1h. Zoning Ordinance on Contractors Yards I , ,, . / 1,,,
, ® F
Kj`
AN EN
1 _
•
•
. ,, ,.
��- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
x
(612) 937-1900
1 MEMORANDUM . �,___..__.--
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Si0i7
I .1:1/
FROM: Steve Hanson, Planning Director ,.... _
DATE: May 3, 1989 µ _cr ,,.,::1;.-„`l;': .uncij
ISUBJ: Contractors Yards
' The Planning Commission held a�public hearing on an ordinance
amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code at its regular
' meeting of April 19 , 1989 . This amendment would delete contrac-
tors yards from the A2 and BF zoning districts as a conditional
use permit. At the Planning Commission meeting there was no
public input for or against the proposed ordinance change.
IThe Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to
the City Code to delete the following sections from the zoning
Iordinance:
Section 20-255
Section 20-574 , Subd. 6
ISection 20-773 , Subd. 6
Recommendation
IStaff recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to
the City Code to delete sections from the zoning ordinance as
follows:
I
Section 20-255
Section 20-574 , Subd. 6
ISection 20-773 , Subd. 6
IAttachments
1 . April 19 , 1989 Planning Commission minutes .
2 . April 14 , 1989 Staff Report with attachments .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 19, 1989 - Page 30 '
UBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE BY
DELETING SECTION 20-255, SECTION 20-574, SUBD. 6, AND SECTION 20-773 ,
SUED. 6 (CONTRACTOR' S YARDS) , CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the
public hearing to order .
Wildermuth moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted '
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Batzli : I 'd like the record to show that there ' s nobody else in the room
except for us and staff. '
Conrad : Any general comments?
Emmings : I want to ask if the contractor ' s yards that presently exist ,
were those people specifically notified of this?
Hanson: We did not individually notify them.
Ellson: I thought we usually do. . .
Emmings : Are you telling us that we' re not obligated to?
Conrad: We' re not. The question is , to be sure . . . ,
Emmings: On one hand . . .
Conrad : Does anybody else have any other. comments?
(Discussion went on between commissioners that wasn ' t audible on the
tape .)
Headla : If we approve this tonight , how' s that going to affect the ones
that already exist? '
Hanson : It won' t. . .
Headla : Then I don ' t see any reason to not approve it . ,
Conrad: It' s just that, would we learn anything additional?
Emmings : My concern is this . If we' re going to make them, I guess the 1
word is legal non-conforming uses right? My question is , what terminates
a legal non-conforming use? If they don' t use that property for a period
of a year , how would we ever know?
Ellson : You' ve got to tell the neighborhood .
Hanson: It' s the same way we'd know that a conditional use now had
expired .
Ii
+J `
Planning Commission Meeting
IApril 19, 1989 - Page 32
IErhart moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the amendment to the City Code to delete the following
Isections from the zoning ordinance :
Section 20-255
Section 20-574 , Subd . 6
IISection 20-773, Subd . 6
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
IErhart: My comment is, as time has gone on on this thing, it ' s become
more and more clear that we are recommending the correct thing . . .
IAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 5, 1989 as
Ipresented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
IITEMS FROM THE PLANNING STAFF.
Steve Hanson updated the Planning Commission on what work had been done on
the following items : convenience stores , wetland articles , zoning code,
Iuse of matrix and letter from Roger Knutson dated April 12, 1989 .
IEmmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 40 p.m. .
ISubmitted by Steve Hanson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
CITY OF . 1
CHANHASSEN I
;.._.‘
/10
1
` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission I
FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director 1
DATE: April 14, 1989
SUBJ: Contractor' s Yards 1
The Planning Commission and City Council, have reviewed the
option of deleting contractor' s-yards from the A-2 and BF
II
Districts as conditional use permits. Through these delibera-
tions , the Planning Commission evaluated the possibility of
allowing small contractor' s yards, or total elimination of this
II
use from those districts . The option of allowing these as a
small controlled operation was described in a memorandum from
Mark Koegler dated November 8 , 1988 . That report is attached to
this memo. 1
After review of Mark ' s report by the Planning Commission and City
Council, there was a concensus that the appropriate direction to II
take would be the elimination of contractor' s yards in the A-2
and BF Districts but still allow contractor' s yards as a con-
ditional use permit in the IOP District. All existing contrac-
IItor' s yards in the A-2 and BF Districts would be allowed to
continue as a legal non conforming use.
This amendment would delete the following sections : 1
Section 20-254, 20-574, Subp. 6 , and 20-773, Subp. 6 .
Copies of these sections of the zoning code are included for 1
reference. Also attached is a draft ordinance amending Chapter
20 of the City Code, which is the zoning ordinance, to accomplish II this amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of II
the amendment to the City Code to delete the following sections
from the zoning ordinance:
II
Section 20-255
Section 20-574, Subd. 6
Section 20-773 , Subd. 6
II
1
II .
Planning Commission
' April 14, 1989
Page 2
I
ATTACHMENTS
' 1. Copy of proposed ordinance amendment.
2 . Copy of the existing zoning code sections to be amended.
3 . Copy of Mark Koegler' s memo dated November 8 , 1989.
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 1 , 1989 .
5 . City Council minutes dated February 13 , 1989 .
6 . Planning Commission minutes dated March 15, 1989 .
1
. 1
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 '
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE
CITY/S ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of Chanhassen ordains as follows:
Section 1. The following sections of the Chanhassen City ,
Code are deleted in their entirety: 20-255, 20-574 Subd. 6, and
20-773 Subd. 6. '
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
ENACTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of
, 1989.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY: ,
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ATTEST: '
Don Ashworth, City Manager
I
i
■.
I ,
§ 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
I
Church means a building or edifice consecrated to religious worship, where people join
together in some form of public worship under the aegis and direction of a person who is
authorized under the laws of the State of Minnesota to solemnize marriages. A church hurch may
include living b quarters for persons employed on the premises and classroom facilities. The
' following are not considered as churches: Camp meeting grounds, mikvahs, coffee houses,
recreational complexes, retreat houses, sleeping quarters for retreatants during spiritual
retreats extending for periods of more than one (1) day. Bible camps with live-in quarters,
' publishing establishments, ritual slaughter houses, radio or television towers and transmis-
sion facilities, theological seminaries, day care centers, hospitals, and drug treatment centers
are not churches.
' Class A wetlands means wetland types 3,4,5,6, 7 and 8.In the case of wetlands adjoining
a public waters designated as lake or pond this class shall also include type 2 wetlands.Type 2
wetlands shall also be deemed a class A wetland when adjoining a stream designated as public
waters to the extent that it encroaches upon the one-hundred-year floodplain of the stream.
Class B wetlands means type 2 wetlands not adjoining a public waters designated as lake
or pond nor within the one-hundred-year floodplain of a stream designed as public waters.
Clear-cutting means the removal of an entire stand of trees.
Collector street means a street that carries traffic from minor streets to arterial streets.
Conference/convention center means a preplanned, centrally managed development con-
taining facilities for business or professional conferences and seminars and containing ac-
' commodations for overnight lodging, eating and recreation. The development is characterized
by architecturally integrated buildings, common use of parking areas, and incorporation of
passes recreational amenities into overall site design.
' Conforming building or structure means any building or structure which complies with
all the regulations of this chapter, or any amendment thereto.
' Contractor's yard means any area or use of land where vehicles, equipment, and/or
construction materials and supplies commonly used by building, excavation, roadway con-
struction, landscaping and similar contractors are stored or serviced. A contractor's yard
' includes both areas of outdoor storage and areas confined within a completely enclosed
building used in conjunction with a contractor's business.
Cul-de-sac means a minor street with only one (1) outlet and having an appropriate
turn-around for the safe and convenient reversal of traffic movement.
Day care center means any facility or home where tuition, fees or other forms of compen-
sation is charged for the care of children and which is licensed by the state as a day care
center.
' Density, gross means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the
gross site area.
Density, net means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the
developable acreage of the site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes, roadways, and �a
other areas not suitable for building purposes.
' 1144
r
ZONING § 20-575
(3) Private stables. 1
(4) Swimming pool.
(5) Tennis court. 1
(6) Signs.
(7) Home occupations.
(8) One (1)dock.
(9) Roadside stand. 1
(10) Private kennel.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 3(5-3-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-574. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an "A-2" District:
111
(1) Bed and breakfast establishment.
(2) Temporary mobile home(compliance with section 20-905 is not required). 1
(3) Mineral extraction.
(4) Cemetery. 1
(5) Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies. _
PTE. (6) Contractor's yard.
(7) Commercial communication transmission towers.
(8) Wholesale nursery.
(9) Electrical substation.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 3(5-3-4), 12-15-36)
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-575. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "A-2" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half(21_) acres, subject to section 20-906. 1
(2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall he two hundred(200) feet in width at the building setback line.
(3) The minimum lot depth is tNio hundred (200) feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is twent■ (20) percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet.
1205
I
IZONING § 20-256
(2) The structure must be in compliance with local building and fire codes.
(3) The site will be reviewed annually through a public hearing process.
(4) Septic systems must be in compliance with chapter 19, article IV.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(2)), 12-15-86)
' Sec. 20-254. Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies.
The following applies to commercial kennels, stables and riding academies:
(1) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, article III.
' (2) The site must be located on a collector street.
(3) The structure must be a minimum of two hundred(200)feet from wetland area.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(3)), 12-15-86)
"4- . 20-255. Contractor's yard.
' The ■llowing applies to contractor's yards:
I (1) The mi mum lot size is five (5) acres.
(2) All storage an. -ard areas as well as buildings must be set b - one hundred (100)
feet from public of private road right-of-ways and five h dred (500) feet from an
IDE.-(,GTL, adjacent single-family i- idence.
(3) The site must be located alo • a collector o minor arterial as identified in the
' comprehensive plan.
(4) All outdoor storage areas must be .mple ly screened by one hundred (100) percent
opaque fencing or berming.
(5) No two (2) contractor's ,-.rds shall be located within 'e (1) mile of each other.
' (6) Hours of operat•: shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 1 .day through Saturday
only, work • Sundays and holidays not permitted.
' (7) Lig •ources shall be shielded.
(8 r o outside speaker systems are allowed.
(• •. No. 80. Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(-1)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-256. Commercial communication transmission towers.
Commercial communication transmission to«ers not designed to collapse progressively
shall be set back from all property lines a minimum distance equal to the height of the tower.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(5)), 12-15-86)
' 1173
1
§ 20-772 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20-772. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in a"BF" District:
(1) Parking lots. '
(2) Signs.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 14(5-14-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-773. Conditional uses.
r! .;
� `' �;;�.;
«
The following are conditional uses in a BF>> District: �»
(1) Automotive service station without car washes.
(2) Truck/trailer rental.
(3) Utility services.
(4) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
(5) Cold storage and warehousing.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 14(5-14-2), 12-15-86)
State law reference_Conditional uses,M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-774. Lot requirements and setbacks. I
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: ,
(1) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand(20,000)square feet.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum front footage of sixty(60)feet in all districts.
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet. I
(4) The maximum lot coverage is forty(40)percent.
(5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial
uses establish joint off-street parking facilities,as provided in section 20-1122,except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The
minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in all
districts. Other setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, twenty-five(25)feet. I
b. For rear yards, twenty(20) feet.
c. For side yards, ten(10)feet.
1224
I
.wJ.4:
-A.,...>a 3�r.31
, rt, -4)
Il . . .. . . 4:- .
«yYif/ Pn-
I
'4
*Hagan:1a°
I -Li=4
PLANNING REPORT
IITO : Chanhassen s en Planning Commission and Staff
IFROM: Mark Koegler
DATE: November 8 , 1988
ISUBJECT: Contractor ' s Yards - A-2 Zone
I BACKGROUND ( Contractor ' s - yards are currently allowed as
conditional uses in the A-2 zone. The A-2 zone is the predominate
zoning category of land located within the Rural Service Area
(RSA) . All A-2 land lies south of TH 5 . A review of contractor ' s
I yards in the A-2 zone needs to consider the general issue of land
uses throughout the entire Rural Service Area.
I In the late 1970 ' s , the City of Chanhassen pursued a policy of
allowing only farm related agricultural uses in the unsewered area
( RSA ) . Residential uses were specifically prohibited without
municipal sanitary sewer service . Court challenges resulted in the
I modification of the strict provisions that prohibited residential
development .
I In 1986 , the City of Chanhassen modified the zoning ordinance to
restrict residential densities in the RSA to one unit per 10 acres .
Land owners had until January 15 , 1987 to file subdivision
II applications under the previous ordinance which allowed a density
of 1 unit per 2 . 5 acres of land . The imposition of the application
deadline resulted in a series of development proposals containing
2 .5 acre lots . By the fall of 1988 , many of the developments had
I installed street improvements and housing construction occurred .
Additionally , several other developments are preparing to begin
initial construction .
IThe growth of 2 . 5 acre single family residential lots that has
occurred over the past two years has substantially changed the land
use pattern in southern Chanhassen . Three primary use patterns
I exist : 1 ) agriculture , 2 ) rural residential @ 1 unit per 10 acres
and 3 ) large lot residential @ 1 unit per 2 . 5 acres . All of these
uses are presently accommodated in the A-2 zone .
IThe focus of this report is on contractor ' s yards and their
appropriateness in the A-2 zone . Addressing this issue requires
II a review of both contractors yards as a land use and the impact of
II3030 Harbor Lane North BId .11, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
WM
II� -
such uses on each of the three use patterns that exist in the A-2
zone.
In the existing ordinance , contractor ' s yards are
area or use of land where vehicles , equipment , and/or fconstruction
materials and supplies commonly used by building , excavation , or
roadway construction , landscaping and similar contractors are
stored or serviced . A contractor ' s yard includes both areas of
outdoor storage and areas confined within a completely enclosed
building used in conjunction with a contractor ' s business . "
Additionally , the ordinance provides restrictions pertaining to lot
size , setbacks , location , screening , hours of operation and
proximity to one another. Neither the definition nor the
restrictions limit contractor ' s yards to accessory uses . Therefore ,
they assume the status of primary uses that for all practical
purposes , are industrial in nature . ,
The Planning Commission has expressed interest in redefining
contractor ' s yards to make them less intensive uses . Overall
sentiment seems to be to allow smaller scale , "mom and pop "
operations but not large scale businesses . If the ordinance is to
allow only smaller scale businesses , the term "contractor ' s yard "
needs to be redefined to apply only to less intensive uses . Under
this scenario , larger scale contractors facilities would fall under
the provisions of industrial uses and only be permitted in
industrial zoning districts .
In order to limit the size of contractor ' s ,
advisable to allow them only as accessory uses rather than as
principal uses . As an accessory use , the size of a contractor ' s
yard could be tied to the size of the principal residential use
thereby controlling the scale of the operation .
Assuming that contractor ' s yards are limited to "mom and pop "
operations , the appropriate location for such facilities needs to
be examined . Of the three primary land uses in the RSA ,
agriculture and rural residential ( 10 acres ) can probably
accommodate contractor ' s yards as interim land uses with little or
no mitigation required . Large lot residential is an exception to
this rule.
Large lot residential developments ( 2 . 5 ) acres such as Lake Riley
Woods have a strong resemblance to urban residential developments .
Because of housing types and higher overall densities , contractor ' s
yards are not appropriate in such areas . Prohibiting contractor ' s
yards in these areas may require additional zoning modifications .
For example , developments such as Lake Riley Woods could be rezoned
to Rural Residential ( RR) which does not allow contractor ' s yards .
Other methods could be used to accomplish the same purpose .
The preceding discussion has focused on the Planning Commission ' s 11
desire to allow small scale contractor ' s yards in the southern
portion of the City . A comprehensive review of this issue should
also address the prohibition of contractors yards outside of
I .
II
Iindustrial areas . In preparing this report , I reviewed the zoning
ordinances of the cities of Plymouth , Maple Grove , Minnetonka ,
Chaska , Eden Prairie , Blaine and Champlin as well as ordinances of
I several developing communities in the Kansas City Metropolitan
Area . All ordinances prohibit contractor ' s yards outside of
industrial sites except Chaska which allows landscape contractors
businesses in their Rural Residential zone . Chaska requires a
1 minimum lot size of 40 acres for such uses .
The purpose of the A-2 zone is "preservation of rural character
I while respecting development patterns by allowing single-family
residential development . " Are "mom and pop" contractor ' s yards
considered part of the rural character? If so , they may be
I appropriate uses . If not , they either need to be prohibited or the
purpose of the A-2 zone needs to be modified .
II Beyond an analysis of the existing purpose statement , the Planning
Commission needs to consider the long term impacts of contractor ' s
yards of any scale . Chanhassen is rapidly urbanizing . A
I significant amount of development has occurred over the past five
years in the Rural Service Area . As land continues to be absorbed
in Eden Prairie , Chanhassen will receive added development
pressure . In light of increasing development , the compatibility
of contractor ' s yards with existing residential and future land
I uses needs to be addressed . Additionally , allowing contractor ' s
yards may pose short and long term administrative problems .
I In the long term, contractor ' s yards are compatible only with
industrial land uses . At the present time , future industrial areas
in the Rural Service Area have not been identified . Therefore ,
II permitting contractor ' s yards throughout the southern section of
Chanhassen creates potential future land use conflicts . Allowing
any scale of contractor ' s yards also creates significant short term
II administrative problems . Once low intensity contractor ' s yards are
allowed , the mechanism is in place to permit variance applications
for more intensive uses . In reality , it is much easier for a city
to control a use by not allowing it to occur in any form than it
Iis to consistently deny variance applications .
RECOMMENDATION: Contractor ' s yards are largely inconsistent with
long term growth in Chanhassen . Almost every community in the Twin
II Cities Metropolitan Area has found that such uses are inappropriate
outside of industrial zones . Additionally , the inclusion of
contractor ' s yards in Chanhassen ' s existing zoning ordinance has
I created enforcement and administrative problems . The city ' s
experience with this issue coupled with the fact that contractor ' s
yards are not consistent with long term land use in Chanhassen
II creates a strong argument for prohibiting such uses . For these
reasons , it is recommended that contractor ' s yards be permitted in
Chanhassen only in appropriate industrial zones and not in the
unsewered sections of the community.
UIf the Planning Commission decides that small scale contractor ' s
IIyards should be allowed in the A-2 zone , a significant modification
of the zoning ordinance needs to be considered . In order to limit
the intensity of such uses , the following modifications are offered
for review :
1 . Modify the definition of Contractor ' s Yards to include only low
I
intensity uses with minimal storage needs ie . "Contractor ' s yards
means an area for the storage of vehicles and equipment related to
small scale contracting operations that are accessory to the
principal residential use of the property. Equipment and vehicles
stored in the contractor ' s yard shall be used solely by family
members residing in the principal residential structure on the
property. "
2 . Establish contractor ' s yards as conditional
the A-2 zone subject to the following conditionsaccessory uses in
A . The minimum lot size is ten ( 10 ) acres .
B . All storage and yard areas as well as buildings must be
set back one hundred ( 100 ) feet from public or private road
right-of-ways and five hundred ( 500 ) feet from an adjacent
single- family residence .
C . The site must be located along a collector or '
arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan .
minor
D . The total floor area of storage buildings shall be limited
to one thousand ( 1000 ) square feet or 50% of the floor area
of the principal residential structure whichever ever is more
E . Outdoor storage areas shall be limited to five hundred
( 500 ) square feet in total area . All outdoor storage areas
must be completely screened by one hundred ( 100 ) percent
opaque fencing or berming.
F. Hours of operation shall be from 7 : 00 a . m. to 6 : 00 p. m. ,
Monday through Saturday only , work on Sunday and holidays not
permitted .
G . Light sources shall be shielded .
H . No outside speaker systems are allowed . ,
I . All vehicles and equipment relating to the contracting
business shall be stored within a building or screened area .
3 . Rezone existing 2 . 5 acre residential deelnts Residential ( RR) . Rural Residential prohibittsvcontpractor ' soyards .
If an approach such as the one outlined above is eventually adopted '
by the City or if contractor ' s yards are prohibited , all existing
contractor ' s yards will become nonconforming . As such , they will
be allowed to continue providing they are permitted contractor ' s
I , .
k
I
yards at the time of the modification of the ordinance . They will
not , however , be permitted to expand or intensify .
After discussion by the Planning Commission , appropriate ordinance
' language will be prepared for formal consideration by the
Commission and City Council .
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 1, 1989 - Page 15
4
back and use your energy to better use?
Hanson: Some cities , to handle this type of a thing , would set up what
might be called an adminstrative plat or a minor plat or whatever. It
would be handled more or less as a consent item. In the case of this
where it 's fairly straight forward and it wouldn' t make any sense not to
approve it once you approved the site plan because they couldn' t build the I
building now.
Headla : We' re going through stuff where you' re just using your energy II where it could be probably better used. In the future if you could guide
us on something like that.
Hanson : We would have had this coming with the site plan previously but
there was a delay in getting the plat document available when the site
plan was because it was something we turned up when we were reviewing that
so it threw us off two weeks . -
Conrad : David , it is a public hearing which we have to have. Have the
floor for a public hearing and we need the staff to make this up . ,
Headla : I just had a question, is there some way to avoid that? This
particular type of set up.
Conrad : I don ' t know if we could figure out the rules .
Emmings: I think we want to try and have this folded into the site plan
so we do it all at once and that would pretty much take care of your
objection I think.
Ellson moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat Case #89-1 based on the plans stamped
"Received January 11, 1989" subject to the following conditions : '
1. Final approval of the site plan for Ver-Sa-Til by City Council .
All voted in favor and the motion carried . 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Headla moved, Ellson seconded to note the summar of 11
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 18 , 1989 as
presented. All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion
carried . ,
OPEN DISCUSSION: CONTRACTORS YARDS .
Hanson : I had hoped that we could just have a general discussion I
g on of it.
I wanted to give you somewhat of a comparison between the contractors
yard , the conditions that apply to it as it is now versus what Mark has
included in his recommendation and that staff report and I believe that
that ' s on the , it might be the third page of his . I don' t have the first
II ,
Planning Commission Meeting
February 1, 1989 - Page 16
' page. The part I 'm looking at is actually the fourth page. On item, it ' s
numbered 2 and the differences between what he has there and what' s
' presently in the Code. First of all , the minimum lot size has changed
from 5 acres as it is presently and increased up to a 10 acre minimum lot
size for a contractors yard . (b) , that ' s what is in the ordinance now.
(c) is what' s in the ordinance at this time. (d) is a new section
limiting the total square footage for the storage buildings. Presently
there' s no limitation on that. Then (e) is a change and the first
sentence there is new. That outdoor storage areas shall be limited to 500
square feet in total area. Under the present ordinance, there' s no
limitation on that outdoor storage area . Then , hours of operation are the
same. Light sources is the same. Outdoor speaker systems are the same.
The last section is a new section that all vehicles and equipment relating
to the contracting shall be stored within the building or within a
screened area so that it ' s clear that those have to be non-visible from
other areas . Then there' s one section under the present conditions that
' has been deleted under this proposal and that ' s the requirement on the one
mile separation between contracting yards . That' s not included in the
proposal that Mark had prepared . There ' s a graphic up here that I 'd just
like to point out a few things on this because we talk about this
agricultural area . The A-2 area is really everything south generally of
that line so it ' s this area in here. The green areas are essentially open
1 space areas . Areas committed to , a golf course down here and the
' Arboretum. The area shown in the yellow are for the most part, subdivided
areas with 2 1/2 acre lots or more in some parts and also some odd parcels
that are less than 10 acres . . . .couple areas that would not be available
' for . . . The red areas on here are existing . . . There is the one mile
restriction left in. In looking , this is approximately a mile. You ' re
looking at some slivers in here that would not be covered by one mile
' radius . . . so if that one mile limitation is left on there, I think there
are only a half dozen parcels that would be available . . . The area that ' s
shown in orange on there are nurseries. Again, there ' s been some
discussion on whether a nursery is a contractor ' s yard . . . The couple
' other areas that are noted on here that have conditional use permits . . .
Hidden Valley extraction plant down here . An electrical substation here
and driving range here. We also have a couple contractors yards up in
here that are not in the A-2 district . They were approved prior to that
limit so they were grandfathered in. . . My reason for going over that is
simply just to provide some background and a jumping off place if you will
on what the Planning Commission is looking at. One of the things too, I
' think we had talked about briefly when Tim had asked about where the
contracting yards were and where it was sitting . The old Council had
looked at this and looked at the recommendation from the Planning
' Commission and Mark' s report and essentially it was a 4 to 5 decision at
that point in time. There was no formal recommendation but saying , yes ,
the Planning Commission should proceed with that . There was some
kb_ discussion whether they should wait for the new Council to take their
position and look at that. When I went back to the Minutes , they
basically said no , let ' s take it back to the Planning Commission.
Probably should have brought that back earlier than now but I wanted to
' get it back before you and see what direction you wanted to take as far as
looking at some type of an amendment and the time frame you want to look
at as far as setting up public hearings .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 1, 1989 - Page 17
Conrad : Does anybody, with taking a look at Mark' s recommendations ,
should we be pursuing this right now? Contractors yards aggressively?
Batzli : A zoning change?
Conrad: Yes .
Emmings : I don ' t know. Wouldn ' t the thing to do be
g just to schedule a
public hearing? We don' t have to stake out a position on this until, I
don' t think we want to until after the public hearing . '
Conrad: I don ' t know if it's, to have a position. I think it's our role
to float this in front of the public . I guess the only,
cares . The only ones that are going to show up are the contractors I
think it' s our goal to do that.
Batzli : There might be a couple people next to some contractors . ,
Conrad: Possibly, yes .
Emmings: I think we should pursue it . I think it ' s one of the things
we' ve been wanting to get at.
Conrad : Basically when I went through the Minutes of City Council , other
than Hamilton, everybody else felt comfortable going ahead with it .
Basically going to a less intensive use of some sort . I don' t know if
I read a consensus to get rid of it but certainly a less intense use I
sure heard . I think what I read here , in Mark ' s is certainly getting us
to a less intense use. The question is , do we send it back to City
Council or do we go ahead with it? My reading,
y g, we don ' t know where the
new Council is . On the other hand , we certainly can go ahead on our own .
It ' s a question of whether we bounce it back up to them for another shot
at it, see if the new Council ' s interested or if we just go ahead
ourselves .
Headla : I 'd like to see what the new Council has to say. Send up a trial
balloon and see how they respond. '
Conrad : Basically what you say Dave is , let ' s take Mark' s comments here
and pass it up for an informational item as soon as we can schedule it and
see if the Council has any comments or a different set of direction but
noting the fact that we want to schedule a public hearing and are
interested in any comments they may have.
Emmings : We ' re playing a lot of tennis with this thing. Couldn ' t we just
say that we' d like to have a public hearing set up on this unless the
Council disagrees or unless the Council feels like we shouldn ' t proceed?
That way it doesn ' t have to come back. They can just go ahead and set it
up.
Erhart : The other thing is , that after the public hearing , it still goes
to Council anyway.
i
an
J
I ,
Planning Commission Meeting
IC. February 1 , 1989 - Page 18
IConrad : But it' s always nice to incorporate new thoughts in before .
Emmi.ngs : With 3 new members, I think it would be good. Give them a veto
' on it. Just say, let ' s go ahead . Let ' s set up a public hearing unless
they think we shouldn' t .
I Hanson : Are you thinking that we would go ahead and incorporate Mark' s
recommendation?
IConrad : That ' s my next. Yes .
Headla : I 'd like to throw out something for discussion to see what you
think about making an addition to that. It ' s a very difficult thing to
I measure but we don ' t talk about noise at all but when somebody comes here
to talk about contractors yards , noise, I think it ' s been brought up every
single time. It was brought up again tonight . Remember the Lyman Lumber?
I One of the big objections was the noise. Lyman was very responsive to
that but I 'd like to see us , whether we need guidance on how in the world
you can even word it to make it meaningful because I really think you
ought to talk about some type of noise control . The contractors yard near
I me, I can ' t complain about, that ' s get noisy once in a while during the
day. That part isn ' t bad but I think at times it can be excessive in some
of these places and we should have some way of controlling it.
IEmmi.ngs : Steve, do you ever deal with contractors yards a great deal in
your background?
IHanson : No , because we didn ' t allow them in the agricultrual areas , in
all honesty. We looked at them as an industrial use. Have a different
license for them.
IConrad : Dave, I buy your idea on noise but I don ' t know how you write
something .
IHeadla : I bet 5-10 years ago , we would have responded the same way when
you say, what do you do for sight? How can you measure and somebody says ,
well , let ' s put up a big fence . Those were new words at one time. I
Ithink maybe we should have new words for the sound nuisance.
Emmings : I think they' re restricting the hours of operation . That ' s what
1 that was getting at .
Headla : It can be a big benefit . I think that ' s one of the primary
IIreasons that was put in there in the old ordinance.
Batzli : I think with larger sites , a 10 acre site , you ' re going to have
less noise as well unless they take up the whole site. The point is , that
here it ' s a much less intensive use . They don ' t have, 500 square feet of
outdoor storage is nothing .
I Hanson : One thing I hadn ' t mentioned there . Item 1 on that page with
those changes , is a modification of the definition to a contractors yard .
What it clearly does is it makes that contractors yard an accessory use to
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 1, 1989 - Page 19
II
C
the individual living on the property. That ' s a major deviation from I
where we are now.
Headla: That in itself can help quite a bit . I
Conrad: Any other recommendations in terms of what' s in front of us here?
Batzli : If we change the definition of contractors yard , do we currently II
allow them in the IOP? So you really can' t change the definition of
contractors yard up at the front of this section.
IIHanson: Good point .
Batzli : We' re going to have to call it something else . I
Ellson: There' s your junk yard. There' s the definition of junk yard
maybe. _ I
Batzli : I think there has to be an easier way unless we just , I don ' t
know if we can do it in the definition section to define it one way for
one district and another way for another . That would be easier than
II
trying to amend a bunch of different sections .
r Emmings : We can face that after we decide what we' re going to do because
L I guess what we ' re looking at, if we ' re going to make it less intense,
we ' re either going to say there aren ' t going to be any in which case we
can just leave it alone. Leave the definition alone because it will still
fit in the IOP. If we take that route , we don ' t have that problem. It ' s
only if we take the second choice of saying it ' s going to be an accessory
use. Then we ' ve got the problem. We can figure something out then
I suppose.
II
Hanson: One place where we might try to define that is , presently you
have standards for a contractor ' s yard in the agricultural and residential
districts . You have a group of those districts and then under the
industrial it' s also a conditional use. They are separate criteria in
that part of the conditional use regulations so it could be defined
differently to cover it in that area .
II
Batzli : That would be a good way to handle it .
Erhart: Ladd, are you looking for comments as to how we should , what ' s II
the next step?
Conrad : Additions to what Mark, do you see anything that we want to II
change as we pass this up to City Council for a veto or as we set Steve
forward to set up a public hearing . Do you see any other changes in this?
Erhart: Do you normally go to a public hearing with just general
comments? Do you go out with a specific plan of this is what we want to
pass? I guess we assumed that we were going out with specifics on a
II
public hearing .
1 '
Planning Commission Meeting
' February 1, 1989 - Page 20
Z7
' Hanson: We need to have a draft , if you will .
Erhart : Okay. Then it seems to me that we have to decide either between
' the plan that Mark is recommending, which is the elimination of
contractors yards in the A-2 district or the alternative which is we feel
that we have to allow them someplace even though nobody else does. Then
we have to pick that one .
Ellson : I thought we already decided . That ' s why we passed it up to City
Council. I thought we had this discussion. We all pretty much said no in
the A-2.
Erhart: That we were going to eliminate them?
' Ellson: Right. And then we went up there and they some comments of
now it' s back here . g and
' Erhart : So then we ' re not really considering the alternative?
Emmings : But don' t we want to have, let people comment on both of the
things that Mark has laid out somehow? Maybe we ought to have a public
hearing on. . .
1 r Ellson : We' re kind of washy washy then .
Erhart: Don ' t get me wrong . I 'm just for eliminating and my question, I
' was just wondering where we were going .
Emmings : We can have a puolic hearing on a proposal to eliminate them in
the A-2 or have a public hearing on a proposal to deintensify their use or
' eliminate them. I guess I don ' t know if we have to have . . .
Conrad : We have to have something to react to .
Emmings : But if we say, we want to have public comments on a proposal to
eliminate them in the A-2, then how will people see this alternative plan
of Mark ' s so they could comment on it?
Conrad : They won ' t.
Emmings : But don ' t we want to hear what they' ve got to say about that?
Conrad: Unless we do it through a staff presentation. Unless we float
' the elimination up there by staff for the public that shows up. They can
comment on the alternative that we looked at .
Hanson : The other thing you could do is have , rather than a formal public
Ihearing, to talk about the two different options but to still try to
generate some interest is to have a workshop type or just have it on the
agenda as a discussion item that we would advertise. Then get some public
input and then do a formal public hearing on one of the alternatives .
We' ve got to publish the amendment to the ordinance for the public
hearing . I 'd rather not publish two because I think it ' s going to be . . .
me
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 1, 1989 - Page 21
Ellson: I would agree to do something like that if we were split but we
were pretty much all together . Why would we want to present it any other II
way? We were all for eliminating them. Why would we even bring it up?
Not that we' re trying to outsell ourselves but we already feel strongly
this way, and granted they can come forward and say no, I like my
neighbor. He has a neat contractors yard or what have you and maybe that
will open our minds later to the other alternative but right now, we ' re
all voting this way and we sent it forward and now you look like you' re
maybe changing your mind . I
Erhart : That is a point . If we did get a lot of negative response at a
public hearing to eliminate them, then you could always go back and come
back with the alternative.
Emmings : On the other hand , just looking at it from the other side,
you' re saying, we ' ve got two proposals in front of us . We' ll only show
the public this one so they can comment on it and we' ll keep the other one
behind our back. I don ' t know, the whole idea of the public hearing it
seems to me is to get . . . I
Ellson : But this one is the most drastic . So if we get a lot of
negative, then we can pull out the happy medium.
Batzli : I think we should have Ladd write a lengthy letter to the editor
explaining the differences between the two plans .
Conrad : I ' ll do that tonight .
Batzli : No , but I agree . I think we kind of made the decision that we
don' t like them in somewhat of a vaccum in that we haven ' t been reported
in the local paper recently and I don ' t think the public comes in and
reads our Minutes. i would prefer to present both. If we have an option
and it ' s going to slow it down by a week or two, I 'd rather do that . If
the public ' s interested , they can come in .
Headla : But how do we get to the public to get them in? I
Batzli : But they have the option.
Emmings : That ' s right . All you can do is provide the opportunity. You
can' t make people come in and comment because we' ve held a lot of public
hearings where all we had were crickets .
Headla : But if you can give them the option , give them the option. You
can tell them, just come here and read the Minutes or you can give them a
plan. I think you ' ve got to be more up front with them and say, hey we
want to talk about contractors yards.
Emmings : I guess the only question is how aware you want to make them of
the two options that we looked at .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
IIr February 1, 1989 - Page 22
i
IIHeadla : I think Steve should come in at the next meeting with a plan .
What we should publish at this public meeting .
IConrad : When we passed this up, we asked City Council for their comments .
I didn ' t read their comments to say get rid of it altogether. That ' s not
what they said . So what you ' re doing is , we passed it up to you folks but
1 we' re going to go off and get rid of them altogether. Dave, you didn ' t
say that . You like the small ma and pa , as I recall .
IHeadla: Yes , definitely.
Conrad : So the question is , do we want to, it ' s sort of go back and study
it some more Planning Commission and here we' re saying , we thought about
I it again and we ' re going to go out and have a public hearing eliminating
them. Steve , you' re saying , let ' s get more comments .
II Batzli : I don ' t even know if he ' s- saying that. He ' s saying let ' s see if
there are any comments. I don ' t think there will be any but I 'd like to
see somebody have the opportunity.
IIConrad : I don ' t think we ' re in sync with what the City Council is saying .
Or at least the past City Council .
II J
Batzli : By saying that?
Conrad : Based on our attitude right now, I don ' t think we ' re in sync with
Iwhat they' re thinking .
Emmi.ngs : What if we advertise a public hearing as a public hearing on the
adoption of an ordinance amendment to eliminate or restrict, pose it in
Ithe alternative, contractors yards in Chanhassen . Just hold that public
hearing and if you want to, publish a proposed amendment to eliminate and
a proposed amendment to restrict so they can read all that and comment on
II all of it. Can we do it that way? In the alternative? Because it seems
to me that that would , if anybody' s going to comment , that ' s going to fire
more people ' s imagination than just something real short that says we want
to eliminate them.
IIHeadla : I like your point Steve but
definition of contractors yard because Ih don ' t eknow uwhat ayoua would
f
I consider a contractors yard and my wife ' s definition might be quite a bit
different .
II Conrad : If we want to get people ' s input , I think we ' ve got to get Steve
to float the story over to the Villager . That ' s the way to get any kind
of background rather than through a public notice .
I Hanson : I think if you ' re wanting to create people ' s interest , publish
that you ' re eliminating contractors yards .
lEmmings: That would grab the attention of the contractors yards folks but
if I 'm a neighbor to one , I may see it as an opportunity to get it done
but I also may think, it looks like it ' s done. I guess it depends on, do
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 1, 1989 - Page 23
we hold a public hearing because we' re obligated to or because we want to
get some comments? I think the more you put out there, the better chance
you' ve got of getting a better input if they see that the thing is up in
the air. I don' t think many people will show up other than people who
have them.
Conrad : Just the contractors and a few people that might get notified . '
That receive the notification that live close by.
Erhart: I think you' re going to get frustrated trying to get a lot of
comment on it. I suggest we simply look at it from a pure planning point
of view which is the way Mark has looked at it and I think your history
has looked at it. Our stated goal is to eliminate intrusive uses and I
think it ' s clear that this is an intrusive use in the agricultural and
residential area. I 'm not against getting public opinion but I think in
this case , since it ' s only directed at such , the real focused issue is
only going to be on those contractors , it ' s the only people you' re going
to get up here . I 'm not too sure we' re going to accomplish what we ' re
trying to accomplish. I 'd be more inclined, if you ' re uncomfortable Ladd
that we' re not in line with the current Council that is opposed to going
out with a vague thing , that we go back to Coucil and get their opinion .
I just don ' t think we' re going to get that much out of the public hearing
process.
IConrad : I agree . I think we ' re going to get nothing .
Erhart: If you ' re uncomfortable, let ' s go back to the new Council . 1
Conrad : What I 'm saying is , we sent it up the first time to get their
input. We got their input that said , reduce the contractor ' s yards but
they didn ' t say eliminte them. When I say reduce , rei.ntensify contractors
yards is what I read their minutes to say except for Tom Hamilton. Yet
what Mark says , to get rid of them altogether and I guess with a new
Council I guess I 'm just more interested in feeding them back to them
right now. Getting their comments and then take to the public either one
or the other options. I think the public is , in this case, I don ' t think
we' re going to get a lot . ,
Emmings : You can pretty well anticipate that . Right? It would be
surprising to hear anything new.
Conrad : The contractors will be irritated and they' ll be here . The
public thinks it ' s probably a benfit so they don ' t have anything to lose
and everything to gain and they probably won ' t show up . If we think it ' s
a deal that they should show up, then I think we should make an effort to
floating the story in the Villager . What do you want to do?
Hanson: In light of the decision made on the earlier extension of the
contractors yard in the BF district , we haven ' t talked about that . I 'm
not sure if the Planning Commission would want to include the BF district
also or do we want to just talk about the A-2 district? I heard a lot of
what some of you were saying is that is probably not an appropriate use in
that location . That causes me to say, well maybe we ought to be , I don ' t
I ,
Planning Commission Meeting
IIFebruary 1, 1989 - Page 24
r
V
IIwant to say let ' s open Pandora ' s box but on the other hand , I 'm also a
little leary about do a little amendment here and do a little amendment
I in a couple more months for something else . I tend to fall back and say,
I 'd like to look at it more comprehensively if we can without saying ,
let ' s spend 6 or 8 months rehasing a bunch of things . I guess the
contracting yard in the BF district is one thing some consideration ought
Ito be given to . The other thing that we ' ve talked about on previous
applications is definition between the nursery and the contracting yard .
As far as the type of use that occurs on there. That ' s caused some
I confusion for some of those people as well as staff in advising someone
when they come in on a nursery type application. It' s kind of splitting
hairs in some respects .
IConrad : Don , what do you want us to do? Have you talked this issue with
the new members at all? No chance. Okay.
I Ellson : Maybe they should look at -it. You' re probably right . It could
be a whole different point of view. I 'd hate to go to the public with our
recommendation and then have it be 100% different than theirs . Ping pong
I it back up there again, right Steve. And I think you made a good comment .
Take a look at everything . Look at that highway and the works instead of
just . . .
I ` Erhart : I ' d agree . If we ' re going to get more comment from Council , we
ought to include BF.
I Batzli : Then we might as well look and see if that thing should be zoned
BF to start with then. Let ' s start with A.
Erhart : That proposal has already been made in a separate series of
I documents .
Batzli : I know it has but nothing ' s happened has it?
1 Conrad: We don ' t have a good alternative for that property.
IBatzli : We just don ' t want to change it to agricultural again .
Conrad: Agricultural on TH 212 is kind of foolish . Fringe business means
we had nothing else to call it . It was good for nothing and therefore we
I wanted to accommodate what was there and not intensify anything but we ' ve
been intensifying stuff .
IErhart: You can accommodate what ' s there .
Conrad : We ' ve gone way contrary to what originally the fringe business
' was and that was just to keep it conforming . Take it out of the non-
conforming category so we had some kind of control on it but since then ,
a we ' ve been developing the area and some of it made sense.
I Erhart : Whatever we perceived the evils of non-conformance is , I just
don ' t think outweighs what we got ourselves into and that is that it ' s
growing .
II
IN
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 1, 1989 - Page 25
Batzli : Well , staff told us to do it that way.
Emmings: Can we have maybe a different zone where there are no permitted
uses. There are no standards. There are no conditional uses . It' s
called the Twilight Zone and just put things like that in there and hope
they go away.
Erhart : If we go back to the Council , let ' s try to keep the thing moving
so we get it back and get something to a public hearing because I think we
all see where we ' re going and the more we wait, the more we' re going to
invite another contractor yard application and then we' re going to have a
problem.
Conrad : I guess what I ' d like to do is , Steve, have you give City 1
Y 9 ty Counc�_1
a brief presentation and we ' re sticking you into something that you don' t
have a whole lot of background in but I think we should introduce him to
the subject. We should say, the Planning Commission at this point in
time, based on the consultant ' s opinion , is feeling that they should be
eliminated altogether and we ' re looking for their feedback again because
of the new City Council members . At this point in time, I don ' t know what
we' re floating a motion or anything other than having you give them a
presentation to give the new Councilmembers some background on this
subject but also to say, we ' re still , there ' s a leaning down here to
eliminate them altogether . Probably on a 5 to 2 vote . I 'm just guessing
that not everybody' s in favor of the eliminating them. Does that make
sense? Can we do it that way? 1
Ellson: Yes , let ' s do it that way.
OPEN DISCUSSION: HIGHWAY 101 MEDIANS .
Fred Hoisington: Tim has really raised a very good question because we ' ve
dealt with all of these roads . The major roads of the downtown streets
and so forth. As one can well see , there have been a number of medians
proposed throughout a good share of the redevelopment area of the City of
Chanhassen . But unfortunately, there are some very significant limiting
factors . Did they get a copy of the memo by any chance Steve? Okay.
What ' s proposed right now is something , well that ' s really not the correct
one but at least it shows the median situation in regards to Market Blvd . .
The point Tim is raising , it has to do primarily with this stretch of TH
101 and future TH 101 on the south side. We have a number of things
working against us . When the alignment of Market Blvd . was established
north of TH 5, what happened was we took a limited or minimum right-of-way
through here so we only have about 80 feet I think it is in that location .
Now that that has been pretty much established , the question is , how do we
tie into it and we' re very limited as to how we can tie into it . We ' re
committed to have to have a 6 foot wide median at the nose at TH 5 so that
the two intersections north and south can tie in and be directly across
from one another. What that tells us is , that if we want to widened the
median further , and really that ' s kind of Tim' s question is can we widened
it more and landscape it and so forth , then we would have to do that south
City Council AL ting - Februar- y 13, 9;1.39
1
gallon elevated tank downtown here which does need some improvements here. When
the new reservoir was constructed, at that time the color scheme was selected.
Basically the cumulus color which you see it painted now was chosen with public
input from that area. The action of the Council at that time was to choose this
color and that we would then paint the rest of the elevated tanks that same
' color for consistency once we dealt with the rehab of those tanks. Just to
confirm for the Council that we are proceeding with that direction and the
downtown tank, which presently is sort of an aqua green, will be painted the
' cumulous color. We've had some good comments actually from the residents around
the reservoir how it blends in with the sky and such and that was the intent.
The other item I wanted to touch base with the Council on is the logo. The new
t reservoir has a maple leaf, the City's logo. The downtown tank obviously has
the word Chanhassen on it which I think is, from a historic standpoint, strictly
my preference. We're suggesting that the tank would be painted with the
Chanhassen name. Not only on the south side as it is now but also on the north
' side. I noticed driving in from the north, especially on Kerber Blvd., it's
really stands up and it's a very visible point. It'd be nice to have the name I
think on both sides of the tank. I'm just throwing that out. I guess we do
' want to include that in the plans and specs that are presently being prepared so
we can get bids out. It really wouldn' t impact the cost in any significant
fashion as far as adding another name.
' CounciLman Workman: What color is it going to be?
Gary Warren: Cumulus.
' Councilman Workman: That light blue?
' Gary Warren: No, no. The color of the new reservoir which is basically a cream
whit o that blends in with the clouds. :e have had some very good comments from
the residents up there. It does blend in pretty well.
' Councilman Workman: Are you going to put the name Chanhassen and the maple leaf
on it?
' Gary Warren: I don' t think we have room for all of that. Just put Chanhassen
on the north and the south side. We' ll pursue it from that standpoint.
DISCUSSION OF CONTRACTORS YARDS, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Steve Hanson: This item has been referred to you by the Planning Commission.
' It had been referred to Council towards the end of the year last year. Goin g
back to Planning Commission, the Planning Co. mission at the last meeting had a
fair amount of deliberation regarding the contractors yard. They decided that
' they really wanted to get a little more direction from the Council. . .with new
people on the Council, to get a little more clear direction as to what this body
is thinking regarding this. I won' t go through the entire package. There's a
memo that you have from Mark Koegler that was prepared back in December but
' essentially what it boils down to is the Planning Commission is asking for some
direction on three different options. One of those is to leave the ordinance as
it is. Presently it allows contractors yards in the A-2 district as a
' conditional use. The second option is to amend the ordinance but still allow
contractors yards within the A-2 district but restrict the size of that. The
' 48
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1939
II
intent being that it would be more of a ma and pop type operation rather than a
large wholesale contractors yard. Then the third option is to delete
contractors yards entirely from the A-2 district and allow them in the II
industrial areas only. I don't know if you had a chance to read through the
Planning Commission Minutes contained in your packet.. .but basically the
Planning Commission is leaning towards the option number 3 which is eliminating II
them from the A-2 district. What they would like is the sense of the City
Council or what your thinking might be and whether they should pursue that...
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to make a comment. As you're describing number 2, I
what's written in our packet is to limit the contractors yards as an accessory
use. I think that's important to point out to where we're talking about having
a person living on the site and he's also, like Buck in his excavating business, II
he lives there. He's got an excavating business there. He has a contractors
yard that's an accessory to his home and his business. That keeps it a mom and
pop. I like that option. The gentleman on CR 117 has his home there and he t
wants to put his business at his home and it's a fairly small business. He has
a few more, a lot more employee actually. He has 10 to 12 but our current
ordinance will allow-anybody to go out and buy 40 acres of farmland and turn it
II
into, if they can meet the 1 mile radius criteria, and turn it into a
contractors yard where nobody lives. They just start bringing in semis. I
think they've probably hit every spot they can with the 1 mile radius right now.
It's close. There's a couple spots but I like number 2 because I think that as II
an accessory use, if somebody such as the Buck Excavatings of the world and the
landscaping contractor, I forget his name out on CR 117, that seems to be a
legitimate use for a property. Coming out and avoiding going into an industrial II
park by being able to buy farmland at much less price and doing this, is not
really what we should be doing with the south side of Chanhassen or the north
side. I mean somebody could buy some acreage along Lake Lucy and do this also.
There are some spots there that would probably be outside the 1 mile as long as II
you get away from Larry Kerber's contractor yard, which is another example. The
other thing I want to make sure is that this is only in the non-sewered areas
and that as the MUSA line changes, I'd like to see some way, we want to make II
sure that it doesn't go with the property so that if Larry sells his home, the
person he sells to could not be able to continue to use that as a contractors
yard in that he is now in suburban Chanhassn, not rural Chanhassen. When he
II
opened his contractors yard, he was much more rural. That's another thing I
would like to look into is those contractors yards that are now in suburban side
of the City with curbs, gutters, sewers and everything else. That gets limited.
But I like option 2 as long as we have some acreage requirements. I hate to see I
a 2 acre contractors yard put on a 2 1/2 acre lot with a little house there in
which case the accessory use turns out to be the house, not the contractors
yard. II
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question and maybe Steve you can answer it.
we go with option 3, which is to prohibit them altogether, then the ones that
f
are there are non-conforming. It says they will be allowed to remain there but
they will not be permitted to expand or intensify but when they sell, does that
non-conforming use pass to the next possesser?
Steve Hanson: Yes. I
Councilwoman Dimler: It does. Okay. I
49 I
•
`/
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
II
Councilman Johnson: Is there anyway Roger that we could make a conditional use
permit that when the zoning changes and it went from a conditional use to a non-
conforming use that we could, once they get in a non-conforming use, do they
still have a conditional use permit that goes with that property?
IRoger Knutson: Yes. It's just non-conforming.
Councilman Boyt: You want to buy our Redi-,mix plant? There you go.
IICouncilman Johnson: Yes. That's exactly the same thing. The Redi-mix plant.
Councilman Boyt: They're forever. I'm pretty sure that the Planning Commission
I really wanted to hear from the 3 new councilmenbers on this issue.
Councilman Workman: I think what we're kind of looking at is the south side
Ispecifically isn' t it?
Councilman Boyt: That's where the A-2 is.
ICouncilman Workman: I've read some of the information that Tim Erhart has
loaned to me. I've been driving through that area of town since I was a 2 year
old and Jim Klobuchar lives in my community. It's uglytown out there. There's
Ino doubt about it. What are we really saying about this area? Do we want it to
go back to nature as part of the bluffs and the river and the wildlife area down
there? Is that realistic? I don't think allowing it to go back to nature is
I
going to happen. Do we want it rezoned A-2, is that what we' re looking at?
Agricultural?
i_
IICouncilman Boyt: Residential. Agricultural residential.
Councilman Workman: Because I don't see that as really being rig a viaole
agricultural. Farming on bluffs, there's just nothing there anyway. Which
II leads me to the question, so what do do with the people that are down there?
Or people who had intentions such as Admiral Waste who had intentions to operate
their business there. What happens to the value of their property? What
I happens to their whole game plan? They're stuck with a parcel perhaps that has
now changed intended use and what can they do with it?
Councilman Johnson: They're not in the A-2 by the way. Admiral.
ICouncilman Workman: They're in the BF?
1 Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Workman: So I understand fran certainly the neighbors in that
vicinity to the north, that it is uglytown. But again, I don't see it as going
I back to Mother Nature. Have we got a restriction on the junkyard down there?
As far as their expanding that. Are they allowed to expand that?
ICouncilman Johnson: Which junkyard?
Councilman Boyt: You mean the auto place?
IICouncilman Workman: Statewide.
I 50
ICity Council ,Meeting - February 13, 1989
II
1 i Don Ashworth: I'm sure that's a non-conforming use.
I
Councilman Workman: They haven't been alloweed to expand?
Councilman Johnson: That's BF also. That's not the A-2.
II
Councilman Boyt: You've got to think of south of TH 5 Tom. That's not just the
bluffs. II
Councilman Johnson: All the way from TH 5 south. As soon as you get out of the
MUSA line, we're talking Lyman Blvd., Pioneer Trail, the Merle Volk property.
II
West of Lake Ann Park. All that area is A-2 also. The A-2 expands from here,
from south of Lake Minnewashta up to here, down along and then all the way down.
Not just the bluffs.
Councilman Workman: Right, but I'm thinking specifically of the bluffs also II
because I think that's probably the rubbing the squeaky wheel right now in that
what are our intentions down there? I understand the safety aspects and the
II
aesthetic aspects of it but, isn't that what we're trying to do? We're trying
to send a signal to that area also?
Councilman Johnson: That's a different issue of eliminating the BF and changing II
that to A-2. I think that's a separate issue.
I
Councilman Workman: But isn' t Admiral Waste a contractors yard? I
Councilman Johnson: Yes, in the BF district right now.
Councilman Workman: But we're saying they can' t do that either. II
Councilman Johnson: No new contractors yards. They would be able to continue
with what their conditional use permit was when it was issued last year if they II
do anything before their 1 year period ends.
Councilman Workman: No, they went to the Planning Commission for an extension I
and didn't get it.
Councilman Johnson: That comes to us yet so it hasn't been, the Planning
Commission recommends to us that they don't get their extension. That will be II
coming before us probably our next meeting. The question here, more than just
the bluffs area and that area, is should we allow contractors yards in our A-2
zone and how should they be allowed? Admiral is considered a contractors yard,
II
yes. Larry Kerber's place, that's a contractors yard. Do you know where Larry
lives there? Then you have across the street from Pryzmus' little golf course,
a contractors yard without a permit. It's just been there forever. He's never I
gotten the permit. Then just north of him is another contractors yard. Further
north of that is another contractors yard that's going in. We just gave
permission last year. Pryzmus is in the A-2. He's not a contractors yard
I though. I think the question comes, do we want to continue encouraging II
industrial uses in the A-2 district or only residential uses? Is this area
going to be industrial/commercial or residential in this City? I think that
really comes down to the question as to what do you want to see it in the
II
future. There's a lot of people who would love to make it industrial. I
51 I
ICity Council :' ti ng - _curuary 13, 1,3,)
personally think it should be residential and that some limited contractors yard
useage accessory to somebody's residential useage, I have it there as my house
' but I also want to run my business out of my house. When I've got 10 acres or
47 acres, I have roan to do that.
' Councilwoman Dialler: I have a couple of comments. I was reading here in the
middle of the pane it says, in the long term, contractors yards are compatible
only with industrial land uses. Did everybody find that? At the present time,
future industrial areas in the rural service area have not been identified. I'm
' wondering if it isn' t time to do so. That we could do that ahead of time in
zoning and then prevent problems in the future. Why can't we identify than now?
' Councilman Boyt: It's the idea of zoning, we probably should.
Councilman Johnson: I recommended that last year as a part of 212 because as
' the 212 corridor goes through, it makes sense that we might want to put
some
commercial, some industrial around the 212 corridor. It doesn't make sense to
put it down along Pioneer Trail.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so now who do we take that to get that done?
Steve Hanson: . ..At this point in time, if someone were to ask, at this point
' in time your position is that it's agricultural with some other conditional uses
it allows. For example in this case, allow really an industrial type use out in
that agricultural area. So I think from the standpoint of your question, what
you' re really asking is what should the City be looking at for tn`se areas? A
long terra.. .
Councilwoman Dialler: Yes, when it is a service area, what do you see? You can' t
' rezone it right now for that? T.'e could zone it right now for that and then that
would prevent contractors yards from coming in if it's not compariole.
' Steve Hanson: I don't know that you're in a position right now to know what
zoning you'd place on it.
Councilwoman Dimler: We could direct to where they would be allowed and in
other areas they wouldn't. I'm just asking if we couldn't plan for the future a
little bit more than just going. . .
Steve Hanson: I think that's what we should be doing but at this point in time
we're not in that position.
Councilwoman Dialer: Can we get in that position?
Steve Hanson: I certainly hope so.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, what would it take?
Steve Hanson: First of all it would take going and updating the
' Comprehensive Plan.
Councilman Boyt: Which you're doing now.
[::
Steve Hanson: We're in the process of doing.
52
City Council `eti ng - ebruJry 13, 1:39
II
Councilman Workman: It's going to save a lot of problems in the future for
denying this kind of thing.
,
Steve Hanson: You can look at it two different ways. You can take it and say,
take everything that's in the City and determine as best as you can what should
II
happen in those areas or you can take the tact that the City has in the past and
that's to take those areas outlying where you don't really have a good sense for
what the market is going to be and what things really ought to happen out there.
II
I think in an agricultural district, to allow that to occur, and I think that's
where Planning Commission is coming from at this point in time. They're saying
we don't know what those areas need to be. We don't want to make a rash
decision but the Planning Commission doesn't believe that a contractors yard of II
the type right now is the right kind of use to stick out there, es
the conditional use, the way that it works. pects, p putting
it there y, y� It's. in a lot of respects, putting
permanently. I think they're recognizing that that's not the best way
II
to deal with it. The best way to deal with it is to pull that use out of there
because it's not appropriate at this point in time and then take the time to
decide what should happen in the long term.
Mayor Chmiel: Why couldn't you put a restriction on the number of II Like 1995 or something of that nature. Years on
Councilman Johnson: On a conditional use permit? We tried that. Putting it to II
our attorneys, we couldn't make a temporary conditional use permit.
4
II4 Roger Knutson: I can point out that there is a bill that will be introduced in
1 the legislature this year. I'm on a committee that's recommending that that
change take place to allow temporary uses. So if that's passed, you can do it.
Maynard Poppe: I'm Maynard Peppy and I own property I
contractors yard is supposed to be. It's detrimental p p`'rty just up above where this
own. In fact if they put a contractors yard down there, from owhatrI understand
is to be for garbage trucks and that sort of thing. It will ruin the property I
that I own. It's a residential area. What does it take to change it from
agricultural residential to whatever it would have to be? Also, how long a term
would it be given if they were given a permit or whatever they're going to get? II
Another thing, when the property that was Bushi.ck's property g e, I
don't know 7, 8, 10 years ago, I own the property ex to ty was up for sale, I
the possibility, went to the Minnesota Highway Department skingniflIo could nget
an access just up above the underpass that's down there on TH 101. They said II
well, I would have to put in a written request but he didn't think that the
Highway Department would give me an access going in there even if I owned the
IIproperty unless it was just a limited access which meant, what he told me, that
if you come out of that property, you'd have to go up the hill. You couldn' t
make a cross over or coming down. You couldn' t make a left turn. Now I'm
wondering how come the roadway just below that underpass is more of a hazard, II
highway hazard than the part north. I wonder how they give a permit for an
access where there would be trucks going in and out and give them an access.
They're sure not going to go uphill to get out of there with the trucks.
They're going to make a turn and go to the left. The same way coming down the II
hill so I think that would be very much of a hazard if we had to fight those
trucks coming down the hill. You come under that underpass. It's bad enough
the way it is now with the traffic that we have. The traffic that was 8-10 II
53
I
wi
February II
City Council. Meeting 13, 1M9
years ago is nothing compared to what the traffic going
because g ng up and down there now
ecause they're going up the other way. So I would very much be against giving
' a permit for anything like a garbage or contractors yard of that sort.
[-
Mayor Chmiel: That will be coming before the Council next meeting. Within 2
' weeks.
Maynard Poppe: That's why I was wondering. I called City Hall and they said
they were talking about that tonight.
' Mayor Chmiel: Just whether or not the availability of contractors
be within the city or what determination we should come up with, yards should
Maynard Poppe: Okay, I thought that that was what was going on. I didn't get a
notice. That's one thing I would like. When there's something going on down
there, that we would, along that road, get a notice of something that's going
on.
Mayor Chmiel: If you leave Steve your name and address, he will be more than
' happy to send you a notice. -
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I kind of like what Jay had to say about the
' accessory use but I do wonder sometimes how many ma and pa operations we still
have coning before us...major businesses. However, I think maybe it's a little
bit too restrictive when we go saying that they shall not work on Sunday and
holidays. It seems like we're going back to the past.
' Councilman Johnson: No, I don't think so.
' Councilman Boyt: We're trying to give people some quiet.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but you've got to ronenoer they' re on a
10 acres and your neighbors aren' t that close.
Mayor Chmiel: It depends upon what they' re doing.
3
' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but I'm just saying that we can' t be that restrictive
for everybody because people that are doing. ..cut their grass on Sunday.
' Councilman Johnson: So what's the guidance coming from the Council to the
Planning Commission on this? I haven't seen any clear cut guidance as of yet.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I guess I'm looking for, as I see that there may still be a
' need for some of these contractors yards. I like the idea of putting a
limitation on it, if that becomes law. I think that would be the thing to do is
to put a restriction for numbers of years. Because the growth goes with it, the
' MUSA line moves, we've got a lot of different things that we have to think
about. I'm not sure whether we should delete yet at this time contractors yards
entirely from the A-2 district. I think there should be a restriction as to
' numbers that can be there. There are restrictions as far as the hours that
they're operable. I think that we really have to, I like these ma and pa kind
of situations because I think it's good for us and it's good for them. I think
I would be pretty much in favor at this particular time, looking to amending the
' ordinance to allow limited contractors yards as an accessory use in the A-2
' 54
• City Council Meeting - Feorulry 13, 1989 . II
district. II
1 Councilman Boyt: Sounds like what we have is Jay who is for, as you call it II the mom and pop operation. Don, you seen to be leaning that direction. I'm not
sure how Tom and Ursula feel. I'll take two minutes and tell you that in the
last year I saw the previous Council approve a contractors yard that had 5
II
tractor trailers that was put in what was generally considered to be good
residential property just north of TH 212, rolling hill kind of country.
Councilwoman Dimler: How many acres? I
Councilman Boyt: Ursula I don't remember the number of acres but the cost of it
wasn't the issue for this gentleman. He needed an area to park his tractor I
trailers and that was the best place to do it as far as he was concerned. If we
don't change this ordinance, we currently don't, in my opinion, we don't have an
ordinance because the previous Council gave a variance to the within 1 mile down II to a couple hundred yards so I don't think we have a 1 mile limit, in my
opinion. We're dealing with, basically a situation in which, regardless of what
we do, if we shut them off altogether, we still have more contractors yards than
any connuni.ty around us right now. Eden Prairie doesn't allow them. I don't
II
believe Chaska allows them. That's my best guess because I don't remember
exactly but I know for a fact that Eden Prairie doesn't allow them. They're not
felt to be compatible with developing communities although it's a needed service II but we have got quite a few contractors yards today and we're not going to be
able to do anything to eliminate those contractors yards unless you want to buy
I them. So to go out, maybe the man and pop thing is an option. I don' t think
1 we're going to get any of those situations so maybe that's a possibility but the li
contractors yards, as I understood from the previous council, that situation was
created so that people who currently were sort of a mom and pop, could continue
to do that. What I saw happening was it got, as far as I'm concerned, I
completely out of hand. We granted them. The tractor trailer thing was an
excellent example of where somebody was taking it to the extreme. My particular
position is to agree with the Planning Commission as they previously stated and
as they reaffirmed that when you build, as ,:x2 are in south Chanhassen, very II
expensive homes, you'd like to think that somebody just over the hill isn't
running tractor trailers or doesn't have the ability to come in and do that
after you've bought your home. As it stands today, they do have that ability
I
and I think we should prevent that from happening.
Councilman Workman: It really, to me, it is leaving us open, how do I phrase I
this? It kind of leaves us open to a can of worms a little bit I guess. I did
follow that semi trailer issue. Is that the one just on the other side from the
SA down there?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. I
Councilman Workman: I understand they can' t even get their tractor trailers in
there.
Councilman Johnson: It's not across from the SA. It's by the Assumption
II
Seminary isn't it? You're talking the cold storage area. That's a cold storage
area.
II
55
I
II ,City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Boyt: It's down by the Assumption but it's right y b '
difficult triangle of traffic. yht in that
' CounciLman Johnson: It's west of the Assumption Seminary. It hasn' t t bee_
n constructed yet?
' Councilman Workman: They're doing a good job of hiding it.
Councilman Johnson: It's way off the road.
' Councilman Workman: I guess the point of, and I read through Tim's
articles
he's got a personal issue in that surrounding area, and even prior totaking and
seat on the Council, there's a lot of issues about contractors yards and tree
farms and that kind of thing going on. I don't want to limit people's ability
to use their property to earn a living but to me it's still so vague out there
about what a person could use that for. They could use it for tractors or he
' could use it for a man and pop but until we can say, we've got to keeo this back
a little bit so that we don't have willy nilly all over everyplace, I don't feel
comfortable in saying yes, let's go ahead and let them do it. To me it just
' hasn't been proven to me that we have a certain amount of control here and that
in the future we're going to stumble over a lot of them.
' Councilman Johnson: I hear what you're saying
differently, I think we need define a con to
contractors phrase s
yard better to the
semi thing under our present ordinance is defined as a contractors yard and I
don' t think it should have been but unfortunately it is. So I think there's two v
' issues to me. When we're talking a mom and pop accessory use, I'm not talking
that the guy's running a Consolidated Freight out of his backyard. That's
definitely an industrial use. It's more, and I continue using BUCK Excavating
' or Larry Kerber. Larry Kerber runs, has got a couple tractors and a couple pick
up trucks. That type of small, non-intense use. I think we should put
something on the number of employees allowed. The one on CR 117, I believe he
said his maximum employees were 12. That's getting a little hign I thin:;, I
would want to see anything more than that. In fact, I would rather see less
than 10 employees. The Merle Volk contractors yard where he's got 3 or 4
different contractors sitting in there. He rents out the houses, he doesn' t
actually live there anymore. I don't consider that. I wouldn't consider that
as mom and pop constractors yards. It's an industrial park in the A-2 zone. I
agree with you Tan. There's a real problem there of allowing, what do we allow
' in there? We can' t just allow anything. We have to define it better also.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a comment and that is, I did ask for the acreage
on Bill's example because I think it does make a difference if you've got 5
tractor trailers on 40 acres or if you've got them on 5 acres or 10 acres. I'm
asking, if A-2 is agricultural residential and how many actual agricultural
businesses do we still have in Chanhassen? We do still have some real bonafide
' farmers and are we then restricting them, let's say if they have a grain
operation, are we restricting than from using and hauling trucks?
Mayor Chniel: ,1o, that's agricultural. I wouldn' t think it would fall under
' contractors yards.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it's in the A-2.
' 56
•
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1929 "`"'
Councilman Johnson: But it's agricultural. That's what the A stands for.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right but then if you're saying, the neighbor over '
here who has 43 acres and because his business isn't agricultural per se, he
can't have his trucks parked there but the next guy can. Co you see what I'm
saying? '
Councilman Johnson: But then the guy that's got his agricultural knows that in
the future it's not going to be agricultural. He knows that 20 years down the
road or 40 years or whatever, that he's not going to be allowed to park his
trucks in there because...
Councilwoman Dimler: He's not going to be able to farm there? '
Councilman Johnson: When the price is right, he won't be able to farm there
anymore. '
Councilwoman Dimler: What if he wants to stay?
Councilman Boyt: He can farm there forever. He's tax exempt as long as he's ,
farming that land and if he wants to hold it Jay, it's his.
Councilman Johnson: When I moved into my house I talked to the farmer behind
me. He says I'll leave this land feet first. Horizontally. He said, I can see
Shakopee from my upstairs window. I can see Lake Minnetonka from my upstairs
window. I'll never leave here. You know I know have 30 hours behind me because
the price was right.
Councilwoman Dimler: He sold off part of it.
Councilman Johnson: He sold off all of it. He's not there. He's built a house
over by St. Hubert's.
Mayor C oriel: I guess I still go with that number 2 but my position on that is,
if there is a limitation of years that they can be located there. That's my
only condition with that.
Councilman Boyt: If there wasn' t, would you go with 3?
Mayor Clmiel: Yes. I more than definitely would. ,
Councilman Johnson: When you talk limitation of years, would you say review of
the contractors yard permit every so many years? I think right now, that was
another thing is I'd like to sae anytime there's a conditional use permit of any
sort in any district, that we have a review of that conditional use permit on a
schedule.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's not legal though.
Councilman Boyt: It's legal to stay in touch with than following it but it's
not legal to pull it away from them simply because they've had it for 5 years.
Councilman Johnson: No, no. I said a review to see if they're meeting their
conditions is what I should, I didn' t complete that. We've got conditional use
57
City Council cetino - F. bruery 13, 1989
' permits out there that they haven' t ever done what the conditions say to do but
we have not gone out and enforced it. I would like to see, Y
talked about last year, is an ordinance amendment that requires sins something I
conditional use permits and an inspection fee. e Aea pros t of
off of it and that's why they're re If they want to make a profit
Y Y getting a conditional use permit, then we
should inspect it. :7e can incorporate an inspection fee just as we do a fire
1 inspection fee, whatever, into the conditional use permit process. Have you got
what you need for the Planning Commission?
' COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Let's move on. Next, Council presentations. I'd just like to
address the ones that I brought up rather quickly. The Senior Community
Services are requesting some money from the City to support the South Shore
Senior Center during the year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990.
I'm not sure whether there's any CDBG's available on this for that support. Can
you tell us?
' Councilman Boyt: We already gave them .a substantial amount of money out of last
year's budget.
Mayor ,a•niel: Yes, but they're looking for now July 1, 1989 and ending June 30,
t 1990.
Steve Hanson: Wee do have $7,500.00. . .
' Councilman Boyt: I think they requested that. I think that study was the
result of their request that we helped fund.
' Steve Hanson: They' re in the process of doing their own special study.
Councilman Johnson: No, this was my study.
' Steve Hanson: This was a study for. . .
Councilman Boyt: Oh, excuse me. I thought we helped then fund a study.
Councilman Johnson: I think we did too. ;e designated
Block Grants that way and we designated d�.s gna`ed part of our Community
us to do a study of the Chanhassen seniorsrand fwhat are thetneedsofGthets for
' Chanhassen seniors here.
Mayor Chmi.el: All they're really looking here, what they're saying is to hel
support ongoing operations of the center as well as providing matchin p
a new lift equipment van awarded to the South Shore Senior Center. 3 funds for
Councilman Boyt: Weren't we involved in funding a van there just this last
year.
' Councilman Johnson: Yes.
[::Councilman Boyt: I'm sure we were.
' 58
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 30
CONTRACTORS YARDS .
Emmings : I have a little preliminary question there. We have something II new in our packets in the form of a little folder. Does that signify that
we should keep these for a while?
Hanson : Yes . The intent is a couple of things . On some of this stuff , ,
especially the ordinance stuff and when we talk about procedures and so
forth, I expect we' re going to go through a few generations on that and
what I 'd like to do is not copy Minutes from the last 7 meetings when we
get to the point where we' re about to approve something so what I 'd like
to do is give you stuff that we anticipate that you need to hang onto for
a while. 1
Emmings : Then I would also assume that from the time we get one of these ,
that will appear on every agenda after that as old business.
Hanson : We can do that , yes .
Emmi.ngs : I think we' ve talked about that several times and I think it' s a
good idea so that we have a handy checklist of the stuff that we ' re
considering on an ongoing basis . Contractors yards , what have you got for
us? ,
Hanson : Basically what I 'm really asking of the Planning Commission is
kind of a last check off to authorize us to go ahead and have the formal
amendment , if you will , put together and drafted so that we can schedule
it for a public hearing . What I 'd like to do is publish that so you have
what we' re itending to, at least consider for the adoption before you .
What the staff is suggesting is that we go ahead and delete contractors
yards as a conditional use in the A-2 district . I guess there ' s one thing
I didn' t mention in there and I should have and that was the BF district .
Whether we' re going to delete it from that district . I was going to
delete it from the BF district also . Then under the conditional use
provisions , we could delete entirely the section on contractors yards. I
guess it' s a question of whether you want to deal with the BF district or
now or if you want to leave it there or if the intent is really just to
delete it from the A-2 district . Right now the contractors yards are
allowed in the A-2, the BF and the IOP.
Emmi.ngs : I ' ve got a question . The last time we talked about this we kind '
of went around about whether we should say that we' re, in the published
notice for the public hearing , whether we ' re considering restricting the
intensity of the use or whether we' re actually going to abolish the
things . Whether we' re going to present that as an alternative or whether
we are going to just present one alternative. What are you proposing to
do? '
{ Hanson : What I 'm suggesting is the alternative to delete it as what
you ' re considering. Not the option of the mom and pop. Continuation of ,
contractors yards as a mom and pop type operation.
Headla: Did you say delete the mom and pop?
I _ .
II Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 29
IIand parking lot drainage.
I 19. All driveways are to be consistent with the City' s commercial/
industrial standard details .
20 . A typical section of roadway to be shown on plans for approval with
Iconcrete curb and gutter throughout the site.
21 . Necessary County permits for control of access to CSAH 17 at the
IInortherly access to the site shall be obtained.
22 . A 35 foot permanent utility easement shall be dedicated along the
Ieasterly lot line of the site for storm sewer purposes .
23 . The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian traffic
around the building and site.
' 24 . Access MUST be maintained for City forces to monitor and maintain Well
No . 4 at all times during construction and development of this site
Iand until such time as Lake Drive improvements are completed .
25. Construction traffic shall not conflict with the City' s improvement
II project associated with Lake Drive.
25. If the City' s 13 inch watermain is not relocated , an easement shall be
provided across the southwest corner of the site and any cut or fill
I over this main shall receive prior City approval which will be
predicated on proper remedial actions taken .
I 27. The applicant shall provide screening for roof top equipment if the
same is visible from a public right-of-way.
All voted in favor except Headla and Wildermuth who opposed and the motion
Icarried with a vote of 5 to 2 .
I Headla : I think two reasons . Inadequate information available. I don ' t
know what I 'm approving and I don ' t see anything in documentation of the
parking lot and drainage to make a judgment .
IIEmmi.ngs : Same thing?
Wildermuth: Yes .
IEmmings : I guess just as my closing comment I 'd say, I think this thing
probably should have been tabled in terms of what we should do in terms of
IIsupplying information to the City Council . I think it ' s kind of half
baked and it results in our doing kind of a half baked job but I don ' t
l think the applicant should be held up for that reason. I think this stuff
is going to get ironed out between now and the City Council meeting .
II
1.
II
lanning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 31
Hanson : Yes .
Emmings: Now the Section 20-574 is conditional use in the A-2 and 20-255 ,
is what?
Hanson : That ' s the conditional use requirements for contractors yards in '
an A-2 district.
Emmings: Then you'd add this section down there for BF also? '
Hanson: That' s what I 'm wondering. If you want to keep BF or not. The
conditional use requirements for the contractors , one ' s for the
non-residential and then there' s ones for the residential and agricultural
so the criteria is different in those two instances . If we leave the BF
alone subject to the conditional use requirements that apply in the IOP
district.
Emmings : I 'm just trying to remember what was in the report that we got
from Mark and it seems to me, I thought we had agreed that they were
appropriate in the IOP but that ' s all . So it seems to me the BF stuff
ought to be down here. Who ' s got comments on this?
Headla : I have a hard time giving up the mom and pop type of thing . '
Emmings: I take it that we can still discuss that at the public hearing .
The trouble is we' re not throwing it out in the public notice which is ,
the notice for the hearing and I . . .
Headla : That ' s my only concern. ,
Wildermuth : I guess I 'm in favor of deleting it in the A-2. I think
that ' s the approach I ' d like to see taken with the public hearing .
Emmings: What about the BF?
Wildermuth : I think it could remain in the BF and IOP. I
Batzli : I was just trying to recall . . .
Emmings : Are you going to . . . 1
Batzli : Well , I should say I did and my problem was , I couldn ' t even add
up the score of what the Council people were saying. I had 3 for ma and
pa . One for eliminate . Our Mayor saying that if you couldn' t limit them,
maybe eliminate them totally and then I don' t know what , so we kind of had
3 for ma and pa , 1 for eliminate and 1 of the ma and pa was kind of
walking the fence and Councilperson Workman, I didn' t know what he wanted
. to do but I assume he wants to get rid of it in the BF from his comments
as well . Which leaves I don ' t know what. I didn ' t really get clear
guidance from reviewing that but I assume that since we only have 2 BF ' s
and they' re both along TH 212/169 there. I would like to see them
eliminated from that because I don ' t think that ' s appropriate places to
N
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 32 \
Iput them due to the increase in traffic, etc . and it ' s already a pot
pourri of things that I don ' t think are appropriate there anyway so my
Ibottom line is to eliminate them from A-2 and BF.
Ellson: Are we just deciding here what to say in the public hearing?
II We ' re not making decisions are we?
Emmings : No .
IEllson : Why are we going around like this?
Emmings: In some ways I think it would be nice if we wait to make up our
Iminds until after we have the public hearing .
Batzli : But we' re trying to decide what to say to the public though .
IIEllson : But let them come anyway.
Batzli : I spoke with you. I would like to give them an option . Invite
II them in and hear their comments but if we ' ve got to publish something , my
recommendation to publish is , eliminate it from the A-2 and the BF. My
mind is not made up in stone but if we ' ve got to publish something , that ' s
what I ' d like to publish .
II: Hanson : Could I maybe clarify one thing for you Brian?
II Batzli : Go ahead .
Hanson : You ' ll jump on me if I 'm wrong but just as far as what City
I Council did when they looked at the issue because you did want to get some
input from them. Granted the Minutes don ' t, I don ' t think the Minutes
read what was said.
IBatzli : Hopefully they do .
Hanson : Well , I think it ' s the words but my reading of what City Council
Isaid, there were 2 people that said , let ' s eliminate contracting from the
A-2 district. And there were 2 people who were supportive of keeping the
mom and pop operation.
IBatzli : Johnson and Di.mler?
Hanson : No . One of those was the Mayor . And the Mayor ' s point was , if
Ithere was a means where we could do it on a temporary basis , he would like
to retain the mom and pop but if we can ' t , then his tendency was to say
well , then maybe we should lean towards eliminating them. My
IIunderstanding , and I don ' t recall who was on what side of the issue . I
would say then that the other person, I believe it was Ursula, was less
r clear about what she wanted although she talked about the City ought to be
_— looking at what ' s going to happen in those outlying areas . And that would
Itend to tell you whether you should allow that kind of a use out there if
it ' s going to conflict with what you ' re going to do long range so she was
looking , I think, for a longer term solution on whether contracting yards
II
In
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 33
belonged out there or not may depend on what the Cit y envisions happening .
That was my sense of what was said. I took that in my mind to be a
direction of Council that really their direction was , let' s eliminate it
from the A-2. The question on the temporary use and Steve had brought
this up at Planning Commission previously about whether we could do
licensing. You have a memo in your packet from Roger on that and
essentially what Roger said is yes . They probably could do something
under licensing but the red flags in my opinion in his recommendation are
not quite as bright as they needed to be. I ' ve talked with him and he
said, he feels that legally you could probably do it but that enforcement
of it is really going to be a headache. His concern is once you 've
allowed the business in and you want to get it out, it's going to be real
hard to do . He did mention to me that he' s been involved in a case like
that where they had a business. It was supposed to be in for a temporary
time period and they had to get them out . He said the amount of legal
fees and time that it took to get them out, he said it probably wasn' t
worth it. If I remember right , what he told me on the phone was they
spent close to $50 , 000 . 00 to get the business out . Even though it was to
be a temporary use. I think that' s his fear with it and that ' s why he
said in there, if you ' re going to proceed that way, he'd like to see us
proceed fairly cautiously.
Mayor Chmiel : Has that bill been introduced to allow a temporary use?
Hanson: I don ' t know if it has been introduced or not. I know that there
is a bill proposed to change the conditional use to allow temporary.
Mayor Chmiel : For x number of years .
Hanson : Yes . And there ' s also a bill on the conditional use process to
make it clear that a conditional use permit can not be denied . The City
can ' t say no to a conditional use permit . They can only put conditions on
it. So there is some legislation pending that could change the issue. '
Ellson : It doesn ' t really bother me which way the public notice says it.
I think we would get the same people either way we notify them.
Olsen : I think the only thing is, I remember Roger stating this before
that the public hearing states something that if you were to approve is
something more restrictive. i
Ellson : Then maybe you should ellude to the fact that it may end up being
total elimination. Then I guess you should write it as strict as it could
possibly turn out . That ' s what you should do it .
Conrad: I agree. The only question is, should we instruct staff to
prepare a procedure where we would allow ma and pa? Do we want them to
review that with us during that public hearing formally? Procedures and
r the pitfalls of doing that .
Ellson: Yes . 1
Emmi.ngs : I do.
f
I .
II t
Planning Commission Meeting `■
March 15 , 1989 - Page 34 t,
II
Ellson: The pros and cons .
1 Emmings : Do you?
Conrad: Yes .
II
Emmings : Dave does I guess . What about you Brian?
IIBatzli : Yes, I 'd like to see that.
Emmings : Jim too?
IWildermuth: Yes .
Hanson : I 'm sorry, I missed that . _ '
II
Erhart : Be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of the ma and pa if the
discussion goes in that direction. I guess if we get a lot of people that
IIcome up and say. . .
ElIson : We already have some council members that were thinking they
I liked the idea of mom and pop. We should really know the pros and cons to
it because it ' s already being thought of seriously.
Emmings: Think about the kind of place that would be, somebody who ' s
I lived here for 35 years and they' ve got 1 truck and 1 Bobcat and they run
this place right out of their home and they ' re sitting on 40 acres . That
isn ' t the kind of thing we ' re going after in prohibiting these things .
II The question is whether or not you can reasonaoly write any kind of
standards .
Batzli : And then enforce them.
IEmmings : And then enforce them, yes . So I pr '
uess that ' s the
g problem.
I Wildermuth: The other side of the coin is , maybe we' ve got to look at
some zoning too .
IEmmings : I don ' t know what you mean though.
Erhart: I think Jim , my point is , you' ve got a lot of this A-2 out there
really is residential today and when you ' ve got a downtown area where
I we' ve got some pretty restrictive uses of in town lots in terms of
overnight parking and what you can have in your front yard and what you
can store in your back yard. We as Chanhassen, we have those rules yet
Inow you ' ve got essentially a residential area out there that a guy can
have his Bobcat and his dump truck right next door so if we do it at
f large , I think that ' s the easiest way for the City and other cities have
filled precedent that they' ve eliminated contractor ' s yards when they get
to our stage of growth . On the other hand , if we ' re going to allow some
I ma and pa , then I think we ' ve
got to do what Jim ' s referring to and that
IIis , I think we need to look at the A-2 area and find out which is
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 35
residential and which is rural . I 'm okay with either approach .
Headla : Where are you going to draw the line on this? 1
Wildermuth : If we say we want some contractors yards like the ma and pa
operation, then I think we' ve got to look at some zoning allowing them on
critical highways .
Headla : Are you getting to a point that if you own a Bobcat , you ' re in
violation of some ordinance? 1
Emmings : No , that ' s not the objective. That ' s not going to be a
contractors yard. That' s not going to fit under the definition of a
contractors yard .
Erhart : If you have a business with that Bobcat . If your business uses
that Bobcat, then that falls under the definition of contractors yard.
Headla : I don ' t know of a single Bobcat that ' s used that isn ' t used for a
business of making money.
Erhart : You' re probably right . Your initial question was what then?
Headla: If I owned a Bobcat, I 'd be in violation of some ordinance here?
Erhart : You' re saying then that you own that Bobcat and you operate a
business with that Bobcat?
Headla : Yes , that ' s what you ' re implying . I wouldn ' t own a Bobcat if I
didn ' t expect to make some money on it. ,
Erhart : But then if you owned a lot , do you want your neighbor to operate
a business with that Bobcat where he' s loading it up, unloading it? The
question is , the real basic question here is , is that kind of business
appropriate for an urban neighborhood?
Headla : That isn ' t my question at all . My question is how definitive are
you going to get? What if I ' ve got a tractor with a bucket on it? You ' re
going to get down in a gray area there that you could hit a lot of people
so I think we' ve got to be prepared for that . 1
Erhart : I think the definition is , does he use that for his main source
of income. I think that' s the definition.
Emmi.ngs : It isn ' t the definition but maybe we want to look at that too .
We may want to look at all this stuff. We' re getting beyond what we' ve
got to do tonight . Are we? What I 'd like to do , I guess you have an
idea of what we want for the public hearing and I guess we ' re saying go
ahead and do it. Is that what we' re saying?
Erhart: Both districts right? For the public hearing . '
Ellson : Right . As strict as it might possibly be.
ma
' ' Y 'S\
Planning Commission Meeting �l
IIT March 15, 1989 - Page 36 ti'
II
Erhart : And then we can back off from there?
IIEllson : Right .
II Wildermuth: Let' s say eliminating it altogether from everything .
Erhart: Well we 've got to have it in the IOP.
I Emmi.ngs : What he ' s saying is if you want to make it most restrictive,
just say we' re going to consider eliminating them.
IIErhart: I don' t think we want to eliminate them from the IOP.
Wildermuth: If you just have it in the IOP, it ' s tantamont to eliminating
it pretty well . Except for the one little IOP that we' ve got down here.
IErhart: IOP is the industrial park.-
I Wildermuth : I know but who can afford to put a contractors yard in the
industrial park.
Hanson : You have one that you ' ve approved in the A-2 district that ' s
IIlooking at locating in the Industrial Park .
Erhart : I think when all the other cities have outlawed them, essentially
II they have to go to the IOP ' s . I think it ' s a good business and I think we
do want them in Chanhassen and I just think the IOP is a good place for
the . I think we ought to at least put our sign out someplace for these
II businesses . I guess I assumed all along that we were talking about
allowing them in the IOP ' s .
Ellson : Jim was just saying , if you ' re going to go the most severe
Ipossible in the public notice, do it that way.
Erhart : That ' s almost like saying , we want to chase you guys out of town
IIcompletely. I 'm uncomfortable with that. It doesn ' t leave us the
argument that . . .
II Wildermuth : If they' ve got a permit , we can ' t do that anyway. They' re in
because the permit goes with the property.
Erhart : I understand that . I 'in just saying that if somebody comes into
II our town with a contractor ' s business , what this is saying is we don ' t
want you. Do you want to leave that answer with them?
II Emmings : Do you need any kind of a motion or anything or you ' ve just got
the idea?
Hanson: Yes .
II
11
s
1
1
1
1
1
1