Loading...
1984 08 08 .3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1984 REGULAR MEETING - Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Thompson, Tom Merz, Susan Albee, Ladd Conrad, Bill Ryan and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT Scott Martin, Community Development Director, Barbara Dacy, City Planner, Roger Knutson, City Attorney and Vicki Churchill, Secretary. Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit Request #84-6 to allow certain improvements to be made to Lot 37, Shore Acres subdivision (located at 9241 Lake Riley Blvd.) for use as a Recreational Beachlot by the Sunny Slope Homeowner's Association. Public Present - Steve Burke Richard & Jill Madore Steve & Nancy Anderson Paul Olson Don Sitter Joy Setzer Mr. & Mrs. Halvorson Mrs. ytzen Marion DeWitt Mrs. Remus 340 Deerfoot Trail 381 Deerfoot Trail 301 Deerfoot Trail Approximately 30 other people in attendance. Martin explained that this request is for the installation and storage use of the existing 32 foot long seasonal dock, to allow two canoe racks and a privacy fence. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance states that no dock is permitted on recreational beach- lots less than 100 feet wide and also prohibits the overnight docking of watercraft without a variance. He added that these variance requests are scheduled for the August 20, 1984 Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. He noted that the pro- posed canoe racks conform with the provisions of the ordinance. He also stated that staff does not have a design of the proposed privacy fence but told the applicant that in no case shall it exceed 8 feet in height. - Steve Burke, President of the Sunny Slope Homeowner's Association, was present and stated that the lot was deeded to Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1984 Page 2 - the association in 1981 prior to adoption of the current beachlot regulations. He stated that there had been an old dock there prior to his buying the property. Since the lot was getting more use, the four families that live there got together and purchased a new dock. He also stated that they don't intend to put a pri- vacy fence at this point, however if it would be necessary 3-4 years from now they would like that option instead of going through the time and expense of the process again. Don Sitter, Joy Setzer and Paul Olson stated that they had no problem with the dock and the canoe racks but would like to see plans for the fence and also they felt that overnight storage should not be allowed because they didn't want it to set a prece- dent. Marian DeWitt stated that she was opposed to the use of the lot as a recreational beach lot because it is zoned R-l not a beach- lot. Steve Anderson felt that the neighbors saying it will be o.k. for a dock but not boats is stupid. Albee moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e M. Thompson asked if the lot was a designated beachlot? Martin stated no, but that it qualifies for a beach lot and also that the lot is not a buildable lot because of its size. M. Thompson asked what standards the lot meets and also if there is a number limit. Martin stated that the dock cannot exceed 50 feet or a minimum straight line distance to a minimum of 4 feet of water. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee that the request be denied. Albee, Merz, Conrad, Ryan and M. Thompson voted in favor, J. Thompson opposed. Motion carried. The Commissioners felt that the City Council should consider: 1. Designate this as a beachlot because it conforms with the standards based on its size and shape. 2. Allow the canoe racks. 3. Allow the privacy fence. 4. Not allow the dock and boat storage. e J. Thompson was opposed to the motion because he felt that the Commission should recommend approval of the canoe racks, privacy fence and also allow one dock for recreational usage subject to the restriction against overnight storage of boats. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1984 Page 3 - steve Burke stated that if the Association sold the lot to a private individual and let them build a house, then they could put a dock out and store 5 boats. Bill Ryan stated to the applicant that the Planning commission did not necessarily disagree with your conditional use as a beachlot. They don't agree with the variance for the dock and that he can still talk to the Board of Adjustments and the City Council. steve Burke stated that Mrs. DeWitt, who is not a full time resi- dent, speaks against it and the full time residents that live there don't have problems with it. He stated that they have been paying taxes and assessments on the property and would like to use it. Conditional Use Permit Request #84-7 to Allow the Private Stabling of Four (4) Horses on Property Zoned R-l and Located at 675 Dakota Lane. Public Present e Verne and Susan Severson Maynard Happe Martin stated that this request is to allow the stabling of four horses for private, non-commerical use. He stated that this property is designated for agricultural use on the adopted Land Use Plan. He added that the proposal is consistent with City ordinance regarding the stabling of horses and that the barn is located in such a manner that there should be no adverse impact on the adjoining properties. Applicant Maynard Happe owns the property next door and stated that he would like the applicants to have the horses pastured and any vehicles to be stored to be placed below the breakline of the wooded area. Verne Severson stated that they have talked with the neighbors about the placement of the barn, etc. and are in agreement. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Merz to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Albee moved, seconded by Ryan to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Request #84-7. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e Planning commission Minutes August 8, 1984 Page 4 e Conditional Use Permit Request #84-8 to Allow Certain Recreational Beachlot Improvements to Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates Public Present Peter Beck Representing Lotus Lake Homeowner's Assoc. Approximately 30 people in attendance from the Homeowner's Association. e Martin explained that the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beachlot was established in July, 1980 when a Conditional Use Permit was issued by the City Council. The permit was amended in August, 1981. He stated that the existing conditions of the lot include a swimming beach, one swimming raft, two boat racks each for 6 canoes or small sailboats, one dock that is approximately 67 feet in length and this dock is restricted in the permit that allows overnight docking of not more than 4 non-motorized boats and not greater than 16 feet in length each and also includes a pedestrian walkway which provides access to the various facilites on the lot. He stated that the proposal tonight is to amend their conditional use permit to allow the installation of an additional seasonal dock, to allow 4 sailboat moorings in their abutting waters of the beachlot, allow the overnight storage of 10 watercraft without any restriction on the motorization of that watercraft and the 10 watercraft would be split between the existing dock and the proposed new dock and also to allow the continuation of the existing pedestrian walkway for access to the new dock. He explained that variances are required for this as was in the previous petition which would involve the fact that the ordinance does not allow more than one dock on any beachlot regardless of the size of the beachlot and does not allow the overnight storage or mooring of watercraft. e Peter Beck, representing the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Association, stated that the Outlot was roughly 900 feet long and 50-150 feet wide, a 3-4 acre parcel. He stated that when Lotus Lake Estates was platted in 1979 it was contemplated that Outlot B would provide access to the lake for approximately 144 homes to be built in two phases, however the second phase became Fox Hollow. He stated that Outlot B has been deeded to the 44 home sites in Lotus Lake Estates for their exclusive use only. He stated that neither the development agreement or any provision of the City's approval of the plat in 1979 prohibits docks or overnight storage of boats on Outlot B, nor do they indicate that they would be prohibited. He stated that if the variance is not favored, the ordinance that prohibits overnight storage should be amended. He stated that the proposed location of the dock and sailboat moorings has been selected to minimize the impact on the lake in the deeper water area and would like to spread the use Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1984 Page 5 e across the beachlot so it would not appear to be congested and also to separate these uses. He stated that the request is made for a number reasons, one that for three years since the most recent denial, the owners in Lotus Lake Estates have realized that the inconvenience of not being able to store a motorboat or sailboat on this outlot has seriously detracted from both their ability to enjoy and use the lake and from their property values. He stated that with the respect to the property values, when the restrictions on the use of this outlot became known to the County Assessor, the appraised value of the outlot decreased from roughly $18,000 to approximately $1,400. He stated that addi- tionally property values throughout the subdivision have decreased dramatically by an average of 15%. He felt that these factors along with the inconvenience to lug small fishing boat motors up and down the path in order to enjoy the lake are the reasons for the request. He stated that there are no immediate adjacent owners and felt that it would not endanger the lake or adversely affect any other persons' enjoyment of the lake. He stated that he has advised the association that there are two problems with the restrictions, one is the matter of equal pro- tection, i.e. granting individual owners with the right for over- night storage and secondly that the taking of property does require compensation, where restrictions have caused a decrease in value, over 90%, and he felt that there is a potential taking issue there. e Bob Dols stated that he is a member of the Lotus Lake Association and on the Board of Directors and he stated that the association felt that this was not an appropriate request for the Planning Commission to grant because it is a precedent setting issue. He felt that the Beachlot Ordinance adequately protects the interest of the members of the community who are lakeshore owners as well as people who do not enjoy the privileges of lakeshore ownership. He stated that the devaluation of the property is not necessarily the City's problem. He felt that it wasn't the Planning Commission or the City Council's obligation to protect the economic interest of those people who have purchased homes in that development. He felt that the developer, at the time the lots were being sold, may not have fully understood the process necessary for the approval and unfortunately the people that purchased were not completely aware of the issue. Rick Murray stated that the developer did understand the agreement and wanted to point out that the outlot was a little over 3 acres and by asking for 5 more boats for storage would just be a convenience to leave the motors stored on the boat. He felt that you would not be keeping the boats off the lake by not allowing this. e Bill Ryan asked Rick Murray what the original intent of Outlot B was? Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1984 Page 6 e Rick Murray stated that when this PUD was approved in 1977 there was no plan for Outlot B. Mr. Swedlund, who was the original developers in the wrote a letter about the different uses he saw Outlot B being used as: swimming, docking or boating. When the preliminary plat was approved, the city Council wanted to see how Outlot B would be improved and the Council required the developer to go through the Conditional Use Permit process. Peter Beck stated that he thought these kinds of uses were con- templated at the time that the subdivision was platted and approved. Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. Thompson stated that he was on the Planning Commission when the first conditional use permit was sought and denied and agreed fully with that decision then and does now. Merz stated that the DNR has certain regulations for accesses based on lake size which are designed to control the overall use of the lake. e Albee was opposed and felt that if they started amending the ordinance, they would open it up to every other lake. She stated that there was a set of stipulations and most were aware of them when the property was bought. Ryan stated that alot of work went into the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance and he sees nothing that has changed since that time to justify an amendment to the ordinance. He also stated that the development was done as a PUD and negotiations were agreed to then. M. Thompson stated that he was also on the Planning Commission at the time the request came up, and felt that there were trade-offs made between the City and Developer. He stated that there was an agreement at that time and thought they already made their deal. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee to deny the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beachlot Improvements request. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peter Beck stated that this is private property, that they were not proposing a public access. He felt that this would not set a precedent because of the size and frontage of the outlot. He stated that the development agreement provides that a permit had to be acquired but nothing in it indicated that it would not be granted or that boats and docks are prohibited. e Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1984 Page 7 e zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #84-4: Consider request to initiate an amendment to Section 14.04 (2)(d) of the zoning Ordinance to allow the overnight storage, mooring and docking of watercraft on and adjacent to Recreational Beachlots, Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Assocication, Petitioner. Public Present Peter Beck, representing the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Association, and approximately 30 interested citizens were in attendance at the public hearing. Albee moved, seconded by Ryan, to recommend denial of the request of the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Association to initiate an amendment to the recreational beachlot regulations of the zoning ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Planning Commission gave the following reasons for recom- mending denial of the association's request: e 1. The potential for intensifying the use of City lakes by non- riparian property owners. 2. The existing ordinance was adopted within the last two years following a great deal of public input and discussion. Circumstances have not substantially changed since the ordi- nance was adopted to justify the consideration of the requested amendment. Peter Beck felt that the City should consider each case on its individual merits and not to refuse to consider it because it would set a precedent. He also stated that he saw nothing in the ordinance which indicates what makes a jointly owned outlot dif- ferent from one held by one individual to such an extent that the outlot is denied any overnight storage of boats while the individ- ually owned property is permitted 5 boats without restrictions. Conditional Use Permit Request #84-9 to allow the addition of 18 motel rooms and a 50 person capacity meeting room to the Chanhassen Inn Motel, located at 531 West 79th Street, Lawrence Zamor, Applicant. Public Present Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence Zamor e Martin explained that the request is to allow the addition of 18 motel rooms and a 50 person capacity meeting room on the existing motel which contains 51 units. He stated that the property is Central Business District and makes it subject to a conditional use permit without any specific standards and intended to give flexibility in the development review process. He explained that Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1984 Page 8 e the proposal would expand the facility in two directions, 4 rooms and a 50 person meeting room to the south and to add 14 rooms to the east end. He stated that the proposed parking lot improvements or expansion would include an additional 15 spaces into the yard area along Hwy. 5 and 2 spaces along the access road east of the proposed 14 room expansion. He stated that the proposal was sub- mitted to the Dept. of Transportation and they had concerns about e the facility coming rather close to Hwy. 5 and noting that Hwy. 5 is now in an improvement program and will be upgraded in 1988 or 1989, 4 lanes as far west as County Road 17. He stated that earlier this year the 22 room addition was built within 12 feet of the West 79th street property line as part of a trade-off with the developer in exchange for a greater setback of the now existing parking lot from Highway 5. He stated that the setback on the south end of the existing building would be only 18 feet from the highway right-of-way, the proposed expanded parking lot would be within 8 feet of the highway right-of-way on the east end and within 13 feet on the west end. He stated that this request was rejected last year because of the desire for reaso- nable open and green space. He stated that consequently staff is recommending denial based on the inconsistency with the City's redevelopment plan, policies and ordinances and felt this site could not handle additional development without encroaching on the green space concept. Lawrence Zamor stated that he would like to withdraw the request for the 50 person meeting room and 4 rooms on the south end of the property. He also added that the Dept. of Transportation stated that Highway 5 expansion could be designed differently. Martin stated that the original proposal was approved for 51 rooms and with the 14 additional rooms included on this proposal he would have a total of 65 units. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Merz to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Commissioners felt that they should see a plan with just the 14 room expansion and the parking area being proposed. Martin stated that Mr. Zamor is anxious to get started on the construction before winter and stated that he would not recommend tabling the item. Ryan moved, seconded by Merz to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the Chanhassen Inn Motel as follows: e 1. That only the 14 unit addition on the eastern part of the building be included, and - e e Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1984 Page 9 2. That the parking lot be restricted to the current parking area (no expansion to be made) and the applicant should work with staff to come up with a reasonable design for the reconfiguration of the parking lot area. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Approval of Minutes J. Thompson moved, seconded by M. Thompson to approve the Planning Commission Minutes dated July 25, 1984 as written. J. Thompson, Albee, Ryan and M. Thompson voted in favor. Merz and Conrad abstained. Motion carried. proposed Revised Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance: Discussion of major issues. Roger Knutson, City Attorney, was in attendance to discuss some of the major issues of the new zoning and subdivision ordinance. The Commission agreed to meet with Mr. Knutson again on August 22, 1984 to discuss general legal issues involving planning and zoning matters. Martin reported that the City Council would not be available until October to meet jointly with the Commission to review the proposed Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, since the Council has several special City budget worksessions planned prior to October. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.