15. Discuss Planning Commission Recommendation on Amendments to BF and A-2 Zoning I C I TY OF
/5-
1 , CHANHASSEN
1 ik ,
� _ '° 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN;•:MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900 /
rndur' I_..__✓-_-_
MEMORANDUM ?�cdificc ___.__.__
I?c;ected_________a
IITO: Don Ashworth, City Manage '?
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner d...._.....-- ---____--_
IDATE: June 23, 1988 6-027-ig
I SUBJ: Discuss Planning Commission Recommendations on Amendments
to the BF and A-2 Zoning Districts ( ZOA 88-6)
BACKGROUND
IThe Planning Commission has undertaken two studies of the zoning
districts in Chanhassen' s rural area. Commissioner Erhart has
I spearheaded these analyses with written recommendations as to
potential zoning ordinance amendments the city could process
regarding the BF, Business Fringe and the A-2 , Agricultural
II Estates District. The Planning Commission at the May 4, 1988,
meeting endorsed Mr. Erhart' s comments regarding removing the
Business Fringe District designation along TH 212 east of TH 101
to A-2, Agricultural Estate. At the June 1, 1988 , meeting, the
I Commission endorsed Mr. Erhart' s recommendations as to amendments
to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District. The Planning
Commission would like the City Council to discuss these two
I topics and make a determination as to whether or not a specific
zoning ordinance amendment should be initiated.
ANALYSIS
IAmendments to A-2 District (Attachment #1)
I Attachment #1 represents Mr. Erhart' s letter dated May 27, 1988 ,
analyzing uses currently permitted and not permitted in the A-2
District. The Planning Commission concluded that contractor' s
1 yards, bed and breakfasts and mineral extraction uses be elimi-
nated. The Commission also recommended that temporary retail
nurseries, churches, beachlots and golf courses be added to the
list of conditional uses.
IAs to the recommendation to add additional conditional uses,
staff concurs with the Commission' s recommendation for all of
I them except to note that temporary retail nurseries needs to be
studied further. Defining and regulating the term "temporary"
may be difficult.
I
II
Mr. Don Ashworth II
June 23 , 1988
Page 2 I
If the intent is to limit the scale and intensity of the retail
activity, other devices should be used rather than using the term ,
temporary. This deserves further investigation by staff, com-
mission and council.
As to the uses that are to be eliminated, several issues
I
regarding contractor' s yards, bed and breakfasts and mineral
extraction are raised. The Council will recall that an ordinance
amendment process was conducted in 1984 to permit existing II contractor' s yards to operate within the rural area. Although
staff concurs with the Planning Commission' s recommendation
regarding these uses in the rural area, the Council needs to II discuss whether or not it wants to re-evaluate its decision in
1984 . As to the bed and breakfast establishments, the city
undertook an extensive analysis of bed and breakfasts upon a
specific request on Bluff Creek Drive. Although this particular I
site has been sold, the ordinance regulations have appeared to
work in limiting the intensity of this type of use in the rural
area. The definition of bed and breakfast limits the total
II
number of rooms to five. This was done in order to draw a
distinction between a bed and breakfast and a hotel. Staff
believes that the ordinance does provide a unique opportunity for II someone in our area to operate a bed and breakfast versus
creating a "hotel" .
The mineral extraction section of the Zoning Ordinance pertains
II
not only to the removal of sand and gravel but also to grading
property. The only instance of mineral extraction in the city is
the Moon Valley Excavation area. Removing mineral extraction as
a conditional use in the A-2 District would make the existing use II
a non-conforming use. At this time, staff does not have infor-
mation available which could provide to the Council as to whether
or not this would impact the operation or would impact other
II
areas in the city. It should be noted that because this ordi-
nance pertains to grading of properties, we do not want to remove
the possibilty for a farmer or property owner the ability to
II
grade property. In fact, there are sections in the mineral
extraction ordinance that could be further investigated by the
Planning and Engineering Departments as to format and language II regarding grading permit procedures. Therefore, staff would
recommend that we would be directed to analyze Article 27 of the
Zoning Ordinance regarding procedures, language and applicability
in certain areas of the city. 1
Removing the BF, Business Fringe District (Attachment #2)
Attachment #2 is the memorandum that was sent to the Planning I
Commission regarding this item. To summarize, staff' s position
was that some of the lots in the BF District area could not be II put to a reasonable use under the A-2 District regulations . The
1
II
IIMr. Don Ashworth
June 23 , 1988
I Page 3
City Attorney visited the area with staff and was concerned
1 about which parcels would be removed from the Business Fringe
District. Again, while staff agrees with the general principles
put forth by the Commission, there may be legal implications
arising out of rezoning this area to the A-2 District. The
1 Council should indicate in concept whether or not you agree with
the Planning Commission' s intent.
1 RECOMMENDATION
Commissioner Erhart will be present at the meeting to present
1 these two items in conjunction with Planning Staff. Council
should give staff direction regarding these two issues .
ATTACHMENTS
1 1. Letter from Tim Erhart dated May 27, 1988 .
2 . Planning Commission packet dated April 29, 1988.
I 3 . Planning Commission minutes dated May 4 , 1988 .
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 1, 1988.
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
} I
Tim A. Erhart I
775 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
May 27, 1988
Planning Commission ,
Subject: Land use in A-2 Districts of Chanhassen
We have recently reviewed a number of proposals raising the question: What
is proper land use in Chanhassen's A-2 Zoning District? The proposals we've
seen include batting facilities, miniature golf courses, produce stands,
retail nurseries, contractors' yards, garbage truck storage and cleaning,
etc.
We have attempted to use our zoning ordinance as a guide in approving or
denying these requests. In general our new ordinance is consistent in its
assignment of compatible uses in the various zoning districts. The
exception is the A-2 district where the allowed uses are incompatible in
, some cases. As a result, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the
recommendations that the commission has been forced to make following the
guidelines of our zoning ordinance. i
In analyzing this problem we should review the first stated "Purpose" of our
zoning ordinance:
1-21 - "Protect residential , commercial , industrial , and
institutional areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses. "
Applying this goal as the basis for determining acceptable uses in a
particular zoning district we must decide which uses are compatible and
which are intrusive within any particular district. '
The titles of the districts, to a great degree, tell us what the intended
uses are. For example, the intent statement for the A-2, Agricultural
Estate District states "Preservation of rural character while respecting
development patterns by allowing single family residential development". In
general , those uses which are compatible with intent of the A-2 district
are those associated with raising crops and cattle. In addition, things
found in residential areas such as swimming pools, tennis, day care, and
home occupations would be compatible in this area by definition. One can
generally conclude that uses relating to agriculture and listed in the A-1,
Agricultural Preserve district as well as those uses generally related to
Residential and found listed in the RSF, Residential Single Family district
should be allowed. This analysis is straightforward and one might conclude
that a method for creating the list for the A-2 district would be to simply
list all those allowed in both A-1 and RSF districts. For the most part
this has been done as the following chart shows.
I
1
II ., J
II 1
Permitted Uses A-1 RSF A-2
I . Agriculture X X
. Public & private parks & open space X X X
I • Single family dwellings X X X
. Utility services X X X
I . State licensed day care center
for twelve or fewer children X X X
II . State licensed group home serving
six or fewer persons X X X
II . Temporary real estate office and
i model homes X X
. Arboretums X X
II I
Permitted Accessory Uses A-1 RSF A-2
. Agricultural buildings X X
I . Garage X X X
• Private stables X X
. Swimming pools X X X
I . Tennis court X X X
• Signs X X X
. Home occupations X X X
. One dock X X X
II . Road side stand X X
• Private kennel X X X
' d
Conditional Uses A-1 RSF A-2
I . Public building X
. Temporary mobile home X X
. Group home for 7-10 persons X
I Churches X 0
• Private stables X X
. Residential beach lots X 0
I Commercial kennels, stables, X X
riding academies
II
2
II
Notably absent from the list in the A-2 area are: Public Buildings,
Churches and Beach Lots. I suggest we review the absence of these uses
since it appears we are acting as if some of these are included as
allowable uses in the A-2 area.
In analyzing this, you can see that to a great degree, the A-1 and RSF
districts are inherently compatible as we see that all most all of the uses
listed are allowed in both districts. Note that industrial and commercial
uses however, are not allowed in either area.
There are three other major categories of uses which keep coming to the
Commission as a desired use (by applicants) in this district. Some are
incompatible uses and shouldn't be allowed yet are found listed as allowed.
Some uses are probably compatible, but are not allowed.
General Use Categories Discussed: '
. OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL
. SALE OF UNPROCESSED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS '
• INDUSTRIAL/NON-AG COMMERCIAL
I believe we must carefully analyze these uses and eliminate those which are
currently allowed which are intrusive. We should also review some uses
which I believe should be included in the A-2 district but are not.
Completing this task would eliminate the contradiction in the list of
allowed uses and better help guide Chanhassen's growth. In addition, we can
avoid some of the problems we now experience such as contractor's yards in
an RSF district which become permanent neighborhood fixtures.
OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL '
Definition:
Open space recreational can be defined as those uses which require large II
parcels of inexpensive land for outdoor sporting or cultural activity.
Examples: Golfing, hunting clubs, stables, parks, arboretums, zoos.
Analysis:
These uses already exist within the A-2 district of Chanhassen and are not
intrusive with the rural nature of the area. Some of these activities
require buildings or equipment which may be intrusive, however in all cases
the structure is accessory to the primary use, that being use of the land. ,
3
..
' SALE OF UNPROCESSED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Definition:
This is a business whose major activity is selling or distributing
unprocessed agricultural products such as vegetables, fruits, flowers and
nursery stock.
Analysis:
' Our current ordinance allows both road side stands and wholesale nurseries
in the A-2 districts. The road side stand is retail , while the wholesale
' nursery, which by definition, is not. Our ordinance does not restrict
activity to sales of only those items grown on site. Sales of agricultural
products by local growers have long been associated with the rural setting
and as long as the sales are restricted to unprocessed materials e.g. ,
' fruit, plants, trees, etc. I believe this activity in fact compliments the
agricultural nature of the district.
Should we allow retail Nursery sales in the A-2 area? I believe we should.
We currently have two nurseries within our A-2 district. Halla Nursery
sells retail because it is grandfathered. Northwest Nursery would like to
sell retail , but is restricted to wholesale at this time. Like Halla,
Northwest grows some of its material on site.
I suggest that if retail sales occur on site that we limit those sales to
' materials grown on site or on surrounding properties. This would, in fact,
encourage owners to maintain current farm land in some kind of production
rather than sub-dividing. In effect allowing retailing of "home grown"
' products can actually assist the city in maintaining our open space as long
as possible.
I also believe we should make the retail sales of agricultural products a
' temporary one. This would prevent operators from building permanent
structures and prevent incompatibility later, when a higher density
residential use occurs. These buildings must be removed and the use
suspended when an A-2 (or RR) area becomes residential only.
4
i • ..._
INDUSTRIAL/NON-AG COMMERCIAL
Definition: '
An industrial or commercial use can be defined by an activity involving
employees, equipment and warehousing whereby a product is manufactured or a
service is rendered. The primary facility of an Industrial Non-Ag/
Commercial use is the buildings and equipment whereas the land becomes an
accessory. This compares to farms, nurseries and outdoor recreation where
the land is primary and the structures and equipment are accessory. ,
i •
Analysis
Somehow, in the A-2 district, we have come to accept the idea that an
industrial use is compatible within the rural setting. I cannot develop any
argument for concluding that such a use is at all compatible with the stated
intent for the A-2 district. Moreover, I find that industrial and non-Ag
commercial uses are the most intrusive uses conceivable when you consider
the type of buildings, their permanence, the equipment, and the type of
activity including numerous employees, are central to the purpose of this
use.
No different than those businesses which occupy
py our industrial zones, a
contractors' yard, is an industrial use.
. There are employees who live off-site
. The business is housed in an industrial building
. Equipment is used for the purpose of conducting commercial
business
. There is warehousing
. There is payroll
. Nothing is grown on the site which contributes to the business
. Buildings are permanent '
It is obviously more economical to put a contractor's yard on a farm site
where land is cheaper than in an industrial park. Due to the close
proximity to the metro area and the cost advantage compared to industrial
districts, we are seeing a growing number of requests for conditional use
permits for contractors' yards. It appears that Chanhassen is one of the
few remaining suburbs allowing contractors' yards in its Rural Residential
areas. We have worked hard to develop plans and ordinances which assure the
orderly development of Chanhassen maintaining its natural beauty and small
town image. Quickly our beautiful open areas are turning into industrial
sprawl as contractors' yards pile up vehicles, storage garages, equipment,
mounds of barren dirt, rotting lumber and rusting steel . '
When a conditional use permit is approved for a contractor's yard, the
permit goes with the property. As a result, we cannot seem to eliminate
this use when residential density increases, as it certainly will , in this '
5
•
area. Lastly, historically the city has been unable to enforce the
regulation which applies to contractor's yards. As a result, the
contractor's yards tend to grow and become increasingly unsightly and
intrusive.
Following is a list of uses allowed in the A-2 district which are neither
agriculturally related or residentially related, nor are they allowed in the
' purely agricultural area (A-1) or the purely residential area (RSF) . The
one exception is Bed and Breakfast.
Conditional Uses A-1 RSF A-2
• Bed and Breakfast X X
. Mineral extraction X
. Cemetery X
• Contractor's Yard X
' f Commercial communications X
• Wholesale nursery X
• Electric Sub-station X
One might argue that the A-2 area is uniquely suited
9 q y to serve some of these
uses such as commercial communications and sub-stations. The remaining, I
' believe, are incompatible and should be removed as permitted or
conditionally permitted uses in the A-2 district. For example, I must
question whether mineral extraction is still compatible considering the
increasing population density in our A-2 district. By listing "bed and
breakfast", does that mean we want someone building a new hotel in our rural
area?
The most gross intrusion however is the contractor's yard. Contractor's
yards have nothing at all to do with agricultural activity. They are
incompatible with residential and agricultural settings. They are, in fact,
a blight to the single amenity which Chanhassen residents value most when
asked - our remaining open and wooded areas.
' We must be careful not to confuse a landscape contractor with a wholesale
nursery. Landscape contractors are industrial . They do not grow anything
and therefore cannot be considered agricultural . We must be sure that the
language of our ordinance properly separates landscape contractors from
nursery operators.
We have had an opportunity recently to observe first hand the results of
' allowing contractors' and landscapers' yards within Rural and Residential
areas of Chanhassen. After studying the issue, I have concluded that
allowing contractors' yards outside an industrial zone goes completely
' against the purpose and objective of our zoning ordinance. Worst, it is a
growing blight to our community. Lastly, we are creating problems which
are not easy to solve in the future as we have seen in the Lowell Carlson
property case.
6
1 Recommendation '
I recommend that we eliminate contractors' yards, bed and breakfast
establishments, and mineral extraction as- allowed uses in the A-2 areas. I
- also recommend that we add temporary retail nurseries, churches, beach lots
and golf courses to the list of conditionally allowed uses in the A-2
di rict. ,
j/i/j
•
1
JUN 0 8 1988
Cl CY OF CHANhASSEI
7
- i
c
CITY OF
- CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission 9 1
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner riaio
' DATE: April 29 , 1988
SUBJ: BF, Business Fringe District Discussion
' This item was tabled from the April 20, 1988, meeting. Attached
is a letter from Commissioner Erhart regarding his aguments to
rezone the current land zoned as Business Fringe District from TH
101 on the west to the eastern property limits of the former
' Mobil Station on the north side of TH 212 . The following analy-
zes the uses currently existing and proposed in that area.
1 BACKGROUND
The subject are was rezoned to the BF District along with the
effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance on February 19 , 1987 .
Originally, this area and the area to the east was zoned C-3 by
the former 1972 Zoning Ordinance (where Moon Valley Excavation
and Rifle Range exist) . Therefore, the city upon adopting the
' new Zoning Map reduced the originally considered commercial area
to its current size. There is only one other BF district area
farther to the west on TH 212 immediately adjacent to Chaska now
' occupied by Gary Brown' s mini-warehouse units . The existing uses
on the south side of TH 212 are zoned A-2 , Agricultural Estate
and are considered non-conforming. The 1972 ordinance did not
include this area as commercial and had been zoned R-la,
' Agricultural Residence. In the BF District area on the north
side of TH 212 east of TH 101, there are currently eight property
ownerships: 1 ) Brookside Motel, 2 ) the former Lydia Teich prop-
erty now approved for Admiral Waste Management contractor' s
yard, 3 ) Brambilla' s property now authorized for outdoor display
of landscape products , 4 ) the Sorenson/Jedlicki property
authorized for cold storage warehouse units , 5 ) the Vernon Teich
' property which is currently in small agricultural usage, 6 ) the
former Mobil Station site, 7) and 8 ) two single family homes .
' ANALYSIS
The City Attorney cautioned that upon rezoning from Business
' Fringe to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District, the city would
Planning Commission
April 29, 1988
Page 2 '
have to show that rezoning would not be denying the individual
property owner reasonable use of the land. If the property can-
not be used for agricultural or residential purposes, the
property owner may have a claim for a taking.
The Brookside Motel is currently non-conforming. The contrac-
tor' s yard and cold storage sites are consistent with the current
uses permitted in the BF, Business Fringe District as well as
Brambilla' s outdoor display of landscape products. Of these
four parcels, only the contractor' s yard property could be con-
sidered for an agricultural use because approximately 8 acres of
the total 13 acres could be farmed. The rear of the Brambilla
property is less than an acre in size. It is dubious as to
whether or not a reasonable agricultural use exists on that pro-
perty. The former Mobil Station and the Brookside Motel property
have no potential for agricultural use.
Except for the Brookside Motel, the existing and approved uses
require little demands as to septic system and well use because
of the low number of employees needed to run the businesses.
However, in the case of the contractor' s yard, in order to build
a substantial building the property owner is faced with require-
ments for sprinklering, installation of adequate well reservoirs,
holding tanks for pumping, and access improvements.
While it is true that non-conforming uses should be discontinued,
it should also be ensured that the property can be used for some
other type of use. Given that the city established commercial
zoning for the properties on the north side of TH 212 and has
authorized a minimal amount of use in that area, removing the
Business Fringe District, if pursued by the Commission or
Council, should be analyzed thoroughly by the Attorney' s Office
before final action. The properties on the south side of TH 212
have not had any type of commercial zoning placed on the property
and have existed as non-conformities . The city is in a better
position in this manner in that it is not removing any develop-
ment rights previously established.
As is pointed out by Commissioner Erhart, there are advantages to
removing any commercial activity along this corridor given the
safety issues involved with TH 212 and 169. It was estimated by
MnDOT that in order to construct a bypass lane in front of the
subject area, it could cost up to $500,000 . Further, as pointed
out by Commissioner Erhart, there are visual impacts that do
arise from commercial enterprises in this major corridor into the
community. Eden Prairie so far has been successful in preventing
commercial development along its corridor except for the Lion' s
Tap which was previously established. However, as one enters
Chanhassen, because of the existence of these buildings and uses
for several years, a commercial pattern was created.
Planning Commission C
April 29 , 1988
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
' These issues should be discussed by the Planning Commission for
further staff direction. This office firmly believes in the
' intent of Mr. Erhart' s comments and concurs with the general
principles of limiting access onto a major arterial such as TH
212 and preserving a pleasing landscape through this area of
Chanhassen. However, there are potential legal implications from
this action that upon Planning Commission direction should be
pursued in more detail.
' ATTACHMENTS
1 . Location map.
2 . Proposed corridor study and proposed transportation element
' of the Comprehensive Plan.
3 . Letter from Tim Erhart dated April 26, 1988 .
NOTE: I have a larger scale land use and property ownership map
which will be presented at the meeting.
1
I
I
I
r
-U..g.." • ,
/
ii- c-..... , 2. - .
.R,\--%°' oN .
/1
A2 $.
,,,-
1 4'
0 V
v-
a
(s-
o
I
tiisi, CREEKVI000
E FA-M •
I
qp,
grim A 01 Tor „. ---11-
0 . 4111r voo- pl.All ,,.. 1.00A.. ‘1 003 two r
ibi, c,.r4
Ih.,\
. gr.' in f . il•
I -111-
4 , -
-, ..
// RICE
-J I.-••
/„....0°
I ■ I • ,
/L A K E
I/
(t NE 1
• . _,„
,,.. ..
, <0
I
2
L
A .. .
4:
, ..
0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1
I.;
I
---
._. .„
t. ./.)
.• .
I
ON :
7..
ift iii,4:,\.\ q ■,,. F- s ,—;
I
- s \ --
1, 0 C30_ - - 0-,,,e- _.
_
II 1 W• w
f t o N •0. , - sv i it
G3
3 10•fM -,\{•7 \•��, "'1 41'..10:::i
.°-•
y,2f e0M tt w 1 r� ntl e•\11` U cc
• o W i`s. x,y r y --
C r ' •ry .. vs,- of, 1 ♦ -
\ IL 0 t n...._+ -,sir .
\� .t Wit: ".co
r:"" mkt;
- 0,9669 . _ _ - { - \ , W 0: f _ r# ° *' • �'.
.- \s, F.:. , ' ., ••
•�• - _ t9 \ z „ ._ _ 'lit;';'::,-''?+^> .:i. ..
\'b
1a't>\ - ,;,1.-..,7„,
.. 7 ,•t/ :,yy. `~ ',"yam
„tic_- _ - ' __ - _ -gym y0 \`, _--__ __ _ '.�.:'*. r—.d,j>£3-,, 4
z.
r....1 qc•sk.0 \, \s _ \
ft'szf . - s \ 1 !"` i T l ''q7„� i� - ? #,>.��''.4•
In - - _M• \`t II \ /� �:o \ - ` f r a'♦c L> '�
• 0 OA.Sr
.\ \\I r r 0%r •\ 1 \ Y- ` 'r A' �,,�r_ is },Y •Y 'y+S Y.
" A.; 200 _ _'.':1'24 k.' .,,'" � F.
♦- ,-. s
Z r0 Q \ 1 ` Z r � # .f .-
i.
� � =_T v �- l.+0
'-
riI�'oNA _ +V,- _ _ . :r ' F �ifl d'16 M{ . \ Y> 'Y
\ ' �� 00. \ .K�\ ob'• >- _ �.; :iJt`.a--30MNOW N { g 1.2 r _ _ 3 r.
_
3„00,£6 ofi .\ ■ `\ 7 \15io
ern
e.
W \ 5a .^ -Y -
Y
4 J i - - - �.� •_"_ S 1, 1. 90.06\��55 \\� : ` --
u a $; 10Ctlf No "
r Qx _
''. o. ' -7.--. \ \
St,
zm i,'a \ `\ W
_ ... ‘ ., so 66z 1 \ \ \
. - If
AM \. \ .•4, -, `
1 W Z \ _ {- •
��b4S f tea, °e \
`.-, 0� � W ``•t.'� \* - -\ \ _ , _ .� w.
MI it''' ' .o ^ N .\\\\ \ • I ell
\ \ .
ul
. u a \ \\Z '
It' (i • I-,
•
N `'t.
c (
Tim A. Erhart '
775 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Minnesota River Valley Plan '
Date: May 18, 1988
As a member of the Planning Commission and living close to the Minnesota
River Valley area, I have come to appreciate the unique resource which
exists in our city. Unfortunately, our current approach to planning in this
area guarantees both a missed opportunity and the extenuation of dangerous
traffic conditions by encouraging commercial development within this area.
The area in the valley from Flying Cloud Airport to Chaska north of TH 212
consists of severe terrain with bluffs and wash outs as you go up the
valley wall . The severe erosion and numerous streams flowing down the '
valley wall give the area both a unique appearance and environmental quality
unique to our area. It also poses substantial danger any time development
occurs due to the unavoidable erosion of the steep terrain. The valley in
this area south of TH 212 lies within the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge.
In addition heavy traffic, much of it trucks, combined with a three mile '
downhill grade, makes any stops or turns in the area extremely dangerous.
Since no service roads exist on TH 212 businesses in this area must access
directly onto TH 212.
The City of Eden Prairie has already seen fit to preserve the valley by
maintaining much of the area north of TH 212 as Agricultural . In addition,
an overlay Conservancy District limits development in both the Minnesota
Valley as well as the Purgatory and Riley Creek watershed. The Eden Prairie
ordinance allows only Ag and large lot residential uses. The only non-
conforming structure in Eden Prairie is Lyon's Tap.
Over the years, a few businesses have sprung up in the Valley in Chanhassen.
Many of these have gone out of business due mostly to the fact that the
area really doesn't lend itself to a business environment being just across
the bridge from Shakopee. In addition, the heavy traffic and high speeds
discourage stops by motorists along this route.
The remaining businesses on the south side include:
1. Hotel
2. Super America
3. Junk yard
4. Vacant restaurant building
1
II
C C
IAll of these are non-conforming since this area is designated A-2 and all of
the area south of TH 212 is included in the Minnesota Valley National
IWildlife Refuge.
We have designated a portion of the valley in Chanhassen as BF (Business
Fringe) which is a commercial use. Existing businesses located within the
IBF district in the TH 101/212 intersection area include:
1. Brookside Hotel
I2. Vacant gas station
The hotel is legal non-conforming since hotels are not allowed in the BF
I district. No sewer and water exists or is planned for this area, therefore
commercial use is limited to low water usage businesses.
We have recently allowed three new business in this area: Cold storage,
I garbage truck storage and cleaning, and outdoor display of merchandise
(landscape business) . Fortunately the garbage truck business is not located
directly on TH 212. The cold storage and landscape businesses however pose
IIa definite safety hazard for all customers of these businesses.
There are a number of issues which cause me to urge the members of the
Planning Commission to recommend that the zoning in this vicinity be changed
I from BF to A-2 Agricultural Estate. (I am not suggesting we change the BF
area existing next to Chaska.)
Ii. We have an immediate opportunity to provide a truly unique green
area within the metropolitan area for future generations. If we
delay, we will probably miss this opportunity altogether. Much of
I the area (south of TH 212, all of Eden Prairie, and most of
Chanhassen) is already restricted from development.
2. The landscape is delicate and surely doesn't lend itself to
Idevelopment due to severe erosion potential .
3. We are encouraging business to develop along a highway where a
I long downhill run causes traffic to travel at speeds ranging from
55-70 mph. The density of traffic in this area averages 20,000
vehicles per day. Much of this is grain trucks which simply
II cannot stop when coming down the hill . To encourage more direct
access onto TH 212 is simply going to directly cost lives. On the
one hand, the city is taking the responsibility to encouraging the
growth of a commercial area but we are not providing the access
I roads which are required for safe ingress and egress for these
businesses. I have voted against each of the two proposals
because I cannot in good conscience agree to creating such a
Idangerous situation.
II
2
II
II
(7 4r-
4. A commercial area requires sewer and water. Sewer and water is
not planned for this area for any time within the next 30 years.
5. Designating the area A-2 is totally appropriate in that a certain
amount of agriculture use occurs in the area today. The Valley in
Eden Prairie and most of Chanhassen is already designated
agricultural and low density residential . In addition, the area
includes two homes which would conform nicely to the allowable
uses in the A-2 area. Lastly, the one unit on 10 acres and large
lot requirement of residential development in the A-2 district
would conveniently limit the growth of homes preventing increased
density, further erosion and traffic problems.
6. Changing the zoning to A-2, Agricultural Estate allows reasonable
use of the property: Agricultural or residential lots. We've
seen that the area is not a viable commercial area, therefore it
is arguable whether the property is worth more or less zoned
commercial . Zoned commercial restricts the owners from selling
residential lots.
I believe the urgency of this matter should cause immediate passing on this '
recommendation to council before any additional plans are submitted for the
commercial use of this area.
TAE:j
3
1
C (
U.S. 169/212 (Flying Cloud Drive)
I Corridor Study
IILOCATION AND LENGTH: From Chanhassen's eastern border (Eden Prairie) to the
western border (Chaska). Approximately 2.7 miles.
IIFUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Minor Arterial (1987 Chanhassen Comprehensive
Plan).
1
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 20,000 (1984) East of T.H. 101
1 19,600 - 35,400 (2005) Depending upon Construction of
New T.H. 212.
•X" �- ' _r L. _ ►I�.•. .- _ / ...1
1 ` 1...16;04,,_,,,/rIts., ,.... - '
•
i/ : . wit[
1 •
illr' °i All 0 tkoom to.
. /LAKE
'4 WA
/_A......:.....:.:.. - �_'f CITY Qi,CNY1M1$ IL■
iv' ..-.-..t:..::... - \ CI 3HAKCOf[
1
IIDESCRIPTION: U.S. 169/U.S. 212 is a combined roadway traversing the extreme
southern section of Chanhassen. The two lane, undivided highway carries
1 substantial traffic since it is a segment of a route connecting western
Minnesota to the Twin Cities.
1 PROPOSED LAND USE: Southern Chanhassen is not served by sanitary sewer.
Consequently, no new urban scale development has occurred in recent years. A
series of "grandfathered" businesses exists east of the intersection of U.S.
1 169/212 and U.S. 169/T.H. 101. Of these uses, some are conforming to the
business fringe (BF) zone while others are non-conforming.
1 The land use element of the 1987 Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the existence
of the conforming uses, however, land use policies discourage their expansion.
Non-conforming uses by ordinance are prohibited from enlarging or extending
II their operations. -
1
1 �w.. .L. _... r.-�. .o.�.�.
C-
Proposed land uses along the U.S. 169 & U.S. 212 Corridor have been identified
as a statement of long term city policy. In this case, long term is defined
as being post 2000, possibly 2020 or beyond. The City of Chanhassen does not
plan to expand the business fringe (BF) zone, hence, development will not
occur prior to the availability of sanitary sewer service. Long term land
uses follow a theme of diversity in order to ensure a future balance of
function and aesthetics.
When urban services become available, the north side of the U.S. 169/212 '
corridor is expected to develop as medium density and high density -residential
with the exception of the existing commercial area. Property on the south
side of 169/212 is within land designated as part of the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge. One small existing area of commercial (business •
fringe) exists at the Chaska border.
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS: Currently, there are no major
transportation improvements planned for existing 169/212. Topography and
floodplain areas in eastern Chanhassen and western Eden Prairie preclude
significant future expansion. The pending improvement most affecting existing
U.S. 169/212 is the planned construction of new T.H. 212. When the new route
is built, it will substantially eliminate increased traffic along the existing
route. Existing 169/212 is not adequate to handle existing traffic flows.
Improvements will be needed to reduce accident rates and enhance public
safety. '
- --, _ , 11: •t ...
I -
-...
—
./('*>. °-..-:. .
'-V'''' ct: ".- .. I
,
1----------- iii-7--- 4
ii
, LAKE
4w/
- " ...4v-
-: NICE & Ili
-- --1/ -
t
f: i _
libuillie.TIII: Dr
I '
i 1 , iffEllirli
4141/1111...
...."
406 i tal ::
MO LB I ---
\IL\\ 0)1 "" ND-7, i
' IIM lar z
I
\
AI , i i „, .k, r *Poop
W. —
. _...
si
- i llbg k e
g
I
f/ 1 •. 'MR. ii C R le I
I -
__.
. tv--::I
_i I z"--.•
I I ,
-,•••
---
-..
..... I
I _
r . ■•)11V4Y)
I 1 1
., ,\ 2 _- .
1 —--_%,. _i__ / 4---=-14
;
5Et
,t LT AKE
RILEY RU
>-• —
i _____r____
I
.. -
1
I - ---I
I .
111 /
i
-
TA-
* milirsill 11 .
I . J
IlLAIIIIIIIIMIIIIIVINA IIIII I i 'IIr z
2.,
,
-r-..., -
0
..
Ir.
i t •' ' - - - _ .■ I.,. -
' - —
_ t e 710
M. /via —Hi D j
Proposed Land U. se
. dpv A
. . ..„ ! ...,-,-7 z----4::■112 MD . j„:., - 5:- I —
, "%"--■111111■1 ir. .... . —1-• , R,c c
( I—
"6 1 R—MD LAKE I
4...-kfUl..., . •
/jelb„s.„,...--- NEL •
. . Ali
,
7 T74111. rir P/S 1 .
Ara i „ CITY Of iH-AKOPEE -
J
i _...
-
1
I
..... ' '
i
N.
i 0 i .
. ...........
. ., ,__
_.. _
. ...... _ ._
VP
City of Eden Prairie Eden
City Offices prairie I
7600 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 • Telephone (612) 937-2262
June 13, 1988
Barb Dacy
City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY #169
Dear Ms. Dacy:
With the exception of the Lion's Tap, all development along U.S. Highway #169 west '
of the landfill is Low Density Residential . This is controlled by the Eden Prairie
Comprehensive Guide Plan and City Code Chapter 11, Zoning Regulations.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts all property north of U. S. #169 for Low
Density Residential development (up to 2.5 units/acre), and all property to the
south for Public Open Space. It is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intention to
acquire all property south of U.S. #169 as shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
They currently own approximately 200 acres and plan on acquiring an additional 1500
acres. ,
The majority of the property in southwest Eden Prairie is currently zoned Rural .
The purposes of the R-Rural District are to: (1) Prevent premature urban
development of certain lands which eventually will be appropriate for urban uses,
until the installation of drainage works, streets, utilities and community
facilities and the ability to objectively determine and project appropriate land use
patterns makes orderly development possible; (2) Permit the conduct of certain
agricultural pursuits on land in the City; (3) Ensure adequate light, air, and
privacy for each dwelling unit, and to provide adequate separation between dwellings
and facilities for housing animals.
Permitted uses within Rural Districts are as follows:
A. Agriculture, accessory and related uses.
B. Public facilities and services.
C. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures without
platting on parcels of not less than 10 acres.
D. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures without
platting on parcels of five or more acres, but less than ten acres,
as of July 6, 1982.
E. Commercial stables.
F. Golf courses.
JUN 1 4 1988
CITY.OF CHANhASSE.N
Barb Dacy
June 13, 1988
Page 2
As you can see, the key to controlling development along U.S. #169 is through the
use of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, which designates the property as Low Density
Residential, and the zoning regulations.
If you require any additional or more detailed information, please feel free to call
' me.
Sincerely,
City of Eden Prairie
J� (.N2In
' Donald R. Uram, A.I.C.P.
Assistant Planner
' DRU:bs
1
I
11
I
r
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4 , 1988 - Page 57
Resolution #88-1: Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning
'omission adopt Resolution 88-1 as shown in Attachment 1. All voted in
fa 'or and motion carrie. .
DISTRICT DISCUSSI. , .
C. -rad : Rather than Ba b- ra diving a report, which will wait, I think Tim II
why don' t you sort of cover your memo and get us thinking on this.
Erhart : Here ' s an area that' s probably closest to me because I live in 1
the area and I really enjoy the outdoors and just green areas. I think
what we have here is an area that ' s unique and it' s been kicked around as
sort of a pseudo commercial area through the history of the city and it 11
doesn ' t quite lend itself to the commercial area . It' s got some real
problems. For one thing there' s no intention, as Barb always says, within
the next 30 years , that' s her standard length of time I guess here , to
ever have sewer and water so yes, it may look obvious to you Jim that
someday there will be a Hilton Hotel to replace the existing one down
there but the thing is, there' s no plan for sewer and water there. If I
that was not that way, I 'd say yes there' s going to be a major development
possible and all that stuff but in reality there just isn' t that much room
there either because of the . . .
Wildermuth : My point was though that I think all those little houses
AL
will . . .
Erhart : Will eventually rot down.
Wildermuth: But I didn' t want to say that in public.
Erhart : So it' s never really going to be a commercial area and we sort of
slip in a business here and 5 years later another one slips in while the
other one runs down and it' s not really a commercial area . Secondly,
there' s not enough room to put access road on there to make it a safe
business area and we certainly don ' t want to seem to spend the money. We
can keep letting it go on that way and keep doing what we' re doing or we
can look at what we' re really doing here from a broader perspective and
say, we have a unique opportunity within the city to preserve this area as
a green area for when the rest of the city is all built up in subdivisions
and industrial parks, that we have some unique area that people can get to 11
the trails and go cross country skiing , horse riding , hiking or whatever .
To support that we find that what the State south of TH 212 has reserved
that as some sort of park. Barb what do they call it?
Dacy: That' s part of the Minnesota River Valley Wildlife Refuge .
Erhart : In addition, Eden Prairie has already basically, I think they' re II
consciencely trying to prevent development in that area. It really is
consistent with what our neighbor is doing so I think there are two
purposes to be served. I think it' s a good time to do it.
Conrad : Excuse me, are they really doing it from that standpoint? Is
Eden Prairie really preserving and protecting that area for a very pure?
1
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
May 4, 1988 - Page 58
Ilf:
I Dacy: South of TH 169/212 is the Minnesota River Valley and it' s flood
plain all the way through there so nobody would be able to do anything
there anyway. Their zoning in that area is ag zoning . They have a 10
II acre minimum lot size. No commercial uses allowed. The only thing
commercial in Eden Prairie is the Lion ' s Tap and that ' s grandfathered .
Headla: But they really expanded that?
IDacy: Yes , they did and it' s interesting, it ' s kind of the same issue as
Brookside Motel. It's an existing business and it went through their
I process and Council allowed it to expand over the objections of staff so
it happens in every community. Eden Prairie doesn' t have the existing
commercial uses that we do and they have been successful in getting that
to happen.
IConrad : But they don' t have a strategy with this area that says we want
to preserve it. It' s in ag right now which is not a strategy.
IDacy: It' s probably a policy. I know it is in their Comprehensive Plan
it's rural area. There' s no urban services out there. That there
I shouldn ' t be urbancized development in that area . Plus with the
Minnesota River Valley plan and so on, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife,
that area along the river is . . .
Conrad : To our knowledge they don ' t have any trails or things that are
planned to go into that area. They' re not intending to make it a park
sort of trail system.
Dacy: The trail and the park area is part of that Minnesota River Valley
plan. North of the highway.
I Erhart : And I 'm not suggesting that we go in to some big plan to buy
property and try to make some part for that. That' s just not possible but
by making a change from BF to A-2, we can effectively put that area on
I hold as a green area , 20 years down the road where maybe you can go back
and acquire these places or these properties below the bluff. Secondly,
is we could stop this propagation of this traffic problem that everytime
I somebody, we' re essentially encouraging businesses , because we' ve zoned it
commercial, everytime you come in here you ' re adding more access problems
onto TH 212 . We are not solving that problem and I think we ought to just
eliminate.
IEmmings : Is there anything else north of TH 212 to the east and to the
west, is it all A-2 now except for the BF?
IDacy: The BF area , from the vacant old Mobile station , that old gas
station that' s vacant, that eastern property line is the eastern line of
the BF district and the western limit is TH 101.
ILEmmings: Where is the Chanhassen border?
IDacy: Way over here on the east side .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4 , 1988 - Page 59
Emmings: What' s that zoned there? '
Dacy: A-2.
Emmings : That' s A-2 and then going the other way? ,
Dacy: Is A-2. The only other BF is where we put the mini-storage.
Erhart : A few meetings ago we talked about the concept of having business II
on TH 41 and TH 5 and everyone said, how despictable. We can' t have that.
This is the same thing . You' re talking about a rural intersection. The
reason again is no sewer and water planned for a long time. It' s the same
thing that lies there only here , in addition to that, we have this , I
think a real unique area within Chanhassen that I think we ought to be
doing a few things to preserve.
Conrad : Is it unique enough to make it, you' re saying don' t do anything
aggressive with it but is it unique enough to make something? Make it a
park. Is it park potential? Is it someplace that we want to get
Chanhassen residents off the trail system to and develop? Is there some
characteristic about it that we feel should be protected?
Erhart: Yes, I think there are a lot of characteristics of it. There' s a
lot of lakes and there' s the bluffs . The reason I 'm saying not do it
today is one, financial and the secondly there probably is not enough II people living here that would really use it but when you consider 20 years
down the road when you' ve got twice the population and a lot of it filled
in, then I think it will be very useable. And our trail plan will be
complete. I think it ' s something really worth going for. And there' s a
railroad bed that goes through it and it will be abandoned. There will
either be light rail transit . . .
Dacy: That' s been challenged to my understanding .
Batzli : But that 's a big issue I think in that you ' re going to have what II
probably is going to be a very major freeway running right alongside this
thing. You might have light rail transit running right through it. What
kind of a park is that going to be?
Erhart : It'd be real nice for the people riding the transit.
Emmings : I don' t think Tim is saying let ' s turn this from a commercial ,
area into a park. I think he' s saying, what I hear you saying is let ' s
maintain sort of the natural so that whole bluff area that borders that
river area will sort of be left in it ' s natural state rather than having a t
bunch of . . .
Conrad : Hodge podge.
Headla : That would be consistent with the way the river is used further
upstream. You take TH 169 southwest , gee it' s beautiful . There' s a lot
of green . It'd be kind of nice to see that leaving the Twin Cities . '
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4 , 1988 - Page 60
' Conrad : I think next meeting I ' ll have Barbara go through the staff
report. Talk about the uses of that property and I think obviously there
are some problems with that. Let' s continue the discussion next time.
' Erhart: I did want to make one other point. I did talk to the Mayor
about this and he welcomes a proposal from us on this issue.
Conrad: I could see it if there was something that we wanted to do with
it rather than just being there. Being there is really good . I like that
but I don' t know that we can make a rally around that.
Erhart : There' s a balance . One is we can preserve it by making it A-2.
We can better preserve it by making it A-2 but on the other hand we have
this problem that every time somebody wants to open a business in that
' area is you've got this traffic problem. So we can solve both problems by
making it A-2. You've got to remember , what do we say, almost every
business down there is non-conforming anyway except the two we just
approved .
Conrad : No , they' re all conforming in the fringe business district except
for the motel . They' re all conforming. We created that district to make
' them conforming .
Erhart : Is that correct? I thought we said they were non-conforming .
' Conrad: Only the motel is .
Dacy: The things that are non-conforming are the existing motel which is
in the A-2 district, SuperAmerica and that vacant restaurant building .
Non conforming in the BF district is the Brookside Motel and the RV
campsite. The recently approved contractor ' s yard is conforming . The
' outdoor display of landscape products for Brambilla is conforming . The
cold storage for Mike Sorenson is conforming and the rest is vacant or ag .
Of course the auto salvage is non-conforming as well .
Headla: I 'd like to bring up two
g p other subjects. Lowell Carlson, our
friend , he' s positioned himself to put up a building . He ' s been hauling
in dirt. It's all graded .
Conrad : I thought he had to come back here?
' Dacy: Yes, that was the Council direction. Dave gave me a call
yesterday. I haven' t had a chance to follow up on it .
Headla : A neighbor called me up rather hostile about the whole thing .
Conrad : What ' s Lowell doing? He ' s doing it without coming back here?
Dacy: And that' s unfortunate because I thought that I had an agreement at
least from his Attorney that they seemed willing to come back to the
Planning Commission with a proposed plan . Maybe something happened
between the Council meeting and now that ticked him off , I don ' t know.
i -
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4 , 1988 - Page 61
Conrad : So what' s he doing? He' s out there building? '
Headla: He' s got it all graded and I don' t know when he hauled in the
dirt. '
Emmings : You may want to contact the City Attorney because they may well
have made the decision, let' s do it and see. That' s not irresponsible
advice. He may well have gotten that straight from his .
Headla: Then the other point I wanted to bring up, Barb, why don' t you
give them about 4 or 5 sentences about our meeting with Peter Owen. The
luncheon meeting with the director of the Arboretum. Tim, Barb and I were
there .
Dacy: We talked about a couple of issues . One about Mr . Owen actually
providing assistance as to looking at our landscaping ordinance to
determine whether or not that was adequate . Secondly, we determined that II
they really couldn' t provide a site plan review function for us. The
third item was, as far as the ability for them to provide landscape
products, they really are not in that enterprise. They' re growing
different types of species and so on as opposed to distributing them.
Headla: He might be interested in critiquing , if we have a major
development come in, he 'd critique the landscaping plan. And he pointed
out things like the way things are now you have like conifers in an area
that just isn' t natural for conifers . He would like to see the direction
more than actual trees going up where they wouldn' t normally rise .
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. . '
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
i
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 32
IC
400 .NTINUE BF DISTRICT DISCUSSIO .
I "'Er art : All I want to do is , if we can settle the question of whether we
want to deal with planning issues or we want to get into the legal issues .
I If we want to get into the legal issues , we' ll never get this through
here. We' ll never get this out of here.
I Emmings : I mentioned to Tim when we were sitting here that maybe we
should find out the legal problems involved before we spend time working
on this . Tim' s point was that we should ignore the legal issue. . . .move
it onto the City Council , we should do the planning decision and let them
Iworry about the legality and I think that makes a lot sense .
Dacy: As a matter of fact, Roger went out and looked at these sites today
Iand we had a talk about it in preparation for tonight ' s meeting .
Emmings : Why don' t you tell us about that .
Dacy: He is really concerned about changing the zoning to ag on the
majority of these properties where it can' t be proven that it is an
economically reasonable use of the property as an ag use . For example,
I the cold storage. That will be non-confomring. Maybe a better example is
the Jack Brambilla ' s lot where that small building was . If that ' s vacated
4' and we change it to A-2, it ' s really dubious that the City can prove that
Ir- that ' s a viable lot for either ag purposes or for a single family home.
Erhart: He' s already there right? He ' s grandfathered in. We' re not
I economically changing that .
Dacy: It' s just a vacant building .
IEllson : Then he comes in with a new person as a renter .
Dacy: How about if I just finish. He followed that up by saying maybe
I what we should do is the City has used an appraiser in the past and not
having the appraiser do a formal report but just going out there under
site inspection and look at values of some of these properties because the
Attorney is concerned that by rezoning we may be taking. He said that ' s
I fine if you ' re willing to pay for it. That kind of gets to the issue that
you ' re talking about. The Council is the one that authorizes , especially
the rezoning and authorizes acquisition of the property. Another
I alternative other than rezoning to A-2 i.s that the City become a little
more ambitious in creating . . . for this area . Either frontage road or some
set of standards that are going to try and resolve the traffic issues and
I the zoning issues . That is possible. That means a public improvement
project and assessments back to the properties. They have to have some
type of use of the land that' s going to enable them to pay off the
assessment. It 's like between a rock and a hard place.
ILEmmings : One question . Is the BF zone that we ' ve got down there now, as
small as it can be to cover the properties that are already there?
I
I 1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 33
Dacy: Yes . As a matter of fact originally it extended over to the II municipal boundary. I can have Roger write his feelings up for you. His
main concern is the taking issue. That ' s fine if we' re willing to buy it.
Erhart: Someone would have to come to the public hearing and then. . . Is
it important enough that we want to do anything about it? Long term land
use.
Emmings : I don ' t know if this would make sense . Do you think we ought to I
let the City Council , do you want to just pass this up to the City Council
or should we ask them to give us direction on this? If they want us to
take a look at it.
Dacy: What I could do also , if you want , kind of a parcel by parcel
analysis of, there are 8 properties in there. Have the appraiser evaluate II
it. Have Roger analysize it and then you have a better feel for the
entire history.
Emmings : Shouldn' t direction for something like that come from the City
Council?
Batzli : I guess what I 'd propose is that we make a resolution that we
would like to see that preserved in A-2 and we want the City Council to
look at it then give us direction. Just make a resolution.
Erhart: If the Commission thinks what we ' re proposing here is a good idea II
then let ' s go to Council and say we think, without getting into details at
this point, we think it' s a valid and good planning proposal and we 'd like
them to look at it. 11
Emmings : Let ' s send Tim' s updated letter along and that further
consideration be made. '
Erhart: I called Eden Prairie on this subject , the Minnesota Valley, and
what I got from this phone call , they have what they call a conservatory
district. It covers this area down there, the Minnesota River Valley.
The Purgatory Creek Watershed and the Bluff Creek Watershed. What it says
is you' ve got your zoning districts but within this conservatory district
there' s also a condition and it ' s on density and types of use. It ' s sort 11
of like a. . . that overlays these special areas . I consider the Minnesota
Valley and the Bluff Creek area is the same potential for that so that was
kind of, I was talking to Barb about this , about getting someone to come
over and just talk to us about preservation of green areas and these areas
in general . Try to give us some direction on what to do to get those
areas preserved. During the small time I ' ve been here I 've seen where
it ' s been easy to come in and the next thing you' ve got a subdivision
coming in and it doesn' t hit you that night, it' s inconsistent with the
real long term opportunity to have a green area . We don ' t want it right
on Bluff Creek which years ago we already sort of planned to make it as a II
green area but it never really got official so we missed it. . . .Bluff
Creek Green 's did. Came back and negotiate to get some easements .
Dacy: For? '
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18 , 1988 - Page 34
IIA!
' Erhart : It was a walking . For Bluff Creek for the golf course . That
subdivision along Pioneer Trail . We approved it all the way through. I
remember Thompson asked a few questions and the developer caught on to
plot within this.
Batzli : Is that something that should go in the Comprehensive Plan? Our
' overlay?
Dacy: Our wetland , your floodplain and shoreland ordinances all are now
overlay districts right now Don called me back and he said that that
conservative district did not apply to the Minnesota River Valley. I
asked him to write a letter to us clarifying what are the regulations for
the the land immediately abutting TH 212.
Erhart: Anyway, their whole valley area is zoned agricultural .
Dacy: He said what they have besides the ag zoning is they do have
' restrictions on steep slopes which is similar to our zoning.
Batzli : Are we unanimous in wanting to implement Tim' s plan?
' Emmings: That ' s what I wanted to ask. Do you need a formal motion or
resolution or something?
' Dacy: Why don ' t you go ahead and move.
' Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission would like to
change the BF district to A-2 in the location east of TH 101. The City
Council should take into account the comments of the City Attorney and the
1 appraiser to give direction on whether or not to pursue with that
application . Also , that the City Council take into account Tim Erhart ' s
letter regarding this issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Erhart moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting .J All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 45 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
' City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II
June 1, 1988 - Page 30
II
Dacy: I just said that. I said this portion.
II
Batzli : Can we take about a 5 minute break here and just get together and
try to draft something? I
Conrad : I don' t think we need to . I think we have given Barbara . . . I 'd
prefer not to draft wording to an ordinance by the Planning Commission.
It' s just not appropriate but the intent Barbara , I guess we'd have to
II
agree with what Steve is saying. I don' t know that there's a practical
aspect to Chanhassen in what you' re saying .
Emmings: Where there' s a railroad or a road, you've got the distance. II
Now we' re concerned about the screening . So we' re not so concerned about
setbacks except in so far as screening takes a certain amount of land.
Conrad : Does everybody agree with what Steve said in terms of philosophy? '
Barbara, if we agree philosophically with Steve' s, if that' s agreeing
with some kind of an intent , what would you prefer to have us do? We
II
can' t make a motion on absolute words because they' re not there yet.
Dacy: I would recommend that you move to amend the Section as listed on II page 3 of the staff report. State your intent and then I ' ll get with the
City Attorney to draft the language. As a matter of fact, what I ' ll do is
have the Attorney review verbatim Minutes to make sure.
Conrad : Do you have a reason to move it through the City Council in two II
weeks?
Dacy: I don ' t think it could get to Council by the 13th anyway with him II
having to review the Minutes but it would certainly be on the 27th.
Conrad : So it could be back here for our next meeting? t
Dacy: So if you wanted to table it until the next meeting . . .
II
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to amend Sections 20-695 , 20-715 , 20-755 , 20-774, 20-795 and II 20-815 until the next meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the I
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 18 , 1988 . All voted
in favor except Conrad and Headla who abstained and the motion carried .
OPEN DISCUSSION. II
Conrad : Let me introduce this . Commissioner Erhart would like the II
Planning Commission to discuss the attached at Wednesday' s meeting . Tim,
I think as I said before the meeting started , this is really a nice
analysis . You did a real nice job of reviewing the situations down there. II
I appreciate that . That ' s really terrific . Steve, did you have any
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 31
recommendations that you wanted to give?
Emmings : Yes , I just think too , Tim has made a very compelling case here.
' Both from the way you handle contractor' s yards when they' re moving into
the A-2 district and I think this ought to go to staff and they should
give us their input on what Tim has proposed here and we should consider
it as an amendment to our Zoning Ordinance.
Conrad: I guess we could go over this tonight Barbara , verbatim or Tim
could give us an overview of it. It ' s real understandable. I 'm not sure
' that he needs to do that. What Steve is saying he'd like staff to review
it and comment on the specifics of it and tell us where staff feels it is
inappropriate or look for the loopholes or look for the reasons not to
make this an amendment .
Dacy: We have reviewed it and give the approach as similar to the one
that you took with the BF district. That maybe we should send this to
' Council . If the Planning Commission endorses it , give it to Council as a
discussion item. Say this is where the Planning Commission would like to
head on a potential zoning ordinance amendment issue .
Emmings : The choice between letting them have a first look at it as
opposed to sending them specific language to change the ordinance?
Dacy: It might be good this way so that the Council can get a feel for
where the Planning Commission is coming from as a whole on this .
' Erhart: Except the last paragraph, I think there' s only one paragraph
that ' s missing . Rather than just passing , you say here ' s a great idea and
pass it to Council . I think it ' s worthwhile having Commissioner ' s comment
' on some of these items before we pass it on . I agree that we shouldn' t
try to create language here at this point and get to the specifics but I
think in this kind of thing , they really need to look at the comments of
the Commissioners .
Emmings : I don' t agree with you for the simple reason that we don ' t very
often pass them something that' s so thoroughly explained.
' Conrad : It' s real logical .
Emmings : I think what we ' re saying , I think that ' s a good idea to pass it
' up to the Council just maybe with a comment that we think that based on
this we should make some changes to the Zoning Ordinance .
' Dacy: We could schedule it for the 27th. Kind of reserve a special area .
Erhart : So you ' re basically, your comments are that you ' re in agreement
with all of it?
Emmings : Well , we' ll talk about that .
' Erhart: So what you ' re looking for from the Commission is saying to them,
we ' re generally in favor of that going to the City Council .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 32
Emmings : Do they want us to basically look at the zoning amendments to '
bring the zoning ordinance in line with a lot of the things that you 're
discussing . '
Conrad : Is there anything in here that somebody would like to bring up as
something we wouldn't want Council to see? Something that we don' t agree
with in Tim' s analysis . Is there something that' s really objectionable? I
Wildermuth: There' s one thing that occurred to me as I read it. . . .the
A-2 district out there? Almost everything is already is A-1 and one of
the things, in addition to letting in A-2 would be to require that the
contractor ' s yard . . . in A-l.
Erhart : There , is a substantial difference between A-1 and A-2. '
Wildermuth: But in your own table analysis here.
Erhart : There is on lot size and so forth.
Dacy: The A-1 is 40 acres and that 's specifically for ag preserve. '
Erhart: You eliminate A-1 and there are only two parcels in the whole
city in A-1.
Dacy: We can ' t eliminate A-1 because State Law says we have to provide
for a zoning district to allow it.
Wildermuth : That was just a thought that occurred .
Dacy: The only staff comment is on the contractor ' s yard. That might be ,
a little politically messy because four years ago the Council went through
a process to amend the agricultural districts at that time to allow
contractor ' s yards so now you have a process four years later that ' s
proposing to eliminate them and Tim and I have talked about that. '
Wildermuth: This is a different Council .
Dacy: Exactly and that's another reason that I think it would be good to II
have the Council discuss this thoroughly before you start notifying
property owners and conducting a public hearing .
Headla : What was your point?
Dacy: My point was that four years ago the Coucnil specifically amended I
the agricultural district at that time to include contractor ' s yards. Now
this amendment would go back and exclude them. Remove them as a
conditional use so I 'm saying that four years is relatively a short time II span and I talked about this with Tim and that might be politically messy
for some of the Council members . That ' s the reason why it should be
discussed though.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 33
' 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
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
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
g , 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(-
1