Loading...
1981 08 12 e MINUTES OF THE REQJIAR CHANHASSEN PIANNINGCOflISSICN MEETING HELD AUGUST 12, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M~ CHANHASSEN CITY HALL ~ 9 }q~1 APPROVED ON ~ "~~ . Members Present: Walt Thompson, Acting Chairman, Carol Watson, Ladd Conrad, Mike Thompson Members Absent: Jim Thompson, Art Partridge, and Howard Noziska Staff Present: Scott Martin, Bob Waibel, Craig Mertz, and Becky Foreman Conditional Use Permit Request, Lot 4, Block 5, M_innewashta Heights, Public Hearing, Thomas Morgan: W. Thompson, Acting Chairman,called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. Marion Posthumus, adjoining property owner to the West, asked Tom Morgan, applicant, if the fence will only be located on the lake side. Morgan indicated that the fence will be partially on the west side also. e Posthumus stated her opposition to this request. She does not want a fence so close to her property. Posthumus indicated that this request is too late to stop now but would like it on the record that the neighbors in the area do not want any more structures of this nature in their area in the future. W. Thompson asked who the other neighbors were that were opposed to this request. Mrs. Posthumus stated that she would give the Planning Commission the names if they want. Scott Martin, Community Development Director, stated that the tennis court consumes most of the rear yard. The tennis court is within 5 feet of the west lot line and about 30 feet from the east property line. M. Thompson asked if this request would be blocking the view of the lake. Morgan indicated that it will be a chain-link fence. Posthumus stated that she is more concerned with the aesthetics than with the view of the lake. Bob Waibel, City Planner, indicated that the normal height for a tennis court fence is 10', the zoning ordinance only allows for a 8' fence that is why this request is before the Planning Commission. Conrad made a motion to close the public hearing. Second was made by Watson. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. e Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1981 Page 2 e Conrad asked if the court is elevated. Waibel stated that the south and west sides of the tennis court are elevated approximately 3-4 feet. John Neveaux stated that all the houses in the area are about 30 feet above lake level. Neveaux stated that the tennis court is a massive structure but the applicant needed to elevate two sides to make the court level because of the slope of the lot. w. Thompson indicated that the Planning Commissions only regards is to the fence height. The tennis court is already in and goes along with the ordinance. If the Planning Commission doesn't approve the 10' fence, an 8' fence could be placed there that would comply with the zoning ordinance. Martin explained that the ordinance states that the height of the retaining wall isn't included in the height of the fence. A motion was made by M. Thompson, seconded by Conrad to deny this request. Conrad stated that he seconded the motion because the request does not go along with the zoning ordinance. Watson stated that she can understand the complaints of the neigh- bors, what is wrong with an 8' fence. e M. Thompson indicated that he had seen another case like this one and most of the neighbors objected to it. Not aesthetically pleasing. W. Thompson stated that if the Planning commission denies this request for a 10' fence the applicant can resort to putting up an 8' fence according to the ordinance with no problems. Morgan explained that before he started construction of his tennis court he asked the Posthumus' if they would object, at that time they indicated that there would be no problem. The City approved his request for a tennis court. Morgan didn't need an excavation permit but took one any way to make sure he was doing everything right. Now he finds out he can't have a 10' fence. An 8' fence won't work. If he would have known this before he wouldn't have built the tennis court. Martin explained that according to the Uniform BUilding Code the grading, and excavation and the tennis courts are all in conformance. M. Thompson restated his motion to deny the request for a 10' tennis court fence. Conrad, M. Thompson voted aye, Watson and W. Thompson voted nay. The motion was a tie vote. Conrad stated that he voted to deny this request because it was an obstruction of the view and a matter of principle. -- Watson indicated that she voted against denial because Morgan followed all the rules and he should not be held responsible for a regulation that the zoning ordinance should have. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1981 Page 3 e M. Thompson explained the reason for his vote for denial, he felt that Chanhassen has a zoning ordinance and the Planning Commission should stick to it. Also the fence would be an obstruction of the lake view. W. Thompson stated that 8' or 10' is not material. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, pUblic Hearing: W. Thompson opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Mark Koegler, of Schoell and Madson, gave a brief review of the changes in the Comprehensive Plan. W. Thompson asked for comments from the public. No one made any comments from the floor. A motion was made by Watson, seconded by Conrad to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e A motion was to the City W. Thompson voted nay. made by Conrad seconded by W. Thompson to recommend Council the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as presented. and Ladd Conrad voted aye, M. Thompson and Watson Tie vote. M. Thompson explained that he voted against for the reason that he cannot see justification for Minnetonka, Inc. proposal being right in the middle of everything else. Watson stated that this is not the plan that Chanhassen wants, it is just what Metropolitan Council wants us to think we want. Conrad stated that this is the best plan that the City has. W. Thompson indicated that the Planning Commission has been under pressure to submit a plan to the Met Council for months. Koegler has done an excellent job of presenting the plan even they are not all in agreement totally of everything in it, but the City has to go along with the Met Council. In any need in the future to exceed this plan an amendment can be sent to the Met Council. M. Thompson made a motion seconded by Watson to move to the Curt Ostrum Sketch Plan Review for the reason that the Planning Commission was ahead of schedule. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. e Sketch Plan Review, 2141 Melody Hill Road, Curt Ostrum: It was stated in the Planning Report that Mr. Ostrum had 12 acres, that was corrected to be 5 acres of land. Ostrum indicated that he does not want this parcel to be connected to 65th Street, he would like to keep with street secluded. - e Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1981 Page 4 Waibel indicated that the applicants proposal should hook up with 65th Street for the reason as to not create a long cuI du-sac. There is no reason for not hooking up i.e. the terrain or the soil. M. Thompson indicated that he likes the plan as proposed. Watson concurred with M. Thompson. M. Thompson stated that there will be no more development beyond this area because it is next to the school. Waibel explained that there are no assessments on this property. Conrad indicated that it bothers him to not follow the ordinance. l1. Thompson made a motion, seconded by Watson to proceed to pre- liminary plat with staff assistance regarding possible optional street alignments. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Development Agreement Amendment Request,Out1.ot B, Lotus Lake Estates,. Lotus Lake Estates Home.owlters As.sOciation, pUbl:l..c Hearing: e e W. Thompson called the Public Hearing to order at 8:45 p.m. Craig Mertz, the Assistant City Attorney, advised the Planning Commission not to attend the meeting at the FirePlace Room at Instant Web, Inc. because they would be getting into a potential liability situation under the open meeting law. Mertz indicated that he will advise the City Council also. W. Thompson explained to the public that the Planning Commission is only to deal with the planning aspects of this request and not get into the legal matters at all. Mertz presented two letters to the Planning Commission to be on record that he had received. The first being a letter dated Aug. l2, 1981 from Attorney Bruce Milkerson, representing the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association and the second being a letter in opposition from Raymond H. Russell. Both letters will be available at City Hall for review. Waibel stated that the land use in the area is mostly agricultural and residential. He also stated that the staff is in concurrence with the recommendations made regarding this request by the Lake Study Committee. Arron Babcock, president of the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association, gave some history of this request. He stated that last year the association came in for a conditional use permit for a swimming beach and 2 canoe racks. At that time they had mentioned that they would want to come back at a later date to request some docks. e e Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1981 Page 5 Arron Babcock, explained that they are requesting 5 docks,;!; 80 ' long and four other docks going northward. Th~y are proposing 2 more canoe racks and 10 sailboat moorings. Also are proposing a conversation pit and a barbecue pit. The five docks will house 8 boats each for a total of 40 boats. The City has a easement 4' wide all along the beach1ot. Mr. Babcock explained that the outlot has 1590' of 1akeshore. They are proposing development of less than 800' of development. There will be 800' or more left for wildlife habitat. Babcock indicated that there are presently 77 docks around Lotus Lake, we are proposing only 5 docks. They are proposing to do no bulldozing, reclaimation, and no trees will be disturbed. We are the largest lake shore owner on the lake. John Nicolay, asked if the 50' dock will be measured from the shore- line or from the 4' depth. Babcock stated that it would be measured from the shoreline. Each dock will have a 32' T on the end. Georgette Sosin asked what if other Outlots would have a proposal like this one. Babcock stated that if they are granted full riparian rights then there is little anyone can say about it. John Danielson asked how many boat does Babcock feel Lotus Lake can support safely? Babcock stated that he didn't know. Danielson stated that maybe that should have been one of their first steps. Jim Parsons, stated that the DNR standards are 1 boat per 20 acres. Lotus Lake has 220 acres that~es 20 boats. Th~lake will have to be limited to horsepower. Ron Harvey stated that the increase of docks on the lake would be 6% but the increase this proposal will create for boats is approximately 30%. Nicolay asked how many homes are presently in Lotus Lake Estates. It was answered 39 homes there are about 100 more lots. Nicolay asked Babcock how many docks they are going to come back for in the future, what's going to happen to the other 800' of shore- line when the other 100 homes go in? Also there are 90 homeowners on the lake that pay taxes to have full riparian rights. Babcock stated that as the development grows the homeowners rights to the docks get smaller. Steve Hemping stated that they pay as much taxes as the 1akeshore owners, he had a list from the Assessor's Office stating how much tax everyone pays. w. Thompson explained that the Lake Study Committee has studied Lotus Lake and come up with some recommendations to the Planning Commission. (See memo dated June 24, 1981 from S. Martin) __ Henry Sosin indicated that Babcock stated that they are as much a lakeshore owner as anyone else. Their Outlot is governed by their Development Contract and from their homeowners association with the City and the Conditional Use Permit which they have already. Their covenants permit no development at all. e Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1981 Page 6 Their proposed 40 more boats would increase the usage of the lake by at least 30%. Sosin stated that this would create a precident for other Outlots. Nicolay, president of the Lotus Lake Association, The actions that the Planning Commission and City Council have taken in the past has been that this piece of land be left as it is. Hedoes not believe that this proposal is in the spirit of what has been done in the past. The public relies on the Planning commission and City Council to be consistant. Asked that this proposal be denied. Babcock, explained that Outlot B was originally proposed as a conservation lot but didn't end up that way. Conrad asked Babcock what he proposes the Planning Commission do regarding the rest of the Outlots if they come in and ask for the same kind of request. Babcock stated that they should look at each request separately. e Lloyd Miller, doesn't belong to an association, he owns 200' of lakeshore & only 3 feet is developed. He is very much opposed to this request. Lotus Lake is very shallow, with an average depth of 15', if there are only 4 boats on the lake, the lake turns to mud. He feels that 40 more boats will just make the lake die. Bill Spodoff indicated that if there are 5 docks 50' in length each with 32' T's that comes to 400 feet of dockage. This is a marina. Lotus Lake doesn't allow mar~s on the lake. Walter Cordron, Chairman of the Lake Study Committee, indicated that last year when the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association received their Conditional Use Permit they had asked for a swimming beach and mentioned at that time that they might want a canoe . rack which was granted, at that time we also requested that no shrubbery or trees be destroyed in creating a swimming beach. The City hired a biologist at that time and he requested that no plastic be placed below the swimming beach. As the beach is today it has plastic, which was against the recommendations of the Committee, they also have had trees and shrubs removed to make room for their swimming beach which was also against the recommendations of their Committee. e Sosin indicated that some of the homeowners on the lake have spent time to learn about Lotus Lake. Dr. Willer from the University of Minnesota came out to look at Lotus Lake and had a tour of the wetlands. Dr. Weller commented that the amount of boats and turbulence in the peak area by Lotus Lake Estates, will destroy the shoreline more surely than any phosphates or any other impurity coming from our lawns. He indicated that he could see the erosion beginning already. 800' is not enough to sustain the wildlife. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1981 Page 7 e A motion was made by M. Thompson and seconded by Watson to close the Public Hearing. All voted in favor and motion was carried. M. Thompson asked what the Staff recommendations are. Waibel stated that the Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Lake Study Committee. M. Thompson asked the presidents from both Homeowners Associations if they had attempted to meet to work out a compromise. They indicated that they have not met. Conrad stated that he is sensitive to the situation that the homeowners are in. They have quite a bit of 1akeshore frontage. From the history of the City Council, Planning Commission and Lake Study Committee, they have not supported this type of re- quest on Lotus Lake. They have intended to keep this area natural. Conrad doesn't want to create a precident for other outlots. Watson indicated that it is hard to keep away from the legal aspects of this item because this is a big part of the issue. Her major concern is the motorboats, not the sailboats. w. Thompson indicated that he is going to poll the Planning Commission on their feelings regarding the Lake Study Committee's recommendations taking each recommendation separately. e 1. Only one dock should be permitted only 50' in length, unless necessary to reach a water depth of 4 feet; M. Thompson, Conrad, and Watson indicated no problem. 2. Two additional canoe racks should be permitted allowing a maximum of four racks; M. Thompson, Watson and Conrad indicated they had no objections. 3. No sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should be permitted (including on-land boat storage); No objections from any of the Planning Commission. 4. A 10' x 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having a minllnum depth of seven feet, is not more than 100 feet from" the nearest lake shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet above the lake surface; No objections from the Planning Commission. 5. And, the proposed conversation pit should not be so constructed as to be of a permanent nature (i.e. using brick or masonry material) . The Planning Commission concurred with the conversation pit whether permanent or not. e Conrad made a motion seconded by M. Thompson to deny the current permit application for Lotus-Lake Estates on Outlot B. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1981 Page 8 - Conrad stated that his reasons for voting to deny this request is because the precident that would be set for Outlets, the intent of the Planning Commission and City Council in the past has been to keep this outlot natural. This request is outside the scope of the intent of the ordinance and the intent of the direction of the City. Watson indicated that she concurs with Conrad, the proposed ordinance is a good ordinance and we should go by it. Five docks and 40 overnight motor boats is way too many. M. Thompson stated that he is a lake shore owner on Lotus Lake -he lives in a wetland area and doesn't own a dock or a boat. He believes that the proposed ordinance is a goed one and they should use it a guideline. W. Thompson stated that the lake shore area on Lotus Lake is too fragile to support the volume of traffic that will be generated by this request. Conrad made a motion to recommend approval of the Development Contract Amendment for Lotus Lake Estates as effecting Outlot B to be modified as by the recommendation of the Lake study Committee in Memo of June 24, 1981 as follows: e 1. Only one dock should be permitted (not to exceed fifty feet in length, unless necessary to reach a water depth of 4 feet); 2. two additional canoe racks should be permitted allowing a maximum of four racks; 3. no sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should be permitted (including on-land boat storage); 4. a 10' x 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than one-hundred feet from the nearest lake shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet above the lake surface; 5. and, the proposed conversation pit should not be so constructed as to be of a permanent nature (i.e. using brick or masonry material) . The second to the motion was made by W. Thompson. Watson, Conrad, and W. Thompson voted in favor, M. Thompson voted nay. The motion was carried. e M. Thompson indicated his reason for voting nay was because why should the Planning Commission grant something that the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association hasn't asked for. e e e Pl.anning Commission Minutes August 12, 1981 Page 9 Final Development Plan Review, Pa~k II, Instant Web, Inc.: Steve Krenz, a representative for Park II, explained that the holding pond has been moved from Lot 2, Block 3 to behind the Instant Web building. Waibel indicated that the change in pond- ing areas will give Lot 2, Block 3 a better access. Krenz asked if language could be worked out so that Lot 2, Block 2 could have joint access and parking area with Lot 1, Block 2. Waibel brought up the idea that in the future this idea may nessesi tate a right-out access which they are trying to stay away from. Also will cause traffic problems with so many cars driving through a parking area. This idea is undesirable from a planning standpoint. Conrad asked if this idea would be legal? Martin explained that cross property access easements used to be granted but it caused too many problems with legalities. Frank Beddor, the applicant, stated that if they would make one lot out of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 the lot would be too long for a commercial use. Martin suggested a cul-de-sac between Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 2. Waibel explained that since the Public Hearing Notice was published as a rezoning to P-3 but some of the lots were rezoned to C-2, then they will have to hold the public hearing over and res end the notices. I. e e Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1981 Page 10 A motion was made by Conrad, second by Watson to recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Development Plan for Park 2 with the conditions from the staff as follows: 1. That the egress for Lot 2, Block 3 be setback a minimum dis- tance from the County Road _#17 right of way as prescribed by the City Engineer. 2. That Lot 2, Block 2 not be considered a potential lot of record as part of the Park TwO Plat. 3. That applicant agrees that if the City determines in the future that a pedestrian trail is deemed desirable or necessary along the f100dway and/or flood fringe areas of Blocks I and 2 that the applicant will grant to the City, at no cost to the City, a perpetual easement for pedestrian trail purposes, with the exact location and width of said easement to be mutually agreed upon between the applicant and the City. In the event that any of the Lots are sold within said f1ood- way or flood fringe area, this requirement shall additionally apply to the prospective buyers. 4. That building site plans for Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block I and Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Block 2 remain subject to the require- ments of the Chanhassen floodplain management ordinance #68. 5. That the applicant be required to install street lighting standards and fixtures along Park Road within 12 months of filing of the plat for Park Two, and that street lighting and fixtures standards be installed on Park Circle as part of its construction of public improvements. The street lighting standards and fixtures for Park Road and Park Circle shall be identical to those existing along Park Road west of the subject property. Also, that grade separation crossing be deleted from the Compre- hensive Plan, and Lot 5, Block 2 to be unbui1dable as a separate lot and that Final Plan and specifications meet the requirements of the City Engineer as follows: 1. Only Lot 1, Block 3 shall have direct access to C.R. 17. 2. The minimum allowable grade on the proposed cul-de-sac shall be 0.50%. 3. The maximum allowable grade at the end of the CUl-de-sac shall be 3%. 4. A 60' wide right-of-way shall be required for the cul-de-sac to maintain consistency throughout the business park. 5. Roadways shall be constructed to City standards as approved by this office. 6. The lateral in the proposed cul-de-sac shall be an 811 ESVCP or PVC line constructed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. e e - '" Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1981 Page 11 7. The lateral in the proposed cul-de-sac shall be a 8" DIP line constructed to City standards as approved by this office. 8. The cul-de-sac storm sewer shall be extended to the edge of the floodplain. Construction of this line shall be to City Standards as approved by this office. 9. Required agency approvals shall be secured prior to any develop- ment within Block 2 or 3. Watson, W. Thompson and Conrad voted aye, M. Thompson abstained and the motion was carried. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Watson and seconded by Conrad to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of July 22, 1981. Conrad, Watson and w. Thompson voted in favor and M. Thompson abstained. The motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.