Loading...
PC 2000 04 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, and Matt Burton MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchofl] Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-908. YARD REGULATIONS. (5), TO ALLOW PORCHES TO ENCROACH 10 FEET INTO A REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff'? Are you sure? Kind: Can you believe it? Peterson: I needed to check. I don't either so, a motion for a public hearing please. Sidney moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission on this issue please come forward and state your name and address please. Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this one? Kind: I think it's great. Sidney: We've talked about it quite a few times. I think the changes that have been made to the recommendation look very good. I think it cleans it up quite a bit. Peterson: I agree. I think it's clean and simple and hopefully will help you and us out as time goes by. I'll entertain a motion please. Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Kind: Mr. Chairman I'll make a motion that Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1, Definitions. As Section 20-908, Yard Regulations to add the following. Do I need to read that all Kate? Aanenson: No... Kind: As provided on today's date which is 4/19. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1 Definitions and Section 20-908 Yard Regulations to add the following: Section 20-1 Definitions: Balcony: A platform, minimum of 7 1/2 feet above the ground, that projects from the wall of a building and is surrounded by an open railing. Open Porch: A roofed open area, attached to or part of, and with direct access to or from a building. An open porch may be surrounded by a railing but must not be enclosed with screen, mesh, glass or similar material. Section 20-908. Yard Regulations: The intent of this section is to allow homes built prior to February 19, 1987 to add an open porch as an architectural feature to define the entrance into a residence or update a front elevation. £ (1) Homes built prior to February 19, 1987 may have open porches and/or balconies that encroach into the required front yard a distance not exceeding ten (la) feet, provided they maintain a minimum front yard setback of 2a feet. The ten (la) feet shall include the roofline, support columns, and steps. This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass or other similar material. Homes that are on the National Register listing or have been considered eligible for listing on the National Register shall be excluded from this ordinance unless approved by the National Historical Registrar's Office. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XXIII. GENERAL SUPPLEMENT REGULATIONS~ DIVISION 3. HOME OCCUPATIONS~ TO CREATE A PURPOSE STATEMENT~ ELIMINATE PERMITTED USES AND SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOME OCCUPATION. Public Present: Name Address Boyd Peterson 9860 Pioneer Trail Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Cindy, we've seen this a couple of difl'erent times and are the changes noted in here now, are they the changes from the original or the changes from the last time we saw it? Kirchoflk There weren't too many changes from the time that it was at the work session. They were just comments. I addressed the comments that the Planning Commission did have. You seemed to be in agreement with what staff had proposed. So it's pretty consistent with what was presented to you back in February. Peterson: Okay. Other questions of staff'? Okay, thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Boyd Peterson: Yeah the name's Boyd Peterson. I'm at 9860 Pioneer Circle and got a situation I've been dealing with for well too long regarding a home occupation that's ballooned to a point to where it's very irritating and upsetting, not only to me but to my wife and my family. I've been dealing with Cindy, the Sherifl~s Department, Roger Knutson. This is regarding of the Mike Nelson Masonry contracting business at 9870 Pioneer Circle. I've got a number of things here. I've been working on this for well over a year. It started out as a business by Christopher Branvold from '83 to '91. Mr. Nelson is grandfathered in according to what he determined through lawyers and a lot of money and some issues with the city. Number one, I've got a lot of things here to talk about. I'll try to be quick with them. Obviously things have changed drastically since '87. Mr. Nelson got grandfathered in because of this business was here from '83 to '91, which made him liable to have a similar business because he carried it over because it was not an abandoned use of that contractor's lot. At the time Mr. Branvold had one dump truck, one Chevy S-10 bidding truck and one standard Chevrolet truck, a bobcat and a trailer and his cement mixer. Currently Mr. Nelson, one more thing on Branvold, he had 5 to 10 workers. 10 workers Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 was always max. And he did most of the work himself. Right now Mr. Nelson has over 30 employees, six day a week plus operation. Vehicles start anywhere between 5:30 and 6:30, 7:00 each and every morning. He's got 5 full size dump trucks on site. He's got 3 or 4 additional trucks that show up throughout the day. He's got I don't know how many pallets of stone, pallets, junk, tarps. You wouldn't believe it. He's got 5 trailers on site. 2 bobcats that are normally on site. He's got 2 diesel fuel barrels on site. That's where all these vehicles come and go daily to fuel up these vehicles. Take in mind most of this activity takes place within 20 to 30 feet of my house. The smell of the diesel fuel is a daily thing and it gets worse when we get south and southeast wind. We can't open our windows on that side of the house because of the fumes from these trucks. I've got pictures. The city's got pictures. Cindy was out there. It's appalling. It's ridiculous okay. 6:00 in the morning and they warm these diesel vehicles up. Every one of these vehicles are diesel vehicles. In the winter time they let them warm up 15-20 minutes. Unfortunately for me my house faces that direction and when these diesel trucks are warming up, not only do I get the odor but the inside of my home vibrates and it hums from these vehicles warming up. And honestly we cannot put pictures up on that one side of our wall because we've lost them from them trucks running up. Okay, through today we've got bobcats. We've got 3-4 workers constantly out there doing work in our back yard. Okay, enough of that. Okay, not Branvold didn't have 20% of what's going on right now there. Okay. I've had some people that were real estate people. With this business in my back yard, ifI wanted to sell tomorrow it would cost me approximately $30,000 in depreciation because of that business. Take in mind that every bit of this contractor lot which is within 20-25 feet of our house, is probably 60 to 70 yards away from Mr. Nelson's home, pool, patio area. So he's not affected by this at all. He's got fencing that blocks his view of his contractor lot. Okay. We've got four kids. I've got a kid 5, 7, 9 and 11. They've got a play area which they call the field. It's right adjoining to Mr. Nelson's driveway where he's got his workers that come and go daily. Not only the workers trucks to get in the trucks, but the trucks themselves. I've witnessed several times where trucks have had to stop because they had to wait for my kid to go get a ball that accidentally got kicked over there because there is no fence there. Number 4 here. We're starting to get a little concerned with the safety of our kids out there obviously. Number one, we don't know who these people are that are coming and going. They're in our back yard daily. They know exactly what's going on. They know who are kids are. Okay, he's grandfathered in. He cannot expand. He's subject to the City's nuisance ordinances. He's subject to the City's general police powers. Numerous times I've called the Carver County Sheriff's Department because that was the only thing that Cindy said, that they've got to witness what's happening. They've showed up several times over there and there's yet to be a ticket issued. Why I don't know. Probably because if somebody shows up, one time deal. Boy this ain't no big deal. These guys are leaving and they're gone. These officers obviously have no idea what's going on there. Okay, so nothing's getting done there. Okay. Expansion. What is expansion? Mr. Branvold sent a copy to. Peterson: Can I interrupt this for a second? It may be best if you paraphrased your comments as it relates to what we've got in front of us tonight which is a zoning ordinance amendment. I'm trying to piece together your comments, which are good... Boyd Peterson: I'm getting down to the end here. 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Peterson: Well I'm not trying to cut you off2 I just want to try to, as it relates to what we've got in front of us tonight, which is an amendment to the zoning ordinances. Boyd Peterson: Yeah, I caught a little bit of it in the end, yeah. I just walked in but. Peterson: So what's your, what do you want to see... ? Boyd Peterson: Well the number one reason is, I have as many rights right there as a tax paying citizen. Why should I have to deal with what's going on on a daily basis? Branvold said he had all, you know he's got, he had 5 to 10 people that he had, what's it say here? He had 2 trucks, 2 dump trucks, 2 mixers, 3 pick-up trucks. It's all baloney, okay? Obviously Mr. Nelson did a little talking with them prior to this and had him say whatever. So what I'm really upset about here, number one is the hours of operation. Why ain't nothing being done about it? He's expanded 4 times what Mr. Branvold had. You know is a contractor supposed to have a fence around his yard? His entire contractor yard? That's not over there. There's a fence around partial of it. That's it. Just how much stuff can fit on the site? How many workers can come and go on a daily basis? Fuel tanks. Propane tanks. This stuff is 20 to 15 feet away from my garage. Grandfathered claused in. Mr. Knutson told me that this can be grandfathered in as long as there's a world. To what? To what Nelson's got now? Of 30 people and all his stuff happening or to where he got grandfathered in how Branvold was? I mean bottom line is, you know I don't know where else to go with this and I seen this in the paper. You know Cindy said hey, this is coming up. I don't know if it's the proper place to say it or not but I think I've got rights and nothing's happening over there. Peterson: Yeah, and that's the point is that unfortunately what we have before us tonight is not the forum that, we can't as a group do anything regarding your special situation. We set, and tonight we'll discuss this zoning ordinance amendment but as far as existing things that are there, like this one is grandfathered in. We don't have any authority or impact on that. Unfortunately I wish, hearing your frustration I can empathize but. Boyd Peterson: I mean you wouldn't even want to live where I live. Peterson: And I wouldn't disagree or agree with that but more importantly, there's nothing that we as a group tonight can help you with. Because what we have in front of us tonight is, it relates to that but your. Boyd Peterson: Well I know that. Peterson: Your situation is, it's outside of our bounds of making any kind of recommendation or comments really. And I don't know Kate, if there's another forum that he can potentially use that's more salient to the situation than we are but. Aanenson: Well I can give you a brief history. I don't think now's the appropriate time. There was lengthy legal issues on this case. Obviously he's not happy with that results and is trying to seek some relief. This ordinance, we do not allow contractor's yards. We haven't for a number Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 of years. This ordinance does not propose contractor's yards for this exact reason. But there are some legal rights that had been addressed by the City. Boyd Peterson: Well that's what I'm saying. That's fine. He's grandfathered in but if he's grandfathered in at the expansion of Mr. Branvold's. Aanenson: Again this isn't the right forum to address that. Peterson: That's my point and I empathize. Boyd Peterson: Well that's fine. You know you people know what's going on. I guess I'm not done with the situation until, I'm still not happy with number one, the hours of operation and why this individual ain't getting nuisance tickets and I guess I should have called Cindy to see ifI should come up tonight or not. I just read it in the paper and I went well, this looks like something that goes with this you know. I was going to come up in another one. That might have been the work study one that you said that no, that ain't the one. So then all of a sudden this was a public one so oh, well this must be the one. Peterson: And that's fine. I guess what we're doing tonight is to help prevent this from happening in the future, as Kate already noted so. Boyd Peterson: Yeah, okay. Peterson: So there's nothing we can do retroactive. Boyd Peterson: Well, basically Roger Knutson basically told me that it comes down to a money issue. He doesn't really want to tie up a lot of the City's money legal issues to fight this battle. Peterson: Again, I empathize and I feel the empathy for you but this isn't the forum that we can help you. Boyd Peterson: Well all right. Well then you heard it and you're one of the few that everybody's been hearing it and everybody that comes to my place sees it and they say this is ridiculous. You can surely do something about that. Well, nothing's happening and I hope that if anybody else experiences in the future, they don't experience what I am because it's getting to be you know, I'm just ready to boil over on the whole deal. Thanks. Peterson: Anyone else? Motion to close? Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Anything? 6 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have one little word I would like to add. I think I talked about this before. Section 20-1. Definitions. I would like to see in the Definitions, carried out for potential gain. And the reason is that if somebody actually had a loss for a year, they could come back and say well, there was no gain. Therefore it doesn't apply to me so. I would it's word stripping but just a little one. Peterson: Anything else? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I think we've talked about this before and I think the stafl~s taken our comments into consideration and I just think that the comments made by Mr. Peterson show that, the importance of getting these issues cleaned up. Peterson: Agreed. Kind: And I'd just make it clear to Mr. Peterson that this ordinance prohibits the kind of activity that you're having problems with so, it's a good ordinance. Boyd Peterson: Too bad he found the loophole. And now we can't go back and review the expansion because... I had no problem with the size of Branvold's but not what's going on. Peterson: Okay, thanks. I'll entertain a motion please. Sidney: I'll make the motion. That Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Section 20-1, Section 20-976, Section 20-978, and Section 20-985 as outlined above. Kind: Second with Alison's word addition? Which was what? Blackowiak: Potential. Kind: Adding the word potential underneath Definitions. The 20-1 section. Activity or use carried out for potential gain by a resident. Peterson: Good. Friendly amendment accepted? Sidney: Yes. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Section 20-976, Section 20-978, and Section 20-985 as proposed by staff. Section 20-1. Definitions amended to read: Home occupation means an occupation, profession, activity or use carried out for potential gain by a resident that is clearly a customary, incidental and secondary use of a 7 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 resident dwelling unit and which does not alter the exterior of the properly or affect the residential character of the neighborhood. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: M.J. GORRA REQUEST TO REZONE 3.98 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARI~ SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 10~270 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING WITH VARIANCES~ AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COULTER BOULEVARD AND STONE CREEK DRIVE~ STONE CREEK OFFICE BUILDING. Public Present: Name Address Mary & Richard Frasch Mark Foster Matt Mesenburg Angela Schlender John Ringstrom Mike Gorra Charlie Radloff 8000 Acorn Lane 8020 Acorn Lane 2428 Hunter Drive 6801 Brule Circle 126 Lakeview Road East 1680 Arboretum 4441 Claremore Drive, Edina Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of stafl'? Just a note Cindy. This is one of the few ones recently where we didn't get a color rendering of and it just makes it more difficult to visualize the real character of the building. Questions of staff? Sidney: I've got one question Cindy. Mr. Chair. Wondering about impervious surface. What's the percent? That wasn't listed. Kirchoflk They don't have it indicated on the site plan and in that particular district 70% of the site can be covered with hard surface and I'm certain they are lower than that but we can add that condition that they require that if you'd like. Peterson: Other questions? Burton: Mr. Chair, one question. I was just thinking about the parking variance. Are we concerned at all that there might not be enough parking now? 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Kirchofl5 No. The parking that is required by ordinance is for gross floor area and that includes a crawl space area that's in the basement that will not be utilized for office space. So staff feels comfortable with the amount of parking that they have provided. Aanenson: We just want to make it a condition that if they convert that space they would have to somehow reconcile the parking situation. Just putting them on notice for that. That it can't be converted at a future date without rectifying the parking. Kind: Mr. Chair, along the parking vein. Did you consider having proof of parking for those, I think it's 4 stalls that are to the south of the site plan that are basically encroaching. If those 4 stalls weren't there then it would be more like a 9 foot setback rather than 37 feet? Could those be proof of parking or? Kirchofl5 Which parking stalls are you referring to, these over here? Kind: On the south. Those 4 right there. Kirchofl~ These 4 right here? Kind: That being 1 and then going up towards the building. Those 4. Or 3, however many it would be. I think I counted 4. Kirchofl5 No, we didn't consider that. Kind: And would that be a possibility? That those could be proof of parking? Aanenson: I guess depending on the tenant. Kind: Yeah. Depending on how much they think they need, yeah. Aanenson: Right. Kind: I was just thinking that if those four stalls, I mean it's the parking lot that's really the major encroachment. It's not the building as much as it is the parking lot. And then the building is encroaching 9 feet, something like that? Is that right? Kirchofl5 The building setback is. Kind: 41. Kirchofl5 Yeah, that is correct. Kind: Plus 9 goes to 50, yeah. And Cindy, could they, right now it's a lovely two, well it's actually a one story building with a walkout and if they, if we required them to stay within the 50 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 foot setback, could they just simply add one or two more stories because I see on this chart that they're allowed to have four stories. Kirchofl2 They could do that but it would be more intrusive than this particular site plan. This is a one story.., on this site. This is a more attractive plan in terms of being compatible with the residential to the south. Kind: I'm just trying to search for a way to justify, because I think the two, it could go taller and that would be in my opinion much less desirable as a neighbor than this so. Kirchofl2 Yes. Kind: And then yeah, the proof of parking. I'll wait til the applicant, how many spots they need. Okay, that's all for now. Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Hearing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Charles Radlofl2 Good evening. My name is Charles Radloflk I'm the architect. I live at 444. Peterson: Could you use the microphone please. Charles Radlofl2 Oh excuse me. 4441 Claremore Drive, Edina. We've gone over the staff report. We have a couple of questions as they relate to some of the costs of charges that were outlined there but I'm sure whatever they are that we'll work out with staff and my client is a long time resident of Chanhassen and is quite aware of what's going on here so from that standpoint. I think there's only probably one concern on that list of comments or suggested criteria. The rest we're real comfortable with everything, we can work with staflk We've had a very nice working relationship with the staff and that is the elimination of the drive on Coulter Boulevard. Came in and made a kind of preliminary presentation of this site plan before we started in terms of what we wanted to accomplish and the difficulty of the site and how we wanted it to fit into the neighborhood and traffic flow and so on and I guess I was surprised when I read that in there. That it was not going to be allowed. I guess we needed, the explanation I got this afternoon was that it was a collector street. We think, kind of the way the building was designed and we set up the site plan that that this part of the structure was going to be the main entrance. That's where we placed our handicap stalls. That's where we structured the design of the building and part of the gross square footage and the conversation we had with the staff about that is, that we created quite an expansive two story lobby here that you walk in. You can see how the wetlands and thought that we could cut back some of the gross square footage. We wouldn't cut back any of the net rentable. We'll certainly diminish the amenities of the building and the quality of the building and so that was part of what was going on there. To make this other entrance, the main and only drive sort of defeats the design of the layout and how it fits on the site. I note when I got out there that there are other driveways that are accessing Coulter Boulevard. I don't believe that this is a high traffic volume generator that would create a substantial traffic problem in the area so I guess I'd like to see that access stay if there was any way possible to work around that. The requirement. 10 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Other than that I don't really have, I think that we have here depicted the quality of the building. We have here a sample of the materials we're proposing to use. We have real nice high quality Endicott brick and that's a series of brick bands. We're going to use some tinted glass and bronze frames and then some infill between the glass will become EFIS but it will be basically brick and bronze and glass. Oh with some accents we're having a high quality shingled roof and on the shingles, let's see mm it this way. You'll see a series of lines that we've striped into the roof. We're adding a secondary layer of shingles every third or fourth course to create a kind of... The idea here would be to create a very, a very pristine and detailed, kind of a fussy little building that would be a high quality place to have an office near your house in one of those areas. With that I'd, if there any other questions I'd be happy to answer them. Peterson: If you would just point out on the drawing itself where you plan the different materials. Charles Radlofl) Oh sure. This would be the, this elevation, this is the Coulter elevation basically and what you don't see here, if we drew in a 5 foot high berm of earth you would see basically just a band of glass and the roof and the earth but we have it shingled by an aluminum pre-finished facia material that will be a maintenance free and match the color of the roof. The green, the pale green on here will be a series of glass panels. These panels here will be EFIS with an accent light as indicated on the.., and then a band across the bottom which will be consistent all the way around the building there's a band. And then down at the lower level will be the brick. And then at the entrances there are a wall on each side of the entrance and a wall on each side of the entrance. That will be a cultured stone looking like a rock stone so. And the, this part here is a two story lobby and a series of glass. Pre-finished aluminum and brick bands that run through here. The retaining walls will be a colored keystone type wall and we'll set those back and we're working on it. We understand that once we get over 4 feet and these will be engineered because they hold back the parking lot and they're really a major element in the design of the building. In fact they kind of flow into the building in the entrance in the back and so we've secured the steps... We put a balcony out offofa say an executive office here. We'll have a patio out on the ground here. We have a big pond that you guys located ahead of this, which didn't make my job any easier but we're trying to make that an amenity as part of this project also so. You know architect's got to hang our hat on whatever we can find... I'm pretty excited about this project in general. I think it will be really nice looking building. Any other questions? Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a question. I like the design of the building. I think it's very nice. The one story walkout is definitely more desirable than what else you could put on that lot. Could you speak to the parking? How many stalls that are required that you need? Charles Radlofl) Well what I did with, in terms of attempting to analyze parking from my experience, is then that I took the net rental area of the, as on the floor plan and added that together. And that rentable area means this area here for example. This area here. That area again down below. Not storage. Not toilets. Not lobbies. Now the crawl space, furnace space right there. And then I used instead of 4 1/2 stalls per 1,000, I used 5 stalls per 1,000 which is an ordinance that is another way to look at it. I've run across in other communities and when I design a building I usually use that ratio so that's how we determined the number of stalls. And I think I have a couple extra stalls based on that philosophy. 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Kind: So that philosophy you need 35 stalls and you've got 37? Charles Radlofl5 Right. Kind: So would it be possible to have the encroachment be less by removing the 2 stalls furthest to the south? Charles Radlofl5 We could do that, sure. Absolutely. That wouldn't be a problem. And you know if staff is concerned about the exactly location of our trash container, that driveway has two rather large power poles that are standing right there too so that way we can... I worry a little bit about getting this driveway closer to the comer of Coulter. It's one of the reasons we kept it down here was to keep it as far back as possible based on engineering's request. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Burton moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Richard Frasch: Hi, I'm Richard Frasch. I'm at 8000 Acorn Lane in Chanhassen so I would be the properly abutting right here. And the building is a very nice looking building. I would certainly prefer to keep it the height it is. My only concern would be the variance to the setback. Particularly if they're going to have trash, things of that nature. I really would not like to have it that close to my properly and would prefer to see the, you know the idea of taking out a couple of stalls would certainly help but I would like to have us follow the regular setbacks. Because we did buy this place for residential and obviously this is going to be a little bit different than what we were expecting but I also understand the principle of properly rights. So I'd like to just move that they not have the variance to the setback. Other than that I think that it's a very attractive building. Peterson: Thank you. Mark Foster: Hello, my name is Mark Foster. I live at 8020 Acorn Lane and I am the, my properly directly abuts this properly right next to. Right here. I share the concerns of my neighbor. I think it's an appealing design. I like the pitched roof. I certainly don't want to see it any higher than it is and I guess my primary concern is the setback requirements. I don't like the closeness to the properly line that it is now. I guess that's the main concern that I would have. Otherwise I think it's okay. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? 12 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Boyd Peterson: Yeah, Boyd Peterson, 9860 Pioneer Circle. I just think this whole variance stuff and setback stufl} it should be maintained. You know everybody always tries to go 5 feet less or, I mean they were set for a reason and I think you know the city should be a little more staying with that setback. Setbacks, these engineers know that going in. They should work with them on ideas. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Mike Gorra: My name's Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum, Chanhassen. I've been working with Charlie on this project here and I'd like to make a couple comments on a couple items that were brought up here tonight. We probably could eliminate a couple parking spaces but I don't really think that'd be a good idea. It's always nice to have enough. Even for snow plowing in the winter time, there'd be a little so if you have a lot of snow and you don't have any place to put it, the lot shrinks. If somebody has some kind of a business that every once in a while has to have more cars than they think, then the lot's too small. But I think what he's got planned here is more than adequate for a building this size but I wouldn't, and the way he's got it laid out looks pretty good. I think it would just be a waste of land, a waste of the property and waste of a couple parking spots if you eliminate those. I know the neighbor's lots abut this but I think their house, can you show that site plan again? Aanenson: Actually we have lot lines of both of the neighbors, because we did look at that. We were sensitive to that issue. We do have both. Because there is a large wetland between. Mike Gorra: This isn't just a normal property line behind a residential area. There's, if this is the house here, there's a lot of wetlands and a little creek in here before you get over to where the lot line is. So it's not like it's coming right up to somebody's back yard. And I'm sure that's what the architect's thinking was when he put those parking spaces in on the south line. I'd also like to see the driveway stay on Coulter. Even though we're only building on the east end, this lot is... the lot extends quite a ways up towards Galpin and if we are allowed a driveway on Coulter, it looks like from the layout of the land there, this would be the only driveway on this side of Coulter all the way from Stone Creek down to Galpin. And a building this size normally doesn't generate that much traffic it ought to be a problem. Especially when it's going to be the only driveway on that side of Coulter. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Public hearing closed. My fellow commissioners, any comments on this one? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Dave. IfI may. Will you speak to the driveway on Coulter issue and also on Stone Creek, how close it can be to the comer or maybe deleting one or the other. Your opinion please. 13 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. Coulter Boulevard is a, classified as a collector type road. City ordinance does restrict or minimize access to that road. If there's not a feasible alternative to access the property, it's preferred to gain access from that other alternative route. The City Council certainly can authorized another curb cut. There's valid reasoning behind having a curb cut there. It will be the only one on that side of the road for, between Stone Creek and Galpin. There is also though another driveway entrance across the street from this property servicing a church. I'm not sure how that relates to actually what the proposed driveway on Coulter. Their driveway on Coulter is approximately 230 feet from the intersection of Stone Creek Drive and Coulter. Typically an adequate distance, we like to see a 300 foot separation in-between an intersection of that caliber. The driveway coming out on Stone Creek Drive is approximately 120 feet south of Coulter. I would not recommend it being shorten any further if possible to allow stacking distance and turning movements in and out of there. Also reaction time coming in and out of that road. Traffic in the area is only going to increase as development occurs in the surrounding parcels. Again I guess the condition in the staff report basically is coming from city ordinance recommending that we minimize access points wherever feasible on collector road. However this case may have some merit to leave it as is proposed. Peterson: Thank you. Other questions? Burton: Mr. Chairman I have a question for staff2 I'm looking at the property line on the south and I'm trying to figure out where the line is and I see that it says that they're proposing 41 feet from the structure and 13 from parking but I'm having a hard time finding a drawing with that line and how it's measured. Kirchofl~ This right here is the property line so we're measuring here to here, to the building for the 41 foot and then here to here for the parking area. Burton: Okay. Peterson: Other comments or questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have kind of a theoretical question. We put a lot of time and effort into the Bluff Creek overlay district and now we have a building smack, dab in the middle of the primary zone which is something we were hoping to avoid. What is your feeling on that? Aanenson: There are several properties that will be completely within the primary district. There's no way, and we recognized when we did industrial office, it's the only way you can avoid this is to go taller. In this circumstance to stay out of it was to go taller. We think he's maintaining the integrity of that neighborhood. This would be a reason to grant the variance is because we don't want the vertical. With residential you could transfer density. You can cluster. With an office or industrial it's tough. Especially industrial where you can't go more vertical. Then you're really stuck with giving the variance, and we recognize there's going to be those circumstances. We worked the best we could to come up with what we think is a good design in respect with what they could do on the property. 14 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Blackowiak: Okay. I guess another question too. What do you feel about the parking in terms of the variance on the south side? Do you feel comfortable if the parking were decreased by a stall or two? Aanenson: Well we looked at that. I mean you could probably go as low as 32. You know I think the biggest impact would be the two surrounding, to the properties to the south. Those two homes that we were just talking about. The two people that got up and spoke. Again we're looking at the landscaping plan. Certainly the applicant, when you have to go back and put in two more stalls if they need done in the future, there's economies of scale to going back and doing that. It looks like they're estimating 37. Could you go as low as 32? 33? Probably. You know there's other ways to accomplish that too and we were just looking at that. Looking at the landscaping plan because certainly we want to minimize the impact to those two neighbors with cars and any associated noise. So could we lose a couple? Again I don't know the tenant and what they're looking at. Certainly this will be an office. It shouldn't have that type of activity that would be 24 hour or anything like that. With the amount of trash that would be generated with a commercial type use. Again, that's how we looked at that. Blackowiak: Okay. And then a final question. I didn't really notice when I was driving that area, is there parking on Stone Creek? It doesn't appear that there's anything on Coulter or what's the current parking versus no parking status on the two streets that are directly impacted by this? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Stone Creek parking is permitted. Coulter Boulevard parking is prohibited. Blackowiak: Okay. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Okay, any more comments? If there aren't any I'll entertain a motion? Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a few comments. I'll speak up. I'm in favor of the one story walkout plan. I think that a four story building on this site would be a terrible transition to that neighborhood so I'm in favor of some sort of variance to allow them to do a one story building. I think it's quite attractive. 37 feet however seems excessive to me. I would be in favor of a 10 foot variance because the building fits within that area and then figure out a way to get the parking to be within that area as well. So that would be deleting some parking stalls or whatever. And also maybe that drive along the Stone Creek, maybe just delete that driveway altogether and have the drive on Coulter which I do think has merit. That's the front of the building. I think that's where the driveway should be so I would delete the driveway on Stone Creek and some parking spots. Peterson: Okay. Other comments? My thoughts parallel Commissioner Kind's. I think it's a neat building and it's a neat spot and I think we should try and maintain the setbacks as best we possibly can. I'll entertain a motion. 15 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Kind: Mr. Chair I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning (REZ #00-1) of a 3.98 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to lOP, Industrial Office Park. Should we take these one at a time? Peterson: Yes. Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning (REZ #00-1) of a 3.98 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to IOP, Industrial Office Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Kind: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan (SPR #00-6) for a 10,270 square foot office building, a variance from the requirement that 100% of the properly within the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone remain open, and a l0 foot variance to allow, oh let's see how do I want to say that? To allow a 40 foot setback, a variance. To allow a 40 foot setback and, I'm trying to figure out how many variances it would be for parking stalls. I think it said 12 stalls. Aanenson: I don't know if you have to state that. Just say the setback, whatever that becomes. Kind: Okay. To allow for a l0 foot variance from the 50 foot setback required when an office use abuts a residential use. Peterson: Okay, is there a second? Burton: Is it all the conditions too? Kind: Oh, subject to the following conditions 1 through oh let's see. 25, including Cindy's signage one. And then I have a suggestion for number 4 under the wordsmithing category to clean it up a bit. To include some of the items that were in the staff report relating to pedestrian ramps and curb cuts and such. That number 4 should read, the site plan, although this is assuming there's going to be a curb cut on Stone Creek which I'm not sure if that's going to be happening anymore or not. Well let's assume that's still going to happen and that if there is one, that there needs to be curb cuts. Okay, number 4 should read, the site plan and the grading plan should include (a), the existing 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Stone Creek Drive and provide pedestrian ramps at the driveway curb cuts. (b), any power poles and street lights to determine potential impacts to the existing infrastructure. The developer shall be responsible for any and all coordination and adjustments to the existing power pole and line. And (c), the site plan should include the rim and invert elevations, size, type and grade of utility pipes. Basically fellow commissioners what I'm adding is the developer's responsible for those power poles and the line and the part about the pedestrian ramps and the curb cuts. Does that make sense? And 16 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 then on number 26, just to emphasize the parking. I would add parking may not encroach into the 40 foot setback on the south properly line. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Blackowiak: Yeah Mr. Chairman. I think we need to revisit condition 11 which talks about driveway access and clean that up a little bit. Kind: Oh yeah, thank you Alison. Blackowiak: So in other words if we want to see a driveway access onto Stone Creek Drive shall be prohibited and access to the site shall be limited to Coulter Boulevard. Do we want to flip those two? Kind: Sure. Blackowiak: I think that was our intent. Kind: Yep. Blackowiak: And then continue with the plans shall incorporate the city's industrial driveway detail plate and construct pedestrian ramps. Kind: Oh it was there. It was under 11 and I never saw that. Okay, thank you. Peterson: Friendly amendment accepted? Kind: Yes. Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan (SPR #00-6) for a 10,270 square foot office building, a variance from the requirement that 100 percent of the property within the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone remain open space, and a 10 foot variance from the 50 foot setback required when office use abuts a residential use, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, utility connections, driveway access and landscaping. All boulevard trees along Coulter Boulevard shall be preserved and guaranteed by the applicant. If any trees need to be removed in conjunction with site grading or utility 17 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 installation, they must be replaced elsewhere on Coulter Boulevard and guaranteed for one growing season after the construction has been completed. Protective tree fencing or erosion control fencing shall be installed along the boulevard to protect the trees from construction activities. Landscaping may be placed within the Stone Creek Drive boulevard area as well as portions of Coulter Boulevard to assist screening the parking lot. A landscaping plan will need to be reviewed and approved by engineering prior to any landscaping being installed. The site plan and the grading plan should include the following: the existing 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Stone Creek Drive and provide pedestrian ramps at the driveway curb cuts. Any power poles and street lights to determine potential impacts to the existing infrastructure. The developer shall be responsible for any and all coordination and adjustments to the existing power pole and line. The site plan should include the rim and invert elevations, size, type and grade of utility pipes. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan including the lowest floor and first floor building elevations need to be submitted prior to this item being considered by the City Council. All private utilities shall be constructed in accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or the State Plumbing Codes. Installation of the utilities will require a building permit through the city's building department. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will also need to be engineered and permits obtained through the city's building department. An encroachment agreement will be necessary for any structures and/or the parking lot that fall within the proposed drainage and utility easement for the sanitary sewer line. This document shall be recorded against the property. All disturbed areas as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each construction activity in accordance with the city's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage area map for 10 year and 100 year 24 hour storm events prior to issuance of a building permit. 18 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. The applicant shall apply for, obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, and comply with their conditions of approval. Driveway access onto Stone Creek Drive shall be prohibited. Access to the site shall be limited to Coulter Boulevard. The plans shall incorporate the city's industrial driveway detail plate and construct pedestrian ramps. The applicant shall be responsible for surface water management fees in the amount of $8,993. These fees shall be collected at time of building permit issuance. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup and connection fees based on four REU's unless the Metropolitan Environmental Commission estimates more than four SAC units. The applicant will be charged these fees at time of building permit issuance. The hookup and connection fees may be specially assessed. The applicant will need to have a soils engineer recommend a pavement design to accommodate the 7 ton per axle design requirements based on soil conditions experienced on the site. The applicant/owner shall dedicate the necessary street right-of-way for Coulter Boulevard, sanitary sewer line and storm water pond. The city shall prepare the necessary legal description and easement agreement for the applicant to execute. The northern one-half of the lower level shall not be utilized for leasable office space. The lighting plan shall incorporate existing light fixtures along Coulter Blvd and Stone Creek Drive that may impact the site. Landscaping shall be increased around the parking lot to provide 100 percent screening of the area. The trash enclosure shall be constructed of materials compatible with the primary structure. Further, it shall be screened from adjacent properties on the west, south and east elevations with landscaping. The building is required to be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be reviewed when complete plans are submitted. Two accessible parking spaces are required for the thirty six spaces that are provided. The fire marshal's conditions are as follows: 19 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 a. Submit utility plans showing fire hydrant locations for review and approval. b. Submit radius mm plans to the City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. 24. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit. 25. All signage shall comply with Article XXVI of the City Code. 26. Parking may not encroach into the 40 foot setback on the south property line. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: The last item. Kirchofl2 Mr. Chair, there's a motion also for the conditional use. Peterson: That's the next one. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP #00-1) for the construction of a building within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Peterson: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP #00-1) for the construction of a building within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS APPLIED FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. THIS APPLICATION PROPOSES TO IMPACT 3.16 ACRES AS PART OF THE TH 5 IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROPOSED IMPACT IS REGULATED BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA'S WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT. Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. 20 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Peterson: Any questions of Dave? Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward and state your name and address please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Public hearing closed. Commissioner comments. Anything? Kind: I think the staff report looks complete to me. Peterson: Ditto. Motion please. Kind: I move the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #99-1 subject to the following conditions 1 and 2. Burton: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #99-1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requirements. 2. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the existing wetlands. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW PETTING FARMS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT AND REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PETTING FARM IN THE A2 DISTRICT~ LOCATED AT 7461 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD~ SUSAN MCALLISTER. 21 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Public Present: Name Address Susan McAllister Uli Sacchet Vemelle Clayton Boyd Peterson 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard 7053 Highover Court 422 Santa Fe 9860 Pioneer Circle Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of Cindy? Burton: Mr. Chair I have a question. I may have missed it in the papers. Are they still, is the applicant going to live in the house? Yeah? Kirchofl2 Yes. Burton: Okay. And then I'm struggling with the home business ordinance and I'm wondering if, does the interim use permit kind of trump that ordinance? Is that how it works? Aanenson: Right. And that's when Cindy did the original research on this, that was part of our discussion to say that, it doesn't fit into the home occupation. There's no way. That's why we developed a separate interim use under the A2 district. Some of the things we struggled with is that you have to keep in mind, whatever we put here, it can also be applied in any other A2 district that would meet the same criteria. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Rain, Snow or Shine, is that what it's called? Yeah. They have an interim use permit. How long is theirs for? What's the sunset? Aanenson: It's outside of urban services. It was never our intention to provide municipal services to that. That's an anomaly in the fact that it does have an interim use. More than likely, and our comprehensive plan doesn't propose putting urban services south of existing 212. It's predominantly flood plain. Most of that properly there is in the flood plain. So it's a little bit different but we do have that there is a date on that. Until urban services or the character changes so more than likely it may never change. What we struggled with on this is that right now if you go out to it, it is vacant but we project with this properly going in and the frontage road, that over the next few years it's going to change significantly and there may be more complaints when you look at the proximity of some of those farm uses. Kind: What I'm wondering about is if the applicant needs to wait until West 78th is put in. She can't even start her business right away so you know, 5 years now is 4 years or dare may I even say less. 22 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Aanenson: That was our concern... Kind: So yeah, I'm not sure if 5 years is the right number either but I don't know how you arrive at the right number. Aanenson: Until they have access off of West 78th. From that date forward. That was our concern if the use was going on now and. Kind: So if the use is going on now, can't the access be 417 Aanenson: ... sight lines. I'll let Dave comment on that but that's a good question. Kind: Yeah. Yeah. Just one more before Dave jumps in. Just kind of looking at some of the differences between staff report and what the applicant has requested. Give me a little rationale for number of employees that are non-residents. Kirchofl~ We were trying to limit the intensity of the use and that is what is permitted as part of the home occupation ordinance. So I think allowing more employees will increase the intensity of the use. It's only 6 acres and if it's supposed to be a rustic farm type of activity on only 6 acres, you want to limit that activity. If they have 5 employees, the intensity of the operation may be increased. Kind: The parking controls that somewhat, yeah. Kirchofl~ Yeah. Kind: Okay. I think that's all. And then Dave, do you want to talk to the 41 thing? Hempel: Sure Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Access control along 41 is under the jurisdiction of Minnesota Department of Transportation or MnDOT as we refer to them as. The access control that's currently in place is for single family farm resident. This proposed application I would assume greatly intensifies that access. It may not be permitted by MnDOT. MnDOT is in negotiations with the applicant to relocate their driveway from Trunk Highway 41 to West 78th Street. The time line for that however most likely will not occur until the year 2001. So she will have her existing driveway through the year 2000. At least. So I had some reservations speaking on behalf of MnDOT on that control access point of her driveway. I would assume that they would not want to intensify the use of that property through that access point. My opinion. Thank you. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Okay, other questions? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. Thinking here, and I'm not sure ifI quite understand. I'm trying to think about a petting farm in general and what a definition of a petting farm might be. On page 3 you 23 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 talk about exhibition of animals, retail activities and special events and yet on the applicant's brochure I see day camp as well. Could you speak to that? Will children be there all day and what are the activities and such things? Kirchofl~ The information that's located in the staff report was given to us by the applicant. The brochure was more for informational use for you. And as far as we're concerned, this would only be approving the petting farm and not a day camp. Sidney: Okay. Does a day camp require a different type of? Kirchofl~ Well that's a more intensity of the use. Sidney: So it's a question for the applicant I guess. Okay. Peterson: Okay, anything else? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I've got a couple questions. Cindy when you were talking about conditions, did you say 11 ? And if so, did I miss something? Kirchofl) Yes, they're misnumbered. The first condition is supposed to be the site plan. Show compliance with Section 20-267 for petting farms. That was supposed to be condition 1 and it started with the following. Blackowiak: Okay. I understand that then. Got it. Aanenson: So first we develop standards because we don't have any standards in place. Then we added conditions specific to this one. Kirchofl) I apologize for that. Blackowiak: Okay. I just thought I maybe had missed something. Okay, so back to Section 20- 267. We talked a little bit about hours of operation. I assume you mean 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on page 8. And it also says that the Council may further restrict hours of operation if use is located adjacent to property guided residential. This property is located adjacent to property guided residential. So what, give me a for instance. The council could say what? 9:00 to 5:00? 10:00 to 4:00? I mean kind of whatever works for them or would they, if they were there "first" would they have a little more say? How does that, it looks like a rock, paper, scissor. I mean who trumps ultimately? I mean who wins? Aanenson: Well I think in deference to the applicant.., give some standards to follow. If you're not meeting the standards, if there's complaints or something there, I think you have to go back and readdress that, which you have a right to do, but I guess when we were looking at it, if you have kids in activities with a lot of animals, it could be noisy and that's the concern that we had. Is that noise at 8:00 p.m. Obviously in the winter I don't think you're going to have a lot of, again we tried to keep the lighting down but in the summer. 24 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Blackowiak: Okay. Would the noise and nuisance ordinance also apply to this so when we look at hours of operation and that type of thing, that could also be used for guidance? Aanenson: Or establish those. Blackowiak: Okay. Then one more question. Oh yeah this is back to this, on West 78th versus Highway 41. I think this is for Dave. Currently the applicant does have two driveways on 41 so MnDOT afl'ectively could come in and say you can't have either? I mean what's, theoretically. I mean I don't want you to speak for MnDOT but could they take both of those accesses away from the applicant? Is that within their jurisdiction? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I don't think they would take it away. Not total access anyway. I think the secondary access has not really been used much and is under, from previous discussions with the applicant and MnDOT, is in question whether it's been an actual permitted through the State, an access point. I mean it just happened there someday. It may not be an approved access point from the beginning. There's being some research done on it. I don't think that access point either has been used much. It would be, some maintenance done to move that but as far as your question goes, I think it would maintain the current access there obviously until the new frontage road's in. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Other questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come up forward and state your name and address please. Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister and my address is 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard. And I'm here because I knew way back in 1989 or 1990 I was going to be standing here trying to figure a way to preserve my farm because I love it so much. I love the ambience that goes with it. You know the tranquility that's left in that comer goes with it. The green space that goes with it. The historical building. The life style that came with our fore fathers and the way that we say that we're proud of our heritage. I'm here to protect that and to try to figure a way to make it work and I put together this plan that I believe will do all of that. I think it'd be a great asset to the community. I have a narrative in there that I believe has, you know I don't know, I hope all of you have read it. I also have some letters that I would like to hand out or some information that appeared in the newspaper but just as a handout when I'm referring to it with, you know as I'm addressing the concerns. Also I have some photographs of the area. The petting farm and so on, and some photographs regarding the parking that there would be a concern with the 100% or whatever coverage of storage areas or whatever. Or not parking but of the pink trailer that I have. So do you mind ifI hand that out? Peterson: Go ahead. Okay I guess I'm, this has got quite a few different issues that are of concern with people. I need to let you know up front that I'm approved by the USDA as a person that maintains and keeps my animals and handles them and I have strict guidelines to follow with them, you know because I'm exhibiting animals. I currently and have for years had a petting zoo that traveled. A petting farm or a petting zoo because I'm not you know traveling the farm, so it's considered a petting zoo and I travel to different, you know like festivities in Excelsior or 25 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 wherever. I've gone to many nursing homes. A lot of things like that so that's what I currently do. And I'm trying to simply have the public come in and enjoy what I'm doing and share it because I think it's so wonderful. So I'll start with addressing the concerns I guess. Okay, number one was, they're not necessarily in the order but intensity of the use ofa 6 acre parcel. Number two would be the parking limited to 10 stalls with the provision for only one bus. Number three, only one non-resident employee shall be employed on the site. Wildlife or exotic animals was another issue. And then the 5 year interim permit instead of a conditional use. I need to tell you also that I did apply for a conditional use. I am here requesting a conditional use permit. I am not here trying to get an interim use, but in the concerns I think it will address it a little bit but if there's not a clarity, I want somebody to be able to ask me what it means, okay? Okay, number one. Intensity of the use on a 6 acre parcel. I am assuming that the concern is that the property might be physically too small for this type of an operation. The facilities on the site are estimated to be well below the maximum coverage allowed of 20% in the A2 zoning code. From the diagram I have attached of the farm, you can see that the majority of the area remains as pasture, wooded areas and adjacent wetlands in the Bluff Creek Watershed. This shows, I mean wherever there's not, you know the dark buildings are the only thing that are there right now and all this other, you know area is basically, it's green. I mean it's basically green. I'm just going to add a little, a summer kitchen which means that you know with the old farms they had you know grandma, or mama when she cooked wanted to keep the house as cool as possible without any air conditioning so they would cook in the summer kitchen. It's approximately 10 x 12 feet, and I would be serving like bar-be-ques and pre-packaged like foods like chips and so on out there. It's a very simple type of thing. And then also where the garage is situated right in this area would be a little bit of a larger you know like, well there's going to be the retail area and the pony ring but so I mean basically as we go through, these dots don't mean any physical building. It just means an area that I'm pointing out. Okay. I'm estimating that there would be no more than 100 visitors at one time. They would be broken up into smaller and more manageable groups of 10 or 20 people for touring. So the property will easily accommodate that number of visitors without causing any crowding. For a comparison as a coincidence actually, I have found this copy of the article from the Villager which was dated, and you've got a copy of it, April 6th, that talks about the Wells Fargo Family Farm that is actually being built at the Minnesota Zoo. So what they're doing is they're re-creating a farm. It says they're re-creating the guests will be immersed in a rural experience to celebrate Minnesota's agricultural heritage and future. It's on an 8.5 you know, 5 acres the farm is situated on and will have several more buildings according to the article than my plan and will also include crop plots, flower beds, vegetable gardens and an orchard. It is estimated, according to the article to have 1.2 million visitors a year. My little farm will have fewer facilities and a lot fewer visitors. I mean they are actually attached to the Minnesota Zoo. So what I'm doing is basically what they're attempting to do but what they've kind of like changed the buildings a little bit. The kids can be, it says in here for the grain elevator, visitors can learn about the development of rural communities and how the grain elevator works. Kids will become grain as they climb the leg and slide into the binds. My barn is an actual, authentic one. It's, you know you get there by a country road and path. They've got a farm house. They've got a chicken house where visitors can explore the chicken's life cycle. This is what I'm going to be doing. Kids can experience life as a chicken on kids size roosts and on kid size nest boxes. I don't have that and I'm not going to attempt that. Dairy barn. In the actual barn as you can see here, the barn is actually a gabled barn like I have and that, in the dairy barn visitors will 26 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 be seeing calves and their family cows in their tie stalls. In the milking parlor visitors can observe daily cow milking demonstrations. I have goat milking demonstrations. The swine barn. Throughout the summer the swine barn will have litters of piglets you know with their mother in the fairing pin and they can see that. Then they've got the machine shed, the goat and sheep barns so basically you know what it is, for $750,000 to start out with, they came up with a new barn you know and they've got like a little more land, 8.5 acres and they've got the, which I'm sure that they put in the flower beds and vegetable gardens. I only have a little over 6. IfI take out the flower beds and the vegetable gardens I believe that I have basically the same size that they're trying to accommodate with their plan. So I believe that I definitely can make my little farmstead work. There's been comments about the, you know like maybe not enough land or so on but actually when you look at the farms without the part that you plow and the working area for the tractors and so on, the fields, the actual barn yard is the part I'm trying to preserve and that kind of was 5 to, you know like maybe 10 acres at the most for like the farm animals. I'm trying to preserve a snippet of what's left to preserve and I don't have an option of buying any more land. I've tried. It's not available. Okay. I have reviewed my plans taking stafl's comments into consideration and I believe that my request is reasonable for this size properly. Especially considering the amount of open space that will be preserved in the proximity of the Bluff Creek Watershed. Anything less than my proposal could negatively impact the experience that I am trying to create for visitors in the community. As an example an acre equals 43,560 square feet times 6 is 261,360 total square feet on the properly. And it's the 20% ratio is 52,272 or 1.2 acres. I haven't even calculated the impervious surface because it's basically open area, okay. And keep in mind I'm living there and I want to keep it looking like a 1920's farm. Like I said, I want it to look like that and I don't want it to look like Camp Snoopy so it has to have that old farmstead look. Okay, number two with the parking limited to 10 stalls with the provision for 1 bus. Assuming 5 people per car, 20 cars would accommodate 100 visitors. Assuming 50 people per bus, two buses would accommodate 100 visitors... I would appreciate it being included in the motion as approval for staged construction. I can then start out with smaller parking facilities and add to it as the need exists. As in this time right now there's daffodils having, you know they're planted right where the parking would be. And at this point people can park in the circular driveway. I'm not having an enormous amount of people coming to come over there right now. It's just, I need to work into it okay. Okay, so I'm asking to change point number 2 on the recommendations on page 9 of the staff report. So let's see where are we at? Okay, parking should be limited to 10 stalls with provision for only 1 bus. So you know, okay. Number three. Only one non-resident employee shall be employed on the site. Okay, this standard was determined by the home occupation ordinance that applies to a business being run out of a single residence. Okay, that refers to staff report page 3. The nature of this facility requires help with a variety of tasks. If you read my description in my little brochure it's really a colored version of a business plan is what it is. There's more than one activity going on at a time and besides that there's cage cleaning and maintenance, animal cleaning and grooming, yard, pasture and ground maintenance. Retail shop would have sales, stocking, bookkeeping, etc. On-site demonstrations and tours. And the USDA license requires ample people to care for animals in supervised public involvement. My current farm activity currently requires 2 employees with a future estimate of 4 to 5. According to my rules and regulations book of the USDA that I absolutely have to follow, it says for employees. A sufficient number of employees shall be utilized to maintain the prescribed level of husbandry practices set forth in this sub part. Such practices shall be under the 27 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 supervision of an animal caretaker, who I am you know. Who has a background in animal husbandry or care. So I cannot physically be down at the barn, let's say I'm down at the barn. There's kids coming through or whatever. I have to make sure that they're not teasing the animals and they're not doing anything to cause any injury or any kind to anybody, including the animals. And the pony rides have got to be like led by a person. You know when you open up the little gate the ponies know that that's the only way they can go is around in a circle. Okay, you have to be there. That doesn't just go by itself. Then there's going to be like goat milking demonstrations. Not every day but there will be. People taking, you know like somebody taking the money or leading the tour so the Bluff Creek possibly water, you know the Bluff Creek area okay. And the store. I mean there's no physical, possible way that I could do that with only one person. On an every day basis. There's no way. Okay. Okay, this is a reasonable request to meet the USDA requirements and properly service a 6 acre petting farm. This will require either changing the ordinance point number 3 or the recommendation for this permit on page 9 of the staff report to allow for 4 to 5 employees. And that, like you know, it might not be 5 and it might not be 4 but I need to have, you know like I'm hoping that it could be 4 ifI choose it. But I need to like I said to have, you know I can't have a liability situation like that. It's something that I absolutely have to have to meet the requirements of the USDA. Whether I'm you know like, even when I go out I have to have somebody helping me with the little small one. Okay, number four. Wildlife or exotic animals. In our last meeting there was some concern about whether or not my petting farm would include animals that might be dangerous. I think we're all aware of some incidences recently that involved private citizens who, on TV, who had purchased dangerous animals, a panther and a tiger specifically I recall, and were housing them on their properties. This is not in Chanhassen okay. Just so you don't get a little bit nervous. It's not in Chanhassen. I believe that those incidents and the city's experience with prior "nuisance" complaints about other properties has resulted in the restrictions being placed on my application. I would like to propose what I think might be a reasonable compromise to that. I reviewed the city's animal and fowl ordinance which is Chapter 5 of the Code Book which includes a section on dangerous animals. And the City's nuisance ordinance, Chapter 13. There is nothing in those two chapters that would prohibit a resident from owning a wild or exotic animal anyplace. In fact, many residents have pets that would fall under that heading such as and including, parrots, ferrets, chinchillas, hedge hogs, doves, pigeons, snakes, lizards, iguanas and so on. All can be purchased at local pet stores and just for your knowledge, if anybody is holding a DNR permit that they are allowed to have like the Canadian Geese or whatever as a native to our area. A Canadian Geese are exotic because they migrate and they migrate to Mexico sometimes so they're definitely considered an exotic bird. I've checked all this out with a vet so. Okay. In fact according to the City ordinance to own a "dangerous" animal a resident just simply has to register it with the Public Safety Department and provide proper housing. And if you look at the ordinance that's hardly anything, okay. And all it requires a 4 foot leash and muzzled if possible. When in public. Okay. So I'm well within any laws that are in place. I mean I'm not even teetering on breaking anything. Okay. My application includes animals that are not necessarily considered customary farm animals but they are certainly not considered dangerous. They are animals that are of interest to the public or are available to the public that can learn about and experience first hand while visiting my petting farm. There would also be animals that would only be on my property temporarily. I am a qualified wildlife rehabilitation provider. I'm in the process of getting my license from the DNR. That means I would nurse local wildlife patients back to health for 28 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 transportation and release back into the wild. This might include fawns, squirrels, birds, mink, ground hogs, coyote, or coyote, however you want to say it. Fox, etc. My license requires that they be kept from the public to avoid imprinting. So they would be housed away from the public and other animals. That means that the public cannot look at them because if they get used to the public, they don't know how to live wild. Okay, so they're going to be housed there but they are not going to be interacting with the public, okay. Wildlife rehabilitation is a service that is grossly under provided in Minnesota so I will be providing a much needed public service. I'm also located in a really nice area where the Bluff Creek Watershed is. The head waters. There's a lot of wildlife there. Every day almost I see the coyotes. I definitely see the fox. There's wild turkeys. There's a lot of you know like deer or the fawn. When you hear like a gun shot at night, I didn't really always know what that was but I found out from the police that it was, they were putting them out of their misery because there was not place to put them. So any deer or fawn that gets injured automatically you know, if they can't walk away from it, they're dead. You know that's just the way it is. And there was an incident in Plymouth where a coyote jumped through some bakery's window. I can't remember. It was McGlynn's Bakery's window. And you know, the wildlife are getting displaced and this is going to be happening more and more. You know where they think they see themselves in the mirror and they get scared or else they think that's something else in the mirror offofa window and they you know, are curious or whatever. I don't know what reasons but anyway I'm just saying that as we take away their area where they're used to being, they're going to get displaced and they're also getting more friendly because I actually had a coyote, and believe this or not. When I had my 3 goats, I got up at, you know I always get up early in the morning and I happened to look out and I saw my 3 goats, well there was 4 of them there okay and I only have, at that time I only had 3. I've got 4 now but one was sitting on it's hind legs and I walked away from the window and I go wait a minute. Wait a minute. Goats don't sit on their hind legs and I came back and the coyote was sitting right next to my goats which was just amazing. So I mean I definitely, if any wild animals, I can tell you I've got them right where I'm at. Okay, the existing city ordinance addresses nuisance situations that might arise and include provisions for enforcement. City ordinances also address situations involving dangerous animals. So I would like to propose rewording point number 4 of the ordinance to the following. Are you familiar with the point number 4? Do I read it or do you, okay. Customary farm animals and other domesticated animals will be allowed on the site. Large carnivorous animals such as lions, tigers and bears will be prohibited. Okay, did you get that? See because anybody right now could get any kind, I could right now just go to Stacy, Minnesota or down to southern Minnesota or whatever without breaking any laws. I'm not even coming close to it, and come back with a lion, tiger, bear, bobcat, lynx, you name it. Boa constrictor. I can have it and anybody can have it in the city so, it's not anything I did. It's something that was put in place a long time ago. Okay, the recommendations for this permit could then include a condition that reads, rehabilitating wildlife will be restricted to non-public areas and housed according to DNR and USDA standards, which is page, you know refer to page 9 of the staff report. So that would then allow me, allow you people to feel more safe, okay. But allow me to do the rehabilitating of the wildlife, so that's my proposal on that. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman can I just, before we lose track of this whole issue. This is an interim use. Staff can apply conditions we think as reasonable. We just think that it's way too much for us to try to regulate who can be seen. Who can't be seen. That was our recommendation. I 29 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 won't address the points but just the number and the type and the different standards. Certainly she can have that but because she's asking for something different on the interim use we can adopt standards and that's where we were coming from, just so you understand that issue. Burton: Mr. Chair, I know this is going out of order but I'd like just to ask a question to follow up while we're on this. I'm looking at what they have what the staff recommended and it says it's subject to the plans dated February 22nd. So I'm not sure which, are the plans dated February 2nd the plans that are followed or the? Aanenson: This site plan, right. Burton: But her, this, Miss Rosie's farm thing that says what they're going to do, that's not the plan? Aanenson: That's her, that was her proposal. The staff developed criteria based on what we felt what was reasonable and meets with the property and to mitigate those impacts and that's what we're saying. She could do that now. There's certain things you can do in any residential zone but what we're saying is since she's asking for a certain permit, we can set up standards. We're saying it's way too confusing to try to keep track of all that. To go out and inspect and what can be seen. What can't be seen. All that. Burton: The other thing that's confusing me Mr. Chairman is that it's date stamped says February 22nd on here and I'm not sure when it says subject to the plans dated February 22nd. Does that mean that? Kirchofl~ That's the site plan. Burton: Not these plans? Aanenson: No, the site plan. Susan McAllister: Okay Kate I need you to clarify what you're saying. I don't, you know I want it clarified a little bit more. Aanenson: You're asking for a change in the zoning ordinance. It's stafl's job to review that application and recommend standards. That's why our proposal is recommending standards that we think are manageable. Although they may not be in concurrence with what your ultimate wish is. We think that those are manageable standards. The Planning Commission and the Council may or may not agree with those conditions but we think that that is something that we can get our hands on. The depth of your proposal we think is too intense and we can't manage something that big and that was our recommendation. Where we were coming from. Susan McAllister: Okay, but we just talking about, weren't we just talking about. Aanenson: Animals. 30 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Susan McAllister: Yeah. Aanenson: Your point was that you could have all these animals. Yes you can but you can't have a petting zoo or a petting farm. Susan McAllister: Okay, but ifI don't you know, ifI decided that I'm going to go away here and get nothing you know from you or we can't work it out, then you can't even regulate my manure right now because Chanhassen doesn't have you know a feedlot ordinance. I don't think they do. I'm trying to work it out with you but. Aanenson: We're trying to too. We're trying to avoid the situation that we just had the first item of business of the, if it's a conditional use then it's, you can't have people to your properly right now to do the petting zoo. That's what we're trying to allow. But in order to do that we're trying to mitigate, what scale is it going to be? We've already heard a horror story today of a situation that's incompatible and that's what we're trying to avoid. If we give it a conditional use, if she sells tomorrow that conditional use runs with the properly. And that's what we're saying. That may or may not be the best decision. It's hard to look 5, 10, 15 years down the road. I was just trying to explain... Susan McAllister: Right, but getting back to the animal situation. I travel with my petting zoo, okay. I can keep taking my show on the road and not, you know we might not come to any workable arrangement here whatsoever. And if I can come to an arrangement, or if we can work this out with you, or ifI can work this out with you, then you can put conditions on what I'm doing now. Right now nobody's, you know there's, you know there's been no nuisance complaints, okay. I've got, you know I've had no problems. You can't regulate. I could come, please don't take this wrong. I do not plan on coming home with a bear, okay. But you can't regulate anything that I'm doing right now and I'm not trying to be brazen, believe me I'm not. I'm trying to be workable but all I'm trying to do is say that I would like the public to come and enjoy the experience. That allows you to put conditions on what I'm already doing now and doing in the future. So, okay. All right, I'll go on. Five year interim permit instead of a conditional use permit. My application has been submitted for a conditional use permit due to the large financial investment that will need to be made to provide the "historical preservation of the existing farmstead". In a friendly conversation with staff I have speculated that one never knows what might happen and this is how this became like an interim use type of thing, I think. Maybe I would move on in 5 years. That's kind of, you know that's basically what I said. I did not intend for that comment to be used to restrict the timeframe for my business and the use of my properly. I have contemplated setting up this business for a number of years now and I am committed to seeing it done right. That means a significant financial and personal investment on my part which gets into historical preservation. I mean you know as time goes, it's going to be, it's going to end up getting to that okay. So I am requesting that the city grant my request for a conditional use permit. If that is not possible the interim use permit should remain in effect until such time as the properly no longer complies with the conditions of the permit or becomes a public nuisance in violation of the city's nuisance ordinance at which time it will revert to it's current zoning and use. I could agree to a condition that would allow that after 10 years of the original permit being 31 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 granted the city has a right to review the conditions of the permit and make changes consistent with the existing city ordinances. And that's referring to recommendation number 10 of the permit. Okay. Hang on a second. Okay, there was a location concern at one point, adjacent to Highway 41 and the 78th Street frontage road for Highway 5 so access transportation needs are easily accommodated in this location. Adjacent to the Bluff Creek Watershed which will preserve additional green space and add the natural and historic character of this area. And it's located in the proximity of other significant recreational and educational destinations such as the Arboretum, Minnewashta Regional Park, Carver Park Reserve and the Loring Nature Center. I'm a really good fit to this area, okay. The residential development proposed on the adjacent property is buffered by the large pasture on the east side of the site. Okay. This is the east side of the site so right here. And these are where the Pulte Homes are proposed to go in here. Okay, in fact the conceptual proposal only located two townhome buildings adjacent to the property line. Do you, I'll show you a map of that. I don't think you're going to see this but there is two strips going right here, okay. So this is the east side and this is the two strips, okay. West 78th Street separates the development to the south and the boulevard plantings provide additional buffering. Only the end units of three buildings will parallel this property. The residential development to the north is buffered by a large wetland complex which is the Bluff Creek Watershed. The comer of Highway 41 and 5 has been referred to as the entrance to the city. I believe that the historical preservation of a farmstead in this location would further enhance this entry point to our community. And that's basically, I guess we can, if you have any concerns about the pictures, you want to see, you know ask any questions, I'm glad to answer anything. But what I'm trying to get at is for the significant amount of money I'm going to have to invest in this to keep the buildings going and everything you know to look still good, it's going, I can't afford to be there for 5 years and then even if you want to force me to not be able to have you know people come over for, until my driveway's there, that's going to take up another year which allows me 4 years. So that's my concern. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I alluded to a question about day camp. I guess what is your intention for, you know would buses of kids come in for the day? Susan McAllister: There's no day camp with this. Like I said no. I mean that brochure, I just, I was putting out things. I'm an artist type of person. I can see things better like that and I just thought you know this would make the beginnings of my brochure and so you know, that's changed and it's not a day camp. It's only a petting farm. Sidney: So what is the nature of the business then? Do people just come in unannounced so to speak or do they set up appointments for car loads? Susan McAllister: Yeah, they would set up appointments and they also could come in unannounced and you know, be able to have a really enjoyable experience. It's non-violence. It's something that's totally different than what people are used to doing here and have the kids actually interact with the animals. Be able to groom the animals. See a milking goat demonstration. It's a hands on petting farm is what it is so they can like feel the fur of the 32 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 chinchilla. You know like especially for like blind kids or something. They need to touch animals that are not big, lumbering pigs you know, so I need to have those little animals there. And you know, I'm going to have a bird, aviary in the basement of the barn where I'm going to be housing the peafowl which includes one peacock and two peahens. Some Chinese Golden Pheasants which are native to Asia. The original, what the heck is it? Jungle fowl that is, as part of my teaching program to kids, the jungle fowl is a very, the roosters and all the hens that we've got now originated from the jungle fowl so it's considered an exotic bird. Sidney: Okay so bottom line is no day camps? Susan McAllister: No, no day camps. I'm sorry... I'm trying to sell this thing. Sidney: But I do want to make one comment which I guess you missed the last Planning Commission about the iguana but I do want to ask about prairie dogs because how do you keep prairie dogs you know without letting them, or if they can get out and... Susan McAllister: No, they would be in an appropriate size pen. Sidney: So it's not a prairie dog town or anything? Susan McAllister: Oh absolutely, I hope not. You know all the animals that I have are going to be like in their proper area where they're not going to be running at large you know, so that. And I have to. I can't do that and be licensed by the USDA. I can't. That's not, that just wouldn't. I'd get in trouble with the nuisance ordinance you know and animal at large ordinance so. Sidney: I guess what I'm having trouble with is your expectations for the intensity and I guess I don't feel that staff is really supporting that because I have a feeling like you do need more employees for the amount of activity that you're talking about. Susan McAllister: Well it's, according to my book it describes that I absolutely have to so. I just can't physically do that with only one other person. It's just not possible so I don't know, I don't know what to say about that. I guess I've said what I need to and that's what I need to say so. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. You mentioned that you have peacocks right now. Have you had any complaints about them? Susan McAllister: No. I have not. None, absolutely. I don't think. I mean nobody's ever approached me with anything. I don't know how I could because the only, when I was here the last time I told you know the staff and so on, whoever needed to know, that peacocks, the male peacock will scream you know like at night or whatever in the day, but if it's at night it's sort of an eerie sound actually and it's a very wild sound. And you know, he's trying to impress his mate. I know a lot of other people that are like animals that do it every day but this guys only does it 6 weeks out of the year so I think that's pretty good. 33 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Kind: And you keep him closed in when he's doing that? Susan McAllister: Yes, I do. It's from the middle of March til the first, or no. It's from the middle of April to the first week in June, so that's about 6 weeks so, because like if. Kind: I get the drift. I get the drift. Susan McAllister: Okay, I'm just saying if you have animals and you don't know about them, you're going to have problems. Kind: You answered my question. And my other one was related to, on the site plan there's no public restroom facilities. When all these kids are there, where do you propose for them to go to the bathroom? Susan McAllister: Well I'd have like a porta-potty there so. Kind: Like the Bif's or something like that? Susan McAllister: Yeah, something like that, right. Kind: And then, one that just came up. When you put down that site plan that had the Pulte development on there, that looks really amazing to me. You're like a little oasis right there with all of the, does that look scary to you at all? Susan McAllister: Well that looks like a people zoo. I'm an animal zoo and they're a people zoo. I mean the best way to resolve this whole thing is to just you know zone the northeast side of you know or the west side as a zoo of some sort and just have us live happily ever after and interact with each other. Kind: It's just when you put that down I just went wow. You're going to be surrounded. And you're okay with that? Susan McAllister: I don't know about okay. I don't want to go on and on but I just, you know if I, where I'm at I'm trying to protect the farmstead look. If this is what it takes to get all these houses there to preserve the trees, if that's what it is, then I have to accept it. It's sort of like the laws of nature. The sun rises and sets at this time of the day at this month, okay. If that's what that comes to to be able to protect the green space for the wild animals and the beautiful trees that we're never going to have unless we protect them, then that's what it comes down to. And I have to really work hard and I'm prepared to work hard. I've been doing it for like 15 years almost to maintain my animals and do a really good job. I'm a very responsible person. I believe in the community values of this community and so on, about the citizenship and respect for the other person and basically if I want somebody to treat me the way I would want to be, you know treat them like I'd want to be treated and I am trying, you know I'm willing to try to work out and be very responsible. 34 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Kind: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Sidney moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Boyd Peterson: Yeah, Boyd Peterson, 9860 Pioneer Circle, Chanhassen. I think everybody in this room should applaud this lady for going through what she's going to go through for this community. I'm a father of four kids. I mean none of us are kids here but animals to kids, it's like you know candy. Sounds like she's willing to put herself on a year by year, 5 year, 10 year look at me. What do you think? Am I doing it right? Am I doing it wrong? If I'm doing it wrong, I'll leave. She's opening herself up. You know what more can we want you know. Gateway to the town, perfect. You know they've got communities all around that would love to have a place and a person like that that would go on a limb and put something like that in there. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Uli Sacchet: I'm Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053 Highover Court. I think this is a really valiant effort here that deserves to be supported in every which way. I'm concerned when I see so many conditions put on this effort. I understand where you're coming from with trying to balance it in the context of the ordinances and also in terms of future, where that would lead eventually and that's certainly a liability that has to be looked at carefully. But I think there's a superceding thing which is we can't, such a fantastic effort curtail it to the point that it couldn't even support itself. ... cutting down staff to the point that it's not workable. I mean I work with animals myself as a hobby and it's a lot of work and to put something out there that is presentable and conforms with the regulation on a State level, needs people to help. And also in order to make it at least somewhat able to carry itself on a financial level, there has to be room for cars to park for the people that want to come, whether it's a bus or two. So I would certainly encourage you to look at that as an important thing to make this possible. To support an effort like that because we're going to look back in two days and you put a very good comment, it's like an island. You have a lot of people coming to this city and most of these people come out here because they want to be a little more in the rural setting. And it's kind of a dichotomy what we have here and we have this exploding development, and it's wonderful. It's a great community. It's good people. People come out here to be a little bit out of the rat race. Little bit in the rural community and here is somebody who's going out of their way and willing to make a tremendous sacrifice to preserve a little island of what most of us brought us out here so I would urge you to consider that. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. 35 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Vemelle Clayton: I'm Vemelle Clayton, I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle and you've seen me here many times but tonight I'm here as a friend and fellow farmer. And I told Sue that I would address one particular issue, partly because Ladd brought it up last time and now he's not here but I thought I would do it anyway. I had a couple other comments that I thought I'd make.., and what she actually has out there now and what she can continue doing. But I think that's all cleared up so I won't belabor that point. So I will just focus on what I thought I would tell Ladd. And that is he was a little concerned about the size and Sue addressed it a little bit too and it's probably clear in your minds now without any comment from me, but as she is enamored of rural life, so am I. She's willing to risk a great deal financially and spend an awful lot of time to preserve it. What I do is I risk a little financial stability and security by buying out my siblings so that I could in fact keep the farm that I grew up on because once you live on a farm, you never really want to totally give it up. So I go out there from about now on until about the end of October every other weekend and we farm. And so to put the size of her operation into perspective and I know that some of you have farm backgrounds so I don't need to tell you this. 6 acres is quite a lot of space for what she wants to do. And so I'm concerned when we address, I'm not quite sure what it is we're talking about when we talk about intensity. To put it in perspective on my farm which is basically a cattle farm. Cattle and previously sheep. We used to have a lot more types of things. We just have cattle now but when we had more things, over winter which is what I consider a comparable situation for Sue. Over winter is when animals don't go to pasture. They don't need the extra space. You feed them right in the yard and they don't leave. In fact you don't want them to leave. The gates are shut. Over winter we had at times in the range of 125 cattle. Let me back up. We had about 8 acres of farm yard and a large part of that was mowed, house, yard and approach and garden. On that then, in our barns we kept, in and around our barns, approximately 125 heads of cattle. It varied. About 75 head of sheep and because we just had a small chicken house, we only had about 100, but as you know you can keep an awful lot of chickens in a small space. We didn't have anybody occupying for most of the time. One site was over about the age of 10, the horse barn so that was still unused, and we had two buildings fully filled with machinery. So that gives you some kind of perspective. She's talking about upwards of 80 I think, and that includes some little bitty animals. Now we had 125 cows so if you get the idea, she's got much more space. I would say there is no intensity. If there's intensity to be considered I would think the traffic, the people coming, but not the animals. I also wanted to say that I don't want to speak for Sue but I think there are things that could be worked out that may a bit better for both the city and her than might be presented to you tonight. For example, my grandparents farm now is owned by someone who specializes in raising emu. Only a few miles away from my farm. Within a few miles there are people that have buffalo, lama, ostrich. Often there are pheasants being taken care of for fall release. Rabbits. Pet skunks. When I was little we had among other things, as my dad happened to run over with a lawn mower with a mower, or whatever, lo and behold we would have a wild duck, wild geese. At one time we had a pet coyote. Turtles, lizards, so all of these things are from time to time farm pets. That's my point. Farming these days, and this is not a relevant point because she's wanting to replicate a 1920's farm, but farming these days is emphasizing alternative uses and alternative products so to speak. Animals and poultry and so I don't think if you expand it you are talking about a zoo. These folks that raise lamas are not considered to be raising zoo animals. So I think there are some language that can be cleared up that would benefit both the city 36 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 and Sue. And don't be afraid. I think that two things, don't be so restrictive that she can't succeed. And two, don't be afraid of this. This can be something good for Chanhassen. You can have enough restrictions. She's offering to let you have restrictions. But don't be afraid. Go boldly with this. It can be really fun and really great for Chanhassen. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Susan McAllister: I'm not going to talk long but I just want to reassure you that, well I want to inform you that there's people that, I hear them say they're coming to Chanhassen and I say why do you come to Chanhassen? Just, I'm curious. For the country feel. For like the feel of the country. We like the look of the open fields and so on. I want you to realize that the country is not Chanhassen anymore and the country is only where you're going to allow it to be so that's where the country is and that's what I'm trying to preserve and I want to preserve it forever so that's what my real thought is. Peterson: Anyone else? Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Anyone want to jump into this one? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a question of staff before we start. I need to kind of get something clarified. The home occupation ordinance we looked at tonight, from my perspective was talking about restrictions on properly zoned residential, okay. Now we're talking about some properly that's not zoned residential? Aanenson: A2 is also a residential zone. Blackowiak: It is a residential zone? Aanenson: Yes. It does not meet the home occupation ordinance. You've got activities outside the principle structure. Home occupation has to be in the home. That's why we're coming up with some different standards. Blackowiak: So then the one employee that we used for the home occupation really doesn't apply to this. It's just a number that you chose? Aanenson: ... we've framed this up on intensity. Intensity isn't just animals. It's the activity level on the properly. How many employees are there? How many kids are there? What are the hours of operation? Those are all factors of intensity. While I appreciate the comments on the farm, I don't think those farms are in close proximity to houses such as this is going to be. Again, if you, if we look to 5 years down the road, this is going to be different. We certainly want to preserve the agricultural of this properly. That's why we're bringing this forward. We're trying to strike that balance as what is the right amount of intensity on this properly and again if you give it a conditional use, you cannot revoke the conditional use. It runs with that properly forever and that 37 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 was our concern. We're going out there and we don't know the ramifications. We're going into a, all we can tell you is from our past experience where there's conflicts. And we're saying we anticipate that and I think if we were to start smaller and say you know build on that, we'd be, the staff would be much more comfortable with that. But say there's 5 employees and then you have two school buses and, you're having 50 kids, 60 kids, 75 kids during the day on that running around. I don't know. I don't know what the implications are. You don't do that on a normal farm. There's a commercial store that you need to have somebody running. It's a lot different than just preserving agricultural and so, there's some ramifications. The traffic, all that. So that's what we were looking at intensity. Not just the number of animals. I'm certain that that is probably the least of the problems. While there may be some nuisance with noise, with peacocks, there are. Because we have that complaint already in the city with that noise. Peterson: Other questions of staff before we give comments? Alison, do you want to begin the commentary? Blackowiak: I should have kept quiet. Peterson: See that you should have. Blackowiak: Got you looking this way didn't I? Peterson: Yep. Blackowiak: Sure I will. This is a tough one. I certainly applaud the idea. I think that it is important to try to preserve some type of Chanhassen's history. I'm not sure of the location. It is going to be an island, definitely. If indeed that proposed development goes through. We're going to have all kinds of neighbors that are going to be right up next door and there will be complaints and that's just a given. It's going to happen. Regardless of the fact that she was there first, there are going to be people that are not going to be happy about it. I understand why she would like a conditional use permit versus an interim use. From a purely business point of view however I would feel uncomfortable ifI were trying to go into a new business with an interim use, with simply an interim use permit, for only 5 years. I just don't think that that's really something that would give her the comfort level she might need to spend the time, money and energy necessary to get something like this up and going. So I don't know that this is necessarily even what she would want or accept in terms of a solution that would be acceptable to her. I have some problems with some of the conditions. Specifically number of employees. Specifically parking. I don't think either is enough to support what she wants to do, but the question I'm still struggling with is if she has enough with, to achieve what she wants to do, is it going to be too much for this site and I guess I don't have that answer right now. One of my main kind of problems to myself is, the 78th Street access. I don't like that at all. Especially since we're talking about that neighborhood being there. I think that that's going to potentially raise more problems than an access off of Highway 41 would simply because you've got residential neighborhoods. You've got, you know I assume pedestrian traffic, children, etc so for me I would be more comfortable hearing staff recommend something off of 41. Dave, you're shaking your head. I understand that but. 38 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Aanenson: The sight line is terrible. Blackowiak: I understand but I'm just saying that West 78th I don't think is going to be much better. That's my opinion. I mean right or wrong. I mean I'm not an engineer but that's just kind of what I'm thinking in terms of the neighbors. When there are neighbors there. It's going to be a problem for them having traffic going through their neighborhoods and that's why I would almost prefer doing something off of 41. Bottom line is, I just don't know what to say. I wish she had 40 acres. That would be wonderful. I'm sure she does too. But I guess I am struggling with the idea that we're not giving her enough to succeed. Yet if she does get enough to succeed, it might just be too much for the site so I'm going to listen to the other comments and hopefully get some more insight. Peterson: And to that point, any other comments by commissioners? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman, I'll continue down the line here. I like the idea of supporting, preserving little oasis, oasi. Oasises. And it is a nice little farm. I like the idea. I too am concerned about the conditions, limiting it too much to where it's not a going venture. So I'd like to see the parking increased to what the applicant has recommended or asked for, which is 20 cars or/and. It's not clear to me actually, would the buses go where the cars are so it's either or deal? Or both? It's both, okay. So I'm tom on that. Because if you have all of that, that's 200 people. That's way more so actually I like it the way it was. Never mind. I think that's how you restrict the use is by the number of parking and that we should increase the stafl~ the number of people who can work there which was point number 3 under the petting farm. I don't know how you call it. The ordinance. The section for petting farms. I would like to see it four non-residents of the place because that's what it sounds like it would take to make a go of it. What else do I have here? Oh, and then the length of the interim use. Since the applicant has expressed a willingness to be revisited, every 10 years or whatever the number is, I guess I'd like to see it be longer than 5 years. I think 5 years is just not sending a very positive signal to the applicant that she can really establish a business and build buildings so I like the idea of it being more like 10 years or something like that. And have it relate to after the installation of the driveway on West 78th. I like the entrance on West 78th. Sorry Alison. I just think it takes it off the fray of 41. And until that road is built, she'll just have to take the show on the road or do some of her prep work. It probably will take her that long to prepare to open this business anyway so those are my thoughts. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Sidney: Yes, I'll make some comments Mr. Chair. I like the idea of a petting zoo. Excuse me, a petting farm. Should choose my words more carefully here. I was thinking it would be a really fun place to bring my niece and I was so excited about it when I first saw that brochure and stufl2 I think that'd be a really fun place to go in the community for little children. I think we need more of those types of areas. And I was thinking about you know intensity, is it activities and I was thinking particularly in Stone Creek there's a small park with kids and it's just over mn with kids. It's very loud. There's a lot of noise and it goes on all day and into the night and I'm wondering if we're really going to have anything more noisy than that with a petting farm. Probably not. Or 39 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 a ballfield if you've been around ballfields, you know with screaming kids. If this were planned to be a park or a ballfield would we feel differently? And I think maybe not. I think the petting farm is probably going to be in that same realm. Probably even more quiet. Maybe not as intense in terms of activities and so I'd be certainly in favor of the interim use permit for this particular use. I do like, would like to see the condition on the number of employees changed and increased so that we have no more than 4 maybe listed, and I guess that's part of the description of the petting farm. Also I made a note here about, I also would like to see under petting farms the condition 4 address the request about being able to rehabilitate wildlife so that only customary farm animals and the rehabilitation of wildlife shall be allowed on the site. And then strike wild but leave exotic animals shall be prohibited. Those are my thoughts for now. Peterson: Thank you. Burton: Mr. Chairman I'll jump in. I agree on the employee issue. I think it should be 4. On the parking, I like starting off where it is but I would, I would guess the applicant could always come back every year if she wanted to or even more often and ask for new things. So she can always come back and ask for more parking. I don't know about the access issue. The access issue just kills it. If it's limited to 78th Street then, and there is no 78th Street there, then this thing's not happening for quite a while anyway. But I also understand the concerns on 41 so I'm stuck there. I do like the project. I think it's nice to have a petting farm. I'd like to have a petting farm there. I'm not concerned about the size. I think it's pretty obvious that the applicant values the rural life and animals and she's not going to do anything to undermine those things so I'm not really worried about that. I do have another comment on the definitional part. When you limit wild and exotic animals, I think we need to work on the definition because if you limit exotic animals out of there too, you really, it seems to me we're just basically carving out maybe some peafowl and chinchilla or two from what she's planning. But I don't know, I think maybe, I don't know if we can work on some definition that really excludes the type of animals that we don't want there. You know the lions and tigers and bears type stufl~ I would rather work on the definition to keep those out but let her have some flexibility on some of the fun little animals. I guess that's it. I don't know what we'll do tonight. I feel like if we pass, if this passes to staff what's suggested, which I think is a good recommendation, that it really doesn't allow for it to go forward because first of all we've got the street issue. But I don't know where to go and I guess I'll look to the fellow commissioners on what we should do or can do here. I'm kind of stuck. Peterson: Okay. Boy, I guess I'm going to buck the trend. Even from the first session where we had a working plan I wasn't enthused with either the site or the location and I'm not any more convinced tonight that it's the appropriate of this site. But more importantly I just don't see the location as being conducive for what we want to, or what she really wants to try to accomplish, and more importantly how we want to transition from, if Pulte goes through and if that's a pretty abrupt transition which I don't think is appropriate. I'm sensing that there's going to be more traffic to the area than I did before. I see that as a negative so I guess keeping my thoughts succinct, site plan. It's marginal for what I think should be there. Or conducive for a petting farm and the location just doesn't work for me. I love the idea. I think it's a fantastic idea, just the wrong spot so. I know I sense from my fellow commissioners that we want to make that work, 40 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 but in my heart I can't move ahead because it's just the wrong spot. So I'll be happy to entertain a motion. Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. Kate, I need to ask one question. Do we have any kind of a legal time limit on this? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: So what is there, what's our time line? Kirchofl) June 2nd. Blackowiak: So even if it's a zoning ordinance amendment we still have to? Aanenson: Yes. It's a request, correct. Blackowiak: So we have to act within that time or else it automatically. Aanenson: Well we will. We would give you, tell you to make some recommendation, either approve or deny and send it forward to the City Council is what we would recommend. Not tonight. Blackowiak: Not tonight? Aanenson: You have time yet. Blackowiak: Okay. That's what I wanted to know, thank you. Well then I would like to make a motion that we table this for tonight. The reason being is that I'm sensing, I think Ladd would like to be here really. And also, I think that staff and the applicant need to get together and to further determine whether or not they can agree on interim use versus conditional use and a time for the interim use. And really hammer out some of the conditions that would be acceptable both to the applicant and to the staff} and then come back to the Planning Commission with a more concrete plan that is acceptable to both parties. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: I second that. Peterson: Any discussion? Sidney: I agree. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for a zoning ordinance amendment to allow petting farms as an interim use in the A2 District. 41 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 All voted in favor, except Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: I would nay for the reasons already noted. So what should we have Susan do in the interim? Just work with you? Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: All right, thank you. NEW BUSINESS: Peterson: Any new business Kate? Aanenson: Yes. I'll tell you what's coming up on the next meeting in May. Marsh Glen subdivision. Was on again, off again, on again, off again. It appears that it's going forward now as a traditional single family RSF subdivision. A lot of negotiations belween Mr. Kroiss and the.., properly owner. We haven't seen that also and we won't because they don't have to... subdivision so we don't know. We just know what the lots will look like. We have lwo variances on and then we're also going to put a kind of open discussion just talk about lighting. We'll try to get that on... and just talk about the impacts of lighting. There was an article in the paper recently on that same discussion. Should I move to ongoing? Peterson: Please. ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: Okay. We did hire a new storm water, or excuse me. Water Resource Coordinator. Laurie... and she starts next Wednesday so we'll have her meet with you at the next meeting. We're excited to have her on board. I wanted to let you know that on May 1st, that's a work session. The City Council will be interviewing all of the Planning Commission candidates, and you're interviewing some more tonight but all of them will be going to that meeting. May 1st. And then on May 15th there's a tentative, I think you were told this before, a joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting. I'll let you know but it looks like we're like third on the docket so I'll let you know approximately what time. The Senior and Park Commission, and Environmental will also be going that night too. As far as the ongoing items for the meeting in, the second meeting in May. We may have one tentative.., but we don't have a lot coming in right now. Pulte's the only one that's out there active right now that we're aware of. There are.., but they're still lwo weeks out yet before they get their environmental stuff yet so that will probably be June. Again, it's not a completed application. We haven't got it in. And the Igel Subdivision may come back to you too, just to let you know that. It looks like it will probably come back. Couldn't meet some of the standards so you'll be seeing that probably ultimately in May. Kind: That's the lakeshore? 42 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Aanenson: Correct. Interpretation from Roger on some of the standards of the DNR so you probably will see that again. Kind: Why does that come back to us? Aanenson: Interpretation of the lot width requirement. Roger made the interpretation of 90 feet instead of the 75. Kind: And so can they meet that? Aanenson: No. They can still get two lots. One of them wouldn't be a lakeshore lot so they're going to come back and propose it. Ask for a variance or go for the other split. I'll show you both and what the implications would be. We just met with them today. They have not submitted an application but I wanted to let you know that. And, did I tell you that we administratively approved a Target addition on the front. Going to a fagade. Nice fagade. Really enhance the building. Fake windows. It's going to look really nice. Increase landscaping so we're pretty excited about that. So that should be, they haven't pulled their permit yet but that should be underway. And it looks like Ruby Tuesdays probably won't go forward. They withdrew. Peterson: They what? Aanenson: Withdrew. You can adjourn if you... Kind: I have a question about our ongoing stuff'? What's up with the materials ordinance? Aanenson: I'm trying to wrap that up. Kind: Okay. So we'll get to see that soon? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: Good. And then we need to note these Minutes but I'm not sure ifI want to note them because there's so much that's missing from them. Aanenson: Yeah, the tape didn't work and it didn't work the last two council meetings either. This hopefully is the first meeting that. Kind: I wonder if we should try to reconstruct them? Or what can we do? Not verbatim. Not verbatim. Peterson: That's your project. Kind: It seems like some important parts are missing to me. I'm still new so I still read them. Aanenson: I would concur and the same thing happened at City Council. 43 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2000 Kind: I figured it was something like that. So I mean, they're hard to note when they're so incomplete. Peterson: We've still got to note them. Kind: I note that they're incomplete. Peterson: We also should note that Kevin was not absent. That he's resigned so. Aanenson: That should be on it too. Kind: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Deb Kind noted that the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 15, 2000 were incomplete, and that Kevin Joyce has resigned from the Planning Commission. Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 44