07-19-89 Agenda and Packet F
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19 , 1989, 7 : 30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Planned Unit Development Amendment to replace 114 multi-
family attached units with 45 single family lots, on property
zoned PUD-R and located at the northeast corner of Pleasant
View Road and TH 101, Lundgren Bros. Construction.
4 . Wetland Alteration Permit for alteration of a Class B wetland
on property zoned PUD-R and located just east of Audubon Road
and south of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Lake Susan Hills
West 3rd Addition, Argus Development.
5 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment modifying zoning restrictions and
locations for convenience stores, gas stations, and automo-
tive service stations.
6. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to City Code:
a. Section 20-3, regarding definition of density.
b . Section 20-409 , regarding wetland setbacks ( 200 ' ) for
commercial dog kennels and stables.
c. Section 20-441, regarding enforcement of the wetland
section.
d. Section 20-1021, regarding swimming pool fences.
NEW BUSINESS
OLD BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
OPEN DISCUSSION
7. Comprehensive Plan Discussion - Mark Koegler.
8 . Blending Ordinance Discussion - Mark Koegler.
ADJOURNMENT
** The following items were deleted:
2 . Preliminary Plat to subdivide 9 . 5 acres into 18 single family
lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and
located south of Pleasant View Road and east of Powers
Boulevard, Van Eeckhout Building Corporation (Vineland Forest) .
3 . Preliminary plat to subdivide 18 . 93 acres into 11 high den-
sity lots on property zoned R-12 , Residential High Density
_ for 182 condominium units located on Outlot B, West Village
Heights (between Powers and Kerber Blvd. , north of W. 78th
Street) , Cenvesco (Oakview Heights) .
C I TY O F P.C. DATE: July 19, 1989
CHANHASSENC.C. DATE: Aug. 14, 1989
CASE NO. $9-4 WAP
Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for a Holding Pond
Within a Class B Wetland
z LOCATION: West Side Of Powers Boulevard Approximately I
Mile South of Hwy. 5
V
APPLICANT: Argus Development Don Patton
Cln 18133 Cedar Avenue Realty Center
Farmington, MN 55024 7600 Parklawn Avenue
Edina, MN 55435
PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R
ACREAGE: 35. 79 Gross 22. 5 Net
DENSITY: 1. 5 u/a-gross 2 . 4 u/a-net
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- IOP; vacant
S- PUD-R; vacant
E- PUD-R; single family
-
Q W- A-2; vacant
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
- PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a Class B wetland in
the northwest corner.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
..-- .
- 1 _ -- -- - ...-c:,
'`•,.. .- • ‹ - .
----- r".-- , •-•• -
: 7;,...f......70 ‘...., 1. . "1
• . ‘...'"--,...s._,\.....„.„ :-'( \ ks.,, ,iiii 9 ,c, f yi I .
Z"
i
ptitroilex'
' \-- .- \ \ 5 • —
..-z•—_____ _
c.. .
(
;,•,,,- : . :....., i <
of' '
t •? - _
Jr
...
, , a
7/
(__
• ,A ,
-- :
LA/16 . ut..J.-t ill.
44 I U.-5 - ••• . LAKE SUSAN .-
•
to
: 3 koo I-noR .
-J
11444 co , . RD qr
•‘
- ebt--111.1
; „Ivi,1100, III
Or
a 1 co I
a —
1FUD— R r
Ct
3
i 0
a_ 8 6 T H S T
da __.
p a
. ,
. . I
! , F--• .
i .
1 i
CL —
I > -
i
R$
. . .
2-• z . '
11 • .
7R Q 2_
‘,..4 r
.,, .
u...
I0 is . -
.. CC
s.o., .._.:A - 0
LYMH ; 11E11 oti,
::* / 0` ' .R IS ) NI-
LI1 ,/
r.
RP - EVARD
,
I 44
—
A 2 1 •
puL
A2 \ ,
•
, w i
•:„.,,_ 4. ..;.
v amp,
•virvi '
.
,
i - .-- - . ---=
•
t
i 19elpil L.4€n -
..........._ 1
•_
Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition WAP
July 19 , 1989
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-421 requires a wetland alteration permit for the
creation of a pond within a Class A wetland and for any digging,
dredging or filling in a Class A wetland.
II ma
Section 20-438 dredging will be allowed only when it will not
have a net adverse effect on the ecological or hydrological
charactertics of the wetlands. Dredging when allowed shall be
limited as follows:
1. It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
2 . It shall not adversely change water flow.
3 . The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum
required for the proposed action.
4 . Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the
wetland district unless specifically authorized in the
wetland alteration permit.
5 . Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion
control and nutrient retention measures.
6 . Dredging in any wetland areas is prohibited during waterfowl
breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is deter-
mined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl
breeding or fish spawning.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration
construct a pondingareawithin
p�rmit to
wetland is located on the northerlyledgeBofeLake dSusan eHillss B
West 3rd Addition. As part of the PUD concept plan, the subject
wetland was determined to be a lower quality Class B wetland and
that it could be altered to be used for storm water retention
(Attachment #1) . The design of the
ix recommendations from the Fish andoWildlifeeServa iceoandealsoe
six
designed to meet the engineering requirements for storm water
capacity.
The proposed alteration is filling in the most southwester)
corner of the existingwe
— the southeast and west (Attachment tland and �2) enlarging the wetland Yon
wetland will be slightly enlarged and will hbee odesignedll rto have the
open water in it. The new 930 contour will become the edge
the wetland from where the 75 ft.
recommending that setback will be taken. goof
f
is a drainage easement be r the
ponding area up to and including provided over the
shown on each site survey the 930 contour which will be
so that it will be clear where the 75
foot setback will be taken from
restriction approvalrecord,
the Cit of ty In
required that ra deedreli-
against each lot abutting the
wetland
•
•
r g3 rt` s 1 l a • srI iiil • • : — L /
d;�-�£+
- • ••i;' ; -'
r' '�` '7'' ;t1 r" ? r / t. t"• '--/.:,•• . . 'v':Y-,••:..."....-1-•.r„.. C It T ':
• 'NV .r ,968 -''::'1.'" •_-; --- — /-� :,aa79,t•.] , .�AF tis; 1 :x;?
�' - ';: ::.r'A�••::R .,',fit Tt _i*r• 4 ..�� •t''s, 95 a, �_`" ,ki 24.
• • • ✓• .r: �#�,q2.� ? l�a.,f l t': ,ys. y,.c.w -p,='t'.
•
.'' ` '1" wy, t 1�."••j 's••-.�+ _ �. _ `•':.� , �. :.1-ej)`S. . •L + y�'. ••.I,- •.-Pt fa"}' ?fl'
A. yam,
• a. •_ - I, ,h 1 }_ • :: 1s}"i•Ail. .,re .Y... ,{a' " 4 • f;t7`,.a. ,;,�i-.i ,i•:-."-
• life °�- t• {� r• % • i�;�"r{:} .d Y�`� a ' .t' ' �+�"' t•^� `s��•�• ' • L:%�;
'aa. ?! a i gt *_ /. : ,'. 1..;'" .firk;:.-1„ .c.ar. "!2c �1• ;.1' •vL } �lif1,10b c
.j1 +2,, . 5 • ,�•� - ,. r' �'�••�"3i•.+fy`.r�'.::s :.¢�e< t • ,ttik�
1,
,.,,:
. • :,„
,....... ,
,. .:
l r 1 .
`jr •▪ •i t•Sti-..-
i .. �• i. T �1='F�a ......1 '17.1r,i• •f.:,•-"C • •<:t. Ai•• + `_�.,,�. •a, E MI�;0r rs ,.a.'p,.� .b ; }'-.ir' -ti
•
v"":i• .(tt• �' - i. 'fr... ' s • y' --•.'' -' 'ey '� 4. -e-,,77 4 E'E %ahl , - .. . f'. .I Y-• 1A. iti
1",k.41,,
'” c}GQ f •.' •'i �'"' ` r` 2,:ff. ' g.s kt"''4' ss=L• ''40' R=' ', �.�r.s�' ♦�.C§Sif
7'.�j - ='i' - •1 ,+! 'rot' ' wf R a: - -,.'•-,i'''''''',..- ikr.;.: c - \ ._t,
•Wit' .. .•� .•_•.:Lt•4i r _L..▪ •-•.- i•:•••
1jy'. 3's-Iii
}zq .1`4. . +r
4-..:.,,.m,....,.......,..-- -,,,.. ''.i.1,1,-`._:-• ;.;: . z•t--7'..,,V,'''• ,.:F.N!•••41.‘ ••: -,•••p•or.---- --.,I'
•
`. s; I` ..L.:•.:---Ni.
_. Di moi-^ )S tt.,,, ,? t!:�•A +a-{ } { tw..•{ �i -
ft
b .-, - '+ _ • .li rhe.r., - .. `_ 't� / ••\ -G ) 'Tr _
::,t,....i: .'47 , -,. '''..,.''''‘.' ..41 -:,f-
--,7-z.' - `e#'!4 -‘•! ' '•. .,,, .„,..1 i •- ---le A•Nrir,:' ', _.... : /..,;• -1 -LA LaiPakkle 44A700::). I
, . .. .. _L , ,,
%:' ) t JmaiY r }.,.,. .►:::::''
. i;:::i) r`.5.j- ..,1%. ,---.....7.> '-'77"TT .-...R•-•).-- 1.2--—
•
...oi: . j. 4. . . .. , fE,i,. .. __ . ,..,
,,,,,,„Ae-- -------- .......„ 1?„.___,.;''7 -,,...:v,L.- _'''' ;Ar4.-
3' • r �.atc [�.pir '�jTT� .t itN` `-'.•it" : ' /� I� . L
f.'+- -Ft ,171 �,,, C :4 r •!,{ .4fq '•.. '', L L •!.'1 z .4. . Y4 -�:.
f • ' i+y t' ), 'Y . =-.p. •� ,.•l �' !ice !
J. _S' ? ', T t :°ryes`_ r r •-ta,r r Alc i;t� ilq44-
--- :
�y�/f d •,S� 4- 7 ..F r r�� _f�. t rl 1 ;=i :h•,, �:.' ;•r- _*:. �{ •
`t ,• �. .' 'tfir ��„T' ' j.• _ty, a �� ,"4;�+ar• s . tea' _ r 1 � j
• .As) '` •) �- 0 :::: i 3vt�. •V . • a 4• l . s . .; . j4 Sa -Y'' `'•s to+:<• `S Ft', T
f,.. aa�▪•¢ • ,,t` + Y a..- ;1'1' 4.7'14; �{ `;• r. 5-11-:.":;'-.4: •X17 '4. _• --•'-e`-•••;..:‘
` ; • y"
\ W14..
':., •.T \i}f+� w/1: �.-.• ,- •t 24 ••▪ • • .4.' .S .:7 .•+:.•,�+
`/`'/ ,• , '" .. A-. .V c- l _/ :ti▪ t.:' ... '•• • ✓• 1;sem,,
•
•
}�i• te0. a h 1 1/.. _ } If ` •• S• ,•• •,.•! ,�q j• �y, _:a,� ..
sz.
•
- •
•
• i f. •{I.• ! ' L. 's it h '
•
„-- ' ;•t ^ •
;.,• r!i ~.7-.x'4 �`i �' .at? r•_ '^'_4� •1,r aa.�- _• .z �,�� ,
! "r 4 •s1 tar i '-''e
+� 7� t„ '-'4:1;.:7 "-:. .,_; • ►• �_- •,ia;� l•”` d�? a, y "°f.
A X ''
-4Ailt
r R '•i. •v. '4.1. 4:y.., 'r{• 74..x" `r .`�4.. i tsM' i�` if ��r'�4
•
`fix' '¢ 1i X \' 7 i kA. 1
•
1 s\ 1
In
1 I _ Iiiii r ,
I if / f "'
1 1 \ / igrI __�
- --...:
1 \ \ 1 ,71.,N1)\%bom,........mi \
4
q
,IN ( r
, ,
_ 1
1 1
,// �// 11 \ a islloilre�Kd \ 101
, .
s _
__,
\\ ,
. <
/ pi,
. , 1 \ 0 40( ,,
:• t
1 : „‘ \e, . °......41%...,, 1+6.1 an
. , , .... ,,-,7,. -
•
, 4 , ..,. ,_
-. .....,
, 40144' ,. \ . .„.... \\ ._... aullir1.1.11 , .-..-; ;
.. _,.,
. . r ; . . .: . ..... .... . , , i c , _
e'', 44444114,1A1.
. • -- --- 1111 y_7.---_-:-/ ? lk liii.1 i
•
t ' ii" 414k--- Ni‹, \ . ..
U f \ --1,... I1-1---:\S ct 44 N. '....°44;' 11, \.
Ak - \ It \I,`r \ 4i. .
ktp,
cr
. I - 1 t 4 I IAT'tv
. t t1 ifiN.,.7.011S
3•
I It ... \ \ \ y , .
I i i 7. ,, o ♦ \ \
\ ,,,,,,,, ,
_,,,,,10.r ,
It
• 1 4 ilid
IC kWd4i ,,1111001 ‘ umbise) .
C6
_ mama
Of
\ , •
\\ . `` .� OM/3S •
— I - o v
•
-- _ --\ • -i • : ra.,
1 or ocy 1
08
_ ems_ _
eL .. •ter
iI
CITY OF CHANHASSEN L '•'
WETLAND EVALUATION WORKSHEET i 'r 0!:CHANHASSEN —
LOCATION
SUBJECT Com_¢. 0..4—,,(_ ✓-o4,,ad... cmc__
- ' ���- — - 'i^-•e-�-.l o-,. Q.G.'o.� .L/J_ _Q.t,,,L__,�.L/C,�`
Gt --a(. .4- 27.:rnZ v,-- •
TYPE OF WETLAND p
ra c ott.-o� �e�-r,-�+ -�,- ff- ( ) •
-
COMMENTS 1
at. �ten n roc.,- �- �'�cJ `-'-. ot.t ow-
• o�,.r .c Lt'o� o C,,.�` f —� t
OPL
,
•
General Specifications for Construction of Wetland for Wildlife
The basin will have:
• freeform (not even-sided) shape to increase shoreline length and
provide isolated areas for feeding and resting birds;
— • shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for at least 30% of
the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as •refuge
and food for wildlife;
• uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a)
provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow
water (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent
vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase
interspersion of open water with ,emergent vegetation;
• layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on
bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic
vegetation;
• water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc. ) to minimize
disturbances of wildlife using the wetland;
• fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize-
disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
.4
_
( ,
k . .
.
,........„,--
. .,,.z.,,, ,....,-, ,,,, .4 -- . .
t• ---` ',Wit' ': .-"""" -- ..,.! t---:: I', ....... ......... ---
• 'a;;;:•-
,.. .:. ...::,.-,,2-4,.,,,, 1:7--- '.:.,)., ,.:
• _-.:. •".•;j44.7:; :i 'II..
/.; ,., -...:4_ •T",:k,Y.-%- ,. •:• .f.At 1 • --.---
•'`.4 .,'•••-*'•4'-•
_.4..
-...milim.....-
-...--
....____
—
- •••'1/4 ----''''1.4.x,, ' f•-• ''' r -- - ---' -- —
.'; .;,...-.'‘`,• ., _.1. •., .„ i,,, 7-4.. 4,
4,-/..? • '111..,!7-;-=•,-Z1',72:'..---7-- ,&: „. .4 ''' -...m......-- - •
..,. •,;._______.:,. .- .
.„-'-' -
SO :... .-•, c•-•?..,,--..•e.•- •-• ' -_-.....
,,•-•-.-.•,:\--_:....---- ---7 _...-•••16-e:';ii; lit .. ---,••=..--------
- ,---- -NA--d-'`"r\:- •v---. --h.-7-sw4 • , .4tb. -
...CCIls - ...1 --....
...- V,", -. ...',,-...it. . • lli .. ..m.
.•.-
...,.'"-- --...,,,b.1', :Is,3•,..:;''.. -' --,..... ' -AR V ,::•=11 . ----- • -•ni
.. _.' ••,,W./. a .•=1:1/?'. •-
3,77..--....-... .?.- •-•-•., •••••••.!.t...de: .• 6.....4 t 1 - -...,/C.
. .,‘:.... .....\,
.-L-L'N's...:.'1. ....• - .V;. -% ... 0 .' ........_.
."71 .'....... : ....... '.:'....— — - . .,...,..
,.. .==. .• '• ,1: ,\Ai,- ' ,:. t". ---... ... ....:
. ..; .L- .A...•._ .67'....,., . :N.p.
'"-•;; 1.VP,,,,'I., •••••:,,,Z a -27' •. /-__4• •••",,,,ei. -------'- -
-•- •t, ."." -
mv
VI ...oc•••
--
IN
-.. im,... ..
:.. :;--", ""!::•Z - ''- ft • w . _ __...-- .
.
l''... -•:, 1.::e.,1-------r--- -- .• -•'.. ii
4
. _._ _......„....„... .
_
. ......„..„.. ? ___
,1:...,.,...„..., li, ,.%. 1 ,
lv , ,
•:•:‘," ' AL-..ti,‘Zs
:7Z.I:li ;_k •l .=...""^.
, ••. ..}.',..,":,..N.Z . \ .
L v.,----'-- --4 .1
2
4. .... .... .,„y-,/,,'.•b.: --- f
.,,,.... ., _....", ':.„;,;;Mied.. .'s • k • .....
••,--- .. /
-"''''''• N-----• ----___--.-= - '
.--- '•,.. ....;:::. ..- .... --
...,.........____—
_,....._._.......
_s,_.,... • .,„i.,
t.L.'•,.7
,.....7,.-- _ -
- • st" :.' . ... ..--'•- • .
.-- --., --
- ' . . -..•-41 . 1 i-------"-----
- - —
0
I r ....,. . _
r 1
.,...,----• • -,;.,.,-.....: .-.4. (.. ___.„.-. ...-_--___
...:.- .,... • - ---,;,... . \A _
.—k.-. ....., 0 .„..7.._ ._..r._._. .„._.„:„,
.........
4 - ,
. .
it,----.... ......_- -- - lia. ...7.... .
. .•::— •.--;'-.7 .e.asr., - ,." ....-.....'• •-...1= •
....-•=.' ' ....,... ...../I ..., ,t.„;;;.311 .
( .
. -..
I.
;k1 • r"..c.1....../ ,
" ""•'- '"C-. •'''• 7..725=1. 17 --..- . ,..._.......:
....21.:1 ..‹...k,
• ',:.' r..... ..---...;%"_ \
ft. ••,, 1,Mlfr...
—
,e=21., ..... •„:,,,,;,..... ._- ,z.:7,......,...=_.j
ICA-77 ... \s‘ .,..:„.......... ...\..7..... s,,y. f., _ 1.C,A --- _ .
-.. -. ,.;.`—'7,-." ,r ,•-_--
,.:.„, _. +.-',,,ait/,: •.\• -'1-'-'•-" ;- V
-.. :-.. 10".,•;:". -•7-...;:-•-•00 ...,,..
.S.S. lia.— -_. •
.-•-•.i1;. N ... - 14;.,
W
il. .. . .•.6.%t.
I':-'''' ''' ....-.=.-- .--... —'- ''`''--... --"--s----------7.-: '... i- • • •
_ ,-",-.- ..., • '1, - .. 1
.,_
- s.=- • ,
, zi- `.-. ......ita...'u i -' - •
L
..:•-•`.. .f:' -'''.r_..,
_./. . 0 ,, . Ay=,....
...
).-.0 ----- —....
p------- 1----.
:1-, -- •
ib N __-.....B. _
........
Api.
r , _
,r
C
,., , ••••"...9S4:\;•,.....„"most- •— • ..- --. I
44---. • 4. ., ,Sr-.:
.---- ...
..-- .•''.'.+;.4 I.5..', . s:„?. .--. !_......_.--- _ -.--_ _
,;-,--.. :.--.7. — - ..----- . -.. .. - --•;•.:,• -J.,•:,-, ..;__ ----- . .._
...„ .=. ..,
. •
. •:41I.L.....a
Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition WAP
July 19 , 1989
Page 3
which defines the location of the wetland, states that it is pro-
tected and that there is a 75 ft. setback for all structures.
The design of the proposed ponding area meets the requirements of
the engineering department for storm water capacity. Storm water
is being directed from the west, south and east and will provide
enough run-off for the pond to have open water. The bottom of
the pond will be altered somewhat so that there will be pockets
of open water and the applicant will provide an amended
landscaping plan which will provide vegetation around the wetland
to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. Once
those amended plans have been provided the proposed alteration
will meet the six recommended conditions from the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit No. 89-3 as shown on the site plan dated
July 10, 1989 with the following conditions :
1. The applicant shall submit revised plans providing for
an uneven, rolling pottom contour for variable water
depth of at least one foot and showing that the basin
will have a fringe of shrubs on the upland surrounding
the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the
wetland.
2 . That the new edges of the wetland at the 930 contour will
be protected by a drainage and utility easement which
will be shown on every lot survey and that the applicant
understands that a 75 foot setback exist from the
930 contour for decks and accessory structures.
3 . A deed restriction will be recorded against each lot
abutting the wetland stating that the lot contains a pro-
tected wetland with a 75 foot setback for any structures.
4 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions
of the Watershed District permit.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location of wetlands within PUD.
2 . Alteration to wetland.
3 . Fish and Wildlife recommendations.
CITYOF -
_ ., CHANHASSEN _
', ,,(,,,, ,
J
, ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 —
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner fr —
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 1\ yl�
DATE: July 13 , 1989 +� —
SUBJ: Wetland Alteration Permit Review
Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition —
File No. 89-2 Land Use Review
Based on an amended grading and drainage plan dated July 13 , 1989
along with hydraulic calculations supplied by the developer ' s
engineer, Ray Brandt, it appears the wetland ponding area has
been sized to hold surface runoff and provide adequate storage —
for a 100-year storm event. The pond has been designed to be a
dry pond; however, I have indicated to Mr. Brandt that the City
is requesting the pond have an uneven rolling bottom contour with _
a variable water depth of a least one foot. This will provide
foraging areas for species of wildlife and encourage growth of
emergent vegetation . The wetland will have a water level control
to minimize disturbances on the water level in the wetland. This —
is being accomplished by an outlet pipe elevated and sized to
maintain the predeveloped runoff rate for the area.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1 . The applicant shall resubmit a grading and drainage plan to _
reflect the ponds uneven rolling bottom with a water level
depth of at least one foot.
2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of —
the Watershed District permit, if necessary .
•
• `' ant'
' .
Haza
Stallingsc
•
!Srw'eti-F�yYi...wti.rw
July 11 , 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO : Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler "
DATE : July 11 , 1989
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment - Convenience Stores
The attached ordinance draft is consistent with the discussion of
convenience stores and gas stations that occurred at the Planning
Commission meeting on June 21 , 1989 . One minor change has been
made . On the matrix that was in my memorandum dated June 12 , 1989 ,
convenience stores without gas pumps were listed as being
conditional uses in the BN zone . The intention was to list
convenience stores without gas pumps as permitted uses in the BN
zone . The ordinance draft reflects this change .
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.II, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO .
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN
CITY CODE BY ADDING PROVISIONS CONCERNING CONVENIENCE STORES
AND MOTOR FUEL STATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1 . Chapter 20 , Section 20- 1 of the Chanhassen City
Code is amended by adding the following definitions :
"Convenience Store" - Convenience store means a retail
establishment which generally sells a limited range of food
products , non-prescription drugs , candy , and other perishable
goods . This includes soda and similar beverage dispensing and
food products which can be heated and /or prepared on site , and
has over 400 square feet of floor area for retailing of non-
automotive goods .
"Motor Fuel Station " - Motor fuel station means a retail place
of business engaged in the sale of motor vehicle fuels , but —
may also engage in supplying a limited amount of related
goods . In no case shall the space for the retailing of
related goods exceed 400 square feet . No services shall be
provided for maintenance or repair of motor vehicles , except
for the provision of window washing , air and oil dispensing
services .
Section 2 . Chapter 20 , Article XVI ( " BN " Neighborhood
Business District ) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the
following manner :
Section 20-694 . Conditional Uses - Omit item ( 2 ) Automotive
service stations .
Section 3 . Chapter 20 , Article XVII ( " BH " Highway and
Business Services District ) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified
in the following manner : —
Section 20-712 . Permitted Uses - Add item ( 20 ) Motor fuel
stations .
Section 4 . Chapter 20 , Article XVIII ( "CBD " Central Business
District ) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the following
manner:
Section 20-734 . Conditional Uses - Omit item (4 ) Convenience
store with gas pumps .
Section 5 . Chapter 20 , Article XIX ( "BG " General Business
District ) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the following
manner :
Section 20-752 . Permitted Uses - Omit items (3 ) Convenience
stores with or without gas pumps and ( 27 ) Automobile service
stations .
Section 20-752 . Permitted Uses - Add item (30 ) Convenience
stores without gas pumps .
Section 20-754 . Conditional Uses - Add items (6) Convenience
stores with gas pumps , ( 7 ) Automotive service stations and
(8) Motor fuel stations .
Section 6 . Chapter 20 , Article XX ( "BF " Fringe Business
District ) of the Chanhassen City Code is modified in the following
manner :
Section 20-773 . Conditional Uses - Omit item ( 1 ) Automotive
service stations without car washes .
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this
day of , 1989 .
City of Chanhassen
BY :
Donald J . Chmiel , Mayor
ATTEST :
Don Ashworth , City Manager
'- CITY O F `! P.C. DATE: July 19 , 1989
� ■ C.C. DATE: Aug. 14 , 1989
\, `r C �1 �ICS
, CASE NO: 89- Z OA
Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendments
a . Section 20-3 , regarding definition of density.
Z b . Section 20-409 , regarding wetland setbacks ( 200 '
for commercial dog kennels and stables.
Vc . Section 20-441 , regarding enforcement of the
wetland section.
d . Section 20-1021, regarding swimming pool fences .
Q APPLICANT:
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
S-
E-
W-
w
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Zoning Ordinance Amendments —
July 19 , 1989
Page 2
ANALYSIS
SECTION 1 —
Section 20-3 , Regarding Definition of Density.
When staff reviews any subdivision or planned unit development,
the net density is what is applied to the calculations. Net den-
sity is defined in the ordinance as "the quotient of the total _
number of dwellng units divided by the developable acreage of the
site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes, roadways,
and other areas not suitable for building purposes. " Staff is
recommending that Section 20-3 under interpretation of the zoning
be amended to clarify that net density is what is applied for the
total acreage to be used in calculating the density. Therefore,
it would be clear from the beginning to developers that any —
wetlands, lakes, steep slopes, etc. , would not be considered in
their overall density calculations.
Staff is recommending that Section 20-3 of the City Code be
amended as follows :
Section 20-3 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: —
( 1) Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this
chapter are either more or less restrictive than con-
ditions imposed by other ordinances, the ordinance which
is most restrictive shall prevail. When this Chapter
provides both general regulation as well a specific _
regulation of a subject, the specific regulation shall
apply.
( 2 ) When the term "density" is used in this chapter without —
specifying "net density" or "gross density" it shall be
construed to mean "net density" .
SECTION 2
Section 20-409 , Regarding Wetland Setbacks ( 200 ' ) for Commercial —
Dog Kennels and Stables.
Certain zoning districts of the city require private and commer-
cial dog kennels and stables to receive a conditional use permit.
The specific conditions for such a conditional use permit
requires that the kennels and stables be located 200 feet from a _
wetland. In other districts, a commercial kennel or stable is a
permitted use. In these cases, specific wetland setbacks do not
exist for stables or kennels. Therefore staff is recommending
that Section 20-409, which provides specific regulations for —
wetlands , be amended to provide setbacks from a wetland
for private and commercial dog kennels and stables .
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
July 19, 1989
Page 3
Staff is recommending that Section 20-409 of the Chanhassen City
Code be amended by adding Subparagraph 6 to read as follows:
( 6) The minimum setback for private and commercial dog
kennels and stables is 200 feet.
SECTION 3
Section 20-441, Regarding Enforcement of the Wetland Section.
The city has been reviewing several wetland alteration permits
which have been applied for after the wetland has been altered.
Currently, the section regulating the wetlands does not provide
for an enforcement or penalty section for persons who alter
wetlands without receiving the wetland alteration permit.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission add
Section 20-441 to the City Code to read as follows:
Section 20-441, Enforcement.
( 1) Violation of Article VI, Wetland Protection, or of the
terms of a permit issued thereunder shall be a mis-
demeanor punishable by ninety ( 90 ) days in jail and a
$700. 00 fine.
( 2 ) Any person who alters a wetland in violation of Article
VI shall apply for a wetland alteration permit and shall
pay a filing fee double the regular fee. The City
Council may require the violator to restore the wetland
or take other mitigative measures.
SECTION 4
Section 20-1021, Regarding Swimming Pool Fences.
The current section of the City Code which regulates fences,
allowed swimming pools which were inaccessible from adjacent
properties to be exempt from the regulations of having a swimming
pool fence. Staff has had people apply for a swimming pool who
disagree with staff as to whether they need to have a swimming
pool fence because they felt that their property was inaccessible
from adjacent properties. Upon inspection of these sites it was
found that although they may have a steep slope on one side of
the pool, it was still accessible from adjacent property, speci-
fically neighborhood children, and that a fence was necessary.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
amend Section 20-1021 of the Chanhassen City Code as follows:
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
July 19 , 1989
Page 4
Section 20-1021, Swimming Pool Fences
All in-ground swimming pools shall be protected by a fence
not less than four ( 4 ) feet in height. All gates shall have
the latch installed on the pool side of the fence. All in _
ground pools inetalleel prior to February 19, 1987, shall
Subsection ( a) does not apply to pools inaccessible from
adjacent properties or which are located on property which
are completely enclosed by perimeter fence four feet in
height.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 5, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and
David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson and Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR FILLING IN A PORTION OF A CLASS A WETLAND ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad call the public
hearing to order .
Daryl Kirt : . . .we' ve been looking at this for close to a year trying to
find a location. . . The wetland, the lake is actually quite a ways back .
It ' s a small body of water , maybe a pond size or something . We feel that
this is the most logical site which will have. . . for a backyard . . .
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Headla : I watched that particular part over the last 20-25 years just
gradually fill in. That whole corner at one time was pretty low. I 'm very
interested in not to see that go much further but if those people build a
house there, what are their obligations to maintain that wetland?
Olsen : Again , they' re under the regulations . They would have to go
through another wetland alteration permit if they wanted to fill anymore
which they would have a difficult time getting . They have setbacks that
they have to maintain. They received the variance for the single family
residence because without that it would not be a buildable lot .
Headla: What about in the summer time if they would want to put a
boardwalk over that wetland? Is that a problem?
Olsen: They couldn' t do it without a wetland alteration permit .
Headla : How about in the wintertime running snowmobiles through there out
to Little Joe?
Olsen : There ' s nothing to prevent that.
Headla : Whatever happens here, maintaining the wetland or we call
attention to it so it ' s registered with the deed . Do you have that in
place?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 2 —
Olsen: The wetland alteration permit is recorded against the property.
Headla: Okay, so the next person who buys the property, they would be
exposed to that? —
Olsen: As is the variance.
Headla : What they seem to have is pretty reasonable. The one thing that
bothers me, what' s a Type III erosion control barrier?
Olsen : That ' s the heavy duty one. It' s got the silt fence, the hay bales
and the snow fence.
Headla : But that' s temporary. What I 'm scared is a gradual growing , —
encroachment onto that wetland. Not in 6 months or 9 months but over a
period of 5 years , 10 years . Did you consider having a more permanent
erosion control barrier there? —
Olsen : I don ' t know if you can be any more permanent. They always
deteriorate over time. You could , if you want, to whoever buys the _
property knows where the edge of the wetland is, you could have them put
some stakes in just like some markers .
Headla : How about even some treated timbers , 8 x 8 ' s? The runoff will not—
go directly into the wetland. At least it will hit this barrier first.
It ' s kind of a borderline . It' s very definitive and that ' s kind of what ,
I 'm looking for 2 things. To have a definitive line and some type of more
permanent barrier .
Olsen : It fluctuates . It could come up closer to the house too depending
on the amount of rain we would get. That would be hard to put a set —
border .
Headla : I just want to bring those points up. That' s all I have. I thinl—
this gentleman wanted something .
Daryl Kirt : The wetland actually dries up. The wetland . . . _
Batzli : How much wetland are they actually filling in here Jo Ann? We've
said minimal but .
Olsen : It was I 'd say a tenth of an acre. It ' s a very small amount.
Batzli : A tenth of an acre?
Olsen : Yes , it' s very small .
Batzli : Just a general question and it might not pertain to this case.
Last meeting we had we discussed at great length no net loss for wetlands
in the City of Chanhassen. We don ' t discuss that at all here. Is that
because this is already a lot of record so you can' t make them upgrade ever-
though
verthough it' s already a Class A wetland? If this had been a Class B wetland ,
could you have said to them no you have to dredge it out and make it a
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 3
better wetland?
Olsen : This one, really it was a Class A and it ' s really in good shape
that ' s remaining . This edge part was marginal because it had been filled
in the past. That was , there was really nothing to go in and improve it
because then you would really be making it possibly harming it by going in
and trying to improve it. One of the reasons we did allow them to fill in
a portion was to allow them to have an area because it was a lot of record.
We did not see where it needed to be improved.
Batzli : But in this particular instance, you couldn' t have made them
improve it because it was a lot of record even if you wanted to?
Olsen : No , we could have.
Batzli : You could have?
Olsen : Even without the wetland alteration permit, it doesn ' t necessarily
mean that they wouldn' t be able to build their house. It helps with the
foundation and just gives them a little bit of a backyard .
Batzli : Well I ' ll have to admit that I did not get to this particular site
so I don ' t know what the wetland looks like but I get the feeling might
have down at that end . My only other question was, we' ve also in the past
talked about letting a portion of what we filled in or what have you go
back to natural vegetation. We don' t talk about that at all here. I think
something Dave was getting at was talking about runoff and kind of a first
barrier . Are you proposing that we allow them to grow grass and mow it
down to where the erosion control is installed?
Olsen: When we met out on the site and discussed the fill in, it was our
understanding between the applicant that that would become their lawn.
Their back yard .
Batzli : And that was discussed with the DNR, Fish and Wildlife?
Olsen: Fish and Wildlife .
Batzli : And they thought that was appropriate or at least minimally
disturbed?
Olsen: Yes , they were not upset with that at all . They felt that that was
a good compromise. Again, if you haven' t been out there, it ' s just a real
small area that they' re filling . They will actually be improving it
somewhat because there' s garbage and stuff thrown in there and they' re
cleaning that out.
Emmings : I don ' t have any questions . My only comment is that it seems to
me they certainly have a right to build in here "and I think they' ve done a
lot to try to minimize your impact on the wetland and it looks like the
staff' s done a lot of work with them in trying to decide what' s reasonable
in the situation and I don ' t have any problems with it .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 4 —
Erhart : How big is that lot above the ordinary high water mark?
Olsen: It' s almost 6 1/2 acres all together .
Erhart : The whole lot?
Olsen : Right , the whole lot and then the area above the ordinary high —
water mark is just that small corner . It' s just a corner. The wetland
goes all the way.
Erhart: Is it 15,000 square feet?
Olsen: I don' t know. There' s not that much below it.
Erhart : How far is it from the lot corner edge to where the edge of the
fill would be?
Olsen : They' re meeting all the front yard setbacks . Their property line
is shown in the darker. The corner has the lift station so that. . .
Erhart : It looks like about 10, 000 square feet. Even though it' s 6 acres ,
the buildable area is pretty small .
Olsen : There ' s no question about that . —
Erhart: So we' re trying to make it bigger and, well . I guess what I 'd
like to see done here and I really don' t have any problem with them —
building a house and the commissioners who live in the area don' t appear tc
have any problem but in light I guess of our acceptance of just recently
the concept of no net loss of wetland and as a suggestion of something nice
is to mitigate what you' re doing by actually, when you have the equipment
in there, to actually build a pond. If you have the equipment in there,
it' s fairly easy to do.
Olsen: There' s open water already there.
Erhart : Yes , and generally that' s the kind of thing that we' ve been asking_
for in return to fill is to improve a wetland and taking a cattail area or
Class B area , a nice improvement is simply opening up a small little pond
and it's surprising the amount of wildlife you' ll get in even a pond of 50 _
feet square . In looking right out the back of your house, a nice amenity
to boot so I guess I 'm okay with this but I 'd sure like to see that done.
I think it would be a nice amenity and I think also keep us in conformity
in what we' re trying to put in place in the City here. That' s my only
comment .
Conrad : When we grant a variance or wetland alteration permit Jo Ann, is _
that line registered on the plat or how do we document where that wetland
alteration can be?
Olsen : We' ve got it on file and then we record it.
Conrad: It' s recorded on the plat?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 5
Olsen: Right . And we have a description that we use from that lot. An
elevation.
Conrad : So in the future there ' s a way to go in and make sure that it' s
not bigger than what we originally granted?
Olsen : Right and we always had the official copy that we can go back to.
Conrad: So it' s on staff documents. Where else is it?
Olsen : The wetland alteration permit , what was permitted and any
conditions is always recorded with the property so is the variance. What
we depend on to find out if they did fill more in the years ahead is the
official copy of the survey.
Conrad : I agree with Tim on this one . Class A, it seems like we ' re
treating this differently than every other one that we've talked about
recently and I think staff has done a good job of reviewing other wetlands
and making sure that as we tamper with them, we improve. Here' s a case
where because the wetland seems so big and the parcel so small , we have
sort of ignored that policy. I think we' re all trying to relate to Mr . and
Mrs. Kirt in wanting to build there and we appreciate what they want to do.
Yet on the other hand, what we' re doing is filling in a Class A wetland .
In light of what we 've been doing , I just haven ' t been sold that they can
build there without filling in. I 'm just looking for , the only reason I
have is what Tim volunteered is to improve it with a pond but I really, as
much as I want to figure out how to make this happen, it' s a Class A
wetland and the only thing that I ' ve heard is that there ' s been a dumping
ground there before but still then that means there' s a way to improve it
if it' s been a dumping ground of other stuff so I guess I 'm just plain not
sold. Yet I 'm real receptive to wanting to be sold on this because I 'm not
sure that there ' s going to be a real harmful impact yet how do I look at
this Jo Ann in light of all the stuff that you 've been processing in front
of us .
Olsen : When we go out on the sites , the first thing Paul and I look at is
well can it be improved. This is , what they' re doing is just a real small
area . They' re kind of filling in an area that kind of comes in and they' re
just cutting that. Filling that little part off. The better wetland is
just starts here and it' s the lower kind of an even existing kind of a pond
area. Then it gets a little bit higher and then you have the wetland
that ' s adjacent right to Lake St. Joe. Anyway, one of the things we always
look at is well if they fill in a portion, how can we improve the rest but
this is one that you just don ' t . . .
Conrad : So it' s a loss . Basically what you ' re saying is there ' s no way to
improve it. It' s a definite loss .
Olsen : It ' s a very minor loss but yes , there' s really no reason to improve
any of the rest farther out.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 6 —
Conrad : And how does that fly in the face of our ordinance? The ordinancE
says philosophy is no loss. I think we' re easily persuaded in a B wetland
but here we' re talking an A. I 'm just looking for a way to rationalize.
Be consistent. Mrs. Kirt, do you have something to say?
Mrs . Kirt : I 'm not disagreeing at all with what you' re saying . The only
thing I want to sat at this point is what you' re asking for is something —
that we' ve already considered doing but I think what you' re asking for is
going to take a little more extensive work because you' re going to have to
start 600 or 700 feet down and start excavating this area out . You can' t _
just go in there because this water only comes seasonally with rain becausE
there' s a drainage ditch underneath the road from the field across the
street from us. So in the spring when it thaws or like this summer when
we' ve had quite a bit of rain , there is this water that comes over here ancr
it sits and then it stagnates until finally it dries up. What you have,
like I say, it starts 700 feet down so you have to bring it , excavate all
of that 700 feet down. All the way down to where you' re going to build a —
house before it would improve the land because it just isn ' t all there. . .
and I wouldn ' t see how it would really improve the property. It would be
nice to do that at a point. . . to do the extensive work and do it correctly. —
If you can' t do it right, I don' t see any point to doing it at this time.
If you go into the area and you look at the area that Jo Ann has been
trying to explain, there' s no cattails basically. There' s cattails out
along the , the only place there ' s cattails is going up and down MinnewashtE—
Parkway beyond where we' re going to build . There' s cattails there and the
area we' re talking about filling is . . . just grass and when it dries up
there, the only thing that grows there is grass. —
Erhart : Is that correct that there is no cattails up to where you' re
proposing the edge of the fill right now?
Mrs. Kirt : The cattails are all where it says Minnewashta Parkway.
Emmings : Where on the map? —
Erhart : Can you also show on there the area that you see that' s going to
be filled .
Emmings : Where ' s the edge of what' s already filled in?
Olsen: This is the edge of the wetland is this dark line. That' s the —
existing edge of the wetland .
Emmings : So that' s what ' s being filled in is from there out to the next --
line?
Olsen : It comes in , you can ' t see the contour but it kind of comes up in _
here and this is where it has started . . . It' s kind of on a hill and then
right here is where it gets into the nicer wetland .
Conrad: Is it really an A wetland Jo Ann? —
Olsen : This?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 7
J "
Conrad : No , the one that we' re filling?
Olsen: It' s all continuous. If it was all by itself, it would definitely
be a B. This is an edge of an A but I would still consider it a wetland .
It' s all one. That' s what I always look for is if it doesn ' t need to be
done or improvements but this one is just . . .
Conrad : Dave, did you have a point?
Headla : I started to think about the line you were pursuing and the land ,
the 32 acres to the north I think is part of it. That' s going to be
developed shortly. There' s going to be a lot of homes in there and where
Mrs. Kitt talked about that drainage in the road, that's going to be a
major drainage for that area . It really is just a natural drainage and
maybe someone, either the Village or we should, I certainly agree with you.
I think maybe there should be some type of pond there or something holding
it and it doesn' t have to be right next to their house or anything. Even
if it' s a little further back in but that could be a tremendous catch basin
for all that runoff of all the different ponds. You' re draining I would
guess , my land drains in there and part of the other so I would guess
you' re draining a good 30 acres .
Conrad : Jo Ann, so how do we justify this? It' s flying contrary to our
_ ordinance. You' re saying staff agrees with it. I don' t think anybody is
hostile against what they' re doing but on the other hand , I don ' t know how
to justify. How do we justify it? Under what pretense? The fact that
there is no degregation? The fact that the runoff is not going to be any
less harmful? Any more harmful? Right now the staff report doesn ' t give
us any reason to justify this other than it's minor compared to the 6 acres
yet it' s still a net impact.
Olsen : That' s not why because I compared it to the 6 acres . It' s more
that this is an existing lot of record. They could have come in and said
we want to put in a house twice as big and filled it in. The reason that
they' re not right on top of the wetland and filling it in, you' re taking
the position then that they don' t need it. We've worked with them to have
as minimal amount of fill but still give them a lot that gives them some
use other than just the house pad .
Conrad : You' re saying it' s a reasonable expectation on their part to be
able to fill in because it is a lot of record?
Olsen: I 'm not saying that they would have had the right to fill it in but
we have, I can' t say that there' s no net loss . There is a net loss .
Conrad : Forget about the 20 feet that ' s filling in. Is there going to be
a net impact? What is the impact of filling that in? How much water
drains over their property and into the wetland?
Olsen: I can' t tell you how much but it definitely does drain over their
property into the wetland .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 8 —
Conrad : I would assume not much is draining over their property right?
Olsen: Not in that area .
Conrad : Which way is the water flowing , just out of curiousity?
Daryl Kirt: South. —
Headla : The road in front will catch most of that . Very little water
comes right off their property.
Olsen : I can go out there. Paul is gone for a month in Alaska but we can
go back out. He's working on the oil spill . I hesitate to make certain
improvements to it until I can guarantee that those are definitely
improvements.
Conrad : I 'm just looking for some way to rationalize this Jo Ann . It' s —
not Paul Burke going out and saying something. I don' t need him. He' s
been out there a couple times I assume already right?
Daryl Kirt: The DNR was out there and did a report , maybe if you want to
read that .
Emmings : What ' s the bottom line of what they say? —
Daryl Kirt: They say they wouldn' t have any objections to even two
lots . . .they just don' t want the lakeshore damaged . _
Emmings : We ' re meaner than they are. I tell you, this won' t be a very
popular opinion for the people I 'm talking to up here tonight but I ' ll tell_
you how I 'd rationalize this one. It just plain seems reasonable number
one and number two, it' s too damn small to worry about . That ' s the way I
feel about it. If I 'm going to have, we either say to them it seems to me,
build your house there and I 'm sorry your backyard isn ' t neat as it comes —
up to the wetland . They seem to be kind of filling in a hole and making a
nice smooth edge along there . We either say go ahead and build your house
there and you' re going to have to live with that raw edge or let them fill
it in and round it off and I think that that' s a perfectly reasonable thing
to do. I don' t need any more justification than that. Obviously there' s
net loss to the wetland which I think is essentially insignificant because
it' s so small. That' s the way I looked at it.
Conrad : Dave brought out some point and that point was erosion, the
permanent erosion control . After the bales or we string whatever, when we —
do the landfill , Jo Ann do you feel that on the long term basis there is nc
need? You basically said there was no need for permanent erosion control
because you don' t feel there is erosion going across that land . Any water ,_
Olsen: Once it' s all stabilized, no I don' t. Again, I don' t know if there
is anything permanent . I know that we have more trouble with erosion
control breaking down and going into the wetland and not being properly —
maintained so I would not be in favor of . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 9
Conrad : Would you ever put fertilizing restrictions on a house this close?
Olsen: Sure you can.
Conrad : But you haven' t volunteered that?
Olsen: It 's just that who' s to say if they do it or not.
Emmings moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-6 as shown on the site plan
stamped "June 23, 1989" subject to the following conditions :
1. Type III erosion control shall be installed as shown on the site plan.
2. The applicant shall receive a permit from DNR and the Corps of
Engineers.
�- All voted in favor except Conrad who was silent and the motion carried
unanimously.
Conrad : My only comment is , you can hear we' re sensitive to what you want
to do. We' re also real sensitive to the wetlands and I think you ' re doing
a good job out there from what we can tell . We'd really appreciate it if
you'd keep that sensitivity. Whether it be through your own personal
vigilance or whatever on that site . It seems like you are and that' s why
I 'm kind of comfortable. We spent far longer on this one than I thought we
would but it' s also a case of where we have so many of these coming in that
we treat them like they' re going to have an influence on the next couple
and the next couple and Chanhassen is just filled with wetlands that we' re
trying to preserve as you can tell . They' re a really important resource so
sorry for keeping you here a little bit long but I think it ' s an important
issue.
Mrs. Kirt : . . . I 'm going to try to keep it natural around there.
Conrad: Now see if you would have said that before I probably would have
voted . That ' s important .
Mrs. Kirt: We like it natural .
Headla : Normally loons stop in that lake coming and going north . This is
the first year since I ' ve lived out there I ' ve seen loons, I just heard it
the night of the 3rd and early the morning of the 4th. It ' s the first year
that they've been nesting there.
Conrad : They' re nesting?
Headla : I 'm hearing them through the year now. Are you the ones who put
in the dock in Minnewashta?
Daryl Kirt : No .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 10 —
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT CHADDA ADDITION INTO 4 LOTS , ZONED CBD AND
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BLVD. AND WEST 78TH STREET
COLONIAL SQUARE.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order . —
Brad Johnson: We' re just here to see if there are any problems with it. —
It' s part of the downtown plan.
Batzli moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart : I don ' t have any comments .
Emmings: I don ' t have any comments .
Batzli : I don ' t have any comments as long as Dave asks my question.
Headla: I 'm disappointed to see them do this after all the discussion
we' ve had about that infamous sidewalk and now it' s all for naught . —
Olsen: The sidewalk is still there.
Headla : Isn ' t it in the outlot or where is that infamous sidewalk? Do I
have the right spot here?
Conrad : You' re close but I don ' t think it negates . . .
Headla: Oh, it' s over there. Okay, then I don ' t have anything.
Conrad : No comments .
Erhart : I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of —
Subdivision #87-28 as shown on the plat dated June 23, 1989 subject to the
four conditions listed in the staff report.
Headla: Second . —
Batzli : Were we going to renumber the other lots?
Emmings: Right. That was my same question .
Batzli : I think that should be part of condition 1, isn' t that right Jo —
Ann?
Olsen : Yes .
Batzli : Did you have some wording Steve?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 11
Emmings : No , but I agree with you. That' s the one thing I don' t see here
that should be here. It should be specific as to what we' re doing .
Batzli : So remaining Lots 2, 3 and 4 shall be renumbered 1 , 2 and 3
respectively.
Erhart : Okay, I ' ll amend my motion.
Conrad: Dave, will you amend your second?
Headla : Yes.
Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #87-28 as shown on the plat dated June 23, 1989
subject to the following conditions :
1. A change in lot numbering including the redesignation of Lot 1 as
Outlot A and renumbering the remaining Lots 2, 3 and 4 to 1, 2 and 3
respectively.
2. The provision of additional easements as per Exhibits 1 and 2. All
easements to be verified by BRW before filing of the plat.
3. Acquisition of requisite cross easements over Lot 1 and Outlot A.
4. Vacation of sanitary sewer easement .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, SECTION 20-237
REVOCATION AND INSPECTION REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order .
Emmings : I have a procedural question here I think. Under the open
discussion packet, this same thing appears . My impression was that under
the open discussion stuff, we' re just going to take a look at these.
Olsen: This one was published .
Emmings : Okay, so then we won' t be considering this one again?
Olsen: No. What happens is we've been sending things back and forth to
Roger . I ' ve been working with him and he just combined everything at once.
This had already been separated out.
Erhart : I assume the sequence here is if someone complains , then they have
wording that Scott Harr can go out and check, which they could do anyway.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 12
Olsen : Right . This really is just for the public to hear .
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Batzli : I have a couple problems with this. One is , it appears that
you' re going to give notice in advance of a City Council review. Does that
mean that an inspection is part of that review? _.
Olsen : Well we usually call . It' s practiced now. We always call and let
them know that we' re going to be coming out.
Erhart : That ' s not what this says. This says the City Council will reviev
it. It doesn' t say that you' re going to notify them that you' re going to
go out and look at the property. —
Olsen : This says review of the permit itself. What we' re doing with
Lowell Carlson next Monday. —
Batzli : It doesn ' t appear to me that there' s proper antecedent basis if
you will for what you' re talking about. When I read this I had no idea
what it meant and I kind of feel like I 'm kind of familiar with that Code —
Section. Maybe other people felt comfortable with it.
Conrad : So you' re concerned that there' s not cause for calling an —
inspection?
Batzli : I don ' t know what the City Council ' s review of the permit is? Has_
the City Council ever reviewed a permit?
Olsen : A conditional use permit?
Batzli : Yes .
Olsen : Yes . _
Emmings : I think I can remember some.
Conrad : What we do , when an applicant comes in typically for expanded use .
Olsen: The one I remember now is Lowell Carlson.
Emmings: Of course he never had a permit .
Olsen: No, he does have a permit. He' s had one since 1985 but he' s never —
met any of the conditions so we' re bringing that up for consideration of
revoking his permit next Monday.
Erhart : Brian , to make it consistent with the first run on sentence where —
it goes on to say sufficient cause for the termination of the conditional
use permit by the City Council following a public hearing . We could change
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 13
the last sentence to say the property owner shall be notified in advance of
the City Council ' s review of the permit following a public hearing .
Batzli : Do they need a public hearing to review it the second time around?
Olsen: To review the conditional use permit?
Batzli : Yes.
Olsen : For the possible revoking of it, yes it is a public hearing .
Emmings: I think that gives them their due process .
Erhart: What you' re saying is the language just isn ' t clear .
Emmings: I 'm not sure what' s bothering you. Can you explain it again?
Batzli : Yes . I guess this sentence, this dangling sentence. The property
owner shall be notified in advance of the City Council ' s review of the
permit. As I recall , we don' t talk about the City Council reviewing the
permit before we say that in this section.
Olsen : But in the section right before it, I don' t know if it says for the
termination of a conditional use permit by the City Council following a
public hearing .
Emmings : And the section is called , part of the title of the section is
revocation and the first section deals with the fact that failure to comply
with the condition can be sufficient cause for termination or actually that
should be revocation. Where that says termination, if that said revocation
that would help it make sense I think.
Olsen: Maybe the last sentence in Section 2 isn' t even necessary or we
could maybe add , maybe that actually belongs up in Section 1.
Emmings: Well does the Council ' s review take place concurrently with the
public hearing? Do those two things happen at the same time so the fact
that there' s a public hearing, that' s notice to the owner but this is just
to be sure there' s a separate notice that goes to the owner in addition to
be sure that he knows that something is taking place on his permit I
assume.
Erhart : No . Jo Ann I think hit it on the nose. That last sentence
belongs in the first paragraph. It belongs at the end of the first
paragraph because you' re dealing with the subject of revocation and in the
second one you ' re dealing with the subject of inspections .
Batzli : Yes. I like that a lot better . That makes more sense then.
Erhart : And change the word termination to revocation I think.
Batzli : Currently in the code it' s termination.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 14 —
Emmings : Well you could change the title if you wanted to . One word ough
to get changed. It doesn' t matter which one.
Olsen : Okay I ' ll go through that because I know revocation is another
section in itself. I ' ll make it consistent.
Batzli : My other question , my first one was such a big hit, why again are—
you removing, or any other violation of this chapter? Was that Roger ' s
idea?
Olsen : We' re just cleaning things up. One of his reasons was that the
conditional use permit, you have those specific conditions and then your
general conditions of a conditional use but if you' re going to revoke it or
do anything as far as misdemeanors or penalties against it, that it should
be specifically that they' re in violation of those specific conditions of
the conditional use permit and not for the Council to say, well their
lights were on one night or something . It was just to make it more —
specific.
Batzli : I see two things happening then if you do that . One is you' re _
going to get a lot of additions that Steve likes to put in that says they
have to comply with every other thing that they put in front of us like thL
site plan, the this , the that, the this, the that. You ' re going to end up
listing a bunch of other things in there. Or alternatively you' re going t—
end
-end up with a catch all thing in the wetland alteration permit that says ,
they have to comply with every other section because otherwise you' re going
to have people for instance on let's say a wetland alteration permit and a—
conditional use tied together where they violate the wetland alteration
permit. You want to cancel their conditional use permit but now you can' t
because that ' s not the thing that they' ve violated . So either the staff —
has to be very, very careful to include as conditions to tie it all
together or we have to review it. You' re taking away a large club.
Olsen: It wasn' t, we weren' t really strongly, we could go either way.
That was just his feeling that we should focus on this specific condition
and the general review. Focus on the conditional use. He was looking at
it in the other way where it could be too general . —
Emmings: I agree with that.
Batzli : It could be too general but then just as a caution to us and you,
if we do conditional uses requiring compliance with a lot of other things,
we should include those conditions .
Emmings : My guess what Roger is thinking is , you' re taking away a real
substantial property right and they' re going to fight you tooth and nail
and you' re going to have a hard time withstanding a vague and indefinite _
Constitutional type challenge.
Batzli : You' re cited for a nuisance because you leave your lights on all
night and a neighbor complains.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 15
Emmings : Yes and I think he wants to get away from that and you ' re right,
we' re going to have to be real careful on the conditions to be sure that
we' ve got all the bases covered when we write them.
Batzli : But that's putting a heavy burden on us .
Conrad : Yes , which is appropriate.
Emmings : And that' s fine because you want it to be a significant breach
before you ever invoke something.
Conrad : You also want to force the conditions , us to make a decision what
the conditions are. If you don' t, then there' s no reason to have it. Then
it' s a catch all but it' s not enforceable.
Emmings: Although some of the conditions we do put on are pretty trivial
too . Lights is a good example. You ought to shut them off at 8 : 00. Well
what if they' re on until 8: 10? Now they can' t be there anymore? You hope
people use good sense on stuff like that but you worry, especially about a
highly charged political issue like Eckankar. This is coming out in
response to Eckankar is creating the thing that is ripe for abuse . There' s
so many people that don' t want Eckankar here and made it so obvious and our
City Council had 3 people on it who didn' t vote yes for it . At least not
out loud. This bothers me because it comes out as a response to that. It' s
like let ' s design something so we can , this certainly could be interpretted
that way. As a way to maintain a measure of control to get rid of them
later and I 'm sorry to see it for that reason but I don' t think this says
anything that we couldn' t do already really. I think we could have put in
as a condition that unless they live up to all the conditions we' ll revoke
their permit. We can put that as a condition in each one and accomplish
the same purpose .
Batzli : Well what was the last conditions, speaking of that? Didn' t they
put in some condition that it was going to be inspected annually on the
Eckankar one and that' s because this ordinance amendment hadn ' t been passed
yet for review?
Olsen: Right . A lot of times with a conditional use that condition is
always put on. Not always but most the time.
Emmings : It' s so punitive though. Okay, we have to pass your permit but
we' re going to be watching you. That ' s what it sounds like.
Olsen : That' s what people wanted to hear .
Batzli : In the past there have been abuses of conditional use permit where
this probably would have been , put a little bit more teeth into . . .
Conrad: My only other comment on this is the City Council may order annual
or more frequent . That' s sort of wishy washy and I guess I 've always felt
that it' s important on conditional uses that they be reviewed every year
for compliance . I think we set , I don' t believe that staff has the time to
really, or it is a priority right now, let' s put it that way. I don' t
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 16 —
believe it is a priority for staff to go out and review conditional uses .
I think it should be.
Batzli : How many conditional uses does the City currently have
approximately?
Olsen : Lots . I can ' t tell you exactly.
Conrad: There definitely is a staffing impact on what I just said. To
annual review. We' re not talking about something that doesn ' t cost money. —
Batzli : Like is lots 100? 200? 500?
Olsen : I would say 50 to 100.
Conrad : So talk about each one being half a day to review a year .
Batzli : It' s going to take somebody a month to review them all .
Conrad : Yes . So the word may is real , my preference would be to put teeth_
in conditional uses so there' s an annual review. I 'm not going to make
that an issue of mine right now but I 'd like to send that signal through tc
the City Council that I think that ' s significant. That they should have an
annual review and that if they can justify the cost , it should just that. —
The terminology could still read or more frequent based on this specific
need or cause but I 'm not going to change the language or I don' t propose
that we change it from what I see here. I just want to raise that flag to —
the City Council so they can review that . Anything else?
Erhart : I agree with you 100%. You could set up a process where people —
would have to pay for an annual review. They have to get licensed every
year .
Conrad : It' s a significant priviledge on their part. —
Emmings: You' re talking about licensing again now. It' s more like
licensing than it is like a conditional use permit and I think that' s a
real interesting idea. I 've been interested in it. I think it's a good
idea .
Erhart : Licensing? —
Emmings : Sure. When you sell cigarettes you have to come into the City
every year and get a license. You pay a fee and if there' s been trouble —
with you selling cigarettes to minors in the past year they slap your hand
and say you better shape up or we may not pass this next year . The same
thing with the liquor license . Why not with conditional use permits? —
Headla: You brought that up before and I think 'you had a good point .
Emmings : I think the trouble is just it would overwhelm the staff . —
Conrad: It' s more paperwork, yes .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 17
Emmings : But I don' t know that.
Erhart : Except I 'm not sure staff has to do that . We' ve just added an
enforcement person to the city, Scott Harr . Since that position wasn' t
filled 2 years ago, it might be that maybe he would have time plus the
additional income coming in from the licensing might off set his expense.
Usually when you create a new position, there' s a period of time there
where you kind of create your work.
Emmings: Arguing the other side of the issue, I think the problem is, I 'm
not going to build my business here if you can' t give me some assurance
that I 'm not going to be allowed to continue it' s reasonable operation.
Usually when it' s a conditional use permit, a lot of times there' s real
substantial building going on or people are spending a lot of money to
locate something here and they come in, they bought an option on the
property but they' re not going to go any further unless they' re sure
they' re going to be able to operate and a licensing would result in so much
uncertainity, they'd go someplace else with their use .
Batzli : You said it earlier in regard to the vagueness and the indefinite
_ issue is people probably have a substantial property right or interest as
part of the conditional use.
Emmings : That ' s the problem with that idea .
Batzli : But then again, a liquor store probably has a very significant
interest in something like that too.
Olsen : The problem with conditional uses is that even like with Lowell
Carlson, even if they revoke it Monday night, so what? It doesn' t stay
there. Still , he ' s just a non-conforming use. Maybe if it is licensed ,
it seems like I asked Roger about that. Did I give you an answer on that?
I remember asking him about licensing conditional use permits . I think
it's something you can do .
Emmings : We talked about doing that in a situation where we wanted to have
an interim or a temporary conditional use and then the legislature made it
possible to have it so I assume we just forgot about going that other
route.
Conrad : On the item in front of us , does anybody want to give any
different direction on this other than what we see and trust that City
Council will read the Minutes and review the tape .
Emmings: Do we need a motion?
Conrad : We do need a motion, yes. Is there a motion?
Emmings: I ' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #89-1 to Section 20-237 of the City
Code as written in the attached ordinance with the following changes .
First of all that in paragraph 1, the word termination be changed to
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 18 '-
revocation. Secondly, that the second sentence in paragraph 2 be moved up
to the end of the first paragraph. That' s it.
Erhart : Second . —
Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #89-1 to Section 20-237 of the City
Code as written in the attached ordinance with the following changes : In
paragraph 1, the word "termination" be changed to "revocation" . Secondly, —
that the second sentence in paragraph 2 be moved up to the end of the first
paragraph. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli : I would like to pass a resolution on to City Council to strongly
urge the Council to explore the possibility that all conditional use
permits be inspected annually. —
Conrad : I think that would be a good resolution to pass forward.
Batzli : Well I 'd make a resolution like that.
Conrad : Do we need a second on that resolution?
Erhart: Are we going to discuss it?
Conrad : Yes. —
Erhart : I guess before we do that , I 'd like to see us look at the various
conditional use permits and look at each one and see what kind of abuse _
we' ve seen or abuse is possible before we just pass up a resolution like
that. We may, without really thinking about it, we may be suggesting , if
we' re suggesting a licensing or an annual review, maybe we' re suggesting
something that' s not needed . —
Batzli : The resolution is to explore doing that . Not that we immediately
implement it.
Erhart : But why don' t we explore it?
Batzli : It certainly isn ' t on our list of things to do that they gave for
us to do.
Erhart: That doesn ' t mean we can' t do it. —
Batzli : You' re going to have a staff person look at 50 to 100 conditional
use permits and tell us what they all say. —
Erhart: No. I was thinking in terms of the various conditional uses that
exist , what are those that would really be a benefit to the City to have
them reviewed annually.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 19
Batzli : But see I think that would involve having them look at every
conditional use. You' re going to take a lot of a certain staff person' s
time.
Erhart : Well what are you asking for?
Batzli : I 'm asking for the City Council to kind of put it on our list of
things to do so we can get somebody to look at it. I don' t want to ask Jo
Ann to go off and do something that the City Council isn' t going to want us
to look at.
Emmings : You' re basically asking them if they think it' s worthwhile for us
to take a look at it?
Batzli : Yes .
Conrad : You' re right . I think that ' s really wise but I didn ' t hear . I
think Brian is ask the City Council to say this is a priority for us to
take a look at. That ' s how I understood your resolution.
Batzli : That was the intent .
Emmings : Right now do we primarily depend on complaints?
Olsen: An annual review would be great. I think it' s needed .
Emmings : Are our files arranged or our permits arranged in such a way that
you can just go up to your office and say, I can identify every conditional
use that ' s been approved in the City right here? In something?
Olsen: Yes. We've got a listing, a notebook .
Emmings : A list in a notebook of all conditional use permits .
Olsen : Yes , and then they' re all in the file cabinet together . You can
just look through them.
Batzli : We' re in the 60 ' s.
Olsen : We' re trying to get them on computer too and what I was trying to
do was to have it so I could sit down every day and punch in and see what
would be up for an annual review. What the conditions were and we just
haven' t got it on computer but we' re getting it. We' ve got an assistant,
an intern working .
Conrad : So Brian , what ' s your resolution again?
Emmings : Maybe this is too formal . Maybe we could just ask them if they
want us to look at it .
Batzli : That was the intent was whether we should explore whether an
annual review is needed on conditional use permits. Should be implemented.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 20 —
Erhart : Are we in open discussion yet or do you want to wait?
Conrad: Well that was what we want to pass forward. I don' t know that we _
need to vote on that?
Erhart : No , I 'm in general agreement . I think an annual review of these
things I think would be good so I 'm in agreement with Brian that it' s wortl—
exploring with the City Council to see if they look favorably on it and we
could study it further .
Conrad : With that comment Brian and Tim, do we need anything else Jo Ann?
Olsen: No, I ' ll just put it in the update.
Erhart: In that light , I ' ll bring up another subject before we get into the
next thing because I was going to wait to the end, if I could say something
Mr . Chairman? —
Conrad: Go ahead.
Erhart : I 'm really disturbed at the lack of progress . On a page and a
half, almost two pages of issues , this Planning Commission has attempted tc
work on in the last year and a half and have spent considerable time and
effort, personal time and effort without compensation to try to push
forward and doing a good job as Planning Commission members . That we have
failed to make progress due to the fact that our city does not maintain the
staff positions that are available. I really don' t know how they expect _
that we' re going to make any progress without getting these positions
filled and I just want to emphasize to the City the frustration that I 'm
beginning to have being on the Planning Commission. Coming to these _
meetings and not making progress on this list of things. I can only
attribute it to the fact that we' ve had months and months of not having a
planning director . I guess I 'd like to hear the rest of your comments
but I 'd like to see us move forward on this because it' s getting very —
frustrating to not work on this list . There ' s a lot of important issues
here such as the blending ordinance. I can list 7 others on here that I
think need attention and these have been on here for more than a year with —
no progress. I guess I 'd like to encourage the city adminstrator to get
these positions filled , which are budgeted and to allow us to go forward
here.
Conrad : I think we all have to support that comment . Jo Ann , what is the
status of interviewing?
Olsen : I don' t know that we ' re interviewing . I know the deadline for the
applications was a week or two ago but I don' t know that anything ' s
happened yet. —
Emmings : How many applications were received? "
Olsen: I saw that we got quite a few but just not real good applications. —
I don ' t know. I haven' t talked with the City Mananger .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 21
Batzli : I hope whoever we hire doesn ' t read that part of the transcript .
Emmings: If nothing else, maybe, I don' t know. They' re not paying, that
staff position right now it' s funded but nobody' s getting the salary. Why
couldn' t they give it to someone like Mark and have him come back.
Olsen : We' re using him as much as we can .
Emmings: Yes but why couldn' t he take one of these at each meeting and get
some action on it and kick it along? If it' s going to be a long time,
because I agree wholeheartedly with Tim. If we' re not going to see any
progress on this stuff , I don' t know if they'd authorize any expenditure so
they could put together a little position paper with a suggested course of
action and we could act on one every time we meet until we' re done.
Olsen: Actually Mark is finishing up all the Comprehensive Plan so A, 1, 2
and 3 is going to be done. I ' ve also given Mark the blending ordinance.
He's working on convenience store moratorium. The rezoning of BF district
to A-2, he' s got that also .
Emmings: When will we see those back? Soon?
Olsen : I 'm also keeping him pretty busy with some of the planning reports
when we get heavier agendas. Convenience store moratorium, that' s almost
done.
Batzli : What I 'd like to see though as part of any kind of really
corporate practice, I 'd like to see a target date for when we' re going to
discuss some of these and if you give them to Mark, indicate that they' re
in Mark' s lap and get a tentative date for when we' re going to see them
because I 'd rather see some progress than just ongoing, although ongoing is
better than nothing. It doesn' t say to me which ones we' re really
concentrating on and when we' re going to see them.
Headla: All we' re really asking the Council gets an interim city planner
until they get one assigned .
Emmings: Someone to fill the function maybe.
Conrad : What issues are we real concerned with here? We' ve been working
on the Comprehensive Plan for 2 years and I think that' s a major issue. I
think that ' s kind of embarrassing . How can you be working on a plan for 2
years? By the time you get it done, it' s time for a new plan. I think if
people were paying attention , they'd say what are we doing? How can you be
working on that for a couple years? But as I go through the rest of these ,
I don ' t see anything , they' re all important. We put them there. City
Council has reacted to some of them and Jo Ann is going to summarize their
comments but I don' t see anything that is just really urgent that I would
assign Mark Koegler that he' s not already working on. So I guess Tim, your
comments are real valid. I think it' s really tough working with a one
person planning department but the fact is there' s nobody else right now
and I think the message is going to go up and they' re going to say well , we
are working on it. To make it more urgent, I would say are there things
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 22 —
that are really critical that have to be reacted to within the next 2
months?
Erhart : I ' ve always felt the blending ordinance was pretty important to d(
something and I think it was reflected in the Council ' s opinion of what we
ought to be working on with our priorities . That was one that they listed .
We've been talking about that one I think since the last election which was-
what , a year and a half ago. A year ago. Also I think this number 15, the
standards for parking and garages. I realize that' s fairly recent but in
my mind I 'd like to see that put to the forefront .
Batzli : Ladd, what you' re saying is Mark has currently got some of these
in his lap already and you' re saying those, you think are the important
ones. You don't know which other ones you would give him?
Conrad : I don ' t see, given a typical lead time, I don' t see anything that
I 'd elevate from a normal priority of Mark working on or staff working on. —
I have a hard time saying yes , let' s go out and hire somebody to do one of
these. Personally. I think the Comprehensive Plan is just really
important to wrap that up and get it done with. I can ' t wait for 2 months _
or whatever to wrap that up because we've been working on it for 2 years
but Mark is working on it and I heard him give us some dates so I 'm kind of
comfortable that that one's progressing and how it impacts the MUSA line. I
think that ' s really significant . Those are real important. Beyond that , —
in my mind, I 'm not sure that I would elevate any here to say let' s hire
somebody, and I don ' t care if it' s Mark or somebody else.
Erhart: I 'm not suggesting that. I guess what bothers me is we come in
here and we' re going to leave here at 9: 00 and not have worked on one of
these issues. That's what kind of bothering me.
Conrad : It ' s a real good point in that Jo Ann will work on the developers
who come in which takes precedent on everything on this list. Absolutely
guaranteed so that' s the real valid concern that I have in that the things —
that we want, the planning stuff that we want to work on, that we can
really add value to , we don' t get to because the developers take priority.
But the staff has an obligation to, in a timely manner , address the issues,_
Sometimes we also tell her to come back in 2 weeks because we table
something or whatever so we set her calendar a little also but I think what
you just said , to put some dates , or Brian , to put dates on here when they
have to be back, that may help prioritize and allow Jo Ann to say, no we —
can' t get it on next week' s agenda because we are reviewing some other
things. But what I don' t want to do is fill our meeting up until 12: 00
midnight. I 'm not going to do that. It' s lousy management to come in here—
and work until 12: 00.
Emmings : But Brian ' s point is well taken . Under status it shouldn' t say
ongoing. It should say, if for example, I said maybe Koegler could be
working on these and then I find out he' s working on 3 or 4 of them. I knew
he was working on the Comprehensive Plan of course but I didn' t know he was
working on the blending ordinance. I did know about the convenience store —
moratorium but forgot but let' s change that. Let' s make that status column
more meaningful . The other thing is the Comprehensive Plan , really 1, 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 23
and 3 are really all kind of comprehensive plan issues in a way. We ' re
going to be discussing all of those and then number 7, under B will kind of
follow from what happens on the Comprehensive Plan so really there' s 4
things being worked on on one there I think. And there' s some things when
I look down here now I 'm not even sure why they' re, like the noise
ordinance. I 'm not sure why that' s down on our list. I can' t remember. It
says over here , public safety proposed an ordinance. That does make some
sense that it would come from there rather than here maybe. I don' t know
what it ' s all about but I don' t know, does that belong in ours?
Batzli : I think it was raised when we were talking about the lumber yard
and things like that . I think it got on our list when we were talking
about the conditional use permits, hours of operation things and it got on
our agenda and public safety. We were the ones that did something with it.
Conrad: Anyway, if we started putting down dates Jo Ann.
Olsen : I can say that . . .
Conrad : And I don ' t think you need to do that right now.
Olsen: I can't put dates on a lot of them. Blending ordinance, I could
put that Mark Koegler is working on it but I wouldn' t be able to give you a
date.
Conrad : We need to know if it' s, other than the word ongoing , we need to
know if it' s in progress and then I think there has to be under status , the
words are not assigned , consultant, staff to review or something that says
what' s going on but then I also think there should be a column out there
that says date when we would expect to see it.
Batzli : And if you have to say to be determined, I suppose you have to say
it but I 'd like to see a target date on some of these . At least for a
draft. It doesn' t have to be the final thing but a draft or kick around
some ideas or a status report on some of these would be nice.
Erhart: But this is a great improvement over having nothing . I agree with
all that . You would really make me feel good if you took item 1,
contractor 's yards off now.
Olsen : It ' s got the status . It' s been approved . It' s finished .
Erhart: Yes , once it' s approved, you can take it off .
Olsen : Then you wouldn' t feel we' re making progress .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 21, 1989 as amended on page
46 by Steve Emmings to change the word "liberal" to "literal" . All voted
in favor and the motion carried .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 24 —
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Conrad : This is open discussion right now. Just as the staff was asking
for our comments on a variety of items before they' re announced for the
public to come in and talk to us about these amendments . Dave, I ' ll start
down at your end. On all the different amendments, anything? You had one
thing in particular .
Headla : Let me go to Section 3. 20-441 . Violation shall be a misdemeanor
punishable by 90 days in jail and a $700. 00 fine. I 'd like to see that —
and/or . I just don' t think we' re going to get anybody to go to jail and
pay the fine.
Emmings : All misdemeanors , that' s what defines a misdemeanor . All mis
demeanors are punishable by a maximum of 90 days in jail and a maximum of
$700 . 00 fine . They' re just stating the law here.
Erhart: Should we say maximum?
Emmings : No , that ' s what the law is.
Headla : When they put it into practice, does it have to be both or can it
be an almost either?
Emmings : A person that violates something like this for the first time
will get treated like all others. They' re essentially never get jail time.
It just doesn ' t happen but that ' s what defines a misdemeanor in all —
criminal law so I think they' re just stating what the law is .
Headla : Fine . I didn ' t know that . Then the other one is , in Section 5 we
talk about swimming pools. If they approve this in November , I don' t thin
we can expect people to put fences in in 3 months so I 'd like to see withi._
100 days of such date or as negotiated with the City.
Emmings : Within 180 days or as negotiated with the City. If somebody has
a special reason they need more than 6 months .
Erhart : Do you think there ' s anybody in the City that ' s got a swimming
pool without a fence today?
Olsen : There are some out in Hesse Farm I know there are .
Batzli : I don' t understand that. Of such date. What date are they
referring to? Such date refers to February 19, 1987 . —
Conrad: No. As soon as notified .
Batzli : Wasn ' t this done retroactively so that' s why the such date is in
there in the first place? Or is it of the date of enactment of this
ordinance?
Emmings : That ' s what I assume it meant but it isn' t clear .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 25
Headla : Shall comply with this chapter within 180 days of such date .
Batzli : So are we talking the effective date of the ordinance there?
Emmings: Yes .
Batzli : Then that should be clarified and I don' t know if it should be
negotiable with the City.
Conrad : Well you can ' t build in the winter time. Dave' s point is you
can' t put the fence up in the winter time so that's why he wants to make
sure that it' s a reasonable expectation. So anything that' s gone up before
1987, they have to comply with the ordinance but the date of compliance may
not be the 180 days because you may not be able to put that up in January
or February.
Batzli : Is the only thing we' re adding to this section 5 is the second
sentence? Are we adding anything to this one?
Olsen : We' re taking out where if you were on a cliff or whatever , you
wouldn' t have to put a fence where it was inaccessible. I don' t remember
the exact wordage but we were finding that even then people were saying ,
well you can' t reach my pool from that area and you still need a fence.
Batzli : My question is, the people who this sentence covers have already
had to deal with this.
Olsen : Right . We' re just removing the option that if pools are
inaccessible from adjacent properties, that they do not have to have the
swimming pool fenced but we' re finding . . .
Batzli : But have you applied this ordinance to everybody who' s pool was
installed prior to February 19, 1987? So do we even need the later part of
this sentence in there anymore? Do we need that part in there? Are there
any pools that haven ' t complied with that?
Olsen: Not since this ordinance, no.
Conrad : But before? Pools put in before .
Olsen: There still may be some out there.
Conrad : But before . Pools put in before have not had to have a fence.
Batzli : Yes, she just said this is already in the ordinance. They' re not
changing that .
Emmings : This is one of those deals where it would have been nice if they
would have underlined what was being added to show us the old one and lined
out what was being deleted so we know what ' s going on . I assumed this was
new language. I didn' t look at the ordinance section.
Conrad : I did too . So what ' s new?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 26 —
Olsen : I 'm taking out the section that says that if you' re inaccessible,
you do not have to have a fence.
Batzli : I looked at all of these as if they were new.
Olsen: No. —
Erhart : How are you inaccessible? By another fence?
Olsen: Again, we' ll use Hesse Farms where there's a cliff on some
portions . I just think, when we were going through it, we were saying . . .
Erhart: You' re still accessible by the side yards though. —
Olsen : Right. Exactly and the people were saying . . .
Headla : I don' t even know why you need that last sentence.
Conrad : We don ' t need the last sentence?
Emmings : Because the such date applies to the February 19 , 1987 and we' re
already. . .
Batzli : We' re way past that so my question is , do we still need that?
Olsen: We probably still need something in there that all inground pools —
installed prior still need to but I ' ll check on it .
Emmings: You can say shall comply with this chapter . No, because it
already says all swimming pools.
Batzli : It should now Lead , shall have already complied by November 1987 .
Olsen: Okay, I ' ll work on that.
Batzli : Why don ' t you at least check on that one. What' s the difference —
between net density and gross density? Is that what you' re adding?
Olsen : Right . Right now we ' ve got the definitions but there ' s nothing in
there that says which one we use.
Batzli : So we' ve already got the net and gross density defined?
Olsen: Defined.
Batzli : Where ' s that defined?
Olsen: Under definitions .
Batzli : Is it under density? —
Olsen: I think so. Yes .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 27
Batzli : Okay, that' s the one place I didn' t look. So we want it to read
net density because that' s tougher?
Olsen: That ' s what we ' ve always been enforcing and the developers will say
well where is it? Where does it say that? It doesn' t say gross. It
doesn ' t say net so it' s always been , staff is kind of at a tightrope.
Conrad: It' s got to be net.
Erhart : It would have been much easier to just use the term net density
everything .
Conrad : This terminology has just got to be in there.
Batzli : So that way if you had a site covered by a big wetland , you can ' t
count the wetland for purposes of density?
Conrad : Right . You' ve got to take it out like you take streets out.
Batzli : I like that.
Erhart : Are we discussing the first group here right now Ladd or are we
going through the whole thing?
Conrad : Anything .
Erhart : You want to just jump into this whole thing?
Conrad: Yes .
Erhart : Okay, page 2, first paragraph . You' re trying to define structure
and then under definition you use structure which is, I don ' t think that' s
correct.
Olsen : Which means any of the following .
Erhart: I ' ll talking about portable structure. It seems to me that needs
different words. If you' re trying to define the word structure , you can ' t
define it by using that word again in the definition. Correct or
incorrect?
Conrad : That makes sense .
Erhart : So is it a portable building or something to that effect Jo Ann?
It' s like opening up a dictionary and looking for the word book and saying
well a book is a book. Everybody knows what a book is . I guess that ' s
just, do you understand what I 'm saying?
Conrad : That' s good . You' re right on.
Erhart: A dog kennel . Are you referring to a dog kennel like you buy a
chainlink kind of a dog kennel with a concrete slab? What about portable
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 28 —
dog kennels? Again , this includes , I guess what I 'm getting at , this
includes a lot of things that I wouldn' t consider a structure such as
portable dog kennels.
Batzli : We could say portable dog kennel structures if that would help
you.
Erhart : And we don ' t have to get into a big discussion here but .
Olsen: The reason for this is because we've been having a lot of trouble _
with my interpretting the zoning ordinance where we have specific setbacks
for those types of structures. The Building Code does not consider them tc,
be structures . We have not been regulating dog kennels with the cement.
Erhart: Yes. To me that' s a structure. If you ' ve got a concrete slab,
then it ' s a structure.
Olsen: That's where we define it .
Batzli : Well you could say, instead of portable structure, do your big —
long list and then say where any of the foregoing are permanent or portabl(
because people can always come up with the argument regarding portability.
Well I can bring in my forklift and hoist it so it' s not a structure. In
fact I 've heard people use that brick barbeque' s. It' s portable so it' s —
not a structure so I don' t need any setbacks. Good argument by the way.
Get a forklift and it' s portable.
Erhart : I don ' t really want to get into every word on this tonight but I 'r
just pointing out where I see some problems. The last one is a hard
surface parking area versus a driveway and I define that .-
Conrad: Good point. I don' t understand that.
Olsen: Hard surface parking area , we usually see those coming through site—
plans, etc. but with driveways and sidewalks. Driveways, somebody can just
put those in . They do not have to get a building permit.
Erhart: I can understand that. There' s really no difference between a
hard surface parking area and a driveway and in fact as compared to a dog
kennel , a driveway is a major structure that it would seem to me that you
would include driveways in this definition of a structure as opposed to —
excluding it.
Olsen : I agree but it' s just what the building code requires them to come —
in for permits and what so we' re having some conflicts.
Conrad : Too bad you brought these up because they really are, I 'm with —
you. Stockpile doesn' t, I don' t know what that is.
Olsen : I think that already was in there.
Batzli : Yes, a lot of these were in there. A lot of these are in there.
Ono
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 29
Conrad : A stockpile is a structure. How can a stockpile be a structure?
Batzli : If you have a 2,000 feet of pipe stacked up, you've got a big
structure.
Conrad : A structure seems to me to be manufactured .
Olsen: Just the ones you want to have the setback applied to. That' s
— essentially what this is.
Emmings : I was shocked here a while ago to find for example that somebody
putting in a road could put it, that' s come up twice now, could put it
right up to the lot line. Not setback requirement. Now that ' s not a
driveway. Those are going to be public streets and there' s no setback for
that and that' s not a structure. No setback requirements and I think
that ' s outrageous . There was that one and then there was the one that was
up on Lake Lucy Road where we talked about the same thing. I remember that
because that ' s where I learned that you can go right up to the lot line.
Batzli : But I must not have learned it that time because I just learned it
last time.
Olsen: I can look into that and see if roads.
Erhart: The natural way to look at it is the driveway should maintain the
setback just like everything else.
Emmings: Unless they want to share.
IMMir
Olsen : It' s just I have no way of knowing when they come in. That ' s why
I 'm having difficulty with patios was that they don' t have to get a
building permit for that. If it' s at ground .
Batzli : You mean if I pour a cement slab underneath my deck, I don' t have
to do that?
Olsen : You don' t have to get a building permit. And that ' s why I 've been
trying to do this is because people can put patios right up to wetlands .
Emmings : You can put wall to wall indoor/outdoor carpeting in your
backyard and never have to mow. Go right up to the lot line. Concrete.
Batzli : Let' s include public roadway on this list .
Emmings : Public or private.
Batzli : Yes .
Emmings : I know this is a very elusive definition because I once, when I
was first an attorney I got involved in a lawsuit that involved the
question of whether something a guy erected was a structure or not. We
went around with that for several years and no one ever really came up with
a good answer . It ' s just very, very difficult.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 30
Batzli : The difficult thing about a roadway I 'm sure is if you' re going t�
put it on the lot line. Then at that point do you just needing a
variance? Where both sides are contributing to the road? That ' s going to
be the big problem.
Emmings : If it' s to be a mutual driveway which often happens but you coul-
say that. It's sort of like fences. You can put a fence on the lot line
if both neighbors agree . Otherwise you' ve got to set it back.
Batzli : But this is the definition section. Should we be getting into
that in the definitions or do we need a separate ordinance to cover that?
Olsen: You'd have to get it in the definition but I think it' s something,—
it will have to be applied to farther into the ordinance too . Do you stil
want it to be just at a 10 foot sideyard setback? Front yard?
Emmings : It ' s got to go on the list of things to do.
Conrad: What is 20-1? What is Section 21? Definition of structure?
Olsen : Definitions . The first section?
Conrad: So have we changed anything in this? —
Olsen : Yes , we' ve added dog kennels, hard surface parking , fence. Then
the Building Department want some of it taken out. I can go back, I didn' t.
have time to do the xing out and then underlining . I can do that.
Headla: That would help.
Emmings : I think this structure thing needs a lot of work because I ' ll
tell you, I think what you need is a general definition that would say,
which would include but not be limited to the following because otherwise —
somebody's going to come up with something. They' re going to call it
something else. I 'm going to build a flumdible and it ' s concrete and glass
but it' s not, well it does say a building. But somebody' s going to come up..
with something that ' s not going to be one of these things and you' re going
to have your hands tied so I think you need a general definition with thesL
specific examples.
Olsen : That number 2 though which hasn ' t changed , that ' s general .
Emmings: Maybe you want to combine those and just say. . . —
Olsen : Which can include.
Emmings: Yes .
Olsen : Okay.
Batzli : Includes but is not limited to the following .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 31
Emmings : So put number 2 first and then list those things as examples .
And you know I think to me the idea of a structure is that it' s somehow
tied to the ground . It' s something that if I move away from here, it' s not
something that' s going to go with me. It' s like the definition of a
fixture which is equally difficult but you just kind of use a common sense
test as to whether or not it' s something, is it on a slab or is it on
footings? Footings is probably a pretty good test isn ' t it?
Batzli : Not for something like a stockpile.
Emmings: What is a stockpile? Like firewood? Is that a stockpile?
Batzli : I think firewood might be considered a stockpile if you get a lot
of it. A bunch of dock sections piled up. Pipe that you' re going to use.
It's something that you don' t want sitting right next to your property line
if you' re the next door neighbor .
Conrad : Any other comments on this? On just this particular , structure.
Tim, did you have other?
Erhart : Yes . Page RO6/21/89 . Next section, second page. On the bottom
where it says Section 20-232, General Issuance Standards. Item 4 where it
says the date of the event that will terminate the use can be identified
with certainity. I 'm concerned that that implies that the date is
identified when the permit is issued . Therefore, I suggest we change that
to say the time of the event that will terminate the use can be identified
with certainity or something .
Batzli : I think that' s a typo. I think it should read , date or event .
Erhart: That would solve it. You understand my problem with that?
Batzli : I think the case that came down said it had to be, there had to be
a date or an event which could be.
Erhart : Okay, then that would solve that . Is that okay Jo Ann? Number 5,
the use will not impose additional cost on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future. Well how do you know
when you' re issuing this temporary permit that a year later the public will
want to come in and buy this property? It seems to me that this condition,
this standard here, maybe I don' t understand it but it seems not to make a
lot of sense . How do you know, how can you ever know that a year later?
Emmings: I assumed that that was there for something like if the City had
in it' s plans that eventually a road would be going through there or
something like that and you knew that this person wanted to put it to was
going to make it more difficult or more expensive to acquire it or clear it
later on, that' s what I thought it was about .
Erhart : That example' s clear but take the example that you issue a
temporary permit for something and then all of a sudden, then the City 6
months later says , gee well we want to put a road in there. Now, this
really provides a basis not to reimburse them for the expense of whatever
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 32 —
improvement he did and to me it' s a fairness thing .
Emmings: I don' t think you could ever do that. I think that' s going to be
judged at the time you issue the permit.
Olsen: I was just going to say that some of these and I don' t have Roger ' s
first letter but some of these were specifically a part of the case that —
was passed down. I think that this one was one of those.
Erhart : Okay, that ' s kind of a legal thing anyway and if you attorneys
feel comfortable with it.
Batzli : Yes , it' s right out of the law. Permission of the use will not
impose additional cost on the public if it is necessary for the public to —
take the property in the future. So it' s right out of the Statute.
Erhart: So then going along , on page 2. I 'm wondering , in the first —
place, churches . Why are churches an interim use?
Olsen: We've had that with Westside Baptist where they couldn' t build _
their church and they' ve been in the industrial office park right now. A
lot of times they don ' t have the money to build their church right away an,
they need an interim place .
Erhart: Okay, let me narrow the question. Why would a church be an
interim use in the A-2 district when in the past it ' s always been a
straight permitted use? —
Olsen : This is temporary. This is for a church to use somebody' s
farmhouse before they can go through and do the proposal .
Erhart : I guess my interpretation of this is that we were going to
replace, for example in A-2, churches aren' t listed at all are they?
I thought they were . —
Olsen : They' re probably under the conditional use.
Erhart: I thought we changed that ordinance to include churches in the A-
district?
Olsen : Right, it might not be in the . . . —
Erhart: So if it ' s a permitted use or a conditional use, are we suggesting
we' re going to remove it from that and then put it in a new category? —
Olsen: No .
Erhart : So this is in addition to that? —
Olsen: Right. This is allowing them to be a temporary use.
Erhart : So we would decide at the time that the permit came in whether it
can be a permitted, which would be the ordinance, a conditional or a
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 33
temporary?
Olsen : Right . If they have some reasons that they need to do something
temporary. What we had before was real general . We just allowed an
interim use. It was a temporary conditional use and what Roger has done is
tried to name specific ones and I don ' t know if we really want to do that.
That's why I wanted to get comments back from the Planning Commission or
did we just want to leave it open because we' ll list these but then we' ll
get another one.
Erhart : I see . This gets into a broad discussion of whether you want to
list them at all . That' s what you' re looking for direction.
Olsen: All or none.
Erhart : You' re looking for direction from us then . I guess I was a little
bit confused by this. What I was leading to here was if you' re going to
list them, then you ought to list what the event would be maybe. For
example, mobile home. Right now you' re looking at the ordinance, temporary
and mobile home. How do you define, how did we in the past , even without
these, how did we define what temporary was on that mobile home in the A-1
and A-2 district?
Olsen : It would have to meet all the requirements of a single family
residence that' s permanent. It has to have the foundation.
Erhart: Here we say temporary and mobile home. In the existing ordinance
Jo Ann.
Olsen : It could be mobile home. We allow those at like for the real
estate homes. Their offices .
Erhart: That ' s another item here.
Olsen : And we also allow temporary trailers . If someone is building their
house but they need to live on the site until the house is built. Are you
looking in the A-2 district?
Erhart : For example the A-2 , your temporary real estate office. That ' s
listed as a separate thing .
Emmings : As a permitted use .
Erhart : As a permitted use . I 'm assuming in the A-2 district that under
existing ordinance, that if you have a 2 1/2 acre lot, you can put a mobile
home there because of the way it' s written . Is there anyplace in the
ordinance that says that temporary is until you build a permanent house?
Olsen : No .
Erhart : So really if somebody wanted to push the issue, they could come in
here and set up a mobile home on one of these 2 1/2 acre lots. Do you read
it that way?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 34 —
Olsen : They have to go through the conditional use permit.
Erhart: Oh, it does say temporary. Well , anyway the solution is, of —
course with our new thing and I 'm just saying, I guess what I 'm leading to
is if we' re going to list these, then we ought to say okay, a mobile home
is an interim use for the purpose of building a temporary living space —
until the permanent home is built up to a period of 18 months or something
like that . I guess that' s where I 'm coming from.
Olsen: Specific conditions?
Erhart : Yes , actually suggest the condition in this . I don' t know if we
want to take this far. You' re suggesting that one possibility is not to
list anything?
Olsen: Right . That ' s the way it was before and really it works the best —
because you never know what's going to happen and it' s always nice and
everyone gives a good reason for that and sometimes you wish that you did
have that you could do that.
Conrad : Yes but the planning , the general . It' s a real good point. To
kind of define a general context under which interim might be granted.
Olsen : These would still be there. We just wouldn' t specify which ones
would be. . .
Batzli : Can you phrase it so that you' re specifying but not limiting
yourself to that? Does that help you at all? Then the one that you are
specifying , setting it in the context of conditions under which you 'd allow
it? Put that much time and work into it. In advance. Be proactive. —
Conrad : It ' s hard to read how this fits with the other ordinances because
this is if we want to grant a temporary use. That we do have the control —
of not granting it period but I don ' t know under what conditions we would
grant and would not grant. That' s what Tim is saying. Let' s define those
conditions which is a lot of work when you get real specific because you' ve_
got to try to, it's nice to be general to give us some leeway because we
can ' t, as Jo Ann said , we can' t be that smart to figure out all the
conditions yet if you don' t lay it out, then we have no guidelines
whatsoever . —
Erhart : Any amount of time or what the event is?
Batzli : It would be under the conditional use permit test standards. Whal
you'd base it on.
Olsen : We would have the general standards here.
Erhart: An example of the church in the industrial park, there is no
conditional use . —
Olsen: We gave it to them.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 35
Erhart : But is church listed in the industrial area at all?
Olsen: It is .
Erhart : Maybe you' re right then .
Olsen : If you do it this way, these are the uses that you would feel
comfortable with having interim. All others you wouldn' t allow at all .
Erhart : I 'm not comfortable with the list either . What we' ve got yet.
Olsen: But I agree, if we have a specific list you should have specific
conditions. . .all the time with conditional uses and it' s very helpful to
have that. So I think the decision tonight is whether or not you want to
keep it real general or do you want to go specific .
Batzli : I personally think on a temporary use it should be general . You
don' t know what ' s going to come in.
Erhart : If it starts being a problem we can get more specific with it.
Conrad: So it' s totally at our whim?
Batzli : Yes . Are we in accordance with 232 guidelines for general
standards for conditional use permits .
Erhart : Do we at least want to list the uses that we would consider as
interim uses , like Jo Ann' s got down now?
Batzli : You mean like the following are examples?
Erhart: Interim uses. Churches. Mineral extraction. Mobile homes .
Olsen : That might make it harder though too. I odn' t know. I can talk to
Roger but if you had churches down but you didn' t agree that this was what
you wanted to give interim use to. . . I don' t know if that would make it more
difficult.
Emmings : What would make somebody want a temporary one? A temporary
conditional use permit rather than just a conditional use permit? One
reason would be because in the area you' re in , you can' t get a conditional
use permit.
Batzli : It' s not a permitted or a conditional use.
Emmings: Another reason would be we want to be in this area but we' re
going to be using , like a church, where we' re using a different building .
We could have a church in this area but we' re going to be using another
building because in 5 years we know we' re going to have a church out here
so we say okay you can do this for 5 years. It' s limited by the person
themselves. Mineral extraction is different . A guy who' s got a gravel pit
probably knows how many years of production are there and it' s sort of self
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 36 —
limiting anyway. Once he takes all the gravel , it' s done . There' s a whol
bunch of different reasons. I think you want to keep it real general
because the person is going to come in asking for the temporary. We' re not
going to decide whether it's going to be a temporary permit.
Batzli : Staff might .
Emmings : Whatever . When he sees the staff but if he ' s looking to put in
permanent conditional use. If he' s just asking straight for a conditional
use permit , he has to meet the Code. So it' s only when he ' s going to come_
in and ask for , Jo Ann' s going to say to them well maybe you could get a
temporary. He' s going to suggest it or they' re going to ask for it or it' :
going to be something that's self limiting so I don' t think we have to try
and anticipate who' s going to be asking for these . They' re going to come —
and ask for them. We've had them in the past. There was a woman who
wanted to have a book store in her house until she found another place and
it wasn' t permitted in that area. Remember? That' s an example. The _
church in the IOP is another example. They just wanted to do that on a
temporary basis. I think the cases will be clear when they come and I
think they' re absolutely impossible to anticipate.
Conrad: But let' s take that bookstore. It conforms to the zoning
regulations which is one of the standards. That one would not fit.
Olsen: They wouldn' t be, I think it was more of the setbacks if they were
going to build a temporary road or something . . .they would be meeting the
zoning. This is the other one like setbacks .
Conrad : Do we need to be clearer on that?
Olsen: Yes but I can check. —
Batzli : Well that ' s part of the law. The governing body may grant
permission for an interim use of property if the use conforms to the zoning-
regulations , whatever that means .
Erhart : Here ' s the problem without listing it is as an interim use . I _
want to build a hotel on my property and I come in here and I come in with
just a wonderful proposal to build a 37 floor hotel and bring billions of
dollars into the City of Chanhassen. The Planning Commission can look at
that and say it' s not in our Code but we can make it an interim use. Now —
that' s really far out but it really, without listing those things that
could be allowed as interim uses , it really opens up to Planning Commission
almost allowing anything .
Emmings : But if you list them and somebody wants one where it' s prefectly
reasonable Tim, then can you deny them?
Erhart : Yes , because here' s the problem I have. We just spent a lot of
effort eliminating contractor ' s yards and I think we all agreed that was a
good zoning change . I think Jo Ann would like to have us eliminate mineral—
extraction, which I agree 100%. As soon as we don' t list them, somebody
can walk in here and say well gee I want a contractor ' s yard and I 'm only
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 37
mow
going to have it for 10 years so I 'd like to have an interim use for a
contractor 's yard. All the work we' ve done is just been thrown out the
door . It might come in and look like a reasonable proposal so we give him
an interim use for a contractor ' s yard and we've got to sit here and go
through that discussion with that guy and argue in front of him and his
family. He' ll bring in all the kids and show why we shouldn' t give him an
interim use for a contractor ' s yard .
Olsen : Where' s that' s applying right now like Dave Stockdale ' s case where
it would be a temporary conditional use so he wouldn't have to put in the
concrete curb and gutter and make certain improvements where it' s going to
be . . .
Emmings: But he' s in the IOP. Tim is concerned with somebody coming in
the A-2 but there they wouldn' t conform to the zoning regulations then.
Erhart : If you don' t have any regulations on this interim use , what zoning
ordinances are you referring to?
Olsen : I ' ll have to check into that . Is there a number 3 in there too?
Erhart: Right now today, there is nothing .
Olsen : Number 3, the use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning
district. Is that in there too?
Conrad : Yes .
Batzli : It reads, the governing body may grant permission for an interim
use of property if : then the first phrase is if the use conforms to the
zoning regulations . I don ' t know what that means in the Statute .
Olsen: Number 3 where it makes it sound like when we do have to be
specific .
Batzli : Yes it does . Number 3, upon change which renders the use
non-conforming, that one?
Olsen : Number 3 on ours where it says , the use is allowed as an interim
use in the zoning district.
Batzli : No .
Erhart : Why don' t we just start out with a real short list that we' re
comfortable with.
Conrad : A list of what?
Erhart: Interim uses in every zone.
Conrad : By zone?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 38 —
Erhart : Yes . Just start out with a real short list and then as we get
experienced with it, you' ll have to say okay, that' s a good idea.
Batzli : But the problem is people are going to come in and ask for it and—
it won' t be on the list so they can't possibly get it.
Emmings : Then they' ll have to do a zoning amendment . —
Erhart: At least we start conservatively. I 'm afraid we' re just going to
open this thing up.
Olsen: We really only have a few.
Emmings : But Tim is right. Here' s the thing. You' ve got a rat in the
maze and you' re opening another door . You've giving him another thing to
run down. The contractor ' s yards , his notion about contractor ' s yards, the
guy coming in in the A-2 and saying I just want to do this for 10 years is_
really likely to happen . He knows he can' t get one there as a permitted o
conditional use so why not try for an interim conditional use. At least h..
knows he can operate for 10 years .
Batzli : Did you just subtly shift your position from what you just said 5
minute ago?
Emmings : Probably. I think it' s a real concern.
Batzli : You've gone from general to specific now right?
Emmings : No .
Batzli : You' ve changed your mind . —
Emmings : No . I think it should be kept general . I guess I 'm still along
that line but I guess there' s something more to defining when you ' re going—
to use this or what kind of things it' s going to be used for without namint
them. I 'm trying to get at it in a more general sense of why do we want to
have an interim use at all . I can' t put my finger on it but I think maybe
there should be a sentence in there that states that this may not be used
to circumvent general zoning policies by, I don' t know.
Batzli : A policy statement of what this should be used for in the positivr-
sense.
Conrad : What we' re missing in this whole document is an intent section and_
that 's really clear that we' re missing that. All of this would be resolve(
if we showed the intent of what we' re trying to do here. That would
discuss impact on neighbors. Impact on this so sometimes we might allow
something that we might normally do provided that we see that there would _
not be a major, significant impact on this and that . That we' re not tryinE
to . I think we need that statement or statements .
Emmings : Then you can keep it general . Then you don' t have to be
specific . Plus you' ve got this down here, conforms to the zoning
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 39
regulations so I think when the guy comes in the A-2 and says he wants one
for a contractor 's yard, you say hey we banned them in everything but the
IOP, you can ' t do it.
Erhart : But if he makes a good presentation, he' s got the kids up here and
you've got 4 guys or girls to say in the report it' s positive because the
guy' s nice and he' s worked with staff . You' re going to end up with a
contractor 's yard because you had the hole to do it. Then as soon as you
get one , then you can ' t deny the next guy. It becomes difficult. I 'm just
more comfortable that we list them but we start with a short list.
Batzli : Or you could just start with a list of things that absolutely
aren't allowed. Contractor 's yard, mineral extraction.
Erhart : See I think you start out with, in the first place you already
have one. That' s mobile homes that' s listed as a temporary use but it' s
not very well defined because you used the word temporary. Now we can move
that one out of the conditional use and move it into this interim use. The
second thing is this mineral extraction. I think you' ve got , have we seen
your proposal to eliminate mineral extraction or is that coming or what?
Olsen: It ' s ongoing .
Erhart : Well maybe we can ' t quite all get an agreement to say we should
eliminate mineral extraction but maybe what we can get an agreement is that
we move it into the interim use category. I think it gives us one more
tool to work with in trying to come to a ground where we have a consensus .
I think that category give us that . That ' s two arguments why I think it
ought to be listed. One is to prevent us getting into this emotional
discussion in a group here in front of the public on just deciding based on
how nice the guy is. Whether we provide an interim use. The second thing ,
it allows us to move some things out of the conditional use area where we
can't get a consensus to eliminate it completely but at least we can put
more control on it.
Olsen : I ' ll work on an intent section and check out some of these that we
have questions on and see how we deny them.
Batzli : Could you also check on exactly what that means about conforming
to the zoning regulations? Check with Roger .
Olsen : Yes .
Batzli : Because obviously it' s not going to get us very far if all that ' s
allowed are things that would be permitted uses in that zoning area. Then
this whole thing is . . .
Conrad: Yes, then it' s a waste.
Erhart : Which one are you looking at?
Olsen: 2.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 40 —
Erhart: Conforms to the zoning . Well , I interpret that to mean that it
conforms to the zoning regulations as defined for that particular use. To
me that ' s what that item 2 says . So for an example, contractor ' s yards is
still listed in the IOP and it' s got all these conditions in it so if you —
give it a temporary use in the A-2, it has to conform to those things
listed in the IOP. That's what item 2 says .
Conrad : No , I couldn' t accept that.
Emmings : Well it' s ambiguous . It could mean that or it could mean that it
conforms to the regulations . . .
Conrad : You'd have to apply the zoning requirements of that zone to it.
Not of another zone. You couldn' t extract it from another . It would have—
to meet. It ' s a use not contemplated for that district but we' ll grant it
temporarily provided it meets the other standards in that district of the
zone.
Batzli : Well there must be some legislative history for what that means .
I think Roger probably has a handle on it.
Erhart : At the same time look at item 3 too. It says what does it mean
the use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district.
Conrad : I guess I don ' t want to see uses defined . The different types
because it' s almost like, I don't know. I have a real problem with
defining some of these things. It' s like advertising for them and although
you' re trying to put a constraint on, I 'm more interested in the intent.
Batzli : Yes , I 'd rather see 5 different intent statements, one for each
district and avoid doing alaundry list of things that we permit and —
wouldn ' t permit necessarily.
Conrad : So if we can be real good in the intent , I think we can get rid of-
these. My only other comments, do you have more comments Tim?
Erhart : Let' s see. Just do me a favor , leave contractor ' s yards out of
any list. That' s it.
Batzli : In Section 20-381. Number 1. Do we want to say the date or event
stated in the permit? —
Olsen : Sure.
Conrad : Under that same one , 20-381 it says it will terminate upon a
violation. Point number 2. It sounds like there' s not a process. It is
automatically terminated without a review. Is there a review process?
That' s the other thing that I didn' t see here was a re-application process —
or a due process for termination and I assume we can ' t just say you
violated it. It' s gone.
Batzli : Well it' s the difference between it being void and voidable. Doe:
it happen automatically upon violation?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 41
Conrad : I don ' t think we can do that. Saying you violated it, your permit
is gone. I wouldn' t feel good about the process. Would you? You' ve got a
major contractor ' s yard sitting there and you' re just going to zap it? I
think there' s got to be a process. Okay, anything else?
Emmings : There ' s 20-381 . When Brian first said that , I looked over on the
other page. There' s a 20-381 on each page. Do you have them all right?
Is there something misnumbered there?
Olsen: You lost me.
Emmings : Go to the page where they' re talking about 20-381 , termination.
Then the other page there's a 20-382, application. And I 'm for keeping it
general also .
Conrad : Okay, anything else tonight?
Emmings : You suggested something , somebody did about specifically saying
in there that, and it might go right in the intent section that an example
of an interim use which would not be allowed is a contractor ' s yard in
anything other than the IOP. You might use that as a specific example to
satisfy Tim and to gives folks an idea of what we' re doing .
Erhart: It' s not just contractor 's yards. Maybe you want to put a gas
station down on Pioneer Road and TH 101 and all the neighbors came up here
and said yes, we'd really like a gas station there.
Emmings : No , it doesn ' t conform to the zoning though. I think that' s what
that number 3 is getting to. Number 2 is going to get us around that.
Olsen: I ' ll get clarification on that.
Batzli : My only question was, why did everything get deleted from the
agenda tonight?
Olsen : Kurt Laughinghouse, they couldn' t make up their mind whether or not
they wanted to do it. Now I don' t think that they' re going to. Vinland,
because they did not get us revised plans in time. For them to come back
onto the agenda after being tabled, they would have needed the plans that
day essentially. Anyway so Vinland didn' t get it in until last week. Oak
View Heights , the Park and Rec Commission required 4 acres of parkland so
we' re back to square one with that . They' re going back to the Park
Commission to see what they can work out.
Emmings : It all comes down to the same thing . It' s just too much.
Batzli : And that' s in part, correct me if I 'm wrong on the density on that
one , did they still count that wetlands on that "particular one? Would the
net versus gross density have an effect on that particular application?
Olsen : Yes . Argue Development, the plan were just incomplete . So the
19th we were shooting for to have, it was going to be empty for the Comp
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 42 _
Plan but now it ' s booked again.
Conrad : Well don' t keep us too late because we only had 3 items tonight
and it' s already 10: 00. But sometimes we do get to thinking and we —
actually do pay attention to issues .
Batzli : It ' s nicer to consider these types of things at 9 : 30 rather than _
11: 30.
Olsen : That ' s why I threw it on . I' ll get the City Council update to you.
Conrad: Mail it out will you?
Olsen : They did approve Stockdale though, I ' ll tell you that one. The —
variance. They did give him the variance to curb and gutter . That was
really the only thing .
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. .
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Asst. City Planner _
Prepared by Nann Opheim
_ Van DorEn
Hazard
Stallings-
A,clrtecls•Emmons.w.na.•
MEMORANDUM
TO : Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler
DATE : July 12 , 1989
SUBJ : Blending Ordinance
Over the past couple of years , members of the Planning Commission
and City Council have cited the need for a blending ordinance which
would be designed to minimize potential conflicts between existing
larger lot neighborhoods and new residential developments . The
form and content of such an ordinance can take a number of forms .
Two ordinance examples have been suggested , one by Tim Erhart and
the other by Bill Boyt ( copies attached ) . They differ in their
approach to this issue and in lot size thresholds . For example ,
under the Erhart ordinance , blending lots would need to be larger
than minimum lot size requirements but would not have to exceed
25 ,000 square feet . The Boyt ordinance establishes a maximum new
( blended ) lot size of 37 ,670 square feet.
Prior to utilizing one of these approaches or developing an
alternative methodology , additional input from the Planning
Commission is needed . Input on the following types of issues is
being requested :
1 . What is the intent of this ordinance and which zoning
categories will it apply to? For example , where the RSF
zone abuts (or will abut ) the A-2 zone with existing 2 . 5
acre lot sizes , will blending be required?
2 . What minimum existing lot size should be recognized? The
two examples vary from 25 ,000 square feet to 43 , 560
square feet . Should the minimum reflect the future
potential of lot splits ( 30 , 000 sq . ft . into two 15 ,000
sq . ft . lots ) and if so , will those new lots be required
to blend with the previously blended lots ?
3 . Should blending only be concerned with new lots
immediately abutting existing developments ? The Erhart
ordinance recommends a distance of 200 feet . Is this an
appropriate number?
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldq.11, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
Blending Memorandum
July 12 , 1989
Page 2
4 . Should the blending ordinance address the length of
abutting lot lines ? It could be argued that the
arrangement of lots is as important as the overall size
of lots . If an existing lot has a 300 foot rear lot
line , should blending prevent the construction of three
lots immediately abutting the existing lot?
The first step in adopting a blending ordinance involves the —
formulation of a consensus opinion on the types of issues
identified above . After a review of these topics , an ordinance
draft will be prepared for further scrutiny by the Planning _
Commission followed by appropriate public hearings and City Council
review and action .
TIM
Lot Size Ordinance
All proposed new lots in the RSF district must be a minumum of
15, 000 square feet or exceed the area required by applying the
blending rule, whichever is greater.
Blending Rule:
All new lots must exceed an area which is greater than 100% of
the average of the Distance Weighted Area (DWA) of existing
platted lots which lie within a 200 feet distance of the
perimeter of the new loot being considered. Existing platted lots
larger than25, 000 square feet will be considered as 25, 000
square feet for the purpose of determining its DWA.
The Distance Weighted Area of an existing lot is determined by
applying the following formula:
DWA =
1 +�
300
,. Where: DWA = distance weighted area
of exsisting lot
a = area of exsisting lot
d = distance from existing lot to
new lot (closest point )
(The Distance Weighted Area of a lot is calculated by dividing
the lot 's area by the sum of one plus the shortest distance
between it and the new lot divided by 300. )
The average distance weighted area is then calculated by summing
the DWA of all exsisting lots where some portion of those lets
lie within 200 ft . of the proposed loot and dividing the total by
the number of lots fitting this description.
y
The intent of this ordinance is to minimize the impact of new sub-
divisions upon existing lots of record.
Existing lots of record up to 43 ,560 sq. ft. shall be matched by —
the immediately adjoining lots of the proposed subdivision
according to the following formula:
- Existing lots up to 20 ,000 sq. ft. shall be matched by
adjoining lots that are of equal or greater sq. ft.
- Existing lots over 20 , 000 sq. ft. shall be matched by
adjoining lots of equal or greater sq. ft. using the for-
mula of 20 ,000 sq. ft. plus 75% of the adjoining lot of
record sq. ft. between 20 ,000 and 43 ,560 sq. ft. —
- Proposed boundary lots shall not be required to exceed
37,670 sq. ft.
- Individual proposed lots may be up to 10% below the minimum
required in the ordinance if the immediately adjoining
boundary lots average to meet the total required sq. ft. —
for the newly subdivided lots involved.
REVISED JULY 14 , 1989
ONGOING ISSUES STATUS
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ISSUES
1. Comprehensive Plan Update September
2 . Amendments to MUSA Boundary September
3 . Future Use for Areas Out- September
side the MUSA Boundary
B. ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
1. Contractor ' s Yards City Council Approval -
May 3 , 1989
2. Update Zoning Map Ongoing
3 . Blending Ordinance July 19 , 1989
4 . Rezoning BF Distict to A-2 August, 1989
5 . Convenience Store Moratorium August, 1989
6 . Sign Ordinance September, 1989
7 . Update Zoning Code Ongoing
8 . Trash and Recycable Users- Ongoing
Where should they be located?
9 . Wetland Violations - Add July 19 , 1989
section to wetland ordinance
10. Tree Ordinance - Mapping of End of 1589
significant vegetative areas Working with DNR Forester
11. Rezoning of 24 Acres Lots Ongoing
to RR District
12 . Noise Ordinance Public Safety proposed an
ordinance which was denied
by City Council
13 . Storage
14 . Front Yard Fencing
15. Standards for R-12 September, 1989
Developments - Parking,
garages, architectural
standards
REVISED JULY 14, 1989 —
ONGOING ISSUES STATUS —
16 . Heliports
C. OTHER ITEMS —
1. Update development proce- Close to completion
dures including submittal —
dates, design review com-
mittee, submittal check list
and process
2 . Computerize land use files, Waiting for intern
permits, conditions and Waiting for computer to be
expiration dates on a par- repaired —
cel by parcel basis
3 . Wetlands mapping by Fish Estimated to be completed _
and Wildlife Service. by September, 1989
4 . Trail Involvement of
Planning Commission —
5 . Light Rail Transit
6 . Recycling of Oil
7 . Eurasian Water Milfoil Public Safety Involved —
8 . Review of the impact of Not actively pursuing until
Residential Development direction from P.C. in
on the financial structure response to memo from
of the city. Don Ashworth
9 . Temporary conditional use August, 1989 —
permits .