Loading...
1986 03 26 e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 26, 1986 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Bill Ryan, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner. M. Thompson asked that discussion on the Sign Ordinance and rural lot size be added to the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING preliminary plat Request to subdivide a duplex lot of 14,383 square feet into two lots of 7,379 and 7,459 square feet on ~erty zoned R-l and located on Lot 5, Block 2, Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addition, William wisely Olsen stated that the applicant originally applied for a metes and bounds subdivision to split the lot into two lots. She stated that the Subdivision Ordinance allows a metes and bounds subdivision of a platted lot into two lots in areas inside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. She also noted that the ordi- nance requires that the new boundary line be parallel to the existing lot as much as possible to simplify the metes and bounds description. She stated that metes and bounds subdivision of a platted lot are reviewed by the City Council. She stated that the existing duplex is located at a slight angle on the lot, thus resulting in a metes and bounds description which was not a single line description. She stated that the City Council reviewed the proposal on February 24, 1986 and recommended that the lot be replatted into two platted lots rather than a metes and bounds subdivision. Olsen noted that the duplex is located on a platted lot of 14,838 square feet. She stated that the applicant is requesting appro- val of a preliminary plat to split the lot into two lots of 7,379 and 7,459 square feet to allow the applicant to sell each unit with a lot. She stated that the lot split will result in two lots of almost equal size. She stated that the existing duplex meets all of the required setbacks and the proposed sub- division will not change any of the existing conditions, it will only allow land to be sold with each of the twin home units. She also stated that in the event that the existing structure is destroyed, staff recommends that approval be conditioned on the site being used only as a twin home site. Planning commission Minutes March 26, 1986 Page 2 e Mr. Wisely was in attendance but had no comments to add. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad asked how it could be rationalized half of the required 15,000 square foot lot requirements? Olsen stated that it is going to be used as a duplex or twin home. She stated the applicant wanted to be able to sell half of the twin home with half of the lot. M. Thompson asked if a variance was needed for a zero lot line for the middle side yard setback? Dacy stated that you cannot have a side yard setback with a zero lot line. M. Thompson asked if there was anything in the new ordinance that deals with zero lot lines? Dacy stated yes in the R-2 through the R-5 districts. e M. Thompson and Conrad stated that they do not know if that is the right way to handle zero lot lines. Dacy stated that it is just an attached unit and just splitting the property. Dacy stated that the same thing was done on the Bloomberg plat where there were three twin home lots created. She stated that in the proposed ordinance there is a list of permitted uses and twin homes are included and regulations in that district will guide it. She stated that it is not called zero lot line speci- fically in the ordinance but it is provided for in the R-2 through the R-5 Districts. Conrad said that he did not see it in his draft. Dacy stated that two family homes will be specifically listed. The Commissioners asked that zero lot lines be included in the new ordinance. Noziska asked if this should be included in the motion. Emmings stated that he saw no reason to place the requirement of zero lot line in the ordinance on this individual case. Emmings moved, seconded by Siegel, that the Planning Commission e recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat request - Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1986 Page 3 #86-4 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received March 6, 1986" with the following condition: 1. The two resulting lots can only be used as a site for a twin home with a zero lot line. Erhart, Emmings, Siegel, Ryan, Conrad and Noziska vot.ed in favor. M. Thompson was opposed. Motion carried. M. Thompson stated that he was opposed because the motion did not include the zero lot line requirement. PUBLIC HEARING preliminary plat request to subdivide a 44,287 square foot metes and bounds lot into two platted lots of 22,184 and 22,103 square feet, Wesley Searles e Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to subdivide a 44,287 square foot metes and bounds lot into two plat.ted lots of 22,103 and 22,184 square feet. She noted that the property has sewer and water available and there is an existing single family residence on the lot. She stated that the resulting lots will meet the minimum requirement of a 15,000 square foot lot area and a 90 foot lot width. She stated that the proposed lot line main- tains the required setbacks for the existing residence and allows adequate area for a new residence to meet all setbacks. She also noted that there was an existing shed located where the lot split is proposed. She stated that the shed will have to be removed and placed within the required rear and side yard setbacks of Lot 2, Block 1. Mr. Zachariason stated that he lives adjacent to the property on the west and he stated that the survey that was previously done does not correspond with the survey done by Schoell and Madson. He stated that in 1962 he deeded 20 feet of his property to the present owner so that they could get a Torrens title. He wanted some of the property deeded back to him because the lot line would be within ten feet from his home. Olsen stated that Mr. Zachariason would have to deal with the owner on the matter. Mr. Zachariason asked that the applicant give him 15 to 20 feet to make sure that he does not have a dog kennel built under his bedroom window. - Dacy stated that Mr. Zachariason should find his survey and con- tact Schoell and Madson and get this cleared up before it goes to the City Council. e e e Planning commission Minutes March 26, 1986 Page 4 Conrad stated that this matter is not in our hands. He stated that Mr. Zachariason should follow-up on the matter himself. Noziska moved, seconded by M. Thompson to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Noziska moved, seconded by M. Thompson to recommend the City council approve the preliminary plat request #86-5 as shown on the plat stamped "Received February 27, 1986" with the following condition: 1. The shed will be moved to within the rear or side yard of Lot 2, Block 1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Preliminary Plat request to subdivide a 32,000 square foot platted lot into two platted lots of 14,078 and 17,992 square feet, Roberta Buccheit Olsen stated that the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to split a 32,000 square foot lot into a 14,078 and 17,992 square foot lot. She stated that the property abuts Lake Minnewashta and has an existing single family residence on it. She stated that the proposed subdivision maintains the required setbacks for the existing residence and maintains a lot width of at least 90 feet for both lots. She stated that the proposal requires three variances to the Shoreland Ordinance. She explained that the Shoreland Ordinance requires that all lots created on a Recreational Development lake must be at least 20,000 square feet in area and have 75 feet of shoreland. She stated that the existing lot has 32,000 square feet in area and 140 feet of shoreland. She stated that the proposal will result in two substandard size lots and one lot with only 60 feet of shoreland. Olsen stated the Shoreland Ordinance states that variances shall only be granted when there is a hardship that makes enforcement impractical. She stated that a hardship is defined as a con- dition that does not allow the property to be put to a reasonable use, is unique to the property and not created by the landowner and cannot be considered in terms of economic considerations. She stated that the property is currently in conformance with all of the zoning Ordinance regulations and the proposed preliminary plat will result in two non-conforming lots. She stated that the applicant has reasonable use of the property and there is not an existing hardship to allow the variances. Roberta Buchheit stated that there has been a precedent set in Trolls Glen in that everyone of the lake lots are under 20,000 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1986 Page 5 e square feet and three have variances of under 75 feet from the lake, and in addition to that they also have a ten foot variance from the road. M. Thompson asked when the variances were given? Olsen stated that the Peterjohns received a variance in 1975 and the Shoreland Ordinance did not go into effect until 1984 which requires the 20,000 square feet and the 75 feet from the lake. Arnie Hed stated that by placing two 60 foot width lots between lots that have 120 to 200 foot width lots it will change the character of the neighborhood and increase the density on the lakeshore. He felt that visually it would not be attractive. Roberta Buchheit stated that the lot widths are 80 feet and 60 feet. She stated that three lots up, these are similar lot sizes to the one proposed, and they are beautiful homes. She stated that the homes were built higher from the lake. She stated that DNR had regulations on size of lots on the lakeshore in 1976 not 1982, and Trolls Glen was approved after 1976. Olsen stated that the City did not adopt the DNR regulations until 1984. e Noziska moved, seconded by M. Thompson to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad moved, seconded by Emmings, to recommend the City Council deny the preliminary plat request #86-3 based on the reasons listed in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M. Thompson moved, seconded by Conrad, to approve the March 12, 1986 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Ryan abstained. CHADDA PRESENTATION Brad Johnson and L~rry Smith presented the proposed downtown redevelopment concept (slides and the model). ZONING ORDINANCE The Commissioners felt it was necessary to discuss some of the sign regulations proposed in the new ordinance as well as the rural lot size issue. e Conrad wanted to make other Commissioners aware of his efforts to encourage comment from the Chamber on the sign regulations. He e Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1986 Page 6 stated that hopefully the Chamber will comment at the public hearing conducted by the City Council. The Commission directed staff to amend the sign regulations as follows: 1. Page 94 - 9-2-8 a. Define banners and pennants b. Banners extending over right-of-ways and search lights shall require a permit. Banners on a temporary should not require a permit. 2. Page 95 - 9-2-10 a. Staff is to determine standard size of portable sign and delete 12 square feet. 3. Page 95 - 9-2-16 a. Amend language to allow for posting of house numbers on accessory buildings or mailboxes. e 4. Page 98 - 9-3-1 (14) a. Eliminate regulation of window signs. M. Thompson requested that the Commission formally reconsider the motion made on the Zoning Ordinance at the March 19, 1986 meeting as it relates to the recommendation on the minimum lot size in rural areas. He stated that the Commission should commit to a meeting date where all seven members were present to decide on the rural lot size issue. He stated that staff wanted to discuss it at the April 23, 1986 meeting. He felt however that he has upcoming committments, as well as other members, and was unsure if all Commissioners could be present to decide on the issue. The Commission discussed the length of time involved in reviewing the draft and the number of drafts and changes. The Commission asked staff why specific recommendations on the lot size issue were not available for this evening's meeting. ~ Dacy stated that staff did not want to make a hasty recommen- dation as far as distances between septic systems, driveway requirements, and the ability to transfer building eligibilities. She also stated that some rural landowners were informed of the April 23, 1986 meeting date for the Commission's discussion of these issues. The Commission stated that the original recommendation to the Council in 1983 was a five acre minimum lot size. The Commission e - e Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1986 Page 7 felt that the discussion at the March 19, 1986 meeing did not point to a specific lot size because additional information may warrant a larger lot size. The Commission felt that if staff found information to the contrary, such would be presented to the Council as part of their review. The Commission felt it was necessary to pass the ordinance on to Council immediately. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Emmings, to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance with a minimum lot size of five acres in the rural areas subject to staff developing administra- tion and engineering recommendations to enforce the one unit per ten acre density requirement. Emmings, Ryan, Conrad, Noziska and M. Thompson voted in favor. Erhart and Siegel were opposed. Motion carried. Siegel stated that he would prefer to wait for staff's recommen- dations but can understand the urgency to pass on the ordinance to the City Council. Erhart stated that all evidence points to a 2i acre minimum lot size with the one unit per ten acre density. He stated that there is no evidence to justify a five acre minimum. Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Vicki Churchill April 1, 1986