1988 05 18
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
e MAY 18, 1988
Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Annette ElIson, Steven Emmings, Brian
Batzli and Jim Wildermuth
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBIDIVISION OF 5.5 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED EAST OF TH 101, 1/4
MILE SOUTH OF CR 14 AND ADJACENT TO HALLA NURSERY, ROBERT J. BURESH.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Robert Buresh
David Halla
Don Halla
Applicant
10000 Great Plains Blvd.
10000 Great Plains Blvd.
e
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Robert Buresh: I'd just like to put this issue to bed. I would like to
get access to the property with a public street if possible and my second
option would be to do it with a private drive. In talking with Don and
Dave, I think there's a consensus that they want a street and a public
street would be desirable. I was wondering if it would be possible to
recommend a 30 foot public street with no parking on there so they
wouldn't have to go through the expense of replatting their existing plat.
Emmings: You're aware though that there's a problem with MnDot in that
there can't be another road coming off of TH 101 so close to the road
that's platted in for their development.
Robert Buresh: I don't have a solution for it other than if they put that
street in, that has already been approved in their plat, possibly we could
hook up to it someway and not go out to TH 101 but loop back around.
Build a 30 foot street that would, when their plat finally develops and
their streets are going in at that time, that we will do everything to cut
off and come through that door.
Emmings: Have you talked to them about that possibility?
-
Robert Buresh: Briefly. I don't know that we specifically mentioned that
but we talked about a 30 foot street on his. The issue of the two
accesses onto TH 101 didn't come up in our conversations but I just threw
that out now as a possible option.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 2
e
Emmings: Okay, anything else?
Robert Buresh: Nothing else.
e
Dave Halla: Let me try to go through this real fast so we don't take up
much of your time. Going back over the history to refresh your memories
on this. Originally Roy Teich carne into the City of Chanhassen wanting a
building permit to give to his son-in-law as a gift for 5 acres. At that
time Russ Larson was your Attorney for the City of Chanhassen. He ruled
that because of our deed, and it's still in that description today, that
that road was ours exclusive in perpetuity, that easement. So Larson made
his legal ruling and said in order for Teich to get ingress and egress by
using that easement Halla's had to give him permission, which we did in a
document which you've probably got in front of you now that Roy Teich's
Attorney drew up. He spelled it out. We had a premonition that in the
future that additional lots would be sold. Well, very shortly after that
thing was done, Teich sold this piece that Bob Buresh is trying to get a
building site on now, to Dipwick and then Dipwick sold it to Nikolai and
then Dipwick got it back and then Lindquist got it and now Buresh is
getting it from Lindquist. In all of that time, I put that road in there
to service my house which is on the end. I hauled in there some 225,000
tons of rock. I paid for that myself. I haven't had one bit of
cooperation from Teich. Hardly any cooperation from Graffunder on the
maintenance of that road. I believe it was in 1981 or 1982, we were sued
by Teich on Graffunder's behalf for parking cars along that road. He won
that lawsuit and Judge Thomas Howell, a District Court Judge rules that we
could not park cars on that road. But he also ruled that that maintenance
in that agreement was upheld and that they had to be responsible for the
maintenance. Now we tried on a number of occasions, at least 6 or 8
occasions meeting with Lindquist, meeting with Teich, meeting with
Graffunder, meeting with Pauly, who is Tecih's son-in-law where the whole
thing got started, trying to get them to agree on maintenance. They
absolutely refused to do anything. We've given Graffunder a bill. At one
time he said I'll pay half of the bill. It was $890.00. He won't pay it.
Snowplowing in the winter is a real pain. I have to plow that all the way
out. Graffunder is not the kind of the people that anybody would want for
a neighbor. He won't plow that driveway until after I opened it up and
then four days later. The snow can be 2 feet high in there so I have to
plow it wide enough so I can get out. He won't do any maintenance. When
we tried to maintain the road and we run a mower down there or something,
his wife is out there just hollering and they got the Sheriff out there.
Oh, you're getting a little gravel over on our grass or something. They
cut their grass along the road, blow their clippings out on the road.
That seeds down so the road gets all green. We go over there with some
weed killer and spray the grass on the road, not on their lawn but on the
road, she calls the Sheriff on us because we're spraying weeds in the
road. It's been nothing gentlemen but a pain in the behind. You can't
anybody to agree for maintenance and I have refused to do any maintenance.
I have been doing it all these years since I've lived there since 1970 and
not one of those other people has even shared. We have talked with each
one of them. Teich, Graffunder, Pauly and Lindquist and not one of them
will share the expense. We're not going to take them to court and sue
them over it but we've already got a commitment and I've got the records
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 3
e
right here if anybody wants to see it from Judge Thomas Howell who ruled
on it, that the agreement is upheld. Now also in that agreement and I'd
like to read this to you so that you're aware of it. We've got a copy
here but let's go on the second page. And it says here, construction of
home begins. It says vendees agree not to object the village of
Chanhassen granting the vendors or said Vernon Pauly and Judith Pauly a
building permit. Vendors or their assigns agree to pay for maintenance
along subdivided lots for a period of five years after said subdivision
use after which time and in the event there is joint use of the said
easement property, the parties hereto agree to share the maintenance costs
over the easement property.
Emmings: I wonder if I can cut this short. I want you to say whatever
you've got to say but if I can summarize this in a way that's fair to you.
It seems to me that what you're saying is, ...all the responsibility for
the road even though other people use it. Number two, you've got a point
that the road is really your's exclusively. You have the exclusive use of
that easement?
Dave Halla: Correct.
e
Emmings: And I guess one of the conditions, are you aware the one of the
conditions that the City has imposed on his being granted the right to
subdivide is documentation that would verify that his property has a right
to use that easement. In other words, putting the burden on him to show
the City before this actually goes through, that he has the right to use
that easement? Now does that satisfy your concern?
Dave Halla: Let me a couple of things in here and I think I can answer
your question because it's spelled out in this agreement.
Don Halla: One of the questions you're going to corne up with is would
I allow for a resubdivision. We've already brought and paid for three
separate redoings of subdivisions. I'm not going to pay for anymore. I've
gotten it approved. I don't want to open a can of worms because there is
a chance that if I go through with another subdivision, you folks might
demand that I connect my subdivision to the subdivision to the east.
That's $100,000.00. I'm not paying $100,000.00 in lots sale, putting in a
road, redoing the plans, everything else. I'm not going to pick up that
tab so my answer is no to that one. We were disapproved on having the
road to the south once. We didn't want to get into a lawsuit on it so we
put it all on our property. We tried to play the game but I said if I'm
putting it on my property and not bringing it down and using that 30 foot
easement because that's... That was disapproved so I guess I'm saying no.
Bottom line.
Emmings: Same question to you. Assuming that we would approve the
subdivision, if we would place a condition on his ability or condition the
approval again, satisfying the City, if he has legal right to use that
easement, placing that burden on him, does that satisfy your concern with
respect to use and maintenance of the road?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 4
e
Dave Halla: No. Because you've still got the same situation. Even
though Teich signed it, Roy Teich, and it says in there that it's binding
upon their heirs or assigns, he won't honor it. Graffunder has got the
same thing and it's a recorded document. Graffunder won't honor it.
Emmings: So what you're saying is there's an agreement there that you're
having problems enforcing?
Dave Halla: Right.
Emmings: That's a problem between you and your neighbors.
Dave Halla: Also, this subdivision h~s always been referred to by the
City Planners and by their Attorneys as Teich's illegal subdivision. He
stuck that thing in there when he couldn't do it in the beginning and all
of these people have been stuck with it for years. Now, Buresh comes out
there and he likes it and wants to build a house and all that on there,
but you don't solve the problem like that. If you people go along and
approve this, all you're doing is creating a bigger problem. Nobody will
honor the maintenance agreement. The only way you can enforce it is to go
into the court and end up with a big contest and nobody wins anything.
It's a mess. It's not going to get any better and until it's resolved,
I'm not in favor of anybody else using that road because I'm the guy who's
the goat that paid for all of it and I've enjoyed all that that I want to.
e
Don Halla: Aren't you just complicating it? Shouldn't the horse come
before the cart? The road thing should be approved first before you
approve a subdivision of that lot and multiply the problem. If there is
access and if there is a legal easement that serves this property, that
should be determined first. Then secondary, go through a subdivision
instead of creating two lots that have the same problem.
Emmings: Jo Ann, has our Attorney looked at this and said whether or not
he thinks the position of the Halla's, that they have the exclusive right
to the use of that road is correct? What does he think?
Olsen: Two fold. He addressed this issue with the Halla subdivision in a
letter at all. It was just one lot, he was saying that yes, they do have
the right to use that.
Emmings: That Buresh does?
Olsen: Yes. He had a copy of the easement but once it was subdivided it
would be creating a new lot and the City is essentially a second buildable
lot there. That's where he's started to say that we better have the
guarantee that that would be serviced by that access.
Emmings: What does the City Staff think about the ordinance... Should he
have to do that as a part of the application process rather than having it
as a condition on approval or don't you care?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 5
e
Olsen:
done.
Typically yes we would have that...I don't see why it couldn't be
That it could still just be a condition.
Emmings: Is there anybody else from the public here that wants to speak
on this one?
e
Robert Buresh: First of all, if you do not give a public street and it
does remain as a private easement, I go on record publicly as stating that
I will be a good neighbor and honor my portion of any maintenance or
upkeep agreement. I don't anticipate any problems in that area. The
second thing, I've been delayed because the Halla's were going to develop.
I could have done this a long time ago and I've been put off essentially
over a year now waiting for this to happen and waiting to see what the
Halla's are going to do. Now they did so now all of a sudden a new issue
comes in. Where we already got an opinion from the City Attorney once
that legally I can drive to that piece of property. Divide them into half
acres now and you divide them into 10 little pieces or 2 big pieces or
maintain 5 1/2. Legally I can still drive to that property. My Attorney
has checked it out thoroughly...and we talked to the City Attorney today
and we have to send some more documents over or maybe the same documents
but I'm beginning a little bit anxious. Now that I hear another issue
after waiting over a year and waiting for the Halla's to do their plat and
I agreed to that because I thought...mine should be a function of theirs
rather than them being a function of mine or we end up with something that
wouldn't be in the best interest of the City. But I've waited patiently
for them to replat and now that they have, I would like to proceed as fast
as possible and not be delayed by another issue that I think has already
been settled.
Dave Halla: I think you people have an opportunity here, right now and
the City Council has the other opportunity in the next week is to say hey,
if this is the way it is, you people live up to that agreement, part of
the condition if we pass an approval is that everybody agrees to pay that
maintenance. If you don't do that, all you're going to do is have a
bigger mess and we're going to end up in a lawsuit and the City...
Emmings: There's nobody here that wouldn't agree with you that the people
who are using the road, it makes sense that they share in the cost of
maintenance.
Dave Halla: He might be a good neighbor. He's saying he's got good
intentions but the other people, I'm telling you I wouldn't walk across
the street and wave at them.
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
e
Batzli: You can probably talk about the legal issues all night but I
don't think the best thing to do would be to make this a public road I
guess at this point in my mind. I believe that that person who owns the
5.6 acres or whatever it is, probably does have the right to use that
driveway but I don't know if he has the right to create a bigger burden on
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 6
e
that driveway and he probably doesn't have access from any place else. We
could probably talk about that legal issue until we're all blue in the
face. I don't really like requiring the applicant to provide documenta-
tion to the city. That he has the legal right to do that because I think
the only thing he could do for the City would be to probably get some sort
of declaratory judgment such as a lawsuit. You're basically asking him
either to agree with the Halla's up front or basically sue them to get
judgment. I don't know what other kind of documents. I don't know what
kind of documents staff envisions that he's going to be able to get.
Olsen: We're just going to have their Attorney speak together with our
Attorney and to confirm that he does include that in the subdivided lot...
Brown: The intent of the conditions was that the applicant provide some
existing documents. In the time frame we were not able to locate it but
we were under the assumption since that property or parcel in the past
seemed to have access or appeared to have access to it, that there must be
some document out there so the intent was just for the applicant to
provide an existing document. Not to come up with a new one.
Batzli: You're basically asking him to perform a title search to
determine if his deed restrictions to his property includes use of that
access?
e Brown: Correct.
Batzli: Even if it doesn't...I don't think I like making that a public
road much better. If it is true that that property already has legal
right to use that road, I think the addition of one more lot, basically by
subdividing that lot in two would be a much better solution than...
Wildermuth: I think we should look at the resolving the two parties. As
far as the subdivision is concerned, it appears to meet all the
subdivision requirements. The road issue apparently has got to be
resolved between the two parties. The City is not a part of the
agreement. That agreement and the legal description of Mr. Buresh's
property is probably...
ElIson: It sounds like a complicated matter. I'm trying to think of what
we have the right to do and I can't say anything more than saying yes,
that's an okay plan. I can understand why MnDot says no public road and I
feel like my hands are tied. I'm thinking what I can do. I feel for this
guy with the no fun neighbors and I feel like Mr. Buresh will probably
keep up his end of it but it isn't in our jurisdiction to say...we can't
really write in a condition like that to my knowledge so I feel like all I
can say is I like the one recommendation where it's okay to come with the
easement and unfortunately it's their problem. I'm sure you've got no
love loss with those neighbors, I probably would take them to court even
though more people lose. They might as well be one of the losers
because...but that's about where I'm at.
e
Erhart: I don't have any questions or comments.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 7
e
Emmings: I feel that pretty much the way Annette does in that I think
we're here looking at a proposed subdivision and the subdivision seems to
be alright. The problem is the access to it and there there's a long
legal history that I don't think we really get involved in. It seems to
me, the way to resolve this, the only people objecting right now to your
proposal Mr. Buresh are the Halla's and if you can corne to an agreement
with them between the time this leaves here and by the time it gets to the
City Council, it would seem to me then that there would be clear sailing.
I know there are ways to write agreements such that if people don't live
up to their agreement, you have an agreement in writing, laying out what
the property owners will do. Agreements that will run with the land so it
doesn't matter who owns them, where if they don't live up to those they'll
be assessed and become liens on the property, they can be foreclosed upon.
I've written them myself and it's always a pain in the neck to enforce one
because it means a court action but you've got a real strong tool because
you're basically telling the person if you don't live up to it we're going
to foreclose on your property. If you guys can sit down and talk and corne
up with something and get your attorneys to draw up an agreement...maybe
you guys can could get along. Maybe you could all go together and take on
the other parties who don't seem to be as willing as you are to help.
That's just an idea.
e
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve Subdivision of 5.5 acres into two single family residential lots
on property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estates for Robert Buresh to be
serviced by a private drive with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide documentation which verifies that the
subject property has the right to use the 30 foot easement.
2. The applicant shall provide a driveway access plan which shall address
a turnaround as requested by the Fire Inspector.
3. The approved septic sites must be staked and roped off prior to
construction on the site.
4. Type I erosion control shall be installed along the south and east
sides of Lot 2, Block 1 prior to the commencement of any grading.
5. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all
disturbed slopes greater than 3:1.
6. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup
caused by construction or construction traffic from this site.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
e
Emmings: I'm sure you understand, that does include the condition that he
has to satisfy the City that you've got a right to use that road at this
point in time. If you guys corne to some agreement between now and the
time it gets to the City Council, that won't be an issue anymore.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 8
e
SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-1260 TO CONSTRUCT AN 89 SQUARE FOOT
PYLON SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 615
FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUPERAMERICA STATION, ROMAN MUELLER AND SUPERAMERICA
STATION, INC.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Emmings:
Is the 78 foot sign they have now, was that grandfathered in?
Olsen: Right and that was approved by a sign committee so that was
approved and has been grandfathered in.
Roman Mueller: My name is Roman Mueller representing SuperAmerica, 1240
West 98th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota. I think she's presented our
case here quite well. I think there's one error and that's that our
standard sign is 22 feet high, not 26. The sign company submitted this
for us and marked that dimension in in error. We would like to maintain
80 square feet. You can see our logo on the sign is 40 square feet at
this point in time. The rest of the sign is informational. In this case
with this particular location, the lower half where the drawing shows
Instant Cash, would actually be a third product in there with pricing. We
are required to have pricing on our signs. The question becomes whether
or not we will show pricing on two or three products.
e
Emmings: The sign that you're asking for now is how high?
Roman Mueller: The one we're requesting?
Emmings: The one that you're asking for.
Roman Mueller: Our standard pole with sign is actually 22 feet instead of
26 feet. It's shown on page 26. The 16 foot dimension was shown.
Emmings: The present sign was 24 feet high so this one might even be not
as high.
Roman Mueller: Correct. We'll be dropping it 2 feet from what the
current sign is. In the area, looking at it, I'm sure you're all familiar
with it, it is along the highway so there are relatively good traffic
speeds and we feel that something of larger size gives you the ability to
view it while you're traveling through there in traffic and at that speed.
If you have any questions of us, please ask.
Emmings: Alright. There is no one here from the public on this issue so
is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
e in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart:
Is this sign standard? Did you buy large quantities?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 9
e
Roman Mueller: Yes it is. I already have the sign. They were in bulk
quantity from our manufacturing in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Erhart: So what we're looking for is a variance. Okay, that's the only
question I have.
Roman Mueller: There would be a variation of about 12.8 square feet from
where it is.
Erhart: My position on this is that it's so close to the sign that's
already existing. That it poses enough hardship that it makes it
worthwhile. Let me summarize. The ordinance requires 64 square feet.
Theirs is 80 that exists.
Emmings:
It's presently 78 and they want to make it 80.
Erhart: I know but the ordinance is 64. It's so close that you visually
couldn't tell the difference between 80 square feet so I'm in favor of
approving the variance.
ElIson: I was wondering, what's the reason for replacing the one you have
currently?
e
Roman Mueller: The new logo package. SuperAmerica has changed their logo
from the old SA that it was before. A red letter and a blue letter with a
more script style to the current style that it has on here which we're
putting up in about 500 locations in the midwest and eastern states. It
would be the only one that didn't have it if we didn't change it
currently. I think the Metro area we're got about 10 left to do. This is
the only one we're requesting a variance. I think that everybody here
would recognize the value of a corporation's identity which is their logo.
If Northwest was still flying Republic it would look a little funny.
ElIson: I can understand how you got grandfathered in and how you kind of
lucked out because of that but I'm probably in agreement with staff that
if nobody else can have one that big than I can't see that they take
special circumstances.
wildermuth: I'm inclined to agree with Tim. The difference between an 8
by 8 sign and a 9 by 9 sign, roughly is pretty...but I do think the sign
ought to meet the maximum height requirement and with that standard
package you probably do accomodate that.
Roman Mueller: We can cut the pole down for that. That's really not a
problem.
Batzli:
Is there only one size sign from your corporation?
e
Roman Mueller: There are two sizes. An 8 x 10 which is what this is and
a 10 x 13. If you'd like us to put a 10 x 13 up, we'd be more than happy
to oblige. That's the standard sizes. The majority of cities has the
size sign within those limits and that's how the sizes were based. X size
for placement where we could get x and the other larger or smaller for the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 10
e
other size.
Batzli: Are you suggesting that you haven't made other exceptions for
special size signs?
Roman Mueller: We have made exceptions. There's no question about that.
We're dealing on one right now where it's not so much the size as the
shape. They do not want us to change the shape of the current sign so we
are conforming to the previous sign size but with those size signs, we
also have a separation section that has the pricing and products called
bowtie. You notice the old sign there currently has the SA logo. Then
below that, not counting what we're dealing with now, is the product type
and price so if you counted both we'd actually probably be over what we
have here.
Batzli: I guess I understand the importance to get a standard logo and
I'm inclined to agree that having been grandfathered in at 78 feet, I
don't think increasing it 2 feet is setting much of a bad precedence. I
also like the fact that they're actually lowering the height so I'd be
inclined to go for a variance.
Emmings: I agree with Brian and Tim and Jim I guess. For the same
reasons. It's such a minimal difference from what they have. In fact
we're getting something back where they're lowering it. That part won't
apply and it's only 2 feet larger. That said, is there a motion?
e
Wildermuth moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Sign Variance Request #88-4 for an 89 square foot sign to
measure no more than 20 feet maximum height from ground level for the
SuperAmerica Station. All voted in favor except ElIson who opposed and
motion carried.
Ellson: It's setting a precedent that everybody else can have big signs
later on.
Dacy: Was your motion maximum height of 20 feet?
Wildermuth: Yes.
Emmings: That's what they had said they were willing to go with that.
Roman Mueller: Measured from the ground where we install the sign because
you referenced the station. There might be a slope in there.
Emmings: Where do you measure from when you measure the height?
Dacy: The ground.
e
Erhart: I think there's a big difference in the one on the industrial
site because they were asking for 12 feet and we asked for 4 and I don't
see this setting the same type of precedence.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 11
e
PUBLIC HEARING:
RICHARD ERSBO, 1211 LAKE LUCY ROAD, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO LAKE LUCY ROAD:
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS A
WETLAND.
The staff report was waived as there was no public present besides the
applicant.
Emmings: Have you seen the conditions that the staff has put on this?
Richard Ersbo: Yes.
Emmings: Do you have any problems with those conditions?
Richard Ersbo: No.
Emmings: Do you have anything you'd like to add to the staff
presentation?
e Richard Ersbo: No.
Erhart moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: I guess I'd like to recommend that we include the staff report by
reference into our Minutes of the meeting here since we get the staff
report on record. I didn't have a whole lot of questions. I thought the
conditions were appropriate except for this one storm water retention
pond. Were we going to talk about the within 200 feet of a wetland?
Since we're talking about storm water retention ponds, I guess I was kind
of curious as to exactly where that was going to be.
Dacy: That's going to be located in the northwest corner of this lot
right in here.
Batzli: Is that going to be similar to the one we talked about last time?
Dacy: No, this is much bigger in scale and character.
than that one.
It's much smaller
e
Brown: As a matter of fact, staff had originally looked at not having
storm water retention pond simply for the fact that the increase in run-
off due to the rooftops of the homes due to the cul-de-sac really wasn't
adding a whole lot of additional flow. However, on the other side of the
coin obviously we can't ignore the sedimentation process that occurs in a
holding pond before discharging out into the wetland. The pond is going
to be very minimal in size. More to answer the question, I don't know at
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 12
e
this point, something we can cover through the plans and specs phase of it
but it's going to be very minimal at best. We had to at least extend the
courtesy to the Watershed District since they're in charge of evaluating
water quality.
Batzli: That part I guess that I didn't get yet is that your requirement
that they receive a drainage easement from the adjacent property owner.
Where's adjacent? Which one?
Brown: That would be to the east.
Batzli: But in your report you say the drainage is directed to the west
so you're saying that instead of directing it...
Dacy: He's right.
from the culvert.
It's west. It's the easement going into the wetland
It's on the west side.
Batzli:
I'm confused now. You're draining things to the west correct?
Brown: Correct.
Batzli: So your acquisition of a drainage easement is to the east?
e
Brown: There are two easements in question
easement to the east is strictly, it states
applicant shall pursue a utility easement.
drainage and our motive for that...
here. Number one, the
in condition 3 that the
It has nothing to do with the
Batzli: I'm in agreement with your utility easement. I've only been
talking about the within 200 feet of a Class A wetland. Who do you want
to get at the drainage easement from?
Erhart: Doesn't that property drain through there now?
Brown: The property does drain through there now but the applicant has
shown on their plans, since this is the property boundary line here, over
here this parcel is owned by Mr. Ordenblad and this pipe is shown
extending onto his property and therefore the applicant again has the
responsibility of providing the City with either some sort of easement
document or revising his plans such that his pipe stops here at the
property boundary. No way that he can extend that pipe into somebody
elses property.
Batzli: He's got a culvert going under the road then?
Brown: Yes.
Batzli: So that's going to drain his holding pond into the next door
neighbor's property?
e
Brown: Correct.
Dacy:
Into the wetland.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 13
e
Brown: Into the wetland. However, it will be at the predevelopment
runoff rate.
Batzli: So you want the easement just because the pipe sticks out of the
property a little bit?
Brown: If the applicant wants to pursue that, yes. We would like to have
that pipe extend out to the edge of the wetland. However, if it comes
down to a hard situation and they can't reach an agreement, then we're
certainly willing to look at a revision of this plan.
wi Idermuth:
It looks like the easement requires about 30 feet.
Brown: Correct.
Batzli: I guess I would like to clarify what we're trying to do there. I
would rather make a strong recommendation that we would like to see that
it goes to a certain point and he work with staff or the adjacent property
owners. That's it.
wildermuth: I agree with Brian that we should word that just a little bit
differently. Other than that, I have no other questions. It looks like
the staff report all of the requirements for the subdivision are
satisfied.
e
ElIson: Nothing here.
It looks fine.
Erhart: That's the only thing I had was again, I think we should change
item 2 to basically say to work with staff to create a drainage solution
that will be acceptable to both the City. Otherwise I think it's great.
Emmings: I don't have anything either...so is there a motion on this?
ElIson moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #87-36 as shown on the plat stamped
"Received April 19, 1988" subject to the following conditions:
1. A berming and landscaping plan shall be submitted prior to final plat
approval providing screening on the two double frontage lots adjacent
to Lake Lucy Road.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee proper installation of these public improvement.
3. The applicant shall pursue a utility easement across the parcel to the
east of the proposed plat such that a manhole located 20 feet south of
i e Lake Lucy Road may be el imina ted.
4. Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house pads and
the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from
~
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 14
.
the house pads.
5. The applicant shall maintain the 50 foot right-of-way and driveway as
shown in Attachment No.3 until such time as the proposed north/south
road is extended to the south as a public roadway.
6. The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road.
7. The applicant shall exert all due care to minimize destruction of Lake
Lucy Road. All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall be to the existing
9 ton section specifications.
8. Two 20 foot utility easements shall be provided as described
previously in this report as part of the final plat review process.
9. The applicant shall provide stormsewer calculations which verify the
preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer
capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process.
10. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District.
11.
Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all
disturbed slopes greater than 3:1.
e
12. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup
caused by construction of this site.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-7 as presented on the
plans stamped "Received April 19, 1988" subject to the following
conditions:
1. Creation of a stormwater retention pond on the northwest corner of
Lot 1.
2. The applicant will work with staff to create a culvert drainage
solution beyond the holding pond which is acceptable to the property
owner to the west and to the City.
3. Approval of a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
4. Compliance with the conditions of subdivision approval No. 87-36.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 15
e
PUBLIC HEARING:
DEVELOPMENT SITES LIMITED LOCATED WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO AUDUBON ROAD
IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE CHICAGO MILWAUKEE RAILROAD TRACKS:
A. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN YEAR 2000 LAND
USE PLAN TO ADD 12.2 ACRES TO THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA AND
TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL TO INDUSTRIAL.
B. REZONING OF 5.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO
lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK.
c. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE 5 INDUSTRIAL LOST AND TWO OUTLOTS
ON 62.86 ACRES OF PROPERTY.
The staff report was waived as there was no public present except the
applicant.
Emmings: Does the applicant want to make a presentation? Have you
reviewed the conditions that the staff has imposed upon approval.
e
Rick Sayther: Yes. I'm Rick Sayther and I have read the report and yes,
we worked pretty closely with engineering and planning. We're in
agreement.
Emmings: Anything additional you wanted to add?
Rick Sayther: I don't think so. I'd sure be happy to make a presentation
if you want one. I certainly came prepared to do it but if you don't want
it. My brother Rock, the owner of Industrial Custom Products was supposed
to be here in about 4 minutes. You might want to know something about his
business.
Wildermuth: Sounds like an interesting business.
Rick Sayther: I learned some things reading the literature.
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: I liked the literature. In fact, I can use some of those kinds
of products. Are you the same engineer working with McGlynn by chance?
Rick Sayther: No sir.
Erhart: The question is, you don't see any problem with providing utility
lines and working with the firm that's doing the engineering there?
~. Finding space to combining water?
Brown: Maybe I can clarify a little bit. Mr. Sayther has been very
cooperative in working with the McGlynn site. The engineers for the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 16
i
i
I
e
McGlynn site is VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings. It's not critical that they
combine utilities. That it should be a condition that it is absolute. We
would like to combine and both applicants have talked to each other and
have indicated that yes an arrangement can be reached. It's just a matter
of how and both of them have been very cooperative.
Rick Sayther: When McGlynn came in it was before we had started our
process. They proposed to run the sewer up the east side of the lot line
a ways before they crossed because if they went directly across the road
and got to the corner of Park Road and Audubon they'd be on our land and
they probably, rather than seek an easement from us they just chose to go
a different way. It's easier to cross right at Park Road because if you
go up the east side of the road with the sewer you've got conflicts with
underground utilities. Other buried utilities and on the west side
there's an open shot. I think it will be a little cheaper to cross
together and do it at the intersection.
Erhart: That's not a condition anyways. The business, does it intend to
use one of these lots and resale the other one?
Rick Sayther: Yes.
Erhart: Which lot do you intend to use?
e
Rick Sayther: Right now we're talking about Lot 2, Block 1. The large
one. Lot 2 up here is the largest of the lots and the whole reason for my
brother to move to Chan was to get a bigger site. He wants the
flexibility to have a bigger lot. He would go there and I guess his long
term plans is, this lot might not even be big enough for 20 years from
now. He might later want to expand out into the area that doesn't have
sewer service and isn't going to be zoned properly either.
Erhart: The MUSA line basically extends along the northern boundary of
this land currently?
Dacy: Right. It roughly runs just south of the Park Road intersection
straight across. The zoning line runs along this line.
Erhart: This is the first time I've seen an extension of the MUSA line
for a development. Is it basically the rule of thumb that we're using
here in a sense is that if you can run at gravity flow, that our City is
prepared to go to Met Council to get an extension of the MUSA line? Is
that it?
Dacy: Right. Because it's such a small area, 12 acres and because it can
be served by using sewer lines within that gravity flow area, we are
petitioning to add it as opposed to the previous application where you had
land swaps. Met Council still has to approve this and there's no
guarantee. So far their staff has indicated that they would, the Met
Council staff would support it.
e
Erhart: Basically on the fact that it's gravity... The other question I
had was, I think we state that the additional sewer will not have a
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 17
e
significant impact on that zone. 24,400 gallons a day. I thought that
was a lot. If you could somehow get my mind right on that.
Dacy: In comparison to the total capacity of the system... The 10%,
that's not going to throw us over our capacity limits for the lift
station.
Brown: Plus the fact those numbers, correct me if I'm wrong, that's
designed at 2.5 peak for design purposes. In other words, for sizing of
facilities there's quite a fudge factor in there.
Rick Sayther: The numbers that are used are not specific to my brother's
company. He's a dry producer. He doesn't use water. It's just a rule of
thumb for industrial use and it's supplied by the Met Council. In fact
2,000 gallons per day per acre is what they are considering in typical
industrial situations.
Erhart: Alright, that's the questions I had. I guess the fact is it
looks like he's a real nice division in the industrial and future
residential area or ago The fact that the sewer is there and the street
is there and being it's across from the industrial park, I would support
it.
e
Emmings: Now are you comment on all of those three?
Erhart: Basically they're all tied together.
other arguments, so far I support it.
I think unless I hear some
ElIson:
I like it. No other comments.
Wildermuth: I think this is a very good example of industrial subdivision
and should be a real asset to Chanhassen. I think the company that is
anticipating moving into Chanhassen is one we consider non-polluting
manufacturer.
Rick Sayther:
slapping me at
to people that
your time, I'm
My brother is real proud of the fact that, maybe he's
the same time but he says I have real jobs that I provide
really do something. Not like you Rick. You're selling
selling a product.
Batzli: My questions, I guess two of them. The first one was, our
interim cul-de-sac. Is the road not going to be put through the outlots
when they... In other words, is the proposed cul-de-sac going to be the
end of the road?
e
Rick Sayther: Our proposal now is to stop, we would plat the right-of-
way through those two lots but we would build the street in green until
such time as there could be an extension. Really the reason to stop it
here is that someday, presuming there's going to be more sewer area out
there sometime someday. Later one there will need to be utility
extensions in the right-of-way. If we alrady paved over that area we'd
have to take it out so that didn't seem like it made a lot of sense. I'm
showing the street stopping where the gravity sewer stops.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - page 18
e
Wildermuth: The cul-de-sac will be paved just like a street.
Rick Sayther: Yes, it would be a regular street except part of it would
be ripped out.
Batzli: Would we normally require that the easement be included? The
plans that I'm looking at I don't know that you really showed that a
different cul-de-sac was going to be built. The staff report did and so
my question is, do we want to put in our conditions that that easement
will be put through the outlot at this time so we don't get into a problem
later on when the outlot is going to be developed without access to a
roadway?
Dacy: I think that's fine. Maybe the condition should read that the
right-of-way be platted to the end of Outlot B. We really don't want to
be creating a public right-of-way in an outlot.
Erhart: you're talking about rather than not change the plans today as
opposed to what might happen?
Rick Sayther: The staff asked during review, what are you going to do in
meantime? I was trying to address what we would build now instead of at
sometime in the future.
e
Erhart: So your cul-de-sac is going to end there. The question is should
we require an easement to the end of that.
Batzli: To the edge of Outlot B at least.
Rick Sayther: What my proposal is, is to plat the right-of-way as if this
weren't here. plat the 60 foot wide street down through here and then
grant the City an easement for this circle. For the half of the circle
that's outside of the right-of-way because it's a separate document that
could be recorded. Or it could be shown on the plat too and vacated
later. I guess it wouldn't matter. The intent is to set up the lots the
way they really would be. It could either be a separate easement or on
the plat.
Batzli: I don't know that it matters. I guess which ever way the city
staff would want it to go. The other question is, what is the likelihood
of success when we petition the Metropolitan Council for an extension of
the MUSA line that they're going to grant that?
Dacy: Given that the Met Council staff has indicated that they would
support it, I would say that our chances are, I believe Pat Law used the
percentage of 79%.
Batzli: Do we want to approve this conditional upon the extension being
e granted?
Dacy: I think I have that in the motion don't I?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 19
e
Wildermuth: The first one.
Batzli: You're approving recommendation of the subdivision separately.
Dacy: Right and the land use plan amendment to amend the Year 2000
MUSA line to include 12 acres and redesignate it to industrial subject to
the approval of the Metropolitan Council.
Batzli: Yes, so we recommend approval of the land use plan.
Dacy: Are you saying that you want the subdivision approval contingent
upon land use plan amendment approval? Sure, that's fine.
Batzli: Those were my two questions.
Emmings: I agree with Brians later point.
I don't have any problems with it.
I think it should be tied in.
Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Land Use Plan Amendment Request #88-2 to amend the Year 2000
MUSA line to include 12.2 acres and to redesignate this acreage from
agricultural to industrial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan
Council. All voted in favor and motion carried.
e
Erhart moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Rezoning Request #88-2 to rezone 5.6 acres of property from
A-2, Agricultural Estates to lOP, Industrial Office Park as shown and as
described in the preliminary plat dated April 26, 1988 with the condition
that Metropolitan Council approve MUSA line extension. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #88-9 to create 5 industrial lots and two
outlots as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 26, 1988" and subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements.
2. The applicant shall provide sufficient utility easements to facilitate
the connection and future repair of utilities along the west side of
Audubon Road.
3.
The applicant shall revise the grading plan to show the construction
of a ponding site which maintains the pre-developed runoff rate and
provides adequate storage for a 100 year frequency storm event.
e
4. The applicant shall provide storm sewer calculations which verify the
preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 20
e
system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review
process.
5. The road profile shall be revised to show a landing zone which meE!ts
the Minnesota Department of Transportation's guidelines and shall be
submitted for approval by the City Engineer as part of the plans and
specifications review process.
6. The proposed right-of-way shall be revised to a 60 foot right-of-way
width, and shall maintain a 60 foot radius at the end of the
cul-de-sac as per ARticle 3, Section 28-57(b) of the Chanhassen
Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed right-of-way shall be platted to
the edge of Outlot B and submitted to the City Staff a plan signifying
the amendment to the right-of-way.
7. All utilities shall be jacked underneath Audubon Road.
8. Subdivision is contingent upon the MUSA line being approved by the
Metropolitan Council.
All voted in faovr and motion carried.
e
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated May 4, 1988 with the change noted on page 52 by
B~ian Batzli regarding clarification on the voting outcome for the motion.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS, DISCUSSION.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Emmings: We had a long discussion around this where I said, why would I
corne in for a variance when I want to build a garage in my front yard but
nothing was changed in here to reflect any of that.
Olsen: That's where we discussed it. The front yard, you still have the
30 foot setback. That way you wouldn't have to do a variance.
Emmings: My point then and I read it and it was kind of confusing so
maybe I haven't made myself clear on it. My rearyard on a riparian lot
this would say that I can't build a garage in my front yard which is the
side of my house away from the lake. The street side which is the logical
place for it. My point is this, why don't we say that on riparian lots,
no detached garages and storage buildings in residential districts shall
be located in the front or side yard except on riparian lots or something
like that. The point being, then I can corne in and simply get a building
permit rather than having to go through the variance process.
e
Dacy: But you still have to meet the front setback.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 21
e
Emmings: I always have to meet every setback. I know I have to meet the
setbacks. I just wonder why I have to go through the variance procedure.
No one builds their garage between their house and the lake, I don't
think.
Dacy: So you're looking at either 7 or 8?
Emmings: I don't know. I was trying to modify number 1 but maybe you
have a better idea. No, 7 stays just like it is.
Dacy: What I'm saying though is, that would be the section. We're trying
with each numeral have a serparate rule for each numeral.
Ernrnings: Then do you want to add another number?
Dacy: Number 7 pertains to riparian lots.
Erhart: Why did you corne up with number I to begin with? What was the
objection to having the detached garage in the front or side of the home?
Dacy: That's standard practice in most zoning codes.
e
Batzli: I'm losing the chain of thought here. I guess from the
neighborhoods I'm from, the garage is always detached and it's always
between the house.
Wildermuth:
It's on the side yard or rear.
Batzli: No, front.
Emmings: Where I grew up it was always rear.
Batzli: It depends. If you're in the City and you're going down the
alley, it's always in the backyard but in a lot of more ruralized, just
kind of places I've seen, quite a few garages are in the front yard
because it's right up against the road and you've got the house set back.
Erhart: I think you've got to remember where we started on this thing. It
started about six months ago when some guy carne in here with 7 acres on
RSF district and wanted to put up 30,000 square foot barn. Somehow now
we've got this around to we're talking about accessory buildings. In
today's marketplace, no one builds a single family house in a small lot
with detached garages. 11m not even sure that that's an issue. I almost
think by adding number I that we may create a problem that really doesnlt
exist.
Batzli: It may be that there are smaller homes located about that don't
have a garage.
e
Erhart:
I would think they would want to put it in the rear.
Batzli:
It depends on whose street it is.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 22
e
Dacy: An example of that is in the Carver Beach area. Those older areas
and typically they are within the 30 foot setback and we do have the
ability to put them through the variance process so we can evaluate
exactly close that it should be. I really recommend that you keep 1 in
there because then law, even with the previous ones, stands up in this
book.
Emming:
It's not a bad general rule.
Dacy: Right. Exactly. For separation of buildings and the street...
Erhart: Did you have anymore on that Steve? I want to get back to this.
Emmings: No. I guess I'd like to find a way so if a person on a riparian
lot wants to build a garage, they can come in for a permit and make sure
they meet all the setbacks but not have to go through the variance. There
isn't any doubt that if I come in as a riparian lot owner and I want to
build in my front yard, I'm going to get that variance. The City's not
going to make me build between the lake. They're not going to make me put
it in the rearyard.
Dacy: I'm not going to say always but you're chances are increased.
e
Emmings: Isn't this one of those situations where we can let staff handle
it through the permit process rather than having to make a person go
through the cost and expense?
Dacy: What I was thinking of to discuss would be to add on a sentence
that on riparian lots the detached garages, do you just want to exclude it
only to detached garages as opposed to storage buildings?
Emmings:
I don't know.
Dacy: There's an aesthetic standpoint.
Emmings: I would say garages. I guess I wouldn't mess with the accessory
buildings at this point. I would say garages.
Dacy: That detached garages may be located in the front yard but it must
maintain the front and side setbacks.
e
Erhart: I think with your 4 and 5, the way it's coming out right now,
it's not getting accomplished what I see accomplished including what I'm
concerned about. That is, it's a situation where essentially a
subdivision, even though it's in the A-2 or RR district, is essentially a
group of small lots. Generally with our current ordinance the tendency
is to do 2.5, economically that size. They come out just like an RSF
subdivision and the concern is that on these buildings, the houses are
uniform. Again, like anything else it's to avoid a situation where they
come in and put in a metal building in the middle of a residential area.
The way it reads now is it's kind of mushy so what I'm saying is, maybe
what the real cutoff here is when do you get out of this subdivision
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 23
e
cluster and when do you get into the rural area? I'm not opposed to metal
sheds at all in the rural areas... Dave would argue that not on 10 acres.
5 seems reasonable to me. Bluff Creek, the Hesse Farms, a lot of these
where you've got 100 homes coming in there putting 2 1/2 acres, they are
all 2 1/2 to 3 acres subdivision so when you're done there is the
temptation to put that metal shed when somebody has built a $300,000.00
home. I would rather adjust this acreage thing down to 3 acres if you
have a concern about this bigger building rather than making it a
conditional use because what happens in conditional uses we forget what
the intention was.
Elison: Why don't you make the point that this is trying to eliminate
metal sheds? We spent a little bit on that one before.
Erhart: We can combine all of this in one. What I'd like to do is
anything below 5 acres they can not be allowed at all and erase the
condition use permit. Secondly, make them argicultural. Change 5,
detached garages on all residential, all lots less than 5 acres must be
architecturally consistent. Now if the Commission feels 5 acres is too
big, rather than making this mushy, I'd rather reduce the lot size so
everybody feels comfortable that we're doing a service for this
subdivision. Does that make sense?
e
Emmings: Where I'm confused is if the detached garage, obviously that
doesn't include accessory buildings...
Erhart: The way you have it now, detached garages. You just restrict it
for residential districts. A-2 I assume is not at all.
Dacy: No.
I used the term in all residential districts.
Ellson: Even A-2, that's residential.
Erhart:
I see. So you are including the A-2?
Dacy: Maybe you can clarify it to make sure detached garages in all
agricultural and residential districts must be architecturally...
Erhart:
I think you should say 5 acres or less. On lots 5 acres or less.
Batzli: If a guy has 240 acres then who cares what his detached garage
looks like?
Erhart: Do the same as you did in item 4. You use the term 5 acres or
less.
Dacy: It's still the perception of architectural continuity.
e
Ellson: If it's going to be a garage, you have to have walking distance
to the house.
Dacy: The 5 acres really came for the storage buildings.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 24
e
Erhart: We're differentiating between detached garages and accessory
buildings?
Dacy: Yes, because the storage buildings, then you're getting into metal
and all that business and you really shouldn't be...
Erhart: Does this change then allow us to put up metal buildings in lots
less than 5 acres?
Dacy: We are not saying anything about metal buildings.
Erhart: Are we differentiating between accessory structures?
Dacy: You're differentiating between detached garages and storage
buildings.
Emmings: Do we have definitions for each of those in the ordinance?
Dacy: We have a definition of a garage and building as a structure.
Erhart: What about the guy who comes in and saying I'm not proposing that
I build a detached garage. I'm proposing to build a storage shed.
e Emming: That I'm going to put my car in.
Erhart: Yes, so all of a sudden this doesn't apply anymore.
Dacy: We do have a definition of a garage.
Erhart: All I want to do is prevent someone from coming in and saying I'm
building a 1,200 foot metal building.
Batzli: On accessory structure it doesn't have to be primary...so he can
put up an accessory structure without coming in for action.
Emmings: We do have accessory structures?
Dacy: Right.
Erhart: Why can't we just say on item 4, change it to say in the A-2 and
RR district no detached, or in all these districts, no detached garage or
accessory structure?
Dacy: Because you're forcing people to, instead of going to Montgomery
Wards or just getting those....
Ellson:
The little ones, you're telling them they can't have them.
e
Erhart: I'm saying no accessory structure shall exceed 1,000 square feet
on lots 5 acres or less. Change the words from detached garages to
accessory structures.
Dacy: Start over. On 4 or 5?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 25
e
Erhart: On 4. In the A-2 and RR districts no accessory structures shall
exceed 1,000 square feet.
Dacy: That's there.
Erhart: You're using the term detached garage.
Dacy: And storage buildings.
Erhart: Okay, I'm satisfied. I guess I was thinking of storage buildings
I was thinking of those little tiny buildings but you're using the term to
describe all of them. Okay, I'm satisfied.
Batzli: I'd rather see the terms defined than corning up with detached
garages and storage building which isn't defined anywhere.
Emmings: Accessory structures seemed broad to me.
Dacy: Storage buildings are listed as an accessory use in the district.
Storage building is an accessory structure.
Emmings: If accessory structure is the broadest term, why not use it?
e Batzli: We have pools under that. Parking lots.
Dacy: This got back to your original discussion between use and structure
and we beat each other over the head and that's why we carne up with
storage. What are we trying to regulate? Storage buildings and garages.
They're all accessory structures, yes.
Erhart: What happens with a horse barn?
Dacy: We're calling those a private stable.
Batzli: Private stable would be an accessory structure.
Dacy: Private stable is a conditional use.
Wildermuth:
It's in a classification all by itself.
Erhart: I go back to what I originally said, we should change the whole
tone of accessory structure shall not exceed 1,000 square feet.
Dacy: But the term accessory structure includes docks, pools, garages,
storage buildings, tennis courts.
ElIson: Didn't we talk about this before? We carne up with storage
before.
e
Batzli:
I didn't like storage then and I still don't like it.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 26
e
Erhart: Let's just take the storage out and let's say just buildings.
Accessory buildings.
Emmings: There you go.
Dacy: I think we need to be consistent though with other terms in the
ordinance and as long as we're listing storage buildings as listed
accessory uses, we should try to keep that.
Erhart: It's clear to you that a horse barn?
Dacy: That could be number 8.
Erhart: Why don't you just state detached garages...
Dacy: Because a private stable is a conditional use in the single family
and it's a permitted use in the A-2 and RR. That's an issue. Do you want
to review the size of the buildings through the conditional use permit
process for private stable depending on the number of horses and the
acreage or did you want to set a maximum acreage for calling it an
accessory structure? As a conditional use it can be the principle use of
the land.
e
Erhart: How big was that stable?
Dacy: I think that was over 1,000.
I think it was 1,300 or 1,400.
Batzli: I would recommend personally, that we come up with a definition
for our definition section for a storage building. What is a storage
building and that would solve our problem. Then we can use it. Then I
like using the term but I don't like really creating terms that we know
what we're talking about right now but is somebody tries to come in later
and it's not defined anywhere.
Emmings: You might include it in the definition means we do not...
Batzli: It's going to be a building that's not connected to the main
structure.
Emmings: Not used primarily for...
Batzli: Not used primarily for whatever.
Emmings: Whether it's cars, stables or anything.
Batzli: You have to define what it isn't rather than what it is. I would
rather be...because then you take in both the Sears barns and the bigger
pole barns and whatever else.
e
Dacy: Okay, we can do that. Jo Ann just pointed out that private stables
is an accessory use so if we've got 100 acre parcel out in the A-2
district, then as written they would need a conditional use permit. No,
they wouldn't.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 27
e
wi ldermuth :
If it's under 1,000 square feet it doesn't...
Batzli: Proceeding onto number 4...but then we leave our detached garages
and storage buildings and start talking about accessory buildings. Are
you differentiating between the accessory building and the storage
building?
Emmings:
in (c).
That's the term you didn't want to use but you also used it down
You used accessory buildings.
Erhart: Going back to that one, that sentence ought to be eliminated. If
we're going to have a rule against 1,000 square foot buildings, then let's
just make it a rule.
Batzli: That begs the question on what do you allow on 5 acres or more?
Erhart: We're not imposing restrictions.
Batzli: If we leave that in there you have to go through the conditional
use process.
e
Dacy: I think that ends up the way it's being written but I think the way
we had intended it was for 5 acres or less.
Batzli:
I don't read it that way.
Dacy: Then that should be clarified.
Erhart: What are we trying to clarify?
Dacy: Our intent was that if it was an ag lot, not part of the
subdivision as you had described, that they may need a building more than
1,000 square feet and rather than having them come in for a variance which
means a hardship has to be demonstrated whereas a conditional use permit
is a little more flexible.
Erhart: My concern is that we permit everything.
Batzli: Over 5 acres.
Erhart: It doesn't say over 5 acres. If you're going to change it to say
that if you had more than 5 acres and you wanted to build 1,000 square
feet and come in for a conditional use permit, I'm all for that.
Dacy: That's an option. You could be getting a lot of conditional use
permits for accessory buildings and/or, as written, there is no
restrictions on accessory buildings in the A-2. I should say, they can't
be in the front and side yard and so on but that's about it.
-
Erhart: You're saying with the proposed ordinance change or as the
current ordinance reads?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - page 28
e
Dacy: The current ordinance reads the same way. You can have 100 acres
and you can't have it in the front and side yard.
Erhart: Let me try to clarify this. Let's say we have in sentence one in
paragraph 4. We agree that the wording, detached garages and storage
buildings with your definition Brian, is perhaps acceptable. Then the
question becomes, as I read it, we add another paragraph that allows
someone to come in for a conditional use permit. To me that's the
question on this. Am I right or wrong?
Emmings: You'd rather have them come in for a variance?
Erhart: Yes, because I think if we're going to write it, why would we
write a rule... The rule is written for a good reason. If we believe
that it's a good reason.
Dacy: How about if we do this? Shall exceed 1,000 square feet on lots 5
acres or less and add some language for lots used primarily for single
family purposes.
Erhart: Farms on 5 acres or less. Is everybody with just eliminating
that conditional use sentence or do you want it to stay in?
e
Batzli: I'd be happy to eliminate that sentence but I still think this
section might raise the issue of what happens when you've got more than 5
acres.
Erhart: I'm assuming what it says is if you've got more than 5 acres, you
put up anything.
Batzli: I'm assuming that as well.
Emmings: I don't know if I want to throw out the sentence. The only
thing, if somebody had a good reason to put up over 1,000 square feet on a
5 acre piece. If you look at our standards for issuing a conditional use
permit where it can't depreciate surrounding property value and it has to
be aesthetically compatible. If we could control it to that extent.
Erhart: No, I'm all in favor of that...horse barns. I agree with that.
My concern is that when this comes in we won't really sit down and think
about it.
Emming s: I don't know. 1,000 square feet is not a lot for 5 acres in
case somebody wants it. A machine shop or if somebody wants to use it to
build cabinets or something like that.
Erhart: ...I'd even go to 1,500 square feet on 5 acres. Just cut the
whole thing. Instead of 5 make it 3. I don't think we're going to see
anybody selling in the rural more than 5 acre lots. If some guy wants to
split 10 acres into 5, than I don't care what kind of buildings he puts
in.
e
Batzli:
I think 3 acres is probably a good number to go with then.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 29
e
Emmings: Okay, so if you put 3 acres in the first sentence and eliminate
the second sentence and have it say that over 3 acres there are no
restrictions on properties greater than 5?
Wildermuth: As long as the setbacks are satisfied.
Batzli:
the RSF
That's my next question.
and...
Why do we have setback requirements for
Dacy: We're just establishing different setbacks for RSF and R-4.
Erhart: I think the confusion that Brian and I have is when you use the
word residential district and I'm not sure in our minds, because the A-2
says Agricultural Estates, we're not sure that your language covers that.
Dacy: We are specifying the district though.
Erhart: You're saying that no detached garages or storage buildings in
any residential district shall be located in the required front and side.
Dacy:
In number 3 we're specifying...
e
Batzli: RSF and R-4. So if you lived in A-2, you could put...
Dacy: You would go by the original ones in the A-2 district. They would
be in the front and rear.
Batzli: So what you're doing is you're actually lessening the standard in
RSF and R-4 districts?
Emmings: Residential districts Tim, in the ordinance are RR, RSF, R-4,
R-8, and R-12.
Dacy: Now we're increasing the setback because right now they can have it
back to 5 feet within the rear yard. Now in the RSF district we're saying
if it's 200 or less you can put it 5 feet on the rear and 10 on the side.
If you're over, you're up to 15 feet.
Batzli: What would the normal rear yard setback be?
Dacy: For an accessory building it's 5 feet.
Batzli: So if it's over 200 square feet...but according to the ordinance,
A-2 is included in a residential district. So if you had A-2, are you
limited by the setback in some other section we're not looking at?
Erhart: The same goes for paragraph 5. You need to say residential and
agricultural districts.
e
Emmings:
So you want to add all residential and the A-2.
Erhart:
...item I and item 5 and we add A-2.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 30
e
Batzli: I want to retract everything I said about that second sentence in
paragraph 4. I'll let them worry about that when the time comes...
Dacy: So the second sentence of 4 is dropped and that's it?
Emmings: You should have the first sentence in 4 changed to say...
Erhart: And 5 in all residential districts and the A-2 district. What
about, is it just detached garages that have to be architecturally
consistent? What about storage buildings?
Olson: We talked about that and storage buildings they didn't have to be
designed to make those.
Batzli: Can we differentiate the Sears barns by saying that under 200
square feet doesn't have to be and over 200 does? Just a question.
ElIson: You can get those things mighty big and already prefab and then
to ask to paint it your color and have a roof the same, that's asking a
lot.
Batzli:
I thought I would just ask though.
e
Dacy: There is also the deed restrictions... To be honest I think a
detached garage is but at least there it's something that is dependent on
the structure.
Erhart: I'm talking of that small lot subdivision from putting metal
sheds in. What happens in 2 1/2 acre minimum and you've got a consistent
neighborhood and the temptation...and the next door neighbor can't do
that. You're trying to protect the value of one neighbor against what
some other guy will do. That's what I'm trying to do.
ElIson: You buy those things already made and then to go back and make
them architecturally sound or then you've got to go back to your stucco
house or whatever.
Emmings: Barb, we have unanimously...to A-2. You've got to change where
you put all the argicultural districts. You can't put A-I up there. You
can't enforce this. It should be in A-2 and all residential districts.
So 5 should be changed to just say A-2 and all residential districts.
Erhart: The last question remains I guess is do we want to take lots of 2
1/2 acre subdivision and allow these metal storage sheds. That's the
question and I'm proposing that we add storage sheds to 5 to prevent that.
Batzli: I think by limiting size you're going to allow the Sears storage
shed and you're going to eliminate a guy coming in with a 45 x 17' x 30'
Lester. I don't think we can regulate the sheds. I'd sure like to think
we could.
e
Emmings: I don't think we'll have a problem... Do we mean now just
residential districts and you're using accessory building and do we want
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 31
e
them included in A-2 here or not?
Dacy: If the structure is used for agricultural purposes, that can be
interpretted as the primary use.
Erhart: I think the basis of this whole thing applying to rural areas is
that in the 3 acre or less lots. If it's 10 acres.
Dacy: This could pertain to RSF or multiple family. We just don't want
garages built.
Erhart: I agree. All 11m saying is if agreement...in any residential
district and on any lot less than 3 acres in the A-2 area, no accessory
building or structure shall be built and so on. I think what you don't
want to do is get the 20 acre parcel out there and prevent some guy from
putting a storage shed up. That happens frequently.
Emming: Okay, so we say in any residential district or less than 3 acres.
A-2 lots than 3 acres. Then it says no accessory building.
Dacy: Change it to storage.
Emmings: Storage building and that's all?
4It Dacy: Yes.
Batzli: What's the difference between an accessory building or a storage
shed?
Dacy: Let's just say no storage building, detached garage or accessory
buildings shall be erected.
Erhart: The best term youlve found is accessory building. It
accomplishes what welre trying to accomplish.
Batzli: I would agree. I would say there, accessory use. Youlre looking
for accessory everything.
Dacy: Again, anytime you say no accessory use that means docks.
Ellson: You can't have a porch.
Dacy: That covers it all.
Emmings: Let's try that and see how it works.
Erhart: Is this coming back to us?
Dacy: Yes, Jo Ann and I were just talking that it's been so long we
e should really readvertise for a public hearing with the changes.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 32
.
CONTINUE BF DISTRICT DISCUSSION.
Erhart: All I want to do is, if we can settle the question of whether we
want to deal with planning issues or we want to get into the legal issues.
If we want to get into the legal issues, we'll never get this through
here. We'll never get this out of here.
Emmings: I mentioned to Tim when we were sitting here that maybe we
should find out the legal problems involved before we spend time working
on this. Tim's point was that we should ignore the legal issue. ...move
it onto the City Council, we should do the planning decision and let them
worry about the legality and I think that makes a lot sense.
Dacy: As a matter of fact, Roger went out and looked at these sites today
and we had a talk about it in preparation for tonight's meeting.
Emmings: Why don't you tell us about that.
Dacy: He is really concerned about changing the zoning to ag on the
majority of these properties where it can't be proven that it is an
economically reasonable use of the property as an ag use. For example,
the cold storage. That will be non-confomring. Maybe a better example is
the Jack Brambilla's lot where that small building was. If that's vacated
and we change it to A-2, it's really dubious that the City can prove that
that's a viable lot for either ag purposes or for a single family home.
.
Erhart: He's already there right? He's grandfathered in. We're not
economically changing that.
Dacy: It's just a vacant building.
Ellson: Then he comes in with a new person as a renter.
Dacy: How about if I just finish. He followed that up by saying maybe
what we should do is the City has used an appraiser in the past and not
having the appraiser do a formal report but just going out there under
site inspection and look at values of some of these properties because the
Attorney is concerned that by rezoning we may be taking. He said that's
fine if you're willing to pay for it. That kind of gets to the issue that
you're talking about. The Council is the one that authorizes, especially
the rezoning and authorizes acquisition of the property. Another
alternative other than rezoning to A-2 is that the City become a little
more ambitious in creating...for this area. Either frontage road or some
set of standards that are going to try and resolve the traffic issues and
the zoning issues. That is possible. That means a public improvement
project and assessments back to the properties. They have to have some
type of use of the land that's going to enable them to payoff the
assessment. It's like between a rock and a hard place.
.
Emmings: One question. Is the BF zone that we've got down there now,
small as it can be to cover the properties that are already there?
as
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 33
--
Dacy: Yes. As a matter of fact originally it extended over to the
municipal boundary. I can have Roger write his feelings up for you. His
main concern is the taking issue. That's fine if we're willing to buy it.
Erhart: Someone would have to corne to the public hearing and then... Is
it important enough that we want to do anything about it? Long term land
use.
Ernmings: I don't know if this would make sense. Do you think we ought to
let the City Council, do you want to just pass this up to the City Council
or should we ask them to give us direction on this? If they want us to
take a look at it.
Dacy: What I could do also, if you want, kind
analysis of, there are 8 properties in there.
it. Have Roger analysize it and then you have
entire history.
of a parcel by parcel
Have the appraiser evaluate
a better feel for the
Emmings: Shouldn't direction for something like that corne from the City
Council?
Batzli: I guess what I'd propose is that we make a resolution that we
would like to see that preserved in A-2 and we want the City Council to
look at it then give us direction. Just make a resolution.
e,.
Erhart: If the Commission thinks what we're proposing here is a good idea
then let's go to Council and say we think, without getting into details at
this point, we think it's a valid and good planning proposal and we'd like
them to look at it.
Emmings: Let's send Tim's updated letter along and that further
consideration be made.
Erhart: I called Eden prairie on this subject, the Minnesota Valley, and
what I got from this phone call, they have what they call a conservatory
district. It covers this area down there, the Minnesota River Valley.
The Purgatory Creek Watershed and the Bluff Creek Watershed. What it says
is you've got your zoning districts but within this conservatory district
there's also a condition and it's on density and types of use. It's sort
of like a...that overlays these special areas. I consider the Minnesota
Valley and the Bluff Creek area is the same potential for that so that was
kind of, I was talking to Barb about this, about getting someone to corne
over and just talk to us about preservation of green areas and these areas
in general. Try to give us some direction on what to do to get those
areas preserved. During the small time I've been here I've seen where
it's been easy to corne in and the next thing you've got a subdivision
corning in and it doesn't hit you that night, it's inconsistent with the
real long term opportunity to have a green area. We don't want it right
on Bluff Creek which years ago we already sort of planned to make it as a
green area but it never really got official so we missed it. ...Bluff
Creek Green's did. Carne back and negotiate to get some easements.
--
Dacy: For?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 34
.-.
Erhart: It was a walking. For Bluff Creek for the golf course. That
subdivision along pioneer Trail. We approved it all the way through. I
remember Thompson asked a few questions and the developer caught on to
plot within this.
Batzli: Is that something that should go in the Comprehensive Plan? Our
overlay?
Dacy: Our wetland, your floodplain and shoreland ordinances all are now
overlay districts right now Don called me back and he said that that
conservative district did not apply to the Minnesota River Valley. I
asked him to write a letter to us clarifying what are the regulations for
the the land immediately abutting TH 212.
Erhart: Anyway, their whole valley area is zoned agricultural.
Dacy: He said what they have besides the ag zoning is they do have
restrictions on steep slopes which is similar to our zoning.
Batzli: Are we unanimous in wanting to implement Tim's plan?
--
Emmings: That's what I wanted to ask.
resolution or something?
Do you need a formal motion or
Dacy: Why don't you go ahead and move.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission would like to
change the BF district to A-2 in the location east of TH 101. The City
Council should take into account the comments of the City Attorney and the
appraiser to give direction on whether or not to pursue with that
application. Also, that the City Council take into account Tim Erhart's
letter regarding this issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Erhart moved, ElIson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
prepared by Nann Opheim