Loading...
1978 04 12 REGUL~R PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 12, 1978 e Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Dick Matthews, Hud Hollenback, Walter Thompson, and Mal MacAlpine. Les Bridger and Jerry Neher were absent. MINUTES: Members were reminded of the joint meeting with the Council on April 17 at 9:45 p.m. Hud Hollenback moved to approve the March 22, 1978, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson. The following voted in favor: Roman Roos, Walter Thompson, Hud Hollenback, and Mal MacAlpine. Dick Matthews abstained. Motion carried. COUNCIL MINUTES: CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: The reason for the Planning Commission recommending the 935 foot elevation instead of 945 is that this elevation will shorten the height of buildings as fas as viewing from the south shore and will not encroach on the treed area. Hud Hollenback moved to note the April 3, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING PRIVATE BEACH LOT - CONDITIONAL USE ALLEN GRAY e Roman Rooscalled the hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. The following interested persons were present: Joy and Jim Setzer, 13730 Kinsel Road, Minnetonka Bill Brezinsky, Schoell and Madson David Luse, 8056 Rose St., Victoria Adele Colich, 9217 Lake Riley Blvd., Chaska Francine Haille, 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Mary Orman, 9211 Lake Riley Blvd. Ray and Jo King, 9391 Kiowa Trail Don and Betty Heath, 4942 Drew Ave. So., Minheapolis Eunice Kottke, 4441, Washburn Ave. So., Minneapolis Mr. and Mrs. John Skranka, 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. Mr. and Mrs. ,Eugene Susemihl, 9245 Lake Riley Blvd. Richard Olin, 9125 Lake Riley Blvd. Roger Groth, 8429 Little Road, Bloomington John Kosmas, 6112 Excelsior Blvd., Minneapolis Allen Gray, 5220 W. 102nd, #324, Bloomington Judy Hungelmann, 9117 Lake Riley Blvd. Marlyn Goulett, 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. Ben and Pat Swenson, 74 JudithcDrive. Chaska Lillian Hague, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Donna Tottenham, 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. Barry Bershow, 9271 Kiowa Trail Bob McCart, 9360 Kiowa Trail The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. e Mr. Gray is proposing to create a private beach lot and construct a beach house on Lot 37, Shore Acres, for use by residents of Sunny Slope Addition~ The Planner recommended the Planning Commission look with favor upon this proposal and that a building permit be issued contingent to the following grounds and conditions: Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -2- 1. That the applicant is bound to the shelter plans as submitted. 2. That all plans meet the approval of the city engineer. 3. That the applicant post a $5,000 landscape bond with a written statement or plan delineating the planting scheme, i.e. placement and 4It species.of plants. Betty Heath - I'm Lots 34 and 35 of Shore Acres. I want to present to the Planning Commission a resolution,voted on and adopted by the Lake Riley Homeowners Association at their annual meeting last night. "More than fifty members of the Lake Riley Homeowners Association at their annual meeting, April 11, 1978, adopted the following resolution: The Lake Riley Homeowners Association opposes the conditional use permit for Lot 37, Shore Acres, due to the fact that a conditional use permit will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area and diminish property value." Of the over 50 people that were there, there was one negative vote and that man came up to me afterwards and said that he did approve the homes being built in the development but he had decided that he didn't want the shore lot being used for the recreational facility. Roman Roos - What factors brought it about? What are some of the elements that caused the resolution? Betty Heath - This lot is contained in a little bay area that is not safe, not adequate for the single family dwelling. If you got 12 canoes, 12 motorboats with their ten horsepower it would be a mess. It would be dangerous. If they built a dock out, any length at all, we build a dock from the point, we would intersect. We are opposed to the usage, not the building. We just feel it is not adequate, not even for the uses it is put to right now. Joyce Setzer - We are purchasers of Lots 38 and 39 and went through a lot to get a variance to build a home on two lots which are twice as big as Mr. Gray's one lot. We were told by both the Planning Commission and myself by Mr. Gray that the burned down cabin would not be built because 50 feet is to small to build a home on. It's zoned for homes. How can a variance be given when it's all R-l and he is building not a home but a recreational facility on a 50 foot lot? Craig Mertz - This is not a variance. It's a conditional use and the ordinance recognizes that this type of activity is permitted in the area upon the issuance of a conditional use permit by the City. Bruce pankonin - The Setzer variance pertained to encroachment upon the front yard setback requirements. Roman Roos - I think it's in order, Bruce, that we reiterate exactly what a conditional use permit is. Bruce Pankonin - Conditional uses are really permitted uses provided the following conditions be met: 1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort~ or general welfare. ,., 2. 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 e e e e Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -3- nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 3. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 4. That the conditional use, shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. For the Planning commission to recommend and the Council to issue a conditional use permit it has to stand the test ~f these four points. Roman Roos - That's the purpose of the public hearing so that we have the views issued from the residents in that vicinity. Don Heath - I believe two of the items just mentioned by Mr. Pankonin would apply in our case. The value of the property would not be enhanced by the recreational facility being built there and also the enjoyment of our property. Betty Heath - Could I ask how a homeowners association in a development like 'Sunny Slope that is servedcby one homeowners assn. can build in a development like Shore Acres that is served by another homeowners assn. when our priorities are opposed. We think it is unsafe. We think it will spoil our privacy. We think it will interfere with the enjoyment of our properties and this is not only us adjoining, it's on many directions. Why don't they build their recreation facility in their addition as long as they want it instead of down in Shore Acres under our association who does not want it. Craig Mertz - Does this Lake Riley Homeowners Association include owners in subdivisions other than Shore Acres? Betty Heath - It certainly does. craig Mertz - It is my understanding that the Lake Riley Homeowners Association is just an informal association of persons who happen to own property on Lake Riley. The homeowners association that Mr. Gray is proposing would be a corporation that would be the record owner of this particular lot and the, Lake Riley Homeowners Assn. has no monoply over the lake. Mr. Gray is free to convey his land to a corporation if he so chooses. Jo King - The Lake Riley Homeowners Association has been organized since 1969 and we are very active. We not only work to try and protect our property a little bit but also to keep the lake safe and clean and we have done some other things. Eden prairie with their park on the other side have also benefitted from what the organization has done. We are very concerned because of the bay is congested at this time and there are many 50 foot lots. ,There are also 100 foot lots. If Mr. Gray put out a, dock which we were told would be 75 feet, we,feel that would extend out into the bay a great deal and cause problems with the traffic pattern of boats. Since Eden prairie has taken over that side the boat traffic has increased on the lake. Judy Hungelmann - I am opposed to Mr. Gray's usage of that small 50 foot lot because we have on our lake an apartment building complex (Lake View Hills) which has lake access, then Eden Prairie has bought up the old Dutchs and they allow any number of boats, they have no Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -4- control whatsoever, plus all the people that own on the lake have boats and then to add this which would be usage for these twelve owners and their '_ friends. The lake is too small. We had a terrible accident there last summer. There is no control. Mrs. DeWitt - I am quite concerned about this and I have written my thoughts down and I wondered if I could read what I have written. My husband and I live within the footage necessary for the notification of a conditional use permit so we are concerned. We are concerned because of our nearness to this particular lot and also we are concerned about the precedent that it may serve for future requests of this nature. Our words tonight are only about Lot 37. In no way do we wish to detract from what I understand is a fine project that's in the making by Mr. Gray and actually Mr. Gray and/or the people to whom he sells are going to be our neighbors so we certainly want to maintain a spirit of neighborliness, but good neighbors should have the right to be frank and speak qut about what they feel if their interests are threatened. Shore Acres is in an R-l zoning. Of all the zoning classifications that there are, this is the sacred classification. It's the classification for the single family dwelling. It's an area where if you buy or you rent you can expect to live in the midst of other single family dwellings without the threat of a different type of intrusion. Concern for ones home and property .. probably comes second only to the concern for the member~ of your own family ,so when you change anything that threatens the enjoyment of ones home or property, it's not a trivial thing. Zoning departments recognize this and Chanhassen's department says it this way; conditional uses are those generally not suit~ble in a particular zoning district but which may under some certain circumstances be acceptable and it then lists the number of procedures, all of which are being followed, and then some of the standards which should be met and it's on these points that as a resident of Shore Acres we differ. We feel that the issuance of a permit does affect the safety, the comfort, and the general welfare of those in the vicinity. We feel that it will be injurious to the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and we feel that it will diminish property values in the vicinity. There are persons here tonight who are speaking on the specifics of these things; the noise, the traffic, the safety, the affects on the land value, so I will not go into detail on those things but the overall affect is that someone who thought he was living next to a single family lot is now living next to a recreational thoroughfare. You can landscape it beautifully. You can place the most sturdy docks and racks on it. You can build the most aesthetic building ~ but it's still will be used by many people, not just one.., family. Our sympathies go out to those who live in very close proximity to this lot and each of us can say, but for the grace of God there sit I. If a conditional e e e Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -5- use permit is granted here I don't see why it couldn't happen at future time to anyone of us. The last point I would like to make is that this conditional use request does not come from within the community in which this lot is located but it comes from an outside community. The surrounding neighbors have no control. Now, I am not bringing that up to suggest that if we shared in this control this would make it acceptable. I'm bringing it up merely to say that, conditional use permits should be carefully handed out and that they should come perhaps as a request from those in the area. Not impose upon them from without. Barry Bershow - Bandimere Heights. Chanhassen and Eden prairie governments have always thrown up their hands in regard to lake safety saying, well, it's not all in our boundaries and it's not all in our boundaries and no one has really taken any steps to protect people who live on and who use that lake and for this Planning Commission to take a stand to open up the lake to further use and more motors in an area that is already very heavily congested with children and swimming children and other residents that I think would be ridiculous prior to certainly,th.is body and/or the Chanhassen City Council taking some steps to protect the people that are there already and the use of the lake which is already occurring. John Kosmas - We are doing the development work for Sunny Slope Addition. I understand the concerns that I have been hearing from people because it was the same thing we raised in the office; hay, what are we doing to the properties around? Are we doing a service, a disservice? Through our evaluation of the property we tried to determine what it's potential use oould be. Maybe a vacant lot collecting weeds, dirt, such like that. Could it be something that could be beneficial to the total area from a beautification standpoint and also from a functioning standpoint for Sunny Slope. Weighing the pros and cons, we did feel that we could properly handle the lot from an aesthetic standpoint. From a structural standpoint as far as referring to it being used for single family or for a shelter,as we are suggesting, we thought that we were decreasing the size; in other words ,the land coverage was considerably less than what a single family would be on there and probably considerably less than what a lot of the single family homes are on the lots down there now. By itsi use being on a limited use, not necessarily a full day time activity as if it would be used for residential function. There are kids that will be living in the homes in Sunny Slope which will during the day in the summer want to be going down to the lake. That's going to happen no matter what happens. With the lot or without the lot the kids are going to be at the lake. Boat access is going to be on the lake through public access areas on the lake or through the facilities that we are recommending here. The type of boat access is considerably different than what I hear people asking. We have discussed at length with Allen (Gray) as far Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -6- as, are we talking about runabouts, speed boats, things like that, as far as being an acceptable thing that is A going to be used off of this lot area, that is not .., acceptable. That is written in 'the association agreement that the type of boats we are talking about, we are talking about canoes and we are talking about sailboats. Weare not recommending a boat landing here. We are talking about no access from the road for any vehicles whatsoever. We do not want cars backing down in there. We do not want trailers parked out there. We are just not looking for that type ofa situation from the people that are buying the property and Allen (Gray) is going to be one of the people living in that property and he does not want that around him either. We are not trying to promote it asa docksetting,'as a yacht clpb type of thing and we are not trying to promote the type of boats, the speed boats. We can't stop speed boats on that lake. If one of 'the homeowners owns a boat and wants to dock it at a public landing, we can't stop that nor could we stop you people from doing the same thing. What we can control is where that boat comes in. This lot is not going to be allowable for that purpose. What we are trying'to xecemmend as far as the type of facility, we are not looking for it to be used as a long term type facility. We are not looking for it to be sleeping area, things like that, for lots of .. people as a guest house. We are basically talking about'" a shelter. If it's being used in the winter for skating or cross country skiing or whatever, the facility will be capable of, if we go ahead with the idea of as far as fireplace heating and such, so it is a shelter. It is someplace to get out of the cold. It's someplace to get out of the rain. We' are not ::looking for it to be the swank beach house, the party house. There would be regulations as. far as how ~he' facilities can be used in considering party use. No different than an apartment association does or a condominium association does with the use of their party room. The same type of regulations that govern those rooms will govern this type of facility. There will be hours of regulation and I understand for the noise level and such like that. That is possible in anyone of the houses down the line and I see that it is controlled the same way down the line. In this particular case not only is there the control factor of the people that are living on either side or along the area here but also the association that is behind this area. I heard the comment about working together and I think that is important. There has to be some sort of a combination of all the people that are going to be living there no matter what the use of that lot is and no matter who is living in here. ... A lot of the conditions no matter what happens on the .., lot could very easily be happening in the houses themselves. The use of,that particular piece of property to me does not see that change at all. They have to work to~ether. Nei~hbors have to work together. -- e e Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -7- There is lots of times people would love to build a ten foot solid fence between their neighbor and that does sometimes happen because we are human beings. It is not the intention of what we are trying to do. What we are looking at as far as ,the landscaping and such as that, we do want to make it fairly self contained. We do not want to be an eyesore. We want the parcel to be a very aesthetically pleasing piece of property. Bruce pankonin - Is it your intent or Alley Gray's intent to allow an owner of one of the lots in Sunny Slope to moor a speed boat on this beach lot. John Kosmas - The only types of boats that could be moored would be sailboats. As far as canoes, we have considered the application of a canoe rack for maybe four to five canoes. We are not talking about a heavy use type facility. Bruce Pankonin - As anon-resident of Sunny Slope could I buy a membership and use this piece Of property? John Kosmas - The facility is not open. It is open only to these twelve families or their guests. Mary Orman - Do you intend to build up the beach area? The beach area as we know it is not in good shape. John Kosmas - We are not looking at it being a swimming beach type of thing. Bruce Pankonin, - Alteration of the lakeshore is not in the hands of the Chanhassen City Council it's'vested in the hands of the DNR. Any filling that goes on there has to be with the approval of the DNR. Allen Gray - IdQ really, honestly appreciate your concern and I have the same concerns that you do. I have lived on a lake myself and I have youngsters on the lake and I would in no way be interestednow<or:was I ever in a lot of speed' boatactivi ty orrwaterc:sk!1ng or anything that would be hazardous either as far as Tam concerned or anybody else is concerned. We have written articles of incorporation and by~laws and covenants and rules and regulations that are specifically intended to curtail ~ny activity of any kind that is going to be obnoxious to anybody within the association or anybody outside the association. We don't want any kind of activity going on that would embarrass .'us or the neighbors # ,.There are to be no motorbikesotsrioWIlWbi-lgs on the property. That, is on the entire property. We will take whatever other steps are necessary to invoke rules as far as the beach property is concerned to at least leave the impression that the neighbors, their piece of mind their good will is treasured is valued and must be kept. We want to be good neighbors with everybody and I think in the long run you will find we will find that we will increase the value of the property out there substantially rather than detract from it. You are all welcome to look at the covenants and restrictions. They have been available out of the Planner's office. I would w.elcome your looking at them and making comments about them. If you find something that you think has not been covered we would certainly welcome your comments. I would be very receptive_ to Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -8- any, legal advice which would say that the rules that we are talking abou,t with regard to boats and snowmobiles A and motor bikes, those rules cannot be changed. If this .., is possible to do legally I would subscribe to that. I do not want to attract people out there. We are placing some fairly stringent regulations in the contract so that whoever buys knows they can't run a snowmobile. They can't have a motor bike. They can't launch a boat from the beach property. They canLt tie up a boat except during the daytime and it can only be ten horses and that's all that can ever be tied up to the dock. We are doing these things so as not to be attractive to the people that you are worried, about beinging in there. I look to the time in the not to distant future when Lake Riley will very likely belike Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet, restricted to non-motorized boats. I am anticipating that and I am quite willing to live with that. Joy Setzer - Could the use of this property by your residents be accomplished without erecting the shelter? That's the part that disturbs me more than the people using it for canoes. Allen Gray - I think the shelter gives us some discipline over the property that we might not otherwise have. If the land just lies fallow and it is a place for people to run back and forth to get to'and from the water I A don't really think it will be very attractive. I think .., with an attractive shelter there, there will be more discipline as to how that property is maintained. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPHENT PLAN - ROBERT RITTER: Mr. Ritter was present seeking approval to subdivide 23.8 acres into 36 residential lots on property located in the southeast quadrant of County Road 15 and State Highway 7. He is proposing duplexes on six of these lots. The Park and Recreation Connnission at,its April 4th meeting voted that park dedication requirements be fulfilled in accordance with Section 2.03 of ,Ordinance l4A, whereby the park charge is remitted when a building permit is issued. The Planner reconnnended the Planning Connnission order a public hearing to consider the 'rezoning from R-l to P-l and subdivision contingent to the following grounds and conditions: 1. That the applicant change the berm so that both rear yard availability and highway noise abatement are acconnnodated. 2. That the lot lines of Lots 30 through 36 be extended across the marsh to the northeast boundary of the property. 3. That the applicant submit a plan for the public hearing that is ... in accordance with Sections 7 - 9 of Ordinance 33. .., Mal MacAlpine moved to hold a public hearing on May 10, 1978, at 7:45 p.m. contingent upon the Planner's reconnnendation to consider e e e Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -9- the preliminary development plan for Minnewashta Creek First Addition. Motion seconded byHud Hollenback and unanimously approved. PRELIMINARY PLAT - JAMES MC CLEARY: Mr . McCleary is proposing to subdivide 4. 7 acres <,' into seven single family lots and one outlot. Mr. McCleary stated it.is his intention to sell 1/3 undivided interest in Outlot A to each of the off-lake lots. He does not proposed to construct a dock. The outlot has a good swimming beach. Dick Matthews moved to hold a public hearing on May 10, 1978, at 8:30 p;m. to consider subdivision and, a conditional use permit for Outlot A for James McCleary.' Motion' seconded by' Hud Hollenback and unanimously approved. SKETCH PLAN - COLONIAL GROVE SECOND ADDITION: Mr. Bloomberg was present to discuss his;~proposed subdivision. of 16.4 acres into 30 single family lots and one common lot on property located on the west side of Chanhassen Road adjacent to Colonial Grove. The Planner recommended that the Planning Commission encourage the applicant to prepare a preliminary development plan in accordance with Sections 7 through 9 of Ordinance 33 and the Zoning Ordinance. Said plan should include a narrative statement and drawings that describe the proposed use of the conrrnon lot and detailed dimensions of the sedimentation pond and the lots adjoining the pond. Frank Kurvers was present and expressed concern about the drainage. The Engineer explained that the existing culvert under Cheyenne has been blocked and the water from this"proposed subdivision will gather in the sedimentation pond and flow through a storm sewer to the north. Mr. Bloomberg was told to proceed with preliminary development plans. SCHNEIDER AGENCY, ING. - VARIANCE REQUEST: Charles Schneider was present requesting a variance to Section. 13.01 of Ordinance 33 to convey by metes and bounds, 48,993 square feet of land to the State Bank of Chanhassen to be used for additional parking and to provide for additional drive-up lanes' when the-need arises. During the discussion on setback requirements it was discovered that the City Hall property is incorrectly zoned. This will be taken care of at a later time. Hud Hollenback moved to hold a public hearing on May 10, 1978, at 9:15 p.m. to consider the variance requested by the Schneider Agency, Inc. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously. approved. SUBDIVISION RE UEST FOR LOTS 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 54, 55, AND 56 PLEASANT VIEW ADDITION: Jo n Sc even~us was present request~ng to subdivide the above listed lots into four lots proposed as Tracts A, B, C, and D. The_proposal is to essentially sell the easterly most 45 feet of Lots 17, 12, and 55 excepting the northern 140 feet of Lot 12, to the owner of Lots 18 ando 56. Lots' 55, 54, 17 and 16 have two water and sewer laterals and two water and sewer trunk units assessed. Lots 56 and 18 presently have one sewer and water lateral and one sewer and water trunk unit assessed. The geometry of the existing property split in Lots 12 and 13 has created a substandard lot deficient in lot area. The Planner recommended the Planning Conrrnission Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -10- order a public hearing cond~tioned that all assess~ents on Lot 17 be remitted before subdivision approval would be granted. Mal MacAlpine moved,to hold a public hearing on May 10, 1978, at e 9:30 p.m. to consider the subdivision request. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Mr. Schevenius was informed that an escrow deposit would have to be made to the city prior to the public hearing. SITE PLAN - THE PRESS, INC. Warren Beck, Roger Drewing. and Jerry Korsunsky were present requesting approval to erect a 51'760 square foot building on the north side of Highway 5 in Hennepi County. The land is zoned p-4. The land is not presently serve with sewer and water. Access to the property should be via a deta hed frontage road along Highway 5. This printing company will emplo approximately 65 people. The use as proposed is permitted ,in the p-4luse district. Staff recommended the Planning Commission look with fav~r on the proposal and order a ,public hearing to test neighborhoo sentiment. The frontage road was not included in the BRW study. T e study should be expanded to include this area. Mal MacAlpine moved to hold a public-hearing on May 10, 1978, at 10:00 p.m. to consider a preliminary development plan f r The Press, Inc. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously pproved. SUBDIVISION REQUEST - CLIFF JACOBSON- CARVER BEACH: M. Jacobson is requesting approval to subdivide Lots 1622 through 1 48 into .. four lots. The property is bounded by Nez Perce on the west, Ivy .., Road on the north and Hawthorne Road to the south. Fou lateral and trunk water and sewer units have been assessed. Th s proposed subdivision requires variances to the lot area requirem nts and the corner lot frontage requirements. tl The applicant was encouraged to proceed 'to preliminary;lat., - ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - NATURAL GREEN: David Luse was present to request a conditional use permit for his landscape c ntracting business located on seven acres of land on the north si e of Highway 5 just west of its intersection with Audubon Road. Mem ers discussed amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow these kinds of u es (wholesale landscape contractors with growing fields) in, an R-lA u e district as conditional uses. Mal MacAlpine moved to hold a public hearing on May 10, 1978, at 10:30 p.m. to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance a1 a public hearing at 10:45 p.m. to consider a conditional use pe it for Natural Green. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and nanimously approved. , I SUBDIVISION RE DES!, LOT C, BARDWELL ACRES - ROBERT SO I R: Mr. ommer was present request ng approva to v~ e 0 a , 30 square foot lot from the remainder of LotC. The property is 10cated on ... Chaska Road approximately 400 feet north'of the interse~tion of .., Chaska R, oad and Melody Hill Road,." Sanitary s ewe',r is aVtilable. The Planner commented on the proposed subdivision. _ 1. A determination by city staff must be made concerni g the e e e Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -11- placement of streets to service the rear of the parcels abutting Chaska Road. 2. The applicant should be advised that any proposed preliminary development plan submitted for review, must meet the requirements of Sections 7 through 9 of Ordinance 33. 3. By request of the City Council, the applicant was told to submit a subdivision plan for the whole parcel before any more subdivision of the parcel takes place. In light of this request, the applicant should reconsider his currently proposed plan for the rear of the parcel with respect to more economical and integral use of the land, i.e. the 24,000 square foot lots to the rear of the parcel, the probable creation of a land locked remnant on the rear property lines of the lot abutting Chaska Road. 4. The nearest municipal water services are located at the intersection of Melody Hill andChaska Road approximately 400 feet from the property. It would be optimal at this time for the applicant to investigate the possibility of extension of municipal water along Chaska Road. The Planner recommended that the Planning Commission advise the applicant to work closely with the City Planner and City Engineer and start preparation of a proposed preliminary development plan. Said proposed preliminary development plan should include the entire parcel, referencing the surrounding area and also include the recommendations of the staff. Robert Sommer - It shows in the minutes that the Planning Commission agreed that the property along Chaska Road is not related to the upper portions of the property due to this sharp incline going from 1,000 feet to 1,060 feet. I sketch~d the road in to show that we can reach the. upper portion of theo property through some existing property that I own. I j'ust want to show that I can get to,the property. That nothing will be land locked. I. have. just bought Ralph Hutmaker's place: so I will be able to gain access from Melody Hill Road. We are dealing with one piece of property and you folks agreed previously that this would not in any way injure development of the upper portion. Bruce Pankonin - The context of that discussion was on. one lot. That the single,lot that was created would not abort futureredivision of that property. The Council, in granting that, said "when you come again for your next lot come in with a.plan for the whole thing. That's what we would like to see. Robert Sommer - lam ,not prepared to plan the whole thing. I have just decided that perhaps about 1980 or 1981 I am going to go for a PRD for the upper portion. What I am proposing down there in the second lot is in no way injures the upper portion. I would like to sell off a lot or two a year and take a capital gain on it rather than pay the full tilt. Bruce Pankonin ..;, I would st,rongly' recommend that you not proceed any farther until a to't'al plan' is: brought in encompassing all the property that Mr~ Sommer has under his control. Roman Roos - We like what you ar,e trying to do. We would like to see what's going to'happen with the' remainder of the property. Robert Sommer - I fail to undersfand how this affects any of it. Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -12- Robert Sommer - An Architect lives across the street fr~m me by the name of Fran,k Reese w, ho is on the shorelood Planning Commission, he suggests that we have en ugh acreage here that we can go PRD which means tha. up here will probably be single family with a cul-detsac and maybe some side-by-side units. i Hud Hollenback - That's the sort of information we want Ion paper. As soon as you start doing this you ar~ going to come out with an arrangement that's go~ng to make you the best return. If it keeps going this direction first of all you will find y~u will have lots that you can't subdivide because ~hey don't front on a public road and you are goi~g to have to build a road through terraine that ~ay not even be feasible. That's why they say, at this time, what do you propose to do with that towography? i Mr. Sommer was told to work with staff to prepare a pretiminary development plan. ALLEN GRAY - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Allen Gray, John ~osmas, Mr and Mrs. Don Heath, and Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Susemihl were present. Roman Roos - We had a lot of comments and the comments really boil down to six or seven items that I jotted d~wn. Qne was surface usage. Mr. Gray mentioned the ide~ that it's strictly sailboats and canoes. The usage ~f the lake, in my viewpoint, is not a critical intensification of the usage of the surface of the lake. Theiother thing e they talked about is the detriment to the $urrounding area. That's a judgment call and I will leave that open for discussion. Land value. That's a jud$m.ent call. Covenants to try to govern encroaching on the beach, in other words walking on other peoples pr~perty. Those were basically the points raised. I Hud Hollenback - We are considering whether or not to rtcommend to the Council that they issue a conditio~al use permit to develop this property. We can eithfr recommend they do it, we can recommend they don't do it or we can recommend they do it with conditional uses which are restrictions or controls that we would recommend the Council apply to the con<jlitional use. r think that probably is what I would $tart considering first to see, in our discussion, wheth$r if it were permitted it would be controlled ~r developed in such a way that everybody out thereicould live with it comfortably. I am very sympat etic to the people that were here at the hearing b cause we live near a lake and we have a public acces and I know what your concerns are. The only point I want to make is, in our area we have an access I that is about 50 feet wide that serves 70 land I locked homes. I use it an awful lot but I doubt if o~ any week end there is over five or six other people I down there. ... I think that fear which is probably ge~uine, of .., hundreds of people using that access, ts probably exaggerated a little bit. But by the $ame token if we do get into a discussion of conttols we would have to be very specific as to tfue fact that I e Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -13- e that house, if it were built, would be locked, that only the neighborhood people would have the key to it, that there would be maybe no alcohol there, that after ten o'clock at night there would be no noise, whatever, things that would have to be controlled probably in a stricter sense than the people that live on the lake would control their. own habits. I think your point is well taken, Roman, in that we have t'O be concerned with the water usage, the boats, the noise, the amount 'Of people, all ,these things but I do think if we decided to go this route a conditional use could specify all these concerns. Bruce Pankonin - In addition you are going t'O have to make a finding . of fact that you believe those four points. Roman Roos - If we enumerate those conditions:to the affect or let's say to the satisfaction of the commission members in view of what the public has stated so far, then those four points are met. That's the thing we are going to try to get to. Mal MacAlpine - I am not even sure about those conditions because I think the issue here is, should we really even be considering a conditional use of.,this nature on this property. I say that for a couple reasons. The sentiment 'Of the association is such that they don't feel it's going to enhance either their property value or their lifestyle'or whatever. In fact they feel it will be detrimental. Two, that property was originally designed to have a residence on it as I understand it.. L am assuming that is still a buildable' lot~ ,-. Bruce Pankonin - It is.a buildable lot. It had a seasonal dwelling on it and it burned. Mal MacAlpine - That anyone that~moved into that neighborhood I think in that area, did not feel that they would have, if you are living on either side of that particular lot, a non-residence in there. They didn't expect to have this type of-a shelter. In my judgment I have to weigh in my own mind whether it's proper to even consider this as '. a conditional' use on that piece of property. I don't think we' should consider a shelter there at all. If it's a conditional use as access to the lake I think that's another consideration because I think that limits some of the problems the association sees possibly existing if this shelter is built. Dick Matthews - I fail to see the need. for this type of a structure at that location. It was presented by the developer as a place to get in out of the weather or whatever when in fact another 100 or 200'feet then they ,would be home. So I have a little trouble really understanding why this kind of abuilding is. necessary. I can understand his feeling where it is necessary to have access to the': lake and I agree with Malon that, but to put this in amongst residential people and I really don't understand', the need for it,. I can't visualize why' i tis necessary~ Hud Hollenback - I see.a little bit having somewhat familiar with private 'easements to the lake, that I think some of the-people are going to go down to the lake and swim or e It Planning Commission Meeting Apri1'12, '1978 -14- sun or whatever and obv,ious1y to me it looks like a restroom,fac:i1ity'; ~ I hope he wasn't thinking 'of building a party house. I A Walter Thompson - I think I am sympathetic to the peop1~ living on WI' "the beach as regard to a structure th4re but I believe Mr. Gray ~s entitled to an ac1ess to the lake." , I Roman Roos - One of the viewpoints brought forth was th idea of a gathering point, a ,multitude of p,eop1e. I my own mind I have to weigh~ you are 10'oking'at twelve units and you are looking in light of what Hud said bout the usage of that piece of property, how many eop1e are going to be using that piece of property. That's one consideration; The other consideration is the building. If the building is attractively decorated, let's say if the landscaping is attractive!, I cannot see in my own mind how this can be detrimental to either property values 'on either side. The question I am rying to weigh is the people problem. The building I don't see any objection to expecial1yif it's on a conditional use'sltuation. If there is a people prob1 m,how do we control that people problem. I guess I wo 1d look for some restrictive type covenants that would govern that area. Now, tf the people are concerned abo t liquor, so be'that. I can go along with that. I gue s I would look for a restriction 'in' that area and ma be a restriction on the timing at a certain pet' od of night fall, say 10:00, that building is closed d wn. It's no longer a usable'bui1ding; ,I am not to oncerned A about the boating or swimming'or'waterskiig or whatever WI' because it's nota boat ramp. 'It's not go ng to be used for boats other than 10 horse or under. I am concerned about snowmobiling. I know the pro1iferat on of snowmobiles and what it can do. I guess I would tend to, again the homeowner has the right to have snowmobile and have access to the lake, as far as usig the snowmobile down that trail, 'I guess one hai to give a little there and I think that property own r has right of access to the lake and that property ri htfu11y is his, therefore he should be able to have c ntro1 or getting to the lake through that property ut I think you could somewhat control that even more estrictive by putting a time element on that. John Kosmas - I heard an inference that that is a build b1e lot. My understanding is that it is not buildable for a single family home. ' Bruce Pankonin -That's incorrect. If the Council asse ses that for a sewer unit', you could get a building permit. Roman Roos - Do you have any problems, with some of thes restrictions in view of what I stated? Allen Gray - No, I'have no quarrel with the restriction that you are talking about. ! They are fine with me. Mr Hollenback touched on a point which I do think is imp rtant of having 'restroom facilities there because e'en though _ you are 300 feet or 200 feet from your hou e or 500 feet .., it is an advantage to have restroom faci1ifies for anybody who is utilizing that property for sun bathing Or whatever. That is important, I think. 'The other thing about the building on there as oppos d to no .. , Planning Commission Meeting Aprli.! 12, 1978 -15- . building, we wouldohave the. same utilization essentially wit1:lout a buildingti..'!n fact we might have more utilization butthet'e is a discip;Line that's involved when there is a building there that is maintained. You don't have quite the acce$S, you ~se it a little more intelligently, it's easier to landscape and to maintain landscaping with a building there that 's at,tractive than it is with-nothing there. It would be' altogether far more attractive to the people on either side if it had a well maintained,well landscaped building than it would be justat'l open tract. of gro1-1ndthat is access to the water. -- As far as snowmobiles are concerned 1 I happen to be very anti. snowmobile. Iclon't wap.t snowmobiles on the property period. This-would be my feeling about it and as far as gci!l.iningcaccess to; the lot, I would be in favor of:a barricade to keep them from coming from the lake onto the property with-a snowmobile. Mal MacAlpine - Is that lot acceptable now, as access to that lake without a conditional-use? . Craig Mertz ,- I would assume that if Mr." Gray wanted to own that lot himself and he decided that the other 11 neighbors could ,as his gUests use that lot'he could get around this conditiona,lus,e 'pe:rmit-, If he' wants to setup some sort of corporation and'givehis 11 neighbors some, sort, oflega;I. rights tpuse', the property then l:think we. could,: dem.and. he have', a conditional use permit. . , Bruce ;Pankonin -\ Wha-t if 12 ind:i.vicluals, decided to,' buy a piece of property like a 50 foot, lot on La:ke Riley and go out there and launch' their cano~s, could they do that. without a condi:tionaL.use permit? I don't . know how, we couldprevent-12, people from buying a 50 foot-lot. We"could,preventthem from parking on the road,' docks" or shelters', but buying a piece ,'of property, I. don't know. I don't know if we . would have. that control to say you can't buy that. Roman Roos - Whatiwe are sayip.g iness'ense is. that the lot is there it can be used. The ,issue now is.. back to the house. Craig Mertz - All ourlordinance says is' a neighborhood association. Ther.e ts'no. definition of, wha't 'an association is. If the city wanted to be technical about it and they wanted to seek some. SQrt of injunction', from the court restraining those 12 individuals from usi.ngthat lot and the city points to this 'provision In the ordinance, I don't know if, we wpuld get am order from the judge or not. e Mal MacAlpi,ne moved to recommend the Council:i..ssue a conditional use permit to use the property as a recreational: area owned by a neighborhoo_d association ,wi:th the following: conditions: 1. No snowmobiles., 2. No boat and trailercombinattOh launching. 3. No parking'. 4. No motorized.vehicle~. '. Motion seconded by,Dick Matthews ~nd unanimously approved. Planning Connnission Meeting April" 12, 1978 -16- , ,. Dick Matthews moved that no conditional use permit be relconnnended for the construction of the shelter as proposed. Motion! seconded by Hud Hollenback. ,The followingvot'ed in favor: Dick ~atthews, ... Hud Hollenback, Walter Thompson't 'and Mal MacAlpine; Ro~an Roos .. voted no. Motion 'carried. UPGRADING OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 169: MnDOt, is proposing to ~ealign the wye area at Highways 212' and' 169-- into, a "T", i~tersectio~. ESTATE DEVELOP:MENTS : Mal MacAlpine1moved t~ table this litem until the next meeting. Motion seconded by HudHollenback anq unanimously approved. ! HANUS CONDITIONAL' USE PERMIT: ' ,~ '," .,.' I Roman Roos ... one', of the'p ro" b,_ lems ,we, have got ",r" i,g);t now, ~I I t1;in~, is a,lack of support between the coune~l and onnn~ss~on. This is what we'were attempting tbconvey .n our previous minutes. Wehave'a.:typical situation if w focus on the Hanus property. The council apparently is Inot using their position effectively if they have accepted lour recbtmnendation', ,rules on-them: and' then notfenforced their ruling. there are other examples'~, The Ha~us situation is something that has already happened. Wtl have to live with' ;i,t. We can review' it ': and makeadditiqnal recommendations: in light of the problem ar as such as the landscaping situation but if the council h d seen fit to enforce the conelitibnal'usepe:tmit-this wo ld not be necessary., Item No'. - 3 (Hanus C Conditional se Permit) no open'storagewhatsoever. No open stora e of materials~ shall be allowed after closing hours excep for wrecked ~ vehicles that were "brought in at night. Iiem No. 4 (HanU,'sco",pditiona~ use,pe~~,.t) n,o, .outside york. Item No. 7 (Hanus Cond~tional Use Perm~t) open jales - ten truck maximum. Drive by the Hanus property right now. Key ;ltems of 'the permit were totally ignored. All I'm trying to do is make my point to the council saying we have done our work you charged to us. To $ake a recornm",' en,da, tion, , we, did - you,u sea it" ,acte;' upon it and then' 'did: not enforce it. Therefore, it ap. ears from the outside that we did hot db bur job. W Ire just spinning our'wheels. This was the feelingjin the March 22 minutes but the council interpret~ed it wrong. Mal MacAlpine - I, thin,k 0, ur "poin, t,s, : were' valid. ", Maybe tiey weren't expressed as diplomatically;a.sthey mig t but I think the'points were valid. Things are happ ning now in Chanhassen;MTS, Animal Fair, Printing tress, it's here' now. ,If we don',' t' get ou:!:' house inl order, we have good people' coming to town~ They agreel to what we propose and then, you", have someone, and I~"m jU,st using Hanus as an example, I think his intent.ons may be honorable but he doesn1t probably see i his own mind the need to' have a good looking site. ~omehow we have to change that. - I " 'Roman Roos - Along the same lineyoneof the things that!s going to promote that change is the comprehensive guide plan. We e have a major problem there. Bruce has res~gned effective the 30th of April. " As Planning Connnission~rs, charged with developing it, we are probably 50% ho~e. Now that this occurs and it will hurt it's timely cpmpletion. I ! I ! - e e ~ Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 -17- Mal MacAlpine - If this meeting does nothing more but clarify the air of communicationst have them understand there is a problem because itts their problem just as much as it is our problem and probably more so. It is technically from an enforcement standpoint and they have to accept that. I welcome an opportunity to discuss it. Not in the critical sense, but hopefully in an enlightened sense. Roman Roos - Just so they understand what our feelings are and that we need their support. Mal MacAlpine - We have got to work together, only we can't enforce. We can only recommend. Hud Hollenback moved the adoption of the following resolution: WHEREASt The Planning Commission has reviewed the terms of the Hanus Auto and Truck Body conditional use permit, the commission finds no need to make amendments to such permit. Resolution seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. RESIGNATION - CITY PLANNER: Bruce Pankonin has resigned his position as City Planner effective April 30, 1978. Members discussed the possibility of hiring Bruce as a consultant to continue work on the comprehensive plan. Mal MacAlpine moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. Don Ashworth City Manager