1b. Zoning amendment to A-2, Agricultural Estate District .
CITYOF --Ib--
__
N .1 CHANHASSEN
8r;;
-..‘,... .,
I '� ,
M -� • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
-' (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM ����, V/ 'p�t,tir4°'
Modif i e_-
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Red e,.,_, .,_ _—
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner Date Submitted to co---Lum
DATE: September 2 , 1988 5-/7-� ,_
Da Submitted to v:,toicii
SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the A-2 District 9— /4), -ir
On August 17, 1988, the Planning Commission, reviewed proposed
amendments to the A-2 District. The Planning Commission approved
to amend the A-2 District to add churches, recreational beach-
lots, and group homes for 7 to 16 persons as conditional uses.
These three items had previously been approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council but were deleted from the City Code
during the codification process . The remaining items reviewed by
the Planning Commission were tabled for staff to further
research. The attached report addresses all issues reviewed by
the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves adding churches, recreational beach-
lots, and group homes for 7 to 16 persons as conditional uses in
the A-2 District."
4
P.C. DATE: Aug. 17, 1988 , r
CITY O F C.C. DATE: Sept. 12 , 1988
CEANHASSEN CASE NO: 88-12 ZOA
� Y
Prepared by: Olsen/v II
STAFF REPORT
,1
PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections 20-572 II
and 20-574 of the City Code Concerning Permitted
and Conditional Uses in the A-2, Agricultural
Estate District '
V '
LOCATION:
APPLICANT: '
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE: '
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING '
Q AND LAND USE: N-
I S-
Q E-
W W-
(f) WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : 1
2000 LAND USE PLAN: I
1
ZOA in A-2 District
August 17, 1988
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On June 1, 1988 , the Planning Commission discussed proposed
amendments by Commissioner Erhart to the A-2 , Agricultural Estate
District (Attachment #1) . The Planning Commission agreed that
the issues brought up by Commissioner Erhart should be reviewed
and moved to have the item sent to the City Council for their
comments and direction (Attachment #2) .
On June 27 , 1988 , the City Council reviewed the recommended
' changes to the A-2 District and also agreed that staff should
make recommendations and proceed with a public hearing
(Attachment #3 ) .
The items recommended for change in the A-2 District by
Commissioner Erhart are as follows :
' ELIMINATE FROM A-2 DISTRICT ADD TO A-2 DISTRICT
Contractor' s yard Temporary retail nurseries
Bed and breakfast establishments Churches
Mineral extraction Recreational beachlots
Golf courses
' Group homes for 7-16
Public buildings
ANALYSIS
Items Proposed To Be Eliminated
' Contractor' s Yards: In 1984 , the City Council approved a zoning
ordinance amendment to permit contractor' s yards as a conditional
use in the agricultural district (Attachment #4) . The purpose of
' this amendment was to accommodate existing contractor' s yards in
the rural area and to establish conditions for which to control
existing and proposed contractor' s yards . One of the conditions
for a contractor' s yard is that it cannot be located closer than
' one mile to an existing contractor' s yard. Attachment #5
illustrates existing contractor' s yards and shows that there is
limited area remaining for future contractor' s yards to be
' located within the A-2 District. There is a current application
for a contractor' s yard on TH 212 which meets the one mile
radius.
' Staff agrees with the Planning Commission' s concerns about
contractor' s yards in the agricultural district. With each new
application there is more of an industrial/commercial use pro-
posed than an existing business run out of a home by the
homeowners. In researching contractor' s yards in other cities ,
it was found that they are either not permitted at all or else
' are permitted as a "ma and pa operation" to accommodate smaller
contractor' s yard operations run by a family from their property.
11
ZOA in the A-2 District
August 17 , 1988
Page 3
The condition of the one mile separation between contractor' s 1
yards can enable the Planning Commission and City Council to deny
future requests for contractor' s yards and allow existing
contractor' s yards with a conditional use permit to remain as a
conforming use. One of the main reasons for the 1984 amendment
has to remove the non-conforming status of existing contractor' s
yards . If contractor' s yards are eliminated as conditional uses
in the A-2 District, existing legal contractor' s yards in the A-2
District would become non-conforming uses .
Staff recommends the Planning Commission determine whether ,
contractor' s yards should be eliminated and create non-conforming
uses or if they should remain as a conditional use with the small
chance that future contractor' s yards could meet the one mile
radius requirement. The Planning Commission could also request
staff to research more restrictive conditions .
Bed and Breakfast Establishments
On January 7, 1985 , the City Council approved bed and breakfast
establishments as a conditional uses in the R-la Districts
(Attachment #6 ) . For the zoning ordinance amendment, staff
researched bed and breakfast regulations throughout the country.
It was determined that the majority of bed and breakfast
establishments are located in rural areas through the conversion
of farm homes and older country homes.
Staff established certain conditions that a bed and breakfast
must meet prior to receiving a conditional use permit approval.
These conditions essentially limited the size and type of bed and
breakfast so that the use would not be too intense for a rural
area. The conditions for a bed and breakfast limit the number of
rooms for rent to five or less and requires the establishment to
be owner occupied with no more than one employee in addition to
the residents . The conditions also requires two off street
parking plus one additional space per rental room to accommodate
parking needs and that a room shall not be rented for more than
seven consecutive days to the same person to prevent the home
from being used as a boarding house.
Staff feels that the conditions for a bed and breakfast con-
ditional use permit can prevent too intense of a use being
located in the rural area while allowing a compatible use of a
rural residence in the rural district. Staff feels that bed and
breakfast establishments with the conditions established in the
ordinance should be maintained as a conditional use in the A-2
District.
Mineral Extraction
The mineral extraction section of the Zoning Ordinance pertains
not only to the removal of sand and gravel but also to grading
property. The only instance of mineral extraction in the city is
' ZOA for A-2 District
August 17, 1988
Page 4
' the Moon Valley Excavation area. Removing mineral extraction as
a conditional use in the A-2 District would make the existing use
a non-conforming use. At this time, staff does not have infor-
mation available which could provide to the Council as to whether
or not this would impact the operation or would impact other
areas in the city. It should be noted that because this ordi-
nance pertains to grading of properties , we do not want to remove
the possibilty for a farmer or property owner the ability to
grade property. In fact, there are sections in the mineral
extraction ordinance that could be further investigated by the
' Planning and Engineering Departments as to format and language
regarding grading permit procedures. Therefore, staff would
recommend that we would be directed to analyze Article 27 of the
' Zoning Ordinance regarding procedures, language and applicability
in certain areas of the city.
' Summary
In summary, staff feels that concerns about contractor' s yards in
the A-2 District by the Planning Commission and Council are
valid. The condition of a contractor' s yard not being located
closer than one mile from an existing contractor' s yard could
prohibit future contractor' s yards in the A-2 District. Staff
' recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be left as it is so that the
existing contractor' s yards , that have received conditional use
permits, can be maintained as conforming uses . The Planning
' Commission may also want staff to research more restrictive con-
ditions .
Staff feels that bed and breakfasts are limited by the conditions
in the zoning ordinance and are a compatible use in the A-2
District and that they should remain permitted as a conditional
usein the A-2 District. The recommendation to remove mineral
' extraction from the A-2 District should be further studied to
determine the impacts of removing it as a conditional use.
Recommended Additions to the A-2 District
Temporary Retail Nurseries
In 1984, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a
zoning ordinance amendment to permit wholesale and retail nur-
series in the R-la District as a conditional use (Attachment #7) .
' The Planning Commission approved allowing wholesale nurseries as
a conditional use but did not recommend approval of allowing
retail nurseries as a conditional use. The Planning Commission
wanted to distinguish between and operation that caters to the
public versus a wholesale operation where goods are sold to
licensed nurseries in bulk orders . It was felt that a retail
nursery would be too intense of a use for the rural area and that
' a wholesale nursery would be more compatible with the agri-
cultural district. The City Council also recommended to allow
I
ZOA in the A-2 District
August 17 , 1988
Page 5
just wholesale nurseries as a conditional use in the R-la
District. In 1987, it was again discussed by the Planning
Commission and City Council whether or not to allow a retail nur-
sery in the rural area concerning the Jay Kronick application for
a retail nursery on Highway 5 . Again, it was felt that the use
would be too intense.
It has been recommended by Commissioner Erhart to amend the A-2
District to allow retail nurseries as a temporary use. It was
felt by Commissioner Erhart that if a temporary retail nursery is
not permitted to construct permanent structures, or if the area
surrounding it becomes residential then it can no longer remain,
then the impacts to the area would be minimized and that it could
be an appropriate use in the agricultural district.
Currently, there are no "retail uses" allowed as a permitted or a
conditional use in the A-2 District. Staff feels that allowing a
retail nursery in the A-2 District could result in traffic, noise
and activity impacts that would not be compatible with
surrounding uses in the A-2 District. '
As far as allowing a retail nursery as a temporary use, the City
Attorney has stated several times previously that temporary uses
cannot be regulated. Once a use has been allowed as a con-
ditional use on a site, it runs with the land. The city cannot
limit the conditional use for a certain number of years or until
development around the site takes place. ,
If the intent of the Planning Commission and City Council is to
limit the scale and intensity of the retail activity so that it
could be compatible with the A-2 District, staff is recommending
that other devices should be used rather than using the term tem-
porary. Specific conditions would have to be established which
would limit the size of the retail center and require improve-
ments to the site which would accommodate the activity associated
with a retail center. If the Planning Commission and Council
feels that a retail nursery is suitable in the A-2 District, then
they should direct staff to establish conditions to limit the
scale and intensity of the retail activity rather than allow it
as a temporary use. ,
Churches
In 1986 , the City Council amended the zoning ordinance to allow
churches as a conditional use in the RSF and R-12 Districts and
outside of the MUSA line (Attachment #8) . The zoning ordinance
amendment provided specific conditions which a church must meet
prior to receiving the conditional use permit to permit a church
to be located outside of the MUSA line.
1
ZOA in the A-2 District
August 17 , 1988
Page 6
' The current zoning ordinance allows churches as a conditional use
in the RR District but does not allow them in the A-2 District.
It was the intent of the zoning ordinance amendment in 1986 to
' permit churches outside of the MUSA line to be permitted as a
conditional use. The conditions for a church in general and spe-
cific conditions for a church outside of the MUSA line will
control the location and suitability of the site so that it would
be compatible with other uses of the A-2 District. Staff recom-
mends that the zoning ordinance be amended to allow churches as a
conditional use in the A-2 District.
Recreational Beachlots
In 1987 , the Planning Commission and City Council approved the
zoning ordinance amendment to allow recreational beachlots in the
rural districts (Attachment #9) . The purpose of the zoning ordi-
nance amendment was to accommodate a proposed recreational beach-
lot as part of Lake Riley Woods Subdivision and to establish
conditions for rural beachlots as part of large lot subdivisions
which could be subdivided when sewer and water becomes available.
Currently, the ordinance only allows recreational beachlots as a
conditional use in the RR District but it was the intent of the
ordinance to allow them as conditional uses in the A-2 District
also. Therefore staff recommends that the zoning ordinance be
amended to allow recreational beachlots as a conditional use in
' the A-2 District.
Golf Courses
It has been recommended that golf courses be allowed as a con-
ditional use in the A-2 District to accommodate the Bluff Creek
Golf Course located west of Hwy. 101 and south of Pioneer Trail .
' Prior to making a recommendation on amending the ordinance to
allow golf courses in the A-2 District as a conditional use,
staff is recommending the Planning Commission and City Council
' give direction as to the intensity and size of a golf course
facility they feel would be appropriate for the A-2 District.
Staff can provide specific conditions which would accommodate the
Bluff Creek Golf Course and future proposals similar the Bluff
Creek Golf Course or conditions which would allow a larger faci-
lity ( "country club" ) .
The Planning Commission and City Council should determine if they
prefer a smaller club house with a small cafeteria/lounge faci-
lity and locker rooms versus a large country club which would
accommodate possibly a swimming pool, wedding receptions , etc.
Therefore, staff recommends that no action be taken yet on
golf courses until the city establishes what type of golf course
and club house they feel is appropriate for the A-2 District for
staff to establish specific conditions to accommodate that use.
ZOA in the A-2 District
August 17, 1988
Page 7
Group Homes I
In 1985 , the Planning Commission and City Council amended the
zoning ordinance to allow group homes for 7 to 16 persons in the
R-la District (Attachment #10) . The city established specific
conditions for a group home in the agricultural district for 7 to
16 persons . The current zoning ordinance does not allow group
homes for 7 to 16 persons as a conditional use in either the RR
or A-2 District but does permit them in the A-1 District. The
intent of the ordinance amendment in 1985 was to allow them as
conditional uses in the agricultural district. The conditions
established would allow group homes for 7 to 16 persons in both
the RR and A-2 District to be compatible with those districts .
Staff is recommending that the zoning ordinance be amended to '
permit group homes for 7 to 16 persons as a conditional use in
the A-2 and RR Districts. Staff will have to advertise for a
public hearing to amend the RR District.
Public Buildings
It has been recommended to add public buildings as a conditional
use in the A-2 District. Currently, the zoning ordinance does
not have a definition of a public building and the only district
that allows a public building is the A-1 District as a con-
ditional use. Staff has no objection to permitting public
buildings as a conditional use in the A-2 District. Staff recom-
mends that the Planning Commission and Council direct staff to
create a definition for public buildings, establish conditions
deemed necessary for public buildings as a conditional use and to
determine in which zoning district public buildings would be
appropriate.
Summary
Staff feels that temporary retail nurseries should not be added
as a conditional use in the A-2 District. Staff agrees that
churches , recreational beachlots and group homes for 7 to 16 per-
sons should be added as a conditional use in the A-2 District.
Staff is also recommending that golf courses and public buildings,
as a conditional use in the A-2 District, should be further
researched to determine appropriate conditions .
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission should direct staff to further research
eliminating mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-2
District and research conditions for adding golf courses and
public buildings as a conditional uses in the A-2 District.
I
ZOA in the A-2 District
' August 17, 1988
Page 8
' Staff recommends that temporary retail nurseries not be added
as a conditional use in the A-2 District and recommends not eli-
minating bed and breakfast establishments as a conditional use in
the A-2 District. Staff also recommends that contractor' s yards
be maintained as conditional uses with the possibility of adding
more restrictive conditions .
' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
' "The Planning Commission recommends adding churches, recreational
beachlots and group homes for 7 to 16 persons as conditional uses
in the A-2 District."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
' The Planning Commission unanimoulsy approved the recommendation
made by staff to add group homes for 7-16 persons , churches and
recreational beachlots to the A-2 District. The Commission
agreed to maintain contractor' s yards as a conditional use but
directed staff to establish more strict conditions covering the
following issues :
1 . The size of the contractor' s yard.
2 . Outside storage.
' 3 . Type of equipment.
4 . Number of employees .
5 . Increasing setbacks from wetlands .
' 6 . Define it as a secondary/accessory use.
7 . Number of vehicles .
8 . Setbacks from outside storage.
9 . Define the use more specifically, exactly what a contractor' s
yard is and is not.
The Commission directed staff to further study eliminating
mineral extraction, adding golf courses and public buildings and
agreed not to add temporary retail nurseries to the A-2 District.
STAFF UPDATE
The Planning Commission requested staff to verify whether
existing conditions established for contractor' s yards which
received a conditional use permit would still be valid and
enforceable if contractor' s yards were removed as a conditional
' use. The City Attorney has stated that the conditions are still
valid since the conditional use permit with specific conditions
is recorded with Carver County.
I
11
ZOA in the A-2 District
August 17, 1988
Page 9
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ,
Staff recommends the City Council adopt adding churches,
recreational beachlots and group homes for 7 to 16 persons as
conditional uses in the A-2 District.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Letter from Tim Erhart dated May 27 , 1988 .
2 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 1 , 1988 .
3 . City Council minutes dated June 27, 1988.
4 . Information on contractor' s yards.
5 . Map of one mile radius of contractor' s yards .
6 . Information on bed and breakfast.
7 . Information on retail nurseries.
8 . Information on churches outside of the MUSA line.
9 . Information on recreational beachlots .
10 . Information on group homes .
11 . Letter from Pat Swenson dated August 8 , 1988 .
12. Planning Commission minutes dated August 17, 1988.
1
• C .
' Tim A. Erhart
775 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
May 27, 1988
' Planning Commission
Subject: Land use in A-2 Districts of Chanhassen
We have recently reviewed a number of proposals raising the question: What
is proper land use in Chanhassen's A-2 Zoning District? The proposals we've
seen include batting facilities, miniature golf courses, produce stands,
retail nurseries, contractors' yards, garbage truck storage and cleaning,
etc.
We have attempted to use our zoning ordinance as a guide in approving or
denying these requests. In general our new ordinance is consistent in its
assignment of compatible uses in the various zoning districts. The
exception is the A-2 district where the allowed uses are incompatible in
some cases. As a result, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the
' recommendations that the commission has been forced to make following the
guidelines of our zoning ordinance.
' In analyzing this problem we should review the first stated "Purpose" of our
zoning ordinance:
1-21 - "Protect residential , commercial , industrial , and
' institutional areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses."
Applying this goal as the basis for determining acceptable uses in a
' particular zoning district we must decide which uses are compatible and
which are intrusive within any particular district.
' The titles of the districts, to a great degree, tell us what the intended
uses are. For example, the intent statement for the A-2, Agricultural
Estate District states "Preservation of rural character while respecting
development patterns by allowing single family residential development" . In
general , those uses which are compatible with intent of the A-2 district
are those associated with raising crops and cattle. In addition, things
found in residential areas such as swimming pools, tennis, day care, and
' home occupations would be compatible in this area by definition. One can
generally conclude that uses relating to agriculture and listed in the A-1,
Agricultural Preserve district as well as those uses generally related to
Residential and found listed in the RSF, Residential Single Family district
should be allowed. This analysis is straightforward and one might conclude
that a method for creating the list for the A-2 district would be to simply
list all those allowed in both A-1 and RSF districts. For the most part
' this has been done as the following chart shows.
1
MB
1
OM
,11
II
Permitted Uses A-1 RSF A-2
. Agriculture X X II
• Public & private parks & open space X X X I
• Single family dwellings X X X
. Utility services X X X I
. State licensed day care center
for twelve or fewer children X X X I
. State licensed group home serving
six or fewer persons X X X
II. Temporary real estate office and
model homes X X
. Arboretums X X II
Permitted Accessory Uses A-1 RSF A-2 11
. Agricultural buildings X X 1
. Garage X X X
. Private stables X X
. Swimming pools X X X II. Tennis court X X X
. Signs X X X
. Home occupations X X X
. One dock X X X
II
. Road side stand X X
. Private kennel X X X
II
Conditional Uses A-1 RSF A-2 I
. Public building X
. Temporary mobile home X X
. Group home for 7-10 persons X
II
. Churches X 0
. Private stables X X
. Residential beach lots X 0
II
. Commercial kennels, stables, X X
riding academies
II
2
II
1
1 c C
Notably absent from the list in the A-2 area are: Public Buildings,
Churches and Beach Lots. I suggest we review the absence of these uses
since it appears we are acting as if some of these are included as
allowable uses in the A-2 area.
' In analyzing this, you can see that to a great degree, the A-1 and RSF
districts are inherently compatible as we see that all most all of the uses
listed are allowed in both districts. Note that industrial and commercial
' uses however, are not allowed in either area.
There are three other major categories of uses which keep coming to the
' Commission as a desired use (by applicants) in this district. Some are
incompatible uses and shouldn't be allowed yet are found listed as allowed.
Some uses are probably compatible, but are not allowed.
General Use Categories Discussed:
. OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL
. SALE OF UNPROCESSED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
. INDUSTRIAL/NON-AG COMMERCIAL
I believe we must carefully analyze these uses and eliminate those which are
' currently allowed which are intrusive. We should also review some uses
which I believe should be included in the A-2 district but are not.
Completing this task would eliminate the contradiction in the list of
' allowed uses and better help guide Chanhassen's growth. In addition, we can
avoid some of the problems we now experience such as contractor's yards in
an RSF district which become permanent neighborhood fixtures.
OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL
' Definition:
Open space recreational can be defined as those uses which require large
parcels of inexpensive land for outdoor sporting or cultural activity.
Examples: Golfing, hunting clubs, stables, parks, arboretums, zoos.
Analysis:
These uses already exist within the A-2 district of Chanhassen and are not
intrusive with the rural nature of the area. Some of these activities
' require buildings or equipment which may be intrusive, however in all cases
the structure is accessory to the primary use, that being use of the land.
I3
C C . I
SALE OF UNPROCESSED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS II
Definition: 1
This is a business whose major activity is selling or distributing
unprocessed agricultural products such as vegetables, fruits, flowers and II nursery stock.
Analysis: I
Our current ordinance allows both road side stands and wholesale nurseries
in the A-2 districts. The road side stand is retail , while the wholesale
II
nursery, which by definition, is not. Our ordinance does not restrict
activity to sales of only those items grown on site. Sales of agricultural
products by local growers have long been associated with the rural setting
and as long as the sales are restricted to unprocessed materials e.g. ,
II
fruit, plants, trees, etc. I believe this activity in fact compliments the
agricultural nature of the district.
Should we allow retail Nursery sales in the A-2 area? I believe we should. 1
We currently have two nurseries within our A-2 district. Halla Nursery
sells retail because it is grandfathered. Northwest Nursery would like to II sell retail , but is restricted to wholesale at this time. Like Halla,
Northwest grows some of its material on site.
I suggest that if retail sales occur on site that we limit those sales to
II
materials grown on site or on surrounding properties. This would, in fact,
encourage owners to maintain current farm land in some kind of production
rather than sub-dividing. In effect allowing retailing of "home grown"
II
products can actually assist the city in maintaining our open space as long
as possible.
I also believe we should make the retail sales of agricultural products a
II
temporary one. This would prevent operators from building permanent
structures and prevent incompatibility later, when a higher density
residential use occurs. These buildings must be removed and the use II suspended when an A-2 (or RR) area becomes residential only.
1
I
1
1
4 1
11
II, . C C
II
INDUSTRIAL/NON-AG COMMERCIAL
IDefinition:
I An industrial or commercial use can be defined by an activity involving
employees, equipment and warehousing whereby a product is manufactured or a
service is rendered. The primary facility of an Industrial Non-Ag/
Commercial use is the buildings and equipment whereas the land becomes an
I accessory. This compares to farms, nurseries and outdoor recreation where
the land is primary and the structures and equipment are accessory.
IIAnalysis
Somehow, in the A-2 district, we have come to accept the idea that an
II industrial use is compatible within the rural setting. I cannot develop any
argument for concluding that such a use is at all compatible with the stated
intent for the A-2 district. Moreover, I find that industrial and non-Ag
I commercial uses are the most intrusive uses conceivable when you consider
the type of buildings, their permanence, the equipment, and the type of
activity including numerous employees, are central to the purpose of this
use.
II
No different than those businesses which occupy our industrial zones, a
contractors' yard, is an industrial use.
I . There are employees who live off-site
. The business is housed in an industrial building
. Equipment is used for the purpose of conducting commercial
business
. There is warehousing
. There is payroll
II Nothing is grown on the site which contributes to the business
▪ Buildings are permanent
IIt is obviously more economical to put a contractor's yard on a farm site
where land is cheaper than in an industrial park. Due to the close
II proximity to the metro area and the cost advantage compared to industrial
districts, we are seeing a growing number of requests for conditional use
permits for contractors' yards. It appears that Chanhassen is one of the
few remaining suburbs allowing contractors' yards in its Rural Residential
II areas. We have worked hard to develop plans and ordinances which assure the
orderly development of Chanhassen maintaining its natural beauty and small
town image. Quickly our beautiful open areas are turning into industrial
I sprawl as contractors' yards pile up vehicles, storage garages, equipment,
mounds of barren dirt, rotting lumber and rusting steel .
II When a conditional use permit is approved for a contractor's yard, the
permit goes with the property. As a result, we cannot seem to eliminate
this use when residential density increases, as it certainly will , in this
II 5
I
C 1
area. Lastly, historically the city has been unable to enforce the
regulation which applies to contractor's yards. As a result, the
contractor's yards tend to grow and become increasingly unsightly and
intrusive.
Following is a list of uses allowed in the A-2 district which are neither
agriculturally related or residentially related, nor are they allowed in the
purely agricultural area (A-1) or the purely residential area (RSF) . The
one exception is Bed and Breakfast.
Conditional Uses A-1 RSF A-2
. Bed and Breakfast X X '
. Mineral extraction X
. Cemetery X
. Contractor's Yard X
. Commercial communications X
. Wholesale nursery X
. Electric Sub-station X
One might argue that the A-2 area is uniquely suited to serve some of these
uses such as commercial communications and sub-stations. The remaining, I
believe, are incompatible and should be removed as permitted or
conditionally permitted uses in the A-2 district. For example, I must
question whether mineral extraction is still compatible considering the
increasing population density in our A-2 district. By listing "bed and
breakfast", does that mean we want someone building a new hotel in our rural
area?
The most gross intrusion however is the contractor's yard. Contractor's
yards have nothing at all to do with agricultural activity. They are
incompatible with residential and agricultural settings. They are, in fact,
a blight to the single amenity which Chanhassen residents value most when
asked - our remaining open and wooded areas.
We must be careful not to confuse a landscape contractor with a wholesale ,
nursery. Landscape contractors are industrial . They do not grow anything
and therefore cannot be considered agricultural . We must be sure that the
language of our ordinance properly separates landscape contractors from
nursery operators.
We have had an opportunity recently to observe first hand the results of
allowing contractors' and landscapers' yards within Rural and Residential
areas of Chanhassen. After studying the issue, I have concluded that
allowing contractors' yards outside an industrial zone goes completely
against the purpose and objective of our zoning ordinance. Worst, it is a
growing blight to our community. Lastly, we are creating problems which
are not easy to solve in the future as we have seen in the Lowell Carlson
property case.
6 1
I
a
Recommendation
I recommend that we eliminate contractors' yards, bed and breakfast
establishments, and mineral extraction as allowed uses in the A-2 areas. I
' also recommend that we add temporary retail nurseries, churches, beach lots
and golf courses to the list of conditionally allowed uses in the A-2
district.
' TAE:j
1
1
1 I
t
7
•1
Planning Commission Meeting
IIJune 1, 1988 - Page 30
IIDacy: I just said that . I said this portion.
Batzli : Can we take about a 5 minute break here and just get together and,
try to draft something?
Conrad : I don' t think we need to. I think we have given Barbara . . . I 'd II
prefer not to draft wording to an ordinance by the Planning Commission.
It' s just not appropriate but the intent Barbara , I guess we 'd have to
agree with what Steve is saying . I don' t know that there's a practical
aspect to Chanhassen in what you' re saying .
II
Emmings: Where there's a railroad or a road, you 've got the distance.
Now we' re concerned about the screening. So we' re not so concerned about
setbacks except in so far as screening takes a certain amount of land.
Conrad : Does everybody agree with what Steve said in terms of philosophy?
Barbara, if we agree philosophically with Steve' s , if that' s agreeing ,
with some kind of an intent , what would you prefer to have us do? We
can' t make a motion on absolute words because they' re not there yet.
Dacy: I would recommend that you move to amend the Section as listed on II
page 3 of the staff report. State your intent and then I ' ll get with the
City Attorney to draft the language. As a matter of fact , what I ' ll do is II
r have the Attorney review verbatim Minutes to make sure.
Conrad : Do you have a reason to move it through the City Council in two
weeks?
Dacy: I don ' t think it could get to Council by the 13th anyway with him
having to review the Minutes but it would certainly be on the 27th. I
Conrad : So it could be back here for our next meeting?
Dacy: So if you wanted to table it until the next meeting . . . I
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance 1
Amendment to amend Sections 20-695, 20-715 , 20-755, 20-774, 20-795 and
20-815 until the next meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved , Erhart s II econded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 18 , 1988 . All voted II
in favor except Conrad and Headla who abstained and the motion carried .
OPEN DISCUSSION. I
Conrad : Let me introduce this . Commissioner Erhart would like the
Planning Commission to discuss the attached at Wednesday' s meeting . Tim,
I think as I said before the meeting started , this is really a nice II
analysis. You did a real nice job of reviewing the situations down there.
I appreciate that . That ' s really terrific . Steve, did you have any
il
I
II June Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 31
• recommendations that you wanted to give?
1 Emmings: Yes , I just think too , Tim has made a very compelling case here.
Both from the way you handle contractor' s yards when they' re moving into
the A-2 district and I think this ought to go to staff and they should
give us their input on what Tim has proposed here and we should consider
1 it as an amendment to our Zoning Ordinance.
Conrad: I guess we could go over this tonight Barbara, verbatim or Tim
1 could give us an overview of it . It' s real understandable. I 'm not sure
that he needs to do that. What Steve is saying he'd like staff to review
it and comment on the specifics of it and tell us where staff feels it is
1 inappropriate or look for the loopholes or look for the reasons not to
make this an amendment.
Dacy: We have reviewed it and give the approach as similar to the one
1 that you took with the BF district. That maybe we should send this to
Council . If the Planning Commission endorses it , give it to Council as a
discussion item. Say this is where the Planning Commission would like to
1 head on a potential zoning ordinance amendment issue .
Emmings: The choice between letting them have a first look at it as
If opposed to sending them specific language to change the ordinance?
Dacy: It might be good this way so that the Council can get a feel for
where the Planning Commission is coming from as a whole on this .
1 Erhart: Except the last paragraph, I think there' s only one paragraph
that ' s missing . Rather than just passing , you say here ' s a great idea and
I/ pass it to Council . I think it ' s worthwhile having Commissioner ' s comment
on some of these items before we pass it on. I agree that we shouldn ' t
try to create language here at this point and get to the specifics but I
think in this kind of thing , they really need to look at the comments of
1 the Commissioners .
Emmings : I don' t agree with you for the simple reason that we don ' t very
Ioften pass them something that ' s so thoroughly explained.
Conrad : It' s real logical .
IEmmings : I think what we ' re saying , I think that ' s a good idea to pass it
up to the Council just maybe with a comment that we think that based on
this we should make some changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
1 Dacy: We could schedule it for the 27th . Kind of reserve a special area .
I Erhart: So you' re basically, your comments are that you ' re in agreement
with all of it?
li- Emmings : Well , we' ll talk about that.
Erhart: So what you ' re looking for from the Commission is saying to them,
we' re generally in favor of that going to the City Council .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 32
Emmings : Do they want us to basically look at the zoning amendments to
bring the zoning ordinance in line with a lot of the things that you ' re
discussing .
Conrad : Is there anything in here that somebody would like to bring up as !'
something we wouldn' t want Council to see? Something that we don' t agree
with in Tim' s analysis . Is there something that ' s really objectionable?
Wildermuth: There's one thing that occurred to me as I read it. . . .the II
A-2 district out there? Almost everything is already is A-1 and one of
the things, in addition to letting in A-2 would be to require that the
contractor ' s yard . . . in A-1. 1
Erhart: There is a substantial difference between A-1 and A-2.
Wildermuth: But in your own table analysis here. '
Erhart : There is on lot size and so forth.
Dacy: The A-1 is 40 acres and that' s specifically for ag preserve.
Erhart : You eliminate A-1 and there are only two parcels in the whole
city in A-1.
Dacy: We can ' t eliminate A-1 because State Law says we have to provide
for a zoning district to allow it .
Wildermuth : That was just a thought that occurred .
Dacy: The only staff comment is on the contractor ' s yard. That might be II
a little politically messy because four years ago the Council went through
a process to amend the agricultural districts at that time to allow
contractor ' s yards so now you have a process four years later that ' s
proposing to eliminate them and Tim and I have talked about that.
Wildermuth : This is a different Council . '
Dacy: Exactly and that' s another reason that I think it would be good to
have the Council discuss this thoroughly before you start notifying
property owners and conducting a public hearing .
Headla : What was your point?
Dacy: My point was that four years ago the Coucnil specifically amended
the agricultural district at that time to include contractor ' s yards . Now
this amendment would go back and exclude them. Remove them as a II
conditional use so I 'm saying that four years is relatively a short time
span and I talked about this with Tim and that might be politically messy
for some of the Council members . That ' s the reason why it should be
discussed though .
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 33
Conrad : What we 'd like to do then , if we send this up to Council for
their discussion and their direction to staff.
Erhart : Are we all saying generally favorable direction on this?
Conrad: I 've got some small nit picky things .
Erhart: You' re using just the Minutes to support that?
PP .
' Conrad: I think in our motion we can. . .
Erhart: You' re looking for a motion?
Conrad: Yes .
Erhart : Okay.
' Conrad : And send this to City Council to provide staff with the
direction
and I think under that motion we can comment that the Planning Commission
endorses this particular paper . Is there a motion?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to send Tim Erhart ' s memorandum
dated May 27, 1988 onto the City Council for them to direct staff and the
Planning Commission with regard to it ' s content and further action on it ,
noting that the Planning Commission finds this to be logically explained
and an all around good idea. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 50 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
I
I
1.04
IICity Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
•
Acting Mayor Gevin
I g: We've going to quit the debate and we're going to vote.
There is a motion on the floor. Thank you Mike and thank you very much Rick.
There is a motion on the floor and there is a second to participate in the
funding of the project for 1989 in the amount, and I'm going to put in a dollar
figure of $10,000.00 as our participation for 1989. When we get to the budget
we will get to hard dollars. Approximately $10,000.00 so when we get to Don's
II
budget we can put the figures in. Anybody have a problem with that?
Councilman Boyt: I have a problem with committing to a budget we haven't even
discussed yet. I think the intent. Say we intend to fund it. I
Acting Mayor Geving: That would be fine.
II
Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded that the City Council
intends to participate in the funding of the Recycling Project with Carver
County for 1989 in an amount of approximately $10,000.00. All voted in favor II
and the motion carried.
B. RECYCLING: CURBSIDE PICK-UP. - II
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded the authorization to create a I
recycling committee for curbside pick-up. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Councilman Boyt: What about two. Co we need to authorize the application for
1!
grant monies?
Acting Mayor Geving: No. That was just the curbside. We did that. It's all a II
part of the first one.
Councilman Boyt: So your motion included both?
Councilman Horn: Yes. II
r DISCUSS`PLANNING COMMISSION REv01 1ENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO A-2 II
DISTRICTS. BF AND A 2 ZONING__
Acting Mayor Geving: This might take some time. I hope we limit it.
A
il
gain, I think we're all familiar with the Planning Commissionnnotes. We've
read your letter Tim. I think at this point we don't need your comments,
II
I don't believe Barbara. Let's go right to Planning Commissions comments from
Tim. Speak briefly.
Tim Erhart: I will. Which one do you want to take first? II
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's go with the BF. The recommendation are amendments
to the BF and A-2 Zonding Districts. You might just want to comment briefly
[11 about than.
Ell
Tim Erhart: Cn the Business Fringe, I think the comments you made tonight
earlier, if we have a dangerous situation, I think we're obligated to do
60 #.
li .
City Council Meeting - une 27, 1988 , _ ��
I . something about it. I think we have a very dangerous situation down in that
area where we're allowing, not only allowing but promoting the intensification
of business' direct access onto TH 212 where the speeds, in the report I think
1 you can see what the speeds are. It's just doesn't make any sense. Now we've
got lots of land in Chanhassen. We've got a big commercial industrial
development just outside the area here and we have a downtown we're trying to
1 support, we really don't need to promote commercial development in this area
where we're not providing facilities to support it. I think it's very
dangerous. Secondly is that I think we have, again having enough area for
I commercial and industrial here, I think we have a real opportunity to preserve
this area for people who live in Chanhassen 30 years from now. As the whole
city gets developed and we have 20,000 people living here instead of 8,000, that
II we have some space available that's open and green. I think those two things
tied together, to me it's the time to make a decision on this. We can do it
today and preserve this area simply by converting it to A-2 without a lot of
expense to the City. I think your comment on staff is the concern that we have
Iand you expressed Roger, was that these people won't have anything to do with
this land if we do it, if we convert it but A-2 still allows you to build homes
no matter what size lot is existing, they can build at least one house on it.
II I'm not too sure that that isn't increased value over it's value as commercial
today considering the history of commercial successes in that area. In some
cases, we've made a big investment here in the downtown area. In fact we run
I into a situation where somebody wants to push us on it in converting it to A-2,
look at what it would cost to compensate what you might consider Ag, I think
it's worth it for the future of Chanhassen to preserve that area and to
f eliminate, I think a real big liability problem.
IliActing Mayor Geving: Now are you speaking for th
L� g the Planning Commission tonight?
Are you representing the Planning Commission's views?
IITim Erhart: I think so.
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission has endorsed this.
ITim Erhart: That's my comments on the BF.
II Acting Mayor Geving: Should we take the BF first and just kind of walk through
it? Go ahead Jay.
II Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see some numbers. I think it's a proposal we
should pursue to look at it and have somebody, through the City Attorney's
office, prepare us a scenario of our liability, which I believe at that point
would be, as far as what your opinion of takings are and staff. That's not the
Ikind of stuff you want to publish and I believe would be client privledged
information, whatever but to make that decision I think we have to look at the
financial side of it. I'd like to be able to make that. I'd like to be able to
II do that because I agree with you on that area. That part of the BF, well
intentioned as it was when it was created. It used to be a business type area
and it made sense at that time to keep it there. It also makes sense not to.
II I'd like to see a little financial analysis as to what we're getting ourselves
into. Some concepts look nice and then you find out that those little concepts
can costs a million dollars and we have to say how nice is a million dollars
..- worth so that's where I'm coming from.
I
II 61
106 - €-
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
II
Acting Mayor Geving: So what you're saying Jay, you sugested that
look into some of the legal ramifications of looking in this direction anddtorney
ii
converting that to real dollars? What is our financial liability as well?
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is that a fair question Roger? Can this be d one. II
Roger Knutson: Sure. ...the uncertainity that someone else would conclude. I
Acting Mayor Geving: But it's a fair comment that you can take...
Roger Knutson: it might work for the City appraiser for example. II
Councilman Johnson: But by him doing it for us, we're obtaining legal advice
from him. If we ask the City Appraiser to do that for us, we lose our Attorney 11
client priviledge on it.
Acting Mayor Geving: There's no question that the basis for what you've
recommended from the Planning Commission as moved and unanimously agreed to Tim, II
is opening our eyes to the whole area down there. Maybe we made some moves with
applicants that came in and had a good idea at the time and maybe the Council
considered it and said, yes that doesn't seem like such a bad place for that II
kind of business not recognizing the long term viewpoint and what this would do
if we continued to proliferate. I think your comments are very appropriate. I
appreciated reading them and I know it took a lot of thought on your part and
certainly the Planning Commission has studied this and given us their considered
opinion on it. You're speaking for them and I can see that, I think you did
your homework.
II
Councilman Horn: When I read everythin g that Tim
very clear in my mind...then I read the staff report dand tthoughte back tto whytwe
established it in the first place and I believe it was established as a planning II
issue or a zoning issue before we had any applicants that came in. There's a
logic there that makes sense too. It's moving it to areas that created less
traffic than what was already put in there and I agree with
g you, I don't think
II
any business like the type that has gone in down there in the past like the used
car sales and some of the business to the general public, are reasonable at all.
It was the intent, as I recall as Barb was explaining it to us for the business
fringe, that they would be the low traffic type of things. Where you g o down
there and operate your business but you wouldn' t create publing coming and
out of there all the time so I weigh that with what is it taking? What can we
allow as a reasonable use and the logic says, that's the kind of thing you put II
in there. Something that makes it less of a hazard than it was before but it
still allows them some type of use. I think as far as A-2 goes, you can farm
it or put a house on it. Obviously that land is not farmable or a very small
II
portion of it is farmable. As far as putting a house down there, there are a
couple of houses down there but it's not very attractive to have your driveway
coming right out on Highway 212 so my thinking has kind of come around back
1.)....
saying what staff recommended for that made some sense. I'm still concerned I
about those safety issues and that they're good points. I'm trying to find a
191
reasonable middle ground where we can do both. It's going to take, as Jay said,
a lot of what the Attorney tells us, is allowing a reasonable use going to make
that happen? I suspect looking at it now, we would have been in a much stronger
62 1
City Council Meeting - t..ie 27, 1988 - 7
position to go to A-2 or to leave it A-2 than having now gone to this change, to
try and go back, it makes it a lot tougher.
Tim Erhart: I think the intent of converting to A-2 was simply trying to reduce
the amount of development in either the next 20 years or until such time the
City really wants, at some time to acquire it and make a park or maybe the State
' wants to make a... By making it A-2 you can reduce the amount of development
and also reduce the amount of traffic that passes there.
' Councilman Horn: I think the thing that broke the logic string for me was
allowing a nursery in there because that does cater more to a public type thing
and that's the one, as I think about what we tried to do, it doesn't make sense.
That's where I think we went across the line in what's reasonable. The others
' are not much traffic generaters but the nursery I think is beyond what we had in
mind.
' Councilman Boyt: The Planning Commission Minutes of May 18th, Barbara made the
comments that there are several possibilities here which certainly looking at
the Zoning Ordinance is a good one. One of the best things the City can do is
set appropriate zoning. She also mentioned though that let's consider other
approaches to some of the motivational issues here in the zoning. The traffic
issues for instance. We have occasionally heard discussion about a frontage
road. Is that ever realistic? How much is it going to cost if we do a frontage
road? It seems to me I've heard figures of $50,000.00 for a frontage road at
some time. Is it conceivable that we can consider that as an alternative? I
guess I'm saying, even if we rezone it we're still stuck with a huge problem
that we've already got in the amount of traffic that goes through that dangerous
section of highway. Are we better off to open our perspective a little bit and
look at how do we resolve the issues that we currently have and does that set us
up for a better future? I agree with you. You talk a lot about the nature of
that strip of property and all I'm asking is that when we look at our report,
consider the possibility of zoning it some other zone than what it currently is,
let's look at other options that would be some sort of a permanent fix.
Tim Erhart: I think Barbara had in her report suggesting about $500,000.00.
I Councilman Boyt: Regardless of the cost, I think we need to have that kind of
information. As Barbara mentioned, maybe those properties don't have the
capability of paying off that sort of assessment but we need to know that
because I think that has an impact on what kind of zoning is permissible. It's
' rather inappropriate to encourage any kind of business if we know we're never
going to be able to resolve the traffic problem.
' Barbara Dacy: Decide to build the new TH 212.
Councilman Boyt: Well, outside of building the new TH 212.
Acting Mayor Geving: I guess what you're saying is that we not only have, we
created the problem because of some of the businesses that we've let into that
area but what will happen in the interim between now and the time that we do
decide to take some action and we get 2 or 3 more applicants coming in here?
They have every right in the world to move ahead in that business fringe area
4 and develop. I'm not an advocate of moratoriums but I certainly wouldn't want
us to have a couple more applicants come in in the near future before we get
63
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
something in place if our desire is to '
that and take another look, we definitely wantttotbe able toe put yinapplace to stop
some
mechanism just to hold things as they are until we can get that done.
Tim Erhart: I was stunned when that retail or that landscape thing went in
there. I go and buy gas down there quite often and I tell you, you go in that
service station and try to make a left turn to get back to my house, it is
scary.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's almost impossible.
Tim Erhart: It's real scary. I think if we're going to let businesses down
there...
Councilman Horn: As far as making it work, I think it was just the last
individual. If you consider what was there before, a used car dealership, gas
station, to me those...
Acting Mayor Geving: Those were appropriate though in that area. They've been
there for years and they're going to stay there for years.
Councilman Horn: It's part of what we tried to do by resorting was to restrict
that. I think we lost sight of what we were doing with this nursery.
Barbara Dacy: At least you know that that's not going to go in there.
Councilman Horn: There's still a chance to tighten up. Whether we change it to
I!!
A-2 or even tighten up the business fringe even more to keep any kind of retail
out of there. ...and then we don't have the change of zoning type of taking
that people will complain about.
Barbara Dacy: I think the Attorney would agree that the moratorium option is
not a good one for the City to pursue and maybe we would need to look at the
language for the uses in the BF district. Outdoor display of merchandise for
sale is a very broad item. It could be trees, widgets or used cars or anything.
I will pursue from the Council's comments that you basically concur with the
Planning Commission's recommendation.
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that would be, at least what I've heard here.
Jay, do you agree that that's pretty much where we're going with this BF?
Alright. I don't know what you're looking for tonight Barbara. Just
concurrence on that issue?
Tim Erhart: I think the one question I'd like to have answered in my mind...to
revert back to the A-2. What is the real cost of liability? If somebody is
going to come in here and say hey, you guys are taking and I want thousands of
dollars.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's certainly possible.
Tim Erhart: Because I kind of think that question, to do it right, I think
that's what it's going to come down to. Is there a liability?
64 ,
City Council Meeting - 2 27, 1988 109
IActing Mayor Geving: You don't know if there's a liability until somebody lays
it on you.
Councilman Horn: You wonder if it's a legal liability and a moral liability.
' What damage are we actually doing to people from a land value standpoint for
instance? Obviously that's not a legal issue or may not be a legal issue but
' it's a moral issue for us.
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know if we made a mistake in rezoning the area
' like we did but I think we had good intentions. I think we had the best of
intentions. Based on all the discussion on where we were heading, it probably
seemed reasonable. What are you looking for tonight Barbara?
' Barbara Dacy: Basically whether or not you concurred with the Planning
Commission.
' Acting Mayor Geving: on the BF District, yes. Do we want to turn the coin
over now and talk about A-2?
' Tim Erhart: Regarding the long letter on the A-2. I think it's pretty simple.
I think in 1984 when we talked about contractor's yards and contractor's yards
is really the prime issue I'm trying to deal with there. I don't think anybody
envisioned in 1984 the development that we were going to see in south
Chanhassen. In 1984 it was still, I think perceived by most people on the City
Council as agricultural land. It's not agricultural land today. What you have
there in south Chanhassen is low density residential period. There are two
farmers left in south Chanhassen so I think we have to find some uses here that
' fit low density residential. Even if you believe that industrial uses is
- - compatible with agricultural land, it's not ag land anymore today. There are
houses all over the place and more coming in.
Acting Mayor Geving: And we knew that too when we started with some of our
sewer projects and so forth. We knew it was going to develop. Farmers would
I go.
Tim Erhart: But you probably didn't know how fast it was going to occur with
this change in the 1 in 10 which drove almost everybody to subdivide their land.
Councilman Horn: There was another thing that we tried to do there too and that
was to protect some of the small businesses. At that point the only option them
' had was to try to rent space in the industrial park or leave Chanhassen and we
didn't want that to happen. This is an interim type of use to try and keep
people in business until you're going to be forced out at some day. It really
put people on notice that at some time your operation is going to have to cease
and we're going to create a use for it in the agricultural area on an interim
basis. That's why they were all conditional uses because if they became a
' problem and over intensified, when they come up for review.. .
Acting Mayor Geving: That may be true but what we created was long term. Some
of these people that we thought were going to be an interim solution just to
keep them in business in Chanhassen, they not only have become a business but
they've expanded the business into the adding areas and I don't know how you
shut them down. We legitimized them. We had than come in and become formally
1
65
11
1 9 -
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
recognized as a business as a contractor's yard and if you don' t allow it, where
are you going to put them? There are more coming. There's going to be others.
Councilman Horn: We've approved every expansion.
Acting Mayor Geving: Sure we have.
Councilman Horn: But we don' t have to. When it becomes an over
intensification, shut them down.
Acting Mayor Geving: So people would I Pe P d say they belong in the industrial park.
Keep them in the industrial park. I don't know if we can. There is probably
twice as many construction yards out there that we don't even know about that
are working out of their yards and garages and so forth.
Tim Erhart: I think more important is you don't know when they expand. You've '
had 1 or 2 come in here asking for expansion, I'd be surprised because I live
next to two of them and they just sort of expand. One year they got a little
bigger and the next year.
Councilman Boyt: What's the possibility there Roger,
accurate means of keeping track of contractor's ya dsz e,, doowetinaeffect after
say they've been that large for a year, that we basically grandfathered them in
at that size?
Roger Knutson: No. It becomes a matter of proof. You have to prove what they 1
look like. that you approved when you approved them.
Councilman Boyt: How many trucks they had or whatever?
Acting Mayor Geving: Bill, what you have to do is ou
y almost have to take a
picture. A picture of the business as it existed on a given day. The guy owned
3 pick-ups, a Bobcat and x number of loads of rock and dirt and whatever and
that was his business.
Councilman Boyt: Do we have the capability of keeping track of the contractor's I
yards we now have?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, by site inspection.
Councilman Boyt: I mean realistically. We can do that?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: We're getting better at it?
Barbara Dacy: With the addition of Scott Harr, we are.
Councilman Horn: He has to inventory everything that he's allowed on a
conditional use permit.
Councilman Boyt: It seems to me that possibility the ordinance already contains
an effective elimination of additional contractor's yards if the Council simple
enforces what we have to work with. If we've got that they can't be within a
66 1
City Council Meeting - ,s a 27, 1988 µ'-
II r—
mile of each other, we've basically covered Chanhassen right now but do we have
the dedication of purpose to enforce that?
I Councilman Horn: I agree. I think it is controllable with what we have. If it
isn't being controlled, it's because we're not doing it.
Acting Mayor Geving: But what about some of the Planning Commission comments on
what should be in and what should be out? What should we exclude? That's part
of Tim's recommendation. Churches, public buildings should be in and he wants
' certain things out. Do you have any comment on that? Things that don't fit.
Councilman Horn: I have no problem with doing it. I think that what we're
talking about here has to do with contractor's yards as a conditional use but I
think there are. I think the list he's given us is more appropriate.
Tim Erhart: I guess the kind of commitment we're looking for is the general
comments, to look at the uses in the A-2 and come back... If there are a number
of uses that you'd like at a contractor's yard to mean...why don't we look at
them all.
' Councilman Horn: I might take exception to bed and breakfast though. I know
there's a proposal for the Assumption Seminary property to make it a bed and
breakfast and I think that's, I would love to see some type of good use made for
1 that property so this might be the excpeption to the rule.
Councilman Boyt: I think the work you put in on this justifies certainly
II 1 carrying it further forward. I think we would be very fortunate if other
Planning Commissioners would take on other zoning districts and do as thorough a
job as you've done with these. It's certainly a step forward and to have that
kind of dedication is great for the City. I would support it. I think you've
scratched the surface on a lot of tough issues and I'm not sure that I would
agree with everything you want to remove should be removed but I'd sure champion
your efforts.
Councilman Johnson: I'm in pretty well agreement here. Bed and breakfast, I
think some size restrictions, I think it's Northfield and a few other places
' that have some bed and breakfasts that are pretty large. They're small hotels
with 20-30 rooms and stuff like that so when we're talking about the lady down
on Bluff Creek who's got 4 or 5 rooms or whatever it is, that's one thing.
Pretty low intensive. I'm not too sure about temporary retail nurseries. If
' it's not in there, I think we should have the public in the final
recommendation. Public buildings.
Tim Erhart: Let me explain that one a little bit. The attempt there was to
allow enough people like the one here who came in here and filed with us.
Acting Mayor Geving: Natural Green?
Tim Erhart: Yes, the one that was going to replace. To somehow let them go in
on a temporary basis but when it was converted to a truly residential district,
that that permit would be automatically be removed. What you don't want them to
do is to go in and invest in a lot of buildings and permanent structures. Even
though you might want it now as a good thing for the City. What you don' t want
to do is go for the permanent...
67
1 2City Council Meeting - June~27, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know how
that. I like the idea of temporary but yIudon'thknow how you control wthat.doI
don't know if you can legally.
Councilman Horn: That's exactly our intent with contractor's yards.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think you've heard from us tonight. It's getting on to
11:30.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think retail, temporary or otherwise, is good down r
there. We say we don't want the book store down there. I just don't think
retail is good in the A-2. You attract too much traffic.
Acting Mayor Geving: Barbara, you heard from the Council tonight on some of the
direction. That we're basically saying, Tim has done a terrific job here and
you just need to fine tune it and come back to us. Thank you very much Tim. You
did a good job. And I would agree with Bill. I really personally like the idea
of Commission members taking on a task. I've always said that people who want
to take on a special assignment. Clark has always had an interest in our
vehicles for example. He just digs right into those. Those are special
assignments and I'd like to see people do that.
Barbara Dacy: I also think Mr. Erhart's enthusiasm is also reflected in the r
Commission's willingness to meet three times in July.
CITY COUNCIL SALARY SURVEY. r
Don Ashworth: You received this from the League of Cities and basically would
ask the City Council whether or not you wish to consider that at this time. If
there's other information that you would like to have before considering that
type of change. I should note that any action that the Council would take can
not become effective until after the next regular general election. Again,
there is no necessity to make comparisons but I anticipated the Council would
want to so I've included literally all size communities. I have also circled
those communities that I think are closer to ourself as far as the amount of
work effort that council members are required to go through. In other words,
Orono may be larger but I do not believe at the current time that the total work
effort of an Orono councilmember is anything close to what you are going through
yourselves.
Acting Mayor Geving: Or at Eagan or Eden Prairie. I think Eden Prairie, they
may be a lot bigger but I think in terms of the amount of effort in think in
this Council probably. Anyway, go ahead Councilmembers, give us your views.
Councilman Horn: I think the closest comparison we could come to would be
Chaska and we're right in line with them. It's my recommendation that we do not
change.
Councilman Boyt: I like the figures Don pulled together and I agree completely
L.!!with Clark. No change.
68 r
C0141- 1C-70r--3` 47
Council ?eeting August 1984 •
-8-
Paul Meld-left - It would be my understanding that we would agree to enter into a
very brier agreement with the City of Chanhassen that would basically describe the
other properties owned by them and state that they would agree that no building per-
mit as to construction of another dwelling could issued as to any of that property.
They would hope to some day improve the house in which they now live and I would
' assume that there would be no objection to that because they have all kinds of
square footage.
' Councilwoman Swenson - Should the Council agree with this, I think that the neigh-
bors and any interested people should be alerted to the fact that we feel or at
least I feel in looking at everything here that we would have very little legal
indication that we can not do this.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to grant a l foot side yard setback variance for each
side of the house, a 50 foot lot width variance, an 8,658 square foot lot area
variance, and 33 foot shoreland setback variance as requested for Lot 26, Block 1,
Red Cedar Point, L. 0. and Margaret Parsons, Planning Case 82-12. The owners will
enter into an agreement that states that no building permit will be issued for
' construction of another dwelling on any of their other property. Motion seconded by
Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman
igE Swenson and Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn voted no. Notion carried.
IPROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONTRACTOR'S YARDS AS CONDITIONAL USE
IN THE R-1A ZONING DISTRICT, FIRST READING:
Scott Martin - The intent is to allow through the conditional use permit mechanism
to look at each petition on a case by case basis as you would for any conditional
use. The City Attorney has recently advised me that his feeling of the ability of
the Council to deny conditional use permits was a little bit different than the pre-
vious City Attorney's and my own understanding in that you are more obligated to
issue unless there are really severe circumstances. With that, I guess, I feel a
little bit more comfortable because you are starting to a certain extent allowing
some industrialization in the rural residential areas. I don't think these are
appropriate in all locations. If you find a location or a specific proposal that's
not appropriate under the statute and under case law the City Attorney says you can
deny it and you are not obligated to issue a permit.
Councilwoman Swenson - I am confused again. I notice that the new revised zonin g
and subdivision ordinance draft is quoted here. I take great exception to this. I
' am terribly disturbed about that. For one thing this subject has informally come
before the Council as far as contractors yards and I remember when it was discussed
there was the possibility of doing this was mentioned and it was also advised that
' if it were that it should be confined by minimum acreage so that somebody with a
normal platted lot suddenly decided to start keeping his trucks around and run us
through the situation of having to defend our position. It seems to me that when we
are put in a position to request a conditional use permit that somebody should have
to prove to us that have a right to have it there. Not that we should defend our
right to say no you can't. I could not approve this without not having a minimum
acreage put in here with or without the conditional use permit. I would have to say
it would have to be at least a minimum of five acres to allow for screening of any
equipment.
Councilman Horn - Didn't we just hear though that the City Attorney says we can use
our discretion in any way we want to issue these. Screening may well be one of the
conditions.
Don Ashworth - We did talk to Roger and as you remember, it bame up with Natural
Green in terms of conditional use. There was discussion as to how we might amend
the ordinance at that point in time. We looked to a lot of conditions as a part of
' _
kV)
Council Meeting Aug) 6, 1984 -9- 1
the conditional use process. We got into a position that even with minimum size
that you could have a contractor's yard that the yard by itself was five acres and
five acre minimum really wouldn't mean anything for a buffer. Roger's suggestion
was just to leave it very simple and establish the conditions as you saw the par-
I ticular application come in. II
Councilman Horn - I think the intense of the use has some affect, too. If a guy has
10 trucks on five acres it might be worse than one truck on two acres. '
Councilman Geving - I am not so sure I would buy that idea of a minimum number of
acres. I kind of like the idea of having more general guidelines and we can be nor
flexible in our decisions.
Councilman Horn - I generally favor having things spelled out so that somebody
caning in will know what to expect. I think the conditional use is somewhat of a II
unique device and maybe that's why they include that type of device because things
can't be included but I agree with Pat in ordinance generation I like to have things
very c1Pa r cut and concise.
II Councilman Geving - What are you going to do even if we adopted something like this?
Do we go back to all of these and bring them into conformance? You know they are
not going to. I don't know the effect of this. I feel we need it for those few II
that we have.
Mayor Hamilton - What you are going to do is start driving them out of town. I
Councilman Geving - We need some allowance, some permitting process to allow them.
Councilman Horn - I agree. I think when you start getting more people that don't I
comply with the law than do comply with the law or at least a large number of people
who are not complying on an issue, re-evaluate the law and see if it still makes
sense and then if it still does make sense you enforce it and if it doesn't make
II
sense you change it. I agree that we need to have some provision for a large por-
tion of these people, again, based on no neighborhood complaints and that kind of
thing that we could allow them in.
Mayor Hamilton - I think generally these types of operations I
out in the country and they are not t YPe � ons want to be further y trying to disrupt anybody's lives.
Mayor Hamilton moved to place on first reading an ordinance amendment to allow II
Contractor's Yards as a Conditional Use in the R-1A Zoning District. Motion
seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
II
Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwoman Swenson voted no. Motion carried.
Councilman Horn - Are we going to go ahead and police this?
I
Councilman Geving - Let's say we pass this and we do have these identified
there is nothing wrong with sending out a letter stating that this isethe polite of
the City you now have an opportunity to come in and get a permit and be totally II
legal with the City ordinances. I think we need to give them the opportunity.
' Don Ashworth - It would establish a mechanism to measure how they are complying in II
the future so that if you have an approved plan and two years from now you are won-
dering if there is three more trucks there than there was in 1984 you have something
to go back and look at.
Councilwoman Swenson - What will you do with the ones that don't come in and not II
request a conditional use permit?
II
il
Council Meeting August() 1984
It -10-
Don Ashworth - Bring them back to the Council and make a decision whether or not you
IIwant to start prosecution.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPN BLVD. THE DALE GREEN COMPA :
I oScott Martin - In 1981 a permit wa u and I can't figure out under hat section
f
the ordinance. In fact the City issued an initial
the City adopted its current Zoning Ordinance. In 1971e the City19ssued aefiveyear
conditional use permit. When that was about to expire in 1976 the Council issued
II another conditional use permit for another five years. In 1981 the Council denied
it.
IMayor Hamilton - That was mostly for intensification of the use of the property.
Scott Martin - It never really was used. This has kind of gotten ahead of how the
II applicant and I had thought it would go. We had anticipated because of the nature
of this use and also because of the status of the amendment that you just acted on
first reading, we can't get the actual application ahead of the ordinance. When
this went to the Planning Commission it went there as kind of a sketch plan really.
' We meant to get your comments, Planning Commission, so that they could be incor-
porated into the site plan before you ask you to formally act on it and consequent)
send it to the City Council for a decision. The Planning Commission decided that we
don't want to see it again, two of them said we don't like it at all and two of them
I said it looks all right the way it is so it really comes to you without any clear
recommendation from the Planning Commission. I still have some concerns about the
extent of the proposed screening and berming and things that could and probably
I should be done to screen the operation. Cons
not take final action tonight but rather give us some my recce ndatllo is that e-u
loper an opportunity to hear your comments and get some direction before they aspen
I a lot more time on this because as we went into this again we anticipated some spend
controversy because it will be the first contractor's yard, legitimate one, in an
R-1A District.
I Councilman Gevind - I don't think it's fair to our citizens to have this come before
us before any of this has hit the newspapers.
II Scott :Martin - The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on this.
Councilman Horn - I have a real concern about just under general impressions, the
immediate effective screening is the terminology included on page 5 of the staff
I report. Trees don't grow overnight.
,
Herb Baldwin - I would be very hapII py ppy to tell you about the project understanding
that you would not have an opportunity to act on it tonight. I have prepared the
plans that are in front of you. I represent Mr. and Mrs. LaVerne Butler who are the
owners of Dale Green Company. They have owned the company since 1950 and they are
I landowners in the City of Chanhassen. The Council so felt it worthy of issuing con-
ditional use permits in the past. The use proposed is the processing of black dirt.
The site would not be mined in the process of mixing and blending the planting soil
or black dirt. Access to the site is proposed off of Galpin Blvd. The storage of
I equipment on the site would be parked behind the screened area which would be imme-
diately south of the existing barn and we would construct a berm which would cane
around to the east side between the screened area and Galpin Blvd. The barn is
I intended to be used for the maintenance of vehicles and covering of vehicles as
well. The house would be used for office space which is much like n [E
Company currently uses. The object here is to conceal this operati in Dale
II already a basic land confirmation which would allow us to do such, modify it so that
we have an area that we can work in and then intensify the screening making it mor
appropriate so that we are not adversely affecting the image of the City of e
IIChanhassen.
/ ---- -I:
C1TYOF / 0, i
c E A 2.. t 1/4\ ,.' % :.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P. • ,
T` 0. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
t (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM + II
TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission ;;.;e Submitted It) +.rr-irmss:,,.
FROM: Scott A. Martin, Community Development Director c;te fti',n;tted W Ct:t....4
DATE: July 19, 1984 II
SUBJ: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment #84-2 to allow
Contractor ' s Yards as a Conditional Use in the R-la Zoning
II
District .
The above described zoning ordinance amendment was initiated by II the Planning Commission at the request of The Dale Green Company
on June 27 , 1984 .
The Planning Commission discussed this issue during the prepara- ,
tion of the Revised Zoning Ordinance Draft . The Commission
decided at that time that illegal and non-conforming contracting
businesses known to exist in the R-la Zoning District should be
II
accommodated under the new Zoning Ordinance to the extent
possible , as opposed to strict enforcement of the ordinance.
This decision was made following the review of a "non-conforming
and illegal land use survey" prepared by City Staff in October,
II
1982 (see attached) .
Because of the nature of most contracting operations , the most I
appropriate method to allow contracting businesses in any zoning
district is as a conditional use permit. This approach gives the
City a great deal of discretion in the review and approval of II permit applications , according to the City Attorney, and provides
the city with a means to balance private business interests with
the need to protect the general public interest.
Since Contractor ' s Yards may not be appropriate in all locations II
within the R-la Zoning District , the City must retain the ability
to deny a specific application based primarily upon the standards
I
for the review of Conditional Use Permits contained in Section
23 . 06 of the Zoning Ordinance ( see attached) .
In the case of Contractor ' s Yards , conditional use permit appli- I
cations should involve consideration of the following factors :
1 . Size and nature of the operation, including the number of I
employees , type and number of pieces of contracting
II
o
I nhassen Planning Commission
my 19 , 1984
Page 2
I equipment used in the operation; hours of operation,
proposed buildings and land area to be utilized for the
business , traffic generated by the business etc .
2 . Location of the Business in relation to major thorough-
fares , residential uses , and other incompatible land uses
(either existing or planned) which may be adversely
affected by such an industrial operation.
3 . Visibility of the operation from adjoining properties and
' public streets . Screening of storage yards and related
business activities will likely be one of the most
important factors considered by the City in the review of
' site plans for contracting businesses .
4 . Potential environmental effects of the operation as it
' may impact wetlands , shoreland areas, flood plains ,
hillsides , air and noise quality, etc .
RECOMMENDATION
Should the Planning Commission decide to recommend approval of an
ordinance amendment to allow Contractor ' s Yards as a Conditional
' Use in the R-la Zoning District, staff recommends that the
Commission adopt a motion recommending that the following
language be added to the Zoning Ordinance:
Add the following language to Section 4 (Rules and
Definitions ) :
CONTRACTOR'S YARDS: An area or use of land where vehicles,
equipment or construction materials and supplies commonly
used by building, excavation, 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.
Add the following language to Section 6. 04 (Uses by
Conditional Use Permit - R-la Agricultural Residence
District) :
13. Contractor's Yard
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on this pro-
posed Zoning Ordinance Amendment on July 25 , 1984. On a motion
by J. Thompson , seconded by M. Thompson , the Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment as recommended
by City Staff (see attached minutes ) .
I
A B C
1 . 1 - - _ -7,--____ --,1 1 _ • 1 E F
,,,,, 1, ... ti:I. , g ,1`,-• . .C. ,' i..... '1 AV,I....% 11 ill," .4. ,,.....,14± .,;:„..wil-_-4..:.....
,4,;'•'4'":-.7.-"' •• !AA 'ffs* -;49'4Z-V"171.''...."-.".
1
I
"Itti f? 4
.. ,... ..
- ,iiii r (,,.,,,,. _ -7• IA. '-.-ro. ,
In 14066.7‘: I ' f, e, ,.!,i'. -- I
,/,
W.‘,:••. ,,,, .o> 7 . .§. --,;:,..:•A ).' lini___:44;t4,,t,',,c i„ ..'' .;_
far
\ 1,1 21 . .. .' \ ''' '''' ''''" (fL(-.4'911'' ": °''''-- I
VIVI,- --ir „_„,.,,,,-,.._....
/ 4 -
":,.'-.*:JAA,._-::\
OA
-,,,,, . ,• 4 ,.,,,,...\\,,,,:_,_
4411 1081 4.--.11 irkit.1,141N''..si‘-,a 4:.i frt. ,--ERIE 4fAirl--- .-
tre. ,.
... .,w,
•
° ......i., if,.
111111 Ir . ,.?...,, •,,....
, 2
- .
, -1, - if 5 itw.. i • • yetv__
. ,L4,.„,.., _.1 ,.„,„.1 , , 1 , ..
__ ..0kt.,,,l_re:..•• ,1 : ,...4 ,
____ 41
i :.• -agollutmo■. AI frill
.,-,_:..,
1,.,.....____...,, rlr' ,-,,...,._; __
A,.,..1, Nigtoirriwp--0-_, ...- ..
Riii.-_,..".PRIM' li..... 0 •
Illipip.o. -iElrillim,==.1 ,,,-----I"1,1,17! 3
_____ ■
C::::, rillr_,,,,,,tolw,„.„ ‘1,..c –- ...,„.6 —rip.iiii14.0 .4
4 _c_, • .11.--,s-■-' .._
- a*if 4ttIL"-o--=fdiyr-- -1 ' 7- -.4..71.--....6-k1 1 I -—
'4' :,..?.- ...,.
• __•• ., K-0.,,iii
I
.
,
..„.___
r
111:11111,iii- 14114 - '
...,
1 , 1
11111111111111--■ 7---- AM '
- —■ ....
■ ; At iik
A A. 414 b. _,....004.!' Llik, ",- -' --- 4
---- ,
CITY OF : rep...." _—.um.. , 1
—
,
CHANHASSEN woo--
? ' '.1
BASE MAP
___.....
1. •6.4
4 __
,.._
-- i--.44- Ngov,
4111414141 s. I
-../-0-
Lec-Acrou cr comx4c-1oz25 ...__ 1 , .--- ,
. ..
K.ILosi---..4-1 ___
—
,. - . __,.. 1 ' I .11
PREPARED BY. • a_h_ ....' ..
..— ,
'-[ -' "--- ? - y-T
CHAMIASSEN ENGINEERING DEPT. , -;\. ,. - 4§ ..1 *,,' -=..' ' r ..
..,-
REVISED JAN.,19417 ..____ i „-:•<...-.7;■;., ,,,, 1:. ,-LT , ,.,,, -.,. ! -
-• — I
. I
sea-- Li l•-119eff.ete,12) ! V\■ 1,, -LOX -_, •,44.%,....,•••• ',44.11"' --*•6:.°' ' I
sae--
recitEr .401. 1.16'7. 6
i --
..—.
,r- __ _ 1! 1_, II . .
____•
\t. ,.., ...... l I
P'4 .,....—.
,` . X __. ____ _______ _lik ,____
0 ''''- — .',/ . ir-f' ' '4411 ---..
I
____
1 -------,,, ? ,--
,
i 1
I
.. A-pcia--17 4 5
111
._..
Council Meeting January 7985 -11-
Mayor Hamilton - The preferred plan is the one that was presented tonight with the
western most road alignment.
illRandy Herman - We still need to go through those steps anyway , like Bill said.
That' s what I am really looking for tonight anyway is some direction, some idea of
what's preferable. It' s fine.
Mayor Hamilton - I 'll make that motion.
Councilwoman Watson - I' ll second.
Mayor Hamilton - Any further discussion. All in favor say aye.
Councilwoman Watson - Aye.
Councilwoman Swenson - Aye.
Councilman Horn - Aye.
Councilman Gevinq - Aye.
� Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Opposed? Motion carried .
(
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW BREAD AND BREAKFAST INNS AS PERMITTED USES IN
THE R-lA AGRICULTURAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE R-1 SINGLE
FAMILY DISTRICT: Marjorie Bush was present to explain her proposal to establish a
Bed and Breakfast establishment at 1161 Bluff Creek Drive.
Councilwoman Swenson - I have a question, in this particular instance I think we
have something that ' s unique but we do have areas where these things are applicable
so we are not saying no, we are not going to have them in Chanhassen but I have tre-
mendous reservations about this. If there is some way we can say yes, this is fine
and not establish a precendent but this is a unique situation, I don ' t have any
problem with this one. I have a problem with amending the ordinances to permit
these things either in the R-1A or the R-1 because I think that we don' t know how we
are going to be able to regulate the less than seven days , in any case five rooms
with two adults , we could walk into a beautiful potential boarding room situation
and boarding houses and we have no way to regulate it.
Barbara Dacy - If you desire that you would like individualized attention on each
bed and breakfast situation we could amend the ordinance to allow bed and breakfasts
as conditional uses instead of permitted uses. As far as the enforcement question
that you are having, the reason why we picked five rooms is because that matched the
occupancy threshold in the Uniform Building Code. If it' s over five then they have
to meet those extra requirements for a boarding house and rooming house and, there-
fore, there is more fire wall requirements and right on down the line.
Councilwoman Swenson - I would say one to three would be all right.
Councilman Horn - I think most of my concerns were covered under the recommended
sections of the conditional use permit. I did have one other concern and that is,
ildo the neighbors in the area know about this?
Barbara Dacv - No.
Councilman Gevinq - It' s the only dwelling between the railroad tracks and Highway
212 .
40
Council Meeting January 7, 1 -12- '
Councilman Gevinq - I kind of like the first part of some of these conditions on
page 3, like for instance, must be owner occupied . I kind of like that idea. This
is a unique situation that Mrs. Bush has here. It' s an old home. It has historic
Value to it. There aren' t many like it in Chanhassen and it's not a residential
area. I think we should treat it as a condition to the R-1A District. I don' t
:nderstand why there can be no more than one employee .
3arbara Dacy - We have addressed the owner occupied issue in the definition at the
oottom of page 3 . I believe the employee issue , we got regulations from Tucson ,
Arizona, to St. Paul to Savannah , Georgia, and that seemed to be a common require-
ment and I think the intent of that is to allow an operation at least one employee
but not if they are generating more than one employee then it may be construed to be
getting a little too commercial .
Councilman Gevinq - I like the idea of making this a conditional use under the R-1A.
and I would like to drop the R-1 issue entirely at this time.
Councilwoman Watson - I agree.
Councilman Horn - That also puts a cap on the use.
Councilman Gevinq - How about that six square feet, could we make that four square '
feet?
Marjorie Bush - You have to have something for people to find it. '
Councilman Horn - A lot of people have signs right out front of their house indi-
cating their name .
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to allow bed and break- r-
fast establishments as a conditional use in R-lA Agricultural Residence District
with the conditions:
1 . The structure meets all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements.
2 . The structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health .
3 . Two (2) offstreet parking spaces plus one (1) additional space per rental
room must be provided.
4. One non-illuminated sign may be erected on the property , not to exceed six
(6) square feet in size .
5 . There shall be no more than one employee in addition to the residents.
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson
voted no. Motion carried. '
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL NURSERIES AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE
R-1A DISTRICT:
Barbara Dacy - What is before you is another zoning ordinance amendment. The recom-
mendation
of the Planning Commission was to only allow wholesale commercial nur-
series. The commission desired that a clear destinction be made between a wholesale
commercial nursery and a retail commercial nursery which would deal directly with
the public. I tried to , upon their recommendation , do a little more research on
this topic and staff has come up with the definition that you have before which
strictly mandates that the plants grown on-site be sold in a wholesale manner . I
also pointed out that greenhouses were not recommended by the commission to be
included in their approval and further discussion with various nursery growers in a
wholesale operation greenhouses are normal accessory structure to begin the
seedings , etc. for trees , etc. and start them inside and then you move the plants
outside on the growing range. What you have before you are a couple of options.
The original application was for commercial nurseries and greenhouses including who-
lesale and retail. The Planning Commission recommended only commercial wholesale
nurseries.
C IT Yik OF -
I tobrry
1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
_
1 (612) 937-1900
I STAFF REPORT
TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission
I ^ , .
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner � = /. �J
DATE: December 6, 1984
1 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Bed and Breakfast
Establishments 1) as a Permitted Use in R-lA, Agricultural
Residence District, and 2) as a Conditional Use in R-1,
1 Single Family Residence District
PLANNING CASE: 84-6 Zoning Ordinance Amendment
IGENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant Marjorie Bush
IRt. 3, Box 72
New Prague, MN 56071
I Requested Action 1 ) To amend Section 6. 02 of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow bed and
breakfast establishments as a per-
t mitted use in the R-la,
Agricultural Residence District .
2) To amend Section 7. 04 of the
I
Zoning Ordinance to allow bed and
breakfast establishments as a con-
ditional use in the R-1, Single
IFamily Residence District.
Purpose The applicant is considering
I buying the property at 1161 Bluff
Creek Drive on the condition that
she can establish a bed and break-
fast establishment at the afore-
1 mentioned property.
Existing Zoning R-la, Agricultural Residence
ILocation 1161 Bluff Creek Drive , 1/5 mile
northwest of U.S. 212 and 1/10
I mile south of the Chicago &
Northwestern Railroad (see
attached location map) .
I
4
I
and Breakfast Establishment
December 6 , 1984 ,
Page 2
Size .91 acres '
Existing Land Use Single family residential
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning North: Agricultural; R-la
South: Agricultural; R-la
East: Agricultural , with single
family residence; R-la
West: Agricultural; R-la
Adopted Comprehensive Plan '
a. Land Use Plan: The site is outside the Urban
Service Area and is designated
Agricultural according to the 1990
Land Use Plan .
b. Transportation: The street abutting the property
is designated as a local street
and is unpaved. U.S. 212 which
lies mile south of the property
is designated as a minor arterial.
Zoning History On November 19 , 1984, the City
Council approved a proposal to
vacate a 7. 9 foot by 34 . 4 foot
portion of the existing home which
extends into the Bluff Creek Drive
right-of-way (see Attachment #2 ) .
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Public Utilities The site is not serviced by muni-
cipal water and sewer .
ANALYSIS '
The applicant is proposing to open a Bed and Breakfast establishment
in a home located at 1161 Bluff Creek Drive . The establishment
of a Bed and Breakfast is not provided for in the Zoning
Ordinance, therefore a zoning ordinance amendment is necessary.
The property is zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence and the land
is surrounded by agricultural uses with no other single family
residences nearby . The property abuts Bluff Creek Drive which is
unpaved and designated as a local street . The home has three ( 3)
floors , including an unfinished basement , and is made of Chaska
brick . The land was homesteaded arond 1865 and the applicant
will be applying for the property to be put on the National
Register of Historic Homes .
d Breakfast Establishment
mber 6, 1984
e 3
The property has been inspected by the State Fire Marshal , the
Chanhassen Public Safety Director and Building Inspector . It was
determined that the home met the NFPA Fire and the Uniform Building
Code requirements with the need for only a few minor adjustments (i .e.
smoke alarms , fire extinguishers and railings on the stairway) . The
property is serviced by a septic tank which has the capacity to meet
the proposed use .
In researching the regulations of other Bed and Breakfast establish-
ments throughout the United States , several requirements and zoning
regulations were found. The zoning regulations of Bed and Breakfast
establishments ranged from no requirements to requiring conditional
use permits in residential areas (see Attachments #4, #5 & #6) .
The most common requirements were as follows:
1. Three ( 3) to five (5) rental rooms allowed within the bed and
breakfast establishments .
2. Two ( 2) persons per rental room.
3. The bed and breakfast must be owner occupied.
4. Two ( 2) offstreet parking space plus one (1) additional space per
room to be rented.
5 . Meals shall be served only to residents and overnight guests .
6 . The bed and breakfast must be within the principle structure .
7 . There shall be no more than one (1) employee .
8. All building and fire code requirements for the level of occupancy
shall be met .
' According to the Uniform Building Code and the NFPA Fire Code, adopted
by the City of Chanhassen , a dwelling with up to five (5) rental rooms
and less than fifteen ( 15 ) non-residents falls under the definition of
a lodging house . A lodging house has the same fire and building code
requirements as a single family dwelling. Any structure exceeding six
(6) or more rental rooms is defined as a hotel/motel and would then
' constitute as a commercial use and have more restrictive fire and
building code requirements .
' Combining ,the requirements of the Building and Fire Codes of
Chanhassen with the requirements common to Bed and Breakfast
establishments , the Planning staff is defining a Bed and Breakfast as :
"An owner occupied principle dwelling in which five (5) or less
rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of less than
seven ( 7) days . Meals may or may not be provided to residents and
overnight guests . "
I
i
( 3
nd Breakfast Establishments
ember 6, 1984 1
ge 4
Because of the size of lots and distance between residences in the
R-la district , the Planning Staff believes the establishment of a bed
and breakfast in this district will not have an adverse impact on
surrounding properties . Because it will be limited to 5 rooms or
less , the nature of the use is such that it is merely a location for
overnight lodging and comparable to a single family residence. Any
increase in traffic and parking would have minimal impact in the R-la
district. Therefore , staff recommends that bed and breakfast
establishments be allowed as a permitted use in the R-la district.
Bed and breakfast establishments may also occur in the R-1, Single
Family Residence Districts . In these cases , a bed and breakfast might
have a greater impact on surrounding properties . For this reason,
staff recommends bed and breakfast establishments in the R-1 District
be allowed as a conditional use . This allows each case to be con-
sidered separately and any conditions deemed necessary can be
included. Applicants for a bed and breakfast in an R-1 District would
have to prepare a detailed site plan as part .of the conditional use
process .
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion :
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance i
Amendment #84-6 to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
1 . Section 6. 02 , Permitted Uses in the R-la District , should be ,
amended to read:
4. Bed and Breakfast Establishments subject to the following
conditions:
1 . The structure meets all Uniform Building and Fire Code
requirements.
2 . The structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota
Department of Health . '
3 . Two ( 2) offstreet parking spaces plus one ( 1) additional
space per rental room must be provided. '
4 . One non-illuminated sign may be erected on the property,
not to exceed six (6) square feet in size. '
5 . There shall be no more than one employee in addition to
the residents. "
2. Section 7. 04, Conditional Uses , in the R-1 Districts should be
amended to read:
13 . Bed and Breakfast Establishments " I
I
Al
u
I age emd r aka
Establishments
5
3 . Section 4. 02, Definitions ,finitions , should be amended to read:
"An owner occupied principle dwelling in which five (5) or less
rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of less than
seven ( 7) days . Meals may or may not be provided to residents and
' overnight guests . "
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On a motion by J. Thompson and seconded by Merz to recommend
approval of the amendment as staff recommended. J. Thompson ,
Merz , Conrad, Ryan and Noziska voted in favor. Albee and M.
' Thompson were opposed.
STAFF UPDATE
On December 12 , 1984, the Planning Commission approved to amend the
Zoning Ordinance allowing Bed and Breakfast Establishments as per-
mitted uses in R-la Districts with the following conditions:
1 . Section 6 . 02 , Permitted Uses in the R-la District , should be
amended to read:
4 . Bed and Breakfast Establishments subject to the following
conditions :
1 . The structure meets all Uniform Building and Fire Code
requirements.
2 . The structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota
Department of Health .
3 . Two ( 2) offstreet parking spaces plus one (1) additional
space per rental room must be provided.
' 4 . One non-illuminated sign may be erected on the property,
not to exceed six (6) square feet in size .
5 . There shall be no more than one employee in addition to
the residents . "
The Planning Commission also approved to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
' allow Bed and Breakfast Establishments as conditional uses in the R-1
Districts . No specific conditions were recommended by staff to
include in the R-1 District , as was done in the R-la, in order to
allow the city flexibility during review of an application . The
Commission , while approving staff ' s recommendation , directed staff to
investigate and recommend possible criteria for the R-1 District . The
Council could adopt the following language amending Section 7. 04
' Conditional Uses , in the R-1 Districts of the Zoning Ordinance to
read:
I
i
d Breakfast Establishments
ber 6 , 1984
e 6
13 . Bed and Breakfast Establishments including but not limited 1
to the following conditions :
1 . The structure meets all Uniform Building and Fire Code '
requirements .
2 . The structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota
Department of Health .
3 . Two ( 2) offstreet parking spaces plus one ( 1) additional
space per rental room must be provided.
4 . One non-illuminated sign may be erected on the property,
not to exceed six (6) square feet in size . 1
5 . There shall be no more than one employee in addition to
the residents . " '
The Planning Commission also requested staff to investigate the
appropriateness of allowing Bed and Breakfast Establishments in
Business/Commercial Districts . No cases of such zoning has yet been
found and staff is further investigating this subject .
REPORT ATTACHMENTS I
1 . Location of proposed Bed and Breakfast
2 . Photographs of proposed site
3 . City Council minutes dated November 19 , 1984
4 . PAS memo, Bed and Breakfast , dated October , 1982
5 . Zoning News , Bed and Breakfast Inns , dated April , 1984
6 . Presentation to City Planning Commission , City of St . Paul, regarding II
Bed and Breakfast Zoning Text Amendment , dated May 21 , 1984
7 . Planning Commission minutes dated December 12 , 1984
8 . Letter from Marjorie Bush, applicant ,
1
I
I
I
I
R / 1 L N1,l5 1 5
IIIIi/116
City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987
DISCUSSION REGARDING WHOLESALE/RETAIL NURSERIES IN THE RURAL AREA MAYOR
HAMILTON. — ,
7
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is a discussion item regarding a request by a
'�L' gentleman named Jay Kronick to put a nursery in the area and the piece of
- .
�4 property that he's looking at is the property that Dave Luse owns out here
II /,- .; west on TH 5 which is Natural Green Nursery. As you know Dave Luse, he
wants to move to Chaska or to a different location because he doesn't have
enough room here. Consequently he had talked to Jay Kronick who is here
I with us this evening. Jay lives in Baltimore, Maryland.
business in Washington D.C. and would like to move to Minneesotatandahave a
nursery so we have discussed this and I have talked to Jay many times about
II it and we wanted to just have a discussion with the Council to see if the
Council might be amenable to granting a variance or changing the Zoning to
allow retail on that parcel of property. What Jay is going to propose and
he can speak for himself in a minute, is that he would like to live on the
Iproperty. He would like to grow his materials on the property and sell them
on the property. Before he moves ahead with purchasing the property, I
thought it might be a good idea if he knew if he can do those things on the
I property so he doesn't all of a sudden own a piece of property where he
can't realistically sell off of. Dave Luse of course has a wholesale
operation and he has trucks and cars going in and out of there each day but
II on a wholesale basis. The trucks bring in his materials and they haul them
out for big jobs. Jay's would be more car traffic coming in to purchase
your shurbs for your yard or your fertilizer or your bedding plants in the
spring and would be that type of traffic so there would need to be some
E___
1 improvement to the access if we were to allow a bunch of use on that
property. Both getting in and getting out and Jay hasn't pursued that
further because he wanted to kind of get the feeling from the Council as to
I where we might stand on consideration of this item so Jay would you like to
make any additional comments?
Jay Kronick: Thanks for the opportunity to -speak before you this evening.
II think Tom has given you a good overlook of what I'm thinking of doing
there. However, I would not intend to grow all of my own nursery stock. I
I think that would be bring a lot of it in. In fact a lot of it initially,
raising nursery stock takes years and it's something I would start to get
into right away but whether it would be 2 years or 5 years or 10 before I
have anything available that I grew myself, that's up for question at this
I point. The lot is about a 5 acre parcel and I would propose using at the
most 1 acre for the retail operation and that would be the part fronting on
TH 5 on the southeast corner of the property.
residence and essentially agricultural garden lots.reThere are waucouple of
IIgreenhouses back there at the back end of the property. As far as the
physical structures on the property, I don't really anticipate any major
changes. The old Chanhassen Railroad depot is on the property now and if
II it's a suitable building, code wise and so forth and meets my needs as well
I would be interested in simply moving it closer to the road and using that
as a sales area and perhaps moving one of the greenhouses type structures or
I maybe putting another long but I'm not talking about increasing the physical
kE7
use of the property. The buildings that are there would remain perhaps just
a little bit of shuffling around on the site consistent with the local
II 50
1
City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987
•
/7/ 4110
ordin i and so forth. I think Tom mentioned that the nature of the
traffic would be different than what is presently on that site. Certainly I II would acknowledge the need to have a vehicle or two to move materials around
but something like what is existing on the site at present. The traffic
that I would anticipate would be highly seasonal for one. In the spring
certainly. Primarily on weekends and certainly access from the highway '
which is a busy one and I know you've got some concerns and plans down the
road, the traffic would move into a parking area on the property and they
would not be moving all around the property as I see it. I would intend to
II
live on the property. There is a residence there and that needs
improvements which I would make once I was assured of being able to proceed
with this and that's my intent to live and work on the same parcel.
Mayor Hamilton: I asked Jay not to bring any specific i
Y g y pecific plans. He's done a
few sketches that I've seen but I said really it's a question of whether or
not the Council would like to see or allow retail sales on that parcel. We II
would be kind of getting ahead of ourselves. If Jay were to hear some
favorable comments that he thought we might be able to have some retail
sales there then he would come back and show us how he would configure the
property and change the buildings around. II
Councilman Geving: I think my comment would be, some time ago we took Dave
Luse to court and negotiated a settlement whereby he could stay on that
II
property for 10 years. The 10 years will be up in I believe 1995 and at
that time we were hoping that our development of the city would be moving to
the west and that there would be commercial development probably filling in II that area to the west of Lake Ann and further west even than that but that
was why we agreed on a 10 year period so I don't know how I personally feel
about amending zoning and looking long term. I suspect once you moved in II there your intention would be to be in the wholesale/retail tree business
for quite a long time.
Jay Kronick: I think it would be the retail end of it and not the I
wholesale. I would not intend to sale wholesale. There are certainly
enough growers in the area who are doing that kind of thing and where I see
the market need in this area would basically be a retail operation. I
Councilman Geving: Like a Frank's.
Jay Kronick: I make a distinction from Frank's in that it wouldn't be quite I
on the scale, different quality.
Councilman Geving: You're talking more about landscaping type trees like I
they have now out there with the Blue Spruces?
Jay Kronick: You talk big trees and then you start talking about heavy
II
equipment and I'm looking in more the types of things homeowners can come
out and buy themselves. Plants in 5 gallon containers. Bedding plants.
All the gardening supplies.
II1 Councilman Geving: Who owns that property directly west? Does anybody
�. know? Where you see all these trees? Is that Gore who has put all those
II
51
r® r
11,11,'/////:////C/i/tfy Council Meeting - August 3, 1987
trees in?
[-
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
' Councilman Geving: Okay, so the area would be confined to just the basic
Dave Luse property from the Ray Kerbers over to Gore's property line?
' Jay Kronick: Yes.
Councilman Geving: I don't know. I don't know how the Planning Commission
or anybody else could look at this in terms of long term plans for the City.
How is it zoned now?
Barbara Dacy: It's zoned RR.
Councilman Geving: But wasn't it our plan though Barb that someday that
would probably be commercial along there?
Barbara Dacy: Let me just say that the RR district was created, it's
boundary was created consistent with the boundary of the service area of the
Lake Ann Interceptor knowing that that area would be served and that there
would be residential development. There has not been specific plans or
consideration that I'm aware of by the Planning Commission in looking at
what types of land uses should occur where. In order to accomodate the
type of retail use that is being proposed, a zoning ordinance amendment for
a garden center would have to be proposed in the RR district.
Councilman Boyt: Dale, I'm amazed at your memory about something that
happens so long ago. If you're looking at 1995, I think what I hear Dale
saying is that in 1995 something drmatically different could happen to that
piece of proprty. Is that right?
' Councilman Geving: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: So I gather regardless of our feeling about whether this
' is a retail possibility right now that everything changes 7 years down the
road.
' Jay Kronick: If Mr. Luse continues to own the property.
Barbara Dacy: The terms of the settlement agreement is that it can continue
the following described business operation by the subject property until
January 1, 1995 or until the property is sold, whichever first occurs. Now
landscaping contractor yards are a conditional use in the A-2 district but
again, contractor yards are not conditional use in the RR nor the garden
1 center type of usage which he is proposing.
Councilman Boyt: I think we've seen in Eden Prairie that a garden center
holds a piece of ground until it becomes too valuable and then you get a
shopping center there or whatever. We're talking about this being next to
possibly single family residential of some sort, is that right? Dale says
LEE
commercial development but it's currently zoned for that kind of thing.
52
85 1
/i1(////////(City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987
1
Barbara Dacy: It's for large lot.
Councilman Boyt: Large lot but not commercial. II
Barbara Dacy: As an interim basis until the Lake Ann Interceptor can be
II
hooked into.
Mayor Hamilton: I think you need to consider, it sits on TH 5 and TH 5 is
going to be widened someday and that's the type of development that follows
II
along the highway is generally not residential right on the highway.
Councilman Boyt: I'm pleased to hear you say that TH 5 is going to be
II
widened someday. I think we're moving in the right direction. I would sure
like to hear the issues flushed out on this thing. I think the Planning
Commission is the place that does that. I really have no feel for the
IIbackground here. I trust what Dale has said so I can't give you much
insight about where I would come down. It's an interesting idea.
Jay Kronick: You're concerned that I move in there, I work the property for 1
5 to 10 years and land values jump and I move out and put in a shopping
center?
Councilman Boyt: No, that's really not my concern. That I'm okay with. My 1
concern is right, the situation as it stands right now and is this something
that we want to do as a city. Actually I don't know.
Councilman Johnson: I have thought personally about this area and future, II
if and when other major highways are built, is what we're planning
reasonable for that area and I've always thought that we should be looking
II
better at what should be going in there. The Pryzmus area and these other
areas, he's trying to get a commercial use into the RR, or not he's across
the street from RR. He's off in A-2 again but I personally don't have a lot'
II
of, I think it's a reasonable use on a major highway. Put a garden center
up on Galpin or off of 67th Street or Lake Lucy Road, other places within
the RR district I think would not be appropriate but off of the major
highway there, I think retail is more appropriate. There would be some
II
costs I believe in putting a turn lane coming on so the roads aren't slowing
down and stopping on TH 5 before turning in.
Jay Kronick: I had that problem myself when I'm trying to visit the II
property.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I got rear ended less than a year ago so I'm very 1
cautious about places where you slow down in front of people who are going
fast. My personal feeling is that whole area along Th 5 should be looked
at as to what the near term and long term uses should be. Not necessarily
II
just this one property or if we do have a change to allow retail businesses
within RR districts, that that should be confined only to RR districts with
access to certain types of roads so we don't get a garden center or a II.1 convenience store or whatever out on Lake Lucy Road or 67th Street or
A Tanadoona or someplace like that. That's the way I feel. I think it's
5 appropriate at that area but I agree with Bill, I think the Planning
1
53
i
City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987
Commission is a good place to look at that.
Councilman Geving: I think eventually we're going to have a strip all the
way from downtown Chanhassen to TH 41. Pretty well filled in with
commercial development. Small businesses, offices, whatever. I just think
it's going to be a natural progression. Maybe it will work out from TH 41
and work backwards, I don't know but I see that whole corridor as being
built eventually.
Mayor Hamilton: That's true and I like the idea of having a garden store
in town, as Jay knows. We don't have a nursery here. We have to go some
distance to buy plant materials and plants and bedding plants and everything
in the spring and I certainly like to see one in town, especially where the
person who is going to operate it is going to live in your town right on the
property. There is also the possibility, if the Council or the Planning
Commission were not to want to see retail sales off of there, I think Jay
has other option to still do some growing there and to live there and to
have another location for his retail.
Jay Kronick: Obviously it increases cost to operate two sites at once.
' Councilman Geving: It might be a better alternative though Jay for a short
term operation. Short term, I'm always speaking in terms of 10 years.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess it's hard to tell the way the town is growing so
fast how quickly we're going to develop the area out there. The MUSA line
has to change before we can do anything with it and it's supposed to be the
year 2000. Whether or not it goes that long, who knows. We continue to try
' and change that but right now it doesn't look too promising but I think
that's a nice use for that land. He would just be growing plant materials
and plants there, I think it's a nice use of the land.
Jay Kronick: It consistent with the existing use of the land.
Councilman Geving: It is consistent but I think Bill it right on the head,
it's just like Dale Green and some of the others that we've seen, when their
properties became so valuable to them, it was easier to sell and put a bank
building in and move on further west than it was to continue in the nursery
business. On the short term, as long as you understand that's the economics
of it and someway you could come in, 5 years from now and say I'm getting
out of this business, I've just moved out. I'm moving onto Cologne.
1 Councilman Johnson: Could I ask you a question, the lawsuit that you
referred to earlier, what was the basis and what were we trying to stop or
prevent? Were we trying to prevent retail or what?
' Councilman Geving: We were trying to prevent the Dave Luse operation from
existence.
Barbara Dacy: At that time contractor's yards were not a permitted use, or
I should say a conditional use.
54
1871
City Council Meeting - August 3, 1987 II Councilman Geving: We had a different set of rules too. I
Mayor Hamilton: Dave Luse is, in my opinion a hell of a nice guy and he
just kind of goes along. He's kind of like Pryzmus only not as outspoken.
The rules apply to everybody else except him and he was a council person in '
Victoria for a number of years. He started his operation here and he just
kind of kept growing with it and we would tell him he can't do it and he
would say oh, okay. The next time you went out there he grew some more so II it just kind of drifted on and it got out of hand and we ended up taking him
to court a few times. He really is a heck of a nice guy, he just couldn't
stop growing was his problem. He had a good business and it was going like II crazy. It still is. I don't know if that helped you a lot Jay. I had
hoped we would get more specific yes or no. When does the Planning
Commission meet again Barbara?
IIBarbara Dacy: He hasn't made application.
Mayor Hamilton: I just asked you when the Planning Commission met. I
Barbara Dacy: The second and fourth Wednesdays of every month.
Mayor Hamilton: I was wondering what date that was. I
Councilman Johnson: Can they consider the same way we considered it?
Informally discuss it without an application to give Jay a feel?
I
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: Jay is going to be here for a couple of weeks so you may I
have the opportunity to get on the agenda and just discuss it with them and
get their feelings also.
II
( i DISCUSSION OF PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 7 AND TH 41, MAYOR
HAMILTON. r- II
Mayor Hamilton: This is a piece of property that :we've looked at a few
times previously at the Council. The applicant would like to develop the
property and the homeowners in the area continue to fight the retail
II
development of the property, in fact, almost any development of the
property. So I had told Tom Wartman and Todd Thompson that we would be
happy to have the Council give their views on that intersection one more II time to see if there is any sentiment for retail which they are proposing,
what seems to me to be the reasonable way to develop that corner. The
property is currently zoned primarily for commercial use which is office
buildings aryl other ;ucn .,tru;:tures. At t::c present time II
5` :ne the market
in very good share :cr office ..,:i ldir. :s .,ni : t:�:n . the applicants is not e
a �locxj c:;;�.� = _ 1;,; . . . .'•, � `. plicants may have
put �'.L _ cf, n ; v i it _ � t.�..:f n t „i nee hw can't use the
pu :r . -.r t', .:0 t:lev .•:n 1:ie it.
:�, y can build property,
builJ:n apartment II
` . t:'.-re :i1 ' r. _ m .f t npt•; .1rd lose all their money
doesn't .�T A to Y which
them .:i then. .-) I :1.7d told them that'3we to do and would discuss it again and for
II
55
II
IICounr.il Meeting January 7, 198 12-
II _auncilman Gevinq - I kind of like the first part of some of these conditions on
;;age 3 , like for instance , must be owner occupied . I kind of like that idea. This
is a unique situation that Mrs . Bush has here . It' s an old home. It has historic
:slue to it. There aren ' t many like it in Chanhassen and it ' s not a residential F
IIarea. I think we should treat it as a condition to the R-1A District. I don' t
understand why there can be no more than one employee .
II 3arbara Dacv - We have addressed the owner occupied issue in the definition at the
3ottom of page 3 . I believe the employee issue , we got regulations from Tucson,
Arizona, to St. Paul to Savannah , Georgia, and that seemed to be a common require-
, lent and I think the intent of that is to allow an operation at least one employee
out not if they are generating more than one employee then it may be construed to be
getting a little too commercial .
IICouncilman Gevinq - I like the idea of making this a conditional use under the R-1A.
and I would like to drop the R-1 issue entirely at this time.
Councilwoman Watson - I agree.
II
Councilman Horn - That also puts a cap on the use.
II Councilman Gevinq - How about that six square feet, could we make that four square
feet?
II ,Marjorie Bush - You have to have something for people to find it.
Councilman Horn - A lot of people have signs right out front of their house indi-
cating their name.
31 Mayor Hamilton moved to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to allow bed and break-
fast establishments as a conditional use in R-1A Agricultural Residence District
I with the conditions:
The structure meets all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements.
2 . The structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health.
I 3 . Two (2) offstreet parking spaces plus one (1) additional space per rental
room must be provided.
4. One non-illuminated sign may be erected on the property , not to exceed six
II (6) square feet in size.
5 . There shall be no more than one employee in addition to the residents .
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson
IIvoted no. Motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL NURSERIES AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE
IR-IA DISTRICT_
Barbara Dacv - What is before you is another zoning ordinance amendment. The recom-
mendation of the Planning Commission was to only allow wholesale commercial nur-
series. The commission desired that a clear destinction be made between a wholesale
II commercial nursery and a retail commercial nursery which would deal directly, with
the public. I tried to , upon their recommendation, do a little more research on
this topic and staff has come up with the definition that you have before which
IIstrictly mandates that the plants grown on-site be sold in a wholesale manner . I
also pointed out that greenhouses were not recommended by the commission to be
ill
included in their approval and further discussion with various nursery growers in a
wholesale operation greenhouses are normal accessory structure to begin the
IIseedings, etc. for trees, etc. and start them inside and then you move the plants
outside on the growing range. What you have before you are a couple of options.
The original application was for commercial nurseries and greenhouses including who-
' lesale and retail. The Planning Commission recommended only commercial wholesale
nurseries.
Council Meeting January 01985 -13-
Councilwoman Watson - What they want is strictly a wholesale? ,
3arbara Dacy, - Yes. The applicant , his particular intention was a wholesale,
however, in researching this type of use in zoning ordinances usually commercial
nurseries can include wholesale and retail .
Councilwoman Watson - There is retail mentioned on this application.
Barbara Dacy - Mr. VanHoff is here and he can address you.
Mark VanHoff - I would like to only say this, that when we visited with the Planning
Commission they were having a real hard time conceptualizing how we could wholesale
and not retail. As I visited with Barb there is a real easy way to get around that
in the nursery industry and it's very common and that is you require your client to
have a nurseryman's license. That' s very standard in the industry. It would be a
requirement of ours since both Jim and I are currently selling nursery stock to
retailers and landscapers. To protect our selling image and reputation we can' t
very well compete with the people we are selling. Our operation would not be a
Halls type nursery. It would not be a Natural Green type landscape yard. It would
be like a Hartmann Tree Farm if you are familiar with that where the product is
grown in the ground. As alluded to by Barb's comment, it' s an agricultural program.
I would think it would behoove the area to have a crop that instead of being har-
vested on an annual basis is harvested on every four or five year cycle. You have
less equipment around. You have less fertilizer application. You have less noise.
You have more aesthetic product in the ground.
Councilwoman Watson - How much truck traffic would you project that would be
generated by your business?
Mark VanHoff - Currently, on just a rough estimate, there is probably 30 garden cen-
ters in the Twin City area. There are probably another at the most 100 licensed
landscapers of which as they are currently doing business with rewholesalers, maybe
come in on a once every two week basis. They come in and pick up their products for
a landscape job, the go out and do their job. I can ' t really answer that question
other than you are looking at maybe seven or eight customers dropping in a day . '
Councilwoman Watson - You don' t do any storage of black dirt or any of those kind of
things?
Mark VanHoff - There would probably be black dirt only from the standpoint of when
you dig the trees. The customer that would come to us has already got a plan sold.
He needs the product to put in the ground.
Councilman Gevinq - I need to know more about the storage of vehicles and what kind
of building you might put up. I understood from what I have read that there would
be a sales building. Could you describe some of the buildings that will go on this
particular piece of property?
Mark VanHoff - Currently , the property that we are looking at has adequate buildings '
for the entire operation. That sales building came out of a question regarding how
are you going to sell your product. What we are going to have to have a sale
building. What it is currently is the home. It would be an office where people
would check in and solicit the order, go out, fill the order and then leave.
Currently there is a house . There is a brick, I believe it was an old milk shed
F used as a garage now that can be adequately used as a building for a sales office .
There is a barn and there is three storage garages which could very easily take care
of all of the equipment.
1
Council Meeting January 785 411
-14-
Councilman Horn - I don ' t see much difference in this operation and any other farm
3peration that goes on. They have the same type of machinery . In fact you may not
take your crop off quite as often . I think it' s a perfectly acceptable type of use
for that area.
Councilwoman Swenson - I think Dale covered pretty well covered me concerns which is F-
I certainly wouldn ' t want to see a lot of equipment sitting around out in the yard
or having it look like a contractor ' s yard. I am also very much concerned and you
all know that Highway 101 leaves something to be desired as far as the pavement is
concerned. The State has given us no indication that they will do anything to main-
tain that road. I am concerned with heavy equipment going over that road.
' Councilman Horn moved to approve the zoning ordinance amendment to allow wholesale
commercial nurseries as a conditional use in the R-lA District. Motion seconded by
Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
REVIEW REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR OPT-OUT PROGRAM, MTC:
Barbara Dacy - Before you is the proposed draft that the MTC Opt-Out Advisory
Committee is proposing to send out to a list of transit consultants to generate some
response on local transit system in Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie , and Shakopee
area. I am bringing this to your attention just as the other members of the commit-
tee are, so that you are aware of this committee ' s activities and that you act to
accept and approve the draft as proposed.
' Mayor Hamilton moved to accept and approve the draft as proposed. Motion seconded by
Councilwoman Watson . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen
' Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
DOWNTOWN SIGN REQUEST:
2arbara Dacy - Mr. Weidner and Mr. Anderson made a request to redesign the downtown
' sign that the City has at the corner of Highways 5 and 101. City staff went ahead
and asked for proposals from six sign companies and we have three responses. The
Nordquist Sign Company , I still haven ' t received their proposal yet. However , what
staff is recommending is that a special committee of any number of Council members
and members of the Chamber and these proposals reviewed and a recommendation made to
Council as to go ahead and try to redesign the sign or leave it alone or explore the
various options. Their main concern is as Mr. Anderson said , a lot of dinner theatre
' customers are getting lost . They feel there could be better signage to the downtown
area and the existing sign only has one side of copy so a redesign may appear
feasible.
' Mayor Hamilton - I had thought that the Chamber would get a little more active in
this seeing as how the function of that sign is really for Chamber members .
Barbara Dacy - The have indicated they will do cost sharing.
Mayor Hamilton - I had talked with them and said you ought to run this through the
' Chamber and get some ideas from the Chamber people. After all this sign is to repre-
3ent the businesses and they should be more involved than us really . I don ' t think
anybody from the Council needs to be on that committee but it would certainly seem to
me that there should be a little more imagination shown.
councilman Gevinq - Personally , I would be just as pleased with a nice sign with a
Chanhassen logo and it says "welcome to Chanhassen" as anything else. Let ' s get the
Chamber involved in this one.
r C C ii
Planning Commission Minutes
December 12 , 1984
II
Page 5 ,
2 . Section 7. 04, Conditional Uses , in the R-1 Districts should be
II
amended to read:
13 . Bed and Breakfast Establishments "
3 . Section 4. 02 , Definitions , should be amended to read:
"An owner occupied principle dwelling in which five (5) or less
II
rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of less than
seven ( 7) days . Meals may or may not be provided to residents and
overnight guests ." ,•.; \ ;, 11
J. Thompson , Merz, Conrad, Ryan and Noziska voted in favor .
Albee and M. Thompson opposed. Motion carried.
II
M. Thompson and Albee felt that there were other zones and rami-
fications that have not yet been considered. The changing of the
ordinance is much broader than just the residential districts .
II
Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #84-7 to allow
commercial nurseries as conditional uses in the R-la,
Agricultural Residence District , Mark VanHoff, applicant II
Public Present
Mark VanHoff applicant I
Dacy stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning ordinance
II
amendment to include commercial nurseries in the R-la district.
She stated that the ordinance now provides for greenhouses as an
accessory use to a private residential use and prohibits such a II use as a principal use of land. She also noted that there was no
provision for a wholesale or retail nursery where goods are sold
on the premiese and retail traffic is generated. She stated that
because of these provisions Halla Nursery and the Holasek I
greenhouse are considered non-conforming uses . She stated that
commercial nursery activities may include growing ranges ,
greenhouses , a sales building and accessory buildings . She
II
stated that by allowing commercial nurseries as conditional uses
this would require site plan review with a public hearing process
which would give the City the opportunity to impose appropriate II conditions on the site plan .
Mark VanHoff stated that this is a cash crop meaning it would
take less equipment to maintain it and that it would be less of
II
an eye sore in that it there would be no manure or fertilizers .
He stated that it takes from 4 to 5 years to harvest it . He also
stated that he was not going to retail , it would be a growing
II
nursery, and shipped out and sold when the crop was mature.
Noziska moved, seconded by Albee to close the public hearing .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
C E1JT --ti-1/- I
1 E
' Planning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1984
Page 6
1
Ryan asked what type of equipment would be used in this type of
' operation .
Jim Wilson , a partner of Mark VanHoff, stated that he felt it was
' very unusual that they have to go through this process . He
stated that instead of growing corn , beans or hay they would be
growing trees . He stated that basically the equipment used would
be tractors , cultivator, a mower , a tree spade, and a couple of
' pick-up trucks .
Ryan asked if the trees would be sold in place.
Jim Wilson stated that they will harvest the trees themselves .
Ryan asked what the difference is between this operation and
Natural Green .
Dacy stated that Natural Green is a landscaping contractor ' s yard
' activity and they have a settlement agreement to continue until a
certain date in time. She stated that landscaping contractor ' s
yards are now allowed as conditional uses under the definition of
Ia contractor 's yard that was recently passed.
Conrad stated that the way the recommendation reads , commercial
nurseries and greenhouses , they could carry on sales activities .
Dacy stated yes retail and or wholesale activity.
' Conrad asked why should we allow that .
Dacy stated that , as the applicant pointed out, it is an agri-
cultural activity and you are more or less just selling the
crops .
Mark VanHoff stated that we are not like the Natural Green opera-
tion. He stated that there would be no retailing at all. They
want a sales building just to have some place for their customers
to conduct business .
Dacy stated that as it exists now, there is no provision in the
ordinance to allow for commercial nursery and greenhouses . She
stated that this can occur in the R-la area and it can be coin-
!' patible to adjacent uses and by amending the ordinance it would
eliminate the non-conforming status for Halla Nursery and Holasek
operation . She added that then the applicant would have to sub-
mit a specific site plan , showing grading , location of buildings
and where he is going to keep the nursery stock, driveways , and
access .
11-
Planning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1984
Page 7
The Commissioners felt that they want it stated in the amendment
that they did not want to allow future applicants to carry on an
operation that would allow them to put up a retail sales outlet
which would require large parking lots.
Ryan asked if this ordinance amendment qualifies Halla Nursery and
Holasek for a conditional use permit.
Dacy stated that the same approach that that was used for
contractor 's yards could be used in this cases . She also stated '
that a definition for commercial- nurseries and greenhouses could
be devised so that retail activity is clearly related to the
selling of the product on site.
Albee moved, seconded by Conrad to recommend approval of Zoning
Ordinance Amendment #84-7 to amend Section 6. 04 of the Zoning
Ordinance, conditional uses in the R-la District, as follows : '
14 . Wholesale commercial nurseries .
J. Thompson , Merz , Albee, Conrad and Noziska voted in favor . '
Ryan and M. Thompson opposed. Motion carried.
Ryan stated that the amendment brings in the category of commer-
cial
into a residential agricultural district . He stated that we
can ' t control the size or traffic from it . He stated that there
there are places where these operations are allowed and they
should not be allowed in that zone .
M. Thompson felt that we are going to establish conditional uses
then we should set up some guidelines so that the City staff
can determine what criteria would be acceptable.
PUD Sketch Plan Review #84-2: Planned Unit Development request '
to subdivide a 12 acre parcel into four lots on property zoned
R-la, Agricultural Residence , and located on the Ches Mar Farm
property west of and adjacent to Hwy. 41 just north of Camp
Tanadoona, David C. Bell Investment Company, applicant .
Olsen explained that the applicant is submitting for informal
review a proposed four lot planned residential development on 12
acres now zoned R-la . She stated that the existing structures
and density will remain the same and no additional development
will occur . She stated that the two family and multiple
dwellings were in existence before the adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance thus making them non-confomring uses . She added that
the applicant states that these are now rental properties and
wants them under individual ownership for better maintenance in
the future . She stated that the Herman house will be moved onto
'� the property where a duplex has been removed. She added that the
each proposed lot will be serviced by its own septic sytem and
1
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CIT: ..OUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 21 , 1985
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened the meeting with
the Pledge to the Flag.
iMembers Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson
Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving
Staff Present
' Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy,
Bill Monk, Roger Knutson
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda as presented
with the addition of discussion on Council Goals and the Fire Department. Motion
seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
' Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to
the City Manager' s recommendations:
a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Allowing Bed and Breakfast Inns as Conditional Uses
in the R-1A District, Final Reading.
' b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Allowing Commercial Wholesale Nurseries as
Conditional Uses in the R-1A District, Final Reading.
c . Approve Extension of Dypwick Grading Permit.
' d . Resolution Regarding Banking Procedures. RESOLUTION #85-
Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes.
' Motion carried.
SIGNS, D.J. AUCTION: Mr. Duane Harder appeared before the Council seeking approval
to install signs at his place of business at 571 West 78th Street. He was
' instructed to see the City Planner and fill out the appropriate sign permit applica-
tion.
PUBLIC HEARING
TRI-PROPERTIES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. John Przymus was present.
Councilman Gevinq - I was looking for the DNR letter dated October 25, 1982, that
was referred to three or four times in the correspondence . I don' t recall that
' letter specifically but I understand it was the basis from which we made one very
important condition to this property . I would like to have the letter included with
our packet because I think it tells us. exactly what not to do with that wetland
area. It was my understanding that we had to stay back from that approximately ten
feet or so, so that we would not disturb that wetland . I remember ,that and I know
it was built into the conditions in many different places and forms and now I see
that has been violated apparently .
1 Bill Monk - The condition concerning the ten foot from the creekbed that runs along
the north side of the property , that portion of the condition has not been violated
but the condition that the wetland itself, the lowlands, down in the northwest
corner of the property be nothing more than mowed and seeded, which was found to be
acceptable by DNR in that letter, is the condition that' s in question.
Council Meeting January 7 , 1981_ '
-12-
_ouncilman Geving - I kind of like the first part of some of these conditions on
nage 3 , like for instance , must be owner occupied. I kind of like that idea . This
?s a unique situation that Mrs. Bush has here . It's an old home. It has historic
,slue to it. There aren ' t many like it in Chanhassen and it' s not a residential
area. I think we should treat it as a condition to the R-lA District. I don' t
.:nderstand why there can be no more than one employee.
3arbara Dacy - We have addressed the owner occupied issue in the definition at the
aottom of page 3 . I believe the employee issue, we got regulations from Tucson,
Arizona, to St. Paul to Savannah , Georgia, and that seemed to be a common require-
ment and I think the intent of that is to allow an operation at least one employee
out not if they are generating more than one employee then it may be construed to be
getting a little too commercial.
Councilman Gevinq - I like the idea of making this a conditional use under the R-lA.
and I would like to drop the R-1 issue entirely at this time.
Councilwoman Watson - I agree.
Councilman Horn - That also puts a cap on the use.
Councilman Geving - How about that six square feet, could we make that four square
feet?
;lar,jorie Bush - You have to have something for people to find it. 1
Councilman Horn - A lot of people have signs right out front of their house indi-
cating their name .
,Mayor Hamilton moved to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to allow bed and break-
fast establishments as a conditional use in R-lA Agricultural Residence District
with the conditions:
1 . The structure meets all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements.
2. The structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health.
3 . Two (2) offstreet parking spaces plus one (1) additional space per rental
room must be provided.
4. One non-illuminated sign may be erected on the property , not to exceed six
(6) square feet in size .
5. There shall be no more than one employee in addition to the residents.
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving, The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson
voted no. Motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL NURSERIES AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE
R-1A DISTRICT: — —'
Barbara Dacv - What is before you is another zoning ordinance amendment. The recom-
mendation
of the Planning Commission was to only allow wholesale commercial nur-
series. The commission desired that a clear destinction be made between a wholesale
commercial nursery and a retail commercial nursery which would deal directly, with
the public. I tried to , upon their recommendation , do a little more research on
this topic and staff has come up with the definition that you have before which
strictly mandates that the plants grown on-site be sold in a wholesale manner . I
also pointed out that greenhouses were not recommended by the commission to be
Included in their approval and further discussion with various nursery growers in a
wholesale operation greenhouses are normal accessory structure to begin the
seedings, etc. for trees, etc. and start them inside and then you move the plants
outside on the growing range. What you have before you are a couple of options.
The original application was for commercial nurseries and greenhouses including who-
lesale and retail. The Planning Commission recommended only commercial wholesale
nurseries.
Council Meeting January 01985 -13-
Councilwoman Watson - What they want is strictly a wholesale?
3arbara Dacy - Yes . The applicant , his particular intention was a wholesale,
however , in researching this type of use in zoning ordinances usually commercial
nurseries can include wholesale and retail .
Councilwoman Watson - There is retail mentioned on this application.
Barbara Dacy - Mr. VanHoff is here and he can address you.
Mark VanHoff - I would like to only say this, that when we visited with the Planning
Commission they were having a real hard time conceptualizing how we could wholesale
and not retail. As I visited with Barb there is a real easy way to get around that
in the nursery industry and it's very common and that is you require your client to
' have a nurseryman 's license. That ' s very standard in the industry. It would be a
requirement of ours since both Jim and I are currently selling nursery stock to
retailers and landscapers. To protect our selling image and reputation we can ' t
' very well compete with the people we are selling. Our operation would not be a
Halla type nursery . It would not be a Natural Green type landscape yard. It would
be like a Hartmann Tree Farm if you are familiar with that where the product is
grown in the ground . As alluded to by Barb ' s comment, it' s an agricultural program.
I would think it would behoove the area to have a crop that instead of being har-
vested on an annual basis is harvested on every four or five year cycle. You have
less equipment around. You have less fertilizer application. You have less noise.
You have more aesthetic product in the ground .
Councilwoman Watson - How much truck traffic would you project that would be
' generated by your business?
Mark VanHoff - Currently , on just a rough estimate, there is probably 30 garden cen-
ters in the Twin City area. There are probably another at the most 100 licensed
' landscapers of which as they are currently doing business with rewholesalers, maybe
come in on a once every two week basis. They come in and pick up their products for
a landscape job, the go out and do their job . I can' t really answer that question
other than you are looking at maybe seven or eight customers dropping in a day .
Councilwoman Watson - You don ' t do any storage of black dirt or any of those kind of
things?
' Mark VanHoff - There would probably be black dirt only from the standpoint of when
you dig the trees. The customer that would come to us has already got a plan sold.
' He needs the product to put in the ground.
Councilman Gevinq - I need to know more about the storage of vehicles and what kind
of building you might put up. I understood from what I have read that there would
be a sales building. Could you describe some of the buildings that will go on this
particular piece of property?
Mark VanHoff - Currently , the property that we are looking at has adequate buildings
for the entire operation. That sales building came out of a question regarding how
are you going to sell your product. What we are going to have to have a sale
What it is currently is the home. It would be an office where people
II would check in and solicit the order, go out , fill the order and then leave.
] building .
Currently there is a house . There is a brick, I believe it was an old milk shed
' used as a garage now that can be adequately used as a building for a sales office.
There is a barn and there is three storage garages which could very easily take care
of all of the equipment.
I
Council Meeting January 741,985 -14-
Councilman Horn - I don ' t see much difference in this operation and any other farm
;peration that goes on. They have the same type of machinery . In fact you may not
take your crop off quite as often. I think it' s a perfectly acceptable type of use
for that area.
Councilwoman Swenson - I think Dale covered pretty well covered me concerns which is
I certainly wouldn ' t want to see a lot of equipment sitting around out in the yard
or having it look like a contractor ' s yard. I am also very much concerned and you
all know that Highway 101 leaves something to be desired as far as the pavement is
concerned. The State has given us no indication that they will do anything to main-
tain that road. I am concerned with heavy equipment going over that road.
Councilman Horn moved to approve the zoning ordinance amendment to allow wholesale
commercial nurseries as a conditional use in the R-lA District. Motion seconded by
Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
REVIEW REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR OPT-OUT PROGRAM, MTC:
Barbara Dacy - Before you is the proposed draft that the MTC Opt-Out Advisory
Committee is proposing to send out to a list of transit consultants to generate some
response on local transit system in Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, and Shakopee
area. I am bringing this to your attention just as the other members of the commit-
tee are, so that you are aware of this committee ' s activities and that you act to
accept and approve the' draft as proposed.
Mayor Hamilton moved to accept and approve the draft as proposed. Motion seconded by
Councilwoman Watson . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
DOWNTOWN SIGN REQUEST:
3arbara Dacy - Mr. Weidner and Mr. Anderson made a request to redesign the downtown
:sign that the City has at the corner of Highways 5 and 101 . City staff went ahead
and asked for proposals from six sign companies and we have three responses. The
Nordquist Sign Company , I still haven ' t received their proposal yet. However , what
staff is recommending is that a special committee of any number of Council members
and members of the Chamber and these proposals reviewed and a recommendation made to
Council as to go ahead and try to redesign the sign or leave it alone or explore the
various options. Their main concern is as Mr. Anderson said , a lot of dinner theatre
customers are getting lost . They feel there could be better signage to the downtown
area and the existing sign only has one side of copy so a redesign may appear
feasible.
Mayor Hamilton - I had thought that the Chamber would get a little more active in
this seeing as how the function of that sign is really for Chamber members.
Barbara Dacy - The have indicated they will do cost sharing. ,
Mayor Hamilton - I had talked with them and said you ought to run this through the
Chamber and get some ideas from the Chamber people. After all this sign is to repre-
cent the businesses and they should be more involved than us really. I don ' t think
anybody from the Council needs to be on that committee but it would certainly seem to
ie that there should be a little more imagination shown .
councilman Geving - Personally , I would be just as pleased with a nice sign with a
Chanhassen logo and it says "welcome to Chanhassen" as anything else. Let' s get the
Chamber involved in this one.
11
• CITYOF
' . ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
,
STAFF REPORT
TO: Chanhassen Planning Commissi
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner(
DATE: December 6, 1984
SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Commercial Nurseries and
Greenhouses as a Conditional Use in the R-la District.
' PLANNING CASE: 84-7 Zoning Ordinance Amendment
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant Mark VanHoff
10550 Nicollet Ave . S.
Bloomington , MN 55420
Requested Action To amend Section 6. 04 of the
' Zoning Ordinance to allow com-
merical nurseries and greenhouses
as conditional uses .
Purpose The applicant is intending to
purchase a 40 acre tract as a
1 possible site for a commercial
nursery (see Attachment #2) .
ANALYSIS
' The applicant is requesting a zoning ordinance amendment to include
commercial nurseries in the R-la district . The R-la district now pro-
vides for greenhouses as an accessory use to a private residential
use. A greenhouse is defined as a "structure used for the cultivation
or protection of flowers , vegetables , and nursery stock" . The ordi-
nance therefore prohibits such a use as a principal use of land.
' There is no provision as well for a wholesale or retail nursery where
goods are sold on the premises and retail traffic is generated.
Because of these provisions Halla Nursery and the Holasek greenhouse
are considered non-conforming uses . Landscaping contractor ' s yard
activities are now allowed as conditional uses in R-la districts . The
C-3 , Commercial Service district allows "greenhouses for retail sales
only" as a permitted use and requires a conditional use permit for
I
® .1
Commercial Nurseries and Greenhouses
December 6, 1984
Page 2
"commercial greenhouses and landscaping businesses ". There are only
two areas zoned C-3: the area north of Hwy. 212, east of T.H. 101 ,
and the west end of 79th Street in the Frontier Development Park.
Commercial nursery activities may include in varying degrees , growing 1
ranges , greenhouses , a sales building , and accessory buildings . The
growing of nursery stock in and of itself is an "agricultural" acti-
vity (the Zoning Ordinance defines agriculture as the "cultivation of 1
the soil and all activities incident thereto") . However, it is the
retail/wholesale activity which should deserve more scrutiny in
regards to the location of buildings on the property and their rela-
tion to adjacent property , access , off-street parking areas ,
screening , and on site sewage systems . Allowing commercial nurseries
as conditional uses would require site plan review via the public II hearing process which would afford the city the opportunity to impose
appropriate conditions on the submitted site plan. This review would
assure that a commercial nursery is compatible in size and intensity
to adjacent uses . - 1
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the 1
following motion :
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance 1
Amendment #84-7 to amend Section 6. 04 of the Zoning Ordinance, con-
ditional uses in the R-la district , as follows:
14 . Commercial nurseries and greenhouses . "
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1
On a motion by Albee and seconded by Conrad to recommend approval
of the amendment as follows:
14 . Wholesale commercial nurseries .
J. Thompson , Merz , Albee, Conrad and Noziska voted in favor .
Ryan and M. Thompson opposed. Motion carried.
STAFF UPDATE 1
The Planning Commission in their recommendation to allow only
wholesale commercial nurseries as conditional uses in the R-la
District was intended to draw a distinction between an operation
which caters directly to the public (retail ) versus a wholesale
operation where goods are sold to licensed nurserymen in usually
bulk orders . Greenhouses were not included in that recommen-
dation because the Commission felt that the establishment of a
greenhouse may cause "an intensification of that use in the R-la
District " . The Commission also directed the staff to prepare
guidelines for Council review of location of these types of uses .
1
II
110 (10
Commercial Nurseries and Greenhouses
' December 6 , 1984
Page 3
Upon further investigation about the conduct of a nursery opera-
tion , it was found that a greenhouse for a wholesale nursery
' activity is considered as a common accessory building. It is my
understanding that the greenhouses are used to cultivate various
species of nursery stock initially and then the stock is moved
outside to the growing range . The Planning Commission was con-
, cerned that a greenhouse would be confused with a retail store
allowing the public to buy a product grown in the greenhouse .
However , in a wholesale operation , a greenhouse is used strictly
' for the growth of nursery stock on site .
Staff has also developed the following definition which can
' clarify the activity of a nursery.
Nursery : An enterprise which conducts the wholesale of
plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly
' related to their care and maintenance (but not including
power equipment such as gas or electric lawn mowers and farm
implements ) .
' Staff originally did not recommend any specific conditions for
location of nurseries in the R-la District in order to allow the
' city flexibility in site design and location review, however
members of the Planning Commission felt that such guidelines were
necessary . Upon further investigation , staff recommends that
should the Council decide to approve commercial nurseries as con-
' ditional uses that it be subject to location on a collector as
designated in the Comprehensive Plan . This recommendation was
devised in anticipation of the type of traffic that can be
' generated by wholesale commercial nurseries . Much of the traffic
consists of heavy vehicles .
REPORT ATTACHMENTS
' 1 . Application .
2 . Location map of a possible nursery site.
' 3 . Excerpts from Zoning Ordinance .
4. Planning Commission minutes dated December 12 , 1984 .
I
Gu -i r u
Planning Commission Meeting II December 10, 1986 - Page 20
because the properties are outside the Urban Service Area, we have to I
process this Plan Amendment to include the parcels in that. The phone
conversations with Met Council Staff, they have indicated that because of
the emergency nature of the request, because effluent in some cases is II reaching the surface of the ground, that they will authorize extension of
the lines to service these properties. Typically, in plan amendments, some
of the members recall, you have to swap developable acreage out and swap in
developable acreage into the MUSA area. Chanhasses just does not have any I
more land available to swap. The basis for extending the line is purely
because of the potential pollution and safety hazards caused by the failing
systems so in essence this is, we're going through the formal process so we
II
can get Metro Council ' s approval .
Conrad : Show me where the MUSA line used to be and where is it moving?
II
Dacy: The MUSA line is this spaced lines here. Vertical road cul-de-sacs
along the west, so the MUSA line is outside those properties. Basically it
runs along the outside boundaries of the lots abutting 65th Street and then
II
it goes up on Lake Lucy Road so the new line comes from Lake Lucy Road and
it goes down Galpin and run along the south lot line of the lots along
Crestview Drive and then go back up on the west side here to match that
II
line.
Chairman Conrad opened the meeting for public comments .
II
on Kelly: I live at 2801 West 65th Street and I've spent about an hour
here with the City Council and you may have seen me on TV and read about
the things in the newspapers and basically, Terry Atherton, my neighbor
II
across the street and I are very much in favor of this and unless you have
specific questions or you feel that you need more information, I don't
think that I need to spend any more time.
II
Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried .
IIEmmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Land Use Plan Amendment Request No. 86-2 to include properties
abutting and adjacent to West 65th Street and Crestview Drive into the I
Metropolitan Urban Service Area and that the Metropolitan Area Urban
Service Area line be amended to include said parcels. All voted in favor
and motion carried. I
Chairman Conrad stated that this item would be on the City Council agenda
on January 12, 1987.
IPUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 47-AD TO ALLOW CHURCHES OUTSIDE THE
METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA. I
tisen: The background on this is that the members of the Westside Baptist
\\.Llurch came to Staff requesting that they want to move the church on TH 41
II
- 8 1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 10, 1986 - Page 21
II AP-
hich is outside the Urban Service Area and we explained to them that
Ichurches are allowed in the R-1A District as a Conditional Use Permit but
one of the conditions is that they had to be within the Urban Service Area.
We suggested that if they wanted to pursue it they could pursue having an
IOrdinance Amendment. They went in front of the Council and the Council
said that it is up to the Staff to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow
churches in the R-1A District outside of the MUSA line. The Zoning
Ordinance was first amended in 1976 to allow churches as a conditional use
' in the R-1A District and at that time, Staff's recommendation was that as a
conditional use churches had to be within the MUSA line. We went in front
of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission approved the
Iamendment but they wanted that a condition be that they be on a particular
lot outside the MUSA line. It went in front of the Council and they went
along with Staff's recommendation so as of today, they are allowed in the
Irural section but they do have to be inside the MUSA line. One of the main
concerns was whether or not a sanitary septic system is capable of handling
a church with the uses on Sunday. Staff confirmed it with the City
Inspector and Mr. Roger Machmeier that a church actually has less demand on
Ia septic system than a single family residence and now with our new
Ordinance 10-B and with the Subdivision Amendment we can regulate that the
septic system will be proper on this site and will be able to handle the
Icapacity. They are still in the process of accepting the proposed
ordinance. Staff is recommending that you just amend the condition. Right
now the proposed Ordinance still has the condition 6 that the property
must be entirely within the MUSA line. What we are suggesting is that the
' `lanning Commissin recommend to amend the proposed Ordinance to change (e)
co state that churches outside the MUSA line must provide the following for
review. These are the same requirements that we have in the new
ISubdivision Ordinance for us to determine if the site is capable of
handling septic systems and then they also added 6 that it must be in
conformance with Ordinance 10-B. Again, Staff is recommending approval of
Ithis amendment and we will incorporate that into the new Ordinance.
Siegel moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
ISiegel : What specific church is prompting this?
IOlsen: Westside Baptist. They are right now in the High School on TH 41.
Actually they want to move into the Brian Klingelhutz property.
IConrad: If this church expanded into a church of 10,000 parishers, our
Ordinance will take care of the sanitary sewage problems?
Olsen: They would have to come in with a preliminary saying that they are
Igoing to expand their amount and we would have the means to say you need to
put in another septic system to suit that.
IConrad : What would trigger that Jo Ann , just to refresh my mind? A
building permit?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 10, 1986 - Page 22
risen: Actually, it would have to show how much gallons they will be using
and they will set the site with the actual . . . '
Conrad : With a building permit?
Olsen: With a building permit at that time but when they come with
expansion, they have to get another building permit and at that time the
Building Inspector can say you need to increase your capacity and if that
means putting in a whole other. . . ,
Conrad : A lot of churches have schools associated with them.
Olsen: We looked into that and they do have classes. In fact, they do
have a service tonight and they do have classes during the certain days but
they went through all the State Regulations and even then the capacity,
they don't have the dishwashers, the showers, and the water that is used
still wouldn' t be as much as a single family home.
Conrad: A school that was operating, not just a church school but a
religious, any kind of school that operates five days a week.
Dacy: I think there is a difference though between the church and the
school. The school like St. Hubert's is day after day after day whereas
church activities are maybe one night a week or two times a week.
Crnmings: I think Ladd is saying, what if they decide to have a school
here?
Dacy: Now remember too that the original application is a Conditional Use
Permit so they have to submit their proposed designs, site plan capacity
and this is what the conditions are setting out that the City will have the
opportunity to review it and say, we are going to base approval just on
what you have submitted and any increase in the intensity use will trigger
another Conditional Use Permit.
Wildermuth: Let's say within the existing structure and they decide to
hold a daily school. How would the City know that they made that decision
or made that change?
Dacy: To be honest, if they did not apply for a building permit and there '
was not any expansion necessary, we wouldn't know but that's the importance
of when they initially come in with the Conditional Use Permit that it
specifies the conditional use that the City has a right to specify the
types of uses that occurs so that we can spell all that out .
Siegel: And without facilities to warrant usage other than what you would
typically find in a church like that, there is only so much capacity they
can generate unless they decided to expand physically the structure, we
wouldn't have any reason to worry whether they used it. I think a church
has a right to use their property 24 hours a day if they want to don't they
lust like anybody else so I don't think you can put any kind of restriction
Planning Commission Meeting
December 10, 1986 - Page 23
1
n whether they wanted to use their facility 8 hours a day or 12 hours a
I day.
Wildermuth : That ' s just within the existing structure.
Siegel: Oh yes, but even then there is only so much potential capacity.
Assuming that they are designing their structure to facilitate a full house
attendance, what would be gained unless they had something like a gymnasium
IIand showers and stuff like this included in the structure .
Olsen: And we would know that from the design.
ISiegel moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission move to amend
the proposed Zoning Ordinance by removing Condition E and replacing it with
the following:
e. Churches outside the MUSA line must provide the following data
for review:
' 1. Location of two (2) drainfield sites .
' 2. Two (2) soil borings on each drainfield site for a total of
four (4) soil borings.
3. No percolation tests for drainfield sites where the land
slope is between zero and 12%.
4 . One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land
slope is between 13% and 25% .
5. Areas where the land slope exceeds 25% shall not be
' considered as a potential soil treatment site.
6. The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with
Ordinance 10-B.
IIAll voted in favor and motion carried .
IWildermuth: I would like to see one thing added to that. Considering the
original building permit or the original size of the church, I would like
to see the system design for optimum utilization.
Emmings: Could you say that again?
Siegel : Wouldn ' t they be designing the structure for maximum?
' Wildermuth: I want them to design a structure or design the church to the
properly to be used several nights a week besides one, two or three Sunday
services and as the congregation grows, all of a sudden you have a church
school and a kind of day school and maybe the congregation will grow where
there are meetings every day of the week.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 10, 1986 - Page 24
Lacy: How about something like adding number 7, information as to how the
ultimate capacity shall be accommodated. That's kind of a rough language
but basically asking them to establish what their future plans are and how
are they going to anticipate that growth? Would they need a second system
or could they just install another 1,250 gallon tank? Those types of
things.
Siegel: Isn't that what we're doing here is trying to maximize potential
for growth of this site by putting in all locations two drainfield sites, ,
two soil borings. In other words, like you said, all of your studies and
stuff like this have proven that churches have less use than a single
family home with a septic system primarily.
Dacy: I think the intent though is if they do intend to expand, a number
of churches do kind of submit a phase 1 and they identify the possible
phase 2 expansion that with that expansion that either the City require
them to come through the process again to make sure that there is another
alternate site available for another system or that they submit that type
of information to prove at this time that if they do expand, there are
alternate sites available.
Siegel : I guess that's my question. Are we assuming that these conditions
here would be maximum usage of the church and if not, then what Jim said is
sort of a redundancy to what has been conditioned beforehand here.
racy: It just comes down to your degree of comfort level. If you feel
hat is intended through numbers 1 through 6, then you can recommend that
that is just adopted. If you want to be more comfortable with it and be a
little more specific , you would add number 7. '
Conrad: Bob, don't you see, of course this is an existing congregation.
Right now they are moving and how many people in that congregation?
Olsen: I think he said like 200 and some. I believe they design the
system, the State Standards are by the number of seats in the church
facility. '
Conrad : So the system will be sized by the number of seats which makes
sense.
Siegel : That's why I wonder if we're not trying to put more into this than
we need to. We're not talking about thousands of people here and if we
were, they would have to come in for another structure. In other words,
another building permit which we would also issue another Conditional Use
Permit. In other words, why put more into this than. . .
Conrad: Generalize it for the next church that wants to come in. Here
comes another church with a congregation of zero people in it now but they
plan to grow to 1, 000.
' ' Planning Commission Meeting
December 10, 1986 - Page 25
Iljr
nmings: But if it is sized to the facility, what's the difference and
' that ' s what it is.
Wildermuth: The issue is what is the use of the facility. I agree the
size of the facility is fine.
IEmmings : But the best you can do , if you ask a person what are you going
to use this for in the future, the best they can do is give you a statement
Iof present intent and they can say anything they want to because they can
change that a half hour later. I think it should be sized to the building
and not to anybody's plans or anything else. If you size it to the
building, you know you're going to be fine. Now, whether the building is
I
used 24 hours per day, seven day a week or one day a week for two hours
makes a heck of a big difference but I don't know how are you ever going to
put that in here? There is no way you can say that that will really give
Iyou an answer.
Wildermuth: That's true and through Mr. Machmeier's experience, isn't
I there some kind of design factor that they use in •a situation like this?
MI Olsen: They just follow the State. There is also, if they have six
bathrooms , then they will have an idea but if there are only going to be
Itwo bathrooms in there, there is only a certain amount of use that is going
to be done. That really limits evem the number of people and how many
hours it is being used .
I(onrad : I guess I don't see a problem if we put in a point 7 which would
say something like the system would be designed for the maximum usage of
the church. It gives it an intent.
In Siegel: It doesn ' t make any difference as far as I 'm concerned.
IConrad: It's your motion and therefore, if you want Jim's vote, I guess I
don't know how he's going to vote and I'm not sure how I'm going to vote so
do you want to amend it Bob? It' s your motion out there.
ISiegel: I think I ' ll withdraw my motion. I ' ll let Jim make a new one.
Wildermuth: I move that we adopt the Staff recommendation with the
Icondition 7. Since you have something written down there Ladd, would you
read that .
IConrad: My comments say a system will be designed for the maximum usage of
the church. I don't know if those are the right words but that is the
intent.
IEmmings : Maximum potential usage, is that the idea?
Conrad : Yes .
Dacy: Is the intent more to try and gage the expansion?
Planning Commission Meeting '
December 10, 1986 - Page 26
Cildermuth: No, I think the intent is that we don't run into a system
failure like with these gentlemen here were talking about their problem.
I 'm just trying to avert or avoid . . .
Dacy: Okay, then maybe I completely misunderstood your intent because. . .
Wildermuth: I 'm not trying to anticipate expansion.
Dacy: Okay, because then the design standards and how it is installed,
Ordinance 10-B and through a Conditional Use Permit, we would make sure
that they wouldn ' t undersize the septic system so it would accommodate.
Wildermuth: A 200 seat church used every night of the week or maybe three
days weeks as well as two services on Sunday.
Dacy: Right. I'm sorry I understood. I thought you were talking about
expansion and changes of uses .
Emmings: We did. We talked about that too .
Dacy: But as to how it is designed and installed, I think we can cover it
between our Septic Ordinance and the Conditional Use Permit.
Wildermuth: Okay, fine. I withdraw my number 7 condition. Let the
proposal read as Staff has recommended.
onrad: Jim's got a different point than I have. My concern is growth
between building permits. A congregation of 100 growing to 1,000 but the
building was designed to seat 1,000.
Emmings: Because of the State Standards that you have.
Conrad: So the State Standard says that we design a system for 1,000. I I
don' t think we need point 7 then. Do you want the glory of your motion?
Siegel : You already have my motion written down. '
Emmings: And my second.
Howard Noziska arrived at this point in the meeting . '
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated November 19, 1986 as amended by Mr. Emmings on
page 4 and 22. All voted in favor and motion carried . '
Conrad: That's it for our agenda items. The proposed Zoning Ordinance
came out to everybody. I think those that aren't familiar with it, you
should read it. Any new business that we would like to talk about tonight?
A,
1 C TY OF C. DATE: 12-10-86
CEAMIA3SZN C.C. DAT E: 1-19-87
i CASE N • 86-
0. 6 ZO
.
Prepared by: Olsen:k
,
STAFF REPORT
1
' PROPOSAL: To amend the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Churches
Outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
I 44.12
I0 LOCATION:
I ?c APPLICANT:
1
1
PRESENT ZONING:
1 ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
I S_
E-
r--1 d W-
1 WATER AND SEWER:
1 C!) PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
1 1990 LAND USE PLAN:
1
Zoning Ordinance Amendment 86-6
December 10, 1986
Page 2
BACKGROUND '
On November 3 , 1986, Mr. Frank Clifton of the Westside Baptist
Church requested the City Council to consider allowing churches 1
outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) . The City
Council was in favor of staff researching the subject and
directed staff to process a Zoning Ordinance amendment
(Attachment #1) .
The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1976 to allow churches as
a conditional use in the R-1A District. Staff at that time
recommended that a condition be that all churches shall be within
the MUSA Line (Attachment #2 ) . The Planning Commission voted
approval of the amendment, however, changed staff' s condition to
read "if the subject property is located outside the MUSA Line
that it be equipped with an effective sanitation system which
would meet the requirements as set forth by the City Engineer"
(Attachment #3) . The City Council approved the amendment but
maintained staff' s position of keeping churches within the MUSA
Line (Attachment #4 ) .
ANALYSIS
The proposal is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow churches
on property outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as a con-
ditional use in the R-1A District. Since single family develop-
ment has been allowed outside the MUSA Line, there has been
several rural residential developments . These and future rural
developments create a demand for churches in the rural area.
The major concern is whether a septic system can support a
church. Staff consulted with Mr. Roger Machmeier, and the City
Inspector to determine the impact of a church and its related
uses on a septic system (Attachment #5 ) . A church actually has
less demand as a septic system than a single family home with a
high water use from showers, washers, garbage disposal, etc.
Ordinance No. 10-A and the Subdivision Ordinance have recently
been amended and now provide improved guidance from which the
City can regulate the instalaltion of sewage treatment systems .
With these new regulations the City can better determine if a
site is suitable for an Individual Sewage Treatment System and
can better enforce the design and maintenance of the treatment
systems. Therefore, the City is able to regulate the placement
and design of a sewage treatment system and can ensure that it
will accommodate a church at its peak hours of usage.
RECOMMENDATION '
With the number of single family developments outside the MUSA
Line, there is a demand for churches outside the MUSA Line and
the City is able to ensure the design of an acceptable treatment
II
Zoning Ordinance 86-6
December 10 , 1986
Page 3
' system to support a church. Since a church is a conditional use,
the City can set standards which it must meet to make it com-
patible with surrounding uses in the rural districts . Therefore,
' staff recommends amending the ordinance to allow churches out-
side the MUSA Line as conditional uses .
The proposed ordinance permits churches as conditional uses in
the RSF - R-12 Districts. This ordinance proposes the following
conditions for churches:
' a. The site shall be located on a collector or arterial roadway
as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or located so that
access can be provided without conducting traffic through
' residential concentration;
b. The structure must be set back 50 feet from all property
lines;
' c. Parking areas shall be set back 25 feet from streets and non-
residential property and 30 feet from residential property;
d . No more than 70% of the site is to be covered with impervious
surface and the remainder is to be suitably landscaped in
conformance with Article VIII .
' e. The property must lie entirely within the MUSA line; and
' f . The property must be designated as residential on the aodpted
Land Use Plan.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission move to amend
the proposed Zoning Ordinance by removing Condition E and
replacing it with the following:
' e. Churches outside the MUSA Line must provide the following
data for review:
' 1 ) Location of two ( 2 ) drainfield sites .
2 ) Two ( 2 ) soil borings on each drainfield site for a total
' of four (4 ) soil borings.
3 ) No percolation tests for drainfield sites where the land
slope is between zero and 12% .
' 4 ) One ( 1 ) percolation test per drainfield site where the
land slope is between 13% and 25% .
5 ) Areas where the land slope exceeds 25% shall not be con-
sidered as a potential soil treatment site.
6 ) The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with
Ordinance 10-B .
I
Zoning Ordinance 86-6
December 10 , 1986
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1 . City Council minutes dated November 3, 1986. 1
2 . Staff report dated August 23, 1976 .
3 . Planning Commission minutes dated September 22, 1976 .
4 . City Council minutes dated October 18, 1976 and Ordinance 47-AD.
5 . Memo from George Donnelly dated December 4, 1986.
6 . Current Ordinance 47-AD regulating churches in the R-1A
District.
7 . Proposed Ordinance regulating churches as conditional uses. i
1
i
i
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
11
1
93
City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987
ir- Jeff Farmakes: The present chain has enough slack where you restrict access
and you can easily pull it up and drive a car underneath it and that's what
happens when people accessed it before. You've got to tighten that chain.
Put a second lower chain in. You would also be restricting access to these 4-
1 wheelers and dirt bikes.
Mayor Hamilton: What we should do is put a gate on there similar to what we
have at the South Lotus Lake access now so the gate can swing shut and our
city people can just open it and you can't lift it up or down. You have to
have a key or a lock to get in. That would be much more secure.
Councilman Geving: Could I add to your motion Mr. Mayor. I want to go back
to Greenwood Shores. I want to pick up an item. You mentioned three items.
' I want to add a fourth one that there be no boat launching. That we direct
Staff to meet with Carver County police patrol and have that area patrolled
regularly. That somehow we need to clean up the debris. Whether we hire it
done or have the Boy Scouts do it or some other means. Then finally, the
' last one that you had I think should be in the Minutes as a motion and that is
to instruct Staff to look at the gate and devise a new gate system instead of
that chain and I would like to add to your motion those three other comments.
Mayor Hamilton: I'll add them changing the one to say that the policing of
the area should be done through Jim Chaffee, the Public Safety Director of the
City and it should be an enforceable type of enforcement where if there are
violations, there will be tickets issued and we would like to see the reports
back for review. Either here or at the Public Safety Commission so we know
that it is being taken care of and the problem is hopefully being solved.
' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the Greenwood Shores
Beach not have any parking at it. That the no parking signs on the streets
' remain as they are. Access to that beach be available only to City personnel
to work at the lift station and it remain a neighborhood park. There be no
boat launching at Greenwood Shores. Staff should meet with Jim Chaffee to
patrol and enforce violations occurring at Greenwood Shores and the City
Council or Public Safety Commission receive reports for review and that Staff
be instructed to look at devising a new gate system for the entrance into
Greenwood Shores Park. Also, that the Carver Beach Park have four parking
' stalls installed as depicted on the plan with the chain and bollard system as
outlined by Mark Koegler. All voted in favor and motion carried.
4-(- ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS FOR RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS
IN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS, FIRST READING.
Mayor Hamilton: I would just like to make one comment. I agree with the
plan. If you look at the recommendation which would be the rural recreational
beachlot portion of the recommendation as suggested to the Council by the city
staff, I was not comfortable with the last sentence. Rural recreational
beachlots. I would like to strike "any future lots resulting from subdivision
shall obtain permission to use the recreational beachlot from the Homeowners
17
I
City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 I
Association." The reason for that is if there are additional homeowners once
the subdivision takes place, I think that should come to the Planning
Commission or to the Park and Rec Commission or to ourselves for review to
find out how many there are that are planning on using it. I don't think we
want to suddenly find outselves doubling and tripling the use. '
Councilman Boyt: I agree with that. I kind of like the flexibility. I think
it might be a way of answering the question without having to get into that ,
much supervision and that is that we've already indicated that those lots can
not be subdivided until the MUSA line goes through at which time that will
become an urban area. I think it should then fall into the urban recreational
beachlot which would grandfather in people who were in the 50 original lots
but additional lots would have to conform to that urban standard. I think
that's what we would end up doing anyway.
Mayor Hamilton: Somehow we would need to let those people know what the rules
are so as the subdivision takes place, if they are going to be a part of it,
what rules they need to live by and I think we may be out of it at that point
but I would want to make sure that they do, through the Association, become
aware of what the rules are and how it effects their particular property.
Pat Swenson: May I assume that these lots will be within the original
subdivision?
Councilman Geving: Yes. Because they word subdivision throughout this.
Pat Swenson: That's right but we've seen variations of subdivisions before
and I just want to make sure that there isn't going to be somebody across the
street trying to get in on this.
Mayor Hamilton: That's why I wanted to strike the last sentence from the '
rural beachlot so it clearly states that nobody from outside can be assumed to
be a part.
Councilman Geving: If you feel more comfortable about that, we could write
that in as the intent in our Minutes tonight. The Minutes do get carried over
for a number of years and that is out intent that it does not include anyone
who is not in the subdivision.
Councilman Johnson: I think we may have a problem converting from rural
subdivision beachlot to an urban recreational beachlot in that the standard I
for urban says that at least 80% of the dwelling units be within 1,000 feet.
Mayor Hamilton: But those that are existing will be grandfathered in. I
Councilman Johnson: Those existing will be grandfathered. Okay, then you go
to 1,000 feet, who gets the other 20%? You see what I mean? The standard,
what distance do you use in that conversion to say okay, you are outside that
but he says within the 1,000 feet you still have 80o so you can have 20% of it
outside the 1,000 feet. How do we divy up that 20o that's within the
[:::
definition?
18 1
,l
" City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: It's probably going to be on a first built, first...
I '
Councilman Johnson: Another method to do it would be to, if you take 100% by
the ratios of 80 is equal to 1,000 feet, 100% would be equal to 1,250 feet so
' any lot more than 1,250 feet away would not be eligible for that beachlot.
Councilman Boyt: Jay, I would prefer to not change the urban recreational
beachlot definition.
Councilman Johnson: No, this would be under the rule. You would keep the
urban as 80% but what I'm saying is you've got a subdivision here that's 2,000
feet deep. You're going to convert that from a rural subdivision to an urban
subdivision. At 1,000 feet you now have a non-conforming beachlot because 80%
of the homes within that new subdivision that's been resubdivided, are no
longer within 1,000 feet of the beachlot. So the beachlot is no longer
conforming to our Ordinance. A simple conversion won't work.
Mayor Hamilton: It's a grandfathered thing. We don't know when that's going
' to happen. It may not even be the year 2000.
Councilman Johnson: Are we intending that everybody within the existing
subdivision, even if it's 2,000 feet deep, when they subdivide all those lots,
are we intending that this will be on a case, the way I see it, if we convert
it and grandfather it, the 1,000 feet no longer counts. It's whatever the
confines of that subdivision are at that time. If all those lots are
subdivided into two lots, everybody in that subdivision gets to go into the
beachlot.
Councilman Geving: You don't ever take away a person's rights that they've
already got. You wouldn't deny them of that right.
' Councilman Johnson: But the guy who has a lot 2,000 feet away, he subdivides
his lot. The guy who he subdivides it to, he is still within the same
subdivision that has a beachlot.
1 Councilman Geving: He would only be able to subdivide if the whole thing
now becomes within the MUSA line and then the whole thing is opened up as an
urban subdivision. It's not urban recreational beachlot.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think we may be talking about a moot thing here because the
way this particular development is going to take place, I suspect that it may
never be subdivided.
Councilman Johnson: This isn't for one particular subdivision.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, it was certainly directed at one particular one and
there may be others with the same type of thing but it's highly unlikely at
this point since there is no land left around the lakes in the City to build
on.
19
II
City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 I
11///// Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to amend Article V, Section
9 (11) as follows:
6
K. A recreational beachlot is intended to serve as a neighborhood
facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of
II
this section, the following terms shall mean those beachlots which
are located either within (urban) or outside (rural) the Year 2000
Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the
II
Comprehensive Plan.
Urban Recreational Beachlot: At least eighty percent (80%) of the
dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any II
recreational beachlot, shall be located within one thousand (1,000)
feet of the recreational beachlot.
Rural Recreational Beachlot: A maximum of 50 dwelling units II
(including riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of
access to the recreational beachlot. Upon extension of the MUSA line
II
into a rural area, the urban recreational beachlot standard will
apply.
Also, to amend the definition of recreational beachlot as follows: 1
Land abutting public water which serves as a neighborhood
recreational facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. I
All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, NORTHEAST CORNER I
OF TH 101 AND CR 14, GEORGE NELSON.
Jo Ann Olsen: The beachlot proposal includes a sand blanket, removal dock, a
II
canoe rack, siltation basin and volleyball court. The Planning Commission did
approve the Conditional Use Permit for the recreational beachlot. With this
they changed condition 6 to read that the walkway shall be bituminous to
I
siltation basin and from the basin to the lake it shall be made of any coarse
material. They changed that from gravel and they added number 7 and 8 saying
that a homeowners association must be created to maintain and police the
recreational beachlot. Number 8 stated that should a siltation basin be
II
required by Staff the exact location and design of the siltation basin shall
be submitted. Since the Planning Commission meeting the Watershed District
has also reviewed this and they have recommended that instead of the flume
II
that is being proposed, there is a little lip to the pathway to direct the
drainage to the siltation basin, they are stating that that will not work so
they are recommending a storm sewer pipe down to the siltation basin. The II applicant then stated that they would prefer to have a coarse material, gravel
material for the whole path going down to the lake. Staff and the Watershed
District, again would prefer that that remain bituminous just to prevent any
erosion and washout from any drainage. We are recommending again, that the ,
piping be installed and the path remain bituminous. So you would be adding
that as number 9 and then number 10, we would like to add that the applicant
must receive a DNR and Watershed District permit.
20
11
IV'. Ai (r ITY O F C. DATE: May 13 , 1987
I ' - - CENT
\ I C.C. DATE: June 1 , 1987
,...._\;„- CASE NO: 87-4 ZOA
1 Prepared by: Olsen/v
1
STAFF REPORT
1 o
I PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Article V,
Section 9 (11) Standards for Conditions for
t... Recreational Beachlots .;ot)on by City Administrator
1 Z :c.`cr--
<t
IJ LOCATION:
Cl. . 5:-.13=t I
ICL
Q APPLICANT: r- /- %7 _
I
I
PRESENT ZONING:
1 ACREAGE:
IDENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
1 S-
1 a E-
Q W-
ILii WATER AND SEWER:
I
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
I1990 LAND USE PLAN:
II
iiP
1
Zoning Ordinance Amendment/Beachlots
May 13 , 1987
Page 2
BACKGROUND '
The Zoning Ordinance regulates recreational beachlots as a con-
ditional use. One of the conditions of approval is that 80% of
the lots which have appurtenant rights have to be within 1000
feet of the recreational beachlot. All existing recreational
beachlots are within the urban service area which has a minimum
lot size of 15 ,000 square feet. The city recently reviewed a
rural subdivision with a proposal for a recreational beachlot.
Rural subdivisions have a minimum lot size of 2 . 5 acres and the
80% lot requirement within 1000 feet is almost impossible to
meet. Therefore, the city initiated a zoning ordinance amendment
to differentiate between urban and rural recreational beachlots.
ANALYSIS
Staff is proposing to amend Article V, Section 9 ( 11) , Standards
for Conditions for Recreational Beachlots in agricultural and
residential districts. The amendment maintains the same require-
ments for urban recreational beachlots, but includes a separate
condition for rural recreational beachlots . Rural recreational
beachlots will be limited to 50 dwelling units with appurenant
rights and will not have an area restriction. Any additional
dwelling units resulting from resubdivision will have to receive
appurtenant rights to the recreational beachlot from the
homeowners association or desginated governing body of the sub-
division.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment #87-4 to amend Article V, Section 9 ( 11) as follows:
K . A recreational beachlot is intended to serve as a neigh-
borhood
facility for the subdivision of which it is a
part. For purposes of this section, the following terms
shall mean those beachlots which are located either
within (urban) or outside ( rural) the Year 2000
Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Urban Recreational Beachlot: At least eighty percent '
( 80%) of the dwelling units , which have appurtenant rights
of access to any recreational beachlot, shall be located
within at least one thousand ( 1 ,000 ) feet of the
recreational beachlot.
1
Zoning Ordinance Amendment/Beachlots
May 13 , 1987
Page 3
Rural Recreational Beachlot: A maximum of 50 dwelling
units ( including riparian lots) shall be permitted appur-
tenant rights of access to the recreational beachlot.
Any future lots resulting from resubdivision shall obtain
permission to use the recreational beachlot from the
homeowners association.
' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
' The Planning Commission unanimously approved the amendment to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance as proposed by staff and also
recommended that the definition of recreational beachlot be
amended as follows:
Land abutting public water which serves as a neighborhood
recreational facility for the subdivision of which it is a
part.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council amend Article V, Section 9 (11)
as follows:
' K. A recreational beachlot is intended to serve as a neigh-
borhood facility for the subdivision of which it is a
part. For purposes of this section, the following terms
shall mean those beachlots which are located either
within (urban) or outside ( rural) the Year 2000
Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in
the Comprehensive Plan.
' Urban Recreational Beachlot: At least eighty percent
( 80% ) of the dwelling units , which have appurtenant rights
of access to any recreational beachlot, shall be located
within one thousand ( 1 , 000) feet of the recreational
beachlot.
' Rural Recreational Beachlot: A maximum of 50 dwelling
units ( including riparian lots) shall be permitted appur-
tenant rights of access to the recreational beachlot.
Any future lots resulting from resubdivision shall obtain
permission to use the recreational beachlot from the
homeowners association.
' Staff also recommends the City Council amend the definition of
recreational beachlot as follows :
Land abutting public water which serves as a neighborhood
recreational facility for the subdivision of which it is
a part.
<<� ((
anning Commission Meeting
April 8 , 1987 - Page 36
Jim Winkles : There is a sign band.
Brad Johnson: I think you have to realize that ,
the sign, we have to make it look good and at if people go by the color of
identification .
9 you have to give them brand name
Conrad: I guess my only concern would be signage on the canopy. If there
is any. If there is none, then I think I'm pretty comfortable. Anything
else of these guys? If not, then we ' ll see you back in a couple weeks .
REVIEW RURAL BEACHLOT STANDARDS .
Olsen: I don't have much to add. It's just that I gave it the 50 dwellings
that you mentioned last time. We are allowing future lots with future
subdivision to still have the rights of the beachlot.
Conrad: Is that realistic? Will that be subdivided? More than likely not
so I guess I'm comfortable with the subdivision of that. Here's my problem
with how that reads. It reads that we can cram 350 houses onto one lot and
I go back to neighbors and I go back to traffic and I go back to other
things so I'm not real comfortable with the subdivision of that. I'm
throwing that out. I 'm comfortable with the other stuff.
Noziska: You don' t think that will police itself? '
Conrad: Well, it probably will. Sooner or later if you have 150 people who
want to pack themselves into a beach but what is the Ordinance saying? The
Ordinance is saying that the City of Chanhassen, regardless of self
policing, the City of Chanhassen says that literally in the future when it
becomes a part of the MUSA. You can put 150 houses through that one lot or
people. I 'm not sure that that ' s appropriate.
Noziska : I understand what you ' re saying Ladd but. . .
Conrad: We don't have any beachlot in town right now that is servicing that
many people so why are we doing that for the rural area right now? If you
can persuade me that there is a good reason.
Olsen: Why I came up with that , in speaking with the Attorney he '
are in a pickle. When it happens, it's going to be really hard tosdetermine
who has the right of that beachlot when they do start subdividing in the
future and keeping track of all that. We just came to the conclusion that
the easiest way is just to permit anybody to future use of that beachlot.
Noziska: And let those brilliant homeowners take care of the problems
themselves because they sure as heck aren't going to jam 350 lots worth of
people through one beachlot.
Conrad: The only thing I can see Howie is when developers come in here
they say, and
y y, we've just read your Ordinance and here is one out here in the
1
AI <<
Commission Meeting
I , 1987 - Page 37
Ii area that says 150 folks can come in. I have a similar type of deal
the urban area and if you can theoretically say 150, then you obviously
- pink that's right and I say, we must have thought it was right. What was
the purpose of restricting? The purpose is pressure of neighbors. I'm not
worried about the lake to tell you the truth. Boat access and all that other
stuff will be taken care of through launch sites and whatever so that's not
a concern. I'm concerned with signals to other areas and maybe it doesn't
Iapply. Maybe it's something real far tangent. Is there a possibility that
we can leave off that last sentence and address it when it occurs?
IEmmings: All of these beachlots will be maintained and run by a homeowners
association. I agree with you that this makes me uncomfortable. That it's
in here. That we're saying do it. It sounds like we're saying go ahead and
do it. What if we just said , whether or not the subdivided property will be
Ipermitted a pertinent right of access to the recreational beachlot will be
up to the Homeowners Association. Why don' t we let them decide that .
I Noziska: So if there is any squabbling, they will• do it amongst themselves.
ll Emmings: Or if they get up to a point where they feel like they have
maximum use, they can just say we're not going to let anymore people. Can
Ithey have that power?
Dacy: One of the concerns is , with what we're going through now with some
Iof the beachlots, other people down the shore on the lake call up City Hall
and say, don't you have any restrictions or anything that you can do to
limit use on the beachlot down the shore because it's overused? It depends
Ion your degree of comfort for how much authority you want the homeowners to
have and/or the city to have. In your instance, you're really giving the
entire police enforcement issue over to them and if that's what you want to
' do.
Emmings: No. This says if they resubdivide every lot in Gagne's
development out there, they will all be able to use the beachlot even
Ithough it had gotten over 50 houses and what I'm saying is, why don't we
just say, if somebody subdivides, whether or not the new person coming in on
that parcel will be allowed to use the beachlot will be up to the Homeowners
Association.
IDacy: So they can have their own little application process to go through?
IEmmings: Or they can sell the 50. Maybe there is someone over here who has
the right who doesn't want to use it and they could sell it somebody else.
We could have still limit it to 50 and they could raffle them or whatever
I they want to .
II Headla : What do you think if somebody from 1 1/2 miles away wants to get in
out there? Can they go in on it?
Emmings: No. Because we've got the intent statement up there that says a
I
recreational beachlot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for
I
° nning Commission Meeting
-'pril 8 , 1987 - Page 38 '
the subdivision of which it is a part.
Headla: Okay, that's A and then you go down to rural recreation al
beachlots .
Emmings : That statement of K governs both of those two. Tome anyway.
That ' s the statement of intent.
Headla: I like that opening statement of K but does that directly apply to
both paragraphs?
Emmings: Sure. I don't know if we want to settle it but maybe we should '
initially and then we can find out later if it doesn't work and then let the
Homeowners Association manage who gets it.
Headla: I think we ought to have no parking.
Conrad : That ' s already there. Not in this document but. . .
Emmings: That's in the Beachlot Ordinance.
Conrad: So, if we take Steve's comments and weave that back in, the next '
step after this would be?
Olsen: Bringing it in front of the Planning Commission as a public hearing
on May 13th.
Conrad : And who would we inform?
Olsen: All of the Homeowners Associations along the lake and everybody
else. It' s a public hearing.
Emmings: Again, isn't this one of those issues for anybody that lives on a
lake out to know? I would not get notice of this .
Dacy: We have 10 lakes . We could be notifying over half the population .
Emmings: Does half our population live on lakes?
Dacy: We' ve got a lot of lake frontage.
Conrad: It' s about 27% .
Erhart : But you' re only changing the rural part of it.
Dacy: Yes, but you're changing the whole Ordinance. I don't think it would
be appropriate for the City to just notify the rural areas from the public
perception standpoint.
Emmings: Could there at least be a special notice in the newspaper or
something?
( `
"nning Commission Meeting
Iril 8 , 1987 - Page 39
Iracy: Yes, but to notify every private landowner on every lake would be a
nightmare.
Emmings: I guess the question is how interested are you in getting comments
from people who are going to be directly affected.
Dacy: They will be here. I can assure you that they will be here.
IEmmings: You put 18 townhouses directly in my line of sight across my lake
and I didn ' t know about it until it was all over .
Dacy: But I think the beachlot issue in Chanhassen has been going on for so
many years , it' s tops .
IlEmmings : But I don' t trust people getting it by word of mouth.
Noziska: On this beachlot access, for urban and rural we're limiting it to
Ia maximum of 50 dwelling units having access?
Olsen: Just the rural. Urban still is the same conditions. 80% within
I1, 000 feet or how ever many are in that subdividion.
Noziska: Shouldn' t we be doing the same rules for both?
'Conrad : They are different areas .
Olsen : One is spread out. They are completely different lot sizes .
'Noziska: So you ' re saying in an urban area, it's within a 1, 000 feet .
Conrad: The logic goes like this is you are trying to support it. Our
urrent Ordinance says 1,000 feet contiguous or whatever. So far, using
that standard, the biggest beachlot group is like 44 so that's where the 50.
We said, the 1, 000 feet got us to a 44 type of limit so we rounded it off to
'50.
Noziska: So they are equal .
ILonrad: So there is some kind of logic. Not a whole lot but there is
omething that' s there.
Immings : I take it too that you are going to get rid of that second
entence too.
"URAL STREET STANDARDS .
Dacy: We have really come full circle on this issue. The last time we
Italked about it there were some good points made about looking at the length
f the cul-de-sac. Looking at the number of lots to be served. Looking at
the amount of traffic to be used by private drives versus a standard public
I
.„----C_o Heil Meeting, March 11 ,85 1• y
-2 `
t R
Councilwoman Watson brought the question up as to whether our maintenance departmen + ,
would be able to maintain and fix a fuel-injected engine .
II
Bill Monk replied that with some schooling there would be no problem in maintaining
the vehicle after the warranty .
Councilman Horn felt that a V-6 engine would be a much better vehicle and last i
longer. ast
Councilman Geving moved to accept the bid from Thurk Brothers for the 1985 Celebrity I
Station Wagon in the amount of $9,225.00 . Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilman Geving and Councilwoman
Watson . Councilman Horn opposed . Motion carried . II
Councilman Horn requested that the Council review specifications prior to adver-
tising. II
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved to note the Planning Commission minutes
of February 13, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. I
No negative votes. Motion carried .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR GROUP HOMES FOR SEVEN TO SIXTEEN PERSONS IN AN R-1A 4 II DISTRICT, FIRST READING:
Barb Dacy : State Regulations: The statutes require that a state licensed residen-
tial facility for group homes is a single family permitted use for six (6) or less
II
persons. A residential facitlity is a facility , public or private, which for gain
or otherwise regularly provides one or more persons with a 24-hour per-day substitute
for care, food , lodging, training, education , supervision, habilitation, rehabilita-
tion, and treatment they need for which for any reason cannot be furnished on the f_i
person 's own. Residential Facilities include: state institutions under the control
of the Commissioner of Public Welfare, foster homes, residential treatment centers,
maternity shelters , group homes , residential programs or schools for handicapped I
children .
Group homes , which is the subject for request tonight, are intended for residents who
are generally 12 to 18 years of age with behavioral , emotional , and/or family
I
problems that require treatment, but are not so severe as to prohibit living in an
open community setting. The number of persons that reside in a group home should
trigger the differentiation between a permitted use and a conditional use . Staff is
recommending approval of the request, feeling that this type of a use is essentially I
a single family use . Although defined as a group home , the proposed use is essen-
tially a single family use; in that the persons will be utilizing a single dwelling
with single kitchen facilities. In the past, it has been the intent of state
II
legislation to locate these types of facilities in a single family neighborhood .
Because of community apprehension , many programs are siting these facilities in
sparsely populated areas. In the R-lA district, the minimum lot size is 2} acres.
II
Most of these parcels substantially exceed the minimum lot area . These type of
facilities have to be licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services , The
Minnesota Department of Health and local Fire , Safety and Housing codes. The maxi-
mum number of persons of a group home should be specifically regulated . To mirror II
state statute, it is recommended that the conditional use allow up to 16 persons .
At the Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the Ordinance Amendment subject to the following conditions:
II
1 . Compliance with state licensing requirements .
2 . Compliance with local building and fire codes . �'
3 . Annual review local building and fire codes. `'
4. Compliance with Ordinance 10A, Individual Sewage Treatment Systems.
5 . One and one-half mile spacing requirement .
C
7
I/
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITOUNCIL MEETING c° o
MARCH 11 , 1985
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge
to the Flag.
II rMembers Present
Councilman Horn , Councilwoman Watson
' Councilman Geving
Member Absent
' Councilwoman Swenson
Staff Present
' Don Ashworth , Barbara Dacy ,
Bill Monk , Roger Knutson ,
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the agenda as presented with
the addition of Signage and Resignation discussions. Motion was seconded by
Councilman Horn . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson ,
' Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried .
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the following Consent Agenda
items:
' 1 .b. Purchase of CPT Equipment
l .c. Proclamations, Mayor
1 . National Volunteers of America Week
2 . American Association of University Women 's Week
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson . The following voted in favor: Mayor
' Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes .
Motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: A brief discussion was held on the purchase of the 1985 Truck and
Vac-All Unit, for the Utility Department . The overall feeling of the Council was
that the purchase was needed to handle emergencies and for future expansion of city
facilities .
RESOLUTION #85-09: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution accepting the
bid for a Utility Pump Truck from Flexible Pipe Tool Company in the amount of
$41,986.00 . Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson . The following voted in
' favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes . Motion carried.
' 1985 Administrative Vehicle : This item was tabled at the February 25, 1985, meeting
seeking clarification of the station wagon bids . The main question was whether it
would be better to have a V-6 engine versus a 4 cylinder engine . Don Ashworth stated
' that the dealerships that were contacted did not show an interest for bidding on the
7-passenger van type vehicle .
Roger Knutson reviewed the specifications on the bids received. His findings were
that the Council would have to accept the low bid given by Thurk Brothers on the
4-cylinder station wagon - $9,225.00 or reject all the bids and advertise specifi-
cally for a V-6 engine automobile . Don Ashworth stated that this process would take
around 6 to 8 weeks time .
A
p il
�
411 Council Meeting, March 1^
co l , 1985 _3_
However, some of the commissioners were concerned that the Council should be aware of
II
possible conditions that you could apply to a group home in the R-1A area . So, in
i response to their request, staff contacted Eden Prairie, Minneapolis, Minnetonka and
St. Louis Park as they have experience in issuing group home facilities. Our II/ research has indicated that the facility meets the zoning requirements in the
district.
Councilman Geving: Why does it have to be at least a number of seven (7) to qualify?
Wouldn 't it be possible that over a period of time with transfers in and out that the
home would have less than seven (7) at some particular point?
Barb Dacy : That may or may not be possible , but because by state statute , six (6) or
' less is a permitted use .
' Roger Knutson: , If they have one (1) to six (6) they can go in if you like it or
II
not, so to speak .
Councilman Horn : I do not have a problem with the concept of group homes, but I feel
that it should be limited to ten individuals and not sixteen .
Mayor Hamilton : I believe 16 is acceptable if reviewed on an individual basis,
II
however, I would like the annual review process to be more specific in that it be
conducted by the City Council as a Public Hearing Process.
Mayor Hamilton moved the passage of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Group Homes
II
for seven to sixteen persons in the R-1A District complying with the recommendations
of the Planning Commission , Amendment Request 85-1: 1 . Section 6.04 (Uses by
Conditional Use Permit in the R-la, Agricultural Residence District) for group homes II_ for 7-16 persons; and 2 . Section 4 (Rules and Definations) to add the following:
Group Home: A state licensed residential facility where persons reside for purposes
of rehabilitation, treatment or special care . Such persons may be orphaned, suffer
chemical or emotional impairment, or suffer social maladjustment or dependency , and I
the Staff's suggestions , items 1-5:
1 . Compliance with state licensing requirements .
II
2. Compliance with local building and fire codes .
3 . Annual review process, being a public hearing process .
4. Compliance with Ordinance 10A, Individual Sewage Treatment Systems.
II
5. One and one-half mile spacing requirement .
=1 Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes .
II
.',.Motion carried .
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP HOME FOR TEN PERSONS, 1350 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, II
MID-AMERICA BAPTIST SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION :
Barbara Dacy : The site is on the north side of F1 in II Y g Cloud Drive, or US HWY 212 and
the parcel totals approximately 30 acres . The Assumption Seminary is located on the
north side of Highway 212 . The proposal is for a group home for 10 boys . The sub-
ject property now contains five (5) existing structures: 81dg O1: a three-story
structure containing 8 bedrooms, 2 full bathrooms, 2 half-baths, and a basement . On
II
February 8, 1985, The Public Safety Director and Building Inspector inspected the
building and determined that the house was structurally safe; however, some smoke
detectors, railings, and other minor items would need to be installed . Bldg: #2:
II
this is a garage, which the roof is falling in . It is the applicant' s intent to
repair the building. Bldg 03: this is non-usable, as it was found that it may be
structurally unsafe . Bldg 04: an old grainery , and may be used to house animals
II
I
V I TY 0 F I-.�. DATE: Feb. 27 1985
C.C..DATE: March 4, 1985
,\I : UAIIUA: : T
�� CASE N0.• 85-1 Zoning Ord.
I ---.\.„. Amendment
STAFF REPORT
I
I PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Public Hearing) to allow
group homes for 7 or more persons in the R-la,
Agricultural Residence District.
IzAction by City Administrator
Q Endorsed c
Modified
I
LOCATION: Rejected
mss
J Date
Lis Date Submitted to Commission
1 Cis APPUCANT: Mid-American Baptist Social Service Date St,mitted to Council
I
4
I4
PRESENT ZONING:
IACREAGE:
IDENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING N-
I AND LAND USE:
S-
E-
1t:X .
Q W
Iw WATER AND SEWER:
I'
ICn PHYSICAL CHARAC.:
1990 LAND USE PLAN:
•i
Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Group Homes
February 25 , 1985
Page 2
1
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Minnesota State Statutes ( 462. 357,
Subd. 7 ) allows a state licensed
"residential facility" as a per-
mitted single family use for 6 or
fewer persons in single family
districts. '
Subd. 8 of the above referenced
statute allows a state licensed
"residential facility" for 7 to 16 II
persons as a permitted multi-
family use.
BACKGROUND
A "residential facility" , as defined by statute, means: '
"Any facility, public or private, which for gain or
otherwise regularly provides one or more persons with
a 24 hour per day substitute for care, food, lodging,
training, education, supervision, habilitation, reha-
bilitation, and treatment they need, but which for
any reason cannot be furnished in the person' s own
home. Residential facilities include, but are not
limited to: state institutions under the control of
the commissioner of public welfare, foster homes ,
residential treatment centers, maternity shelters,
group homes, residential programs, or schools for
handicapped children. "
"Group homes" are intended for residents who are generally 12-18
years of age with behavioral, emotional and/or family problems
that require treatment but are not so sever as to prohibit living
in an open community setting.
ANALYSIS ,
The number of persons residing in a group home should trigger a dif-
ferentiation between a permitted use and a conditional use. As men-
tioned earlier, a home for six or fewer persons is a permitted single
family use by state statute. Homes for seven or more persons is not
addressed by statute in single family districts. If permitted through
a conditional use, which dictates site plan review, homes for 7 or
more persons will be evaluated in terms of its location, lot area,
access, and suitability of soils for septic systems and wells. '
Although defined as a "group home" , the proposed use is essentially a
single-family use in that persons will be utilizing a single dwelling
unit with single kitchen facilities.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Group Homes
I February 25 , 1985
Page 3
It has been the intent of state legislation to locate licensed
residential facilities in single-family neighborhoods; however,
because of community apprehension, many programs are siting group
homes and other licensed residential facilities in sparsely popu-
lated areas to mitigate community concerns.
' Much of the R-la district is located in the rural service area.
While the minimum lot size is 24 acres , most parcels substan-
tially exceed the minimum lot area resulting in very low den-
sities.
It should also be noted that these types of facilities must be
licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, the
Minnesota Department of Health, and local fire-safety and housing
inspectors.
' The maximum number of persons in a group home should be specifi-
cally regulated. It is recommended that the city mirror state
statute and allow up to sixteen persons.
It is also recommended that a group home be defined in the Zoning
Ordinance as follows:
' Group Home: A state licensed residential facility where persons
reside for purposes of rehabilitation, treatment or special care.
Such persons may be orphaned, suffer chemical or emotional impair-
ment, or suffer social maladjustment or dependency.
To follow on the agenda is a specific conditional use permit
request for a proposed group home. If the Planning Commission
recommends denial on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, the con-
ditional use permit request would not be considered.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
' following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Request #85-1 to amend:
1 . Section 6 .04 (Uses by Conditional Use Permit in the R-la,
Agricultural Residence District) for group homes for 7 to 16
persons; and
2. Section 4 (Rules and Definitions ) to add the following:
Group Home: A state licensed residential facility where per-
sons reside for purposes of rehabilitation, treatment or spe-
cial care. Such persons may be orphaned, suffer chemical or
emotional impairment, or suffer social maladjustment or
- dependency.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment- Group Homes
February 25 , 1985
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Commissioners unanimously recommended the City Council '
approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as recommended by staff
and in addition, staff should provide a thorough report to the
Council on any specific conditions that should be made for this
type of use prior to issuance of a conditional use permit. The
motion was made by Conrad and seconded by Albee.
STAFF UPDATE I
In an attempt to respond to the Commission ' s concerns, staff has
contacted cities with specific group home experience. Eden '
Prairie, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, and St. Louis Park vary in
their regulations of group homes. Minneapolis has many group
homes and therefore requires conditional use permits for homes
over 5 persons in single family districts. Minneapolis also
requires a half-mile spacing requirement and an annual review of
each group home through a public hearing process. The remainder
of the cities follow the regulations of state statutes. 1
As a single family use, staff feels that group homes should meet
the zoning requirements for the R-la district just like any other
single family use. Therefore, specific zoning requirements such
as lot size, setbacks, etc. should not be increased for this type
of use.
As noted earlier in the report, these facilities must be licensed
by several state agencies along with local approval.
Should the Council feel that conditions for group homes are
necessary, the following is a suggested list:
1 . Compliance with state licensing requirements .
2 . Compliance with local building and fire codes.
3 . Annual review process .
4. Compliance with Ordinance 10A, Individual Sewage Treatment
Systems.
5 . One and a half mile spacing requirement.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS
1 . Application '
2 . Excerpt from State Statutes
3 . Excerpt from "Zoning News" regarding group homes
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 27 , 1985
!I
•
/MINUTES
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 27, 1985
117771/
Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
Members Present
James Thompson, Susan Albee, Ladd Conrad, Bill Ryan, and Mike
Thompson.
Members Absent
' Tom Merz and Howard Noziska
PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #85-1 to amend the R-la,
Agricultural Residence District to allow group homes for 7 or
' more persons as conditonal uses , Mid-American Baptist, applicant
Public Present
Darrell E. Nolden 1350 Flying Cloud Drive
Ted Hasse 630 W. 96th Street
Phil Engh Carver County Social Services
Chuck Gabrielson applicant
Joe Elmgren 1221 Bluff Creek Drive
Justine Phillips 52 Von Hertzen Ct.
Roman Roos 10341 Heidi Lane
Harold Hesse
Dacy explained that Minnesota State Statutes allows a state
' licensed "residential facility" as a permitted single family use
for 6 or fewer persons in single family districts. She stated
state statutes provide for homes for 7 to 16 persons as a permitted
multi-family use. She explained that group homes are intended
for residents who are generally 12-18 years of age with
behavioral, emotional and/or family problems that require treat-
ment but are not so severe as to prohibit living in an open corn-
, munity. She stated that a group home should be defined in the
Zoning Ordinance as a state licensed residential facility where
persons reside for purposes of rehabilitation, treatment or spe-
cial care or for such persons who may be orphaned, suffer chemi-
cal or emotional impairment, or suffer social maladjustment or
dependency. She stated that the intent of state legislation has
' been to locate licensed facilities in single family neigh-
borhoods ; however , because of community apprehension, many
programs are siting group homes and other licensed residential
facilities in sparsely populated areas to mitigate community con-
".. cerns. She also noted that these types of facilities must be
licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services , Minnesota
Department of Health, and local fire-safety and housing inspec-
- tors .
411 411 II
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1985
II
/ Page 2
111/// Chuck Gabrielson, Executive Director and Administrator of I
Mid-American Baptist, stated that the main reasons the boys are
in the facility is for reparenting purposes . He stated that
either the parents were unable or unwilling to control the boys I
and needed more supervision than they were getting in the home.
He stated that the ages range from 13 to 17 years old and are
usually 16 to 17 years old. II
Mr. Roos asked how many homes like this were in existence and if
i the boys had criminal records and the severity of such.
II
Mr. Gabrielson stated that almost all of them had minor juvenile
records. He stated that they do not accept kids who are chemically
dependent or have psychotic behavior. He stated that these boys II
can live in the community and would like a rural setting.
Harold Hesse asked how much control there was to keep the kids I
from walking away from the facility.
Mr. Gabrielson stated that in the 3i years he has been at the
IIhome on Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41 he has not had one problem with any of
the neighbors and does not see any reason for them to bother the
neighbors. He stated that he wanted to be as open and coopera-
tive as possible with the neighbors.
II
Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
The Commissioners were mainly concerned about possibly setting
some restrictions for this type of use. They did not want to be
too restrictive yet felt that maybe it should be researched II
further.
Conrad moved, seconded by Albee to recommend approval of Zoning I
Ordinance Amendment Request #85-1 to amend:
1 . Section 6 .04 (Uses by Conditional Use Permit in the R-la,
Agricultural Residence District) for group homes for 7 to 16 II
persons; and
2. Section 4 (Rules and Definitions) to add the following: r
Group Home: A state licensed residential facility where per-
sons reside for purposes of rehabilitation, treatment or spe- '
cial care. Such persons may be orphaned, suffer chemical or
emotional impairment, or suffer social maladjustment or
dependency.
Also, staff should provide a thorough report on what I should be made for this use prior to issuancecofla
conditional use permit. All voted in favor and the motion
II
carried.
r
C I T Y P.C. DATE: Jan. .
0 F
��' � � C.C. DATE: Feb. 8 ,,17 .A22ZNI
r)-7 CASE NO: 88-2 ZOA
rPrepared by: Dacy/v
STAFF REPORT
1 '
' PROPOSAL: To Amend the Zoning Ordinance To Permit Golf
Courses as a Conditional Use in the A-2 ,
Agricultural Estate District
tai
II 0 LOCATION: .
?1,1. APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
I
['RESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
' S-
E-
r d .
o W_
r-W WATER AND SEWER:
1 (13
k'tIYSICAL CHARAC. :
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
4
ZOA for Golf Courses II January 20 , 1988
Page 3 II The Bluff Creek Golf Course receives access through a residential
neighborhood on Creekwood Drive. The golf course was at the
I
center of the road improvement issue on Creekwood Drive as to how
much the golf course should be responsible for paying for
Creekwood Drive' s improvement. The location of the golf course
was also a major factor in the review of the Bluff Creek Greens II
subdivision request which was approved by the Council in March,
1986 . This request consisted of the creation of thirteen 2f acre
lots along the golf course property as well as the creation of
I
six 2i acre lots adjacent to Pioneer Trail. There is no question
that if the Bluff Creek Golf Course submitted an application
today, the city would require direct access to a collector road-
II
way instead of gaining access through a residential development.
Summary
The City Council requested the Planning Commission to evalute the II
appropriateness of golf courses in the A-2 District and to pro-
vide some guidelines as to their location. Given the current
state of the ordinance, the Bluff Creek Greens Golf Course is
non-conforming. If expansion were to be proposed or improvement
modifications to be proposed, a variance application would have
II
to be processed to allow a non-conforming use to expand. The
Council adopted the Planning Commission' s recommendations for
standards for driving ranges. Some of these conditions are just
as appropriate. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning
II
Commission consider amending the A-2 District to permit golf
courses subject to the following conditions :
1 . Access must be obtained from a collector or arterial street II
as identified in Article VI, Section 25 . •
'1-2 ' i, ".7 ,9.„ 1
2 . Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
3 . Adequate septic system and well facilities shall be provided `
in conformance with Ordinance No. 10-B.
II
The Zoning Ordinance already provides for parking requirements
for a golf course use.
Because of the land requirements , golf co I
areas in other communities. The Cedar Hills golf 1course rinaEden
IIPrairie is an example.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the II
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance II
Amendment Request 88-2 to amend the A-2 , Agricultural Estate
District to add golf courses as a conditional use subject to the
/1:
ticti
\Q,
ZOA for Golf Courses R'
January 20, 1988
Page 4
following standards :
1 . Access must be obtained from a collector or arterial street
as identified in Article VI, Section 25 .
2 . Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
3 . Adequate septic system and well facilities shall be provided
in conformance with Ordinance No. 10-B .
' ATTACHMENTS
1 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 22 , 1987.
2 . City Council minutes dated May 4 , 1987.
3 . City Council minutes dated November 16 , 1987.
4 . Copy of 1972 Ordinance.
5 . Copy of Ordinance 80-E.
6 . Copy of Land Use Plan .
r
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
To: The Planning Commission ,
From:Pat Swenson
Date: 8-8-88 '
Re: Commissioner Erhart's letter of May 18 re Minnesota Valley and
Letter of May 27 re Land Use in the A-2 Districts. ,
I won't attempt to elaborate on the Commissioner's letters. Suffice
it to say he has more than eloquently demonstrated the need for posies
tike action on these two issues for the preservation of areas which,
otherwise, may well be extinct in a very few years. It is indeed
incumbent upon all of us to think in long range timing. . .as well as
for what seems appropriate for now. I
There is no question that the present situation at the junction of
212/101 is not befitting the southern "gateway" to our beautiful city.
As some of you know I have attempted for several years to correct a
difficult flaw in the appearance of that area As some of you also
know it is far more difficult to 'correct' a bad situation than it is
to prevent it in the first place. . .which is what Tim is trying to tell
us. ,v
Traffic from Dakota, Scott Counties (Burnsville, Savage, Shakopee,
Prior Lake, and Southern Bloomington) ; from Flying Cloud, Valley Fair
and Canterbury Downs all use 169/212/101 as entryway to and thru
Chanhassen. The Arboretum, Dinner Theater, "Riv'-` and now our new and
charming 'downtown ' plus the convenience of the existing motel and the
new 4 million dollar hotel proposed to begin construction in the Fall
all will undoubtly continue to draw greater patronage from the south
as well as other areas. Shouldn 't we ask ourselves how important it is
for these visitors to know that Chanhassen cares?
I urgently request you to consider Commissioner Erhart's proposals from
this'viewpoint'as well as what seems to me to be.his indisputable reasons
for positive action on these issues.
Thank you. ,
Pat '
. 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 35
C
Icarefully. As far as the standards themselves are concerned , it ' s clear
from reading the history and the approval of contractor 's yards at all in
' the A-2, that we intended to include those people who were living in the
rural area and this was sort of a secondary or accessory use of their
property rather than being the whole reason for developing the property as
' this plan seems to be. The scale of this seems to be, to me, still too
large. It would be more appropriate to an industrial area . I think the
traffic issue is an extremely important reason. The reference to the
traffic and as far as aesthetic compatibility, I think is standard 10.
' With the types of developments that are going on in the Bluff, and just
with the general nature of the river valley itself, I don' t think this is
aesthetically compatible.
' Conrad : My comments, I think the applicant did a very nice job of working
with staff and presenting a good plan and working issues out. I commend
him for that . I feel that I have two concerns in terms of traffic
' problems on TH 212. In terms of the potential pollution problem down
there which may be worked out . However it ' s still , based on my comments
before, I feel that it' s a greater intensity of use than I anticipated
' that we could allow in a contractor ' s yard . I felt that contractor ' s
yards should be a secondary use to that site and commercial businesses
should go to our industrial areas .
1 Headla : I agree with you Ladd. It' s a very good proposal and I think
they tried hard but if I look at the year 2000 and think of the way it' s
going to expand and the number of spills that are going to happen and I 'm
' not saying the people aren' t trying diligently. You just don' t control
things 100% . Then the petroleum products that go into the soil and into
the water system, the whole area' s affected . That really could go over a
' large area .
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-572 AND 20-574 OF THE CITY
CODE CONCERNING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
' Public Present :
' Name Address
J. Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta
David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd .
Diane Weeks
Emmings : Could I ask a question? Are we going to go through these one by
one and vote on every one?
Conrad : I think we have to set direction .
IEmmings : Can we get done with one at a time?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 36
Dacy: Most of the people in the public are here for the contractor ' s yard
issue. This is a public hearing. We had intended on some of these that
you could take action on. '
Emmings: What are they?
Dacy: This is a Zoning Ordinance Amendment . ,
Emmings : Yes, so we are going to make a motion whether each one is
approved .
Dacy: Yes , either approved or leave as is or recommend for further study.
Conrad: I suppose we could approve them. I guess my comment reflects,
they are conditional use permits and I don' t see the conditions. If
they' re going to be conditional, I don't know what the conditions are yet
and therefore I was having a tough time approving any of these tonight.
Erhart: I think what Barb said, there were some that are pretty straight
forward . '
Emmings : If we' re eliminating things, that ' s no problem. We can approve
them with recommendations that staff bring them back. '
Olsen : And the ones that we' re recommending to add already have
conditions. Just generally, what' s been suggested is to eliminate
contractor ' s yards, bed and breakfast and mineral extraction from the A-2
District and then to add temporary retail nurseries, churches ,
recreational beachlots , golf courses , group homes for 7 to 16 persons and
public buildings to the A-2. I ' ll go through the first three that we ' re II recommending be eliminated . The first one is contractor ' s yards . As Tim
Erhart has presented, it was first, the ordinance was a condition to allow
for the existing contractor ' s yards in the rural districts . Staff has
gone through some of what would happen if we do remove the contractor ' s
yards so we agreed that they are coming in each time and not necessarily
the whole business that they' re accomodating on the side. We do hesitate
eliminating it from the A-2 district just because then all those existing I
uses that do have a conditional use would become non-conforming.
Conrad : And so what?
Olsen : They can not increase their size but if they burnt down or if they
closed down for one year , they could not rebuild.
Conrad : That has nothing to do with regulation. Being able to regulate .
So they become non-conforming, it doesn' t restrict our ability to be
managing these yards in any degree?
Olsen: No .
Conrad : In applying the conditions that we had on? I know that staff has
never liked non-conforming uses . In this particular case , it sure II
P ure looks
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 37
C
Ilike it' s a good alternative. I don' t know why staff doesn' t like non-
conforming.
Olsen : First of all , it seems like the intent of the whole ordinance in
the first place was to make them so they were no longer non-conforming.
Currently they are a conditional use which has specific conditions that
' you can eliminate those specific conditions from the ordinance. With
specific conditions to each site , with that conditional use we don' t know
if that' s . . .
' Emmings : Wouldn' t they be grandfathered? This is , that would have no
regulation on them whatsoever?
Olsen : That ' s what I think.
Conrad : I would think that their uses would be frozen.
' Olsen: They can' t expand but whether or not. . .
' Emmings : But you have no right to . . . if you can ' t impose the conditions we
have.
Conrad : There is something to that and I think that is why staff has
always told us to make them conditional so you have the regulations
because when they' re non-conforming you lose control .
' Emmings : Because we had all those people coming in for conditional use
permits at the time because we wanted to give them some control .
' Batzli : What would happen if we made another condition that it be a
secondary use?
Olsen : That was one of staff ' s recommendations . Instead of eliminating
them completely, is to come up with more strict conditions and what we
were trying to define is that they must be an accessory use.
' Erhart: I think we have to find out specifically the answer to that
question is to what happens if the current use is conforming and we make
it non-conforming so specifically what happens?
' Olsen : Most of the conditions are those standard conditions that we would
use.
' Conrad : Are you totally confident of what you just said?
Olsen: The standard is , yes .
Batzli : What ' s the gentleman ' s name that runs the excavating business?
Emmings: Lowell Carlson.
Batzli : Isn' t he a non-conforming use?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 38
Emmings : No . He never came in for a conditional use permit. He ' s still
non-conforming.
Batzli : We' ve never actually imposed our conditional use?
Emmings : We haven' t been able to because he' s been. . . ,
Olsen : Evasive.
Emmings : He didn' t have to apply for a conditional use permit. He was
grandfathered in.
Headla : He keeps expanding . ,
Olsen : We do have a difficult time controlling that and enforcing . . .
Conrad: Let' s continue on with your staff report but I just wanted to
raise that issue . -
Olsen : Just a few specific conditions that we added with that conditional I
use permit. I think that if you eliminate it as a conditional use
permit. . . The standard conditions of the ordinance would no longer be
enforceable because it is something that is recorded with the County. In I
summary, we would rather not have them non-conforming uses . We would
still have some control but it just appears that the conditions that we do
have now are allowing uses that contractor ' s yards maybe aren ' t
appropriate. ,
Conrad : I don ' t know how we' re going to hold a public hearing on this
tonight if we keep opening them up and closing them down on each issue. II I guess I 'd like to hear the public ' s comments if they do have any on this
particular subject. We' ll run this real loose. I 'd just like to open it
up. I 'd just like to open it up once and close it once on this whole 11 issue and get their comments as we hit different items rather than opening
up for each item. Are there any comments on this particular aspect of
contractor 's yards that anybody would like to bring up?
Diane Weeks : I just hate to see you eliminate contractor ' s yards as a
conditional use. There are many that are very good and I think. . . take
away those as a conditional use , therefore. . . It just doesn ' t seem like a '
responsible thing for a governing body to intentially make a property non-
conforming . It seems like. . . intentionally the 15 properties
non-conforming . Up to a few years ago we went through all the hoops and
made all the applications and did everything you told us to do . We' re
meeting all the conditions as far as us personally concerned . . .
Dave Stockdale: I live on Galpin Blvd . . I applied for a conditional use II
permit a few years back and prior to the buying the land I purchased the
property, I put my own business out there. . . Right now I 'm enjoying raw
land. We applied for a conditional use permit identical to what was
approved a few years back and similar to the . . . What I saw denied earlier II
is the way our . . . the conditions for denial . . .conditional use permit.
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
August 17 , 1988 - Page 39
Diane Weeks : I just wanted to make. . . If we happen to have a fire or
something would happen. . .we would if we' re non-conforming but we' re still
living on that property. . .
Conrad : What do we want to do on contractor ' s yards right now. Which
' direction do we want to set?
Erhart: Is that true if they burn down that your use is eliminated?
Dacy: The way the ordinance reads is that no non-conforming use building
or structure except single family dwelling which has been damaged by fire,
explosion, flood , act of God or other calamities to the extent of more
than 50% of it' s assessed market value may be restored .
Erhart: Okay, that's the building and structure.
Dacy: No , it says non-conforming use , building or structure.
Erhart: How do you rebuild a use?
' Dacy: The use of having the contractor ' s yard use . Storage of vehicles .
Erhart : Whether or not a contractor ' s yard, the garage or shed burns down
in the A-2 area . . . I agree , we wouldn' t want to find ourselves in the
situation where a garage burned down and that business . . . I think we' ve
got to be careful to set up that situation. That wouldn ' t be fair .
Dacy: It' s still a use but if the primary use of the garage is to house
those vehicles , what would happen is that the assessed market value of
' that use would have to be determined . . .
Erhart : Whether or not you ' re a contractor ' s yard , it means you would
' have to have a garage. . .
Dacy: Correct . If it ' s a garage for your personal vehicles and it burns
down, you can' t rebuild it because of outside parking.
Conrad : Just opinions on what direction you' d like to go . We can vote on
something if we so desire or we can just set a direction for staff on this
' issue.
Erhart : I ' ll give you my comments here . I don' t have any problem, I have
two contractor ' s yards on West 96th Street where I live. For the most
part they' re not a problem the way they are and I don ' t think those
necessarily are so much the concern however I do want to point out that
there is problems with those 10. . . It really comes from, the buildings are
' very nice but it comes from the outdoor storage. That ' s the problem with
the Lowell Carlson property. We' ve had some problems in our area with
outdoor storage that tends to accumulate and I think what I 'm trying to
get to here is that I think we can adequately regulate and find a way to
work with the existing contractor ' s yards and yet basically place a
message that the City is growing . This is becoming more and more of a
residential area and that at some point here , or this is a good point to
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17 , 1988 - Page 40
C
quit expanding that use . The way we have it now, although you might say
that because of the 1 mile radius thing, the thing is , you can get one of
those guys quit and then another guy like the application we say today and
I think it' s a good time to just basically make it non-conforming and quit
the expansion of that use. I think there are too many problems. I 'm not
suggesting problems in my area or that the people here cause the problems
but I 'm looking 20 years ahead . It' s difficult to define what it' s like
on the south today is on one end of the spectrum. I know Ronnie has got a
nice brand new house and everything and it' s fairly clean and how do you
define that? I think it' s a timing thing and I think it' s time that we do II
what Eden Prairie some years ago and say that we are now going to protect
our low density residential rural areas because there are so many people
living out here now and we' re going to make contractor ' s yards non-
conforming. The option to that is , just make it more strict. I guess I 'd II
be agreeable to that too . Obviously I think we all agree that we have to
do something but instead of looking at just making it the primary use
being their residence, make it a condition that too , I think we should try II
to eliminate outside storage.
Emmings : I would not be in support of making contractor ' s yards non-
conforming uses. I think it would be better to have a set of standards.
Maybe they should be more strict but have a set of standards that we' re
comfortable with and rely on those standards and the general conditional
use standards to prove or set restrictions on contractor ' s yards . I think
it's much better to have, it seems to me what was going on when, or it ' s
obvious that ' s what was going on when this contractor ' s yard was made
conditional uses was to start to get some control over them to keep them
from expanding . Keep them becoming problems and if we turn them into non-
conforming uses, I think we' ll have them of all coming back again and we
can ' t get rid of the ones that are here . We don ' t have to make more . I 'm ,
particularly concerned with the scale of the one we looked at tonight so I
think as a matter of theory, I think it ' s better to have good standards
and I would recommend that we'd better spend working on those standards so
we' re comfortable with them and so that they work rather than giving up on 11
them.
Batzli : I agree with most of Steve' s comments . That ' s not to say that if '
there was a way to eliminate them in the A-2 district, which we would run
into the non-conforming problem, I would be in favor of that as well but
it doesn' t look like it' s going to go that way so I would recommend trying II
to consider a new set of standards where we would be insuring that it ' s a
secondary or accessory use. You' re going to run into problems such as
this gentleman that has split off the land running into the same problem
Tim had trying to get a mortgage. He' s going to try and get a
contractor ' s yard with this other parcel of land , it ' s going to have to be
office definition of an accessory use if it' s on an adjacent parcel .
Wildermuth: I agree . It sounds like we need to change our regulations
rather than a straight outlawing of contractor ' s yards in the A-2
districts .
Headla : I feel we should have a contractor ' s and but the conditions
Y that
Steve mentioned, I think we ought to look at. One of the things I think
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17 , 1988 - Page 41
' that we really want to control is the size. That ' s one of the main
things , if we can control that we can control a lot of the problems.
' Conrad : I agree with your comments . Let' s direct staff to take a look at
some of those conditions that may give us a little bit more control in
' terms of size. What else besides size are we looking at?
Headla: I think the type of equipment. When you start bringing in these
great big diesel tankers and burning diesel oil .
' Conrad: So that from an environmental standpoint, the equipment type may
be appropriate . The amount of outside storage .
Dacy: Employees .
Conrad : Number of employees .
' Batzli : Can we make it a different setback from wetland areas?
Wildermuth: How about trucks to and from the site?
Dacy: Vehicles would be the best way.
ICConrad: Take a look at accessory use, secondary use versus primary use.
Headla : Let me just make the comment on traffic . Lowell Carlson has
' several vehicles and they' re going up and down but I don' t think it ' s
wrong . I think it' s appropriate . I don ' t have a problem with his
vehicles going back and forth. It ' s the other huge trucks go up and down
the parkway. . .so vehicle useage like that for like a ma and pa operation ,
let them have it.
' Erhart : Can I ask Ron , how many vehicles do you have. . . in your operation?
Ron: Two trucks .
' Erhart : You' ve got what , two besides your personal vehicles you ' ve got
three trucks?
' Emmings : When we approve these as a conditional use , do we record that
information at that time? The number and type of vehicles that are going
to be used and keep that information here so we always know that?
' Conrad: Intensification is something we ' ve never been able to deal with
either . It can border on being unfair . We can freeze the use that
whatever you apply for , that' s what you get but on the other hand , in the
' cases where intensification . . .and that ' s why it ' s a conditional use but we
still have a hard time measuring the real impact.
Emmings : But on the other hand , if you see someone coming in with a plan
and they' ve got a building and they' re going to put all their vehicles are
going to be inside and their outside storage is going to be minimal and
they' ve made provisions for screening and so forth so it can not be seen,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17 , 1988 - Page 42
C
what do we care? I don ' t know. That doesn ' t bother me.
Conrad : Anything else on this? Okay, does that kind of give you some
feel?
Diane Weeks : I was just wondering , you ' re talking about . . .and people
coming in . . .
Conrad : Yes there are. Not on yours but on other contractor ' s yards and
there are cases where they are poorly maintained. There are abuses and we
hear about the abuses at different times during the year . I think what
Chanhassen has tried to do is accomodate a limited scale use of property
because we' ve always thought it was fair to do that. The primary intent
was, at least my philosophy has always been, if somebody else had property 1
and they had some work that ' s associated , they should be able to work off
of that property. That seems right to me. Tonight we saw something where
it was obviously a larger scale . That ' s just big and all of a sudden we 11
get a little bit nervous I think, or I am when I see something like that
but going back to your question , there are abuses in contractor ' s yards .
There are traffic patterns that the neighbors just complain about. We II
tell contractor ' s you ' ve got to use certain road access and if they have a
lot of trucks going to that location, those different truckers don' t
always take the preferred highway pattern so you create traffic patterns
C that maybe you prefer not to and then the neighbors come in and complain
so it ' s not consistent and it all depends on the scale and nature of the
operation. The other reality is, Chanhassen is growing and neighbors are
moving . Whether we want them or not , people are moving into Chanhassen .
We' re trying as a Planning Commission, trying to figure out where that
puts us . Let everybody use their property fairly but also be realistic
and say there' s growth out here and somehow we have to anticipate what ' s
going to happen when those people reach us .
Emmings : Maybe some things that we can look at are setbacks for storage.
Another thing that I 'm wondering , you just brought it to mind , have we
approved any contractor 's yards under the standards that we presently
have?
Dacy: The Admiral Waste application and when they went through the
ordinance. . . before all these folks came through the process. . .
Emmings : Except Lowell . I guess my question is this . As far as 1
complaints that we get, if any, do we keep track of those by the way?
Dacy: Yes . Since we ' ve had the Code Enforcement officer . 1
Emmings : Do we have any ability if we get complaints about one particular
contractor ' s yard, do we have any way, I supposed if he' s violating your
standards then you use your enforcement but if it ' s not violating some
condition of the permit, then there' s nothing you can do about it?
Dacy: If the complaint is valid and if they are violating any ordinance
requirements or ,
q permit conditions . It depends on what they' re complaining
about and what actually is occurring .
' Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 43
Emmings : It would seem to me that the types of complaints that are coming
' in, all ought to be constructive to us as to what kind of conditions we
should be imposing I guess is what I 'm trying to say.
Erhart: Your thing is, I 'd like to tie down the actual use a little more
specifically. One thing right now where we' re using it for actual
contractor 's yard , landscape contractor, building contractor but when you
talk about these garbage trucks under contractor ' s yard , I think we ought
' to tighten that up. Basically let' s talk about people who run their
businesses out of their garages or storage sheds.
' Conrad: Next item. Bed and Breakfast.
Olsen : Bed and breakfast . When this ordinance was amended , we researched
bed and breakfast quite a bit and we came up with specific conditions that
we feel will allow bed and breakfast to be compatible in the A-2 district .
We feel it should be maintained as a conditional use in the A-2 district.
' Erhart : The reason why I brought these to your attention is because I do
not have strong feelings one way or the other on the rest of them but I
started writing up a philosophy of the A-2 district and these got brought
in so don' t feel that on the rest of the issues that I have no strong
I ,- feelings one way or the other . I 'm not against bed and breakfast
establishments .
' Conrad : Does anybody want to eliminate bed and breakfasts from the A-2?
I guess the 5 rooms is really arbitrary. I guess I could go along with
the 5 rooms but there are great bed and breakfasts with 7 rooms . I think
it' s just an arbitrary number . If somebody came in here and had a use
with 7 rooms, I would be ready to change it on the spot . That ' s my only
comment. It ' s just as good as any other number.
' Batzli : I like 5. I hate to disagree but 5 is a great number for a bed
and breakfast and I would hold firm. I ' ve been in a lot of bed and
breakfast in my day and 7 , they don' t cut it . You want the small homey
' feeling of a bed and breakfast. Not this large bussling hotel of 7 rooms .
Erhart : Can I come in at my house and make that into a bed and breakfast?
Dacy: As a conditional use .
Erhart : Is it the intent of the bed and breakfast to use old homes or
' just. . .
Emmings : That ' s what typically is built.
Erhart: We ' re not. . . to build a motel out there?
Dacy: If it ' s owner occupied .
Emmings : What are you thinking?
Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 17, 1988 - Page 44
Erhart : I just bring it up.
Batzli : I 'm being slightly facetious when I say hold the line at 5 rooms II
but I 'm envisioning this small owner occupied type place. My only
experience with them is overseas and they' re really neat and you get to
meet people along the way. I don' t envision trying to let people build
hotels in the A-2 district.
Emmings : Maybe it ' s the place to put a little intent statement.
Conrad: You don' t want to turn the asssumption seminary into a bed and
breakfast? Something like that would be really intriguing for me and I
don' t know how we justify it but it was a case where it might be an
interesting use down there. I would like to do something totally out of
the ordinary right now and ask if there are any other comments from the
public on any of the items . Is there a motion to close the public
hearing? ,
Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted II
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Conrad : Let' s run with the bed and breakfast and let ' s keep it in there .
There' s mineral extraction.
Olsen : We ' re saying if you want to remove it, we should study it further
to see what impacts it would have. 1
Conrad : Should we direct staff to study it further?
Erhart: Yes, I think so. I have a concern about mineral extraction.
Conrad : I don ' t know how much study you want to put into this . It
doesn 't seem like it ' s worthy of a whole lot of time. 1
Wildermuth : Especially with only one site in the City.
Conrad: I 'm not in favor of mineral extraction. I see no benefit to
Chanhassen but I guess I would like to have staff take a look at it and
say is there any. . . '
Olsen : We just have to work out . . .
Erhart : Barb , we had a question here while you were out and that was , if
we were to eliminate contractor ' s yards or let ' s say mineral extraction
and they are now under regulations of a conditional use permit with a
number of conditions , do we lose that ability to enforce those conditions
once we eliminate them from the ordinance?
Dacy: No and I ' ll confirm that with the City Attorney but I would say the
opposite . Yes , we would be able to enforce the conditions of their 11
original approval . The non-conforming status really protects the City
from the use from expanding . For us not to be able to enforce the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 45
' conditions of approval , then they can go hog wild .
Emmings: Yes , but you know what you' ve done there. I guess what you've
just said is , we can pass an ordinance and drop all your non-conforming
uses to come in and get conditional use permits so we can impose
conditions on you and then we ' re going to jerk out your conditional use
permit and make you non-conforming uses so that they can ' t expand or if
you ' re destroyed , and by God , I ' ll tell you, I 'd be willing to take over a
lawsuit against the City. That'd be a dirty trick.
' Erhart : You' ve got one of those guys as non-conforming anyway because
they' re not. . .and none of them have 5 acres so they' re non-conforming
anyway.
Emmings : Well , how would they get permits?
Dacy: Because the 5 acre standard and all those other standards weren' t
passed until 1987 .
Erhart : Okay, is anybody prepared just to eliminate mineral extractions
tonight? I vote just to eliminate them.
IOlsen : There may be other issues .
r
Headla : What happens if I want to clean up my barnyard with a Bobcat? Am
I supposed to get a permit for that? I see you talk about grading in
' here . I come through with a Bobcat and I scrape my barnyard . Farmers
scrape their fields . Where do you draw the line on grading?
' Dacy: That ' s part of the reason why we ' re saying we prefer to study it.
Headla: Okay, I agree.
Batzli : Is mineral soil?
Dacy: Yes .
' Conrad : Okay, look into that more .
' Olsen : Temporary retail nurseries . Number one , we can ' t really control a
temporary use and we just feel that retail nurseries is too intense a use
in the A-2 district .
' Conrad : But we could allow it temporarily. How could we do this? How
could we accomodate a farmer who wants to sell produce on their land
' during the selling season?
Erhart : I know you ' re not going to vote for this but I keep coming across
this idea that you can make a temporary use. I looked back in the Minutes
again and I read , in 1981 a permit was issued and I can ' t figure out under
what section of the ordinance but we issues a permit in 1971 for a 5 year
conditional use permit . Now isn ' t that a temporary permit?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 46
Dacy: That' s illegal .
Emmings : We got a letter from our Attorney that says it ' s illegal .
Conrad: I really like that idea. You've got 3 years .
Emmings : And that ' s what they' re asking for . You say give me 3 years.
Why can ' t we enforce that?
Erhart : Our Attorney. I guess the one that hit me was the fellow who now 11
is downtown so I think it all worked out. His initial proposal was to put
a retail nursery out in our , actually it was our RR district. I just felt I
it was sort of ridiculous. Given that we could give this guy a temporary
permit, if we could enforce this temporary, it made good sense to take TH
101 or TH 5 and allow them to put a temporary use. That was my only
thought .
Dacy: What Roger is coming back and saying is that State Statute says
that if it runs with the land, then the property owner has realized a
certain amount of investment of that use and on the land . For the City to
come back 3 or 5 years later , even though he may have agreed to that
condition and come back and say, no you can ' t do it anymore, Roger was II saying that the City is on shaky ground because the temporary nature of it
is not really valid . He has made a solid investment in that land .
Emmings : Under the conditional use section it says that they are not
personal but run with the land . So you throw that into that calculation
and that makes it, that' s the problem but if you couldn ' t make them
personal , what if we had some way to give a certain individual the right
to do something on a piece of land for a certain period of time? Don ' t
call it a conditional use permit. Call it something else . Call it a
license.
Dacy: You can ' t avoid that though. It ' s either permitted , accessory
or . . .
Emmings : No . If it' s a conditional use , why can ' t there be a license?
Dacy: Even if it' s a license for a business , that use still has to II conform with the Zoning Ordinance. We just can ' t establish another set . . .
Headla : Why can' t we ask him to post a bond that he' s going to get out
after x number of months?
Dacy: It' s still the same issue.
Headla : Yes , but if you ' ve got the money in hand , he ' s got a little more II
incentive.
Dacy: But still requiring them to leave within a certain amount of time,
with or without money, II
y, what the Attorney is saying is that' s not
consistent with State law.
1 Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 47
Conrad : . . . It seems like if you want to make an investment and build this
' structure and you know that it has to comply or it has to cease after 5,
that doesn ' t seem like an unfair thing and I don ' t understand that.
Erhart: Especially if you' re going to deny it. You can deny it entirely
and it would seem to me you could allow. . .
Emmings : There ' s a conflict here too that someday might be a problem but
' a nursery is defined as an enterprise which conducts retail and wholesale
sale of plants grown on the site. That could be an agricultural use or
nursery as accessory and directly related to the care and maintenance. It
' doesn' t say anything about. . .
Conrad : Okay, churches . Add churches . Anybody against churches?
Anybody concerned with the recreational beachlots?
' Batzli : I guess backing up to the churches for one moment, I am really
disappointed that this church who has that interceptor line running 10
' feet outside their door can ' t hook up to it . They' re 150 feet or whatever
away from a Class A wetlands. The perfect time to do it and there' s so
much red tape around here, they can ' t hook up. It amazes me.
N. Conrad : That' s just the way it is. You sign a contract and you sign
stuff and you have to live up to it.
' Batzli : It ' s like that guy last time who instead of fighting City Hall
moved out of Plymouth to Chan only to find that we were just as bad as
Plymouth .
Emmings : Golf courses are okay?
Conrad : Staff is looking for direction . Keep them small or make them
big? I don' t care if they' re big or small . What do we care?
Batzli : For instance , the Lafayette Club. Let ' s look at that . Small 9
' hole golf course. Residential all around it. Now obviously it ' s got the
lake as a huge buffer and a railroad tracks running right behind it but a
place like that, I don' t know. I guess I would call a City like
' Minnetonka Beach or wherever the heck they' re located in and ask if
there 's complaints about a big club like that on a small piece of land
because they have functions continuously. Wedding receptions and
everything else.
' Headla : It isn ' t that easy access to it either .
' Batzli : I was trying to think of other ones that were big that have a lot
of receptions or not so big actually that were built up around , for
instance, Minnetonka Country Club. Are they in Shorewood?
,� Emmings : Yes .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 48
Batzli : Fairly close to residential on the one side and they just go
right over the 10th fairway to residential .
Emmings : In Hopkins , Oak Ridge has houses on two sides of it.
Erhart: It gets back to this non-conforming thing. We have a golf course
in our City and we make it non-conforming . It ' s a resource there that ' s
not well done but I think it' s starting to get to a point where it' s
starting to come along . I 'd like to see us encourage that place to grow
into a real asset. Right now they can' t grow. ,
Emmings : You' re seeing housing developments now where they' re being
advertised as built around golf courses . 1
Erhart : Look at the one in Victoria .
Batzli : What' s the one in Eden Prairie? '
Conrad : Edenvale .
Batzli : Condos built all the way around it.
Erhart: They' re doing one out here in Victoria . The golf course is part II
of the subdivision .
Conrad : But here you recommended that it be a conditional use in the A-2.
Erhart: What was the option, a permitted use? •
Conrad : Yes . It probably should be conditional . I think just the shoe
size and the fact . . .
Olsen : And in the unsewered area too .
Batzli : I think that was our initial concern when we talked about it was
because if we do make it a large facility and they have a lot of
receptions and all that kind of thing there, and it is unsewered, what
kind of problems are we going to run into?
Conrad : We' re saying to staff on this one, we think a big golf course and II
clubhouse is acceptable . Are we not saying that? What we' re now looking
are their conditions that we might want to hold up. Group homes .
Emmings : I don ' t know much about group homes . '
Batzli : I don' t have any idea what a group home is .
Olsen : We have a definition of one.
Dacy: We have one now on the north side of TH 5.
Headla : The old Harold Vender farm.
e
I
Planning Commi_ssi.on Meeting
August 17 , 1988 - Page 49
IC
Erhart : And we allow them in the A-1? That ' s my argument for
recommending is if we allow them in the A-1, why wouldn ' t we allow them in
' the A-2?
Olsen : It was always the intention.
Conrad: Yes, it should be. Public buildings . Any feelings on that?
Erhart : Same thing . It' s allowed in the A-1.
' Conrad : Going back to group homes. Do we have conditions for the A-1?
' Olsen : They have to be a mile. . .
Conrad : Anyway, I think that takes us through it. I think the things we
could, do you want to handle all these collectively? We could make a
motion that dealt with beachlots .
Olsen: I have a recommendation that covers this .
Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
adding churches , recreational beachlots and group homes for 7 to 16
persons as conditional uses in the A-2 District. All voted in favor and
the motion carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 3 , 1988 as
' presented . All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion
carried.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
Erhart : Barb and I talked about the last meeting on this TH 101 thing .
I think I sort of spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission a little bit
' on indicating that we were all concerned , we felt that issue was important
to try and resolve this TH 101 thing . . .
' Emmings : What ' s the status right now?
Dacy: It ' s going to Council Monday night. Pursuant to the Planning
Commission ' s direction , we are investigating other options beyond the
' north and the south leg . We met with MnDot today to try and determine
some type of understanding of schedule so depending on which options is
chosen, we wouldn ' t lose TH 5 as proposed so we' re hopeful but cautious .
' Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11: 15 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
• 1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I