1988 10 19
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 19, 1988
e
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth
MEMBERS ABSENT: David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 18,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR AUTO REPAIR AND
BOAT MAINTENANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND 101, CHANHASSEN AUTO AND
SPORTS CENTER, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
e
Brad Johnson: I'd like to ask a question. I think you're probably aware
that we're in the process of trying to assemble about, I have a map here
that shows it, but there's about 4 or 5 parcels that are involved on the
Hanus site and up until 2 or 3 weeks ago, we thought that the TH 101
adjustment was going to come just to the east of us. Now on the new plan,
they have the north route. You also have before you a request by AMOCO to
change dramatically their particular site. We are working with them. If
you get into the details as to what we're trying to accomplish, it's to
integrate that site. We perceive, and this is just background
information, we perceive that that site has probably, current improper use
for a city. It's there however and the building was designed for a truck
facility and there is a conditional use permit that we believe runs with
the ground that permits the use of a truck facility there. We are, in
answer to I think one of your questions last time Steve, the zoning here
is BH which is very restrictive considering that building is already
there. I guess if the building wasn't already there and worth quite a bit
of money, I don't think we'd have that problem but in the BH District for
example, as we've discovered in a meeting a couple times ago, you don't
even permit automobile service unless you have gas. The history behind
this is that we started to acquire this building because we knew we had to
relocate a number of people from the downtown area. They were to be
Chanhassen Lawn and Sports. Marine Fiberglass. Scotty's. Loren. All
the people that were auto related because we perceived this to be one
location on what we'll call east of TH 101, current TH 101, where we could
relocate service type facilities. We've been trying to convert it slowly
into an automobile oriented type of repair facility. Tenants have not
been knocking our door down and because of the various changes that are
going on with TH 101, TH 5 all the way around us, it is difficult. It's
one of those kind of moving targets from a development point of view. Out
ultimate objective is to integrate that complete site. We are meeting
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 2
e
now, tomorrow, and will be here with Matt Fischer who has the Apple Valley
Concrete Plant. He will be over here tomorrow and I guess our general
objective is to change the site and make it better. We've spent quite a
bit of time getting it under control. Secondly, we've had a number of
requests from people downtown who are about to be relocated by the HRA in
about 30 days to go somewhere. This is sort of a safe harbor we felt for
a period of time to allow this and looking at the previous conditional use
permit that was granted, boats were permitted as, not boat repair. Marine
Fiberglass, what he does is he doesn't repair king of inexpensive boats.
He is a premiere repair, he resurfaces racing sailboats for the fleet over
on Minnetonka. He's got quite a clientele and he happens to bring boats
over here periodically. That's primarily his business is doing that type
of thing. I think the facility is okay for that. I think our storage at
the present time, it certainly is no better or worse than what is
currently being stored in there and we're attempting to move. So our
request is that you grant the conditional use permit. I'd like to get
some response from you. I'm not coming with a complete plan for that
whole corner at this particular time. I think there are issues for the
same reasons you rejected the AMOCO request the last time and I think
we've got to kind of figure out what's going on in total before that's
done. That's kind of where we are. We do need some cash flow to support
the building. These guys are tenants that are going to be in there for 3
years... We're currently negotiating with Scotty's who is also going to
be coming in front of the Commission.
~ Conrad: Temporary use then?
Brad Johnson: Yes. I think ultimately, I think they're looking at it as
a temporary location because they can't find another location in the
community. We perceive a Scotty's type operation or Goodyear or whatever
could make use of parts of the building but it's a transfer in going from
heavy use, truck facility to probably, I guess the best way to say it is
something where my wife probably would not drive in for service currently
and if we have to convert it over a period of time to a store where people
can go for service. That's kind of the main thought to accomplish, more
so than we thought. I guess our request, based upon use was permitted
before. It was used that way and it's a convenience to the HRA so they
have a place to move at least one tenant who right now is having a hard
time to find a place in the City. I don't think it intensifies that
location. I think staff is...
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Why did we deny the AMOCO proposal? I might not have been here
that night.
Olsen:
It was tabled.
e
Conrad: It was tabled because we didn't know the access. There were a
couple of issues based on access. Staff wanted one access to the site.
AMOCO presented two different. An island approach. We also had a concern
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 3
e
with MnDot's, MnDot has a need for and I'm not even sure how that's tied
in but they would like to really block any kind of left hand turn at the
intersection. Coming out of the Holiday going into... But anyway, I
think our biggest concern was the access.
Erhart: Were they going to tear down the existing car wash then?
Conrad: The car wash is a different site.
Brad Johnson: The ownership there is Amoco owns the station and Gary
Brown owns the car wash.
Erhart: And the property? He owns the car wash and the property and
Amoco owns the other lot?
Brad Johnson: That's the way it is. I think you're going to find a lot
of interesting things happening on that corner...next couple years. I've
got a couple of plans along if you wanted to see the thoughts.
Erhart: What's going to happen to the...
Conrad: Future use?
~
Brad Johnson: Here's the problem. You've got with the new TH 101 coming
in and the Dakota access, you basically have a triangle that has the
highest traffic count in the City landlocked except for an entrance from
78th Street. Then you've got all these other things happening on that
corner there and intensifying traffic flow. We think some type of
internal system is going to happen to take the pressure off, just that
intersection is going to have to be developed. I'll just give you a
couple of hand outs that you can take home and think about.
Erhart: You're using West 79th to provide that access?
Brad Johnson: You saw the one, I guess you've got the one that's on the
map and I'm just saying, this is the kind of things we've been working
with. Now as you can see, the road that we thought was going to be there
isn't going to be there anymore so we have to change our plan but it's
something that you kind of become...that corner because it's potentially a
fairly...
Erhart: Is this the reason that you have a continuous parking lot through
the whole area?
~
Brad Johnson: Yes. And we've had Food Fair that was interested in coming
and we assume there will be some kind of a Food Fair. We have a movie
theater that's interested if we can find enough parking. We've got a lot
of interesting uses for this particular site but this road system worked
kind of slick but TH 101 is no more going over the Apple Valley Concrete
so he's got to start dealing with what he's going to do to this site also.
Erhart: What is the deal with Apple Valley Concrete? Does that have to
go or no?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 4
e
Brad Johnson: There's a conditional use permit that runs out what? By
right around 1993? I think he's always assumed...
Emmings: Run out?
Conrad: In that particular case there was a limit. It taxes my memory
but we were real concerned that that was a focus point of the City and we
didn't want it to be there. So when they wanted to improve the site with
new washing facilities to wash out trucks and whatever, we were real
concerned that they were putting in too much investment for a site that we
wanted to purchase and do away with and put something else there so I
think we made it, and boy, I tell you, I could be wrong, but I think we
made it contingent on a limited permit. Therefore they had to figure out
how to write off that equipment.
ElIson: Doesn't that seem illegal?
Erhart: It does make good sense. We've been told, and I've tried to
discuss that relating to retail nurseries where you just put a time limit
on them so they don't invest in the buildings so we can get rid of them
when development comes in and we keep getting told by our Attorney that
you can't do that. What you have here is the perfect example.
-
Conrad: Well, we may have had different attorneys and I may have
distorted it. I just may have but that's what's in my memory. How we did
that.
Brad Johnson: Actually, the Hanus Park property where the cement plant
sits, is on the Hanus. We go all the way over to TH 101. It's an
interesting problem that obviously doesn't mean... This particular
request that I have...the HRA and Todd would like to see it happen. The
guy who operates, Stan who operates the fiberglass, had not been able to
find another site in the community that fits his particular needs... He
wants people to be able to find, it's sort of a retail business. The
boats themselves, I think stored correctly don't look bad at all. They're
not offensive.
Conrad: Do the masts go up when they're stored?
~
Brad Johnson: So we anticipate they'll be there for 3 years. He could
stay there longer but we just have to work through our use process.
That's some of the ideas. We've been coming up with all kinds of ways of
using that site. Now our next problem is, the next problem will be more
highway oriented. How do you get into that coming east? You get a right
in off of TH 5 in that Apple Valley concrete. How do those trucks get in
and out of there and the new boats? There's a lot of questions that
weren't addressed in any public hearing because, as you know, the one that
was chosen was the last one and it's kind of a surprise to both you and
everybody else. As I said, everybody from the south had their chance
to...something. I was at the meeting, the Council meeting and nobody has
really brought up the other side. I met with the guy who owns the
apartment buildings for lunch today and he was totally surprised. He's
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 5
e
the one that said he waited as long as he could to build those apartments.
That's another problem. We have to deal with reality. Right now I need
to get some tenants in there. These guys need a place to go.
Erhart: What you're talking about here is no intensification of it?
...It's leased or something and he's going to store boats?
Brad Johnson: No boat storage. He's got places for 10 bqt theoretically,
like today, in the fall and certain times of the year when he's got a lot
of boats coming and going but he doesn't store them over ~he winter.
Erhart: Is that in addition to the trucks they store now?
Brad Johnson: No, we will remove some of the stuff that ~s there. A lot
of stuff has been hauled out of there.
Erhart: The truck business is getting smaller?
Brad Johnson: Yes, definitely. He's no longer in the auto body
manufacturing business. He is in just truck repair.
Erhart: What are the chemicals that are associated with fiberglassing?
e
Brad Johnson:
long time.
... I can't answer that question.
He's be~n downtown for a
Wildermuth: Virtually everything is consumed.
Especially for what he charges.
There's very little waste.
Erhart: I thought there was sand ing stuff. Okay. So thalt' s the guy
that's downtown and he just wants to move out there?
Brad Johnson: And his building will be torn down Thursday. We were all
set to move in earlier and then we ran into this thing...
Emmings: I think Tim has hit the things I have written down. I wondered
whether there were any special safety considerations or anything
associated with the materials. I wasn't clear on what exactly the
business that's in there now is doing. It sounded like it was winding
down but it sounded kind of mushy.
Brad Johnson: It's mushy because we've got people that have no other
place to go in all of Chanhassen. There's no one facility for anybody in
there trying to figure out where to go.
Emmings: But I wonder what, the business that's in there now, I couldn't
tell what that was doing.
Brad Johnson: In that particular site, there is nothing going on. That's
vacant, that one little spot but what they're doing now is truck repair.
e
Emmings: Repairing them mechanically or doing body work?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 6
e
Brad Johnson: Primarily mechanically. The body equipment is no longer
there but just because of the nature of the business, periodically they
use some molding.
Emmings: So do they do it in other locations or...?
Brad Johnson: No.
Emmings: Then the only other thing I felt that would be a good idea to do
would be maybe a number 2, just instead of a period there, put a
semicolon. Just say, no storage of boats shall be allowed so that's very,
very clear.
Brad Johnson: Qualify it by saying, it's supposed to be transitional.
Emmings: No, it says, it should then say that Marine Fiberglass shall be
limited to exterior staging of 10 boats and no storage of boats shall be
allowed. Or no seasonal storage or something like that.
Brad Johnson: That's what we wanted.
Emmings: I know it is and that's what we're all thinking but I think it
would be good to say it so there's no confusion later. But sometimes
these things come back. In just a matter of a couple of weeks and we
can't remember what we did or how we did it.
~
ElIson:
I don't have any other comments.
Batzli: Again, I had several of their comments but the question I had
was, the first condition. That they have to meet all the conditions of
the original conditional use permit. It seems that most of the original
conditions dealt with vehicles so they really don't have to comply with
very many of them at all other than perhaps 2.08 in screening or
something. Are we trying to put any other conditions on them from that
original conditional use permit?
Olsen: No. I just want them to be aware of the existing conditional use
permit that they still have to meet. There was some other conditions
besides storage.
Wildermuth: Which have probably all been violated in the last 5 or 6
years.
Emmings: I kind of assumed that word, where it said vehicle in that one
it would mean boat.
Batzli:
I read it that way at first and then I kind of wondered I guess.
Olsen: It includes, where they say service and repair of motor vehicles
and then they say boats...
e
Batzli: The intent then is that boats is interchangeable for the word
vehicles in the conditional use permit?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 7
e
Olsen: In the existing one it is. That's the way it was written with
the original conditional use permit.
Batzli: I guess with that understanding, that concern of mine goes away.
I liked Steve's comment about the seasonal storage of boats. Condition 3,
the increase in use of the site, do you mean by like the number of boats
they're bringing in? By the amount of space they're using or any of the
above? Or do you just want to leave that soft and fuzzy?
Olsen: I meant that they couldn't start storing additional boats there.
That they were limited to that size. What they're getting the conditional
use permit for at this time.
Conrad: What else would cause an increase in use? I can't think of
anything.
Wildermuth: Would we have an objection to their leasing more floor space?
I don't think so.
Olsen: It's just a way for us to know what is current on that site.
Batzli: I don't have any other questions.
e
wildermuth:
How much floor space does Scott's repair want?
Brad Johnson: 2,600. Two pieces. The building is 18,000 in there...bay.
A real big bay.
Wildermuth: I think that's a good use for the building. Can you relocate
Loren?
Brad Johnson: I'd like to. We've tried to. Quite honestly he's getting
out of downtown for different reasons and once they were ready, Loren
woulde move in there also. Originally we got it for Loren and Chan Lawn
Sports and they're still here and we can't get him out of there. We'd
like to see it. The town needs a site for that. We've got Goodyear
looking at the site as a potential corporate storage. Someday. Nothing
moves very quickly.
Wildermuth: I think that woulde be a shame. I would rather see a number
of smaller businesses than an operation like Goodyear.
Brad Johnson: They wouldn't take the whole thing either. That's a really
big building.
Wildermuth:
I think it's a good use for that site.
Conr ad: Me too.
,e
Brad Johnson: We need to change it around and make it look nicer.
Conrad: That whole area could.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 8
e
Brad Johnson: As I say. The zoning question Steve you brought up last
time, it would appear given that that building is there, BH is very
restrictive for what's. It should be like a BG so our people will be
coming back so we don't have to keep going through this. Because
every time I come in with something. See if we brought in an automobile
repair place, either we have to do it under the current conditional use
permit. Do you remember that? So we'd like to come in probably but at
the right time along with a plan and ask for a different kind of zoning.
You should be aware of that site. It's got a lot of potential but it's
going to be a bear until it gets straighten out.
Wildermuth: Who owns the piece between the car wash and the Hanus?
Brad Johnson: We do. That's why we just leveled it to make the building
look better. Then I discovered all those trucks. The good news is you
can see the building. The bad news is I hauled all the dirt over to my
backyard and I've got to haul it back and build a berm. We should have
left the berm up front so that you can't see. Right now you go up right
through the building. When you look out there, there will be a little
berm someday.
e
Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of an
amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Hanus Facility to permit
Marine Fiberglass to be located at the subject site with the following
conditions. Number one will read as it is except at the end of it Jo Ann
where the period is, remove the period and put a paren and say that boats
shall be deemed to be "vehicles" for purposes of construing the original
conditional use permit. Then close the parens, period. Then number two,
where the period is, remove that and put a semicolor and just say, then
add no seasonal storage of boats shall be allowed.
Batzli: Second.
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Hanus
Facility to permit Marine Fiberglass to be located at the subject site
with the following conditions:
1. Marine Fiberglass must meet all other conditions of the original
conditional use permit (boats shall be deemed to be "vehicles" for
purposes of construing the original conditional use permit) .
2. Marine Fiberglass shall be limited to exterior staging of ten (10)
boats; no seasonal storage of boats shall be allowed.
3. Any increase in use of the site by Marine Fiberglass shall require a
conditional use permit.
e
4. The applicant must meet all Fire Code requirements prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 9
e
5.
The applicnat shall meet the requirements of the Building Department.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
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
MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, GINGER GROSS, CHES MAR FARMS REALTY.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Tim Keane
Mark Kelly
Brad Johnson
7900 Xerxes AVenue So., Bloomington
Representative for the Gross'
7425 Frontier Trail
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
e
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
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
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
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
~
. _~.h _~__ ~
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 10
e
construction. 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
concerns on that item. Number 6, the applicant shall provide trail
e
e
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 11
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
e
e
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.
Keane asked that it be called an outlot rather than a lot
could back later.
e Conrad: Yes, and your comment to that was?
I think Mr.
so that somebody
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 13
e 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
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
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
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
about 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.
e
Erhart moved, ElIson 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
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
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...
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 14
e
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.
e
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.
,e
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
e
Olsen: That's how our ordinance defines it and that's the way we've done
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.
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
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
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.
e
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
thinking 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
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
e
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.
e
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
e
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.
Conrad: There could be an implied buildability statement in that though.
If you create an outlot...
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
subdivision because you know it's going to come in later and that's going
to be attached to conditions.
ElIson: 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.
e
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
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
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.
e
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
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 18
e
for the whole district to maintain the 1 unit per 10 acre. If he wants to
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...
e
Emmings: 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
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
that'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
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
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
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
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
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
matter, 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
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
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
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
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.
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 which takes care
of condition 4. It takes care of condition 5. I agree, it's foolishness
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
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 19
e
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
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.
ElIson:
at.
I like your idea of tabling it. Maybe it does need to be looked
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.
e
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
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
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...
e Emmings: From the survey we've got in front of us, it looks like most of
it sits over on the Gross' side of the actual roadway.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 20
e
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 1 ike you were thinking about it, thE!
greed might be on the Gross' side rather than our side...
e
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.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 21
e
Conr ad: I tend to agree.
understand what the point
that's on our books. The
with it.
I don't understand that. I honestly don't
of that was. However, it tends to be something
ordinance is there apparently. We have to deal
Brad Johnson:
Is the ordinance two unplatted lots?
Tim Keane:
It's a metes and bound description.
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
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.
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
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.
e
Erhart: I didn't see it.
Olsen: That's the way our Attorney has interpretted it for us.
Erhart: Could you read it again for me.
Olsen: Lot means a separate parcel or tract or area of land undivided by
any public or approved private road.
Erhart: Is this page 20-1.
Is that what you're looking at?
Olsen: No. 97 in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Conrad: 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.
Erhart: Could you read it for me again?
e
Olsen: It's a separate parcel or tract of land undivided by any public
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
even an existing separate lot of record from that.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 22
e
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
owner.
Ie
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 staff report
is beyond me. It is just beyond me.
e
Conrad: You'd like to have it explained?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 23
e
Erhart: Yes.
Conrad: Tim, any other comments? Anything else?
Erhart: Let me move onto the next one. That's very irritating because it
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
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.
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
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
because it makes a big difference as to accessibility onto Parcel B or
outlot B?
e
Olsen: The City Engineer reviewed it and stated that they would not...
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.
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?
Brad 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.
Brad Johnson: Right. So if you're not buying B, I tell you what, you
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.
e
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
e
own it?
Tim 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.
e
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.
Erhart: 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.
e
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
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 25
e
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 allover 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.
e
Erhart:
I'll move that we table.
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
in favor and the motion carried.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 26
e
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT, PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED
ON PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF HWY. 5:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE ON 4.19 ACRES.
Public Present:
Steve Willet
Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
e
Steve Willet: Good evening. I'm Steve Willet and I'm the president of
Lakeshore Equipment Company. What we are proposing is an outside storage
area for docks and boat lifts. We currently have outside storage on our
location over on Monterey Drive which is nothing like what this one is
going to be. This is all going to be cedar fence. I came to you 2 years
ago when we moved into town when we got an outside storage permit. I
started working on the fence and the Mayor, Tom Hamilton and a few of the
council members decided well, don't cut down anymore trees and put up any
more fences. Leave the trees to make a natural screen so that's the
reason for the condition that the outside storage in existence is this
area in which I'm proposing. I am going to own the land, the building and
everything and we have a very strong vested interest in it. I had picked
up the fencing report. The fence is going to be an 8 foot high fence and
some of the stuff that we've got in our storage yard now, apparently we've
grown up so large, we stacked them rather large in height this spring.
This storage area is now 5 times what we've got so we won't have to see it
stacked so high so you won't ever see anything above the fence as well as
I have designed in berms going around the entire fence to try to drop the
height of that 8 foot high fence as well. On our property line, if you'll
note along the north edge of our property there's an existing berm already
going onto the next piece so that even brings it down a little further so
you're not going to see this big high fence but we're still going to be
able to achieve our screened storage. We have in the total landscape
plan, right now there's 1 tree on our entire lot which is. about the size
of your thumb. I put 80 some odd trees on our lot at the cost to
Lakeshore Equipment of almost $14,000.00. I am committed to try to stay
in Chanhassen if I can. I've spent a lot of advertising dollars. We're
the largest in the midwest of our kind and we are doing very, very well.
We bring in a lot of trade to the community and this is a necessity for
our business. The fence is all going to be cedar. Fully stained to earth
tone color to seal it and let it blend with the rest of the land. I guess
that's basically it. We're just dealing with the fenced area right now?
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 27
4It Conrad: Yes, just the fence. Thanks, and we'll callan you when we get
to the site plan. Any other public comments?
Batzli moved, ElIson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: The outdoor, that is included in the ordinance as an acceptable
use? Is there any restrictions on how close the fence can be to the
property line? In this case it's not right at the edge.
steve willet:
...We have plenty of land behind it.
Erhart: The area that you can see, you were asking for some more
landscaping Jo Ann?
Olsen: The fence does...
Erhart: And there's trees all around the fence?
Olsen: Yes, there is.
Emmings: We're only doing the conditional use permit, right?
~ Conrad: Yes.
Emmings: The only thing I would do again is, number one says that all
items will be totally screened and I would just add to that, and I've
added this in whenever we've looked at mini-storage with walls on it.
Again, just add to number 1 that no stored items may project over the top
of the fence. Again, so it's just clear. He's said that's not going to
happen and I'm sure it's not but just so that's clear.
Steve Willet: It didn't happen very ofter even over at our other one.
maybe a week or two.
Emmings: I'm not directing this at you. Whenever we've looked at things
with fences around them, I've tried to put that condition in.
Steve Willet: That was in our last one.
Emmings: But do you get anything where you have just like a mast, just a
pipe sticking up in the back?
ElIson:
It looks fine to me.
Batzli: To get totally technical and somewhat legal here, after the word
"any" in the second condition I would insert the words "and all". That's
it.
4It Wildermuth:
I don't have anything.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 28
e
Conrad:
I have nothing.
Is there a motion?
Batzli: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional
Use Permit #88-17 as shown on the Site Plan dated September 26, 1988 with
the following conditions. The first condition reading as staff prepared
it with the amendment that the period by a semicolon and that the phrase,
no stored items shall project over the fence, be inserted. And the second
condition, that the words "and all" after the word "any" be inserted.
Emmings: Second.
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-17 as shown on the site plan dated
September 26, 1988 with the following conditions:
1. All items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totally screened;
no stored items shall project over the fence.
2. The conditional use permit must meet any and all conditions of the
site plan approval for Site Plan #88-16.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
'e
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY, PROPERTY ZONED lOP,
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED ON PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH
OF HWY. 5, LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad: Steve, do you want to react to the conditions that the staff has
laid out?
.
Steve Willet: As far as the additional trees in the front, if I could I
would like the opportunity to move a couple from someplace else because I
already spent $15,000.00 on landscaping and I think it's substantial. I
came in with a plan thinking that I'm going to do it up right and the
first time we'll get it through, we'll get done and there's not going to
be anyplace to pur a few more trees when I already spent $15,000.00. I'd
like to move 1 or 2 of those from along that parking lot area. If you'll
notice, on that plan that you have on the board there, it's a little
different from the photocopied plan that I revised because of the berm
that we had to put around the parking area and the pine trees that we put
on the berm to screen the parking lot area from the road. I found out
later on that it was just because of headlights but we're going to screen
them a little bit more so you don't have to look at the parking lot. I'd
like the opportunity to move a maple tree or two and maybe put a couple
pines trees out front. You'll notice there are some pine trees on the
corner around the parking area. Maybe if I could just respace them. I
hate to spend any more money.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 29
-
Conrad: Jo Ann, what do you comment back?
Olsen: That's fine because in other areas he is exceeding. So that's
fine.
Steve Willet: In answer to, I don't know if I'm answering my own
questions or maybe you can run back through them.
Conrad: I just want to make sure that you've read the staff report and we
hear what your comments are. So if you don't have any comments.
Steve Willet: I do as far as Riley Creek. Riley Creek is right in here.
This is the Riley Creek area. You'll notice there's the 200 foot is shown
right on Opus' plot map and this is my lot right here to the right. 200
foot, that's the 200 foot easement to the north of Riley Creek. I did not
buy any part of that easement. I just bought the lot. My legal
description is that so if that answers any question about the 200 foot to
the north.
Olsen: The creek meanders through there. What this light blue is an
outlot that the City has retained a drainage easement over the creek area.
That doesn't necessarily provide the 200 foot separate. I don't believe
that that's 200 feet.
-
Erhart: Where does the 200 feet come from? Is that an ordinance? An
existing ordinance?
Olsen: It comes from the Watershed District.
Steve willet: That's from the center of the creek?
Olsen: Yes.
Erhart: For creeks but not for wetlands? Creeks?
Conrad: I guess it's just a plain fact you've got to be 200 feet back.
Olsen: He has to maintain a 200 foot green space along the creek.
Steve Willet: There's no problem with that anyway. There's no way I can
get that close to it anyway.
Olsen: It looked like when we were reviewing with the Watershed District,
it looked like it was pretty close but what we're saying is that because
of development of the site to the south that's taking...that was a
condition between Opus and the Watershed District.
e
Steve Willet: Here's the blue area. This is where the blue area starts.
This is my property line. There's over a 100 foot blue area. If you're
talking from the center of the creek so here's the property line and then
we've got to go all this distance here. We can measure that out right
now.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 30
e
Conrad: You're comfortable that you're going to meet that and I think
staff is pointing that out that we want to make sure that you do. They
don't have the evidence documented right now that you do so. It sounds
like you can. It's not a big problem.
Batzli: We may want to change the wording because we're saying he has to
revise the plan. If it can be demonstrated to the staff that it already
does meet that, perhaps there is better wording.
Steve Willet: I'm also asking if I can show you, without getting into a
whole bunch of survey costs. The lot is already subdivided and the creek
is drawn in there. All I'm asking is that we can use the scale, existing
plat map and show you that there's 200 foot from where we're talking
about.
Olsen: Staff is just pointing it out that it's something that the
Watershed District is going to require.
Conrad: It's not even us. You've got to satisfy them.
Olsen: We make it clear that we want it.
e
Batzli: And if we are imposing it as a condition, make it clear, then I
think we probably can just say that he work with staff and decide.
Steve Willet: Opus did give me a letter from Riley Creek and the
Watershed District just before I did my purchase agreement with them and
they did state that there was a setback from the creek and that we would
have to comply with that.
Conrad: Who is steve working with on this? When you're worried about
setback from the creek.
Olsen:
enforced
plan can
do a new
The actual setback from the creek will have to be, we've always
that along the river. We've always had them show that that site
meet that setback because otherwise they'll have to come back and
site plan.
Conrad:
So show us, the City?
Olsen: Because that it is going to be enforced. In working with the
Watershed District on this site, it looks like there's the possibility
that that setback is being encroached. It's with the outdoor storage and
that would have to be adjusted. We just would like to say, look, meet
that now rather than approving the site plan, it might be changed. If
that's minor to you and the site plan is changing, that's okay and that's
not necessary but they will have to meet that setback to receive the
Watershed District permit which is a condition of approval.
e
Steve Willet: I'd just like to in closing, as far as an answer to the
questions that came up. I will comply with all city ordinances. With all
Watershed District laws and we are doing this as a fairly comprehensive
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 31
4It plan. We're a 3 year old company. We've grown very fast. For us, this
is undertaking a large project for us and it means a lot of us. We're in
a time frame where I want to try to get down by January 1 but we're going
to make sure we do it right. As far as the drainage area, I'll deal with
the Watershed as far as drainage from the parking lot. I have talked to
the contractors and there's no problem whatsoever as far as putting in
something that will provide us as far as the drainage. We'll work with
staff on that. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
Wildermuth: I think all the bases are covered here. I'd like to reword
item 6. Something along the lines that the plan shall reflect the exact
location of Riley Creek and that the setback requirements are satisfied.
Batzli: You don't want to put it in under 7?
Wildermuth: Under 7 rather. Other than that, I really don't have much
else. I would just say that I'm sure the applicant would like a solid
fence for security reasons but I guess I would much rather see an
evergreen fence all the way around the storage area rather than a wooden
fence.
Conrad: Yes, I'm not wild about wood either.
e
Batzli: I agree with Jim. I think 7 should be revised to indicate that
the applicant will somehow work with staff to make sure that the green
space is maintained. One question I did have on that is, in Larry's memo
he talked about 130 foot setback. Didn't it?
Olsen: Right. I think that was the closest that the building could be.
There are areas on the applicant's site that would have to maintain a 130
foot setback. The reason we put in the 200 foot, because the fact that
we're at a 130 foot setback is and there's only one portion on the north
site that can be 100 feet.
Batzli:
I guess I didn't follow that. Sorry.
Conrad:
I didn't get it either. You said it a couple times.
Olsen: You have to have a 200 foot green space. In going to the south it
was allowed to be 70 feet. Typically it is 100 feet on either side of the
center line. What the Watershed District wanted was for them was to...to
go up 30 feet. They have to add the 30 feet. Because we don't know
exactly where that is, we said just to maintain the 200 feet.
Steve Willet: I was aware of the 130. That's why I said, I wasn't sure
what the figure was when we were talking. I did get a letter about the
130 foot from Opus. I was only aware of a 130 foot setback, the green
area. I didn't know that had to be... I still don't think there's going
to be a problem if it was 200. If it comes down to 10 feet or something
like that where...
e Batzli: So you were aware that you had to go 100 feet and now to 130?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 32
e
Steve Willet:
130 is what I was aware of.
They gave up 70 feet before
so...
Conrad: No.
Steve Willet: I have to maintain 130?
Conrad: You're okay.
Steve Willet: We'll work with the Watershed and do what they want us to
do.
Batzli: I was confused because they used the 130 and I didn't realize
they were measuring from the center line. That's where I was confused.
Okay, the only other question I have was on condition 8. The storm sewer
system which directs the site runoff to Riley Creek, do we normally drain
it directly into a thing like that without some sort of a catch basin or
sedimentation or skimmer or some other...
Olsen: I'm sure they'll have some sort of a catch basin and that would be
part of the storm sewer plan. The applicant does have the option to do a
storm water management but the engineering department requested that they
just provide a storm sewer.
e
Steve willet: My engineers did say that in the storm sewer we would have
some kind of a catch basin. We figured it into the cost of putting it in.
Batzli: So you wouldn't have a problem if we said that would include a
catch basin?
Steve Willet: No, we're going to work with staff on that anyways and that
would be part of working with staff on the changes there. We don't have
any problem with that. It should be done properly and I've got... Your
engineers brought it up and when they did, I went back to the contractor
and I talked to him and he said, yes, you could have that so we figured it
out and we are going to put something in there...
Batzli: Is that by law or something or is that just common sense?
Conrad: That would be our engineering standards wouldn't it?
Olsen: Yes. Plus they have to get a permit from the DNR which would
require it.
Conrad: I don't think we need anything.
Batzli: Okay. Those were my two questions. Then, I do agree that we
should amend condition 1 to say that he can adjust his trees.
e
ElIson: I like it. Number 13 has to be in there even though we granted
the conditional use permit? You say, by the way, anything in the
conditional use permit says you've got to do also. It seems kind of
redundant that you've got it in both places. It's what we always do?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 33
e
Emmings: Yes.
Ellson: Okay. I like it. No problem.
Emmings: It looks like a good plan to me. I have no additional comments.
Erhart: I agree.
Conrad: I have no comments. Is there a motion Brian?
Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
plan Review #88-16 shown on the plan dated September 26, 1988 subject to
the following conditions. 2 through 6 and 8 through 13 as proposed by
staff. Condition 1 I think should read, the applicant shall work with
staff to insure that appropriate landscaping in the form of evergreens
along Park Drive from the proposed building are...
Conrad: You said exactly what the staff report just said.
Batzli: Let me start over. Strike that. The applicant shall work with
staff to insure that adequate landscaping is provided for the proposed
site plan. So just let him come back to staff and make sure that it all
meets everything we want because that's what we're basically asking. He's
going to start jockeying it around.
e
Wildermuth:
Did you want to say something about Park Drive?
Batzli: No, because once he starts moving trees, he's going to have to
make sure that that's still okay for that area. I don't want to talk
about any location. Just insure that it meets standards.
Conrad: Do you require an additional landscaping? In this case would you
require a different landscape plan Jo Ann?
Olsen: He can just draw on the official... Do you want to read what you
had for 7 because I didn't get that?
Batzli: Well, I haven't even made up 7 yet. I did such a poor job on 1.
Erhart I got that one.
Batzli: Do you have a suggestion for 7?
Erhart: Yes. The plans shall be consistent with the Watershed District's
200 foot green span along Riley Creek.
Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #88-16 as shown on the plan dated September
26, 1988 and subject to the following conditions:
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 34
e
The applicant shall work with staff to insure that adequate
landscaping is provided for the proposed site plan.
2. The retail sales proposed for the site shall not exceed 20% of the
floor area of the building.
1.
3. The trash receptacle shall be moved away from the building and must be
totally screened.
4. All rooftop equipment shall be screened.
5. The applicant must meet the requirements of the Building Department.
6. The plans shall be revised to indicate the exact location of Riley
Creek and the normal water line (NWL) for the sedimentation/retention
pond located on the northeast corner of the parcel.
7. The plans shall be consistent with the Watershed district's 200 foot
green space along Riley Creek.
8. The plans shall be revised to provide a storm sewer system which
directs the site runoff to Riley Creek or the existing sedimentation
basin located on the property prior to final review.
e
9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Department of Natural Resources permit.
10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
11. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan which properly
addresses erosion control.
12. The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance of any
construction which has a potential to impact Park Drive.
13. The site plan must meet the conditions of the conditional use permit
for the outdoor storage area.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Emmings moved, ElIson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated October 5, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 35
e
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - POPULATION PROJECTIONS, MARK KOEGLER.
Mark Koegler: The Comprehensive Plan item is just basically informational
but to inform you of some of the things that we're doing. We're looking
at revising population projections and also incorporating some more
detailed numbers that hopefully will be used as part of the Sewer Policy
Plans being developed now. Basically those revisions follow the same
methodology that's been used in the past and they simply update and
incorporate it in the Metropolitan Council's most recent estimate that was
in April of this year. That results in a projected population of 1990 of
10,065 people and in the year 2000, 15,700 people. Metropolitan Council's
official "projections" are still 9,000 in 1990 and 10,000 in the year 2000
even though the 1998 number is above basically what was projected in 1990.
So we're holding it as part of the Comprehensive plan acceptance process
that those projections will be modified. We are revising some of the plan
text and utilizing those numbers from this point on where it would appear
to be supportable again based on facts it's the same methodology which was
employed previously.
Wildermuth: Mark, does this assume that there's no change in the MUSA,
right?
Mark Koegler: Correct.
e
Erhart: There was an article in one of the local papers recently that
went into quite a bit of detail, I was looking for a copy tonight because
I thought I had saved it, and basically it was the Carver County met with
the Met Council fellow for a breakfast meeting this week I believe on that
same issue. Are these numbers basically the same numbers that our County
is using Mark?
Mark Koegler: I can't answer that. I just became aware very recently
that the County is apparently getting some kind of a coordinated effort
together to take a look at population. Basically all forecasts for this
area. I think that's something we need to check on...
e
Erhart: Would you because I apologize. I went through my office trying
to get that for you because it went into the same discussion and I think
the numbers looked similar. Basically the County is doing it for a
couple of reasons. One is they want an accurate forecast to the Met
Council. For one, they're affected on how much aid they get both for
highways and for I think something with welfare or something also affected
by what the State views as their population. It's surprising that it can
be fuzzy but apparently it is. I guess I just think if they're making a
stab, we ought to work with them and try to get accurate projections
obviously from the planning body here. It's difficult to do good planning
without accurate projections. Are you thinking that they're going to play
the same game that they played with us in the past Mark where they're
going to try to artifically keep the projections low or do you think now
they're taking a different view of things? Because the article stated
that on one hand, let's see for the purpose of TH 212 I guess was one of
the issues. The Met Council is coming out with big numbers but for the
purpose of sewer planning, they were using a different set of numbers.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 36
I ~ Does that ring a bell with you?
Mark Koegler: That specifically does not. However, in response to your
question, which is kind of an opinion kind of response, the general tone
that I've seen more recently coming out of the Metropolitan Council does
seem to be a little bit more, ...necessarily more in line to open to at
least considering arguments. I think that spirit of cooperation was a
little less in the past, shall we say. So I guess I am somewhat
optimistic that these kind of things may have a better chance now...
Erhart: What do you suppose the animosity was?
Mark Koegler: I can't really even speculate on that. Perhaps it was just
a genuine thinking that their projections were right and 10 years worth of
growth in the southwestern area has proven that those weren't always
right.
Conrad: Mark, what were the figures that changed that caused the slight
increase here? I saw a lot of numbers here but, the number per household?
Mark Koegler: That was one factor that changed but really the key change
was the Metropolitan Council coming back to the City with their household
estimates. Of course they tabulated the building permits and having that
number as a base number, it was higher than what we had previously
extrapulated from there. So it's just basically a wholesale adjustment.
e
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION, MARK KOEGLER.
Conrad: The next think you've written into our ordinance modifications,
you'd kind of like our input on the three different areas.
~
Mark Koegler: I assume the Commission is aware, I don't know whether
I drew the long straw or the short straw but I'm going to be providing
some fill in work with Barb being gone and assist Jo Ann in some things. I
don't know if these were the assingments that were rattling around for a
while but those were the ones she labeled. She also supplied me with
realms of material on this in the form of past reports and Minutes and so
forth, most of which I have waded through and all of which I won't pretend
to have a grasp of yet. What I thought would be beneficial is if I simply
had a chance to hear first hand in the general sense on each of these
topics. What's the consensus concerns are of the Commission. Then from
there we'll come back to you on the 16th of November, I believe is the
date that we scheduled for some of this material to get back to you with
some concrete suggestions that you could begin to dig into and support or
modify or whatever. That starts with the revision of the A-2 zone.
Basically my understanding of the charge is to remove contractor's yard
with a minimum extraction from conditional uses and to look at the
possible inclusion of temporary retail nursuries. Some definition of golf
courses and public buildings. Now as I referenced some of the Minutes,
even as recent as August 17th of this year, some of the Planning
Commission comments weren't totally in line with that charge. Again, some
clarification may be in order. There was a comment in the Minutes for
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 37
4It example that contractor's yards may not necessarily be omitted but
modified. Is the tone that those are to be omitted and if so, are you
looking basically at an assessment of what that means and rationals why
that should be...beyond what you've already seen. It's that kind of
clarification that I would like to have your thoughts on.
Conrad: Tim, do you want to talk about...?
Erhart: Mark's got my letter that goes over it. Maybe I can shed a
little light on the meeting that we did have when we did talk about it.
Probably helps bring Mark up to light on that. We talked about a couple
different issues there. I think from eliminating to just to try to better
define it so the need would be and what we perceive to the original intent
of letter some guy operating his carpenter's business out of his garage
and his house. I think what we've seen here in the last year really is
industrial. The question carne up at that time, the conversation kind of
got off on a tangent and the question carne up, if we eliminate new
contractor's yards by basically taking them out as an allowed or permitted
use, what happens to the existing contractor's yards. Do you remember
that discussion? And there was some confusion that, and we somehow carne
to the conclusion that the conditions that were set for those contractor's
yards when they were established, somehow they wouldn't have to abide by
them anymore.
Olsen: No. We said they were recorded with the County so they
~ couldn't...
Erhart: And I think that was a little bit confusing. I think basically
the conclusion is Mark that if we do eliminate new contractor's yards by
not allowing them, are the conditions that are applied to existing
contractor's yards still apply. Is that correct?
Mark Koegler: That's correct.
Erhart: Okay.
I seem to remember that was...
Batzli: That was a sticky point.
Erhart: A real sticky point, yes. I think that's clarified now. It
comes back to I guess, I don't know if you're looking at me, you know what
my feelings are. I thought about it after our last meeting and I've gone
back and looked at contractor's yards and I thought we were going to get
into this again at a later meeting. I was going to bring some photos in
and try to get you to see why they're incompatible when you have lot
densities of 2 to 4 acre lot densities. I personally still believe
they're incompatible with argicultural use but the problem is, if the
intent is just for a guy to work out of his garage, that's one thing but
by golly, they all grow. They just all grow. It's the nature of this
contracting business to grow. The ones in our area now where the guy 2
years ago had one very large detached garage, now he's got I that's four
times that size.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 38
e
Emmings: But that's probably, you're not supposed to be able to expand.
Those are all conditional uses. You're not supposed to be able to expand
them without, without coming back but of course you add 1 truck here. It's
a bunch of small steps and all of a sudden you've got a mega mall.
Erhart: And the one next to me, which is 300 feet from my driveway, he's
got 2 cars stored out there now in the back area with a trailer outside
and I'm going to go over and see if they've got licenses. But it just
doesn't fit. I had another idea from the last meeting that if the
Commission still believes that contractor's yards are permissible or
somehow consistent with an agricultural area where you have 10 acre lots
and larger. Then take a look, if you think that's still okay then let's
take a look at the rural area of Chanhassen and find out where the density
is in this 2 1/2 acre density and make that all RR because the RR District
in the Zoning Ordinance does not allow contractor's yards. That's an
alternative. If you really feel that we still should have contractor's
yards in the rural area...
wildermuth: Tim, there's another alternative too. It may not necessarily
be contractor's yards in the rural areas but how about contractor's yards
in the lOP areas? You're still allowing contractor's yards but you've
gone upscale. They've got a whole new set of criteria.
e
Erhart: We don't have a list of specific items in the lOP area for
contractor's yards or do we?
Olsen: It generally comes...contractor's yards...
Erhart: But do we list contractor's yards in the lOP District?
Wildermuth: I don't think so.
Olsen: As a conditional use.
Batzli: That's a philosophical, almost a subtle question because then you
do upscale them and then you take it away from the guy that is trying to
run his carpentry business out of his garage. You forced him to make...
Wildermuth: But it depends on where you put the threshold... That's what
requires some type of... How big can he get before he reaches the
threshold point? Where he's putting up a 2,000 square foot Butler
building...
Erhart: That's exactly what you've got.
Conrad: Before we talk about it any further, what problem do we have
left? We're probably contractor yard, we've probably filled up with
contractor's yards.
Emmings: with the 1 mile.
e Conrad: Because of the 1 mile.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 39
e
Erhart: Except if somebody gets out of the contractor yard business, one
night Tom Hamilton got up and basically said the nice thing about
contractor's yards is they just go away when people move in. That's not
the facts as we know it in this one case up here but the reason that you
want to do something is that if someone does sell his house and he quits
using it as a contractor's yard, if you leave it in the ordinance, then
another guy can come and take his place.
Conrad: I think that's really good to get out of there. I don't know
that we can but to take it out that it doesn't go with the land...
ElIson:
It goes with the owner?
Emmings: But that's not a conditional use then. A conditional use runs
with the land period. Well see, this goes back to another point. We get
back to this temporary conditional use business again and Hanus and all
that. I still think and Tim now has put it on his official work list of
things to bring up but I think what should be done here is why doesn't the
City have some way to license activities like this? Because a license is
revokable if they don't live up to the standards. It does not run with
the land. Why don't we have some way to license an activity like this?
Then you've got a strangle hold on them and when they stop operating, the
license just expires and they don't pay a little fee every year.
Ie
Conrad:
Gee, I really like that.
Erhart:
Then you can set a time limit on it.
Emmings: You can set a time limit. Give them a license for 10 years. I
don't know if that's possible but boy it...
Conrad: It sets up a review process too.
ElIson: I like the idea that it's away from the land though.
Emmings: Yes, you don't run into all those...
Batzli: I think you're going for one of the problems but then you may end
up with more of them with the criteria you've set. If you do away with
the land requirement and within 1 mile.
Erhart: I don't think it necessarily has to relate to just contractor's
yards but we were just thinking it was a good idea...to apply them to
other things that come along in trying to take uses that some of the
people know that there's a problem...
Emmings: I don't know if this will help but it seems to me, one thing we
have to face square on is whether want an out ban...
Conrad: I think we've got to take a vote right now.
e Emmings: I don't know because it seems to me, I know that I would be in
favor of a contractor's yard where a guy had a couple of trucks. He lives
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 40
e
on the piece of property where the contractor's yard is and we have an
opportunity to say your contractor's yard will consist of 2 trucks and
maybe a little pile of gravel and stuff but there will be a berm and all
these conditions and standards for how that will look. I know on the
other hand I'm completely opposed to something that came in like this one
down on TH 212. Whether the person is living there or not but it's
basically a guy trying to put 50 trucks. To me it was creating a dump is
what he was doing but I'd be opposed to something where it was just his
business and he lives somewhere else and it's a pretty intense use. If
you could define the contractor's yard to those things that are on that
one end of the spectrum I just defined or tried to define, that would be
fine and I think you can't. That's the problem. I guess what I'd say to
Mark is, if you can find a way to define contractor's yards in that very
narrow kind of way and a way that we can enforce it, I'd be willing to
take a look at keeping contractor's yards around. Failing an ability to
do that, then I think we ought...
Batzli: Look at reality and our track record with enforcing conditional
uses of contractor's yards. Do you seriously want them to look into
whether we can force them to do something in an enforceable way with
contractor's yards?
e
Emmings: I am not going to look at enforcement. That is not my job. I
think you ought to take it into account. You shouldn't stick your head in
the sand, I agree with you but if we have a good ordinance, I think we
should try and design a good ordinance and then whether it's enforced or
not, that's not my job.
Batzli: But it has to be enforceable.
Emmings: Exactly. I agree with that. Photographs are the way to do
enforcement as far as I'm concerned.
Conrad: The only thing that I think is real important is that we're
setting contractor's yards up to be an accessory use on that land,
accessory to being a home. I don't know that I can come up with the rules
for a 40 acre contractor's yard and a 10 acre. I just don't think
government can get in there and I don't think you can come up with those
things. But I do know that the 1 mile radius is pretty restrictive. We
probably only, I do know that if we make it an accessory use, I think
that's kind of restrictive. Therefore, we're not getting professional
contractor yards coming in here. We're serving people with real needs
that want to live in the community. By the way, they work out of their
house. I'm real comfortable with that approach. I don't think we're
going to get abuse. The only other factor that I'm concerned with is, I'd
like to get it out of running with the land. I think it runs with the
person. However you can get us out of that, then I think we solved our
problem.
Emmings: I don't know if you can do that.
4It Conrad: I don't know if you can do that Mark but that's why you're highly
paid. You got the short straw by the way.
r
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 41
e
Mark Koegler: Thank you for that clarification.
Batzli: Do we need to talk about golf courses, retail nurseries or public
buildings?
Emmings: I think the materials that Tim drew up kind of go over that
pretty well.
Conrad: That's pretty consistent support of that.
Mark Koegler: The only final question on contractor's yards, before we
leave it, have you seen demand for people coming in requesting what we
call a mom and pop level or have they all come in requesting essentially
industrial uses?
Conrad: They're requesting the industrial uses.
Batzli: We had one mom and pop that we turned down the other day.
Wildermuth: Yes, that was a shame.
Batzli: The guy who came in who had it and then lost it.
e
Mark Koegler: So you're comfortable with the smaller scale...?
Conrad: Absolutely. We basically are dealing with a population of 10
contractor's yards or something like that. We don't want abuses Mark. I
think the direction is to get rid of them but here's a case where we can
satisfy certain people who have lived here and want to live here. And
there may not be a big demand but we're not trying to encourage that
either. Just trying to be reasonable to people who buy a 40 acre farm and
then want to put a little contracting business in there during the off
season. The blending ordinance. This is one that I'm real interested in.
It's probably the biggest irritant. It is the biggest irritant of all the
ordinances that I see. It's a case Mark where we have minimum lot sizes
and as you know, we have properties that were developed many years ago
with bigger lot sizes. Up to acres and because our ordinance says 15,000
square feet, that's all we can hold a new developer to who abuts an
existing neighborhood. As you know in planning, you like transitions and
you like to make things consistent within the neighborhood. Over the last
couple years we have had many, in my mind, outrageous cases where a new
development went in with significantly different lot sizes. We're not
talking 10%-20% changes. We're talking 300% decrease. We're talking
triple. They're coming in with lot sizes of 15,000 and they're putting
them in an acre to an acre and a half.
Emmings: The guy on the old lot gets 25 new neighbors.
e
Conrad: It's not only that situation but it seems, the only thing that we
have. We don't have a transition. We don't have anything called
transition other than what you do or what our planning staff tells us to d
when we start putting in zones. That's the only transition we have. We
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 42
e
don't have transitions other than zones. I don't know that that's
appropriate. I think we'd like to have you help us out of that one.
Emmings: It doesn't have to be all the lots in a subdivision. Just those
butting up against...
ElIson: Right, a certain percentage of what the ones next to them are.
Mark Koegler: Where do you draw the line in assuming that your role as
people charged with planning function is new, realize the property will
further be subdivided at some point in time. As planners we're always
looking 50 years down the road. It seems like a case like, take Greenwood
Shores where you've got larger lots and eventually the property of there
will develop. That property poses...and there was a lot of discussion
about the lots that would abut the Greenwood Shores lots. This same
concept was kicked around then without it being proposed as an ordinance.
It was the same point of view, they say, Mr. Dunn, you've got to make
those lots bigger. That's a case where it obviously works because you've
got... You get in other parts of the community, say out on the north
portion or the northwest maybe you have a couple of 5 acre pieces abutting
a new tract proposed for development. How is that relationship working?
Does that 5 acre piece count against the development or is there some
maximum? Do you only look at blending up to some maximum size?
e
Emmings: That's your job.
Conrad: That's a good question though.
wildermuth: What we're essentially talking about is blending an urban
scale...
Emmings: We're talking about subdivision against subdivision kind of
situation.
Erhart: I've penciled with this a lot. I think I've got a pretty good
idea. One of the basic things you've got to...
Conrad: When do you have time to do all this stuff?
Erhart: One of the things that you've got to ask yourself, before you put
down something on paper to try to define this, is that what is the extreme
case? If someone came into an area where there was all 40,000 square foot
lots and some guy came in to do a subdivision right next and he says I
want to put all 15,000 square foot lots, the lot that sits next, or the
line of lots that sits next to the 40,000 square foot lots, what size do
you want those to be? Do you feel good in going to him and saying,
they've got to be 40? Obviously that's the extreme but are you going to
say, okay, it's l8? What's the number?
ElIson: A percentage is what I was thinking.
~ Erhart: I'm not sure you can do it that way. Mark has to have an idea.
Is it 25,000? Is that the max? Let's say the guy has alII acre lots and
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 43
e
the guy now starts blending down. What's the first row?
ask yourself that question before you put anything down.
Is it 20,000? Is it 30,000?
You've got to
Is it 25,000?
Batzli: How many square feet is an acre?
Erhart: 43,560. So that's kind of a basic, and it's an opinion and I
don't think you can get anything down. If you get this done, you get an
idea of what everyone's opinion is, in what I developed, I kind of came up
with 25,000. Go to the developer and say, you've got to have bigger than
25,000 square foot lots is really asking for a lot.
Conrad: But remember, we're talking about a transition. Tim, they can
move down to 15,000. That's what the ordinance says. What we're trying
to do is buffer the people, and we're not talking about a brand new
subdivision that's totally self-contained or whatever. I don't care what
lot sizes are. They can have a 15 next to a 40 as far as I'm concerned as
long as it meets all our different codes but I'm talking about a brand new
one coming into an old and existing one and my concern is that those first
rows and as they move away, they can start doing anything they want.
Erhart: Okay Jim, what's a big lot? What do you consider a big lot?
Wildermuth: A big lot I think is 40,000 square feet.
e
Erhart: Alright, let's say you've got a bunch of 40,000 square foot lots.
I think what Mark, and I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth. The
issue that I face in trying to proceed with this and assume that this guy,
let's say that there's a couple rows of lots. Like you say, over here
we're going to have some 15,000 square foot lots, right? The question is,
in your mind, what's the proper size for these lots here? 20,000 to
25,000 to 30,000 or to 35,000? It could be expressed in a percentage
but I tell you, it's a gut feel thing and this ordinance is coming from us
so I think we ought to give Mark what our gut feeling is so he can
proceed.
Wildermuth: I think we've got to look at something along the lines of 50%
of the abutting lots or some percentage like 50% have to be within 85% of
the adjoining lot area. Something like that. Then going down from there.
85% to 90%. Something like that.
Erhart: Up to what size? Let's say over 2 acre lots.
ElIson: Then we're saying if it's separated by a road it doesn't count?
Emmings: Could you say, if those lots can be further subdivided?
Wildermuth: I don't know, maybe the cut off is 50,000 square feet, an
acre plus because otherwise you're going to end up with something down
around Hess Farm there that's going to be a real problem. Those 2 acre
lots. 2 and 3 acre lots.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 44
e
Conrad: I think an acre or more, those are large parcels. I don't care
how big they get after an acre. If I had acre parcels on one side of the
street, what do I want on the other side of the street? If I were the
neighbor, been living there for 25 years and all of a sudden they start
building. I don't care if I have 1 or 5, 5 is going to be subdivided some
time.
Wildermuth: Across the street, do you want something with 85% or 90% of
your lot size?
Batzli:
I'd say 75%.
ElIson: I'd say two-thirds.
Conrad: I would have said 75%.
Batzli: Did you see Bill Boyt's draft of this? He used 75% and it goes
up to a maximum of about 40,000 square feet or something like that in his
proposal?
Mark Koegler:
I don't recall.
Emmings: Are you aware of any other communities that have done something
like this?
~ Mark Koegler: No.
Emmings: Is there a way to find out?
Mark Koegler: Yes.
Conrad: Mark, I don't know that we need, and maybe we do to be absolute
and to be fair to developers about it. Therefore, you give them the
rules. I hate arbitrary rules and we just came up with one. But if
there's a way to be open. I always wanted and I always assumed when we
developed our subdivision ordinances, that we had the flexibility to
develop that transition. The other zone said 15,000 but we had the
ability to regulate that and say no, I don't like that 18,000 lot. I want
that to be 22,000 because it's kind of close to this. Arbitrary but I
thought we were going to have the flexibility to be arbitrary.
Wildermuth: But you don't.
Mark Koegler: Picking up on that, a person who does site planning, I
prefer arbitrary rules and ordinances to arbitrary policies. At least
I know what they are going in. At the meeting all of a sudden say, well I
like this shape and this size...
Conrad: I can hear that.
e
Mark Koegler: But at the same time, again, somewhere there has to be a
cut off because, as you well know, if you put on your glass and look in
your crystal ball, 50 years down the road many of these parcels will be
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 45
e
subdivided.
Conrad: But I think anything over an acre is not going to be.
Mark Koegler: I guess that's a call we'll all make and see what happens.
Hopefully we'll be around to see that happen. I don't know that I would
share in that thought but it's probably a look in time.
Conrad:
years.
It might be but again, we're not going to be around here in 50
Mark Koegler: Those properties may subdivide and having to blend with the
blended lots.
Wildermuth: I doubt that the ordinance would stand for 50 years anyway.
Conrad: We're not going to get to a perfect solution here. That's why I
said, 1 acre for whatever reason, anything over 1 acre is grouped together
and that says, lots typically that you're bordering are over 1 acre. This
row, the first row of the new subdivision has got to be, and we create all
those lot sizes the same. I don't care if they're 1, 5 or 10 because
those are going to be subdivided at some time. I don't care about it but
I just want, for that 1 acre lot, I want to be within 75% of that across
the street.
e
Mark Koegler: We'll bring back some thoughts and suggestions on
thresholds and percentages and all that and some examples of how they
work.
Conrad: Okay. And pitfalls obviously.
ElIson: Tree removal, that was really Dave's.
Conrad: Yes, we're missing Dave on that one.
ElIson: He wants every inch removed be an inch replaced. The 10 inch
diameter with 10-1 inch trees or something.
Erhart: Eden prairie has an ordinance that apparently works.
Olsen: Well, the one they had doesn't work so they are now amending...
Wildermuth:
Shadowmere?
What would you do if you were trying to put a development in
It would kill you. You couldn't do that.
Erhart: We could learn from their experiences and find out what they're
amending the ordinance to.
Batzli: Wasn't there more to this? Wasn't there like a protected stand
overlay that we were going to talk about? A protected vegetation overlay.
Is this part of this or no?
-
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 46
e
Olsen: No. Council also thought that that was a good idea. We met with
the DNR forester.
Batzli: We have a wetland basically overlay through all the districts and
this would be a protected tree overlay of mature stands of trees that
would be basically mapped and you can't go in there and just start clear
cutting.
Olsen: At least he'll figure out what we've got. We do have some really
nice stands of trees.
Conrad: Anything else on the tree removal? I don't know that we would
want you talking to Dave without the rest of us being around. Any other
direction on the tree removal? We're not giving him any kind of...
Mark Koegler: That was actually easy, the trees. The other two, your
comments are helpful.
Wildermuth: Jo Ann, what happened to the group that was looking into
construction standards? The wooden chimneys and the wood foundations?
Olsen: They've been working with Public Safety and Howard Noziska.
e
Conrad: There were a lot of things about tightening up building codes.
We can always have a more stringent building code than State can't we?
Sure. We can have it tighter. That's the minimum?
Erhart: If you take a stainless steel, double or triple pipe and you use
it daily for heating your house, it would only be a matter of 5 years
before that would burn through and now you've started a chimney fire.
ElIson: Daily to heat your house?
Erhart: Used daily to heat your house. ...and uses it for heating his
house and eventually the house starts on fire because they will not stand
up to daily use.
Conrad: Jo Ann, next time can you give us a status report of that group?
I'd like to know if they're meeting.
Olsen: They were. It was with Bill Boyt.
Conrad: Bill and Howard?
Olsen: Howard. I just heard like the other day they had to call Howard.
They hit some wall where they couldn't go and I don't know if it was the
building code or what. Some State Code...
-
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 47
e
DISCUSSION OF WETLAND ORDINANCE.
Conrad: You went to a conference, and I haven't read that yet but also,
Jo Ann in your note you talked to us about, in terms of identifying
wetlands, our concern was we find out there's a wetland after somebody's
applied for a permit. Kind of after the fact. Your exploring, the way
I read your notes says...
Olsen: We can update the map. I don't think that that says...
Conrad: And how would we update the map?
Olsen: When we were working with Elizabeth, they have gone to other
cities and done a survey, site survey. They update it periodically. I
don't know if they will do that...
Conrad: Is that something that takes professional skills to do? Are
there students that can do it?
Olsen: I think it can be students...
Wildermuth: What can we do about these 30 years old spots where they're
filling in wetlands and building on wetlands?
e
Olsen: The only way to really stop those are if they come under
the...since they're already platted and that's where we get into the
problems where the builders come in with their old plat and the surveys do
not have the wetlands on them.
Wildermuth: So if we updated the maps, wouldn't that get around that?
Olsen: It would help me knowing that there's a wetland on their site.
Batzli: When the building permit came in?
Wildermuth: But what about the guy down on TH 101? That was obviously a
wetland and he went in and filled it in.
Olsen: Well, he dug it out actually.
wildermuth: So it wouldn't have done us any good? It was obviously a
wetland.
Batzli: Just east of Lotus.
Olsen: Okay, yes. That subdivision, those were all platted and sold off.
Conrad: Preplatted. Nothing they can do about it.
e
Batzli: If it's platted, regardless of whether it's in a wetland or not,
they can go in there provided they...
Olsen: If it was approved and signed off.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 48
e
Batzli: But provided that they are complying with the DNR or whatever
other?
Olsen: That one, I think was the Corps. I think that they... We were
notified.
Wildermuth: No. They didn't want to get involved. I called them.
called them. I called the DNR. I called the Watershed District.
wanted to have anything to do with it.
I
Nobody
Olsen: They've got 2 people I guess working...
wildermuth: They said, no, no, no. That looks like that's a city. We
don't show that on our maps. That's a city issue and the City sure isn't
going to do anything about it because...
Erhart: Are the lots being filled Jim?
Wildermuth: Yes. It's the one that's being filled. The two lots have
been filled and then there are two more lots and those are going to be
filled in too. The filling is already started.
Erhart: How can they do that?
e
Conrad: They were preplatted. My understanding was that they came in the
City and was willing to give up one of the lots but then, for an exchange
for nothing. But if they did do that they would have to go through a
replatting which would bring them under the current ordinance which would
say you can't build at all. So there's a case where the developer said I
bought it. I've got to do something here and I want to do it a little bit
better and we couldn't help him.
Erhart: How did you get involved with this? Did you just happen to be
involved in that particular one?
Conrad: I just talk to people.
Olsen: When they came in for the building permit, they pushed the homes
40 feet back from the street... I tried to talk them into at least making
them 30 feet instead of 40 feet. I don't recall them coming in with a
different plat.
Conrad: A comment on your note. We can't visit every site. It's just a
flat out statement. I'm kind of surprised that the building inspector...
Olsen: ...every site. That's why I'm saying that we've been working
closely with them.
Conrad: Do they have a check list when they go there and they say...
e
Olsen: They let me know if there's a wetland.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 49
e
Conrad: How do they do that?
give you a call?
How do they let you know?
Do they just
Olsen: They come back.
Conrad: So when they go out and make an inspection, do they have this
form that they fill out to justify their business or to document what they
found?
Olsen: They've got a form.
Conrad: And on that form does it say wetland on the area or no wetland?
Olsen: It's just...
Conrad: Is it something that you'd like to see on that form so that they
make it an absolute check Jo Ann?
Olsen: That's something we could do.
e
Conrad: Would you look at that. If it works. Maybe that's the way to do
it. As long as they're there, that may be the best eyes we've got. I'm
not trying to get planning staff out there except when there's a
potential. Maybe that's the way to do it if they're visiting every site.
Why don't you get back to us in terms of how you think that map can be
updated. I'm not interested in spending $10,000.00 to update the map,
unless we feel it's worth $10,000.00. It seems like there's got to be a
way to solve the problem for something less than that.
Erhart: I suggested the last time that we had a question on the
subdivision application form. I do believe in some cases people come in
who don't know. What is so ironic is how, you start talking to people who
kind of move into the area, some farm people who moved into the area 50-60
70 years ago and you talk to them about wetlands like we talk about
wetlands and they're just so valuable. They look at me like I'm just
absolutely nuts. People were ingrained in those years to think of
wetlands as an obstacle. Something to get rid of. Drain it. Let's tame
America. Part of taming America is draining every bit of water. They
still have that, and the government came in and helped them. Paid for it.
Then when you go back there and say we want to protect them and rebuild
this land, it's like...
Conrad: Why don't you turn to the camera and for all the farmers watching
this meeting, what would you like to tell them?
Erhart: Right now it's something that we've lost a lot of that resource.
Jo Ann Olsen updated the Commission on the TH 101 realignment.
e
Olsen: The other thing is, certain people on the Planning Commission
terms are up. What my question was is, when we've done this before you
had stated that there are certain things that you wanted to see in
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 50
e
there...and the Council has certain things that they want.
live. What they do. There are certain important points...
something that you want also? When we bring the applicants
you want a checklist that there are certain points that you
important?
Where they
Is that
before you,
felt were
do
Conrad: The checklist? I don't think we need a checklist here. I think,
one, nobody's resigned so we're not talking about resigning. Two, if
those that are here are reapplying, I don't think this is the body that
should reappoint. I think the City Council shoulde do the reappointing.
Which means I think there should be an interview with the reapplying
commissioners with Council. I don't think this body should be...
Emmings: I find that personally offensive. If they don't know who I am
after 3 years, they're not going to find out anything about me in a 10
minute interview.
Conrad: Let's put it this way. I think they should have the option of
interviewing. One, it's not fair that we interview you. The Planning
Commission has never done a fair job of interviewing any applicant.
Typically it's a rubber stamp deal and I don't know that it should be all
the time. I think if we had sent Howard to the City Council earlier than
after 6 calls that I had, they might have solved a problem earlier so I
think the City Council has a nice role to play in terms of the review
process. In terms of you going in...
e
Emmings: My notion is, if I've been here, once I've been here, they can
interview all the people they want but they already know who I am. It
seems real Mickey Mouse.
ElIson: Except for the new people.
Conrad: But I'm not sending you in there to interview against other
people.
Emmings: But that's sort of what it feels like I guess. It's kind of
obnoxious to me. Either I put my name in the hat or I don't.
Conrad: So it's automatic. So then you don't like a term? You want a
forever term?
Emmings: No. They don't have to reappoint me.
Conrad: Who?
Emmings: The City Council.
ElIson: He's saying, put it before them but don't make him go in front.
e
Emmings: I don't want to go in for an interview after I've been sitting
here for 3 years. I didn't think, what Annette said, that there might be
a whole bunch of new City Council people who don't know me. I didn't
think about that.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 51
e
Conrad: I think they should have the option. If they're considering
terminating you, they should have the option to interview you. I think
that's the right thing to do rather than they'll take a vote saying Steve
didn't show up for 3 meetings but I think they should be the body that
reappoints without an interview unless they so desire.
Emmings: If I have to interview, there'd be a question in my mind whether
I'd reapply. It doesn't make sense to me.
Erhart: Maybe you could reterm it. I agree. If you've got to go in
after being on this thing for 3 years to try to vie for the job, I agree
but if you look at it from a point of let's sayan employee review
standpoint, periodically review... Look at it from a review as an
opportunity on a periodic basis to sit down with council and to discuss
after 3 years what you've experienced. The problems you see. Why or why
not you want to stay on the Planning Commission and including stating
these are the changes that I want to see if I'm going to stay on. They
may have the right to do the same thing. Gee Steve, Tim, Ladd, we've
enjoyed having you on here but there's a few things that we view
different. From a standpoint of communications, it may not be a bad idea
to have just a get together session with the Council but I agree with you,
it shouldn't be like a job applicant interviewing.
e
Emmings: There should be better communication. There should be some kind
of communication. Right now there is essentially none except to the
extent that you may talk to the Mayor.
Olsen:
The applications that we get, do you still want to interview them?
Conrad:
If Steve
that but
know how
somebody
That's phony stuff because we never consider the applications.
reapplies, advertising an opening is, maybe by law we have to do
in technicality, we are deceiving the applicants. So I don't
to solve that problem. I'd rather not advertise if we've got
who is reapplying.
Olsen: Maybe what I'll do is notify you that you're up for reappointment.
You coulde maybe let me know if you want to stay on. I'll check and see
if we have to advertise. Council is going to come up with qualities that
they wanted to see and that's why I was wondering if you had any input
that you wanted to include in that.
Conrad: No, we have totally different things on our mind than they do.
ElIson: I don't think so either. We need someone from each district of
the City to have an equal mix. We'd like to have occupations of x, y, z.
That sounds terrible. What if I'm just a concerned citizen for crying out
loud.
e
Conrad: I think taking the best person available. Drafting from
different neighborhoods. If a neighborhood and people are interested in
being on our Commission or City Council, they can apply but I think to set
a quota is a ward, it's a ward system.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 52
e
ElIson: Plus the commitment that goes along with it. Even if you get
somebody...
Conrad: See, the last time we interviewed was the very first time we had
more than 1 applicant. I think we've had real tough times in that
situation finding enough qualified people. Somebody is going to have to
be prepared, if the Council wants to do it, go out and seek candidates.
They're going to have a problem doing that. I think some of the
qualifications are difficult. Basically again, no input from us Jo Ann.
They will have total authority to dictate what they want to do.
Olsen: I just wanted you to be aware that they...
Batzli: From what I'm hearing, the Planning Commission as a whole is
opposed and feels strongly that we should not have to have criteria that
we have to match up against?
e
Conrad: I don't mind, as I told Boyt, I don't mind them determining a
need. They should be aware that we're reappointing or that we're
interviewing. The meeting before we start interviewing, I think they
should be telling us, based on what they see the needs are of the City.
Maybe we have a tremendous need in the rural area. The non-sewered area.
I think they should say, please, why don't you focus some attention, see
if you can find somebody in that area or find somebody who has experience
in a certain field because we think you're missing that. But that means
they have to think about it before we do it. Rather than having some
rules that don't make sense every time, I think I'd like to force them
into a little bit of thinking based on what they see us doing and the
composition at the time and the future needs.
Wildermuth: The danger in having a selection profile is we might end up
with a bunch of clones.
Conrad: Tim you wanted to talk about interviewing candidates for the
planning position.
Erhart: I'll submit that I think the Planning Commission ought to have an
opportunity to discuss with the City, with the City Manager or the Mayor
or both, just what we feel we need in Barb's replacement from our
experience with this. The ones who have to work with the planner. I
guess I'd feel a little left out if they're proceeding to hire somebody
without asking this particular body about what we feel the needs are.
Since they haven't come to us, I submit that maybe we ought to go to them
and suggest the reasons...
Conrad: Any particular qualities that you're looking for?
e
Erhart: Yes, I've got some specifics. I don't want to go into it tonight
but yes, I have ideas on levels of experience. I guess basically I'd like
to express my views on the approach, the philosophy about what the planner
does and how they would relate to the Planning Commission and Council as
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 53
e
far as adding their recommendation before we pass on ideas about that.
The other point, the Mayor or the Councilor Manager but I'd like to have
that opportunity to have us have that discussion. Give us that
opportunity. I think it's unfortunate time but it gives us an opportunity
for us to sit down, whoever is doing the hiring and to kind of go over
that.
Conrad: Are you concerned with the individual that fills the current job
description?
Erhart: No, I'm not talking about, I'm not suggesting that we interview a
person. I'm talking about defining the job description. Helping write
the job description and defining the level of experience. The philosophy
of what that position is. How it's going to function. I think that ought
to be reviewed by this body. Plus, I guess there's always the issue, do
you go with 1 person or 2 people? Get our input as to how much is one
person, were we able to function with just Barb and Jo Ann before? Is it
inadequate staff?
e
Conrad: I've always been intrigued that nobody asked us. Planning is
probably one of the key departments, if not the key department in the
community as we expand and nobody's asked us. Strange. We have a
tendency to focus on just that here and nobody asked us if we think that
we're understaffed. But I think it gets into more than numbers. It gets
into qualities and pay ranges and skill levels. I think whether we talk
community development director position here. That concerns me. I think
there is so much, enough staff to react to urgencies but enough staff to
really do some planning Jo Ann which we don't do a whole lot of. The
Planning Staff here, you react. We don't plan. It's a fallacy. I say
we plan but we react to the development proposals that come in. When we
have a special idea, it takes Jo Ann or Barbara many months to get the
time to get there to review it and that's just exactly the opposite of
what it should be. The ideas that we come up with are probably important
at the time. They shouldn't be secondary to another urgency or a
developer coming in to effectively do our job in this town as it grows. I
think we've got it backwards. We're being pound foolish if we're trying
to save on budget. We pay it over and over again and we'll pay it in
consultant fees and it just is kind of amazing to me.
Olsen: I think Don was saying that they already have applications. They
have been closed. As of...Friday and the Council is planning on meeting
before next Saturday. They're going to meet the applicants and talk...
Conrad: Obviously they're going to do something without us. Tim, if
you'd like to write a note, I think the best thing to do is write a note
or show up. I'm sure they'd include you. I think what I'd like to do Jo
Ann is have you give us some job descriptions. If you could give to us in
the next planning packet the job descriptions of the planning staff, I
think I'd like to take a look at that.
e
Emmings: We get that initial packet that defines...
I think I've got it.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 54
e
Conrad: Let's see if it fits. It may be, I guess my motivation is maybe
not, I think it's stupid for people to interview staff. Us or the City
Council unless they're interviewing the City Manager. That takes away all
the responsibility and accountability when the City Council interviews
people.
ElIson: I can't see them making the decision. I can see them having
input.
Conrad: But who's making the decision? That's why I don't want to
interview. I want to set requirements out there. I guess I'm pointing
out some things that I see really wrong in some procedures around here.
That doesn't make sense because then I don't have anybody to point at.
Somebody's got to be manager.
Olsen: ...both Barb and I did get interviewed by the Council. I don't
know if the City Engineer did.
Erhart: Before you did that, did they narrow the candidates down to 2 or
3?
Olsen: They narrowed them down to 5.
Conrad: So Tim, where do you want to take this?
e Emmings: It sounds like it's too late.
Conrad: I think it's too late. Do you want to pursue just taking a look
at qualifications in general and having the Planning Commission come up
with statements. I think it's appropriate that we start talking a little
bit about the type of staff that...
Erhart: I would like the Planning Commission ask Don Ashworth to come to
us at our next meeting and basically give us, basically tell us the
criteria involved with the strategy in the planning department. What the
department plans for the next 3 years.
Olsen: The strategy?
Erhart: What's the plan.
Conrad: We'd like to know how the planning department is being staffed to
accomodate growth that we see in the next 3 to 5 years.
Erhart: What's the structure? What's the philosophy? How are they going
to relate? What's your position relative to the new person?
Conrad: Anything else? A motion to close the meeting?
e
Erhart: I've got a couple other things. Somebody had an idea on the way
out of here last time about how to operate procedurally so we don't,
someone had the idea that we keep a list of functions or things that we're
currently working on.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 55
e
Emmings: Old business.
Erhart: That's it. It was a great idea and I think we ought to do it.
That is, that we have old business on our agenda that includes all the
items that we are currently working on. We can't check them off.
ElIson: The more you see them the more you want to get them.
Erhart: Until they're done. Until we all agree we're done working on
them.
ElIson: It doesn't mean we cover them all.
Erhart: That's right. It doesn't mean that we cover each one at every
meeting but we've got a list that we kind of...
ElIson: A running tally.
Erhart: A running tally of what we're working on.
Olsen: Did you have any other items that you can think of? Is there
something that I'm missing that you can think of?
e
Conrad: A lot of the issues have been taken care of.
Olsen: We've been really trying to do that.
Conrad: I can't come up with, after Mark came in tonight with those
couple items.
Erhart: The one I'm thinking of is the Minnesota River Valley.
Olsen: We're still working on that one.
Conrad: I think it's a real good idea to do. I don't know that there's
much to the list but I think we should be doing it. We used to do it
because there used to be a ton of stuff outstanding but we haven't
maintained a list in the last year.
Olsen: Do you want that on the agenda?
Conrad: I don't know that it needs to be on the agenda but I think there
needs to be on a report and maybe we call it a monthly report and
quarterly report or something.
Olsen: We can just make out a list and attach it.
Erhart: Just call it a status review.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 56
-
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m..
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Asst. City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
-
e