Loading...
1983 07 27 PLANNING COMMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 1983 e Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Members Present Jim Thompson, Tom Merz, Ladd Conrad and Bill Ryan. Mike Thompson arrived later. Members Absent Susan Albee and Howard Noziska. Public Present Michael Wegler Chuck Koerner Randy Schlueter M. J. Dewitty David Nelson Lulu E. Sampson Charles Hebert Robert Amick Rosean Amick 6630 Mohawk Drive 621 Broken Arrow Drive 580 Fox Hill Drive 761 ponderosa 5800 Quail Ave. N. 6940 Lotus Trail 4620 Linwood Circle, Deephaven 581 Fox Hill Drive 581 Fox Hill Drive e Replat Request, Lots 3213 - 3218 and Lots 3224 - 3228, Carver Beach, Lulu Sampson, Public Hearing. Waibel stated that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two single family residential parcels. The westerly proposed parcel is to consist of Lots 3213 - 3217 and the westerly ten feet of 3218 and is to contain approximately 11,000 square feet. The easterly proposed parcel, upon which the existing residence is located, is to consist of Lots 3224 - 3228 and the easterly ten feet of Lot 3218 and is to contain approxi- mately 10,000 square feet. Waibel explained that in 1979 the City granted approval of a variance to the owner of Lots 3211 and 3212 directly west of the property in a proposal for an addition onto the existing resi- dence. When asked if additional adjoining land was available for purchase to enlarge his existing holdings, the applicant stated that the Sampsons were unwilling to sell. As a part of the approval, the City Council added a stipulation that the Sampson property would not be eligible for a lot split for the creation of an additional building site. e waibel also added that although the above stipulation on the Sampson property was made based upon a verbal statement of the property owner to the west, the applicant, like any other pro- perty owner, does have the right to petition the City for a variance. Although the Carver Beach plan encourages the develop- ment of properties in Carver Beach in increments approaching the R-l District Lot Area Standards, it also recognizes that the Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1983 page 2 e variance process will need to be heavily relied upon in order to review individual proposals on their own merits or short comings in order that new development may be able to occur in a manner that would respond to and offset the planning problems caused by existing development patterns in Carver Beach. Waibel explained that a variance by definition is a modification or variation to applicable ordinance provisions as applied to a specific piece of property where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship. Since variances are of a judgemental nature con- cerning the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance, the decisions of the Planning Crnnmission and City Council are based upon the background presented by staff, applicant, and the general public attending the public hearing without specific staff recommendations. Waibel summarized that staff finds that, although approval would set forth the possibility that the property to the west would never be enlarged beyond its existing 4,000 square feet, approval of the request at hand could be granted for reasons that it is a reasonable solution to the limited alternatives for use of the subject property, that the property has good site development qualities, and that approval would not alter the essential character of the locality. e Randy Schlueter: I have two lots directly west of the lots in question and my proposal is, I have stated this to Lulu Sampson, to buy half of the land which would make my lot 100 x 100 and her lot would be 150 x 100 which would seem to be conforming to the ordinance standards and that's what I am proposing now. I was denied it five years ago as you know by your records and I'm giving it another shot. What I am proposing is that I go from 4,000 sq. ft. lot to a 10,000 (100 x 100) lot and eventually buy some land that's less than me to get me up to code or to conform with the area. Also, to put a house there now, she would pro- bably lose 5 beautiful oak trees and it (a house) would not really add to the Carver Beach area at all. I built the house in lieu of acquiring the land eventually and I am putting in a for- mal protest to this. Chairman Conrad: You own the property west? Randy Schlueter: Right. Chairman Conrad: What is on that property right now? Randy Schlueter: A nice house. ~ Chairman Conrad: You would like to purchase additional property? Randy Schlueter: Correct. - e e Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1983 Page 3 Chairman Conrad: You want to purchase the property to bring your property up to code? Randy Schlueter: Yes. Michael Wegler: I live on Mohawk Drive it's the north end of Carver Beach. I built a home on Fox Hill, my father-in-law and I built together. I was told that we had to have 15,000 square feet to build a new residence according to the way the codes are now, and if you put in another house between Randy's and Lulu Sampson's you are really going to pack them in, we are going to have a high density housing in Carver Beach and I think it's going to bring property values down in this area. I have eight lots, my father-in-law and I, on top of Fox Hill and if this is the case then there should be no question in my mind that I shouldn't be able to divide my eight lots into five and put a house in between 600 Fox Hill and Randy's. If we start doing this, what's to stop ever body from saying 'why can't we have five lots'. Chanhassen ordinance says that you have to have 15,000 square feet and it's going to be very cluttered. I can picture a house in there and you would have to have an awful small one to make it look right and I can see the problems. Randy Schlueter: I would like to put this into perspective financially. Financially for Mrs. Sampson it's applicable to reduce the size of the lot that her house is on to 150 x 100 foot lot and also sell the adjacent lot with approximately 100 x 100 foot lot for strictly financial reasons. Again, I would like to state my case that it would be better to have her house on alSO x 100 foot lot which would leave 60 feet leftover and would make my lot 100 x 100 square foot lot. I made an offer that was very close to half of the asking price that she is asking for the lot and haven't heard back. Maybe I could question her realtor right now what is holding up that consideration. Apparently they can't sell her house with it being 150 x 100 foot lot. Chairman Conrad: I think we will keep your negotiations out of our variance request. I think we understand that you have a pro- posal to her and that is good for us to know. Michael Wegler: Just a question, I didn't realize that the replat request is going through right now and you are dividing down below standards on both lots. Chairman Conrad: That is what is being requested and our decision would be that we would have to grant a variance and we would have to feel based on some of the things that staff has given us, that we can grant a variance based on undue hardship or something like that and that is what would be persuasive in granting a variance. Bob Waibel: As I noted before the Carver Beach Plan recognizes that the variance process would have to be relied on heavily to sort out some of the individual development problems within the Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1983 Page 4 e areas of Carver Beach. I did give the Planning Commission in the report a list of seven statements of findings that they should be evaluating when going through this review. Carver Beach is a unique development area and alot of problems built in. with proper consideration of each of these points perhaps the best resolution for everybody can be worked out. David Nelson: I'm Dave Nelson (representing Mrs. Sampson). Chairman Conrad: O.k. Dave, I guess there is a couple of questions that we may have and if you can help us. Do you know the reason why the property was not sold five years ago? Do you know any of the history? David Nelson: I'm not sure why they never sold except that they didn't want to sell it I suppose. It's just plain and simple I guess. Right now the house has been sold contingent on this split being okayed. e Michael Wegler: The houses there on Fox Hill Drive on the north side, the way they are situated now right now is all pretty basi- cally equal. If you do put another one (house) in between Randy's and Mrs. Sampson's, it isn't going to conform with the properties around because it going to interfere because of pri- vacy and if that is the case I do have a sewer and water stub on the top of Fox Hill. I look at the plat and it's platted for four lots there and I could almost divide mine down and sneak another house in there. Chairman Conrad: We in most cases try to reflect what the com- munity wants, what the neighborhood wants. It's really a role that we feel very strongly. We are holding a public hearing and it is our role to take the public input and mash it with any kind of ordinances that we see. I think most of us up here are very sensitive to a neighborhood and how they want to grow. If that neighborhood wants to grow in 5,000 square foot parcels, we would be sensitive to hearing that. If the neighborhood wants to grow with 15,000 or 20,000, again we would try to reflect that in any of our zoning ordinances and comprehensive plan which we are reviewing right now. We have a consultant with us and are going through all the neighborhoods in Chanhassen and saying "How should they be zoned?", "What lot size should they be?". We are at the current time taking a look at Carver Beach and I think your input tonight is interesting for us because we don't know really what is appropriate there. Alot of the buildings had been completed before our ordinances were really 'in tune' and we try to match individual rights of development with the neighborhood and their particular rights. e Rosean Amick: I live across the street from Mrs. Sampson's pro- perty. I don't know if you have a diagram of where the house is e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1983 Page 5 situated on the lot. She's on the corner lot and has got quite a steep hill which puts the house quite a bit to the west side of the proposed lot. So therefore, if you did squeeze a house in there, it would really looked squeezed. Michael Wegler: When I put the house on the top of Fox Hill I went an applied for a building permit and got it. They said that we had to have 16,000 square feet or 15,000 and I said fine because we have 16,000. They said o.k. well how about getting a variance and Mr. Snead to the west. I wanted to get two more lots and do the same thing that's in the process here. He (Mr. Snead) said well we really don't want to see this happen out here, we want to keep the lots in size of 15,000 square feet. It would have been to my advantage to do that because there two sewer and water stubs there, but I left it that way because we don't need higher density there. Jim Thompson moved, seconded by Tom Merz to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Chairman Conrad: I am still searching for the hardships. Bob can you give us the reasons for allowing the variance or that would justify granting the variance. Bob Waibel: That property that's being proposed to be split right now would be eligible for a building permit without the variance, if it was under separate ownership at the time when the zoning ordinance was adopted. Chances are it would have been as a 10,000 square foot vacant parcel, assessed as a buildable lot. You would have had no choice but to grant the building permit or remove the assessment. It's really quite cumbersome, the way that the Carver Beach area assessment policy is written, the way the Carver Beach Plan is written, the way variances are treated in Carver Beach. There is no other way but to do it on a case by case basis. Chairman Conrad: This particular parcel has been assessed one unit, right? Bob Waibel: Yes because it was a parcel with an existing home on it and it was under the same ownership. Bill Ryan: What you're saying is Mrs. Sampson has been paying only one assessment on the property. Bob Waibel: To my knowledge it was assessed one unit according to the Carver Beach criteria. Bill Ryan: Why is this coming back to us if the City Council in 1977 said we couldn't do this? Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1983 Page 6 e Bob Waibel: One thing, they are telling the Sampsons is that they can't do anything with their property, they have to either keep it or sell it to Mr. Schlueter, they cannot develop that at all. However, one council cannot not bind over a future council and they have the right as an owner to apply and ask for this consideration by the Planning Commission. Chairman Conrad: It was a verbal, your words in the report say 'verbal' discussions. Bob Waibel: That's the way the record indicates. Jim Thompson: Bob, what is the lot size directly west of this property? Bob Waibel: Mr. Schlueter's property is 4,000 square feet. e Jim Thompson: Is there a house on it? Bob Waibel: There was an existing home on that property, I don't know when it was initially built. It was a year round dwelling when they put the sewer and water in and then it was assessed a full unit because it was an existing residence even though it was on 4,000 square feet. It would not have been assessed if there was not an existing residence because it was not 10,000 square feet of vacant land. Tom Merz: To me there is no improvement to any of the other properties. We are talking about, instead of one parcel that's not conforming, we would have three. Well I guess that's not true because the 4,000 foot parcel will exist. You talk about variances from 15,000 all the way down to 10,000 and it just seems so drastic that its detrimental to the adjoinging proper- ties there. Jim Thompson: I don't think the City Council should have said three years ago that they couldn't split the lot. I'd like to see continuity in the whole area as much as possible. Bill Ryan: On the whole issue of variances, I prefer to work on the basis of granting variances to allow people to do things that had become consistent with the neighborhood. Not variances by exception, this is when that provides an exception to the zoning rather than compliant to it. I find it difficult to go along with this. e Chairman Conrad: I fail to see the reason based on why we would grant a variance. I have yet to see a rationale for granting it. Carver Beach is a very different place and I understand why the variance process is being used, but taking a look at the options and the rationale for granting the variance, I feel that there is not a just reason presented to me yet. The applicant could still - e e Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1983 Page 7 do so, provide us with more information, but at this point in time I don't feel that I have any reason to grant that variance when we have a chance to keep this 'sub-community'. At least the neighborhood is telling me that they want it a particular way and this is not in concert with that particular way. I think what staff has done is they took a bigger picture of the Carver Beach area and told us that this might be more of a conforming use. To me I'm still looking at the particular neighborhood and have a problem granting this request at this time. Bill Ryan moved, seconded by Jim Thompson to recommend to the City Council that they deny this request as proposed in Planning Case 83-8 Subdivision. B. Ryan, J. Thompson, T. Merz and L. Conrad voted in favor, M. Thompson abstained. Motion carried. Site Plan Review, Dunn/Roos Office Warehouse Building, Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Public Present Ed Dunn Roman Roos 4940 viking Drive, Minneapolis 55435 10341 Heidi Lane, Chaska Waibel stated that the request is for Site Plan approval of a three phase office/warehouse complex on Lot 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park First Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Second Addition. The first phase is to consist of building, parking and landscaping improvements for proposed buildings A and B as well as overall site grading. The second phase is to consist of building C and parking improve- ments and the third phase is to consist of buildings D and E and parking improvements. If the plan is approved as proposed, the future phases would be subject only to building plan check for building permit issuance and eventual vacation of the property line between the lots upon which the project is located. waibel stated that this project has a unique variation for P-Districts within the City by breaking the monotony of one structure per lot by proposing a modular layout of buildings of like type construction. Waibel stated that the applicant has been advised that with the plans proposed by vacating the lot line, it may be quite dif- ficult in the future to sell the buildings and land in increments due to building, parking and access layout. He added that pro- vided the lot line dividing the project area is ultimately vacated, the plan meets all of the standards for setbacks and impervious surface area ratios with the exception of the north side of the proposed parking area for buildings D and E which is approximately 15 feet from the property line abutting Highway 5. Although there would be no direct access allowed from the site to Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1983 Page 8 e Highway 5, this area is technically a front yard for which a standard 25 feet has been used for parking setbacks. He stated that taking into account the classification of this area as a front yard without direct access, this ten foot differential can be offset by planting of dense perennial landscaping at the time this phase is developed. Waibel also stated that portions of the access and parking areas are located over a City watermain and in the past the City has approved construction provided an indemnity agreement was given to the City holding them harmless for costs associated in restoration within the easement should repairs be necessary. The Commissioners were curious about the signage. The applicant stated that they could have only one sign per building. Some of the Commissioners were concerned that according to the site plan with the elevation it shows, if you were to drive along Highway 5, you would be looking at a loading dock. e Mr. Roos explained that each project is just a suggested project. The two buildings to the north have not been sold as of this time. The final design, if there is in deed a loading dock, the building will be subject at that point for staff review. Waibel also added that he did mention in the report the con- ditions of approval of the loading dock facilities for future phasing be designed to zoning ordinance standards. Mr. Roos also added that they are trying to market their project for the small business man that would like to have partial office space and partial warehouse space. He felt that the individual type buildings would be one way to get companies into Chanhassen and also give the 9wner of the building a tax benefit. Jim Thompson moved, seconded by Tom Merz, to recommend that the City Council approve the site plan for the Twin pine project as depicted on the plan entitled "Twin pine Development #1" prepared by Thorsen and Thorshov Associates Inc. marked Official Copy and filed in 83-1 Site plan Review with the following conditions: 1. That the replat of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 1st Addition be filed prior to the issuance of a building permit for buildings A and B and that the vacation of the lot line dividing Lots 2 and 3 of Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 1st Addition be filed prior to the issuance of building permits for buildings C, D or E. e Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1983 Page 9 e 2. That the applicant deliver to the City an indemnity agreement holding the City harmless for restoration costs in case utility repairs are necessary to the watermain located on Lot 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 1st Addition. 3. That loading dock facilities for future phases be designed to Zoning Ordinance standards. 4. That dense perennial landscaping materials be planted between the northerly parking area and Highway 5 right-of-way at the time said parking area is to be developed. 5. That all parking areas and access drives be line with concrete curb. 6. That the parking be limited only to the areas so designated on the plans submitted. 7. That the applicant receive grading, drainage and erosion control plan approvals from the City Engineer and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ~ Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Private Swimming Pools. Scott Martin summarized that the Chanhassen Public Safety Committee recommended that the City adopt regulations providing for the fencing of private swimming pools to prevent children from gaining uncontrolled access to such pools. He also stated that the Committee felt that there should be certain location requirements established for private pools. They felt that swimming pools should not be located in the front or side yards, and no closer than 10 feet from any property line; provided that pump and filter installations shall not be located closer than twenty feet from any property line. Also the pool should not be located within ten feet of any overhead or underground utility line or crossed overhead by any electrical line. Martin stated that the existing ordinance language refers to multiple family districts which leaves a big loop hole for pri- vate pools in single family districts. They are becoming a big concern for safety issues. He also noted that in the recommen- dation the owners of existing pools shall have 180 days from the effective date of this ordinance to comply with the fencing pro- visions. e Mike Thompson moved, seconded by Jim Thompson to table the item to get more public input and that letters be mailed out to the homeowners associations informing them of the issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1983 Page 10 Approval of Minutes Jim Thompson moved, seconded by Bill Ryan to approve the minutes of July 13, 1983 as written. Jim Thompson, Bill Ryan and Ladd Conrad voted in favor, Tom Merz and Mike Thompson abstained. Motion carried. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Worksession Zack Johnson was present to go over the revisions with the Commissioners. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.