Loading...
1983 08 24 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting August 24, 1983 e Members Present Jim Thompson, Tom Merz, Susan Albee, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska, and Mike Thompson. Members Absent Bill Ryan Staff Present Bob Waibel, City Planner and Vicki Churchill, Secretary. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Require Safety Fencing For Private Swimming Pools, Public Hearing. Public Present Bill Soth Steve Burke Kurt Weimer 6921 Galpin Blvd., Chanhassen 340 Deerfoot Trail, Chaska 6211 Dogwood Ave., Excelsior e Waibel explained that this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting and a letter was sent to all Homeowner/Neighborhood Associations informing them of this pro- posed ordinance and to receive some input. Waibel stated that as of writing the cover report, August 19, staff did not receive any comments. Waibel stated that the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance provides that private swimming pools for single family detached residences would be required to have a safety fence around their pool area. He stated that presently the ordinance requires that only mulitple dwellings shall have fencing. Waibel read Mr. William Soth's letter for the record dated August 19, 1983 and stated he would like staff to consider a provision in the ordinance that would make an exception for pools in the R-lA Districts. Chairman Conrad: O.k. we will open this up for input. Is there any other input besides the letter that we just read into the record. Has anyone on the Planning Commission been contacted? Mike Thompson: Yes, Mr. Soth called me. Does everyone know what an R-lA District is? How would you handle this Bob? e Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 Page 2 e Bob Waibel: We could write language to the effect in the general regulations section stating that R-IA Districts would be excluded. Mike Thompson: Has anyone been around to look at the problem pool? Jim Thompson: I saw it from the tennis court. Mike Thompson: What is the problem with that pool? Jim Thompson: It's close to other homes. Mike Thompson: Have they (Public Safety Committee) come up with any other pools that are problems? Lasst time we talked about this, we sent out a notice to all the homeowners associations right? We received one response. We talked about the complaints that were in relation to pools, all we talked about was one pool. Bob Waibel: I am aware of only one case where there has been some safety concern, however it is a standard regulation found in many cities for typical urban type residential districts. Mike Thompson: So what we are doing is writing an ordinance for one pool, right? e Bob Waibel: I couldn't say that you would be doing that. Ordinance changes commonly occur from an incident where you find general rules that could reasonably be adopted and applied. Chairman Conrad: Is there any other input? Steve Burke: I represent Sunnyslope Homeowners Association which is an Alan Grey Development, 12 lots with a central area. I am in opposition to the proposed ordinance as it applies and possibly would apply to the homeowners. This development is a 12 unit with a central area which presently contains a tennis court in a large open area. One of the proposed uses for this central area was to put a swimming pool in the central area for the common use of the homeowners. The way it is written right now and the lots are such that no one could put a pool in anyway. Right now it is not proposed to put a pool in there but it was one of the ideas put forth by the developer for the central area. I am presently the only homeowner out there of the 12, there are two more homes under construction today and once the 12 units are all built it may be that the homeowners would like to put a pool in there at their expense. With this ordinance as I read through it, it would not be possible and if that would be the case we would like the option to put a pool in there. Chairman Conrad: Why would it not be possible? e Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 Page 3 e Steve Burke: As I read the ordinance, it could only go in the back yard, it can't go in the side. Bob Waibel: I think in the case down there (Sunnyslope), there was discussion on the preliminary plan review of a pool, tennis court, putting greens and that sort of thing for the common area in this p-District, Planned Residential Development District. I would believe that possibly the development contract may include that pools are permissible there. It is different than a typical residential district and the City would have to recognize that if need be an application be made to put a pool there. steve Burke: I would just like to make sure that if this ordinance were adopted as stated, we would be able, once all 12 houses are there and the residences are willing to put one in, to come and use that central area and put one in. Bob Waibel: I think that would be perfectly within the purview of planned residential development district. That is a common open space and it should be usable in various common facilities. Steve Burke: The way I read it is it couldn't be used in that aspect. e Chairman Conrad: You don't have any concerns with the fence? steve Burke: No the fence is not a concern. The concern that I have is the way that it is written is any pool to be constructed must be in the back yard and these lots were made purposely small with the central area, which is across the street and in the middle of this circle. The way I read the proposed ordinance there, we couldn't put a pool over there with or without a fence. I would just like to have that option down the road should the, once all the homeowners are in if we so decide to spend the money to put one in that central area. Chairman Conrad: Bob, you are saying that you think his concern would be covered under the PUD. Bob Waibel: The City was agreeable with the concept that they could put a pool in there. It may even be in their development contract as a permissible item. J. Thompson moved, seconded by S. Albee to close the public hearing, all voted in favor and the motion carried. e Chairman Conrad: Last meeting we asked for input on the issue, we got two comments and I guess it is really up to us right now as to how we want to weigh those two comments. One I don't think it is the intent to take away the option of the homeowners asso- ciation. I trust Bob that as a result of the comment you will check and if it is already in the development agreement I would assume that at least that group is o.k. Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 Page 4 tit Bob Waibel: I think that it might be wise, even if it isn't in the development agreement, to note the nature of different common areas. Chairman Conrad: O.k. now we come down to the issue of the ordi- nance change itself and to the fencing requirements. We do have one problem pool that people have complained about. We do have the input from the Public Safety Committee that made this recom- mendation and it seems very logical, rational, something that should be dictated by insurance. J. Thomspon: My personal feeling is that we shouldn't legislate what people should normally do as far as fencing a swimming pool. I think common sense would dictate if you're going to put a swimming pool in the back yard and you have neighbors that are 50 feet away, it is pretty common sense to put fencing around it. I think our present fencing laws state that you can have a fence under 8 feet which takes care of the fence objection rules. Our present ordinances concerning building closer than 10 feet from property line takes care of placement of the pool. Chairman Conrad: But what if you were the neighbor and you had kids? Obviously one of the points of an ordinance is for you to be able to do something about a situation. e J. Thompson: I would take it to my neighbor and try to explain the wisdom for him putting up a fence. As a body here I don't think we should legislate that. S. Albee: I am all for the setback requirements and the provi- sions about the fencing, however, I really think in a sense you are taking away somebody's liberty. I have seen pools landscaped very attractively, and your comment about children, that would be my responsibility to watch my children and work something out with my neighbor. If I had small children I would choose to fence it in, but I like to have that choice. I don't feel that we have the authority to tell someone that they can or cannot fence in their pool. T. Merz: There is a certain built-in hazard of a pool in a resi- dential area. S. Albee: It would be the same with utility lines when a thun- derstorm comes through, the child could be standing out in the front yard and boom. T. Merz: They would be more apt to walk in the pool. S. Albee: Oh yes he is more apt to, but it's not necessarily going to happen. e Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 Page 5 e T. Merz: My personal opinion is to me this is a hazard, and if someone is going to create such a hazard as this then they should make sure there is a proper fence put around it. Chairman Conrad: How would you incorporate the concern when we have residents quite a ways away from the pool. T. Merz: That piece of property that is in a rural area that has property in excess of 5 or 6 acres? S. Albee: What if he subdivides 4 acres? I don't think you can personally select people and say "You have to fence it", and "You don't have to fence it". That is really quite discriminatory. T. Merz: There is more potential for an accident happening in a major congested area rather than a rural area. I would think that in R-IA Districts possibly set ground rules for so much pro- perty would not need to do this. Chairman Conrad: So you would consider something that would not require fencing for pools, possibly a conditional use permit within an agricultural area? e T. Merz: Yes, considering the acreage. H. Noziska: I look at swimming pools like the lakes, I think there is a more potential danger of kids going to the lake than pools. I just don't think this is necessary. If we legislate this, are we going to fence our lakes, where do we stop? Can somebody further explain what the problem pool is? M. Thompson: There is a pool up by West Junior High on the north side. It is kind of a side yard pool. Apparently, I think they have rental property near there. There have been complaints because it is open all the time. Scott told us that there were complaints. We don't know if there were ten complaints, two complaints or 120. Chairman Conrad: I don't know if there is another way around it. I keep thinking of the one use, and I don't know if that's a problem. M. Thompson: I have a pool, I can see where it would be a problem. Another thing is that pool sits in the front. Chairman Conrad: Most insurances will require you to have a fence. I would accept a motion. e M. Thompson: We could table the whole thing until staff came back with some pertinent data. Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 Page 6 e Chairman Conrad: We can recommend as much of the proposed ordi- nance as we want. s. Albee: I think we are pretty much together on this ordinance with the exception of the fencing. J. Thompson: If a person has a lot that runs 2,000 feet long and he wants to build his house into the ridge then he puts the swimming pool in the front yard, I don't see why he can't do that. M. Thompson: I think who ever wrote this ordinance or this pro- posed ordinance took it out of some community that had tract housing and that's where it would only apply. S. Albee: As long as it meets a setback standard from the road or whatever, I don't care if it's in the front yard, back yard, side yard or wherever. Chairman Conrad: Even in your bigger areas of town, I would not want to see a pool set between me and my neighbors and I've got more footage between houses than most people do. I just don't think that's appropriate. e M. Thompson: You could have a 7,500 or 75,000 square foot lot, I don't think this proposal takes any of that into consideration. Chairman Conrad: There are minimal standards. M. Thompson: I don't think they have done enough work on this to come up with any recommendations. I think there are to many questions. J. Thompson: What if you have a lot that has 15 feet back yard and 30 feet front yard with a 400 foot side yard, you can't put a swimming pool there? B. Waibel: That would be a variance, the hardship would be the existing platting; the conditions that the lot has an unusual shape. M. Thompson: All we have to do is write these ordinances so we eliminate the variance process. B. Waibel: The odds of getting variance requests on properties like that would be quite minimal. That's the hazard with all ordinances that you write. e Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 Page 7 e s. Albee: As each one of these come up in the future to be built, they are going to have to be brought before a body to be approved or disapproved. There are going to have to go upstairs and people are going to say "Yes you can construct a pool here" or "No you can't construct a pool here". Chairman Conrad: If this goes through those that have met this standard do not have go through a variance process. B. Waibel: If they put in a building permit application, if they are compliant they get their building permit. H. Noziska: So what you are saying is that this ordinance gives the City rather than the individual building the swimming pool the option. Right? The City has the option to grant a variance or not grant a variance depending upon the figurations. B. Waibel: That would go with any ordinance standard. H. Noziska: Without this then it's at the total discretion of the homeowner, is that what you are saying? e B. Waibel: There might be an ordinance that would prohibit the use of the front yard regardless of this. I think that typically accessory structures would be located in the rear yard with the exception of a detached garage. H. Noziska: Is this an accessory structure? B. Waibel: Yes. Merz moved to table this item until someone does more study on this. 1) Whether the pool could be located under a power line and 2) whether it should be ten feet away from the side lines. Merz withdrew motion. Merz moved to deny the proposed zoning ordinance amendment regulating private pools. J. Thompson seconded. Vote in favor: Merz, J. Thompson, S. Albee. Naye, Conrad and Noziska. M. Thompson abstained. Motion carried. Merz felt that this ordinance should be denied because the safety in fencing is not a primary concern. The concerns are setbacks and placement of pools under utility lines. Noziska and Conrad wanted more information. e M. Thompson wanted someone from the Public Safety Committee and Scott Martin to be present to answer questions to properly deter- mine what to do with this ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 Page 8 e Conditional Use Permit Amendment for a Second Boat Access, Minnewashta Regional Park, Public Hearing Public Present Pat Murphy Mike Liddicoat Arnie Hed Carver County Carver County Lake Minnewashta Study Committee Waibel presented the staff report indicating that approximately one year ago, the Metropolitan Council and D.N.R. noted opposi- tion to the horsepower restriction on the Minnewashta Regional Park access for reasons that it is discriminatory. The City Council, in recognition that resolution of this matter was needed, created the Lake Minnewashta Boat Access Study Committee to research and recommend on how public access to Lake Minnewashta can be best accommodated. He stated that, as far as Minnewashta Regional Park is concerned, the recommendations of the committee are found in the following amendment to the con- ditional use permit. e 6.04. Lake Access. A watercraft access to Lake Minnewashta through the Park has been provided in the area so designated as boat access on the Detailed Development Plan of the 1982 Park Master Plan Update. Said access is to be limited for launch of watercraft of ten (10) horsepower or less and have a capacity for 10 car/trailer spaces. An additional access without horsepower restrictions having a capacity for 25 car/trailer spaces shall be developed and located in accordance with the plan titled "Lake Minnewashta Park 2nd Access" marked Official Copy. e Arnie Hed: I worked with this committee during the past few months as Chairman. We worked with the D.N.R. and the Metro Council and they came out and looked at the various options and facilities. I think we examined every possible alternative on Minnewashta. It was our objective from the very beginning to control the density on the lake and also to provide public access use of the lake but not abuse. In the past, the access has been next to Leach's Resort, which is actually a vacated street and was not authorized by the D.N.R. so the D.N.R. did not take care of the lake in the past 12-15 years. The use, as you are probably aware of, on 15 and Minnewashta Parkway, there are sometimes 40 or more cars and trailers. So this poses a high safety problem in Minnewashta Parkway. We looked at some creative ways of solving the problem, by moving Minnewashta Parkway further west. We got the cooperation from the City and the County and they examined that. We had a meeting and perhaps 40 or 50 residents from around the lake attended. We found that it was initally not feasible. The most attractive to, we felt, the city, the resi- dents of the lake, the County, D.N.R., Metro Council, was to utilize some of the existing facilities in the regional park. e - e Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 P ag e 9 Our hope there was to keep non-motorized craft in Little Minnie Bay and the motorized craft down the shoreline. The location for the access is nearly a mile from any residential area. At the time the access would go in, the public access that exists next to Leach's will be automatically closed and that would eliminate any safety problems on Minnewashta Parkway. We anticipate that Leach's Resort, because of economic conditions, will probably not run more than 1-3 years at the most. Currently, Leach's is putting in about 30 boats a day. So if we are lowering the den- sity on that lake for an excess of the D.N.R. safety standards, 30 boats coming from Leach's and 25 over at the new park. But when Leach's close, there will be no increase in spaces at the regional park. We feel that in the long run we will be reducing the traffic on the lake than what currently exists. Minnewashta Park will be controlled with an attendant, so there will be much more policing then what we have had on 15. Albee moved, seconded by Noziska to close the public hearing, all voted in favor and the motion carried. Merz moved, seconded adopt amendment 6.04 following addition: access on the lake." adopted as the means by Albee, to recommend that City Council to the Conditional Use Permit with the "Th~ Lake Minnewashta Park be the only and the following specific proposals be of implementing this solution: 1. An additional boat access with no horsepower restriction will be established in Lake Minnewashta Regional Park as shown in Attachment A. This access should be developed in the spring of 1985 at which time a permanent County park employee will be resident at the park. 2. At such time as the new public access is open, the City should will physically close its access adjacent to Leach's Resort. The City should will make a policy statement that the closing of a quasi-public access or private access will not constitute a reason or justification to increasae public access parking or capacity. This statement could shall be included within the City's Comprehensive Plan as is proposed for No.6. 3. The existing public access on Little Minnie will be limited to a maximum 10 horsepower motor size and a maximum of 15 parking spaces will be provided to serve that access. The County should be permitted to rent a limited number of canoes for use on Little Minnie. 4. The County's master plan be revised to reflect these changes and the City's conditional use permit be amended to reflect these changes. Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 Page 10 . 5. Little Minne should be surface zoned as a "Slow - No Wake" zone. 6. The City should establish a firm policy position regarding all public accesses, such as "the city hereby establishes a boat access policy and standard of one (1) parking space for every 20 acres of water surface - such being both a minimum and maximum standard on all City lakes." Further, this policy and standard should be included within the City's Comprehensive plan as well as within a land use ordinance (water surface or zoning), such requiring a 4/5ths vote to be modified thus providing reasonable assurance of continuity. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment Request, Sunnybrook Development Group. Public Present B.L. Schlender Wanda Squire Paul Schoenecker 6400 Emerson, Minneapolis 6400 Emerson, Minneapolis 9450 Lakeland Terrace e Waibel summarized that the request was to change the land use designation for the southerly most 23.92 acres of Tract B, RLS 88 from campus business to commercial. Waibel stated that staff finds approval of the request may be granted at this time with the anticipation that further land use plan amendments will be forth coming shortly for the lands adjoining the subject property as a result of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance revisions. He also stated that the existence of large undeveloped areas between this property and areas of planned or existing development presents a situation where a wide variety of well planned land uses can be compatably accommodated. Albee moved, seconded by Noziska to close the public hearing, all voted in favor and the motion carried. Albee moved, seconded by M. Thompson that the Planning Commission recommends amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from campus business to commercial for the southwesterly 24+ acres of Tract B, R.L.S. No. 88 as presented in Planning Case 83-2 Land Use Plan Amdndment. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Also the Planning Commission directed staff to make arrangements for amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation from campus business to commercial for the area east of the property to County Road 17. e Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 Page 11 e Conditional Use Permits and Replat Request for Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Zamor Addition, Public Hearing. Public Present Jim Reichle Lawrence Zamor Thaddeus Korzemowski Judy Weidner Jim Reichle Construction 170 Birch Bluff Road, Excelsior 435 Lake View Avenue, Tonka Bay 6897 Chaparral Lane Waibel presented the staff report and stated that the applicant has withdrawn his request for a replat and the conditional use permit for the retail building. Jim Reichle stated that he had no problems with staff recommen- dations. Ted Korzemowski stated that he objected to the vegetation plan- tings on ends of the islands because if there are large amounts of snow where would the snow be put, plantings would probably die if snow stacked at the end of islands. Albee suggested that this item be tabled because of the change in the proposal regarding grading, plantings, etc. and she wanted to see everything in final form before making a recommendation. e Waibel stated that the only change would be that there would be more dense plantings along Highway 5 and employee parking spaces be relocated to the right of restaurant instead of behind it and parking by motel would be shifted 10 feet to the north. Jim Reichle objected to the idea of tabling this item because he felt they were compliant with green space and plans had not changed that much. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee to close the public hearing, all voted in favor and the motion carried. Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson that the Planning Commission recommends the granting of conditional use permits for the construction of the first phase 24 unit addition onto the Chanhassen Inn Motel and the construction of the prairie House Restaurant as depicted on the Site plan prepared by Jim Reichle Construction dated received Chanhassen Community Development Department August 19, 1983 with the following conditions: 1. That the applicants provide the City with a revised site plan taking into account the staff recommended changes as shown on attachment #3 which will serve as the official plan for pro- posed development. - 2. That the applicants receive all City Engineer and necessary referral agency approvals and permits. e e e Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1983 Page 12 3. That the applicants provide the City with appropriate docu- mentation for any shared parking facility arrangements between the property owners of the motel and the restaurant. 4. That the applicants provide the City with a letter of credit equal to 110% of the estimated cost of the unfinished exterior improvements at the time that a certificate of occu- pancy is sought. 5. That proposed signage is complaint to City Sign Ordinance standards. Also that the updated site, grading, and landscaping plans be provided for the City Council to review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Approval of Minutes J. Thompson moved, seconded by Merz to approve the minutes of August 10, 1983 as written. Vote in favor, J. Thompson, Merz, Albee and M. Thompson. Conrad and Noziska abstained. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.