Loading...
3. Larry Hopfenspirger: Zoning Map Interpretation.CITY OF 3 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by City tld ;iv' fit: fd;: En Jors � -- D ig�4 — DATE: October 16, 1996 - ---- P,eecte:!_.. _ TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Dale I FROM: John Rask, Planner I as at d to council /d -a6 -96 SUBJ: Zoning Map Interpretation for 615 Flying Cloud Drive On October 14, 1996, the City Council considered an appeal of the Board of Adjustments decision to find the property located at 615 Flying Cloud Drive zoned A -2, Agricultural Estate. The Council voted to table action on this item until the full Council was present. I Additional information was provided by the applicant at the Council meeting on October 14, 1996. Included in this information was a letter from Eric Swenson, Tobacco Warehouse, confirming that he, along with Larry Hopfenspirger, had been told by City Staff that the property was zoned BF, Fringe Business District. Staff does not dispute these claims. The current zoning map for the City is misleading and does not correctly show the zoning for this parcel. Staff did not detect the mapping error until the history of this property was researched for the applicant. The zoning classification was only one piece of information within a larger framework of issues discussed with the applicant. In discussing the property with Mr. Hopenspirger, staff has always made known the limitations of the site, and the fact that the property is guided as Park and Open Space in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan clearly discourages commercial use in this area. The plan states, "Non - sewered commercial developments exist along Chanhassen's southern border adjacent to TH 169/212. Uses in this area generally have a highway orientation such as gas stations, motels, etc. Existing businesses are considered "grandfathered uses" under the present zoning ordinance. Expansion of commercial businesses in this area presents two major issues, environmental concerns and highway access. Because of the lack of available sanitary sewer and major circulation problems in the area, this comprehensive plan acknowledges the existence of these uses, however, adopted policies discourage their expansion and encourages their eventual removal." This information was clearly communicated to Mr. Hopfenspirger prior to him purchasing the property. MEMORANDUM Larry Hopfenspirger Map Interpretation October 22, 1996 Page 2 The subject property is a non - conforming lot of record. The depth of the lot is only 115 feet which does not meet the minimum requirement of 150 feet. Lot depth is a critical component of this property because of its access onto Highway 212 and the limited area for parking and traffic circulation. The most limiting factors, however, are the lack of city sewer and water. An individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) and private well would be required. Staff is concerned that the existing system may not be designed for the types of uses proposed by the applicant, and that the site lacks sufficient area for the location of a replacement system. The applicant has proposed tobacco sales, coffee shop, and car stereo and cellular phone installation businesses for this property. All these uses are prohibited in the BF district and would require an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Staff has always encouraged the applicant to come in with a specific use /proposal demonstrating that he can meet applicable building code and septic system requirements, parking, traffic circulation, etc. At that point, staff could better direct the applicant on how to proceed with his proposal. Because of the uses proposed by the applicant, a determination declaring the property zoned BF would provide an answer to only one of many questions concerning this property. Staff recognizes that the applicant is entitled to a reasonable use of the property and would support the continuation of a commercial use if it was consistent with City plans and policies. Currently, no commercial uses are listed as permitted uses in the BF district. The only commercial uses in this district are conditional or interim uses. Therefore, the zoning issues may be better handled in conjunction with a conditional use permit and/or site plan application. At the October 14, 1996, City Council meeting, the Council asked if the non - conforming use of this property had ever been documented. Whereas, no records exist on the past level of use of the property, a map prepared by the City in August 1975 shows this property containing a non- conforming use (see attached map). City staff has contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the purchase of this property. Recently, city staff was asked by the DNR about available property south of Highway 212. Staff informed the DNR of this property and encouraged them to try to purchase this property as it has limited use and is located adjacent to the floodplain. ACTION REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT The applicant is requesting the City Council find that the Board of Adjustment's incorrectly interpreted the zoning map, and find the site zoned as BF, Fringe Business. (note: Any commercial use would require a conditional use permit and /or an amendment to the zoning district.) The Council may wish to consider the following motion: 1 C r, 7 La Ho fens it er Ma Interpretation Larry p p g P ' October 22, 1996 Page 3 "The Council finds the property to be zoned A -2, Agricultural. If the applicant wishes to use the property for a commercial uses, the applicant should request a rezoning of the property. A site plan should also be submitted demonstrating that the property can be adequately served by a code compliant septic system and well, and that parking and traffic circulation can be accommodated on the non - conforming lot. (note: The Council may wish to consider waiving the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment fees.)" ' ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council minutes dated October 14, 1996 2. Non - conforming Land Use map dated August, 1975 3. Board of Adjustment and Appeals minutes dated June 24, 1996 4. Application dated September 13, 1996 5. Zoning map dated February, 1972 6. Zoning map dated December, 1986 ' 7. Zoning map dated February, 1986- revised August 24, 1989 8. Zoning map dated February, 1987- revised January, 1994 t r City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996 Todd Gerhardt: Yes. We talked to the newspaper today. We can get the ad in to come out this Thursday and that would allow us the 10 days of pre- advertisement. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion upon Todd's recommendation regarding those bidders? Councilman Senn: I move to reject all bids. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Resolution #96 -90: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to reject all bids for the furniture for the City Hall expansion project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Mason: Do you need a motion to readvertise or not? Mayor Chmiel: It'd probably be a good idea. Councilman Mason: I move to readvertise bids for the October 28` meeting for this project. Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to readvertise for bids for the furniture for City Hall Expansion Project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REQUESTING INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF TH 212 AND EAST OF TH 169 ON FORMER SITE OF SUPERAMERICA, LARRY HOPFENSPIRGER. John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This is kind of a unique item in that I don't believe we've ever had this come up in the past. What it involves is an interpretation of the zoning map. In the ordinance it's spelled out that whenever there's a discrepancy in the boundaries of a particular zoning district, the Board of Adjustment and Appeal shall make the necessary interpretation. The Board met back in June of this year to consider an appeal regarding this request. The Board found the property in question to be zoned A2. The applicant did not appeal the Board's decision in the necessary time frame. Therefore he reappealed to the Board of Adjustment. The Board met earlier this evening to consider this item. By a 2 to 1 vote the Board found the property to be zoned A2. Knowing the history behind this particular application I had scheduled it for tonight's meeting so that we could process it in a timely manner. Just to give you a brief rundown here of some of the events that have taken place. To kind of just give you a history of the zoning for the parcel. In February of 1972 the property in question was clearly outside of any commercial district. This was zoned agricultural. As you can see at that time the properties to the north of 212 was zoned what was then C -3 Commercial. In 1986 the zoning map, and it's a little hard to see. But the zoning map ... but again it clearly shows the property was zoned A2, agricultural and that the BF District was everything to the north side of 212. In 1989 the zoning map was revised. It was at this time that the property now pops into the BF District. And this is pure speculation on my part but sometime in '86...'87. Sometime in that time frame, the property to the west of this site was rezoned where the Y, the Tri-Y drive thru restaurant is located. That is zoned A2, up to one point. The applicant came in and rezoned his property and it was about this same time that the SuperAmerica site was also popped into the BF District. However it was not a part of the rezoning application. Which brings us up to our current zoning map, which was redone in 1994. This property doesn't even show up on this map because it's under this line. So that kind of brought us to where we're at today as far as what is the property zoned. Is it in or out of the district? Based on the information staff has provided in the report, we believe it's clearly within, or the intent was to always have it in the A2 District. We provided some history as far as how this property's been treated in the past. Also I'd like to note, and this wasn't included in the report, was what our comprehensive plan says about this area. In our comp plan for non sewered commercial, we specifically talk about this area of the city and those commercial uses south of 212. We state the uses in this area generally have a highway orientation such as gas stations, motels, etc. Existing businesses are considered grandfathered uses under the present zoning ordinance. Therefore obviously referring back to the SuperAmerica site, if we're calling it grandfathered, we must r C' FJ City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996 have assumed at this point it was A2. It goes on to say expansion of commercial businesses in this area presents two major issues. Environmental concerns and highway access. Because. of the lack of available sanitary sewer and major circulation problems in the area, this comprehensive plan acknowledges the existence of these uses. However adopted policies should discourage their expansion and encourage their eventual removal. It is staff's opinion that the property should be zoned A2 and that the original intent was that it be A2. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you John. Steve, do you have any questions regarding this'? Councilman Berquist: Yes I do. I'm curious about a couple of things. Now the Carver County border is roughly 3/8 of a mile east of there. That little western motel that's, we're not even arguing about what that is. That's in A2. John Rask: Correct. Councilman Berquist: I don't remember is that ... Is that in Carver County? Kate Aanenson: It's in Chanhassen. Councilman Berquist: That's in Chanhassen. Okay, that's this little block here and that's in A2. That's all the questions I've got right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike. Councilman Mason: Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: None at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Nor do I have any. Let me ask you just a quick though. The thickness of that line represents what basic distance? John Rask: I believe the lot is approximately 100 feet deep. Maybe the applicant could provide. Mayor Chmiel: And adjacent to the highway so what you're saying is it stays where it should be basically in the center of 169? John Rask: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any other questions. Would you like to make your presentation at this time? Please state your name and your address. Bruce: Thank you your Honor. My name is Bruce ... on behalf of Mr. Hopfenspirger. Of course the reason we're here is to ask the Council for an interpretation that this parcel is zoned BF, Business Fringe. And the reason we're here before the Council, and we're asking these things for the following reasons. When Mr. Hopfenspirger approached the City back in 1995 he asked the planning committee and the members of the city, what the zoning was... He was told on approximately three or four different occasions in three or four conversations, that this was zoned business fringe. Now my client's business is commercial real estate. He would not have purchased this property if it was zoned A2. He had no use for A2. The only reason he purchased this is because he's in the business of commercial real estate. Now in September of 1995 he purchased this property. Again primarily based upon conversations with members of the City of Chanhassen. Those individuals that my client had conversations with, Kate Aanenson, who's here tonight. And Bob Generous. Now not only did Mr. Hopfenspirger have these conversations but his perspective clients and tenants had conversations as well with these individuals who represented to them that this was zoned BF. Now in addition to representations that were made in this case. The representations that this was Business Fringe zoned, we have to look at the history of this property. John, can you City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996 put up that 1986- 89...a map that states in the bottom right hand corner February, 1986, Revised August 24, 1989. It clearly shows the subject property is within the BF district lines. Now the subsequent map which is I believe would be in 1994, is ambiguous. The line goes through it and as the Mayor questioned Mr. Rask, the line goes through it, he wanted to know what the distance of that line was so it's certainly ambiguous and in no way shows that it's presently two. If we look at the history of this property, obviously there was a SA gas station in there. That's been there since 1972. Prior to an SA gas station, there was a North Star gas station. Prior to the SA station being there, there was a conditional use permit for a pylon sign. West of the property there's a drive -in which is zoned BF. North of the property, across 212 there's a used car lot that's zoned BF and east of the property there is the motel which although zoned A2, it's still a commercial property. So members of the Council, this entire parcel, except for the south boundary, is surrounded by business fringe and commercial uses. It's been a commercial use for in excess of 25 years and the maps that we've seen with both Council members today, don't clearly state that it's... The map that I'm looking at right now, which is '86, revised '89, clearly shows it to be within the BF District. So the reason that Mr. Hopfenspirger wants to have a classification of BF. Obviously he wants to put that parcel to use. He wants to open up a coffee shop in that area. Right now as you're probably all well aware, that particular piece of property has likely been abandoned for approximately 3to 4 years. Weeds growing up. Dilapidated buildings... We'd like to go in, clean it up. Offer a good service. Offer something the citizens would like. Offer something that will be consistent with the character of Chanhassen and improve that piece of property down there. Maybe create a couple of jobs in the meantime. But it's certainly his interpretation that if this indeed is BF, then that would be a reasonable and fair interpretation of the existing zoning maps that we have before us. It would certainly be a reasonable and fair interpretation of the historical use of that property. And it'd certainly be fair and reasonable, given the representations that not only he was given but his perspective clients and tenants were given also. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Does anyone have any questions? Councilman Berquist: I'm looking at the map for the applicant but I'm looking at the zoning map from 1986, and it indicates that the property directly west of this site was zoned IOP or am I not reading that right? Is there something there that indicates we're on a different site? John Rask Yeah, I think ... the intersection. There is another BF District further to the west near the Chaska border. The IOP is... Councilman Berquist: So that little IOP is indicative of that other, that little narrow peninsula like strip? All right. Mayor Chmiel: Any others? Councilman Berquist: No. No others. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess John, I'm going to ask you the same question I did before for the benefit of the Council. If in fact this property has been A2, why is there not any documentation in place, especially given the intensifications or use on the site and everything else showing that it's a non - conforming use. John Rask: Yeah, and we have a large number of non - conforming uses throughout the city and unfortunately haven't had the time to go and document the level of use on all of them, and that's something that should be done. We have identified it as a non - conforming use in the comp plan for one. And it's clear that it's been vacant for at least the last two years. I'm not sure when SuperAmerica, of the exact date that they vacated it but they basically at that point lost their non - conforming rights to continue the use. 1 r. n f. I� City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996 Councilman Senn: So in the 80's when we were pretty much giving, let's say in the bid, in the 80's when we were pretty much doing things as we are doing them now, why wasn't there a non - conforming label put on the property? And why wasn't that ever raised as an issue as it related to ... intensification? John Rask: Well I think it was identified as a non - conforming use. I don't know if we actually went out and ' measured the physical dimension of the buildings or signs on the site or some of those things. But it was known that it was a non - conforming use. I don't think from review of our records and building permits and rezoning requests and site plan requests, I don't think they, with the exception of the pylon sign in '88, I don't believe they had any improvements to the site that would require city approval. Just to go back, in 1988 when they did request that pylon sign, we clearly at that point indicated that the property was zoned A2 and that was provided in the staff report. So it was some time after that they requested as far as what the zoning was. ' Councilman Berquist: So when SA abandoned the property and pulled the tanks, prior to that when they made application for the sign, it was clearly denoted within the documentation that it was in A2 and a non - conforming use within that particular area. ' John Rask: Correct. In 1988. Councilman Semi: Okay before, but where is that documentation? ' John Rask: I don't think that was provided to you but it was in the form of a conditional use permit request for the pylon sign. Councilman Senn: Well what I'm saying is, I've got a map that clearly shows in my mind that it's in the BF District. This dated '86, revised in '89. Okay, can you show me some documentation during that same period that shows it as a non - conforming use? John Rask: Yeah, I can't speak to exactly when the map was changed. This goes back, again it was in the, when we referred to it as being zoned A2 at that time so I don't know when the actual change... Councilman Senn: Do we have any other parcels in the city which are used different than they are zoned? That are not labeled as non - conforming uses. ' Kate Aanenson: Yes. John Rask: Sure. ' Kate Aanenson: Halla Nursery. Councilman Senn: Is not labeled? ' Kate Aanenson: Sure. How do you label...? Councilman Senn: Well every time Halla came in for some type of an improvement or change or whatever, you ' labeled it a non - conforming use. Kate Aanenson: Correct. I think that's what we're saying here. When those reports... always identified as non- , conforming... Councilman Senn: So I'm just saying, since 1986, I mean where are those? I mean again Kate, all we have is a map ' in front of us... Kate Aanenson: We don't respond if someone came in and asked for a permit to do something. That would be your time to respond. C City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996 Councilman Senn: Well SA remodeled and changed that station several times. Kate Aanenson: You can do ongoing maintenance io a non - conforming use. You just can't expand or enlarge. You can do your own maintenance to a non - conforming use. As long as it changes from a different type of a gas station to another gas station, that's still consistent with non - conforming. You just can't enlarge. Councilman Berquist: This little jog that shows up on the maps. Why was this ever created? For what purpose? John Rask: Okay again, that goes back to the drive -thru restaurant which was. Councilman Berquist: The Tri -Y Restaurant. John Rask: Yeah. That's why it appeared in the first place. In my opinion, that's probably where the mistake occurred is when we went to change the zoning map for that zone change, that other parcel appeared along with it with the request of the zoning change. Councilman Berquist: I went down there today and I don't remember seeing any structure on what would have been the Tri -Y site. John Rask: It's been demo'd. Audience: There is no structure on that site. Councilman Berquist: There's no structure. So ... that little thing was created solely for the purpose of including the Tri -Y within the Business Fringe? John Rask: Correct. Councilman Berquist: I have a difficult time understanding why that would be included exclusive to the SA site. What types of commercial enterprises are allowed within the BF? John Rask: They're fairly limited due to the constraint of a lack of sewer and water. They're typically uses, actually an intent of that district, we spell out that the uses included in the BF District should be temporary in nature without urban services while maintaining the integrity, minimizing the impact and protecting the natural environment. Again, the uses included in there are wholesale nursery, private park, public park, single family dwelling, agricultural. Those are permitted uses. Under conditional uses we identified motor fuel stations, truck/trailer sales. We have some of that on the north side of 212 as you saw. Retail services, cold storage and warehousing. That's also found on the north side. Miniature golf courses and those are again conditional uses within the BF District. Bruce: I could expand on that some of interim uses. Section 20 -775, outdoor churches, outdoor storage and... apparently room for expansion where uses can be—on an interim basis. Perhaps this gives the City Council a little bit of flavor for what we're trying to do. My client would like to see a coffee shop. There's the... traffic in front. There is all of the facilities there. And would be consistent with what I think the city would like to see in that. Clean up the property....make it look good and put it back on the tax rolls. The way it's now zoned A2, it makes no sense if you look at that map, it's surrounded by commercial uses. It's surrounded on the west side and the north side by BF. On the east side by commercial use although it is zoned A2. And of course on the south side you have Rice Lake. But again, my client, his business is commercial real estate. He wouldn't have purchased that unless he was told that was BF ... was given some pretty reasonable assurances that it was BF. And the character and nature of that property should allow it to be something else and for you to have a reasonable and better use of that property. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anything else? Okay, thanks. Councilman Berquist: I want to verify the accuracy of the statements regarding the question of zoning that came up prior to the purchase. F1 City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996 Kate Aanenson: I believe that there was some ambiguity what the zoning was. When he was sent a copy, the applicant was sent a copy. He also was sent a copy of what uses were permitted in the district and I explained to him ' there was limited commercial use. It was not our intent to increase the commercial there. Every use that was brought forward we said was in conflict. Even this use that's being proposed now we still have to rezone to provide a mechanism. Again the intent, because there isn't sewer down there, so that was sent to him but there was some ' ambiguity ... we kept digging back and finding reports that, and trying to research the old maps so I agree, there is some ambiguity what the zoning map and what he was told as far as interpretation and that's why we took it back to the Board to get their interpretation. We can't go back and try to understand way back when it was originally built. All we can go by is what the comprehensive plan said and that was to try to eliminate these, and there are other ' commercials there but it clearly states in the comprehensive plan, that's the intent to eliminate them. Councilman Berquist: But it sounds like the ambiguity was really only brought to the fore after the purchase had ' taken place. Kate Aanenson: Well, there may be some question on that. ' Councilman Senn: Let me pass this down. Take a look at that. This was handed out at the Board. You don't have it in your packet. This was handed out tonight at the Board, and it wasn't even part of what the Board had in it's previous consideration but it's a letter from the third party on that same issue. ' Bruce made a comment that was not picked up on the tape. Mayor Chmiel: No, as he mentioned it was only at the previous meeting that was held. We do not have that in our ' packet. Bruce: Would you like... ' Mayor Chmiel: Do you have additional ones? Bruce: Yes. Tom Scott: Kate, do you have the letter? ' Kate Aanenson: No. Tom Scott: I have it Don from the previous meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. All right. One of the discussions, is there any other discussion that you'd like to have on this? ' Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I want to know the best way to resolve it and make everybody happy. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's going to take a little bit of time I think. Councilman Berquist: I'm not quite certain how to go about what the logistics are of bringing that site within the BF District but that's definitely the way that I would like to see it pursued. ' Councilman Mason: Following that I guess, what was the rationale of Board of Adjustment and Appeals for saying no. It's A2, not BF. John Rask: Just based on the review of the past maps. How the information contained in the report and testimony ' received at the meeting. Basically it was presented to them at the time ... what do you think the intent was here and what do you believe is the correct zoning. Not from the standpoint of what makes the most sense in terms of use of the property but based on you know, what the property was mapped at before and how it was referred to in the past. City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Willard, is there anything in addition that you could provide the Council, other than what John has basically just said? Willard Johnson: No. I think Carol felt that we had made our decision the other time. I asked Mr. Knutson... if I felt that yes, you should have a filling station. That wasn't the proper way to interpret it... interpret it the way the map had and that's the way I felt they interpreted it. But I'd like to see the gentleman say yes, you can have a filling station but I don't feel that was the proper interpretation of the law. I felt that the map indicated that it was in the agricultural environment and I still feel that... interpret the map... I feel that yes, I would like to have a filling station but,...that I felt he should have but I can't interpret it that way. The way I interpret the map it was agricultural. If they want to do anything different, they're going to have to go through a procedure to rezone it to whatever the Council feels is fair... Mayor Chmiel: Right, thanks. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: A question I guess for anybody. What is ... the Board of Adjustment and Appeals voted 2 to 1 that it is A2. What is to prevent the applicant from requesting a zoning change from A2 to BF in that spot? John Rask: That certainly would be an option. That would be an option to them. We have some concerns about obviously in relation to what the comp plan says for the parcels. We had some concerns about the expansion of commercial uses on that site. Mayor Chmiel: I think it was included in that comp plan and I think I would have tendencies to move towards that particular location but being that it was included in the comp plan, that gives me a little more undecidedness as far as going through that process and approving it. Councilman Berquist: Let me play devil's advocate. Are you done? Let me play devil's advocate for just a moment. If in fact we encourage the owner to go through and attempt to implement a zoning change, do we then open the additional properties adjacent to it to that same sort of argument? Wouldn't it be cleaner to simply look at this site, given the ambiguities of the map, and include that this site was in the BF? Councilman Senn: Again, we've been asked to make an interpretation. I mean how can you ... put the applicant kind of tenuous ground by saying you're not willing to make the interpretation that it's BF. If you want to ask, go spend the time and money to try to make it BF, go ahead. It seems to me that's kind of two different answers to the same question. Boy, I think you look at the '86 map. You know again, I mean you have to look I think a little bit in relationship to the ambiguity. I mean I don't think anybody argues there is an ambiguity. But if you look at the old maps, the older maps draws that line down to the right -of -way. If you look at the more recent maps, the '86 and revised '89, it's clearly within the boundary regardless of how you look at the line. And in the '94 one, you know why was the line moved over to take in that 100 feet when all previous maps had it drawn down the center of the right -of -way. I mean again, ambiguity, ambiguity again but you know Steve, I agree with you. I mean in looking at it and looking at the site, I mean by looking at it over the last 25 years, which ... I just don't see that there's any other use other than BF... Mayor Chmiel: It's within the mind that actually what's on some of these things here. It's two different things. Councilman Senn: For all the reasons it shows it being BF. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Berquist: Especially when you get close to the purchase date and time. Mayor Chiniel: No, I'm not objecting to get it back on the tax rolls. Councilman Berquist: Well I know if I went out and bought a piece of property, and did what I thought was due diligence in finding out the zoning only to find out that I was being held hostage because of a misinterpretation, I'd be dang irate, and if I didn't do due diligence before I purchased the property, then it's my problem. That does not J u r r City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996 ' seem to be what occurred in this situation. There is an ambiguity and I think we can solve it by including it within the BF. And that's the motion that I would make. Mayor Chmiel: I didn't call for a motion as of yet. ' Councilman Berquist: I'm sorry. I thought we could make one at any time. We can't? Mayor Chmiel: No. ' Councilman Berquist: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: I get a little concerned from a traffic aspect. Some of the problems that exist with accidents within that particular corridor. And by putting an additional tie in to the business within that location, does give me some of those concerns as well. And as you said, if that then is included in BF, and the balance of that be extended into the BF as well. And by having additional terms within that specific area would enhance additional problems over and above what we have in that particular proposal going in. If you had four or three within that area, you're going to be creating some given problems. Charles, do you see anything within here, especially on Flying Cloud Drive, that could create those additional problems? Charles Folch: Well, in general anytime you introduce another access point on the road, be it a driveway or anything, you're creating a point of conflict that potentially result in an accident. I do know that MnDOT will be down there this fall installing additional turn lanes at those two intersections, the east and west junctions of TH 101. They're also going to add two more signals down there which when the system is integrated with the other signal ' should allow more spacing in- between if you will, of traffic. Which anything should help the situation down there. In general, will this type of business create any adverse affects? Probably not any more than what's there now. General amount of traffic. ' Mayor Chmiel: All right. Kate Aanenson: Can I just make a point of clarification? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. ' Kate Aanenson: There was ambiguity on the zoning but you have to understand that even under the zoning that he was led to believe that it was, it was always told to him that it was guided open space. It was a non - conforming use and it had limited use on the property. To date, a use has not been ... even in the BF, that could go in there. So the letter here.. J strongly discourage it happening. Even a coffee shop is still not a permitted conditional or interim use. So even if tonight your interpretation is a BF, there still needs to be a mechanism in place to allow that type of use. You'd still have to amend the district. I just want to make sure everybody's clear on what the applicant... Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor, if I could comment. Really the only issue before the Council tonight is basically an administrative interpretation of what the zoning map says. Whether it's BF or A2. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Mason: And I guess because of that I feel that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the city staff is far more versed in interpreting those maps than I am. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree with that. If you'd wait just a moment while... Yeah, and I sort of agree with that position as well Mike. That's why I'm having a little bit of time with this. If it was not in the comp plan and that can have problems. But it really so indicates that within that comp plan. Yes. Larry Hopfenspirger: I agree with Mr. Mason that to rely on ... what the zoning is. And I started talking to Super America back in 19, I also agree with Mr. Berquist. It was totally incredulous that this was not ... I can't believe it... I started talking with the city in March of '95. They told me it's BF. They told me the uses for conditional uses 10 City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996 if it was BF. I relied on the staff. Who knows better than staff. I talked to them on 6/16/95. That was Bob Generous. 8/1/95 I talked with Kate Aanenson. With Greg Swenson about the ... said it, was BF... It's tough to get a use in there but you do have conditional uses for sporting goods, used cars, rental trailer. We wouldn't have purchased it without the representations made from the city staff. On 9/6/95 I spoke with Kate Aanenson. We came in on 9115195 to speak with Kate Aanenson about it. On 2/20/96 Don Culver wanted to put in a satellite dish business for rental. He was told BF, conditional uses were for sporting goods, trailers, and boats. In fact I asked Kate if satellite dishes would fit under sporting goods. So I relied on city staff and on the 13` of March of this year I wanted to come in and talk with Don Culvert with Kate Aanenson. But when I got there I was met by Sharmin and Sharmin says well there is some confusion and I suggest you talk with Knutson but we're going to research this. I'm sure we can work everything out was her words and what happened was, nothing was worked out. I just kept going deeper into this hole. The first Board of Appeal, at the first Board of Appeal I talked to Roger Knutson and he said I should appeal it. I represented myself. I'm not too good at representing myself. I wasn't clear, concise in stating, say things that should have been said and we talked a long time and all of a sudden it seemed that well... Willard Johnson said I recommend that it goes A2 based on the conditional use permit from 1988 for the pylon sign... I just don't believe it. I just, that I would purchase a property relying on city staff and I realize now I should have had zoning—but I purchased the property relying on city staff and then was told after one year that it's zoned A2. It's just not fair. It's just not right. That's all I have to say and... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom if Council accepts this, would it be in the proper to, well I guess probably you want Findings of Facts on this in determining the property zoned as A2? Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor, yes. I would suggest that any form of a motion, whether it's, whatever you determine it to be, and it's within your discretion it to be but that it would be a motion directing staff to prepare Findings determining that the property is zoned whatever the Council decides. That would be the form of the motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess we can't prolong this anymore with any more additional discussion. I would ask for a motion. Councilman Berquist: I would move that the property located at 615 Flying Cloud Drive be included within the Business Fringe District as detailed on the February, 1986, Revised August 24, 1989 zoning map. Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second. Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor if we could just amend the format of that motion. That staff would be directed to prepared Findings consistent with the determination that it would be Business Fringe. If Council member Berquist would acceptthat. Councilman Berquist: Thank you, I do. Mayor Chmiel: And does the second accept it? Councilman Senn: Yep. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact consistent with the determination that the property at 615 Flying Cloud Drive is located within the BF, Business Fringe District. Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn voted in favor. Councilman Mason and Mayor Chmiel voted in opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Mayor Chmiel: I still have a lot of questions in regard to it. They're still not answered. As it appears it's a tie. What will happen with this, our one Council person is not here this evening. That would do the break, either for or against so I would suggest that we see this back again at Council on the 28` and just make sure we check that there's going to be a full Council. I know I'll be here. Steve. 11 1 Ll 'J City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996 Councilman Berquist: Definitely. Mayor Chmiel: You're not going out of town? Mike? Councilman Mason: As far as I know. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: ...know for sure. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll put it the 28` Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor, you may want a motion to that effect. If you want to move it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Councilman Mason: What is this motion now? Mayor Chmiel: This motion is to bring it back on the 28` while a fifth council member is here. Tom Scott: No, you're going to need a second. Councilman Senn: Well I'm just curious. Isn't that automatic? Tom Scott: No. You need to take some action tonight if you're going to table it to a date certain, which would be the next meeting. There should be a motion to that effect. Councilman Berquist: I'll second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table the zoning classification for 615 Flying Cloud Drive designation until the October 28, 1996 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Chuck Wagner: I just wish to, my name is Chuck Wagner. I'm not sure, this is probably not the right spot but since it's under New Business. There are a few of us here about the County State Aid Highway 17. We had been promised a meeting on the snowmobiling issues which offend us greatly. I have a letter from Scott Harr dated January, the 16` of this year promising a meeting of this Council on snowmobiling issues. We're getting dangerously close to the season. I would ask that maybe the City Council staff needs to address this issue publicly at an upcoming meeting. Mayor Chmiel: I believe it's going to be coming up either this next meeting or the one following it so. Chuck Wagner: I hadn't heard anything. I know we're very concerned about this. Thank you. Sorry for the interruption. Mayor Chmiel: You bet. INTERVIEW AUDITORS AND SELECTION OF 1996 -98 AUDITING SERVICES CONTRACT. Mayor Chmiel: We're going to do an interview of auditors and what I'd like to do is, whoever's going to be first. To have the other auditor outside of the Council chamber. Don Ashworth: They have agreed to that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. 12 CITY OF CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA NOW CONFORMING LAND U INSUFFICIENT LOT AREA PER SHORELAND ORDINANCE L USE NOT ALLOWED IN DISTRICT - INSUFFICIENT LOT AREA - INADEQUATE FRONTAGE C �Amo . e , 1000 500 0 X000 2000 3000' Baer maD peperB eGGDSr. �9e5 — -- -- - i C�v o� Cnannaaaen n�n0 Department so�.cr. cry D.mppnce a� I MEMORANDUM J CITY OF S - CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II John Rask, Planner I DATE: October 10, 1996 SUBJ: Zoning Classification for 615 Flying Cloud Drive, Former Super America Site BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPDATE On June 24, 1996, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Larry Hopfenspirger and Mr. Feyereisen for a zoning map interpretation. The appeal concerned an interpretation of the City's zoning map. The zoning map was unclear as to which district the property was located. City staff informed Mr. Hopfenspirger that the property was zoned A -2, Agricultural Estates District. The applicant alleges that he was told by city staff, before he purchased the property, that it was zoned BF, Fringe Business District. Based on the staff report and testimony received at the meeting, the Board found the Super America site to be zoned A -2, Agricultural Estate. Mr. Hopfenspirger and Mr. Feyereisen were notified that they could appeal the Board's decision to the City Council. No appeal was filed within the time frame established by City Code. In August of this year, Larry Hopfenspirger contacted city staff to appeal the Board of Adjustments decision to the City Council. Staff informed Mr. Hopfenspirger that appeals to the City Council must be filed within four days following the Board's meeting. On September 16, 1996, Mr. Hopfenspirger submitted a new application requesting an interpretation of the zoning map. Accordingly, staff scheduled this item for the October 14, 1996 Board of Adjustments meeting. If the applicant is aggrieved by the Board's decision, he could appeal to the City Council. To process the applicant's appeal in a timely manner, staff also scheduled this item on the October 14, 1996, City Council agenda in the event that the applicant wishes to appeal the Board's decision. Board of Adjustments and City Council June 19, 1996 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 20 -28 (b)(1) of the zoning ordinance grants the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city employee in the administration of the Zoning Chapter Section 20 -203 of the zoning ordinance states that where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of any district, the board of adjustments and appeals shall make the necessary interpretation. BACKGROUND The former Super America site is located south of Highway 212 and is legally described as Part of Government Lot 3, Section 36. The site is 23,220 square feet in size and contains a one story (23' x 40') building, and a (8' x 24') storage enclosure located in back of the building. The site has not been used as a gas station since approximately 1993. Therefore, any non - conforming use rights on this site have expired. Adjacent zoning and land use include Highway 212 to the north, Rice Lake to the south, Western Motel to the east (zoned Agricultural Estate District), and an abandoned drive -in (Tri -Y). The abandoned drive -in is the only parcel south of Highway 212 which is zoned BF, Fringe Business. The Ordinary High Water mark for Rice Lake is 699.2. The lowest floor elevation for the existing building is 725.98. Therefore, the building is located out of the flood plain. The appeal by Mr. Hopfenspirger is regarding the zoning status of the site. City staff is of the opinion that the site is zoned A -2, Agricultural Estate District. However, the applicant alleges that city staff told him that the site was zoned BF when he called the city inquiring about the zoning for this parcel. In addition, the applicant alleges that he purchased the property believing it was zoned for commercial use. The current zoning map for the city shows the BF district boundary line located over the property. Most zoning district boundaries are either located along the center line of a road or on a property line. A zoning map prepared in 1989 shows the property located in a BF district. All other information indicates that the property is zoned A -2. Staff is unaware of any rezonings associated with this parcel. The following chronology was compiled from information contained in Planning Department files: HISTORY February, 1972: The Zoning map shows the subject site in an Agricultural Residence District. r 1 r l Board of Adjustments and City Council June 19, 1996 Page 3 October 4, 1976: Variance request to construct a pump island canopy within the front yard setback. Variance was granted. November 8, 1978: A building permit was issued for a prefabricated metal storage shed building (8' x 24'). December 4, 1978: Variance request for a metal storage shed (24' x 8'). April 8, 1983: Building permit for a shed (8' x 10'). May 5, 1993: Building permit was issued to remove Underground Storage Tanks April 30, 1985: DNR sent memo regarding Proposed Septic System for Super America. a. Construction of system will not encroach on any part of Rice Lake. b. Location of property appears to be at the outermost edge of the shoreland district, if in it at all. C. The system has been adequately designed considering the site limitations. Recommendation to regularly monitor the system to ensure there is no seepage. The system cannot conform totally with the concepts of keeping the system four (4) feet above the highest known groundwater table and steep slope considerations. May 20, 1985: Onsite Sewage Treatment System permit was approved. July 25, 1985: Building permit was issued for an existing building to move storage tanks. August 1, 1985: Septic inspection. August 16, 1985: An inspection was conducted for the Tanks and Drainfield. "Tanks set OK." August 19, 1985: Septic inspection. August 20, 1985: Septic inspection. December 1986: The Zoning Map shows the site zoned A -2. June 1987: The Zoning Map shows the site zoned A -2. June 13, 1988: A zoning map attached to a staff report for CUP 88 -6, shows the subject site within an A -2 District. Board of Adjustments and City Council June 19, 1996 Page 4 April 25, 1988: A zoning map attached to a staff report for CUP 88 -4, shows the subject site within an A -2 District. August 8, 1988: City Council approved a CUP to construct an 80 square foot pylon sign for Super America. The zoning map shows the site zoned A -2. August 24, 1989: Zoning map shows BF district line drawn over subject site allowing the site to appear in a BF district. January 29, 1990: A zoning map attached to a staff report for CUP 90 -1, shows the subject site within an A -2 District. September 12, 1994: A zoning map attached to a staff report amending the zoning ordinance as it relates to the BF district, shows the subject site within an A -2 District. June 24, 1996: The Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the appeal of Mr. Mark Feyereisen and Larry Hopfenspirger for a zoning map interpretation. The Board, by a unanimous vote, found the property to be zoned A -2, Agricultural Estate. ACTION REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT The applicant is requesting the Board of Adjustments and Appeals find staff's interpretation of the zoning map incorrect, and find the site zoned as BF, Fringe Business. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies the applicant's appeal based on the following findings: 1. On June 24, 1996, the Board held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Mr. Mark Feyereisen and Mr. Larry Hopenspirger for a zoning map interpretation for the Super America site located at 615 Flying Cloud Drive. Based on the staff report and testimony received at the pubic hearing, the Board found the property to be zoned A -2, Agricultural Estate. 2. Article II, Section 20 -29(d) of the City Code allows for decisions of the Board to be appealed to the City Council, provided the appeal is filed with the City within four (4) days after the date of the Board's decision. The applicants were informed of the appeal process at the meeting on June 24, 1996. The applicants did not file their appeal within the time frame established in the City Code. L L ul Board of Adjustments and City Council ' June 19, 1996 Page 5 t 3. No new information or evidence has been submitted since the Board last considered the applicants request. 4. If the applicant wishes to change the zoning on the property, the applicant should submit an application for a zone change." 1 ATTACHMENTS I 1. Board of Adjustment and Appeals minutes dated June 24, 1996 ' 2. Application dated September 13, 1996 3. Zoning map dated February, 1972 ' 4. Zoning map dated December, 1986 5. Zoning map dated February, 1986- revised August 24, 1989 6. Zoning map dated February, 1987 - revised January, 1994 I ti Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Jim Jasin: Let's say the end of July. Knutson: Okay. I can't say okay. Watson: We like it when you answer questions. Chmiel: I think that would be fine, if your second also would. Watson: Absolutely. Chmiel: I make a motion to table. Watson: Second. Chmiel moved, Watson seconded to table action on a valiance for- a 10 foot front yard, a 4 foot east side yard, a 5 foot west side yard, and lakeshore setback variances for the construction of a single family residence on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 3705 South Cedar Drive until the end of July so the applicant can bring back revised di-awings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING APPEAL FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF TH 212 AND EAST OF TH 169 ON THE FORMER SITE OF SUPERAMERICA, MARK FEYEREISEN. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Watson: When we were supposedly calling it agricultural and allowing that gas station to be there, how were we justifying the gas station on an agricultural property? Al -Jaff: It pre -dated the ordinance. It was there prior to. Watson: So we didn't call it anything. Or didn't address the fact that it was in fact. AI -Jaff: No, it was agricultural. However it was a non - conforming. Watson: But we called it a non - conforming? Did we actually address it as a non - conforming use on that property? 11 J 7 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Al -Jaff: No. It's always been shown as an agriculture. Through applications that we reviewed in the past, it requests what the zoning is on the site. And it's always been stated that the site is zoned agriculture. The issue of it being a non - conforming use has not come up, at least through the research that we have done, we have not found anything that points out that this use is non - conforming. Watson: But a gas station in an agricultural area is not a conforming use? Al -Jaff: Correct. Watson: I was just curious about that because I mean it didn't. Knutson: Can I ask a question? Sharmin, do you know what date this gas station was initially built? Knutson: How was the property zoned in 1974? Mark Feyereisen: '74. I believe it was '74 Al -Jaff: Agriculture. ' Watson: And the date, well of course we don't have the record that tells us what decision was made when it was built. Why they granted. But I understand you know that it was allowed to be built but I just. ' Mark Feyereisen: I've got the tax lease that shows that ... The taxes for Chanhassen... ' Knutson: The tax classification has nothing to do with the zoning. Watson: Right, but I mean we didn't address in '74 the fact that the gas station went in agricultural zoning. I just was wondering if we ever addressed what we called this. Knutson: The question is, how could you be able to, it was zoned agricultural, how could it ' be able to build a gas station there? Watson: Yeah. If we let him... Aanenson: ...that part of the city at that time, it was part of the Village. Johnson: ...part of the Village if it became a city in 1968. 1 12 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 1 13 1 i Knutson: There's a short answer. We don't know how it got built. We don't have a file on it? Aanenson: We don't have a file, that's correct. Johnson: Excuse me, did you want to make a statement a minute ago? Mark Feyereisen: ...I've been driving this 212 route for at least 40 years and the 28 years as a resident of that farm in Scott County. And I've always assumed as I came near the Tri -Y, as it was called over the years. There was a North Star gas station probably 15 -20 years before the SuperAmerica bought the site and converted it to their operation. So I always assumed that the motel and the Tri -Y Drive In, which I used to frequent, and there was another filling station across the street which is now a used car lot, I believe. And you would think that these are all commercial sites. So I retired, I would always like to have a drive in like the Tri -Y, and well the Tri -Y is now gone but the building next to it, which was the former SuperAmerica site. A few months ago I thought, oh it might be kind of nice to do something along that line with that particular building, assuming that it was a commercial, retail site. I don't know the proper names of the zoning ordinance... I thought well, this is kind of a nice place and it would enhance the neighborhood. Look at something beautiful other than a filling station. So that's how I got involved. I'm almost kind of an outsider initiating what the owner of the property assumed, I guess we all assumed it was a commercial site. With that I thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Larry Thomasberg: I'm Larry Thomasberg. I live in Bloomington, 8601 Golden Avenue South. We used to live in Chanhassen... for one year. I'd like to read a letter about, and give you each one, about what happened on the site. Early last spring, around February I started ' talking to Ashland Oil about the site. And throughout the year I made calls to city staff. Kate Aanenson was the member that I was talking to about the property at 615 Flying Cloud Road. I was told by Kate Aanenson, and later by Bob Generous, the zoning of this property was BF, Business Fringe. I've been faxed by Bob Generous with zoning. I've met on two occasions with Kate Aanenson on what I could do with this site. On one occasion was 8 -28- 95 alone. Then with Greg Swenson, a perspective tenant who wanted to put in tobacco ' warehouse on 9- 15 -95. A week after I purchased the site. I relied on information to purchase the site on September 8th. You see that I put a sign out to see if I could find a tenant. My last conversation with Kate Aanenson was on March, 1996. It was about a tenant named Don Kulver who wanted to put in a sporting goods store. The BF zoning, according to Kate, BF zoning, Section 20 -773, conditional use said it was only for trucks, trailers, auto, sporting and wholesales and rental. Don Kulver had Kate Aanenson boats goods called and said and 13 1 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 cars but nothing else. Then I set up an appointment to meet with Kate on 2 -30, on Wednesday the 13th. At that time Kate handed the baton to Sharmin, who was put in charge of this file. Sharmin said that she was reviewing the whole file because it was not consistent. Later on in the week, on the 18th, she sent the file to Roger Knutson, City Attorney. On the ' week of the 25th I called Mr. Knutson for his interpretation. He said the issue was not clear. A map in 1986, revised in 1989 shows clearly the site should be inside the BF zone, and that's one of the overheads there. While the map in 1987, revised in 1994, is inclusive and ' unclear and seems to indicate BF zoning. A very obvious question is, why a map revised in 1989 wasn't the map revised in 1994, instead of the map revised, or the map of 1987, revised in 1994. It makes no sense. It sounds like there's something missing here. As of this date, Sharmin said more research could produce that it was BF or not. But until she could find more evidence she was calling it A2, agricultural. I talked to Roger Knutson and he said that I should address the commission here. So my position, to summarize it is, that the 1989 map is clear and the 1987 map, revised in 1994 that the staff was using to give me this information, is unclear. After I had purchased the property, there was nothing more I could ' do. Furthermore, the lot across the street that's non - asphalt, is BF. Tri -Y, right next to my lot, contiguous, is BF. First time I talked to Sharmin, she was under the impression that it was A2 also, until she found the file. She found the file, the zoning variance. So the inconclusiveness of the 1994 map and the conclusiveness of the 1989 map, I'm asking that I be given a BF zoning that I was told. Why else, if it wasn't conclusive, why else was I told that it wasn't BF. On the various occasions that I spoke with staff, and /or met on 6/16/95, ' 1/28/96, 9/6/95 and 10/20, or 2/20/96. To top it off, it's shown as, on the sheets that you have, it's taxed as commercial. In 1995. It shows as commercial. It's taxed as commercial. How can so many people be so wrong if this is not indeed BF? That's it. Thank you. ' Johnson: Anybody want to address this? ' Watson: The history is rather unclear. It makes a rather strange resident of the A2 zoning district. And in 1988 we said it was A2. In '88 again we said it was A2. And in August, again we allowed a pylon. We allowed them to build commercial things on something that ' we still showed as A2. I'm real confused. Why did we allow them to, you know enlarge on a commercial zoning in an A2 Estate in 1988, if we believed that A2 zoning was correct? Again, we don't know why. ' Mark Feyereisen: May I say something? ' Watson: Well I'd really like to address it to staff, just so we can kind of ' Johnson: We're running out of time here. 14 L Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Watson: And we're running out of time here. Aanenson: There was a copy of the staff report. I'm not sure how that interpretation was made but there's a copy of the staff report that said they requested a conditional use, or a variance for a sign in the A2 district, and I'm not sure how that went through the process but it did. But it specifically said that you were giving approval to something in that A2 zone. We have a copy. That report we do have in the file. Johnson: Was there a variance granted on the sign? Aanenson: Correct. Al -Jaff: Conditional use was granted. Aanenson: Right, a conditional use to approve a sign. A conditional use. Johnson: Okay, Because I didn't think it come before the Board. Al -Jaff: No, it didn't. Watson: We'd remember if it was only in '88. I find myself puzzled by the historic picture. I'm a little puzzled too about agricultural estate zoning in that particular place with the other zonings around it. It would be a very strange relative for that A2 zoning. Is there anything that you can do to clarify this? It certainly is not a nice, neat package. Aanenson: Can I comment on the comp plan, the relevancy to the 1991 comp plan? Knutson: Yes. Aanenson: When the comp plan was updated in 1991, this was prior to my knowledge, and that's why I turned it over to Sharmin. Sharmin has the most knowledge of uses down in this area of the city, and has been here longer. But the comp plan shows everything south of 212/169 as guided as open space, recognizing that uses along there, the hotel ... are legal non- conforming and eventually a higher, better use, or open space in this case, would take over that southern part, so that must have come up during discussions in the comp plan. It's not really spelled out very well in discussing those uses down there but everything south of there is intended to be guided as open space. So that was part of my discussion with the applicant is that there was limited use, even under the BF. Watson: Okay. Because some of it is zoned BF and then we have this piece that's A2? 15 1 C� t r i Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Aanenson: Yes. Watson: And then we have BF again on the other side. Aanenson: But we do see it as eventually someday being all open space. Watson: Oh. Aanenson: Yes, Fish and Wildlife has been taking up property in that area. Watson: Well I know. They've taken a lot of the river area. Aanenson: Correct. Watson: And that makes perfect sense to me. I'm just trying to figure out, you know what, I mean we're supposed to be interpreting what this is. Knutson: What you've got to decide is how is it zoned. Chmiel: Yeah, that's the question. Watson: And when we go and make an interpretation like that, are we talking about what makes sense and what looks logical? Knutson: No. Watson: We're just talking about what. Knutson: What is. Watson: What is, whether it makes sense or not. Knutson: What is now... Watson: Okay. Johnson: ...on the lake, what the print shows. In other words, that jog goes around his property. Knutson: The question is not how it should be zoned, but how it is zoned. 16 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Chmiel: Well I think as you look at that heavy line that goes through that specific area, and carries through in and adjacent to the 169/212, and that existing structure that shows there was the former SuperAmerica. As I look at that, to me it would appear that that is not part of the BF, but it would be agricultural too. Watson: There is decidedly a jog there. I mean there is obviously. What is? Johnson: Comparatively speaking, you've got to decide whether or not that line is off the property, because there is a jog where the building stands ... in the A2. Watson: Well just west of it here, we went down and we picked up some property. We seemed to have, for one reason or another, deliberately left it. Johnson: Left it out of there. Larry Thomasberg: ...1989 where it clearly shows the BF. If you look at the 1989 ... clearly it shows it inside the boundary. I mean there's no question that the BF on that map... Knutson: Did anyone clear these particular maps with a consulting engineer or someone in- house. Al -Jaff: Some of them were prepared by. Knutson: Inbetween the two it could be found out what happened. Going back to original notes or something. Watson: Was the property listed? I mean when they went along, down along that area and there were various uses for the property by, whether it would be a tax piece or whatever you call it. Does it list it separately and each piece separately given? State specifically what zoning, like for instance when they went down and they did these maps and stuff. And that area down there where we were kind of Larry Thomasberg: I questioned the ... use of the gas station rights and they had grandfather business... Johnson: But we also have in the ordinance, if it's not been in use for a year, it converts back to whatever previous. Larry Thomasberg:: I guess what we're saying is we want to be able to bring the place back to life and bring it onto the tax rolls instead of sitting there as a piece of... 17 i I i C Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Al -Jaff: We don't, I mean this is before our time. We don't know what happened with this. Watson: Yeah, I was just hoping it was written somewhere or that they address any individual plat. A] -Jaff: Basically when this one was prepared, the borders of a district are ... can basically they put that tape on mylar which is a sheet, a little thicker than this one and apparently... went over this property. So that's how the confusion with this parcel took place. Watson: In other areas then, how do we designate where that occurred? I mean that must be dividing lots of different districts in the city. How have we interpreted. Watson: I see. Aanenson: It should follow property boundary. Not go through a property. Johnson: In other words it should have been on the edge of the road. Larry Thomasberg: The initial map that I have, that I got from Sharmin does not show this slight jog right here. I don't know if this ... Sharmin to make it more explicit, but this is a straight line without the slight jog so it's right over it. If you look at your map that's the correct that Sharmin gave you ... See there's no. Al -Jaff: Correct. I highlighted the original just to give you an indication as to where this property is located. That's the sole purpose of why you see that hint of a drawing. (There were several conversations going on at the same time at this point.) Knutson: At this point everyone apparently thought, August 8th of 1988 everyone apparently thought it was zoned A2. How you would get a CUP for a pylon sign on property zoned A2 is.... Johnson: Have you got a motion? Watson: Go for it Willard. I've done my motion for this evening. Johnson: I make a motion that this be... Watson: What do we do, recommend? 18 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Johnson: How do you want this stated? Knutson: Your motion would be, the Board finds that the property is zoned, fill in the blank. Johnson: A2? This Board finds that this property is zoned A2. Knutson: That's the motion. Watson: Second. Johnson: Any more discussion? Johnson moved, Watson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals find staff's interpretation of the zoning map as A -2, Agricultural Estate District and find the site is inaccurately zoned as BF, Fiinge Business. All voted in favor and the motion cariied. Knutson: The applicant should be advised that they can appeal this to the City Council. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public healing was closed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals dated June 10,1996 as presented. All voted in favor, except Chmiel who abstained, and the motion carried. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor- and the motion cailied. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director 19 I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Larry Hopfenspirger ADDRESS: 7300 France Ave South # 219 -A t Mn1 s , Mn 554'45 TELEPHONE (Day time) 612- 835 -2177 KECE'V W SEP 1 RECD OWNER: Larr . d'p® AY Ar �e^ ADDRESS: Frame (eve SCuth, ,# 2194- Mr1-s, Hn 5r43 TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW /Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non - conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attomey Cost** ($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) _ Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/i' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME SUPER AMERICA SIGHT LOCATION a t the Y in the road where 169 and 212 meet LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached PRESENT ZONING undeterm REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 1 REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Petitioner was told over a one year process by city staff Kate Aneson tat the proper y was Dr anZI tnen ;n March 1996 told it was A -2 This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all informatic' and plans required by applicable Cit Ordinance provision Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complyij with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am tt' authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I furth understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to a authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. c/ Date j l i .7 l� Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which wilt be available on Friday prior to th meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 1 Application Received on Fee Paid 1.0.0 100 X10 wo P— 2 PLANNED UN P— 3 PLANNED CO t. 0 0 . ■■■ ■■■ - PLANNED INI 011.■■■ Fes. 17 z C —1 OFFICE BUIL C —2 COMMERCIAL C — 3 SERVICE COA I— 1 INDUSTRIAL P— 2 PLANNED UN P— 3 PLANNED CO t. 0 0 . ■■■ ■■■ - PLANNED INI 011.■■■ Fes. 17 z g Al FEBRUARY, 1972 LEGEND R -1A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT '- R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -2 TWO FAMILY DUPLEXES R-3 NOT LESS THAN 2 OR MORE THAN 12 UNITS • • • • •• R -4 DWELLINGS OF NOT LESS THAN 12 UNITS ® C - 1 OFFICE BUILDING DISTRICT ® C -2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ® C-3 SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT I - 1 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT P PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT P PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT P-3 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT P - 4 PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT I PREPARED BY SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. 1 17 ` " -`, — —wrium mreeTiTiFfonths a to eth expiration of .; the extraction permit provided by this Ordlriance, the app cant or owner shall dismantle buildings and structures inci• f dent to excavation operations and shall grade the excavation sI te as well as complete all rehabilitation on the site as provide ' c7 s ed by the rehabilitation plan, ++ D When required, the perimeter of the excavation site shall be planted or otherwise screened. " $ sting tree and ground cover shall be preserved to the • Mrr um extent feasible, maintained or supplemented by sel max ec- 1 j •rive cutting,'transplanting and replanting of treesi shrubs and ;'other. ground cover along all setback areas, Excavation Operating Standards t= r ,A se: Maximum noise level at the perimter of the excavation x ­ site shall comply with the limits or standards established by . Emronmrntal Protection en and the United States B' Hours• All excavation operations shall be conducted between s � 7. m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only. The council may restrict excavation, processing or opera- tions on legal holidays if such activities cause noise or other ,disturbances offensive to adjacent property. owners: ' r Explosives. The use and handling of explosives at the excava- tion site-shail be coordinated with the Police Department. ;Blasting shall occur only at hours specified in the extraction - -: pGFIr11t. - D •'Fugitive Dust.'. Excavation operators shall use all practical ` means to reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated by ex- r cavation operations. In any event, the amount of dy or other ;'particulate matter generated by the excavation shall not ex- ceed air pollution standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. E Water Pollution. Excavation operators shall comply with all dc+ applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Depart- ] meet of Natural Resources regulations and all applicable ` United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the protection of water quality. No waste products or pro - .cessed residue including untreated wash water shall be . deposited in any public waters of the State of Minnesota nor in or new wetlands. F _ Topsod Preservation. All topsoil shall be retained at the ex- cavanoc. site, until the completion of rehabilitation work in ac- % - cordance with rehabilitation plan. , i SI Excavation Operations. During the entire period f operations, all excavations other than the working face, shall be sloped on all sides to a maximum ratio of one (1) foot horizontal to one (1) foot vertical, unless a steeper slope is ap- proved by the City. Where excavations are adjacent to a public rt a, roadway or other right -of -way, the excavation shall have a maximum slope of four ( to one (1) foot ver- G u tiered. Slopes adjacent to waterways shall not exceed six (6) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical.' k" H Equipment. All equipment and machinery shall be operated and maintained in such a manner as to minimize dust, noise, ors ,•� ; and vibration. Power drives or power - producing machine shall * m not be housed or operated less than one thousand (1.000) feet from a residential use. Access roads shall be maintained in dust -free conditon by surfacing or other treatment as may be apecified,by the city engineer. I %Processipg., Crushing, washing, and refining, or other similar processing may be authorized by the'Council as an accessory use, provided, however, that such accessory processing shall not be in conflict with the use regulations of the district in which the operation is located. Processing shall not be per. r mitted in R- districts, J. '.Council Waiver. The Council, at the time of issuance of the extraction permit, may waive or modify any of the provisions ,!,,,' • r,, if\ this Section or Impose additional requirements if it finds **M.�January I. through Decemb 31 of year " 31 des run from dme�ounc�pxif) time ere o A g 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I C, !_ 11 1 t a . D �r il C �► r:�it'i!'�: all U ; ' t C r t. W is X1 I t�ti��a I i t , '��■o i�■l� t'b'.� t4. `�i G 1i t , t #\ CITY • 1 =�RII� CHANHASSEN PROPOSED Z(WNG MAP l OM ION LEGEND see �_.•. � a' PLAT— ���■■ •;116•r IW �..:.._7ray r t. W is X1 I gg 1 �� '��■o i�■l� t'b'.� t4. `�i Qj'r 1 =�RII� l see �_.•. � ���■■ •;116•r IW .tttt■tr►� ■!�r..�r.! *III ._ �� ' �� 1 � - - "6 8 �. �l p l AA's . T 1 i 1 PINEVIEW CT i DEER OOK DRIVE 400 1 U I c RV 111 / F * e E 1 900 LAKE - -- 6 - - 000 A2 - - -I�pp _ -__, 4 I CITY Of CHMIH4 -. II - 1200 --1300 10 c\ NOO 1000 7 � D i $ l I — 1 1 1 i R 1 L%9 G A2 i 1 b 1 �s o� v 7 0 0 0 o O o N O 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 a) m I i 0 0 0 0 1 IJ /4 t O CITY of r CHAWSSEN EFFECTIVE 02/17/87 LEGEND A 1 - AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT A2 - AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT RR - RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RSF - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT r 1 R4 -MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTfiICT R8 -MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DIST�( R12 -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT I BN - NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT BH - HIGHWAY &BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT t CBD - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ' BG - GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BF - FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT ' OI - OFFICE &INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT IOP - INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT ' PUD - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ' NE - NATURAL ENVIRONMENT LAKE RD - RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LAKE I PREPARED BY: