Loading...
1989 12 06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 6, 1989 e Chai~rnan ConLad called the meeting to o~de~ at 7:45 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim E~har t, Steve Eml'ld.ngs, Annette Ell son, Ladd Con~ad and B~ian Batzli MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wilde~muth STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning; Jo Ann Olsen, Senio}'~ Planner and Sharrnin AI-Jaff, Planning Intern PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 5-9, BLOCK 1, FRONTIER DEVELOPMEMNT PARK (16.77 ACRES) INTO TWO LOTS AND FOUR OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MARKET BOULEVARD, NORTH OF HWY. 5 AND SOUTH OF THE SOO LINE RAILROAD, CROSSROADS PLAZA ADDITION, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Krauss: We should add that that last condition is a new one. e Emmi ng s : Yeah, would you say it again? Krauss: What we're proposing is that, there's a problem in the~e that the underlying zoning does not conform to the new location of Market Blvd.. We have the BH and the BG districts which will be split partially by the new alignment. There's a corner of the BG cOl'l~ercial area that extends over onto the bank prope~ty. I think this pretty much outlines it right there. What we want to do is Plake ou~ zoning l'llap look a 1 i ttle more reasonable by extending the BH district, which is ove:r.: he}'~e, up to the st:r:eet. So what we're asking is that the futu~e pu~chaser of Lot 1, the bank, not contest, be required to not contest a city sponsored ~ezoning. El'l~ings: So what do you want that last condition to say? Krauss: That the owner of Lot 1, Block 1 agree not to contest the City sponso~ed rezoning of the entire site to the BH district. Enll'llings: Are we still in a position with that pu~chase that we can il'llpose a condition on him at this point in time? Krauss: They haven't closed on the property. Eml'llings: Okay. Conrad: Okay. It is a public hearing. Are the~e any cOl'llments? - E~ha~t moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favoL and the motion ca~ried. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 2 e Batzli: Why again do you want to :make Outlot A into Lot 2, Block 1 at this time? Krauss: The purpose for that is that what we'd like to call Lot 2 is a buildable lot. That the HRA intends at some point to sell to another purchaser. Conveying it with outlot status means it would have to be replatted to remove that status in the future. It would seeIlI to be a lot cleaner for all concerned if the HRA just had a simple Lot 2 to deal with than to sell. Batzli: What's the down side of doing it now and not leaving it an outlot? Krauss: I don't think there is any since the City owns it. It's not as though it's an independent owner who can come in and just say, I have a site plan. You have to approve it. It is an HRA controlled parcel. ElIson: When I first read this I got really confused reading the Illap but can you point out C again? Just that whole strip. Even though that one kind of crosses it. Krauss: Well it's called D on the other side I think. ElIson: And like this one crosses over. e EIllInings: No, this whole thing is C all the way down to he}~e. ElIson: That's what I was thinking that B maybe crossed it. anything else to add. I don't have EnIIllings: I don't have any other questions. Erhart: I wish I had some questions but I just can't think of any. Conrad: I can't think of any either. EnIIltings Illoved, Batzli seconded that the Planning COIllIllission recomIllend approval of Subdivision Request #89-19 as shown on the preliminary plat dated October 27, 1989 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The following easements shall be provided: a. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement will be required on Lot 2, Block 1. b. The final plat should include the typical utility and drainage easeIllents over each lot; 5 feet on side lot lines and 10 feet ove}~ the front and rear lot lines. - c. An additional utility easeIllent should be shown on the plat for the existing gas line across the northerly lot lines of Outlot E and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Planning Conmd.ssion. Meeting Decettlber 6, 1989 - Page 3 e d. Cross access easement over the southern 50 feet of the con~on lot line between Lots 1 and 2. The easenlent shall be 20 feet wide on each lot. 2. The final plat should show Outlot A as Lot 2, Block 1. 3. The Lot 1 park dedication fee should be paid as outlined in the HRA's purchase agreement at the time of sale. The City reserves the right to acquire park dedication fees on Lot 2 at such time as it is proposed for developnlent. 4. The owner of Lot 1, Block 1 agree not to contest the City sponsored rezoning of the entire site to the BH district. All voted in favor and the motion catried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, DIVISION 6, SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE, EXPAND ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIRE FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS. - Paul Krauss presented the staff report. hearing to order. Chairman Conrad called the public Enlnlings nloved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: I don't really have anything right now Ladd. Maybe after sonle discussion. Enlnlings: I've just got a couple things. On page 6 on i tenl C at the top. Where it says, in the second sentence, low profile, self contained mechanical units which blend in with the building, architecture are exempt froIll the screeni ng requi rement. I wonder if we should add onto that, that unless topography makes them visible to other properties or something like that so that we have an out there to require screening in some odd circunlstance. I think the general idea is fine. Krauss: Should we say then may be exempt instead of are? EIlIIllings: Yeah. Or Illay be exempt. That's :right. That would be fine. I'd agree with that change rather than the language I had. That's even broader and I like it better because it gives them the idea that we might accept something other than the screening which I think is fine but it doesn't make it automatic. If they buy a low profile unit because there might be one that's obnoxious. Alright. The other thing is, I'm just glad that Howard wasn't here to hear you say plain concrete block. e Conrad: Yeah, Howard would not go along with that. Planning COJl'I!'lission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 4 - EF~ings: Howard thought a concrete block was a thing of beauty. that was made out of concrete or anything. Masonry was... Anything Krauss: To their credit though, the masonry industry has been very creative with concrete block. I mean they make burnished block and exposed aggregate and different imprints on it. Some of the stuff looks like br ick. SO!'le of the stnff looks 1 i ke gr ani te and I don't have a proble!'1 at all with any of those deviations. En\I1'lings: I' nl j nst kidd ing. This doesn' t dese:t~ve all thi s. I just wanted to renlenlber Howard. The publ ic hear ing aspect of it, I have always been concerned, this is a pet issue of mine I guess maybe bnt when you're going to give notice to owners of property, it seems to me that we have this 350 and maybe a 500 foot standard in some cases and the idea is to give notice to people who might be affected by the project. In my experience, because I live on a lake, I'm affected by things that happen further away than 350 or 500 feet and in fact I've used this example and I'm sure everybody's tired of it but when Red Cedar Cove was built, all those townhouses, I live directly across from that and look right at it and never knew it was going in there until it went up. So I know that under the, I think under the CUP or at least under sonle other section we have language in there that says that if the parcel is on the lake, that property owners or the owners of lakeshore properties are also notified and I think that's a real good thing to do on a lake. But that again, like I say, that's something I'd like to add but I don't know what other people think of that. - Krauss: Jo Ann was j HSt tell ing FIe we do that as pol icy. It's not in the ordinance. One thing we'd like to do though. EnlFlings: What's that? Olsen: I don't know that that's written. Enlnlings: No, it's in the o:t~dinance. Olsen: Just for CUP's? Because we do it for everybody. e Emmings: I know that it's in there for, I think it's in there for CUP's and maybe not for zoning ordinance amendments or it's the other way around but that's something I've always had on my own little work list is we ought to make all of those consistent and right now they're not. Krauss: I would standardize that, I would change that 350 to 500 since that's what we've used elsewhere. One of the things that a lot of cOlMlunities do that we haven't done, and I'm a little relunctant to propose it because it's sort of an adminstrative problenl, but it's so:metimes useful is to require the posting of signs. If you go into Minnetonka or Bloomington or Edina, you'll oftentimes pass by signs that say proposed subdivision this site. Call City Hall. Now in Edina I think they make the developer put them up. There's a standard format they use. In Minnetonka we used to have the City print these things up and it was our signs and our crews put thenl up. That requireFlent gets owners, for example if you're like our first item tonight that was pulled, you're just dividing two lots. Planning Cop~ission Meeting DecePlber 6, 1989 - Page 5 - Having to buy a sign to put up on your property. If it's a city sign, it's no big deal. It's included in your application fee but it's surprising how many people see those things and will call in on it. If the ultimate goal is to notify as many people as possible, you might want to make that as a proposal. It's sOPlething that I assuPle would require some funding source because it's not an insignificant expense to make those signs up but that is an option. Conrad: Don't we have, is there any situation where we ha~e a requirement to put up a sign because we've talked about this before and I thought we had it going. Olsen: We used to have that in theJ'~e and whetheJ'~ OJ'~ not it was ever enforced. It used to be in there. I'm looking right now. I don't see it in theJ'~e anYPlore. Conrad: It's ablost we should have a sign up, if the zoning changes, if there's a subdivision going in, if there's anything that the public. If we have a public hearing, there should be a sign going up. It's the best way, without a doubt it's the best way to inform the public of what's going on. I think we've talked about the cost before and some people bear a burden, heavier burden when it's a simple little deal but geez, I'd sure like us to think, maybe we rent signs to these people. Maybe the City takes the burden on to begin with and then charges a sign fee to pay for the sign rental for the month preceeding the hearing. e Olsen: Then we'll have consistent signs too. ElIson: Yeah, it'd be the same looking and you'd start driving and you'd see that sign. Krauss: That's important that you standardize on the sign format. call the City. It says Conrad: I sure would like to do that. In fact I thought we were. Krauss: If you'd like to Plake that as a proposal, we can carry that on up to the City Council and get some information for them on what that might cost wi th sOPle di fferent options. Conrad: Let's do that. We comPlent, we never knew that was happening. That one sign will take care of all the problem, or a bulk of the problems that get through. people don't read the newspapers. They simply don't. ElIson: Or their mail. - Krauss: The mail, frankly, the mail in Carver County is tough. Hennepin County has a computerized address file as does Dakota County and some of the others where you tell them, you've got this lot and you need a 500 foot list and you get a computer generated map with a circle around it and the mailing labels and everything else. Our Planning secretary has had no end of trouble trying to get formal lists from Carver County. They will not certify a list. Planning Conrrllission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 6 e Enlnlings: Don't you get it from the Abstract cornpany? Krauss: The Abstract company won't certify it and they won't do it in a timely matter apparently. There's only one Abstract company. Olsen: It's very expensive. Krauss: So what we've been doing, the best that we can do is have people conle through our plat files and pick out the lots and go look np the addresses and nlake up a Plailing list but that is not what's specified and that's basically all we're able to do because of Carver County's position. Olsen: We make them go through the Abstract company. Krauss: Yeah, for the bigger plats. Olsen: Even snlall ones we've always nlake them. We try. Enmlings: For my lot I had to do that. Conrad: Steve, I interrupted. Anything else? Emnlings: No. e Ellson: I think I J'~enlember talking about the material and what have you and I'm a little concerned about saying the use of any metal. It's like you sa id, a lot of times it's done very tastefully. I know al urninum sid ing is considered metal and there's residential allover the place where you can't really tell it looks aluminnnl. I guess I'nl a little concerned about using just the brazed metal because that's like saying all plastics are alike. All metal looks the same. Under the ordinance on the first page you're talking about exceptions. Constructionor or alteration of a single or two family residential building or accessory building on a residential lot. Does that nlean a garage wonldn' t have to come? Olsen: A site plan? Ellson: Yeah. (There was a tape change during Jo Ann Olsen's answer.) ElIson: The other thing is when we're talking about the 4 weeks. Does this mean that we'll guarantee that we will see this within 4 weeks? Krauss: We would guarantee that we will schedule or try to schedule it. ElIson: I was thinking maybe we should say, not less than 4 weeks or something to that effect. I'd hate to feel that they come in and say okay, my 4 weeks is here and they never provided you with two-thirds of the e things intially requiJ'~ed and things like that. Planning CO!'\Dlission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 7 e Krauss: There's always that option. If we determine that it's not a complete application or we need additional infor!'\ation, we just pull it. e ElIson: I don't know that we have to give thern a guarantee if we're not ready. If we've got people sick. If we've got things going on. We want to do a thorough job yet this 4 weeks is a requirement. I hate the fact that we're putting it in writing that we'll guarantee 4 weeks when there's all sorts of things that could happen. I also noticed, well I think we mentioned that. On page 4 it was 350 feet and I thought it was 500 that we did. Generally I guess I don't have a good feel for what, we're talking about Illaybe that Ronlan thing. We would have the authod. ty to grant that site plan OT. sonlething like that. Maybe we could take a look at the history. How often is there a difference between what we say and what the City Council says and maybe that would be some rationale to SUPPOT.t something like these types of issues and then go back to the past and say, here was one. Here was one and they went through without a hitch as an example. But if there was you know a good 50% or something that we had to add to or take away or disagreed or something like that, then I'd probably would think that that extra body of approval would be worth it. I also agree that any kind of notification or increase of it or front page advert isernent reql.li rements. SOIlletinles I really think tha t comnlunica ti on is in nlY feelings, almost always the solution. People always feel it happens wi thout thenl knowing it and they think that they were ripped off and they don't feel it's fair and even though it's in the villager and things like that happen, they still don't feel that so I think the sign idea is fabulous and I think that any other kinds of things to make sure that people are notified I think would be wonderful. I don't think we could do enough probably. That's what I have. Ernnlings: Ladd, could I just go back and conlment on something she brought up that I forgot to conment on and that is whether or not you should go onto the City Council. I think that they should. The reason I think so is that I think it's good, particularly on a large development, that the developer get a feel from as many people in a position to later approve his project as soon as possible. If we miss one, if we're really out of sync on one of them with the City Council, and the person winds up with, I'm sure he'd rather know that early on rather than later. I have a feeling that these should go onto to the City Council. Ba tzl i : Would you get the sanle resul t if it was ei ther the lot owner felt aggrieved or within 10 days after our decision the City Council wanted to review it? Krauss: It would be my intent that if we proposed that, that they would have the right of appeal to the City Council. That's typically the way it's done. Batzli: And I agree that it would be either or. If the City Council wanted to review it, they could. e Emnlings: How would they know unti 1 they reviewed it? Planning Commission Meeting Oecellibel: 6, 1989 - Page 8 e Batzli: I don't know but it would be kind of like a consent agenda deal and of course you know that Chanhassen's consent agenda is never a consent agenda so. My turn? Conrad: Yeah. Batzli: I like sections 106 and 110. I have some problems with some of the other ones. Part of it is just language. I think you misuse the word section and division in various places throughout the proposed changes Paul. For instance in 20-108 as just one exalliple. Notwi thstand ing the provisions of this section. That should probably read division or it should read Section 20-107. One of the two. Question on residential lot. We have a definition of lot but not necessarily a residential lot. I don't know how picky we really want to get about our ordinances but it's probably a lot tha t' s in a zoned res iden tial zoned area or sOI1'iethi ng 1 i ke that. There's no such thing as really a residential lot. There's a lot which is a meets and bounds parcel that's recorded but my question is jilSt, I guess my bigger question is, where did this come from? Some of this it's clear came from our ordinance already. Is this copied from another city? Did I miss that? Did you tell us where you got this from? Is this from Minnetonka? Okay. I assumed that. e Krauss: Well a lot of it is. The or ig inal sections, SOllie of the or ig i nal sections that are in there today CaI1'ie frolll the Minnetonka ordinance as it sat a nUlllber of years ago. When I went back through, I looked at, you know I took what we had in Minnetonka because I spent a lot of years developing that there. Took out pieces that I didn't think were relevant and then threw in what we've already adopted here that I thought could be adopted or changed. Put that together. Batzli: Yeah, I don't know. The residential lot just struck I1'le as what the heck is that and I looked it up and there wasn't such a thing and I just thonght well, what they mean is of cou:rse a building on a lot in a residential zoned district or something like that. That's really picky. Conrad: It doesn't bother me. Batzli: It didn't bother me until I looked for residential lot and then when it wasn't there and then you kind of have to start guessing what you mean. Not really but... Krauss: Should we change it to a lot zoned and guided for residential use? Batzli: I mean that's clear but then the question is, do we want to go through the whole thing like that and I don't know that we necessarilY have to. I wanted to flag it that there are certain problems like that in. various places of this and do we want to really go through it in that detail or do we. e Conrad: I think we do if it's unclear. Now the residential lot was not unclear. I know what a residential lot should be so it wasn't a case of misinterpretation in my mind. Planning Cop~ission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 9 e Batzli: No, and I agree. I just bring that up as... ElIson: Consistency kind of. Batzli: Do we want to talk about things like that? Only if they're clear. Only if they're not clear. Ernnlings: If it Plakes it unclear, you're right. We should change it. Batzli: Then the question is, for instance in 20-109, Section 1. Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property. Well should that really be, well lot wouldn't necessarily be a lot so property is probably correct there but I went through it and I was kind of looking at things like that and I guess I won't worry about those. Krauss: If I may make a suggestion, if you want to deal with the substantive ones and give me the contextual ones and we can just make those changes before it goes to the City Council. Batzli: Okay. In 20-111, a date shall be set for review of site plan. Do we also review the building plan or no? We so:metimes get the interior of the building and that types of things. e Krauss: The site plan application requires that they give you building elevations fronl all directions. We have not required interior building plans. A lot of times they're not developed at the stage that you look at things. Batzli: Would there ever be a cause to have a public hearing on a building plan? Under the admistrative apprpoval, if a person is aggrieved, suddenly they conle under that section III don't they? If you adnli stJ~ati vely approved one. They would suddenly have the right to come to us with the building plan. Do we want that to occur? Krauss: You mean by building plan you're talking about an interior? Batzli: I don't know. For instance in 20-113, minor site and building plans and alterations which do not involve a variance. That means you're adnlinstratively approving it. The last sentence reads any person aggrieved by a decision nlay appeal it to us. I would assume that includes building plans. Do you want that to occur is my question? e Krauss: If I could clarify further. If it's building plans in terms of structural issues or something, that's not something I would get into nor would I think it's something the Planning Con~ission would. Well, let me give you a for instance. If we approve the building. If you approved a building that had a particular architectural style, for instance Market Square, which has those significant entryways and we discussed thenl a lot, and they canle in with building plans that significantly altered that and asked me to adminstratively approve it. I would refuse. I'd say your appeals go right back to the Planning Conmlission to see what they think. That would be a building plan that yes, I think it would be warranted for you to review. Planning Con~ission Meeting Decenlber 6, 1989 - Page 10 e Batz1i: Do we anywhere have a definition of building plan? Krauss: I don't believe so. Batzli: Maybe that's what confused I1'le. We talk at great length about site plans but this kind of talks about building plans and site plans. I guess I didn't know where those building plans really fit in and who would review them. Krauss: Maybe we should just clarify it by using the continuity of just saying minor site plans because site plans include building and exterior features. Batzli: You're going to approve them unless we think we should look at it under 20-100(b). Is that a typographical error? I couldn't find that section. Krauss: I think what you have there is an exaI1'lple of cutting and pasting. Batzli: Okay. What are the criteria? Where are they in this docuI1'lent? Krauss: I'm not certain. I'll have to clarify that but I think what I was referring to are the mandatory site and building plan reviews under 107. e Batzli: Under 20-107? I guess I'm kind of confused on that but... Conrad: I'm real confused on that. The whole, under adminstrative approvals, I don't understand that. I think I want to allow it but I don't get it. I don't understand what you said in those 5 sentences at all and I'd like to know when, under what circumstances. The key there is I1'tlnor sites and building plans and alterations which do not involve a variance which are not accompanied by other matters. I want to know when you have the authority to do it. It's got to be. Batzli: It's difficult to. e Krauss: The}'~e' s a catch-22 in there. As a staff meI1'lber I'd like to have the authority to work out minor detailed problems. I also want to have the authority to say that's beyond the scope of my authority and I can't do it and if you disagree with my opinion, take it to the Planning Commission. It's hard to define what those items are going to be because there's a whole variety of them as they crop up. You know if you put a list, minor changes to parking lots or minor architectural details, that's still not going to do it because what's minor? You might have an architect saying that the entrances to the shopping center are I1'linor in his opinion. It's one of those open ended things that we can try to define it a little better. I think it basically is a matter of an understanding by doing it. If you think I transgressed, tell me and we work out an understanding of what minor means. Minor in my opinion is, as your staff person, is that which I ani comfortable doing in the context that you approved it in. If I don't think it violates that approval, I'm willing to work with somebody. But it is hard to define. Planning Commission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 11 e Conrad: Are we talking about changes or are we talking about the site? These are changes that you're talking about once we've approved it. I think that should be, it really doesn't say that in those words in here Paul. Batzli: But I don't know if he should be limited to just minor changes. I 1"lean if S01"leOne ca1"le in wi th an incredibly trivial, I think one of the deals is that they move a house within Chanhassen or something isn't it under that section? Krauss: It says move a structure. I was looking at that tonight before I came down here. It shouldn't apply to single faI\1ily homes. It doesn't as I read it. Batzli: I was thinking if you moved a single fa1"lily home into Chanhassen onto a platted lot. Met all the setbacks. It was really kind of a no brain deal. Why would we want to see it? That's the kind of thing I was thinking of. I don't mean to say no brain deal but one that doesn't really raise an issue that we'd :really need to look at but then the question is, how do you define what do we need to look at and that's why I was hoping that when he changed that f:rom 20-100 to whateve:r it was going to help. If you were pointing to something, S01"le set of guidel ines, I think that would be I\1o:r,e helpful than none but like you said, it's going to be tough to define it and in any event it's going to be kind of loosey goosey any way you do it. e Krauss: I can attempt at coming up with some sort of definition on it but I think it boils down to we as staff gaining an understanding of your intent. Ellson: You're thinking more changes? In othe:r words, it's been approved and then you're quickly going to, or maybe like that bank that carne back just to move it a tad and it carne all the way? Krauss: Well yeah. Something 1 i ke that we might say is nlinor. Ellson: Right and yet it was back here again. That whole person had to stop. Krauss: We've had projects where after they've been approved and building permits were requested, we realized that the architectural plans are significantly different than what you approved. The bricks disappeared. Detailing goes away and I want to be in a position to say that's not what the Planning Con~ission approved and I won't authorize it. If you want to push this, you're not going to get a permit. You're going to go back to the Planning Conmlission. If on the other hand they say I have this arch over here but I need to move it and my entrance to the other side of the building. It's still going to look pretty much similiar but I have to change my landscaping to do it. That's minor and we do those kinds of things all the time. I'd like to have the authority to do it because we've been doing it. - Planning COI'md.ssion Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 12 e Batzli: I think probably our relunctance is that we don't have a good feeling ourselves of what minor and not minor is. Not necessarily that we don't tJ-:nst your judgI'lent. ElIson: The word changes alone would help. Not just seeing it once. Conrad: I think you mentioned something in there that I would feel a little bit comfortable with. Changes but still making the original intent of what was previous approved. That's your call to figure out what our intent is. I never know if you can interrupt what 7 people here say and also the City Council because you get a difference of opinion. The intent is what really you have to measure it to. The only other thing I can think in that issue is if you make a decision, and I don't want to create adI'linstrative stuff but if you infornled us what you did. Just say here's what I did. It's not an agenda item. It's just for information on our part. Krauss: We'd be happy to try and keep you posted but sometimes this would have, by the time you would have known about it, it may have already happened. ElIson: Well not like having veto power but just to keep us informed as to if you're going the right way we saw the changes or not. e Conrad: I don't know. I'll let you decide whether adrninstrative hassle but. you want. If that's an Krauss: I think initially anyway so that we're both comfortable with how that procedure is being handled, I think that's a valid way of doing it. Conrad: We don't want to get into the job that you do. SOllIe stuff we just shouldn't see but right now we don't talking about so Brain it's still yours. That's clear. know what we're Batzli: In Section 20-114. Fourth line, after the word ordinance. Should that be to promote the intent of this ordinance and/or to protect adjacent properties? Krauss: Right. Batzli: Okay. The next section, substantial compliance with the plans and specifications. I hate using the word substantial there because 31 feet from the lot line might be substantially close to 35 feet from the lot line. Krauss: Well but would revert, that goes hand in hand with the adIllinstrative approval section which says you can't create variances. Batzli: Yeah, I think construction of all site elements ~hall be in cOIllpliance with the plans. Personally. I think you're giving people room to not quite do what they asked them to do there by saying in substantial compliance. If I was an attorney, I'd love that word. - Planning C01':\l'\ission Meeting Decel'lber 6, 1989 - Page 13 e Krauss: Brian, I know what you're trying to get at and I would agree with it. The problem we face is that virtually every plan that-we see deviates for some reason by the time it goes through the City Council but more importantly by the time it goes through final plans and specs and gets building permit approval. If they have code compliance reasons for changing entrances froPI here to there or for enlarging window sizes or for building parapets. Batzli: Yeah, but if you added construction of the site elements shall be in compl iance wi th the plans, specs approved by the Planning Cop\Plission, City Council, Director of Planning. I mean it's a done deal by the time I think this happens. I don't know. Maybe that's soP\ething that I'm not seeing something. ~~ing: I think you're absolutely right. I think you can interrupt cOPlpl iance to mean substantial compl iance but if you're going to give the developer substantial compliance, he's going to feel like he's got leeway. Why give it to him? e Batzli: The next question is, I think we need to reword the approved by the Planning Commission, City Councilor Director of Planning so they don't say well, we did according to the Planning COP\Plission and really they should have been doing it according to the City Council. I don't know what our name has to be on there unless the City Council doesn't review our work. I don't know what the other Planning COP\Plission people think about that. In other words, it's the Council's final say and you have the authority to make minor changes but they shouldn't be doing what we told thenl. They should be doing what the City Council told thenl. ElIson: In case there was a flip flop or something? Batzli: Yeah. Exactly. Conrad: So you want it City Council? Batzli: Yeah. I don't know that the Planning Commission needs to be on there. Again, if I haven't thought of something, I'm perfectly willing to back off on that one. Conrad: That sounds okay. EIlIIllings: The only thing I can think of there, do you ever go back to Planning cOPlIllission discussion to find out what the intent for something was that maybe didn't get discussed at the City Council? Of course I guess the City Council would be adopting that too if they approved it and they could still go back to the Planning COPlnlission Minutes. e Krauss: Let PIe give you another for instance because this has happened to nle on a nllPlber of occasions where you I1'light approve sOI1'lething and it gets hung up at the Council and it goes th:r~ol1gh repeated changes. By the tiple the final version conIes through, people aren't thinking straight. We're looking at a different set of issues and the final plan deviates from the one you approved but not because anybody intended it to deviate but because Planning COIllrnission Meeting DeceIllber 6, 1989 - Page 14 e somehow it changed along the way. You then go back and say well, that's not what the Planning COIlffilission approved and it fell through the cracks at the City Council and we still want to enforce. What the Planning COIlIIllission required is still binding upon yon. We never forgave that :teqnireIllent. It just got lost in the wash. EIl\Il\ings: Except one thing you're saying there isn't accurate. We don't approve anything. Ba t zl i : We reconffilend approval. Erhart: Nothing we do is binding. EIllmings: So that's a probleIlI. I don't know. It would seem to PIe that if the Planning COIlmd.ssion discusses sonlething and there was a rationale for imposing a condition and the City Council then adopted that condition, I guess they'd also be adopting the rationale so you could always go back to the Planning Con~ission Minutes but our action doesn't have, onr action is only a reconmlending action so I guess maybe you could take it out of there. Batzli: Something to think about anyway Paul. 20-1l6(b) , the metal on building exteriors shall be limited to trim. Does that include accessory buildings? e Krauss: Yes. Batzli: Is this in all districts? Krauss: In all non-single fantily and duplex dist:t icts, yes. Batzli: Where is that lind.ted? Krauss: The site plan section only applies to those. Batzli: Okay. Agricultural areas are also excluded? Krauss: Right. Batzli: Okay. That was my main concern were those two things. Make sure that those weren't included. Maintenance of site landscaping, 20-117. How long can you require that these things are growing? That they're replaced? How long are you intending this maintenance to occur? Krauss: I view it as a permanent requirement. Batzli: This is like perpetual? Krauss: Yes. e Batzli: Something about that just bothers me. I mean I like it. I like the concept but I mean, stuff changes. What would they have to do if they wanted to relandscape? They'd have to come in with a different landscaping plan? Planning Comrllission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 15 . Krauss: That gets into the adminstrati ve thing again. If somebody caI1le in and said I want to cut down a stand of mature trees, weld probably have a fit about that. If somebody came to us and said welve got a new landscaper who wants to cOI1lpletely change the bushes around and put in some new trees and move some stuff, we'd probably just say fine. Go ahead and do it and just give us a copy of the plan for our files. But I think the intent, when you and the City Council approve a project, it's not your intent that that project will look any different in 3 years than it does the day after it's built. It's your intent that it look like that for the life of the project or be improved upon. Batzli: I like that. Maybe we need to clarify that this is forever and ever then. I thought this was part of the landscape financial guarantees I guess when I read it through the first tiple. It I s clear to PIe now that it isn't but when I read it I was initially thinking that this was for the first year and that this is part of that process. I understand retaining walls now then. Those are my questions. Conrad: Okay, good ones. Just two quick ones. The use of metal on exteriors. So there's not a good, I guess 11m a little bit concerned with that one. There's not a high quality I1letal that we would allow? We just don't know of anything right now that seems to meet? . Krauss: , You know the technology keeps changing. Conrad: But today there's nothing that we know that really would meet the quality that we're looking for? Krauss: live not seen it. Frankly live come across one building in the last 8 years that I thought warranted a variance froI1l this standard and I wrote this ordinance so it wouldn't require a variance and that was, if youlre familiar with it, there's the Key Nissan dealership up on Hwy 12 which was a wooden front building and they wanted to make it a much classier looking operation. The ordinance that I had to work with at that time prohibited all metal except for glass curtainwall construction. If you look, it I S a burnished aluI1linum or brushed aluI1linuI1l wi th a reflecto:r glass and it's a very pretty looking facade that they stuck up there which was a technology that hadn't been anticipated when the ordinance was worded that way. I recoI1~ended it and it got a variance to be approved but the way this is worded, that sort of a building would have been allowed. Ellson: How can you say that would be allowed this time? Krauss: Because that aluminum panel above the windows we could have was the trim material. e Conrad: There are, or at least I think it is, roofings that are really the front of the buildings. They really don't cover the roof but they're the, well we've got them in downtown Chan in the redevelopment and that's probably, in that case that's probably wood but there are metal roofs that are very attractive. They look like copper. They probably are a copper, so what is that? Planning COPII\lission Meeting DecePlber 6, 1989 -. Page 16 e Krauss: That is true and this does not, I guess the way I envision it, maybe we can clarify that so it doesn't apply to roofing materials. Standing seam metal roofs are attractive and it was on the Crossroads Bank. I think they're going to use it very effectively. Conrad: Or copper canopies. There's another case where I've seen that used architecturally and that's really attractive so there's sonlething that, these words seem to exclude those things so maybe you could clean that up a little bit. I think the intent is right. Then I'm real confused about the section 20-113. I really need some help there to J~eword that and figure out what 20-100(b) is. Those are my only two. I think generally this is real good. Batzli: I have one other. The use of the term, and this was actually the biggee and it was IIp front so I missed it. The use of the term building rather than structure. Is that intentional? If you have the Code in front of you and you look up structure, much broader and it includes building but it includes sheds. It includes a lot of other things that I think we want to include. Krauss: We can convert that over. Olsen: ...talking about it all the way through? e Batzli: Yeah. Just the construct a building under 20-107. Under structure includes building, fence, anything constructed, erected. know that, I guess I don't know if we want to go that broad but it to me that we wanted to go broader than just building. I don't seemed Olsen: Fences and everything? Batzli: That's the big question. Structure may be a little bit too broad but I think building isn't broad enough. I think the intent is to include things other than what you would think of as a building. Krauss: Yeah, because we've had some probleI\ls wi th the defini tion of structure in other sections of the ordinance. It's too all encompassing. Batzli: Yeah. We almost need soolething in the middle. A kind of structure. Ellson: Quasi structure. Krauss: The site plan covers everything that's not the principle building so I think it's actually covered there. We're talking about the building. We're talking about the site. That structural definition that we have does have sonle problenls in here wi th it. e Batzli: I just thought of for instance where it says I\lOVe a building to any lot within the city. Well what if they moved a shed? A big shed. A big nletal shed. Get as crazy as you want but the problem in the structlll:e is that we talk about a building and a shed being different things and I Planning Co:mnd.ssion Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 17 e think people would have good arguments that they're listed separately under the defini tion of structure. I' PI nlov ing a shed but not a bui Id ing and so tough luck. Emnd.ngs: Is there a def ini tion under bui Id ing? Batzli: No. Not building by itself. Any other kind of building that you want except building by itself. Conrad: Okay. bring it back? Any other comPlents? Would it be wise to table this and Any rush to get this through to City Council? Krauss: together going to be fine. No. Jo Ann and I have been spending time trying to get things for the spring rllsh and I think holding it over a meeting is not hurt that. We don't have real big agendas conting up so that will Conrad: I think because we asked you to change enough words in enough sections that it probably makes sense. I think if you gave us a real, I don't think it's going to clog the next agenda. It should race through here. Give us one final chance to take a look at it. Is there a motion to table this? EIlImings: So nloved. 4It ElIson: And I'll second it. Entnlings nloved, ElIson seconded to table the zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code, Division 6, Site Plan Review to revise the procedures, expand on development standards and require financial guarantees for landscaping and other si te improvements so staff can nlake the nlodi fications outlined by the Planning Con~ission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO MODIFY THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS. Public Present: Nanle Address Mary Jo Moore Ray Roettger 3231 Dartmouth Drive 3221 Dartmouth Drive - Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the i tent. the public hearing to order. Chairman Conrad call Planning COPIl1'lission Meeting Decembe~ 6, 1989 - Page 18 e Con~ad: Okay, thanks Jo Ann. fo~ publ ic cOl1'lnlents. It is a public hea~ing so we'll open it up Ma~y Jo Moo~e. Da~tplouth Dr i ve subpli t a let te~ pass it on? Good evening. My name is Ma~y Jo Moore. I live at 3231 which is lakeshore prope~ty on Lake Minnewashta. I did to Ursula Dimle~ that I asked that she pass on. Did she Con~ad: She didn't pass the letter on but she did call me. Ma~y Jo Moore: Okay. Conrad: But it's good to go through what you said in your letter because I don't think anybody else has hea~d it. Mary Jo Moore: Well it was a 4 page letter. you'd like. I have it in my purse if Conrad: It would be real good, if it had gone to city staff they would have included it in our packets but because... Ellson: But Ursula did contact you and give you the context? e Conrad: phone. letter of the Tried to ove~ the phone and it's not easy to do a 4 pager Bnt anyway I think it's real wise that the City get a copy by the time this gets to City Council. Jo Ann, do you have letter? So make sure that she gets it. over the of your a copy Mary Jo Moore: That Jo Ann gets it? Okay. At any rate, the basis of the lette~, without going th~ough the whole 4 pages, I live between two lakeshore associations one of which I 'PI a menlber. I'm considered an onshore member. I do not use the property. I do pay dues on it for maintenance and insurance and that sort of thing. As even a dues paying member, I have difficulty enforcing the provisions of the association, i.e. let's clean up the docks. They're falling down. Let's fix them. Let's clean up the property. You can't enforce these things. The people that are using this lake property are not looking at it. They're going and they're jllmping in their boat and they're taking off and if they can have a post that's st1lrdy enough to tie their boat to, that's all their concerned with. They don't clean the beach. The other association which is a 30 foot lakefront property is onto the east of me. It's inbetween Ray and me and there's this 30 foot section of beach that is a disaster. Ray keeps his prope~ty cleaned up. I keep nlY property cleaned up. This section is a disaster. Enlnlings: Is that the Shores? e Mary Jo Moore: That's Sterling Estates is to the east of me and I have Minnewashta Shores west of nle so I 'PI inbetween these two, member of one. One thing that also ~ather upsets me was that this pierce prope~ty, I wasn't aware of it. I try to follow what's going on in this city. I'm working full tinle though. I can't show up eve'~y evening that sonlething is going on. I was not notified. Ray was not notified. But I did notice in Planning Con~ission Meeting Decen\ber 6, 1989 - Page 19 e e the paper tha t a pnb1 ic hear ing was going to be held on Novenlber 13th. Ray and I showed up for the public hearing and found out that it was in fact held on November 6th, one week earlier without any rescinding notice in the villager or any notice to the residents of the lake. I guess I won't get into the pierce property since that isn't the subject of this issue. I've read through the proposal and in the analysis that has come through, we're equating private property, the DNR regulations for private property to a recreational beachlot that is for the benefit of how many people? In the pierce case it's 15 residents. I don't think you can take a 50 x 10 foot piece of property that's for a private residence, who is restricted I nlight add, to 3 boats. They must be in their names. I mean we have more r.egulations on the lake than these recreational beachlots. You're taking and equating this DNR regulation to a beachlot. I don't think, that doesn't make sense to me because there's too many people. Another thing is a sand beachlot is generally speaking a swimn\ing beach area. That's not someplace where you're going to stick a dock. It's unsafe. You have swinmlers in and out of the dock so I don't see any correlation between this DNR regulation and the beachlot. I also feel that the 100 foot depth, I've been involved in this since day one. Since they started the surveys on the lake and were investigating it. This was to preclude developers con\ing in, buying there's an awful lot of farmland around that's in many acres. They buy it up and they stick one little lot on the lake that everybody gets to use and then they develop around it and it creates a mess. As is stated in here in the analysis, the City has no contr.ol over these associations. I as a member of one association have no impact so the developer walks away. He's done his bit. He's sold his property. He goes. The residents there then do whatever they want to do and it's the other neighboring people that have to try to control this and it has created disaster in n\y instance. I've tried to work with neighbors regarding the Sterling Estates. Asked them to get together and I'm not part of their association, to work things out. They won't do it because they're all afraid they're going to lose their little access so they won't even talk to one another. What else in here? At any rate, I think there should be mor~ teeth put into the ordinance where the City does have control over the associations and their regulations as opposed to eliminating that section entirely. Again, I think the 100 foot, it should be a mininlum 100 foot depth at anyone point. I as a lakeshore owner, if I bought a piece of property and I was going to build, I'm required to build back 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. That doesn't mean one corner of my property has to be 75 feet back but the rest of it can angle into the lake. It's a minin\unl 75 and front that point back. with the pierce property, we have taken city proper.ty. The city right-of-way for the road and added that into their depth. It just, that is not 100 feet there and I think that it's a definite requirement that we have to have specific minimum widths and lengths. As far as the docks, the proposed reconm\ended language here, you say a dock every 200 feet. Does that mean 200 feet, here's a dock? 200 feet here's a dock. 200 feet here's a dock or are they altogether and how many boats can be moored on each one of these docks? I think there's an awful lot of clean up would have to be done to the reconm\ended language and again, I don't think 20-263 should be deleted. I think it should be expanded so the City has n\ore control over the association rules. And of course, as you can probably tell, I'd just as soon eliminate beachlots altogether. That's all I have to say. Thank you. e Planning COllllllission Meeting DecenlbeJ: 6, 1989 - Page 20 e Ray Roettger: I've talked about this before. The name is Ray Roettger. I live next to Mary Jo Moore. 3221 Dartmouth Drive. I think a couple of types of property would come into mind. One would be a crescent shaped, half moon lot that could be jllSt like a crescent and you could say, you could measure along the periphery of that on a curve and come up with 100 feet. I think you have to define it a little bit more. Another one would be kind of a trianglllar piece such as the outlot is between Mary Jo and myself which tends to expand 30 feet wide and then tends to expand a little bit. Like Joe Boyer said, there are 60 feet out there. Well, 60 feet out in the lake someplace but people I guess don't quite mechanically understand how some of these things develop. Mary Jo was wrong on one point. I really ani the caretaker of that piece of property between and I spend several days picking and pulling up purple loosestrife which had developed but try as I nlay to try to get SOllIe help, they use it and walk away. I don't think anybody's ever picked up a beer can. The south facing lot is going to pick up all this stuff sooner or later. They just don't do it and I think there should be something that someone could do to say hey, let's straighten up the docks, clean up the property, you know impose some restrictions on thenl. I think any concession along that line of a beachlot, you should have sorne teeth in it like Mary Jo says in case it gets too bad but the property she's referring to was beautiful. They rip rapped it. They dredged it. Put up docks. Everything's straight and then one year they just leaned over and they've been that way for 4 or 5 years. I mean it's terrible and I don't understand why they don't clean it up. e Conrad: panl, what is the solution for a problenl like that? Olsen: Not cleaning it up? Conrad: Yeah. Is it a nuisance? Is it a public nuisance? and say it's not being kept up? Call the City Olsen: With weeds and things like that? Yeah. That's just like any other lot. It conld be. How far we'd get wi th that I 'nl not sure but we could do it as a nuisance. ElIson: Things like beer cans and stnff like that, that could get into the water and that would be sonle good reason.. .pull the loosestrife, that might be a little hard to try to weasle in. Olsen: We do with obnoxious weeds though. Conrad: Is the homeowners association registered? Olsen: I don't know if they're all registered but a lot of them don't, we're not up to date wi th who's the president. A lot of tinles we try to keep up with that but even a lot of the members don't know who the president is or who to contact. e Conrad: Yeah, it's real infomlal. Planning ConlI'lission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 21 e Mary Jo Moore: Sterling Estates, that isn't even organized into an association. We have deeded rights to this piece of property... Batzli: So if you were to notify them, what would you do? Send a registered letter to every person? Conrad: And then basically would say if nothing is done within 30 days, the City would undertake the clean-up and charge it back to the individual. Ray Roettger: See the dange)'~ kind of is, I'm part of the problem because I also own part of that outlot. If I don't clean it up, but everybody just sits back and... EI'IIllings: Let's you do it. Ray Roettger: Cut the grass and clean it up and everything else. The real problenl is, you suddenly becol'le the enel'IY of all the other people because if you say sOl'lething, then old man Joe Boyer...tells me I'nl selfish. You know, how do you handle it. It's kind of like take it away but I think by the way, Mary Jo brought up a point when she said the depth, does it include the right-of-way or does it not? Olsen: Now what we're proposing. e Ray Roettger: So it's all part of the property. Mary Jo Moore: The one point... Ray Roettger: The 100 foot depth, is that perpendicular to the... Conrad: Basically yes, except for where the dock goes. Olsen: These are both 100 feet, or even more than 100 feet basically... Ray Roettger: I asked a question of the dock as proposed there, it looks like it's nlade to accol'lmodate 3 boats but actually could handle 7. Olsen: That is a whole different process. They still have to go through the whole conditional use which is another... Ray Roettger: Are they restricted to 3 boats? Olsen: If they have enough area, you have to have intially 30,000 and then an additional 20,000 and then you have to add the 200 foot of lake frontage or additional 200 feet to have more docks. Right now they are only, again we're not reviewing that right now but they're only proposing one dock with 3 boats. e Mary Jo Moore: on it. I can put up a dock on my property and I can have 10 boats Olsen: You're limited to 5 I think. Planning ComTIlission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 22 e MaJ:y Jo Moore: as you want. I mean you could potentially with 1 dock have as many boats Conrad: But it's restricted. Ep@ings: You'd be breaking the law. You could do it but you'd be breaking the law. Conrad: because, Absolutely. Absolutely. is it 5 absolute? There is a 1 inti t and now it I S escaped nle EnI{l:lings: No, it's 3. Conrad: It's 3 for an individual property but for a beachlot, I think we have granted up to geez, I don't know, 6 per dock. Olsen: For a recreational beachlot there's a maximum of 9 overnight boats. Conrad: So there is an absolute. And I think that's pretty well taken care of. We beat that one up a whole lot. 11m not real interested in going back through it. It makes sense based on size restrictions and what have you. It does TIlake some kind of sense. e Ray Roettger: many? On the Pierce property, are there 10 lots or 12 lots or how Olsen: I think there was like 15. The number has escaped TIle but it IS nlore than 10. But they have been saying just three of the lots along Lake Minnewashta wonld have rights. Again, that's sonlething that will be reviewed. Ray Roettger: Can you accomPloda te. . . wi th the approval? Olsen: Yon could Plake that a condition of what lots they have... Ray Roettger: Well, I gness that would be my suggestion you know to put a number. Olsen: As far as the boats and I don't know whether. weld put a restriction on who could use it. Ray Roettger: No, but the nUInber. Is ther.e a possibility of doing that? Conrad: That's a different issue than we have tonight. Eplmings: I I PI not slue, we I r.e kind of tal ki ng cross purposes here. I don It know if vou folks under.stand that this is not the whole beachlot or.dinance bv anv m~ans and that there are other. sections of the beachlot ordinance that ~egulate the nUI\'lber of boats and all kinds of other. things. e Mary Jo Moore: I r.ealize that. EplPlings: I didn't know if you did. Planning ConlI'\ission Meeting Decembe~ 6, 1989 - Page 23 e Mary Jo Moore: But I think these Il\eaSU~enlents, when the ord inance was adopted and passed, these measu~ements we~e considerably... Ray RoettgeJ'~: Why else would they put the 100 feet in? e Conrad: For several reasons. The 100 is the~e to buffe~ it. The 100 is a buffering mechanism and in the case that we sent to the City Council, which they haven't acted on, the street became part of the buffer so we felt pretty comfortable. Again, you've got to make su~e, the key p~emise here of the beachlot is to buffer the surrounding neighbors. If we feel that that's done, I don't ca~e if it's, 100 is arbitrary. It could be 98. It could be 110. It could be a driveway. It could be a hill. It could be a stJ'~eet. I don't care wha t. I want a buffer there so in the cases where you have a street that acts like a buffer that keeps it from the neighbors, that's fine. So the 100 in my mind is just arbitrary. If thete's a buffer there, that's the botton\ line so I'm not convinced that 100 feet, I'm telling you where I'm at on this but that's the rationale for the 100 was buffering. The other part of the rationale was enough area for those people who use it to r.ecreate so that it wasn't uncon\fortable for them. So the developer doesn't go out and ove~sell the property and say everybody owns it. They get ther.e and you pack 300 people on a postage stamp. But that's taken care of wi th sonle of the 20,000 square foot ntinin\ums and the 30. The~e are some other things stuck in ther.e, the 4 foot per. person which the staff is recoIllIllending taking out. That was intended to take care of those issues and I may have some concerns with the staff's perspective on that because that doesn't solve some of the r.eal intent of the ordinance so I guess that's the background to that 100 feet that I know of and it's the logic that makes sense to me and I want to carry that logic out in however we modify the ordinance that we have tonight. Ray Roettger: Yes, your. ordinance is for now and in the future but that's precisely the problenl we have. with all these lots and everybody wants to put a boat down there. Years ago we fought it. Conrad: The ordinance does take care of the quantity of boats. It still is going to be a problenl for you. Most of the time it becomes a problen\ for the beachlot people themselves because usually if there's 20 lots, only 6 people OJ: 3 people have docking J: ights. Then sonle people leave them there over.night and then it becomes a pJ:oblem of patrolling themselves so there are sonle problen\s. Any other public comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Batzli moved, ElIson seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor. and the motion caJ:J:ied. The public heaJ:ing was closed. e Erha~t: Fronl what I see the object of this discussion tonight is simply to alter the ordinance to make it absolutely clear. what's allowed and what's not allowed so there's nothing subjective to it. There can be no interpr.etation because this is probably the single thing in this city where eveJ:ybody wants to try to fi t their Ii ttle lot into sonlehow meet the ordinance and so apparently we've got a phrase in here that's vague. So Planning Commission Meeting Decel'lbeJ: 6, 1989 - Page 24 e what you'J:e tJ:ying to do is claJ:ify it, cOJ:J:ect? Olsen: CorJ:ect. EJ:haJ:t: That's the purpose of this whole discussion? Olsen: The whole pUJ:pose. Erhart: And so, if you feel that this does that, without getting into a big discussion of what any of these dimensions, whether they're right or wJ:ong, I'm all in support of claJ:ifying it. I don't think you'd ever come to a conclusion on what the right sized lots aJ:e. I'm sure this same aJ:gunlent will go on fo)'~ yeaJ:s and years. So if that's what the purpose is, then I would go to the recon~endation that you have and the wording and suggest that that paJ:t of the sentence wher.e it says 1'Ieasured both at the oJ:dinaJ:Y high wateJ: mark and, is really redundant I believe in that if you have 200 foot lake frontage, obviously it's going to be at least 50 foot wide at the high water mark. That may be an incorrect... Olsen: But now with the depth of 100 feet. e Er.haJ:t: I'm not suggesting you take that out. I'm suggesting that it just simply J:ead, no dock shall be per.mitted on a recreational beachlot unless it's at least 200 feet lake frontage and a width at any point 100 feet landward from the oJ:dinary high water mark of not less than 50 feet. I don't think you need that phJ:ase wheJ:e it says measur.ed both at the or.dinary high water mark and at a point 100 feet in. I think it's just a little cleaner. Krauss: I think the only reason we did that is because at the City Council, I fOJ:get who it was. SOl1lebody suggested that they wanted to avoid a situation wheJ:e you had a narrow penninsula going out that met that measurement at one point but otherwise was only 10 feet wide and should this little p1nlple of property or whatever, allow them to have, to satisfy the requiJ:enlent for the dock. EJ:haJ:t: So you're saying you measured the lake frontage essentially you follow the actual contour of the shoreline? Olsen: Right. The way that this is written requires you to have that 50 feet and 100. I don't know if you take out those words how, I'm tJ:ying to read it the way you'J:e doing it. Erhart: All I'm saying, it already reads you've got to have 200 feet at the lake front and that's already there in the first phrase. Olsen: We're saying you have to have a 200 foot wide piece that has a 100 foot depth. You could still have that 200 foot lake frontage but not necessarily 100 foot. e Er.hart: How could you have 200 foot, maybe Paul can describe that but I was wondering how can you have a 200 foot lake frontage and not have 50 feet at the ordinary high water. mark? Planning COI1'rrnission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 25 e Epll1lings: You can't. Olsen: See you're got over 500 feet of lake frontage but you don't have a depth of 100 feet for 50 feet for the whole thing. What we're doing is requiring that for an area. You have a 50 foot width that has a 100 feet. Erhart: I'm not saying you take out the 50 feet at the 100 foot in. I'm just saying if you remove the phrase the 50 feet at the ordinary high water I1'lark, you've essentially got that wi th the 200 feet frontage requirement. Olsen: But I think it still needs that. Krauss: In it's most extreme case though, you could have something that met the frontage requirement that was only 3 feet deep or something like that. Erhart: That measured linearly? Krauss: Right. And then extends out into the water 100 feet but it's only 2 feet wide when it gets to that point. Frankly TiI1'l it wasn't particularly our issue 'but we were trying to anticipate what the Council directive was. e Erhart: That was the only point. Again, if this makes it unargueable, then fine. I think it's just fine. e EmPlings: I think the language is real confusing. I think I understand what they're saying but I think the language is real confusing. I'I1'l not sure that right off the bat that the ordinance needs to be changed but if we try to work with it, I'd like to propose a couple of alternatives maybe just for discussion if nothing else. I think what really I1'lakes this confusing is when you say at a point 100 feet landward you've got to have a width of 50 feet. You can't have a width at a point. I think that really screws you up so I think one thing you could do there would be to say, I'd be inclined to write this as follows. I would say no dock shall be perplitted on any recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and a minimuI1'l of 30,000 square feet in area. I'd start there. Pulling that up from down below. Period. Then I'd say in addition, there must be an area 50 feet in width at the high water mark and 50 feet in width along a line 100 feet landward of the high water mark. SOI1'lething like that. Define that area but define it in terms of put that as an additional. I don't think that quite does it because you want to make sure it lines up but I think we could, if we work on it for a minute, I think we could come up wi th SOI1'le language. Then I'd say that you can't have, go right on where you are. No Plore than 1 dock I1'lay be erected on a recreational beachlot for each 200 feet of lake frontage and if any additional, there shall be an area requirement of an additional 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. Put those 2 ideas together. I think it would help clean it up but the only thing, then a second approach. That would be my first choice. My second choice would be that we kind of take Ladd's idea and say that we won't allow any docks on a recreational beachlot unless it has 200 feet of lake frontage, 30,000 square feet minimum area and a buffer from neighboring landowners. Now the problem's Planning ConlIllission Meeting Decen\ber 6, 1989 - Page 26 e going to be defining that buffer and we could say son\ething like, this buffer nlay consist of topography, streets, or the depth of the property itself. So they meet this requirement, this ki~d of a requirement and then that's a form of a buffer but the buffer might be other things. Then we just have to do it on a case by case basis after that. But that might do a better job of getting at the intent. Now this particular one, the pierce one, which I look at from n\y house, I know it when I dr i ve by there pretty often and it's not only buffered front. First of all, the properties behind it are the people that are using it. From back there it's buffered not only by the road but by topography because the land drops down so much and really when you're up on that road, it's tough to see down there. I don't find this one bit offensive. I don't find it offensive looking at it from the lakeside either. However, Minnewashta Heights I'd have some con@ents about and the Shores and Sterling Estates but that's a policing problem that will never solve. It's just beyond hope I think and Lake Minnewashta unfortunately is blessed with a great number of these. Mary Jo Moore: Put a little bit more teeth in the ordinance. But I think the ordinance also...it wasn't just a buffer frool the neighbors, it was to restrict lake useage. I mean that's one of the reasons, in fact it was called I think a lake useage ordinance... E:o\n\ing s : I don't know they thought they' d restl~ ict lake use age by putting in beachlots. e Mary Jo Moore: You don't dunlp 20 families that aren't living on the lake with 20 boats into the water with a 50 foot piece of property. Enln\ing s : That's what a beachlot does. Mary Jo Moore: Yes, and that's why they put in the restrictions in passing the ordinance to prevent... . - E:o@ings: The other thing about the beachlots on Minnewashta, they've clearly grown. The intensity of the use has grown in the 6 years I've been out on the lake. There are more boats on them now than there ever have been but this stuff is just impossible to police. It's not impossible. It just would exhaust the City's resources. But anyway, that would be the second approach that I'd suggest. I'd do one or the other and I think it would maybe help make more sense. I feel like the whole thing is pretty arbitrary. I'm pretty much for, I guess if I had to make a decision tonight, I'd say there ought to be a ntinin\un\ of 100 feet along the whole thing. There shouldn't be any point at which is less than 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark. That would be my basic position except when I try to apply that to this property, it doesn't make sense to me. I think a beachlot on this property is fine. I don't think that land has any other use than for this and I don't think, I think the use that they're proposing is not very intense. If it's used the way they're saying it will be used, I don't think it's going to be a detriment to the lake so I guess I'd 1 i ke son\e flex ibi 1 i ty in here so that when we have a proposal like this that seems reasonable, we could approve it without applying a hard rule that there's got to be 100 feet in depth everywhere. I know there are properties to the south of this one that don't have all the Planning Comnlission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 27 e depth. They're also up, their elevation is up closer to the road so they don't have the screening that this one does by topography. One is Dave Headla and other neighbors of his to the south and I can well imagine that once they decide to subdivide their properties, they're going to want beachlots down there too because it's going to make a hell of a difference in the value of their property. Those I don't think should be approved. Those I'd be opposed to because they're narrower along the lake. They don't have the frontage and they don't have the buffer. This one I'm not opposed to. Mary Jo Moore: If you change the ordinance so it's 100 feet to 50 feet, then this property wouldn't have 100 feet and I know he's got at least 200. Emmings: No. You're nlisunderstanding what's here. You've got to have 200 feet on the lake. Mary Jo Moore: Enmlings: I don't know. If he does, then he's got aright to conle in and ask for a beachlot but we're saying there's got to be 200 feet. We're not changing that to 50 feet. We're just changing the area that has to be 100 feet deep. Of that 200 feet, only 50 feet has to be 100 feet deep. You understand? 50 feet in width has to be 100 feet deep. e Olsen: Your second recon~endation, that's something I was looking at because that really is the intent. You just have it briffered and that separation but then I had a difficult time because when we talk about the buffering, we usually, we are talking about the separation of the street but then you've got adjacent properties. I was having a hard time defining. How are you going to buffer or define so you don't mean this but you mean this or do you mean this? Conrad: Yeah, you do mean the sides too. And that's why you don't like... Olsen: So this doesn't really apply to that. En~ings: Maybe you have to have a sideyard setback type of thing. Olsen: We have a dock setback...so if that was applied to this, then we wouldn't, when they come through the conditional use permit, we would say you have to put in a fence or screening. Conrad: But see to the north or to the northeast of that red area, what is that Jo Ann? Just out of curiousity. Olsen: It's another strip like this that's owned by a house. Is that you? EIlImings: No. house. It's not been subdivided. It's just somebody there in the e Conrad: Based on what I would apply as the intent, I would have a real tough time putting the dock right there right next to a private residence. Planning CO:Plmission Meeting Dece!1:lber 6, 1989 - Page 28 e The long term intent is to cluster use. The short term intent however is the fact there is a private landowner over there and we're putting a dock and all the useage right next to that. I find that unacceptable even though it's better in the long run, it would be offensive to me if I were that resident. Olsen: If that is the intent, then what we're doing doesn't do it. Then we should have that other... Conrad: Yeah, I 'Ill not sold on what we've done here. EmIllings: I guess the other thing is, if you're going to use this approach, do yon then restrict the beach activities to that 50 foot wide area where you've got the depth and the buffer and where do you put. Does that area, does that mean as long as they have that area they can actually spread their activities along the whole beachlot or put their beach on the narrowest portion? I don't think that's what we're intending either. so I think there's a lot of things that have to be talked about her.e. Olsen: That's where the buffering... ~~ings: You almost need sideyard setbacks to the 50 x 100 foot area assuming you're going to stick with that concept. e Ray Roettger: May I just ask, the property adjacent to this, to the north, wouldn't that just be SOllIe more of the same? ~Imings: I think it is one now isn't it? Isn't tha t a beachlot down there now? Olsen: Single ownership. EIllIllings: Then it must be a Ii ttle further north there's one isn't there? Okay. Conrad See my problem is with that, they may convert it to a beachlot. For safety purposes, I guess I can't iIllagine clustering two docks and 6 boats or whatever it might be. I understand some clustering concepts to leave some things undisturbed yet on the other hand, I guess I see soole negatives to looking to the future. I just find putting a dock that's being used by a lot of people close to any other property not acceptable to Ille. Even though there are some nler i ts to it, if there's a beachlot sOIlletime down the road. FrOIll the standpoint of a current neighbor resident, I couldn't do it. Mary Jo Moore: Right now the property is...recreational beachlot and there is a swiIl~ing beach in. It's about in the middle of that property. - ~~ings: Is it? I thought it was more on this end like it's shown on here. Mary Jo Moore: No. I think it's closer to Headla's property. More in the middle where the actual swinlIlling area is. There are stairs in... so their Planning ComInission Meeting December 6, 1989 - Page 29 e dock is going to be away from this area that they actually have a recreational beachlot and canoe racks with them. ElIson: The only thing that kept going through my mind reading this, first of all I thought it was confusing. I tried to visualize with arrows what it would be and I had my husband look at it and what would you think it is and both of us had totally different drawings as to what it would be. For what it's worth, the lay people that we are, couldn't figure it out but I renlenlber in your analysis you said only along Lake Minnewashta Parkway does the potential exist for the beachlots without the 100 foot. Olsen: Lake Riley I think... ElIson: This one cop~ent just said only this Lake Minnewashta Parkway area and so the thought is, are we writing this in case there's a crescent, in case there's a penninsula, when we know only Lake Minnewashta's the one that we're really concerned about. Let's write it towards the areas that we know we're trying to protect. If we know there's no penn insula there, then let's not worry about trying to cover that. Let's go to the potentials there after we write something and make sure yes, it would work here. No, it wouldn't work there. Yes, there's a natural buffer. No, there isn't but I do like the idea of rewording it and I think Steve was on the right track as far as giving the intent statement. I don't know, it's not easy. I couldn't figure out a better way to say it either but I figure that's why people of your background, you can write ordinances better than me but I just know that I had trouble interpretting it. - Conrad: Okay. In my mind there's a confusion between allowing the dock and requiring, right now we're focused on allowing a dock. That's why we're rewriting this is to figure out when we can allow a dock. Olsen: One of the conditions to have a dock, yeah. Conrad: But it's focused around a dock and not focused around the area that a beachlot needs. It's focused around a dock. Olsen: You've got that area already where you have to have the 30,000 square feet before you can even have a recreational beachlot. - Conrad: In Iny C'nind, as I went through that, I didn't know what we were solving. I really didn't know if we were concerned with the things that I had expressed before. The buffering of the neighbors. Still maintaining a parcel the size that doesn't lead to overuse of that parcel. I guess Steve mentioned one alternative and that's to redo it and to come up with some exceptions or some philosophies. I think that's my direction or the way I would go. There's no right number here. I'm not convinced we need to take the 4 feet out. As arbitrary as it is, the principle is that we don't want the parcel overused. The principle is if you've got 100 lots that could potentially use the parcel, they have to have 400 feet. As arbitrary as that is, it is a concept of telling me we don't want the parcel overused. Now if we can put that in other words, then I'm fine with it but that 4 foot says we're sensi ti ve to use based on the nUI'.ber of pJ'~oper ty owner s so therefore, at this point in time, I've got to keep it in until somebody can Planning Co:mmission Meeting Decembe~ 6, 1989 - Page 30 e give me the ~ationale fo~ taking it out. Olsen: We just won't tie it to honleowne~s association. Maybe we'll just say fo~ each lot in the subdivision, no matte~ if they have the ~ightor not, that they'd have to have the 4 lineal feet? Con~ad: Again Jo Ann, whethe~ we keep it in or not, the subject is use. Intensity of use and that's what to me talks about intensity. The 30,000 squa~e feet talks to me about buffering. Then we get into the dock issue. When do you get a dock? You get a dock when you have so many feet and you meet sonle other requi~enlents that is not iI1'lpacting your neighbo~. Bottom line, without d~agging this out is I guess I don't I1lind what we had to begin with if we could talk about exceptions to the rule. Exceptions to the 100 foot. Enmlings: Basically talking about trading depth where adequate buffering exists. Con~ad: Right. Then I think we nleet what we' ~e trying to do and still keep the intent of what we have done in the past. I don't want to th~ow the intent. Staff reconll1lended the 4 feet. It wasn't something that the Planning COl1lntission or Ci ty Council carne up wi th and they put some tinle into it and I believe staff has put some time into this also but I'm not ~eal conlfortable throwing it out yet and I think we can solve the problenl that's being thrown around he~e in a diffe~ent way and I'd like to try. I know that sounds like a lot of work Jo Ann. e Olsen: We'll come up with an intent statement o~ something. Con~ad: To me the intent statement in allowing exceptions or variances o~ whateve~, I don't know what it is but I certainly could grant somebody a different, I could get rid of that 100 foot ~ead easily if othe~ intents are being met. Enlntings: I think we should table this. I would take a swing at some language on this before the next meeting and maybe you want to too and we'll compare what we've got and see what's the best. Maybe othe~ people want to also. I guess this is an issue that matte~s to me and I'd be willing to take some time. I'll dictate something and mail it to you. Olsen: We will propose an intent statenlent. That's p~obably what we really need here but then that would not just conce~n docks but any activity on the recreational beachlot, do you want it to be all encompassing or are you more concerned with the buffe~ing of docks? e Enmlings: Everything. Because you're typically putting a whole bunch of people on a residential lot between two ~esidents although there's not a lot of' acti vi ty there in the winter. There is enough in the sumnler when you want to be outside so it's a pain in the neck. I think we do want, that's what we're looking at so I think it's all the activity but it's ha~d. We have, I'nl sure this is the third or fourth tinle we've looked at this since I've been on the Planning COI1'mlission. When we go around and a)'~ound and we don't really seenl to get anyplace but now I think some of Planning Con~ission Meeting Deceniber 6, 1989 - Page 31 e your ideas about the intent and the buffering maybe can help us get to some new ground that we haven't plowed 5 times. Conrad: There are 3 things that you're trying to do. You're trying to give people space to recreate. You're trying to keep a developer from abusing the potential of screwing up the lake and screwing up the property and screwing up the neighbors. That's the bottom line. You really are and that was the fear that we had a long time ago so you've got to give enough space there for the people who buy into the beachlot enough space to recreate without impacting the neighbors. Then you're also trying to limit overuse. You really can't crani a thousand people into a small space. Those are the 3 thing s. There's sonie great purposes. Great uses of beachlots and I've seen them. We've got one on Lotus Lake where they just did a terrific job of not abusing sonle, several beachlots, of not abusing the natural habitat there. They clustered. They put docks together and just really fine but anyway, I'm sorry to kick that back at you but I think.... Olsen: I think that's the problenl we've been having is what the intent is. Conrad: I think I still remember so maybe we. can work that in. Is there a niotion? e Enmlings {lloved, ElIson seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendnlent to amend the City Code to modify the recreational beachlot ordinance to clarify lot depth requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: Mary Jo, Ray, thank you for coming in. We appreciate your con~ents . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ~~ings moved, ElIson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Conmlission nleeting dated November 15, 1989 as presented. All voted in favo:t~ except Tim Erhart who abstained and the nlotion carr ied. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: e Krauss: There were only 2 items that the City Council considered. Actually I was sick on Monday so I don't know what they did but they approved the preliminary plat for Market Square. It was really no big deal. Ersbo Addition was a little interesting. I raised the issues that you had raised here at the Planning Conlmission regarding access to his home. To the back lot and I prepared an exhibi t for theni showing how a road we had di scussed wi th you, renlember we had just gotten the maps in, could come in on the west side of that wetland, loop, this is through the adj oining property to the west. Loop around over their dr i veway, COI,.l\e to the back part of Ersbo and go back out to Powers. They agreed with that in principle and then canie up with a requirenlent that at such time as Ersbo wants to subdivide or whenever that road, if the road is built, whenever that road is built to the south, that he has to turn his access around and he has to eliminate his existing driveway to Lake Lucy Road and then hook his home up to the south. So that I think addresses your concerns about Planning COllllllission Meeting Oecelllber 6, 1989 - Page 32 - limiting the number of curb cuts up on Lake Lucy. I thought that turned out reasonably well and he's coming in for final plat on the 18th. Enllldngs llloved, Elison seconded to adjourn the Illeeting. All voted in favo:r and the motion ca:r:ried. The meeting was adjou:rned at 9:50 p.m.. Submitted by Paul K:rauss Oi:recto:r of Planning prepa:red by Nann Opheim e,