1m. Zoning Ordinance for Accessory Structure, 1st and 2nd reading C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: June 15, 198
II
Aug. 3 , 1988
CHANHASSE
C.C. DATE: March 27 , 1989
r . CASE NO: 88-8 ZOA
Prepared by: Olsen/v
I
1
STAFF REPORT
IPROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment To Sections 20-904 and
20-615 ( 6b) and add Definition Of Accessory
Structures
1
1{ctlon by City Administrator
QZEndorsed Z
Modified
0 LOCATION: Rejected
Date 3. ,` a
Vate Submitted to Commission
I Si:
APPLICANT:
Q Date Submitted to Council
•II
1
1 PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
1 DENSITY: ,
ADJACENT ZONING
IAND LAND USE: N-
S-
1 ge. E-
W-
1
W WATER AND SEWER:
IH
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
I2000 LAND USE PLAN:
II
111
1
ZOA - Accessory Structures '
April 5 , 1989
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed amending the ordinance for
accessory structures on March 2, 1988. At that time, the item
was tabled until staff could come back with Tim Erhart' s comments
and additional comments on lakeshore lots (Attachment #1) . The
Planning Commission wanted to have a maximum size for an accessory
structure for lots 5 acres and less .
At the May 18, 1988, meeting, the Planning Commission made
several changes and directed staff to conduct a public hearing
(Attachment #2) .
At the June 15, 1988 , Planning Commission meeting, the Commission ,
tabled action on this item until the whole ordinance could be
published. The Commission had no further comments or corrections
on the proposed ordinance amendment for accessory structures
(Attachment #3) .
On August 3 , 1988 , the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on the zoning ordinance amendment and recommended approval of the
amendments to Sections 20-904 and 20-615 ( 6b) (Attachment #4) as
follows :
Section 20-904, Accessory Structures
( a) Detached Garages and Storage Buildings . '
1 . No detached garages and storage buildings in any agri-
cultural and residential district shall be located in
required front or side yard.
2 . Detached garages and storage buildings in the RSF and
R-4 Districts shall not exceed 1000 square feet in size
and shall not occupy more than 30% of the area of any
rear yard. ( A rear yard is measured as the area between
the rear wall of the principal structure and the rear
lot line. )
3 . Detached garages and storage buildings in the RSF and
R-4 Districts having an area up to and equal to 200
square feet in size shall have a rear setback of five
( 5 ) feet. Any detached garage or storage building over
! feet and up to and equal to the maximum of '
1000 square - -t shall have a rear yard setback of fif-
een ( 15-) .
4 . Detached garages in all agricultural and residential '
districts must be architecturally consistent with the
principal structure.
5 . A detached garage or storage building in the RSF District
shall have a maximum height of twenty ( 20) feet.
I/
I
I
' ZOA - Accessory Structures
April 5 , 1989
Page 4
accessory use or structure in any residential district shall
Y Y
be located in the ANY required front, or side yard OR REAR
' SETBACK WITH FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:
1 . In the RSF and R-4 Districts detached garages and storage
buildings shall not exceed 1000 square feet. These struc-
tures may encroach into the rear setback as follows :
' a. If 200 square feet or less, minimum rear setback is 5 '
( five feet) .
b. If more than 200 square feet, minimum rear setb.ck is
10 ' ( ten feet) . ���
2 . On riparian lots, detached garages and sto buildings
may be located in the front or rear yard etbac but must
comply with front, side and applicable ordi- . ' high water
mark setbacks .
3 . Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear
yards with a minimum side and rear yard setback of 10 '
( ten feet) , however, must comply with applicable ordinary
high water mark setbacks .
' ( b) A detached accessory structure may occupy not more than thirty
( 30 ) percent of the area of any rear yard. provided that ire
' detached accessory structure shall tae placed nearer than five
( 5) €ee€ €r om arty rear lotrre
(c) In any residential district OR AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, PARCELS
WITH LESS THAN 3 ACRES, no accessory building er structure OR
USE shall be erected or constructed prior to the erection or
construction of the principal or main building but may be
' erected simultaneously.
Section 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks (RSF District) .
6 b. Accessory structures, twenty ( 20) feet.
Section 20-1. Definitions. (Add following new definitions)
Lot, riparian means any lot within 75 feet of the ordinary
high water mark of a lake, pond or wetland.
' Storage building means a structure used for the storage of
materials and accessories used and normally associated with
the principal use of the property.
On the previous proposed amendment we would recommend subsections
20-904 ( a) 4 & 5 be deleted. Staff is concerned that subsection 4
' could not be enforced as there is no means for determining what is
"architecturally consistent" . Subsection 5 is covered by Section
20-615 ( 6 ) b and need not be repeated here.
I
11
ZOA - Accessory Structures
April 5 , 1989
Page 3
6 . Detached garages and storage buildings located on
riparian lots shall maintain a setback of seventy-five
( 75 ) feet from the ordinary high water mark on
Recreational Development Lakes and one hundred fifty
( 150) feet from the ordinary high water mark on Natural
Environment Lakes as designated on the Official Zoning
Map. Detached garages and storage buildings on riparian
lots may be located in the front yard but must maintain
the front and side yard setbacks.
( b) Tennis Courts and Swimming Pools .
1 . No tennis courts or swimming pools shall be located in
the required front or side yard and shall maintain a
rear yard setback of ten ( 10) feet.
2 . Tennis courts and swimming pools located on riparian 1
lots shall maintain a setback of seventy-five ( 75) feet
from the ordinary high water mark on Recreational
Development Lakes and one hundred fifty (150) feet from
the ordinary high water mark on Natural Environment
Lakes as designated on the Official Zoning Map.
( c) In any residential district, or agricultural district par- '
cels with less than 3 acres , no storage building, detached
garage or accessory use shall be erected or constructed
prior to the erection or construction of the principal or
main building but may be erected simultaneously.
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks '
6 b. Accessory structures, 20 feet.
Definition of Storage Building: '
A structure used for the storage of materials and accessories
used and normally associated with the principal use of the
property.
STAFF UPDATE
After further review by staff, we would recommend the language of
the amendment be altered to modify the City Code as noted below.
Present language is typed below with language to be deleted shown
as deleted and new language shown in CAPS.
Section 20-904 . Accessory Structures.
( a) A detached accessory structure, except a dock, shall be
located in the buildable lot area or required rear yard. No
■
ZOA - Accessory Structures
April 3 , 1989
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
' Planning staff recommends the City Council adopt the following
motion:
' "The City Council approves amendments to the City Code as follows :
Section 20-904. Accessory Structures.
( a) A detached accessory structure, except a dock, shall be
located in the buildable lot area or required rear yard. No
' accessory use or structure in any residential district shall
be located in any required front, side or rear setback with
the following exceptions :
' 1 . In the RSF and R-4 Districts detached garages and storage
buildings shall not exceed 1000 square feet. These struc-
tures may encroach into the rear setback as follows :
a. If 200 square feet or less, minimum rear setback is 5 '
( five feet) .
' b. If more than 200 square feet, minimum rear setback is
10 ' ( ten feet) .
2 . On riparian lots, detached garages and storage buildings
' may be located in the front or rear yard setback but must
comply with front, side and applicable ordinary high water
mark setbacks .
' 3 . Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear
yards with a minimum side and rear yard setback of 10 '
( ten feet) , however, must comply with applicable ordinary
' high water mark setbacks.
( b) A detached accessory structure may occupy not more than thirty
' ( 30 ) percent of the area of any rear yard.
( c) In any residential district or agricultural district, parcels
with less than 3 acres, no accessory structure or use shall
' be erected or constructed prior to the erection or construc-
tion of the principal or main building but may be erected
simultaneously.
' Section 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks (RSF District) .
6 b. Accessory structures, twenty ( 20) feet.
Section 20-1. Definitions. (Add following new definitions)
Lot, riparian means any lot within 75 feet of the ordinary
high water mark of a lake, pond or wetland.
Storage building means a structure used for the storage of
materials and accessories used and normally associated with
the principal use of the property. "
1
i
ZOA - Accessory Structures
April 5 , 1989
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS 1
1 . Planning Commission minutes dated March 2 , 1988 .
2 . Planning Commission minutes dated May 18, 1988.
3 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 15, 1988.
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated August 3 , 1988 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
111
Planning Commission Meeting
' March 2, 1988 - Page 26
' SECTION 20-904, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
' Olsen : What we' re proposing to do now is , number 1 just states that
no detached garage or storage building in any district shall be
located in the required front and sideyard . Number 2 would
essentially be for RSF and R-4 districts where it would say, In RSF
' and R-4 districts detached garages . . .and then add the remainder of
this where it was talking specifically about RSF and R-4 with the
1,000 square foot and maximum of 30% of the rearyard and put that as a
' paragraph under 2. Then make number 3 as another section under number
2 because this will be pertaining to the RSF and R-4 districts .
Number 4 then is also for the maximum height will be applied to the
RSF and R-4 district. If you feel that you want these also for the
other districts, we can also add that under number 3 that we added for
multiple family commercial , industrial districts stating that they
shall have a rearyard setback of 10 feet. Essentially we' ve got one
' as a condition for all districts . Two would be RSF and R-4 . Three
would be multiple family, commercial and industrial districts. Then
we tried to further define a tennis court and swimming pool , where
' they can be located and where they can not. When you look at the
ordinance now they are considered an accessory use but then you use
the accessory structure setback so we came up with specific
requirements for those . (c) is the same.
lir
Conrad: What did we decide? City Council didn' t like the 1, 000 foot
building right?
' Olsen : They wanted different setbacks and Bill is here to be sure .
' Emmings : That ' s been incorporated already.
Olsen : Right .
Conrad : They literally said in either point 1 or 2, they did not want
a garage or a building as large as 1, 000 feet. Not that I agree with
them but that was what they said .
' Dacy: They did talk about 800.
Conrad : What are you thinking Bill? Let me give you our logic ,
' I think when we went through it a month or two ago. Tom didn ' t call
on me for our logic during our meetings so I ' ll share it with you. We
really took a look at what it would take for a 3 car garage and also
' what it would take to have a little shop in there and then Steve added
a 10% fudge factor or something and we came up with 1, 000 feet. We
basically looked at garage stalls to be a key there. I think 800 feet
probably would work too. I don' t know if there' s a great deal of
difference between 800 feet and 1, 000 feet in our mind but when
I heard City Council talking, I heard numbers that were significantly
lower than the 1, 000 . Bill , do you have any comments? Anything to
guide us on this thing based on what you heard?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 27
c
Councilman Boyt : I remember saying at the meeting , when we first
discussed this and I think what I could live with is if the out
building was never to be larger than the main structure . In a sense
that we don ' t require a house, the minimum house size is less than
1, 000 square feet . I 'd like some means of avoiding the situation
where a person has a 850 square foot house and 1, 000 foot outbuilding
15 feet from the lot line. I have a really serious problem and will
probably vote against this if we come up with 1,000 square foot
building and put it closer to our rear lot line than we now allow a
850 square foot house to be. I think that ' s inappropriate. 1
Headla : What about a little Sears sheet metal utility shed?
Emmings: That' s under 200. 1
Conrad : That' s under 200 so there ' s no problem with that.
Emmings : That's why we put that in there was that concern for that.
Councilman Boyt: If I might just comment one more thing about that
item, when I think of a single car garage , which is what I had
envisioned about 200 square feet to be , and see that 5 feet from a
back lot line, I get nervous about that too. What I see as an out
building is something where a person can store a lawn mower or a few
tools and I know staff was going to check into what a typical size of
an outbuilding is . What is a typical size of an outbuilding?
Olsen: It' s always an 8 x 10, 10 x 10, 10 x 12 and he said up to 200. II
Then I always checked around with other cities and 200 was the cut-off
point for their small buildings and 1, 000 was the typical maximum.
Dacy: That ' s in the Building Code too . The 1, 000.
Councilman Boyt: That the 1, 000 is a maximum? '
Dacy: For a garage. Tim Erhart had come up with 1, 000 for a 3 car
garage also. 1
Olsen : We first had 800.
Dacy: Then Tim came up with 1, 000. 1
Councilman Boyt : I 'm really here to listen so take it away.
Dacy: That' s the concern about the accessory building be larger than
the principle building . I think that goes right in with (c) and is a
logical extension of that as far as when an accessory building is
constructed . I think that ' s easily accomodated if the Commission
wants to pursue that. The only exclusion to that would be if you were
(
in an A-2 area and your barn would be obviously larger than your home
but that can be excluded .
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 28
IIConrad : The districts that 2 applies to , RSF and R-4 .
' Emmings : Tim wants to expand that in his letter to RR-1 and A-2 if
they' re 5 acres or less .
Headla : And I think we ' ll want to make that 10.
Conrad : I agree with Tim in those larger lots that we' re allowing ,
that are residential in nature. I agree . I think we should.
Emmings : I think the record should reflect that we all think Tim
makes much more sense when he' s not here than when he is .
' Conrad: He's much more agreeable.
Headla : Which point are we going to discuss here? We' ve got
different ones. If we' re going to talk about Tim' s memo, I don' t
think it should be 5 acres . I think it should be 10. Look on the
west side of Minnewashta, you can put up an awful big building there
' and it just doesn ' t fit into the area . I ' d be affected by it but I
really thing that's for the good of Chanhassen, that' s the way it
should be .
Conrad : Is there any logic we can use? I hear what you ' re saying . I
think the 5 acres . . .
Dacy: I think the 5 acres , all the Hesse Farm lots are approximately
5 acres and all the cluster subdivisions are below that. If you would
raise it to 10, it would probably include some of the other separately
' described sporatic parcels throughout the city.
Headla : So we' d knock all but one out in our area .
' Dacy: Your area is zoned RSF so you ' re going to fall under the
maximum of 1, 000.
1 Headla : Even though I ' ve got 10 acres?
Dacy: Right. What we' re proposing to do is regulate it by zoning
district . Tim' s concern is out in the rural area . Your zoned RSF.
You have 10 acres . You have a maximum of 1, 000 square feet.
Headla : That accomplishes what I wanted .
' Emmings : It ' s funny about 5 acres , it just kind of feels right but I
don ' t really know why.
' Conrad : It feels right but I didn ' t have a good logic . I didn ' t like
the 10 but I do like the 5.
f
Emmings : I 'm wondering why in the old number 3 , now it ' s assumed
under 2, it says detached garages but storage buildings is left out of
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2 , 1988 - Page 29
t
there . Is there a reason for that?
Dacy: Yes . Our concern was that we had a difficult time trying to II enforce that condition on, for example 120 square foot Sears building
or one of those . When we talked to Tim more about it, he said that
was his main intent also, was to make sure that the garages at least
looked the same as the house then .
Emmings : How about saying detached garages and storage buildings over
200 square feet? Because if they' re going to build a bigger building , II
wouldn ' t we want them to be?
Olsen: A lot of times those are still polebarns . ,
Emmings : Can they build polebarns in the RSF?
Dacy: Yes . '
Olsen : But when it' s a garage . . .
Dacy: You do need the thicker walls obviously but Building Code '
purposes .
Emmings : The other thing I ' ve got is , number 1 says no detached ,
garages or storage buildings in any residential district shall be
located in the required front or side yard . Down under tennis courts
and swimming pools , you' ve out in some special language for riparian
lots . Again , not I 'm getting kind of worried about my own situation
here a little bit but it does come to mind. This would prevent me
from building a garage on the side of my house away from the lake
without a variance, would it not? What is my rearyard?
Dacy: The lakeside .
Olsen: So you have a 75 foot setback for any structure.
Emmings: Yes, but my frontyard is away from the lake and you' re
saying I can ' t build a garage back there when the road is back there ,
my car comes in there. I 've got to put my garage now. . .
Headla : It' s the old story, which is your frontyard. ,
Dacy: The ordinance defines the frontyard as that part that abuts the
street . Your case , because you ' re on a private easement . ,
Olsen: You still have to be 30 feet back and that' s the frontyard .
You could still , if you house was 50 feet back, you could still have
your garage in the front .
Dacy: Are you calling your lakeside your front?
Emmings: I 'm asking .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' March 2, 1988 - Page 30
Dacy: The ordinance defines the lakeside as a rear but it can' t be as
close as 75 feet. Between 75 feet and your house you could have a
garage.
Emmings : This says I can ' t build a detached garage in the front and
my front is by the street but that is where I would logically build my
garage.
' Olsen : You can ' t have it within the setback of the front .
Emmings: What you ' re saying is I 've got to get a variance .
Dacy: If you want to build a garage in the frontyard , you ' ll need a
variance.
1 Emmings : But why should we make that necessary on riparian lots?
Ellson: How many people will that affect?
' Conrad : Quite a few.
Emmings : Everybody who lives on a lake .
IDacy: Especially in the older platted areas .
Headla: We talked about this before. We still don ' t have a
definition of a frontyard and you were going to go back and look at
that for me.
' Dacy: The ordinance defines frontyard as that part of the lot that
abuts the public street.
Headla : But that ' s not good enough. YOu ' ve got double frontage lots .
You ' ve got lakes .
Dacy: We define a double frontage lot also .
Emmings : My point is this , you ' ve gone to the trouble down for tennis
courts and swimming pools of distinguishing what you do with riparian
lots and why not do the same thing for garages and storage buildings?
Dacy: That ' s fine .
' Olsen: On riparian lots?
Emmings : Yes .
Olsen : The 5horeland Ordinance prohibits that within 75 feet . Is
that what you ' re talking about?
11\-
Emmings : No it ' s not .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 31 '
e
Dacy: All we 'd be doing is repeating what the Shoreland Ordinance
says . '
Emmings: All I want to say is something like, on a riparian lot they
shouldn' t be allowed in the rearyard.
Dacy: Your intent is to prevent the ability of somebody to construct
some type of storage building between the principle structure and the
lake? '
Emmings : And to allow it in the frontyard in that situation.
Ellson: You don' t want a Sears thing in the back that has life 1
jackets in it and things like that?
Conrad: We don ' t need a lot of variances coming in here with people
who live on lakes and 20% of the people in Chanhassen live on lakes .
Emmings: I 've probably got 250 feet down to the lake from my house.
I don' t have any trouble getting back 75 feet . Not that I would ever
build a building there. No one in their right mind would but why
can ' t I just get a permit to build it in my frontyard in that
situation? Why do I have to get a variance?
Dacy: Let me explain this . The intent to permit an accessory
structures in the front and side yard is, in the case of the sideyard
to not block and access between two lots . The frontyard is to
maintain a safe distance between the public right-of-way and any type
of structure for safety reasons . Like in your area along Horseshoe
Curve or the Red Cedar Point area, there are a lot of those older
garages that are right on top of the road . I think everybody knows
that that' s not the best safety type of situation also so this
accessory buildings not being able to be located in the frontyard ,
that' s a typical requirement in most ordinances. Maybe it should be
looked at through a variance procedure in some special cases because I
think to allow it outright may be creating more problems than it' s
worth.
Emmings : Just think for a minute . If we allowed it on a riparian
lot, when they come in for the permit they' re going to have to meet
all the setbacks . If you allow it in the frontyard on a riparian lot ,
you ' re not going to run into the Red Cedar Point type of situation.
Conrad : Steve, why don ' t we table this? There are a lot of things
here and I guess I 'd like to have staff come and bring it back next
time that we meet and work in these considerations and just think
about it a little bit more in terms of riparian and that kind of
stuff .
Emmings : I think we all kind of like, can even speak about Tim ' s , but 11
the rest of us seem to think that Tim had some good things that could
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 32
I
be incorporated too .
Dacy: I understand he won' t be able to make the meeting on the 16th
either .
Headla : I don ' t think we want outbuildings on the lakeside allowable .
Dacy: We' ll bring it back.
' Headla moved, Emmings seconded to table action on Section 20-904 ,
Accessory Structures. All voted in favor and motion carried .
REVIEW PROPOSED STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION.
' Dacy: If I could just bring you up-to-date where it is with the
legislature . It is in committee from what I understand now and
various communities have been testifying pros and cons on many of
I these issues . My main intent of bringing this to your attention is so
that you ' re aware of this proposed law because it does have in some
instances , very significant implications on how planning commissions
will be operating in the future. Minnesota I think is unique in
I - taking this approach of looking at it ' s enabling legislation and doing
a complete revamp. Looking at other laws like the Metropolitan Land
Use Planning Act and looking at how cities relate functionally with
counties , etc . . For example , if you noted on page 30 for conditional
uses, I ' ll just bring the example to your attention. Something that' s
easily identifiable . All the language that ' s underlined is what is
11 being proposed . What is being proposed is that the planning
commission is getting a little more authority on conditional use
permits . What it ' s saying is that the City Council has to consider
that Planning Commission ' s recommendation and over two-thirds of the
Council must abide by the Planning Commission' s recommendation or by a
two-thirds vote override that . So for example , that is different than
what was law up until this time. Another issue in here, this doesn' t
affect the planning commission necessarily but the composition of the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals. What ' s being proposed is that
councilmembers are not going to be permitted to sit on the Board of
' Adjustments and Appeals. That is current practice in Chanhassen so
that takes a different approach . There are other larger issues that
we could go on and on about as far as consistency between
comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances and so on, but again , my
' main intent was to get you familiar with this so you understand that
this has direct impact on how you decide issues and what you can and
what you can' t do. If you would like, I could have Roger Knutson come
' in and highlight the chances a little bit more . Because on why they
did this or why they did that, I 'm not up to speed on. I don' t know
the history or the rational but Roger could give that .
l
Headla: One point I 'd like him to comment on is Chanhassen going to
have liability on us then like they cover the Council? Right now they
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 20
system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review
process .
5. The road profile shall be revised to show a landing zone which meets
the Minnesota Department of Transportation ' s guidelines and shall be
submitted for approval by the City Engineer as part of the plans and
specifications review process .
6 . The proposed right-of-way shall be revised to a 60 foot right-of-way
width, and shall maintain a 60 foot radius at the end of the
cul-de-sac as per ARticle 3 , Section 28-57 (b) of the Chanhassen
Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed right-of-way shall be platted to
the edge of Outlot B and submitted to the City Staff a plan signifying II
the amendment to the right-of-way.
7. All utilities shall be jacked underneath Audubon Road.
8. Subdivision is contingent upon the MUSA line being approved by the
Metropolitan Council .
All voted in faovr and motion carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : t
Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated May 4 , 1988 with the change noted on page 52 by
Brian Batzli regarding clarification on the voting outcome for the motion .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS , DISCUSSION.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . '
Emmings : We had a long discussion around this where I said , why would I
come in for a variance when I want to build a garage in my frontyard but
nothing was changed in here to reflect any of that .
Olsen: That ' s where we discussed it. The frontyard, you still have the
30 foot setback. That way you wouldn' t have to do a variance .
Emmings : My point then and I read it and it was kind of confusing so
maybe I haven ' t made myself clear on it . My rearyard on a riparian lot
this would say that I can ' t build a garage in my frontyard which is the
side of my house away from the lake . The street side which is the logical
place for it. My point is this, why don ' t we say that on riparian lots ,
no detached garages and storage buildings in residential districts shall
be located in the front or side yard except on riparian lots or something
( like that . The point being , then I can come in and simply get a building II
`- permit rather than having to go through the variance process .
Dacy: But you still have to meet the front setback.
■
11
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 21
1 £a
Emmings : I always have to meet every setback. I know I have to meet the
setbacks . I just wonder why I have to go through the variance procedure.
No one builds their garage between their house and the lake , I don ' t
think.
Dacy: So you ' re looking at either 7 or 8?
Emmings : I don't know. I was trying to modify number 1 but maybe you
have a better idea . No , 7 stays just like it is .
Dacy: What I 'm saying though is , that would be the section. We ' re trying
' with each numeral have a serparate rule for each numeral .
Emmings: Then do you want to add another number?
Dacy: Number 7 pertains to riparian lots .
Erhart: Why did you come up with number 1 to begin with? What was the
' objection to having the detached garage in the front or side of the home?
Dacy: That ' s standard practice in most zoning codes .
Ilr Batzli : I 'm losing the chain of thought here . I guess from the
neighborhoods I 'm from, the garage is always detached and it ' s always
between the house .
1 Wildermuth : It ' s on the side yard or rear .
' Batzli : No, front .
Emmings : Where I grew up it was always rear .
Batzli : It depends . If you ' re in the City and you ' re going down the
alley, it ' s always in the backyard but in a lot of more ruralized , just
kind of places I ' ve seen, quite a few garages are in the front yard
because it' s right up against the road and you ' ve got the house set back.
Erhart: I think you ' ve got to remember where we started on this thing . It
1 started about six months ago when some guy came in here with 7 acres on
RSF district and wanted to put up 30 , 000 square toot barn. Somehow now
we ' ve got this around to we ' re talking about accessory buildings . In
today' s marketplace, no one builds a single family house in a small lot
with detached garages . I 'm not even sure that that ' s an issue . I almost
think by adding number 1 that we may create a problem that really doesn ' t
exist .
' Batzli : It may be that there are smaller homes located about that don ' t
have a garage.
Ir- Erhart : I would think they would want to put it in the rear .
Batzli : It depends on whose street it is .
1
11
i
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 22
Dacy: An example of that is in the Carver Beach area . Those older areas
and typically they are within the 30 foot setback and we do have the 1
ability to put them through the variance process so we can evaluate
exactly close that it should be. I really recommend that you keep 1 in
there because then law, even with the previous ones , stands up in this
book.
Emming : It ' s not a bad general rule .
Dacy: Right. Exactly. For separation of buildings and the street . . .
Erhart : Did you have anymore on that Steve? I want to get back to this . II
Emmings : No. I guess I 'd like to find a way so if a person on a riparian
lot wants to build a garage, they can come in for a permit and make sure
they meet all the setbacks but not have to go through the variance. There
isn' t any doubt that if I come in as a riparian lot owner and I want to
build in my frontyard, I 'm going to get that variance. The City' s not
going to make me build between the lake . They' re not going to make me put II
it in the rearyard.
Dacy: I 'm not going to say always but you ' re chances are increased .
Emmings : Isn ' t this one of those situations where we can let staff handle
it through the permit process rather than having to make a person go
through the cost and expense? I
Dacy: What I was thinking of to discuss would be to add on a sentence
that on riparian lots the detached garages , do you just want to exclude it
only to detached garages as opposed to storage buildings?
Emmings : I don' t know.
Dacy: There' s an aesthetic standpoint .
Emmings : I would say garages . I guess I wouldn ' t mess with the accessory i
buildings at this point . I would say garages .
Dacy: That detached garages may be located in the frontyard but it must
maintain the front and side setbacks .
Erhart: I think with your 4 and 5, the way it' s coming out right now,
it' s not getting accomplished what I see accomplished including what I 'm
concerned about. That is , it ' s a situation where essentially a
subdivision, even though it ' s in the A-2 or RR district , is essentially a
group of small lots . Generally with our current ordinance the tendency
is to do 2. 5, economically that size. They come out just like an RSF
subdivision and the concern is that on these buildings , the houses are
uniform. Again , like anything else it' s to avoid a situation where they
come in and put in a metal building in the middle of a residential area .
The way it reads now is it ' s kind of mushy so what I 'm saying is , maybe
what the real cutoff here is when do you get out of this subdivision
i
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 23
cluster and when do you get into the rural area? I 'm not opposed to metal
tal
sheds at all in the rural areas . . . Dave would argue that not on 10 acres .
5 seems reasonable to me . Bluff Creek, the Hesse Farms , a lot of these
where you ' ve got 100 homes coming in there putting 2 1/2 acres, they are
all 2 1/2 to 3 acres subdivision so when you ' re done there is the
I temptation to put that metal shed when somebody has built a $300, 000. 00
home . I would rather adjust this acreage thing down to 3 acres if you
have a concern about this bigger building rather than making it a
conditional use because what happens in conditional uses we forget what
the intention was .
Ellson : Why don' t you make the point that this is trying to eliminate
metal sheds? We spent a little bit on that one before.
Erhart : We can combine all of this in one . What I 'd like to do is
' anything below 5 acres they can not be allowed at all and erase the
condition use permit . Secondly, make them argicultural . Change 5 ,
detached garages on all residential , all lots less than 5 acres must be
architecturally consistent . Now if the Commission feels 5 acres is too
big, rather than making this mushy, I 'd rather reduce the lot size so
everybody feels comfortable that we ' re doing a service for this
subdivision. Does that make sense?
, r, Emmings : Where I 'm confused is if the detached garage, obviously that
doesn' t include accessory buildings . . .
Erhart : The way you have it now, detached garages . You just restrict it
for residential districts. A-2 I assume is not at all .
' Dacy: No . I used the term in all residential districts .
Ellson: Even A-2, that' s residential .
Erhart : I see . So you are including the A-2?
Dacy: Maybe you can clarify it to make sure detached garages in all
' agricultural and residential districts must be architecturally. . .
Erhart: I think you should say 5 acres or less . On lots 5 acres or less .
' Batzli : If a guy has 240 acres then who cares what his detached garage
looks like?
Erhart : Do the same as you did in item 4 . You use the term 5 acres or
less .
' Dacy: It' s still the perception of architectural continuity.
Ellson: If it ' s going to be a garage, you have to have walking distance
to the house .
Dacy: The 5 acres really came for the storage buildings .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 24
Erhart : We' re differentiating between detached garages and accessory
buildings?
Dacy: Yes , because the storage buildings, then you ' re getting into metal
and all that business and you really shouldn ' t be. . .
Erhart : Does this change then allow us to put up metal buildings in lots II
less than 5 acres?
Dacy: We are not saying anything about metal buildings . I
Erhart: Are we differentiating between accessory structures?
Dacy: You' re differentiating between detached garages and storage
buildings .
Emmings : Do we have definitions for each of those in the ordinance? 1
Dacy: We have a definition of a garage and building as a structure .
Erhart : What about the guy who comes in and saying I 'm not proposing that I
I build a detached garage. I 'm proposing to build a storage shed.
Emming : That I 'm going to put my car in . ,
Erhart: Yes, so all of a sudden this doesn ' t apply anymore.
Dacy: We do have a definition of a garage .
Erhart: All I want to do is prevent someone from coming in and saying I 'm
building a 1, 200 foot metal building .
Batzli : On accessory structure it doesn' t have to be primary. . . so he can
put up an accessory structure without coming in for action.
Emmings : We do have accessory structures?
Dacy: Right.
Erhart : Why can ' t we just say on item 4 , change it to say in the A-2 and II
RR district no detached , or in all these districts , no detached garage or
accessory structure?
Dacy: Because you ' re forcing people to , instead of going to Montgomery ,
Wards or just getting those. . . .
Ellson : The little ones , you ' re telling them they can ' t have them. '
Erhart: I 'm saying no accessory structure shall exceed 1, 000 square feet
i on lots 5 acres or less . Change the words from detached garages to
t accessory structures .
Dacy: Start over . On 4 or 5?
I
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 25
I _
Erhart : On 4 . In the A-2 and RR districts no accessory structures shall
Iexceed 1,000 square feet.
Dacy: That ' s there .
IErhart : You' re using the term detached garage.
Dacy: And storage buildings .
IErhart : Okay, I 'm satisfied . I guess I was thinking of s storage buildings
g
I was thinking of those little tiny buildings but you ' re using the term to
Idescribe all of them. Okay, I 'm satisfied .
Batzli : I 'd rather see the terms defined than coming up with detached
Igarages and storage building which isn ' t defined anywhere .
Emmings: Accessory structures seemed broad to me .
I Dacy: Storage buildings are listed as an accessory use in the district.
Storage building is an accessory structure.
Emmings : If accessory structure is the broadest term, why not use it?
I 9
{ Batzli : We have pools under that. Parking lots .
IDacy: This got back to your original discussion between use and structure
and we beat each other over the head and that ' s why we came up with
storage . What are we trying to regulate? Storage buildings and garages .
IThey' re all accessory structures , yes .
Erhart : What happens with a horse barn?
IIDacy: We ' re calling those a private stable .
Batzli : Private stable would be an accessory structure .
Dacy: Private stable is a conditional use.
IWi.ldermuth : It ' s in a classification all by itself .
Erhart: I go back to what I originally said , we should change the whole
Itone of accessory structure shall not exceed 1, 000 square feet .
Dacy: But the term accessory structure includes docks , pools , garages ,
storage buildings , tennis courts .
IEllson : Didn ' t we talk about this before? We came up with storage
before.
I (- Batzli : I didn ' t like storage then and I still don ' t like it .
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 26
Ernart : Let ' s
rt • Let s just take the storage out and let ' s say just buildings .
Accessory buildings .
Emmings : There you go .
Dacy: I think we need to be consistent though with other terms in the
ordinance and as long as we ' re listing storage buildings as listed
accessory uses , we should try to keep that .
Erhart : It 's clear to you that a horse barn? '
Dacy: That could be number 8 .
Erhart: Why don' t you just state detached garages . . .
Dacy: Because a private stable is a conditional use in the single family
and it ' s a permitted use in the A-2 and RR. That' s an issue. Do you want
to review the size of the buildings through the conditional use permit
process for private stable depending on the number of horses and the
acreage or did you want to set a maximum acreage for calling it an
accessory structure? As a conditional use it can be the principle use of
the land .
Erhart : How big was that stable?
Dacy: I think that was over 1, 000. I think it was 1, 300 or 1, 400 . ,
Batzli : I would recommend personally, that we come up with a definition
for our definition section for a storage building . What is a storage
building and that would solve our problem. Then we can use it. Then I
like using the term but I don ' t like really creating terms that we know
what we' re talking about right now but is somebody tries to come in later
and it ' s not defined anywhere . ,
Emmings : You might include it in the definition means we do not . . .
Batzli : It' s going to be a building that' s not connected to the main I
structure .
Emmings : Not used primarily for . . . ,
Batzli : Not used primarily for whatever .
Emmings : Whether it ' s cars , stables or anything . I
Batzli : You have to define what it isn ' t rather than what it is . I would
rather be . . .because then you take in both the Sears barns and the bigger
pole barns and whatever else .
Dacy: okay, we can do that . Jo Ann just pointed out that private stables II
is an accessory use so if we ' ve got 100 acre parcel out in the A-2
district , then as written they would need a conditional use permit . No ,
they wouldn ' t .
,_
I Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 27
I
I Wildermuth : If it' s under 1, 000 square feet it doesn ' t. . .
Batzli : Proceeding onto number 4 . . .but then we leave our detached garages
and storage buildings and start talking about accessory buildings . Are
II you differentiating between the accessory building and the storage
building?
Emmings : That ' s the term you didn' t want to use but you also used it down
Iin (c) . You used accessory buildings .
Erhart : Going back to that one , that sentence ought to be eliminated . If
II we ' re going to have a rule against 1, 000 square foot buildings , then let ' s
just make it a rule .
IIBatzli : That begs the question on what do you allow on 5 acres or more?
Erhart: We ' re not imposing restrictions .
II Batzli : If we leave that in there you have to go through the conditional
use process .
, Y_ Dacy: I think that ends up the way it ' s being written but I think the way
we had intended it was for 5 acres or less .
Batzli : I don ' t read it that way.
IIDacy: Then that should be clarified .
1 Erhart : What are we trying to clarify?
Dacy: Our intent was that if it was an ag lot, not part of the
II subdivision as you had described , that they may need a building more than
1, 000 square feet and rather than having them come in for a variance which
means a hardship has to be demonstrated whereas a conditional use permit
is a little more flexible.
IErhart : My concern is that we permit everything .
lBatzli : Over 5 acres .
Erhart : It doesn ' t say over 5 acres . If you ' re going to change it to say
II that if you had more than 5 acres and you wanted to build 1, 0470 square
feet and come in for a conditional use permit , I 'm all for that.
Dacy: That 's an option. You could be getting a lot of conditional use
I permits for accessory buildings and/or , as written , there is no
restrictions on accessory buildings in the A-2. I should say, they can' t
be in the front and side yard and so on but that ' s about it .
II '- Erhart: You ' re saying with the proposed ordinance change or as the
current ordinance reads?
II
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1
May 18 , 1988 - Page 28
Dacy: ,
y• The current ordinance reads the same way. You can have 100 acres
and you can' t have it in the front and side yard.
Erhart : Let me try to clarify this . Let' s say we have in sentence one in
paragraph 4. We agree that the wording, detached garages and storage
buildings with your definition Brian , is perhaps acceptable . Then the
question becomes, as I read it, we add another paragraph that allows
someone to come in for a conditional use permit . To me that ' s the
question on this . Am I right or wrong?
Emmings : You' d rather have them come in for a variance?
Erhart: Yes , because I think if we' re going to write it, why would we
write a rule. . . The rule is written for a good reason . If we believe
that it ' s a good reason.
Dacy: How about if we do this? Shall exceed 1, 000 square feet on lots 5 1
acres or less and add some language for lots used primarily for single
family purposes . '
Erhart : Farms on 5 acres or less . Is everybody with just eliminating
that conditional use sentence or do you want it to stay in?
Batzli : I ' d be happy to eliminate that sentence but I still think this
section might raise the issue of what happens when you ' ve got more than 5
acres . I
Erhart : I 'm assuming what it says is if you ' ve got more than 5 acres , you
put up anything .
Batzli : I 'm assuming that as well .
Emmings : I don ' t know if I want to throw out the sentence . The only
thing , if somebody had a good reason to put up over 1, 000 square feet on a
5 acre piece . If you look at our standards for issuing a conditional use
permit where it can ' t depreciate surrounding property value and it has to
be aesthetically compatible . If we could control it to that extent .
Erhart: No, I 'm all in favor of that. . .horse barns . I agree with that.
My concern is that when this comes in we won ' t really sit down and think
about it.
Emmings : I don ' t know. 1, 000 square feet is not a lot for 5 acres in
case somebody wants it. A machine shop or if somebody wants to use it to
build cabinets or something like that .
Erhart: . . . I 'd even go to 1, 500 square feet on 5 acres . Just cut the
whole thing . Instead of 5 make it 3. I don ' t think we ' re going to see
anybody selling in the rural more than 5 acre lots . If some guy wants to
split 10 acres into 5 , than I don ' t care what kind of buildings he puts
in.
Batzli : I think 3 acres is probably a good number to go with then .
11
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 29
i \-
Emmings : Okay, so if you put 3 acres in the first sentence and eliminate
II the second sentence and have it say that over 3 acres there are no
restrictions on properties greater than 5?
IWildermuth : As long as the setbacks are satisfied.
Batzli : That ' s my next question . Why do we have setback requirements for
the RSF and . . .
I
Dacy: We ' re just establishing different setbacks for RSF and R-4 .
II Erhart: I think the confusion that Brian and I have is when you use the
word residential district and I 'm not sure in our minds , because the A-2
says Agricultural Estates , we ' re not sure that your language covers that .
IIDacy: We are specifying the district though.
Erhart: You' re saying that no detached garages or storage buildings in
Iany residential district shall be located in the required front and side.
Dacy: In number 3 we' re specifying . . .
Batzli : RSF and R-4 . So if you lived in A-2 , you could put . . .
I Dacy: You would go by the original ones in the A-2 district. They would
be in the front and rear .
Batzli : So what you ' re doing is you ' re actually lessening the standard in
IIRSF and R-4 districts?
Emmings : Residential districts Tim, in the ordinance are RR, RSF, R-4 ,
IR-8, and R-12.
Dacy: Now we ' re increasing the setback because right now they can have it
back to 5 feet within the rear yard. Now in the RSF district we ' re saying
I if it ' s 200 or less you can put it 5 feet on the rear and 10 on the side.
If you ' re over, you ' re up to 15 feet .
1 Batzli : What would the normal rear yard setback be?
Dacy: For an accessory building it ' s 5 feet .
IIBatzli : So if it ' s over 200 square feet . . .but according to the ordinance ,
A-2 is included in a residential district . So if you had A-2 , are you
limited by the setback in some other section we' re not looking at?
IErhart: The same goes for paragraph 5. You need to say residential and
agricultural districts .
I '-- Emmings : So you want to add all residential and the A-2 .
Erhart : . . . item 1 and item 5 and we add A-2 .
il
Planning Commission Meeting '
May 18 , 1988 - Page 30
Batzli : I want to retract everything I said about that second sentence in
paragraph 4. I ' ll let them worry about that when the time comes . . .
Dacy: So the second sentence of 4 is dropped and that' s it?
Emmings : You should have the first sentence in 4 changed to say. . . '
Erhart : And 5 in all residential districts and the A-2 district . What-
about , is it just detached garages that have to be architecturally
consistent? What about storage buildings?
Olson: We talked about that and storage buildings they didn' t have to be
designed to make those . I
Batzli : Can we differentiate the Sears barns by saying that under 200
square feet doesn ' t have to be and over 200 does? Just a question. I
Ellson : You can get those things mighty big and already prefab and then
to ask to paint it your color and have a roof the same, that ' s asking a
lot.
Batzli : I thought I would just ask though .
Dacy: There is also the deed restrictions . . . To be honest I think a
detached garage is but at least there it ' s something that is dependent on
the structure. I
Erhart : I 'm talking of that small lot subdivision from putting metal
sheds in. What happens in 2 1/2 acre minimum and you ' ve got a consistent
neighborhood and the temptation . . .and the next door neighbor can ' t do
that. You ' re trying to protect the value of one neighbor against what
some other guy will do. That ' s what I 'm trying to do .
Ellson: You buy those things already made and then to go back and make
them architecturally sound or then you ' ve got to go back to your stucco
house or whatever .
Emmings : Barb , we have unani_mously. . . to A-2 . You ' ve got to change where
you put all the argicultural districts . You can ' t put A-1 up there. You
can ' t enforce this . It should be in A-2 and all residential districts .
So 5 should be changed to just say A-2 and all residential districts .
Erhart : The last question remains I guess is do we want to take lots of 2
1/2 acre subdivision and allow these metal storage sheds . That ' s the
question and I 'm proposing that we add storage sheds to 5 to prevent that .
Batzli : I think by limiting size you ' re going to allow the Sears storage
shed and you' re going to eliminate a guy coming in with a 45 x 17 ' x 30 '
Lester . I don ' t think we can regulate the sheds . I 'd sure like to think
we could . 1
Emmings : I don ' t think we' ll have a problem. . . Do we mean now just
residential districts and you ' re using accessory building and do we want
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 31
II
them included in A-2 here or not?
Dacy: If the structure is used for agricultural purposes , that can be
interpretted as the primary use.
' Erhart : I think the basis of this whole thing applying to rural areas is
that in the 3 acre or less lots . If it ' s 10 acres .
Dacy: This could pertain to RSF or multiple family. We just don ' t want
' garages built.
Erhart : I agree . All I 'm saying is if agreement . . . in any residential
' district and on any lot less than 3 acres in the A-2 area, no accessory
building or structure shall be built and so on . I think what you don' t
want to do is get the 20 acre parcel out there and prevent some guy from
putting a storage shed up. That happens frequently.
Emming: Okay, so we say in any residential district or less than 3 acres .
A-2 lots than 3 acres . Then it says no accessory building .
Dacy: Change it to storage .
Emmings : Storage building and that ' s all?
Dacy: Yes .
' Batzli : What ' s the difference between an accessory building or a storage
shed?
Dacy: Let ' s just say no storage building , detached garage or accessory
buildings shall be erected.
' Erhart : The best term you ' ve found is accessory building . It
accomplishes what we' re trying to accomplish .
Batzli : I would agree . I would say there , accessory use . You ' re looking
for accessory everything.
Dacy: Again , anytime you say no accessory use that means docks .
' Ellson: You can ' t have a porch .
Dacy: That covers it all .
E.Tnmings : Let' s try that and see how it works .
Erhart : Is this coming back to us?
Dacy: Yes , Jo Ann and I were dust talking that it' s been so long we
! should really readvertise for a public hearing with the changes .
r
Planning Commission Meeting '
June 15, 1988 - Page 20
Wildermuth : Excellent idea . I think Instant Webb is to be commended . I
think they' re probably the first company in Chanhassen to have a daycare
center .
Emmings : I have no comments . I agree with Annette . '
Ellson moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-10 to amend Section
20-813, Permitted Accessory Uses of the IOP, Industrial Office Park
District as follows :
(4) State Licensed Day Care Center .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-904 AND SECTION 20-615 (6B) , 11
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OF ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, STORAGE BUILDINGS AND DETACHED BUILDINGS.
Olsen : We' re asking you to table it right now until we can republish. We
want to publish the whole thing so people can see it.
Emmings : At this point you just want to know that we. . . '
Olsen : That this is okay. The new stuff is in bold hopefully to make it I
easier to see what the changes were.
Emmings : We' re going to table this I guess .
Conrad: So we' re not going to have a public hearing .
Emmings : So we' re not going to have a public hearing and I think what I
they' re asking for is our comments as to the content of this when it does
come back on the public hearing so they want to be sure that we' re in
agreement with what this says at this point in time. If anybody' s got any
reservations , just go ahead and speak them out . I
Conrad: The only thing that I find interesting is the City Council , who
was very concerned about 1, 000 square foot accessory building and we
rationalized 1,000 as a good sized three car garage and a shop. That ' s
how we came to that 1,000 feet . That makes sense to me. I have no other
comments but that's a number we could certainly move around . Whether it ' s
1, 000 or whatever . I think City Council will move it to where they want
to move it anyway so I don' t really care.
Emmings : The 3 acres is the same thing . It could be 3 . It could be 4 .
it could be 5 or 9 but I think it' s reasonable. Then does everybody feel
that this basically says , that it brings together what we tried to do so
many times before . '
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 21
IC '
Batzli : The one comment I had was for agricultural district with less
than 3 acres . Are there many agricultural districts in the City with less
than 3 acres? Are you talking about lots in agricultural districts?
Olsen: Yes .
Batzli : I think I 'd just clarify that or something . We' re talking abotit
I lots .
Emmings : Agricultural district lot .
Batzli : Something like that. You' re not talking about the district.
You' re talking about lots within the district .
Emmings: Or parcels maybe because they probably aren' t divided into lots .
Batzli : That ' s just kind of a clarification.
' Olsen: Just add parcels to residential district parcels and agricultural
district parcels .
' Batzli : Does the 3 acres apply to the residential district as well?
Olsen: No. I 'm just saying , if you ' re confused with agricultural
district maybe residential district is confusing too .
Batzli : Well , it ' s in any residential district or in an agricultural
' district on lots of less than 3 acres is what you ' re trying to say,
correct? I guess I 'd just clarify that a little bit.
Emmings : Okay, then is there a motion to table this until proper notice
can be given for a public hearing?
Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
to amend Section 20-904 and Section 20-615 (6b) until proper notice can be
given . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION OF THE FIRE STATION, 7610 LAREDO DRIVE.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
' Wildermuth : I have no questions on this issue. I think it' s a fine idea
to expand the fire department .
Batzli : I think it ' s a fine idea to expand it as well . I have a couple
questions though. I was curious where, the power lines now run along the
north side of the property. Apparently some sort of utility easement . Is
that where the property line is?
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 3 , 1988 - Page 56
C 1
Headla moved , Emmings seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit Request
#88-10 and Site Plan Review #88-10. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
Ellson : Are we saying until we know about TH 7 or are we tabling it
indefinitely or having a reason to come back? '
Wildermuth : Do you want to put some conditions on the tabling?
Conrad: I think we can give staff direction in terms of what we'd like to I
see them bring back. I think the items deserves attention and hopefully
can be back here in two weeks so we don' t destroy a time table. I 'd sure
like to see the neighborhood back here again but I think if we can give
staff some direction after this so maybe we can make the motion and then
tell them what we'd like to see . I think basically, traffic to the
overall site is a major deal . I think the pollution control or the
disaster issue for me is a concern that I 'd like you to work with
SuperAmerica on so we know how it would be handled and we would know if
it' s going to get into the Minnewashta system or not . Hours of operation
is probably a concern that we all have and whether or not that' s something
that could be worked in the staff report. Steve, you ' re concerned with
the . . .
Emmings : Hours the trucks come to deliver and outside display of
merchandise for sale.
Wildermuth : Also no diesel fuel .
Conrad : And possibility maybe working with the SuperAmerica folks to
resolve any of the conditions. If they have to stay out there, that ' s
fine. I don ' t think you need to do extra work to try and bundle them in
and make them do that additional work but if they can incorporate them in
their plans and the documents they' ve given us , it would be good to have
that so when it goes to City Council , Council can see everything in a
nice, neat package. Anything else?
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-904 AND SECTION 20-615
6 (B) , ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Conrad : I don ' t believe that staff has to give a report on that . It is a
public hearing . '
Wildermuth moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart : Page 3 , item 5 , the way I read this now, it says detached garages
in all agricultural and residential districts . Clarify for me, are we I.
differentiating between detached garages and storage buildings?
Dacy: We wanted to make sure that a detached garage was . . .
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 57
If�
' Emmings : But the storage building might be one of those purchased ones .
Erhart: I guess what I was trying to get to and Dave and I agreed on this
one is that on lots of, I guess we settled on 5 but anything of lots less
than 5, no one could build a building over 1, 000 square feet and it had to
be architecturally consistent with the house . Somehow that ' s not the way
that reads to me. To change it to read that would be, say detached
' buildings and storage buildings on lot sizes of 5 acres or less in
agricultural and residential districts must be architecturally. The 5
acres is gone completely.
' Ellson : The little Sears storage building , you could put in those.
Erhart: On lots of 5 acres or less .
Wildermuth : I don ' t think you can do that can you? Do we want to do it?
' Dacy: This is one that we discussed around and around and basically you
proposed it as this way.
Erhart : Well , if that ' s what we agreed , that ' s fine . Is that what you
' understood Dave?
Headla : I 'm not sure when this was here what I understood which one.
Erhart: The way it ' s going here now is that on lots of 5 acres or less,
they can go buy a Sears or a Mennards building of any size and put it on
that lot.
Headla : On 5 acres or less? You can put up a pole barn?
' Erhart: Yes. Really anything .
Headla : Those little Sears buildings , there ' s nothing wrong with them.
Erhart: No, but I 'm talking about it could be a 10, 000 square foot pole
barn and they could . . . It says can not exceed 1, 000 square feet in the
RSF and R-4 districts .
' Wildermuth : I don ' t see how you can enforce number 5 . Architecturally
consistent, what does that mean?
Dacy: We discussed that issue also . We had the concern that the size of
an ag parcel and so on, that there were a number of folks out there that
want to have the hobby farms and so on that would want a larger sized . . .
Erhart: I agree. I thought anything over 5 acres I thought is what we
were talking about .
Dacy: But we were saying for lots less than 5 acres or if there would be
occurrences of that in the ag area that somebody may want to put up a
1, 500 square foot building . The Commission talked about that and said ,
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 58
let ' s not restrict the a g areas .
.
Erhart : Is that what we agreed? Is that what you guys want? That ' s
fine. I thought Dave and I made a good argument that on these lot sizes
or 2 1/2 and 5 acres that tend to be clustered and they tend to be
neighborhoods and people put real nice homes on it and consistent
architecture. I thought we successfully argued that in those
circumstances , that they should not be allowed to put these Mennard ' s -
buildings on there . 2, 000 or 5, 000 square foot and if they really wanted '
to do that, they had to buy bigger than 5 acres .
Olsen : A lot of those subdivisions , like Lake Riley Woods , the size
acreage that you' re talking about, have covenants that restrict storage
buildings like that . I know that' s out of our control .
Dacy: Tim, are you proposing that that would be still , that the parcels II
underneath 5 acres in the A-2 zones would also have the maximum of 1,000
square feet?
Erhart : I thought that ' s what we agreed but it' s been so long . More
concerning than the way it ' s written right now is that you say detached
garages for all agricultural . That means you could have 100 acres and you
would have to have your garage architecturally, unless you' re
differentiating between a detached garage and a storage building .
Dacy: Yes , we are. That ' s why we made that clarification. '
Erhart : I think you' re probably right . It ' s not worth battling over
anymore.
Dacy: If you' re going to amend it, number 3 would be where you would .
Conrad: Tim, you lead us on this one. I 'm sorry. I 'm sort of burned out
and I can ' t help you much.
Dacy: We ' ve got a stacked agenda in two weeks on the 17th . If you want
to table it . . .
Conrad : No , I don ' t want to table it .
Erhart: It' s not that important .
Conrad : Are you comfortable with the way this is? '
Wildermuth: Yes , as long as you don' t get into storage buildings. On my
4 acre lot I want to be able to put up a building to store antique cars .
You' re going to tell me that it has to be architecturally consistent with
my house , I 'm going to tell you hey, take a hike . But , I think your point
is that you ' re talking about garages here right? Detached garages .
Erhart : Maybe Barb ' s right . Maybe the best way to handle that problem is II
to have restrictive covenants in the development. If the developers say
these are going to be architecturally consistent , maybe that ' s the best
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 59
Icway it' s handled. I 'm willing to believe. . .
Wildermuth : I think it ' s going to be tough to enforce .
Conrad: Tim, do you want to change some words here?
Erhart: No , I think it' s fine. I think it' s fine other than item (c) ,
that 3 acres . You' re satisfied Barb, that ' s what we understood? If you
had anything greater than 3 acres you can build a shed on it first . Do we
all understand that?
Dacy: No .
Erhart : Isn ' t that what it says?
1 Dacy: In any residential district or agricultural district, parcels with
less than 3 acres . In the ag district.
Erhart : That means to me that anything more than 3 acres you can build a
shed on before you build a house .
Dacy: If the shed or building is storing agricultural equipment or
anything that could be directly related to the principle use of the
property as ag , than it would be permitted as a permitted use .
{
Erhart: Then the question is , is it 3 acres or should you remove
residential district?
Dacy: We want to keep it the residential district part in there because
you don ' t want somebody building accessory building and somebody might
have a lot prior to the . . .
Emmings : If you take out the clause that says , or agricultural district
parcels with less than 3 acres and just read around that clause it makes
perfectly good sense from that .
Erhart : Yes , just take out the phrase , or agricultural district.
Emmings : No, I 'm not saying that . I say leave residential district in
' because it makes sense for residential . I don ' t understand the
agricultural with less than 3 acres .
Wildermuth : Why would you say 3 rather than 5?
Dacy: It was reduced to 3 because there may be parcels that are 5 acres
' or 4 acres that are in ag .
Erhart: It' s fine .
I Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the following amendments to Sections 20-904 and 20-615 (6b)
and an addition to the definition of the City Code as presented by Staff .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
1