B. Discuss Amendment to City Code, Chapter 20-Zoning, Concerning Central Business District (CBD) Uses iJ
110° MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
CITY OF FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
CHANHASSEN ��
DATE: November 8, 2010 v �`
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Discuss Amendment to City Code, Chapter 20 — Zoning
Concerning Central Business District Uses
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100 PROPOSED ACTION
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections Staff requests City Council direction regarding uses within the City's
Phone: 952.227.1180 commercial zoning district.
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering BACKGROUND
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170 In conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update in 2008, staff began
reviewing the uses in each commercial district. The intent was to insure the uses
Finance in each district were current, appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive
Phone: 952.227.1140 Plan. In 2009, the Community Commercial (CC) District was adopted to permit
Fax: 952.227.1110
"Big Box" users.
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120 On April 6, 2010, staff presented an issue paper to the Planning Commission
Fax: 952.227.1110 pertaining to permitted uses within the following Commercial Zoning Districts:
Recreation Center • Central Business District (CBD)
2310 Coulter Boulevard BN i e Neighborhood Business
Phone; 952.227.1400 • N g (BN),
Fax: 952.227.1404 • Highway and Business Services (BH)
• Fringe Business (BF)
Planning &
Natural Resources On May 18, 2010, staff presented a discussion item to the Planning Commission
Phone; 952.227.1130 regarding the uses in all of the commercial districts. The discussion highlighted
Fax: 952.227.1110
the issue that the use of a broad term such as "Personal Services" would permit a
Public Works use that may be undesirable within a specific district. The question raised was: If
1591 Park Road a broad category is used, can certain uses be prohibited?
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310 Staff conferred with the City Attorney regarding this issue. It is the City
Attorney's opinion that the list of permitted, accessory, conditional, and interim
Senior Center uses should be as specific as possible. While the intent of the category is to be
Phone: 952.227.1125 p p g y
Fax: 952.227.1110 efficient and provide some flexibility, many different uses can arguably be
considered to be a "Personal Service" and would have to be permitted under that
Web Site description.
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Todd Gerhardt
November 8, 2010
Page 2 of 6
On June 15, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the uses and created a list of uses
appropriate for the Central Business District. This type of list itemizes the uses permitted in the
district and prohibits those not specified. However, if a specific use is requested within a district
that is not listed and is reasonable for that district, the City Code will have to be amended to
permit the use.
On August 17, 2010, the Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the
proposed amendment to the Central Business District. The Planning Commission voted four for
and two against a motion recommending that City Council approve the ordinance amendment for
the CBD district.
DISCUSSION
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Chapter describes the Central Business District as
follows:
"2.7.1 Central Business District
Definition/Vision: A business, commercial, office and residential district that provides a
comprehensive range of services at higher development densities and with greater variety of uses
in a compact, walkable environment.
The Central Business District has the greatest concentration of jobs, services, housing and civic
uses found in the City. Generally, the City's highest density development is found in the Central
Business District area. Other development- supportive infrastructures such as parking garages are
more likely to be found downtown than in other land use districts.
A combination of convenience commercial, civic uses and attractive walking paths promote
interaction and multiple trips among shoppers, visitors and residents. New development in this
district is encouraged to complement the mix and contribute to activity over an extended day,
and provide attractive, comfortable walking environments between varied uses.
Goods and Services Examples
• Residential
• Office
• Entertainment (Restaurants, Theaters, Music Venues)
• Retail, Grocery, Household Goods and Services
• Fitness Activities
• Hotels
• Health Services (Clinics)"
Todd Gerhardt
November 8, 2010
Page 3 of 6
CITY CODE
The zoning code states that the intent of the CBD district is to provide for downtown business
development supporting a strong central business district while enhancing the overall character
of the community in conformance with the downtown redevelopment plan, goals and objectives.
BUSINESS COUNCIL
Staff sent a copy of the proposed changes to the Chanhassen Business Council to solicit their
comments and suggestions. Attached are the responses we received. Their primary concerns are
that the ordinance should:
• "Provide an atmosphere which encourages business growth and innovative concepts ".
Staff currently relies on the Standard Industrial Classification system to assist in
determining if a use, which is not specifically listed, is permitted in the community, e.g.
Home Health Care Services (8082) are not listed in the City Code. However, they fall
under the Major Group classification of Health Services (80), which is, so they are
classified for use purposes as health services.
• Recommend that we use more general terms, rather than being specific and that we
combine all similar uses.
The proposed amendment does do this for retail operations.
• Rely on amending the definition to help expand potential uses, e.g. change "retail sales"
to "retail" and expand to include renting items for use.
This option would run into the same problems of specifying uses. If something is omitted,
the City would need to amend the definition or add the use to the district to allow the use.
• Overall, their recommendation is to maintain the greatest flexibility and inclusiveness,
relative to uses, in the district regulations.
With the exception of personal services, the proposed amendment does maintain
flexibility and inclusiveness.
The concern with the "personal service" classification is that it was so general that it would
permit "undesirable" uses in the community. It should be noted that sexually oriented businesses
are controlled by the City's licensing standards in Chapter 10, Article 6, and by separation
requirements specified in Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 8.
There was also a separate request that we include "auto repair" as a conditional use in the CBD.
Staff believes that use is not appropriate in the CBD and is available in the Business and
Highway Services District immediately south of downtown. The property for which they are
Todd Gerhardt
November 8, 2010
Page 4 of 6
referring to is zoned Planned Unit Development, PUD, and it would be under the PUD that the
amendment should take place.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The Planning Commission and staff prepared a strike - though and bold format to show the
proposed changes to the uses. Personal services and entertainment have been listed as separate,
individual uses. Health services have been limited to outpatient only. Retail sales have been
listed as a general use.
Sec. 20 -732. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in a "CBD" district:
(1) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
() Babysitting bureaus.
() Ballroom.
() Bands, orchestras, actors and other entertainers.
() Barber shops.
(2) Bars and taverns.
() Beauty shops.
(3) Bowling center.
() Clothing rental.
(4) Clubs and lodges.
() Coin - operated service machines.
() College clearinghouse.
(5) Community center.
(6) Convenience stores without gas pumps.
(7) Convention and conference facilities.
() Costume rental.
(8) Cultural facilities.
() Dance studios, schools and halls.
() Dating service.
(9) Day care center as part of shopping center.
(10) Department storeJ.
() Debt counseling.
() Diet workshop.
() Electrolysis service.
(11) Entertainment.
(12) Exhibit operation.
(12) Fast -food restaurants as part of shopping center.
(13) Financial institutions.
() Garment pressing.
() Gymnastics instruction.
() Hair weaving and replacement.
() Handball/racketball courts.
(14) 14afdwgeo€6.
Todd Gerhardt
November 8, 2010
Page 5 of 6
(15) Health and recreation clubs.
(16) Health services, outpatient only.
(17) Home furnishings.
(18) Hotels.
(19) Liquor stores.
() Locker rental.
() Martial arts instruction.
() Message therapy.
(20) Multiple - family dwellings, including senior citizen housing.
() Nail salon.
(21) Newspaper offices.
(22) Offices.
(23) Personal services.
() Parking ramp.
() Photographic studios.
() Physical fitness centers.
() Porter services.
(24) Print shops.
() Quilting.
() Retail sales.
() Scalp treatment services.
(25) Schools.
() Self- service laundries and drycleaning.
() Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors.
(26) Shopping center.
() Shopping service.
(27) Specialty retail.
() Sporting instruction (camp or school).
() Sporting goods rental.
() Sports clubs
(28) Standard restaurants.
(29) Supermarkets.
() Tanning salon.
() Tattoo and body art and piercing services. (MS §146B)
() Tax return preparation.
() Theatrical producers and services.
(30) Utility service.
() Valet parking.
() Wedding chapel.
() Yoga instruction.
Sec. 20 -733. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in a "CBD" district:
(1) Parking lots and ramps.
(2) Signs.
Todd Gerhardt
November 8, 2010
Page 6 of 6
(3) Temporary outdoor sales and events (subject to the requirements of Section 20 -312).
Sec. 20 -734. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in a "CBD" district:
(1) Reserved.
(2) Freestanding fast -food restaurants.
(3) Reserved.
(4) Convenience store with gas pumps.
Sec. 20 -736. Interim uses.
The following are interim uses in the "CBD" district;
(1) Churches.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Farmers markets.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff and the Planning Commission are looking to City Council for feedback with
regard to the above City Code issue regarding uses within the Central Business District.
Specifically, we are asking for City Council guidance on whether to make the list of uses more
specific or to keep them general. Whatever direction is provided by City Council will also be
used to review the remaining commercial zoning districts.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memorandum From Vernelle Clayton to Bob Generous Dated August 5, 2010.
2. Email from Nancy Lipinski to Vernelle Clayton Dated July 30, 2010.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated August 17, 2010.
g: \plan \city code\2010 \uses \cc memo cbd issue paper.doc
7. Clayton@ASSOCIATES
August 5, 2010
TO: Bob Generous
FROM: Vernelle Clayton, Business Council Chair
Thank you for the opportunity for the Chanhassen Business Council to respond to your
request to review some potential changes to the list of permitted uses within the
Chanhassen CBD.
I have had some limited dialogue with some of our members and I have received the
enclosed emailed response from one of them. In my communication with the members, I
invited them to forward comments directly to you as well, so perhaps you already have
additional feedback.
First, the general consensus is that the list is confusing as to its content.
Next, my own observations are as follows:
1. The third paragraph under the heading Definition/Vision reads "A combination of
convenience commercial..." The insertion of the word "convenience" here is in conflict
with the gist of the two previous paragraphs and the district also accommodates
destination commercial. It would be a more consistent statement if the word
"convenience" were deleted.
2. We seem to be weaving a pretty complicated web in an effort to avoid strippers,
porn and prostitutes. I fully understand the attorney's recommendation; however,
prudent public policy needs to achieve a balance between regulation that would make it
perfectly clear that "personal services" does not include something undesirable and
ordinances that provide an atmosphere which encourages business growth and innovative
concepts. My preference would be that public policy would be weighted toward the
latter.
3. I also would try to limit the number of specific uses by being more general and by
combining as many as possible. The basis for that recommendation is twofold: A. The
list will be out of date as soon as someone thinks of a new service and it will certainly
k r<+....5'�" "€ *} � `'' � s�r� s • - :h.i .f r'�.s3 ^�+`� i �' '� E .c, � � . 4a ").\ ,r FiC $44444101r, ,.. p
,a �°}' �+ s 1k �.� �� C err..- s..3`�'' A�'.��
t l lea stet err s il > � i n sere F [ � tat �7t s:
./.�, s'._... ..w`r -,.. `> ? ..: •._,_t.4'- .35. ..R��,�. ;1.����_.._.. .C...; :Y•,,.� rc _.,�.�"' � ��y!,24`��4 �""
.n �G...:� � M.......- ...C. ... £. �.. v %� � :Y Wit.
be out of date long before 2030. B. If I have a new idea and want to locate my business
in Chanhassen but see that it is not on the list of things that I would be `permitted' to do
here, I would look to locate in Chaska, Eden Prairie, or any other city that did not have
such a limitation.
4. If the decision is made to proceed with the lengthy list, however, then here are a
few ideas that could keep the concept but still shorten the list a bit:
a. Under the definitions section of the Code, change the term to be defined from
"retail sales" to "retail" and then change the defmition to "means establishment
engaged in selling or renting goods or merchandise to the general public for personal
or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale or rental of
such goods..." That would eliminate the need to try to come up with all the things
folks might want to rent. (While you're at it, I would delete the words "for personal
or household consumption ". Could be they're consuming it in their business but
more to the point, why does the City care where the goods are consumed ?)
b. Combine cultural activities to include theater and music and avoid the awkward use
of "actors and other entertainers " — cops that male stripper, you know.
c. Get rid of all the one -time possibilities such as "diet workshop" and the ones that
could fall under `medical' such as "electrolysis service" and "scalp treatment
services"
d. I see that churches are listed as an interim use, but a wedding chapel can be here
100% of the time!
e. Get rid of all the uses that really belong under "Office" which is already defined.
"Tax return preparation" for example, is usually a business that is considered to be a
standard office use.
f. Why does it make sense to say that a group of folks can get together to do quilting?
What if a group of Norwegians wanted to get together to do rosemalling(sp)? Or at
Easter a group wanted to get together to do that fantastic egg decorating?
g. Are you intending to move parking ramps to the new list and remove them from
the Accessory list?
The more I go through the list the more committed I become to my conclusion that it's
just not a practical undertaking to list all the services that are currently permitted and that
might be permitted in the future. Politically, the emotional emphasis these days is
definitely on less government intrusion so timing -wise, perhaps something that looks like
more government control may not be such a good idea.
Original Message
From: Nancy Lipinski [mailto:nancy @nancylipinski.com]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:59 PM
To: 'Vernelle Clayton'
Subject: RE: CBD Uses
My questions are as follows:
1. cannot you just list 'porn' activities as not available?
2. why convenience store with gas pumps?
3. why would a day care have to be part of a shopping center?
4. what does the 'retail' category list - is this why so many other uses
were eliminated?
5. what is a 'standard' restaurant?
6. what about stores /services that haven't been invented yet - how can you
predict what services /retail will be required in 20 -30 years from now?
7. why only 'outpatient' heath services
8. I don't understand the Sec 20 -733 through 736 items.
Nancy Lipinski
Certified Public Accountant
Lipinski Accounting & Tax Services, LLC
470 West 78th Street Suite 225
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Office: 952 - 767 -3132
Fax: 952 - 906 -4006
email: nancy @nancylipinski.com
web: www.nancylipinski.com
IRS Circular 230 Disclaimer: The advice we provide in this email is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you or any other
person or entity for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed
under the Internal Revenue Code or any applicable state or local tax law.
Confidentiality Diclosure: This message contains information that may be
confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee you may not use,
copy, print or disclose to anyone the message or any informtion contained in
the message. If you have received this e -mail in error, please advise the
sender by reply and delete the message.
Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 17, 2010
Aanenson: Yeah, you need to make that motion.
Ellsworth moved, Thomas seconded to approve an amendment to condition 12 that the
applicant submit a new plan prior to City Council review detailing the total number of
parking spaces. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to
0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING CONCERNING CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) USES.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Larson: Let's start with Tom this time.
Doll: Okay, what you're proposing is that we are agreeing to the list of permitted uses being on
page 1 and 2 of City of Chanhassen, Carver and Hennepin County Minnesota Ordinance Number
blank. That's what the proposal is?
Generous: Correct.
Doll: Okay. Boy, Ms. Clayton sure had some good points to take into account and businesses
that may not have been thought of. You know for instance I don't see florist on here or card
shop or you know is that under a general deal or one that's.
Larson: Florists are very important.
Doll: I understand. The world needs flowers and there's deli, I mean there's just so many things
that could be in here that aren't in here and do we want to, you know it's kind of like.
Larson: I thought florists was covered somehow because I'm sure I brought that up.
Generous: Well Madam Chair, it would be under retail sales and that's why we got rid of the
specialty and we wanted to expand the retail.
Doll: Okay.
Aanenson: It's constantly changing.
Doll: It's just really hard to, you know retail sales and then have, I guess the definition of retail
sales, I don't know this is confusing to me. I don't understand why we have to.
Aanenson: Maybe we can just step back and put this in context again. The City uses a
standard...classification with if any doubt how we go through those and how we're operating
right now is the same methodology. It's, we look it up and see if it's permitted. If it's not, if the
Code's silent on it then it's not permitted and that's where some of the ambiguity comes in. If
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 17, 2010
it's silent on it and you can't find anything in that specialty retail so the goal was to try to make
sure that was more inclusive and going on the basis of what the City Attorney recommended as
not being too vague or making it too broad of a category. So then you could have unintended
consequences which we've talked about before. So what we did is, and I think Bob really tried
to clearly state it that we try to enumerate more items that we know we may be missing and take
some of that nomenclature that may not be appropriate any more and strike that through so this is
how we're operating today. We just expanded that list.
Doll: I understand what you're doing. It's just, it's just.
Aanenson: Well I think there was an uncomfort level from the, and I guess we went by what the
City Attorney says to go with but the recommendation was in a letter and that's related to the
broader categories. The unintended consequences of maybe getting something you may not want
in the downtown.
Doll: Yeah, that's just my issue with that. I don't know the answer. I'm just kind of throwing
that out there. I don't quite.
Larson: So these numbers that are in the parenthesis, is that just what the numbers were before?
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Larson: So the fact that we have a couple 12's and a couple other 8's. Okay. I didn't know if
that meant something different or not. How bout you?
Thomas: I don't know, how does it affect Doug and Steve?
Generous: Pardon me?
Thomas: Doug and Steve. The body shop that's behind Target.
Generous: That's a planned unit development.
Thomas: So is that alright?
Aanenson: We amended that PUD to permit that use in there. Yeah.
Thomas: They're okay...
Aanenson: This does not make them non - conforming. Right.
Larson: Anything?
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 17, 2010
Ellsworth: I share Tom's concerns. I know we spent a lot of time talking about this in detail.
We talked about inclusionary versus exclusionary and I struggled with most of this seems to
hinge on the city attorney's opinion and I don't know the City Attorney and have not spoken
with the city attorney on this topic. In order to help us perhaps weigh more the pros and cons of
well what are the risks if it's more vague. Some would say more business friendly. I know what
we've talked about was staff trying to make it more business friendly. More developer friendly
environment and certainly the person who wrote in, Clayton pointed out some pretty obvious
things that it's not terribly business friendly and to the point that they arrived here with an idea
and it's not on our list, they'll go to another city simply because it's more expeditious. Whether
that's true or not I don't know but it certainly gave pause for thought. I would suggest for
discussion that we spend a little time with the City Attorney and talk about what other mitigating
opportunities, I'm not a lawyer but if we, no offense to all the lawyers listening or hearing this is,
if we did everything per the lawyers we would get nothing done and we'd have covered every
base so there's a balance somewhere. I think that's what Tom was alluding to as well and so I
would want to go to that direction and have more discussion. Perhaps even to the point of
changing the philosophy. This may sound terrible but the philosophy of the code to make it the
other direction so it's only exclusionary. Put on there what we exclude, not what we include. I
don't know the philosophical debate behind that.
Aanenson: I just want to point out too for the record whenever we've had somebody that wants
to land here, something we hadn't thought of, we've always encouraged them to come before the
Planning Commission and make it a part of that interpretation is that you can do a site plan and
amend it. I think there's always an opportunity if something came in that we never anticipated
and we work hard you know to make it go.
Doll: But what timeframe does that you know?
Ellsworth: Exactly.
Doll: You know there's a timeframe for the business and for them to come in and apply for a
business permit. But then they've got to wait for us to go over it and then they've got to wait for
City Council to go over it and by that time.
Aanenson: Are you aware of anybody that we've lost that we?
Generous: Not since I've been here.
Ellsworth: Because that was one of the conversation points was if it's not on here and it needed
to be amended, that we talked up to a 3 month period in order for it to be where it would be
allowed and that would be then before anybody could even start the process, and maybe I heard
that incorrectly, given the look on your face.
Aanenson: No, I can't imagine it'd take 3 months unless you do a rezoning.
Generous: Well you'd have to do the amendment and that's about 60 days.
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 17, 2010
Aanenson: 60 days. It wouldn't be any different than going through the process. I'm just trying
to think since I've been here that something that we said you know, where we've actually done
modifications for a site that we wanted to land. We've rezoned a piece of property but I'm
thinking if, when we've got currently commercial zoning. I'm trying to think where we would
have said to somebody you know, a use that we really, really wanted that we couldn't make
happen. We haven't found a way for that to go. I can't think of one. I'm just trying to think, it's
not, we're not chasing people out of the city. We're certainly trying to encourage them to come
in but those uses that fit in.
Ellsworth: Sometimes it's the folks that don't knock on your door you don't know about.
Aanenson: We don't have business license requirement so there's a lot of things that we
wouldn't see but for they need a building permit. So we're very lenient in that regard. One of
the few cities that don't have that so. I'm not saying it's never happened but I think you know
maybe we're looking at two extremes here. There's somewhere in the middle and certainly I
think that's a good idea to have the city attorney come talk to you about the philosophy of what
other cities approaches do for that issue, I think that'd be a great opportunity for everybody to
learn on that.
Ellsworth: That's all I had. Thank you.
Aller: Well it's a recurring theme but to me that's the issue I have obviously a different
viewpoint than some of the others. I tend to agree with the city attorney's opinion on whether or
not we're going to create problems if we are not more specific. However I think we spent an
awful lot of time with staff in trying to create this particular list for this particular district and in
doing so we kept some terms general and we went to some specifics where we felt it was
required so I think what's before us now is, is what we have now and to say that we're not
looking towards the future, I think we are. We're looking to try to avoid problems and in doing
so to allow for someone to come in and get their businesses going and to give them some clear
direction of what we are allowing to be done in this business district. And they know that if
they're going to try to do something different, that they're going to come in and they're going to
have a public hearing on it. They're going to try to propose something and we're going to look
at it very carefully and we're going to determine whether that new business idea is in fact an old
one that we can pigeon hole into another existing term here that we've already got listed, or
whether or not we require additional action so I would say we move forward with this district as
it is. Get something done so to speak and give some direction to the business owners that want
to prepare to move in and start doing business here in Chanhassen.
Undestad: I agree. You know I think the comment do we look to an exclusion list or limit these,
I think we can come up with just as big a list if we, of things we didn't want in Chanhassen you
know that this list has gone through and is it too long? Is it too short? I think the fact again that
if there's something that's not on there or doesn't really specify what we're doing, they do bring
them into us and we have an opportunity there. But on the other hand, you know if we leave it
like this that's fine but you're not going to get, you know there's concerns about unwanted
businesses in here for various reasons and it just eliminates them even coming in in the first
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 17, 2010
place. So I think this is you know fine the way we have it too and I think we should move this
ahead like that.
Larson: What I'm wondering is, does that invite lawsuits against the city if we don't have it
listed. You know what I mean? Like Nancy Lipinski's letter points out you know can you just
cannot, you just list porn activities as not available. You know not that anybody would be
attracted to this city for that reason now. 10 years down the road, would they come in and they'd
say well it doesn't say that we can't, would they sue the city. You know what I'm saying?
Aanenson: Well all I can do stand on case law and we haven't had that problem in the past. I
will give you an example of one where we did wrestle with and that was we've had two
opportunities for fast food that wanted to do adjacent to a stored building in town and there was
some consideration regarding that and that's historically fast food with their hours of operation.
Traffic generated. Noise has always been a concern of where that specifically locates in
downtown and that based on where there's stacking problems out onto collector roads. That was
one that we've always kind of struggled with and kind of pushed those in specific locations. We
do have a couple right across the street here from City Hall but that's always a challenge and I
would say that's probably the one issue where we sometimes maybe have had a little bit more
concern at the staff level of not being as flexible but that's all I can think of as far as uses in the
past and I can think of two examples of that. Where they just didn't seem to fit on the property
and so we didn't move forward. After they met with staff and worked through engineering, we
didn't come back, we told the applicant we wouldn't support it but you're welcome to try but
those would be the only two I can think of and those were specifically two fast food restaurants
in the last 10 years. So if you want to have the city attorney discuss it some more, if you wanted
to table it.
Larson: I don't know, what do you think? I don't know.
Undestad: Yeah you know, you could talk til you're blue in the face and come up with...
Larson: Well I thought that we already have, that's...
Undestad: I think we have too. I think that's what we're saying is that you know we have and I
think we have a good basis to get this thing done.
Aller: Yeah, my understanding is we still have 3 other, 4 other business districts to go through or
districts that we want to attend to anyway so while we're working on those, City Council can
look at this and take a hard look at what direction they want to go and I think they're looking
really for some direction from us to say should it be narrower or should it be more general and
they're going to get our recommendation and they're going to have their own independent views
and they're going to act on it so I would want to move forward and continue to move forward
unless we're told from City Council that we're going in the wrong direction.
Larson: Okay. Should I open and close the public hearing? We're now open for discussion
from the public. If anybody would like to step up. Nope? Okay. Closing the public hearing. I
think we've discussed this so would anybody like to do a motion?
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 17, 2010
Ellsworth: Madam Chair, I would move to postpone this item until after the City Attorney briefs
the commission on the issues regarding the specificity in the ordinance language. I'm not
opposed to the list. I just would like more information.
Doll: I second.
Ellsworth moved, Doll seconded to table the Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning
Concerning Central Business District (CBD) Uses until after the City Attorney briefs the
commission on the issues regarding the specificity in the ordinance language. Ellsworth
and Doll voted in favor, the rest opposed. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 4.
Larson: Okay, the motion does not carry 4 to 2.
Aller: Madam Chairman I move the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning Concerning Central Business
District uses as listed.
Larson: Do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Aller moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
the City Council approve the Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning Concerning
Central Business (CBD) District uses as presented. All voted in favor, except for Ellsworth
and Doll who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING CONCERNING POLITICAL
SIGNS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Larson: Questions?
Thomas: No.
Ellsworth: No.
Doll: No.
Larson: Me either. Questions?
Aller: No.
19