Loading...
9. CUP Contractors Yard Located on Hwy 212, West of Assumption Seminary C4 I , P.C. DATE: Aug. 17 , 1988 , 41, CITY OF C.C. ::E: :e:: r 12 1988 I \ i CnA5 CASE CU 11 , l I Prepared by: Dacy/v STAFF REPORT 1 1 PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit Request for a Contractor' s Yard Iz I (.) LOCATION: North of and adjacent to TH 212 adjacent to Chaska Boundary - One Mile West of the TH 101 and TH 212 Cl. Intersection Cct on .f r?°, Aam+,nittrator I (Lel. APPLICANT: Harry Lindbery 6901 Maloney Avenue Hopkins, MN 55343 _ II ,PRESENT ZONING: A-2 , Agricultural Estate w--- ,//zjee_ _ IACREAGE: 40 .48 acres D:: :I SIY: AACNT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- A-2; Hesse Farm IS- A-2; single family residences QE- A-2; Assumption Seminary Itr. . W- City of Chaska - Vacant residential IW WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is traversed by a tributary to th_. - I (f) Minnesota River. Existing farmstead is located along TH 212 . 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural c. . I J•il s , .0 . ., . . 1 'nts r C do< • co, . \ fr • 0 If&, ■ a. 0 -t; • re iLlei _ . ‘.,POND(i! 4N ".c ,. illsi. oP • .... ilic. Aly , /..? _ :. • ... _ .: ..„ -; 1 toik-cvk • ,) •• : , r vs.C.IVA- l— —41.1. ZY11(. OF PI .. •::‘i . 6-01■4:5VICI-CV* i CV ; / NiAktD i?iiii_.,i- ;- 11‘., 11111100111111 ;0 G C‘j(3‘313 dd. Vlfr■ F 0%1.4 . A2 ,. _ .• .r_ .. t _ /\ Z - t9e . Z- I 1.- -- I lop . ,_____. ....,, . ;).•-•-• , ... -. • . ,!, , ,....., i s ;; . ....,----_-7, - .......--____ •C . ‘-...— --- --- *-I--- -.j<AA1-/ :.\ ...cook I 0 0 . „ N, ............- 1 1.41t, 44 :4,•: . - In 1r __ T - • IA.••••.444;dati »'At' -,ii.....s....i.-04,...1- -'4: • Lindbery CUP August 17, 1988 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES Engineering Department Attachment #1 Building Department Attachment #2 Resource Engineering Attachment #3 Public Safety Director Attachment #4 ' Minnesota DNR The proposed driveway across the creek will require a DNR permit. ANALYSIS Existing Conditions ' The site contains an existing single family home located near TH 212 . The site is traversed by a creek which is tributary to the ' Minnesota River to the south. Along the creek are extensive stands of mature vegetation. To the north of the stand of trees is open field and oradic stands of trees . Proposal The applicant is proposing a contractor' s yard including ' construction of a 7 ,000 square foot truck storage building and a 1 , 200 square foot office immediately attached to the truck storage building. Outdoor storage areas are also proposed along the northeasterly side of the building. The applicant is pro- posing to serve the site by a gravel driveway matching the loca- tion of the existing driveway. The proposed building is to be ' constructed of 26 guage steel sheeting to be painted a sand/earth tone color. The proposed roof pitch would be 1 :12 . The proposed building is a wedgecore building ( see Attachment #5 ) . The truck storage area will contain 4 to 5 bays for maintenance and for ' storage. Eight to ten vehicles, includings pick-ups and semis will be generated from the site. The applicant estimates 15 trucks at maximum for future expansion. Two or three employees ' will be located in the office building during the day. Approximately 8 to 10 employees would be entering and leaving the site. ' The applicant indicates that his contractor work includes transportation of sand, gravel and other excavation material . He also contracts with utility companies such as NSP and Minnesota Valley Electric to transport and install utility poles . The applicant also indicated his business also includes shipping materials for various companies . For example, the applicant Lindbery CUP August 17, 1988 Page 3 would arrange to have trucks transport materials from one desti- ' nation to another. The materials would not be stored at the pro- posed building site but the arrangements would be made at the office to arrange for the shipping activity. ' Also proposed is outdoor storage of railroad ties, timbers or gravel which would be located in the area to the rear of the truck bay and storage building. The applicant is also proposing to install an underground diesel tank to service the trucks at the site. The applicant has ' already conferred with the Public Safety Director regarding this matter. The applicant is aware of the need to sprinkler the building and ' will comply with that requirement. The applicant has conducted soil borings and percolation tests in compliance with the septic system ordinance. The applicant has also agreed to install a holding tank from the waste generated from the truck storage por- tion of the building. Contractor' s Yard Standards Section 20-255 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes 8 conditions for contractor' s yards in the A-2 District. The subject site exceeds the lot size requirement, the proposed storage and yard areas meet the building setbacks from road right-of-ways and single family homes , and the site is located along a minor arterial . No screening, however, of the outdoor storage area is proposed along the north side of the proposed parking area. Existing trees on the site will serve as a good buffer to shield the use from traffic on TH 212; however, the view to the north from the Hesse Farm lots needs to be addressed. The ordinance requires that all outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing or berming. It is recommended that the applicant install a 6 foot fence around the perimeter of the parking area on the north side of the building. The soils in the area are very sandy and may not be suitable for certain species of evergreens . If the applicant can propose a landscaping plan which can completely screen the outdoor storage area, such would be acceptable. This contractor' s yard is located in excess of one mile of the closest contractor' s yard which is the Admiral Waste Management site at TH 212 and TH 101 ( it is our understanding, however, that site may not be developed for that use) . 1 Hours of operation according to the ordinance must be limited to 7 : 00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Work on Sunday I Lindbery CUP August 17 , 1988 Page 4 ' and holidays is not permitted. No lighting is indicated on the site plan, however, if such is proposed it must be shielded and the glare directed on the parking area. Outside speaker systems are prohibited by the ordinance. Conditional Use Standards ' Section 20-232 establishes 12 conditions for a conditional use. ' I . Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neigh- borhood or the city. * The proposed location of the contractor' s yard is well secluded to the rear of the property. While there may be no direct impacts from the proposed use at this proposed ' location, other factors such as the access to the site will be discussed in another standard. The proposed number of vehicles and employees are similar to other applications approved by the city such as Admiral Waste Management, Merle Volk, R & W Santitation and Gardeneer. 2 . Will be consistent with the objectives of the city' s compre- hensive plan and this chapter. * Contractor' s yards are currently permitted as a conditional ' use in the A-2 District. The Planning Commission and City Council are currently considering amending the ordinance to eliminate contractor' s yards as a conditional use. Because the applicant has filed this application prior to this ordinance action taking place, the use will be grand- fathered in. However, if the ordinance is passed to elimi- nate contractor' s yards, expansion would not be permitted ' beyond what was approved in this application. 3 . Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so to ' be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. ' * The site is bounded by the Assumption Seminary to the east, several single family homes along TH 212 to the south and vacant residential land on the west in the City of Chaska. ' Besides the Assumption Seminary, the general character of the area can be described as rural with a handful of homes along TH 212 before entrance into the commercial area in ' the City of Chaska. The secluded location of the building would not change the general character of the area. Lindbery CUP August 17 , 1988 Page 5 4 . Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned ' neighboring uses. * Because of the parcel size and the secluded location, the proposed use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing uses. If the outdoor storage areas are properly screened this would minimize the visual effect from the Hesse Farm area or the land area in Chaska. 5 . Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. * The site will be served by a septic system for the employee bathroom and a holding tank for the waste from the truck storage and bay area. The septic sites must be protected during construction. Resource Engineering also has specific design recommendations regarding the septic system. The applicant has provided an on site retention pond to trap the runoff from the proposed site. The applicant is proposing a gravel roadway and parking area. Although not zoned commercial and therefore not required, staff would recommend that the driveway and parking area have a paved bituminous surface because of the heavy truck traffic entering and leaving from the site and to minimize the washout of the gravel into the retention pond and creek. Having a bituminous surface will also help finish the site and improve its appearance. , 6 . Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. * The proposed location will not create the need for public facilities and services not already anticipated. 7 . Will not involve uses , activities , processes , materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimen- tal to any persons , property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, * There will not be excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes or odors, rodents or trash eminating from the site. The traffic issue is discussed in the next standard. Lindbery CUP I August 17, 1988 Page 6 I 8 . Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares . I * MnDOT has advised staff verbally that at minimum a right turn lane will be required into the site. Secondly, I depending upon the amount of eastbound traffic turning left into the site MnDOT may require a left turn lane. This would mean at minimum restriping of TH 212 in front of the proposed driveway entrance. TH 212 in this area carries I approximately 10,000 ADT. The addition of 10 to 15 vehicles, while not an excessive amount, will cause an additional interuption on the stream of traffic. I Therefore, it is imperative that the right and left turn lane if required is installed. 9 . Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar I access , natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. I * The proposed contractor' s yard will not result in any loss of solar access, natural or scenic or historic features of major significance. I10 . Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. * If the site is properly screened on the north side and I because of its secluded location, there should not be any adverse impacts as far as aesthetic compatibility (note: the city is working with the owners of the Assumption ISeminary property to improve its appearance) . 11 . Will not depreciate surrounding property values . I * It is not anticipated that the proposed use would depre- ciate surrounding property values. I 12 . Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. I * See previous discussion in report. Summary I Staff met with the applicant and made clear that the ordinance only permits contractor' s yard activities as a conditional use. The applicant indicated that a portion of his current business I does include shipping activities . The applicant stated he would comply with a condition that would prohibit shipping activities occurring on the site, i .e. materials that are shipped being I Lindbery CUP August 17, 1988 Page 7 stored on the site and the site becoming used as a shipping faci- lity. The Commission and Council should be aware, however, that such a condition placed on the conditional use specifying that no shipping activities would occur would have to monitored very clo- sely and would more than likely be difficult to enforce espe- cially in the long term. The extent of the proposed contractor activity is similar to those that have been previously approved by the city. This application has met the standards for location of contractor' s yards with conditions of approval regarding access to the site and screening the northly portion of the out- door storage area and building. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the ' following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-11 subject to the following conditions: 1 . All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing, berming or landscaping. A proposed screening plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building per- mit. 2 . Hours of operation shall be from 7 : 00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted. 3 . Light sources shall be shielded. 4 . No outside speaker systems are allowed. ' 5 . Compliance with the conditions of MnDOT including installa- tion of a right turn lane and a left turn lane if required by MnDOT. 6 . Installation of bituminous driveways , parking areas and loading areas . 7 . Compliance with the conditions of Resource Engineering as written in their memo dated August 9 , 1988 . 8 . Protection of the two septic system sites during construction. 9 . Installation of a holding tank. 10 . The building must be sprinklered. ' 11 . Provision of one handicap parking space. I Lindbery CUP August 17, 1988 Page 8 12. Contractor' s yard activities only as defined in the zoning ordinance, are permitted. There shall be no shipping or ' other non-contractor' s yard activities . 13 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District permits . 14 . All the existing buildings shall be trucked off-site and ' disposed of properly. 15 . The erosion control plan shall be revised to include check dams at 100-foot intervals in all proposed drainage swales . ' 16 . The plans shall be revised to include erosion control measures for the proposed construction within the immediate ' area of Bluff Creek. 17 . The pond outfall shall be revised to include a submerged outlet detail in place of the wooden skimmer. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended denial of the conditional use permit on a vote of 4 to 2 . Wildermuth and Batzli were opposed ( see attached minutes) . CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Should the City Council approve the conditional use permit ' request, the motion recommended by staff should be adopted. ATTACHMENTS ' 1 . Memo from Larry Brown dated August 10 , 1988 . 2 . Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 3 , 1988. ' 3 . Memo from Resource Engineering dated August 9 , 1988 . 4 . Memo from Jim Chaffee dated August 3 , 1988 . 5 . Rendering of proposed building. 6 . Letter from W. H. and Kathy Dahlke dated August 8 , 1988 . ' 7 . Section 20-255 . 8 . Planning Commission minutes dated August 17 , 1988. 9 . Site plan stamped "Received August 10 , 1988" . 1 I 1 11 .. CITY O . , i 4.‘ I I ,, � � 1 4„.., .. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ze" (612) 937-1900 II MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission 1 FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer II DATE: August 10 , 1988 SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit for Contractor ' s Yard II Planning File No. 88-11 CUP, Harry Lindbery This site is located on to the northeast of the intersection of II State Highway 212 and Stoughton Avenue. The 39 acre site is com- posed of a gentle rolling topography with mature groves of trees and Bluff Creek which traverses the site in the east-west direc- tion. The site is bordered on the north by the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad. Sanitary Sewer 1 This site is outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) . 1 Municipal sanitary sewer is not available to the site. The plans indicate the location of the proposed septic system sites. The applicant should be aware that the proposed grading I completely surrounds the proposed septic systems. Extreme care should be taken to protect these sites from ANY construction traffic. These sites should be staked and roped-off prior to the II commencement of any grading . The applicant has indicated that the proposed building will be II used for maintenance of the vehicles. The volume and type of flow dictates that a holding tank be located prior to discharging into the proposed septic system sites. The building officials will approve the design of the septic system sites and holding II tank as part of the building permit application process. Water Service II Municipal water service is not available to the site. On-site sources will have to be developed by the applicant. 1 S / : 11 Planning Commission August 10 , 1988 Page 2 Access ' The plan proposes to access State Highway 212. The applicant will be required to receive a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation prior to final approval. fThe City' s most current traffic counts show that this portion of State Highway 212 maintains an average daily traffic (ADT) volume ' in excess of 11 ,500 vehicles. The intended use of this applica- tion does propose semi-trailer traffic from the site. The current volume of traffic warrants the construction of a right- hand turn lane and possibly a bypass lane for eastbound traffic ' on State Highway 212. Staff has received verbal confirmation from MnDOT regarding the right-hand turning lane, however, MnDOT is going to send written confirmation regarding the bypass lane. ' The existing roadway has a center island striped which may accom- modate a left turn lane, however, further analysis will be required by MnDOT. The plan proposes a gravel driveway and parking lot . The pro- posed entrance grade is 4.6 percent. It is recommended that the driveway and parking lot be paved to prevent the transport of silt from the proposed surface into Bluff Creek. Grading and Drainage The plan calls for the construction of an entrance road from State Highway 212 , across Bluff Creek and to the proposed building pad. The installation of the culvert and proposed road- way across Bluff Creek will require a permit by the Department of Natural Resources, DNR, and the Watershed District . ' The maximum proposed driveway grade is 4 . 6 percent. These grades are acceptable. The grading plan also shows a drainage swale along each side of the entrance road. The southerly drainage ' swale may dictate the removal of the southerly building. It is recommended that all the existing buildings be demolished, trucked off site and disposed of properly. The plan proposes the construction of a storm water retention pond. This pond has been sized to accommodate the 100-year fre- quency storm event and maintains the pre-developed runoff rate. It is recommended that the proposed pond have a submerged outlet structure. The proposed skimmers that have been installed in the past have proven to be an on-going maintenance problem. Several of these wooden structures have been destroyed by vandals and routine maintenance procedures of cleaning the pond. The City will be recommending this type of outlet structure on all of the future applications where applicable to prevent the transport of floating oils and alike from the ponding sites to the surrounding waters. . 1 Planning Commission August 10 , 1988 Page 3 Er sion Control , o The plan shows that Type II erosion control is to be installed on the downstream side of the proposed ponding site. This plan needs to be revised to include check dams at 100-foot intervals. In addition, proper erosion controls for the proposed construc- tion within the immediate proximity of Bluff Creek needs to be addressed. Recommended Conditions ' 1. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the access permit as required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District permits . 3. All the existing buildings shall be trucked off-site and , disposed of properly. 4. The erosion control plan shall be revised to include check dams at 100-foot intervals in all proposed drainage swales. 5. The plans shall be revised to include erosion control measures for the proposed construction within the immediate area of Bluff Creek. 6. The pond outfall shall be revised to include a submerged 1 outlet detail in place of the wooden skimmer. 1 11 I r CITY OF CHANHASSEN `` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 z 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector 1 DATE: August 3 , 1988 SUBJ: Planning Case 88-11 CUP (Lindberg) 1 1 . One handicap parking space is required, SBC 1340 .0300 , Subparagraph 5 . 2 . Building must be sprinklered, SCB 1300 .6905 (c) . 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 E ENGINEERING � R RESOURCE ERoger E. Machmeicr, P.E. James L. Anderson. C.P.S.S. 29665 Neal Avenue 3541 Ensign Avenue, North Lindstrom, MN 55045 New Hope, MN 55427 (612) 257-2019 (612) 593-5335 EVALUATION OF SITE AND SOILS DATA FOR ' ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR ' 88-11 CUP (LINDBERY) • ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN by ' ROGER E. MACHMEIER, P.E. JAMES L. ANDERSON, C.P.S.S. ' August 9, 1988 SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT I Ir EVALUATION OF SOILS AND SITE DATA FOR ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR 88-11 CUP (LINDBERY) , CHANHASSEN The conditional use permit is proposed for a contractor's yard. We visited the site on Monday, August 8 , 1988 and located the flagged soil borings made by Larry Van De Veire. We made a soil boring near percolation test hole number 1 and found 15 inches of sandy loam beneath which a coarse sand was encountered. tThe soil boring we made next to boring B-4 showed 18 inches of sandy loam, 6 inches of sand and then coarse sand and gravel. The two percolation tests reported by Larry Van De Veire were performed at depths of 18 inches and both showed percolation rates of 9 minutes per inch. From the soil boring data as reported and from our borings made on August 8, it is likely that the coarse sand and gravel underlying the sandy loam layer would have percolation rates faster than 0. 1 minute per inch, thus making ' this soil layer unsuitable for the adequate treatment of sewage and unsuitable for the rock layer of a drainfield trench to be in ' contact with it. A number of factors need to be considered in the design and construction of the sewage treatment system for the proposed ' facility. First of all, the bottom of the drainfield rock must be in contact with the sandy loam layer amd not in contact with the coarse sand and gravel. This means that trench excavations cannot ' be made deeper than 18 inches maximum. Trenches will be necessary in this area since there are elevation differences of 1 to 2 feet. ' This elevation difference would mean that a seepage bed cannot be 88-11 COP (Lindbery) Page 2 of 4 installed in the natural soil since the bottom of the seepage bed must be level in all directions. Thus, shallow trenches would , need to be installed using drop box distribution, since all of the trench bottoms cannot be at the same elevation. Since the top of ' the trench rock will be at approximately the existing ground elevation, fill of approximately 12 inches of topsoil will be needed over the top of the drainfield trenches. Unless the source ' of sewage is located at an adequately high elevation, a pumping station will be necessary to lift the septic tank effluent to the level of the drainfield trenches. On the map which was provided to us of the proposed improvement, the two proposed drainfield areas are bounded by some ' proposed streets or drives. It is extremely likely that the proposed locations for the drainfield will suffer damage from construction activity unless they are fenced off and adequately ' protected against any type of construction traffic. Experience has shown that sandy loam soils such as are present on this site will be severely compacted by any type of vehicular traffic. If the proposed sites for the drainfields are damaged by construction activity, it should be noted that there likely are additional suitable sites for onsite sewage treatment systems on the acreage. Additional site evaluation will be necessary, however, and a new sewage system design must be submitted if the system location is changed. i 88-11 CUP (Lindbery) Page 3 of 4 The sewage system for which we have evaluated g y a d th a site and soils information should handle only domestic-type wastes, that is from toilets, showers, kitchen facilities, etc. If there is a ' service bay for vehicles which are lubricated and washed with the wastes flowing into a floor drain, this type of liquid waste ' absolutely must not be discharged into a subsurface sewage ' treatment system or subsurface drainage system. Any liquid wastes associated with servicing vehicles or the washing of vehicles must ' be discharged into watertight holding tanks. This liquid waste must then be removed from those tanks in a proper manner and transported to a waste treatment site operated by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. The reason for this recommendation is that when trucks or cars are washed or are in a service bay, there is likely to be ' used engine oil, hydraulic fluid and other petroleum-based products containing hazardous wastes introduced into the drainage ' system. These materials will not be filtered or removed by the soil , and if they flow into a subsurface soil treatment system, they will percolate downward with the water through the soil and be a potential hazard for groundwater contamination. Many petroleum products contain PCB's and other toxic chemicals , which ' must be handled and treated in a manner that will prevent their introduction to the environment. The soil evaluated on this site ' is particularly susceptible to potential groundwater pollution because of the coarse-textured underlying material. I '' 88-11 CJP (Lindbery) Page 4 of 4 I In addition to the service bay drainage and petroleum I products , it is likely that during the winter, road chemicals will be washed from vehicles and introduced to the floor drain system. I If these compounds are discharged into a subsurface absorption system, the soil will not adequately treat these water-soluble I chemicals and they will also move downward with the percolating water and be introduced to the groundwater. I I I hereby declare that I am a certified Site Evaluator and Onsite Sewage Treatment System ' IDesigner (Certificate No. 845) as designated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and that this site investigation was conducted by me or under my direct supervision. I z. Ja s L. Anderson, C.P.S.S. ''s?.-€.4 I hereby certify that I am a Registered Professional Engineer in Minnesota (Reg. No. I 6745) and that this site investigation was conducted by me or under my direct supervision. I also declare that I am a certified Individual I Sewage Treatment System Designer and Site Evaluator (Certificate No. 530) as designated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I Roge E. Machmeier, P.E. I REM/jjm 1 II II II II 4 CITY OF 1 CHANHASSEN �\ b 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II % z (612) 937-1900 IIMEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director IIDATE: August 3 , 1988 SUBJ: Planning Case 88-11 CUP (Lindberry) I I Fire Chief Dale Gregory and I have reviewed the conditional use permit for a contractors yard, your case file 88-11 CUP ( Lindberry) . Appendix E requires that the 70 ft. x 100 ft. building be sprinkled with monitoring by a central dispatch Iii system. ` I would also like to suggest some type of security lighting because of its out-of-the-way location. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this item. I ' I II I I Imamate v ,II if '. ZONING § 20-256 ;gam I I It-n:, (2) The structure must be in compliance with local building and fire codes. r . (3) The site will be reviewed annually through a public hearing process. i--- (4) Septic systems must be in compliance with chapter 19, article IV. (Ord. No. 80, Art.V, § 9(5-9-1(2)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-254. Commercial kennels,stables and riding academies. The following applies to commercial kennels, stables and riding academies: I I (1) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, article III.1,�; (2) The site must be located on a collector street. �I I ▪ ? (3) The structure must be a minimum of two hundred(200)feet from wetland area. 1 I ,...Y (Ord.No 80, Art.V, § 9(5-9-1(3)), 12-15-86) I - Sec. 20-255. Contractor's yard. 'i I I- _.:` The following applies to contractor's yards: (1) The minimum lot size is five(5)acres. II I= (2) All storage and yard areas as well as buildings must be set back one hundred (100) feet from public or private road right-of-ways and five hundred (500) feet from an ;' I 's▪ , adjacent single-family residence. (3) The site must be located along a collector or minor arterial as identified in the � !' `; comprehensive plan. _ f (4) All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by one hundred(100)percent opaque fencing or berming. r, Vii; lx (5) No two(2)contractor's yards shall be located within one(1)mile of each other. 35 ' -_ :_.;ti_ (6) Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday c' only, work on Sundays and holidays not permitted. - (7) Light sources shall be shielded. ; ' y. - (8) No outside speaker systems are allowed. - `(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(4)), 12-15-86) M ,3. Sec. 20-256. Commercial communication transmission towers. I . Commercial communication transmission towers not designed to collapse progressively shall be set back from all property lines a minimum distance equal to the height of the tower. (Ord.No. 80,Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(5)), 12-15-86) ik. 1173 7 1 -�T ► RI A y _ _ ___ LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Harry Lindbery OWNER: same ' ADDRESS 6901 Maloney Avenue ADDRESS Edina, MN 55435 Zi.7 Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) q�g— 9 5C TELEPHONE ' REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation ' _)6-- Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY Gross area - 40 .486 acres LOCATION REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) '' Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 25 II II Emmings : I changed number 1 to read , compliance with the conditions of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-13. , Conrad : Anything else? Is there a motion? II Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8 based on the plans stamped "Received July 26, 1988" and subject to the following conditions : I 1. Compliance with conditions of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-13. 2. Compliance with the Army Corps of Engineer ' s conditions of approval . II All voted in favor and the motion carried . II PUBLIC HEARING: % CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTORS YARD ON 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED ON HWY 212, JUST WEST OF THE II ASSUMPTION SEMINARY SITE, HARRY LINDBERY. Public Present : I Name Address Shirley Brewer City of Chaska II Everett Olson 2675 Flying Cloud Drive Harry Lindbery Hopkins, MN II Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . II Harry Lindbery: I got a copy of a letter sent to the City and . . .crossing II on that creek, two areas that he had 14 inch culvert. It ran over the center lines . . . I have those sitting there just waiting for the okay for a II permit to build that road in there. We were going to go ahead and then Barbara Dacy says well , hold up until you get your permits so they' re sitting there waiting to be installed . Conrad : Have you reviewed the staff report? Have you looked at the staff II report and the conditions? Any comments on the conditions? Harry Lindbery: No . II Conrad : Okay, good . Thank you. I 'm sure we' ll have questions . Now we' ll open it up to others. Any comments? II IF Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 26 C ' Everett Olson: I live right across the road from him. That road that goes down in back and. . . You 've trucks and cars going in and out, what kind of a dust mess are you going to have then? We' re the only ones along there that take care of it anyway so are we going to make something nicer or are we going to make something more like the Seminary? You know what ' the Seminary looks like? We don' t need another trashcan like that. Conrad : Sir , the staff report said that it was a recommendation that it be an asphalt drive going back. Everett Olson : What hours? ' Conrad: So it's not a dirt road . Everett Olson: Well , the way it was stated . That' s what she read. ' Dacy: I said the applicant is proposing gravel . The staff recommendation is that they pave it. ' Everett Olson : And what hours will the trucks be going in all hours of the day right? Are they big trucks or little trucks? Harry Lindbery: We have a large Catepillar . A large. . .but that would be very minimal . I would say our traffic would be less than what is done out there now. It would . . .out there right now today. Conrad: The staff report is saying the hours of operation would be from 7 :00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. . Everett Olson : That field that' s on this side of the trees . . .what ' s that going to be? Is that eventually going to be a junkyard? There' s an old grain drill there and there' s old sheds and some dead trees . Harry Lindbery: We ' re planning to clean that up but I haven ' t touched anything . We haven' t even removed the . . . until we get the okay to go ahead and do it. Everett Olson : I 'm asking about that field there. Harry Lindbery: There was a man that wanted to take and rent that to put soybeans in there . _ Everett Olson : I mean you won' t be storing equipment there? Harry Lindbery: No . Everett Olson : You' ll be, everything will be in back of that tree line? Harry Lindbery: Now 10 or 20 years down the road if we wanted to do something different , we ' d come back and ask the Planning Commission to change it. I have over 40 acres there but I can' t look down the road 10 or 20 years ahead if we want to do something different . Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 27 C Conrad : Anything else? Any other comments? Shirley Brewer : I 'm Shirley Bewer from the City of Chaska . Fortunately you' re staff . . . I just want to reiterate some of the things that I. . .in terms of . . .and it is a straight shot right down onto this contractor ' s area. We share. . . As far as the screening goes, Barb is absolutely correct that. . . I would just want to encourage you to screen the best possible. . . I want to share with you some of the things we are experiencing with traffic on the highway. That is a most dangerous situation going out of two curves and we do have a trucking firm located to the south of that area. There are a minimum amount of trucks that come in and out of that site and basically there is movement at all hours . . .sugar haulers . . . Even with that we' ve had . . .fortunately no accidents II even though they are very slow pieces of equipment and they' re moving into and leaving the site. . . The trucking facility that was approved in Chaska, we allow only right-in and right-out turns so we wouldn' t have II trucks stopping and crossing through the . . .and I think that ' s probably one of the reasons . . . I would question. . . Dacy: I did visit with him at his site in Hopkins . I did not talk to any II of the officials at the City. Shirley Brewer : On your on-site inspections , did you. . . Dacy: Currently he' s operating his business out of his home as well as having other satellite facilities at other industrial parks . Shirley Brewer : . . .we understand the need for contractors yards, believe me. Conrad : I want to thank you for coming here and while you' re here, the part of Chaska that overlooks this, tell me about what' s developing there . Shirley Brewer : It ' s a combination . We have a concept plan . The person who purchased the acreage purchased 350 acres. The concept plan that was shown was a combination of commercial and primarily residential . . . .residential proposed in. . .depending upon where the subdivision is . Conrad : As it abuts up to the Hesse Farm property, what is going there? Property lot sizes are what? ' Shirley Brewer : We have a proposal for 5 acre sites . . . I can ' t assure that that' s going to happen. We don' t have the large acreage lots . . . successful with the development just north of that site has 4 to 7 acre lots and they' ve been for sale for 3 to 4 years with only one sale. That developer . . .came back with a replat which sold out in the first year with the lots . . . , Conrad : I appreciate that and I thank you for your update. Just sharing some concern that I ' ve had when we saw what was going next to Hesse Farms many, and I don' t know how many months ago but it didn' t look i.n sync with what Chanhassen had and maybe we' ll never get anything in sync with what is there but it seemed way out of sync at the time when we looked at it — IF ' Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 28 ' but it wasn ' t close. I take this opportunity. I thank you for coming and sharing your thoughts but I guess I also take a chance to say, g y, we want to ' be a good neighborhood and sync in things with you but we also like you to do the same with us. What I saw first proposed certainly was not . ' Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Erhart : I 've been quiet tonight saving myself for the next two issues . Thank goodness it' s still early enough to breathe some fire. Let me ask a question here first . Am I someplace else or is this an A-2 district? Dacy: This is an A-2 district. ' Erhart : Thank you. I guess what scares me the most about this , and I tell you the timing is great because I had the opportunity to go through all the old Council meeting Minutes of 1984 . Two things . One that scares me, that this proposal , rather than here could be right next door to me ' and we could be having the same meeting and could be looking at an industrial project right next door to an area where I 've put a tremendous amount of effort to make it rural and residential . Secondly, going back to 1984 where we adopted for the first time in recent history where we even allowed contractors yards , you look at the spirit of the discussion and basically the reason they passed it , the reason they incorporated the contractor ' s yard was to allow the small guy who worked out of his house ' with maybe a truck, to continue that use and not be non-conforming unless I read it wrong. Maybe that' s what I wanted to read but that ' s the way I read it and so we passed the contractors yard ordinance. I look at this , this reflects I guess the last stage in a pattern of proposals we've seen in contractors yards. The next step obviously is a contractor complex . It' s the next logical proposal to see. Read it. The A-2 district. The intent statement is for preservation of rural character while respecting the development patterns by allowing single family residential development . I think you know what , I could talk on this for 20 mintues and I 'd just be saying it all over again. I guess the next step is something that I read very interesting on page 10 of the Minutes where Scott Martin is talking about, what does a conditional use permit mean? I guess being on the Commission now for over 2 years or something, I guess I 've always been sort of under the impression that when something comes in for a conditional use permit and it meets all of the requirements that we ' ve stated, then somehow you have to pass it through because I don' t think we ' ve ever turned one down . Now I see where a discussion takes place where that may in fact not be the case. In fact the Commissioners and the Council decided that if everything just doesn ' t fit and they don ' t want it, that we can turn it down. That relates back to the comments when we passed this ordinance that we can allow contractor ' s yards. They readily admit and it appears that they all agree that in someplaces in the A-2 area , even despite we may be trying to protect the little guy from not forcing him out of town, there are some areas that do not lend themselves to contractor ' s yards and the way we ' re protected there is that we have this conditional use permit that we as Commissioners if we decide that this is not this is not the appropriate place for this , i . Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 29 17 we can vote it down. The question I have, is that the way other commissioners see the conditional use permit procedure? Is that the way staff sees it? ' Dacy: Yes . If the Commission wants to recommend denial , if you feel that the location is inappropriate for whatever amount of reasons or facts that you can determine, you have that right. That' s exactly what a conditional use is. Erhart: Any comments on that? Is that the way you see it Ladd in terms of the Chairman? Conrad : We'd like to think that we have been wise enough to determine what those conditions are in advance so it forecasts to the potential developer what we' re looking for so we don' t waste their time exploring something that may not fit and typically when we put something into a conditional use permit, I don' t think we spend enough time thinking of those conditions. We charter staff . We have staff to do it but I don' t think we really, and maybe we' re not smart enough to think of all situations but I think we kind of put it on staff ' s shoulder to think about it and maybe that ' s not appropriate. It is conditioned on things that we' re looking for and I think legally speaking , an applicant could go back to those conditions that are satisfied in any other case. Yet on the II other hand, if we ' re looking for a certain type of development and it' s kind of clear based on those conditions what we' re looking at, then I think we can vote it down. You need to hang your hat on something if you vote it down . I Erhart : I think the problem here is , and I don' t want to start getting into the next agenda but the problem is you' ve got an intent statement for a district here. You have a use that we' re allowing that is incompatible with that so what we' ve tried to do is put together a list of conditions . The fact is , no matter how many conditions you put in, it doesn ' t fit and ' I think I ' ll stop there before we get into the next discussion but I think that' s the problem we have. I ' ll stop there and let me get into this specific proposal . I know the area well . I was down there again today. Simply you start out with Hesse Farms and those people paid a tremendous amount of money, a lot of money and I assume people in your development are paying a lot of money for this view of this valley. It' s putting an industrial use in there just is not compatible. I wish I would have taken II the time to make some calls to some of those people. I would have liked to have seen more comments here tonight from the neighbors . The question is are they far enough away, so far that they didn ' t get notified? Dacy: The folks in Hesse Farm were notified because the boundary of the parcel goes all the way up to the railroad tracks . Erhart : The second thing is , we do have an industrial area right next door. If you really think this is an appropriate use, I hope you agree with me, let ' s just change this to BF. It certainly doesn' t fit with the , A-2. Again, I think we' re going to end up with utility poles and storage just like, this isn' t a little guy in the house working out of his garage anymore. These things all evolve. This one has evolved and he' s Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 30 ' starting . . . The nature of any business is to grow. It has to grow and this is going to grow just like all the other contractor ' s yards and the City can ' t run down there every year with a Polaroid camera and determine well , you grew and therefore you' re fitting the conditional use permit. It' s unrealistic. I also agree that it' s a very dangerous system situation down there. The area does not have the access roads for a large amount of traffic going in. That' s one of the reasons why we zoned it agricultural and low density residential . I would just hope that the Commission would agree with me that it' s an inappropriate use . Even if it ' s allowed in a district, that' s inappropriate for this particular area . Conrad : Because it' s too big . Erhart : It does not fit at all with, if we' re looking at specifically for the area , it' s too big for the intent of our ordinance which I hope we change tonight. It just doesn' t fit with the residential character of the area. Conrad : But it ' s permitted . Erhart : That ' s what I was trying to get at . I think it ' s allowed if we think it fits with the area and I think we should be exercising our right and our responsibility to eliminate intrusions and not to allow intrusions and this is an intrusion. It' s agricultural low density residential area . It ' s without a doubt an intrusion. Whether or not we change the ordinance tonight, it' s just common sense. This does not fit. It ' s an agricultural low density residential . Emmings : I 'm a little ambivalent about not having any contractor ' s yards in the A-2. It doesn' t offend me as much as it offends Tim because I think it ' s kind of is a natural kind of rural use . It sure isn ' t a residential situation. . . . trucks in a residential area and I guess you ' could say we ' re going to restrict them to the industrial areas but that' s not really appropriate either because if I ' ve got a business like a lot of these contractor ' s yard folks do, they' re not at home. They leave with all their stuff in the morning and they come back with all their stuff at ' night and they' re not really running a business and just to store their machinery and some of the things that they use, it seems reasonable they should be able to do that on their property when they've got a big piece of property. I thought what we did before in allowing them into the A-2 , part of the reason was to get a whole bunch of non-conforming uses at least pigeon holed someplace. It seems to me that ' s what we were doing . The guy who ' s a small operater who ' s living in a rural area , let him store his stuff there. This plan seems to be a much larger scale and I don' t like it but I don ' t know where the dividing line is . That ' s the hard part for me and I don ' t really have anything to offer. I guess when I look at this , to me it seems to me the scale is too large for that area. I did not drive down to see this property and I wish I had but I didn ' t. On paper it ' s a beautiful piece of property. It doesn ' t really seem appropriate. There are all kinds of houses up on the bluff there looking down into a 6 foot fence isn ' t going to make any difference so I don' t like this proposal . I don ' t think it ' s appropriate but like I say, I don ' t feel like I know what or maybe that ' s really the next issue here , . 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 31 ' C I don' t know how to define the dividing line. Batzli : In looking at this initially I didn' t really get the impression I that it was too grandiose of scale for this piece of property although I heard from both Tim and Steve that they both felt it was too large and not in place. I guess I 'm not sure on that. I kind of had viewed the idea here of, it' s in writing . It meets requirements that have been set and in II theory the law is supposed to allow people to act reasonably in their dealings and it seems to me that we set the expectation here that if you comply with your criteria, we' re not just going to say well , we don' t like II this . Somebody is going to have a bad view and we' re not going to allow it. I 'm in favor with modification of several of the conditions for approval of this contractor ' s yards. That' s not to say that I like II contractor' s yards in the A-2 district but I think we've established that they can go in there at this point . We might try to change that later tonight but right now they are permitted. I think it is somewhat of an unsafe condition however . If you ' re going to be hauling telephone poles onto this site, you' re going to need one heck of a long left hand turn lane to get it out of the traffic . That' s the concern I have as well as I think we should assert our somewhat standard language about having a pumper contract on the holding tank. Wildermuth: I definitely agree with the pumping contract on 9 . I don' t see legally how we can turn it down at this point. If it would come in next month, we probably could . I guess if you had to envision a contractor ' s yard, this one would be one to fully screen naturally. Almost in the center of a large parcel of land . I guess we' re a little late with our ordinance. Headla : I had a question for the owner . Were you going to bury the diesel oil tank? Harry Lindbery: Yes . We were thinking of it . If we would comply with the Codes, the fire Codes and the State of Minnesota and contact. . . It would be just for our use. It wouldn' t be for sale or anything . One man asked about poles. Well , the only time we would bring in a load is if we had to be out at a job site . . . They would leave right at that time. Normally we load either at a St. Regis of Shakopee. . . Headla : How big are the tanks you think you 'd be putting in? Harry Lindbery: We would try to put in one big enough so we could take advantage of the price on the transport load . I assume that would be about 8 , 000 to 10, 000 gallons . , Headla : In 10 years , do you think you ' ll be burying another one? Harry Lindbery: No because by taking the whole transport load, you save about 5 cents per gallon and there would no use to put in another one as long as it would suffice. Headla : So you'd want to put in like a 20, 000 gallon tank so you can carry a semi load plus some because you aren ' t going to pump it dry? ' Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 32 Harry Lindbery: Normally your price break is about 7, 000 to 8 , 000 gallons ' so the man in the shop would stick the tank, I 'm sure that he could control his . . .and I think that would probably be 10 days to 2 weeks . It wouldn' t be that one would have to come in everyday or anything like that. Headla : Okay, you answered by question, thanks . When I looked at this I really had a couple of questions. First one was, it' s always nice to say no you can ' t do this or whatever but one of the things, you want to look ' on the down side of it. If this didn ' t go in, what could go in or what might be more appropriate? I guess I felt there were many things that could go in that would be much more appropriate. Particularly along agricultural lines . The other thing that I really started asking myself. I don' t know if you run into detail , on Resource Engineering and I think it' s just a tremendous by Machmeier and Anderson , page 3 to 4. I think they wave just a tremendous flag in front of us. They' re talking about burying a diesel fuel tank. They' re talking about semis coming in. They' re talking about maybe washing them. Trying to contain the diesel fuel and you ' re always going to be changing or you' re going to be working Ion these vehicles, trying to contain, catching all that in a holding tank. It just doesn ' t work 100% of the time. Give me 20 years and I ' ll bet you can go out there and you' ll find plenty of polluted water . Not saying ' that people don ' t have good intentions . They can have 100% good intentions. You just don' t contain all that. On the paper here, it says we've got very porous soil . It ' s dangerous . We've got a creek running right through there. I just don' t see over a period of time how we can ' control that. I think we ' re looking for trouble . Primarily on the environmental issue, I don ' t think this is appropriate. I think we' ve got to look for more agricultural efforts . ' Conrad: Other contractor ' s yards , in terms of the size of this versus the other ones that we have in Chanhassen , how does this compare? ' Dacy: This proposed application is up to 15 vehicles and that is consistent with the operation that we approved with the Admiral Waste Management site at TH 101 and TH 212. The Merle Volk operation as well as Gardeneer operation is similar . The same number of employees on site . Conrad: To follow up on Dave' s comments , how do we control discharge from the trucks? Dacy: The site has been graded and the proposed elevations are such that the run-off is proposed to be directed into the holding tank and the other remaining part of the run-off would be directed into the retention pond . If I take your comments correctly, you' re saying that' s fine but there may be some things beyond that might occur . Headla : That and the porousity of the soil . Not just run-off but going down also . Dacy: All I can say to respond to that is that we have worked with the applicant to address those concerns to make sure that the waste water coming out of. . .holding tank and run-off from the parking lot is going to Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 17, 1988 - Page 33 go to the retention pond and there ' s a skimmer on that. There ' s just no II way I can sit here today and say that there' s absolutely no. . . The tank has to be designed for the standard , the diesel tank has to meet all the II fire codes. That' s just a given in the requirement. Conrad : What could this site be used for? II Dacy: Other than agricultural activities , it could be resubdivided using the 1 per 10 calculation, we would allow 4 building sites . The list of the other conditional uses, wholesale nursery, cemetery, metal extraction. II Conrad : I think the next item on the agenda will resolve the intent. I think my perspective of contractor ' s yard, I ' ll take maybe some of Tim' s II thoughts are really secondary to the primary purpose of living . I think to clarify some of Tim' s comments , I don' t feel it' s appropriate that we' re out looking for major commercial development. I always felt that II contractor ' s yards were a support to somebody who had an occupation that was living there. That just had accessory equipment. That ' s been real clear to me in the last couple weeks or months. Obviously this is not the case that deals with that as a part of the ordinance but in dealing with , this one, I 'm having a tough time finding a reason to deny. Emmings : I think what he just said , there' s a lot to it. Here ' s a piece I of property that' s being purchased for to put this business on it as opposed to someone who' s primarily involved in living in a rural situation that this is accessory or secondary. . . .a business that requires him to have some machines . I Dacy: What you' re discussing is really standard number 2 . Will it be consistent with the objectives of the City' s Comprehensive Plan and this I chapter meaning the Zoning Ordinance. Again, the Commission has the ability to state whatever findings it feels that the application is either consistent or not consistent with what you feel the ordinance is II dictating. Conrad : Tim, what else do you want for use? Agricultural? That' s not a practical use down there is it? I Erhart : That ' s what it used now. It ' s farmed . Conrad: But we all understand the right to use it for something else I right? So you prefer to have four houses? Erhart: There' s farm fields right down in that area right now. I Conrad : But in terms of the intensity of use , that ' s using a very minor portion of the whole property. I Erhart : I don ' t know that it makes any difference. I can ' t build a 37 floor tower on my property because it' s not allowed and it' s incompatible. II I don ' t understand why we have to, if it ' s not the greatest farming land , whoever bought this property realized it was in the valley and it ' s likely to be more sandy soil . Fill it with whatever our zoning and our II 11. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 34 ' comprehensive plan dictates just like everybody J else. Conrad: Any other discussion? Does anybody want to make a motion? Erhart : I 'm willing to make a motion that we deny the approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-11 as presented to us . Headla : Second . Emmings : Whatever we do we' re going to make sure we lay out our reasons? Conrad : We' ll have to. Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-11. All voted in favor of denial except Wildermuth and Batzli who opposed the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Conrad : The conditional use permit is not approved with a 4 to 2 vote . The reason Brian for your nay vote to turning it down? 14: Batzli : My reasoning is that I think we' ve got an ordinance on the books that we should stand by it. If we don' t like it, we amend it but I don' t know that we really have valid reasons to turn this down. All and all I thought it was a pretty good proposal . I had some concerns with it but not enough at this point to reject it . Wildermuth: I agree. We have a set of ordinances on the books and basically it looks like a good proposal . It ' s virtually in the middle of a 40 acre parcel . It' s well screened from the highway. It would appear i to be appropriate use. Conrad : I 'd like to continue on and give the Council reasons for those of us who voted against it. Tim, can you condense your feelings to a few words? Erhart : Again , just an overall feeling that this is not compatible with a rural , really it ' s become a low density residential area. I also am swayed by a couple new points that were brought up and that it doesn ' t even meet the intent I think of the original ordinance which was based on having someone who lived at the site use their storage shed or garage. This is not intended . . .at all . Essentially an office and warehouse building . I think Dave made a great point on the potential pollution . This is an area that ' s particularly sensitive to pollution but moreover it ' s the incompatibility with the surrounding uses and what our overall intent of this area is. In both our ordinance and our Comp Plan . Emmings : I essentially agree with Tim' s comments . I guess this is the A-2 and this is not, although we do have an ordinance we have to deal with, this is not a permitted use . It ' s not a permitted accessory use, it ' s a conditional use which I think allows us to look at it much more SEP 09 14:80 Cr=IPSCN flHti CLELLi NE' P.3 City of Chanhassen Page 2 9 September 1988 his contractor's yard. In her report, Ms. Dacy reviewed and analyzed each general standard for a Conditional Use Permit. The 8 specific conditions for a contractor's yard (5-9-4) (A-h) were also incorporated into the 17 recommended conditions for approval. A review of the departmental recommendations and consultants ' reports was also made and the concerns expressed in these reports were incorporated into Ms. Dacy's recommendations. These concerns included drain field criteria and recommendations, public safety issues and site development issues applicable to the subject property. This application was given a thorough and complete analysis by the City of Chanhassen and its staff. Subject to the conditions outlined, Mr. Lindbery's application was recommended for approval. In the event Mr. Lindbery is unable or unwilling to meet these conditions, the Conditional Use Permit would not be granted. At the Planning Commission meeting of August 17, 1988, a public hearin was held. Various members of the public commented on the application and questions were asked and answered by Mr. I Lindbery. The concerns of neighboring property holders and the legitimate concerns of the Planning Commission were all dealt with in a positive manner by Mr. Lindbery. Ms. Dacy indicated, in response to questions, that the proposed use is in keeping with similar uses in the City, most notably Admiral Waste Management, Merle Volk and Gardeneer. Commissioner Erhart was clearly against the application from the outset but made no I� I analysis of the standards or criteria for Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Erhart simply stated that it was his overall feeling that the proposed used was not compatible. Commissioner Batzlie, on the other hand, correctly indicated that staff had reviewed each and every appropriate criteria for applicant's intended use and that the recommendation, subject to the conditions stated, should be approved. Nevertheless, Commissioner Erhart carried the day and the staff recommendation was defeated on a 4-2 vote. When a zoning ordinance permits a use in a particular zone, II by Conditional Use Permit, that use is permitted, subject to reasonable and appropriate conditions. The fact that a Conditional Use Permit is required, and that a public hearing is held, and that conditions and reports are received and analyzed, all tends to support and legitimize the end result, that the use is permitted so long as reasonable safeguards shall attach. The analysis that this property was subjected to was thorough, complete and appropriate. The reasons for denial are not legally sufficient. It is simply stated that certain members of the Planning Commission don't like the fact that such a use can City of Chanhassen ' Page 8 9 September 1988 ' exist within the City. Mr. Lindbery has worked closely with staff and is willing to meet any and all reasonable criteria and ' conditions for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. We respectfully request that the City Council do the appropriate thing and grant the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit. ' Respectfully submitted, CARSON AND CLELLAND J- fry A. Carson t JAC:nrz 1 " I