7. CUP Contractors Yard, 7210 Galpin Blvd. 7 _
C I T Y F P.C. DATE: Sept. 21, 1988 .
i �` � A iiyy UA �� C.C. DATE: Oct. 10, 1988
N
r CASE NO: 85-2 CUP
- Prepared by: Olsen/v
milminimmwm
i
STAFF REPORT
I
I PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit for a. Landscaping
Contractor' s Yard
}"... Action by City Administrator
IZ Endorsaa— �
4 modified
I 0 LOCATION: One-half mile north of Hwy. 5 Rejectad
Date g `/k/
(� Date Submitted to/,‘,21 ....Commissieri
' Date�+. 9/Z /
Submitted to Cowci,
(L
el. APPLICANT: Dave Stockdale 7210 Galpin Boulevard /cr/iol _
II Excelsior, MN 55331
II
PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate
1 ACREAGE: 12 .1 acres
DENSITY:
IADJACENT ZONING
II AND LAND USE: N- A-2; single family
S- A-2; agricultural & Bentz Contractor' s Yar.
E- A-2; vacant
I R '
W— A-2
(� A-2; vacant/agricultural
IW WATER AND SEWER: The site is outside of the Urban Service c e
Area without city water and sewer
IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : The property is fairly level with a wooded
area on the north of the site.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural
II
r ....0:-
�� 1 6 T �,.ii:tiPli r , .
2 CRE' VIE ., • LA
o •`
,,......_'''.' 'k,‘.•'....... .4,,
` T tiiiii...
Q '
i
cp
■
J �r
�j A.. W 67 TH STREET ■
y RR
1
li
I
' Z ill
C..T1111\ N:PR/SON ■
.,:_i
P,NF - PUD 1
O
cr
�■ J4i
I
1.0,..Anc,K, cf-,
O
Cb
.�
LIVE I ("..1 i'l Th
• CJj:f 1 L.. ...1, \
r
. 1.1)
ilk
I
1 t
_ BOND ON
Y - i Or!
U ■
,. - - 1______±...±4:7 , A
A2 .
i.
Stockdale CUP
' September 21, 1988
Page 2
iAPPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' The Zoning Ordinance permits contractor' s yards as a conditional
use in the A-2 District with the following conditions:
1 . The minimum lot size is five ( 5) acres .
' 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 adjacent
single family residence.
3 . The site must be located along a collector or minor arterial
as identified in the comprehensive plan.
4 . All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by one
hundred (100) percent opaque fencing or berming.
5 . No two (2 ) contractor' s yards shall be located within one ( 1)
1 mile of each other.
6 . Hours of operation shall be from 7: 00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. ,
Monday through Satuday only, work on Sundays and holidays not
' permitted.
7 . Light sources shall be shielded.
8 . No outside speaker systems are allowed.
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Building Department Attachment #2
Public Safety Department Attachment #3
Engineering Department Attachment #4
Carver County Attachment #5
BACKGROUND
On March 18, 1985, the City Council approved a conditional use
permit for a landscaping contractor' s yard for the applicant,
Dave Stockdale, at the subject site with the following con-
ditions (Attachment #6 ) :
' 1 . Based on the revised site plan submitted on March 18, 1985
and as contained in Planning File #85-2 Conditional Use
Permit.
2 . Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer as
stated in his memo dated February 22 , 1985 .
Stockdale CUP
September 21, 1988
Page 3
3 . Installation of additional evergreens measuring at least four 1
feet in height along the south property line to adequately
screen the parking area.
4 . There is to be no signage advertising the business establish-
ment on site.
5 . Vacation of the 60 foot easement on the south side of the 1
property.
6 . Inspection of the septic systems by the City Engineer. 1
The Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to have
substantial construction take place within one year from the
date from which the conditional use permit was granted. If
substantial construction has not taken place within one year, the
conditional use permit is void.
The applicant did not begin construction on the contractor' s yard
within one year of the approval and also subdivided the property
by a metes and bounds subdivision on August 23 , 1985, to separate
a 6 .46 acre parcel to the north of the contractor' s yard where
his residence is now located (Attachment #7) . The conditional
use permit that was recorded with the county subsequently became
void because the legal description had been changed due to the
subdivision. Therefore, the applicant had to resubmit an appli-
cation for a conditional use permit for a contractor' s yard
because development of the site had not taken place within one
year and the legal description for the contractor' s yard had been
changed due to a subdivision.
ANALYSIS
Site Plan '
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a
landscaping contractor' s yard on a lot directly south of his
residence. The contractor' s yard will consist of a 55 ,000 square
foot pole barn which will contain a 25 ' x 25 ' office area, a 25 '
x 45 ' workshop, and storage space for 7 trucks , 3 trailers and '
bobcat. The inventory of vehicles are as follows: 3 single axle
dump trucks, 2 one ton trucks, 2 3/4 ton pick-ups, 3 skid loaders
and trailers. The contractor' s yard will employ 3 staff person-
nel and 12 field personnel. The hours of operation proposed are
from 6 : 30 a.m. to 5 : 30 p.m. with peak hours between the hours of
6 :30 and 7:30 a.m. and 4 : 30 and 5:30 p.m. The applicant is pro-
viding
a paved parking area and the site will be accessed from
Galpin Boulevard located at the southeast corner of the site.
Stockdale CUP
September 21, 1988
Page 4
Access
The applicant will have to receive an access permit from Carver
' County prior to installation of the driveway and if the site
results in more than 20 trips per day Carver County may request
that turn lanes be installed on Galpin Boulevard. Carver County
also commented on landscaping near the Co. Rd. 117 right-of-way.
' These are existing trees .
Septic Systems
Because the contractor' s yard building contains an office,
bathroom facilities will have to be provided which will require a
septic system. The applicant has performed soil borings
' locating two septic sites . The soil borings and location of the
two sites still need to be reviewed by the city' s consultants ,
Machmeier and Anderson. The site is fairly level and staff does
' not feel that the location of two septic sites will be difficult.
Approval of the conditional use permit will be conditioned upon
approval of the septic sites by the consultants.
Drs. Machmeier and Anderson have commented on the information
they have received to this date (Attachment #8) . Drs . Machmeier
and Anderson are requesting a profile view of the sewage treat-
ment system to determine if a pumping station is needed. They
are requesting a detailed location of the well and noted that it
must be properly separated from the septic system and any other
' chemicals/fertilizers stored on the property. The applicant will
be washing three trucks per week. The applicant is proposing to
have wash liquid drain into a settlement tank and then into the
septic system. Staff is rcommending that a holding tank be
installed for the waste water instead of using the septic system.
The applicant must provide a contract with a pumper and provide
the city with documentation stating the holding tank has been
' pumped.
Landscaping
The applicant is providing berming along the easterly and
southerly portion of the property to screen the site from CR 117
and the property to the south. The elevation of the parking area
and building is 982. The proposed berm will reach an elevation
of 988 which will be 6 feet above the parking and building area.
The applicant is also providing a retaining wall at the edge of
the parking and storage area. The berm will adequately screen
the parking area and partially screen the building. The appli-
cant has provided a landscaping plan and elevation for the berm
area. The applicant is providing 6 foot Blue Spruce 20 feet
' apart which meets the requirements of the ordinance. There is an
existing stand of trees screening the site from the north.
Therefore, landscaping is not required north of the building and
parking area.
Stockdale CUP
September 21, 1988
Page 5
Grading, Drainage and Access ,
The Assistant City Engineer addresses grading, drainage and
access in Attachment #4 .
Specific Conditions for Contractor' s Yards
The Zoning Ordinance has eight specific conditions for contrac- '
tor' s yards, as follows:
1 . The minimum lot size is five (5 ) acres . ,
* The property exceeds the five acre minimum.
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 adjacent
single family residence. '
* The applicant is not providing the 100 foot setback
required from County Road 117 for the storage area. An 11 amended site plan will be required providing for the 100
foot setback.
The contractor's yard is located within 500 feet of the ,
applicant' s residence which is located directly to the
north and is also located within 500 feet of an existing
home on the east side of County Road 117, located
northeast of the site. The property located directly
across from the site on Galpin Boulevard does not contain
single family residences at this time but has been sub-
divided by Mike Klingelhutz for single family homes.
3 . The site must be located along a collector or minor arterial
as identified in the comprehensive plan.
* The site is located along a collector.
4 . All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by one
hundred (100) percent opaque fencing or berming.
* The applicant is providing berming and four foot walls to '
completely screen the outdoor storage located in the
parking areas. The outside storage will not be permitted
above the 4 foot walls and retaining walls. '
5 . No two (2 ) contractor' s yards shall be located within one (1 )
mile of each other. '
* Currently, there is a contractor' s yard located just south
of the property on County Road 117, Theodore Bentz
1 p
Stockdale CUP
September 21, 1988
Page 6
' (Attachment #9) . Theodore Bentz received a conditional
use permit for a contractor' s yard on February 4, 1985, by
the City Council. Staff has contacted Mr. Bentz and his
contractor' s yard is still in use, therefore, the appli-
cant' s proposal would not meet the one mile separation
from an existing contractor's yard.
' 6 . Hours of operation shall be from 7: 00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. ,
Monday through Satuday only, work on Sundays and holidays not
' permitted.
* The applicant has stated that the hours of operation would
be from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The hours of operation
' would have to be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m.
7 . Light sources shall be shielded.
* The site has one light source which shall be shielded.
' 8 . No outside speaker systems are allowed.
* There will be no outside speaker systems.
General Conditions for Conditional Use Permits
The Zoning Ordinance also has 12 general standards for con-
ditional use permits .
1 . Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neigh-
, borhood or the city.
* The location of the contractor' s yard in the rural area
and the size of the contractor' s yard should not be detri-
mental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the city.
2 . Will be consistent with the objectives of the city' s compre-
hensive plan and this chapter.
' * The landscaping contractor' s yard will include activities
that are consistent with the city' s comprehensive plan
for agricultural land, but the proposal does not meet all
' of the conditions for a contractor' s yard.
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 applicant is proposing berming and landscaping so as
to screen the activity from surrounding properties and to
maintain the rural characteristic of the site.
Stockdale CUP
September 21, 1988
Page 7
4 . Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
* The site is within the required 500 feet of existing resi-
dences and future residences, therefore, could be
disturbing to planned neighboring uses. The screening of
the site and other standards required for a contractor' s
yard should limit the impact of the site to surrounding
property.
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 size of the operation can be adequately served by a '
septic system and private well and will be served ade-
quately by County Road 117.
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 contractor' s yard will not create excessive
requirements for public services and facilities and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the com-
munity.
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,
glare, odors , rodents, or trash.
* The contractor' s yard will not involve uses or materials
that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the
city. The applicant is proposing the hours of operation
that exceed what is allowed with a conditional use permit
which could result in traffic and noise that could be
disturbing to residences. Provision of a holding tank
will help prevent any possibility of ground water con-
tamination.
8 . Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not
create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or
surrounding public thoroughfares . '
* The applicant will have to receive an access permit from
Carver County which will ensure adequate site distance
Stockdale CUP
' September 21, 1988
Page 8
' onto County Road 117. Should the site generate traffic
of 20 vehicles or more per day, Carver County may require
turn lanes to be provided on County Road 117 that would
' provide safe traffic movement.
9 . Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar
access , natural, scenic or historic features of major
' significance.
* The location of the building and parking will not result
' in destruction, loss or damage or solar access, natural,
scenic or historic features of major significance.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
* The proposed berming and landscaping of the property will
allow it to blend in with the area and be compatible with
' the area.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
' * Since the property is located in an agricultural district
and is a semi-agricultural use, it should not depreciate
surrounding property values.
12 . Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided
in this article.
' * The application does not meet all of the specific con-
ditions for a contractor' s yard as stated in the report,
' specifically, #2, #5 , and #6.
Although the application is a smaller business run by the appli-
cant who lives directly adjacent to the property, and is more of
' a family run operation, the application does not meet all of the
standards required for a contractor' s yard as a conditional use
permit. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of the con-
ditional use permit for the contractor' s yard.
RECOMMENDATION
' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
' "The Planning Commission recommends denial of Conditional Use
Permit #85-2 for the following reasons :
1 . The contractor' s yard is located within one mile of an
existing contractor' s yard.
2 . The contractor' s yard is located within 500 feet of a resi-
dence.
Stockdale CUP _-
September 21 , 1988 1
Page 9
3 . The hours of operation exceed those permitted. '
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the contrac-
tor' s yard, staff is recommending the following conditions : ,
1 . The applicant shall provide a revised site plan which
conforms to the 100 foot setback requirement for the storage
areas .
2 . The applicant provide soil boring information locating two
septic sites for approval by Drs. Machmeier and Anderson for
use of a bathroom facility in the contractor' s yard building
and provide a holding tank for waste water with a contract
from a pumper and documentation when the tank has been
pumped.
3 . The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver
County.
4 . The applicant shall maintain hours of operation between 7: 00
a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. with work not permitted on Sundays and
holidays .
5 . There shall be no signage advertisting the business
establishment on site.
6 . Conditions of the Building Department.
7 . Conditions of the Engineering Department.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION '
The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to recommend denial of the
conditional use permit for the contractor' s yard for the
following reasons:
1 . The contractor' s yard is located within one mile of an
existing contractor' s yard and the contractor' s yard is
located within 500 feet of a residence.
Commissioner Ellson, who voted against the denial felt that '
the contractor' s yard should have been grandfathered in because
of his original conditional use permit and since the city did not
require the one mile separation at that time. '
Commissioner Batzli , who also voted against the recommendation
felt that he wanted to raise the flag to the Council that there
was a feeling that the applicant would have a fairly well run
contractor' s yard and there was a feeling of fairness that since
the applicant had already received a conditional use permit that
he should be able to proceed with his contractor' s yard. '
I
I
Stockdale CUP
' September 21, 1988
Page 10
' In general, the Planning Commissioners all felt that staff should
investigate if there is a way to recommend approval of this
contractor' s yard application without amending the ordinance and
' without an existing hardship.
Staff confirmed with the City Attorney that the proper way to
recommend approval of the contractor' s yard would be to approve a
variance to the conditions of the conditional use permit or to
amend the Zoning Ordinance. Should the City Council wish to
recommend approval of the conditional use permit request for the
contractor' s yard, a variance must be granted to the condition of
the contractor' s yard being located within one mile of an
existing contractor' s yard and the condition that the contrac-
tor' s yard cannot be located within 500 feet of a residence.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends the City Council
"The Planning Commission recommends denial of Conditional Use
' Permit #85-2 for the following reasons:
1 . The contractor' s yard is located within one mile of an
' existing contractor' s yard.
2 . The contractor' s yard is located within 500 feet of a resi-
t dence.
3 . The hours of operation exceed those permitted.
' Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the contrac-
tor' s yard, staff is recommending the following conditions:
' 1 . The applicant shall provide a revised site plan which
conforms to the 100 foot setback requirement for the storage
areas .
' 2 . The applicant provide soil boring information locating two
septic sites for approval by Drs. Machmeier and Anderson for
use of a bathroom facility in the contractor' s yard building
' and provide a holding tank for waste water with a contract
from a pumper and documentation when the tank has been
pumped.
3 . The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver
County.
4 . The applicant shall maintain hours of operation between 7 : 00
a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. with work not permitted on Sundays and
holidays .
.1
Stockdale CUP
September 21, 1988
Page 11
5 . There shall be no signage advertisting the business
establishment on site.
6 . Conditions of the Building Department. 1
7 . Conditions of the Engineering Department.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Excerpts from City Code.
2 . Memo from Building Department dated September 12, 1988 .
3 . Memo from Public Safety Director dated August 24, 1988 .
4 . Memo from Engineering Department dated September 14, 1988 .
5 . Letter from Carver County dated September 13 , 1988 .
6 . City Council minutes dated March 18 , 1985 & conditional use permit.
7 . City Council minutes dated July 6, 1987.
8 . Letter from Resource Engineering dated September 7 , 1988 .
9 . City Council minutes dated February 4 , 1985 .
10 . Letter from applicant dated September 1 , 1988 .
11. Planning Commission minutes dated September 21, 1988
12 . Site plan.
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
°aCNw�
ZONING § 20-256
(2) The structure must be in compliance with local building and fire codes.
(3) The site will be reviewed annually through a public hearing process.
(4) Septic systems must be in compliance with chapter 19, article IV.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(2)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-254. Commercial kennels,stables and riding academies.
The following applies to commercial kennels, stables and riding academies:
(1) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, article III.
(2) The site must be located on a collector street.
(3) The structure must be a minimum of two hundred(200)feet from wetland area.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(3)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-255. Contractor's yard.
' The following applies to contractor's yards:
(1) The minimum lot size is five (5)acres.
(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
' adjacent single-family residence.
(3) The site must be located along a collector or minor arterial as identified in the
comprehensive plan.
' (4) All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by one hundred(100)percent
opaque fencing or berming.
' (5) No two(2)contractor's yards shall be located within one(1)mile of each other.
(6) Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday
' only,work on Sundays and holidays not permitted.
(7) Light sources shall be shielded.
' (8) No outside speaker systems are allowed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(4)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-256. Commercial communication transmission towers.
' Commercial communication transmission towers not designed to collapse progressively
C shall be set back from all property lines a minimum distance equal to the height of the tower.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(5)), 12-15-86)
' 1173
C r
. 1
CITY OF
i 1
, � ,_ . .
Ax,.. 1
,...
, .
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' , (612) 937-1900
II
MEMORANDUM • II
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector CA k/. 1
DATE: September 12, 1988
SUBJ: Planning Case 85-2 CUP (Stockdale) 1
1
Pump and underground tank installation must be reviewed and
approved by the State Fire Marshal before a permit can be issued. 1
Building must be sprinklered.
Septic design must be submitted to the City and approved prior to II
issuance of a building permit.
Building requires at least one lavatory and water closet. 1
Separate facilities for each sex must be provided if there are
more than four employees and both sexes are employed.
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
#.� 1
I, , „--
CIT'( OF .
1 ::
i1 ' -
' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 ...._„. ,_.„'e'*'.
1 MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
IFROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
SUBJ: 85-2 CUP (Stockdale)
1 DATE: August 24 , 1988
I From the information provided, this office has no public
safety input regarding the conditional use permit for a
landscape contractor ' s yard on 12 .1 acres of property zoned
1 A-2 , agricultural estate and located on Galpin Boulevard
approximately 1/2 mile north of Highway 5.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I #3
c c ,
CIT'/ OF 1
\21 A, , CHANHASSEN
\ , i
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
;- W2) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission 1
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer pr4e
II
DATE: September 14, 1988 ✓
SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit for a Contractor ' s Yard
I
Planning File No. 85-2 CUP, Stockdale
This site is located on the west side of County Road 117 (Galpin II
Boulevard) approximately one-half mile north of State Highway 5 .
This 12 acre site is comprised of rolling topography with a II mature grove of trees located on the northerly portion of the
site. The Exhibit "C" shows that the applicant also owns and
maintains a northerly lot as his residence shown on the plans.
Sanitary Sewer I
This site is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service
II
Area (MUSA) . The applicant has delineated an area for the pro-
posed septic system sites. These sites will be required to be
staked and roped off prior to any construction to prevent any
construction traffic over the proposed drainfield.
II
Watermain
Municipal water service is not available to the site. On-site I
sources will have to be developed by the applicant.
Access I
This plan proposes to access County Road 117 by the construction
of a private driveway. This will require a permit from the
II
Office of the Carver County Engineer. Comments submitted by
Carver County indicate that if the site generates more than 20
vehicles per day, an analysis for a right turn lane into the site II will be required.
I
II
II
Planning Commission
September 14, 1988
Page 2
I
Grading and Drainage
The plan proposes the construction of the building, parking lot
and berms surrounding the parking lot on the south and east sides
of the site. In addition , the plans propose to construct a
gentle flat berm in an east/west orientation through the westerly
half of the site.
The plans indicate that there is a natural ponding area located
in the central portion of the northerly lot . The construction of
the flat berm mentioned previously will increase the retainage
potential of the ponding site which maintains the predeveloped
runoff rate and has adequate storage for a 100-year storm event.
The plans do not show any provisions for a culvert or constructed
outlet for the pond thus leaving the overflow for the pond
natural , which would run through the proposed parking area and
may endanger the building site itself ( refer to Attachment #1 ) .
Provisions for a culvert and berming to ensure that the emergency
overflow situation can be accommodated without endangering the
parking lot or proposed building should be incorporated into the
plans.
The proposed driveway will be required to have an 18-inch
diameter minimum culvert underneath the access adjacent to County
Road 117 (refer to Attachment #2 ) .
The parking lot runoff has been directed to the southeast corner
of the parking lot . As proposed, this would create a ponding
situation in the area of the proposed storage for sand, gravel
and black dirt. Page C of the plan set indicates that some sort
of culvert or storm sewer structure will be placed in this
southeast corner. This plan is not acceptable as it would
transport the stored materials such as black dirt or gravel
through the storm sewer system and into the County ditch.
Provisions for directing drainage away from these storage areas
should be made along providing details for the proposed storm
sewer system. A revised plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval prior to final review.
Erosion Control
The plan does not address erosion control. A revised plan
showing the proper erosion controls shall be submitted to the
City Engineer for approval prior to final review.
Miscellaneous
The plans are required to be signed by a registered professional
engineer . Revised/future submittals will be required to have
this signature.
i
Planning Commission 1
September 14, 1988
Page 3
I
It is therefore recommended that the conditional use permit 85-2
CUP be approved upon the following conditions . I
1 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the access permit onto County Road 117 as issued by the
Office of the Carver County Engineer.
2. Provisions for an emergency overflow shall be indicated on
the plan set which does not endanger the building or proposed
parking lot shall be incorporated into the final grading plan
and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval
prior to final review.
3 . An 18-inch diameter culvert minimum with flared end sections
will be required underneath the proposed driveway just prior
to the existing blacktop of County Road 117 . '
4 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit . 1
5 . A revised erosion control plan which includes the City stan-
dards for Type II erosion control shall be submitted to the
City Engineer for approval prior to final review.
6 . Storm water drainage for the parking lot shall be directed
away from all storage areas. Provisions for outletting the
drainage from the parking lot to the appropriate drainage
swales shall be incorporated into the plan.
7 . A valley in the driveway shall be constructed prior to the '
existing blacktop of County Road 117 to ensure that drainage
from the driveway or parking lot is not routed to the County
road.
8 . All revised future submittals will be signed by a registered
professional engineer.
Attachments
1. Emergency overflow path diagram.
2 . Driveway detail plan.
_— —....—.... T. ■Nim IIMIN=1.1•1 =MIMI IIMMIONO
-ci
•,
t- • I..
•
"•-•,
.....',,1.. 1. '.r. "1.,. • .. '4•.,,.'1,.-:..,1.<.f:.-...,f;...T.,_..... •teSt.. -
-....„......• 4.4„ ! ;.,'
11, ” .;.'..••7'
,• '-,' /,•-I.;'•4•—,,'-'43,I1'.'..'','.''..xM c0-•••i•••:.I,•$,5•„•,...•..t)•4.■.,k,.:.".,t:.10•'1•:'..:.:•j•.:-7..•:..■.,;I.'/.'.;•';).,i•'''-•"..-.
•
, ,'t, ..,,,•••••• -.•1;;.-...,-,•
-, .:./.,",.'',C•A,A,.:i,1.,.,
•,
■•
.',
•.
.-— -... -:,-... ,. -.•,. ,.•4 '
, i
0 K -
,‘, :• -.. 0,
lii I N . N.
.1. z , ;
•-• i i M
i ([ ,U r
' •pll
DJ >
,-.
I I
'."-- t \ -,.. 7...t) . ::ii. :-.-.
0 •
,
. • m".1
1 1, 1
..., .2,...t.,. 0 •j ... . ..........j ., ••'„ es. zr" . C •
.
. • ( . .,
, /. •
. ;
o 1 ii •:: r If ....\,\<
t„,.. :....iir
, _:,--t--- 1::, 7----______1. . __?..*:....:_-____. . ?:______ \
0
— r J
C... .
.
• , %/
•
\ \ ......-. _(k:';', :
• \ \‘\ r 7
rs1 2,,_0 t •
• \1 /\\\ / /
, C ,..
•1 .
. i ,?
.:\N"'‘.."..14'k'--\".\\\•
..,...)...._1,1,_
".."1
• \
. p....7 -,--1-.. ._ ___________' ''r•,,,.\ ex..., „ ,,,,, -
$
I
'' ....11 .
• it ' --, - .ln•I'V
_IQ -2-------7- ... c •
1 ,..: i ..,..,) .„, ( ei 67....,.............._
; (
. ))
p o
0 '
--.....„;
\„:7"•■•■,.. -
-•-• '
. • 1 . i.
.-; ' -'.-i- ----------.-
• ; - \ ........••■*-••••■„„,,______... .
-.......___,......---.... __---••-•"*".'r„,„.. ...,,,,,....e. k .
.. , -.. ,..
• • .
, '%**.................._ • : -
.
•s'.i> • .
... .• •
•0
'''*..%''.."."'":...... "‘r--"■ . , / .
• 2
N
..2'..- • ' . ---------7-4------.... ..____
, .
. .
i: '•
. '
• - / • •• \ '•.\
\ . .................D
• . ,
-,
. . ..
• S .
. : !.
• ,., •
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
-----------.
. .. •• . •. - , •
, .
, • .
• • , . , ..., ••
• • . •
! . • .. ,
• . RECCIVZO .
" , • , ,
. . ,
Z------1* '''• '': s ' .
. ..
. .
•
. .
,;• .
. .•
-
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT, .
..e.• = - 4. - ,, :, ',' . i' 4 . A .••,..4,:).',..
. : • fa. , i
" ' * i ''. ' -..... ..0, . I. 1... 1,. .:.i'i'i•
./ :•• • a, '
' T •' . .... ...... r' ' •.( ,\;'.'I.1.4 , ' ! , Ir. ; • '''' . .. '. 7 . . . • ' 'I "I, •'•• ...••■ 4••1.`■''if:''' :.: .•'• • 1 .: st':•• ..,. • •; 't; :. ..
i, •
\ •
........■••711m... 0110...•4.911 Nor•■•• ••• AP... "brim. "m.o....., • lo..•.,••■ Il•r.1Th A\ if--- .-----1--,---,,.... I••P, n , r— It—v■ r*r•••••• . -. r■1 .- - -, In......11..
s:
•
•
‘+': - . .
\ t .,
/
•
I
.::.•..... ":. ;:.::4- 1"..1.1...
7...... .
1C"m . .- -- - —
y3u
_ -7-'\ , 93A \ , _
/Qsy
r.. - W 994 \`
. .\If\ - — .
PP
=• \-__ (c;\:,,, ,\
i
•
‘ 1 i
\ :IX ) \ 1. 1\ . . .
A
I.i
i 2 7/ ! i "1") . ' 1
iz f tt,j,
...._ i
.,......*: .', 'A rt..,. p_,„_,0 i / ,,•, .
1--------------1-----4i 4. Fr)'' /
•••,,,.' :.'. - 1 t' i . ' - '..... .
\ b , 1
Tfnaa�
/ ,;l r 18 IN. CUL-VE-RT
ILI-/%/Ce. I J- IfF j:dt, it/ ii •... .. .
Pir ,
k
.�•—_ ,fib W '
Z o
1 , - • 1 . i
Cif 0
CI
..-. !
WJ/ o f i
i -7s,_,..
} d
es .p /
La.) ..:.
-___0:,„ i ,
,-, . . u .......
= •
w'-d 600./,,„,„c 9h9 `'.� . "•w
••
� I
....................... �----•`�t o ter+"'• - ' ,,�' 1
. .
- N ..„.,• . _ _ ._ • . , _
, „. MN
. . "• . -
ME
1 p
R COr
1 1
:: : CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
,` l' 600 EAST 4TH STREET
' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \ CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318
(612) 448-3435Q'
NE s°
COUNTY OF CA VEQ
September 13 , 1988
' Ms. JoAnn Olsen
City of Chanhassen
' 690 Coulter Drive
P 0 Box 147
Chanhassen , MN 55317
RE: Conditional Use Permit 85-2 (Stockdale)
CR 117
Dear Ms. Olsen :
We have reviewed the information submitted for the Stockdale con-
, ditional use permit. The following comments are submitted:
1 ) Installation of a new entrance onto CR 117 (Galpin
Blvd . ) will require a permit from the Carver County
° Engineer ' s Office . The applicant is responsible for
all the entrance construction costs including a culvert
if required.
2 ) Tree plantings along CR 117 should be set back a suffi-
cient distance from the right of way line so future
growth does not infringe on the right of way. The ex-
isting right of way line is 33 feet from the centerline
of CR 117 .
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments . If you
have questions concerning this matter, contact me at your con-
venience .
Sincerely,
William J . Weckman P. E.
Assistant County Engineer
WJWjcjr
SEP 1 4 1988
CITY OFCHANHASSEN
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Council Meeting, March 18;1 _985 -2-
washed away . They will pick one weekend after all of this and ',
Y • Y P� go over everything .
They will pull any weeds that they see coming up, and will paint any spots on the
fire hydrants that didn 't get painted the first time . There were a few extras that
they asked the City of Chanhassen to do to complete his project . He would like the
City to paint the curbs and crosswalks. He would like the Carver County Herald to do
a story on the group as they are doing the project . He will be taking pictures
before, during and after the project and then give a presentation to the City Council
on what they did at the end .
Mayor Hamilton asked if the City was to supply the equipment needed for this project. •
Jim Gregory replied yes.
Councilman Geving was wondering who would be working on this project. ,
Jim Gregory said that he and his Scout Troop. In order to advance in Scouting, you
have to give service hours. The Scout Troop needs the time just as Jim does .
Councilman Geving also suggested that he would like to see the city sweeper run by
the areas that the litter is picked up. He was also wondering if anything was to be
done with the 2i to 3 feet posts . He felt that it is a great project.
Jim Gregory stated that they will be pulling the weeds around the posts and spray
around them also . ,
Bill Monk stated that he did not know if the posts were private or if they were city
property . He was to check into this. He felt that it was not worth it to paint
1/4
them, as they would then have to continually paint them.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the Council Meeting 1
Minutes dated February 25, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and
Councilmen Horn . Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried .
Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Planning Commission Minutes dated February 27,
1985. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson . The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
negative votes . Motion carried .
APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the bills as presented :
checks #022309 through check #022392 in the amount of $253,850 .67 and checks #024790 —
through #024883 in the amount of $72,488 .34. Motion was seconded by Councilman
Geving . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Item #5 - Side Yard Setback Variance Request, 720 West 96th Street, Ronald Landin .
This item was approved unanimously by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at an
earlier meeting this evening. It was therefore removed from the Agenda.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LANDSCAPING CONSTRACTOR'S YARD ACTIVITIES, DAVID
STOCKDALE, ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 ON GALPIN BOULEVARD:
BARB DACY: This certain parcel totals 18 acres in size . Earlier this winter, it was
part of a subdivision that was passed by the Council creating four lots. A six acre
parcel was to be tied in with Mr. Bentz 's parcel , which is 14 acres .
1 Council Meeting, Marc( 8, 1985 4. -3-
' Also this winter, Mr. Bentz applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the existing
contractor's yard activities . As you recall , he had approximately 9 vehicles and
all of them were to be stored on site in the existing buildings . This application is
' for a landscaping contractor's yard . What is being proposed is the applicant's
single family home, 3,200 square feet, with a three-stall attached garage . As far as
the contractor' s yard, what is proposed is a 50 by 100 pole barn building which
will be used as an office, and workshop and storage for 6 trucks . The parking area
' is surrounded by a 5 foot berm along Galpin Boulevard, complimented with a number of
six foot Colorado Spruce, 14 feet apart. We are recommending that he continue the
same type of evergreen vegetation along the south property line . The elevations that
he is proposing to achieve with the grading in this area is that the parking area
will be lower than the finished grade of the property around the site so the property
owners to the northwest will see the roof of the building and the parking area will
be screened from the north and west . This is the first new application for a new
' contractor's yard. All the previous applications have been for existing establish-
ments. In between the Planning Commission meeting and this meeting it has been
raised in the memo, that the Council may want to consider restrictions or additional
' conditions that new establishments have to achieve because the existing applications
that we looked at are on a one to one basis. It has been suggested that a 150 foot
setback from a public road to the contractor's yard be implemented . I contacted the
' applicant today and from what he has represented to me, he has agreed to remove the
retaining wall that is supporting the berming area and let the berm taper out . So
what will be removed is 30 feet of the parking area . You would then have a setback
of 80 feet from the front property line to the edge of the parking area . The
Planning Commission did recommend approval based on the following four conditions:
1 . The recommendations of the City Engineer as stated in his memo of February 22,
If 1985 .
2 . Installation of additional evergreens measuring at least four feet in height
along the south property line to adequately screen the parking area .
3. Signage to the proposed site shall not exceed two square feet as required by the
Sign Ordinance .
4. Vacation of 60 foot easement on the south side of the property .
What we are proposing is vacating this easement and moving that down to the south
between the two 5-acre parcels which can be accomplished with the cooperation of
the property owners themselves.
' Councilman Horn: Do we have any other instances where we have adjoining contractor's
yards?
' Barb Dacy : No . As I mentioned in the report, that was a concern because they are
approximately 600 feet away from each other; but the activity that appears from Mr.
Bentz 's operation is minimal , all of his vehicles being stored inside and the county
road is a 9 ton weight limit , most of the traffic would be directed onto the county
road and then down to Highway 5.
Councilman Horn : Is this going to be a retail operation?
' Barb Dacy : No . This is storage for landscaping materials, timber , gravel and for
the trucks to come at night and be stored inside .
Council Meeting, March ,d1985 • -4-
Councilman Horn : Will eo le come there
p p re to contract? Will he be using his facility
as an office for his business?
Barb Dacy: There is an office involved in the pole barn .
David Stockdale appeared before the Council and showed them a colored sketch and
explained his proposals .
David Stockdale: My business would be pretty much a contract. I often do the work . •
Occasionally I would have people come to see plans that I have drawn up. I would go
and meet them on site. I employ eight people seasonally and four people full-time .
They come to work between 6:30 and 8:30 and they go out to job sites.
Councilman Horn : Do you have large vehicles coming in dropping off gravel?
David Stockdale: Once a week a semi load comes in with timbers and other than that 11 it would just be my trucks.
Councilwoman Swenson : According to the zoning ordinance , there are not any provi-
sions here for business operation . This is a business operation . ,
Barb Dacy : The only other example that I can think of is R & W Sanitation . They
use the house that they are living in now , which they are renting from Mr. Volk .
They operate their office in their home to do contracting and so on . A
contractor' s yard owner usually operates from that yard to conduct their trade .
Councilwoman Swenson : Why would they need a sign to advertise that they are there
if they are not a business? I do not want to see a lot of signs of contractor ' s yards
all over the city . Somewhere along the line we are going to have to make an amend-
ment to this ordinance .
Don Ashworth : I don ' t know of any contractor ' s yard that has been approved that
really hasn 't had the same elements that we have on this one . Where else would you
put this kind of business?
Councilwoman Watson : I think it is o .k. , but I don ' t see a need to have a sign
out there. '
Councilman Geving: I don ' t believe there needs to be a big sign out there. In this
particular operation, the employees come to work, report to the work sites, they
return . There should be no reason for people to be looking for this particular place .
I like the idea of moving the yard setbacks. On this particular site , it seems
to me that they are using a lot of land for a big parking area . I am also in favor
of the new road between the two 5 acre plots. I was interested in the soil per-
colation test that Paul Waldron commented on . He said that according to the per-
colation test and on-site investigation, it is my considered opinion that a design
plan be completed to insure the proper system for these sites. Would you explain that
to me a little more Bill?
Bill Monk : The on-site investigation is really the testing that goes on at the time
of the building permit and is done in all cases.
Councilman Geving: So then any conditions we place on this, I would like an inspec-
tion report as part of our conditions.
1
Council Meeting, MarL 18 , 1985 k -5_
Councilman Horn: In your recommendation of 150 feet , Don , is that based on any
' previous applications that we worked on?
Don Ashworth: Not in this community . I have seen it done in other areas .
ICouncilman Horn : How would our. existing contractor' s yards be improved to comply
with this?
' Don Ashworth : They would not .
Councilman Horn : I agree with the setback . I prefer 150 feet .
' Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to have included in the recommendations that
the septic system be checked out by the City Engineer so we don' t have any problems
with that .
Mayor Hamilton replied that the driveway was acting as a terminal for the trucks to
' pick up material and so forth .
Councilman Geving: What will we see when driving along the road?
' David Stockdale: The lumber should lift up above the berms , and you also will see
part of the buildings.
' Councilman Horn moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Landscaping
Contractor' s Yard , David Stockdale, on Galpin Boulevard with the following
conditions:
11 III 1 . The recommendations of the City Engineer as stated in his
memo of February 22, 1985, which are:
Utilities: Municipal sanitary sewer and water facilities are not
presently available in this area so the proposed use will be ser-
viced by a septic system and private well . Percolation tests for
' a septic system were performed as a part of the recent lot split
involving this site and were found to be within acceptable limits .
Streets: All driving surfaces are proposed to be blacktopped and,
' as with the City ' s rural street section, drainage will be handled
in ditches in place of concrete curb . The applicant will be
required to secure an access permit from Carver County for the
' proposed entrance onto CR 117 .
Drainage: Proposed site grading is minimal and does not
' materially change the existing drainage patterns. The bituminous
surfacing will increase the volume of runoff although the overall
rate of runoff from the site will not change due to the creation
of a small ponding area . The proposal as submitted does not pre-
sent any negative drainage impact to this area of the Bluff Creek
Drainage area although approval by the Carver County and the
Watershed District will be required. Conditions of approval by
Ithese agencies should be a condition of any City approval .
2. Installation of additional evergreens measuring at least four
feet in height along the south property line to adequately
' screen the parking area .
I
Council Meeting, March 18 1985 V -6-
3 . No signage on the proposed site.
4. Vacation of a 60 foot easement on the south side of the property .
5 . Subject to the City Engineer's inspection approval of the septic systems .
6. Based on the revised plan presented at the Council meeting showing the reduc-
tion of the parking area by approximately 30 feet along Galpin Boulevard .
#6 amended 4-15-85, Page 1.
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson . The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT, WHITETAIL RIDGE. NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND GALPIN
BOULEVARD, PAUL PALMER:
Barb Dacy : The parcel is located in the northeast corner of the Lake Lucy Road and
Galpin Boulevard intersection . Waldrip' s Addition was passed in 1981 and part of
that plan was the creation of three lots for duplexes along Galpin Boulevard, five
single family lots, and the lot to accommodate the 7-unit apartment building that
exists there now . At that time in 1981 it was anticipated that five single family
lots could be placed in the subject outlot. They changed the name of the Orchard
Hills plat and came in with five single family lots . So this request is to amend the
final development plan for Outlot B , which had previously been 5 single family lots ,
for eight townhomes . At the Planning Commission meeting there was some confusion as
to what is the exact process the applicant is going to, and to reiterate again this
final plan amendment is for townhomes. Single family homes, townhouses and multiple
family structures are permitted uses in the P-1 District . Also raised at the
Planning Commission meeting, was the overall density of Waldrip's Addition . As ori-
ginally planned it was 2 units per acre . That included the three duplexes, the five
single family lots in Orchard Hills, the 7-unit apartment building and the five
single family lots in the Outlot B . With this amendment, by creating eight townhomes
it is increasing the overall units to 27 and the overall density of Waldrip' s
Addition is 2.2 units per acre . The density of the individual lot , however, is 2.9.
The townhomes are clustered along the ridge and the low areas in the southeast and
the southwest corners of the lots . The landscaping plans proposed is a combination
of evergreens and maples along the south side of the property on Lake Lucy Road
and along the east side of the property . Evergreens are also being proposed
along the north . The Staff recommended that the primary function of the
evergreens is to screen the parking area occurring on the north lot line . It
was recommended that they be four feet high . Access was also a major issue at
the Planning Commission meeting. The Commission met with Carver County
Officials out on the site . The letter that I distributed this evening just came
this afternoon . Basically , what that letter is saying is that the County would
prefer that the access come off of Lake Lucy Road . Secondly , they are looking
for 350 feet of stopping site distance . It is not known, and they are still
working on it to see if this meets that criteria . However , it appears from this
preliminary evaluation that the location of the existing access, at this point,
does not meet that criteria . It appears that this access would have to be moved
to the south and the County is saying no further south than across from 65th
Street . They also say in the letter that if it is found that the existing
access is to be maintained, vegetation would have to be cleared on either side
100 feet to the north and south of that existing access to create adequate site
I
�. �---
' CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1 . Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set
' forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional
use permit for: Landscaping Contractor' s yard activity
2. Property. The permit is for the following described
' property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota:
See attached legal description marked Exhibit "A" .
3 . Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the
following conditions:
1. Based on the revised site plan submitted on March 18, 1985
and as contained in Planning File #85-2 Conditional Use
Permit.
2. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer as
stated in his memo dated February 22, 1985 .
' 3. Installation of additional evergreens measuring at least four
feet in height along the south property line to adequately
screen the parking area.
4. There is to be no signage advertising the business establish-
ment on site.
' 5 . Vacation of the 60 foot easement on the south side of the
property.
' 6 . Inspection of the septic systems by the City Engineer.
— ( 1 - ro ill
5. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this 1
conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor.
1
Dated: 721aA-eALJAf /9(fS
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
By: r
l�,t �s My� i
Y
By: _ Ic��.. L
Its Clerk I
STATE OF MINNESOTA) II ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
I
c2 ' day of ratL1.C7,G,J , 191; by Thomas L. Hamilton,
Mayor , and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. I
, J
Notary 7)fLicj
I‘7_,)
=N J. ENGELHARDT I
i o u u 4 - r,,.PAINNESOTA
: 7UNTY >>>>>
-';*�.. My Con.• ,-3 OCt.11 1 I
I
I
I
I
P 281
IF
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 6, 1987
' Acting Mayor Geving called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with
the Pledge to the Flag.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson. Mayor Hamilton was absent.
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren and Todd
Gerhardt
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda as amended with the following additions: Councilman Boyt
wanted to add discussion about Park and Rec and discussion about building
II inspection. Don Ashworth had an update on the sprinkling ban. All voted in
favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving stated that he did not see any formal
' letter asking for phasing of park dedication fees for Gary Brown's Mini-
Storage and in the future he would like to see these requests in letter so
they become part of the packet.
' Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve the following
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
r a. Conditional Use Permit for a Telephone Equipment Building, Lot 7,
Block 1, Chanhassen Hills, Northwestern Bell Telephone.
' b. Request to subdivide 12.5 acres into three single family lots,
located on Galpin Blvd., 1/2 mile north of TH 5, David Stockdale.
' c. Final Plat Approval, Jeurissen Addition
e. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 24, 1987
' • f. Approval of phasing park dedication fees, Gary Brown Mini-Storage.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations at this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD/VALHALLA DRIVE, CITY OF
CHANHASSEN. _
' Public Present:
Name Address
Kevin Pieper 541 Indian Hill Road
Gary & Jane Kendrick 550 Indian Hill Road
1
— ° 11111111-11111.—• r
•
•
JglI►k,n,►•ti•.atr1 I MACICENDALE
ADDITION
I I
- 1 f I BMW •I it /
—I— - !
\ \ \ \ \ -S- -"- - -.'----?':/4143;/#;/';‘;`/4 :;,'#'-'>*T--5 '. ' ''':- --'-\°--...L710 f.11///.////i////,/////- I 1
'L/—e
eI \ .` /
5 INHM.y
1I5 �
1. ' 1 1, \ % �. Ian _ )} .A-- \ , \ j I AMP
1 \ ;, , • , , , t., \ -..,_,,.... ,: / / ---- / ..., / I N , 1 i •
. \ \ sN, Nkiii,11110 . - '•.....,::- "-------2 i - r-----""---.''...--....-.....,---1"-- ////4::—%I. A \ ( L--/ //// 4 I
f / c A \ ,./ /, itti
v�-���`�\ ��Lj j//�� tit\ \a\� ��.„,, V ( s I - I.
3 9..n,. / '/ / \ \ i ,/ &
' 1C1111$ 1 INCH 10 Pity
killaittattiN ' 70Tt 1♦IANY�A7 TO,1117 1I,
Ulf liil1II1!1l h ilt ti111i11111111111i9ii lllil'll'111i1.iti 1t$' 1
11 1 ;! u:1::au 1
1���/I/i�� � � � 11 1 t ' 1r.w1►nMrN .,.r -
I I !!! I iI I Iii l i 1111�Ii'll ;1����it�'I I[i�•�l;ii j IIM::::. .m.�'1 11f 1 l I �) �' 1! '���1tIfI'I/�ii11111'11jf1 I� /IUARt®1®l1 ®AVR ®fibCKDALE /IIt/A11tD Iri HEDLUND f:NQINEERIN ... ...1 ,..1! i i J i ;I i 01; /}// 111,11 Nlll i i !ii,11 ,,
II !11 ills 81k/IM Ik7/, t SERVICE!!, iNt3. �;�,�,,, p, �,_ 0_
III l�1' (l 11 11 III } :III 1 1111 N,; NI IIE1k11IR1 NINNtaSTA 1111E 1111 INI IN,NIMNOTON 111411 T i 1 1 111 1l /1}}1 1 111 1�NIII�1 �1R/{b 1M.0M MI...M..N
111111rII�IIVi,1{III 111 / 1 11 /NMMMI III1f 111• Ik00 YINITON,1 11.1OTA 1/�1/1+JJ {{1{{1 Iy II N1a 1fj 1111 IMON111111)111.1111
X11(/1 �i�!I ! il;li 1:,
/11 I;Ir// i.INIM 1N1, 1 11 j/ 1
1 Il IINNII 111111 H 11M'~1�1111.111I
MI.1/11111..I , •NE6tklN� ENGINEERING
�O r SERVICES,INC.
R REOURCE ENGINEERING
Roger E Machmeier, P E. .lames L Anderson. C.PS S
29665 Neal Avenue 3541 Ensign Avenue, North
Lindstrom, MN 55045 New Hope, MN 55427
(612) 257 2019 (612) 593-5338
September 7, 1988
Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
' City of Chanhassen
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhssen, MN 55317 •
' Re: Planning Case 85-2 CUP (Stockdale)
Dear Jo Ann:
' We have received maps titled Exhibit C, Exhibit D and
Direction E from your office in regard to the above project.
The print entitled Direction E appears to be a landscaping
' plan of the proposed building and improvements.
On Exhibit D an area is proposed for the drainfield. No
soil texture data, no depth to seasonally saturated soil nor
any percolation test data were submitted to us. In
addition, the estimated sewage flow rate would need to be
' submitted by the developer in order to determine the amount
of drainfield area required. Consequently, we cannot
comment on the suitability of the site with respect to the
installation on an on-site—sewage treatment system. It must
also be noted that any site proposed for the installation of
an on-site sewage treatment system must be protected against
any and all construction activity which would damage or
' compact the original soil .
When the design of the sewage treatment system is submitted,
' a profile view will be necessary to determine if a pumping
station is needed to deliver the septic tank effluent to the
drainfield area. The maps submitted to us show no
elevations of the source of the sewage in the proposed
building.
The location of the water supply well is not specified. It
' should be noted that the well must be properly separated not
only from the sewage treatment system but from the buried
fuel tank and any other chemicals and fertilizer which may
be stored on the property.
It is noted on the map entitled Direction E that "Liquid
waste from truck washing, etc. , to drain into settlement
tank buried under floor and then flow out to drainfield. "
We would strongly advise against allowing this design
SEP 1 ` 1988
' SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT CITY OF CMANF;ASSEN
.1
Planning Case 85-2 CUP (Stockdale) Page 2
because of the possibilty of groundwater contamination. The
on-site sewage treatment system 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. 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. 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.
In addition to the service bay drainage and petroleum
products , it is likely that during the winter, road
chemicals will be washed from vehicles and introduced to the
floor drain system. If these compounds are discharged into
a subsurface absorption system, the soil will not adequately
treat these water-soluble chemicals and they will also move
downward with the percolating water and be introduced to the
groundwater.
As soon as soils data are submitted along with an estimated '
daily sewage flow rate so that the size of the onsite sewage
system can be evaluated, we will make a field visit to
verify that data. '
Sincerely yours ,
,427„ /7)„.„4„,k:„4,
Roger E. Machmeier, P. E.
RESOURCE ENGINEERING
REM/jjm
1
1
Council Meeting February 4;i , -2-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONTRACTOR 'S YARD, 7300 GALPIN BLVD, TED BENTZ:
I Councilwoman Watson moved to approve a conditional use permit , Planning Case
#84-20, for a contractor ' s yard at 7300 Galpin Blvd . subject to the following
conditions:
II 1 . Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this
application must be approved by a conditional use permit .
2 . All equipment must be stored within a building or the outside vehicle storage
I area must be screened on all sides with adequate fencing of at least six feet in
height.
on seconded by Councilman Horn . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes .
IMotion carried .
PIPER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT, RANDY HERMAN:
II Barbara Dacy - Based on the Council recommendation, the applicant has revised the
preliminary plat to locate the proposed road right-of-way to the west of the wetland
area . All the lot sizes meet the riparian and non-riparian lot area requirements as
established by Ordinance 65. However, involved in this approval , the Council has to
I consider variances to the 75 foot structure setback 'for the building pads on Lots 1,
2, and 3. As it appears the proposed building pads for Lots 2 and 3 are within 20
to 30 feet of the edge of the wetland area . However, the building pad for Lot 1 is
II much closer, within 5 to 10 feet of the edge of the marsh . As I pointed out in the
report, several criteria to base your decision on a wetland or not if variances
should be granted, as you recall from the first proposal much of the work was -
disturbing at least 50% of the wetland.
'
Councilwoman Swenson - On page 3 of the staff report , I think there is a typographi-
cal error here, #3, first paragraph, "That the granting of the application will not
I be 'immaterially ' , I believe that should be materially or substantially or signifi-
cantly .
II Barbara Dacv - It should be materially .
Councilman Geving - The last time that we met we had some discussion on Lot 1 and the
fact that there would have to be substantial amount of fill placed in that lot area
II on the pad to make that a buildable lot . As I look at the map , I would like to have
someone verify this for me, where it says proposed rambler walkout, there is a nine
and a five and then there is a blur there . I can ' t tell whether that ' s a seven or a
Ione.
Randy Herman - That ' s a seven .
II Councilman Geving - It' s 957. The last time we met I discussed this and I suggested
that we look at the lot on the north side of the road which is also 957 and I have
driven by there many times and I have noticed that water has always stood in that
I area just north of the bituminous section of the road and if we are going to build ,
the back of this house will sit at 957 . I really have some reservations about that
and Randy when we left here that night you were going to ask your engineer and you
IIwere going to do some more indepth soul searching whether or not you could actually
build on that lot . How do you feel now?
Randy Herman - The place where you get your feet wet down in the actual marsh area is
tabout 953 . That ' s where it 's wet . If it gets any higher than that it flows out .
There is a natural ditch that flows through there . There are trapped pockets of
water in there at 953 . The standard that we use and the one set up by the Federal [E7!
IIHousing Administration that says that the lowest floor in any dwelling should be at
least four feet above the nearby water table . It' s not actually a water table but
I #q
I �1
September 1, 1988
To: Planning Commission and City Council
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Re: Re-application for Conditional Use Permit
To Whom it May Concern,
On March 20, 1935, 1 received confirmation of approval fora conditional use permit for
property that ! was in the process of buying at 7210 Gal pin Blvd. My purchase agreement was
conti agent upon approval of this conditional use permit. I appreciated your consideration and
was willing to conform to the conditions stated in your letter of approval. Subsequent to receipt
of the letter, I built a house of the approximate dimensions, but situated it closer to the street
than origi nail y proposed. Also,due to the unstable conditions of the farm industry,the mortgage
institutions were not allowing mortgages on land parcels greater than 10 acres. ! therefore was
forced to subdivide and separate mu residence as identified and confirmed in a letter from
Barbara Dacy dated August 29, 1985. She stated that although the plan had been approved,due 1
to the legal separation of the two parcels, I would have to reappi y for the Conditional Use Permit.
At this time I am requesting reconsideration for the Conditional Use Permit for the same 1
purposes as was previously approved. 1 have modified the site plan taking into account not only
the now existing residences, but also some consideration responding to a memorandum from Don
Ashworth addressed to the Mayor and City Council dated March 1 8. 1985.
Following are some of the vital information regarding my personal and business background,and
physical and temporal needs as it relates to the property in question: 1
Project:
Contractor's Yard on parcel adjacent to personal residence.
Applicant:
David Stockdale and Ange McBryde-Stockdale
7210 Gal pin Blvd.
Chanhassen, Mn. 55331 474-7626
Bcor- 12.0(y
Owner of Record:
Richard B. Lyman
1810 Troy Lane
Mound, Mn.
473-2781
Legal ileac ri pti o n:
See Attached, Exhibit A 1
Proposed Start Date: CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Fali) 1988 REv•y•'�"•� 1
Vicinity map: S 7r 7 1�{9
Attached, Exhibit B
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
A
Structure:
Pole barn approx. 50'.x 1 1 ii';eppr'oY 18'tall at roof ridge Construction typical
' with earth tone finish. Designed to contain 25'x25'office, 25'x45'work shop,storage
bays for 7 trucks, 3 trailers,and bobcats.
Site:
' Because of the natural topography,the structure and adjoining yard space will be
nestled down into grade. With additional perimeter berming and tree planting,
substantial screening ng will dramatically reduce the visual impact on adjacent
properties.
Overview of Business:
' Established 1976
Primary business- landscape structure construction
Market base- S.W. Mpls.suburbs- Edina, Bloomington,Eden Prairie, Lake
Mi nnetonka area
' Priniarijclient- Bachman's, Inc.
Hours of operation- 6:30 A.M- 5:30 P.M
Peak hours- 6:30 A.M.-7:30 A.M 4:30 P.M.- 5:30 P.M.
Peak season- April 15- November 15
No of employees- 3 staff, 12 field
List of vehicles- 3 single axle dump trucks, 2 one ton trucks, 2-3/4 ton pick ups, 3
:=kid loaders and trailers.
Zoning and Land Use:
A-2.Agricultural as per 1 990 Land Use Plan
Site Plan:
Attached, Exhibits C and D
!n i-
losing, I feel confident this project will become a model example of what the Commission
had intended a contractor's yard to be. I would like to add that I feel strongly about minimizing
the visual impact not only on my neighbor's properties, but also as it relates to my residence.
In consideration of this site for a Conditional Use Permit,to the extent that it is economically
feasible. I am willing to accommodate my neighbor's wants and needs,and can assure you that
my utmost concern is to be a good neighbor and responsible c:itizen.
Thank you for your consideration,
David Stockdale
I
I
I
5115 ' 9/7 -7/Z4
rsv 1"- _
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ~'t �- `'l" s�
CITY OF CHANHASSEN Pts—5V7c,
c x, ,ABS rK,
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
A (612) 937-1900 ._ I
APPLICANT: Mt k' ( 09, :---blc-le---bNkli
ADDRESS 1210 ' AWf-(,LV D. ADDRESS (Ca0-1 14n-td I
-
GMrru-t sL-■.g i-t, 533/ loom R iR to•
Zip Code -- Zip Code I
TELEPHONE (Daytime )484(_(7G(. TELEPHONE
REQUEST:
I
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
• Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan I
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision _ II
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds II
X Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
I
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME COtirgikc.117i-S Yhib
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION II
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION _ I
PRESENT ZONING �1- - ^�� -} b ��
REQUESTED ZONING
II
USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY X1 . 1 LS,
LOCATION I/2.M 1A 01-61114911iSuo.4-t4W01 4S. harktotell 17.4 4401.1 RuM.
• R
II
EASONS FOR THIS REQUEST at-TarLorift. 0;4114444- 70 6s uhA- -BA'Ng"
Tut. 14AIL'CI1bivi bz I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) I
�
1
II
1. City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
' Page 2
' FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all informationandor
' plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before
filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
Iapplicable to your application .
•
FILING CERTIFICATION:
' The undersigned representative p entative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
' Signed By 4 /45 ,42-
Applicant _ Date 4r/W
1
' The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described .
1
Signed By
Date
Fee Owner
1
Date Application Received
Application Fee Paid
' City Receipt No.
1
* This Application will be considered by the Plannin
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their g Commission/
meeting.
1
I . ..
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 22 1
conditional use permit . 1
Batzli : So a conditional use permit isn ' t available in this?
Olsen: No.
Batzli : I don ' t see the hardship really. As I recall last time they Were I
talking about a couple of square feet, not doubling in size. I also don' t
necessarily think that amending the ordinance is the way to• go . I think
we've got a good ordinance that we made good and tight for a reason. I
don 't see the need to readdress that issue.
Wildermuth: I would like to try and avoid a variance also. I guess the
requesting from a visual pollution standpoint is one large sign any less '
offensive than two small signs or is it more offensive? I would be
willing to take a look at the sign ordinance again but I don ' t think
there's a hardship in this case. I
Headla : I think we should ask the staff to go back and take a look and
see if we want to reword in certain situations .
Conrad : Yes , I don ' t think this justifies a variance either . I 'm not
sure I 'd change the ordinance but I think what we need is City Council
direction on how staff uses it ' s time . If they feel the sign ordinance I
should be reviewed for the business neighborhood district, they certainly
can do that . Is there a motion?
Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Sign Variance Request #88-12. All voted in favor and the motion
carried . •
Conrad : A footnote to that motion I guess Jo Ann is to make sure that
City staff gets direction from the City Council in terms of review of the I
sign ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING: '
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR' S YARD ON 12. 1 ACRES
OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATE DON GALPIN BOULEVARD
1/2 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, DAVE STOCKDALE.
•
Public Present :
Name Address '
Dave Stockdale Applicant
Mike Klingelhutz '
• Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . '
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 23
Dave Stockdale: First off, a minor glitch for the total 55 , 000 square
re
foot building. It should have been 5, 500. A little history, I 've lived
' out there , I bought the property on a conditional use permit about 9 years
ago. For one reason or another, I wasn ' t able to executed upon my
conditional use permit at that point in time. Basically what I 've done on
' this proposal , I ' ve reduced the size of the parking lot and did some of
the screening . I understand . . . the 1 mile limitation has been . . .and that
seems to be the biggest stumbling block as far as things hanging. The
' other two issues are hours of operation and the other one was working
within the 500 foot distance to my neighbor to the. northeast. I don' t
know if the letter . . .for consideration. My intention when I moved out
here was the fact to run a business next to me for obvious reasons of
' effeciency of running a business . This happens to be kind of. . . I have
been in business for 13 years and have really. . .professional operation
both in the field . My intention is to carry that through, to maintain a
' very clean site and. . .
Mike Klingelhutz : . . . I was wondering if a conditional use , or whatever
he's applying for , does that go to the person who buys the lot?
Olsen : Yes .
' Mike Klingelhutz : . . .your house is separate from the land that you' re
planning to. . .you could sell . . . Is that your intention?
' Dave Stockdale : No . . .
Mike Klingelhutz : That ' s just one of my concerns . His house is
beautiful . His yard is beautiful but say he sells his house, it will
still be a conditional use permit and I wouldn ' t appreciate it if that
happened but if he retains ownership of it and works there and lives there
and keeps it up the way it does his house . . .
' Conrad: It' s a good concern. Contractor ' s yards are a real problem for
us to deal with here . A lot of pressure to eliminate them all together . I
think we' ve tried to accomodate people who wanted to live and have their
' work on the same property that they' re living . I personally felt
comfortable doing that but we' ve had people who wanted to do different
things. Here ' s a case where by having it separated because of mortage is
' an interesting deal but legally is a problem. You legally could sell that
and you 'd be in different land . I guess that gets me a little bit
uncomfortable. I guess our Attorney would have to advise me on that but I
think all he could say was that that land is transferable and a new owner
would take the right to the contractor ' s yard .
Olsen : It just could not be expanded . It would have to remain as it is .
Conrad: I think the biggest thing is dealing with the 1 mile issue.
Dave Stockdale. Just to clarify, whatever sti.pulations . . .so that
whatever . . .
1 ?_S
_.. ._. � _.,..,:..._ ._ _. ., ,,. ,ati-rym•aX�trW':rds.ie:ili..:.3- .:�,:,.i:ek:rS..'-�:.ti;.:;:'�f$#,,..;d:•'
Planning Commission Meeting .�
September 21 , 1988 - Page 24
Headla moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in II
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla : I agree with the staff ' s recommendation but I think there' s one II
other one. The one about, the first one, will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety. . . Generally what I think what Dave is
proposing is good. If it was in a different location I could support it I
but Galpin Road there, particularly if you ' re going back to TH 7, that is
dangerous. Anybody coming out of there, the applicant has said he's going
to use that road , and I 'm concerned about the traffic that would be there
in the morning and in the evening. I do disagree .with the staff' s II
comments here that it would not be a problem. I think it is - a problem. I
think it' s a safety concern.
Olsen : That will be reviewed by Carver County for the best access for the II
site plus they also suggested or recommended that the. . .generate 20 trips
per day and that . . . '
Headla : But when they go back to TH 7, it' s a narrow road . Going down
Murray Hill, that road is narrow. Yes , they can tell us , 99% of the time
they won' t use it but a couple times a year you use it , just like I see
coming from CR 18 to TH 5, in the morning I see heavy equipment coming out
on the road . In the evening heavy equipment going in . They guaranteed
that wouldn' t happen. I disagree with the logic that they would take that II
road . It happens .
Wildermuth : I 'm impressed by the letter of testimonial and I 'm impressed
by the neighbor ' s description of how the applicant keeps his residential II
property but I guess there are two major stumbling blocks . One is the
fact that the yard is within a mile of another yard. The other one is the
fact that there is going to be that subdivision in the immediate area . I II
think we have to look at this application against the backdrop of having
approved that subdivision .
Mike Klingelhutz : I was the subdivider of that property and it ' s not . . .
Wildermuth: Do you feel that ' s going to influence the potential value of
your building sites in any way?
Mike Klingelhutz: . . .
Wildermuth : The one stumbling block I guess I really have is the fact
that we would have two working contractor ' s yards very close together .
Clearly in violation of our ordinance. ,
Batzli : I was curious , did you have a valid conditional use permit
several years ago and not act upon it? How long is a conditional use
permit valid? Is it annual? When does it expire? ,
• Olsen : If there are not any improvements made to the site within one
year , it is no longer valid. He did have it. It was recorded and he did II
not take any action .
T i
r. .i'41'.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 25
' Batzli : So that ' s been expired for 2 years or did he get approved 2 years
ago so it' s been 1 year? I guess I was just curious as to the timing of
when we approved that second contractor ' s yard .
' Emmings : It was approved March 18 , 1985 by the City Council .
' Batzli : When did we approve the one that ' s too close?
Wildermuth: February 4 , 1985.
' Batzli : See , I thought the dates were funny. I 'd like to say that
they' re too close but I didn' t know if they really were.
' Olsen : They came in, what happened is they amended the ordinance to allow
contractor's yard as a conditional use so we brought them in, we passed
several conditions on them. Everyone pretty much all came in at the same
' time.
Batzli : I guess I 'm impressed that the Staff has done a real thorough job
in reviewing this . I think that with a little bit of more work with the
' staff, I guess I 'd like to look at exactly what the heck the timing
involved with those applications was because I don' t know that, I almost
view this as a variance type of situation where dependent upon the timing ,
' there may be some sort of hardship that we've almost imposed on the
applicant by the timing of the original approvals.
Conrad: You 'd like staff to look at the timing?
' Batzli : I guess I 'm not sure . I didn ' t quite follow exactly when the
original conditional uses were approved, how long ago they expired and if
' in fact the only reason that we would , I think there are safety issues
raised here but I don' t know that the adjacent land owner and the
subdivision are expressing any disapproval or the adjacent property
' .,owners . The thing that does concern me , just as a side, is the fact that
it would be going with the land and not necessarily. . .but getting back to
my original point. It may be the type of situation, at least in my own
mind , that if the only thing that we ' re going to deny it on, and that ' s
' not the case right now, but if it was , is that it' s within a certain
radius limitation and originally we had allowed it two years ago . It ' s a
question of timing and when the ordinance. I might be in favor of
' allowing this contractor ' s yard but I 'm still not clear as to the dates
and that sort of thing .
•
11 Batzli : So you 'd like the Attorney to . . .
Batzli : I 'm freely associating .
' Ellson : Actually I 'm concerned with exactly what he ' s talking about .
It's as though we asked everybody to come forth to apply for a conditional
use but they really weren ' t able to . . .we asked them to please come in and
' ' then sign up to please be restricted. Basically we' re saying, please come
in because we want to constrict you somewhat . So they're nice enough to
come in and then we take away what he bought it for in the first place.
1 ,_
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 26
II
It really doesn' t sound like that is a nice way to go about it . Not only I
did he comply. Okay, I ' ll come in and be restricted. Now you give me a
deadline and I couldn' t meet my deadline so now I 'm out for what I bought
the property for initially. What you allowed me to buy it for . I just il
don' t think that ' s good business . It seems like he got caught in a
loophole. Like Brian said, if we could come up with a way of being a
little more lenient that way. It ' s different than if it was somebody just '
buying the site now and deciding they wanted to make it something. When
he bought it , we said yes , you can do all this on it. Come in here and be
restricted and oops, we gave you this restriction, now you can' t do it.
It almost seems like he didn' t have to come in and get that conditional II
use in the first place but he did to be nice and now he just niced himself
out of his property so to speak . It doesn ' t seem right. I don' t like
that. It just didn' t seem like the right way to handle it. Do you know I
what I mean?
Emmings : This one is a very hard one for me. I have to reveal that Dave
did work at my house 5 years ago. I regard him in the same glowing terms
as his neighbors do. He is a very high quality contractor . A very nice
person to work with. I have no doubt in my mind that if we wanted to have il
a contractor ' s yard in Chanhassen , we 'd want it to be Dave Stockdale ' s.
It's exactly the kind of contractor ' s yard that we talked about wanting to
allow. It' s a guy who lives on the land with a modest size operation.
He's doing a lot of screen it and make it pallatable to the neighbors .
Again , the neighbors have said they don ' t think it' s going to harm them in II
any way so that's a very positive thing. But he is asking for a variance.
He' s got to have a variance to the 1 mile limitation. He ought to have a I
variance to the 500 feet to neighboring residence limitation and then in
addition, the third problem is the fact that he subdivided his own
property. On the third one, it seems to me, this is exactly the problem
Tim had on his own property. Where your mortgage company says we don' t 11
want to mortgage on anything that' s 10 acres or more because of
foreclosure restrictions so we' re going to make you subdivide your
. property and somehow I don' t feel that it ' s fair to hold that against him. II
The 500 foot limitation, since we have this nice letter from the neighbor,
that' s the person it affects the most and I 'd be inclined. I don' t know,
that ' s not really grounds to give him a variance but I 'd be inclined to
maybe look past that . The 1 mile one is the one that I really get stuck II
on.
Wildermuth : Why was that put in place? ,
Emmings : I don' t know but it ' s there. To me, in my own mind, I 'm
weighing that 1 mile limitation against kind of the fairness kind of
II
things and Annette and I think Brian a little bit, have eluded to. Dave
specifically came to Chanhassen to have, I know he moved from St. Paul and
he picked this area because it was closer to where he was working and he
wanted to have his business operation with his home operation and he even
conditioned the purchase of his property on being able to get this thing.
He had i.t and then because he didn ' t it , he lost it . Somehow I feel like
that makes this a special case that ought to be accomodated somehow. I 'm II
just having trouble doing it in terms of hardship. It isn ' t really a
hardship and I don' t think I could sell that to anybody but just in terms
Planning Commission Meeting -�-`
September 21, 1988 - Page 27 •
of fairness , it seems to me that he ought to be given back what he came
out here for and what he had. Particularly in view of the lack of
opposition and the quality I know of his operation . Tonight I think I 'd
' have to vote against it unless somebody could think of a way that we could
get around that 1 mile .
' Conrad : I feel the same way. I have two problems . The 1 mile and no •
matter what, I 'm not going to do anything that jeopardizes the
restrictiveness of contractor ' s yards. I do not think that we should do
anything that will open up the floodgates because we've had so many
problems. The other problem is dealing with land .owner not really on the
property. Therefore, tonight I 'd have to turn this down but I guess I 'd
like to direct staff, between now and when this goes to City Council , to
work with the applicant in seeing if there' s a way to solving those two
problems. One, can we tie Mr . Stockdale to this particular property?
' Emmings : Link the two properties back together for this purpose?
Conrad : For this purpose because the intent of the ordinance is to allow
somebody to, we want people working on their own property. If they' re
going to have a contractor ' s yard , I want the owner there. By not having
that included in anything that we do, we ' re saying, hey, you can sell this
off. Which you ' re not going to do but it sets precedent in other cases .
' Somehow I 'd have to find a legal way of tying them in so if he were to
move, that permit would vanish along with it. The other item is the 1
mile and I think it' s a case of fairness versus the absolute . I don ' t
know how to break the absolute. There is a really valid reason for having
that 1 mile radius . Again , here ' s another case where I would challenge
staff to see if there' s a way we can, without granting a variance, which I
don ' t want to do, is there another way to get around this problem?
' Tonight I 'd have to turn it down. The only other option is for us to look
at the 1 mile , to go back to the ordinance and take a look at the 1 mile.
Wow, that' s just like something we don' t want to do. Why show up every
' other Tuesday night to do that stuff . I don ' t know as though that ' s
something we can deal with.
Emmings : The other thing that I wrote down here that I forgot to mention ,
' we have approved a variance to that one mile thing in the past. In the
case of Gardeneer on the Volk property.
' Conrad: Do you recall the rationale for that?
Olsen : . . . it was on the same site . That it really wasn ' t . . .
' Emmings : Why is that better? I don ' t remember the rationale. I think at
that time we were kind of thinking it would be better to have contractor ' s
yards lumped together in an area rather than, that was in the discussion,
' rather than having them spread out all over a mile apart . We maybe
should, staff maybe should take a look at that to see what is similar in
this situation or different .
Conrad : Anyway I think I ' d look for a motion right now. Dave do you feel
any sensitivity? You' re pretty much against it. Is there anything here,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 28 1
you' re concerned with traffic and the ordinance itself.
Headla: The other thing I didn' t mention is , yes the resident within 500
feet did write a very nice letter . I don ' t put any credance to that . I
don' t know if that person' s going to be there in 3 years. So in 3 years
that person that lived there wrote a bad letter , are we going to take At
away? I don' t think we can add weight to that . '
Emmings: The weight to me Dave is that if that person is planning to move
and they think this will detract from the value of their property, they' re
never going to write a letter like that . That' s the importance of that '
letter .
Batzli : The people moving in will have a chance to see what they' re '
moving in next to. If the contractor 's yard wasn ' t there when they
purchased it. . .
Headla : Let me make a motion the Plannin g Commission Com i '
recommend denial of
Conditional Use Permit #85-2 for the reasons listed by the staff. The
three.
Emmings : I ' ll second it. I think I would like to add , the hours of
operation I would take out because he says he ' s willing to change that .
I 'd replace 3 with the fact that we' re concerned with the legal
consequences of allowing a conditional use permit on a parcel of land
that ' s separate from the parcel in which his residence is on.
Batzli : Don' t we have other contractor ' s yards that there' s no reszdence•
on them at all? Are we concerned that here we' re in the wrong district
for that? '
Olsen : There ' s nothing that says you have to live on the land . The Harry
.Lindbery one, he doesn' t live there . ,
Emmings : My understanding is that was exactly what we were trying to
approve.
Conrad : That ' s what we wanted but it' s not in the ordinance . That was
the intent but it' s certainly not worded that way. But that ' s good logic .
Emmings : If logic was intended , that means we ought to put down as a
reason for . . .
Conrad : So what did you want? '
Emmings : I would just take 3 out because I don ' t think it ' s a problem
anymore. He said he' ll comply with those hours of operation. I 'd just
replace 3 with the fact that we ' re . . .a conditional use on a parcel of land
that' s separate and distinct from his residence which kind of violates the
intent of the ordinance . If it were to be . . .
Planning Commission Meeting <;'
September 21, 1988 - Page 29
Headla : Do you feel comfortable saying this is the intent of the
ordinance when we really haven ' t discussed . . . I feel uncomfortable
listing that now because we didn' t discuss it at all before that other
' item.
Emmings : Fine , take it out . Let ' s drop it but to me that was sort of the
t essence of the contractor ' s yard out here. The notion being that we want
to allow someone who lives on a large parcel of land , if they have a
business that requires them to use trucks and bobcats and stuff like that,
to keep the stuff at their home.
' Headla : I agree with what you ' re saying there. I think it ' s appropriate
here but I also think if we take 3 out. . .
' Emmings : Okay, let' s just take 3 out and compromise . The fewer reasons
there are to turn this down, the better I like it.
Headla moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Conditional Use Permit #88-2 for the following reasons :
' 1. The contractor ' s yard is located within one mile of an existing
contractor ' s yard .
2. The contractor ' s yard is located within 500 feet of a residence .
' All voted in favor except Ellson and Batzli who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
' Ellson : I somehow feel he should be like grandfathered in to his original
permit. We didn ' t have the 1 mile then.
' , Batzli : I 'm voting against it partly for my free association earlier
which didn' t make much sense but I guess I 'd like to see and raise the
flag to the Council that there was a feeling that this person would
probably have a fairly well run contractor ' s yard. That there was some
sort of feelings of fairness that something might be done in this case .
Conrad: And as an additional footnote Jo Ann, I think in general if we
' could communicate this to the City Council . We feel that the applicant
would operate a good contractor 's yard and we would like to see if there
are ways that we could help the applicant without granting a variance and
' without changing the ordinance.
Batzli : I agree that we don ' t want to necessarily change the ordinance
unless it is to put back in what apparently was the intent and somehow got
' lost along the way. Because we ' ve been granting or looking at a lot of
contractor ' s yards and the residences were nowhere near the contractor ' s
yard . The farm house . The garbage hauling operation. The telephone
' operation.
Emmings : But just slow down . The farm house , we turned that one down.
acs ••. .
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21 , 1988 - Page 30 '
Batzli : I know we did.
Emmings : The City Council didn' t but we did. '
Batzli : I know but there was no residence at all . We never discussed
turning it down because the residences wasn ' t located there . 1
PUBLIC HEARING:
GOLF DRIVING RANGE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE OPERATION, PROPERTY ZONED
A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT COUNTY ROAD 117 AND HWY. 5, JOHN
PRYZMUS.
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 3,
REGARDING STANDARDS FOR GOLF DRIVING RANGES WITH OR WITHOUT MINIATURE
GOLF COURSES TO PROVIDE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE, TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS II
AS TO LIGHT STANDARDS AND TO ESTABLISH HOURS OF OPERATION BEYOND
SUNSET.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INSTALL LIGHT STANDARDS , EXTEND
HOURS OF OPERATION BEYOND SUNSET AND PERMITTING THE INSTALLATION OF A
SIGN.
Public Present : '
Name Address
John Pryzmus Applicant
Mike Klingelhutz
John Hennessy '
.,Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
John Pryzmus : The hours of operation obviously will be determined as the
season goes. Right now I close at 8 : 00 at night. The season will be
ending here in another month so we ' re closed for 6 months approximately. . .
The sign that I put up was the same sign that was approved . A 12 x 8 II plywood sign. . . The video games , the City Council I guess we were trying
to accomodate children so. . . Other than that, I didn' t think originally
the Council had . . .on trees and berming . Now, I think we' ve added 16
more. . .on the site right now. Light standards , basically there isn' t
anything that the Council said . . .light standards of a baseball field or
something like that . . . It does help. I ' ve kept the lighting at a minimum
so I can extend my hours . When it starts getting dark and people can ' t. . . 11
two closest competitors of mine are 7 Hi and Excelsior . Excelsi.or . . .days
and weekends. The guy at 7 Hi. . . .
John Hennessy: I live across the street from this thing . So far he has I
run a pretty good operation. . . .the basic guidelines of the basic. . . I
-