HomeMy WebLinkAboutTo OPH to Baytown 1998 00- 0■146u4\) -h.\ (.1k-rxtn\\
An Equal Opportunity Employer , Phone: (612)603-6757
Fax: (612)603-6762
Twin Cities TDD: (612)297-5353
Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529
STATE OF MINNESOTA I '�!
MUNICIPAL BOARD
Suite 225 Bandana Square
1021 Bandana Boulevard East APR 13 (998
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Starlene J. Holman, Office Services
DATE : April 8, 1998
SUBJECT: A-5821 Oak Park Heights
Please be advised that on April 17, 1998 the Municipal Board will hold a meeting regarding the
above-entitled matter at 10:00 a.m. in the Municipal Board Office, Suite 225 Bandana Square,
1021 Bandana Boulevard East, St. Paul, Minnesota.
The purpose of this meeting is for Board discussion only. The Municipal Board will: 1)clarify its
preliminary decision as it relates to the issue of property included in the commercial area of the
subject area; and 2)determine whether it will consider the motion for Request For Additional
Hearing pursuant to Minn. Rule 6000.3000 as filed by Mr. McDonald. That determination will be
9P Y
based upon the motion and any written responses by counsel only. No oral arguments will be
heard on April 17th.
You are welcome to come in and observe any meetings or conference calls scheduled because
of this proceeding. You are not, however, required to attend and may call the Board office to
inquire about any Board action.
For special accommodations, please contact the Minnesota Municipal Board, Suite 225
Bandana Square, 1021 Bandana Boulevard East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, (612)603-6757;
or Statewide TYY 1-800-627-3529.
sjh
I
•
Memorandum
To: TOM MELENA,CITY ADMINISTRATOR, OPH
•
From: David R. Screaton
Date: 04/07/98
Re: OAK PARK/BAYTOWN ANNEXATION
We ask for your support in our motion to reconvene the annexation hearings,due to major new
developments since the November hearings that have rendered the Municipal Board decision on our
land to be inappropriate. The motion and supporting documents are attached.
We also request that Oak Park ask the Metropolitan Council to support our position more strongly.
It is important that they change their previous recommendation that"the area be sewsered"to a
"the recommendation that the area be sewered by Oak Park Heights , since Oak Park is clearly the only
city;that can do so.
Sincerely,
2-T
David R Screaton
1
{
• •
•
LAWSON, MARSHALL, McDONALD & GALOWITZ, P.A.
LAWYERS
RAYMOND O. MARSHALL 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH
JOHN SCOTT MCDONALD LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042
TRACEY ANN GALOWITZ
ELIZABETH A. RALEIGH TELEPHONE: (612) 777-6960 OF COUNSEL.
ANNE GREENWOOD BROWN FACSIMILE: (61 2) 777-8937 RODERICK A. LAWSON
April 3, 1998
Ms. Christine Scotillo
Executive Director
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD
Suite 225 Bandana Square
1021 Bandana Blvd. East
St. Paul, MN 55108
Re: A-5821 Oak Park Heights
Dear Ms. Scotillo:
Enclosed herewith is a Motion regarding reopening the evidentiary hearing in this matter to
accept new evidence. We request the opportunity to have oral argument on this motion. The
motion is being served on all other parties.
t
John S. McDonald
cc: Jean Matross
Jerry Filla
Mark Vierling
David Magnuson
• •
•
A-5821/Oak Park
BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Paul B. Double Chair
Andrew D. Hultgren Vice Chair
David Engstrom Ex-Officio Member
Dennis Hegberg Ex-Officio Member
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION NOTICE OF MOTION AND
FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND MOTION OF PETITIONERS
TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES AND OAKGREEN FARMS. INC.
CHAPTER 414
TO ALL PAR11ES:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on the 17th day of Apri1,1998 at 10:00 a.m. at the
offices of the Minnesota Municipal Board, Suite 225 Bandana Square, 1021 Bandana Blvd. East,
St. Paul,Mn. 55108,Petitioners David R. Screaton Partnership and Oakgreen Farms, Inc.will
move the Minnesota Municipal Board for the following relief:
1. Setting a time and place for an additional hearing on the above captioned petition
as authorized by Rule 6000.3000 to consider additional evidence including
a. the letter from the Metropolitan Council to the City of Lake Elmo dated March
2, 1998 requiring that a plan be submitted for MUSA extension or in the alternative the property
be zoned for one unit per 40 acres.
b. Letters from residents in the subject area to disprove the allegation contained
in the Conclusion of the Joint Memorandum and Argument of Baytown and Lake Elmo that 19
of the 21 area residents signed petitions asking that the subject area be annexed to Lake Elmo, a
false allegation which was not supported by the record but which may have misled the Board in
the decision making process.
c. A recent proposal by Presbyterian Homes for an an assisted living campus to
be located on the 120 acres in the City of Oak Park Heights which was referred to at the hearing
as the "Haase propety" and is the only land within the City of Oak Park Heights available for
residential development. The proposal when approved will exhaust the residential land in Oak
•
Park Heights and makes it even more crucial that the land in the subject area be available for
residential development wihtin the City of Oak Park Heights.
2. Delaying the final vote on this matter until the vacant position on the Minnesota
Municipal Board has been filled thereby allowing a full board to vote on this important issue.
3. For such other or further relief as the Board deems appropriate.
Dated this 3rd day of April, 1998
// •
John S. McDonald (70063)
LAWSON, MARSHALL, McDONALD
& GALOWITZ, P.A.
Attorneys for Petitioners
David R. Screaton Partnership and
Oakgreen Farms,Inc.
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo,Minnesota 55042
Telephone: (612)777-6960
•
It Metropolitan Council
•
Working for the Region. Planning for the Future
March 2, 1998
Mary Kueffner, City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave.No.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Annexation of Kern Center in Baytown Township to Oak Park Heights
Metropolitan Council District 12
Referral File No. 16589-1 MMB Reference No. A-5821
Dear Ms. Kueffner:
On February 18, 1998,the Minnesota Municipal Board(MMB) issued a preliminary order annexing the
Kern Center commercial/industrial park in Baytown Township to the city of Oak Park Heights. The
MMB's proposed action leaves the remainder of the area originally proposed for annexation in Baytown
Township. If the City and Township decide to go ahead with their Orderly Annexation agreement excluding
the Kern Center,the City comprehensive plan must be updated or amended to include the subject area. Prior
to City approval of any new development proposals,zonings or rezonings or building permits for substantial
new construction in the subject area,the City must
1. Submit a comprehensive plan,or plan amendment, covering the land being annexed,to the Metropolitan
Council for review.
a) If the area is proposed to be served by municipal sewer in the next five years,the plan amendment
should include a proposed MUSA expansion:
b) Any lands that are not included in a MUSA expansion should be planned, and subsequently zoned,for
a rural residential density of no more than one unit per 40 acres.
3. And,the Metropolitan Council must take action on the plan or amendment. (see Minn. Stat. § 473.175,
Subd. 2).
Because of the number of environmental issues related to the subject area raised at the MMB hearing,the :
Council would encourage the City to prepare an Alternative Urban Areawide Review(AUAR) for the
annexation area,as permitted under EQB rules 4410.3600 et seq.
If you have any questions about this letter, or would like a copy of a sample AUAR, please contact Guy
Peterson, Office of Local Assistance sector representative for Washington County communities at 602-
1418.
Sincerely,
Thomas McElveen, Deputy Director
Community Development Division
230 East Fifth Street St.Paul. Minnesota 55 10 1-1634 (612)291.6359 Fax 291.6550 TDB/TTY 291-0904 Metro info Line 229-3780
An Equut Opportunity Employer
5340 Stillwater Blvd.North
•
•
• STILLWATER, MINNESOTA
55082
• •
1S4arch 22, 1998
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD
Suite 225 Bandana Square
1021 Bandana Blvd. East
St. Paul, MN 55108
RE: OAK PARK- BAYTOWN ANNEXATION: COMPROMISE
SUGGESTION
Dear MUNICIPAL BOARD MEMBERS:
I reside in the Oak Park Annexation area, and am very unhappy with the
preliminary decision that would put my property in Lake Elmo. I listened to
the tape of the February 18 hearing, and noted that the Board felt that it was
important to listen to those of us that reside here. I agree that the opinions of
the residents are important, and I suggest that the best compromise would be to
Q to do so, and those
allow those residents who wish to go to OAK PARK o ,
preferring LAKE ELMO to do so.
I'm including a map of the residential areas that shows how we residents feel
this area should be divided. Perhaps this map could serve as a compromise
romise
solution to a very difficult problem. The areas highlighted in pink are those
that would prefer Oak Park Heights.
Those wanting to go to Oak Park Heights are contiguous to Oak Park Heights,
' Q contiguous Lake Elmo.
e Lake Elmo are conk uous to L
and those prefering n
Only the pastor and members of St. John's Lutheran Church did not voice a
preference for either community..
Sincerely,
Be Smith
•
I • •
Nit
Al
St
I'1 1. tt . . 0 i ) . Pi 7° --
i • :--.'--. ..1:7,- c\i
I: x y ' r ' � • { c
_i_
In E.
1
D7 0 _\ m 11, Vi ,„,..1 f {r
0 h.
C �_ --.›.-1 o l� : I to-, _
i 'N.. '4'4' . yo
n ( -1 I � rfq''' w I
14� w i 1 Il °,ti '. v I. 1 g '.
m JJ y • I »
f mot1 I I `, :u. o . Y
r ✓ o 11' I -(" • 1 I
1 I > 1
I I;:1 I
• !1
� I
t ` 0 , •
K. N\ 11•. 1 ho i 1
I I - I r I -,.
h
�, l I
...„_,.., i
T ,/ S t I x N Z 1_,
o
1 1 1 1—...\,: il
� I 1 I M
I(} I I I I QQ
i 1 I I t
------- it\
r), ") -- -'
tl,' 1 r.litir: 040-9, I ........\::5-........____I
I 1 ......
........_ • „...->s, i-----...,.., 3 /_)_, ^ . i 8
II N 11 1
r 3
•
•
•
• 5340 Stillwater Boulevard North
•
STILLWATER,MN 55082
•
• MARCH 22,1998
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD
Suite 225 Bandana Square
1021 Bandana Blvd East
St. Paul,MN 55108
RE: OAK PARK HEIGHTS-BAYTOWN ANNEXATION
Dear Members of the Municipal Board:
I live in the Oak Park Heights annexation area, and I definitely ty would prefer to be
annexed to O .f
AKPARKHEIGHTS, not Lake Elmo.
Baytown Attorney Magnuson says that 19 residents in this area want to go to
g
e Elmo. That is very odd,
, s;,. ry since I can only and 8 residents who ho want to go to
Lake Elmo. I prefer Oak Park Heights, as do many of my neighbors. Also, my
neighbor,Pastor Malchow and his wife and two children, have remained mained neutral
-onthas issue,
so Mr. Magnuson's count is greatly. � gr exaggerated
The last three speakers at the November public hearing who were counted as part
of the 19, were in fact township officials or their spouses, and NOT residents of
the annexation area.
Sincerely,
/10--614,1
John Holm
•
•
yw • •
ROBERT D. AELSOA
12055 55" STREET AORTA
STIIUWATER. MA 55082
March 23. 1998
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD
SUITE 225 BANDANA SQUARE
1021 BANDANA BLVD. EAST
ST.PAUL, MN 5510
Dear Commissioners of the Municipal Board:
PLEASE SAY NO TO LAKE ELMO!
I am a resident of the Oak Park Heights Annexation area, and I definitely want to go to OAK
PARK HEIGHTS,NOT LAKE ELMO.
Mr. Magnuson erroneously counted me as one of the 19 residents who wanted to go into Lake
Elmo. This is false,and I am very angry to be misrepresented in that way.
Sincerely,
lid14-09t °Ile11141
Robert D.Nelson
1 ,
CARRIAGE HOMES IN
•
March 23, 1998
Ms.Christine Scotillo
Executive Director
'MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD
Suite 225 Bandana Square
1021 Bandana Blvd.East
St.Paul,MN 55108
RE: ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
As the potential buyer/developer of the 100 acres in the annexation area south of 55th Street,I implore
you to reconsider your decision,and annex these acres to Oak Park Heights.
Since the 120 acres of Haase property has now been sold to the Presbyterian Homes,the above 100 acres
are the only available land in the area for a residential housing community.. The land is uniquely suited for
residential bousing because of its proximity to roads, stores,transportation etc..
I have always developed land in an environmentally sensitive manner,and I pride myself on being a good
steward of the land.
There is an enormous demand for severed residential land. For the benefit of the community, please
allow this land to be annexed to Oak Park Heights.
Sincerely,
John Arkell
•
President
• 324 SOUTH MAIN • STILLWATER, MN • 55082
•
PHONE: 612-439-2414 • FAX: 6I2-439-3254
•
•
EE/SCREATON
711 MHN IN VE N_E NORTH
_AKA E1210 , MINNESOTA U f 42
March _a
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL ROAR {
Suite 22 5 Bandana SQuar
1021 BandanaBl vd. Ea t
St . Paul , MN 551 x-08
RE: _rK P-R' !B-Y Tr lN ANNEXATION
Dear Minnesota M u n i c i p a l Board M e m b e r
We have received a letter from Metropolitan Council stat i nQ
that they will not allow the cluster type zoning that Lake
Elmo has proposed for our property.
My husband and I own 50 acres in the annexation area which
on February 18, 1998, you tentatively decided would be
annexed to Lake Elmo. Lake Elmo had proposed cluster
housing at 9 houses per 20 acres.
On March 2, 1998, Metropolitan Council vetoed that zoning.
Enclosed is a copy of their letter stating their position .
Clearly, Lake Elmo cannot fulfill its promises. Under these
circumstances, annexation to Lake Elmo imposes severe
hardship on us.
IN LIGHT OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DECISION, I `M ASKING
THAT YOU RECONSIDER YOUR DECISION, AND ANNEX THE LAND SOUTH
OF 55TH STREET TO OAK PARK HEIGHTS.
Sincerely,
Sarah L. Lee
Enclosure 15
CITY C •
OAK PARK HEIGHTS
,9 k`
14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Phone: (612) 439-4439 • FAX 439-0574
TO: Mayor and Council EMO
FROM: Thomas Melena, City Administrator
DATE: February 20, 1998
SUBJECT: Preliminary Ruling From the Municipal Board
On Wednesday of this week,the panel empowered by the Municipal Board to address the
annexation request by the City of Oak Park Heights met and deliberated for over four hours on a
possible outcome for the annexation of the properties at the corner of Hwy. 15 and Hwy. 36.
After four hours of deliberation, the panel on a three to one vote indicated that they would be
willing to annex to the City of Oak Park Heights the commercial property only. That property is
also known as the Kern Center property and would, by their description, be the property on the
east side of the ravine down to 55th Street and then over to the east to the current boundaries of
Oak Park Heights. The rest of the property would be annexed to the City of Lake Elmo and be
served by their municipal operations.
Some thoughts and considerations for us. First of all the group did feel that the City of Oak Park
Heights could best serve the commercial business park area with our municipal services. Very
specifically, these services being the sewer and water capability. At the same time,they seemed
to be reluctant to have the residential area automatically incorporated into Oak Park Heights
versus Lake Elmo. Part of this reluctance seems to be that the residential development nature of
Lake Elmo appears to be more as the large lot development, whereas the City of Oak Park
Heights has more of the standard size developments.
I did find it quite interesting to hear that the neighborhood closed to the high school was looked
at as a concentrated and intensely developed area. Obviously when you look at a map and
compare that neighborhood to the five acre lot size just to the south of the high school and if you
are not familiar with the way that looks on a map you can have a mis-impression that it is a very
highly concentrated neighborhood. I think there is a chance that if we go to the Municipal Board
again, we need to be prepared to address this issue and at the same time be very up front and
open with the Board and at the same time have a report that clearly presents our point on these.
issues.
The actions of the panel empowered by the Municipal Board will be finalized on April 3rd at the
same time this board has indicated that they will recommend that the tax structure for the area to
be annexed have a six year transition term so that there will be a way that business involved in
the annexation to address their tax payments over a longer period of time.
Tree City U.S.A.
• CLOSURE
t,Amoolla1111
umic5640 Memorial Ave. N.,Suite B • Stillwater, MN 55082
Tel: (612) 430-1880 Fax: (612)430-1323
(Telephone Answered 24 Hours A Day)
March 16, 1998
Thomas M. Melena
City Administrator
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 N. 57th St.
P.O. Box 2007
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
Dear Mr. Melena:
This is in response to the Public Informational Meeting to Consider Public Improvements
in Sewer, Water, and Road to the Kern Center. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend
+ the March 24th meeting. It is curious that it is being held during spring break and before
the final approval of annexation has been completed.
CommonHealth Clinic is currently renting space at 5640 Memorial Ave. N. Will Zintl is
our landlord. CommonHealth Clinic is a community clinic serving which provides
affordable health care services. As a non profit agency, we are fiscally prudent and wish
to keep our administrative costs to a minimum so that the money we raise goes to those in
need. In 1996, Will Zintl was able to offer us reasonable rent for our operation. The rent
was lower than what we had been paying and he built to suit which updated our facility
immensely. We could not ask for a more attentive landlord.
As improvements occur in this area, I hope the City Council will consider some type of
arrangement that would exempt existing businesses from the city and sewer assessments
until they either choose to hook up or their current system fails. This would allow time to
prepare for alternative arrangements for CommonHealth Clinic if the rent proves to be
beyond our means.
Sincerely,
(X1c77 11WEO
Cherylee Sherry, MPH, CHES 8
Executive Director _
Quality Health Care For Community Needs United
way
03/18/9A. 18:48 ECKBERG W 4 4390574 N0.468 002
•
MAGNU'SON LAW FIRM
LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN
Ti.E DESCH OFPLCB I3UTLDING
333 NORTT4 MAIN STRBP.T•SuTTS 1?202•P.O.BOX 43R•STU.LWATQR,MN 55082
TE1. vI•IONE:(612)439-9464•TEIACOP1a&:(612)439-5641
DAVID T.MAGNIISON RICHARD D.ALLEN
March 17, 1998
Mr.Mark Vierling
Eckberg, Lammers,Briggs, Wolff&Vierling
1835 Northwestern Avenue
Stillwater7MN/5O'82
Re: Kern Center Zoning Permits
Dear Mark:
e uest by Will Zintl a property owner
tandar , �Y
Town Board of Baytown met last night q y PT' F
The y �
in Kern Center,was on the Town Board Agenda for consideration of an amended Conditional
Use Permit. The Town Board also had before them,your letter requesting that they take no
action on any Zoning Permits within Kern Center._.The Town Board-approved the amendment to
Zintl's Conditional Use Permit and they asked that I write you to set forth their reasons for doing
so.
1. Zintl's zoning request has been on file for some time and the request was
reviewed and analyzed by Dennis O'Donnell who acts as the Town's Planner. I
enclose a copy of Dennis' analysis for your review.
2. The property remains in Baytown and will remain in the Town until an actual
Order is enacted by the Municipal Board that changes the boundaries of the Town.
The Board felt compelled to act on any pending zoning issues and will continue to
do so while the property is in their jurisdiction.
3. The Board is aware that when the property is annexed into the City of Oak Park
Heights, a zoning amendment will need to be enacted to establish a Zoning
District for the area. Since the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires that a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment be adopted before the zoning amendment
change,the Board felt that Zintl would be looking at a lengthy delay lithe
pending request were turned down by the Town. He is currently under a great
deal of pressure to have the buildings constructed in order to provide a space.for
istrict#834 and any delay in roviding rental space would.send
rental to School DI Y . Y F
834 away to look for other property. •
. 03/18/98 18:48 ECKB LAW 4 4390574 NO.468 5103
10 Mr. Mark Vier ling
Page 2
March 17, 1998
4. Some property owners in Kern Center remain fearful that b ecause they testified
against the City in the recent annexation proceedings,the City would seek to
retaliate against them. Owners have related to the Town Board and to the
Municipal Board, of what they perceive as threats for not cooperating with the
City. Even though the City might not have intended to threaten these people, they
perceive the City as a threat to their economic well being.
Please share this information with the City. I hope it explains the Town's action.
Respectfully,
• p T. Ma uson
Baytown To hip Attorney
DTM/ds
Enclosure
cc: Patricia St. Claire, Town Clerk
•
03/18/98 18:48 ECKBERG4111 + 4390574 NO.468 PO4
MAN Ia 5 1998
°y,,� WASHINGTON COUNTY Mary L.McGlothlin
1.1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT Dry •
AND LAND MANAGEMENT c Green Manager
•.y I 1.V.i /O.:.
GOVERNMENT CENTER
et:....•aG•`.
14900 81ST STREET NOFiTM,P.O.BOX 3803 •$TILLWATER, MN 55082-3803
Orrice(812)430.6855 •TOO(6121 439.3220 • Facsimile Machine(612)4304730
MEMORANDUM
To: Baytown Town Board& Planning Commission
From: -Dennis O'DonnellrSenior Land Use Specialist - 0 - -- . — -
Re: Zintl Amended Conditional Use Permit
Date: March 13, 1998
Background
Will Zintl owns property at 5640 Memorial Avenue North which is located in the Kern Center. The 4
subject property is zoned commercial and improved with a 8,960 square foot office building and a
2,688 square foot detached accessory building. Mr. Zintl obtained a conditional use permit for this
property in the last two years.
At this time,the applicant is seeking to amend his conditional use permit. Specifically,he is seeking
approval to construct a 2,880 square foot addition to the office building and a 6,400 square foot
addition to the storage building.
Analysis
The addition proposed onto the office building is on-the backside of the existing building and meets
all applicable setback requirements. Architecturally, the addition will be the same as the existing
building. Although the building will be larger which usually results in the need for additional
parking, there appears to be more than ample parking for the activities currently occurring in the
building. Therefore, we do not feel there is a need for additional parking. In addition, the septic
system is adequate and since public sewer will be available in the future, the system would not need
to be expanded.
As mentioned,a 6,400 square foot expansion of the storage building is also proposed. The ordinance
allows for one principal use on the property and one accessory building. The accessory building is
to be for storage, etc., for the occupant of the principal use. Discussion needs to take place with the
applicant to fully understand the use of this accessory building. With the addition, it would be larger •
in size than the existing office building. This building would need to be used as storage and perhaps
+.101
. 4%0 .
;TO air
i5 Oe em14on,' ai AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
�S•e oe•�Ce�iw ei�Naaie A—•-
03/18/98 18:48 ECKB LAW -> 4390574 NO.468 905
•
• Baytown Town Board&Planning Commission
Zintl Amended Conditional Use Permit
March 13, 1998
Paee 2
a small shop, however no office, etc., could be in the building. We would assume there would be
no need for sewer or water to serve this building.
The property behind the existing accessory building slopes off down to a pond approximately 60'
from the back wall of the existing building. It appears the addition extends over the point where it
starts to drop off. It would be desirable from an erosion control standpoint to keep the building up
on the level ground. In order for this to occur the building would need to be shortened by
approximatel 20' to keep it up on the level ground. _ .. .
It appears new blacktop is proposed on both sides of the accessory building. All drives and parking
must be at least 10'from the side property line. The blacktop is proposed 5' from the property line
on both sides. Thus,this would need to be revised.
In the Kern Center, a maximum of 65% of the lot may be covered with impervious surface. As
proposed 58% of the lot would be covered. Therefore, this standard is met.
• Conclusion
The main issue to discuss is the use of the accessory building. Again, this must be an accessory
building and not a second principal use on the property. In addition, if the size of the building can
be reduced, it could be kept all up on the level area of the lot.
If the Board feels the request should be approved,we would suggest the following conditions be
made part of the permit
1) All conditions of the previous conditional use permit must be complied with.
2) The rear building on.the parcel is considered an accessory building and can only be
used for storage purposes and a small shop area.
3) Any additional parking or blacktop area must be setback at least 10' from the side
property line.
4) The Soil &Water Conservation District must review and approve the drainage and
erosion control plan.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
• DCO/mlp