a recreational beach- lot. e Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1986 Page 2 She stated that the conditional use permit and variance requests were withdrawn by the applicant before it was reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the City Council. She stated that the applicant stated that DNR allowed the dock, for storage of four watercraft, without the need of a permit. She stated that the City replied that a dock could not be a principle use of a property and ordered the dock removed. Olsen stated that the applicant is again requesting a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot with the following improvements: 1. One 32 foot dock. 2. Overnight storage of four watercraft. 3. Two canoe racks (6 canoes each). 4. Front and side yard fencing. 5. A 20 foot sand blanket. 6. A 12' x 21' storage building. e Olsen stated that the zoning Ordinance states that a recreational beachlot must have at least four lineal feet for each dwelling unit that has access to the recreational beachlot. She stated that Sunny Slope Addition has 12 dwelling units which results in a minimum requirement of 48 feet for a recreational beachlot. She stated that the ordinance also states that there must be at least 100 feet at the ordinary high water mark and at a point 100 feet landward for a recreational beachlot to have a seasonal dock. She explained that the lot has enough width to be used as a beachlot, but 100 feet is required for a seasonal dock and thus the need for a variance. Olsen also explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a 12' x 21' storage building, approximately 70 feet from the ordinary high water mark. She stated that Section 7.04 (9 [A]) states that no structure shall be erected on a recreational beachlot and again a variance will be required for the storage building. Olsen explained that a third variance is required for the over- night storage of four watercraft in which section 7.04 (9[D]) prohibits the overnight storage of watercraft. She stated that the same section does allow the storage of canoes. Olsen stated that these variances are scheduled for review by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council on March 17, 1986. e Olsen explained that the proposed sand blanket is regulated by the DNR and the applicant will have to receive DNR approval. e Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1986 Page 3 She stated that details of the proposed fencing have not been submitted, but staff is recommending that it not exceed six feet in height to reduce screening the view of the lake from adjacent residences. e Steve Burke stated that the Homeowner's Association is attempting to develop its lot into a recreational beachlot. He stated that they have looked at this in a number of ways with their attorney and their attorney indicates that they should request one more time from the City, to have the lot designated as a recreational beachlot with the improvements indicated which are slightly dif- ferent from the previous request. He stated that the Homeowner's Association has attempted to look into the future and ask for what they feel will accommodate them at that time. He stated without access to the lake, the lot holds very little value to them. He stated that their attorney has told them that they have a couple of options. He stated that one is to come back and see if they can get the recreational beachlot as submitted. He stated that if they can not get approval of the request, the other option would be to build a single family home on the pro- perty. He stated that the lots next to the subject lot received variances to construct a single family residence and felt that they could also receive those variances. He stated that if they built a single family home on the lot, they would automatically be allowed a dock with up to five boats to be stored overnight. He stated that what he is looking for is feedback from the neigh- bors that are present tonight to find out if their preference would be to construct a home on the property. He stated that the lot, even though it is undersized, has the riparian right to install one dock and keep five boats overnight on it. He stated they intend to obtain that and start using that. He stated that at this point they want to get input from the City and neighbors and determine if a single family home or if they should go with the recreational beachlot with the improvements. Joy Tanner stated that she is located on the opposite side of the lot from the Olson's. She stated that she is opposed to the recreational beachlot. She stated that based on the ordinance, everything they are proposing is contradictory to the spirit of the R-l zoning. She stated that she thought she was assured in 1978 when Allen Gray requested a beachlot, that the because of the R-l zoning and because of the ordinances, there would be no chance 'that anything but canoes would be used, no motorized traf- fic over the lot, no RV'S, no trailers, no snowmobiles and no overnight boat storage. She stated that last year when the dock was in the water, there were boats stored overnight. She stated that boats were launched from the lot. She asked Mr. Burke if he could see the lot from his home? e Mr. Burke stated that he could but not very well. e Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1986 Page 4 Joy Kanner stated that it would be very difficult to monitor the lot and she has seen people driving by the area looking for a place to launch their boat. Mr. Burke stated that they did have a dock on the lot for a while until we got a notice from the city. He stated that the lot is zoned R-l, and it allows for a dock, boats, the launch of boats and motorzied vehicle parking on the lot. He stated that everything'they were doing did not apply at the time the City sent the notice. He stated that they understand that if the request is approved for a recreational beachlot and improvements, they will not be able to launch boats over the lot. He stated that when the city indicated in their letter to them that until such time that proper use of the lot, which would be a home, the dock can not be put out. He stated that they did not say a dock could not be there. He stated to the neighbors that once the homeowner's assocation has put up a house, they can put their dock out, put their boats out, park the trailers on the property, drive across and launch the boats as the lakeshore property owners can. He stated that he would hope that they understand the benefits of making it a recreational beachlot instead of having a home constructed on the lot. e Don sitter stated that he lives a few blocks down from the lot in question and wondered how the Planning Commission feels because Mr. Burke has been honest and stated that if he does not get the beachlot, they will construct a home on the lot? He asked what the Planning Commission's opinion was on building a home there owned by an organization, a communi table property home? He asked if there were ordinances or are there precedents? steve Burke stated that he thinks the answer to that is in the ordinances as a definition of a person. He stated that a defini- tion of a person is an individual, a corporation, partnership, trustee, a homeowner's association, and a person has the right to construct a home. Conrad stated that he is not going to ask the Planning Commission to directly respond to that; however, you will hear their thoughts after the public hearing is closed. He stated that we are to react to the request. He stated that it is the appli- cant's property and he can do whatever he gets permission to do. He stated that the applicant wants to see if the city is going to grant variances to do that. He stated that he is correct in saying that if he receives variances to build a home, he can put out five boats, however, those boats are not typically owned by anyone other than who lives in the home. He stated that owners of lakeshore typically use one boat at a time. e Paul Olson stated that he lives next door to the lot. He stated that he is opposed to it mostly because he does not see how the city can allow more people on the lake in these instances while e e . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1986 Page 5 they are holding them off at the launches everywhere else. He stated that the idea of four boats on 50 feet, there is not going to be much more room to move. He stated that they will be moving over into my area or my neighbors beach area. He stated that he is opposed to the safety outlook because there is not room for four boats on the lot. Marian DeWitt stated that she is opposed to it in that if access is granted to the lake for Sunny Slope right between two homes, all of the protection and security of the R-l zoning is lost. She stated that all the problems and traffic with a group of people would have to be contended with instead of just one family for which it is zoned. She wanted to read from the zoning department standards for the granting of conditional use permits, which she said some are debateable; however, one just hits it. "That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted. Not to essentially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. II She stated that there was no doubt in her mind that it has already happened to the neighbors on either side of the lot have had their enjoyment impaired. She stated that she felt if they were to try and sell their property should the conditional use permit be granted, there would be marked loss in property value. She stated that when granting conditional use permits, the Commission should keep in mind that the permit goes with the property, not the indivi- duals, and once granted it is there for life. She asked about what would happen if the homeowner's association sold the lot to a big corporation from Chicago. She stated that they could rent it out or do anything within the regulations, and then the city has lost control. She stated that conditional use permits should be handed out very carefully. She stated that as for the argu- ment about the one family home and having five boats, she stated that they will meet that when it comes. She stated that she would not object to a single family home, but with a number of owners of one home, yes she would object. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Emmings, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. M. Thompson stated that some of the members on the Planning Commission established the Beachlot Ordinance to control what property owners who did not live on the lake could do on the lake with a beachlot. He stated that the idea was not to necessarily allow unconditionally people that lived off of the lake but had some access or common lot. He stated that the Planning Commission has abided by the ordinance as written. He stated that there were amendments proposed to the ordinance and they were denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that he does not see the Commission swaying from the deci- sion of one year ago. - Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1986 Page 6 Tim Erhart stated that he did not feel steve Burke was making a threat. He stated in reading what was presented, they are currently paying taxes. He asked what the sizes of the lots next to the subject lot were. Olsen stated that she did not have the sizes; however, thought they were approximately the same size. She stated that they both received variances to build a home. Erhart said to the applicant that he did not hear him say that if a home was built the title would be owned by the homeowners. Burke stated that the title of property would probably remain in the name of Sunny Slope Homeowner's Association. Ernrnings asked how many lots were in there and how many homes? Burke stated that presently there are seven and one will be constructed in the spring. He stated that he does not know of the plans for the other lots. - Ernrnings stated that the use of that lot by twelve households and their friends and acquaintances on any given day is much too much use of that small of a piece land. He stated that he was persuaded most by the people who live close by the beachlot that would be opposed. Siegel stated that he also feels there will be an over usage of the area. He stated that the association would possibly seek to do something else with the property as far as its investment as an association and seek other methods of use. Conrad stated that he still feels that the ordinance is valid. He stated that the lot could be used as a recreational beachlot could under certain circumstances. He does not see this request as being appropriate. He stated that he feels there is good rationale in the ordinance and does not see anything to persuade him to see it differently. He felt that the request as presented would be an overuse of the parcel. Ernrnings moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to recommend denial of the conditional use permit as proposed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Ernrnings felt that should the City Council approve the conditional use permit, they should take the following points into account: e 1. The canoe rack and sand blanket should be allowed as long as it meets the DNR requirements. 2. They should not be allowed to have a dock, or overnight storage of watercraft, or a building on the lot. . - e Planning Commission MInutes February 26, 1986 Page 7 3. He also stated that there should be some negotiations with the neighbors and city staff on fencing as far as materials and size. Barbara Dacy Ci ty Planner Prepared by Vicki Churchill March 3, 1986