11. Discussion of Contractors Yards „ .
•
CITY OF
1 . ..,
1 , ,�►jY CHANHASSEN
.. ..
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
- (612) 937-1900
I
MEMORANDUM -D"-(
IITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director
II Rate Subr:.t:::-) ;-' __._. •nn
DATE: February 8 , 1989
Date Scab mitt9r1 r1
IISUBJ: Contractor ' s Yards ‘,1,--1361
At the last Planning Commission meeting, we discussed amending
1 the A-2 District conditional use provisions for contractor' s
yards. The Planning Commission is leaning toward eliminating
contractor' s yards from the A-2 District. This is based on the
I attached memo from Mark Koegler dated November 8 , 1988. The
prior City Council reviewed this memo and tended to support an
amendment restricting the intensity of contractor ' s yards rather
than elimination. With the change in Council, Planning
1 Commission would like input from the present City Council prior
to going forward with an amendment.
IThere are three basic options Planning Commission needs input on:
1 . Leave the ordinance as it is, allowing contractor' s yards as
a conditional use in the A-2 District.
I
2 . Amend the ordinance to allow limited contractor ' s yards as an
accessory use subject to conditional use permit.
I3 . Delete contractor' s yards entirely from the A-2 District.
I Attached for consideration is the report prepared by Mark Koegler
dated November 8, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION -
1 Staff concurs with the majority of the Planning Commission to
eliminate contractor' s yards as a conditional use in the A-2
district.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Report from Mark Koegler dated November 8, 1988.
2 . Planning Commission November 16, 1988 .
3 . City Council minutes dated December 12, 1988.
: it` A ., ,t 1.444
csi?'R; .:o
4 e*
PLANNING REPORT
TO : Chanhassen Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler 1
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 BId9.II, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 ME
1 '
such uses on each of the three use patterns that 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
contractor ' s yards to make them less intensive uses . Overall
I 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 .
1 Assuming that contractor ' s yards are limited to "mom and pop "
operations , the appropriate location for such facilities needs to
be examined . Of the three primary land uses in the RSA ,
I 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
yards in these areas may require additional zoning modifications .
II 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
portion of the City . A comprehensive review of this issue should
IIalso address the prohibition of contractors yards outside of
I
1
. ,C 11
1
industrial areas . In preparing this report , I reviewed the zoning 1
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
II
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 .
II
The purpose of the A-2 zone is "preservation of rural character
while respecting development patterns by allowing single-family
II
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 . II
Beyond an analysis of the existing purpose statement , the Planning
Commission needs to consider the long term impacts of contractor ' s
II
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 II 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
II
yards may pose short and long term administrative problems .
In the long term, contractor ' s yards are compatible only with
II
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 II
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
II
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 . i
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 II
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
II
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 II
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 II
yards should be allowed in the A-2 zone , a significant modification
11
of the zoning ordinance needs to be the intensity of such uses , the following lmodifications dare toffered
' for review :
1 . Modify the definition of Contractor ' s Yards to include only low
intensity uses with minimal storage needs ie . "Contractor ' s yards
means an area for the storage of vehicles and equipment related to
small scale contracting operations that are accessory to the
principal residential use of the property . Equipment and vehicles
' stored in the contractor ' s yard shall be used solely by family
members residing in the principal residential structure on the
property. "
1 2 . Establish contractor ' s yards as conditional accessory uses in
the A-2 zone subject to the following conditions :
A . The minimum lot size is ten ( 10 ) acres .
B . All storage and yard areas as well as buildings must be
' set back one hundred ( 100 ) feet from public or private road
right-of-ways and five hundred ( 500 ) feet from an adjacent
single-family residence .
C . The site must be located along a collector or minor
arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan .
D . The total floor area of storage buildings shall be limited
to one thousand ( 1000 ) square feet or 50% of the floor area
of the principal residential structure whichever is more
' restrictive .
E . Outdoor storage areas shall be limited to five hundred
' ( 500 ) square feet in total area . All outdoor storage areas
must be completely screened by one hundred ( 100 ) percent
opaque fencing or berming.
' F. Hours of operation shall be from 7 : 00 a . m. to 6 : 00 p . m. ,
Monday through Saturday only, work on Sunday and holidays not
permitted .
G . Light sources shall be shielded .
H . No outside speaker systems are allowed .
I . All vehicles and equipment relating to the contracting
business shall be stored within a building or screened area .
3 . Rezone existing 2 . 5 acre residential developments to Rural
Residential ( RR) . Rural Residential prohibits contractor ' s yards .
1 If an approach such as the one outlined above is eventually adopted
by the City or if contractor ' s yards are prohibited , all existing
contractor ' s yards will become nonconforming . As such , they will
' be allowed to continue providing they are permitted contractor ' s
C 1
1
yards at the time of the modification of the ordinance . They will
not , however , be permitted to expand or intensify . '
After discussion by the Planning Commission , appropriate ordinance
language will be prepared for formal consideration by the
Commission and City Council .
1
i
1
i
1
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 40
' that 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
' concept that someone, some of the employees of the City are going to sell
the plan 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
' 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.
' Don Ashworth: Part of the problem out of that, I think that we hP \ 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.
Conrad: Mark, contractor ' s yard. We see your note. Anything you want to
explain beyond what your note says?
' Mark 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.
' Conrad : Yes , give us the short one just to get us thinking about it and
off the other subjects .
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
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
' 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
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
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
' 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
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
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 41
without significant irrigation measures in the two larger scale areas . II
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 ver!
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 I
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 we bring this thing down to a mom and pop scale nto try to scale
allow g certain III
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 '
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 i
the south and I don' t see that happening probably in the near term. . .so w
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
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 o
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,
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 II
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 II
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 II
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
II
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
IF
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 42
residential 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
and if you do not find that to be feasible, to enact a control mechanism
' similar to what' s outlined to try to make them a strictly defined
accessory use.
' 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
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.
Headla : I like the ma and pa , open end . I can ' t tell you why. When
I look through here it made a lot of sense and then you left this opening
and I thought the wording was good . In reading over your definition,
where you mentioned. . . , that one I thought could be used.
Mark 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
' reservations , I guess . . .
Mark Koegler : I wanted to make it clear in my comments . . . the zoning
ordinance. . .
' Headla : But they can ' t expand from their present set up without another
application.
Mark Koegler : Correct .
Headla : Can that be an appropriate way to control that?
Mark Koegler : It solely depends on the consistency of the. . . It ca
if you have a good . . .to enforcing the can be
g 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
' 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.
Headla : I 'd like to hear what Jim has to say.
Wildermuth : I think if you look back at the open land in Chanhassen is
becoming increasingly more rural residential . Not agricultural . It
probably isn ' t a good place for contractor ' s in Chanhassen .
Jay Johnson: . . . in the definition where it talks about home occupations?
' Maximum of 1 employees . As such. . .contractor ' s yard .
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 43
Conrad : Home is in the home within the existing residence. I was 1
assuming that this related to out, something outside.
Wildermuth: Accessory structure. '
Emmings: It says it' s conducted as an accessory use in the resident' s
dwelling unit. That' s the definition of home occupation.
Mark Koegler : Virtually every zoning ordinance of home occupation has
language in it that requires it to look for all intensive purposes , just
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 II
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.
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
or white. And no white but only if it ' s has this . It' s just too hard to 11
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
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
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 I
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
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 II
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'
won ' t say anything else . I think you know my position.
Conrad : I 'm like Dave. I think there' s something romantic and charming
about somebody buying 40 acres of property and . . . I
j
It
C
Planning Commission Meeting
IINovember 16, 1988 - Page 44
IBatzli : And putting a bulldozer on it.
II 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
Itheir garage or their barn or something . -
Wildermuth: There isn ' t going to be 40 acres left in Chanhassen.
IConrad : 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
I 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.
IBatzli : But we haven ' t been seeing these ma and eo a
been seeing Admiral Waste people come in. p people come in . We ' ve
IConrad : And I think that ' s a good point Brian .
Batzli : If this were the case that we were seeing people who were
I 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 .
IConrad: I buy that argument.
I 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.
IErhart : 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
I 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
II 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
I 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.
_..4.4..
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 45 '
Ellson : We had this 1 mile control supposedly in place and that just got !'
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.
Ellson : I know. I'm just giving you another example of, who knows when
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,
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
just proceed with- a zoning ordinance amendment. . .
Batzli : We need a public hearing . I would think we'd kind of want
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'
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. '
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,
Council now and get their comments .
Erhart : I would prefer to see this whole thing just go to the new Council'
in whatever form we want to pass it up. Either as an amendment or just
• for discussion.
Conrad : There ' s a lot of background.
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
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? "
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 .
Conrad: There' s a vote for a draft. Jim, what do to do.want ou ?
Y
Wi.ldermuth : Put it up to see what their thoughts are. '
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
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.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 46
Ellson : I think they know it' s coming too .
when they did that one. I think they' re looking a 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
•
` 1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 47 '
Conrad : To look into right but we don' t know what they want to do .
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 goinc'
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? II
Erhart: Yes, I think so.
Conrad : I'm for forwarding it up. Tim is for forwardin g P.it u
Batzli : Forwarding it up. '
Emmings : So am I .
Conrad : Can we adminstratively send this forward to the City Council with'
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 .
Emmings : Can I make one more comment on this? It seems to me that if -
we' re 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
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
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 all
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
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.
Olsen: Do you want that type of information before we uncil.
o to the Council?
g
Emmings : No . I just think if we' re going to close the door on these ,
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
acre residential developments to RR is not a bad idea regardless of
whether we look at the contractor ' s yards.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 48
Emmings : Another thing that goes on the list . Now is there really list
someplace? Y a st
' 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 2
City Council Meeting - Decemi,dr 12, 1988 ,
more dangerous intersections than that.
1:
UPDATE ON CONTRACTORS YARDS IN THE A-2 DISTRICT, MARK KOEGLER.
Mayor Hamilton: We have your report Mark. Is there anything over and above
what we have seen in here that we ought to be aware of that you may want to II
relay to us?
Mark Koegler: Mr. Mayor, I think the report is fairly self explanatory and I I
won't duplicate that. I'd only offer, I think the substance behind the Planning
Commission's position to date was the fact that they think that the nature of
the southern area of the city has changed substantially over the last 10 years.
II
Reflected in that, apparently it is their feeling now that contractors yards are
no longer appropriate land uses outside the industrial area. I'm sure you're
aware that the point this is at tonight is simply to bring it to you for your
concurrence that they should continue to pursue the investigation of this
change. They will then go through the public hearing process but there were
people on the Planning Commission who felt it wise to check with the Council to
make sure you had somewhat the same thinking before they go through that I
process. So it's in that regard that it's brought to you this evening for your
review.
Councilman Johnson: I like the definition that you gave to modify the I
definition to where it was an accessory to the principle residential use and
that it is, while maybe not solely the members of the family but like a home -ii
occupation use. Have a restricted number of employees. If you've got 20
employees coming in there, that should be in the IOP. If you've got 20
employees coming to work at your place of business, you should be in the
industrial park. If you've got 1 or 2 employees coming in, you're more like a II Buck Excavating. He has a couple of employees I believe that come in there but
it's not 10 or 15. That's what I would see as a contractors yard. Is a
slightly larger than occupational or home occupation as defined elsewhere in the
ordinance. The place where Gardeneer and all those where they have quite a few
II
employees, I don't think that's too terribly appropriate now. As we expand and
become more rural residential out there and less really agricultural. That's my
feeling on it. I
Councilman Geving: I think there's always going to be a need for small
operations that have 4 or 5 to 10 employees somewhere in this city. A lot of
than aren't big enough to go into an industrial park. They're just small II
operations. They're mom and pop. They're making crafts or whatever they're
doing in their garage or in their basement. I think there should be a
limitation on the size. I think that would be a good recommendation and I do
I
believe and agree with the Planning Commission that the uses south of TH 5 has
changed a lot over just, you said 10 years. I think it's changed a lot just in
the last 2 or 3 years when we were forced to go to 2 1/2 acres. I see that
II
developing very quickly south of TH 5. Almost to the exclusion of contractors
yards. I think it's going to be filled up pretty much with single family homes.
But, I believe we need to control that and recognize that even those contractors
yards that pop up aren't very temporary in nature. They're not long term. _
They're there because it's convenient. In most cases it's cheap. They can
operate out of their home and they don't have to go into an industrial park and
buy a very expensive piece of land. We've got to recognize that and I think I I
30
II
, • City Council Meeting - C; nber 12, 1988
' would agree that the contractors yards should be in the industrial park. That's
all I have.
I Councilman Horn: Many times I've made the statement that if you find a lot of
people violating a rule or an ordinance, it's time to take a look at the
ordinance and see if it makes sense and that was exactly the reason we did that
' in terms of contractors yards. The primary purpose was to allow mom and pop
type businesses that resided in Chanhassen to legitimatize their useage and keep
those small businesses here. The original intent was not to provide an
incentive for other businesses like that to come in or even bigger businesses to
' come in. I think it's a legitimate question to ask if we should allow outside
businesses to come in and develop that way. I think that's something that
should be considered. I think what we've had to allow in lately has totally
gotten out of hand with what the original intent of this thing. As one of the
people who pushed hard to get contractors yards opened up so we could use some
of that area, both for contractors yards and houses I might add, I find that the
intent of what I had in mind in at least initiating this has gotten out of hand.
I think it's time to take some control again. I think this is a good step in
doing that. The only consideration I would have is should we use this as an
incentive for other businesses outside the community to come in or should we
just grandfather in the existing businesses in Chanhassen as the original intent
was?
Councilman Boyt: Two points in Mark's report caught my eye. You went through a
list of communities, Maple Grove, Chaska, Eden Prairie, and the only one that
had contractors yards was Chaska and they had a minimum lot size of 40 acres. I
' don't want Chanhassen to become the home of contractors yards and we are. We're
going to continue to be unless we change our ordinance because there's certainly
a demand for that type of business and we're the only place within a reasonable
driving distance that allows it. If you look at what we've approved in
' contractors yards, the two most recent ones, we had one that came in. A person
from outside of town has an operation that includes 5 tractor trailers and in my
opinion is completely incompatible with the long term interest we have for that
' part of town. We have another fellow who came in and because the bank forced
him to split his property off and economic conditions, even though I voted
. against it, I could understand why there might be room in the city for that sort
of contractors yard. So we certainly don't want to become a collecting point
' and we don't want to be known, in my opinion, as the only city in the
metropolitan area that allows them. I think that Mark's recommendation that
says they are largely inconsistent with the long term growth in Chanhassen is
' exactly right. If we want to set something in place that says the existing
people can say, we've already got that. Right now what we're looking at
basically is do we want to be an attracting point for future contractors yards
' and I would say we sure don't. I'd like to see an ordinance written that would
make us a suitable place for the people who. are currently operating but
definitely not attract anymore.
' Mayor Hamilton: I'm just looking at the first sentence of the recommendation in
Mark's report and it says, contractors yards are largely inconsistent with the
long term growth of Chanhassen. I think that's probably one of the worse
statements I ever heard. I think contractors yards are an important part of the
growth and development of a community. When I grew up as a kid in Hopkins there
were contractors yards all over the place. They help your community develop.
You can go to Hopkins today and you can't find a contractors yard because the
31
AL"--City Council Meeting - Decer'r 12, 1988
ground was developed and they move on. They moved out to Eden Prairie. They �
moved to Minnetonka. You probably would be hard pressed to find any in those
communites today because they've moved onto Chanhassen. They've moved to
Victoria. As areas develop, the small businessman, the contractors as we call
then here, they move on because the land becomes too valuable for than to stay
• there. It just happens that some of the contractors in this community, small
contractors are of a great help to the city of Chanhassen. They have supplied
us with services and materials over the years that have saved us untold
thousands of dollars. I agree with Bill that I don't think we ought to be a
melting pot and a resting place for every contractors yard to come along. I
don't think that's what we are but I think they're a valuable and needed asset.
They're a small business. They're a guy or a couple of guys who have gotten
together and started a business and are trying to make it work and the only way
they can make it work is by either leasing some inexpensive property or
inexpensive building or being in an area that doesn't cost then a great deal of
money. They cant afford to start a small business and be in an industrial
park. Small business in my opinion, is the backbone of this country. More
people are involved in small business than they are in anything else. Certainly
all these people are not going to generate all the tax dollars that Rosemount
Engineering does or_ -that Instant 4A;ebb or United Mailing or others do, but in my
opinion they're very important. Those people are out there working theirs butts
off to make a buck and what they make they spend and they spend it in your
community and I think they're very important and they're an asset to the
community. Tor that reason I would prefer not to see any change in the '
contractors yard ordinance at this time.
Councilman Johnson: Since they're asking for future use, the Planning
Commission as to what's going to happen in the future, I'd like to hear from
Don, Tom and Ursula on this, if they've had a chance to look at this, if they
can express their opinion.
Mayor Hamilton: They'll have plenty of time to express their opinion. Not that
I don't want to hear from then but I don't think it's fair to put then on the
spot this evening. They're going to be dealing with this issue.
Councilman Johnson: Only if they want.
Mayor Hamilton: They'll be dealing with this issue from here on. I think '
they've heard our comments. They can formulate their own opinions along with
the two that will be here, why they'll be the ones to vote on this.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure if the Planning Commission should go ahead and
continue action...
Mayor Hamilton: It sounds to me like there's a clear indication that they '
should. There's 4 people saying they should and 1 that's saying they shouldn't.
I mean how clear of a message do you want to send?
Councilman Johnson: In 3 weeks there might be 2 saying there should and 3
saying they shouldn't.
Mayor Hamilton: Then they can deal with that at that time.
.-)I
32
a r'
' City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
II :EI
Councilman Geving: I think they ought to continue.
I think you heard it from
the Council tonight.
Mayor Hamilton: I think I'm hearing correctly. Four in favor, 1 opposed to
doing something with the ordinance. Is there anybody who didn't hear that?
Good, then I guess we're all listening then.
' COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Hamilton: Jay, you wanted to talk about zoning ordinance amendment?
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, I'd like to talk about two and we'll reverse the order
of than. The first one I want to talk about is temporary uses. We had a
section in our ordinance which allowed temporary uses if you gave than a
conditional use permit. Very astutely our City Attorney has informed us that if
you get a conditional use permit, it can't be temporary so we struck out the
entire section of the ordinance. We need something for like when the church,
Westside Baptist was here that gives us a little more flexibility in doing what
' we actually did today but in accordance with the ordinance. I would like to see
that the Planning Commission, City Attorney's office look at reinstituting a
temporary use provision to our zoning ordinance to where it is contingent upon,
it would be the continued use contingent upon obtaining a conditional use permit
type deal.
Councilman Geving: Would there be any difference Jay if there were an emergency
power granted to the Council in ordinance form? For example, let's say Pastor
Bryan Pike came before us tonight and said their church just burned down. A
little different situation but pretty much the same kind of scenario but they
' say, we need a temporary use for the next 6 months to get our act together and
build a church. The Council needs to have that provision in it's ordinance to
be able to say, go ahead and do it. We know it violates all the ordinance
' regulation rules but it is an emergency situation. That's really all you're
talking about.
Councilman Johnson: Exactly, or if anybody's business burns down and he has to
' relocate and the only place to relocate temporarily he's not permitted there.
We don't have, like you say, the capability to do it other than as we did it
earlier.
Mayor Hamilton: We can do anything we want.
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, we can do anything we want but is it defensible? What
I want to do is have an ordinance that makes it defensible.
Mayor Hamilton: To who? Defensible to whom? To ourselves? If a disaster
' occurs and we need to move somebody into a building on a temporary basis, who's
going to tell us we can't? We're the ones who can make that decision. That's
just like the church tonight. There's no reason that we can't do that.
' Councilman Johnson: Okay, that was that one. The other one we touched on
tonight too which was convenience stores and free standing auto service centers.
I discussed this with some people with other cities and how some other people
have taken care of this issue of having too many, what people will fear are too
' 33