13. Contractors Yard in A2 District I. / 3
., CITY OF
I _.
i ,
a CHANHASSEN
„.. ,fr-
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
~''' 937-1900
I (612)
Action by Cry Administrator
it
IMEMORANDUM Indorszd X��
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ;_ --_
IFROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner Date Submitted ;a Coramissioti
DATE: November 17, 1988 Date jub nitta� Council
Ceunc
IISUBJ: Contractor' s Yard in the A2 District
IOn November 16, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed a report
presented by Mark Koegler which reviewed whether contractor' s
yards should remain as a conditional use in the A2 District or
I whether they should be removed as a conditional use. The
Planning Commission preferred that contractor' s yards be removed
as a conditional use in the A2 District.
IPrior to staff initiating the zoning ordinance amendment to
remove contractor' s yards as a conditional use in the A2
I District, the Planning Commission requested that the City Council
review the Planning Report by Mark Koegler and provide input to
the Planning Commission on whether or not the City Council felt
that contractor' s yards should be removed as a conditional use in
Ithe A2 District.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to the
Planning Commission as to whether or not a zoning ordinance
I amendment should be processed to remove contractor' s yards as a
conditional use in the A2 District.
ATTACHMENTS
I1 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 16, 1988 .
2 . Report from Mark Koegler.
I
I
II
I
j
11
Van Doren
Hazard
Stallings
Architects.Fnglnaets•Plannefsr.
PLANNING REPORT
I
TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler N��'
DATE : November 8 , 1988
SUBJECT: Contractor ' s Yards - A-2 Zone
BACKGROUND : Contractor ' s yards are currently allowed as
conditional uses in the A-2 zone. The A-2 zone is the predominate
zoning category of land located within the Rural Service Area
(RSA) . All A-2 land lies south of TH 5 . A review of contractor ' s
yards in the A-2 zone needs to consider the general issue of land
uses throughout the entire Rural Service Area.
In the late 1970 ' s , the City of Chanhassen pursued a policy of
allowing only farm related agricultural uses in the unsewered area
( RSA) . Residential uses were specifically prohibited without
municipal sanitary sewer service. Court challenges resulted in the
modification of the strict provisions that prohibited residential
development .
In 1986 , the City of Chanhassen modified the zoning ordinance to
restrict residential densities in the RSA to one unit per 10 acres .
Land owners had until January 15 , 1987 to file subdivision
applications under the previous ordinance which allowed a density
of 1 unit per 2 . 5 acres of land . The imposition of the application
deadline resulted in a series of development proposals containing
2 .5 acre lots . By the fall of 1988 , many of the developments had
installed street improvements and housing construction occurred .
Additionally , several other developments are preparing to begin
initial construction .
The growth of 2 . 5 acre single family residential lots that has
occurred over the past two years has substantially changed the land
use pattern in southern Chanhassen . Three primary use patterns
exist : 1 ) agriculture , 2 ) rural residential @ 1 unit per 10 acres
and 3 ) large lot residential @ 1 unit per 2 . 5 acres . All of these
uses are presently accommodated in the A-2 zone.
The focus of this report is on contractor ' s yards and their
appropriateness in the A-2 zone. Addressing this issue requires
a review of both contractors yards as a land use and the impact of
3030 Harbor Lane North Sldg.11, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
I such uses on each of the three use s n
r
atte that -
p t at exist in the A 2
zone .
IIn the existing ordinance , contractor ' s yards are defined as "any
area or use of land where vehicles , equipment , and /or construction
I materials and supplies commonly used by building , excavation , or
roadway construction , landscaping and similar contractors are
stored or serviced . A contractor ' s yard includes both areas of
I outdoor storage and areas confined within a completely enclosed
building used in conjunction with a contractor ' s business . "
Additionally , the ordinance provides restrictions pertaining to lot
size , setbacks , location , screening , hours of operation and
I proximity to one another . Neither the definition nor the
restrictions limit contractor ' s yards to accessory uses . Therefore ,
they assume the status of primary uses that for all practical
Ipurposes , are industrial in nature .
The Planning Commission has expressed interest in redefining
I contractor ' s yards to make them less intensive uses . Overall
sentiment seems to be to allow smaller scale , "mom and pop"
operations but not large scale businesses . If the ordinance is to
allow only smaller scale businesses , the term "contractor ' s yard "
I needs to be redefined to apply only to less intensive uses . Under
this scenario , larger scale contractors facilities would fall under
the provisions of industrial uses and only be permitted in
Iindustrial zoning districts .
In order to limit the size of contractor ' s yards , it may be
advisable to allow them only as accessory uses rather than as
I principal uses . As an accessory use , the size of a contractor ' s
yard could be tied to the size of the principal residential use _
thereby controlling the scale of the operation .
IAssuming that contractor ' s yards are limited to "mom and pop "
operations , the appropriate location for such facilities needs to
I be examined . Of the three primary land uses in the RS-A ,
agriculture and rural residential ( 10 acres ) can probably
accommodate contractor ' s yards as interim land uses with little or
no mitigation required . Large lot residential is an exception to
Ithis rule .
Large lot residential developments (2 . 5 ) acres such as Lake Riley
I Woods have a strong resemblance to urban residential developments .
Because of housing types and higher overall densities , contractor ' s
yards are not appropriate in such areas . Prohibiting contractor ' s
I yards in these areas may require additional zoning modifications .
For example , developments such as Lake Riley Woods could be rezoned
to Rural Residential ( RR) which does not allow contractor ' s yards .
Other methods could be used to accomplish the same purpose .
IThe preceding discussion has focused on the Planning Commission ' s
desire to allow small scale contractor ' s yards in the southern
I portion of the City . A comprehensive review of this issue should
also address the prohibition of contractors yards outside of
I
industrial areas . In preparing this report , I reviewed the zoning
ordinances of the cities of Plymouth , Maple Grove , Minnetonka ,
Chaska , Eden Prairie , Blaine and Champlin as well as ordinances of
several developing communities in the Kansas City Metropolitan
Area . All ordinances prohibit contractor ' s yards outside of
industrial sites except Chaska which allows landscape contractors
businesses in their Rural Residential zone . Chaska requires a
minimum lot size of 40 acres for such uses .
The purpose of the A-2 zone is "preservation of rural character
while respecting development patterns by allowing single-family
residential development . " Are "mom and pop" contractor ' s yards
considered part of the rural character? If so , they may be
appropriate uses . If not , they either need to be prohibited or the
purpose of the A-2 zone needs to be modified .
Beyond an analysis of the existing purpose statement , the Planning
Commission needs to consider the long term impacts of contractor ' s
yards of any scale . Chanhassen is rapidly urbanizing. A
significant amount of development has occurred over the past five
years in the Rural Service Area . As land continues to be absorbed
in Eden Prairie , Chanhassen will receive added development
pressure . In light of increasing development , the compatibility
of contractor ' s yards with existing residential and future land
uses needs to be addressed . Additionally , allowing contractor ' s
yards may pose short and long term administrative problems .
In the long term, contractor ' s yards are compatible only with
industrial land uses . At the present time , future industrial areas
in the Rural Service Area have not been identified . Therefore ,
permitting contractor ' s yards throughout the southern section -of
Chanhassen creates potential future land use conflicts . Allowing
any scale of contractor ' s yards also creates significant short term
administrative problems . Once low intensity contractor ' s yards are
allowed , the mechanism is in place to permit variance applications
for more intensive uses . In reality , it is much easier for a city
to control a use by not allowing it to occur in any form than it
is to consistently deny variance applications .
RECOMMENDATION: Contractor ' s yards are largely inconsistent with
long term growth in Chanhassen . Almost every community in the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area has found that such uses are inappropriate
outside of industrial zones . Additionally, the inclusion of
contractor ' s yards in Chanhassen ' s existing zoning ordinance has
created enforcement and administrative problems . The city ' s
experience with this issue coupled with the fact that contractor ' s
yards are not consistent with long term land use in Chanhassen
creates a strong argument for prohibiting such uses . For these
reasons , it is recommended that contractor ' s yards be permitted in
Chanhassen only in appropriate industrial zones and not in the
unsewered sections of the community.
If the Planning Commission decides that small scale contractor ' s
yards should be allowed in the A-2 zone , a significant modification
I
IIof the zoning ordinance needs t
9 to be considered . In order to limit
the intensity of such uses , the following modifications are offered
Ifor review:
1 . Modify the definition of Contractor ' s Yards to include only low
I intensity uses with minimal storage needs ie . "Contractor ' s yards
means an area for the storage of vehicles and equipment related to
small scale contracting operations that are accessory to the
I principal residential use of the property . Equipment and vehicles
stored in the contractor ' s yard shall be used solely by family
members residing in the principal residential structure on the
property. "
I2 . Establish contractor ' s yards as conditional accessory uses in
the A-2 zone subject to the following conditions :
IA . The minimum lot size is ten ( 10 ) acres .
I B . All storage and yard areas as well as buildings must be
set back one hundred ( 100 ) feet from public or private road
right-of-ways and five hundred ( 500 ) feet from an adjacent
single-family residence .
IC . The site must be located along a collector or minor
arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan .
ID . The total floor area of storage buildings shall be limited
to one thousand ( 1000 ) square feet or 50% of the floor area
of the principal residential structure whichever is more
Irestrictive .
E . Outdoor storage areas shall be limited to five hundred
I ( 500 ) square feet in total area. All outdoor storage areas
must be completely screened by one hundred ( 100 ) percent
opaque fencing or berming .
IF. Hours of operation shall be from 7 : 00 a . m. to 6 : 00 p . m. ,
Monday through Saturday only , work on Sunday and holidays not
permitted .
IG . Light sources shall be shielded .
IH . No outside speaker systems are allowed .
I . All vehicles and equipment relating to the contracting
business shall be stored within a building or screened area .
I3 . Rezone existing 2 . 5 acre residential developments to Rural
Residential ( RR) . Rural Residential prohibits contractor ' s yards .
IIf an approach such as the one outlined above is eventually adopted
by the City or if contractor ' s yards are prohibited , all existing
I contractor ' s yards will become nonconforming . As such , they will
be allowed to continue providing they are permitted contractor ' s
II
1
yards at the time of the modification of the ordinance . They will
not , however , be permitted to expand or intensify . I
After discussion by the Planning Commission , appropriate ordinance
language will be prepared for formal consideration by the II Commission and City Council .
I
I
II
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
IINovember 16, 1988 - Page 40
IIthat when we put the plan together , we do get public input and we do get
the input from our elected officials so when we get to the referendum
we've got a plan that people have been involved with as opposed to the
I concept that someone, some of the employees of the City are going to sell
the plap to the public. If that ' s the purpose for organizing a committee,
we' re starting on the wrong premise. I guess that's what I 'm getting to
I Don. I think we've got to get, when we make decisions such as , the
example that I stated, is this City going to be involved in making horse
trails? That ' s an issue that I think needs some debate.
IDon Ashworth: Part of the problem out of that, I think that we he \ a very
energetic group who was trying to promote the trails and in that process
they made some changes . . .until 2,000 brochures had been printed and things
Ihad appeared in the newspaper . . .
Conrad : Thanks for stopping by and talking to us . It ' s almost 10: 30 and
that's usually when we talk to Mark.
CONTRACTOR' S YARD DISCUSSION - MARK KOEGLER.
IConrad: Mark, contractor's yard. We see your note. Anything you want to
explain beyond what your note says?
IMark Koegler : No . I was going to offer you either a short overview of
this or a lengthy overview and I ' ll give you the option of a short one. '
I Conrad : Yes , give us the short one just to get us thinking about it and
off the other subjects.
I Mark Koegler : The southern part of the City, I guess it ' s been an
interesting thing to watch, at least for me over the last 10 years or so
because when I first got involved with the City of Chanhassen , everybody
I was waving this ordinance around that was 23 or 36 or whatever ,
prohibiting development in the unsewered areas. The Attorneys were all
excited about it. The clients were all excited about it and as you know,
subsequently that was struck down some years later. Then it was
I interesting being on the outside watching what I perceived as this mad
rush of people to meet the deadline imposed as a result of the recent
ordinance change. All of these things had I think probably a more
I significant impact on the southern area of the community than I
anticipated at the time they were occurring. So if you now direct to the
southern area of the city, it' s not at all what it was 10 years ago. It' s
I basically becoming very residential and that has to have some bearing on
when you look at this issue and probably several other issues as it
relates to the ground . It used to be clear that it was either
agricultural or not but since that time, again back in the late 70' s, what
I you' ve seen develop is now in almost three categories . There ' s
agricultural . There' s residential with the 2 1/2 acre lot basis that got
in under the wire so to speak and now we have residential at 1 per 10
I overall density. In looking specifically at this contractor' s yard issue,
I had to look at that as how does it fit into those 3 very generalized
categories of use. I could argue that it could fit reasonably well
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 41 1
without significant irrigation measures in the two larger scale areas. '
Either agricultural or the 10 acre parcels. In going through Lake Riley
Woods , I can' t see contractor ' s yards fitting into the context of what I
think that neighborhood will become. In other words, I 'd like to see very II
nice housing going in there. . .and that again taints my thinking again on
how we see it works. The bottom line in my comments on contractor' s
yards, after reviewing the issue. Reviewing how other communities , both II
here and in the whole Metropolitan area look at these kinds of things, I
don' t find any instances where anybody really considers them anything
other than industrial land uses. And you get into the scale argument. If '
we bring this thing down to a mom and pop scale to try to allow certain
people to operate certain businesses , maybe on interim uses or whatever, I
think there is a certain area that begs the long term question of what is
the best land use for the City in the southern part of the community. As II
you' re well aware, Don talked tonight a little bit about the MUSA line not
being amended maybe until after the year 2000 because of the Lake Ann
sewer agreement. To date there' s been no targeting of industrial areas in
the south and I don' t see that happening probably in the near term. . .so we '
don ' t know which areas these might ultimately fit into. It' s just a
random pattern. I couple that with the experience that the City has had I
in adminstrating these things. Probably when they adopted it, the 1 mile
separation sounded great. Now in reality that ' s filled up and where do we
go from here. In an adminstrative context, I think once you allow them on
any scale, even if it' s a mom and pop scale, it' s difficult for instance
if we say, you can only do this , you can only do this , you can only do
this. If the owner is there and the Planning Commission has changed,
Council ' s changed , staff changed and that began to errode over a period of
time so the commitment to looking toward the long term future use. . .the
best way that that' s served is maybe not allowing an opportunity to
continue any longer. At any rate, coming through all of this rationale,
I 've at least tried to lay out for you, my bottom line conclusion is that II
I would question that contractor' s yards are appropriate at all in the
unsewered area . There are clearly other areas that answered that question
with a no. I don' t think it' s in the City' s best long term interest and I I
think it raises some short term problems to do that. If there' s a strong
feeling in the City that you want to allow them on a limited scale, I
think there may be some techniques that could be used but I still think
you have some jeopardy on administrative, day to day operational basis in II
trying to make sure that you stay with a consistent policy and control
this. So the recommendation back to you is to omit them from the A-2
zone. If you choose not to do that, and try to scale them down, you put
them in more of the context of an accessory use. Not to create a new
accessory use category but to create language as part of the conditional
use that makes them accessory to a residential structure. So they are
strictly a family business . I think I even use the term family in a
possible definition. Keep in mind though that that is defined in your
zoning ordinance as it could be 500 people . Family means a lot of things
in today' s language. . .zoning ordinance. So there are some suggestions
there that if you take exception, you try to define it so that it
literally is a small scale accessory use but again, for discussion
purposes , I put in some language, some area requirements that deal with
that. I think the possibility then of looking at, and this potentially
making a simple argument as part of this , looking at some of these rural
II
Planning Commission Meeting
IINovember 16, 1988 - Page 42
Iresidential areas and . . .rezoning at this point in time is something that
may have some merit. So the recommendation back to you is to omit them P" "
and if you do not find that to be feasible, to enact a control mechanism
I similar to what' s outlined to try to make them a strictly defined
accessory use .
I Conrad : Good job Mark. Interesting comments here.. Dave, what do you
want to do? The result of this is for us to come to some kind of a
consensus and let Mark draft some language for us that might be a :r_
I recommended change to the current ordinance. So what we' re doing right ;, `,..
now is setting direction. Whether we outlaw, make them illegal altogether -
and grandfather in what we've got or modify it to some degree. Why don' t
you tell us what you think.
IHeadla : I like the ma and pa , open end . I can' t tell ou why. When
Y Y
I look through here it made a lot of sense and then you left this opening
p and I thought the wording was good. In reading over your definition,
where you mentioned. . . , that one I thought could be used.
IIMark Koegler : That was the second to the last page.
Headla: I felt comfortable with that but you still agree it has some real
reservations . This one has a lot more restraints than. . .and if you have
Ireservations, I guess. . .
Mark Koegler : I wanted to make it clear in my comments. . .the zoning
Iordinance. . .
Headla : But they can' t expand from their present set up without another
application.
IIMark Koegler : Correct .
IHeadla : Can that be an appropriate way to control that?
Mark Koegler: It solely depends on the consistency of the. . . It can be
I if you have a good . . .to enforcing the policy. You had a couple of
variances tonight. We've seen hundreds of variances. . . You see a lot of
variance applications and each one is reviewing on "it ' s own merits" under
normal procedure. It' s very difficult to put it out back from a motion
I and say that' s a reservation that you have but once you allow the
opportunity, it' s hard to say, well it' s now just a minor incident. If
you consistently can do that.
IHeadla: I 'd like to hear what Jim has to say.
Wildermuth: I think if you look back at the open land in Chanhassen is
I becoming increasingly more rural residential. Not agricultural. It
probably isn ' t a good place for contractor' s in Chanhassen.
I Jay Johnson: . . . in the definition where it talks about home occupations?
Maximum of 1 employees . As such. . .contractor ' s yard .
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 43 I
Conrad : Home is in the home within the existing residence. I was I
assuming that this related to out, something outside.
Wildermuth : Accessory structure. I
Emmings : It says it' s conducted as an accessory use in the resident' s
dwelling unit. That' s the definition of home occupation.
I
Mark Koegler : Virtually every zoning ordinance of home occupation has
language in it that requires it to look for all intensive purposes , just I
exactly like a normal single family structure. Any sign that it' s
anything but that, signage, parking of vehicles.
Batzli : Something that Jim said kind of got me looking in here. Are we I
trying to just limit it to like IOP? I agree with Jim' s reasoning that I
think in view of what' s happened in Chanhassen, it ' s becoming more
residential, I wouldn' t like one next to me obviously. They start out
with great intentions but a lot of them get out of hand slowly and the
enforcement I think has been very weak. I would like to, if we can,
eliminate anymore.
Ellson : I go along with Mark' s recommendation that they are totally
inappropriate in that A-2 or any kind of residential area. I wouldn' t go
for allowing the mom and pop and I think it' s mainly exactly what he said. II
It's real easy to say that now but if I 'm the one later on trying to
interpret it and it' s a friend of mine and it' s just growing a little bit,
you just don ' t want to have to deal with it. You'd rather just say black II
or white. And no white but only if it' s has this. It 's just too hard to
try to meet the constraints . You have no idea what is going to come
about.
Emmings: Mark, you' ve done a really good job at distilling or I
crystalizing the issue. Whatever side you might be on, you treated both
sides and this is really a nice piece of work. I underlined two sentences I
even though I basically agree with everybody else. One is that Chanhassen
is rapidly urbanizing and the other one is that in the long term they are
compatible only with industrial land use. And those are the two things
that sort of stuck in my mind as being what ought to control our decision II
in this. This is a chance for us to do long range planning in the best
interest of Chanhassen down the road which is what we were just
complaining here tonight about not having the opportunity to do very
I
often. This is a chance to do it and I think we should just get rid of
them in the A-2. Get rid of them except in the IOP I guess.
Erhart : I want to comment . I think Mark did just a great job of taking I
all the issues of this thing and putting it in a 6 page thing and making
it so that it really makes sense, even though it pretty much agrees with
what I said. You did a good job. It clearly spelled out the issues and I II
won' t say anything else. I think you know my position.
Conrad: I 'm like Dave. I think there' s something romantic and charming II about somebody buying 40 acres of property and . . .
.1r...till
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 44
' Batzli : And putting a bulldozer on it.
Conrad : Putting a bulldozer in the garage and going out and cutting down
the forest every now and then. No, I still go back. There' s something
romantic to that. There' s something nice. I can relate to somebody who
wants to do that. Buy 40 acres and maybe have a home occupation out in
' their garage or their barn or something.
Wildermuth: There isn' t going to be 40 acres left in Chanhassen.
' Conrad : The point is, I don' t believe the MUSA line will move for 10
years. I think a contract's a contract so we' re talking about for the
next 10 years we' re going to eliminate this to get ready for the next 40
' years. I guess I don' t hear a lot of requests coming into town saying,
we' re not aware of a big demand for contractor ' s yards. I don' t feel
badly moving it one way or another as long as we restrict their use. I
sure hear a lot of sentiment for getting rid of it. I just keep thinking,
when we' re talking at least 11 years away and maybe restricting somebody' s
alternative or option to use it at a less intensive use for, well actually
' forever.
Batzli : But we haven ' t been seeing these ma and pa people come in. We've
been seeing Admiral Waste people come in.
' Conrad : And I think that ' s a good point Brian.
' Batzli : If this were the case that we were seeing people who were
actually going to run a small business out of their home, I might be in
favor of that but we' re seeing larger scale ma and pa operations come in.
They' re not low level uses .
' Conrad: I buy that argument.
Emmings: Isn ' t it going to take lead time to get rid of what we got so we
are ready 10 to 11 years down the road? Don' t we want to do it now so
that what' s here clears out we don' t have any new applications to have to
consider.
Erhart: Let me state Ladd that I would be satisfied , I think we should
get rid of them for the same reason. I think you just get something and
' it' s just impossible to get rid of later on . Not in 10 years but these
things go with the land. The other thing is if they grow, like any
business , if you have a business , every business has to grow almost by
' definition. Very few businesses just stay small . Unless we can define
the little family business . It would be acceptable to me that if we
wanted to take what truly is the rural area of south Chanhassen and cut
this thing down so it' s a really ma and pa operating out of it ' s garage
and then take the other half of south Chanhassen that' s essentially
residential , as Mark is suggesting , make it an RR such that it is totally
eliminated. I think that' s an acceptable alternative. I still think it' s
best to completely eliminate them.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 45 1
Ellson: We had this 1 mile control supposedly in place and that just got I
waived for the last one that came in. Even at the Council level so even
the controls you try to put in, it still has these . . .
Batzli : It was a hardship. Come on. II
Ellson: I know. I 'm just giving you another example of, who knows when I
that mom and pop is the next door neighbor and like you said Brian,
they' re not the ones coming in right now.
Conrad: It sounds to me like the sentiment is to rule them out. In terms I
of the best way to develop this , Jo Ann is it a wise idea to pass this
concept by the City Council? What' s the procedure you want to follow?
Olsen: You have that option. Either sending it to Council or you can I
just proceed with- a zoning ordinance amendment. . .
Batzli : We need a public hearing . I would think we'd kind of want I
Council ' s okay before we do that then.
Conrad : It ' s one of those cases where I 'd like passing it up to hear what II
they have to say before we spend a lot of time drafting an ordinance and
they say, well we haven' t seen the other side of it. Although they
certainly can see Mark' s comments here. • I
Headla : They see our Minutes . If there' s a problem.
Olsen: The Council will be changing too. If you want to pass it onto the I
Council now and get their comments.
Erhart : I would prefer to see this whole thing just go to the new Council I
in whatever form we want to pass it up. Either as an amendment or just
for discussion.
Conrad : There' s a lot of background. I
Emmings: With Mark's memo. Of course, there' s the experience.
Conrad : It' s all the cases of violations . Let' s do this. Let' s pass it I
up to them just in terms of, to get their comments back. I can' t do that.
I was thinking that was smart to get their feedback but what do you think? I
Do you want to pass it up for their awareness or do you want to make. . .
Headla : Forget that. We' re wasting time. Let' s draft something . i
Conrad: There' s a vote for a draft. Jim, what do you want to do?
Wildermuth : Put it up to see what their thoughts are.
I
Batzli : i don' t think there' s going to be a whole lot of amendments to be
done if we' re just going to eliminate it. It ' s kind of like cut and slash 1
from one section but with that amount of work that has to go into it, I
think we might as well just let them approve it before we waste more time.
IIy .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 46
Ellson : I think they know it' s coming too. I was at the last meeting
when they did that one. I think they' re looking for something on it.
' Like Dave, if we bring them the amendment or what have you, it ' s like any
surprise. What' s this we didn' t know anything was going on with this .
Erhart : Didn' t we bring this to Council once already?
Ellson: They got your memo I 'm sure.
' Erhart : I made a presentation at Council from the Planning Commission.
Olsen: They knew it was being considered. They know that staff is
working on it.
Conrad: Annette , what do you want to do?
Ellson: I just said, didn't you hear me? I said I want to go on with
Dave. Do the amendment .
' Emmings : When you started out by member I was going to say let' s send it
up. Now I 've had my mind changed. That ' s how wishy washy I am. I guess
I think it is a waste of time because I 'd forgotten that we' ve already had
' some interaction with them on this issue as to whether or not we should
work on this , as I recall .
' Conrad : Yes , but they haven' t seen this.
Emmings : And they said yes , go ahead . I think maybe the thing to do
would be to say, let' s delete it as a use except in the IOP and make sure
' that we pass Mark' s report on and say, here' s a good discussion of the
issues. This is the way we' ve come down on it and if you agree with us ,
then act this . That presents them with a nice, finished product and
' something to discuss.
Ellson: If not it will come back with comments .
' Emmings : I guess I would say, let' s get the work done.
Conrad : But that means we have to hold a public hearing before they see
it.
Emmings : We ' re going to have to hold one anyway.
' Erhart: We' re going to have to hold a public hearing before they see it?
Conrad : Right . As soon as we draft something , we hold a public hearing
and we pass it up.
Emmings : Let' s go ahead and have a public hearing . I think it' s alright
' because they've already indicated to us that it was something they wanted
to do .
1
.'
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 47 I
Conrad : To look into right but we don' t know what they want to do. I
Erhart: I think the fact that there' s two alternatives here to this.
Being that this is the issue that I 've been pushing, I wouldn' t mind going II
back up and saying, look it, here' s Mark' s report. There are two
approaches.
Conrad : So you'd like to forward it up for their information and input? I
Erhart: Yes, I think so.
II
Conrad : I'm for forwarding it up. Tim is for forwarding it up.
Batzli : Forwarding it up.
II
Emmings : So am I .
Conrad : Can we adminstratively send this forward to the City Council with I
our opinion that we prefer eliminating them as any use in the rural area
and to have their comments sent back to us?
Olsen: We can put it on the 28th agenda. II
Emmings : Can I make one more comment on this? It seems to me that if
going to eliminate contractor ' s yards, I think it' s important that
somehow we get a handle on what we' ve got in the City. Again, it seems •to
me about the only way, I don't know how it can be done but we ought to II identify every contractor ' s yard and find out the extent of their present
use. Whether it means going out there and taking photographs or whatever,
spend a day and drive around and take photographs of each one, I don' t
know what but find out how big they are so we don' t wind up with people
saying , since I can ' t go in here and have a contractor ' s yard, maybe I can II
rent space from Joe who' s already got a contractor ' s yard and just put my
stuff in with his . Maybe we' re running a risk of that but we better get a II
handle on what we've got. I don't know how that' s done.
Conrad : Jo Ann, when you take maternity leave, how long are you going to il
be gone for?
Olsen: Three months .
Conrad : With Don as Mayor and two new people on Council , somebody' s got II
to go through the background on this. Mark, I guess it will be you to do
that. They really need a lot of background to look at the problem.
II
Olsen: Do you want that type of information before we go to the Council?
Emmings: No . I just think if we' re going to close the door on these
II
things , we'd better know what we've got with it.
Batzli : One more comment. I think your idea to rezone it just to 2.5
II
acre residential developments to RR is not a bad idea regardless of
whether we look at the contractor ' s yards.
_„:
II
_ __
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 48
Emmings : Another thing that oes on the list . Now is there e really a list
someplace?
Conrad : Only if I kept it or Barbara kept it .
' Olsen: We had that one updated that we gave you.
Emmings : Do you have a list?
Olsen : We had one that you got in the memo . Then that memo that Mark
and I lists a lot of outstanding. . .
' Emmings : Would you see that this gets onto the list?
Olsen: I ' ll just keep adding onto it. I ' ll keep that coming with each
planning packet because you wanted that and then add with that memo and
add what you want.
Erhart: To follow up on your comment Brian . I had this discussion with
' Jo Ann today. I feel that we should do that. Representing south
Chanhassen and living in an area where all these big houses are going up
and seeing what' s going on, I really firmly believe that if there is an -RR
' area in the City, that is the most representative of the intent statement
for the RR district. I 'd like to see us move to change the area where
those subdivisions are to an RR. If the Commission would ask staff to do
' that, I would really support that.
Batzli : I think we just did.
' Conrad : I thought we did. I was wondering if I thought of that or if we
actually did it.
' WETLANDS , HORSE TRAILS - TIM ERHART.
Erhart : Jo Ann called me on this and I talked to you Ladd about it . I
' think this is a bigger subject than just the wetlands thing . I guess, as
you can see from my memo on this thing , I'm concerned about wetlands. On
the other hand, I 'm not sure that we have an issue yet. One of the things
' that ' s going to happen, as soon as you get discussion with horse trails
and snowmobile, because if it' s horse trails then it' s going to be
snowmobile trails and it ' s going to be 3 wheeler trails. You' re going to
' get a big, emotional crowd up here. That' s what was going to happen
tonight . So I asked Jo Ann, Ladd and I discussed it , we said let ' s defer
it to another time and let' s find out if we really want to get into this
discussion. I guess I 'm hoping with the discussion that we had with Don
' tonight, that we will go through, when we come up with a trail plan,
whether or not it has horses and snowmobile trails on it , 3 wheeler
trails, I hope if there' s a process that we follow so we come up with a
plan that represents what the public wants , then I don' t think we need to
have this discussion right now on these wetlands and horse trails. If we
have a discussion in a timely and orderly fashion as the trail plan
1