1r. Zoning Ordinance for Minimum Bldg & Parking Setbacks for lots Adjacent to Railroads & Residental Zoning C. DATE: July 6 , 1988
C I T Y 0 F C.C. DATE: July 25 , 1988
1 \ I C ANHA CASE NO: 88-11 ZOA
SS
Prepared b : Dacy/v
P Y Y/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Sections
20-695 , 20-715 , 20-755 , 20-774, 20-795 and 20-815
to Provide for Minimum Building and Parking
' Setbacks for Lots Adjacent to Railroads in
Z Residential Zoning Districts
1 V LOCATION:
1 CI... APPLICANT:
1
PRESENT ZONING:
1 ACREAGE:
' DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N=
1 S-
E-
-
Q - W-
W WATER AND SEWER:
( ) PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
jr-
ZOA - Setbacks
July 6 , 1988 ,
Page 2
BACKGROUND r
The Planning Commission tabled this request from its June 1 ,
1988 , meeting. The Planning Commission minutes and staff report
were forwarded to the Attorney' s Office to help determine the
appropriate language.
ANALYSIS
Attachment #1, as prepared by the City Attorney, proposes to
delete the existing language of paragraph ( 6) regarding off steet
parking and replace it with specific statements regarding off
street parking abutting a railroad, another off street parking
area, or a residential district.
The building setbacks are then identified in a separate paragragh
in each district. Separating the parking setbacks and the
building setbacks helps clarify the differences and will ease
administration.
Two items , however, will need to be added. In Sections 2 - 7 of '
the proposed ordinance, the following should be added:
d. The minimum setback is fifty ( 50 ) feet when it abuts a '
residential district without being separated from the
residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way.
This will identify a 50 foot building setback as well as a
parking setback.
Second, current language identifies a side street side yard r
parking setback of 25 feet. This is for yards on corner lots .
The following should be added to proposed Section 1 of the
ordinance:
d. The minimum setback is twenty-five ( 25) feet for side
street side yards . '
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed ordinance greatly improves the clarity and enfor- '
ceability of these regulations. Approval is recommended.
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment #88-11 to amend sections as shown in Attachment #1 with
the following additions:
SECTION 1 . Add: '
d. The minimum setback is twenty-five ( 25) feet for side
street side yards .
11
ZOA - Setbacks
' July 6 , 1938
Page 3
SECTIONS 2-7 . Add:
d . The minimum setback is fifty ( 50) feet when it abuts a
' residential district without being separated from the
residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way.
' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
ordinance amendment request subject to adding language to Section
1 of the proposed ordinance bringing attention to the fact that
there may be screening requirements or conservation requirements .
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Although the Planning Commission minutes state that additional
' language should be added to Section 1(d) , the intent of the
Planning Commission' s discussion applied to Section 1(a) . The
following is proposed and recommended:
( a) There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad
right-of-way, except as provided in Sections 20-1191 and
20-1192 pertaining to landscaping requirements .
' It is recommended that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Request #88-1 subject to the Planning Commission' s recom-
mendation and as shown in Attachment #1 .
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Proposed ordinance.
2 . Letter from Daryl Fortier dated June 6 , 1988 .
' 3 . Staff report dated June 1 , 1988.
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated July 6 , 1988 .
1
r
-770 F51:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA 1
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 , THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN CODE CONCERNING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
SECTION 1. Sections 20-695 ( 6 ) , 20-715 (6) , 20-755 ( 5) ,
20-774( 5 ) , 20-795 ( 5) , and 20-815 ( 5 ) of the Chanhassen City Code are
all amended to read:
Off-street parking shall comply with district setback require-
ments except:
a) There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-
except as provided in Sections 20-1191 and 20-1192
pertaining to landscaping requirements .
b) There is no minimum setback when it abuts , without being '
separated by a street, another off-street parking area.
c) The minimum setback is fifty ( 50) feet when it abuts a '
residential district without being separated from the resi-
dential district by a street or railroad right-of-way.
d) The minimum setback is twenty-five ( 25 ) feet for side
street side yards .
SECTION 2. Section 20-695 is amended by adding Section (8 ) to
read:
( 8 ) Minimum setback requirements: 1
a) for front yards, 35 feet.
b) for rear yards, 30 feet.
c) for side yards, 15 feet.
d) The minimum setback is fifty ( 50 ) feet when it abuts a
residential district without being separated from the
residential district by a street or railroad right-of-
way.
SECTION 3 . Section 20-715 is amended by adding Section ( 8 ) to '
read:
( 8 ) Minimum setback requirements :
a) for front yards , 25 feet.
b) for rear yards, 20 feet.
c) for side yards , 10 feet.
d) The minimum setback is fifty ( 50 ) feet when it abuts a
residential district without being separated from the
residential district by a street or railroad right-of-
way.
1
SECTION 4 . Section 20-755 is amended by adding Section (7 ) to
read:
( 7 ) Minimum setback requirements :
' a) for front yards, 25 feet.
b) for rear yards , 25 feet.
c ) for side yards, 10 feet.
d) The minimum setback is fifty ( 50) feet when it abuts a
residential district without being separated from the
residential district by a street or railroad right-of-
way.
SECTION 5. Section 20-774 is amended by adding Section ( 7 ) to
' read:
( 7 ) Minimum setback requirements :
a) for front yards, 25 feet.
b) for rear yards, 20 feet.
c ) for side yards, 10 feet.
' d) The minimum setback is fifty (50 ) feet when it abuts a
residential district without being separated from the
residential district by a street or railroad right-of-
way.
SECTION 6 . Section 20-795 is amended by adding Section (7) to
read:
' ( 7) Minimum setback requirements:
' a) for front yards, 35 feet.
b) for rear yards, 30 feet.
c) for side yards, 15 feet.
d) The minimum setback is fifty ( 50) feet when it abuts a
' residential district without being separated from the
residential district by a street or railroad right-of-
way.
' SECTION 7. Section 20-815 is amended by adding Section ( 7) to
read:
' ( 7 ) Minimum setback requirements :
a) for front yards, 30 feet.
It b) for rear yards, 10 feet.
c) for side yards , 10 feet.
d) The minimum setback is fifty ( 50 ) feet when it abuts a
' residential district without being separated from the
residential district by a street or railroad right-of-
way.
SECTION 8 . This ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
I Passed and adopted by the City Council this 25th day of July,
1988 .
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I
1
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
I
ATTEST: 1
1
Don Ashworth, City Manager
I
(Published in the Carver County Herald on
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
VI J b
' ORDINANCE NO. p )itJ/ tJ6j GOA)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
' CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
SECTION 1. Sections A0-695 (6) , 20-715 (6) , 20-755 (5) ,
20-774 (5) , 20-795 (5) , and 20-815 (5) of the Chanhassen City Code are
all amended to read:
' Off-street parking shall comply with district setback
requirements except:
' a) There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad
right-of-way.
b) There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being
separated by a street, another off-street parking area.
' c) The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a
residential district without being separated from the
residential district by a street or railroad right-of-
way.
SECTION 2 . Section 20-695 is amended by adding Section (8)
to read:
(8) Minimum setback requirements:
' a) for front yards, 35 feet.
b) for rear yards, 30 feet.
c) for side yards, 15 feet.
' SECTION 3. Section 20-715 is amended by adding Section (8)
to read:
' (8) Minimum setback requirements:
a) for front yards, 25 feet.
' b) for rear yards, 20 feet.
c) for side yards, 10 feet.
SECTION 4. Section 20-755 is amended by adding Section 7)
to read:
(7) Minimum setback requirements:
a) for front yards, 25 feet.
b) for rear yards, 25 feet.
c) for side yards, 10 feet.
SECTION 5. Section 20-774 is amended by adding Section (7)
to read:
(7) Minimum setback requirements: I
a) for front yards, 25 feet.
b) for rear yards, 20 feet.
c) for side yards, 10 feet.
SECTION 6. Section 20-75 is amended by adding Section (7)
to read: I
(7) Minimum setback requirements:
a) for front yards, 35 feet. I
b) for rear yards, 30 feet.
c) for side yards, 15 feet.
SECTION 7. Section 20-815 is amended by adding Section (7)
to read:
(7) Minimum setback requirements:
a) for front yards, 30 feet.
b) for rear yards, 10 feet.
c) for side yards, 10 feet.
SECTION 8. This ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon is passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of
, 1988.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
I
-2- I
' 1,
f
I LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
TELECOPIER:
I DAVID L.GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612) 455-2359
VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER
ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE
PATRICK A. FARRELL MICHAEL J. MAYER
I DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J.BERG
ROGER N. KNUTSON (612)455-1661
IJune 28, 1988
IMs. Barbara Dacy
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
IChanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Minimum Setback
IDear Barb:
I Enclosed is a draft ordinance that attempts to accomplish
what the Planning Commission wanted. I was somewhat confused by
their discussion, so I may not have been successful.
Very t yours,
IG' ANN S, GRANNIS, FARRELL
& KIUTSLI►
1 �i
BY�
Roger Knutson
I RNK:srn
Enclosure
I
I
I
I
I
r° r L)
JUN 3 0 1988
ICITY OF CHANHASSEN
C 1
June 6, 1988 '
FORTIER &ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN'
Ms. Barbara Dacy
City Planner
City of Chanhassen '
690 Coulter DRive
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 '
Re: PARK ONE
Comm: 86-19 '
Dear Barbara:
I was very pleased to learn that the City Staff is attempting to '
clarify an apparently confusing issue affecting setback's in Park One,
as well as other industrial properties where they abut railroad
tracks or road right-of-ways. As indicated at the Planning
Commission meeting, you have our full support in making the ordinance
less confusing .
As I understand it, the Planning Commission has directed you to seek '
language which would essentially say:
"Properties which are zoned Industrial or Commercial and are
separated from an adjacent Residentially zoned district by a
railroad or street right-of-way shall be deemed as abutting
the railroad or street and not abutting the residential
district. "
The only request that we would make on behalf of our clients is that
the proposed ordinance address the confusion only and not attempt to
amend the present setback requirements, that is, changing a rear yard
setback from 20 feet to 25 feet. We believe that the present 20-foot
conservation district, the landscape screening requirements, and the
distance afforded by either the railroad or street right-of-way
should prove as more an ample setback from any residential
district.
Good luck in your attempt to find the appropriate wording for this
revision. Upon completing your rough draft, please send us a copy
for our review. '
Yo rs truly,
/�- -
Daryl P. Fortier, A. I.A. '
DPF/sf JUN 0 ( 1988
CITY OF.CHANHASSEN '
cc: Frank Beddor, Jr.
Jules Smith _
Jim Benson
408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593-1255
1 ' :AT .C. DATE: June 1 1988
CITY OF '
C.C. ::E: June 13 , 1988
\ IZkZ - CEAMIASSEN CA U SE
y .
IPrepared by: Olsen/v
•
1
STAFF REPORT
1
1 PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Sections
20-695, 20-715, 20-755 , 20-774, 20-795 and 20-815
to Provide for Minimum Building and Parking
' f-- Setbacks for Lots Adjacent to Railroads in
Z Residential Zoning Districts
I0 LOCATION:
Ia
(Q{; APPLICANT:
1
1
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
I S-
Q E-
1 W-
0
1 LU WATER AND SEWER:
I-
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
1 2000 LAND USE PLAN:
1
+ - .
II
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
June 1, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Sections 20-695 , 20-715 , 20-755, 20-774, 20-795 and 20-815 - Off
street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of
this section, except that no rear yard parking setback shall be
required for lots directly abutting railroad trackage; and, no
side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial uses
establish off street parking facilities, except that no parking
areas shall be permitted in any required street side yard. The
minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any
residential district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum
of 25 feet in all districts.
ANALYSIS '
All of the commercial and industrial districts, except for the
CBD District, contain the above referenced regulation. As
currently worded, it is confusing to both the developers and
staff to interpret setbacks for properties that abut both
railroad trackage and residentail districts . This amendment has
been initiated by staff as we are anticipating several applica-
tions which are affected by the interpretation of this language.
In fact, some of the potential applicants will be present at the
meeting. The City Attorney has stated that it is a confusing
section and should be clarified.
Attachment #2 illustrates areas where commercial and industrial
districts abut railroad trackage and residential districts . The
first sentence of this section refers to off street parking areas
stating that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for
lots directly abutting railroad trackage. it also states that
there shall be a minimum rear yard of 50 feet for lots directly
abutting any residential district. Although the commercial site
may directly abut railroad trackage, it may also abut a residen-
tial district. Therefore, the interpretation of this section
could either be that for those areas abutting railroad trackage
and residential districts that off street parking in the rear '
could directly abut railroad trackage or that the parking areas
in the rear must maintain a 50 foot setback from the residential
district.
Staff has reviewed several ordinances from surroundin g com-
munities.
The majority of the ordinances do not have specific
setbacks for commercial and industrial areas that abut a residen-
tial district. In those ordinances which did establish different
setbacks , the setbacks were increased for those districts
abutting residential areas . The ordinances did not differentiate
between structure setbacks and parking setbacks and none of the
ordinances had reduced setbacks for sites abutting railroad
trackage.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
June 1 , 1988
Page 3
' Staff is recommending that the regulations be amended to diffen-
tiate between parking and structural setbacks for properties
abutting residential districts and railroad trackage. As shown
in Attachment #2 , there are only a few industrial and commercial
' areas that abut railroad trackage and residential districts . The
majority of the industrial and commercial areas that abut
railroad trackage also abut industrial and commercial property on
the other side of the tracks . The commercial and industrial
sites which abut both railroad trackage and residential districts
are separated by slope and vegetation along the railroad trackage
from the residential districts . In fact, a 20 foot conservation
teasement was reserved along the rear of the lots abutting the
tracks in the industrial subdivision behind the Press building.
Therefore, having a reduced setback along these areas would not
' have a negative impact to the residential areas since the
railroad right-of-way itself provides separation. It should be
noted that this amendment only affects the setback. A six foot
screening requirement is also required between residential and
non-residential uses.
Staff finds that 50 feet is too excessive in instances where
railroad tracks exist and would recommend a 25 foot setback
instead. This would maintain separation from the railroad tracks
and would permit adequate space for berming and landscaping.
' Further, the ordinance states that a "rear" yard setback of 50
feet is required. In some cases , a commercial or industrial area
may abut a side yard. The ordinance should not differentiate
' what type of yard it is, but rather establish a minimum setback
for the building and parking areas abutting residential areas .
' RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
' following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to Amend Sections 20-595 , 20-715 , 20-755 , 20-774 ,
' 20-795 and 20-815 to read as follows:
Off street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements
' of this section except that no rear yard parking setback shall be
required for lots directly abutting railroad trackage and commer-
cial or industrial districts . No side yard shall be required
' when adjoining commercial uses establish off street parking faci-
lities, except that no parking areas shall be permitted in any
required side street side yard. The minimum yard for structures
and parking areas shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any
residential district not separated by railroad trackage. The
minimum yard for parking areas and building structures shall be
25 feet for lots directl abuttin'an residential district and
railroad trackage. The side street side yards shall be a minimum
of 25 feet in all districts . "
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
June 1, 1988
Page 4
1
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Excerpt from ordinance. '
2 . Map showing locations of areas which abut railroad trackage
and residential districts .
1
I
1
i
1
1
1
I
I ,. . . yi
r
I § 20-693 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
•I Sec. 20-693. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in a `BN" District:
I (1) Parking lots.
(2) Car wash(when accessory to automotive service station).
(3) Signs.
I (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-694. Conditional uses. •
The following are conditional uses in a `BN" District:
(1) Convenience store with gas pumps.
I (2) Automotive service stations.
(3) Drive-in banks including automated kiosks.
I (4) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
(5) Standard restaurants.
I (6) Bed and breaksfast establishments.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-4), 12-15-86)
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
ISec. 20-695. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a `BN" District subject to
Iadditional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum district area is three (3) acres. This paragraph may be waived in the
I case of expansion to an existing district.
(2) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet.
I (3) The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (75) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty(60)feet in all districts.
(4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet.
I (5) The maximum lot coverage including all structures and paved surfaces is sixty-five
(65)percent.
(6) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad traclk'age.; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial
uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122,except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The
minimum yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
I district Side streets side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five(25) feet.
Other s tbacks are as follows:
a. F r front yards, thirty-five(35) feet.
I
A R 12 r1 t, 3 tg,„„a„
MEM
( - . 1
§ 20-712 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(17) Private clubs and lodges.
(18) Community center.
(19) Funeral homes.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-713. Permitted accessory uses. -
The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BH"District:
(1) Signs.
(2) Parking lots.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-714. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in a "BH" District:
(1) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
(2) Supermarkets.
(3) Small vehicle sales.
(4) Screened outdoor storage.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 11(5-11-4), 12-15-86)
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-715. Lot requirements and setbacks.
•
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BH" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum district area is ten (10) acres. This paragraph may be waived by a 1
condition use permit in the case of expansion of an existing district.
(2) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand (20,000)square feet. 1
(3) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage in all districts of sixty(60)feet.
(4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet.
(5) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five(65)percent.
(6) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial 1
uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122,except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard.
Minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
1218
1
I ' . . Y .
I -.y_ ZONING § 20-771
max.
I4 (5) Major auto repair and body shops.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 13(5-13-4), 12-15-86)
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
ISec. 20-755.
Lot requirements and setbacks.
IThe following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BG" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
I (1) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand(20,000)square feet.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a
Icul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty(60)feet in all districts.
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet.
I (4) The maximum lot coverage is seventy(70)percent.
(5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
I except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial
uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122, except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. Other
Isetbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, twenty-five (25)feet.
I b. For rear yards, twenty-five(25)feet.
c. For side yards, ten(10)feet.
I (6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (3)stories/forty(40)feet.
b. For accessory structures, two(2)stories.
I (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 13(5-13-5), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-756-20-770. Reserved.
I
IARTICLE XX. "BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT
Sec. 20-771. Intent.
IThe intent of the "BF" District is to accommodate limited commercial uses without urban
services.0 1 (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 14(5-1.1-1), 12-15-86)
1223
I
. ,
§ 20-772 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20-772. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BF" District:
(1) Parking lots.
(2) Signs.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 14(5-14-3), 12-15-86) ,
Sec. 20-773. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in a"BF"District:
(1) Automotive service station without car washes.
(2) Truck/trailer rental.
(3) Utility services.
(4) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
(5) Cold storage and warehousing. '
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 14(5-14-2), 12-15-86)
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-774. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand(20,000) square feet.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum front footage of sixty (60)feet in all districts.
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is forty(40)percent.
(5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial 1
uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122,except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The
minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in all
districts. Other setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, twenty-five(25)feet. r
b. For rear yards, twenty(20) feet.
c. For side yards, ten(10) feet. 4,4
1224
•
I
c
§ 20-793 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(2) Signs.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 15(5-15-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-794. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in the "OI" District:
(1) Adaptive reuse of vacant public or private school buildings for private business uses.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 15(5-15-4), 12-15-86)
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-795. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "OI" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (75) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum lot frontage of sixty(60)feet.
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five (65)percent.
(5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial
uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122, except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The
minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. Other
setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty-five(35)feet.
b. For rear yards, thirty(30)feet.
c. For side yards, fifteen(15) feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, two (2)stories.
b. For accessory structures, one (1) story.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 15(5-15-5), 12-15-86)
} Secs. 20-796-20-810. Reserved.
1226
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 20
I.
Dacy: Let ' s say here ' s the railroad tracks , we ' re going to have an
industrial lot here, industrial here and this lot is residential . The
zoning line for the residential runs along the property line and along the
railroad. The question is , in this case, the proposed ordinance says if
you abut railroad tracks . . .
Conrad : Would you do me a favor? What the current ordinance says .
Dacy: Okay, the current ordinance says , if you abut the railroad tracks
you can park right up to the railroad tracks .
Wildermuth: Railroad easement.
Dacy: Correct.
Conrad : Does it matter what the other district is on the other side of
the tracks?
Dacy: Let' s just ignore that. This is case 1. Case 1, you can park up
to the railroad tracks and the building setback is 10 feet. In this case,
staff ' s concern is that because the zoning district line exists right here
and because the ordinance as written it says when you have an industrial
commercial district abutting a residential district , you should have a
minimum rear yard of 50 feet. That' s one sentence but then there' s
another sentence in there that says , but if you abut railroad tracks you
can park right up next to the railroad tracks. So we' re trying , when you
have this situation , you' re trying to say, what should we do in this
situation? Should we still allow them to park up to the railroad tracks?
Do we recognize the railroad itself as a separation and buffer or do we
reduce this or should we keep it the same? Mr . Fortier was saying ,
I didn' t think there was a problem in the first place . So if the
Commission wants to direct staff that that' s the way we should be
interpretting that section , that makes our lives a lot easier , that ' s sure
but our Attorney said , it' s kind of ambiguous and you can get into a
situation that could be challenged .
Conrad : Okay, let ' s talk about what the railroad tracks does do from a
buffering standpoint. Is it typically elevated?
Dacy: Yes .
Conrad : So by itself , other than the fact that three times a day a train
comes through, do you believe it is a good buffer separating industrial
from residential?
Dacy: Yes .
Erhart: What ' s a typical railroad easement?
c_ Dacy: I think on this drawing it' s showing as 130 feet.
Conrad : What ' s 130? � '
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 21
C
Dacy: The railroad right-of-way. It ' s at least 100.
Erhart: So it' s more than the number of feel we require anyway. So
what ' s our Attorney talking about?
Dacy: Some precedent maybe later on.
' Ellson : It just seems like you could say it easier .
' Dacy: That's what in the report we were saying. In the locations in the
City that has railroad going in the commercial and industrial areas . For
example, in the industrial are the railroad is elevated and there is
significant grade change as well as the 20 foot conservation easement.
' That lessens as proceed west into the downtown areas. In that case you' re
talking about a distance factor . Plus , there still is the requirement of
screening between commercial and industrial and non-commercial and
' industrial areas .
Batzli : Did you evaluate this in light of perhaps light rail going
through here as well? What we would do down in that area?
Dacy: With the light rail use as opposed to a railroad use, this
particular track is used on a fairly consistent basis. From what I know
of light rail , they are supposedly less noisy.
Batzli : But more often .
' Dacy: Potentially, it could be . It depends on how many trips it makes .
Batzli : As far as where the districts come together and where the light
rail would go , you ' re on a different line . . .
Dacy: That line would be the railroad line that goes south of Lake Riley
and then along the TH 212 area so that ' s the line that would be proposed
for light rail .
Batzli : Right, but did you look at if it would impact that area at all?
Dacy: In this area we still have the same slope and elevation conditions .
It is so far up and there is a ravine at the base of these properties that
' it's going to be low impact. As a matter of fact, anything building in
this area would have to be, and remember from the contractor ' s yard
application, we' re going to have to go more towards . . .because it slopes
' back.
Wildermuth : How would the conservation easement come into . . .on the Beddor
' property? Was that negotiated?
Dacy: They went through the platting process in 1986 prior to this
ordinance being adopted and that was established by the Council with the
condition to number 1, preserve a screening area along the rear of the
lots so it was a condition of plat approval .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 22 1
Wildermuth : It almost seems like a good idea in any case. A conservation II
district. . .
Headla : Railroad trackage bothers me. I 'd like to see all the terms '
changed to railroad right-of-way. I like the crux of it. I guess I keep
thinking . . .railroads in it .
Dacy: If a railroad doesn' t exist and you have an industrial lot or a
commercial lot directly abutting a residential lot, then the 50 foot
setbacks still apply. We ' re only concentrating on those applications with II
railroad tracks .
Headla : I mean . . .and railroad tracks along here.
Ellson: There' s still 100 and some feet inbetween them. If you took out
the tracks , there . . . I wonder if they might have problem with the current
one. Discussion said for lots directly abutting any residential . I would II
think that if there' s a railroad track that ' s not a direct abut , or
whatever the term would be, therefore you ' re covered. Maybe you want to
put in parenthesis , railroad means not abutting or something like that but 1
I think that' s spells it out absolutely perfect.
Dacy: I think there should be some clarification if that' s the way the
Commission wants to do it, maybe just adding a paranthetical statement
saying this does not include lots that abut railroad trackage.
Ellson: Something like that. I think this makes more sense. Maybe like I
you said , you' ve have problems where there ' s . . .
Darrell Fortier : I realize the public hearing is closed and I appreciate
the chance to speak again . I did forget one other thing that was
important. When we did the platting of Park One, we gave up an additional
10 feet of right-of-way for the convenience of designing the crossing at
Dell Road and West 78th without knowing what the alignment is going to be. II
We simply did it for convenience of the engineering staff and road design.
At the same time it was understood that we were giving enough but we
didn' t want to be giving up more even more of the land so at that time it
was agreed that the plan would either be reverting back to Park One or
even simplier yet, would be a relaxation of the setback requirements on
Lot 7. Right now we hear there is a 15 foot proposal for the side yard on
Lot 7. This is the property with one lot that addresses the Eden Prairie
side. We'd just like to refresh the City' s memory on that. Perhaps
Barbara if you go through the records or talk to the Engineering again , it
was simply a convenience to expand the right-of-way district because at
the time, Eden Prairie was not interested in constructing the road .
I think the same thing is true of the 60 foot right-of-way that was
extended all the way down the east side .
Dacy: The 50 foot setback, you mean the residential setback?
Darrell Fortier : That ' s correct . I think because there ' s only a road ,
this road ' s not as wide as a railroad track. . .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 23
• Dacy: That ' s another good point . Maybe we should add , instead of a
railroad tracks separating a residential and industrial , why don' t we have
' the street right-of-way.
Ellson : I think we just have to define directly abutting . There are
things that do not make them direct. These things include railroad
' trackage, easements and roads and things that prevent them from being
direct abutting.
Dacy: As a matter of fact , the previous ordinance , the 1972 ordinance had
an exclusion for areas that were separated by street right-of-ways so the
idea . . .statement disclaiming railroad right-of-ways and street right-of-
ways so that would be a good idea.
Conrad : Wo we need to make a decision on the 25 feet? The staff
recommendation of 25 versus the 50?
' Dacy: To be honest , that number basically came from knowledge that the
conservation easement existed out there already. If what I 'm hearing from
the Commission, if you don ' t want to establish a specific setback and just
say what the district regulates now is appropriate when you have
situations where the lot abuts railroad trackage , that ' s fine. It would
be less confusing as far as staff was concerned. Instead of throwing out
another number .
Conrad : Would anybody like to pursue the 20 or 25 foot setback as
originally drafted here? Does anybody want to document that setback in
the ordinance or should we let it be loose as has been in the past? No
feelings?
' Headla : Have we had problems in the past?
Dacy: To be honest, because we ' re anticipating applications in these
specific areas , we really haven ' t deal with this issue but it' s coming and
we'd like to get it resolved. There are a couple of applicants going
through the process .
Headla : What ' s that you mentioned when you have industrial , a road right-
of-way and then homes on the other side? What 's that dimension? Is that
the 50 foot setback if you' re abutting a street right-of-way? Industrial
' with homes on the other side of the street?
Dacy: That ' s part of the issue that we ' re looking at . We have no setback
' as you've described that situation now. What the ordinance is saying if
the rear yard directly abuts a residential area , then we need another 50
feet.
Batzli : So if there was a road you would be looking at , the other
setbacks are as follows language?
Dacy: Right .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 24 I
Headla : Did the Park' s people, the Park and Recreation look at this at ,
all?
Dacy: No. ,
Wildermuth: I think uniformity as far as the last sentence , side street
side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet in all districts . ,
Dacy: That' s referring to corner lot situations . Where you have two
streets abutting a lot, that is defined as a corner lot and the side
street yard is that yard that ' s not the front yard but the other side of
the lot that abuts the other street.
Emmings : You brought up one other thing here and I just want some I
clarification. You talked about the screening . . . Now obviously if you
have two industrial uses abutting one another and you 've got a street
there. If there ' s a railroad track. . . is there any screening requirement? ,
Dacy: We' re saying that we would still enforce the screening requirement
dispite the existence of the railroad tracks . I
Emmings : Okay, so if there was trees on part of mine, that screening
isn' t going to take land so in effect, even though it says there is no
setback requirement because you have a screening requirement , you will end
up with a setback from the railroad right-of-way anyway. Is that right?
Dacy: Yes . I
Wildermuth : Is the screening requirement the conservation easement. . .?
Dacy: Yes . ,
Conrad : And that ' s the basis for the staff recommendation of 25 feet
setback. '
Dacy: It was some type of a distance. . .
Conrad: We need that, whether it be 20 or 25, is that in step? What does II
that do for us with it? How does that help?
Dacy: You could divide extra feet of area to work with. To be honest with II
you, there' s not much difference .
Emmings : When you get to the screening requirements , how did that one
wind up being?
Dacy: It basically went on some total . . .
Emmings: So you guys took into account what was there and did something
reasonable to provide some screening?
Dacy: Right.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 25
IEmmings : That seems to be the better way to go because first of all ,
railroad right-of-ways seem to provide plenty of distance. What' s one
' other thing you' re looking for? The other thing is screening . We' ve got
the screening requirement that we should be sure applies to these
situations and then allow staff to be able to be flexible with the
developer . Maybe there' s a hill but maybe it ' s only 15 feet but maybe
that ' s enough then. That spot will screen it from the other use and we
don' t need to be always straight hard lines .
' Conrad : Does the screen , we keep rashing here from one thing to the next,
does our screening ordinance, does the screening requirement ordinance,
will it take care of, should we review it to see how it applies in this
' particular case by a railroad track?
Dacy: That ' s the best I can give you in help one way or the other . The
screening requirement is you have to have a 6 foot opaque screen between
' an industrial or commercial and residential . You ' re got to have a
consistent screening.
' Emmings : We' re talking about between a commercial or industrial use and
the railroad right-of-way that has the same residential on the other side?
Dacy: Are you saying that you want to look at that also to see if that ' s
required?
Conrad : We would like to possibly, as you suggested , we don ' t know that we
' need 25 feet. I don ' t know that I need 20 feet. If we've got a screening
requirement that solves the problem, I might just feel comfortable with
the screening requirement versus a distance.
' Emmings : Because you already have the distance .
Conrad: Right, the distance is already there. The only thing is , with
' railroad tracks are typically flat and that ' s not a screen . That' s flat.
Therefore, I would look at that to see if that ' s solving any of the
problems that the distance is attempting to solve. Barb, would you like
' us to table this item and have you take a look at it?
Dacy: No.
' Conrad : You 'd like to get rid of this?
Dacy: Yes . In order to construct a 6 foot screen, either between berming
or vegetation , you ' re going to need at least , at least 10 feet of land
area so that planting materials can be maintained at least at minimum.
That ' s what the landscape ordinance and we recognize other issues . I
think we really need to clarify the parking and building setbacks on this
issue . I hate to have it linger on and on unless you guys really don' t
think it ' s okay.
Conrad : We' re not seeing the need for a setback at this point in time.
At least I 'm not.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 26
C
Darrell Fortier : I 'm sorry my eyes aren' t quite well enough to recognize
Annette' s last name but I think she really has hit the nail right on the
head . The confusion is whether or not the property abuts the railroad or II
whether it abuts residential . If we were to say that there will be
some. . . which says abutting a railroad is not to be considered as abutting
residential even if residential were across the railroad tracks. I think
we' ve got to clarify that . The presence of screening requirements can
certainly be reviewed with sight lines , etc. when the building plan is
reviewed and we already have screening requirements . . .that gives you at
lesat, even if the residential were built across the railroad tracks , that II
gives you at least 130 feet or 150 feet of distance . It is far more
generous than the majority of residential developments would have that
abut highway or something. The issue of getting rid of the confusion that 1
the Attorney' s brought up, are we abutting residential or are we abutting
railroad seems to be the most germain issue . If we could get rid of that
issue tonight, I think our whole lives would be made a lot easier .
Conrad : Annette , how did you think you could sove that problem?
Ellson: Something like either a parenthetical phrase that is
distinguishing a road and a railroad as separating that .
Conrad: And you would put that where?
f
Ellson : The ordinance as it is , I like. I would just go that one line
that says areas shall be 50 feet unless directly abutting any residential
and then say something to the effect of a railroad track or road , what
ever we might else think of. A horse path. Who knows what else we might
have around here , are considered separating and abutting , whatever . I
can' t rewrite it but I 'm basically saying that we want to say that those
things are separating that and therefore you' re not abutting that
residential . In other words , we ' re trying to let them know that the 50
feet isn ' t required if there ' s a railroad tracks . If someone tells me
what is going to constitute not abutting a residential .
Batzli : In other words, what you ' re trying to say is direct means direct.
Underline directly. '
Ellson : That ' s exactly how I had it in my notes . Just underline
directly. I
Emmings : You can ' t indirectly abut something .
Ellson: Or define the exceptions of what we mean by not directly. Which II
gives you a parenthetical phrase , does not directly would be where a
railroad track ' s involved, a road ' s involved , whatever .
Conrad : Okay Barbara , how do you want to work this to get us out of this I
thing?
Dacy: Taking Annette' s suggestion, I would add the following after the
second to the last sentence .
1
t
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 27
C
' Emmings : I don' t know what you ' re looking at .
Dacy: Look at the first ordinance.
Conrad : 1216?
' Dacy: Yes . And number 6 there, second to the last sentence , the minimum
rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any residential
district. (This does not include lots which abut railroad right-of-ways
or street right-of-ways .)
Batzli : I don' t think that clarifies it well enough. You' re talking
about the. . .with that directly adjacent to the railroad tracks. With what
you just said , you could have a residential on the side yard , railroad
tracks on the back yard and yet you've just fit your definition. . .
' Conrad : Do you have an alternative plan?
Batzli : No, I was trying to put together some language. I was just
' trying to say something about , what we ' re not talking about is when
there' s a railroad or road immediately between the two properties. I was
trying to come up with language that said that .
Wildermuth: Let me try something. Off street parking areas shall comply
with all yard requirements of this section except that no rear yard
parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting railroad
tracks rights-of-way and commercial or industrial districts . No side yard
shall be required adjoining commercial uses for off street parking
facilities .
' Ellson : You didn ' t mention residential .
Wildermuth: No parking areas shall be permitted in any required side
' yards. That ' s what you want to say.
Dacy: As written? You don ' t want to change anything as written as far as
that 's concerned?
Wildermuth : Well , what we would be doing here is crossing out two words ,
' except that, and taking . . .
Dacy: I guess I don ' t understand what you ' re. . .
Wildermuth: You want. . .
Dacy: No , that ' s existing now and I don ' t want to mess with that . It ' s
saying that if you directly abut another commercial or industrial use you
can establish adjoining off street parking facilities and the side yard
setback wouldn' t be imposed. You could have a shared parking lot
situation . I guess Brian , I still don ' t understand where you ' re coming
from with your comments .
Els
47
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 28
Batzli : If you were talking about the rear yard abutting that , I would
have agreed with you. You just said it abutted .
Dacy: The minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting '
residential district (a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way) .
This would not apply to lots abutting the railroad right-of-way or street.
Batzli : If rear our and
y yard, you' re talking about your rear yard line
abutting that , then maybe that will work. You 're not limiting yourself
to that. Make that on the side yard . '
Dacy: So you want to eliminate the word rear?
Batzli : No. It' s got to be parenthetical . I 'm trying to limit your '
exception to the rule. If you' ve got a railroad going down your sideyard,
you' re abutting that, then you don' t need a rear yard setback under what
you just said .
Dacy: I see what you' re saying . So then you' re saying in the parenthesis
then, qualify that by saying , this does not apply for lots having rear
yards abutting railroad rights-of-way or street rights-of-way.
Emmings : If this helps , isn ' t what we' re trying to do , would it help to II g get away from where we' re talking about rear yard, side yard, front yard ,
whatever and we ' re talking about whatever boundary abuts either the
railroad right-of-way or the street right? So why don' t we just say that
when a property line abuts a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way II
there will be no setback requirement but it will be subject to screening
requirements .
Dacy: I think if we did eliminate the word rear in that sentence , we ' re
still saying that if you' ve got a residential district abutting a
commercial or industrial district , you need 50 feet. No matter what type
of yard. Rear, side or front.
Batzli : Okay, so just take out the word rear .
Dacy: Right, and then say if the lot abuts a railroad right-of-way or
street right-of-way, we' re saying that you don' t have to have the 50 feet .
Batzli : Yes , I will agree to that . '
Emmings : Read the way for them.
Dacy: The minimum yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any
residential district (this does not apply for lots abutting railroad
right-of-way or street right-of-way) .
Emmings: But you only want to exclude it on the side where it abuts and
you ' re not doing that yet in your language.
Dacy: Okay, help me.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 29
' Emmings : I did. I read what I would say. Where the property line abuts
a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way.
' Batzli : (Except the side street side yard . ) That ' s legit though.
Getting rid of that one.
' Emmings : I don ' t understand it but if everybody else does , I ' ll vote for
it. Where the property line abuts the railroad right-of-way or the
street, the setbacks for that yard shall not apply but it will be subject
' to screening requirements. That' s the idea. I don ' t definitely know how
to say it . I think that ' s what we ' re trying to get at.
' Dacy: There' s got to be some way that we can use that an existing
sentence and add an exclusion.
Emmings : Why does it have to be?
Dacy: It just seems to be a lot easier .
' Ellson: It's seems the logical way.
Conrad : It' s going to be hard for us to draft this .
Dacy: If you can agree with the intent of saying that 50 feet is not
applicable when the lot abuts railroad right-of-way or street right-of-
way.
' Emmings : It ' s the line . It ' s the particular line. It ' s not the lot
itself isn' t it?
' Ellson : You' re saying if the railroad is in the rear than the rear
setback doesn ' t have to be that. If the road ' s on the side than the side
setback doesn ' t have to be that . That' s what he ' s worried about .
Emmings : Right and you ' re saying if it abuts it on the rear it doesn' t
have to do it on the side. We ' re worried about the particular side that
' abuts only.
Dacy: Correct .
Erhart : You ' re not putting that in your language. You need to go back
and do that.
' Dacy: What we ' re saying is , if the yard area directly abuts a residential
district you have to have 50 feet .
Emmings : You have to have 50 feet on that yard .
Dacy: Okay. ( If a portion of the lot abuts a railroad trackage or street
right-of-way, this section does not apply. )
Erhart: Only for that portion.
4
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 33 ,
C
Conrad : What we'd like to do then , if we send this up to Council for
their discussion and their direction to staff.
Erhart : Are we all saying generally favorable direction on this? ,
Conrad: I 've got some small nit picky things .
Erhart : You' re using just the Minutes to support that?
Conrad: I think in our motion we can. . .
Erhart : You' re looking for a motion?
Conrad: Yes . '
Erhart : Okay.
Conrad : And send this to City Council to provide staff with the direction II
and I think under that motion we can comment that the Planning Commission
endorses this particular paper . Is there a motion?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to send Tim Erhart ' s memorandum
dated May 27 , 1988 onto the City Council for them to direct staff and the II
Planning Commission with regard to it' s content and further action on it ,
noting that the Planning Commission finds this to be logically explained
and an all around good idea. All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 50 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim ,
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 38
IJohn Karrens : This conception, I hope by anybody here, that is a very
expensive piece of road with the development that' s zoned properly and
I designed like this . I can see that there ought to be a better way to get
traffic across TH 5 to the site. . .
I Conrad : We' ll take you through the process with public hearings and we' ll
take it through with you as quickly as we can.
I Jack Boarman: Just one other comment , I seem to hear people saying it ' s
either or. I would only ask all of you to say, can both happen? No one' s
disagreeing with the value of the TH 101 issue but let' s not make it an
either or thing. A highway pays no tax base. This certainly will .
IConrad : I think we'd all like to have you have it there. I think if the
road really did go by, if we could sneak it by, the value is going to
I be. . .
Jack Boarman: I made a comment earlier about plans not being very
I expensive, I said they' re cheap but I meant if there was a building there,
it certainly would be a key factor in the alignment of the road . Since
there's nothing there, we have plans on paper, it' s not considered as
heavy or as seriously in affecting the Highway Department' s CAD system
I that they' re laying out there in geometrics. I would only ask you to join
with us and maybe making the leverage on their CAD system as they lay out
their geometrics to be a bit more of a range. A bit more flexibility so
Iboth things can go.
Conrad : We' ll be real interested in hearing your perspective, if we have
the alternative of bringing TH 101 in front of your shopping center
I because that ' s got to quadruple traffic and I ' ll be interested to hear how
you react. If TH 101 doesn' t go through or if it moves away. I guess if
it doesn ' t go through, it just doesn ' t go through. You take the local
I traffic but if TH 101 goes in front of your center, that' s just got to be
a boom to filling that baby up.
Jack Boarman: That sounds very exciting and if you could help this kind
I
of go in front rather than through the heart, that would be great.
I Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission table Site
Plan #88-6 until August 3 , 1988. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-695 , 20-715 20-7 4
7
ill— 20-795, AND 20-815 TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS
\ FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO RAILROADS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS , CITY OF
CHANHASSEN.
IConrad : Any questions on this?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 39
Emmings : One of the things that I wondered if we should do, when we
talked about the off-street parking, there' s no minimum setbacks , we said
it is hard we' re still subject to screening requirements . I just wondered II
if we should, if I come in as a developer and I read that I don' t have
anything in the setback, I automatically think, by god I can go right up
to the edge. I just wonder if there should be something in (a) and (b)
that just say that they will however be subject to screening requirements
or conservation easements.
Dacy: We can add like for (a) , except where. . .
Emmings: I don' t know where the screening requirements are. Just so they
don' t look at this and think gee , I can go right up to the edge. '
Batzli : So what do you want to add?
Emmings : I don ' t know. Jo Ann said it . '
Olsen: We' ll be adding that you have to meet the requirements of whatever
landscaping requires . '
Emmings : Essentially saying there is no minimum setback.
Conrad: When it abuts . ,
Dacy: Except when required by the landscaping , Section 20- which will I
be the landscaping ordinance.
Batzli : Can ' t we just say except as provided in our?
Emmings: Right. Anything like that. Just so the person doesn' t think
they' re free to go up to the edge. Make them aware of these because when
they' re looking at this part, they' re thinking how close can I get and
let ' s make them aware right there.
Batzli : Where is our landscaping screening?
Dacy: Article 25, Section 20-1176.
Olsen : As far as landscaping it' s 1 tree per 40 feet at least . '
Dacy: I think we should just refer to the Article in the amendment.
Emmings : What brought this to my mind is this . We were talking about '
something down here behind that was against the railroad tracks. What am
I talking about?
Conrad : Instant Webb and Lyman Lumber?
Emmings : And they said they were going to have no setback but there was a II
conservation easement which in effect wound up giving them a 20 foot
setback. That' s what brought it to my mind and I guess there may be other
ways that we want to impose easements or other screening because there' s
' Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 40
. . .stuff somewhere and that' s going to be a conflict . They' ll say I don' t
have a setback requirement. I get to go up to the edge.
Conrad : I think it' s good to have it in there .
Emmings: Yes. Bring it to their attention right away. Then it won' t
raise the question.
' Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #88-11 to amend sections as shown
in Attachment #1 with the following additions :
SECTION 1. Add :
d . The minimum setback is twenty-five (25) feet for side street side
yards.
With the additions to 1 (d) as discussed to bring attention to the fact
that there may be screening requirements or conservation requirements.
SECTIONS 2-7. Add :
d . The minimum setback i$ fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential
district without being separated from the residential district by
' a street or railroad right-of-way.
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES :
' Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated June 15, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor
except Erhart and Headla who abstained and the motion carried .
Wildermuth moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 20 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
' City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim