5a. Zoning Ordinance Definition of Structures ___
I
III CITYOF
3.--A
iv)0, CHANHASSEN
1
0 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1 MEMORANDUM F'.
✓ 4
r J
i,• t
I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager r_ 3-ai--y j
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner L.
DATE: March 20, 19 91 .2Y,
SUBJ: . Definition of Structure
1 On July 5, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the definition of
structure as it is stated in the City Code (Attachment #1) . The
I Planning Commission and staff amended the definition of structure
as follows:
ISection 20-1. Definitions.
Structure means anything manufactured, constructed or erected
which is normally attached to or positioned on land, whether
I temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited
to: buildings, fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels,
hard surface parking areas, boardwalks, playground equipment,
Iconcrete slabs. .
Section 20-908 (5) is amended by adding subparagraph (e) to
Iread as follows:
(e) Into any required front, rear or side yard: driveways,
sidewalks, strand wire agricultural fence.
IThe amendment was not presented to the City Council because it was
put on hold during the period between Planning Directors. The
I Planning Department is now completing their ongoing list of items
and is now continuing the amendment process. On February 27, 1991,
the Planning Commission again reviewed the proposed amendments to
II the definitions of structure so that it could be passed on to the
City Council for action. The Planning Commission had no changes to
the first amendment except that Commissioner Emmings requested that
sidewalks, driveways and streets maintain a side yard setback so
Ithat they could not be placed directly on a property line.
It is difficult to require side yard setbacks for streets,
IIdriveways and sidewalks. Driveways are typically setback 10 feet
II
I
11 Definition of Structure
March 20, 1991
1 Page 2
from the side yard since that is the setback for the garage, but
there are cases due to topography, vegetation, etc. that the
' driveway cannot be directly perpendicular to the garage. Also,
driveways and sidewalks do not require a permit, therefore,
enforcing the setback will be difficult. The City can regulate the
' location of a street through the subdivision or site plan process,
therefore, a setback for a street is not necessary. The one case
where there should be a road, sidewalk and driveway setback is when
they are adjacent to a wetland. In this case, a setback can be
' established under the wetland ordinance regulations. Therefore,
staff is recommending that setbacks for driveways, sidewalks and
streets not be added to the City Code.
' RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the zoning ordinance
amendment to Section 20-1 to amend the definition of structure as
follows:
Section 20-1. Definitions.
Structure means anything manufactured, constructed or erected
' which is normally attached to or positioned on land, whether
temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited
to: buildings, fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels,
hard surface parking areas, boardwalks, playground equipment,
11 concrete slabs.
Section 20-908 (5) is amended by adding subparagraph (e) to
' read as follows:
(e) Into any required front, rear or side yard: driveways,
sidewalks, strand wire agricultural fence.
ATTACHMENTS
1. February 27, 1991, staff report and Planning Commission
minutes.
' 2 . July 5, 1989, staff report and Planning Commission minutes.
3 . Ordinance amendment.
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. I
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY. CODE
Section 1. The City Code is hereby amended as follows: '
Section 20-1. Definitions. '
Structure means anything manufactured, constructed or erected
which is normally attached to or positioned on land, whether
temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited
to: buildings, fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels,
hard surface parking areas, boardwalks, playground equipment,
concrete slabs.
Section 2. Yard Regulations.
Section 20-908 (5) is amended by adding subparagraph (e) to
•read as follows:
(e) Into any required front, rear or side yard: driveways, ,
sidewalks, strand wire agricultural fence.
Section 3 . This ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its publication according to law.
Passed and adopted by the City Council this day
, 1991.
ATTEST: '
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on - ) . '
1
I
I/
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 41
OPEN DISCUSSION:
A. DEFINITION OF STRUCTURES.
Olsen: We 've been having a lot of discussions from residents lately and
through the Planning Commission and. City Council what a structure actually
is and how do we define it and how do we control it . We have gone through
the definition before and it just never got through to the Council so I put
that back in here . The Planning Commission recently did go through the
definition . We kind of combined the two sections into one saying ,
including but not limited to what structures are . So that kind of helps
the situation but what we 're really having the problem with is where the
building code doesn 't require permits . So then we don 't know that a
structure is going up which should technically meet the setbacks and we
don 't have the control over it . The only way we have control over it is if
a neighbor calls or if that person by chance calls and asks if that dog
kennel actually has to meet a setback . So in writing this , it 's easy to
point out the problems but there 's really no good solution. In talking
'- with Roger , you know there 's really nothing we can do . It 's like if we
come up with a solution , there 's lots of other cities that would like to
know it too . So I don 't really have resolution on that . We can amend the
IIbuilding code . It 's a real difficult process . So what we're just going to
try to go with is just education with our new city newsletter . Try to make
people understand that you might not have to have a building permit _€or a
' dog kennel but you do have to still meet setbacks and try to enforce it
that way , if you have some good ideas on that .
Batzli : If we go with the new definition that 's tougher , is it a situation
where the people that have the existing structures , accessory structures ,
are those people grandfathered in?
Olsen: Well the problem is that they call up and say I 'm putting in a 100
square foot storage building . Do I need a building permit? Well , they 're
told no . The building permit is really where we catch the site plan and
tell them where they have to meet certain setbacks . So even though the
definition is stricter .
Batzli : If you 're going to put up a dog kennel let's say and you were
' going to do it tomorrow and then you called the City and said I 'm going to
put it 5 feet from my rear lot line. What would the City tell them today?
Olsen: Well it depends on who they talk to. Again, if it's the Building
Department , usually what they ask is do we need a building permit for that .
They will probably, they'll be told no. And we 've been trying to work the
communication where they'll say but, you need to talk to the Planning
Department because you still do need to meet setbacks. Most people just
don't even call in the first place. They just assume they can- have a dog
kennel . Or play structures . We get lots of complaints . You know they're
not just the swing sets anymore. They're the huge things with the bridges
and people putting those right on other people's property lines and yes.
That 's a structure and yes, that does need to meet the setbacks but does it
need. You know people don't even call to get the building permit so it
gets into more of an enforcement issue.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 42
Batzli : But what are we doing , I guess I 'm confused . I thought currently
it wasn 't clear that playground. equipment and those things were structures !'
and required to meet the setback today . .
Olsen: I think we were thinking that that might be the solution to define II what really is a structure but then it went one step further than that as
to what we define as a structure versus what the UBC requires . Wood
structures , they require to get a building permit which is really again
where we enforce setbacks . '
Batzli : Okay but , I guess I 'm still confused because I thought , this
originally came up because we were trying to define structure better to
include things that weren 't currently included like playground equipment , II
things like that .
Olsen: Right . '
Batzli : But you 're telling me now today that if somebody asked you , you
would say that you can 't put your swing set within whatever number of feet "
of the rear yard?
Olsen: I would , if they talked to me or anyone within the Planning
Department , would say yes . That 's a structure and it does need to meet
setbacks . But normally when people call to find out the regulations on
buildings or structures , they go through like the building department and
usually the first question is do I need a building permit and it usually II
ends at that point .
Batzli : But how does this.
Olsen: What we 're doing really doesn't change the. situation. That 's what
I 'm saying .
Ellson: All you can do is depend on complaints.
Olsen: And education and you know communicating between the building
department to always say , and they 're the ones. They 're doing a really
good job of catching the ones that aren't.
Krauss: There 's a couple of other anomalies too. For example , if you
build a retaining wall over 5 feet high, over 4 feet high, it requires a
building permit . You cannot have a retaining wall within 75 feet of a lake
because it 's a structure yet we have a lot of people who need to, you know "
they have a fairly steep bank and if they want a rear yard, they need to
have a retaining wall . I mean it puts us in a tough position. Should we
look the other way because it's really not a structure? Technically it isell
a structure and it requires a building permit. Another area where I have
bit of difficulty is if you have a deck attached to your house and there 's
a 25 foot rear yard setback , if you take the same deck . Separate it from
the house and maybe not make it as tall . Because it's physically separate"
from the house it becomes a patio.
Olsen: It becomes an accessory structure . I
Krauss: Which only has a 5 foot setback.
r
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 43
11
Olsen: It can be off the ground . But that 's When we get into accessory
' structures which is the next discussion . That 's where we just talked about
those deck variances and that 's another . So anyway , I just wanted to point
out the .
11 Conrad: What 's the setback for a fence Jo Ann?
Olsen : We have specific regulations in the ordinance for that .
' Emmings: It 's lot line unless you agree with your neighbor .and if you
don 't , then it 's a foot off isn 't it?
Olsen: Right . Well technically it just says it can 't be on the lot line
unless you have the neighbor 's permission .
Conrad: What 's the setback for a dog kennel?
Olsen : A dog kennel would come under , we would consider that a structure .
An accessory structure and so that would be 10 feet from the side , 5 feet
from the rear .
• Conrad: That 's an accessory structure .
Olsen : Or a structure .
Emmings : It is a structure but it 's used as an accessory structure .
Olsen: But it 's not required by the building code to get a building permit
so most people would never even think to contact the city to see if there 's
any specific location that it has to be in . So anyway that 's , I think that
we should still go with the new definition that we had worked on . I think
that would make it a little bit clearer .
' Conrad: Is that the one that you got in the first page?
' Olsen: Yes . And that 's with your addition to it .
Emming: Yeah . That was so long ago, I don't even remember doing it .
' Olsen: I almost forgot that we had done this. It 's got the legal ,
including but not limited to. So I guess there 's nothing really any more
to do . I guess it 's just to kind of let you know what the situation is .
IEmmings: Well but now what is the status, did we?
' Olsen: You recommended approval of that definition but it never got in
front of the City Council .
Emmings: And it 's back here? '
Olsen: To* update you on the whole structure because people have been
questioning what is a structure and how we define structure.
Emmings: How do people feel? You know when I read this over this time ,
how do people feel about there being no setback requirements for driveways?
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 44 1
Or sidewalks? Driveways in particular . And whether there should be a sidll
yard setback for . Obviously I don 't think you need a front yard , you can '
have a front or rear but a side yard setback for a driveway kind of makes
sense to me .
Krauss: We don 't have a driveway permit in the ordinance period.
Olsen: How would you enforce it? '
Krauss: Well some cities require driveway permits , the same as MnDot
• requires that you get a permit if you 're coming out onto a State road .
Olsen: Access permit?
Krauss : Yeah , an access permit and a lot -of cities have regulations on hot"
steep a driveway can be and where it has to enter . How far from a corner
and that, kind of stuff . We don't have that at all .
Olsen: Especially next to a wetland . '
Emmings: But I guess if we had a setback requirement , presumably
developers would know it and if somebody was unhappy with someone driving
right down the lot line , they could do something about it. Right? Becaus�
it was always shocking to me that when people put in roads into
developments , they can butt that road right up next door to , right up to
the next door neighbor and I always , that just seemed so wrong to me . That '
I could be living on a lot and it 's been next door to me for , if he owns a
big parcel , he could develop that and he can put the entry road to that
development right down the property line with no setback at all from my
property and that 's always seemed just horrible to me .
Ellson: Did you ever see it done? '
Emmings: They talked about doing it up on, off of Lake Lucy Road on a
piece . That 's where it first came to my attention .
Batzli : Vine Forest?
Olsen: Vineland on Pleasant View? '
Emmings: No.
Batzli : Yeah. Yeah, because that was the guy that was renting. '
Emmings: Oh yeah, there too. That 's another one. That was off of
Pleasant View. On the other hand, in that case if you're going to bring i
a big long road into a subdivision you know, and that guy had a long skinn
lot and there was another long skinny lot and he was going to bring the
road right down one side of it because he said that was the only way he
could build houses over here and I don't know that we necessarily want to II
create along narrow strip for nothing.
Batzli : Open space . '
Emmings: Open space .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 45
II
Krauss : But then nobody maintains them .
Emmings: That 's right . Well that 's okay too actually with me .
Conrad: It 's all real confusing Steve .
Emmings: If nobody maintains it , we call it a natural area . And that 's
okay . By the way , it 's kind of on the subject . If a person wants to let
areas of their yard go back to nature , is that alright?
Olsen: Unless the weed inspector gets you .
' Emmings : What if we plant a few wild flowers there and call it?
Olsen: I 'd tell them to do it and . . .
Emmings : That 's what I 'm planning to do .
Conrad : Is that to hide the portable toilet that you 've got?
Emmings: . When you come to my house , you won't be allowed to use it . But
anyway , I think there ought to be side yard setbacks for driveways and
sidewalks . I don 't know what sidewalks mean in this town and for roads .
If it makes sense , you know I just , I don 't know . So this doesn 't require
any action . Is there anybody else that has any comments either on the
structure definition or the accessory structure discussion in here?
Olsen: Will you follow the accessory structure one?
Emmings : Huh?
Olsen: Would you follow the accessory structure? Again, that 's one that
was tabled .
Batzli : But there 's no action is there?
Olsen: No , there 's no action but it kept getting tabled at the Council .
Do you agree with the most recent amendments to the ordinance and do you
want me to bring that back to the Council again? The most recent
' amendments now say the maximum is 1 ,000 square feet or . . .principle
structure . That 's what you passed onto the Council . Then the Council
wanted to change that to 80% of the principle structure . That was their
most recent . . . Then the other one is the gradual setbacks. So 5 foot for
a rear yard setback up to 140 square feet for accessory structures . 10
foot for 141 to 400 square feet and then 30 foot rear yard setback for
' anything over 400 square feet.' So that's the most recent one that 's been
proposed by the Council . . .
Emmings: I have a question on that . That's Attachment #4 right?
Olsen: Well Attachment #4 has been changed with BO% principle and then the
principle structure too. That was taken out.
Emmings: Alright . Now has B, under that 20-904, was B changed? The 30%
is gone?
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 46
II
Olsen: 20-904? No , that 's still there . There 's still 30% . I
Emmings: Okay . Let me tell you what I think might be a problem there . I
don 't know why it says rear yard.
II
Olsen: It 's always said rear yard .
Emmings : Well it isn 't always the rear yard . I
Olsen: Accessory structures .
Emmings : Not riparian lots . And I think , why doesn 't it say 30% of the II
area of the yard in which it 's built?
Krauss : Do you want an accessory structure in the front yard? I
Emmings: I live on the lake . I don 't want to build a garage or have
people building garages between their houses and the lake . So if I built il
garage , it 's probably going to go in the front yard .
Krauss : Or side . I
Emminge: Front or side . That 's why I say , why not change it to the yard in
which it 's built rather than just saying rear yard . Usually it 's going to
. be your rear yard but now always . 11
Olsen : Is that number 2? I 'm sorry .
Krauss: But if you did that though , you need to add a front yard I
requirement and the accessory building should be no closer to the street
than a principle building would be .
Emmings: Well sure you 've got setbacks . Right? You've got the setback toll
take care of that don't you?
Krauss: Well you wouldn't unless you adopted it with this because these II
are the only setbacks that apply to accessory structures .
Emmings: Well what does a person do that wants to build a , does this thin"
as it 's written . No , I know it says on riparian lots you can build it in
the front or rear yard. I don't know why you'd build it in the rear yard
but must comply with front , side and applicable ordinary high water marks . II
That 's fine but you don't have your percentage requirement applying there .
Don't you want it to?
Olsen: Yes . So we 'll just somehow tie those two together . II
•
Emmings: The other thing , the other question I had on that one is , it
says , in ( c ) it says in any residential district and then it says or
II
agricultural district , parcels with less than 3 acres. I take it that
parcels with less than 3 acres goes with agricultural districts there?
Olsen: That one we kept changing. I lost track on it. II
Batzli : I thought that went with both.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 47
Emmings: Well that 's what I 'm wondering .
•
Olsen: I think we went with both too.
' Emmings : Okay , I thought maybe it just went with agricultural . That 's
fine then if it goes with principle .
Olsen: That 's new . The adding of or agricultural district , parcels with
less than 3 acres was one of the things that the Planning Commission added .
Emmings: So is it your understanding does parcels with less than 3 acres
go with both residential and agricultural?
Olsen: Well it 's not real clear . Maybe we should make it . In any parcels
with less than 3 acres and any residential district . Put that at the
start?
Emming : Whatever . It wasn 't clear when I read it today .
Erhart : Well it was supposed to also include agricultural districts .
iOlsen: Right . It says , well .
Erhart : You have to say any lot less than 3 acres period .
Olsen: But do we need to specify residential and agricultural? Where it
says commercial?
' Erhart : Well what does this apply . The ordinance is the what?
Olsen: It 's any .
Erhart : Well , I guess leave it what you 've got . Residential or
agricultural district .
' Olsen: I:11 make sure they 're tied in together .
Emmings: Does anybody else got anything on this?
tConrad: It 's tough to reflect back .
' Emmings: It 's impossible .
Batzli : I read the Minutes and I couldn't recall any of it . I really
couldn't .
Conrad: Yeah , it 's really tough. I feel kind of uncomfortable sending
something to the City Council .
Erhart: Even after reading all of the old Minutes?
Batzli : Yeah , I read them and I was looking at my own comments going ,
I said that? My only comment was , and I don't know where this came from
and it may have come .from me because I seem to have been talking about
swimming pools and tennis courts but the detached accessory structure may
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 48 1
occupy not more than 30% of the area . How realistic is it to assumethat a
person 's going to have a tennis. court that doesn 't take up 80% of their ,
backyard? I mean a tennis court is huge .
Emmings : They can 't have it . ,
Batzli : Is that what we were really trying to do? Basically we 're banning
tennis courts .
Elison: You need to have a huge yard.
Batzli : Because we say it only has to be 10 feet from back yard and side 11
yard but boy , in other words . If you have a huge yard , you can locate it
right next to the guy but it can 't take up more than 30% . That seems
silly . I don 't know . ,
Elison: That 's the way it is .
Conrad: So what 's happening on this? ,
Emmings : Nothing .
Olsen: I just wanted . . .what I 'd like to do is to take it back to the ,
Council and finally get it through .
Conrad: What are you going to take through? You 're going to take through"
the definition?
0lsen: Or we can bring it back and hold a public hearing on it . ,
Conrad: Don 't bring it back to us . I thought we made some good decisions
back then but I just can't remember why. 1
Emmings: I think we ought to stick with what we did before , whatever it
was .
Conrad: Boy , the City Council could rip you apart with what you're
bringing to them .
Emmings: I think the last time it was there the Council had two different ,
members so it should be fun to take it back again.
Conrad: I wouldn't do it . '
Olsen: But we need it .
Ellson: Go ahead. They might send it back but we'll let them decide .
Emmings: The definition of structure and then what 's on the Attachment #4 '
is modified.
Conrad: Yeah, and that 's one. And sidewalks is out Steve. You don't wan
anybody to review sidewalks even though Jo Ann said she was going to revie►
sidewalks for setbacks. Were we dropping sidewalks and driveways?
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 49
Emmings : I don 't know anybody that 's got a sidewalk .
Conrad: No . We don 't allow those in Chanhassen .
Emmings: I love sidewalks . I 'm a sidewalk lover frankly but nevertheless ,
I would want . I think there ought to be setbacks. Sideyard setbacks .
Conrad: Basically Steve you don 't care because we don 't have any so we 're
okay?
Emmings : I care about driveways but I don't know if sidewalks is , talking
about sidewalks is meaningful .
Conrad: Yeah . Driveways would be .
Emmings : Let 's abandon this interesting issue and go on to the landscape
ordinance .
Batzli : What are we doing with it?
Emmings : Nothing . We 're not doing anything .
' Batzli : Are we giving it back to Council?
Emmings : Do you want it back here? Who wants it back here? Who wants to
look at this again? Accessory structure .
Olsen: I could hold it . . .
' Ellson: For an anniversary party .
Conrad: An annual review .
Emmings: I think you should take it to the City Council and if they want
us to look at it again , because it 's been so long , we will . Otherwise they
can deal with it any way they see fit .
Batzli : I have one more question. Does Section 20-615 which provides a 20
' foot setback for accessory structures in RSF district , does that mean that
people are going to have to put everything 20 feet from all side yards ,
back yards , everything?
IIOlsen: I think that might be referring to height .
Batzli : Is that height? Okay. That's in the height section there? Okay.
Conrad: Do we have to send City Council Minutes of our discussion DM this
last item? I 'd just sort of like to pretend it 's now getting to City
Council after we reviewed it .
Emmings: I think somehow Jo Ann is going to blame us for the delay .
That 's really why she brought it back here .
I
J
,) -CITYOF
.:7_, ,,) - i
Altoor.
_ _.....,
0 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 '
MEMORANDUM I
. TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner ,�,,
II
DATE: February 27, 1991 1
SUBJ: Definition of Structure/Accessory Structures
BACKGROUND I
On July 5, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the definition of
structure as it is stated in the City Code (Attachment #1) . The
II
new definition as proposed by staff and the Planning Commission is
as follows:
1. The definition of "structure" in Section 20-1 of the I
Chanhassen City Code:
Structure means anything manufactured, constructed or erected I
which is normally attached to or positioned on land, whether
temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited
to: buildings, fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels,
II
hard surface parking areas, boardwalks, playground equipment,
concrete slabs.
2 . Section 20-908 (5) is amended by adding subparagraph (e) to II
read:
(e) Into any required front, rear or side yard: driveways, 1
sidewalks, strand wire agricultural fence.
The City Council did not review the proposed definition of
II
structures.
ISSUE
The City Code establishes setback standards for structures. The II
UBC has specific regulations on what is required to have a building
permit. The building permit application is the manner by which the
II
city enforces the City Code and related setbacks. The UBC also
provides exemption from building permits. A building permit shall
not be required for the following:
II
II
I
Definition of Structures
February 27 , 1991
Page 2
1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and
storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the
projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet.
2 . Fences not over 6 feet high.
3 . Oil derricks.
4 . Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9
inches high.
1 5. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet in height measured
from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless
supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III-A
liquids.
6. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does
' not exceed 5000 gallons and the ratio of height to diameter or
width does not exceed two to one.
7 . Platforms, walks and driveways not more than 30 inches above
grade and not over any basement or story below.
' 8 . Painting, papering and similar finish work.
9 . Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets
and scenery.
1 10. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group R,
Division 3 .
11. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R, Division
3 Occupancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the
adjacent grade and if the capacity does not exceed 5000
gallons.
•
If a building permit is not required for a structure by the UBC,
1 the City has effective no means of enforcing setbacks. The city
cannot amend the UBC to remove exemptions from building permit
requirements. (There is a process, but it is long, tedious and
doubtful that the amendment would be approved. ) Therefore, an
issue arises when the city wants control over placement of
structures which are exempt from building permit requirements such
' as:
1. Patios
2 . Retaining walls
3 . Dog kennels
4 . Playground equipment
5. Buildings less than 120 square feet
I
I
Definition of Structures I
February 27, 1991
•
Page 3
6. Docks/walkways
The only means for the city to enforce setbacks is when someone
inquires about setbacks prior to construction, through complaints
and through a planning review process such as a wetland alteration
permit.
The issues the Planning Commission should review are as follows:
1. Is the amended City Code definition of structure adequate? Is
it too broad?
Comment: The definition of structure will not necessarily
resolve the building permit exemption issue.
2. Are there exemptions the City Code should provide?
Comment: The new definition exempts driveways and sidewalks.
Are there others?
IF
3 . How can the city best enforce setbacks for structures that do
not require a building permit?
Comment: Do we only depend on complaints? The city
newsletter could be used for public education.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES '
A related issue is accessory structures. The same problem exists
with exemptions from building permits for certain accessory
structures, but additionally, accessory structures can be located
5 feet form the rear yard. A 5 foot rear yard setback is
inadequate for certain accessory structures with the impact they
can have on neighboring properties (i.e. detached decks, dog
kennels, playground equipment) .
On August 13 , 1988, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on an amendment to the City Code concerning accessory structures
and recommended amendments to the City Council (see attached
report) . On March 27 and May 8, 1989, the City Council reviewed
the amendments and tabled action for further revisions. Attachment
#4 contains the most recent amendments for accessory structures
reviewed by the City Courfcil. Prior to staff presenting the
amendments again to the City Council, the Planning Commission may
wish to again review the proposed amendments in conjunction with
discussion on structures.
ATTACHMENTS '
1. Letter from Roger Knutson dated July 19, 1989.
I
11
11 Definition of Structures
February 27, 1991
1 Page 4
2 . Planning Commission minutes dated July 5, 1989.
3 . Planning report on accessory structures.
1 4 . Amendments to accessory structure requirements.
1
II1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
I
Planning Commission .feting I
July 5, 1989 - Page 24
I
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Conrad : This is open discussion right now. Just as the staff was asking "
for out comments on a variety of items before they' re announced for the
public to come in and talk to us about these amendments. Dave, I ' ll star
down at your end. On all the different amendments, anything? You had on
thing in particular .
Headla : Let me go to Section 3. 20-441. Violation shall be a misdemeanil
punishable by 90 days in jail and a $700. 00 fine. I 'd like to see that
and/or . I just don' t think we' re going to get anybody to To to jail and
pay the fine. 1
Emmings : All misdemeanors , that' s what defines a misdemeanor . All mis
demeanors are punishable by a maximum of 90 days in jail and a maximum of
$700 . 00 fine . They' re just stating the law here. I
Erhart: Should we say maximum?
Emmings : No , that ' s what the law is . ,
Headla : When they put it into practice, does it have to be both or can i
be an almost either?
Emmings : A person that violates something like this for the first -time
will get treated like all others. They' re essentially never get jail timll
It just doesn' t happen but that ' s what defines a misdemeanor in all
criminal law so I think they' re just stating what the law is .
-Headla : Fine . I didn' t know that. Then the other one is , in Section 5
talk about swimming pools. If they approve this in November , I don't thin
we can expect people to put fences in in 3 months so I 'd like to see with
100 days of such date or as negotiated with the City.
Emmings : Within 180 days or as negotiated with the City. If somebody has
a special reason they need more than 6 months. I
Erhart : Do you think there' s anybody in the City that' s got a swimming
pool without a fence today?
Olsen : There are some out in Hesse Farm I know there 'are.
Batzli : I don't understand that. Of such date. What date are they
referring to? Such date refers to February 19, 1987 .
Conrad: No. As soon as notified.
Batzli : Wasn' t this done retroactively so that's why the such date is in
there in the first place? Or is it of the date of enactment of this
ordinance?
Emmings: That' s what I assume it meant but' it isn' t clear .
1
Alpo-4-k II W
Planning Commission feting
July 5, 1989 - Page 25
11
Headla : Shall comply with this chapter within 180 days of such date.
' Batzli : So are we talking the effective date of the ordinance there?
Emmings : Yes .
Batzli : Then that should be clarified and I don' t know if it should be
negotiable with the City.
Conrad : Well you can' t build in the winter time. Dave' s point is you
can't put the fence up in the winter time so that's why he 'wants to make
sure that it' s a reasonable expectation. So anything that' s gone up before
' 1987 , they have to comply with the ordinance but the date of compliance may
not be the 180 days because you may not be able to put that up in January
or February.
Batzli : Is the only thing we' re adding to this section 5 is the second
sentence? Are we adding anything to this one?
11 Olsen : We' re taking out where if you were on a cliff or whatever , you
wouldn ' t have to put a fence where it was inaccessible. I don' t remember
the exact wordage but we were finding that even then people were saying ,
well you can' t reach my pool from that area and you still need a fence.
Batzli : My question is, the people who this sentence covers have already
' had to deal with this .
Olsen : Right . We ' re just removing the option that if pools are
inaccessible from adjacent properties, that they do not have to have the
' swimming pool fenced but we' re finding . . .
Batzli : But have you applied this ordinance to everybody who's pool was
I installed prior to February 19, 1987? So do we even need the later part of
this sentence in there anymore? Do we need that part in there? Are there
any pools that haven' t complied with that?
Olsen: Not since this ordinance, no.
Conrad : But before? Pools put in before.
Olsen: There still may be some out there..
Conrad : But before. Pools put in before have not had to have a fence.
Batzli : Yes, she just said this is already in the ordinance. They're not
changing that.
Emmings: This is one of those deals where it would have been nice- if they
would have underlined what was being added to show us the old one and lined
out what was being deleted so we know what' s going on. I assumed this was
new language. I didn't look at the ordinance section.
Conrad : I did too. So what' s new?
1
Planning Commission Feting
July 5, 1989 - Page 28
I
dog kennels? Again , this includes , I guess what I 'm getting at , this
includes a lot of things that I wouldn' t consider a structure such as
portable dog kennels.
Batzli : We could say portable dog kennel structures if that would help
you. '
Erhart : And we don' t have to get into a big discussion here but .
Olsen: The reason for this is because we've been having a lot of trouble!'
with my interpretting the zoning ordinance where we have specific setbacks
= for those types of structures. The Building Code does not consider them
be structures . We have not been regulating dog kennels with the cement.
Erhart: Yes. To me that's a structure. If you've got a concrete slab,
then it ' s a structure. '
Olsen: , That' s where we define it .
Batzli : Well you could say, instead of portable structure, do your big
long list and then say where any of the foregoing are permanent or portab e
because people can always come up with the argument regarding portability
Well I can bring in my forklift and hoist it so it's not a structure. In�
fact I 've heard people use that brick barbeque' s. It' s portable so it' s
not a structure so I don' t need any setbacks. Good argument by the way.
Get a forklift and it' s portable. '
Erhart : I don ' t really want to get into every word on this tonight but I 'm
just pointing out where I see some problems. The last one is a hard
surface parking area versus a driveway and I define that.
Conrad: Good point. I don't understand that.
Olsen : Hard surface parking area , we usually see those coming through sit
plans, etc. but with driveways and sidewalks. Driveways, somebody can just
put those in . They do not have to get a building permit. '
Erhart: I can understand that. There's really no difference between a
hard surface parking area and a driveway and in fact as compared to a dog
kennel , a driveway is a major structure that it would seem to me that you
would include driveways in this definition of a structure as opposed to
excluding it.
Olsen : I agree but it's just what the building code requires them to com1
in for permits and what so we're having some conflicts.
Conrad : Too bad you brought these up because they really are, I'm with II
you. Stockpile doesn't, I don't know what that is.
Olsen: I think that already was in there. '
Batzli : Yes, a lot of these were in there. A lot of these are in there.
I
Planning Commission _.aeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 27
Batzli : Okay, that' s the one place I didn' t look. So we want it to read
net density because that' s tougher?
Olsen : That' s what we 've always been enforcing and the developers will say
well where is it? Where does it say that? It doesn' t say gross . It
doesn ' t say net so it' s always been, staff is kind of at a tightrope.
Conrad: It' s got to be net.
Erhart : It would have been much easier to just use the term net density
everything .
Conrad : This terminology has just got to be in there.
' Batzli : So that way if you had a site covered by a big wetland , you can ' t
count the wetland for purposes of density?
Conrad: Right . You' ve got to take it out like you take streets out.
Batzli : I like that.
11 Erhart : Are we discussing the first group here right now Ladd or are we
going through the whole thing?
' Conrad : Anything .
Erhart : You want to just jump into this whole thing?
' Conrad: Yes .
Erhart : Okay, page 2, first paragraph . You' re trying to define structure
' and then under definition you use structure which is, I don' t think that' s
correct .
Olsen : Which means any of the following .
Erhart: I ' ll talking about portable structure. It seems to me that needs
different words. If you're trying to define the word structure, you can ' t
define it by using that word again in the definition. Correct or
incorrect?
II _ Conrad : That makes sense.
Erhart : So is it a portable building or something to that effect Jo Ann?
It's like opening up a dictionary and looking for the word book and saying
well a book is a book. Everybody knows what a book is . I guess that' s
just, do you understand what I 'm saying?
Conrad : That ' s good . You' re right on.
Erhart: A dog kennel. Are you referring to a dog kennel like you buy a
chainlink kind of a dog kennel with a concrete slab? What about portable
I
Planning Commission ..aeting I
July 5, 1989 - Page 26
I
Olsen : I 'm taking out the section that says that if you' re inaccessible,,
you do not have to have a fence.
Batzli : I looked at all of these as if they were new.
Olsen: No. '
Erhart : How are you inaccessible? By another fence? I
Olsen: Again, we' ll use Hesse Farms where there' s a cliff on some
portions. I just think, when we were going through it, we were saying . . .'
Erhart: You' re still accessible by the side yards though.
Olsen : Right. Exactly and the people were saying . . . I
Headla : I don ' t even know why you need that last sentence.
Conrad : We don' t need the last sentence?
Emmings: Because the such date applies to the February 19, 1987 and we'r -
already. . .
Batzli : We' re way past that so my question is, do we still need that?
Olsen: We probably still need something in there that all inground pools,
installed prior still need to but I ' ll check on it .
Emmings: You can say shall comply with this chapter. No, because it 1
already says all swimming pools.
Batzli : It should now read , shall have already complied by November 198711
Olsen: Okay, I ' ll work on that.
Batzli : Why don' t you at least check on that one. What's the difference"
between net density and gross density? Is that what you' re adding?
Olsen : Right . Right now we've got the definitions but there's nothing ii
there that says which one we use.
Batzli : So we've already got the net and gross density defined? '
Olsen: Defined.
Batzli : Where' s that defined? 1
Olsen: Under definitions .
Batzli : Is it under density?
Olsen: I think so. Yes.
I
Planning Commission „aeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 29
II
Conrad : A stockpile is a structure. How can a stockpile be a structure?
' Batzli : If you have a 2, 000 feet of pipe stacked up, you've got a big
structure.
' Conrad : A structure seems to me to be manufactured .
Olsen: Just the ones you want to have the setback applied to. That' s
essentially what this is.
Emmings : I was shocked here a while ago to find for example that somebody
putting in a road could put it, that' s come up twice now, could put it
11 right up to the lot line. Not setback requirement. Now that' s not a
driveway. Those are going to be public streets and there's no setback for
that and that' s not a structure. No setback requirements and I think
that ' s outrageous . There was that one and then there was the one that was
up on Lake Lucy Road where we talked about the same thing. I remember that
because that ' s where I learned that you can go right up to the lot line.
Batzli : But I must not have learned it that time because I just learned it
last time.
Olsen : I can look into that and see if roads. • •
Erhart : The natural way to look at it is the driveway should maintain the
1 setback just like everything else .
Emmings: Unless they want to share.
' Olsen : It ' s just I have no way of knowing when they come in. That 's why
I 'm having difficulty with patios was that they don't have to get a
building permit for that. If it' s at ground .
Batzli : You mean if I pour a cement slab underneath my deck, I don' t have
to do that?
Olsen : You don' t have to get a building permit. And that' s why I 've been
trying to do this is because people can put patios right up to wetlands.
I Emmings : You can put wall to wall indoor/outdoor carpeting in your
backyard and never have to mow. Go right up to the lot line. Concrete.
Batzli : Let' s include public roadway on this list.
Emmings: Public or private.
•
11 Batzli : Yes .
Emmings : I know this is a very elusive definition because I once, when I
was first an attorney I got involved in a lawsuit that involved the
question- of whether something a guy erected was a structure or not. We
went around with that for several years and no one ever really came up with
a good answer . It's just very, very difficult.
I
Planning Commission __aeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 30
I
Batzli : The difficult thing about a roadway I 'm sure is if you' re going ID
put it on the lot line. Then at that point do you just needing a
variance? Where both sides are contributing to the road? That ' s going to
be the big problem.
Emmings : If it' s to be a mutual driveway which often happens but Y ou cou d
say that. It' s sort of like fences. You can put a fence on the lot line
if both neighbors agree . Otherwise you've got to set it back. I
Batzli : But this is the definition section. Should we be 'getting into
that in the definitions or do we need a separate ordinance to cover that?'
Olsen: You 'd have to get it in the definition but I think it's something ,
it will have to be applied to farther into the ordinance too. Do you sti
want it to be just at a 10 foot sideyard setback? Front yard?
Emmings : It ' s got to go on the list of things to do.
Conrad : What is 20-1? What is Section 21? Definition of structure?
Olsen : Definitions . The first section?
Conrad : So have we changed anything in this?
g Y g
Olsen : Yes , we've added dog kennels, hard surface parking , fence. Then
the Building Department want some of it taken out. I can go back, I didn
have time to do the xing out and then underlining . I can do that.
ileadla: That would help. ,
Emmings : I think this structure thing needs a lot of work because I ' ll
tell you, I think what you need is a general definition that would say,
which would include but not be limited to the following because otherwise
somebody's going to come up with something. They're going to call it
something else. I 'm going to build a flumdible and it's concrete and gla
but it' s not, well it does say a building. But somebody's going to come
with something that's not going to be one of these things and you're going
to have your hands tied so I think you need a general definition with their
specific examples .
Olsen : That number 2 though which hasn' t changed, that's general .
Emmings: Maybe you want to combine those and just say. . .
Olsen : Which can include. I
Emmings: Yes .
Olsen : Okay. I
Batzli : Includes but is not limited to the following.
I/
I/ Planning Commission iaeeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 31
r
Emmings : So put number 2 first and then list those things as examples .
And you know I think to me the idea of a structure is that it's somehow
tied to the ground . It's something that if I move away from here, it' s not
something that's going to go with me. It' s like the definition of a
fixture which is equally difficult but you just kind of use a common sense
test as to whether or not it' s something, is it on a slab or is it on
footings? Footings is probably a pretty good test isn ' t it?
Batzli : Not for something like a stockpile.
Emmings : What is a stockpile? Like firewood? Is that a stockpile?
Batzli : I think firewood might be considered a stockpile if you get a lot
of it. A bunch of dock sections piled up. Pipe that you' re going to use.
It 's something that you don' t want sitting right next to your property line
if you' re the next door neighbor .
Conrad : Any other comments on this? On just this particular , structure.
1 Tim, did you have other?
Erhart : Yes . Page RO6/21/89. Next section, second page. On the bottom
where it says Section 20-232, General Issuance Standards. Item 4 where it
says the date of the event that will terminate the use can be identified
with certainity. I 'm concerned that that implies that the date is
identified when the permit is issued . Therefore, I suggest we change that
to say the time of the event that will terminate the use can be identified
with certainity or something .
Batzli : I think that ' s a typo. I think it should read, date or event.
Erhart: That would solve it. You understand my problem with that?
Batzli : I think the case that came down said it had to be, there had to be
a date or an event which could be.
Erhart: Okay, then that would solve that. Is that okay Jo Ann? Number 5,
the use will not impose additional cost on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future. Well how do you know
when you' re issuing this temporary permit that a year later the public will
want to come in and buy this property? It seems to me that this condition,
this standard here, maybe I don't understand it but it seems not to make a
lot of sense. How do you know, how can you ever know that a year later?
Emmings: I assumed that that was there for something like if the City had
in it' s plans that eventually a road would be going through there or
something like that and you knew that this person wanted to put it to was
going to make it more difficult or more expensive to acquire it or clear it
later on, that's what I thought it was about.
Erhart : That example' s clear but take the example that you issue a
temporary permit for something and then all of a sudden, then the City 6
months later says , gee well we want to put a road in there. Now, this
really provides a basis not to reimburse them for the expense of whatever
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
July 5, 1989 - Page 32
I
improvement he did and to me it' s a fairness thing .
Emmings : I don ' t think you could ever do that. I think that 's going to I
judged at the time you issue the permit.
Olsen: I was just going to say that some of these and I don't have Rogers
first letter but some of these were specifically a part of the case that
was passed down. I think that this one was one of those.
Erhart : Okay, that' s kind of a legal thing anyway and if you attorneys II
feel comfortable with it.
Batzli : Yes , it' s right out of the law. Permission of the use will not
impose additional cost on the public if it is necessary for the public to
take the property in the future. So it's right out of the Statute .
Erhart: So then going along , on page 2. I 'm wondering , in the first
place, 'churches . Why are churches an interim use?
Olsen: We've had that with Westside Baptist where they couldn' t build
their church and they've been in the industrial office park right now. A
lot of times they don' t have the money to build their church right away a
they need an interim place .
Erhart : Okay, let me narrow the question. Why would a church be an
interim use in the A-2 district when in the past it's always been a
straight permitted use?
Olsen : This is temporary. This is for a church to use somebody' s
farmhouse before they can go through and do the proposal .
Erhart : I guess my interpretation of this is that we were going to
replace, for example in A-2, churches aren' t listed at all are they?
I thought they were .
Olsen : They' re probably under the conditional use. 1
Erhart: I thought we changed that ordinance to include churches in the A-2
district? i
Olsen : Right, it might not be in the. . .
Erhart: So if it's a permitted use or a conditional use, are we suggestill
we' re going to remove it from that and then put it in a new category?
Olsen: No. I
•
Erhart : So this is in addition to that?
Olsen: Right. This is allowing them to be a temporary use.
Erhart : So we would decide at the time that the permit came in whether it
can be a permitted, which would be the ordinance, a conditional or a
I
I/ Planning Commission :eting
July 5, 1989 - Page 33
I
temporary?
Olsen : Right . If they have some reasons that they need to do something
temporary. What we had before was real general . We just allowed an
interim use. It was a temporary conditional use and what Roger has done is
tried to name specific ones and I don' t know if we really want to do that.
That's why I wanted to get comments back from the Planning Commission or
did we just want to leave it open because we' ll list these but then we' ll
get another one.
Erhart : I see . This gets into a broad discussion of whether you want to.
list them at all . That's what you're looking for direction.
Olsen : All or none.
1 Erhart : You' re looking for direction from us then . I guess I was a little
bit confused by this. What I was leading to here was if you' re going to
list them, then' you ought to list what the event would be maybe. For
example , mobile home. Right now you're looking at the ordinance, temporary
and mobile home. How do you define , how did we in the past, even without
these, how did we define what temporary was on that mobile home in the A-1
and A-2 district?
Olsen : It would have to meet all the requirements of a single family
residence that' s permanent. It has to have the foundation.
Erhart : Here we say temporary and mobile home. In the existing ordinance
Jo Ann.
Olsen : It could be mobile home. We allow those at like for the real
estate homes . Their offices .
Erhart : That ' s another item here.
Olsen : And we also allow temporary trailers. If someone is building their
house but they need to live on the site until the house is built. Are you
looking in the A-2 district?
Erhart : For example the A-2, your temporary real estate office. That' s
listed as a separate thing.
Emmings : As a permitted use.
Erhart : As a permitted use. I'm assuming in the A-2 district that under
existing ordinance, that if you have a 2 1/2 acre lot, you can put a mobile
home there because of the way it's written. Is there anyplace in the
ordinance that says that temporary is until you build a permanent house?
Olsen : No .
Erhart : So really if somebody wanted to push the issue, they could come in
here and set up a mobile home on one of these 2 1/2 acre lots. Do you read
' it that way?
1
I
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER.
•
DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359
403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B KNETSCH
VANCE B GRANNIS
VANCE B GRANNIS,JR.* 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J MAYER
PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
DAVID L. GRANNIS,III
ROGER N KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
DAVID L. HARMEYER
'ALSO ADMITTED To July 19, 1989
PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Definition of Structure
Dear Jo Ann:
Enclosed is a revised definition of structure and an .
amendment to Section 20-908, yard regulations. As you know, the
only significance of the definition of "structure" is that
structures cannot be located in required front, rear and side
yards except as specifically authorized. Rather than providing
that certain things are not structures and therefore could be
located in required yards, I have taken the exceptions and placed
them where they belong in Section 20-908.
Driveways have to be allowed to encroach in required yard
setbacks because without encroaching, they could not reach the
street.
Very truly yours,
GRAN i - - , , w FARRELL
400000 -i-. ' , P.A.
BY:
Roger N. Knutson
RNK:srn
Enclosure
1
•
11F.: �� . � 1
JUL 2 0 1989 '
CITY OF CNANl.Ieeer.
I
r
1 1 . The definition of "structure" in Section 20-1 of the
Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
Structure means anything manufactured, constructed or
erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land,
whether temporary or permanent in character, including but
not limited to: buildings, fences, sheds, advertising
signs, dog kennels, hard surface parking areas, boardwalks ,
playground equipment, concrete slabs.
t2. Section 20-908( 5 ) is amended by adding subparagraph (e)
to read:
1 (e) Into any required front, rear or side yard: driveways, tvL..v.L ;
strand wire agricultural fence.
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I