11. Proposed Ordinance Revisions Regulation Convenience Stores 1 •1 -
C I TY OF
. . CHANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning eiLd
' DATE: November 28 , 1989
SUBJ: Proposed Ordinance Revisions Regulating Convenience Stores
' PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
On September 13 , 1989, the City Council reviewed the draft ordi-
nance revisions that had been prepared to regulate convenience
stores , service stations and other uses having gas pumps. The
ordinance as drafted would provide detailed definitions for con-
venience stores with and without gas pumps and for motor fuel
stations . The definitions used the amount of square footage
devoted to the sale of non-automotive goods to determine when a
gas station would be defined as a convenience store. The existing
definition for Automotive Service Stations was processed to be
deleted since it is to be replaced by the Motor F4el Station defi-
nition. The ordinance then would have modified the districts in
which these uses could be allowed as either permitted or con-
ditional uses.
The City Council reviewed the draft and concluded that it does not
yet achieve their goals . They indicated that the ordinance should
provide separation standards and limit the number and locations of
convenience stores . There should be a physical separation between
uses with gas pumps due to visual and traffic considerations.
There should also be a separation of gas pumps from 'residential
parcels to minimize associated impact on those parcels.
Staff has reviewed the record to date. While we believe some
progress has been made, particularly with regard to the develop-
!' ment of definitions, it may be appropriate to consider a somewhat
different approach. Accordingly, we are proposing that all uses
with gas pumps be made subject to conditional use permits. There
is a good rationale for handling the requests in this manner
since it appears that it is the gas pumps and not the service
retail components that are causing the problems. Thus, con-
venience stores without gas pumps would not be subject to con-
ditional use permits and would be allowed as a permitted use in
the CBD, BH, BG and BN Districts.
I
Don Ashworth
November 28, 1989
Page 2
Separation standards will be added to the appropriate section
' where uses with gas pumps are permitted as a conditional use
permit. All distances will be measured from the nearest gas
pumps. A minimum distance between individual uses with gas
pumps of 250 feet is proposed. This may not eliminate multiple
' facilities on a street, but it will prevent the concentration
of multiple uses dispensing gas at a single intersection.
' The use of separation standards such as this one raises
questions of limiting free trade and of restricing competition.
It is also somewhat questionable in that it grants the right to
' build on a "first come" basis. On the other hand, the city is
not deciding exactly where these facilities should locate. The
approach is rather one of setting standards based upon concerns
with impacts associated with concentrations of these uses.
Staff is comfortable with the concept of establishing a minimun
separation standard.
' The second separation standard relates to the minimum distance
between uses dispensing gas and residential parcels. Staff has
proposed a minimum separation of 100 feet. In this case, the
separation is to provide physical separation between a very
' intense use and residential parcels. Gas facilities generate
high levels of traffic, are well lighted, often operate 24
hours a day and produce a strong odor with gas, exhaust, etc.
We believe they are incompatible adjacent to residential uses
even with a high standard of screening.
' In reviewing the ordinance we found what we consider to be an
oversight. While reviewing auto related uses, we noted that
auto sales and service are allowed as conditional uses in the
General Business District but are prohibited from locating in
' the Highway and Business Services District. I am not an advo-
cate of auto sales due to the visual and signage problems they
typically cause, but it seems strange that a Firestone or
Goodyear type of store or an auto service mall is excluded from
a district that is devoted to highway uses. We further note
that car washes and automotive service stations are allowed as
permitted uses. Therefore, we are recommending that automobile
service be allowed as a permitted use in the BH District. As
such, any proposal to develop a site with this use would still
require site plan approval.
The districts in which the three uses are allowed is comparable
to what had been proposed in the past. The following table
illustrates the proposal.
I
Planning Commission
November 8, 1989
Page 3
BN BF BG BH CBD
Convenience Stores
Without Gas P X P P P
Convenience Stores
With Gas Pumps C X C C X I
Motor Fuel Station X C C C X
P = Permitted Use '
C = Conditional Use
X = Not Permitted
The Planning Commission discussed the proposed ordinance at their
November 15, 1989, meeting. They raised a number of issues but
were unable to achieve a consensus . Several members of the
Commission objected to the idea of requiring a separation between
gas pumps, believing that it interferred with free market prin-
cipals .
Several others wished to increase the separation
requirement between gas pumps and residential lots from 100 feet
to 250 feet. Two votes to approve the ordinance were taken, one
as proposed, the other deleting the pump separation standard
while increasing the residential separation. Both motions failed
resulting in the ordinance being sent to the City Council without
affirmative action by the Planning Commission.
Consequently, staff is continuing to propose the ordinance as
origianlly drafted. However, one additional issue was raised
regarding the ordinances application to existing uses, several of
which may become non-conforming conforming if the ordinance is adopted. In
our opinion, the ordinance is not intended to address existing
uses and turning them into non-conformities could present signi-
ficant problems to their owners in the future. Therefore, we are
proposing that the ordinance be made applicable only to those
uses approved after the date of adoption of the ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, staff recommends that the following
ordinance amendment be approved. The ordinance will be effective
only on those uses approved after the date of adoption of this
ordinance. ,
U
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20
OF THE CHANHASSSEN CITY CODE
' BY ADDING PROVISIONS CONCERNING CONVENIENCE STORES
AND MOTOR FUEL STATIONS
The City Council of Chanhassen ordains as follows :
Section 1. Chapter 20, Section 20-1 of the Chanhassen City
Code is amended by adding the following definitions:
' "Convenience Store" - Convenience store means a retail
establishment which generally sells a limited range of food
' products, non-prescription drugs, candy and other perishable
goods. This includes soda and similar beverage dispensing
and food products which can be heated and/or prepared onsie,
and has over 400 square feet of floor area for retailing of
non-automotive goods.
"Convenience Store with Gas Pumps" - Convenience store means
' a retail establishment which generally sells gasoline from
pump islands and a limited range of food products, non-
prescription drugs, candy and other perishable goods. This
includes soda and similar beverage dispensing and food pro-
ducts which can be heated and/or prepared onsie, and has over
400 square feet of floor area for retailing of non-automotive
goods.
Motor Fuel Station" - Motor fuel station means a retail place
of business engaged in the sale of motor vehicle fuels, but
' may also engage in supplying a limited amount of related
goods. In no case shall the space for the retailing of
related goods exceed 400 square feet. No services shall be
provided for maintenance or repair of motor vehicles, except
' for the provision of window washing, air and oil dispensing
services.
Section 2. Article I, Section 20-1. Definitions. Delete
the following definition:
•
engaged primarily in the sale of motor vehicle fuels, but also
-
e 3 1+,h on - - - - - • - - • - -
I
Section 3. Amend Division 4, Standards for Business Office,
Institutional and Industrial Districts.
Section 20-282. Motor Fuel Station as follows:
The following applies to motor fuel stations :
1) No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on °"
premises except in appropriately designed and screened
storage areas.
2) All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of '
vehicles shall occur within closed building except minor
maintenance including, but not limited to tire inflation,
adding oil and wiper replacement. ,
3) No public address system shall be audible from any resi-
dential parcel.
II
4) Stacking areas deemed to be appropraite by the city shall'
meet parking setback requirements.
5) No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other
vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles , or all-terrain
vehicles. '
6) Disposal of waste oil shall comply with PCA regulations.
7) Gas pumps shall not be located within 100 feet of any ,
parcel zoned or guided for residential use.
8 ) A minimum separation of 250 feet is required between the
nearest gas pumps of individual parcels for which a con-
ditional use permit is being requested. '
Section 4. Amend Division 4, Section 20-288 as follows: '
Section 20-288. Convenience store with gas pumps.
The following applies to convenience stores with gas pumps:
1) No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on
premises.
2 ) No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles.
3 ) No public address system shall be audible from any resi-
dential parcel.
4) Gas pump stacking area deemed to be appropriate by the
City shall not intrude into any required setback area.
5 ) No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other I
vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, or all-terrain
vehicles.
-2-
I
-) Gas pumps shall not be located within 100 feet of any
parcel zoned or guided for residential use.
7 ) A minimum separation of 250 feet is required between the
' nearest gas pumps of individual parcels for which a con-
ditional use permit is being requested.
' Section 5. Chapter 20, Article XVI ( "BN" Neighborhood
Business District) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the •
following manner:
Section 20-694 . Conditional Uses
Delete:
2) Automotive service stations.
Section 6. Chapter 20, Article XVII ( "BH" Highway and
' Business Services District) of the Chanhassen City Code is ti
modified in the following manner:
' Section 20-712 . Permitted Uses
Delete:
3 ) Automotive service stations.
Delete:
11) Convenience stores with and without gas pumps
Add:
11) Convenience stores without gas pumps.
' Add:
20) Automobile servicing within enclosed structures designed
' for the purpose hwere fuel is not dispensed.
Section 20-714. Conditional Uses
' Add:
5 ) Convenience stores with gas pumps.
6 ) Motor fuel stations.
' Section 7. Chapter 20, Article XVIII, ( "CBD" Central
Business District) of the Chanhassen City Code remains
unchanged.
I
' -3-
I
Section 8. Chapter 20, Article XIX ( "BG" General Business
District) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the
following manner:
Section 20-752. Permitted Uses '
Delete:
3) Convenience stores with or without gas pumps. '
Add:
3) Convenience stores without gas pumps. '
Delete:
27) Automotive service stations.
Section 20-754. Conditional Uses '
Add:
6 ) Convenience stores with gas pumps.
7) Motor fuel stations.
Section 9. Chapter 20, Article XX ( "BF" Fringe Business
District) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the
following manner: '
Section 20-773. Conditional Uses
Delete: '
1) Automotive service stations without car washes.
Add:
1) Motor fuel stations without car washes.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Chanhassen this day of , 1989.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By:
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor '
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager '
-4-
i
- f -
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 13, 1989
II Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Jo Ann Olsen, Paul Krause, Gary Warren and Jim
Chaffee
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR
CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS, FIRST READING.
' Mark Koegler: I should comment it's nice to address you during the daylight
hours. I will be fairly brief in terms of a presentation because I know you
have a lot of items to get through this evening, even starting when you are.
' Cover maybe just a little brief background on what we have done to get to where
we are now and then certainly invite comments and direction, or further
direction fran the City Council. This issue of convenience stores started in
about December of 1988. At that time Steve Hanson being on staff had prepared
sane material. Worked with the Planning Commission. With his leaving, I became
involved earlier this summer and essentially kind of picked up sane of the
pieces where Steve left off. I want to emphasize fran the beginning the draft
' ordinance and all of the supporting memoranda that you have in your packet is
basically evolved out of one central premise and I think it's important to note
that at the beginning because I gather from looking at the Minutes from the last
session that's perhaps where sane of the disagreement perhaps lies. The premise
' was not to regulate specific locational criteria for convenience type stores.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that that was a free market
decision and you don't regulate the number of florists or the number of
' restaurants or whatever and they took the approach of not necessarily
identifying locational criteria but rather to establish an ordinance that
allowed convenience store locations consistent with the purposes of the specific
' zoning districts. That premise was reached, as I indicated, after discussion of
a number of alternatives and included among those alternatives were options such
as the geographical criteria. You can't have more than 1 per 2 mile radius or
whatever that might be. In discussions, that was viewed as being somewhat
arbitrary in this case given the fact that land uses can vary fairly widely in a
1 mile circle. You can have the intersection of major arterials occurring in
that distance and it was not seen necessarily to be a valid criteria. If I can
' have Jo Ann turn on the overhead, what happened then as a result of the
commission's discussions is took a relook if you will at the ordinance and
almost set up a heirarchy type of scheme of defining first of all the zoning
classifications which range anywhere from CBD, if we want to say down, we'll say
down to neighborhood business at least in terms of intensity and scale. With
CBD being the district where you obviously want to emphasize higher employment.
You want to emphasize uses that you think are conducive to downtown type areas.
' On the left side then looking at the types of convenience stores where we've got
convenience stores without gas pumps perhaps being the least intensive and going
to what was classified as motor fuel stations as being the most intensive, again
' we get this heirarchy scheme working in two directions. I'm referencing the
chart that's on the screen right now which was part of the memorandum that was
I1
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989 IF
R
in your packet. I've shown on that the existing zoning categories and the
proposed categories that the Planning Commission ultimately came up with. What
it ends up being is an approach that attempts to regulate convenience stores
first of all by defining them. There's definitions for the convenient stores
both with and without gas pumps and then you move into the auto service station
which is, in this particular case, a facility similar to the Amoco Food Shop
type approach where the main push is to sell gas and then the final one being
the more intensive, similar to Gary Brown's operation right now that has
mechanical services and so forth. So the attempt was to define which of those
uses should be permitted in the various districts. Which should be conditional
and which should be totally excluded. And again that was arrived out of this
premise that the purpose was not necessarily to actually regulate the number of
these things and not to say that you can't have 2 on a corner or 3 on a corner
but to say that maybe some of them don't belong in the downtown area or same of
them don't belong in the neighborhood businesses. As a follow-up I have looked
at ordinances throughout the Twin City area with a concentration on sane of the
developing cities whose camposition perhaps is more similar to that of
Chanhassen's. The Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Egan, sane of those types of '
community to see what approaches they take and it varies quite literally from an
approach like the City of Bloomington that really treats these very casually and
if you meet their conditional use criteria, you're fine, to probably the most
specific approach again takes more of a district type of definition in saying
that convenience stores are only appropriate in certain districts. Eden Prairie
for example allows them only in neighborhood business districts and only in
highway business districts. Now that does tend to begin to limit them
geographically because in their comprehensive plan they state that a
neighborhood business district should occur at probably no more frequent than
one mile intervals so you have to a certain degree sane restrictions in that
regard but then they also allow than in the highway business district which
doesn't fall under that same king of geographic type of approach. So I guess I
would assume it's appropriate this evening to clarify with the Council what your
direction is and what your interests are and if it certainly is different than
that that evolved at the Planning Commission level, we can take that back to the
Planning Commission with perhaps same more clear statement on our part to than
of what your end objective is and what it's going to take to achieve that. So
with that Mr. Mayor I would suggest, I'll kind of terminate comments and react
to any questions or comments that you might have.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussions? Any questions? '
Councilman Johnson: Looking at CBD as an example and saying that we don't want
any kind of gas pumps in the downtown business district. Tb me that's a
convenience for the people who work downtown to be able to grab Some gas'. In
this particular location it doesn't make much difference because we have
business highway right behind than and plenty of gas stations. But in general,
if we're ever to expand or develop a different business district classification
someplace, which I doubt we would, it'd make sense to me to have full services
available for the people within the district. If we had a larger CBD area, it'd
make sense to have gas pumps there so people could get gas but in our particular
case with only one CBD and it's very small, with plenty of gas stations all
around it, and when there's already a grandfathered one within it, then I don't
have a lot of problem.
2
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Mark Koegler: Philosophically I guess Councilman Johnson I would agree with
} you. You go to downtown Minneapolis, it's hard to find a gas station. There
are a few and there are times when you need it but this again was tailored more
II specifically to Chanhassen's existing land use pattern and projected land use
pattern which surrounds the CBD with highway business, with general commercial
so you...
' Councilman Johnson: I ran out of gas in downtown Minneapolis a while back.
That's where comment canes from.
Mayor Chmiel: In downtown here of course, you're only within 2 blocks of a
station.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, and we've gone one that's already here. We've already
got one convenience. Now does that became a non-conforming use then?
Mark Koegler: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: What would happen if for some reason they shut down their
gas pumps for a year?
' Jo Ann Olsen: They wouldn't be able to open up again if they closed down for a
year.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know why anyone would close down for a year but if
they had a fire or something, they could rebuild.
Jo Ann Olsen: Not if over 50% has been destroyed.
Mayor Chmiel: So with a 50% clause is what you're saying? If it's destroyed
' beyond 50%, they can't redo it?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
' Councilman Johnson: A non-conforming use is more than 50% destroyed.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
' Councilman Johnson: Because I'll tell you what. That little gas station on the
corner there does a bang up business. I don't know how many gallons they pump
but they pump a lot.
Mark Koegler: They have the advantage of having historically a gas station on
that site also. Same of us used to go to the Mobil station there regularly.
' Councilman Johnson: Of course they've been gone for 2 years before they 9 of
Bill. I'd think we'd at least want to put as a conditional use in that to me
it's logical if that did burn completely down to rebuild it as it was.
Councilman Workman: Which one are we talking about?
Councilman Johnson: The Brooke's. If Brooke's burned down, totally burn down,
would we allow than to have gas pumps if they rebuilt? Under this change, we
would not.
3
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Workman: Maybe I can simplify this. In going from the intent from
the previous council, and Jay and Bill can help us a little bit, what are we
trying to accomplish in a simple statement? What are we trying to accomplish
and so therefore Mark, under what direction did you feel you were trying to
accomplish something and are we doing that? I think we're trying to limit then -
and are we doing that? I guess if we can't do it, this is all just a bunch of ..
hot air but I guess the only real, if we can't control than and we can't tell
people not to put than here, which again I've stated that I'm not so sure we
should get into that business. But then we're trying to restrict them. I guess
the only concern that I'd have is where we have the biggest problem is under
Business Neighborhood, convenience stores with gas pumps. Other than that, I
mean business, general business district. They're probably going to be allowed
and there's not a whole lot of space for that anyway. Are we accomplishing what
we're trying to do here?
Councilman Johnson: The other thing we're trying to accomplish is a definition T
of what the heck a convenience store was because it wasn't defined and that's 4 II
done well in here. I like the definition of what a convenience store is. That —
one worked out. At least it's defined now instead of it was ambiguous. Amoco'
says we're not a convenience store. We're a gas station that just happens to
sell Pampers, but that doesn't make us a convenience store. And there's some
argument over what is and what isn't and that was one of the biggest arguments
as to what just to classify than as.
Councilman Workman: So we're no longer trying to restrict having our eighth
convenient store type operation?
Councilman Johnson: The previous Council wanted to, they had the feeling that
we would have 4 convenient stores or potentially 5, another one where the Legion
is, in that intersection. That did not seem like a logical thing to do but int
his we've got business highway so they're allowed there. IOP, are they allowed
in IOP?
Councilman Boyt: No. '
Councilman Johnson: They're currently not even allowed in IOP so you couldn't
get 5 on there because the corner is IOP on one side of that intersection. The
specific intersection that this was brought up on, which is the Amoco.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the intent probably from the other Council is the fact
that the aesthetics of having as many on a specific corner is really what
they're getting at. It's not very pleasant sight to see unless you're running
out of gas. It's convenient for the motorists on the highway but you have to
take into consideration the aesthetics is something that the people within the '
City are going to have to continue to look at and there have been many cities
that have gone to those kinds of locations of maybe 4 on all 4 corners because
it's a good intersection. Because it's payable but at the same, and it's a
paying situation for than but at the same time, you look at the same corners now
and those gas stations are gone. In my opinion, from what they've gone from to
looks a lot better than what it did when they had 4 stations.
Councilman Johnson: Right now at, what is it, 15 and 51 out towards ?buns?
There's 3 gas stations and a bank. All 3 seen to be getting enough business to
4
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989 - ,r
stay in there. 15 and 19. Yes, 15 and 19. Extremely busy intersection.
4
Councilman Workman: But is Mark's report, Mark are you basically saying we've
II i got the definitions for convenience stores and gas stations and we're not doing
a whole lot of changing from what the original states. We haven't changed a
whole lot?
Mark Koegler: Yeah. i think that's the underlying thing that has to be brought
out here is that the approach, the way it evolved, ended being not a
PP r , up �!
recommendation of changing a lot. Changing same districts a little bit. Adding
' sane definitions to control the locations of these uses but not to control the
numbers. As I read through sane Minutes from the last session, I know there was
at least sane interest expressed of should we be controlling the numbers and the
' Mayor just brought it out now, do we want 3 of these on an intersection or 4 of
these on an intersection. I know of an intersection in Phoenix that has 3 out
of the 4 corners with the same convenient store. The same one.
' Councilman Workman: Three PDQ's?
Mark Koegler: Three PDQ's in essence. I forget the name of it but I've been
' shown a photograph of that one and obviously that's not what you're after
necessarily but that's why I guess, I think Don suggested we originally we meet
this evening to determine if you're end objective out of this is different. If
' you're looking at numbers, we'll need to go back and scratch our heads and see
how that can maybe be achieved and bring that back to you. Again, this was more
of a free market approach of saying if, the comment statement you hear, I attend
enough Council meetings and so forth, businesses have a right to succeed and
businesses have a right to fail. This kind of takes that approach that says the
market, if they say 3 of than will work there and if it meets all the City's
criteria for traffic. Traffic flow for sight considerations and so forth, they
would be allowed to go in under this kind of a treatment so if that's not the
direction of the Council, that's what we need certainly to explore.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just a little bit confused. It seems to me that if
you're not going to limit number but you're going to limit location by zoning,
that you would be encouraging 3 or 4 within a short distance. Does that not
sound reasonable?
Mark Koegler: You could almost end up doing that in kind of a defacto kind of
matter just by how your zoning map physically looks.
Councilwoman Dimler: So then we're really defeating the purpose for what we're
doing?
Mark Koegler: You may be in one or two isolated points around the city and I
guess that's something we quite candidly haven't looked at. We probably should
take a look at the map and see what potentials that major hub areas there are
for that to occur. As was pointed out, the TH 101 and TH 5 current intersection
you've got 3 out of 4 of those quadrants if you will that could contain, 2 of
than do now, this type of land use with the fourth one, at least at present
' 1 being immune from that due to zoning. I don't know if there's other...
Councilwoman Dimler: And this would not preclude than from doing that?
1
5
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Mark Koegler: It would not. That is correct. Providing they met all of the I
site criteria that were part of the rest of the zoning ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: So can we really control it by zoning then?
Mark Koegler: TO do that I think we're going to have to enter an arena which is
not necessarily bad, of trying to look at sane more innovative techniques to do
this. Literally no city that I could find in the Twin Cities handles these in
the type of manner that you're talking about. There may be still 1 or 2 out
there because obviously we haven't looked at every single one but all of the
major cities, many of than are still in the position where they don't even have
definitions of convenience stores.
Mayor Chniel: New innovative thinkers here.
Mark Koegler: That's the challenge right?
Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to ask a question and I don't know who can '
answer it. In order, do we need an ordinance to have a definition or do we have
a definition book that's separate from ordinances?
Paul Krause: It's part of the zoning ordinance. You have to change that to '
incorporate the new definition.
Councilwoman Dimler: But do we have a book that just has definitions? '
Paul Krause: No. It's an element of the zoning ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you need an ordinance just for a definition? If you
changed nothing else?
Paul Krause: Right.
Councilman Workman: I don't know how far we're willing to go and just as 4 of
these convenience stores on one corner wouldn't look pretty, the free market
system isn't pretty looking at all.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, and this doesn't seen to handle that situation.
Councilman Workman: So what happens is I would say that we can't really or
we're not really going to control it. Can we then say, well we could say, we
could basically make all of these business districts, put an x by than all and
say we don't want than in any of these districts and that would essentially take
care of it. I don't know if we could do that.
Councilwanan Dimler: It'd be illegal.
Councilman Workman: Would it? I guess the only place then that I see a problem
is in the business neighborhood district, convenience store with gas pumps.
That's what we have with Brooke's. We have a problem. That's a conditional use
but I would.
Councilman Johnson: Brooke's is in BN.
I
6
ICity Council Meeting - September 13, 1989 s
Councilman Workman: It's not BN. Business Central. CBD.
Councilwoman Dimler: What's the SuperAmerica?
Jo Ann Olsen: Business Neighborhood.
II Councilwoman Dimler: That's BN?
Mayor Ctmiel: That's BN.
II Councilman Workman: Can we maybe make minor modifications that way and say make
convenient stores with gas pumps. Let me ask this first. Would business
highway and business neighborhood, could those two conflict? When we get TH 5
1 going out and everything and we've got a neighborhood just south of TH 5 and
we've got a gas station at the mouth of this neighborhood, is that going to
potentially be a problem? I know Eden Prairie does that a lot. Can we take
convenience stores with gas pumps as a conditional use out of the business
1 neighborhood?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
IIPaul Krause: You certainly could but when you think of the classes of uses that
are neighborhood oriented, oftentimes a small convenient store type operation
I with or without gas pumps fits that bill. What do you normally think of when
you think of neighborhood businesses? It's the traditional dry cleaner, the
small grocery store, place to get a little bit of gas.
1 Councilman Workman: I'm worried about the gas. I'm not worried about the
convenience part of it.
I Paul Krause: These days most of the developers will tell you that they don't
put in convenience stores without gas pumps. I suppose presumably you could
force them to but that's the orientation the business is taking.
IICouncilman Workman: But I'm saying that might clear up a problem that we
continually have. I think the Total over there is fairly separate from the
neighborhood but now we've got the Brooke's and that's not so I'm looking at
II that use, the neighborhood use. The guy's back yard is 50 feet from a gas pump.
That tome is...
II Paul Krause: One of the things you could look at, and one thing I've had sane
experience with is putting distance criteria in the conditional use permits from
the residentially zoned property. '
1 Councilman Workman: Like liquor stores and churches.
Mark Koegler: The other advantage I think you'll see as time continues and more
II residential development occurs in Chanhassen is they'll be able to be planned
rather than kind of dropping one into an existing neighborhood which is to sane
degree what Brooke's did. Where you've got 300 acres of open land and you plan
residential and you plan a small commercial center, you can do buffering around
I that site in a little better manner than you can in existing conditions.
, Again, I would agree with Paul. Cities es do impose various setback criteria from,
IIparticularly when there's gas. Many communities get excited when there's gas
7
II
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
versus when there's a convenience store just because of the issue of truck
deliveries with fuel and so forth being close to houses.
Councilman Workman: Well we've got TH 7 and TH 41. That's a classic example
and that thing is a long way away. I think the nature of the gasoline business
is all around is what people are fearful of. I'm just saying that's maybe where
we could restrict these. Save ourselves the headaches down the road. We've got
Brooke's before us. We've got the SA before us and I suppose the SA down on TH
212 is probably a problem. I don't know. I'm just throwing that out because it
doesn't look like we're going to be doing a whole lot with this anyway other
than putting definitions into the zoning.
Councilman Johnson: The SA on TH 212 is a legal non-conforming existingly. At
the present time right?
Mayor Chmiel: That was my understanding.
Councilman Johnson: So we're not changing that particular location.
Councilman Workman: I understand that. I don't know, I guess I would move that
point with that modification to it.
Councilman Johnson: One thing I just went through which might help. I
Councilman Boyt: Which point?
Councilman Workman: The conditional use. The convenient store with gas pumps I
out of the Business Neighborhood or take the suggestion that we get a distance.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I like the distance criteria. But we've only got
what? Two business neighborhoods in the entire area.
Councilman Workman: Well as TH 5 develops, we could have more of them. And TH
212 and everything else.
Councilman Johnson: When the MUSA line moves, we could have more coming up and
I think a distance criteria is probably the best thing. Maximum, minimum? '
Whatever. Minimum distance from any residential district for the location of
fuel dispensing facility or whatever. What I did, just as we went through here
was, mark down the changes on this little chart they've got there. In Central
Business District, convenient stores without gas pump or with gas pumps is going
from conditional use to not permitted at all. Business highway doesn't change.
Business general, convenient store with gas pumps going from permitted to
conditional. Business fringe, automotive service station is going from not
permitted at all to conditional. Or I mean going from conditional to not
permitted at all and on business neighborhood, thee only recommended change
they've got is going from conditional to not permitted for automotive service
stations.
Councilman Boyt: Did you say there was a change in business general? I
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I don't see that change. 1
8 1
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
II ?
Councilman Johnson: Convenient stores with gas pumps is currently a permitted
use under the BH.
Councilman Boyt: Well if I'm looking at the right page, Page 4, it says...
Councilman Johnson: Page 4. Business general. BG.
Councilman Boyt: Permitted.
' Councilman Johnson: No, mine says conditional. C. Conditional.
Mayor Chmiel: Page 4 of Mark's letter.
1 Mark Koegler: I don't know if you can see it on your monitor.
Councilman Johnson: The first page is the existing.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, that I've got.
Councilman Johnson: And then on Page 4, we've added one definition which is
what a gas station is. See one thing to me is automotive service station, a
place where Joe can fix your car. To me makes sense to be in a business
neighborhood because that's something that supports residential people is Joe's
gas station and Joe's Automotive Repair facility.
' Mayor Chmiel: One of the things that I was thinking about Jay is that presently
we probably have some of those areas classified as agricultural. Even though
there's some residential areas within those specific areas, when they came back
to rezone that, then you're going to start causing those problems.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. When the MUSA line changes, that's when this is
going to be more important. About 20 years from now. 10 years from now. 5
years from now.
Paul Krause: I think you can get at sane of that by, if you establish a
distance criteria that the distance is measured from land zoned or guided for
residential.
Mayor Chmiel: Distance I think would take care of it.
Councilman Boyt: There were several issues the couple of nights we discussed
this with the former Council. One of them was certainly, it was a motivation
' for sane of the people was directed specifically at Gary Brown's situation and
how does he get more leverage. That didn't happen to my issue. Mine, and I
think if you called people that lived around the city you'd see that there's a
l general concern there's too many of them. The question is, there goes another
one. We don't need all these convenient stores with gas stations. Maybe you
don't want to regulate those at all. I personally agree with those people that
say that every, as Paul said, every shopping strip center that's going to be
proposed is going to be proposed with a gas pump and do we want to have that
happen or not. I think that's the issue and I don't think the Planning
Commission dealt with that issue. Wb11 they dealt with it. They said it was
1
9
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
fine with than I guess. Well, I don't sense that that's what the community's
saying.
Councilwoman Dimler: But Bill now are we saying then, the developer may not
cane in here with a strip center at all if he can't put gas pumps in so we're
really saying that we've got enough strip centers. And as we develop, that's
plenty. Everybody will have to cane to what's existing. 1
Councilman Boyt: I don't know what all the ramifications of our decision would
be Ursula. I'm just saying that I think people sense, when there's 5 currently
accepted by the City between what was it? Great Plains and whatever the staff
report said but roughly within a mile there's 5 of then. The people that live
around that say that's more than enough.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's true but as we develop, that's not going to be
servicing those people that are going to be living out west and I can tell you
developer's not going to cane in here if he can't make money and if he sees that
II
having gas pumps is what makes money or draws people in, then that's what's
going to keep him out of here. They won't cane to Chanhassen.
Councilman Boyt: That's why, what we directed staff and the Planning Commission
to look at was how do we impact the density of these things. The number of
these things. It wasn't how do we eliminate than from the city. We currently
have what sane people were thinking is too many in one small area. If we allow
the market to dictate this, I can assure you that all you have to do is go back
and look at the abandoned gas stations to recognize that the market in the long
run, it will sort that out. Do we want to live with the consequences of that
sort process? I think that's the issue.
Councilwoman Dimler: You can't regulate them by zoning. That's when you're
encouraging than to be all bunched up.
Councilman Boyt: I think we can regulate them by zoning. I don't think that's
enough. We regulate virtually everything by zoning. '
Councilwanan Dimler: Yes but you're encouraging them to bunch up which is
against what you're saying you want. ,
Councilman Johnson: Or you can also do like the contractor's yard. Have a
minimum distance between than because if you look at Galpin Blvd., when that
gets to be sewered, there's 4 convenience stores on that corner you know. It
will be the next place for sane gas pumps. I guess what we're saying is we want
to spread them out. Do we allow mini-golf with or without gas pumps?
Mayor Cttniel: If you want to putt around. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I can tell you that I drive west quite frequently and
if I'm low on gas, I've got to go all the way to Cenex in Victoria and hope I
make it. If I forget to get gas. If I'm low and don't check my gauge before I
go out west, I have a hard time. I hope I make it to Cenex. There's nothing
there. '
Councilman Johnson: But what I'm saying is we don't need 4 at that
intersection. '
10
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
t ; Councilwoman Dimler: But you're going to want same there.
I Councilman Johnson: We don't need 4 at the next intersection. We don't need 4
at the next intersection as the MUSA line changes. If we could say one within,
they have to be spread by half a mile or you could say only 2 within a half mile
radius of each other or something of that nature.
Mayor Chniel: I think a good example is looking at some of those within the
city of Eden Prairie. Gas stations available. They have one on TH 5 and
' that's from our corporate limits outside of their corporate limits.
Councilwoman Dimler: I can usually make it to that one if I'm going east. But
going west, it's tough.
Mayor Ctmiel: Going east there's not another station.
Councilman Johnson: SuperAmerica's the only one on TH 5.
Mayor Ctmiel: There was a station which has been removed right before the
railroad tracks.
Councilman Johnson: Isn't there one behind there now?
' Mayor Qmiel: Yeah, Mobile has that availability...
Councilman Johnson: But nobody sees it.
Councilman Workman: But is Eden Prairie restricting?
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't think they are.
Mark Koegler: Through zoning. It's simply through zoning categories. The area
where SA is at TH 4 and TH 5 is zoned highway business and you look at the rest
of the corridor along TH 5 and you've got large industrial and then you've got a
fair amount of residential along portions of TH 5 and there aren't any other
opportunities. That's what can be done here. Speaking about the future, the
' structure of the zoning ordinance can be used to indicate where those things can
and can't happen just as the example you're pointing to in Eden Prairie is
working now.
1 Councilman Johnson: What we'd have to do is zone an intersection, similar to
the Great Plains intersection. It's zoned business highway on dne side.
Business neighborhood on, or on two corners it's business highway. One corner
' business neighborhood and one corner IOP. So one's a conditional use and two
sides is permitted use. So the max we could have at that intersection is 3
under our current ordinance because IOP is not allowed gas stations. Actually
1 if you consider where Total is, being right next to it, you could get 4. Have 2
convenience stores back to back. That's possible. I've seen it done too. Do
we want two convenience stores back to back?
Councilman Bout: Personally, since you brought ug up convenience stores, I don't
understand the need for a definition of a convenience store. That's just a
store as far as I'm concerned.
11
r
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: The Gary Brown situation. Is that a convenience store or
is that a gas station? They're saying it's a gas station? It's not a
convenience store. '
Councilman Boyt: Well I can see where there's a need to describe, well
convenience stores with gas pumps and more fuel stations but for somebody to
cane in and say I want to put a store in here and there aren't going to be any
gas pumps around it.
Councilman Johnson: Then it's not a convenience store. '
Councilman Boyt: Why do we need to be in the business of defining what that's
got to be?
Councilman Johnson: It's a retail business.
Councilman Boyt: Well it's only when gas pumps came into play that it raises my
interest level in terms of the concern. As long as I'm kind of interruping Jay
here on these definitions. The other thing that escapes me is 400 square feet.
I notice that that happens to aim specifically at I think the Standard station
proposal but I think it's SuperAmerica that came in, I believe, with sane sort
of a definition that had to do with number of items. It seems to me that the
difference between a convenience store and gas pumps and just a service station
that has a few items is the number of items they have. Not how big they are.
Councilman Johnson: By the type of items too.
Councilman Boyt: I don't want to encourage some place to cane up with a 395
square foot mini-convenience store. Sell a few videos. Sell a little of this.
Sell a little of that. I'm afraid by our definition that's what we encourage.
I'd much rather see us say maybe we do a little quick study and see what's the
typical number of items sold in a pure service station if we can find any of
those animals left.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think it has to be a pure service station because I
think what they're saying in here, limited amount of related goods. Things that
motorists look for. Not very many motorists are looking for video tape rentals.
That's not something that a gas station should be involved in. How do you state
something like that? Groceries but snacks, whatever. Chips and dips.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't think we want to get into telling the businesses '
what they can carry in their stores.
Mayor Chmiel: No. I don't think that's our place to dictate that. 1
Councilman Johnson: But what we're saying is, define the difference between a
gas station and a convenience store. And what the differnce between a gas
station and convenience is what they sell. A gas station services motorists.
Councilwoman Dimler: But my point is, we're not going to tell them they can't
have videos if that's what they- desire. Do you understand what I'm saying?
We're not going to sit here and regulate what each one can have and sell.
I
12
City Council Meeting - September 13; 1989
tCouncilman Johnson: It'd have to be kind of in general but yeah.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: I think we're getting way too restrictive.
Councilman Boyt: It canes back to the, I think the point is, do we want to say
that we want to control the number of convenience stores with gas pumps? If we
' do, then we need to keep working on this and if we don't, the majority doesn't,
then let's stop using consultant time and get onto something else.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Like you said, if you don't have gas pumps, you may not
have convenience stores either because a developer's not going to came in here
if it's not possible.
' Councilman Boyt: If you were talking about the area that's right around us
here...
' Councilwoman Dimler: No I'm not. I'm talking about future. Out west.
Councilman Boyt: But if you're talking about somewhere that's undeveloped,
' chances are no matter what density that we set up, we're not going to keep than
from building than west of here because there aren't any.
Councilwoman Dimler: We can't if you're doing it by zoning though. You don't
just zone it for that.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe there needs to be an interplay between concentration and
' zoning so that we do both. We set up the zones we want it in and we set up the
number that seers to make sense in a given area.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are we wise enough to do that?
Councilman Johnson: We're supposed to be. That's our job. If we're not, then
we just say okay no rules. Let's all go for it.
' Councilwoman Dimler: We have general rules but...
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I think we're going longer than I anticipated going on this
particular subject. I thikn what we have to came up with is a conclusion. Are
we going to send this back to Planning Commission with a suggested
recommendations or are you going to say what we have here is good enough?
' Councilman Johnson: What I would like to see is that the definitions •are okay
with me. I think we need the definitions. We need gas stations added. I have
no problem with the permitted business highway and conditional business general.
Leave everything else alone and refer back to Planning Commission the density
issue.
' Mayor Chmiel: Distances.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, distances. A distance from residential should be
referred back to Planning Commission for recommendation on how fax a gas pump,
whether it's a gas station, automotive service station or convenience store with
gas pump but a motor vehicle fuel dispensing facility, how far that is from a
' residential zoning. That's the action I would take with this at this time.
11 13
City Council Meeting - September 13. 1989
7,
Whether that means to table it tonight entirely or go with the defintions at
this time and go ahead, pass the definitions and table the rest. Refer it back.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, what's the pleasure of the Council? Do I hear a motion?
Councilman Boyt: I would make a motion that we refer it back to the Planning
Cannission to propose a means of controlling the concentration of convenience
stores with gas pumps. '
Councilman Johnson: Also, would you want them to provide a distance from
residential to motor vehicle fuel?
Councilman Boyt: Well that's certainly one method of handling it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I think that should be under the BN district. A definite
one.
Councilman Johnson: Well any of them.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm more concerned with business neighborhood with adjacent
residential development too.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah but CBD also has an adjacent residential. BG has
adjacent residential. IOP has adjacent residential.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess it does too doesn't it? So they all have. '
Councilman Workman: The BG isn't going to get anymore.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah all they've got is the R-12 in both.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I think that's something that should be looked at too is
those distances in each of those districts.
Councilman Boyt: Is there a second for that? .
' call ,
Mayor Chmiel: I m going to cal for the question.
Johnson: I'll second it then. '
Councilman Workman: Can you reiterate your motion?
Councilman Boyt: The motion was that we refer this back to the Planning '
Commission with the request that they cane up with some proposals for limiting
the concentration of convenience stores with gas pumps.
Mayor Chmiel: In addition, is there a friendly amendment to that with the
distances?
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, I don't mean to exclude that.
Mayor Chmiel: As one part of it is what you're saying?
14 '
I
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
ICouncilman Boyt: Yeah, that's just one way to do it and if you'd like to know
what sane other ways are.
Councilman Johnson: I personally think that no matter what they do, that should
be part of it. I think that's pretty plain from our Minutes that several of us
think that way.
' Mayor C oriel: Do you have direction?
Mark Koegler: One final clarification. When you speak of concentration, you're
talking about what I'll call kind of a microscale which is the intersection
level that we talked about but you're also talking more macroscaled, talking
about neighborhoods. Central Business District. The City as a whole. Is that
an accurate?
Councilman Boyt: Well I'm not particularly concerned about the City as a whole.
I have no way of projecting what that might look like. I'm just saying that the
problem that I see is that with 5 of than within a mile, I don't think that's
the way we want the City to develop. I see pressure to see it developed that
way by people who are proposing any kind of shopping center so what I'm looking
for is sane insight into how we can control that. Is that the sense of the rest
of you? Or at least the people who plan to vote for this?
' Councilman Johnson: Plus the concern of the distance, which is one method of it
but even if you don't do it. Even if they say they cane back, I still like the
distance part.
' Councilman Boyt: Well if that needs to be part of the motion, I'm alright with
that. I just think it's the general sense of what we've been saying.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, does that make sense?
Mark Koegler: Yes. I think it's clear and the Minutes certainly should reflect
' that clearly for the Commission so we'll take a shot at it and bring it back to
you.
Councilman Workman: I think as one added point, Burnsville, and I know I have
' family and friends that live in Burnsville and they have what we call a strip
mall on every corner. I don't know that they even have a downtown. We're
trying to build a downtown and by encouraging even strip malls, and if I own
' property where a strip mall can go up, maybe all the power to me but if we're
encouraging a lot of mini downtowns in areas away from downtown, it defeats the
purpose of what we've maybe frustrating ourselves through all along with the
' ideal of a downtown. TH 5 and TH 41, there's going to maybe be one there. I
don't think anybody really cares to have 4 there and that's another
philosophical question. So somehow we've got to keep than in an area or along a
busy area. I think that's my point. In keeping than away from neighborhoods
and where they conflict and I know near a neighborhood is where you can make
money but that's my only point and I guess I'd agree with moving it onto the
Planning Commission with those recommendations.
, 1
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to refer the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment modifying zoning restrictions and locations for convenience stores,
15
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Gas Stations, and Automotive Service Stations back to the Planning Commission 1
with the request that they cane up with some proposals for limiting the
concentration of convenience stores with gas pumps taking into consideration a
distance criteria. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe while they're doing that, we can see if Jim has any
questions since he's going to be on the Planning Commission dealing with it of
the thing we just did.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, do you have any questions in relationship to the direction '
we're trying to give back to Planning Commission in relationship to the last
discussion that we had?
Jim Wildermuth: You're talking about density...
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I
Jim Wildermuth: No.
APPROVAL OF NEAR MOUNTIAN POD AMENDMENT.
Jo Ann Olsen: Just as a brief introduction, the applicant with the Near
Mountain POD is proposing an amendment to the POD to replace 114 condominium
units with 45 single family lots. The outlot is currently located on the
westerly edge of Trapper's Pass at Near Mountain. They...north of Lotus Lake
along Pleasant View and Iroquois. This plan shows the proposed amendment with
the single family lots. The Planning Commission reviewed the POD amendment and
recommended approval to allow the single family lots to replace the condominium
units. The major issues with what staff pointed out first was whether or not
this still met the intent of the PUD. Since the PUD was first approved, a lot
of amendments have been approved that have removed the higher density lots and
replaced than with single families. Again, the Planning Commission felt that it
was an appropriate use and recommended approval. One of the major concerns for
discussion was whether or not Iroquois should be, with the outlot, should be
opened up for a street connection to allow a secondary access. This is on a
long cul-de-sac. It is very steep. Heavily vegetated. There is also 10% slope
coming up through Trapper's Pass with retaining walls on either side. Staff is
concerned that it would be very easy for that one...closed off there would be no
way to access the site. The handout I just passed out was from the engineering
department that is still pushing and in staff we agreed that this should.be
opened up as a street connection to allow that emergency access at all times and
a secondary access. The Planning Commission did not agree that it should be
opened up. They felt it should be provided as an emergency access with a break
away barrier or however it was determined through staff that that would be the
most appropriate way to not allow traffic, normal traffic to use it... So that
is one of the major items that we still are pushing that. That Iroquois would
be opened up as a full street connection. Another item was that the Park and
Rec would like to have at least 4 to 4 1/2 acres of parkland provided to be used
most likely as passive parkland. They are looking at the lots in this location.
Other than that... Do you want than to do the slides now?
1
16
10
# V. CITY o F ---.�-
lir CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner ., `j)
DATE: September 7, 1989
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment - Convenience Stores
On August 14, 1989, the City Council tabled action on this item to send it back ,
to the Planning Commission for further review. It was felt that the proposed
changes on regulations of convenience stores did not go as far as the City
Council wanted. Mark Koegler will be present at the September 11, 1989, City
Council meeting to provide further background and explanation of the proposed
changes. Also, all of the reports and minutes of the Planning Commission review
' have been attached.
Staff feels that the direction of the City Council had been presented to the
' Planning Coannission, but after closer review both the Planning Commission and
staff felt that the proposed changes were the appropriate amendments to the
Zoning ordinance.
' RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council still feels the reccrnended changes are not appropriate,
' staff will take it back to the Planning Commission.
Manager's Comments: I erred in my review of this item in August. The only
' enclosures were the technical ordinance amendments. The amendments have no
meaning unless placed in context with the entire ordinance nor do they explain
"why" they are being recommended.
' This item is being resubmitted to the Council. I would suggest starting with
Mark Koegler's memorandum of June 12, 1989. I believe that this report
(attachments behind such) provides a clearer picture of the alternatives con-
' sidered by the Planning Commission, the debate of such, and the basis of their
recommendation. If the objectives of the Planning Commission are understood,
then developing an ordinance becomes a technical function of the attorney.
' Unfortunately, we asked the Council to approve the technical document without
making sure that the general objectives were acceptable.
Mark Koegler will be present Monday evening to discuss his report of June 12,
1989.
Dim, (9-11-89)
I
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 (!
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR
CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS.
Jo- Ann Olsen: This one has been in front of the Planning Commission several
times. It started with the moratorium on the convenience stores with gas pumps
and the Planning Commission, as I stated, reviewed it-several times to see if
they should limit the number of convenience stores with gas stations or limit
where they can be located. After discussion it was determined that we should
II
just zone, go through the ordinance and see where they are permitted. If that's
the correct zone and they went through it that way. So the ordinance in front
of you, the really only big change is that there's some different definitions of
convenience store with gas pumps, convenience stores and then motor fuel
stations. We removed convenience stores with gas pumps as a conditional use in
the CBD district. We didn't feel that was appropriate in that district. Other
than that we're recommending approval of the ordinance amendment. I can answer II
questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Is this giving us everything that we were looking for basically? I
I don't think so.
Jo Ann Olsen: Originally I think it was looking at limiting the number of
IIconvenience stores with gas pumps. Like you could have 4, one on each corner of
an intersection. Things like that. I think that was one of the intents of the
moratorium but again, as it went through the whole process, I think at the
Planning Commission level it was determined that that wasn't the way to do it. II
We can table it and go back and even bring it back to the Planning Commission if
that's the intent of the Council and say, go through it again.
fil
Mayor Chmiel: I guess you've basically got some of my concerns to go back to
doing it. Bill?
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment on this as part of the Council when this II
was put into place. i didn't read, it wasn't easy to obtain, or easy enough to
obtain all the background on how the Council reached this conclusion but there's
a couple things that stand out. They completely missed the direction that I
II
understood the previous Council to be pointing them in which was we sensed that
there are too many convenience stores with gas pumps and we want to know what's
the best way to control them. Not whether or not we should control them.
What's the best way to control them and they completely missed that out of this.
When they missed it, their definitions don't make any sense. Convenience stores
with gas pumps and motor fuel station. They went to great, apparently effort to
define them but by where they're zoned, it makes absolutely no difference what I
you call them because we don't regulate them any differently frau' one another.
I would say that the only thing that they did was they removed convenience
stores with gas pumps from the central busing II
district which means the one
right over here would no longer be built if it was coming in under this
ordinance. I don't know if that's the best answer to this thing but I know it
doesn't answer the question that I understood the previous Council to be asking.
I kind of wonder why we went to all this trouble if this is the conclusion that I
we're going to come to so I would like to 'edirect staff to come up with what
communities are doing to control these. I don't want us, if we can help it, to
have situations that we now see with gas stations where you can go into
communities and see corners, busy corners that have, used to have 2 or 3 gas
0!
stations and they've now got maybe 1 and they've got 2 buildings empty that
24 II
II
II City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 r '"
there isn't a great use for because the gas station is sort of a unique
situation. I don't think the market's very good about locating these things.
Everybody seems to want one and I don't think it's in the best interest of the
' City so I'd like to see us refer this back to staff.
Mayor Chmiel: I would second that.
IICouncilman Workman: I would still, it's tough to make heads or tails of
report but I would still maintain that the best way to control than is the free
II market system in some way, shape or form. That's tough to say because i don't
think I want one of these on every corner as much as you do but it's a very
basic idea that says a lot. So when we get, I know when I was sitting out there
when you guys approved this, and the ensuing debate, that that was one of the
II questions. It's a much larger argument when you bring that into it.
Councilman Boyt: Which is?
IICouncilman Workman: The free market system in itself being, you let the market
decide what's going to cane where basically.
II Councilman Boyt: We don't let the market decide where we're going to put
contractors yards.
Councilman Workman: Well maybe we ought to. I think I've been in that debate
too. I've said before, we should allow people to do business and stay out of it
as much as we can without trying to over burden and regulate and that's my
piece. But I would like to table this also.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm wondering if after that if there's a need to look into
II what other communities are doing to control this if indeed we don't want to
control it. I guess I'd go along with the free enterprise system too and ask
myself do we want to control it or will the market not control itself?
II Mayor Chmiel: Control is something that I don't like to ever have control of
anything. I just feel the direction that was given at the time was differently
as you indicated and I think it should go back and have that discussion and
table it at this time.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: I uess when he said d what the intent of the previous
Council was, I was surprised. Just to see what other communities are doing to
II control this and how are we going to control this. I would no longer be in
favor of doing anything so for that reason yes, table.
I Councilman Johnson: Well I like Section 1. After that I think they lost the
point. I do believe we need to define it. I'm not exactly sure that would be
my total definition. Convenience stores do a lot of other things rather than
perishable goods. I don't consider diapers and stuff like that as perishable
goods but it goes a long ways toward saying what is a convenience store which
right now it really doesn't. We have a real problem there so Section 1 of this
I think is a good first step but still they missed the point I agree of what do
we want to control here. While the free market is a good theory on how to•
control it, it doesn't always work too well. You control it by bankruptcy.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Controls don't always work too well either.
25
II
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 - Ati
Councilman Johnson: Controls don't either but I think that's what a zoning
ordinance is for. That's why we have a zoning ordinance that's 50-60
or whatever is to have a vision of what the City wants and what the City's oing
to be. I'm not sure if very many neighborhoods want, within the neighborhood
business district next to them a convenience store with gas pumps. I know if
you ask the next door neighbors to any convenience store with gas pumps what
they think of it, they would prefer not to have it next door to them.
Councilman Workman: I wouldn't be as harsh with a non-compatible use. What I'm
saying is we should be careful about setting a precedence. The ions
to come down and there's going to be an SA or something maybe going ma � eoeng
let's say. Now all the traffic heading towards Minneapolis inthe morning might
use that instead of Sinclair. Long time business here.
would like to protect Sinclair and don't re could say well, we
saying we're getting into trouble. put anything there. That's where I'm
Brooke's and we've got a Non-compatible uses take right behind
g problem right there with fumes, etc.. I don't have
problems with that.
Councilman Johnson: But see, that's what I want than to look at. I don't think
that we should be looking at saying oh we're trying to protect our existing
businesses by not doing this. That is not the point of the zoning ordinance...
Councilman Workman: I thought there was a little flavor of that in the Amoco
situation. '
Councilman Johnson: Yes. There was a little flavor of that in the Amoco
situation by former members of the Council but that was not my purpose of voting
for that. I don't think that was Bill's purpose. I don't think that was Dale's
purpose and I don't think that was Clark's purpose. But I won't say who I think
who's purpose it might have been. But I don't think that that flavor, that you
heard...
Councilman Workman: No, I wasn't accusing you Jay. .
Councilman Johnson: I don't think that was a council '
that way. uncil wide flavor. Let's put it
Mayor Chmiel: There's been a motion to table. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
•
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment modifying zoning- restrictions and locations for
convenience stores, gas stations and automotive service stations. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA
TION OF WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, KINGS ROAD AND
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT.
Daryl Kirt: We feel that the amount of fill that we're putting in is very, very
shall and it will actually improve the wetland we're putting it on. We just
26
Van DorEn
Hazard ° ,t, .
Stallings
Architects•Engineers*Planners
July 11 , 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler
DATE: July 11 , 1989
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment - Convenience Stores
The attached ordinance draft is consistent with the discussion of
convenience stores and gas stations that occurred at the Planning
Commission meeting on June 21 , 1989 . One minor change has been
' made . On the matrix that was in my memorandum dated June 12 , 1989 ,
convenience stores without gas pumps were listed as being
conditional uses in the BN zone . The intention was to list
convenience stores without gas pumps as permitted uses in the BN
zone . The ordinance draft reflects this change .
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On Jul 1
July 19, 1989, the Planning Commission discussed the zoning
' ordinance amendment and recommended approval. The Commission
directed staff to add a definition for convenience store with gas
pumps to be included in the amendment. This has been included in
the amendment.
' CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached amendment
for first reading.
I
I
I
3030 Harbor Lane North BIdg.II, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20
OF THE CHANHASSSEN CITY CODE w '
BY ADDING PROVISIONS CONCERNING CONVENIENCE STORES
AND MOTOR FUEL STATIONS
The City Council of Chanhassen ordains as follows: 1
Section 1. Chapter 20, Section 20-1 of the Chanhassen City
Code is amended by adding the following definitions :
"Convenience Store" - Convenience store means a retail
establishment which generally sells a limited range of food
products, non-prescription drugs, candy and other perishable
goods. This includes soda and similar beverage dispensing "
and food products which can be heated and/or prepared onsie,
and has over 400 square feet of floor area for retailing of
non-automotive goods.
"Convenience Store with Gas Pumps" - Convenience store means
a retail establishment which generally sells gasoline from
pump islands and a limited range of food products, non-
prescription drugs, candy and other perishable goods. This
includes soda and similar beverage dispensing and food pro-
ducts which can be heated and/or prepared onsie, and has over
400 square feet of floor area for retailing of non-automotive
goods.
Motor Fuel Station" - Motor fuel station means' a retail place
of business engaged in the sale of motor vehicle fuels, but
may also engage in supplying a limited amount of related
goods. In no case shall the space for the retailing of
related goods exceed 400 square feet. No services shall be
provided for maintenance or repair of motor vehicles, except
for the provision of window washing, air and oil dispensing
services.
Section 2. Chapter 20, Article XVI ( "BN" Neighborhood
Business District) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the
following manner: '
Section 20-694. Conditional Uses - Omit item ( 2) Automotive
service stations.
Section 3. Chapter 20, Article XVII ( "Be Highway and
Business Services District) of the Chanhassen City Code is
modified in the following manner:
Section 20-712. Permitted Uses - Add item (20) Motor fuel
stations. I
I
Section 4 . Chapter 20, Article XVIII ( "CBD" Central Business
District) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the
following manner:
Section 20-734. Conditional Uses - Omit item ( 4 ) Convenience
store with gas pumps .
Section 5. Chapter 20, Article XIX ( "BG" General Business
District) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the
following manner:
' Section 20-752 . Permitted Uses - Omit items ( 3 ) Convenience
stores with or without gas pumps and ( 27) Automobile service
stations.
Section 20-752 . Permitted Uses - Add item ( 30) Convenience
stores without gas pumps.
Section 20-754. Conditional Uses - Add items ( 6) Convenience
stores with gas pumps, ( 7 ) Automotive service stations and
I ( 8 ) Motor fuel stations.
Section 6 . Chapter 20, Article XX ( "BF" Fringe Business
District) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the
' following manner:
Section 20-773. Conditional Uses - Omit item (1) Automotive
service stations without car washes.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Chanhassen this day of , 1989.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I
By:
' Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ATTEST:
1
Don Ashworth, City Manager
I
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 7
C
3. A deed restriction will be recorded against each lot abutting the
wetland stating that the lot contains a protected wetland with a 75
foot setback from elevation 927 .
4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FO
CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS.
Mark Koegler presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the '
public hearing to order.
Ellson moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted !'
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Conrad : Tim, we' ll start at your end. Anything?
Erhart: No. Not on this one. We discussed this thoroughly the last
time.
Emmings: The only thing I thought about when I read this and it may be
real simple. If you have a place selling gasoline, and they have more
than 400 feet, square feet of foot area for retailing non-automotive
goods, what is it?
Koegler : Can you repeat that? '
Emmings: If you have a place that' s selling gasoline or motor fuels but
it happens to have 405 feet of floor area for retailing of non-automotive
goods, what is it? Does that help?
Conrad: It can't be.
•
Ellson: That's your definition of convenience store.
Wildermuth: Convenience store with gas pumps . 1
Koegler: You're saying it would kick it above the threshhold of the motor
fuel service station in terms of the retail square footage. That would
kick it into the convenience store.
Emmings: Now it' s a convenience store?
Ellson: Right.
Koegler : Convenience store picks up where that one leaves off with over II
1
ate .;« � :� ._:. ..�:�..� :. asotelft
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 8
' 400.
Emmings: Okay, but the definition of convenience store doesn' t include an
ability to sell motor fuels. Or doesn' t include the sale of motor fuels.
' _ Koegler : There' s two convenience stores . We have one with gas pumps and
one without.
' Emmings: Okay, and do we already have a definition?
Koegler: Yes. Along with.
Emmings: Alright. That was the case that popped into my mind and if it's
accounted for, that's fine.
' Koegler : It probably would have been clearer if we would have repeated
that in the previous report.
' Emmings: And I didn' t look for it.
' Ellson : I like it. I wanted to make these things and I like the way
we' re going so that's fine.
Wildermuth: I really don' t have any comments other than I think they
probably all should be conditional uses . Permitted and conditional
accomodation probably all should be reviewed on a conditional use basis .
Headla: No comment.
Conrad : My only comment , under convenience store definition. Middle of
that paragraph it says this includes soda and similar beverage dispensing
and food products which can be heated and/or prepared on site . Prepared.
We do want the word prepared in there?
Olsen: It ' s in microwaves .
Emmings: Some of they do it now. I'm aware of some that do.
' Conrad: Prepare? Not heat.
Emmings: No, I 'm talking about. . .
rEllson: You mean like a bakery in there?
Emmings: No, they put together pizzas . I don' t know to what extent they
do it.
Conrad : That doesn' t seem like a convenience store to me. Convenience
store doesn't prepare food. That's a restaurant.
Emmings: Yes , they'd sell a frozen pizza but now make it on site.
Conrad: They can heat up what they' re selling to the public. I 'd buy
I
■
Planning Commission Meeting `_t
July 19, 1989 - Page 9
(7 '
that but to prepare it throws it into a different category in my mind .
Does it matter? And I couldn' t take it any further than that but prepared,
bothered me.
Koegler : That definition is a carry over from some of the discussions
that you had with Steve when he was here. I don 't know what transpired at'
that time. I don' t know if there was supposed to be a distinction between
heated and prepared. I think the intent of the ordinance from at least my
perspective is clearly that it's supposed to be pre-packaged products that
maybe you zap in the microwave for 30 seconds and you go out the door .
It' s not supposed to be a food preparation area because that gets you into
health requirements and everything else that these would not begin to ,
meet. You have the venting requirements and everything else under
building code that you have with kitchens. I don' t think there's any
damage if it' s troublesome to strike the word and/or prepared . '
Conrad: Is Tom Thumb a convenience store?
Ellson: Yes. ,
Conrad: Which we have down on TH 101 and they have a little deli in
there. I don't know what they do to get the food to their little deli but
it' s. . .
Koegler : They're doing more and more of that .
Conrad: There's a lot of business there. I guess you know, it didn' t
seem in sync but I 'm not anti that word . I just bring it up and if
anybody is bothered by it, we could strike it but on the other hand , just I
thinking about Tom Thumb. They have a little deli in it and it' s not bad .
I think it is a convenience to their surrounding neighbors and doesn' t
bother me. '
Ellson: What is your biggest concern? That someone will have a prepared
thing and come and call it convenience store? I guess what' s the worst
that could happen?
Conrad : No, it just took a convenience store another step further into a
restaurant category which means more traffic which means some other things
but I think when I think about the alternatives of striking, it, and maybe '
some assets that it brings to the neighborhood, I prefer to keep it in
there.
Ellson: He didn' t mean something that has to be warmed to eat and
prepared could be either. Like you said , maybe a put your own sundae or
something would be prepared but it wouldn' t be heated so I think it should!'
be in there.
Emmings: I supposed being under 400 square feet is going to provide some II
limitations too where they're going to want to be displaying pp much
merchandise in a fairly small space that they' re not going to 'want to
devote much to preparation. I don't know.
1
Planning Commission Meeting R
July 19, 1989 - Page 10
1E7
Conrad : I think the only thing I see Steve is, because of convenience
store and where we put them. . .
' Elison: He said anything over 400 feet .
Conrad: Yes, it would be over 400 feet. I 'm not sure I see a down side.
In a business neighborhood , traffic is what we' re worried about and as
long as we can't sit down, I guess I 'm not totally bothered after going
through the logic myself. Anyone want to make a motion? I don' t think
we' re talking about any wording changes to what is there.
Emmings : I've got a question.
Elison: We don't have any guidelines . . .
Olsen : We' re looking for it too.
Emmings: What, the definition?
Olsen : Yes .
Emmings: Of convenience store with gas pumps , yes . It ' s not in there.
IOlsen: Well we don' t even have convenience store but I know that we've. . .
Emmings : No, it' s not in this draft of the ordinance unless it' s been
added since.
Olsen : That' s why I 'm thinking it must have been an amendment.
' Emmings: I feel like I remember seeing it but it' s not in the Code.
Olsen: Whenever we have anything in there , we always define it. Maybe it
' never was defined. I know that it was .
Emmings: What are you looking from us on this? Do we have to make a
motion recommending approval?
Olsen: This is a public hearing. This is the real tfting . .
Emmings: Do we need to close the public hearing?
Conrad : It has been closed . We just need a motion.
Emmings: I ' ll move that we recommend to the City Council that they
approve the ordinance as presented to us by staff and I 'd also ask that
staff check between now and the time it's presented to City Council to
make sure that we have a definition for convenience store with gas pumps
that corresponds to the other definitions we've been presented•!with
tonight so that they all coordinate together .
' Wildermuth: Second.
11
Planning Commission Meeting ?-�
July 19, 1989 - Page 11
4r
I
Koegler : My only comment would be that convenience store with gas
pumps, I think the assumption has been that that's self explanatory. That
the only differential between the two is the existence of pump islands.
If we need to clarify that by adding another one that essentially says the
same thing except this one has pump islands, we can do that but I think ,
the assumption, the way the ordinance is drafted right now is that
convenience store and convenience store with gas pumps are the same thing
as far as the building goes. The only differential is the sale of
petroleum outside.
Emmings: Maybe you just want to add a sentence under convenience store II
that would say that if they sell motor fuels too, then it will be ,
designated as a convenience store with gas pumps or something like that.
I think it should be defined in there someplace.
`s II
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 adding provisions
concerning convenience stores and motor fuel stations as presented by
staff and directing staff to look into the definition of convenience store
with gas pumps between now and the time it reaches City Council . All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE: '
A. SECTION 20-3 REGARDING DEFINITION OF DENSITY.
B. SECTION 20-409 REGARDING WETLAND SETBACKS (200 ' ) FOR COMMERCIAL DOG
KENNELS AND STABLES.
C. SECTION 20-441 REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF THE WETLAND SECTION.
D. SECTION 20-1021 REGARDING SWIMMING POOL FENCES.
Conrad : Jo Ann, there aren' t many people in attendance. Do you have a
staff repot that you want to go through? '
Olsen: No, we can just go through each one . . .
Conrad: Anything different than the last time that we talked about it?
Yes, maybe we should go through it . I think for procedural -purposes ,
we' ll open up the public hearing for any comments to the amendments
proposed to our zoning ordinance for Section 20-3, 20-409, 20-441 and
20-1021. Are there any comments? If not, is there a motion to close the
public hearing?
1
Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad : Let' s go through them one by one. Any comments on 20-3,
definition of density? Any comments? How about 20-409? Wetland setbacks "
1
I 0
I Van DorEn
Hazard
Stallings
IArchitects•Engineers•Planners
IMEMORANDUM
ITO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler r
IDATE: June 12 , 1989
ISUBJECT: Convenience Stores
Chanhassen ' s Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Issuance of
Land Use Approvals and Building Permits for Convenience Stores with
Gas Pumps expires on July 1 , 1989 . When the moratorium was
enacted , it was with the clear understanding that the City would
II review the issue for the six month duration of the moratorium term.
Since December, the planning department has prepared a number of
discussion reports for review by the Planning Commission. With the
II ending date of the moratorium approaching, it is now time to
finalize all discussion and either leave the present ordinance
intact or suggest specific modifications to the City Council .
I The current zoning code allows for convenience stores and auto
service stations in the following districts:
IICBD BH BG BF BN
Convenience Stores w/o Gas Pumps C P P X P
IIConvenience Stores w/ Gas Pumps C P P X C
•
Auto Service Station X P P C C
IP = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use
IIX = Not Allowed Use
A report prepared by Steve Hanson dated March 9 , 1989 contained
two proposed definitions, one for a convenience store and the other
IIfor a gas station. The convenience store description defines a use
similar to Brook ' s Convenience. The gas station description
defines a use such as the proposed Amoco Food Shop. Neither of
I these are the same use that is currently defined in the zoning code
as Automotive Service Station.
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.11, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
Convenience Stores '
June 12 , 1989
Page 2
For comparison ,the three definitions are as follows :
CONVENIENCE STORE (PROPOSED)
Convenience store means a retail establishment which generally
sells a limited range of food products , non-prescription drugs ,
candy, and other perishable goods. This includes soda and similar
beverage dispensing and food products which can be heated and /or
prepared on site, and has over 400 square feet of floor area for
retailing of non-automotive goods. '
GAS STATION (PROPOSED]
Gas station means a retail place of business engaged in the sale '
of motor vehicle fuels , but may also engage in supplying a limited
amount of related goods . In no case shall the space for the
retailing be provided for maintenance or repair of motor vehicles ,
except for the provision of window washing , air and oil dispensing
services.
AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION (EXISTING)
Automotive service station means a retail place of business engaged
primarily in the sale of motor vehicle fuels , but also may be
engaged in supplying goods and services generally required in the
operation and maintenance of vehicles . These may include sale of
petroleum products , sale and servicing of tires , batteries ,
automotive accessories , and replacement items , washing and
lubrication services and the performance of minor automotive
maintenance and repair. '
The above statements constitute a definitional approach to
regulating convenience stores and auto service stations . Other
approaches have also been considered in the review of this issue.
One of these is the establishment of minimum distances between
convenience stores with gasoline sales ie. a one mile separation
between businesses. Application of this technique seems
particularly arbitrary since within a one mile radius , the road
system and land use pattern may very easily be able to support more
than one such facility. This technique was applied to the
contractors yard issue. As all of the contractors yard sites
filled up, it became difficult to deny what may have been
appropriate sites simply because they were within one mile of
another similar use. '
Another approach in defining this issue to impose primary source
of revenue requirements. A number of zoning ordinance regulate
the sale of alcoholic beverages by requiring that facilities
maintain at least 50% of their revenue in food sales. This same
approach could be applied to convenience stores by requiring that
1
' Convenience Stores
June 12 , 1989
Page 3
the gasoline portion of the business be incidental to the sale of
grocery products. This could be accomplished with a maximum 30% ,
40% or 50% gasoline sale requirement. This approach is not ,
' however, recommended because it is much too cumbersome to
continually monitor a business to determine the mix of gross
product sales .
Having reviewed alternative approaches , the definitional approach
seems to be the most equitable method of addressing this issue.
The three definitions seem to adequately cover the existing
composition of the petroleum sales industry, either by convenience
stores (Brooks ) , by gas stations (Amoco Food Shop) or by automotive
service station (traditional Amoco stations) .
' If this method is accepted , the next charge is to define
appropriate use categories . Uses to be considered include the
' three that are referenced above and convenience stores that do not
include fuel sales.
Identifying appropriate locations for these four uses requires a
' review of the purpose of each of the commercial zoning districts.
The intent of the CBD , Central Business District is to provide for
downtown business development. Within a downtown area , most
' communities emphasize maximized land uses that generate employment
opportunities while providing a mixture of goods and services .
Within this area , it could be argued that convenience stores
' without gas sales are appropriate because they are consistent with
other walk- in retail businesses. They really represent the old
fashioned sundries stores that used to be part of most urban areas.
Convenience stores with gas pumps , gas stations and automotive
1 service stations may be inappropriate because they devote larger
amounts of land to automobiles rather than maximizing areas for
building construction which accommodates job generation and the
' availability of consumer goods .
The BH , Highway and Business Service District is defined as the
1 area that provides highway oriented commercial development. All
four uses appeal to highway oriented commercial clientele.
The BG , General Business District provides for downtown fringe
' commercial development. This area is identified to accommodate
some of the more land intensive commercial uses that appeal to CBD
area customers. All four types of convenience/gas station uses
1 have the potential to fit in this area.
The BF , Business Fringe District is identified as an area
appropriate for limited commercial uses without urban services .
1 The thrust of the comprehensive plan is that the BF zone is limited
to the grandfathering of the uses that now exist. If this policy
is to be continued , it is hard to argue that any of the four uses
1
1
Convenience Stores
June 12 , 1989
Page 4
have a place in the BF zone. '
Neighborhood business uses , BN , are intended to provide for limited
low intensity neighborhood retail and service establishments . In
a neighborhood setting , either a pure convenience store or a
convenience store with gas pumps may supply valuable and needed
services to surrounding residential areas. Gas stations which
involve the sale of large quantities of fuel and automotive service
station which involve the repair of vehicles do not seem consistent
with residential neighborhood areas.
Commercial developments in the BN zone have to be responsive to
the existing and planned pattern of residential development. This
means that each commercial proposal needs to be reviewed on a site
specific basis. The method to accomplish this is the conditional
use permit. Utilizing this procedure, each proposed use can be
required to meet conditions that are tied to the corresponding
characteristics of the proposal . For example , commercial
facilities surrounded by single family residential uses may have
more restrictive hours of operation , signage controls , delivery
hours and related items than would a more remote BN site. In
addition to specific conditions , all convenience stores with gas
pumps must comply with Section 20-288 of the Chanhassen City Code
which identifies a set of standard requirements.
The comments portrayed in the previous paragraphs establish a use
matrix that differs from the present ordinance. Specifically , the
following mixture of uses results: I
CBD BH •BG BF BN
Convenience Stores w/o Gas Pumps P P P X C '
Convenience Stores w/ Gas Pumps X P C X C ,
Gas Stations X P C X X
Automotive Service Stations X P C X X
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use
X = Not Allowed Use
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission '
prepare an ordinance modification to accommodate convenience
stores , convenience stores with gas pumps , gas stations and
automotive service stations in a manner consistent with the matrix
identified above.
I
Planning Commission Meeting 7.
November 15, 1989 - Page 11
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 89- finding Modification No. 9 consistent with the plans
for development of the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE MODIFYING ZONING
RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND
AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order.
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: I read through this and I 've just kind of burned out on this a
' little bit. What we did before on this seemed reasonable to me at the time
and what they put together now seems reasonable to me and I have a feeling
they could put it together in a different combination and I think that was
reasonable too. I really don' t have any comments. The proposals that
Paul 's put together this time around seem fine to me.
Ellson: I got a little confused when I read it. By saying that we have a
conditional use permit, what does that gain us?
Krauss : Conditional uses indicate to me that you havt a use that is
permissible in the district but because of characteristics associated with
II it, it requires additional review. If we say a use is permitted, you' re in
a much more difficult position to establish.
IIEllson: To add anything on if you want that. . .
Krauss: Special conditions, right. And in this instance with auto related
I uses, we're able to set out, specify what those conditions are that we want
to have met before we would allow that use to exist.
Ellson: Okay. So we could actually do it on a case by case basis?
IIKrauss: Yes. I don't wish to give the indication though that conditional
uses give unilateral control to the City to create conditions as they come
I along. I believe that when you do make a use condition, you have an
obligation to establish those conditions so you can see if they're met or
not and not to just develop them on the spot.
' Emmings: But you do have some flexibility there because there' s a public
hearing associated with it and if there's perculiarities in the
neighborhood for example where this thing is and the people come in and
' talk about it, you can address them.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page
12 '
Krauss : Right and the conditional use permit ordinance does allow that as
some general guidelines.
Ellson: Okay. I like that. It' s just one of my pet peeves so I 'm glad to
see it being resolved once and for all . I
Batzli : I guess I don' t understand the rationale for the difference
between convenience stores without gas and convenience stores with gas
pumps. Is that the same, Council ' s feeling was that it was the gas pumps
that were the problems and not the fact that you're being flooded with
convenience stores?
Krauss: Well we got into that a little bit and it took, I don't know that
they actually came out and said that but that was what I defined that, it
was coming down to. We talked a little bit about convenience stores these II
days and basically convenience stores are rarely proposed as such without
gas pumps. But a convenience store without a gas pump is a little" corner
market. 1
Batzli : Is that a Kenny' s?
Krauss: Yeah. '
Ellson: Or a Tom Thumb. Most of those don' t have gas pumps .
Krauss: In which case it really isn't, it's a consistent retail use and it I
belongs in a lot of these things without any special review.
Batzli: So you're not going to allow any gas in the CBD? ,
Krauss: No. That's the way that was originally proposed . There was some
discussion about it being inappropriate within the dense CBD area. '
Batzli : So what do you do with the current ones in the CBD?
Non-conforming uses? '
Krauss: Yes.
Batzli: When would those ever be extinguished? If someone bought that II parcel, a different gas company bought the parcel, would they- then still be
allowed to.. .
Krauss: As long as the use is continued. The grandfathering is a good '
question. As long as the use is continued, there's no problem regardless
of who owns it.
•
Emmings: It's either the use has to be given up for a year or it has to be
destroyed. More than 50% destroyed.
Krauss: But if there was a wish to avoid that, I personally wouldn' t
object to an ordinance that permanently accepted those uses which existed
at the date of the adoption of the ordinance.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 'r
November 15, 1989 - Page 13 4
I
Batzli : For instance the Amoco. They're going to rebuild that. What
affect does this ordinance have on that?
Krauss : It ' s already been permitted. We issued a building permit on- it a
few weeks ago.
Ellson: What about someone like a Brooke's that might want to expand or
something like that? They'd have to maintain just where they are because
that' s what' s considered grandfathered?
Krauss: It would be grandfathered in. There wouldn' t be an issue really
' unless they wanted to expand the gas pump aspect of it. If they wanted to
expand the store itself say into the next retail space, it's not something
that we would review.
•
Ellson: But if they wanted to put a few more islands in?
Batzli : I actually find it somewhat of a convenience to have a couple of
gas stations downtownish personally so I just don' t know that I necessarily
totally agree with your clumping of the areas. I agree it would be better
handled with a conditional use permit. The only other thing that I wanted
' to touch on was your measurement from gas pumps. I assume that's what
you' re doing in these various sections. You're actually measuring it like
gas pump to gas pump?
Krauss : Yes.
Batzli : Why are you doing that rather than parcel to parcel?
Krauss: Parcel to parcel, I 've written some ordinances that are parcel to
parcel and what you get is a city that has no auto service. Parcels are
often quite large and for example, if you have a multiple tenant site as
where the Brooke's is, you'd measure it from the nearest point of that
entire property to the nearest residential property and you'd never had a
gas station in any kind of proximity to residential. Even though the gas
pumps are 400 feet away.
Batzli : But here we have a 100 foot lot, or 120 foot lot. Your gas
' station could abut the residential.
Krauss: Physically yes. The station could. The pumps 'could not.
Batzli: But does the entire station with parking and the traffic and all
the problems you're trying to avoid, could abut the residential as long as
they put pumps on the far side of the lot.
' Krauss: The most intense part of that use, yes.
Ellson: I pictured it that there'd be like a building between where all
the driving is going on and like the residential area.
Batzli: Not necessarily.
I
-
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 14
Ellson: I know but that's kind of.
Batzli : If it's going to be fronting the street. In any event, other than
a couple of typos and I think we should say something about in the
definition of motor fuel station and. . .gas pumps we talk about air and oil II
dispensing. It's also required that they collect oil now too if they
dispense it. You may want to look into that. I'll listen to what Jim has
to say. '
Conrad: Jim, what do you have to say?
Wildermuth: Well, I'm standing by my guns being basically a free market ,
advocate. I guess I could find some arguments that this agree with some
of the P's and C's and X's in the little matrix here Paul but I think we
could probably find as many different opinions on that matrix as we have II people here tonight. There's just one thing that does bother me a little
bit. If we're going to say that gas pumps have to be 250 feet apart, why
are we going to allow gas pumps and residential parcels to be so close as
100 feet?
Krauss: You' re getting at two different situations with those setbacks.
The 250 foot separation is to avoid the clustering of, the Council 's fear II
was that you'd have 4 gas dispensing operations on an intersection.
Wildermuth: That would bother me less than seeing a convenience store with II
gas pumps within 100 feet of a residence. If they can all survive, fine.
Chances are I don't think 4 convenience stores on 4 corners out here in
Chanhassen would survive.
Krauss: I wouldn' t dispute that and we discussed the,,free market taking
control of these things at the Council meeting but they seem to want the
reassurance of having a separation requirement. '
Wildermuth: Is that legal?
Krauss: I had the ordinance reviewed by the City Attorney. 1
Batzli : What's the difference between this and requiring a mile distance
between contractor's yards?
Conrad: It seems the same. Anything else Jim?
Wildermuth: No. Other than the fact that I 'd like to see that 100 feet 1
increased.
Conrad: The logic for 250. Does that basically eliminate, what does that II
really do? What does 250 feet do to, the typical stereotype is 4 gas
stations on a corner. I don't know if we have many corners that that's
ever going to happen to but what does 250 foot do to let's say a typical
intersection where that's protential?
Wildermuth: It precludes 4 gas stations. ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 15
1
Krauss: It precludes 4 gas stations.
Conrad: But how many can we have there? Probably kitty corner huh?
Krauss : Even then, probably not because the right-of-way is only 60 to 80
feet wide typically and TH 5 might be up to 100 feet now. You would be
able to have one on the corner and another one down the block is the
closest.
Batzli : Then you put them in a row instead of on the same corner is what
Iyou're going to do with this.
Krauss: They'd be staggered, yeah.
Wildermuth: I just had the feeling that we ought to switch those numbers
around. Put that 100 feet between gas pumps and 250 feet between the gas
pump and a residence.
' Batzli : I think just add a 0 after the 100 feet.
Conrad: So that 250 feet basically says only 1 gas station per
I intersection. No two gas stations side by side basically distributes gas
stations throughout the buildable zones.
1 Wildermuth: Is that desireable?
Batzli : I don' t think gas stations, most gas stations wouldn' t do that.
' Nowadays they've got all their numbers and they're going to plug them in
and they're going to go for the right traffic volumes and everything else.
They're all franchises and I think you're going to basically allow a first
come, first serve situation.
1 Wildermuth: But convenience store with gas pumps are a lot like car
dealerships. They seem to work better when they're in close proximity to
1 one another . There's this energy. I don' t know.
Conrad: I don't know about that. They do tend to cluster but that's
1 typically based on traffic volume and limited number of intersections. I
really do care about that intersection.
Wildermuth: I really would not have any problem with convenience store
with gas pumps on adjacent corners of an intersection.
Batzli: Well when we both vote against it then, the City Council will know
that won't they.
Conrad : A couple things. Basically I don' t believe in the 250 feet. I
don't mind the separation from residential parcels. I think that's
important. I don' t know if 100 is right but I like that in there. I like
your final observation Paul on what's appropriate. When you reviewed the
highway business district I think you're absolutely right there. Back up
1 to conditional use, I couldn' t accept a conditional use process until
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 16
I knew what the conditions were that we were looking for and I don' t see
them.
Krauss: Mr . Chairman, they' re in there in Section 3 and 4 on page 2.
Conrad: So those are the conditions for the conditional use process?
Krauss: Yes. That plus the general purpose conditions that are applied . . . 1
Conrad: Have them treat those as conditions.
Krauss: The ordinance is a little difficult to read because it's taken out II
of context but the sub-heading for those sections relate to conditions.
Conrad: So when a neighborhood came in and complained that something was I
too close, what condition are we going to use to guide us? Actually the
condition is they can' t be within 100 feet period. What is it that' s going
to tell us that we' re going to impose 150 foot? What tells us that we can I
go up? Not a thing. The 100 foot is the absolute so we really don' t have
a guideline, on that particular condition we don't have a guideline to
increase the number of feet between the use. It would be subjective. I
Krauss: You may have some ability under general issuance standards to
apply a more severe guideline. If you can justify it based on that
particular site and there's 12 general issuance standards that would apply I
to all CUP's that would allow you to do that. On the other hand, you've
got to be careful to a point. You know, what we're looking at is
establishing tougher than usual conditions for these types of uses. If II you're going to go beyond that, you need to have a rationale to support it
based on that particular site or else you're being arbitrary and that' s the
tightrope that has to be walked.
Conrad: Right. I understand that but I don' t understand the conditional
use process. If we have the specifics that we're looking for right here,
then what other conditions? What gives us leverage or flexibility to II review the thing and apply a little bit different standards? Those would
be things that would say what the intent of this ordinance is really to
protect the individual neighbor from having a particular nighttime traffic I
or whatever and therefore the 150 foot mark might be different. The 100
foot setback zone would be different. I'm looking for 'Chose and I don't
see those and typically then we get caught into the fact that this is the
ordinance and that's what we can apply and therefore I don't know what the
conditions are that we're really looking for to have the flexibility. I
don't want to see stuff that I don't have control over. As long as you've
got definitions in here for what staff is looking for, I don't need to see II
it because you can apply those things real clearly and it takes no input on
my part to make sure that you're applying those specifics.
Batzli: But the conditional use permit process would allow you to reject I
it if it didn' t fit in. If 100 feet wasn't appropriate, you could reject
the application.
Conrad: Based on what though?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 17
I
' Krauss: The conditional use permit process itself gives you exordinary
latitude. More latitude than you would if it was a permitted use under a
site plan.
' Conrad: Well it sounds arbitrary to me though.
' Krauss: It is to an extent but you've got general issuance standards here
and I won' t read all 12 of them but one of them is will be designed ,
constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance
with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will
' not change the essential character. Won't be hazardous to planned
neighboring uses. It goes on and on. It's kind of the mom and apple pie
things that give it some discretion.
Conrad: I won' t drag this out. I just basically have a personal
preference. I don't want to see something that I really don't feel has
' some guidelines to it and basically I have a problem. Unless there's an
intent statement associated with what we're really looking for to alter the
conditions, I can' t do it. Anyway, those are my comments on this
ordinance. There's some good things in here and some things that are maybe
' not my favorite things and I would accept a motion. Annette, these seems
like one. . .
Elison: I 'm trying to figure out how you'd say it. . . I move the Planning
Commission recommend approval of proposed ordinance revision regulating
convenience stores. Would that work?
Conrad: Yeah. Is there a second?
Emmings: I ' ll second it.
Elison moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
' approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code modifying
zoning restrictions and locations for convenience stores, gas stations and
automotive service stations as presented by staff. Ellson and Emmings
voted in favor. Conrad , Batzli and Wildermuth voted in opposition and the
' motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
•
IConrad: Is there another motion?
Elison: Can you send just a failed motion?
I Krauss: Sure. It would help if there could be some statments as to what
the issues were.
' Wildermuth: Yeah, why don' t we just state our positions.
Ellson: Do you guys just want to add your 2 cents?
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 18
I
Conrad: We can do that. Is there not another motion that somebody finds
to make this acceptable? I
Batzli : I'll make a motion and see what happens. I move that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance revisions
regulating convenience stores set forth in the packet dated November 8,
1989 as set forth except that the word "on side" shall be deleted and "on
site" shall be inserted there for wherever it is throughout this document.
Oil dispensing and the words "and collection" shall be added. After the
seventh line in the definition of motor fuel station, in Section 3,
paragraph 7, 100 shall be changed to 250. Section 4, paragraph 6, 100 feet
shall be changed to 250. ,
Conrad: What did you just do Brian?
Batzli : I just changed it so the gas pumps are within 250 feet instead of II
100 feet of residential sections.
Conrad: Okay, that was your first one. ,
Batzli: There were both.
Conrad: Did you make them both 250? '
Batzli : Yeah. I think that' s the only two areas where that is. And as
much as I'd like to do it, I 'll leave the 250 foot requirement in there.
Conrad: Is there a second?
Emmings: I 'll second it. ,
Ellson: Okay, what's the base difference? This residential neighbor part?
Batzli : Basically we've increased the distance that the gas station has to II
be away from the residential neighborhoods so that in theory at this point,
you have to have a mighty big lot. Basically at a 250 foot minimum, you're '
going to have to have at least one parcel , hopefully, between the gas
station and the residential section. 250 foot lot would be mighty big to
comply with all the setbacks. ,
Conrad: Any other discussion?
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the proposed ordinance revisions regulating convenience stores
set forth in the packet dated November 8, 1989 as set forth except that the II
word "on side" shall be deleted and "on site" shall be inserted there for
wherever it is throughout this document. Oil dispensing and the words "and
collection" shall be added. After the seventh line in the definition of I
motor fuel station, in Section 3, paragraph 7, 100 shall be changed to 250.
Section 4, paragraph 6, 100 feet shall be changed to 250. Batzli and
Emmings voted in favor. Ellson, Conrad and Wildermuth voted in opposition.
The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. •
I
Planning Commission Meeting :
November 15, 1989 - Page 19
r
' Conrad: Is there another motion?
Batzli: What me to take the 250 feet?
Wildermuth: Take the requirement to the gas pumps out of it. . .
Batzli : Between parcels or you just want to take it out completely?
Wildermuth: Right.
Conrad: Is there another motion?
Batzli : Well I ' ll do that.
ti
Conrad: We can send it forward without a positive vote. We don' t ham to
compromise.
Emmings: And I don' t think that's a particular bad idea. We already sent
something to the City Council that we thought was alright and they sent it
' back with a bunch of directions that Paul 's taken into account and he' s
done some more on his own. They're basically, to me it didn't do a lot to
send it back here this time. They're going to wind up, they seem to have
some fairly strong notions on how they want it to be and if they like it,
' they're going to do it and if they don' t, they're not. I don' t see any
reason to prolong this.
' Conrad: Okay. Is there another motion that somebody would like to make or
should we send this forth with a negative vote and the reasons set forth?
Any motion? ;.
IBatzli : Why don' t we send it on with the negative vote.
Conrad: Okay. Those of us who voted negatively for both motions, Jim
' would you detail the reasons that you voted negatively.
Wildermuth: I can live with basically everything in here and I
like the way you cleaned up the problem with the zoning Paul
Iparticularly but I 'd like to strike any reference to distances between gas pumps. Other
than that, and I would be in favor of increasing distance betfi,een gas pumps
and residential residences.
' Conrad : My feeling for the reason I voted no was I think the 250 feet is
really restrictive and although I haven't taken an inventory of the
I intersections in town, I do believe that that's going to prevent gas
stations from moving in here and therefore in the end I think there will be
a lessening of competition and I don't agree with that. I think somebody
could persuade me where if there were opportunities, multi opportunities
' for gas stations to exist I might pay attention but in this particular
case, I don't see any way that a couple gas stations could exist on the
same intersection and therefore I don't believe we'd have a competitive
I situation in Chanhassen. The other thing that I don't like is a
conditional use process where the conditions aren' t clearly defined in
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 20
11
terms of our flexibility and the intent of what we're trying to do. I
Anyway, we'll forward this one and see how the City Council wants to deal
with it.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXIV, OFF STREET
PARKING AND LOADING, TO PROVIDE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCREASED PARKING
REQUIREMENTS IF WARRANTED BY SITE PLAN REVIEW AND TO REQUIRE ENCLOSED
PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
Public Present:
Dean Johnson - Cenvesco
Hal Pierce - Architect, Design Resource Group
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order .
Dean Johnson: Obviously we've been in front of each other before. I have
a project that you know this does affect. I guess you know the part of the I
change that I 'd like to talk to is the double attached garage with the
double, 2 parking stalls per multi-family unit. I guess the way in which
I'd like to talk about it is in the fact of affordable housing . We feel II that in Chanhassen you have designated land R-12. The different multiple
family zonings. Some of the reasons for doing this I'm sure in your minds
are for affordable housing. We also feel there is a market for it in here.
Obviously I wouldn' t have been in front of you with the PUD in the R-12
zoning if I didn't feel that there was a market for it. Just thinking of
the new businesses that are coming in with Rosemount and McGlynn Bakeries
and now I believe there's another one that you talked about earlier that' s
coming in on the industrial site over there. You're going to be bringing a II
lot of people in with this and these people don't all make $40,000.00 a
year to afford a single family house or $35,000.00 a year to afford an
upscale multi-family house. I guess I want to get into those types of
things here so you know when you do this and you raise this, that you
realize what's happening and what you're doing to the construction and what
you're doing to a segment of the population that now works here in
Chanhassen or now is going to work here in Chanhassen. :I guess we should
talk about the product a little bit. With the ordinances you have, when we
chose a building to put on this site and as others are going to do after II me, we chose a unit where the garage was partially tucked under the unit.
When you have your 35% impervious surface restriction that you do have, it
kind of requires that. If the garage is now outside, even if it's just
attached like a house is off to the side of the house, you have not only
the house area that you're dealing with but you're having a garage area.
So when you throw a 35% impervious surface, it's hard to get within that
area with your design unless you're going in lower density. If you're '
going to take the R-12 in the case that I have and you're going to start
doing those types of things, it means your density is going down. If your
density goes down, the price per units going to have to go up because your
ground costs are there and your development costs are there and all the