1c. Preliminary Plat to Subdivide Ches Mar Drive ..
CITY OF _ e__
CHANHASSEN
:- i`\ ' `" _' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 •• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
"'7 >_`.. (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM cndorsecL.✓._ � /
Modified
TO: Planning Commission ,>ejo,,te
"
i) ; L-O t��
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Date Submitted t t.: ;--.-ws
DATE: August 10, 1989 ..,.._i_11_z_b
SUBJ: Ches Mar Farm 2nd Addition w --°-
The Planning Commission last reviewed this subdivision request on
March 1, 1989 . At that meeting, the applicant requested that the
item be tabled until outstanding issues between the buyer and
seller could be resolved. The applicant has resubmitted the sub-
division application for review by the city.
With the original proposal, Planning staff had recommended appro-
val with the following conditions:
1. The lots must be platted and cannot remain as metes and
bounds descriptions .
2. Parcel A must maintain a minimum of 2i acres .
3 . A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the city
along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub-
ject plat.
4. The applicant must enter into a development contract with the
city designating that Parcel B has only one building eligibi-
lity and the development contract must recorded as part of the
recording of the final plat.
5. Parcel B shall be designated as an outlot and is considered
unbuildable until it is combined with adjacent property or
provides two approved septic sites and street access. The
development contract stating the required conditions shall be
recorded against Parcel B.
6 . A 15 foot driveway easement shall be provided along the
westerly property boundary of Parcel A.
The most recent submittal by the applicant meets Condition #1 by
providing a preliminary plat creating Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 of
Ches Mar Farm 2nd Addition. (The plat shows Lot 1 , Block 1 and
1
Planning Commission
August 10, 1989
Page 2
Lot 2 , Block 2 . It should either be Lot 2 , Block 1 or Lot 1,
Block 2 . ) What was Parcel A with the existing house has now
become Lot 1, Block 1 and contains the required minimum of 2i
acres which was required by Condition #2.
Condition #3 required a 35 foot roadway easement to be dedicated
to the city along the northerly property boundary of Lot 1 , Block
1 to provide the 60 foot right-of-way required for a rural
street. There is an existing 25 foot easement as part of the
Ches Mar Farm property located north of Lot 1, Block 1. As part
of a preliminary plat, the city can require the dedication of
additional roadway easements deemed necessary to provide the
required amount of right-of-way. Should the city not require the
additional right-of-way at this time, if and when the Ches Mar
property to the west is further subdivided and a public street is
required to be constructed, the city would then have to condemn
the property to receive the required amount of right-of-way. It
has always been the city' s position to require the dedication of
right-of-way as property is subdivided. Therefore, staff is
still recommending that a 35 foot roadway easement be dedicated
along the northerly property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1.
Condition #4 requested that the applicant enter into a develop-
ment
contract designating that Parcel B (now shown as Lot 2 ,
Block 2 ) has only one building eligibility. The total amount of
acreage for the two lots is 22 .83 acres . The rural lot building
eligibilities allows only one unit per ten acres. Since the
total amount of acreage is 22 . 83 acres, the subject property is
permitted to have only two building eligibilities . The existing
single family residence located on Lot 1, Block 1 , removes one of
the building eligibilities from the property. Although Lot 2 ,
Block 2 , contains over 20 acres it only has one building eligibi-
lity remaining. Therefore, Condition #4 still applies to the
current proposal.
Condition #5 stated that Lot 2 , Block 1 shall be designated as an
outlot and considered unbuildable until it is combined with adja-
cent property or provides two approved septic sites and street
access. Since the proposed subdivision is splitting off Lot 1,
Block 1 from the subject property, the street frontage for Lot
2 , Block 2 is being removed. The State Highway Department has
made it clear that Lot 2 , Block 2 , would not be permitted direct
access onto State Highway 41. Until Lot 2 , Block 2 is combined
with adjacent property with street frontage or is provided with a
60 foot roadway easement and two approved septic sites it will
have to be considered an outlot and unbuildable. Therefore, the
property should be redesignated as an outlot. I
Since staff is recommending that Lot 2 , Block 2 , be designated as
an outlot, Condition #6 is no longer necessary. Full street
11
Planning Commission
August 10 , 1989
Page 3
access or a 60 foot roadway easement will have to be provided to
the property for it to be developed. Therefore, a driveway ease-
ment is not necessary.
' RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat
#88-27 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 25 , 1989" and
' subject to the following conditions :
1. A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the city
along the northerly property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1, of
Ches Mar Farm 2nd Addition.
2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the
' city designating that Lot 2 , Block 1 has only one building
eligibility and the development contract must recorded as
part of the recording of the final plat.
3 . Lot 2, Block 1 shall be designated as an outlot and is con-
sidered unbuildable until it is combined with adjacent pro-
perty or provides two approved septic sites and street
' access. "
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision
' request with the following changes in the conditions :
1. A 30 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the city
along the northerly property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1, of
Ches Mar Farm 2nd Addition.
2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
' the city designating that Outlot A has only one building
eligibility and the development contract must recorded as
part of the recording of the final plat.
3 . Outlot A is considered unbuildable until it is combined with
adjacent property or provides two approved septic sites and
street access .
4. The applicant shall submit a revised plat changing Lot 2,
Block 1 to Outlot A.
Planning Commission
August 10 , 1989
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
CITY COUNCIL CO MMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: '
"The City Council approves Subdivision .Request #88-27 as shown on
the dated July 25 , 1989 and subject to the following conditions:
1 . A 30 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the city
along the northerly property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1, of
Ches Mar Farm 2nd Addition.
2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
the city designating that Outlot A has only one building
eligibility and the development contract must recorded as
part of the recording of the final plat.
3 . Outlot A is considered unbuildable until it is combined with I
adjacent property or provides two approved septic sites and
street access .
4. The applicant shall submit a revised plat changing Lot 2,
Block 1 to Outlot A.
ATTACHMENTS I
1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 16 , 1989.
2 . Planning Commission minutes dated March 1, 1989 .
3 . Memo from Steve Hanson dated February 17, 1989.
4 . Staff report and attachments.
1
I
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1989
IChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner and Dave Hempel, Senior
Engineering Tech
' PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION OF 22. 8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 2. 5 AND 20.33
ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE
APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, CHES MAR REALTY.
Public Present:
' Name Address
Chuck and Ginger Gross 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road
' Geri Eikaas 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road
Tim Keane Larkin-Hoffman, 7900 Xerxes , Bloomington
Representative for the Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order .
' Tim Keane : Good evening . Members of the Planning Commission. My name is
Tim Keane with Larkin Hoffman, 7900 Xerxes , Bloomington. Jo Ann gave a
good recitation of the history of his matter . We promised we 'd be back
' when we resolved the issues last January and here we are. We essentially
have modified the plat to increase the size of Lot 1 to 2 1/2 acres to meet
the City' s minimum lot requirements for that parcel . We understand the
' conditions . We' ve discussed them with staff . The one that, well actually
there' s one that we' re not in agreement with and that is the need for the
35 foot roadway easement . I 'm not sure with the conditions as imposed ,
' precisely what the need is for that. We do not see the need for that at
this time . Jo Ann , just a point of clarification . The 15 foot driveway
easement to be provided along the western boundary of Parcel A. Could you
identify that?
Olsen : That was an old condition. It goes along here to provide some form
of access to it. The slope is actually pretty extreme in there .
1 Tim Keane : Yes . I 'm not sure if that is even feasible in the field .
We' re certainly willing to work with the City to identify an access
location that does work.
Emmings : That' s been removed as a condition you know?
' Tim Keane: Yes. With that, we 'd respectfully request your approval .
Thank you . Any questions?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16 , 1989 - Page 2
Emmings : Yes , I 've got a question on the plat. It seems to read to me
that all of this is called Block 1 and that there's a Lot 1 and a Lot 2.
Can you clarify that?
Tim Keane : The actual plat document itself will read Lot 1 and Lot 2,
Block 1, Ches Mar Farms.
Emmings: Isn' t that what it says now?
Tim Keane: I think we have Parcel A and B. '
Batzli : Parcel A and B were on the previous plans .
Tim Keane: Okay. Then it will read Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 1,
Ches Mar Farms 2nd Addition .
Conrad: Other comments? '
Chuck Gloss : I 'm Chuck Gross . I live on this property. 2703 Ches Mar
Farm Road. We' re very happy to be here tonight and we' re hoping that we
can get the approval . I 'm, I should say we, Ginger and I , we ' re in
agreement with everything with the exception of this 35 foot roadway
easement . The number 6 , the 15 foot driveway, it has been evidentally no
longer necessary. We' re a private road now and there is , as far as I know,
no plans at this time to change the density on this farm and from the
division that' s going to take place hopefully, whereby we' ll end up with
our home, this would not change anything in the way of density or traffic
or that sort of thing. I ' ve got, I don' t know whether anyone has seen, may
I present some shots of the driveway that we ' re talking about here? Pass
those around?
Conrad : Sure.
Chuck Gloss : If you' ll look, most of that , the left as you ' re coming in,
that' s our property which would be to the south. I wanted to refer to the
fact that if there was going to be an easement , the 35 feet would be
totally unreasonable in relation to the amount of property that it would
take and the trees , the mature trees that it would take out . There is an
existing 25 foot easement on the north side on the other property as such
at this time. I don ' t believe that any of the people that live on the farm
at this time are in favor of any kind of or any type of a road change. I '
don ' t believe that any of them are in favor of any type of a development .
I believe that they' re all interested in saving as much green space as they
possibly can and we certainly feel this way also . If in the future there
was going to be a change or there would be a development, then I think that
would be a time to approach the road situation in terms of having it become
a public road as such and that would have to be addressed at that time
but I think in all fairness , that it should be property owners that are
addressed so they would have the opportunity perhaps to have placed in
covenants in terms of any easement that ' s given . The photos that I 'm
passing around show that the drive. We have, Ginger. and I have lived in
our home for I guess probably the past 18 years . We were able to buy the
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16 , 1989 - Page 3
' option on it approximately 8 years ago and we exercised that option about a
year and a half ago and we've been waiting ever since to close on it .
During the time that we ' ve lived there, we ' ve probably planted over 200
trees over the 2 1/2 acres and such and we would certainly not want to see
' a road come in and take 35 feet of mature trees out and that would also be
much too close to our home. So I would hope that the plat that is
presented here would be accepted . That ,;plat does not have the easement in
' there. It does have some drainage and Utility easement. I think there's 6
foot or whatever it is there, 10 foot out in front and that' s just fine. I
believe that we have another neighbor on the farm that perhaps wants to say
' something as well . Anyway, I thank you all very much.
Geri Eikaas: I 'm Geri Eikaas. I live at 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road. Even
though I own property on the farm I was not notified at all of the road
' easement until I got here and heard you talk about it. But I certainly
concur with Mr . Gross that at this point I see absolutely no reason why the
City would want a road easement there. It' s a private road. It's a PUD.
' It' s zoned , it' s sellable property. I see no reason for it to be changed
and if someone would like to explain to me the rationale in it, I 'd be
interested in hearing it.
Conrad : Jo Ann, why don' t you do that right now?
Olsen: When we asked for that roadway easement, that doesn' t mean we ' re
' going to go in and improve and put in a public street right now. When
property comes in for subdivision, that allows the City to obtain roadway
easements that would be required when roads would be improved in the
' future . We have had several applications for improving the Ches Mar
property and at that time it would have to become a public road and be
improved . So whenever a property does come in for a subdivision, and if
they do not have the road right-of-way there, that' s the time when we would
request it . So it doesn' t mean that the City would be coming in and
approving this and it wouldn' t be taking away the trees. What it would be
doing is giving us a 60 foot right-of-way that you need for the rural areas
' and whenever they do determine to improve the street, that' s where they can
locate it within that 60 foot easement .
' Geri Eikaas: By what you said to me it sounds like you' re concerned about
having an easement is because someone has come in and asked for a
development there.
' Olsen : Well in the past and it' s whenever property is subdivided we
always . . .
' Geri Eikaas : But the property is not being subdivided .
Olsen: The property, we' re asking fot the easement adjacent to the
property that is being subdivided right now.
Geri Eikaas: But you were also talking about that other proposals have
been brought in .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 4
Olsen: We always obtain roadway easements for future possible development .
It may never happen. That easement may just sit there and never be used
but that' s all it is . It' s there and it ' s not going to be improved right
away.
Geri Eikaas : And that' s not anything that other property owners need to be
notified about?
Olsen : As far as them. . .
Geri Eikaas : As far as them giving an easement or something like that.
Olsen: No. Whenever that roadway is going to be improved, that's when
they' ll be brought in. As far as where it will be located . Assessments .
All that good stuff.
Geri Eikaas : I guess I ' ll just again concur with the Gross ' that if it was
my property, I would certainly not feel very secure or still even though 11 listening to your reasons , be convinced that at this point it was anything
necessary at all . Thanks .
Ginger Gross : I 'm Ginger Gross and I apologize that our attorney is not
here tonight. Our attorney received no notification of either the meeting
or of any of the requirements of the Council and we' ve had no time to brief
him on what was presented. I 'd like you to know that the attorney for Ches
Mar does not have the right to give you on the roadway. We have an option
that we did not buy from him. We bought from another party and they have
to give to us the property that our option requires . There is on that II option nothing that states that there is an easement on our property. In
fact our property covers one-half of the roadway. That was done by a Mrs .
Johnson in previous years the owner of the farm because she wanted to
discourage any development through the main road . The access for
development on the farm according to her plan was to be an additional
entrance onto the farm which now goes in through the Carver Park. I don' t
think that' s the appropriate name but it' s the park down the road. They
have the additional entrance on that property. Development was not to comell
off of the road that comes in through Ches Mar . That was the original plan
of Mrs. Johnson who sold the property. That ' s why she had the property
line going through the middle of the roadway. I do see that down in the
park one of the stipulations that she had in her original contract which
was to name a portion of the property Margeritte Hill , that has been
followed . I don ' t see that anyone is trying to honor her original
intention here. I don' t know how you would have the availability of
jurisdiction to do what you would like to do . We would like to cooperate
with you in any way that we could but inasmuch as we have lived on that II property for the length of time we have and had the option for the length
of time we have, we have planted trees on that property, as my husband
mentioned . We are the only ones on Ches Mar Farm, in all of it ' s years of
going downhill , who have taken an interest and who have improved the
property. Other people who have been absentee owners have disregarded the
property and that includes Mr . Kitt , the current owner on the property. We
do request that you take into consideration that we have preserved the '
green space. We have during the years , when the property has become run
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16 , 1989 - Page 5
' down, done what Chanhassen is trying to do and that is , to become a better
community. We do not feel that it is time for you to impose upon us a
restriction or try to impose upon us a restriction that I don ' t believe can
be imposed upon us on this side of the closing. I think after the closing ,
' after we close on the property, that might be another thing but I don ' t
think you can impose that restriction of the 35 foot easement. Ches Mar
Realty cannot deliver that to you now. That belongs to us . We 've had an
' option on that. Also, there is a 10 acre minimum out in our area and with
that thought in mind , we know that there are developers that are interested
in the property. We know that if they meet your conditions, they can
' develop the property. We don ' t feel that that ' s a good reason for us to
give away our road rights and we know that that is the intention of a
current developer and we don' t feel that we should aid and abet a developer
in developing that property at this point. Geri Eikaas bought on the
' property under a PUD that Mr . Kirt came to you for and then David Geisler
bought the following year. The rest of the properties on the farm, when
people came and wanted to buy those properties , people were told that they
' could not buy the properties unless they bought the entirity of the farm.
There have been a lot of offers on the property and the farm. We feel that
the rest of the farm shouldn' t revert to the original PUD and that it
' should be sold into private individual ownership, each and every residence
that is there according to your original PUD allocation to Mr. Kirt.
That' s how Mrs . Eikaas did buy and that ' s why Mr . Geisler did buy. They
also have a road agreement with Mr . Kirt . That road agreement is
' representated to them as though they are 2 of I think 10 parties who own
the road coming in. It was in error. It was delivered to them in error .
But they have a lot at stake here. They bought on the farm believing that-
there would be individual ownership in all of the existing properties. So
did we . That ' s what we all based our ownership on . Mr . Kirt at that time
was going to move onto the property himself. That would have been
agreeable to all of us . Inasmuch as Mr . Kirt did not move onto the
' property, he did disregard the property. He lived at a distance. He would
have been one of the owners originally but he ' s not there and the property
has continued to run down and they have not promoted the property selling
' original residences as we believed the original that the original
residences can be sold and we believe that if the 20 acres then are
attached to the farm, that also could be incorporated . We don ' t believe
that should come in as a development or that it should be in the hands of a
contractor because we feel that the parties who are there bought because
you approved a PUD for individual ownership. The individual owners who are
there now are improving their property and they' re maintaining it and we' re
' a good group. We' re a good asset to the community. The people who are
either renting or leasing or owning and not on the property are not an
asset to the property. The property continues to run down because they' re
' waiting to develop the property. That ' s the bottom line. They want the
developer to come in who has projected that he' s going to develop the 20
acres . That particular developer , and we ' ve brought this before your
people before, has harrassed our people. Has caused Mr. Geisler at the
gate to put his house on the market . He ' s been very intimidating . He has
written Mr. Geisler a letter. He wrote, I should say, to the Park
Commission suggesting that he as a realtor had the right to purchase the
land behind Mr. Geisler because Mr . Geisler wanted to move his house back
there . Mr . Geisler did not want to do that . The move of intimidation so
I
Planning Commission Meeting
i
August 16, 1989 - Page 6
that Mr . Geisler would think that the road was coming through his yard.
The same contractor told us that he would see to it that we never were able
to buy our house . Now with that understanding that the current contractor
who is there and trying to come in and deve1,op the property and
intimidating us , with that understanding , you choose to look into
continuing the 35 foot easement and pressing that, I suggest that you take
into consideration what I ' ve just told you. Now is there anything you'd
like to ask any of us about things that we have stated? 11
Conrad : Maybe later on.
Wildermuth : Are there any deed restrictions on file by the Johnsons? By II
Margaret Johnson? In view of her original intents for the property.
Tim Keane : Not to the best of our knowledge, I 'm not aware of any. '
Conrad : Jo Ann, what ' s the status? We' re talking about PUD. Is that
still considered a PUD? '
Olsen : This property is not part of the PUD.
Conrad: Is not. Is the other behind it?
Olsen : To the west?
Conrad: Yes .
Olsen : Yes . '
Wildermuth : Is the land to the north parkland?
Olsen: Regional Park? Yes .
Wildermuth: So that probably will never be developed right?
Olsen: No .
Ginger Gross : The contractor who wishes to develop the 20 acres came
before you last year and suggested the development of the 20 acres and gave
you some proposals . He had told Mr . Kirt , Mr . Kirt had a contract to have
the existing buildings painted and he told Mr . Kirt not to have them
painted because it would be more influential with the Council if the
buildings looked run down. And that the Council would or the Commission
would understand the need to do something out there . The property has been
grossly misrepresented as have the people who have bought from Mr . Kirt in
the past . The original PUD needs to be honored with these people. They've
bought on the private road and they expected individual ownership on the
farm. That is not what ' s happening there . Thank you.
Conrad: Other comments? Anybody else before you come back? I' ll give you
a chance to talk to us but anybody else? Okay, I ' ll give this gentleman a
chance to go. I
Planning Commission Meeting
eeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 7
' Emmings : Say Tim, before you start . I 'm not clear on who you represent.
Tim Keane: That was the point that I wanted to make. I 'm here on behalf
' of Ches Mar Trust . They are the fee owner of both Lot 1 and Lot 2. We are
the applicant here and I wanted to make clear that our objective is to have
the plat approved and the extent to which the easement question interferes
with that, we would yield to that question rather than having this plat
' request denied . I 'm here on behalf of the applicant to re-emphasize that
our objective is to have this plat approved.
Emmings : Can I ask you a question?
Tim Keane: Yes .
Emmings : Your client will wind up, or is the owner of the remainder except
the part that' s being split off to the Gross ' . Is that correct?
' Tim Keane : No . Since we were here we attempted to sell the entire parcel
together so there would be no need for a split. We were not able to
negotiate a sale for the entire parcel . The arrangement at this point is
' that the Gross ' s will exercise their option to Lot 1 which is now increased
to 2 1/2 acres from 1. 9 and they will be purchasing the 20. 3 acres of Lot 2
on a contract for deed.
' Emmings : Who will be purchasing?
Tim Keane : The Gross ' s . We will continue to be the fee owner . That is
' the respective interest of the two parties .
Emmings : The Gross ' s are going to wind up owning the whole thing but as
' two separate lots , is that what you ' re telling me? They' re going to be a
contract purchaser of what ' s on here as Lot 2?
Tim Keane: That is correct. And they will be acquiring Lot 1 at this
' time. Closing on Lot 1 which has the house on it . They will be acquiring
Lot 2 on a contract for deed.
' Emmings : The Gross ' s are acting like they don ' t know anything about this .
Chuck Gross : Originally that was a proposal that was made to me to help
alleviate the problem in relation to access to this 20 acres and Ginger and
' I were in agreement with doing this . But they have, and I say they, Ches
Mar Realty, they have an option that they had let out on that 20 acres to I
believe Mr. Kirt who is the land owner on Ches Mar , part of it, which is
' fine . That facilitates that property coming together with that division
but what I 'm aware of is that he currently has, I say Mr . Kirt, has a
purchase agreement or an option , -- one of the two, and I believe it ' s their
' intent to exercise that after we are able to obtain our tax ID number such .
We have, there ' s no problem with that as far as doing that but originally,
and that may be where Mr. Keane is not, unless I 'm not aware of it, but
anyway that was originally what was proposed to us was that we would buy
both of them and then perhaps we would sell that 20 acres. It ' s not our
desire to own that additional acreage there but it is our desire to see it
Planning ,
g Commission Meeting
August 16 , 1989 - Page 8
not developed into any extent and I believe one of the conditions on this II
is that it would be allowed one building site considering the 1 in 10 and
considering that there is one residential now and that certainly would be
acceptable to us. The access off of that property, the 20 acres would then'
come off of Kirt' s and I was told that he would access that off the west
end of his property which would not, there would be no need to come across
ours are close to it so that ' s what I know about it .
Ginger Gross: Excuse me gentlemen, you say the original proposal . When
was that made? Was that the month of March. . .
Chuck Gross: I think it was after March when we were negotiating with Ches'
Mar Realty. Any questions?
Emmings: The reason I started asking these questions, and maybe there' s
nobody here who can answer it but it sounds as if that property right now
is owned by Ches Mar Realty and that Gary Kirt has an option which he may
or may not exercise but my next question was going to be, why does anybody
want to create a parcel that' s landlocked and I guess the answer is because I
everyone assumes that Kirt is going to buy it and he' s going to have access
through the property to the north . '
Chuck Gross : What I 'm told is that there is a purchase agreement or an
option, one of the two or both and that Kirt is ready to buy that property
too . For it to be just attached to what he has now and that will alleviate 11
access problems to it.
Conrad : Geri , you had your hand up before. '
Geri Eikaas: I don' t know but I know it' s not on the agenda as far as
pertaining to the PUD so I didn' t know how far you were going to carry into
that. If you' re going to continue into that I would say I 've spent a lot
of times working on developments . I 've lived in Bloomington. Was on
Natural Resources Commission. Worked a lot with developers an dit is true
that we have been hassled and that Mr . Geisler in fact has been scared off
his property and this makes it I guess me a little more concerned about
this easement because it ' s been , I 'd say a very unpleasant experience. I
personally had lunch with this developer and also been threatened with 11 things that could happen to me if I didn' t agree with this development and
I 'm sure the City does not want to work that way but it makes us very
insecure when you come up with an easement because we know who ' s looking at
it and who would profit by it so we don' t feel that it' s the people who are
living on the farm and paying taxes .
Conrad : Anything else? ,
Batzli moved , Emmi.ngs seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. II
Erhart : Jo Ann , on these public hearings . Are you not giving us the cover
sheets anymore that show the density and that stuff?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 9
' Olsen : This is just a cover memo because there ' s been about two other
reports so it's all . . .
Erhart : All the way through they don ' t have that and they' re kind of handy
to find out what kind of zoning there is and if we could continue that. I
think this has been fairly straight forward except for this easement thing
which I also think is fairly straight forward from a purely planning
' standpoint in that it is normal procedure for us to require road easements .
Generally we like to take half of the width of a road along the edge of the
property if there is ever any potential need to get access to the property
' that essentially landlocked. Everybody supplies it. I think it' s been the
basis for the development of property. If people historically hadn' t
supplied it, I suppose everybody would be living in downtown Minneapolis
today. I appreciate the concerns you' ve had with some issues of wherever
' the owner is of the property to the west and that's unfortunate. On the
other hand , I still think it' s our obligation to do good planning and I
think it ' s logical and consistent with our practice to take this easement.
' The only thing unusual about it at all is the additional 5 feet over a
rural subdivison. Generally currently we take 30 feet. When we want an
easement for planning we take 30 feet off both the adjacent landowners . In
' this case, since you only have 25 on the north, it leaves , to get the full
60 which we want in the rural area ; it requires we take 35. This
particular case, it appears that if there ever is going to be a road built
in there , since there ' s several homes already there, it probably would be
an urban cross section which only requires a 50 foot easement so I guess
I 'd be, if the other_ commission members were interested , I guess I 'd be
interested in going along with a 25 to 30 foot easement because I still
think that would leave the City with all the options that we need but I ' ll
leave that as a thought. I 'm in favor of taking the easement as we
normally do . The other thing is , again for the concern of tree lots , an
urban street only takes , what is it , 20 feet?
Hempel : 31 back to back.
Erhart : 31 feet so in the future if there actually was going to be an
improvement , it probably would be, and correct me if I 'm wrong Dave, that
it would probably only be 30 feet if it ever were done so I think the 60
' feet for us who own land out in the country is scarey when you think about
it but when you really consider the real thing that happens is that it ' s
not that wide . So those are my comments .
Emmings: I 'd like to clear something up. Right now, you' re suggesting Jo
Ann as a condition that what is now Lot 2 be designated as an outlot .
' Olsen: That' s correct.
Emmings : So would it then be, ther_e 'd be a Block 1, Lot 1 and that would
' be the Gross' s property and then there would be an Outlot A which would be
what is now Lot 2. Is that correct?
Olsen: Right .
Planning Commission Meeting
1
August 16 , 1989 - Page 10
Emmings : Should we make a condition that they have to submit a new plat II
that shows it that way?
Olsen : That what I 'm just assuming that when the final plat would come in il
that it would have one outlot .
Emming : I guess because I think the lot and block talk here is confusing,
to make it less confusing I 'd add a condition that the applicant submit a
new plat indicating the Gross ' s property, Lot 1, Block 1 and indicating th
remainder of the property as Outlot A. Then I 'd change the present
conditions 2 and 3 so that instead of saying Lot 2, Block 1 they'd both sall
Outlot A. That way I don' t think there will be any confusion over exactly
what we' re doing here tonight. You' re creating this Outlot A is real
bothersome like it always has been because it' s landlocked and now we know
that there ' s a plan with somebody to the north that will provide the access'
out. We also have a piece of information that the State Highway Department
has said for sure that there can be no direct access onto TH 41 from Outlot
A. So given all that information, that means that the only access that
this property has available to it is down the existing roadway that goes b
the Gross' s and for that reason I absolutely agree with Tim. We have no
choice but to take that easement at this time. We'd be foolish not to . If'
we wait and let the sale go through without the easement, we' re going to
have to condemn it and buy it and we know we' re going to need it so I think
it should be taken as a condition of the plat. I don' t have anything else
right now.
Ellson : I got a little concerned , maybe confused about what Ginger was
talking about as far as the legalities of where the property was or as far
as it was in the middle of the road or not and things like that . Is that
the way you ' ve interpretted it Jo Ann?
Olsen : Right now there is no easement on the lower , on the southerly part
so yes, the property does go right where the road is . It' s a private
drive.
Headla : I didn' t hear all of that .
Olsen : Since there' s no public street roadway, the property does go up
into where the private drive now is. It shows on the plat. Part of the
property is where the private drive is now. Is that what you ' re asking?
Ellson: Yes. I share Steve' s concern about the access to that Outlot. It'
just seems like poor planning to purposely let something sit in there with
no access to it and then say and I okayed it.
Olsen : Making it an outlot though defines it as unbuildable . That it
would have to be replatted.
Ellson : I guess I 'd say, well you' ve got this land but you ' re right , '
calling it an outlot gives you a lot more leeway than calling it a block
something .
Olsen : We don ' t usually even like to do that but .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 11
' Ellson : I agree probably with taking the right-of-way. I share the
concern of the property owner because it' s giving basically a green light
' to developing the area down there which in one respect we have to allow
even to a certain extent. Not necessarily this developer. I 'd like to
know if the City has any recourse at keeping developers out or working with
people who are shady characters or something like this. A black list of
' our own. You know we don' t like you to come in here. I 'm sure it' s
totally illegal . There' s no doubt about it but I sure wish we could do
something to prevent those bad eggs from getting in which we' ve even had
' experiences with and things like that but I don't know that we have
anything . I just threw it out so maybe you could think of something
creative, I don' t know to help solve it because it does sound like somebody
' that we probably don' t want to be working with and I 'm sure that there
developers that like the property the way it is and could see it just as
much as an investment . Staying the same as an investment as putting 500
houses in there if they could. I like Tim' s idea of a possible compromise
' and the fact that we' re asking for 35 is more than we ask a normal . I
could see something like a 25 or a 30 as a possibility. That' s it.
Batzli : I 'm a bit confused by this talk of having a 25 foot easement to
the north. That 25 foot easement doesn' t run along the entire northerly
edge of Lot 1, Block 1 does it because we' ve got this other residence right
there? I don' t think there' s any easement on that particular lot is there?
' Olsen : Right .
' Batzli : The 25 foot easement is just in the park property?
Olsen: With the park property, no. When the PUD came through it included
this property and we did retain some easement .
Batzli : The one to the north is PUD and there was an easement at that
time?
' Olsen : There is an existing easement there .
Batzli : That ' s about 2 feet inside of his front door then? He' s not 25
feet off the road is he? Off the center of the road?
Olsen: Yes he is . It' s close but I don' t know exactly where the easement
goes to the house .
Batzli : Well it' s troublesome to me because it seems like there ' s a
' waiting game being played here as far as development and forcing the issue
of getting this easement perhaps . I think it' s interesting because we' re
actually, this easement that we' re taking from Lot 1, Block 1 I don ' t
really think benefits the land which we' re taking it from at all , which is
' real interesting . It' s actually the only lot that this is going to benefit
is the PUD in back of it by taking this easement and it seems somewhat
unfair that we' re doing it. On the other hand , planning says we have to do
' it. It would be nice though, and I don ' t know exactly how or why but
really the lots that are going to be benefitted I would like to see somehow
Planning Commission Meeting
1
August 16 , 1989 - Page 12
have to pay for the easement because in essence they' re the ones that are
going to benefit. I don' t see any benefit going to Lot 1, Block 1 by
taking this easement.
Emmings : What about Outlot A and that' s part of this plat? If there ' s
going to be development out there, that' s the only place they can get out.
Batzli : They can get out over Lot 1, Block 1. They could get a private I
drive over. More mess but it' s interesting and that' s a good point. But
on the other hand , we' re forcing an easement to the PUD but not to the
outlot and why is that? We' re reserving one for later and not for the
other but otherwise I agree with Steve' s proposed changes and unfortunately
I think I have to go along with some kind of easement but I 'd like to see
it reduced to the minimum amount we can get by with.
Wildermuth: I 'm still not clear , what lies to the north of the existing
roadway? Is that all parkland? It can ' t be because of the house .
Olsen: Right just north of the Gross ' s home is another house, lot and then'
it' s park.
Wildermuth : Everything else is park?
Olsen: To the north .
Wildermuth : In other words, from where that long building is on the Kirt
property, across the road is park?
Olsen : Yes . And it' s -park all the way to the west. All the way to the
lake too. It' s a nice place to cross country ski .
Wildermuth : Did we obtain any easements from the Kirt when he bought that I
property?
Olsen : Any easements? '
Wildermuth : Were any easements required when Kirt ' s PUD or bought that
property? '
Olsen: Right . That' s where that 25 foot easement . As far as when they,
like a 60 foot easement throughout the rest of that?
Wildermuth : Right .
Olsen : No . I don ' t believe there is . I could double check. It ' s been so
long I didn' t double check on that one.
Wildermuth : In other words, if we wanted to put in a regulation roadway,
we'd have to condemn a strip of property all along the Kirt' s property?
Olsen : No . For that to ever be improved, they would have to replat and
then we would get it. I 'm sorry, I can double check that one but it seems II
like we received something to cover . I think we' ve got the 50 or 60 foot
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 13
' easement and I can ' t remember but we didn' t require them to improve it at
that time. I remember that was a discussion and we didn' t so. There is an
easement there. Exactly what it is .
' Wildermuth: Where does the current road lie? Is it on the 25 foot
easement that exists past Block 1?
' Olsen : No . It ' s kind of half and half. You can see it. It' s shown on,
kind of sketched in on the plans . That' s where the road is so it' s really
kind of half and half. Probably even .a little bit more on the Gross ' s
' property or home.
Wildermuth: I 'd probably be in favor of looking at a reduced easement. 25
foot. 25 additional feet.
Headla : Show the new graph please Jo Ann . Turn it on. Will you outline
the PUD, Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Olsen: The PUD. Actually it' s up here too . This is Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Headla: All the way to the lake? Okay. Now the purpose of the easement
is what?
Olsen : Of the roadway easement?
Headla: Yes .
Olsen : If that was ever further , this property, because of the topography,
really the only means is through this existing roadway here.
Headla : Okay. And the 2 1/2 acres , the dimension of that on the north
side goes to the center of the driveway?
Olsen : The easement does not , if you dedicate it straight out as
' right-of-way and give it right over to the City, then you take that away
from the 2 1/2 acres . If you take it as an easement, you do not reduce the
acreage and that' s what we' re asking for . It ' s just the easement. It ' s
similiar to what with the Halla property, Lake Riley Woods.
Headla: Why did you go for the easement rather than right-of-way?
Olsen : There ' s no immediate need to improve that street at this time .
Easements act as the same purpose.
' Headla : So in 10 years there ' s a need to improve it . Now what?
Olsen: There' s a roadway easement there for him to improve .
' Headla : So they will have to improve it?
•
Olsen: It depends on if they go through a public or private improvement .
They have that option .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 14
Headla : And then it would become a right-of-way? If they wanted us to
improve it, would it become a right-of-way then?
Olsen: It ' s even a right-of-way when it ' s dedicated now. It' s just not
removed. It' s not dedicated street at this time. It' s an easement. II
Headla : But if we improve it , would it become dedicated?
Olsen: It 's the same. It 's still there. That easement is not for them.
They cannot build into that easement . They can use it.
Headla: Well who's property is it? I 'm confused. I 'm spinning . '
Emmings : Who ' s property is what Dave?
Headla: This easement that ' s dedicated. Is it going to be the City' s
property or the people at Ches Mar? y
Emmings : Dave, an easement , if you have an easement over a piece of your II
property, you own the property and other people have rights to use that
easement for whatever they' ve got the easement for . Whether it ' s for a
road or utilities. They have rights to use it but you ' re the owner .
Headla : And pay taxes on it?
Emmings : So they' ll be the owner and the City will have certain rights if
a public road ever has to go through there.
Wildermuth : If a public toad ever goes through there, will the Gross ' s be II
assessed for their portion of the road improvement that runs past their
property?
Olsen : Could very well , yes. It really depends on how. . .
Wildermuth: It just doesn' t somehow seem fair at all .
Olsen : A lot of times what they' re do , they will go back, it depends on
how the whole process goes through and the feasibility study and whatever , II
but a lot of times they will just assess back to who is receiving the
benefit. But most likely when that is improved, if there is sewer and
water at that time, the Gross property could be further subdivided and they
will look at that and they might do it by street frontage. Assessments .
A lot of times it really varies . I always say that there is the chance
that they will be. It' s not definite or full assessments .
Wildermuth : It really doesn ' t seem very fait .
Headla: Last January I heard this case. Was over there in the spring and
heard them talking and we' ve still got a bag of worms . The people involved
don' t even agree on what they' re agreeing to. Then we say we &ant this
easement and then this whole thing has to be changed . I 'm not sure why
this whole thing is in front of us yet, until it gets straighten out . ,
Planning Commission Meeting
ng
August 16 , 1989 - Page 15
Batzli : I think the applicant knows very clearly what they want to do. I
think the people that currently are living on the property and have various
options are the ones that don' t like the way the developers are going .
Headla : I hear the attorney that's supposedly selling it is one position
and the buyer has a different position. I don ' t call that a mutual
agreement.
Batzli : No , but does it matter?
Conrad: It doesn' t matter .
Headla : Well , I think it does to some extent because I don ' t know what we
really have to vote on yet.
Emmings : In front of us is people asking for a subdivision. For a form,
this plat. Talk about the quality of the developer and all that stuff is
so far field we shouldn ' t even be hearing it . It ' s got nothing to do with
what we' re doing here.
Headla : I 'm not interested in it .
Emmings : But all of that , this is really kind of a narrow question and
it' s getting real broad here.
Erhart : I guess I ' ll just emphasize again that in land planning , it has
been consistent for hundreds of years as new subdivisions and so forth ,
that the government ever feels that there is a need for future access and
other property as land gets subdivided, you reasonably take easements when
the land is subdivided so that in the future that roads can be put in
without having to condemn property. If there seems to be some unique thing
about this that we would want to reverse that , I just can ' t imagine it as
much as I understand your problem.
Headla : To coin a phrase , I ' ll re-emphasize too . This isn ' t the first
time the same subject has come up. We said we want that easement and
you' ve got to have at least 2 1/2 acres . We don ' t have it but it' s before
us.
Erhart : They have 2 1/2 acres .
Conrad : They' ve met all the other requirements that we' ve asked .
Headla: Well , not that I read it . If I calculate this , it' s 2 1/2 acres
IIto the center of the toad . Not with the 35 foot easement .
Erhart: That' s the way we calculate it Dave.
II Emmings : We count the easement in there. In the area calculation .
Headla : Oh , an easement. That ' s right .
Emmings : They own the land .
i
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 18
Batzli : Yes . I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Preliminary Plat #88-27 shown on the plat stamped "Received July 25, 1989"
subject to the following conditions . 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the staff
report. The fourth condition that the applicant shall submit a new plat
designating Lot 2, Block 1 as Outlot A and then change the references in
conditions 2 and 3 to delete Lot 2, Block 1 and replace it with Outlot A. .
In condition 1, delete the reference to 35 feet and insert 25 feet.
Conrad: Is there a second? Is there a second?
Emmings : I ' ll second it for discussion.
Wildermuth: If the ordinance is going to change, if the urban street
ordinance is going to change, I think we' re making a mistake to reduce it.
Emmings: How do you get to 25? Brian, what' s the rationale for 25 rather
than 30 or rather than leaving it at 35? ? I
Batzli : What was the width that they took in Fox Hollow in the PUD for the
road? Didn ' t they take 50 feet? That was my rationale. And what this is ; )
going to be doing is servicing a PUD. That was my only rationale .
Emmings : Why do we have a 50 foot easement there?
Olsen: Basically because of sewer and water . For Fox Hollow?
Emmings : Yes . The one he' s talking about . � I
Olsen: Sewer and water , urban street versus rural .
Ellson: No , I don ' t get it . Why was that not 60 and that was 50?
Batzli : Well it was a PUD that was Bewared and water so they didn' t need
the additional for side slope and ditches and all that stuff .
Emmings : And basically this thing isn ' t going to be develop without sewer
and water . It ' s really going to be, when it does develop it ' s going to I I
have those same characteristics. Is that what you ' re saying?
Batzli : That was my rationale.
I I
Wildermuth : This is going to serve a very limited number of sites .
Ellson: We hope. "I
Wildermuth : Like 7 sites .
Emmings : Well not when sewer and water comes in .
Wildermuth : That' s true .
Emmings : We could be talking about down to 15 , 000 square feet maybe.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 19
Erhart : I would support your proposal if we changed it to 30. I think
that' s , in my mind that' s the right number .
' Emmings : Why?
Erhart : Because that is traditionally what we take from rural easements .
35 is more than what we traditionally take. 30 is traditional and I
believe that will do the job here.
Batzli : I 'm willing to accept that if my second accepts it.
Emmings : As a matter of fact your second would prefer it.
' Batzli : 30 feet.
Emmings : And I think too , I agree with the comments that I don ' t think is
particularly fair to the Gross ' s. I don' t like doing it and in fact I was
absolutely opposed to it the last time this was around but at that time the
parcel that they had was smaller . They didn ' t have 2 1/2 acres so now
that , in fact I didn ' t think it should be necessary for them to renegotiate
their deal last time around and I still agree with that. I 'm happy that
they were able to do it and come out with the 2 1/2 acre parcel but that
also gives me a comfort zone that taking that 30 or 35 feet off the north
side doesn ' t bother me as much because of we'd have a larger parcel than we
did. You 'd hope that when the road is put in there that a lot of
sensitivity, which some engineers are not famous for , goes into picking
' where the road will go to preserve the trees but I assume that will be
done .
' Batzli : They' re going to have a ditch to fill in on the north side though
as I recall so they' ll probably prefer a more southerly alignment in order
to line up with the road further to the west but in any event .
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Preliminary Plat #88-27 shown on the plat stamped "Received
' July 25, 1989" subject to the following conditions :
1. A 30 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City along the
northerly property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 of Ches Mar Farm 2nd
' Addition .
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
' designating that Outlot A has only one building eligibility and the
development contract must be recorded as part of the recording of the
final plat.
3. Outlot A shall be designated as an outlot and is considered unbuildable
until it is combined with adjacent property or provides twC approved
septic sites and street access .
i
Planning Commission Meeting
I
August 16 , 1989 - Page 20
4 . The applicant shall submit a new plat designating Lot 2, Block 1 as
Outlot A.
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed_and the motion carried with all
vote of 6 to 1.
Headla : I don' t like the term easement. I think it should have been
right-of-way and the line should have been calculated from the
right-of-way.
Conrad : This item will go to the City Council when Jo Ann?
Olsen: The 28th of August .
CENVESCO, OAKVIEW HEIGHTS , PROPERTY ZONED R-12 RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY AND
LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARDS NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET: ,
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18. 93 ACRES INTO 11 HIGH DENSITY LOTS FOR
182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS. I
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS .
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PERMIT GRADING WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND. 11
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. ,
Conrad: Dean, do you have any comments?
Dean Johnson : Hello again. I guess I 'd like to hear your comments you 1
know on this now that we have it but due to recent developments, I guess
we'd like to ask you to continue this for 2 more weeks . We have been
negotiating with Charlie James the owner of the ground and we might have a
little more latitude that we didn' t realize we had before so maybe with
your comments and this new information, maybe we can come closer together
on this thing to get this thing to work. The only thing that is again we II
want to be able to present this to you so that can we have the public
meeting or public hearing part of this remain open or be opened again?
Conrad: We' re typically pretty flexible . i
Dean Johnson : I ' ll make a formal request at this time.
Conrad: So basically to table the item or to continue the hearing later on "
is what Dean ' s asking for . I think it probably is wise to go through the
Planning Commission and just give comments specific to, I think he'd be
interested in our perspective on the park and whether we endorse . The City
Council , with the Park and Rec reporting to them, at their recdmmendation
goes to City Council but we can make some comments on what we think about
that park and obviously if 4 acres comes out of there, it throws the plat
in front of us in a little bit of disarray. The other question that we
I
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 1, 1989
I
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad
and Jim Wi.ldermuth
' Brian Batzli arrived during the Eckankar public hearing and did not vote
on the first two issues .
MEMBERS ABSENT: David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson , Planning Director and Dave Grannis , City
' Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 22 . 8 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 1. 9 AND 20. 9 ACRES ON PROPERTY
ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE (GROSS PROPERTY)
CHES MAR FARMS REALTY.
Hanson : This particular item, the applicant had talked to me prior to the
meeting and I believe would like to address the Commission rather than
going through the staff report . Actually I believe they would like to
I ( table the item.
Tim Keane : My name is Tim Keane with Larkin , Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren ,
' 7900 Xerxes, Bloomington. I 'm here on behalf of Ches Mar Realty. We
appeared here previously in the matter of Ches Mar Farm subdivision. We
have a couple of outstanding issues between buyer and seller. Hopefully
we will have them resolved to everyone ' s satisfaction and would
respectfully request that this matter be continued to your next meeting .
Conrad : Steve, in that case we don ' t need to open up the public hearing
do we? Any questions of the applicant?
Dave Grannis : I think if the public hearing is scheduled for tonight and
has been published notice of the hearing, I think you should open the
hearing and then continue the hearing until your next meeting . That would
be my recommendation.
Conrad : Okay, we will open the public hearing . Are there any other
comments?
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to continue the public hearing on the
Subdivision of Ches Mar Farms Realty until the next meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was tabled until the
next regular Planning Commission meeting .
I
, .
CITY OF
_:_.
. _ •
CHANHASSEN
1
L
1
\\,k....LL! . I
,i:,1- - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612 937-1900
1
r^ :; ; •�;,
MEMORANDUM V---- -,
TO: Planning Commission ``` 1
FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director ,
3-1 -87-----
DATE: February 17, 1989 ;"�
.1I'A.
SUBJ: Ches Mar Realty Subdivision II
This item was last before the Planning Commission on November 2 ,
1988. The item was tabled at that meeting at the request of the
applicant. Previously, this item had been on the October 19,
II
1988, Planning Commission agenda. It was tabled at that time to
allow for the City Attorney to address the right to require the
property to be subdivided. The City Attorney' s response was con-
tained in the packet for the November 2, 1988 , meeting at which
time the applicant requested tabling of the application.
At this time, the applicants have requested this item be brought 1
back before the Planning Commission for further consideration.
No new information has been submitted with this request to con- II tinue this item. Therefore, the staff is recommending the same
action that staff had recommended in the memorandum dated October
26, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the II following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
Request #88-27 as shown on the plat stamped "Received October 10,
II
1988" and subject to the following conditions:
1 . The lots must be platted and cannot remain as metes and II bounds descriptions .
2 . Parcel A must maintain a minimum of 2i acres .
II
3 . A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the city
along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub-
ject plat. 1
I
II
Planning Commission
' February 17, 1989
Page 2
4 . The applicant must enter into a development contract with the
city designating that Parcel B has only one building eligibi-
lity. The development contract must be recorded as part of
the recording of the final plat.
5 . Parcel B shall be designated as all outlot and is considered
' unbuildable until it is combined with the adjacent property
or provides two approved septic sites and street access. The
development contract stating the required conditions shall be
' recorded against Parcel B.
6. A 15 foot yard way easement shall be provided along the
westerly property boundary of Parcel A.
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Tim Keane dated January 26, 1989 .
Planning Commission minutes dated November 2, 1988.
1 . Memo to Planning Commission from Jo Ann Olsen dated October
26 , 1988 .
4 . Letter from Roger Knutson dated October 26 , 1988.
5 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 19 , 1988 .
6 . Staff report for Planning Commission October 19, 1988.
' 7 . Copy of RR, Rural Residential District zoning requirements .
8 . Memo from Larry Brown dated October 12, 1988 .
Letter from Tim Keane dated September 26 , 1988.
' 10 . Copy of application.
11. Copy of 1983 Half Section Map for area.
12. Copy of 1988 Half Section Map for area.
13. Reduced copy of legal descriptions and plat showing the two
' parcels .
1
I
1
JAMES P LARKIN LARKIN HOFFMAN, DALY 8C LINDGREN LTD.
DAVID J.PEAT
ROBERT L.HOFFMAN FRANCIS E.GIBERSON
JACK F.DALY MICHAEL T.MCKIM
D.KENNETH LINDGREN CHARLES R.WEAVER
ANDREW W.DANIELSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERMAN L.TALLE
WENDELL R.ANDERSON WILLIAM S.BRANDT
GERALD H.FRIEDELL VINCENT G.ELLA
ROBERT B. ITLOCK TRACY R.EICHHORN-HICKS
ALLAN E.MULLIGAN 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER ANDREW J MITCHELL
ROBERT J.HENNESSEY
JOHN A.COTTER
JAMES C.ERICKSON 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER
EDWARD J.DRISCOLL PAUL B.PLUNKETT
JAMES P MI LEY BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 AMY DARR GRADY
GENE N.FULLER ALAN L.KILDOW
DAVID C.SELLERGREN TELEPHONE(612)835-3800 KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEWMAN
RICHARD J. KEENAN TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON.
JOHN O.FULLMER JEFFREY C.ANDERSON
ROBERT E.BOYLE TELECOPIER 1612)835-5102 TELECOPIER(612)338-f002 DANIEL L.BOWLES
FRANK I.HARVEY TODD M.VLATKOVICH
RICHARD A.FORSCHLER TIMOTHY J.MC MAN US
CHARLES S.MODEIL JILL I.FRIEDERS
CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE GREGORY E.KORSTAD
JOHN R.BEATTIE CRAIG A.PETERSON
LINDA H.FISHER 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE,SUITE 250 LISA A.GRAY
THOMAS P.STOLTMAN - GARY A.RENNEKE
STEVEN G.LEVIN COON RAPIDS,MINNESOTA 55433 THOMAS H.WEAVER
FOR REST D.NOWLIN SHANNON K.MCCAMBRIDGE
MICHAEL C.JACKMAN TELEPHONE 1612)786-7117 MICHAEL S.COHEN
JOHN E.DIEHL DENISE M.NORTON
JON 5.SWIERZEWSKI TELECOPIER 1612)786-6711 GARY A.VAN CLEVE
THOMAS J.FLYNN MICHAEL B.BRAMAN
JAMES P.QUINN JOSEPH W.DICKER
TODD I.FREEMAN Reply to Bloomington JACQUELINE F DIETZ
STEPHEN B.SOLOMON GAYLEN L.KNACK
PETER K.BECK RODNEY O.IVES
JEROME H.KAHNKE JULIE A.WRASE
SHERRI LL OMAN KURETICH CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL
GERALD L.SECK RONALD M.STARK,JR.
JOHN B.IUN DOUIST SHARON L.BRENNA
DAY LE NOLAN MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU
THOMAS B.HUMPHREY,JR.
January 26, 1989 OF COUNSEL '
JOSEPH GITIS
JOHN A.MCHUGH
RICHARD A.NORDBYE
.ALSO ADMITTED IN
WISCONSIN
Mr. Steve Hansen
City Planner
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Ches Mar Realty Subdivision
Dear Steve:
As discussed, this letter is offered to request that consideration of
the Ches Mar Farms proposed subdivision previously tabled by the
Planning Commission at its meeting of October 19, 1988, be brought '
back for consideration at its meeting of March 1, 1989 . I look
forward to meeting with you to review this matter on Tuesday,
February 7, 1989, at 1:30 p.m. , in your office.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Keane, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
kw
cc: Steven Loe '
I
TJK: BLOB JAN 2 7 1989
CtTY OF CHANHASSEN
(
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 2, 1988
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
g P
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, David Heala
and Brian Batzli
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Jim Wildermuth
' STAFF PRESENT: Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer and Fred Hoisington,
Planning Consultant
SUBDIVISION OF 22. 8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 1. 9 AND 20. 9 ACRES ON PROPERTY
ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1
MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, GINER GROSS , CHES MAR FARM REALTY.
This item was tabled per the applicant' s request.
' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CLASS A AND CLASS B
WETLAND INTO STORMWATER RETENTION BASINS LOCATED AT OUTLOT A AND LOT 1,
BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION, JUST NORTH OF LAKE
SUSAN AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK,
ROSEMOUNT, INC. .
Larry Brown presented the staff report.
Conrad: Just a quick question Larry. The road between the two is not an
alternative, is that right for whatever the option is that City
Council . . .?
Brown: That' s correct. That road will not be going in.
Conrad: Where' s it going?
Brown: That roadway is part of Market Blvd . . You and see, it' s not real
clear here but we will be proposing an entrance down at this point here.
Part of this crosses over into the Ward property and we consented to
obtaining easements through the Ward property as part of the Lake Drive
' feasibility study for probably this access .
Conrad: This item is a public hearing so we' ll open it up for public
comments . If there' s a representative from Rosemount who would like to
make a comment.
Bob Worthington: I ' ll introduce our case on the application that' s before
' you. I 'm Bob Worthington with Opus Corporation. We are going to be the
developer contractor for the Rosemount project which is going to be
considered. The site plan item is last on your agenda , really the
operation for that is somewhat out of context if you don ' t take it within
the area of concern, the entire site plan. In terms of the alteration
permit, that was filed in conjunction with a site plan and plat
(2-)
. .
CITYOF
1
..
. ,
\N ./Ni, CHANHASSEN 1
1
,,,,,,„ . ....
, --. .,... 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission 1
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner U I
DATE: October 26 , 1988
SUBJ: Ches Mar Realty Subdivision
II
On October 19 , 1988 , the Planning Commission tabled action on the
subject proposal until the City Attorney could address whether
II
the City had the right to require the property to be subdivided
and to address other legal issues raised at the meeting.
Attachment #1 is a letter from the City Attorney addressing these 1
issues .
As part of any subdivision proposal , staff reviews the applica- 1
tion as to how it meets the intent and requirements of the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires a mini-
mum of 2i acres and a maximum density of one unit per 10 acres II
for rural lots. These regulations were adopted by the City and
have been strictly enforced by the City. The proposed sub-
division provides the opportunity to create a conforming lot ( 21
I
acres) which is why staff recommended condition #2. The appli-
cant must prove hardship, which is not self created or an econo-
mic hardship, before the city can approve the lot area variance.
Section 20-906 (7) of the Zoning Ordinance specifically states II
that "a development contract must be recorded with the County
establishing the number of building eligibilities remaining on a II property" . Even if only one building eligibility is remaining,
the ordinance requires the development contract. Thus staff
recommended condition #4 .
II
Parcel B can be designated as an. outlot which is considered
unbuildable until replatted and certain conditions are met (until
two acceptable septic sites have been provided and public street
II
access ) . A development contract is the proper format to list any
conditions required for the outlot to be considered buildable .
As far as the conditions for roadway and driveway easements, the II city should not create a parcel which does not have access and
should take the opportunity to provide the required right-of-way
for land that could be subdivided in the future. Thus conditions
#3 and #6. 1
CP ii
Planning Commission
October 26, 1988
Page 2
CONCLUSION
' Staff believes requiring the subdivision of the proposed property
is the correct process for the applicant to follow. The Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances were created and adopted by the City.
' The ordinances contain regulations which govern subdivisions,
minimum lot requirements , access requirements , etc. Staff
applies the regulations of the ordinance to each proposed appli-
cation to provide consistent planning throughout the city. Staff
does not, nor should they, make exceptions on a case by case
basis. It is the responsibility of staff to enforce the regula-
tions adopted by the City. It is the prerogative of the Planning
Commission and City Council to make exceptions or grant variances
to the ordinances.
' The conditions established by staff as part of the subdivision
review for the subject property are consistent with the require-
ments of the City Code. Therefore, staff is recommending appro-
val of the subdivision with conditions as stated below. -
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
subdivision maintaining the 1 . 93 acre parcel , the applicant will
' have to receive a lot area variance from the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals and the City Council. Staff will schedule the lot
area variance for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals prior to
' the City Council meeting which will review the subdivision propo-
sal .
' RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
Request #27 as shown on the plat stamped "Received October 10 ,
' 1988" and subject to the following conditions:
1 . The lots must be platted and cannot remain as metes and
bounds descriptions .
2 . Parcel A must maintain a minimum of 2i acres .
3 . A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City
along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub-
ject plat.
' 4 . The applicant must enter into a development contract with the
city designating that Parcel B has only one building eligibi-
lity. The development contract must be recorded as part of
' the recording of the final plat.
Planning Commission ,
October 26 , 1988
Page 3
5 . Parcel B shall be designated as an outlot and is considered
unbuildable until it is combined with adjacent property or
provides two approved septic sites and street access . A
development contract stating the required conditions shall
be recorded against Parcel B.
6 . A 15 foot driveway easement for Parcel B shall be provided
along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A.
I
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Letter from Roger Knutson dated October 26 , 1988 .
2 . Planning Report.
1
I
I,
I LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER.
I DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR.- 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612) 455-2359
VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING Eworr B. KNETSCH
MICHAEL J. MAYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TIMOTHY J. BERG
I PATRICK A. FARRELL
DAVID L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
DAVID L. HARMEYER
II October 26, 1988
IMs. Jo Ann Olsen
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
IIChanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Ches-Mar Farms Realty Subdivision Application
IDear Jo Ann:
II You asked me to respond to several questions concerning the
Ches-Mar Farms subdivision application. Your questions and my
responses follow:
I Q. Is subdivision of the property necessary since Parcel "A" was
split off in 1974?
I Answer: Whether it is necessary is really not an issue since
the City is responding to an application. The City did not
approach the owner and ask him to subdivide his property. The
owner has filed a request for a subdivision. A warranty deed
II dated October 4, 1972, recorded March 27, 1974, split the
property into Parcels "A" and "B". The subdivision was not
approved by the City. The split, without City approval,
I violated the City' s subdivision ordinance, Ordinance No. 30,
§ 13. 01 , and should not have been recorded. Minn. Stat. §
462.358, subd. 4b(3 ) . The ordinance and state statute
I required City approval for any subdivision creating a parcel
two and one-half acres or less in size. Parcel "A" is less
than two and one-half acres in size. In addition, Minn. Stat.
§ 462 .358, subd. 3c provides:
11 Effect of Subdivision Approval. For one year following
preliminary approval and for two years following final
I approval, unless the subdivider and the municipality agree
otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or
official control shall apply to or affect the use,
II development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication
or platting required or permitted by the approved
application. Thereafter, pursuant to its regulations, the
municipality may extend the period by agreement with the
II
OCT 28 1988
ICITY OF CHANkASSt.ty
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
October 26 , 1988
-
Page Two
subdivider and subject to all applicable performance
conditions and requirements, or it-may require submission
of a new application unless substantial physical activity
and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the
approved application and the subdivider will suffer
substantial financial damage as a consequence of a
requirement to submit a new application. In connection
with a subdivision involving planned and staged
development, a municipality may, by resolution or
agreement, grant the rights referred to herein for such
periods of time longer than two years which it determines
to be reasonable and appropriate. ,
Subject to the limitations specified in the statute, this
means that the City can require compliance with new
subdivision and zoning ordinance requirements even after a
subdivision has been approved.
Q. Are "outlots" unbuildable? '
Answer: Section 2-1 of the City Code defines an "outlot" as
"a platted lot to be developed for a use which will not
involve a building or which is reserved for further
replatting before development. " An outlot cannot be built
upon, but the owner can replat the outlot and then build upon
it.
Q. Is requiring dedication of street frontage a compensable
taking? '
Answer: Minn. Stat. § 462. 358 , subd. 2b authorizes the City
to require the dedication of land for streets as a condition
of subdivision approval. The seminal case on the taking issue
is Nollan v. California Costal Commission, 97 L Ed 2d 677
( 1987 ) , the Supreme Court held that a City may condition
approval on a dedication requirement if the dedication
substantially furthers a governmental purpose and if there is
an "essential nexus" between the approval sought and the
dedication requirement. The Supreme Court cited with approval
a Minnesota case, Collis v. Bloomington, 246 N.W.2d 19
( 1976 ) , which was in turn cited by the Minnesota Court of
Appeals in Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190
(Mn.Ct.App. 1986 ) . In Middlemist, the Court held that the
City can require the dedication of land for roadways without
compensating the developer if the need for the road was
caused by the subdivision or by a "group of subdivisions"
approved over a course of years. The City in the current
situation therefore can require the dedication of right of-
way without compensation, if the need for it is caused by the
proposed plat or by other development in the area.
I
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
October 26, 1988
Page Three
If the City Council wants to waive platting requirements, it
' has the authority to do so. Minn. Stat. §-462 . 358, subd. 4 (b) .
The Council or Board of Adjustments and Appeals may also grant
lot size variances. The decision to grant the waiver or variance
' are policy decisions.
V= . yours,
GRA CIS ! 'ANNIS, A'RELL
& K .TSO ' , •. A
A� '
BY:
' Roil?' N. Knutson
RNK: srn
I
r
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
October 19 , 1988 - Page 9
5. The applicnat shall meet the requirements of the Building Department.
All voted in favor and the motion carried . II
PUBLIC HEARING: '
SUBDIVISION OF 22 . 8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 1. 9 AND 20. 9 ACRES ON PROPERTY
ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1 II
MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, GINGER GROSS, CHES MAR FARMS REALTY.
Public Present :
Name Address
Tim Keane 7900 Xerxes AVenue So . , Bloomington
Mark Kelly Representative for the Gross '
Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
1
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . '
C Tim Keane : My name is Tim Keane , 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington.
I 'm here on behalf of the vendor of the property, Naegle Trust, Ches Mar
Farms Realty, trustee . Also with me this evening on behalf of this item
is Mark Kelly who' s representing the buyer of the property, Charlie and
Ginger Gross . Very briefly, the circumstances that gave rise to the need II
for this request was an option, I don' t know if this will clarify things
any better . In 1981 Charles Gross entered into an option agreement with
the Ches Mar Farm Trust on behalf of the Naegle Trust to purchase the
homestead on this parcel which is a 1. 93 acres . That was a legal lot of
record at the time that the option agreement was entered into. There was
a condition in the option agreement that there was a life estate that
would continue, that would be a condition precedent to closing on the
option agreement . That life estate came out of being this past spring
with the death of Margaret Johnson. The Gross ' then requested that the
property be conveyed under the terms of the option agreement. In 1981
this was a separate lot of record. It continues to be a separate lot of
record . However , it did come under common ownership and there was the
same tax identification number for both properties. In approximately 1985 II
there was a State Statute passed that gave municipalities the authority to
review tax divisions. This is not a division. We have two separate
parcels of record . This is a technicality to approve a tax division . The I
City upon request, requested that this property be platted in response to
the request for the tax division. We agreed to the request for going
through the subdivision procedure. There would be a more simplified
process and that would be a resolution of the City simply to waive the
platting requirement and agree to the tax division to the County. But we
did agree to the platting requirement . A couple things I 'd like to note
that what this is not. This is not a development proposal . This
subdivision will not bring about any new development . No new
(I/
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 10
1
Cconstruction . No new homes . We won ' t have any additional traffic out
here. There will be no intensification of the land use. We have one
homestead out there. We' re simply trying to convey that one homestead .
It will create no additional demands for public services or parks, fire,
police. Nothing will change. It ' s simply a legal convenyence. I would
like to emphasize that it is an existing legal lot of record. We' re only
here to fulfill our obligation to be able to enter a deed to divide it.
We do have the one existing home out there. It does meet all of the
setback requirements . The request is for approval of the subdivision.
We' ll also request a variance, a lot area variance pursuant to the request
' for the 1. 93 acre subdivision . Addressing the conditions that were
recommended by staff, we agree with condition 1. That it is platted.
That it would not be a metes and bounds. It would be a platted by Lot and
lot description. As to Parcel A, if Parcel A were to be required to
' increase to the 2 1/2 acre standard , we would have to have the vendor and
vendee, 7 years after the transaction was negotiated and contemplated
under the existing zoning , and understanding that we have a separate lot
' of record, to go back and negotiate for . 57 acres to come up to the legal
minimum. I'm not sure what would be accomplished but it would put both
buyer and seller or vendor and vendee in a very awkward position trying to
agree upon just exactly where that extra .57 acres should come from and
' what the value of that is. I do believe that it does create undue
hardship, both on the vendor and vendee and I 'm really not sure what ' s
accomplished by bringing it up .57 acres . Item 3, the 35 foot roadway
easement to be dedicated to the City along the northerly property line.
The proposal to split off the land, again, doesn' t create any additional
demands . The burdening of this parcel with a 35 foot roadway easement , in
no way is related to the request to simply split it off. I would request
that that condition not be included . It would be a condition again later
on, an agreement entered into 7 years ago, the Gross ' certainly do
disagree with the request for the 35 foot roadway easement across their
' property. Number 4, the applicant enter into a development contract with
the City designating Parcel B as having only one building eligibility. ,
Again, looking at what this is , simply a conveyence out of an existing lot
' of record , I would question why the restriction' s being placed on 20 acres
that will be actually the remainder. In the alternative, we certainly
would agree to designating that as an outlot with a development
restriction that it not be developed until it is replatted. That, I think
' would accomplish what the City is trying to achieve without unnecessarily
burdening property and the chain of title. Any examination or
consolidation of this property could be looked at in the context of an
' overall larger plan. That was referenced earlier . Number 5, Parcel B
must have 2 approved septic sites prior to final plat approval . Again ,
we' re not requesting development of Parcel B. I believe that that
' condition can be addressed in the same manner as designating Parcel B as
an outlot with a condition that it not be developed until there is a new
subdivision . To go out and venture where those septic tests should be
taken would be nothing more than a stab in the dark. No one knows where a
logical homesite would be on Parcel B. We don ' t have a development
proposal for that at this time and to require septic tests without a
development plan seems like a fruitless exercise . Again , a condition to
restrict development until it' s replatted would address the City' s
'Y concerns on that item. Number 6, the applicant shall provide trail
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 11
i
easements , fees required by the Park and Recreation Commission. We
haven' t heard what the recommendation of the Park and Recreation
Commission is and we' re not prepared to address that. Number 7, a 15 foot
driveway easement for Parcel B be provided along the westerly property
boundary of Parcel A. Again , I believe we can achieve that with the same II
restriction as noted previously. That we don' t develop Parcel B until
it' s replatted and if indeed we do have the restriction for the
consolidation of a future development with access on TH 41, it can be
addressed in that context. With that , I would respectfully request that
the subdivision be approved as applied including the request for the
variance from the 2. 5 to 1.93 acre minimum. I 'm available for questions.
Mark Kelly: I 'm Mark Kelly on behalf of Charles M. Gross and his spouse. J
Two comments. My client' s interest is a personal one. We' re dealing with
a transfer of title and as Mr. Keane has noted that actually it began 10 II
years ago . It was in 1978 when Ches Mar Farm sold off an interest that it
had come into, ownership from Margaret Johnson but Margaret Johnson held
back a life estate. - Anyway, trasferred it to Mr . Pelitier who then sold
it to Mr . Gross in 1981 and Ches Mar Farm approved that transaction. That II
is of record as of June 1, 1981 and that has been my client' s home since
that time. He has resided there and continues to reside there. This was
not something that could have been completed earlier . . .simply because the
convenyence could not be done until , unfortunately the death of Margaret
Johnson. That occurred back in April and we' re trying to move as quickly
as we can to complete the final transfer of the title. This is much like
a contract for deed essentially. The problem is that the legal II
description, which are of record in the County Courthouse, don ' t happen to
match the tax legal description and what we' re simply asking is that the
City recognize what is essentially an existing, non-conforming tax legal
description with the actual property description . We' re grandfathered in.
We were in existence well before your 2 1/2 acre minimum. The City can
not tell my client effectively to buy some more land because you can ' t own II
what you already essentially own. He already has an interest. We just
haven' t been able to get the deed as such but he has a legal title to it.
So we' re not asking the City to waive it' s zoning laws. We' re asking the II
City to recognize that it has a grandfather situation. Whatever it may
choose to do with Parcel B is really quite independent of my client' s
concerns which as Mr . Keane has properly noted , we' re not looking to
increase the use of Parcel A. We' re maintaining it' s use as it has been
heretofore. As far as some of the suggested requirements for this
arrangement might be approved as suggested by the staff of the City.
Obviously my client has only purchased 1. 96 acres which at that time was ,
not a non-conforming zoning use. The requirement of a 35 foot roadway
easement is a taking of my client ' s property interest . Effectively it
would benefit property behind him and the City doesn' t have a right to
take that from him. Similarily, any requirement for trail easements or 15 I
foot driveway easements are also an imposition. These people have a legal
interest in this land and I would hope that the City would recognize that
and allow us just to conform with the tax identification, legal
description at this time to what is already of record . I 'd be,happy to
answer any questions.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 12
Brad Johnson : I 'm Brad Johnson , 7425 Frontier Trail and I represent the
owner of the property to the east and west, the Kirk property. We have
been, as you know, attempting to come back to you sooner or later with a
package that will hopefully be acceptable to you. During that period of
time though, we realized that , we could never figure out why the property
was divided the way it was in the first place. I think the gentlemen have
just answered the question. Nobody did it legally in today' s world.
' After Gary purchased the property, we discovered that there was only a 25
foot easement allowed which he gave in the review process for the road.
It ' s required in that particular area to have a city road into that
' property and 60 foot wide easement. We' re faced with the fact that
either , if ever , could be today, could be 10-15-20 years from now, access
is going to come into that property from TH 41. I think Jo Ann has found
out, I read the staff report, that MnDot would not allow another access
point to come into Outlot B. At least at our current reading so we' re
faced with, if the City is ever going to have that property developed by
some developer , whether it' s the guy who owns the property at the present
' time, you' re going to be faced with the problems that we' re being faced
with which is that sometime down the line nobody said you've got to have a
certain amount of property given for access to the property to rear . Now
I don' t know if that' s a taking . We' ve been involved in other
' subdivisions where access is required as part of the subdivision. This is
considered to be a subdivision of land and it seems to me you have the
right to do that so we are concerned as property owners to the west, that
this issue be resolved and not left in the air because basically from our
point of view, that we have to negotiate with the Gross ' or at MnDot for
access. It makes it fairly difficult to do it. We' re not opposed to
' negotiation but that ' s our concern. A 35 foot easement . We also are
purchaser of the property to the south of Outlot B and we would like to
request some type of access to that with an easement . We would like to
have it considered to be an outlot, as Mr . Keane has requested so we can
go ahead and either come back with a logical development or not and allow
us to proceed with we had planned in doing. We ' re not discussing, as has
been pointed out, any development of the site but I want to point out that
there are problems on that site. By not dealing with them now, we' ll have
to deal with them again and again and again until ultimately there' s some
solution to the problem. I think the primary one happens to be what was
perceived by most as the access that was grandfathered in. If the City
' rules that you can ' t have a 25 foot wide public easement, that it has to
be 50 or 60 feet, we' re stumped. We would like to request that you leave
the 35 foot easement in place and require the 15 foot easement on the west
end side to give them access to Outlot B with that particular purchase and
that you leave it as an outlot as Mr . Keane has required rather than a
developed lot . . .
' Conrad : Brad , what were your comments about the outlot?
Brad Johnson: You' ve got Outlot B, it' s called Parcel B. I think Mr .
' Keane asked that it be called an outlot rather than a lot so that somebody
could back later .
Conrad : Yes , and your comment to that was?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19 , 1988 - Page 13
Brad Johnson : That ' s fine. I think that' s a good way to do it. That
makes it, I guess not buildable until somebody comes back with a plan. I II
don ' t think somebody is going to build one house on there currently but
long term, if nobody bought that lot, there is no access. Let' s just say
we didn ' t complete our acquisition and now that Outlot B is sitting there II
and Jo Ann can give you the answer to MnDot' s feeling about two accesses
there. You' ve basically landlocked the property. It doesn' t appear to be
landlocked but you can ' t get access off TH 41. I don 't know if that' s
true or not . I 'm just saying , if that is in fact true, it' s landlocked .
We had assumed you could but I 'm not sure now, since we found out we
can' t. I'm just speaking , as I said , for having dealt for the future. . .
Mark Kelly: Only one thing that Mr. Johnson raised and that is the
concept that the City' s can serve over a 60 foot wide easement. As far as
my client' s home, and I ' ll point this out, the City can not use it' s II municipal power of emminant domain to benefit one property owner . That is
effectively what Mr. Johnson has just asked you to do. He' s saying that
he doesn ' t want to have to negotiate with my client. He'd rather not talk II
the road with Ches Mar Farm and their counsel . He would prefer that
the City use it' s municipal power to benefit one person and not for public
purpose. As we indicated , this is pre-existing situation. With that in
mind , I will trust that you will not abuse the powers of emminent domain
for what is obviously a rather selfish purpose.
Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Wildermuth: Let' s say that Lotus Realty and Gary Kirt did not purchase ,
Parcel B or Outlot B or whatever we might designate that, at this point
there would be no access to that property.
Olsen : The Zoning Ordinance does not allow on a collector , you' ve got to I
have a quarter of a mile separation. And plus MnDot has said that they
would not permit an access . . . '
Wildermuth : So technically we really couldn ' t allow this subdivision of
this parcel landlocking one of the parcels?
Olsen : Without providing . . .
Wildermuth : Without providing an easement . Has the City Attorney looked II
at this at all?
Olsen: Yes , he' s aware of the objections by the applicant .
Wildermuth: And what does he say?
Olsen : We have the right to require it to be subdivided because it' s
under single ownership. By splitting Parcel A, subdividing it,off, you' re
( creating a. . .lot . Technically the legal description is . . . 3 by dividing it
_ the Parcel B. . .
11
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19 , 1988 - Page 14
Erhart : Did you say it' s on a collector or arterial?
Olsen: It' s a collector or minor arterial . . .
' Erhart: If it' s a collector , it' s only 400 feet . We have to clarify what
it is.
Wildermuth : Jo Ann, this is technically a subdivision?
Olsen: Yes.
Wildermuth : And that' s why we' re talking about park fees and trails?
Olsen: Right. The Park and Recreation Commission did review this on
' Tuesday. Actually they did bring it and they determined that they did not
need any trail easements because they would have enough right-of-way on TH
41 to provide for that trail . Since the building permit will not be
' coming for it, I doubt if they will be required a trail easement. I was
just told that today. They can confirm that with Lori Sietsema , the Park
and Rec Director but they will not be requiring trail easements .
Wildermuth : I don' t know what to think about item 4. I guess item 4 and
5 are in keeping with the idea , the fact that you' re creating a
subdivision. I guess basically I agree with the staff report.
Batzli : I was , I guess , curious, Tim probably can answer this . Was the
life estate . . .did you say?
' Tim Keane: Excuse me?
Batzli : Was the life estate recorded as part of the . . .
' Tim Keane: Yes .
' Batzli : So that ' s been recorded at the County for however many years?
Numerous years?
Tim Keane: Yes . And it is a parcel of record . This is not a
subdivision. A subdivision is a formality but it is creating this lot.
We' re not creating any new lots .
Batzli : And our Attorney says it' s a subdivision because of the common
ownership?
' Olsen : Any lot that is combined and under single ownership, becomes
essentially one lot. For it to be separated, you have to go back to the
subdivision process .
' Mark Kelly: If that was the case , then every subdivision that is
developed by a developer , the second it' s recorded and under the common
ownership of the developer , all of the lots are suddenly, I mean it ' s a
fiction. It' s not correct. Simply because adjoining parcels are under
commn ownership does not mean that they merge.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 15
Olsen : That ' s how our ordinance defines it and that ' s the way we' ve done I
it. When it' s a lot of record, even like with Carver Beach where they' re
all separate parcels of record but they have combined to form parcels that
meet the requirements . I
Batzli : So if we did designate Parcel B as an outlot , that wouldn' t
satisfy your problem because of the fact that it' s technically a
subdivision?
Olsen : Right. We would still need to have some of the conditions that
we requested to make it clear that Parcel B only has one building 11
eligibility. it could be sold off as a separate parcel . . .
Tim Keane: If that were to be the case, we would have a cloud running on
the title of that land that would be very difficult to remove. In the
event that Parcel B were joined with another one through a replatting
process , that still runs with the title. And the same goal of the City to II
assure that development could be guided and a plan can be accomplished by
your restriction , either by a development agreement or we would certainly
agree to an agreement running with the land that property not be developed
until it' s resubdivided so that outlot designation would not be. . . It
would only be developed if it's subdivided. It seems to me that all the
goals the City is trying to accomplish in terms of orderly development,
could be accomplished . . .without creating the unnecessary problems .
Batzli : What Tim is asking for , by designating this as an outlot is
basically requesting a variance under our , what may be a formality but
under our current definition in the ordinance is a subdivision. In order
to make that not a lot , there would have to almost be a variance type
situation to designate that an outlot.
Olsen : To allow Parcel A.
Batzli : We have to basically designate , in order to conform with the
density requirement, only one buildable site can go on that lot. So
you' re basically asking for another variance to designate it as an outlot
rather than. . .
Olsen: We want to make it clear that even if that ' s combined with
additional land, at 20 acres , years down the line when it ' s sold off, that
1 unit per 10 acre is still in effect. In fact people are going to be II
that they have 2 building eligibilities. For us to maintain that
1 unit per 10 acres as we ' re required to do by the Met Council , we want to
make it clear that Parcel B has only one building site. ,
Tim Keane : Excuse me. I hate to belabor the point but we have many
mechanisms to regulate development of the land . And to create
encumbrances on the title, . . .chain of title is an exceptional burden .
For example, if sewer and water serves the area and we now have 15 , 000
square foot minimum lot sizes , you still have running in that chain of
C_ title an encumbrance restricting that parcel from one building unit
eligibility. I think the City can contemplate the rationale, organized
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 16
development patterns without creating those inordinate encumbrances in our
chain of title. You have the regulatory mechanisms to do that and I
woulde respectfully request that you employ those rather than creating
this encumbrance on the chain of title. There are many unforeseen changes
' could come that encumber by adding that restriction. . . .but to designate
Parcel B as an outlot, we' re not building . . . No one could come forward to
obtain a building permit for an outlot without having that replatted and
coming back through this Planning Commission and the City Council for
approval for a development plan .
Conrad : But once it' s an outlot, there are no restrictions . Once there' s
' an outlot there , I 'm guessing but all of a sudden, the 1 for 10 is no
longer. They basically have lost what staff is trying to recommend here.
Batzli : I guess what I 'm looking at is , Parcel B and assuming we would
give a variance on Parcel A which is a big assumption, Parcel B is
approximately 20 acres . What they' re gaining in one additional house
under the current zoning. My whole point, I guess I 'm kind of helping
belabor the point is that this thing was of record . It was contemplated
years before our City had these zoning ordinances . I 'm inclined to try
and work with the applicant here to do what they contemplated years ago.
The fact that it was recorded. It was of record. These people do have an
interest in the land . I think we' re trying to impose an awful lot of
stuff on them. That doesn' t satisfy, I haven' t even addressed the roadway
easements because I think that it ' s probably good planning that we do
impose some of those easements. But as to forcing them to put an
encumbrance on this lot , I agree with the applicant . That ' s all I have.
Tim Keane: Just to finish up a thought. If the life estate restriction
had been removed prior to either (a) the statutory requirement that now a
municipality can review a tax division, or (b) the creation of the 1 in 10
restriction, the development pattern changes . It was only the removal of
the life estate contingency in 1988 that gave rise to the circumstances .
Going back, it' s only a technicality of the tax division that brings us
' here and requires us to subdivide this parcel .
Elison : I could see maybe allowing a variance to have A be less than 2
1/2 acres . Especially if it' s been divided that way on record and things
' like that . I don ' t necessarily agree that you can just leave that other
side and when the problem comes up, then deal with it. I kind of like to
see some sort of solution on B like the road access and maybe even that
building development. The idea behind the 2 septic sites prior to
appoval , is that basically because if they can ' t find two septic sites now
then they should never be able to have a home on there or something?
' Olsen : It ' s just a requirement of the ordinance. It ' s just a guarantee
that that site is a buildable site.
Emmings : But not if it ' s an outlot . You wouldn ' t have to do that if it
were deemed an outlot . Is that right?
Conrad : That' s right .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19 , 1988 - Page 17
Olsen : We' ve been told by our Attorneys that outlots are still a lot and
they. . .
Emmings : But they' re not buildable so you ' re not talking about building
them. 1
Conrad : There could be an implied buildability statement in that though.
If you create an outlot. . . I
Emmings : We do it all the time. The requirements that are attached to
these outlots are not ever the same as the lots that are created in the II subdivision because you know it ' s going to come in later and that ' s going
to be attached to conditions.
Ellson: That ' s what I need to understand because I guess that ' s part of
the thing that confuses me. You' re saying at that time you would still be
able to impose whatever you wanted? The 1 home or what have you even if
it was an outlot?
Olsen : I 'm not sure that you could still deny, if somebody came in with
that outlot and requested division of that site, I 'm not sure that we
could deny that building permit. '
Emmings : You could if it didn' t have the septic site and it was required .
That' s no problem. There might be a question about the number of
eligibilities . We might be giving that up but if they couldn ' t put in the II
septic system, we wouldn ' t have to give them a building permit. Right?
Olsen : But they could come back and say that . . . '
Tim Keane: If I may clarify the distinction. An outlot may be sold . . .
However , by State Statute the designation on the outlot is the same II language in all 87 counties in the State and it' s affected the same. That
it' s not a buildable lot . It has to be replatted in order to be a
developable parcel .
Conrad : Do we know that for sure?
Emmings : An outlot in our ordinance is defined as a platted lot to be
developed for a use which will not involve a building or which is reserved
for future replatting for development . Reserved for future replatting .
Conrad: To me it implies it can be developed .
Emmings : That ' s not what it says .
Ellson : It sounds like when you do the replatting , then you come in and
try to conform with them but right now as an outlot it can' t be developed.
Olsen : That ' s fine . An outlot is fine but staff is not reviewing that . •
But it ' s still . . .sewer and water was there that would change the density.
It ' s valid but the ordinance does require that you have to record the
building eligibility for what you ' ve used and what is left. It' s a policy II
IPlanning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 18
1
Cfor the whole district to maintain the 1 unit per 10 acre. If he wants to
III not have the public context, he wants a deed restriction or something on
that outlot . It ' s just a technicality. Because that 20 acres is going to
be used for Ches Mar Farms and they are going to be using . . .
IEmmings : In my own my mind I feel very strongly that Parcel A should stay
precisely the size it is for the reason that Brian suggested. That land
I was the subject of conveyence between these parties prior to the time that
our zoning ordinance was adopted. And to go back and say that these
parties have to cut a new deal involving more land , is something , I don' t
know if we have the legal right to do it but we shouldn ' t have. To me
IIthat' s just wrong . If I put myself in the place of the Gross ' and just
ask myself as a matter of fairness. In the position of either party and
ask myself as a matter of fairness , should I have to go back and buy
I addition land after I ' ve already made a deal to purchase a piece of land
for a certain price. The answer ' s a big no . It just isn ' t right . So I
think that should be carved off of there in it ' s present size to allow
I those people to complete the deal that they originally agreed upon. That
would knock out condition. Condition 3, on the roadway easement, now
we' re in the hard stuff because they can sit there and say that they don' t
II contemplate development of Parcel B or what I believe should be an outlot.
I think that is the way to go on but if we do that , I think we' re doing
two things that are real foolish from a planning standpoint and that is ,
number one , we ' re creating an outlot that ' s landlocked and I don ' t want to
IL do that. That seems to me to be foolish. The other thing is , we' re kind
of sticking our heads in the sand , or we would be , if we ignore the fact
that the obvious intention is to join the balance of Ches Mar Farms that
isn ' t involved in this platting with Outlot B and develop it as one
1 parcel . I don ' t really have a good answer there. I don ' t think that the
City again , should be allowed to impose on that Parcel A a 35 foot
easement, which is real substantial it seems to me, on Parcel A. For that
Imatter , I don ' t even think we should put the 15 foot one on the back side.
But it seems to me that these people, the Gross ' and the people who are
going to own Parcel B or Outlot B on the Ches Mar Farm area ought to get
I together , maybe before we approve this plat and maybe it should be tabled .
Some accomodation should be made between those parties so that we don ' t
have to create what are obvious problems . If we approve this the way they
want it, there ' s going to be a 25 foot easement going back to Ches Mar
I Farms to serve this entire area and that is foolishness . I don ' t think
there should be a development contract now. I think if Parcel B, or it
should probabl be an outlot, has two eligibilities , I just don' t think
I it ' s that big a deal . When these two parcels come into the same
ownership, Parcel A comes into the person owning both with all kinds of
restrictions on it. It ' s not like he owns both lots free and clear of all
I obligations. That ' s what makes this different and why I think we can
think of this in terms of a variance without worrying about setting any
kind of a precedent. There are all kinds of obligations on the part of
this . I want it to convey what he said he would convey on this property.
I He' s got to be able to do it. We can ' t make it a legal impossibility for
him to do that . For now I think that should be an outlot whici) takes care
of condition 4. It takes care of condition 5. I agree, it' s foolishness
lir to make them go out and drill holes in the ground out there at this point
in time when they don' t have any idea how it' s going to be developed
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 19
(7 because if it' s an outlot and they come back and they can ' t show that
there are viable septic sites out there, they' re not going to be able to II
build there. That' s all . It will stay an outlot. I think number 7 I
would knock off for the same reason because what will happen is it will
wind up, I don ' t know how they' re going to get access to TH 41 but the
road system that ' s going to be internal to those two parcels when they' re
developed , will all have to come out of their own land . I think the
Gross ' deserve to get what they bargained for . '
Conrad: How can you create a landlock Parcel B though?
Emmings : We can' t. That' s the significant problem in this to me. I
don ' t want to vote on this.
Ellson : I like your idea of tabling it. Maybe it does need to be looked
at.
Emmings : The only thing I don ' t like about tabling it is we ' ve got. . .
Wildermuth: Technically you can ' t recognize the fact that the outlot is
going to be sold . . . At this point it' s got to stand alone.
Emmings: Right and it' s landlocked. That' s why I think there' s, but the
other part of this is , there ' s a Parcel A there that needs to and should
be conveyed to the people who live there. That ' s the dilemma for me.
It' s how can we create this landlock Parcel B? We heard some talk about
selfish purposes here. The Gross ' have a great opprtunity for selfish
purposes in all of this too in that they sort of hold the , they' re the
gatekeeper here and they can say you want land to put a road in, it' s a
lot of dollars a foot . What should happen here is that these folks ought
to get together it seems to me somehow. I don' t know how we can force
them. That ' s what I 'd like to do. It might be easier to sit over there II
and you figure this out and come back with a plan for the whole piece
because from a planning standpoint , I don ' t like approving this .
Conrad: Why are you so concerned about the 35 foot road easement going '
in?
Emmings : Because I think that the Gross ' have a right , why should they
have this entire road on their property? Why should they have that 35 . . .
Conrad : They only have half of it.
Emmings : Do they though? What you ' re saying is not right . I think right
now their property from this map, it looks like it runs down the center of I
their road . Do they already have 12 1/2 feet on their side and now we' re
asking for another 35? Brad ' s shaking his head no. What do you say Brad?
Brad Johnson : There' s a 25 foot easement on the way in and at some point
there would be a paved road in. . .
Emmings : From the survey we' ve
g y got in front of us , it looks like most of
it sits over on the Gross ' side of the actual roadway.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 20
114L
Brad Johnson : At some point up here there are marks on the edge in some
places. The roadway would only be 28 feet wide. . . It would require a 60
foot. It ' s a rural area . If the road never goes in there, it' s got to be
' 60 feet wide easement. The road is only 24 -feet. If it ' s a rural
roadway, or 28 feet . . . It ' s a problem and no matter how you do it, the
other alternative. . .is to forget all this and somehow you say that access
can come from either direction but if access is ever brought in from the
south, then they have to vacate the road. It' s a catch-22 deal .
Emmings : How does the person on the north get in then?
Brad Johnson: They come around. We had a plan.
' Emmings : Oh yea, that' s right .
Brad Johnson: I'm just saying , it' s a problem that probably should be
' addressed and I realize Mr. Kelly says we' re thinking greedily but we are
getting landlocked. If it worked out like you were thinking about it, the
greed might be on the Gross ' side rather than our side. . .
' Emmings: Putting a road south of the Gross ' one road that would go into
that property maybe makes some sense but that ' s not the plan that ' s in
front of us but there ought to be a plan so there ' s access to this
property. I can' t see how we can approve this now without having some
kind of plan for access . It doesn ' t seem to me that it ' s right to impose
it on the Gross ' who I think have a right to get what they' re running for .
I would have liked to have seen a letter from our Attorney addressing the
legal issues because it ' s a mine field and we don ' t really have much
direction that I think we need from our Attorney to tell us how we might
get Parcel A out of there as it is and yet somehow apply whatever pressure
is necessary to get these folks to come up with some kind of a plan for
the whole thing so we don ' t get a landlocked parcel .
' Erhart : This is a fun one . The first thing that hits me is your comment
Jo Ann that because the subdivision ordinance is one owner , if an owner of
the property buys the platted parcel next to him, that because of some
ordinance that we have, they become one parcel . I find it unbelievable
' that we have an ordinance like that . It would be even more far fetched if
it would be found legal so yes , I 'm not asking you to answer the question
but I sure would like to ask our counsel .
' Conrad: Our Attorney says it' s true .
' Erhart : No , he says that there ' s an ordinance like that . I guess I just
can ' t believe it. That you could enforce such an ordinance or that it
could be legal . If you ' re the owner of B, and let ' s say you have fellow 1
out there and fellow 2. You ' re fellow 1 and you own B and fellow 2, he ' s
' looking at buying Parcel A. What you ' ve done is you ' ve created a
different value for the two different persons because you' re the owner of
B. You ' re getting faced with requirements that the other guy doesn ' t have
and that ' s just totally unfair .
11
Planning Commission Meeting ,
October 19 , 1988 - Page 21
Conrad : I tend to agree. I don ' t understand that . I honestly don' t
understand what the point of that was . However , it tends to be something II
that ' s on our books . The ordinance is there apparently. We have to deal
with it.
Brad Johnson : Is the ordinance two unplatted lots? II
Tim Keane: It' s a metes and bound description . I
Olsen : It' s under a definition of a lot and a lot is only separated by
something like a street.
Erhart : Can you find that ordinance?
Olsen: Which is what we' ve been using . . . One or more lots of record
II
which at the time is filed is created by an owner or developer . It' s
under the subdivision ordinance too.
Erhart : I didn' t follow you on that one . II
Olsen: A single tract of land shall consist of one or more lots of
record . It ' s under the Subdivision . . . Lot meaning separate parcel or
I
tract area of land undivided by any public street or a private road which
has been established by plat , metes and bounds, subdivision or otherwise
permitted by law. I
Erhart : I didn ' t see it.
Olsen : That ' s the way our Attorney has interpretted it for us . I
Erhart: Could you read it again for me .
Olsen : Lot means a separate parcel or tract or area of land undivided by II
any public or approved private road .
Erhart : Is this page 20-1. Is that what you ' re looking at? I
Olsen: No. 97 in the Subdivision Ordinance.
IIConrad : We' re not going to figure it out Tim.
Erhart: It seems to me that we ought to, you ' re bringing up an ordinance
and we' re the Planning Commission , we ought to be able to find the
ordinance and look at it.
Olsen : It ' s under the interpretation about those definitions of the law. II
Erhart: Could you read it for me again?
Olsen : It' s a separate parcel or tract of land undivided by aQy public II
( street or a private road. We have had several cases of where. . .and the
Attorney has always used this interpretation. . . . split off a portion or
II
even an existing separate lot of record from that.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19 , 1988 - Page 22
11
Tim Keane : The ordinance is dated when?
Olsen: The subdivision ordinance?
Tim Keane : The one you just quoted .
' Erhart: Is this the one I 'm reading? A lot means a separate parcel ,
tract or area of land . Is that the one you' re reading? Where does it say
anything about single ownership? It says separate parcel of land. You' re
looking at two parcels of land of record .
Tim Keane: The comment I need to make is that , if that ordinance
referring to post dates the transaction which occurred in 1978 and then
' reoccurred in 1981, is essentially inmaterial because these parties
weren ' t on notice at that time of any condition that you ' re referring to .
There' s a legal interest in land that my client signed on for and it ' s of
' record . You ' re attempting to impose conditions post hoc the situation and
it can' t be done.
Batzli : Tim, the definition that talks about single ownership is the
definition of subdivision, not lot. If you ' re confused because it doesn' t
talk about single owner , you have to turn the page and look at the
definition of subdivision where it does talk about an area under one
It: owner .
Conrad : This is stuff we ' ve got to have our Attorney do guys .
Erhart: If we can ' t understand these ordinances . This is just so clear
cut Ladd . I don' t know.
' Emmings : But I don ' t think, I think our Attorney should look at this but
I don' t think he should look at this and try and justify the position that
staff has taken . He should look at it and tell us what our options are
' and how we can get where we want to get to which to me, and it may be
different for each one of us , is breaking out Parcel A. Not landlocking B
and somehow having access to what right now we believe to be the most
likely scenario which is the combination of that outlot with the rest of
Ches Mar Farm for development. Now we'd be accomplishing something .
Batzli : And if for instance we basically asked Parcel B to take the
entire easement of 60 feet up to Ches Mar Farms , in the event of some
occurence they get the whole 60 feet on the outlot. Something like that
might be an option. But putting the burden on B where the development is
going to be rather than A which is the contemplated transfer from years
ago .
Erhart : Well , I read it while you were talking there. How you can take
that paragraph that talks about the dividing a parcel of land and then
reversing it to come to the conclusion that ' s stated in the stiff report
is beyond me. It is just beyond me.
Conrad : You' d like to have it explained?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
II
October 19, 1988 - Page 23
II
Erhart: Yes .
II
Conrad : Tim, any other comments? Anything else?
Erhart: Let me move onto the next one. That' s very irritating because it II
kind of strikes home because I just bought a parcel of land next to me and
all of a sudden it' s one plat is just ridiculous. You go up and I sat I
through this meeting this morning of the candidates and they' re all
concerned why the citizens get upset at the City. It ' s things like this
that get people upset at these things.
II
Batzli : But it probably helps you because then you can use your entire
parcel as being subdivided so you have more room for density.
Erhart: You go through a lot of money to put these plats down and then II
all of a sudden it doesn' t mean anything . Well , anyway. My comment on
this one is the whole premise for any of the recommendations are baseless .
Let me go through each one. I do think we need to get a legal opinion .
One way or the other. We' ve got, from a planning standpoint. Go one step
further . Did we decide whether this was an arterial or a collector II because it makes a big difference as to accessibility onto Parcel B or
outlot B?
Olsen : The City Engineer reviewed it and stated that they would not . . . I
Emmings : Mark, do you know is TH 41 a collector or an arterial? Do you
know off hand? It ' s on the Chapter you wrote on Transportation.
I
Wildermuth: TH 41 is an arterial street in the City' s Zoning Ordinance.
Erhart : I think somehow we ought to come up with an easement. In fact ,
there is no other access to the Ches Mar Farms except for that driveway
right now, right Brad?
IIBrad Johnson : Yes . There' s two alternatives . I don' t think we would . . .
either one unless we want to be sandwiched inbetween . One is to come in
on the south side. If somebody bought to the property to the south of B, '
they could come in that way. In this particular case , if we did not have
at the present time a purchase agreement or option for B, if I was Gary
Kirt I 'd be up in arms because you' ve really just strangled him.
Erhart: But we have to assume that you ' re not buying B. II
Brad Johnson : Right. So if you ' re not buying B, I tell you what , you II landlock the back from a City' s point of view.
Erhart : Yes and we' ve made that point of view. That' s right so I think
the City.
II
C. Brad Johnson : What they could say is that the land they' re developing in
the back, one way or another an easement has to happen. It turns out that
the applicant owns technically the whole parcel . Don ' t you technically
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 24
own it?
ITim Keane : We ' re contractually obligated .
' Brad Johnson: There are two parts . All I 'm saying is , give it back.
Somebody has to vacate that 25 foot easement which we' ve suggested .
Currently we have to negotiate either with the City for vacation or the
two owners of the property on both sides .
Emmings: It' s not a public road .
Brad Johnson : If we made it a public road . If the people in the back
said we want a public road in here, you can not provide one. That ' s what
the problem is. So we could vacate the one to the north and have a 60
foot easement across Outlot B set -up that would bring people out to the
Ches Mar Farm property and that' s possible. It just has to be then , who
allows the vacation. There are possibly two other people saying they
won ' t allow it to be- vacated . Just remember our plan , we could bring it
in that way. But we didn ' t know that we were going to be subject to only
one access point .
' Erhart : I think the logical thing to do is to get this easement through
this lot , or one of these lots at this time so I 'd like to see us impose
the 35 foot easement either along the south . 30 foot easement along the
south border or 35 on the north border . If you don ' t think that ' s
reasonable, then you ' re going to have to convince Council and run it up.
That' s what I ' d like to do.
Tim Keane : It should be noted that you ' re essentially taking property. . .
Conrad : We understand . You ' ve talked to us about that .
rErhart : If you want to battle it , then go ahead and battle it . I think
from a planning standpoint . . . I think we should ask for the easement for
' that ' s what I would recommend on that one . I think goes along with what
Steve is saying, I think. Condition 4 , I don ' t think it applies because
it' s already a lot of record . Item 5 does not apply because that ' s a lot
of record. Quite frankly, the 15 foot driveway doesn' t apply either . The
' real problem comes in , to be honest with you, if you take the view that
this is a lot of record , is that you can' t restrict. That' s right, you' ve
still got the problem with the easement because you can ' t restrict parcel
' B from access to TH 41 but you still create Ches Mar with no access
points . The only condition I guess I would put in is to provide a 35 foot
easement for the lot.
' Conrad : This is a strange area altogether . It was developed strangely.
Contrary to a whole lot of things that are good common sense things and
now we ' re dealing with a lot of stuff to try to resolve it. Going down , I
don' t think we need a 2 1/2 acre parcel . I think there' s good rationale
for a variance to that . I want a 35 foot roadway easement there . There ' s
no doubt in my mind I want it done. Point 7, I think we need a 15 foot
easement there . I think 4 , 5 and 6 can be taken care of with an outlot as
far as I 'm concerned. I guess my other recommendation is we table this
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19 , 1988 - Page 25
thing . I 'd like to have staff review all the comments that occurred and
come back with something that one, with a legal opinion on some of the
stuff that we ' re dealing with because we certainly don ' t know what ' s
happening . I think the applicant has some common sense approach to some
of these things . Our ordinances just don ' t make sense to me right now and
I 'd like them explained. I think possibly if it' s still a legal mumbo
jumbo , we need an attorney here the next time we review this item. Those
are my concerns. Some of my comments may not be fair but I 'm going to
solve a problem with my statement .
Erhart: So you' re asking us to table it?
Conrad : I think we should . I wouldn ' t have the foggiest idea what I 'd
approve tonight or do. I don' t know. I think if we took a vote on each
of the 7 items we'd be all over the place on this thing . I 'd sure like
the applicant and staff and an attorney and folks and Brad , maybe mess
around with this thing and see if you can come back with something that
maybe responds to some of our comments . I can' t believe you still have
more to say. Go ahead though.
Tim Keane: Simply a question. When do you meet again?
Conrad : That ' s a good comment . We meet in two weeks .
Erhart: I ' ll move that we table.
A.
Wildermuth : Second .
Conrad : Under discussion , I 'm sure the applicant would like to move along
and that' s the reason for his comment. Jo Ann, what kind of staff work
load do we have?
Olsen : We can get them on for the 2nd .
Conrad: And what would we bump if we did do that? Is it an okay agenda
to do that?
Olsen: Yes .
Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded to table action on the Subdivision of
22.8 acres into 2 lots for Ginger Gross, Ches Mar Farm Realty. All voted II
in favor and the motion carried .
I/
I . CITY O F P.C. DATE: Oct. 19, 198
r 8
II `\\1 � �� � C.C. DATE: Nov. 14 , 1988
Y C UAUA iY CASE N0: 88-27 SUB
IPrepared by: Olsen/v
I r-
STAFF REPORT .
I PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 22 .8 Acres of Property
Into Two Lots of 1 . 9 and 20 . 9 Acres
I.
IZ LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Ches Mar Drive and Hwy. 41 •
IoApproximately 1 Mile North of Hwy. 5
J APPLICANT: Ches Mar Realty Tim Keane
4300 Baker Road, Suite 4 Larkin, Hoffman, Daly &
Ill Minnetonka, MN 55343 Lindgren
1500 NW Financial Ctr.
cIF Mr. & Mrs . Charles Gross 7900 Xerxes Avenue So.
2703 Ches Mar Farm Rd. Bloomington, MN 55431
Excelsior, MN 55331
r.
IIPRESENT ZONING• Mrx±ri�a.___.-- , _>
• RR, Rural Residential r.�;Kted'�!
ACREAGE: late.—/ l I t A-_--.„
II 22 . 8 Acres
�t
DENSITY: -_- 1 �' --- ,
IADJACENT ZONING >_,
AND LAND USE: N- RR; Minnewashta Regional Park/Ches Mar Far
IS- RR; single family
Q E- RR; single family
IR . W- PUD; Ches Mar Farms
WATER AND SEWER:
I No sewer and water available to site.
W PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site currently contains a single family
residence and the remaining parcel is open
I (f) space with steep topography and lakeshore
on Lake Minnewashta. ,
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Medium Density
II
(9-
hQs ', r 1, }) I r� �,�L�
iiiii.ff,...E, 4LL 42;„
l l
ailH .
. , .,
..._._ _
...__
w 11 rii .
,(q.
i. , ,,,,
, __ cv i_a,. ,, A.
A:4:r .,..\ -\11....", • •
KL� �`\, t
-.. it j i
7
1
ti.
lir 4111
'4S ;,HTA ■ 1,
-fi.riD 1'_ -
05+:+� 5 t?IVI,,a_,
,,t &icc,9 Peep.
P-Nf_
1e�' A PUD— .
I
i r rm
I RR ,.. `J 1
��i
. ..... . ..
DRIVE
Y i1
MINE'
M r.
Ce
1111111111w
1y ;-
9 I
Pomo
jit .
LOwr 1
�z
A2 ,
� --..-..--� _ s+ 1
•
1 ,
Ches Mar Realty
' October 19, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' The Zoning Ordinance requires rural lots lo maintain a minimum
lot size of 2i acres and a density of one unit per ten acres .
The lots must have 200 feet of street frontage and a lot depth of
' 200 feet.
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Engineering Department Attachment #2
' Park and Recreation "The Park and Recreation Commission
will be reviewing the subdivision on
October 18 , 1988 and may be requiring
trail easements along Hwy. 41. "
tANALYSIS
' The applicant, Ches Mar Realty, is requesting preliminary plat
approval to subdivide 1 . 93 acres from a 28 . 2 acre parcel . Parcel
A, which contains the 1 . 93 acres , contains a single family resi-
t dence that has been rented by Charles and Virginia Gross . In
1983 , the Gross' s had the option to purchase the property.
Parcel A was a separately described lot. The owner of Parcel A
purchased Parcel B and under the regulations of the subdivision
ordinance Parcel A and B are considered one parcel since they are
adjoining properties under single ownership.
' The applicant is proposing to subdivide Parcel A from Parcel B in
order to permit the transfer of the property to the Gross ' s . The
applicant is proposing to maintain the 1 . 93 acres which is the
original description of the separate lot of Parcel A. The appli-
cant understands that the city requires a minimum of 22 acres and
that a denisty of one unit per ten acres must be maintained. If
the subdivision is approved, Parcel A would be transferred to
Charles and Virginia Gross and Parcel B would be transferred to
Lotus Realty which is pursuing a subdivision of Ches Mar Farms .
Parcel A meets all the requirements for a rural single family lot
except that it does not contain 2 .5 acres . Parcel B contains the
required acreage and also meets the required lot frontage and
depth requirements . Staff is recommending that the area of
Parcel A be increased to provide the 2 .5 acres as required by the
ordinance.
11 There is an existing septic system on Parcel A therefore, soil
borings were not required. The applicant has not provided soil
borings for Parcel B because this property will be joined with
the Ches Mar Farm property and subdivided as part of that sub-
division application. There is no guarantee that Parcel B will
Ches Mar Realty
October 19, 1988 ,
Page 3
not remain as a separate legal lot of record. Staff typically
requires that soil borings be provided and approved by the city' s
consultants prior to plat approval . Therefore, staff is recom-
mending
that soil borings be performed and two septic sites be
approved prior to final plat approval. Parcel B would also have
to receive an access permit from MnDOT to be serviced from Hwy.
41 if it remains as a separate parcel. MnDOT and staff feel that ,
any separate access for Parcel B would not be preferred and
Parcel B should be serviced by Ches Mar Drive. Staff is recom-
mending that an easement be provided across Parcel A for driveway
access from Ches Mar Drive to Parcel B ( see Asst. City Engineer' s
memo) .
The Zoning Ordinance requires rural lots without sewer and water '
to maintain a one unit per ten acre density. The subject pro-
perty contains 22 .8 acres and is therefore permitted two dwelling
units . Since the applicant is subdividing off one parcel that
already contains a single family residence, the remaining parcel,
even though it contains 20 . 9 acres, is only permitted one dwelling
unit. Staff is therefore requiring the applicant to enter into a
development contract with the city which would state that Parcel
B is limited to one dwelling unit to maintain the one unit per
ten acre density of the existing parcel . If Parcel B is combined
with additional land it will only provide eligibility for one
dwelling unit and not two dwelling units .
The applicant is required to plat any parcels that can no longer
be subdivided. Both Parcel A and Parcel B would not be able to
be further subdivided because of the minimum acreage requirement
and the one unit per ten acre density requirement. Therefore,
both lots must be platted and should be shown on the plat as Lot
1 and Lot 2 of the "Ches Mar" subdivision.
In the attached memo, the Assistant City Engineer addresses the
requirements for a roadway easement to be provided on the
northern portion of Parcel A. Since the property is located out-
side of the urban service area, a 60 foot right-of-way is
required for a public street. There is an existing 25 foot ease-
ment as part of the Ches Mar Farm property located north of
Parcel A. To provide the 60 foot right-of-way. Staff is recom-
mending
that Parcel A provide a 35 foot roadway easement on the
northerly portion of the property.
RECOMMENDATION I
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision'
#88-27 as shown on the plat stamped "Received October 10 , 1988"
and subject to the following conditions:
I/
1
Ches Mar Realty
I October 19 , 1988
Page 4
' 1 . The lots must be platted and cannot remain as metes and
bounds descriptions .
2 . Parcel A must maintain a minimum of 2 acres.
3 . A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City
along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub-
ject plat.
4 . The applicant must enter into a development contract with the
city designating that Parcel B has only one building eligibi-
lity. The development contract must be recorded as part of
the recording of the final plat.
5 . Parcel B must have two approved septic sites prior to final
plat approval .
6 . The applicant shall provide any trail easements and/or fees
as required by the Park and Recreation Commission.
' 7 . A 15 foot driveway easement for Parcel B shall be provided
along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A.
IPLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission tabled action until a legal opinion could
' be provided by the City Attorney regarding the city' s ability to
require the site to be subdivided.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Excerpts from Zoning Ordinance.
2 . Memo from Larry Brown dated October 12 , 1988 .
3 . Application.
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 19 , 1988 .
5 . Preliminary plat.
§ 20-575 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ,
b. For rear yards,fifty(50)feet. ,
c. For side yards, ten(10)feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure,three(3)stories/forty(40)feet.
b. For accessory structures,three(3)stories/forty(40)feet.
(7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows:
a. If the driveway is on a collector street:four hundred(400)feet.
b. If the driveway is on an arterial street: one thousand two hundred fifty(1,250)
feet.
(Ord.No. 80,Art.V, § 3(5-3-5), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-576-20-590. Reserved.
ARTICLE XI. "RR"RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-591. Intent. ,
The intent of the "RR" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions
intended for large lot developments. I
(Ord. No. 80, Art.V, § 4(5-4-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-592. Permitted uses. ,
The following uses are permitted in an"RR" District:
(1) Single-family dwellings. '
(2) Public and private parks and open space.
(3) State-licensed day care center for twelve(12)or fewer children. '
(4) State-licensed group home serving six(6)or fewer persons.
(5) Utility services. 1
(6) Temporary real estate office and model home.
(7) Agriculture.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(54-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-593. Permitted accessory uses. ,
The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RR" District:
(1) Garage. I
(2) Storage building.
(3) Swimming pool. '
1206
t :� `3'I
I
ZONING § 20-595
' (4) Tennis court.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupation.
(7) One(1)dock.
(8) Roadside stand.
(9) Private kennel.
(Ord.No. 80,Art. V, § 4(5-4-3), 12-15-86) •
Sec. 20-594. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an"RR" District:
(1) Churches.
(2) Private stables.
(3) Public buildings.
' (4) Recreational beach lots.
(5) Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 4(5-44), 12-15-86)
' State law reference—Conditional uses,M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-595. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RR" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
' (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half(21/2)acres, subject to section 20-906.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a
' cul-de-sac shall be two hundred(200)feet in width at the building setback line.
(3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred(200)feet.
' (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty(20)percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, fifty(50)feet.
b. For rear yards,fifty(50)feet.
c. For side yards, ten(10)feet.
' (6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three(3)stories/forty.(40)feet.
b. For accessory structures,three(3)stories/forty(40)feet.
(7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows:
a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred 400
' ( )feet.
1207
111 �_:
,I
§ 20-905 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20-905. Single-family dwellings. ,
All single-family detached homes shall:
(1) Be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation that meets the requirements 1
of the state building code.
(2) Conform to the following standards for living areas: '
a. If a one-story rambler design, have an area of nine hundred sixty (960) square
feet.
b. If a split level design,have an area of one thousand fifty(1,050)square feet.
c. If a split foyer and two-story design,have an area of six hundred(600)square feet
on the first floor plus a two-car garage must be attached to the single-family
structure.
(3) Have an earth covered, composition, shingled or tiled roof or other materials ap-
proved by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city.
(4) Receive a building permit. The application for a building permit in addition to other
information required shall indicate the height,size,design and the appearance of all '
elevations of the proposed building and a description of the construction materials
proposed to be used.
(5) Meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the
city or the applicable manufactured housing code.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 6, 12-15-86)
Cross reference—Technical codes, § 7-16 et seq.
Sec. 20-906. Rural lot building eligibilities.
(a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service
Area boundary shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this
chapter. ,
(b) A new single-family building may be established or a lot containing an existing
single-family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: '
(1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained using the following guidelines:
0-19.99 acres equals one(1)single-family unit. '
20-29.99 acres equals two(2)single-family units.
30-39.99 acres equals three(3)single-family units, etc. '
(2) Existing parcels of record established prior to February 19, 1987, shall be deemed as
buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by paragraph(10).
(3) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in sections
20-575 and 20-595.To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials,up
to two(2)parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement.
1230
I .
IZONING § 20-907
1 c
I (4) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well.
(5) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems in-
s1 talled in conformance with chapter 19, article IV.
(6) The one (1) unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single
ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be
I combined for increased density/building eligibility on one(1)of the parcels.Transfer
of development rights from one(1)parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as
permitted in paragraph(9)below.
1 (7) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property,a development contract must
be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remain-
ing or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development
I rights from one(1)parcel of land to another is not allowed.
(8) Each site must have at least one (1) acre of area which can support two (2) septic
system sites, a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five(25)percent or less.
Il
(9) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer
building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does have public street frontage and
Imeets other provisions of this section.
(10) Applications for subdivisions in the rural service area as identified in the compre-
I( hensive plan to contain a development density of one (1) unit per two and one-half
(21/2) acres will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987, if the following
information is submitted to the planning department:
Ia. Completion of the application for subdivision.
b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners.
I c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern.
d. Submission of required application fees.
Further,these applications must also be accompanied by additional data required for
I preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plat approval
by July 1, 1987 unless the city council deems to table final action on the application
until after July 1, 1987.
/ (Ord. No. 80, Art.VI, § 7, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-907. Height regulations.
I (a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one(1)foot rise or fall in seven(7)feet
of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one(1)story
I in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be
permitted on the downhill side of any building.
I (b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the
following:
(1) Barns, silos, or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries,
Iupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation
1231
I - v4:
CITYOF
I
•
1
\ \I CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission l I
C)
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer I
DATE: October 12 , 1988
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for the Naegele Property
I
Planning File No. 88-27 SUB, Gross
This site is located on the west side of State Highway 41 II
approximately one mile north of State Highway 5 . The property
involved has one existing residence at this time. Mature vegeta-
tion is scattered throughout the site.
Sanitary Sewer
This site is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area II
(MUSA) ; therefore, municipal sanitary sewer service is not
available to the site at this time. I
The plans do not address the location of two septic system sites
for Parcel B. Approved sites should be located prior to final
Ireview.
Watermain
Municipal water is not available to the site. On-site sources I
will have to be developed by the applicant if additional
construction is pursued. I
Access
This parcel receives access from State Highway 41. A 25-foot
I
roadway easement exists along the southerly boundary of the pro-
perty located immediately north of Parcel A. To insure that
access could be gained to the "Ches Mar Farm" located on the II northwest corner of the property , an additional 35-foot roadway
easement is requested along the northerly property boundary of
the proposed Parcel A. This would yield a total right-of-way II width of 60 feet which would conform to the City' s standards for
rural construction.
1
0 :) I
I
I Planning Commission
October 12 , 1988
Page 2
State Highway 41 is classified as an arterial street by the
City' s Zoning Ordinance. It is recommended that Parcel B would
receive access by the existing driveway onto State Highway 41
such that accesses to Highway 41 may be kept to a minimum. It is
recommended that a 15-foot driveway easement be granted between
I Parcels A and B located along the westerly property boundary of
Parcel A.
' Grading and Drainage
The site does not propose any changes to the grading and
drainage.
' Recommended Conditions
' 1. A 35-foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City
along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub-
ject plat.
' 2 . The plans shall be revised to show the location of two
approved septic system sites for Parcel B prior to final plat
approval.
3 . A 15-foot driveway easement shall be provided along the
westerly property boundary of Parcel A.
I
I
I
RORER P L.HOFF LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. DAVID I PEAT
ROBERT L.ARKIN N
JACK F.DALY FRANCIS E.GIBERSON
D.KENNETH LINDG REN MICHAEL T.McKIM
CHARLES R.WEAVER
ANDREW W.DANIELSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW TALLE
WENDELL R.ANDERSON HERMAN L.WILLIAM S.BRANRAN DT
GERALD H.FRIEDELL
VINCENT G.ELLA
ROBERT B.WHITLOCK _ TRACY R.EICHHORN-HICKS
R T.MULLIGAN 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER ANDREW J MITCHELL
ROBERT J..HENNESSEY JOHN A.COTTER.
ER C. SCON 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER
EDWARD J..DRI DRISCOLL PAUL B.PLUNKETT
GENES N. MILER BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 AMY DARK GRAOY
GENE N.FULLER ALAN L.KILDOW
DAVID C.SELLERGREN KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEWMAN
RICHARD J. KEENAN TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON.
JOHN D.FU LLM ER JEFFREY C.ANDERSON
ROBERT E.BOYLE TELECOPIER 1612)835-5102 TELECOPIER 16121 338-1002 DANIEL L.BOWLES
FRANK I.HARVEY .y TODD M. VICH
U.MCM
RICHARD A.FORSCHLER TIMOTHY J.MCMANUS
CHARLES S.MOOELL JILL 1.FRIEDERS
CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE
GREGORY E.PETERSON
D
JOHN R.FISHER E CRAIG A.PETERSON
LINDA H.FISHER 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE,SUITE 250 LISA A.GRAY
THOMAS P STOLTMAN GARY A.RENNEKE
STEVEN G.LEVIN COON RAPIDS,MINNESOTA 55433 THOMAS H.WEAVER
FORREST D.NOWLIN SHANNON K.MCCAMBRIDGE
MICHAEL C.JACKMAN TELEPHONE 16121 786-7117 MICHAEL S.COHEN
JOHN E.DIEHL DENISE M.NORTON
JON S.SWIERZEWSKI TELECOPIER 1612)786-6711 GARY A.VAN CLEVE
THOMAS J.FLYNN MICHAEL B.BRAMAN
JAMES P ODINN
JOSEPH W.DICKER
TODD I.FREEMAN JACQUELINE F DIETZ
STEPHEN B.SOLOMON
PETER K.BECK Reply to Bloomington GAYLEN L.KNACK
RODNEY D.IVES
JEROME H.KAHNKE JULIE A.WRASE
SH ER RI LL OMAN KURETICH CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL
GERALD L.SECK RONALD M.STARK,JR.
JOHN B.LUNDOUIST SHARON L.BRENNA
DAYLE NOLAN MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU
THOMAS B.HUMPHREY,JR.
OF COUNSEL
September 26, 19 8 8 JOSEPH GITIS
JOHN A.MCN UGH
RICHARD A.NORDBYE
*ALSO ADMITTED IN
Ms . JoAnne Olsen WISCONSIN
City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ,
Re: Ches Mar Farms Subdivision Application
Dear JoAnne:
As discussed today, please find enclosed the application and
application fee for the subdivision request for the subdivision of the
homestead known as the "Gross Property" .
Background
As noted previously, the purpose of this application is to permit the
conveyance of the Gross homestead from Ches Mar Farms Realty Company
to Charles and Virginia Gross . Charles and Virginia Gross entered
into an option to purchase this property in 1983. The homestead site
had previously been a separate lot of record and the lot lines were
reflected by a legal description and on county half-section maps (See
Exhibits A & B attached) . This legal description and separate lot
description formed the basis for the property optioned by the Grosses
under the option agreement. Although previously a separate lot of
record, the City Subdivision regulations do not recognize this as a
separate lot when it and the adjoining lots are under common ownership
as in the present case. The lot size of the gross parcel to be
subdivided is approximately 1. 85 acres . The minimum lot size in the
RR district is 2 .5 acres . The approval of the subdivision will
require the granting of a variance from the minimum lot size
regulations contained in Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. The Chanhassen
subdivision regulations Section 11 provides for variances with A
finding that the following conditions exist:
' LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8c LINDGREN, LTD.
Ms . JoAnne Olsen
September 26, 1988
Page 2
1 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
The hardship in the present case is the fact that the parties
to the agreement previously contracted to purchase what was
' in 1983 an individual parcel. The optionor contracted to
sell and the optionee contracted to buy the parcel as
historically described and shown on section maps and surveys .
The inability of the optionor to convey title to this
separate parcel creates significant practical and legal
problems. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience and is
not a creation of the actions of either the optionor or
optionee.
2 . The hardship is caused by the particular physical
surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land;
The parcel property lines generally follow existing field
conditions delineating the state Highway 41 on the west, an
access road to the north, a slope to the west and south. It
appears that these boundary lines generally follow the
topographical contours of the land.
' 3 . The condition or conditions upon which the request is based
are unique and not generally applicable to other property;
tThis is a very unique set of circumstances applicable to this
property. Specifically, the creation of this lot under an
option agreement based on a previous lot that came under
' subsequent ownership.
4 . The granting of the variance will not be substantially
' detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the
purpose and intent of the Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
' The variance request is nominal. The minimum lot size under
the code is 2 .5 acres and the existing lot size is
approximately 1.85 acres . There is substantial open space
around the residential structure and the proposed lot and
setting is very much in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance. The approval of this subdivision will
' not result in any new development to the gross property but
only allow the optionor to fulfill its obligations to the
optionee.
I
I
. 1
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. 1
Ms. JoAnne Olsen
September 26, 1988
Page 3
We respectfully request the approval of this subdivision and variance.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
,
Timothy 1 . Keane, for
LARKIN, OFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
TJK:AWOs
Enclosures 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
It
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
I CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I (612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: Ches-Mar Farms Realty, OWNER:
Co.
IADDRESS 4300 Baker Road, Suite 4 ADDRESS
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343.-
'
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 932-9885 Zip Code
TELEPHONE - Zip Code
IREQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
I . Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
IZoning Text Amendment X Subdivision
I Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME Ches-Mar Farms
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION RR
IIREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Same
PRESENT ZONING RR
IREQUESTED ZONING NA
USES PROPOSED Residential
I r
SIZE OF PROPERTY 1. 85 A
ILOCATION
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Convey existing homestead
I
ILEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)Y
0
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
1 .
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
•
FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
Cf.ea- ntpr •R' s IE'� ��.
Qy le T P.�fwcr ,
Signed By �y � -r } Date September 26, 1988
Applicant
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
• authorized to make this application for the property herein
described .
Signed By Date September 26 , 1988
Fee Owner
.1
Date Application Received
Application Fee Paid
IICity Receipt No.
1
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their '
meeting.
•
1
"'• -..c• . aa.a�..�a.�+—'�-�s,�w.`Ww A•s.oWrs.atilE
• szc /
"ro '71 3 •
208 71 I\
—
365 6-
1 33
M+ JOAN W ft,LER M IJ 33 $ �." r
Y BK 146,1P 14 h+ N
....._____
I _ f N
0 r : W N
h ° _ cr
•
N :/ .: 7
i N 87°26'W �N
-
WY
/ v um
/ I 1i. WILLIAM '
• BK 118, P 275 JOHNSON !is
/% BK 101,P.590 50 /05 r1' - /Sp
r O "�! , o ,W / jf .I
' ` h w "208.71' � 'DJO... PK297, z eK 6oRp 97 4 sT Lizss
Oo
9 , r
S?0°40.E.--- 2�p O39 /1,...
6 C'7
I / p 6°20 03 r/ F .-.• N 14°52'E
yi
I MARLYN M PELTIER ^S SsyO
BK 143, P. 502
°p O 2p'f 33
o
p
••/,
Ea o
8K 98, P. 529 �D°'"7
I 1047 68
Afs6o? /1/i/
ow' BK 116 P 545 JANET GILBERT
BK 119,P 565 44
. rn
I /// W. CARLSON
__' f BK 0, P 429
i 1.3.38 - - —- -
, ,
—f '
d 16.3 88.38 } ••264 44-
° WALTER WHITEHILL R0 ' ' 96.62 J14
i' BK 119, P. 125 9pO 9Q
D.0 ROY a o ►K H. SCHMIDT -.--
BK 62,P. 438 C BK 134, P.512 0
' N p
N
` / °
l /.°P 200 pO /
s`
I ALICE TOWLE/
1 1J BK 136, P. 501 8 503
cn
1
?S N
71° Zo ALICE TOWLE
90°• N BK 120,P.64
/sg BK 110, P 416
•`� 3/ BK 136, P505
o
O
y� / J><, p/N ,b 464.44
/ / ' y�
I /25.34 0
4/00
EXHIBIT A
° I►'l�L/4 6469 R.) 1983 1/2 Section Map
I 69 @K/;?y 7V 904 -
6)
R►.� P 7 HNFq °
a
,// UK 101, p090 iNl~ I
; —so /pJ I
- �J r" 8 7_. r _ 13o
•
h 208.76 w T' I il. I i
W I-•
/�� ..950. !` 7 0 - j Y 1; ,.
"C/ t o $. KELLOGG M. II" ` l '
�QT .. z ,f K 168,P,407 '+ 1 r�s_ (. _
kit, ; ' 900 t ` 8r
- _'1,, - ' '. . - .... , ?p3 T9' « 63.4
„ 'i. (`4- '1.1 • _ • tA S 5, . /. 14032•E.` t . '5
2 4J? `�,` •
_ ' .. t. `' 't/...`t.,.'7.. ;{ j . IP ` . , �' ,.,•/'. • '.':i'�f ,i. '
CHES-MAR tTY ,b. ..r—:.,t :f,Y;' - ',I •i , j. k' .�&.''. ' `": ' `
BK 11 54 J k.-;iej�•,' *• i. / ;'Y • • ▪ '
t' ` .5t ,�; +-' -., .'i,.1-• #�•,e:' }- y)• r' �/ J J_,�ji■-U,•:�!?,.,.'t.:;'f•
'i_• I
. ki b.:.11"-.. , ,L^ . `- t "-,t ri•• �' -'•:�`.;; �� :, ,3. r •, 'l :d'k4,•_ .r f_ DA.SPSQN• � ip .-`i • 'r is` //:: +-, f Y ' .t 3 r ,.
WALTER WHITEHIL.t_ .. ,s 16.3 _ _ I
8K 119, P. 12 6 "'�C 103,38
`14' t 264 4q-
-; ,� _.. :} t.'`1,F,�~:~".::,: .'.0 �, sic D.O. ROY, _ . h yir. ,? .J. ' 1°i2 _ 0-01:4-AA. r'" is - i',P� 1:•tom- !' :3• c°'" • 'S '' .'. 4. ..., `.. `„ J .t.`., N•.t. '" : ;' i .'t':7 i- '4 -5'•. y: ?.,,,..4.1,:,,,,,,,,I!,,,,.1.•.i, , . }•„ y, +'1.- A ! i:Is, V.3i, Mq i.,'
.f, -I .� ,i' •2't� • -• '� 6 i
_ ' -t'' , , ;,_...-4A4'"• t� ,t.'. ,'�. it• - Vr: �r'i g; '4i - _ T,,,1,:.r ..
c ''3•.•'f- tit , ,, r..,-•' J11 .v. -- r'' : 4 ; >tii
Vii:.', ,T":; ..i iuG.vt 1' - ', iw'.:. .xe,..•f.. .1 s_`i i:.. •"'r '•..
=r` :tai r=F� 'f..t._ ,.. -����T •� :k��]]. `5'.'i.:-..i-F,•�'�'`i.';, J;�B,'r•,K, 917:11----- �, �b�j_ U��,�_ �4i ��4, - ..•-,4,-Y''. ••711.7,t• •:.yfra• rt ..LL ' .' I•.. w0i. "Y.. 4 ' _,'•4•'••f ^-, 'J='• 2a.t4u f' ky+r"..r,.. ''e;:t-'• `4 :., i'' :''w.�,, tea: .•,.•
-{ (.'r.- -.;-, , '41`;` ,Y „a''F Y F}"%`t.t1' {', .: :'`,:a!+I:, %• .f•::-; ' ;i`.%.'. y' - •m -
_i c:" - .;..,..';-',..:, • ''.,�4 iLe�:t :/y. {.V - :T` • r to . .t H _ -
,`!I t Y. d'+.4r. >i.vJ _ {_'y, ,,I',.M'' ea,.'+ ` ?'p '��,•'i, - �.l�1,.. '+
.,°u v' '4. .,4.'•_. :1+r<,�:(',.?••..i:$. ,+;i??7� .f S:^t .,` - ;4� '• ,a H.r '•.,,,,,', ri-s,• t iF , _- ••_ .i s,,.x.t. t1;1.,,.±.% „t i 0 •-• ,,:c::-.,....,,-,-SY• 'rr' .c;•.t rt;'c..g ,"t.:. '$,� ! '.t t •� _
' '-'.1.'.-J,. •.' :, ,e'r'g., - rq,•-ZY. ' •i1--'.4.,/• - ''' t, N `,. ,• ,t- OD T('f5,, •'
�l w•r4;, ) >'`- '' .-• I be - i, ., «-' - ++ _v”` .t= C so 63236 '
- ';]'t .••,:,.,-...,:,, .S' �L'd"� „t�Y f�R� .`\..• s �� �. .',, .Y :.i, •f, .M.
;bKf ' ,.ti,r: .•, i :,�+- ,,;`i.�'yi J .,r:� ,ra' M• 'S �°� _!• ' '' i A :.•,k•. _I+, tip•
l ,:.,,, . :t • . ..:4, . _ ,n,,,.kv.L. i..,-..-q.:... 1 NCO ,/,K .•J' - ... 1.; :......';';.;'''.7.•
;h=�' 64. • ' 'e'.4.1-,•s' {' b- .. ,
r .'r",' _ "-•,,.''-,,,'- - _t' I}i ,�'y.• ,- iy,0 ts' .'• r t - � ,it. �` 46 4.4 ' :t• ,�- a xi ,'•ti' _ ' 'i":' �``•-' ,�Y(,8�s• 4 • ,,ktx r -v^ - '•,' ••;,.•,}",•k'I} �,„ - 4 •
P-•'''
' •r: - � K �nayy '1:"''('.` r�,. �• `'�}'Yi _ v _ - ., •'f •F .. u :F�.bt.a _ ':b,_,. =�..: :(,�. %t.r. ..12.
' A';4' ' ,t, _' R('r r •,'‘Y•, ,P P.:4-4..1•••• ,�• y �', i ,•fF•-",�' "I;, ±}R;..4.°
' .. 4 4,' `4, •�, .i 4/-"" ••"i - t t,-.1;t. 1 f .Z :yA r1 .1 .i,:,« •1.
69'. 6t 4l O .i 1' -.., . . f ,� �. ''L. ::::':•:,1-1:::,,, ,,,.. .„ ,._ ,..,,,, .•...,.. , . R t (1., . ,
'Ic .t. .1S-' `,..' g . ;,.jr •t,d �, i.D ., , ,.5. 4• •;r'^.i A;�. ••,° • ".` !7`.. :,... .. . ....
;/' jr wi •� .. F O x , `'S rJY54. t44. .t+"k..'i? + , ;J r- f t- v sA ' .; to. • -r,, . .. " �; :.{ . --' i PL4 : t ,x..•-i- `• 5!.•i.i`r '' !TIC"'i.'.4.',..,:.: - }•(l." .•f' h'-,i?f+ lc'J1.• _ I. .. ,t, -:r.,; ?- ,t,� `,f ;r' ',^•. _Y,i',t:.'• 0.1,:,,,:-�:�S..y,'L ,...:4c.,.*- -J'-..., :•• 44�
O ;v.i� ,. 4,f.� ;i,.. ,Y r;• - ;�•r ,4''1 r •r� t•K .'�... _ .:f M �'.•-144.'"i .l "i.t -., ''
• r' .�' s� ay .e ��: ,t +1r.r4• .-0 .i •'..ir •trY. Sr. 4.4.4,,,,,:.'t; �4 .,
y. _.' •s .,�. - n�fr -�-`r".��• yiy.7`t/ .t+�:::� .�" �1i`;, +: ,� y;k1:5Jt;.?.�-'=.L� , ,� s o,
t
.aJ `y.o i - .5 � !`f� �+ �E,}. �r�t('t � -y..i-?�F•�,'� .c,7`'Ri.f•1 1 •ti ,jNa?t%� :r•i.• �'` `1' •.,,,.-:' .i, af*`..°!.:,A,,-,.i-.,, „ ;: " EXHIBIT B ; r: ;.z-�1 r�';�>?`;, .1.
rn,yy. ri, , r:. .. :;:,� ',A; :�; {fk,o :, , ,. ,,.,' '= 1988 1/2 Section ria 3 I..r�,�t, ;y' ,� ;;�.
1 I:,
F - y\,. .i .t• •' ?w•-,. ":t`',.;i..tyr'k1. + is ';::w.} = r- .t. Lct fqi••• .-kr' y1*.T.`'. ." i ;r•
i •� .044-4.,t_ � ..11 t..r 1 , `�y (1 A r1' 1 :�7'cJ ��t °" t'y.�; J'3 1� �'
M
;l•-,'' r -i: ;sY4 rY ri',`g?`• , .t,=`�''„ A ,. }'•. _ , 1:•',•,C,'y.�• ; '++ 'T �%.4° 1,`...-`-...
is r
I . ...
I .
....
II to...411• . .. .. ... • .... .. • ' .
- ,
.1.-4Alfr.Warthtia4“.44-.4.7,14 C......
I
.:
-
.,....... --1T-- i I
.4mr..115:-.1.,.--7,--,-..--- :.,..:,..1_,...... ...- -:...„,i-: - .
ii --7,71nil.4.PEIt $1.:Eff- Ev.
• — E...-- •
1 , "i'-'":"." ..""...4---21-7"----"jr,-4-4,..i!".„ :!-.112=2:ii::.1-,
/,•-•■•••-••••••••-•-=.-,•=■_.,..i. -In:,. .,-,.._
•-... .--... ,... ....7,.........."="..........--Er..Z :7.1:2,, .. . .s... rl
if. ...."
:Z=2.-:- ...22'=2-''' '' ! ZZ:.' 2i2;...1 'St ~ter AI
....-
....ti...:' X:: ""Z•if I
I 4; :::- r si : its% 6di fsziz, :-=til. li,
'is!! sir Fisr,-.-.1..si s:
:....:.-.- •$•::$--:::„.. .::-; ft; ;,..s...:,
iii;52 r;itiA=4:7;ii 4 41:
..... NM
' a
!..•
, 4
_
r....qt -.7_------:-- -: t.. ■ 'T
tS..F221%7Ari ii: itr,Z:. .,!!!„t ii. ■
. 42...:. ES Er."7..........----■...:11 .r. it
I -
F-1=7.7 - ili-_---.3
2 :. : - 2 I -. -
.
-.N. .."
- _ . ,I a.
.
..4• ...
,. .,a......„ ,..,
•
....... . , . ., ... ‘
I .
-
, utir-r-
i!!!i:i ___.• I f-..:z
trts:ft l'u:i 1. ;E:-
--:--i
1 •1 -,„ - r••=3 ...ID%• • ,
'1.%,..'... •-f...t 41116.--.!..?..„..,,
- - .
.-Y d,: ...: :..._:Z.- it, -•.A-.
r 7.; •:. : — • .., • .1
-------,
— .
NT,.! 1- 7 •:11- s 1--7. • . .
_ 1I:.7:.-:.i7'1 S• L,:-t q: L.,.-.:.i•4_-1
.•..'...1 r; a t I i i i .
i I r• 4 I
i.
..,
.. -1
•
,.
✓▪ -
I
Ir . !: . . —..
_...„...-r
•.. . ..
•
...
. _
I
I
i --1-,--_-Ezt=t-:,....zz---,-...4.1,..i.,,,-- ,...ti-___:______ . ,_. • _
1
1 i „--...-,.‘-..-.-.-r,..-=..,..-,",-.--.----.-,-"-1-..4.:-71-•--1-"-7-,-=----------..-"....-=--1s;,---:i-7,:- '1s-r--1- ---_r,-----= 1 ff.
..,, _
• . _
_. i: :. .
-
.:7F---------- ,..7-t't ,.-..-- ,-,.:-.....-::=,E.,t - ..-
.7"4.74".."...:!•••-:"....-•••-....--•-1,...7. ...:...,... ........_..,__.. , ...., ,
--.<2-
,7.7...,...=-2-,--4,..,:-. = ..,......-....--.... _ ,g
i,iy."-.;*..:- ' -=41"..T.F.•'7.+7-.."`.-1....i7.1 ...--: ........,,,:.:: a
r.:,...4,,,....74--„,z-=-7.-...-••••- a:. 1,-,........-'.1:7 :I . -Ii•-• •
. ....X. P.; ..
,, "." • ....:1%'••- 4.:■::=-.:...-7.Z1i I F-; :,•-•" 1.-11.Far;:,•••••
'47,* ... , I "--s'••••
L., . .
z----4— , c."' _'
I..---1 : t r:7---::ZslAr;:---,-,2"--ifis:t r it 1-! - " :. • 55
...... r
-7 5.**•*"."; ' - . --,-17:== r i•f.-iiri. ' il 1 zii I i ' ._ - r
.. m•
'..:.st•-4 j',..-..• cid
:f ly; --.,- - ,.'• '•:'■
..... . --or ''• -1 . . .
_ IS a
lr:.!: • ' • •
.1
,,,-.S. • ....* ,,..•• ..7.-----• ,'..
I ,:_- ' pe :' -
..ii : • T.,1,- fin I 0111 -..PI 'r ..
'i.: I : %•%I ..,:r. .: '
...1 -F.,_,.., .-..1 41 AS . ; •
'..'..... \c..............' i
"'..ti 'Mit- ■ , I. rtri ..".
_. .
.''l :,
I ;7''' _
ifsi ''- =
". , ji:-.1.
Z. . ,,,37
-
•
• b..^P
1,11-
nor
N. . f .
i.....,,,, '1/4:.
r -
4,'f:0,
-- t_ .I.t, s - z•-...7... r 1
..i =si i= : I v.I r. •I • Ss 4. eN
-; 1. , , i
.0 ...,
Is! -.. 5 ss s z-,.s.-.: ,
-
tis: • 9,,,. .
I .. ....._
s:f le-7 '
■ ,. ' •,:' •••...
i: .--: ..-
. '.., . „1/
- !...• i
Z
. t-:-:. ... •
I - ....•.7.;- ' 411111i
:i 4. r4ii Z.j . .
• — Z ... . 1.6, s •
I S2
21
PI SZ
n . ii
s' '!
, .
.
‘ .....,
-: .': • ,.:„
• (---:32,4, ,-% •
.n. -
1-- .. . .
• kb,y .
.•
si
<Ell *sif -
...1.- .- •
' -i•r: •
• n
a '.:0'. •A,-
, ,
At •A
.41/ •! -
: .
)-- -. • % '
Al' . .: 4
I
- .
-- .
I 11:2511....